Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => The Feeneyism Ghetto => Topic started by: Ambrose on June 08, 2014, 12:29:05 AM
-
ON THE FEENEYITE HERESY
Leonard Feeney SJ did not invent the heresy which denies Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood. It was alredy known to be a heresy propagated long before Feeney began to profess this heresy.
BAPTISM OF DESIRE IS DE FIDE
The denial of BOD was aleady known to be a heresy well before Fr. Feeney fell for this old heresy. In my reply to a Feeneyite along with its links to informative articles, you will find all you need in order to understand that BOD & BOB are defined doctrines of the universal & ordinary magisterium that must be believed with divine and Catholic faith.
Dear Feeneyite,
I have examined your entire exposition attempting to critique my position on Baptism of Desire. It is riddled with fallacious assumptions; such as your false attribution to me of an error on the point of necessity of precept vs. necessity of means. Another gross error you make is to equate the doctrine of Baptism of Desire, which pertains to the universal magisterium of the Church, with mere opinions that the Church has tolerated but never has taught or approved.
Before the doctrine of BOD would have been explicitly and universally set forth by the ordinary magisterium, it would have been permissible to hold a contrary opinion; but that is now and for many centuries no longer the case. BOD as well as BOB (explicitly professed in the Roman Martyrology) have been definitively set forth by the universal & ordinary magisterium, and are therefore infallible and must be believed with divine and Catholic faith. It has become universally defined by the magisterium in no small part, first; because it had been taught by St. Thomas Aquinas and other medieval Doctors, secondly; because the application of the dogma of Trent to this point by St. Alphonsus has been formally approved by Gregory XVI and by Pius IX, and has been explicitly taught by Pope Pius IX and Pope Pius X in their ordinary magisterium. Furthermore, the 1917 Code of Canon Law prescribed as a universal statute that deceased Catechumens are to be given a Catholic burial and "are to be counted among the bapitzed" (can. 1239). St. Pius X teaches that those who have been sanctified by baptism of desire are in the Church not as incorporated members, but in so far as they belong to "the soul of the Church". The basis for this teaching of St. Pius X is the doctrine of St. Robert Bellarmine who succinctly explains in what manner such catechumens are to be considered to belong to the soul of the Church. This distinction was already taught by St. Augustine.
Leonard Feeney SJ was not the originator of this heresy. The eminent late Nineteenth Century early 20th Century theologian, Francisco Marin-Sola OP, mentions that there have already been some heretics teaching this doctrine: “Certain heretics have affirmed that no adult can be saved without receiving baptism itself before he dies, however much he would burn with desire for it, and that it would do him no good unless he were washed with water."
The precise quotations from magisterial sources are presented in the two articles indicated below which more than sufficiently demonstrate beyond all shadow of doubt that Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood are infallible definitions of the Church which must be believed with divine and Catholic faith, under penalty of heresy and eternal damnation.
Fr. Paul Kramer
http://www.catholicessentials.net/baptismofdesire.htm
http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/currenterrors/bapdesire.htm
-
Fr. Paul Kramer is far from being a credible authority in the Church. We need not Fr. Kramer to interpret for us after 2000 years, the infallible Church teaching on Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus. Besides, Fr. Kramer has already discredited himself with his peculiar belief on the two popes (apparently he is not a sedevacantist, after all), among other eccentricities.
-
Fr. Paul Kramer is far from being a credible authority in the Church. We need not Fr. Kramer to interpret for us after 2000 years, the infallible Church teaching on Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus. Besides, Fr. Kramer has already discredited himself with his peculiar belief on the two popes (apparently he is not a sedevacantist, after all), among other eccentricities.
On the Feeneyite heresy, Fr. Framer is an expert, and understands it very well.
Feeneyism is one of the more dangerous modern heresies, and it must be stopes before it spreads further, and contaminates more Catholics.
-
So are we to believe Fr. Kramer or the infallible Magisterium of the Eternal Church, which cannot err since it is indeed divinely protected by the Holy Ghost?
-
Fr. Kramer is merely witnessing to the infallible magisterium of the Catholic Church which has taught Baptism of Desire. It is de fide. Those who deny it are professing heresy.
-
Fr. Kramer is merely witnessing to the infallible magisterium of the Catholic Church which has taught Baptism of Desire. It is de fide. Those who deny it are professing heresy.
Yes, yes Ambrose, we know you have this obsession against the sacraments and their necessity for salvation and we know you share this detestation of them with Fr. Kramer, Cardinal Cushing and all the Conciliar popes - we know this because you have started dozens of threads against the necessity of the sacraments and championed the cause against them.
Does it not strike you as at least a bit odd, that you, who foolishly adhere to your "Salvation via No Sacrament At All" error and the fact that you cannot bring yourself to defend the necessity of the sacraments for salvation, are somehow related to each other?
Do you really think that posting yet another thread denying the necessity of the sacraments for salvation helps you defend the necessity of the sacraments? Or does it not make more sense that the reason you cannot defend the necessity of the sacraments is because you repeat over and over and over and over again that they are not necessary?
+6 months and counting, still seeking an honest NSAAer - which you, verifiably, are not.
Will an honest NSAAer please step up and publicly admit that the sacraments are optional, that they are not necessary for salvation please?
-
Fr. Kramer is merely witnessing to the infallible magisterium of the Catholic Church which has taught Baptism of Desire. It is de fide. Those who deny it are professing heresy.
Yes, yes Ambrose, we know you have this obsession against the sacraments and their necessity for salvation and we know you share this detestation of them with Fr. Kramer, Cardinal Cushing and all the Conciliar popes - we know this because you have started dozens of threads against the necessity of the sacraments and championed the cause against them.
Does it not strike you as at least a bit odd, that you, who foolishly adhere to your "Salvation via No Sacrament At All" error and the fact that you cannot bring yourself to defend the necessity of the sacraments for salvation, are somehow related to each other?
Do you really think that posting yet another thread denying the necessity of the sacraments for salvation helps you defend the necessity of the sacraments? Or does it not make more sense that the reason you cannot defend the necessity of the sacraments is because you repeat over and over and over and over again that they are not necessary?
+6 months and counting, still seeking an honest NSAAer - which you, verifiably, are not.
Will an honest NSAAer please step up and publicly admit that the sacraments are optional, that they are not necessary for salvation please?
I have very little hope that you will recant from this heresy, my goal now is to stop it from spreading further.
To deny Baptism of Desire is heresy. You should be living in fear for your eternal salvation. Catholics are not allowed to believe heresy. Heresy will sever you from the Church, outside of which there is no salvation.
-
Ambrose, I cordially invite thee to Soulguard's cyber pub. Your first drink is on me.
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=32177&min=0&num=5
-
Yet another............. :facepalm:
-
On the Feeneyite heresy, Fr. Framer is an expert, and understands it very well.
Everyone is an "expert" who happens to agree with you but is not credible if he does not. Mr. Kramer doesn't have any real theological training.
-
The eminent late Nineteenth Century early 20th Century theologian, Francisco Marin-Sola OP, mentions that there have already been some heretics teaching this doctrine: “Certain heretics have affirmed that no adult can be saved without receiving baptism itself before he dies, however much he would burn with desire for it, and that it would do him no good unless he were washed with water."
This quote actually exposes the BoDer lie that Father Feeney "invented" the idea that the Sacrament of Baptism is necessary for salvation, and Marin-Sola's allegation of heresy is nothing but his own private fantasy, just as it is yours, Ambrose.
You're right, stubborn, these people are diabolically obsessed with trying to prove the opposite of EENS and in trying to prove that the Sacrament of Baptism is not necessary for salvation.
-
Kramer's paragraph is nothing more than a cesspool of lies.
-
Kramer's paragraph is nothing more than a cesspool of lies.
I was shocked when Fr. Kramer revealed his beliefs on salvation in The Devil's Final Battle. Until then I thought Fr. Gruner's apostolate was perfect. Oh well, it's still very good.
-
Fr. Kramer is merely witnessing to the infallible magisterium of the Catholic Church which has taught Baptism of Desire. It is de fide. Those who deny it are professing heresy.
Yes, yes Ambrose, we know you have this obsession against the sacraments and their necessity for salvation and we know you share this detestation of them with Fr. Kramer, Cardinal Cushing and all the Conciliar popes - we know this because you have started dozens of threads against the necessity of the sacraments and championed the cause against them.
Does it not strike you as at least a bit odd, that you, who foolishly adhere to your "Salvation via No Sacrament At All" error and the fact that you cannot bring yourself to defend the necessity of the sacraments for salvation, are somehow related to each other?
Do you really think that posting yet another thread denying the necessity of the sacraments for salvation helps you defend the necessity of the sacraments? Or does it not make more sense that the reason you cannot defend the necessity of the sacraments is because you repeat over and over and over and over again that they are not necessary?
+6 months and counting, still seeking an honest NSAAer - which you, verifiably, are not.
Will an honest NSAAer please step up and publicly admit that the sacraments are optional, that they are not necessary for salvation please?
I have very little hope that you will recant from this heresy, my goal now is to stop it from spreading further.
To deny Baptism of Desire is heresy. You should be living in fear for your eternal salvation. Catholics are not allowed to believe heresy. Heresy will sever you from the Church, outside of which there is no salvation.
Is St John Chrysostom, a heretic?
St. John Chrysostom, Hom. in Io. 25, 3: “For the Catechumen is a stranger to the
Faithful... One has Christ for his King; the other sin and the devil; the food of
one is Christ, of the other, that meat which decays and perishes... Since then we
have nothing in common, in what, tell me, shall we hold communion?... Let us
then give diligence that we may become citizens of the city above... for if it
should come to pass (which God forbid!) that through the sudden arrival of
death we depart hence uninitiated, though we have ten thousand virtues, our
portion will be none other than hell, and the venomous worm, and fire
unquenchable, and bonds indissoluble.”
-
Fr. Kramer is merely witnessing to the infallible magisterium of the Catholic Church which has taught Baptism of Desire. It is de fide. Those who deny it are professing heresy.
Yes, yes Ambrose, we know you have this obsession against the sacraments and their necessity for salvation and we know you share this detestation of them with Fr. Kramer, Cardinal Cushing and all the Conciliar popes - we know this because you have started dozens of threads against the necessity of the sacraments and championed the cause against them.
Does it not strike you as at least a bit odd, that you, who foolishly adhere to your "Salvation via No Sacrament At All" error and the fact that you cannot bring yourself to defend the necessity of the sacraments for salvation, are somehow related to each other?
Do you really think that posting yet another thread denying the necessity of the sacraments for salvation helps you defend the necessity of the sacraments? Or does it not make more sense that the reason you cannot defend the necessity of the sacraments is because you repeat over and over and over and over again that they are not necessary?
+6 months and counting, still seeking an honest NSAAer - which you, verifiably, are not.
Will an honest NSAAer please step up and publicly admit that the sacraments are optional, that they are not necessary for salvation please?
I have very little hope that you will recant from this heresy, my goal now is to stop it from spreading further.
To deny Baptism of Desire is heresy. You should be living in fear for your eternal salvation. Catholics are not allowed to believe heresy. Heresy will sever you from the Church, outside of which there is no salvation.
Do not hold out hope that I will recant the teaching of Holy Mother the Church that without the sacrament of baptism, no one makes it to heaven. Not one soul. Not ever, and that Holy Mother never taught there is salvation outside of Her via NSAA.
To deny the necessity of the sacraments is heresy. You should be living in fear for your eternal salvation. Catholics are not allowed to believe heresy. Heresy will sever you from the Church, outside of which there is no salvation.
Did you forget when you yourslef posted (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=29646&f=9&min=0&num=3) that St. Alphonsus taught:
The heretics say that no sacrament is necessary, inasmuch as they hold that man is justified by faith alone, and that the sacraments only serve to excite and nourish this faith, which (as they say) can be equally excited and nourished by preaching. But this is certainly false, and is condemned in the fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth canons: for as we know from the Scriptures, some of the sacraments are necessary (necessitate Medii) as a means without which salvation is impossible.
I, along with Holy Mother the Church, say that the sacrament of baptism is necessary in fact and desire (in voto) (http://www.traditio.com/office/baptpar.htm) unto salvation, that is, the sacrament is not optional.
And for echoing that teaching of Holy Mother the Church, you, who profess the sacrament of baptism is optional, that is, not necessary unto salvation, claim I preach heresy.
CANON V.-If any one saith, that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema.
It is as I and others have already said, you are verifiably dishonest.
-
Yes, we can number about five or six Church Fathers among the "heretics" who would deny Baptism of Desire.
Interestingly, only ONE actually accepted it, temporarily, and he later changed his mind and made some of the strongest anti-BoD statements in existence. (St. Augustine)
-
Yes, we can number about five or six Church Fathers among the "heretics" who would deny Baptism of Desire.
Interestingly, only ONE actually accepted it, temporarily, and he later changed his mind and made some of the strongest anti-BoD statements in existence. (St. Augustine)
The Church fathers were not heretics, as the teaching of Baptism of Desire was not then binding. As the teaching developed and then was taught by the Universal Ordinary Magisterium, and by the Extraordinary Magisterium at the Council of Trent, it became obligatory to believe it.
To deny Baptism of Desire is heresy.
-
Fr. Kramer is merely witnessing to the infallible magisterium of the Catholic Church which has taught Baptism of Desire. It is de fide. Those who deny it are professing heresy.
Yes, yes Ambrose, we know you have this obsession against the sacraments and their necessity for salvation and we know you share this detestation of them with Fr. Kramer, Cardinal Cushing and all the Conciliar popes - we know this because you have started dozens of threads against the necessity of the sacraments and championed the cause against them.
Does it not strike you as at least a bit odd, that you, who foolishly adhere to your "Salvation via No Sacrament At All" error and the fact that you cannot bring yourself to defend the necessity of the sacraments for salvation, are somehow related to each other?
Do you really think that posting yet another thread denying the necessity of the sacraments for salvation helps you defend the necessity of the sacraments? Or does it not make more sense that the reason you cannot defend the necessity of the sacraments is because you repeat over and over and over and over again that they are not necessary?
+6 months and counting, still seeking an honest NSAAer - which you, verifiably, are not.
Will an honest NSAAer please step up and publicly admit that the sacraments are optional, that they are not necessary for salvation please?
I have very little hope that you will recant from this heresy, my goal now is to stop it from spreading further.
To deny Baptism of Desire is heresy. You should be living in fear for your eternal salvation. Catholics are not allowed to believe heresy. Heresy will sever you from the Church, outside of which there is no salvation.
Is St John Chrysostom, a heretic?
St. John Chrysostom, Hom. in Io. 25, 3: “For the Catechumen is a stranger to the
Faithful... One has Christ for his King; the other sin and the devil; the food of
one is Christ, of the other, that meat which decays and perishes... Since then we
have nothing in common, in what, tell me, shall we hold communion?... Let us
then give diligence that we may become citizens of the city above... for if it
should come to pass (which God forbid!) that through the sudden arrival of
death we depart hence uninitiated, though we have ten thousand virtues, our
portion will be none other than hell, and the venomous worm, and fire
unquenchable, and bonds indissoluble.”
No!
-
Fr. Kramer is merely witnessing to the infallible magisterium of the Catholic Church which has taught Baptism of Desire. It is de fide. Those who deny it are professing heresy.
Yes, yes Ambrose, we know you have this obsession against the sacraments and their necessity for salvation and we know you share this detestation of them with Fr. Kramer, Cardinal Cushing and all the Conciliar popes - we know this because you have started dozens of threads against the necessity of the sacraments and championed the cause against them.
Does it not strike you as at least a bit odd, that you, who foolishly adhere to your "Salvation via No Sacrament At All" error and the fact that you cannot bring yourself to defend the necessity of the sacraments for salvation, are somehow related to each other?
Do you really think that posting yet another thread denying the necessity of the sacraments for salvation helps you defend the necessity of the sacraments? Or does it not make more sense that the reason you cannot defend the necessity of the sacraments is because you repeat over and over and over and over again that they are not necessary?
+6 months and counting, still seeking an honest NSAAer - which you, verifiably, are not.
Will an honest NSAAer please step up and publicly admit that the sacraments are optional, that they are not necessary for salvation please?
I have very little hope that you will recant from this heresy, my goal now is to stop it from spreading further.
To deny Baptism of Desire is heresy. You should be living in fear for your eternal salvation. Catholics are not allowed to believe heresy. Heresy will sever you from the Church, outside of which there is no salvation.
Is St John Chrysostom, a heretic?
St. John Chrysostom, Hom. in Io. 25, 3: “For the Catechumen is a stranger to the
Faithful... One has Christ for his King; the other sin and the devil; the food of
one is Christ, of the other, that meat which decays and perishes... Since then we
have nothing in common, in what, tell me, shall we hold communion?... Let us
then give diligence that we may become citizens of the city above... for if it
should come to pass (which God forbid!) that through the sudden arrival of
death we depart hence uninitiated, though we have ten thousand virtues, our
portion will be none other than hell, and the venomous worm, and fire
unquenchable, and bonds indissoluble.”
No!
If he held his view today, would you consider it heretical..if no why not?
-
Fr. Kramer is merely witnessing to the infallible magisterium of the Catholic Church which has taught Baptism of Desire. It is de fide. Those who deny it are professing heresy.
Yes, yes Ambrose, we know you have this obsession against the sacraments and their necessity for salvation and we know you share this detestation of them with Fr. Kramer, Cardinal Cushing and all the Conciliar popes - we know this because you have started dozens of threads against the necessity of the sacraments and championed the cause against them.
Does it not strike you as at least a bit odd, that you, who foolishly adhere to your "Salvation via No Sacrament At All" error and the fact that you cannot bring yourself to defend the necessity of the sacraments for salvation, are somehow related to each other?
Do you really think that posting yet another thread denying the necessity of the sacraments for salvation helps you defend the necessity of the sacraments? Or does it not make more sense that the reason you cannot defend the necessity of the sacraments is because you repeat over and over and over and over again that they are not necessary?
+6 months and counting, still seeking an honest NSAAer - which you, verifiably, are not.
Will an honest NSAAer please step up and publicly admit that the sacraments are optional, that they are not necessary for salvation please?
I have very little hope that you will recant from this heresy, my goal now is to stop it from spreading further.
To deny Baptism of Desire is heresy. You should be living in fear for your eternal salvation. Catholics are not allowed to believe heresy. Heresy will sever you from the Church, outside of which there is no salvation.
Is St John Chrysostom, a heretic?
St. John Chrysostom, Hom. in Io. 25, 3: “For the Catechumen is a stranger to the
Faithful... One has Christ for his King; the other sin and the devil; the food of
one is Christ, of the other, that meat which decays and perishes... Since then we
have nothing in common, in what, tell me, shall we hold communion?... Let us
then give diligence that we may become citizens of the city above... for if it
should come to pass (which God forbid!) that through the sudden arrival of
death we depart hence uninitiated, though we have ten thousand virtues, our
portion will be none other than hell, and the venomous worm, and fire
unquenchable, and bonds indissoluble.”
No!
If he held his view today, would you consider it heretical..if no why not?
Saints conform themselves to the teaching of the magisterium. All saints since the Middle Ages all held Baptism of Desire.
-
Fr. Kramer is merely witnessing to the infallible magisterium of the Catholic Church which has taught Baptism of Desire. It is de fide. Those who deny it are professing heresy.
Yes, yes Ambrose, we know you have this obsession against the sacraments and their necessity for salvation and we know you share this detestation of them with Fr. Kramer, Cardinal Cushing and all the Conciliar popes - we know this because you have started dozens of threads against the necessity of the sacraments and championed the cause against them.
Does it not strike you as at least a bit odd, that you, who foolishly adhere to your "Salvation via No Sacrament At All" error and the fact that you cannot bring yourself to defend the necessity of the sacraments for salvation, are somehow related to each other?
Do you really think that posting yet another thread denying the necessity of the sacraments for salvation helps you defend the necessity of the sacraments? Or does it not make more sense that the reason you cannot defend the necessity of the sacraments is because you repeat over and over and over and over again that they are not necessary?
+6 months and counting, still seeking an honest NSAAer - which you, verifiably, are not.
Will an honest NSAAer please step up and publicly admit that the sacraments are optional, that they are not necessary for salvation please?
I have very little hope that you will recant from this heresy, my goal now is to stop it from spreading further.
To deny Baptism of Desire is heresy. You should be living in fear for your eternal salvation. Catholics are not allowed to believe heresy. Heresy will sever you from the Church, outside of which there is no salvation.
Is St John Chrysostom, a heretic?
St. John Chrysostom, Hom. in Io. 25, 3: “For the Catechumen is a stranger to the
Faithful... One has Christ for his King; the other sin and the devil; the food of
one is Christ, of the other, that meat which decays and perishes... Since then we
have nothing in common, in what, tell me, shall we hold communion?... Let us
then give diligence that we may become citizens of the city above... for if it
should come to pass (which God forbid!) that through the sudden arrival of
death we depart hence uninitiated, though we have ten thousand virtues, our
portion will be none other than hell, and the venomous worm, and fire
unquenchable, and bonds indissoluble.”
No!
If he held his view today, would you consider it heretical..if no why not?
Saints conform themselves to the teaching of the magisterium. All saints since the Middle Ages all held Baptism of Desire.
so I assume you would say St John Chrysostom would have had to change his particular view here and conform ...correct?
-
Fr. Kramer is merely witnessing to the infallible magisterium of the Catholic Church which has taught Baptism of Desire. It is de fide. Those who deny it are professing heresy.
Yes, yes Ambrose, we know you have this obsession against the sacraments and their necessity for salvation and we know you share this detestation of them with Fr. Kramer, Cardinal Cushing and all the Conciliar popes - we know this because you have started dozens of threads against the necessity of the sacraments and championed the cause against them.
Does it not strike you as at least a bit odd, that you, who foolishly adhere to your "Salvation via No Sacrament At All" error and the fact that you cannot bring yourself to defend the necessity of the sacraments for salvation, are somehow related to each other?
Do you really think that posting yet another thread denying the necessity of the sacraments for salvation helps you defend the necessity of the sacraments? Or does it not make more sense that the reason you cannot defend the necessity of the sacraments is because you repeat over and over and over and over again that they are not necessary?
+6 months and counting, still seeking an honest NSAAer - which you, verifiably, are not.
Will an honest NSAAer please step up and publicly admit that the sacraments are optional, that they are not necessary for salvation please?
I have very little hope that you will recant from this heresy, my goal now is to stop it from spreading further.
To deny Baptism of Desire is heresy. You should be living in fear for your eternal salvation. Catholics are not allowed to believe heresy. Heresy will sever you from the Church, outside of which there is no salvation.
Is St John Chrysostom, a heretic?
St. John Chrysostom, Hom. in Io. 25, 3: “For the Catechumen is a stranger to the
Faithful... One has Christ for his King; the other sin and the devil; the food of
one is Christ, of the other, that meat which decays and perishes... Since then we
have nothing in common, in what, tell me, shall we hold communion?... Let us
then give diligence that we may become citizens of the city above... for if it
should come to pass (which God forbid!) that through the sudden arrival of
death we depart hence uninitiated, though we have ten thousand virtues, our
portion will be none other than hell, and the venomous worm, and fire
unquenchable, and bonds indissoluble.”
No!
If he held his view today, would you consider it heretical..if no why not?
Saints conform themselves to the teaching of the magisterium. All saints since the Middle Ages all held Baptism of Desire.
so I assume you would say St John Chrysostom would have had to change his particular view here and conform ...correct?
If Saint John Chrysostom were alive today, he would hold the same as St. Alphonsus, another Doctor of the Church.
Saints conform their mind to the Magisterium, they never oppose it.
-
Fr. Kramer is merely witnessing to the infallible magisterium of the Catholic Church which has taught Baptism of Desire. It is de fide. Those who deny it are professing heresy.
Yes, yes Ambrose, we know you have this obsession against the sacraments and their necessity for salvation and we know you share this detestation of them with Fr. Kramer, Cardinal Cushing and all the Conciliar popes - we know this because you have started dozens of threads against the necessity of the sacraments and championed the cause against them.
Does it not strike you as at least a bit odd, that you, who foolishly adhere to your "Salvation via No Sacrament At All" error and the fact that you cannot bring yourself to defend the necessity of the sacraments for salvation, are somehow related to each other?
Do you really think that posting yet another thread denying the necessity of the sacraments for salvation helps you defend the necessity of the sacraments? Or does it not make more sense that the reason you cannot defend the necessity of the sacraments is because you repeat over and over and over and over again that they are not necessary?
+6 months and counting, still seeking an honest NSAAer - which you, verifiably, are not.
Will an honest NSAAer please step up and publicly admit that the sacraments are optional, that they are not necessary for salvation please?
I have very little hope that you will recant from this heresy, my goal now is to stop it from spreading further.
To deny Baptism of Desire is heresy. You should be living in fear for your eternal salvation. Catholics are not allowed to believe heresy. Heresy will sever you from the Church, outside of which there is no salvation.
Is St John Chrysostom, a heretic?
St. John Chrysostom, Hom. in Io. 25, 3: “For the Catechumen is a stranger to the
Faithful... One has Christ for his King; the other sin and the devil; the food of
one is Christ, of the other, that meat which decays and perishes... Since then we
have nothing in common, in what, tell me, shall we hold communion?... Let us
then give diligence that we may become citizens of the city above... for if it
should come to pass (which God forbid!) that through the sudden arrival of
death we depart hence uninitiated, though we have ten thousand virtues, our
portion will be none other than hell, and the venomous worm, and fire
unquenchable, and bonds indissoluble.”
No!
If he held his view today, would you consider it heretical..if no why not?
Saints conform themselves to the teaching of the magisterium. All saints since the Middle Ages all held Baptism of Desire.
so I assume you would say St John Chrysostom would have had to change his particular view here and conform ...correct?
If Saint John Chrysostom were alive today, he would hold the same as St. Alphonsus, another Doctor of the Church.
Saints conform their mind to the Magisterium, they never oppose it.
can you tell me approximately what year would St John Chrysostom of had to change his mind and conform to the magisterium with regards to baptism of desire
-
can you tell me approximately what year would St John Chrysostom of had to change his mind and conform to the magisterium with regards to baptism of desire
Certainly, it would be no later than the medieval Papal pronouncements of Innocent II and III (see Denz 388 and 413, the latter of whom also made a famous pronouncement on EENS, showing that BOD and EENS are complementary and not contradictory) in the 12th and 13th centuries. When the heretical Peter Abelard (who admitted baptism of blood, but tried to contest baptism of desire) publicly made his erroneous statements, he was corrected by St. Bernard and St. Bonaventure, who showed how baptism of desire derives from baptism of blood, with proofs of both from Scripture and Tradition. St. Robert, St. Alphonsus and other later Doctors cite these medieval Papal pronouncements as well.
By the Middle Ages, the doctrine of Baptism of desire was universally taught as settled and certain in all Catholic schools. Since that time, all Saints and Doctors are unanimous in declaring that the Church has definitively taught that souls have also been saved by baptism of desire and blood.
-
can you tell me approximately what year would St John Chrysostom of had to change his mind and conform to the magisterium with regards to baptism of desire
Certainly, it would be no later than the medieval Papal pronouncements of Innocent II and III (see Denz 388 and 413, the latter of whom also made a famous pronouncement on EENS, showing that BOD and EENS are complementary and not contradictory) in the 12th and 13th centuries. When the heretical Peter Abelard (who admitted baptism of blood, but tried to contest baptism of desire) publicly made his erroneous statements, he was corrected by St. Bernard and St. Bonaventure, who showed how baptism of desire derives from baptism of blood, with proofs of both from Scripture and Tradition. St. Robert, St. Alphonsus and other later Doctors cite these medieval Papal pronouncements as well.
By the Middle Ages, the doctrine of Baptism of desire was universally taught as settled and certain in all Catholic schools. Since that time, all Saints and Doctors are unanimous in declaring that the Church has definitively taught that souls have also been saved by baptism of desire and blood.
Good post Nishant.
I may also add, in addition to Nishant's excellent answer that Baptism of Desire was a certain doctrine for many centuries prior to Trent, but, as it was taught by the Council, the note would have changed to de fide.
This is why St. Alphonsus assigns the note of de fide to Baptism of Desire, because it was taught directly by the Council of Trent.
-
Baptism of Desire is not de fide and certainly the Council of Trent did not teach it. The theories of Baptism by blood or desire are just that: theories. Even though some Saints and tehologians have believed in them does not alter the fact that they have not been defined infallibly. We can discuss these speculations, we can study them with great care but we cannot make them infallible, and, so, we cannot teach them as fact. Only Baptism by water and the Holy Ghost is a true Sacrament, infallibly defined.
-
Baptism of Desire is not de fide and certainly the Council of Trent did not teach it. The theories of Baptism by blood or desire are just that: theories. Even though some Saints and tehologians have believed in them does not alter the fact that they have not been defined infallibly. We can discuss these speculations, we can study them with great care but we cannot make them infallible, and, so, we cannot teach them as fact. Only Baptism by water and the Holy Ghost is a true Sacrament, infallibly defined.
You keep saying that, but you are wrong. Baptism of Desire was clearly and explicitly taught by the Council of Trent. Your denial does not make it true.
Are you aware that Doctors of the Church and countless dogmatic theologians with an immeasurably better understanding of theology than you all knew and taught that Trent taught Baptism of Desire.
Why don't you just realize your place and learn from your betters?
-
:facepalm:.....Truly the Never ending story..it goes on and on.........
-
Never BOD has been de fide. The Church does and has accepted the THEORY of BOD for catechumens only, therefore a person is NOT a heretic if he/she wants to believe in it. The Church allows for freedom in this respect. Again, this teaching (which NOT de fide) is for sincere CATECHUMENS ONLY. Not for the invincible ignorant or any person not prone to mass murder, as the modernists want us to believe.
There is not a single dogmatic statement ever to be found on the efficacy BOD. However, On three occasions three Popes have defined infallibly EXCATHEDRA that outside the Church there is no salvation whatsoever, nor is there salvation for anyone who is not subject to the Roman Pontiff, nor will Jews (indeed any unbaptized individual), heretics or schismatics enter the Kingdom of Heaven unless before their death they are received into the bosom of the Catholic Church.
-
Baptism of Desire is not de fide and certainly the Council of Trent did not teach it. The theories of Baptism by blood or desire are just that: theories. Even though some Saints and tehologians have believed in them does not alter the fact that they have not been defined infallibly. We can discuss these speculations, we can study them with great care but we cannot make them infallible, and, so, we cannot teach them as fact. Only Baptism by water and the Holy Ghost is a true Sacrament, infallibly defined.
You keep saying that, but you are wrong. Baptism of Desire was clearly and explicitly taught by the Council of Trent. Your denial does not make it true.
Are you aware that Doctors of the Church and countless dogmatic theologians with an immeasurably better understanding of theology than you all knew and taught that Trent taught Baptism of Desire.
Why don't you just realize your place and learn from your betters?
Ambrose:
You are correct that "Baptism of Desire" was taught at Trent but certainly not in the sense that you and Fr. Kramer understand it. Trent taught that the "votum," to receive the sacrament, which is necessarily explicit because a "votum" requires a known object, can produce a state of justification. But in the dogmatic infallible canons, the formal objects of divine and Catholic faith, Trent defined that the sacraments are necessary for salvation as a necessity of means. The word "sacrament" in the canon is the form and matter by definition.
Fr. Kramer follows St. Alphonsus' mistaken understanding that Trent taught "Baptism of Desire" de fide. In this St. Alphonsus erred and the source of his error is easy to see. In his book on Moral Theology, he references Trent as the authority on "Baptism of Desire" by quoting from the Decree on Justification. He then misquotes the Decree when he said, "no one can be saved 'without the laver of regeneration or the desire for it.'" The Decree on Justification from Trent says, "This translation (to a state of justification) however cannot, since the promulgation of the Gospel, be effected without the laver of regeneration or the desire for it." St. Alphonsus takes only part of the sentence and then inserts the word, "saved" while the Decree is referring to "justification." The difference is between being "saved" and being "regenerated" (justified). All who are saved are justified, but not all those who are justified are saved. By failing to make a theological distinction between salvation and justification the actual teaching of Trent is, in fact, corrupted. The evidence offered by St. Alphonsus for his claim that the doctrine of "Baptism of Desire" is de fide is a misquotation.
Canon 4 on the sacraments contains two categorical propositions that are infallibly defined as formal objects of divine and Catholic faith. This canon distinguishes between justification and salvation. It explicitly state that the sacraments are necessary for salvation and that they are necessary in re or in votum for justification.
If anyone says that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation but are superfluous, and that without them or without the desire of them men obtain from God through faith alone the grace of justification, though all are not necessary for each one, let him be anathema.
Fr. Kramer believes in a doctrine that I call "salvation by justification alone." By this I mean that he holds that no external sign of justification, such as the sacraments, are necessary for salvation. He takes this doctrine from the Decree of Justification from Trent by extracting a single sentence from the last paragraph which he takes entirely out of the context of the narrative. The sentence is even out of the context of the very paragraph in which it is found. He then proceeds to apply his doctrine of "salvation by justification alone" to re-interpret the dogmatic canons of Trent. When Fr. Kramer is done re-interpreting the canons from Trent they have a completely different meaning than what they literally say. If you are interested, I will explain in detail exactly how Fr. Kramer corrupts this particular canon.
It is really unfortunate to see a priest like Fr. Kramer corrupt a dogmatic canon. In his book, The Devils Final Battle, Fr. Kramer gives an excellent exposition on dogma and its nature that is one of the best. His book, The ѕυιcιdє in Altering the Faith in the Liturgy, is entirely built upon the dogmatic canons that pertain to the liturgy. In his accusation against Fr. Feeney of "heresy," he has completely abandoned the authority of dogma that he had previously defended. It is in fact bizarre to see him use the doctrinal narrative from Trent to interpret a dogmatic canon in a non-literal sense. The dogmatic canon has far greater authority than the doctrinal narrative because the canon is literally divine revelation. If there is any question of conflict or misunderstanding between the narrative and the canon, it is the canon that resolves the conflict and determines the proper understanding.
If the teaching "Baptism of Desire," which has never been explicitly defined, was a teaching de fide of the extra-ordinary Magisteium from Trent or ordinary and universal Magisterium, Fr. Feeney would have been excommunicated for heresy. He was not. He was reconciled to the Church without an adjuration of heresy. The communities he founded and who teach and defend his teaching are in communion with their local ordinaries.
It is a common theological opinion. Even the modern Catechism of the Catholic Church which teaches "Baptism of Desire" and has an authority equivalent to any other catechism says, "The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are 'reborn of water and the Spirit.'"
Fr. Feeney was a lot smarter than Fr. Kramer, and in my opinion, more virtuous. He was a faithful Catholic priest who fought the good fight to defend the faith when few even recognized that it was being attacked. He was censored for defending the dogma Extra-Ecclesiam Nulla Salus (EENS) by the 1949 Holy Office Letter which had nothing to do with baptism either in "votum" or in "re". Those who consider Fr. Feeney a "heretic" can only do so by defending the 1949 Holy Office Letter and that includes Fr. Kramer.
We must all "realize (our) place and learn from your betters" but in this argument, Fr. Kramer is not the better.
Drew
-
Cantarella said:
Baptism of Desire is not de fide and certainly the Council of Trent did not teach it. The theories of Baptism by blood or desire are just that: theories. Even though some Saints and tehologians have believed in them does not alter the fact that they have not been defined infallibly. We can discuss these speculations, we can study them with great care but we cannot make them infallible, and, so, we cannot teach them as fact. Only Baptism by water and the Holy Ghost is a true Sacrament, infallibly defined.
Ambrose said:
You keep saying that, but you are wrong. Baptism of Desire was clearly and explicitly taught by the Council of Trent. Your denial does not make it true.
Are you aware that Doctors of the Church and countless dogmatic theologians with an immeasurably better understanding of theology than you all knew and taught that Trent taught Baptism of Desire.
Why don't you just realize your place and learn from your betters?
This is a problem today! Women don't know their place! We have to be more like Our Lady! She knew everything promulgated by her Divine Son! However, she did not speak publically, but left the teaching to the Apostles, the MEN of the Church! Whomever you may cite Cantrella, and there were brave women in the history of the Church, theology and its interpretation is the duty of PRIESTS and BISHOPS. I t is not the duty of women to expound on theological matters! Ask any trad priest about this!
-
It is not the duty of women to expound on theological matters! Ask any trad priest about this!
Yet that hasn't stopped you from weighing in on the BoD issue.
-
Baptism of Desire is not de fide and certainly the Council of Trent did not teach it. The theories of Baptism by blood or desire are just that: theories. Even though some Saints and tehologians have believed in them does not alter the fact that they have not been defined infallibly. We can discuss these speculations, we can study them with great care but we cannot make them infallible, and, so, we cannot teach them as fact. Only Baptism by water and the Holy Ghost is a true Sacrament, infallibly defined.
You keep saying that, but you are wrong. Baptism of Desire was clearly and explicitly taught by the Council of Trent. Your denial does not make it true.
Are you aware that Doctors of the Church and countless dogmatic theologians with an immeasurably better understanding of theology than you all knew and taught that Trent taught Baptism of Desire.
Why don't you just realize your place and learn from your betters?
Ambrose:
You are correct that "Baptism of Desire" was taught at Trent but certainly not in the sense that you and Fr. Kramer understand it. Trent taught that the "votum," to receive the sacrament, which is necessarily explicit because a "votum" requires a known object, can produce a state of justification. But in the dogmatic infallible canons, the formal objects of divine and Catholic faith, Trent defined that the sacraments are necessary for salvation as a necessity of means. The word "sacrament" in the canon is the form and matter by definition.
Fr. Kramer follows St. Alphonsus' mistaken understanding that Trent taught "Baptism of Desire" de fide. In this St. Alphonsus erred and the source of his error is easy to see. In his book on Moral Theology, he references Trent as the authority on "Baptism of Desire" by quoting from the Decree on Justification. He then misquotes the Decree when he said, "no one can be saved 'without the laver of regeneration or the desire for it.'" The Decree on Justification from Trent says, "This translation (to a state of justification) however cannot, since the promulgation of the Gospel, be effected without the laver of regeneration or the desire for it." St. Alphonsus takes only part of the sentence and then inserts the word, "saved" while the Decree is referring to "justification." The difference is between being "saved" and being "regenerated" (justified). All who are saved are justified, but not all those who are justified are saved. By failing to make a theological distinction between salvation and justification the actual teaching of Trent is, in fact, corrupted. The evidence offered by St. Alphonsus for his claim that the doctrine of "Baptism of Desire" is de fide is a misquotation.
Canon 4 on the sacraments contains two categorical propositions that are infallibly defined as formal objects of divine and Catholic faith. This canon distinguishes between justification and salvation. It explicitly state that the sacraments are necessary for salvation and that they are necessary in re or in votum for justification.
If anyone says that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation but are superfluous, and that without them or without the desire of them men obtain from God through faith alone the grace of justification, though all are not necessary for each one, let him be anathema.
Fr. Kramer believes in a doctrine that I call "salvation by justification alone." By this I mean that he holds that no external sign of justification, such as the sacraments, are necessary for salvation. He takes this doctrine from the Decree of Justification from Trent by extracting a single sentence from the last paragraph which he takes entirely out of the context of the narrative. The sentence is even out of the context of the very paragraph in which it is found. He then proceeds to apply his doctrine of "salvation by justification alone" to re-interpret the dogmatic canons of Trent. When Fr. Kramer is done re-interpreting the canons from Trent they have a completely different meaning than what they literally say. If you are interested, I will explain in detail exactly how Fr. Kramer corrupts this particular canon.
It is really unfortunate to see a priest like Fr. Kramer corrupt a dogmatic canon. In his book, The Devils Final Battle, Fr. Kramer gives an excellent exposition on dogma and its nature that is one of the best. His book, The ѕυιcιdє in Altering the Faith in the Liturgy, is entirely built upon the dogmatic canons that pertain to the liturgy. In his accusation against Fr. Feeney of "heresy," he has completely abandoned the authority of dogma that he had previously defended. It is in fact bizarre to see him use the doctrinal narrative from Trent to interpret a dogmatic canon in a non-literal sense. The dogmatic canon has far greater authority than the doctrinal narrative because the canon is literally divine revelation. If there is any question of conflict or misunderstanding between the narrative and the canon, it is the canon that resolves the conflict and determines the proper understanding.
If the teaching "Baptism of Desire," which has never been explicitly defined, was a teaching de fide of the extra-ordinary Magisteium from Trent or ordinary and universal Magisterium, Fr. Feeney would have been excommunicated for heresy. He was not. He was reconciled to the Church without an adjuration of heresy. The communities he founded and who teach and defend his teaching are in communion with their local ordinaries.
It is a common theological opinion. Even the modern Catechism of the Catholic Church which teaches "Baptism of Desire" and has an authority equivalent to any other catechism says, "The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are 'reborn of water and the Spirit.'"
Fr. Feeney was a lot smarter than Fr. Kramer, and in my opinion, more virtuous. He was a faithful Catholic priest who fought the good fight to defend the faith when few even recognized that it was being attacked. He was censored for defending the dogma Extra-Ecclesiam Nulla Salus (EENS) by the 1949 Holy Office Letter which had nothing to do with baptism either in "votum" or in "re". Those who consider Fr. Feeney a "heretic" can only do so by defending the 1949 Holy Office Letter and that includes Fr. Kramer.
We must all "realize (our) place and learn from your betters" but in this argument, Fr. Kramer is not the better.
Drew
Are you saying that one who dies in the state of justification does not, by this fact, attain salvation? That there are those who die justified and perish eternally?
-
It is not the duty of women to expound on theological matters! Ask any trad priest about this!
Yet that hasn't stopped you from weighing in on the BoD issue.
Yeah, Ladi, you are right. But, I only make simple statements. I do not quote from theology books. I just state what I believe and have been taught.
:rolleyes:
-
Drew wrote:
We must all "realize (our) place and learn from your betters" but in this argument, Fr. Kramer is not the better
No, I was not referring to anyone alive on earth right now when I said to 'know your place and learn from your betters." Your "betters" are those great a doctors of the Church and the Church's dogmatic theologians trained and commissioned to explain the Faith.
I was referring to St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Alphonsus de Liguori, St. Robert Bellarmine, St Bernard of Clairvoux, St. Charles Borromeo, Pope St Pius V, Pope St. Pius X, etc.
Also, so many dogmatic theologians, that it would take time to list them all.
Also, all of the writers of countless catechisms, and the numerous bishops that approved those catechisms....
And on and on the list goes.
They are your betters, and you should humble yourself and learn from them them rather than thinking you know better. You don't.
-
Baptism of Desire is not de fide and certainly the Council of Trent did not teach it. The theories of Baptism by blood or desire are just that: theories. Even though some Saints and tehologians have believed in them does not alter the fact that they have not been defined infallibly. We can discuss these speculations, we can study them with great care but we cannot make them infallible, and, so, we cannot teach them as fact. Only Baptism by water and the Holy Ghost is a true Sacrament, infallibly defined.
You keep saying that, but you are wrong. Baptism of Desire was clearly and explicitly taught by the Council of Trent. Your denial does not make it true.
Are you aware that Doctors of the Church and countless dogmatic theologians with an immeasurably better understanding of theology than you all knew and taught that Trent taught Baptism of Desire.
Why don't you just realize your place and learn from your betters?
Ambrose:
You are correct that "Baptism of Desire" was taught at Trent but certainly not in the sense that you and Fr. Kramer understand it. Trent taught that the "votum," to receive the sacrament, which is necessarily explicit because a "votum" requires a known object, can produce a state of justification. But in the dogmatic infallible canons, the formal objects of divine and Catholic faith, Trent defined that the sacraments are necessary for salvation as a necessity of means. The word "sacrament" in the canon is the form and matter by definition.
Fr. Kramer follows St. Alphonsus' mistaken understanding that Trent taught "Baptism of Desire" de fide. In this St. Alphonsus erred and the source of his error is easy to see. In his book on Moral Theology, he references Trent as the authority on "Baptism of Desire" by quoting from the Decree on Justification. He then misquotes the Decree when he said, "no one can be saved 'without the laver of regeneration or the desire for it.'" The Decree on Justification from Trent says, "This translation (to a state of justification) however cannot, since the promulgation of the Gospel, be effected without the laver of regeneration or the desire for it." St. Alphonsus takes only part of the sentence and then inserts the word, "saved" while the Decree is referring to "justification." The difference is between being "saved" and being "regenerated" (justified). All who are saved are justified, but not all those who are justified are saved. By failing to make a theological distinction between salvation and justification the actual teaching of Trent is, in fact, corrupted. The evidence offered by St. Alphonsus for his claim that the doctrine of "Baptism of Desire" is de fide is a misquotation.
Canon 4 on the sacraments contains two categorical propositions that are infallibly defined as formal objects of divine and Catholic faith. This canon distinguishes between justification and salvation. It explicitly state that the sacraments are necessary for salvation and that they are necessary in re or in votum for justification.
If anyone says that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation but are superfluous, and that without them or without the desire of them men obtain from God through faith alone the grace of justification, though all are not necessary for each one, let him be anathema.
Fr. Kramer believes in a doctrine that I call "salvation by justification alone." By this I mean that he holds that no external sign of justification, such as the sacraments, are necessary for salvation. He takes this doctrine from the Decree of Justification from Trent by extracting a single sentence from the last paragraph which he takes entirely out of the context of the narrative. The sentence is even out of the context of the very paragraph in which it is found. He then proceeds to apply his doctrine of "salvation by justification alone" to re-interpret the dogmatic canons of Trent. When Fr. Kramer is done re-interpreting the canons from Trent they have a completely different meaning than what they literally say. If you are interested, I will explain in detail exactly how Fr. Kramer corrupts this particular canon.
It is really unfortunate to see a priest like Fr. Kramer corrupt a dogmatic canon. In his book, The Devils Final Battle, Fr. Kramer gives an excellent exposition on dogma and its nature that is one of the best. His book, The ѕυιcιdє in Altering the Faith in the Liturgy, is entirely built upon the dogmatic canons that pertain to the liturgy. In his accusation against Fr. Feeney of "heresy," he has completely abandoned the authority of dogma that he had previously defended. It is in fact bizarre to see him use the doctrinal narrative from Trent to interpret a dogmatic canon in a non-literal sense. The dogmatic canon has far greater authority than the doctrinal narrative because the canon is literally divine revelation. If there is any question of conflict or misunderstanding between the narrative and the canon, it is the canon that resolves the conflict and determines the proper understanding.
If the teaching "Baptism of Desire," which has never been explicitly defined, was a teaching de fide of the extra-ordinary Magisteium from Trent or ordinary and universal Magisterium, Fr. Feeney would have been excommunicated for heresy. He was not. He was reconciled to the Church without an adjuration of heresy. The communities he founded and who teach and defend his teaching are in communion with their local ordinaries.
It is a common theological opinion. Even the modern Catechism of the Catholic Church which teaches "Baptism of Desire" and has an authority equivalent to any other catechism says, "The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are 'reborn of water and the Spirit.'"
Fr. Feeney was a lot smarter than Fr. Kramer, and in my opinion, more virtuous. He was a faithful Catholic priest who fought the good fight to defend the faith when few even recognized that it was being attacked. He was censored for defending the dogma Extra-Ecclesiam Nulla Salus (EENS) by the 1949 Holy Office Letter which had nothing to do with baptism either in "votum" or in "re". Those who consider Fr. Feeney a "heretic" can only do so by defending the 1949 Holy Office Letter and that includes Fr. Kramer.
We must all "realize (our) place and learn from your betters" but in this argument, Fr. Kramer is not the better.
Drew
Are you saying that one who dies in the state of justification does not, by this fact, attain salvation? That there are those who die justified and perish eternally?
Mithrandylan:
I did not say anything. Regarding the subject of soteriology, we only know what God has revealed. Anything beyond what He has revealed is pure speculation. We know that God has revealed that the sacrament of Baptism is necessary for salvation and that necessity is a necessity of means. We also know that the words, "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost....." must, by every Catholic, be taken literally; just as literally as the words, "This is My Body, This is My Blood."
Our Lord's words are in the form of a universal categorical proposition that admits of only being always and everywhere true or always and everywhere false. These words cannot be taken metaphorically. Those who wish to say that "water" is a metaphor have a grammatical problem with the "Holy Ghost." The same thing occurs with our Lord's words, "He who believes and is baptized shall be saved..." Belief and baptism is given equal grammatical weight. If baptism can be taken metaphorically so can the faith.
The real problem in discussion this question concerns the nature of dogma. What is it? As I said in the previous post, Fr. Kramer gave an excellent analysis of dogma in his book, The Devil's Final Battle. If you would like I will provide the lengthy quotation. The first thing to know about dogma is that is formulated for all the faithful and the tools for understanding dogma are proper definition and correct grammar. It is the end, not the beginning of theological speculation.
Faith is believing what God has revealed on the authority of God. The same God who justifies also saves. "Behold the hand of the Lord is not shortened that it cannot save, neither is his ear heavy that it cannot hear." (Isaias 59:1) There are so many, many anecdotes from the saints on the miraculous administration of the sacrament to Catholics who possessed the faith and were subjects of the Roman Pontiff. Why?
Drew
-
Drew wrote:
We must all "realize (our) place and learn from your betters" but in this argument, Fr. Kramer is not the better
No, I was not referring to anyone alive on earth right now when I said to 'know your place and learn from your betters." Your "betters" are those great a doctors of the Church and the Church's dogmatic theologians trained and commissioned to explain the Faith.
I was referring to St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Alphonsus de Liguori, St. Robert Bellarmine, St Bernard of Clairvoux, St. Charles Borromeo, Pope St Pius V, Pope St. Pius X, etc.
Also, so many dogmatic theologians, that it would take time to list them all.
Also, all of the writers of countless catechisms, and the numerous bishops that approved those catechisms....
And on and on the list goes.
They are your betters, and you should humble yourself and learn from them them rather than thinking you know better. You don't.
Ambrose:
I have only begun to address this subject. If you want to reply, reply with an intelligible argument. All the great doctors of the Church are nothing compared to one infallible dogma revealed by God that form the formal object of divine and Catholic faith 'without which it is impossible to please God.'
You again cite St. Alphonsus who held that Trent taught "Baptism of Desire" was de fide. His referenced quotation in his book, Moral Theology, is wrong and it is from this erroneous quotation he draws his conclusion. St. Alphonsus made a mistake. Fr. Kramer has followed the same mistake that St. Alphonsus made. If you make the same mistake there is no excuse. It is dogma that constitutes the formal object of divine and Catholic faith and it is the denial of dogma that makes one a heretic.
Fr. Feeney was censored in his defense of the dogma EENS by the 1949 Holy Office Letter. This Letter was held by Archbishop Lefebvre, and now Bishop Fellay, as being an orthodox expression and defense of the Catholic faith. Fr. Joseph Fenton even considers this Letter a "magisterial" docuмent. If is from this Letter that the accusations of heresy against Fr. Feeney are grounded. If you want to accuse the good Fr. Feeney of "heresy" this is the proper place to begin. When you get to root of the problem the corruption is so much more evident. By the way, the New Ecclesiology is grounded upon the doctrine of soteriology taught in the 1949 Holy Office Letter against Fr. Feeney. Not the other way around as you said in an earlier post and this is easy to prove.
Drew
-
All the great doctors of the Church are nothing compared to one infallible dogma revealed by God that form the formal object of divine and Catholic faith 'without which it is impossible to please God.'
Beautifully said, Drew
Welcome to Cathinfo!
-
Drew wrote:
We must all "realize (our) place and learn from your betters" but in this argument, Fr. Kramer is not the better
No, I was not referring to anyone alive on earth right now when I said to 'know your place and learn from your betters." Your "betters" are those great a doctors of the Church and the Church's dogmatic theologians trained and commissioned to explain the Faith.
I was referring to St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Alphonsus de Liguori, St. Robert Bellarmine, St Bernard of Clairvoux, St. Charles Borromeo, Pope St Pius V, Pope St. Pius X, etc.
Also, so many dogmatic theologians, that it would take time to list them all.
Also, all of the writers of countless catechisms, and the numerous bishops that approved those catechisms....
And on and on the list goes.
They are your betters, and you should humble yourself and learn from them them rather than thinking you know better. You don't.
Ambrose:
I have only begun to address this subject. If you want to reply, reply with an intelligible argument. All the great doctors of the Church are nothing compared to one infallible dogma revealed by God that form the formal object of divine and Catholic faith 'without which it is impossible to please God.'
You again cite St. Alphonsus who held that Trent taught "Baptism of Desire" was de fide. His referenced quotation in his book, Moral Theology, is wrong and it is from this erroneous quotation he draws his conclusion. St. Alphonsus made a mistake. Fr. Kramer has followed the same mistake that St. Alphonsus made. If you make the same mistake there is no excuse. It is dogma that constitutes the formal object of divine and Catholic faith and it is the denial of dogma that makes one a heretic.
Fr. Feeney was censored in his defense of the dogma EENS by the 1949 Holy Office Letter. This Letter was held by Archbishop Lefebvre, and now Bishop Fellay, as being an orthodox expression and defense of the Catholic faith. Fr. Joseph Fenton even considers this Letter a "magisterial" docuмent. If is from this Letter that the accusations of heresy against Fr. Feeney are grounded. If you want to accuse the good Fr. Feeney of "heresy" this is the proper place to begin. When you get to root of the problem the corruption is so much more evident. By the way, the New Ecclesiology is grounded upon the doctrine of soteriology taught in the 1949 Holy Office Letter against Fr. Feeney. Not the other way around as you said in an earlier post and this is easy to prove.
Drew
Drew, St. Alphonsus isn't wrong, you are. Only an arrogant ignoramus would think otherwise.
A catechumen has Faith, yet isn't baptized. He doesn't lack the formal object of Faith, he lacks the actual Sacrament of Baptism.
-
Drew,
The first thing to know about dogma is that is formulated for all the faithful and the tools for understanding dogma are proper definition and correct grammar. It is the end, not the beginning of theological speculation.
Absolutely true. The whole of the meaning and sense of the dogma is found in the precision of the words which the Church uses to proclaim it.
Once declared it is there for all time, commanding submission from the Catholic mind and will.
There is no later "proper" explanation needed or allowed, as if the Church could be deficient in making such a foundational declaration.
-
Drew wrote:
We must all "realize (our) place and learn from your betters" but in this argument, Fr. Kramer is not the better
No, I was not referring to anyone alive on earth right now when I said to 'know your place and learn from your betters." Your "betters" are those great a doctors of the Church and the Church's dogmatic theologians trained and commissioned to explain the Faith.
I was referring to St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Alphonsus de Liguori, St. Robert Bellarmine, St Bernard of Clairvoux, St. Charles Borromeo, Pope St Pius V, Pope St. Pius X, etc.
Also, so many dogmatic theologians, that it would take time to list them all.
Also, all of the writers of countless catechisms, and the numerous bishops that approved those catechisms....
And on and on the list goes.
They are your betters, and you should humble yourself and learn from them them rather than thinking you know better. You don't.
Ambrose:
I have only begun to address this subject. If you want to reply, reply with an intelligible argument. All the great doctors of the Church are nothing compared to one infallible dogma revealed by God that form the formal object of divine and Catholic faith 'without which it is impossible to please God.'
You again cite St. Alphonsus who held that Trent taught "Baptism of Desire" was de fide. His referenced quotation in his book, Moral Theology, is wrong and it is from this erroneous quotation he draws his conclusion. St. Alphonsus made a mistake. Fr. Kramer has followed the same mistake that St. Alphonsus made. If you make the same mistake there is no excuse. It is dogma that constitutes the formal object of divine and Catholic faith and it is the denial of dogma that makes one a heretic.
Fr. Feeney was censored in his defense of the dogma EENS by the 1949 Holy Office Letter. This Letter was held by Archbishop Lefebvre, and now Bishop Fellay, as being an orthodox expression and defense of the Catholic faith. Fr. Joseph Fenton even considers this Letter a "magisterial" docuмent. If is from this Letter that the accusations of heresy against Fr. Feeney are grounded. If you want to accuse the good Fr. Feeney of "heresy" this is the proper place to begin. When you get to root of the problem the corruption is so much more evident. By the way, the New Ecclesiology is grounded upon the doctrine of soteriology taught in the 1949 Holy Office Letter against Fr. Feeney. Not the other way around as you said in an earlier post and this is easy to prove.
Drew
Drew, St. Alphonsus isn't wrong, you are. Only an arrogant ignoramus would think otherwise.
A catechumen has Faith, yet isn't baptized. He doesn't lack the formal object of Faith, he lacks the actual Sacrament of Baptism.
Yes, and if such a one is predestined unto salvation, as one of Christ's elect, he will receive it.
-
This has nothing to do with predestination.
-
Drew wrote:
We must all "realize (our) place and learn from your betters" but in this argument, Fr. Kramer is not the better
No, I was not referring to anyone alive on earth right now when I said to 'know your place and learn from your betters." Your "betters" are those great a doctors of the Church and the Church's dogmatic theologians trained and commissioned to explain the Faith.
I was referring to St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Alphonsus de Liguori, St. Robert Bellarmine, St Bernard of Clairvoux, St. Charles Borromeo, Pope St Pius V, Pope St. Pius X, etc.
Also, so many dogmatic theologians, that it would take time to list them all.
Also, all of the writers of countless catechisms, and the numerous bishops that approved those catechisms....
And on and on the list goes.
They are your betters, and you should humble yourself and learn from them them rather than thinking you know better. You don't.
Ambrose:
I have only begun to address this subject. If you want to reply, reply with an intelligible argument. All the great doctors of the Church are nothing compared to one infallible dogma revealed by God that form the formal object of divine and Catholic faith 'without which it is impossible to please God.'
You again cite St. Alphonsus who held that Trent taught "Baptism of Desire" was de fide. His referenced quotation in his book, Moral Theology, is wrong and it is from this erroneous quotation he draws his conclusion. St. Alphonsus made a mistake. Fr. Kramer has followed the same mistake that St. Alphonsus made. If you make the same mistake there is no excuse. It is dogma that constitutes the formal object of divine and Catholic faith and it is the denial of dogma that makes one a heretic.
Fr. Feeney was censored in his defense of the dogma EENS by the 1949 Holy Office Letter. This Letter was held by Archbishop Lefebvre, and now Bishop Fellay, as being an orthodox expression and defense of the Catholic faith. Fr. Joseph Fenton even considers this Letter a "magisterial" docuмent. If is from this Letter that the accusations of heresy against Fr. Feeney are grounded. If you want to accuse the good Fr. Feeney of "heresy" this is the proper place to begin. When you get to root of the problem the corruption is so much more evident. By the way, the New Ecclesiology is grounded upon the doctrine of soteriology taught in the 1949 Holy Office Letter against Fr. Feeney. Not the other way around as you said in an earlier post and this is easy to prove.
Drew
Drew, St. Alphonsus isn't wrong, you are. Only an arrogant ignoramus would think otherwise.
A catechumen has Faith, yet isn't baptized. He doesn't lack the formal object of Faith, he lacks the actual Sacrament of Baptism.
SJB:
I am a Catholic not a Liguorist. I have provided the evidence with the references to docuмent the error that St. Alphonsus made. You need to address the evidence before you declare that "St. Alphonsus isn't wrong." The Decree on Justification says nothing about "Baptism of Desire" having as its end being "saved." The end of "Baptism of Desire" in the Decree is justification, nothing more. It is unfortunate that Fr. Kramer has blindly copied this mistake. But it follows from another mistake of Fr. Kramer's. Fr. Kramer believes that when the Church declares anyone a "doctor" they are affirming that their teaching is without doctrinal or moral error. That, of course, is nonsense.
The Church honors its doctors for their exposition of Catholic doctrinal and moral teaching but there is no guarantee of infallibility with any doctor of the Church.
"The Church has never accepted even the most holy and most eminent Doctors, and does not now accept even a single one of them, as the principal source of truth. The Church certainly considers Thomas and Augustine great Doctors, and she accords them the highest praise; but, by divine mandate, the interpreter and guardian of the Sacred Scriptures and depository of Sacred tradition living with her, the Church Alone is the entrance to salvation; she alone, by herself, and under the protection and guidance of the Holy Ghost, is the source of truth."
Most Catholics know that St. Thomas' teaching on the Immaculate Conception is not in accord with Catholic dogma. Another recent error that I found concerns the great St. Robert Bellarmine from his book, De Ecclesia Militante, that was referenced in an article by Fr. Joseph C. Fenton in the American Ecclesiastical Review. Do you know that St. Robert taught that if a non-baptized person, such as a Jew or Muslim, pretended to be a Catholic, lived in a Catholic society and was accepted by that society as being Catholic, even if only for the purpose of committing crimes against that Catholic society, he would thereby become a member of the Catholic Church. That is a bizarre version of "Baptism of Desire." and it was taught by this Doctor of the Universal Church. Are you also a Bellarminite?
Another big believer in "Baptism of Desire" was Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.
"The doctrine of the Church also recognizes implicit baptism of desire. This consists in doing the will of God. God knows all men and He knows that amongst Protestants, Muslims, and Buddhists and in the whole of humanity there are men of good will. They receive the grace of baptism without knowing it, but in an effective way. In this way they become part of the Church. The error consists in thinking that they are saved by their religion. They are saved in their religion but not by it. There is no Buddhist church in heaven, no Protestant church. This is perhaps hard to accept, but it is the truth. I did not found the Church, but rather Our Lord the Son of God. As priests we must state the truth."
This opinion of Archbishop Lefebvre is taken directly from the 1949 Holy Office Letter that censored Fr. Feeney. Is this the version of "Baptism of Desire" that you hold or is it more like St. Robert's or more like St. Alphonsus'?
Anyone who wants to call Fr. Feeney a heretic must begin with the 1949 Holy Office Letter that censored his teaching on the Catholic dogma EENS. Do you hold the 1949 Holy Office Letter, like Archbishop Lefebvre, to be an orthodox expression of Catholic faith? I expect the same from you, and Ambrose, and Lover of Truth and anyone else who believes that they can infallibly spot a "heretic" when they see one. Anything less than addressing the 1949 Holy Office Letter is just begging the question on the doctrinal rectitude of Fr. Feeney.
Drew
-
Drew wrote:
Ambrose:
I have only begun to address this subject. If you want to reply, reply with an intelligible argument. All the great doctors of the Church are nothing compared to one infallible dogma revealed by God that form the formal object of divine and Catholic faith 'without which it is impossible to please God.'
True, but we are not talking about an infallible statement, we are talking about your claim of an infallible statement.
Drew wrote:
You again cite St. Alphonsus who held that Trent taught "Baptism of Desire" was de fide. His referenced quotation in his book, Moral Theology, is wrong and it is from this erroneous quotation he draws his conclusion. St. Alphonsus made a mistake. Fr. Kramer has followed the same mistake that St. Alphonsus made. If you make the same mistake there is no excuse. It is dogma that constitutes the formal object of divine and Catholic faith and it is the denial of dogma that makes one a heretic.
St. Alphonsus, a genius and a Doctor of the Church was not mistaken, you are. The quote in his book was not wrong, I checked that false allegation against St. Alphonsus' book, and like most Feeneyite "scholarship," it is wrong.
Drew wrote:
Fr. Feeney was censored in his defense of the dogma EENS by the 1949 Holy Office Letter. This Letter was held by Archbishop Lefebvre, and now Bishop Fellay, as being an orthodox expression and defense of the Catholic faith. Fr. Joseph Fenton even considers this Letter a "magisterial" docuмent. If is from this Letter that the accusations of heresy against Fr. Feeney are grounded. If you want to accuse the good Fr. Feeney of "heresy" this is the proper place to begin. When you get to root of the problem the corruption is so much more evident. By the way, the New Ecclesiology is grounded upon the doctrine of soteriology taught in the 1949 Holy Office Letter against Fr. Feeney. Not the other way around as you said in an earlier post and this is easy to prove.
No, the Holy Office letter did not accuse Fr. Feeney of heresy, only of a doctrinal error. You need to follow the timeline. At the time of the Holy Office letter, Fr. Feeney and the SBC were only denying the implicit Baptism of Desire, an error against the Faith, but not a heresy.
The new ecclesiology of Vatican II has absolutely nothing to do with the 1949 Holy Office letter.
-
Ambrose,
The new ecclesiology of Vatican II has absolutely nothing to do with the 1949 Holy Office letter.
:facepalm:
-
Ambrose,
The new ecclesiology of Vatican II has absolutely nothing to do with the 1949 Holy Office letter.
:facepalm:
How so? This letter was precisely describing the heresy of the day: invincible ignorance, which leads to indifferentism. This is the root of the entire crisis. This letter teaches that souls who are ignorant of the Catholic Faith can be saved, as well as people who are not members of the Church which is plain heresy. This letter is a heretical denial of the 2000 years old dogma that Outside the Church There is No Salvation, as written. The impression was given to almost the entire Catholic world that the Church had changed this doctrine, when it was not so because let's face it: CATHOLIC DOGMA CANNOT EVER CHANGE.
This letter written by heretical modernists was not even a magisterial docuмent, and it was not even published in the Acts of the Apostolic See. A definitely not infallible docuмent, not binding letter, that the modernists freemasons took advantage of, in order to undermine the exclusivity of the Church, in their diabolical quest for a one world religion.
-
Drew wrote:
Ambrose:
I have only begun to address this subject. If you want to reply, reply with an intelligible argument. All the great doctors of the Church are nothing compared to one infallible dogma revealed by God that form the formal object of divine and Catholic faith 'without which it is impossible to please God.'
True, but we are not talking about an infallible statement, we are talking about your claim of an infallible statement.
The following are dogmas, formal objects of divine and Catholic faith, infallible definitions of divine revelation. This is "(my) claim." It is not yours?
Canon 4. If anyone says that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation but are superfluous, and that without them or without the desire of them men obtain from God through faith alone the grace of justification, though all are not necessary for each one, let him be anathema.
Canon 2. If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism and thus twists into some metaphor the words of our Lord Jesus Christ: "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost," let him be anathema.
Canon 5. If anyone says that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation, let him be anathema.
Drew wrote:
You again cite St. Alphonsus who held that Trent taught "Baptism of Desire" was de fide. His referenced quotation in his book, Moral Theology, is wrong and it is from this erroneous quotation he draws his conclusion. St. Alphonsus made a mistake. Fr. Kramer has followed the same mistake that St. Alphonsus made. If you make the same mistake there is no excuse. It is dogma that constitutes the formal object of divine and Catholic faith and it is the denial of dogma that makes one a heretic.
St. Alphonsus, a genius and a Doctor of the Church was not mistaken, you are. The quote in his book was not wrong, I checked that false allegation against St. Alphonsus' book, and like most Feeneyite "scholarship," it is wrong.
The correct practice is, that when evidence is presented, it must be refuted with evidence. Simply saying, "I checked that false allegation" is not good enough. The evidence again:
St. Alphonsus further states: “It is de fide that men may be also be saved through baptism of desire — from the chapter Apostolicam, de presb. non bapt. and from the Council of Trent, where it is said that no one can be saved ‘without the washing of regeneration or the desire for it’.” (Theologia Moralis, ed. nova. [Rome: Vatican 1909] 3:96-7.)
"And this translation (to a state of justification), 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."
This is the more detailed citation taken from Fr. Cekada. I believe his citation is accurate because I have found the same reference from other sources but I quote it from Fr. Cekada because he is known as a critic of Fr. Feeney. St. Alphonsus has taken part of sentence, that is, an adverbial phrase, from the Decree on Justification and changed its referent from "translation (justification) ... cannot be effected" to "no one can be saved." There is nothing in the Decree for Justification that says that the "Desire of Baptism" effects salvation.
The distinction between justification and salvation is made again in the Decree on the Sacrament of Penance in the form of an analogy where it says that the desire for the sacrament of Penance can lead to salvation like the desire for Baptism can lead to "regeneration."
"And this sacrament of Penance is, for those who have fallen after baptism, necessary unto salvation; as baptism itself is for those who have not as yet been regenerated."
The distinction is further codified as dogma in the canon 4 on the sacraments where it is infallibly defined that the sacrament of Baptism, that is, the form and matter by definition, is necessary for salvation AND the sacrament of Baptism is necessary in re or in votum for justification.
Fr. Kramer makes the exact same error that St.Alphonsus makes. He then applies his new "dogma" that he twists from the Decree on Justification to change the literal meaning of the dogmatic canons which is not simply an intellectual error but a grave sin. I will provide in a subsequent post the exact quotations from Fr. Kramer where he changes the words of a Catholic dogma, the formal object of divine and Catholic faith, for the purpose of changing its literal meaning into a new meaning to justify his doctrine.
Drew wrote:
Fr. Feeney was censored in his defense of the dogma EENS by the 1949 Holy Office Letter. This Letter was held by Archbishop Lefebvre, and now Bishop Fellay, as being an orthodox expression and defense of the Catholic faith. Fr. Joseph Fenton even considers this Letter a "magisterial" docuмent. If is from this Letter that the accusations of heresy against Fr. Feeney are grounded. If you want to accuse the good Fr. Feeney of "heresy" this is the proper place to begin. When you get to root of the problem the corruption is so much more evident. By the way, the New Ecclesiology is grounded upon the doctrine of soteriology taught in the 1949 Holy Office Letter against Fr. Feeney. Not the other way around as you said in an earlier post and this is easy to prove.
No, the Holy Office letter did not accuse Fr. Feeney of heresy, only of a doctrinal error. You need to follow the timeline. At the time of the Holy Office letter, Fr. Feeney and the SBC were only denying the implicit Baptism of Desire, an error against the Faith, but not a heresy.
The new ecclesiology of Vatican II has absolutely nothing to do with the 1949 Holy Office letter.
I did not say that the 1949 Holy Office Letter "accused Fr. Feeney of heresy." That is your accusation. You are the one who has taken that authority upon yourself. I said, "Fr. Feeney was censored in his defense of the dogma EENS by the 1949 Holy Office Letter."
In an early ecuмenical gesture in opposition to Fr. Feeney's defense of EENS, Archbishop Cushing of Boston said in a public statement to the press:
"We cannot any longer afford the luxury of fighting one another over doctrines concerning the next world, though we must not compromise these. We are faced with a situation in which all men of good will must unite their forces to save what is worth saving in this world."
At the time of the 1949 Holy Office Letter, Fr. Feeney had published nothing about the sacrament of Baptism. SBC had published in From the Housetops the article, "Reply to a Liberal," by Raymond Karam, (who later become a Maronite priest), in response to Fr. Philip Donnelly, S.J., the head of theology at the former Weston College (which is now the School of Theology and Ministry at Boston College) entitled, "Some Observations on the Question of Salvation Outside the Church." His article is the first to address the question of baptism.
The 1949 Holy Office Letter says nothing about the sacrament of baptism either in votum or in re other than noting that it is a necessity of precept in the introductory paragraphs. There is nothing in the 1949 Holy Office Letter that, "Fr. Feeney and SBC were only denying the implicit Baptism of Desire." It says nothing of the sort. The grounds for the censor is entirely on the understanding of EENS which Holy Office calls an "axiom."
"After having examined all the docuмents that are necessary or useful in this matter, among them information from your Chancery, as well as appeals and reports in which the associates of 'St. Benedict Center' explain their opinions and complaints, and also many other docuмents pertinent to the controversy, officially collected, the same Sacred Congregation is convinced that the unfortunate controversy arose from the fact that the axiom, 'outside the Church there is no salvation,' was not correctly understood and weighed, and that the same controversy was rendered more bitter by serious disturbance of discipline arising from the fact that some of the associates of the institutions mentioned above refused reverence and obedience to legitimate authorities."
You have said that Fr. Feeney was "accused" of "errors against the faith," that is a charge of material heresy, for "denying the implicit Baptism of Desire." It should be evident now that the 1949 Holy Office Letter says nothing of the sort. Furthermore, in Fr. Joseph Fenton's AER article analyzing the Letter he says nothing whatsoever about "denying the implicit Baptism of Desire."
So, even if you read it, you know little or nothing about the 1949 Holy Office Letter, it should come as no surprise that you cannot see any relationship between the 1949 Holy Office Letter and the New Ecclesiology. You do not know where to look.
You hold that the 1949 Holy Office Letter is an orthodox expression of Catholic faith. And like you, Fr. Fenton considered the 1949 Holy Office Letter a "magisterial" docuмent. I do not expect to convince you of your error because if you do not believe the revealed word of God in Catholic dogma, why would you believe me. It is like discussing a philosophical point with a skeptic who rejects the authority of any evidence. But what can be demonstrated is the absolute theological bankruptcy and hypocrisy of what you and Fr. Kramer are doing.
This is in a fact a grave tragedy for Fr. Kramer because he has contributed much to the defense of the faith and purity of worship in the past. But no more. His own words, published in The Devil's Final Battle on the nature of dogma, condemns what he is now doing.
Drew
-
Ambrose,
The new ecclesiology of Vatican II has absolutely nothing to do with the 1949 Holy Office letter.
:facepalm:
This.
-
St. Alphonsus, a genius and a Doctor of the Church was not mistaken, you are. The quote in his book was not wrong, I checked that false allegation against St. Alphonsus' book, and like most Feeneyite "scholarship," it is wrong.
The correct practice is, that when evidence is presented, it must be refuted with evidence. Simply saying, "I checked that false allegation" is not good enough.
Drew, welcome!
You're correct of course, but that presumes you're dealing with other honest participants.
You will figure it out pretty quick that those who promote salvation via NSAA will ignore such practices and just keep obsessing that there is salvation outside the Church, claiming that teaching is de fide - while insisting they are doing no such thing.
-
St. Alphonsus, a genius
Typical dishonest BoDer bloviation. You try to puff up the authority of St. Alphonsus because he agrees with (part of) your position. You neglected all the evidence CONTRARY to your position. I have examined both sides, objectively, and I find the anti-BoD side much more convincing when you look at EVERYTHING. You guys single out one or two things and then claim it's definitive. You need to look at ALL the data points. You cite one or two Church Fathers who AGREE with your position but then ABSOLUTELY IGNORE the ones who don't ... as if they don't exist and as if their opinions count for nothing. At the end of the day, Ambrose, you're not honest and cling pertinaciously to your beliefs because you refuse to believe in EENS.
I have never seen ANY BoDer examine the evidence AGAINST their position, and to honestly lay out the "objections" and treat them (as in the manner of St. Thomas and the scholastics). Yet I always see the anti-BoDers look at ALL the evidence and to examine the contrary opinions.
Not a single BoDer has EVER cited a Church Father who happens to disagree with their position, not once, not ever. Oh, wait a minute, I take that back; Karl Rahner did. BoDers quote selectively from only those Church Fathers who agree with them, and ignore the rest, and by ignoring the rest claim that there's unanimous consensus among the Fathers (yeah, only among the ones that they CHOSE to cite so as to mislead the reader about this fictitious "unanimity").
-
Drew wrote:
Ambrose:
I have only begun to address this subject. If you want to reply, reply with an intelligible argument. All the great doctors of the Church are nothing compared to one infallible dogma revealed by God that form the formal object of divine and Catholic faith 'without which it is impossible to please God.'
True, but we are not talking about an infallible statement, we are talking about your claim of an infallible statement.
The following are dogmas, formal objects of divine and Catholic faith, infallible definitions of divine revelation. This is "(my) claim." It is not yours?
Canon 4. If anyone says that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation but are superfluous, and that without them or without the desire of them men obtain from God through faith alone the grace of justification, though all are not necessary for each one, let him be anathema.
Canon 2. If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism and thus twists into some metaphor the words of our Lord Jesus Christ: "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost," let him be anathema.
Canon 5. If anyone says that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation, let him be anathema.
Drew wrote:
You again cite St. Alphonsus who held that Trent taught "Baptism of Desire" was de fide. His referenced quotation in his book, Moral Theology, is wrong and it is from this erroneous quotation he draws his conclusion. St. Alphonsus made a mistake. Fr. Kramer has followed the same mistake that St. Alphonsus made. If you make the same mistake there is no excuse. It is dogma that constitutes the formal object of divine and Catholic faith and it is the denial of dogma that makes one a heretic.
St. Alphonsus, a genius and a Doctor of the Church was not mistaken, you are. The quote in his book was not wrong, I checked that false allegation against St. Alphonsus' book, and like most Feeneyite "scholarship," it is wrong.
The correct practice is, that when evidence is presented, it must be refuted with evidence. Simply saying, "I checked that false allegation" is not good enough. The evidence again:
St. Alphonsus further states: “It is de fide that men may be also be saved through baptism of desire — from the chapter Apostolicam, de presb. non bapt. and from the Council of Trent, where it is said that no one can be saved ‘without the washing of regeneration or the desire for it’.” (Theologia Moralis, ed. nova. [Rome: Vatican 1909] 3:96-7.)
"And this translation (to a state of justification), 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."
This is the more detailed citation taken from Fr. Cekada. I believe his citation is accurate because I have found the same reference from other sources but I quote it from Fr. Cekada because he is known as a critic of Fr. Feeney. St. Alphonsus has taken part of sentence, that is, an adverbial phrase, from the Decree on Justification and changed its referent from "translation (justification) ... cannot be effected" to "no one can be saved." There is nothing in the Decree for Justification that says that the "Desire of Baptism" effects salvation.
The distinction between justification and salvation is made again in the Decree on the Sacrament of Penance in the form of an analogy where it says that the desire for the sacrament of Penance can lead to salvation like the desire for Baptism can lead to "regeneration."
"And this sacrament of Penance is, for those who have fallen after baptism, necessary unto salvation; as baptism itself is for those who have not as yet been regenerated."
The distinction is further codified as dogma in the canon 4 on the sacraments where it is infallibly defined that the sacrament of Baptism, that is, the form and matter by definition, is necessary for salvation AND the sacrament of Baptism is necessary in re or in votum for justification.
Fr. Kramer makes the exact same error that St.Alphonsus makes. He then applies his new "dogma" that he twists from the Decree on Justification to change the literal meaning of the dogmatic canons which is not simply an intellectual error but a grave sin. I will provide in a subsequent post the exact quotations from Fr. Kramer where he changes the words of a Catholic dogma, the formal object of divine and Catholic faith, for the purpose of changing its literal meaning into a new meaning to justify his doctrine.
Drew wrote:
Fr. Feeney was censored in his defense of the dogma EENS by the 1949 Holy Office Letter. This Letter was held by Archbishop Lefebvre, and now Bishop Fellay, as being an orthodox expression and defense of the Catholic faith. Fr. Joseph Fenton even considers this Letter a "magisterial" docuмent. If is from this Letter that the accusations of heresy against Fr. Feeney are grounded. If you want to accuse the good Fr. Feeney of "heresy" this is the proper place to begin. When you get to root of the problem the corruption is so much more evident. By the way, the New Ecclesiology is grounded upon the doctrine of soteriology taught in the 1949 Holy Office Letter against Fr. Feeney. Not the other way around as you said in an earlier post and this is easy to prove.
No, the Holy Office letter did not accuse Fr. Feeney of heresy, only of a doctrinal error. You need to follow the timeline. At the time of the Holy Office letter, Fr. Feeney and the SBC were only denying the implicit Baptism of Desire, an error against the Faith, but not a heresy.
The new ecclesiology of Vatican II has absolutely nothing to do with the 1949 Holy Office letter.
I did not say that the 1949 Holy Office Letter "accused Fr. Feeney of heresy." That is your accusation. You are the one who has taken that authority upon yourself. I said, "Fr. Feeney was censored in his defense of the dogma EENS by the 1949 Holy Office Letter."
In an early ecuмenical gesture in opposition to Fr. Feeney's defense of EENS, Archbishop Cushing of Boston said in a public statement to the press:
"We cannot any longer afford the luxury of fighting one another over doctrines concerning the next world, though we must not compromise these. We are faced with a situation in which all men of good will must unite their forces to save what is worth saving in this world."
At the time of the 1949 Holy Office Letter, Fr. Feeney had published nothing about the sacrament of Baptism. SBC had published in From the Housetops the article, "Reply to a Liberal," by Raymond Karam, (who later become a Maronite priest), in response to Fr. Philip Donnelly, S.J., the head of theology at the former Weston College (which is now the School of Theology and Ministry at Boston College) entitled, "Some Observations on the Question of Salvation Outside the Church." His article is the first to address the question of baptism.
The 1949 Holy Office Letter says nothing about the sacrament of baptism either in votum or in re other than noting that it is a necessity of precept in the introductory paragraphs. There is nothing in the 1949 Holy Office Letter that, "Fr. Feeney and SBC were only denying the implicit Baptism of Desire." It says nothing of the sort. The grounds for the censor is entirely on the understanding of EENS which Holy Office calls an "axiom."
"After having examined all the docuмents that are necessary or useful in this matter, among them information from your Chancery, as well as appeals and reports in which the associates of 'St. Benedict Center' explain their opinions and complaints, and also many other docuмents pertinent to the controversy, officially collected, the same Sacred Congregation is convinced that the unfortunate controversy arose from the fact that the axiom, 'outside the Church there is no salvation,' was not correctly understood and weighed, and that the same controversy was rendered more bitter by serious disturbance of discipline arising from the fact that some of the associates of the institutions mentioned above refused reverence and obedience to legitimate authorities."
You have said that Fr. Feeney was "accused" of "errors against the faith," that is a charge of material heresy, for "denying the implicit Baptism of Desire." It should be evident now that the 1949 Holy Office Letter says nothing of the sort. Furthermore, in Fr. Joseph Fenton's AER article analyzing the Letter he says nothing whatsoever about "denying the implicit Baptism of Desire."
So, even if you read it, you know little or nothing about the 1949 Holy Office Letter, it should come as no surprise that you cannot see any relationship between the 1949 Holy Office Letter and the New Ecclesiology. You do not know where to look.
You hold that the 1949 Holy Office Letter is an orthodox expression of Catholic faith. And like you, Fr. Fenton considered the 1949 Holy Office Letter a "magisterial" docuмent. I do not expect to convince you of your error because if you do not believe the revealed word of God in Catholic dogma, why would you believe me. It is like discussing a philosophical point with a skeptic who rejects the authority of any evidence. But what can be demonstrated is the absolute theological bankruptcy and hypocrisy of what you and Fr. Kramer are doing.
This is in a fact a grave tragedy for Fr. Kramer because he has contributed much to the defense of the faith and purity of worship in the past. But no more. His own words, published in The Devil's Final Battle on the nature of dogma, condemns what he is now doing.
Drew
The Canons you cite from Trent have nothing to do with Baptism of Desire and do not help your case.
Regarding the Holy Office letter, it is you that misunderstood it, the Holy Office explained clearly the necessity of believing in implicit desire, which was followed by:
From what has been said it is evident that those things which are proposed in the periodical <From the Housetops>, fascicle 3, as the genuine teaching of the Catholic Church are far from being such and are very harmful both to those within the Church and those without.
-
Drew wrote:
Ambrose:
I have only begun to address this subject. If you want to reply, reply with an intelligible argument. All the great doctors of the Church are nothing compared to one infallible dogma revealed by God that form the formal object of divine and Catholic faith 'without which it is impossible to please God.'
True, but we are not talking about an infallible statement, we are talking about your claim of an infallible statement.
The following are dogmas, formal objects of divine and Catholic faith, infallible definitions of divine revelation. This is "(my) claim." It is not yours?
Canon 4. If anyone says that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation but are superfluous, and that without them or without the desire of them men obtain from God through faith alone the grace of justification, though all are not necessary for each one, let him be anathema.
Canon 2. If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism and thus twists into some metaphor the words of our Lord Jesus Christ: "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost," let him be anathema.
Canon 5. If anyone says that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation, let him be anathema.
Drew wrote:
You again cite St. Alphonsus who held that Trent taught "Baptism of Desire" was de fide. His referenced quotation in his book, Moral Theology, is wrong and it is from this erroneous quotation he draws his conclusion. St. Alphonsus made a mistake. Fr. Kramer has followed the same mistake that St. Alphonsus made. If you make the same mistake there is no excuse. It is dogma that constitutes the formal object of divine and Catholic faith and it is the denial of dogma that makes one a heretic.
St. Alphonsus, a genius and a Doctor of the Church was not mistaken, you are. The quote in his book was not wrong, I checked that false allegation against St. Alphonsus' book, and like most Feeneyite "scholarship," it is wrong.
The correct practice is, that when evidence is presented, it must be refuted with evidence. Simply saying, "I checked that false allegation" is not good enough. The evidence again:
St. Alphonsus further states: “It is de fide that men may be also be saved through baptism of desire — from the chapter Apostolicam, de presb. non bapt. and from the Council of Trent, where it is said that no one can be saved ‘without the washing of regeneration or the desire for it’.” (Theologia Moralis, ed. nova. [Rome: Vatican 1909] 3:96-7.)
"And this translation (to a state of justification), 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."
This is the more detailed citation taken from Fr. Cekada. I believe his citation is accurate because I have found the same reference from other sources but I quote it from Fr. Cekada because he is known as a critic of Fr. Feeney. St. Alphonsus has taken part of sentence, that is, an adverbial phrase, from the Decree on Justification and changed its referent from "translation (justification) ... cannot be effected" to "no one can be saved." There is nothing in the Decree for Justification that says that the "Desire of Baptism" effects salvation.
The distinction between justification and salvation is made again in the Decree on the Sacrament of Penance in the form of an analogy where it says that the desire for the sacrament of Penance can lead to salvation like the desire for Baptism can lead to "regeneration."
"And this sacrament of Penance is, for those who have fallen after baptism, necessary unto salvation; as baptism itself is for those who have not as yet been regenerated."
The distinction is further codified as dogma in the canon 4 on the sacraments where it is infallibly defined that the sacrament of Baptism, that is, the form and matter by definition, is necessary for salvation AND the sacrament of Baptism is necessary in re or in votum for justification.
Fr. Kramer makes the exact same error that St.Alphonsus makes. He then applies his new "dogma" that he twists from the Decree on Justification to change the literal meaning of the dogmatic canons which is not simply an intellectual error but a grave sin. I will provide in a subsequent post the exact quotations from Fr. Kramer where he changes the words of a Catholic dogma, the formal object of divine and Catholic faith, for the purpose of changing its literal meaning into a new meaning to justify his doctrine.
Drew wrote:
Fr. Feeney was censored in his defense of the dogma EENS by the 1949 Holy Office Letter. This Letter was held by Archbishop Lefebvre, and now Bishop Fellay, as being an orthodox expression and defense of the Catholic faith. Fr. Joseph Fenton even considers this Letter a "magisterial" docuмent. If is from this Letter that the accusations of heresy against Fr. Feeney are grounded. If you want to accuse the good Fr. Feeney of "heresy" this is the proper place to begin. When you get to root of the problem the corruption is so much more evident. By the way, the New Ecclesiology is grounded upon the doctrine of soteriology taught in the 1949 Holy Office Letter against Fr. Feeney. Not the other way around as you said in an earlier post and this is easy to prove.
No, the Holy Office letter did not accuse Fr. Feeney of heresy, only of a doctrinal error. You need to follow the timeline. At the time of the Holy Office letter, Fr. Feeney and the SBC were only denying the implicit Baptism of Desire, an error against the Faith, but not a heresy.
The new ecclesiology of Vatican II has absolutely nothing to do with the 1949 Holy Office letter.
I did not say that the 1949 Holy Office Letter "accused Fr. Feeney of heresy." That is your accusation. You are the one who has taken that authority upon yourself. I said, "Fr. Feeney was censored in his defense of the dogma EENS by the 1949 Holy Office Letter."
In an early ecuмenical gesture in opposition to Fr. Feeney's defense of EENS, Archbishop Cushing of Boston said in a public statement to the press:
"We cannot any longer afford the luxury of fighting one another over doctrines concerning the next world, though we must not compromise these. We are faced with a situation in which all men of good will must unite their forces to save what is worth saving in this world."
At the time of the 1949 Holy Office Letter, Fr. Feeney had published nothing about the sacrament of Baptism. SBC had published in From the Housetops the article, "Reply to a Liberal," by Raymond Karam, (who later become a Maronite priest), in response to Fr. Philip Donnelly, S.J., the head of theology at the former Weston College (which is now the School of Theology and Ministry at Boston College) entitled, "Some Observations on the Question of Salvation Outside the Church." His article is the first to address the question of baptism.
The 1949 Holy Office Letter says nothing about the sacrament of baptism either in votum or in re other than noting that it is a necessity of precept in the introductory paragraphs. There is nothing in the 1949 Holy Office Letter that, "Fr. Feeney and SBC were only denying the implicit Baptism of Desire." It says nothing of the sort. The grounds for the censor is entirely on the understanding of EENS which Holy Office calls an "axiom."
"After having examined all the docuмents that are necessary or useful in this matter, among them information from your Chancery, as well as appeals and reports in which the associates of 'St. Benedict Center' explain their opinions and complaints, and also many other docuмents pertinent to the controversy, officially collected, the same Sacred Congregation is convinced that the unfortunate controversy arose from the fact that the axiom, 'outside the Church there is no salvation,' was not correctly understood and weighed, and that the same controversy was rendered more bitter by serious disturbance of discipline arising from the fact that some of the associates of the institutions mentioned above refused reverence and obedience to legitimate authorities."
You have said that Fr. Feeney was "accused" of "errors against the faith," that is a charge of material heresy, for "denying the implicit Baptism of Desire." It should be evident now that the 1949 Holy Office Letter says nothing of the sort. Furthermore, in Fr. Joseph Fenton's AER article analyzing the Letter he says nothing whatsoever about "denying the implicit Baptism of Desire."
So, even if you read it, you know little or nothing about the 1949 Holy Office Letter, it should come as no surprise that you cannot see any relationship between the 1949 Holy Office Letter and the New Ecclesiology. You do not know where to look.
You hold that the 1949 Holy Office Letter is an orthodox expression of Catholic faith. And like you, Fr. Fenton considered the 1949 Holy Office Letter a "magisterial" docuмent. I do not expect to convince you of your error because if you do not believe the revealed word of God in Catholic dogma, why would you believe me. It is like discussing a philosophical point with a skeptic who rejects the authority of any evidence. But what can be demonstrated is the absolute theological bankruptcy and hypocrisy of what you and Fr. Kramer are doing.
This is in a fact a grave tragedy for Fr. Kramer because he has contributed much to the defense of the faith and purity of worship in the past. But no more. His own words, published in The Devil's Final Battle on the nature of dogma, condemns what he is now doing.
Drew
The Canons you cite from Trent have nothing to do with Baptism of Desire and do not help your case.
Regarding the Holy Office letter, it is you that misunderstood it, the Holy Office explained clearly the necessity of believing in implicit desire, which was followed by:
From what has been said it is evident that those things which are proposed in the periodical <From the Housetops>, fascicle 3, as the genuine teaching of the Catholic Church are far from being such and are very harmful both to those within the Church and those without.
Exactly.
Drew
-
Regarding the Holy Office letter, it is you that misunderstood it, the Holy Office explained clearly the necessity of believing in implicit desire
As I've explained to you before, Ambrose, then you are a schismatic and outside the Church because you reject Vatican II as heretical and the V2 Popes as heretics for believing the exact same things that you believe.
-
Yes, and if such a one is predestined unto salvation, as one of Christ's elect, he will receive it.
"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.
-
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.
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.
-
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.
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.
Indeed, all of BoD is predicated upon the heretical notion that God is constrained by "impossibility". That's exactly what St. Augustine figured out in the end when he denounced this thinking as non-Catholic and as leading to the "vortex of confusion".
-
Regarding the Holy Office letter, it is you that misunderstood it, the Holy Office explained clearly the necessity of believing in implicit desire
As I've explained to you before, Ambrose, then you are a schismatic and outside the Church because you reject Vatican II as heretical and the V2 Popes as heretics for believing the exact same things that you believe.
And I have explained to you before as well that your analysis is wrong on Vatican II and the. Holy Office Letter.
-
The Church has judged St. Alphonsus, Robert Bellarmine, St. Pius V, St. Pius X, Bl. Pius IX, Ven. Pius XII, St. Charles Borromeo, et al., to be orthodox and free from error in their teaching. David Drew judges them to be heretics, because they taught BOD after Trent allegedly condemned it. Drew is a lunatic.
-
The doctrines set forth by the universal and ordinary magisterium are definitions of faith: "Further, by divine and Catholic faith all those things must be believed which are contained in the written word of God and in tradition, and those which are proposed by the Church, either in a solemn pronouncement or in her ordinary and universal teaching power, to be believed as divinely revealed." ( Dei Filius, D.S. 3011) Both BOB and BOD have been taught by the universal and ordinary magisterium , since the immediate post-Tridentine epoch. The post Tridentine popes have constantly and unanimously taught BOB/BOD through the organs of the ordinary magisterium.
BOD is not a new doctrine that has been introduced into the teaching of the Church. It is clearly contained in Scripture (Acts 10:46-7). It was not explicitly taught in the early Church but it is implicitly contained in the doctrine of BOB; since in principle and in essence it is the same as BOB, which was taught and professed ubique et ab omnibus in the early Church. Therefore, BOD is not a new doctrine in the theological sense: "Nothing new is ever added to the number of those truths which are at least implicitly contained within the deposit of revelation divinely committed to the Church." (Pius XI Mortalium Animos). Thus, the fact that BOD has only been explicitly taught by the universal magisterium after Trent is theologically of no consequence, and has no bearing on its status as a definition of the ordinary magisterium which must be believed with divine and Catholic faith.
-
The heresy of Feeney is patent in his denial of Baptism of Blood, which was unanimously taught by the Fathers and universally professed by the Church since the earliest centuries. The Church has always professed both BOB and EENS , without ever seeing any contradiction between these equally ancient doctrines, both professed by the universal Church.
-
The doctrines set forth by the universal and ordinary magisterium are definitions of faith:
You misrepresent what belongs to said universal magisterium.
Secondly, then you are heretical / schismatic for rejecting Vatican II.
-
The heresy of Feeney is patent in his denial of Baptism of Blood, which was unanimously taught by the Fathers and universally professed by the Church since the earliest centuries. The Church has always professed both BOB and EENS , without ever seeing any contradiction between these equally ancient doctrines, both professed by the universal Church.
You again dishonestly distort the truth. There is no unanimous consensus of the Fathers of BoB. You have no idea what "unanimous consensus" means.
-
It is patent that in spite of his protestations of Catholicity, Mr. Drew is no Catholic, but a heretic -- his distorted inversion of the dogmas of Trent construes not only Fr. Kramer, but all the post-Tridentine popes and Doctors to be heretics. Drew says Trent condemned BOD, and that the post Tridentine Doctors and popes are in heresy! Drew draws an illegitimate parallel with St. Thomas Aquinas, to whom he falsely attributes erroneous teaching against the faith on the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. It was not a dogma in the Thirteenth Century, but an OPEN QUESTION. It was not considered an error against faith until after someone would have taught against the doctrine after it had been set forth by the authority of the magisterium. According to Drew's inverted understanding of dogma, Trent condemned BOB/BOD. If that were true, then ALL the post-Tridentine popes and Doctors who taught BOB/BOD would be HERETICS! What a lunatic!
God did not entrust the divine revelation to David Drew to interpret; but to the authority of the ecclesiastical magisterium, "to be faithfully guarded and infallibly interpreted." (Dei Filius)The post-Tridentine magisterium has universally and constantly taught BOD in the post-Tridentine Church as a point of Catholic doctrine, starting with the Roman Catechism, up until the Twentieth Century in the catechisms of St. Pius X, Cardinal Gasparri, and all the catechisms of the particular churches of the world. The magisterium has officially judged in favour of BOD --Feeney, and his followers have privately judged against BOD, and on their private authority they judge against the divinely instituted authority of the Church.
In his latest screed, attempting to critique Fr. Kramer's explanation on the development of dogma; Drew has again resorted to his preferred device: misrepresrntation by inversion. He maliciously construes Fr. Kramer's exposition to be an expression of condemned Modernist doctrines -- but in reality, Fr. Kramer was simply explicating the doctrine of the Dogmatic Constitution, Dei Filius, according to the erudutite elabouration of that doctrine by the eminent Dominican theologian, Francisco Marin-Sola OP. It was Dei Filius that declared, "[L]et the understanding, the knowledge and wisdom of individuals as of all, of one man as of the whole Church, grow and progress strongly with the passage of the ages and the centuries; but let it be solely in its own genus, namely in the same dogma, with the same sense and the same understanding. (St. Vincent of Lèrins)" (D.S. 3020) David Drew would have you believe that such development of dogma as dogmatically set forth by Vatican I is Modernism! David Drew is a heretic who cares nothing whatever about the purity of Catholic dogma. Rather he demonstrates himself to be nothing but a sociopathic narcissist who tramples on dogmas, and on the reputations of the most eminent pontiffs and theologians who elaorated the teaching of the Church.
-
There is nothing from the Magisterium concerning Baptism of Blood. As for the Fathers of the Church, many of them use the expression “Baptism of Blood,” simply as a synonym for martyrdom (not as a BOB / substitute for Baptism), the martyrdom of someone who had already been baptized with water.
St. Augustine at one time used the Good Thief as an example of BOB, but then later on, retracted this belief because it was uncertain whether he had been baptized. Truth is that the Good Thief and the Hly Innocents cannt be a case for BOD simply because they died under the Old Law of Salvation, before Baptism became obligatory at Pentecost.
-
January 23: At Rome, St. Emerentiana, Virgin and Martyr, who was stoned by the heathen while still a catechumen, when she was praying at the tomb of St. Agnes, whose foster-sister she was.
April 12: At Braga, in Portugal, St. Victor, Martyr, who, while still yet a catechumen, refused to worship an idol, and confessed Christ Jesus with great constancy, and so after many torments, he merited to be baptized in his own blood, his head being cut off.
-
January 23: At Rome, St. Emerentiana, Virgin and Martyr, who was stoned by the heathen while still a catechumen, when she was praying at the tomb of St. Agnes, whose foster-sister she was.
April 12: At Braga, in Portugal, St. Victor, Martyr, who, while still yet a catechumen, refused to worship an idol, and confessed Christ Jesus with great constancy, and so after many torments, he merited to be baptized in his own blood, his head being cut off.
CANON V.-If any one saith, that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema.
Since there is no hope of converting NSAAers to the truth, I will let you be anathema, just as Trent teaches. You choose to be anathema so too bad for you.
Whatever posting I do from here on out abouot the necessity of the sacraments - whether directed at you NSAAers or not - will be in order to help the other Catholic posters and for those who happen across these threads that you sacrament despisers create for the purpose of rejecting the necessity of the sacraments, that they may find that which they seek - the truth.
-
All of the ancient Fathers who teach on Baptism of Blood affirm it. None oppose it. That is what is understood by the Church to constitute unanimity. Since the Council of Trent declared that the unanimous interpretation of the Fathers on a point is without doubt a sure indication that a doctrine is de fide; it is more than adequately evident that BOB was already a de fide doctrine of the magisterium in the Patristic period (as St. Cyprian attests). You can gratuitously assert all you like to the contrary, but the teaching of the Fathers in favour of BOB is indisputable.
-
It is patent that in spite of his protestations of Catholicity, Mr. Drew is no Catholic, but a heretic -- his distorted inversion of the dogmas of Trent construes not only Fr. Kramer, but all the post-Tridentine popes and Doctors to be heretics. Drew says Trent condemned BOD, and that the post Tridentine Doctors and popes are in heresy! Drew draws an illegitimate parallel with St. Thomas Aquinas, to whom he falsely attributes erroneous teaching against the faith on the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. It was not a dogma in the Thirteenth Century, but an OPEN QUESTION. It was not considered an error against faith until after someone would have taught against the doctrine after it had been set forth by the authority of the magisterium. According to Drew's inverted understanding of dogma, Trent condemned BOB/BOD. If that were true, then ALL the post-Tridentine popes and Doctors who taught BOB/BOD would be HERETICS! What a lunatic!
God did not entrust the divine revelation to David Drew to interpret; but to the authority of the ecclesiastical magisterium, "to be faithfully guarded and infallibly interpreted." (Dei Filius)The post-Tridentine magisterium has universally and constantly taught BOD in the post-Tridentine Church as a point of Catholic doctrine, starting with the Roman Catechism, up until the Twentieth Century in the catechisms of St. Pius X, Cardinal Gasparri, and all the catechisms of the particular churches of the world. The magisterium has officially judged in favour of BOD --Feeney, and his followers have privately judged against BOD, and on their private authority they judge against the divinely instituted authority of the Church.
In his latest screed, attempting to critique Fr. Kramer's explanation on the development of dogma; Drew has again resorted to his preferred device: misrepresrntation by inversion. He maliciously construes Fr. Kramer's exposition to be an expression of condemned Modernist doctrines -- but in reality, Fr. Kramer was simply explicating the doctrine of the Dogmatic Constitution, Dei Filius, according to the erudutite elabouration of that doctrine by the eminent Dominican theologian, Francisco Marin-Sola OP. It was Dei Filius that declared, "[L]et the understanding, the knowledge and wisdom of individuals as of all, of one man as of the whole Church, grow and progress strongly with the passage of the ages and the centuries; but let it be solely in its own genus, namely in the same dogma, with the same sense and the same understanding. (St. Vincent of Lèrins)" (D.S. 3020) David Drew would have you believe that such development of dogma as dogmatically set forth by Vatican I is Modernism! David Drew is a heretic who cares nothing whatever about the purity of Catholic dogma. Rather he demonstrates himself to be nothing but a sociopathic narcissist who tramples on dogmas, and on the reputations of the most eminent pontiffs and theologians who elaorated the teaching of the Church.
-
The necessity of the grace of the sacraments, i.e., of Justification, is absolutely necessary for salvation. The Council of Trent decrees and canons define that the justification brought about by the sacraments can obtained not only by the reception of the sacraments, but also by the resolve to receive them. Thus, the necessity for justification brought about by the sacraments is absolute; while the necessity to receive those sacraments is a necessity of precept (as the Roman Catechism explains); and is conditional, depending on the the possibility or impossibility to receive them. St. Pius V teaches in his Roman Catechism that the resolve to receive baptism combined with repentance suffices for salvation if the reception of the sacrament is rendered impossible by some unforseen event. The voluntary omission of the sacrament is not an option. One who has been justified by charity and repentance before baptism is bound by divine precept to receive the sacrament sub gravi, and therefore must have the resolve to receive it. Without that resolve to receive the sacrament there is neither justification nor salvation. The constant post-Tridentine magisterium is unanimous on this point that there must be the firm resolve, at least implicit (as in the case of the Gentile converts in Acts. 10:46-48), for one to be sanctified by Baptism of Desire. This is how the magisterium of the Church has constantly understood and interpreted the decrees and canons of Trent. The Feeneyite interpretation of them is manifestly heretical.
-
Only an ignorant theological incompetent could possibly think one heretical and schismatic for not accepting the doctrinal novelties of Vatican II: 1) In the final official act of the Council Paul VI declared that no point of doctrine had been defined by the Council ("Ecclesiam per suum magisterium ...nullum doctrinae caput sententiis dogmaticis extraordinariis definire voluerit"); and 2) The appendix of Lumen Gentium ruled that no doctrine is to be considered binding in conscience unless it will have been expressly stated to be.
-
edited / double post
-
January 23: At Rome, St. Emerentiana, Virgin and Martyr, who was stoned by the heathen while still a catechumen, when she was praying at the tomb of St. Agnes, whose foster-sister she was.
April 12: At Braga, in Portugal, St. Victor, Martyr, who, while still yet a catechumen, refused to worship an idol, and confessed Christ Jesus with great constancy, and so after many torments, he merited to be baptized in his own blood, his head being cut off.
There is not really way to know if these people were baptized or not. They might still have been called technically a “catechumen”, because their instruction in the faith was not yet completed, but catechumens were immediately baptized when in danger of death during a persecution.
Compared this to the infallible dogmatic statement:
“The Holy Roman Church believes, professes, and preaches that no one remaining outside the Catholic Church, not just pagans, but also Jews or heretics or schismatics, can become partakers of eternal life; but they will go to the ‘everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels’ (Matt.25:41), unless before the end of life they are joined to the Church. For union with the body of Christ is of such importance that the sacraments of the Church are helpful to salvation only for those remaining in it; and fasts, almsgiving, other works of piety, and the exercise of Christian warfare bear eternal rewards for them alone. And no one can be saved, no matter how much alms he has given, even if he sheds his blood for the name of Christ, unless he remains in the bosom and unity of the Church”
Although there is no a direct condemnation of Baptism of Blood, we certainly do find that even martyrdom for Christ cannot save outside the Church.
-
Correct, Cantarella. There are actually some canons out there from the times of persecution commanding that catechumens be baptized prior to the completion of their formation but then continue on in the state of catechumen and not be admitted to the Mass of the Faithful and to the other Sacraments until their formation be completed.
-
As per usual of course, the Faith of Desire heretics hide behind "Baptism of Desire" in their pertinacious refusal to accept the dogma EENS. We let them off the hook by allowing them to obfuscate their true heresy with quotes from some Doctors of the Church regarding classical Baptism of Desire, but no Father, Pope, or Doctor has ever taught their heretical Faith of Desire, the very heresy which led to all the Vatican II errors. And, despite the fact that they hold the same core positions as taught by Vatican II, they reject Vatican II, thereby rendering them formally schismatic.
-
"Church Teaching, specifically on Baptism of Blood:
St. Cyprian (Ep. Ixxiii) speaks of "the most glorious and greatest baptism of blood" (sanguinis baptismus). St. Augustine (De Civ. Dei, XIII, vii) says: "When any die for the confession of Christ without having received the washing of regeneration, it avails as much for the remission of their sins as if they had been washed in the sacred font of baptism." 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia, Baptism, Baptism of Blood"Another evidence of the mind of the Church as to the efficacy of the baptism of blood is found in the fact that she never prays for martyrs. Her opinion is well voiced by St. Augustine (Tr. lxxiv in Joan.): "He does an injury to a martyr who prays for him." This shows that martyrdom is believed to remit all sin and all punishment due to sin. Later theologians commonly maintain that the baptism of blood justifies adult martyrs independently of an act of charity or perfect contrition, and, as it were, ex opere operato, though, of course, they must have attrition for past sins"1917 Catholic Encyclopedia, Baptism, Baptism of BloodQ. 651. What is Baptism of blood?
A. Baptism of blood is the shedding of one's blood for the faith of Christ.
Q. 653. Is Baptism of desire or of blood sufficient to produce the effects of Baptism of water?
A. Baptism of desire or of blood is sufficient to produce the effects of the Baptism of water, if it is impossible to receive the Baptism of water.Baltimore CatechismOther Saints in history of the Church who have openly written about Baptism of Blood: Cyprian Epistle LXXII (third century), Church Father Cyprian (Treatise I and Epistle I to Donatus) (third century), Church Father Tertullian (Enchiridion Patristicuм under "de baptisme" (third century), St Cyril writes of Baptism of Blood (fourth century), St. Gregory nαzιanzen writes of Baptism of Blood (fourth century), St. John Chrystostome writes of Baptism of Blood (fourth century), St. Catherine of Sienna openly writes about Baptism of Blood (fourteenth century)"
There is not a single Father against BOB: That constitutes UNANIMITY. Since the Council of Trent defined that there can be no justification without at least the resolve to receive the sacrament, that necessity would apply equally to BOB as it would to BOD. Thus, they do not differ in essence at least in this respect.
-
There is not a single Father against BOB: That constitutes UNANIMITY.
You may put down your Webster's English dictionary now.
Unanimity of the Church Fathers, THEOLOGICALLY speaking, refers to a widespread consensus such that, due to the same opinion being taught by many Fathers scattered around the world it attests to a common (Apostolic) origin. It is NOT the same thing as being "unopposed". Nor, conversely, does this unanimity preclude a certain amount of opposition. Out of many hundreds of Church Fathers, you have about 6-7 who teach BoB, and much of that can be traced back to St. Cyprian. That's not enough to attest to the Apostolic origins of the opinion and consequently to establish that it's part of the Deposit of Revelation.
-
The dogmatic pronouncements quoted by Ladislaus and Cantarella neither state nor imply anything against BOD or BOB. The one affirms EENS without stating or implying that those who die justified by the resolve for baptism are outside the Church; and the other defines that the sacrament of baptism requires true and natural water -- without denying what the Council of Trent dogmatically affirmed, namely, that justification can be obtained by baptism or by the resolve to receive it. If indeed Florence and Trent had defined against BOB/BOD, then Pope St. Pius V, and all the popes after him for the succeeding four and 1/2 centuries, (all of whom either taught BOB/BOD, or authorized it to be taught), would have been heretics. The Dogmatic Constitution "Dei Filius" declares that the interpretation of the deposit of faith pertains to the teaching authority of the Church which affirms BOB/BOD; and not to individuals such as Feeney and his ilk, who dissent from the magisterial interpretation of the sacred deposit and prefer to interpret the sacred deposit according to the Protestant principle of Private Judgment.
-
I have never once said that the acceptance of BoD (properly understood and as taught by the Doctors St. Thomas, St. Alphonsus, St. Robert Bellarmine) is heretical, since it has never been explicitly condemned as heresy. What I call heretical is Faith of Desire. Nevertheless, there are very strong arguments to be made against BoD by way of syllogism from the dogmatic pronoucements, and the arguments against BoD far outweigh those for them. In fact, I have never once seen a theological argument FOR BoD, just gratuitous assertion and repetition and a circular reliance upon authority. St. Bernard relied on the authority of St. Augustine, and St. Thomas followed St. Bernard and St. Augustine, and everybody else followed St. Thomas. But if you look back at the root cause (even the text from Innocent III states that he's relying upon the authority of St. Augustine, as St. Bernard also explicitly states), the root cause is in St. Augustine. But if you EXAMINE the root cause, St. Augustine was clearly floating a speculative opinion, "Having considered it over and over again, I find that ..." (not an authoritative opinion by any means) ... not to mention that St. Augustine later retracted his opinion on BoD as he matured in the faith and as he battled with the Donatist heretics, and he issued some of the strongest ANTI-BOD statements in existence. So BoD collapses like house of cards historically once you pull the St. Augustine rug out of under everyone.
There are two very strong syollgisms from defined dogmas that leave me no other choice than to reject BoD. I also reject any BoD which does not also provide the Christian "character" (as most BoD theorists allege) because this character is what's required for entry into the beatific vision. I also reject any BoD which does not completely remit all temporal punishment due to sin.
-
Baptism of Blood and desire fulfill the conditions of a definition of the universal and ordinary magisterium:
1) The preaching and proclamations of the corporate body of bishops:
The fulfillment of this condition alone suffices to establish that a doctrine is of the universal magisterium and is to be believed de fide. BOB & BOD have been universally taught explicitly by the corporate body of bishops together with the popes throughout the post Tridentine period, who taught it sometimes in their own words, and more often through the organs of papal magisterium. Especially the catechisms, which are expressly formulated and promulgated to teach doctrine have been unanimous on this point. This first point alone demonstrates that BOB/BOD are de fide.
2) universal custom or practice associsted with dogma:
The doctrine of BOB is the basis for the commemoration of the martyrs in the Roman liturgy, who were, according to the ancient traditions, martyred without yet having received baptism. The doctrine of BOD is the basis of the universal statute of the 1917 Code of Canon Law, which mandated ecclesiastical burial for catechumens stated:
“Baptism, the door and foundation of the Sacraments, in fact or at least in desire necessary unto salvation for all, is not validly conferred except through the ablution of true and natural water with the prescribed form of words.” (Canon 737)
“Those who have died without baptism are not to be given ecclesiastical burial. Catechumens who die without baptism through no fault of their own are to be counted among the baptized.” (Canon 1239)
3) the consensus and agreement of the fathers and the theologians:
A numerically great portion of the fathers is not required for moral unanimity or general agreement. The agreement can be accordingly more or less probable. The fact that there were several fathers teaching BOB and none opposed; and the fact that St. Cyprian testified in his writing that BOB was the commonly held belief, and was not expressing a doctrinal opinion suffices to establish the general consensus and agreement of the fathers.
By the Middle Ages, the agreement among theologians on both BOB & BOD was unanimous.
4) the common or general understanding of the faithful:
Since the faithful have since the late Sixteenth Century been catechized with catechisms and manuals based largely on the Roman Catechism; the faithful generally have professed BOB/BOD in recent centuries. Baptism of Blood and Desire have indisputably been the commonly held belief of Catholics throughout the decades of the pre-Vatican II Twentieth Century.
Thus it is clear from the above considerations, that BOB/BOD are doctrines that must be believed with divine and Catholic faith.
-
Baptism of Blood and desire fulfill the conditions of a definition of the universal and ordinary magisterium:
1) The preaching and proclamations of the corporate body of bishops:
The fulfillment of this condition alone suffices to establish that a doctrine is of the universal magisterium and is to be believed de fide.
And you reject Vatican II how?
Plus, again you show yourself to be logically challenged, John Paul. Just because something is held by the majority of bishops doesn't mean that it must be believed de fide. In order for something to be de fide it has to be taught as such and it has to be revealed.
-
Baptism of Blood and desire fulfill the conditions of a definition of the universal and ordinary magisterium:
1) The preaching and proclamations of the corporate body of bishops:
The fulfillment of this condition alone suffices to establish that a doctrine is of the universal magisterium and is to be believed de fide.
And you reject Vatican II how?
Plus, again you show yourself to be logically challenged. Just because something is held by the majority of bishops doesn't mean that it must be believed de fide. In order for something to be de fide it has to be taught as such and it has to be revealed.
Docility to the magisterium is what causes one to reject VII. VII contradicts the already received deposit, which one has already accepted. "But if we or an angel from Heaven..."
Some "traditionalists" reject VII not because they are defending the faith they have already peacefully learned and accepted by the authority of the Church; rather they reject it because it contradicts what they deem to belong to the Catholic faith. Though these people appear "traditionally minded" they're revolutionaries just in a different direction and to a lesser degree than your given Novus Ordite.
-
January 23: At Rome, St. Emerentiana, Virgin and Martyr, who was stoned by the heathen while still a catechumen, when she was praying at the tomb of St. Agnes, whose foster-sister she was.
April 12: At Braga, in Portugal, St. Victor, Martyr, who, while still yet a catechumen, refused to worship an idol, and confessed Christ Jesus with great constancy, and so after many torments, he merited to be baptized in his own blood, his head being cut off.
CANON V.-If any one saith, that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema.
Since there is no hope of converting NSAAers to the truth, I will let you be anathema, just as Trent teaches. You choose to be anathema so too bad for you.
Whatever posting I do from here on out abouot the necessity of the sacraments - whether directed at you NSAAers or not - will be in order to help the other Catholic posters and for those who happen across these threads that you sacrament despisers create for the purpose of rejecting the necessity of the sacraments, that they may find that which they seek - the truth.
You can set up your straw-man and voice anathema until your blue in the face for all I care. You have no authority whatsoever over me.
-
January 23: At Rome, St. Emerentiana, Virgin and Martyr, who was stoned by the heathen while still a catechumen, when she was praying at the tomb of St. Agnes, whose foster-sister she was.
April 12: At Braga, in Portugal, St. Victor, Martyr, who, while still yet a catechumen, refused to worship an idol, and confessed Christ Jesus with great constancy, and so after many torments, he merited to be baptized in his own blood, his head being cut off.
There is not really way to know if these people were baptized or not. They might still have been called technically a “catechumen”, because their instruction in the faith was not yet completed, but catechumens were immediately baptized when in danger of death during a persecution.
...
Although there is no a direct condemnation of Baptism of Blood, we certainly do find that even martyrdom for Christ cannot save outside the Church.
The is not much left to say, in my opinion, you are in denial.
-
Baptism of Blood and desire fulfill the conditions of a definition of the universal and ordinary magisterium:
1) The preaching and proclamations of the corporate body of bishops:
The fulfillment of this condition alone suffices to establish that a doctrine is of the universal magisterium and is to be believed de fide.
And you reject Vatican II how?
Plus, again you show yourself to be logically challenged. Just because something is held by the majority of bishops doesn't mean that it must be believed de fide. In order for something to be de fide it has to be taught as such and it has to be revealed.
Docility to the magisterium is what causes one to reject VII. VII contradicts the already received deposit, which one has already accepted. "But if we or an angel from Heaven..."
No, you're rejecting the infallibility of the ordinary universal magisterium.
-
I don't know anyone by the name of "John Paul" but I assume the comment is directed to me, since it is I whom you quote: Your argument is a 'straw man'; in so far as you reduce my statement that 'the corporate body of bishops teaching that a point of doctrine is to be held as pertaining to divine revelation' to a mere "something" that is "held by a majority of bishops". The fact that you would equate the two quite diverse notions with each other indicates plainly that it is someone other than myself who is "logically challenged". What qualifies a doctrine as having been taught by a the corporate body of bishops is, 1) that there be general agreement among the bishops sufficient to establish a moral unanimity; 2) that they be in agreement with the papal magisterium om the point; 3) that it not be a new doctrine, and so, it must be at least implicitly contained in the deposit of faith, and not logically opposed or divergent from any defined point of dogma.
Baptism of Blood and Baptism of Desire fulfill all these conditions. This is especially evident in view of the fact that the Congregation of the Council was given the authority by the popes to interpret and enforce the doctrines of the Council of Trent. All official catechisms were required to be examined and approved by that dicastery, before they would be allowed to be published as official proclamations of Catholic doctrine. The popes, the Holy Office, and the Congregation of the Council had already directly approved the teaching of BOB/BOD in the late Sixteenth Century, so it is no mystery that they subsequently authorized BOB/BOD to be taught universally throughout the Catholic world. If there were any doctrinal inconsistency or logical opposition between BOB/BOD and any point of dogma, then the popes would never had authorized BOB/BOD to be taught as a doctrine of the Catholic faith. As it stands, since shortly after the Council of Trent, all popes without exception have authorized the teaching of BOB/BOD. Thus also, the Feeneyite belief that BOB/BOD was a mere "common opinion" and a "common error" that was merely "tolerated' by the magisterial authority in Rome is plainly seen to be manifestly absurd.
-
Baptism of Blood and Desire fulfill the conditions of a definition of the universal and ordinary magisterium:
1) The preaching and proclamations of the corporate body of bishops:
The fulfillment of this condition alone suffices to establish that a doctrine is of the universal magisterium and is to be believed de fide. BOB & BOD have been universally taught explicitly by the corporate body of bishops together with the popes throughout the post Tridentine period, who taught it sometimes in their own words, and more often through the organs of papal magisterium. Especially the catechisms, which are expressly formulated and promulgated to teach doctrine have been unanimous on this point. This first point alone demonstrates that BOB/BOD are de fide.
2) universal custom or practice associsted with dogma:
The doctrine of BOB is the basis for the commemoration of the martyrs in the Roman liturgy, who were, according to the ancient traditions, martyred without yet having received baptism. The doctrine of BOD is the basis of the universal statute of the 1917 Code of Canon Law, which mandated ecclesiastical burial for catechumens stated:
“Baptism, the door and foundation of the Sacraments, in fact or at least in desire necessary unto salvation for all, is not validly conferred except through the ablution of true and natural water with the prescribed form of words.” (Canon 737)
“Those who have died without baptism are not to be given ecclesiastical burial. Catechumens who die without baptism through no fault of their own are to be counted among the baptized.” (Canon 1239)
3) the consensus and agreement of the fathers and the theologians:
A numerically great portion of the fathers is not required for moral unanimity or general agreement. The agreement can be accordingly more or less probable. The fact that there were several fathers teaching BOB and none opposed; and the fact that St. Cyprian testified in his writing that BOB was the commonly held belief, and was not expressing a doctrinal opinion suffices to establish the general consensus and agreement of the fathers.
By the Middle Ages, the agreement among theologians on both BOB & BOD was unanimous.
4) the common or general understanding of the faithful:
Since the faithful have since the late Sixteenth Century been catechized with catechisms and manuals based largely on the Roman Catechism; the faithful generally have professed BOB/BOD in recent centuries. Baptism of Blood and Desire have indisputably been the commonly held belief of Catholics throughout the decades of the pre-Vatican II Twentieth Century.
Thus it is clear from the above considerations, that BOB/BOD are doctrines that must be believed with divine and Catholic faith.
Ladislaus objected:
Plus, again you show yourself to be logically challenged. Just because something is held by the majority of bishops doesn't mean that it must be believed de fide. In order for something to be de fide it has to be taught as such and it has to be revealed.
Don Paolo replied:
I don't know anyone by the name of "John Paul" but I assume the comment is directed to me, since it is I whom you quote: Your argument is a 'straw man'; in so far as you reduce my statement that 'the corporate body of bishops teaching that a point of doctrine is to be held as pertaining to divine revelation' to a mere "something" that is "held by a majority of bishops". The fact that you would equate the two quite diverse notions with each other indicates plainly that it is someone other than myself who is "logically challenged". What qualifies a doctrine as having been taught by a the corporate body of bishops is, 1) that there be general agreement among the bishops sufficient to establish a moral unanimity; 2) that they be in agreement with the papal magisterium on the point; 3) that it not be a new doctrine, and so, it must be at least implicitly contained in the deposit of faith, and not logically opposed or divergent from any defined point of dogma.
Baptism of Blood and Baptism of Desire fulfill all these conditions. This is especially evident in view of the fact that the Congregation of the Council was given the authority by the popes to interpret and enforce the doctrines of the Council of Trent. All official catechisms were required to be examined and approved by that dicastery, before they would be allowed to be published as official proclamations of Catholic doctrine. The popes, the Holy Office, and the Congregation of the Council had already directly approved the teaching of BOB/BOD in the late Sixteenth Century, so it is no mystery that they subsequently authorized BOB/BOD to be taught universally throughout the Catholic world. If there were any doctrinal inconsistency or logical opposition between BOB/BOD and any point of dogma, then the popes would never had authorized BOB/BOD to be taught as a doctrine of the Catholic faith. As it stands, since shortly after the Council of Trent, all popes without exception have authorized the teaching of BOB/BOD. Thus also, the Feeneyite belief that BOB/BOD was a mere "common opinion" and a "common error" that was merely "tolerated' by the magisterial authority in Rome is plainly seen to be manifestly absurd.
-
The dogmatic pronouncements quoted by Ladislaus and Cantarella neither state nor imply anything against BOD or BOB. The one affirms EENS without stating or implying that those who die justified by the resolve for baptism are outside the Church; and the other defines that the sacrament of baptism requires true and natural water -- without denying what the Council of Trent dogmatically affirmed, namely, that justification can be obtained by baptism or by the resolve to receive it. If indeed Florence and Trent had defined against BOB/BOD, then Pope St. Pius V, and all the popes after him for the succeeding four and 1/2 centuries, (all of whom either taught BOB/BOD, or authorized it to be taught), would have been heretics. The Dogmatic Constitution "Dei Filius" declares that the interpretation of the deposit of faith pertains to the teaching authority of the Church which affirms BOB/BOD; and not to individuals such as Feeney and his ilk, who dissent from the magisterial interpretation of the sacred deposit and prefer to interpret the sacred deposit according to the Protestant principle of Private Judgment.
-
The dogmatic pronouncements quoted by Ladislaus and Cantarella neither state nor imply anything against BOD or BOB.
Because, as I've mentioned before, you know nothing about basic logic or the concept of a syllogism. I have pointed out already that, no, there's no explicit teaching against BoD. Nor is there explicit teaching for BoD. Consequently, all the argument rests on drawing conclusions indirectly from other dogmatic teachings. Why do you think that there's so much controversy about the subject? Unlike nearly all BoDers I have examined ALL the evidence, both pro and con; BoDers ignore the evidence against their position, pretending that it doesn't exist. I have come to the conclusion that the evidence against BoD is stronger than the evidence for it. I've laid out the argument in the form of syllogism. I used to believe in BoD for the catechumen because I THOUGHT that it was taught by the Fathers. When I actually looked at the evidence, I found that this was a lie, part of the BoD propaganda campaign.
And, as I've mentioned, before, if all you people believed in was a relatively innocuous theory that there's BoD for catechumens (or catechumen-like persons), then I wouldn't waste my time posting about it. In fact, if that's all you believed, YOU wouldn't spend so much time on your diabolical crusade promoting this concept at every turn.
If such a thing were to exist, it would be a very rare, exceptional thing; we have absolutely no proof that God has ever willed anyone to be saved by "BoD".
Yet you guys spend untold energy promoting this thing as if it were on a par with the mystery of the Holy Trinity or other key dogmas of the Faith.
You spend ZERO time promoting the necessity of the Sacraments, as taught by Trent against the Protestant heresies. In fact, your emphasis on BoD undermines that teaching.
No, this isn't about BoD at all. This is about your heretical refusal to accept the dogma EENS. And by the fruits of BoD do we know it. BoD leads INEXORABLY to religious indifferentism and to all the errors of Vatican II. It has NO good fruits whatsoever. As Father Feeney pointed out, the more you talk about BoD, the less possible you make it, because people get to the point of desiring the desire for Baptism rather than desiring Baptism itself, since now the desire for Baptism becomes salvific. Then, with the heretical Suprema Haec any good guy now becomes "Catholic" and EENS and Traditional Catholic ecclesiology get completely gutted.
You really need to stop posting now.
-
The dogmatic pronouncements quoted by Ladislaus and Cantarella neither state nor imply anything against BOD or BOB.
Because, as I've mentioned before, you know nothing about basic logic or the concept of a syllogism. I have pointed out already that, no, there's no explicit teaching against BoD. Nor is there explicit teaching for BoD. Consequently, all the argument rests on drawing conclusions indirectly from other dogmatic teachings. Why do you think that there's so much controversy about the subject? Unlike nearly all BoDers I have examined ALL the evidence, both pro and con; BoDers ignore the evidence against their position, pretending that it doesn't exist. I have come to the conclusion that the evidence against BoD is stronger than the evidence for it. I've laid out the argument in the form of syllogism. I used to believe in BoD for the catechumen because I THOUGHT that it was taught by the Fathers. When I actually looked at the evidence, I found that this was a lie, part of the BoD propaganda campaign.
And, as I've mentioned, before, if all you people believed in was a relatively innocuous theory that there's BoD for catechumens (or catechumen-like persons), then I wouldn't waste my time posting about it. In fact, if that's all you believed, YOU wouldn't spend so much time on your diabolical crusade promoting this concept at every turn.
If such a thing were to exist, it would be a very rare, exceptional thing; we have absolutely no proof that God has ever willed anyone to be saved by "BoD".
Yet you guys spend untold energy promoting this thing as if it were on a par with the mystery of the Holy Trinity or other key dogmas of the Faith.
You spend ZERO time promoting the necessity of the Sacraments, as taught by Trent against the Protestant heresies. In fact, your emphasis on BoD undermines that teaching.
No, this isn't about BoD at all. This is about your heretical refusal to accept the dogma EENS. And by the fruits of BoD do we know it. BoD leads INEXORABLY to religious indifferentism and to all the errors of Vatican II. It has NO good fruits whatsoever. As Father Feeney pointed out, the more you talk about BoD, the less possible you make it, because people get to the point of desiring the desire for Baptism rather than desiring Baptism itself, since now the desire for Baptism becomes salvific. Then, with the heretical Suprema Haec any good guy now becomes "Catholic" and EENS and Traditional Catholic ecclesiology get completely gutted.
You really need to stop posting now.
:applause: Thank God for common sense!
-
Fr. Kramer is merely witnessing to the infallible magisterium of the Catholic Church which has taught Baptism of Desire. It is de fide. Those who deny it are professing heresy.
Yes, yes Ambrose, we know you have this obsession against the sacraments and their necessity for salvation and we know you share this detestation of them with Fr. Kramer, Cardinal Cushing and all the Conciliar popes - we know this because you have started dozens of threads against the necessity of the sacraments and championed the cause against them.
Does it not strike you as at least a bit odd, that you, who foolishly adhere to your "Salvation via No Sacrament At All" error and the fact that you cannot bring yourself to defend the necessity of the sacraments for salvation, are somehow related to each other?
Do you really think that posting yet another thread denying the necessity of the sacraments for salvation helps you defend the necessity of the sacraments? Or does it not make more sense that the reason you cannot defend the necessity of the sacraments is because you repeat over and over and over and over again that they are not necessary?
+6 months and counting, still seeking an honest NSAAer - which you, verifiably, are not.
Will an honest NSAAer please step up and publicly admit that the sacraments are optional, that they are not necessary for salvation please?
I have very little hope that you will recant from this heresy, my goal now is to stop it from spreading further.
To deny Baptism of Desire is heresy. You should be living in fear for your eternal salvation. Catholics are not allowed to believe heresy. Heresy will sever you from the Church, outside of which there is no salvation.
Matthew can stop it, at least here. Again, I have to wonder why he won't act and why he basically ignores the call for him to ban those who seek to spread this grave error on HIS forum.
-
It is abundantly clear from the most ancient accounts; and from two millennia of unanimous doctrinal tradition that Baptism of Blood has never been understood to be synonymous with martyrdom. No martyr known to have been sacramentally baptized was ever said to have undergone baptism of blood; but only those reputed to have not yet been baptized. It is a desperate and gratuitous assertion of an obstinate heretic.
-
It is abundantly clear from the most ancient accounts; and from two millennia of unanimous doctrinal tradition that Baptism of Blood has never been understood to be synonymous with martyrdom
Again, you make things up to suit your agenda.
St. John Damascene speaking of the PRIEST St. Lucian.
These things were well understood by our holy and inspired fathers -- thus they strove, after Holy Baptism, to keep spotless and undefiled. When some of them also thought fit to receive another Baptism: I mean that which is by blood and martyrdom.
-
False! Ladislaus: The universal and ordinary magisterium has explicitly set forth Baptism of Desire as a de fide definition; equal in value and authority to a solemn definition of the extraordinary magisterium:
"A precise and official formulation on Magisterium is to be found in the 1983 Code of Canon Law. Canon 749 declares:
1. “The Supreme Pontiff, in virtue of his office, possesses infallible teaching authority when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful ... he proclaims with a definitive act that a doctrine of faith or morals is to be held as such.”
 2. “The college of bishops also possesses infallible teaching authority when the bishops exercise their teaching office gathered together in an ecuмenical council when, as teachers and judges of faith and morals, they declare that for the universal Church a doctrine of faith or morals must be definitively held; they also exercise it scattered throughout the world but united in a bond of communion among themselves and with the Successor of Peter when together with that same Roman Pontiff in their capacity as authentic teachers of faith and morals they agree on an opinion to be held as definitive.”
It is to be noted that in both extraordinary and ordinary Magisterium, the doctrine must either be proclaimed with a “definitive act” (extraordinary) or it is agreed that it is “to be held as defini- tive.” The teaching of both the extraordinary and the universal and ordinary Magisterium are defined doctrines. Any doctrine that is not defined does not pertain to the infallible Magisterium of the Church. Francisco Marin-Sola O.P. explains:
'The Church’s doctrinal authority or magisterium has for its proper and specific purpose the conservation and ex- position of the revealed deposit. To determine or to fix infallibly the true meaning of the divine deposit is called a definition of faith by the Church ...
These two ways of exercising the magisterium on the content and the meaning of the revealed deposit are of equal dogmatic value, and both are true definitions of faith. Between them there exists only an accidental difference, to wit, that the magisterium exercised by the Ecuмenical Council or by the Pope speaking ex cathedra is done with a greater solemnity and show of for- mulae and is easily discernible by all; on the other hand, the ordinary magisterium is exercised through the universal teaching of the Church without any special display or set formulae, and at times it is not so easy to determine its scope and signification.'131
What is taught by the infallible Magisterium of the Church is to be believed “with divine and Catholic Faith”:
'Further, by divine and Catholic faith, all those things must be believed which are contained in the written word of God and in tradition, and those which are proposed by the Church, either in a solemn pronouncement or in her ordinary and universal teaching power, to be believed as divinely revealed.'132"
This last quotation is taken from the Dogmatic Constitution 《Dei Filius》. It dogmatically establishes the equivalency of a definition of the ordinary magisterium with one of the solemn extraordinary magisterium. BOD is a defined doctrine of the universal and ordinary magisterium; and therefore must be believed with divine and Catholic faith.
-
False! Ladislaus: The universal and ordinary magisterium has explicitly set forth Baptism of Desire as a de fide definition; equal in value and authority to a solemn definition of the extraordinary magisterium:
Again, you clearly have no idea what you're talking about. Please stop posting already.
I was pointing out the simple fact that not every point of doctrine taught by the Church is considered de fide. It's obvious that you don't understand the term de fide.
-
Liar! It is you, Ladislaus, who make things up to suit your agenda: St. John Chrysostom distinguishes explicitly between those who are baptized with water, and those not baptized with water, but by blood:
“Do not be surprised that I should equate martyrdom with baptism; for here too the spirit blows with much fruitfulness, and a marvellous and astonishing remission of sins and cleansing of the soul is effected; and just as those who are baptized with water, so, too, those who suffer martyrdom are cleansed with their own blood.” (The Sacraments, Pohle & Preuss, Book 1)
Tertullian offers not an opinion but testifies to the belief of the Church in the Third Century Note that Tertullian, like Chrysostom, expresses both senses of the term of baptism of blood, 1) for those already baptized; and, 2) for those not yet baptized.
“We have indeed, likewise, a second font, (itself withal one with the former,) of blood, to wit; concerning which the Lord said, “I have to be baptized with a baptism,” when he had been baptized already. For he had come “by means of water and blood,” just as John had written; that He might be baptized by the water, glorified by the blood; to make us, in like manner, called by water, chosen by blood. These two baptisms He sent out from the wound in His pierced side [Jn. 19:34], in order that they who believed in His blood might be bathed with the water; they who had been bathed in the water might likewise drink the blood. This isthe baptism that both stands in lieu of the fontal bathing when that has not been received, and restores it when lost.” (On Baptism, 16)
The other Fathers who teach on this point are in unanimous agrerment:
St. Cyprian:
“On which place some, as if by human reasoning they were able to make void the truth of the gospel declaration, object to the case of catechumens; asking if any one of these, before he is baptized in the Church, should be apprehended and slain on confession of the name, whether he would lose the hope of salvation and the reward of confession, because he had not previously been born again of water? Let men of this kind, who are aiders and favourers of heretics, know therefore, first, thatthose catechumens hold the sound faith and truth of the Church, and advance from the divine camp to do battle with the devil, with a full and sincere acknowledgement of God the Father, and of Christ, and of the Holy Ghost; then, that they certainly arenot deprived of the sacrament of baptism who are baptized with the most glorious and greatest baptism of blood, concerning which the Lord also said, that He had “another baptism to be baptized with.” But the same Lord declares in the gospel, that those who are baptized in their own blood, and sanctified by suffering, are perfected, and obtain the grace of the divine promise [cf. Acts 2:38-39], when he speaks to the thief believing and confessing in His very passion, and promises that he should be with himself in paradise. Wherefore we [bishops] who are set over the faith and truth ought not to deceive and mislead those who come to the faith and truth, and repent, and beg that their sins should be remitted to them; but to instruct them when corrected by us, and reformed for the kingdom of heaven by celestial discipline. But someone says, “What, then, shall become of those who in past times, coming from heresy to the Church, were received without baptism?” The Lord is able by His mercy to give indulgence, and not to separate from the gifts of His Church those who by simplicity were admitted into the Church, and in the Church have fallen asleep.” (Epistle lxxii; To Jubianus, concerning the Baptism of Heretics, 22-3)
St. Hippolytus. (A.D. 253):
“If a catechumen is arrested on account of the name of the Lord [i.e., because he is a Christian,] let him not be of double heart about his testimony; should violence come to him and he is killed, although his sins are not yet forgiven [i.e., he is not yet baptized,] he will be justified. For he has received baptism in his own blood.” (The Apostolic Tradition, 19)
St. Basil the Great (Doctor, A.D. 379)
“And ere now there have been some who in their championship of the true religion have undergone the death for Christ’s sake, not in mere similitude [ie. in the sacrament of baptism; cf. Rom. 6:3], but in actual fact, and so have needed none of the outward signs of water for their salvation, because they were baptized in their own blood. This I write not to disparage the baptism by water.” (On the Spirit, 36)
St. Eusebius of Caesaria. (A.D. 341)
The early Church venerated some as saints who were martyred without water baptism and who continued to be so venerated in later centuries. The following martyrs are commemorated in the medieval martyrologies.
“By giving such evidences of a philosophic life to those who saw him, he [Origen] aroused many of his pupils to similar zeal; so that prominent men of even unbelieving heathen and men that followed learning and philosophy were led to his instruction. Some of them having received from him into the depth of their souls faith in the Divine Word, became prominent in the persecution then prevailing; and some of them were seized and suffered martyrdom. The first of these was Plutarch, who was mentioned just above. As he was led to death, the man of whom we are speaking being with him at the end of his life, came near being slain by his fellow citizens, as if he were the cause of his death. But the providence of God preserved him at this time also. After Plutarch, the second martyr among the pupils of Origen was Serenus, who gave through fire a proof of the faith which he had received. The third martyr from the same school was Heraclides, and after him the fourth was Hero. The former of these was as yet a catechumen, and the latter had but recently been baptized. Both of these were beheaded. After them, the fifth from the same school proclaimed as an athlete of piety was another Serenus, who, it is reported, was beheaded, after a long endurance of tortures. And of women, Herais died while yet a catechumen, receiving baptism by fire[martyrdom], as Origen himself somewhere says.” (Church History. Book VI, 3, 4)
St. Cyril of Jerusalem (Doctor, A.D. 386)
“If any man receive not baptism, he hath not salvation; except only Martyrs, who even without the water receive the kingdom. For when the saviour, in redeeming the world by His Cross, was pierced in the side, He shed forth blood and water; that men, living in times of peace, might be baptized in water, and, in times of persecution, in their own blood. For martyrdom the Saviour is also wont to call a baptism, saying, “Can ye drink the cup that I drink, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with?” And the martyrs confess, by being made a spectacle unto the world and to angels, and unto men; and thou wilt soon confess: but it is not yet the time for thee to hear of this.” (Catechetical Lectures, III, 10.)
Pope St. Leo the Great (A.D. 461)
”Those whom the wicked king removed from this world were brought to heaven by Christ, and He conferred the dignity of martyrdom on those upon whom He had not yet bestowed the redemption of his blood.” (In Epiph, 1,3)
St. Fulgentius (A.D. 533)
“From that time onward when our Saviour said, “If any one is not reborn from water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God,” no one can receive either the kingdom of heaven or eternal life without the Sacrament of Baptism, apart from those who poured out their blood for Christ in the Catholic Church but without baptism.” (On the Faith to Peter, 43)
St. Prosper of Aquitaine (A.D. 463)
”They who without even having received the laver of regeneration, die for the confession of Christ, it avails them as much for the doing away of sins as if they were washed in the font of Baptism.” (The Faith of Catholics, Msgr. Capel)
-
Liar! It is you, Ladislaus, who make things up to suit your agenda: St. John Chrysostom distinguishes explicitly between those who are baptized with water, and those not baptized with water, but by blood:
I've never made up anything. You claimed (made up) that the term "baptism" was never used to refer to martyrdom in general (vs. as a substitute for Sacramental Baptism). So I cited a Church Father using it exactly in that sense.
I have always acknowledged that about 6-7 Church Fathers believe in Baptism of Blood, but have pointed out that most of these same Fathers REJECT Baptism of Desire. Something which you refuse to admit. So you're in a Catch-22 in having to push the authority of these BoB Fathers, but by pushing that authority you would have to accept their rejection of BoD also. But I guess they were undoubtedly right about BoB while undoubtedly being wrong about BoD, eh?
You're not honest and your agenda blinds you from being objective.
-
Lad, first of all, you present yourself as some kind of paragon of objectivity while implying all and each of your opponents are slanted with some bias, but, if you want to talk about being objective, then provide
1. Some sort of cogent explanation for why every single Doctor, Saint, catechism and other authority post Trent were in the wrong and now have need of the saintly Feeneyites several centuries later to correct them.
2. For why St. Bernard, St. Bonaventure, St. Thomas and all the medieval Doctors and scholastic theologians especially after Pope Innocent II and III were also wrong, while the heretical Peter Abelard was right.
If you can't do both of these, then, sorry, but you have no case at all.
Coming to the ancient Fathers, everyone knows and Don Paulo has docuмented in this thread that the Tradition in support of BOB is practically unanimous in the earliest ages, there are about 15 sources in all, including ancient martyrologies, and other ecclesiastical records.
You find no Father speculating about what you do, that they were secretly water baptized (even when publicly killed) in their last moments, so how do you back up your speculation? And on what basis do you deny this Tradition is unanimous? Give us an example you believe is unanimous and we'll compare.
1. No one is denying that a few of the holy Fathers made a mistake on Baptism of Desire, but this is of no more consequence than their making a mistake on the Immaculate Conception, or Purgatory, or another doctrine that was settled with certainty only at a later time. Some individual Fathers sometimes say Christ alone was immaculate, even though they are practically unanimous in declaring that Mary is the New Eve. And despite their mistake on this point, the dogma of the Immaculate Conception logically derives from Her being the New Eve. Likewise, BOD logically derives from BOB.
2. If you deny Baptism of Desire derives logically from Baptism of Blood, we are back to siding with the heretic Abelard and rejecting St. Bernard, not to mention other Doctors, and the Papal pronouncements of Innocent II and III after which the question is closed. If catechumens can receive the sacramental effect through an extraordinary means, and BOB demonstrates that, then almost all your arguments are proven wrong by that fact. And that's why you fight tooth and nail against BOB as well.
And as for why we uphold the doctrine, you see what this is really about and what you are really alleging is that every single source, all of our seminary theology manuals, every source we trust and need and learn the Faith from, all our Doctors, all our Saints, all our Catechisms, post Trent especially, but really from Innocent II and III have been gravely mistaken and practically heretical, and therefore cannot be relied on at all, or must even be rejected, and that's why your heterodox position is so terribly dangerous and seductive for the uninformed Catholic. It implies nothing less than the defection of the Catholic Church for over a 1000 years, it means She contradicted the ancient Church, that Her Saints and Doctors cannot be relied on in telling us what Councils and Popes have declared, that they are not sound and safe teachers of the Faith, and that we need you Feeneyites to restore doctrine to its pristine purity. In other words, it is unadulterated nonsense.
-
Oh, no! Ladidlaus, you never made up ANYTHING (?) It was you who quoted Chrysostom, attempting to prove that Baptism of Blood is synonymous only with the martyrdom of those already baptized! The grammar and context prove it! You are a troll!
-
1. Some sort of cogent explanation for why every single Doctor, Saint, catechism and other authority post Trent were in the wrong and now have need of the saintly Feeneyites several centuries later to correct them.
2. For why St. Bernard, St. Bonaventure, St. Thomas and all the medieval Doctors and scholastic theologians especially after Pope Innocent II and III were also wrong, while the heretical Peter Abelard was right.
There's no mystery here. All you need is one or two prominent and well-regarded theologians to say something, and the opinion then spreads. So, for instance, the entire notion of BoD is absolutely traceable to St. Augustine. St. Bernard admitted that he was relying on St. Augustine. Pope Innocent II/III also explicitly said he was following St. Augustine. So great was the reliance upon St. Augustine that the Church actually had to condemn the proposition that St. Augustine trumped the magisterium. Then St. Thomas picked it up from St. Bernard and St. Augustine. Once St. Thomas picked it up, it was just a matter of influence and piling on the bandwagon. All this despite the fact that St. Augustine himself admitted that his position was purely speculative and that he wasn't sure about it. All this despite the fact that St. Augustine later not only retracted BoD but then issued some of the strongest anti-BoD statements in existence.
Same phenomenon here. Once you had a couple prominent Doctors read Trent the way they did, everyone jumped onto the bandwagon.
You're talking about the same Innocent II whom St. Thomas excoriated for teaching (in a letter not unlike his BoD letter) that the Mass was valid and consecration took place even if the priest just thought the words, without actually saying them?
God allowed the notion of BoD to spread because the modern apostasy and loss of faith COULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED HAD BOD AND EENS NOT BEEN COMPROMISED. BoD opened up the door for the new ecclesiology and the rejection of EENS and the modern apostasy, to which you are party.
If you can't do both of these, then, sorry, but you have no case at all.
You may wish to explain how you believe that a legitimate pope and legitimate hierarchy could have taught error to the Universal Church by way of an Ecuмenical Council and then by way of their ordinary universal magisterium for about 50 years now. So you claim that these Doctors are all infallible but the entire body of bishops (untied with the pope) can teach error? Give me a break.
Despite that, I have laid out about half a dozen very compelling arguments about why their reading of Trent was just plain wrong. None of you BoDers have EVER ONCE, NOT A SINGLE TIME, been able to address these. If I'm wrong, it shouldn't be hard. And, if I'm wrong, then I'll obviously accept BoD, since it was taught by Trent.
And of course none of you have ever addressed the problem that if Trent was teaching BoD in the famous passage, then it rejects the existence of BoB as anything distinct from BoD, that it reduces to BoD. Trent teaches (according to your interpretation) that no one has ever been justified (in the new dispensation) without either Baptism or else the votum for Baptism.
Ironic, don't you think, when most of the BoB Church Fathers believed in BoB but then rejected BoD? So basically Trent teaches that all the BoB Fathers had it exactly backwards. I'll shortly make another post on this subject. It's just one contradiction after another.
Coming to the ancient Fathers, everyone knows and Don Paulo has docuмented in this thread that the Tradition in support of BOB is practically unanimous in the earliest ages, there are about 15 sources in all, including ancient martyrologies, and other ecclesiastical records.
Don Paolo knows nothing about theology, and apparently you don't either. Please see my previous post about how unanimous consensus is defined (vis-à-vis its probative value for something belonging to the Deposit of Revelation). It has nothing to do with their having been unopposed.
Had it not been for the solitary opinion of St. Augustine on BoD, he would be outnumbered by about 8 to 1 against his BoD opinion. In fact, when taking into account his subsequent retraction, then the Church Fathers were (by your definition) UNANIMOUS in their REJECTION of BOD.
-
Oh, no! Ladidlaus, you never made up ANYTHING (?) It was you who quoted Chrysostom, attempting to prove that Baptism of Blood is synonymous only with the martyrdom of those already baptized! The grammar and context prove it! You are a troll!
That was from St. John Damascene (or Damascus) -- Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 2: 1324.
I never said that it was ONLY synonymous with martyrdom. You evidently can't read English either. YOU stated that the terms was NEVER used that way, and so I cited a text in which it WAS used that way.
Every time you post, you only make the case against BoD stronger.
-
It is patent that in spite of his protestations of Catholicity, Mr. Drew is no Catholic, but a heretic -- his distorted inversion of the dogmas of Trent construes not only Fr. Kramer, but all the post-Tridentine popes and Doctors to be heretics. Drew says Trent condemned BOD, and that the post Tridentine Doctors and popes are in heresy! Drew draws an illegitimate parallel with St. Thomas Aquinas, to whom he falsely attributes erroneous teaching against the faith on the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. It was not a dogma in the Thirteenth Century, but an OPEN QUESTION. It was not considered an error against faith until after someone would have taught against the doctrine after it had been set forth by the authority of the magisterium. According to Drew's inverted understanding of dogma, Trent condemned BOB/BOD. If that were true, then ALL the post-Tridentine popes and Doctors who taught BOB/BOD would be HERETICS! What a lunatic!
God did not entrust the divine revelation to David Drew to interpret; but to the authority of the ecclesiastical magisterium, "to be faithfully guarded and infallibly interpreted." (Dei Filius)The post-Tridentine magisterium has universally and constantly taught BOD in the post-Tridentine Church as a point of Catholic doctrine, starting with the Roman Catechism, up until the Twentieth Century in the catechisms of St. Pius X, Cardinal Gasparri, and all the catechisms of the particular churches of the world. The magisterium has officially judged in favour of BOD --Feeney, and his followers have privately judged against BOD, and on their private authority they judge against the divinely instituted authority of the Church.
In his latest screed, attempting to critique Fr. Kramer's explanation on the development of dogma; Drew has again resorted to his preferred device: misrepresrntation by inversion. He maliciously construes Fr. Kramer's exposition to be an expression of condemned Modernist doctrines -- but in reality, Fr. Kramer was simply explicating the doctrine of the Dogmatic Constitution, Dei Filius, according to the erudutite elabouration of that doctrine by the eminent Dominican theologian, Francisco Marin-Sola OP. It was Dei Filius that declared, "[L]et the understanding, the knowledge and wisdom of individuals as of all, of one man as of the whole Church, grow and progress strongly with the passage of the ages and the centuries; but let it be solely in its own genus, namely in the same dogma, with the same sense and the same understanding. (St. Vincent of Lèrins)" (D.S. 3020) David Drew would have you believe that such development of dogma as dogmatically set forth by Vatican I is Modernism! David Drew is a heretic who cares nothing whatever about the purity of Catholic dogma. Rather he demonstrates himself to be nothing but a sociopathic narcissist who tramples on dogmas, and on the reputations of the most eminent pontiffs and theologians who elaorated the teaching of the Church.
Paolo:
You are attributing statements to others that were never made, using words inappropriately, misstatements of fact, nonsense propositions, blindly structuring improper arguments on questionable presuppositions. Predictably deaf to any properly structured argument that upsets your fixed positions no matter how rational and compelling they may be. Everything I have said regarding Fr. Paul Kramer can be applied to you four-fold.
Take one example. You have said numerous times that the dogmas of the faith are, "to be faithfully guarded and infallibly interpreted" by the Magisterium. (Dei Filius) When you made the same arguments again to Stubborn you got this reply from Marie Auxiliadora:
Stubborn has not “made a proposition that directly opposes the doctrine set forth in the Dogmatic Constitution Dei Filius (Vatican I).” Your comment shows that you have a serious misunderstanding regarding the nature of dogma. Please go back and read the post by Drew where he explains the nature of dogma to Fr. Kramer.
Dogma is the very act of “the spouse of Christ… faithfully guarding and infallibly interpreting… the doctrine of the Faith which God has revealed.” Dogma fixes the end of theological speculation. It is a doctrine of revealed truth that is proposed by the Church as a formal object of divine and Catholic faith suitable for all the faithful. The quotation you provided from Vatican I affirms that only the infallible authority of the Church, the spouse of Christ, can declare a dogma.
It is illogical to say that we need a fallible explanation of an infallible dogma. You end up claiming for the theologian the authority that belongs to the dogma itself. When you claim that theologians need to explain dogma, you are actually saying that infallible dogma must be interpreted by a fallible person and then the whole purpose of infallibility is destroyed.
Let us all hope that Fr. Kramer can return to his senses and profess dogma again like he did in The Devil's Final Battle. Unless the "final battle" is Fr. Kramer's loss.
This is a very good reply from Marie that totally destroyed your appeal to the authority of Dei Filius regarding the necessity for theological exposition of Catholic dogma for the faithful. Your argument is finished and any further appeal to it makes you appear obtuse and ignorant regarding the nature of dogma. Yet, what do you do? You repeat it again, and again and again completely impervious to the force of the argument. A thing is received according to the nature of the receiver. She might as well have spoken to a rock.
I will tell you what an "inversion" is. It is when your understanding of defined dogma is contrary to the literal meaning of the text. But who if fact has been doing this? Fr. Kramer inserted words and changed words in a dogma so that the meaning was conformed to his doctrine of 'salvation by justification alone' and at complete variance with the literal meaning of the dogma. Following his example you do the same thing. Fr. Kramer inserted the word, "moral," to qualify the word "necessity" in the sacramental canons. That is, he changed the "necessity" from one of means to one of precept. You do exactly the same thing.
"Thus, the necessity for justification brought about by the sacraments is absolute; while the necessity to receive those sacraments is a necessity of precept (as the Roman Catechism explains); and is conditional, depending on the possibility or impossibility to receive them."
This error of yours and Fr. Kramer's is a logical impossibility for two reasons. Firstly, the words of our Lord, "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter the kingdom of heaven," must be taken just as literally as the words, "This is My Body, This is My Blood." These words are not imposing a precept but declaring a universal truth. You say that being born again to justification by the "Holy Ghost" must be taken literally while the word, "water" is a preceptive norm that can be supplied by anything. You are imposing two entirely different modes of expression to two grammatically equal terms, one is taken in a literal sense and the other metaphorical. Modernism embraces philosophical Deconstructionism which denies the intentionality of language. It attacks definitions and grammar and thus destroys a language's ability to convey truth. It was Nietzsche who said, "If you want to get rid of God you must first get rid of grammar." If you could parse a sentence maybe you could see what you have done. Your are too concerned about appearing learned in languages that you clumsily violate a fundamental rule of textual analysis. Secondly, a precept is always and everywhere conditional in the category of authority/obedience while a dogma is a universal proposition in the category of truth/falsehood which is always and everywhere either true or false. It is impossible to bind a precept as a universal truth.
It is so obviously impossible that no one has done it before as far as I know. The entire theological process of inventing terms such as absolute and relative necessities of means, and intrinsic and extrinsic necessities of means was done so as to not make the same stupid mistake you and Fr. Kramer have made.
As well, it is a moral impossibility because dogma is divine revelation authoritatively defined by the Church in a universal categorical proposition and proposed as a formal object of divine and Catholic faith. Dogma is the "whatness" of our faith. You and Fr. Kramer have no business changing a truth that God has revealed. It is analogous to what Luther did by adding his own words to clarify the meaning of Sacred Scripture.
Lover of Truth does the same thing. When all is said and done, the dogma means the opposite of its literal meaning. Here he admits that the sacraments are not necessary for salvation completely inverting the dogma of faith that the sacraments are necessary for salvation.
But perhaps we can get to the point of this thread which is either you admit with universal ordinary magisterium of the Church that salvation can indeed be obtained apart from sacramental baptism as is clear shown by the shown in this thread.
But we are arguing in circles because there is no agreement on acceptable rules of evidence. That is because you have an entirely different conception of exactly what dogma is. You have a unique, personal and very individualized conception of the term "universal." Any further discussion from this perspective is fruitless.
I recommend that we begin at the end and work your way back in the problem. Fr. Kramer has cited as authoritative reference web pages that defend his doctrinal beliefs that include his doctrine of salvation taught by the 1949 Holy Office Letter that he holds as an article of faith. This is ultimately what Baptism of Desire leads. It's a lot easier to see the child for what it is once the little monster is walking about. It is the authoritative docuмent that censored Fr. Feeney who you call a "heretic." Besides yourself and Fr. Kramer, the 1949 Holy Office Letter has been referred to approvingly by Ambrose and Lover of Truth. It was the doctrine espoused by Archbishop Lefebvre and now by Bishop Fellay. Therefore it is the doctrine believed by the great majority of SSPX priests. It is even the favored doctrine on soteriology by Bishop Dolan, Fr. Cekada, CMRI, most sedevacantist groups. It's very, very popular among the Baptism of Desire crowd.
Fr. Feeney considered the 1949 Holy Office Letter heretical. You can defend Fr. Kramer and I will defend Fr. Feeney. You can also call upon Lover of Truth and Ambrose to help and I doubt not that Fr. Kramer will be active in any exchange. I will look to those who know that the dogmatic truth of God is worth defending.
How about it? You don't want Fr. Kramer calling you a "coward," do you?
Drew
-
The context and patent intent of your statement, Ladislaus, clearly meant to deny that the patristic use of the term "Baptism of Blood" referred to the martyrdom of the umbaptized, and limit its comprehension to the martyrdom of those already baptized. The statement was made as an attempt to refute my position that the Fathers were unanimously agreed that Baptism of Blood is a substitute for water baptism.
-
Drew's position directly opposes the definitions of the universal and ordinary magisterium on BOB/BOD. Dei Filius pronounced that the doctrines of the universal & and ordinary magisterium must be believed de fide. I did not assert that Drew denied the doctrine of Dei Filius -- I stated that Drew heretically denies the infallible teachings on BOB/BOD which have been defined by the universal & ordinary magisterium. Like a multitude of Drews assertions, Marie Auxiliadora's assertion on this point is a crude fallacy.
-
Drew said: "You are attributing statements to others that were never made, using words inappropriately, misstatements of fact, nonsense propositions, blindly structuring improper arguments on questionable presuppositions. Predictably deaf to any properly structured argument that upsets your fixed positions no matter how rational and compelling they may be. Everything I have said regarding Fr. Paul Kramer can be applied to you four-fold."
There's enough hot air there to fly a fleet of hot air balloons; but nothing that logically refutes the point that BOB/BOD have been infallibly defined by the magisterium:
Baptism of Blood and Desire fulfill the conditions of a definition of the universal and ordinary magisterium:
1) The preaching and proclamations of the corporate body of bishops:
The fulfillment of this condition alone suffices to establish that a doctrine is of the universal magisterium and is to be believed de fide. BOB & BOD have been universally taught explicitly by the corporate body of bishops together with the popes throughout the post Tridentine period, who taught it sometimes in their own words, and more often through the organs of papal magisterium. Especially the catechisms, which are expressly formulated and promulgated to teach doctrine have been unanimous on this point. This first point alone demonstrates that BOB/BOD are de fide.
2) universal custom or practice associsted with dogma:
The doctrine of BOB is the basis for the commemoration of the martyrs in the Roman liturgy, who were, according to the ancient traditions, martyred without yet having received baptism. The doctrine of BOD is the basis of the universal statute of the 1917 Code of Canon Law, which mandated ecclesiastical burial for catechumens stated:
“Baptism, the door and foundation of the Sacraments, in fact or at least in desire necessary unto salvation for all, is not validly conferred except through the ablution of true and natural water with the prescribed form of words.” (Canon 737)
“Those who have died without baptism are not to be given ecclesiastical burial. Catechumens who die without baptism through no fault of their own are to be counted among the baptized.” (Canon 1239)
3) the consensus and agreement of the fathers and the theologians:
A numerically great portion of the fathers is not required for moral unanimity or general agreement. The agreement can be accordingly more or less probable. The fact that there were several fathers teaching BOB and none opposed; and the fact that St. Cyprian testified in his writing that BOB was the commonly held belief, and was not expressing a doctrinal opinion suffices to establish the general consensus and agreement of the fathers.
By the Middle Ages, the agreement among theologians on both BOB & BOD was unanimous.
4) the common or general understanding of the faithful:
Since the faithful have since the late Sixteenth Century been catechized with catechisms and manuals based largely on the Roman Catechism; the faithful generally have professed BOB/BOD in recent centuries. Baptism of Blood and Desire have indisputably been the commonly held belief of Catholics throughout the decades of the pre-Vatican II Twentieth Century.
Thus it is clear from the above considerations, that BOB/BOD are doctrines that must be believed with divine and Catholic faith.
My replies to Ladislaus are pertinent to a correct understanding of the point:
1) Your argument is a 'straw man'; in so far as you reduce my statement that 'the corporate body of bishops teaching that a point of doctrine is to be held as pertaining to divine revelation' to a mere "something" that is "held by a majority of bishops". The fact that you would equate the two quite diverse notions with each other indicates plainly that it is someone other than myself who is "logically challenged". What qualifies a doctrine as having been taught by a the corporate body of bishops is, 1) that there be general agreement among the bishops sufficient to establish a moral unanimity; 2) that they be in agreement with the papal magisterium on the point; 3) that it not be a new doctrine, and so, it must be at least implicitly contained in the deposit of faith, and not logically opposed or divergent from any defined point of dogma.
Baptism of Blood and Baptism of Desire fulfill all these conditions. This is especially evident in view of the fact that the Congregation of the Council was given the authority by the popes to interpret and enforce the doctrines of the Council of Trent. All official catechisms were required to be examined and approved by that dicastery, before they would be allowed to be published as official proclamations of Catholic doctrine. The popes, the Holy Office, and the Congregation of the Council had already directly approved the teaching of BOB/BOD in the late Sixteenth Century, so it is no mystery that they subsequently authorized BOB/BOD to be taught universally throughout the Catholic world. If there were any doctrinal inconsistency or logical opposition between BOB/BOD and any point of dogma, then the popes would never had authorized BOB/BOD to be taught as a doctrine of the Catholic faith. As it stands, since shortly after the Council of Trent, all popes without exception have authorized the teaching of BOB/BOD. Thus also, the Feeneyite belief that BOB/BOD was a mere "common opinion" and a "common error" that was merely "tolerated' by the magisterial authority in Rome is plainly seen to be manifestly absurd.
2) The universal and ordinary magisterium has explicitly set forth Baptism of Desire as a de fide definition; equal in value and authority to a solemn definition of the extraordinary magisterium:
"A precise and official formulation on Magisterium is to be found in the 1983 Code of Canon Law. Canon 749 declares:
1. “The Supreme Pontiff, in virtue of his office, possesses infallible teaching authority when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful ... he proclaims with a definitive act that a doctrine of faith or morals is to be held as such.”
2. “The college of bishops also possesses infallible teaching authority when the bishops exercise their teaching office gathered together in an ecuмenical council when, as teachers and judges of faith and morals, they declare that for the universal Church a doctrine of faith or morals must be definitively held; they also exercise it scattered throughout the world but united in a bond of communion among themselves and with the Successor of Peter when together with that same Roman Pontiff in their capacity as authentic teachers of faith and morals they agree on an opinion to be held as definitive.”
It is to be noted that in both extraordinary and ordinary Magisterium, the doctrine must either be proclaimed with a “definitive act” (extraordinary) or it is agreed that it is “to be held as defini- tive.” The teaching of both the extraordinary and the universal and ordinary Magisterium are defined doctrines. Any doctrine that is not defined does not pertain to the infallible Magisterium of the Church. Francisco Marin-Sola O.P. explains:
'The Church’s doctrinal authority or magisterium has for its proper and specific purpose the conservation and ex- position of the revealed deposit. To determine or to fix infallibly the true meaning of the divine deposit is called a definition of faith by the Church ...
These two ways of exercising the magisterium on the content and the meaning of the revealed deposit are of equal dogmatic value, and both are true definitions of faith. Between them there exists only an accidental difference, to wit, that the magisterium exercised by the Ecuмenical Council or by the Pope speaking ex cathedra is done with a greater solemnity and show of for- mulae and is easily discernible by all; on the other hand, the ordinary magisterium is exercised through the universal teaching of the Church without any special display or set formulae, and at times it is not so easy to determine its scope and signification.'131
What is taught by the infallible Magisterium of the Church is to be believed “with divine and Catholic Faith”:
'Further, by divine and Catholic faith, all those things must be believed which are contained in the written word of God and in tradition, and those which are proposed by the Church, either in a solemn pronouncement or in her ordinary and universal teaching power, to be believed as divinely revealed.'132"
This last quotation is taken from the Dogmatic Constitution 《Dei Filius》; It dogmatically establishes the equivalency of a definition of the ordinary magisterium with one of the solemn extraordinary magisterium. BOD is a defined doctrine of the universal and ordinary magisterium; and therefore must be believed with divine and Catholic faith.
-
All of these threads bring out the semi-universalist spammers like dust in a windstorm. :facepalm:
-
Marie Auxiliadora said:
"It is illogical to say that we need a fallible explanation of an infallible dogma. You end up claiming for the theologian the authority that belongs to the dogma itself. When you claim that theologians need to explain dogma, you are actually saying that infallible dogma must be interpreted by a fallible person and then the whole purpose of infallibility is destroyed."
This statement is so utterly off-point, that it is scurrilous to the point of idiocy; yet Drew cites it as if it were a gem of theological wisdom. It is long recognized by the Church that it properly pertains to the task of the theologians to explain and interpret the definitions of faith according to the teaching of the magisterium and the doctrinal tradition of the Church. When the theologians of the universal Church are in unanimous agreement on a point of doctrine; that fact fulfills one of the criteria that qualifies a doctrine as a de fide expression of the ordinary magisterium.
There is yet another and even greater underlying fallacy to Marie Auxiliadora's outburst of idiocy: She equates the authentic voice of the ordinary magisterium with the private opinions of theologians. Even the non-infallible pronouncements of the magisterium are gravely binding in conscience when they are in agreement with the doctrinal tradition of the Church. BOB/BOD have been taught by the corporate body of bishops together with the popes throughout the post-Tridentine period since the late Sixternth Century. BOB/BOD are therefore INFALLIBLE definitions of the universal & ordinary magisterium.
It is only heretics who privately interpret the solemn definitions of the magisterium in a manner that construes them to be against the BOB/BOD as imfallibly taught by the ordinary magisterium; and against the constant interpretation of those solemn definitions and canons by the papal authority of the Congregation of the Council. Drew interprets the dogmatic canons of Trent and the dogma of EENS heretically by understanding them in opposition to the infallible doctrine of the universal & ordinary magisterium. The Council of Trent taught explicitly that the unanimous teaching of the Fathers on a point of divine revelation is a sure sign that such a doctrine is de fidei. BOB fulfills that condition, and it (as well as BOD) has been unanimously taught by the corporate body of bishops for centuries, it is taught in the Roman liturgy; it is commonly believed and has been believed for centuries by the faithful throughout the world: It is INFALLIBLE. If Drew's interpretation of the canons of Trent were correct, then the the perpetual doctrine of the universal & ordinary magisterium on BOB would be heretical; and the constant and infallible post-Tridentine teaching of the universal magisterium on BOD would likewise be heretical -- and even the infallible teaching plainly defined in Chapter 4 of the Decree on Justification, i.e., that the laver of regeneration OR its votum fulfills the precept: "Unless a man be reborn of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter the kingdom of heaven"; would also be false. It is manifest, therefore, that if Drew understands the canons correctly, then the whole Church would have defected into heresy already for many centuries.
-
Fr. Kramer has demonstrated and cited the verbatim magisterial pronouncements of the supreme magisterium of the Church that 1) the sacrament of Baptism, or the vow of it, is an absolutete necessity of means for salvation; and 2) the reception of water Baptism, (as St. Pius V teaches), is a necessity of precept for salvation. If water baptism were optional or superfluous, there would be no precept to receive it , and consequently, one would be able to be saved by faith, charity, and contrition alone without even the desire and resolve to receive water baptism. Hence, the claim that BOD would make the sacrament of Baptism superfluous or optional is manifestly absurd.
-
Stubborn has flatly denied the definitions of the universal magisterium on BOB & BOD. That denial directly offends against the doctrine of Dei Filius which declares that such definitions of faith made by the universal and ordinary magisterium must be believed with divine and Catholic faith. Now do you get it, Marie Auxiliadora?
-
Marie Auxiliadora said:
"It is illogical to say that we need a fallible explanation of an infallible dogma. You end up claiming for the theologian the authority that belongs to the dogma itself. When you claim that theologians need to explain dogma, you are actually saying that infallible dogma must be interpreted by a fallible person and then the whole purpose of infallibility is destroyed."
This statement is so utterly off-point, that it is scurrilous to the point of idiocy; yet Drew cites it as if it were a gem of theological wisdom. It is long recognized by the Church that it properly pertains to the task of the theologians to explain and interpret the definitions of faith according to the teaching of the magisterium and the doctrinal tradition of the Church. When the theologians of the universal Church are in unanimous agreement on a point of doctrine; that fact fulfills one of the criteria that qualifies a doctrine as a de fide expression of the ordinary magisterium.
There is yet another and even greater underlying fallacy to Marie Auxiliadora's outburst of idiocy: She equates the authentic voice of the ordinary magisterium with the private opinions of theologians. Even the non-infallible pronouncements of the magisterium are gravely binding in conscience when they are in agreement with the doctrinal tradition of the Church. BOB/BOD have been taught by the corporate body of bishops together with the popes throughout the post-Tridentine period since the late Sixternth Century. BOB/BOD are therefore INFALLIBLE definitions of the universal & ordinary magisterium.
It is only heretics who privately interpret the solemn definitions of the magisterium in a manner that construes them to be against the BOB/BOD as imfallibly taught by the ordinary magisterium; and against the constant interpretation of those solemn definitions and canons by the papal authority of the Congregation of the Council. Drew interprets the dogmatic canons of Trent and the dogma of EENS heretically by understanding them in opposition to the infallible doctrine of the universal & ordinary magisterium. The Council of Trent taught explicitly that the unanimous teaching of the Fathers on a point of divine revelation is a sure sign that such a doctrine is de fidei. BOB fulfills that condition, and it (as well as BOD) has been unanimously taught by the corporate body of bishops for centuries, it is taught in the Roman liturgy; it is commonly believed and has been believed for centuries by the faithful throughout the world: It is INFALLIBLE. If Drew's interpretation of the canons of Trent were correct, then the the perpetual doctrine of the universal & ordinary magisterium on BOB would be heretical; and the constant and infallible post-Tridentine teaching of the universal magisterium on BOD would likewise be heretical -- and even the infallible teaching plainly defined in Chapter 4 of the Decree on Justification, i.e., that the laver of regeneration OR its votum fulfills the precept: "Unless a man be reborn of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter the kingdom of heaven"; would also be false. It is manifest, therefore, that if Drew understands the canons correctly, then the whole Church would have defected into heresy already for many centuries.
Paolo:
It has nothing to do with "theological wisdom" beyond the "wisdom" of knowing what dogma is, and that is a gift of the grace of Faith. It really has to do with the rules that govern logic and common sense. But what would you know about that? Dogma is the act of the Church defining the doctrinal Revelation of God in the form of a universal categorical proposition by its attribute of infallibility. And then, by its attribute of authority, imposing this dogmatic proposition as a formal object of divine and Catholic Faith which is suitable for all the faithful. It is a logical fallacy to affirm that a fallible human authority must be engaged to properly explain the infallible declaration. Your argument has been destroyed by Marie Auxiliadora and you are not bright enough to know it.
Now Fr. Kramer affirms that the 1949 Holy Office Letter that censored the teaching of Fr. Feeney is an authoritative orthodox exposition of the Catholic faith. This docuмent was considered by Fr. Feeney, who you call a "heretic," to be heretical. Archbishop Lefebvre considered this docuмent authoritative, believed it himself and imposed it upon the priests of the SSPX. Even those who would eventually leave the SSPX took this doctrinal baggage with them. So now, among traditional Catholics the greater majority believe this teaching. This doctrine is exemplified in these quotes:
The doctrine of the Church also recognizes implicit baptism of desire. This consists in doing the will of God. God knows all men and He knows that amongst Protestants, Muslims, Buddhists and in the whole of humanity there are men of good will. They receive the grace of baptism without knowing it, but in an effective way. In this way they become part of the Church.
The error consists in thinking that they are saved by their religion. They are saved in their religion but not by it. There is no Buddhist church in heaven, no Protestant church. This is perhaps hard to accept, but it is the truth. I did not found the Church, but rather Our Lord the Son of God. As priests we must state the truth.
Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Open Letter to Confused Catholics
And the Church has always taught that you have people who will be in heaven, who are in the state of grace, who have been saved without knowing the Catholic Church. We know this. And yet, how is it possible if you cannot be saved outside the Church? It is absolutely true that they will be saved through the Catholic Church because they will be united to Christ, to the Mystical Body of Christ, which is the Catholic Church. It will, however, remain invisible, because this visible link is impossible for them. Consider a Hindu in Tibet who has no knowledge of the Catholic Church. He lives according to his conscience and to the laws which God has put into his heart. He can be in the state of grace, and if he dies in this state of grace, he will go to heaven.
Bishop Bernard Fellay, The Angelus, A Talk Heard Round the World, April, 2006
This is the doctrine that Fr. Kramer is defending that any Jew, Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist, Orthodox, Protestant, etc. of "good will" can be saved as a Jew, Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist, Orthodox, Protestant, etc.
This is the doctrinal belief of Fr. Kramer. This is what you must defend. What is the matter? You are not, what Fr. Kramer would call a "coward"? You have offered a dimes worth of cheap insults for faithful Catholics who you label as "heretics," while at the same time you put any Jew, Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist, Orthodox, Protestant, etc. who "receive the grace of baptism (and) become part of the Church," as being in the state of grace, temples of Holy Ghost and heirs to heaven while remaining Jews, Hindus, Muslims, etc.
I repeat my challenge to you.
I recommend that we begin at the end and work your way back in the problem. Fr. Kramer has cited as authoritative reference web pages that defend his doctrinal beliefs that include his doctrine of salvation taught by the 1949 Holy Office Letter that he holds as an article of faith. This is ultimately what Baptism of Desire leads. It's a lot easier to see the child for what it is once the little monster is walking about. It is the authoritative docuмent that censored Fr. Feeney who you call a "heretic." Besides yourself and Fr. Kramer, the 1949 Holy Office Letter has been referred to approvingly by Ambrose and Lover of Truth. It was the doctrine espoused by Archbishop Lefebvre and now by Bishop Fellay. Therefore it is the doctrine believed by the great majority of SSPX priests. It is even the favored doctrine on soteriology by Bishop Dolan, Fr. Cekada, CMRI, most sedevacantist groups. It's very, very popular among the Baptism of Desire crowd.
Fr. Feeney considered the 1949 Holy Office Letter heretical. You can defend Fr. Kramer and I will defend Fr. Feeney. You can also call upon Lover of Truth and Ambrose to help and I doubt not that Fr. Kramer will be active in any exchange. I will look to those who know that the dogmatic truth of God is worth defending.
How about it? You don't want Fr. Kramer calling you a "coward," do you?
I want you to grow-up and take a responsible position in defending what you really believe.
Drew
-
The context and patent intent of your statement, Ladislaus, clearly meant to deny that the patristic use of the term "Baptism of Blood" referred to the martyrdom of the umbaptized, and limit its comprehension to the martyrdom of those already baptized. The statement was made as an attempt to refute my position that the Fathers were unanimously agreed that Baptism of Blood is a substitute for water baptism.
You need to stop posting.
You're dishonest from beginning to end. YOU started this line of argument by asserting that there's NO example whatsoever of the Fathers using Baptism of Blood as referring to martyrdom (vs. a substitute for Baptism). I then cited ONE EXAMPLE. I NEVER ONCE stated that no Church Fathers ever believed in BoB as supplying for Baptism. So you need to stop lying.
-
Drew & Stubborn are such fanatical fundamentalists that they reject the authoritative interpretation of Trent's teaching on the necessity of the sacraments made by St. Pius V and St. Charles Borromeo in the Roman Catechism -- the two most prominent of Council Fathers at Trent; and they heretically prefer their own Private Judgment on that point of doctrine. The constant and infallible teaching of the universal and ordinary magisterium is against their private interpretation of the canons of Trent -- but they remain obstinate in rejecting the defined teaching of the Church. Drew insanely accuses Fr. Kramer of denying dogma; when in reality, Fr. Kramer only denies Drew's heretical and absurd interpretation of dogma.
-
Ladislaus suffers from memory loss: After I affirmed that acording to the Fathers, Baptism of Blood suffices even without water baptism; Ladislaus replied in the negative by saying that according to the Fathers, Baptism of Blood was merely a synonym for Baptism.
-
Drew blindly and gratuitously asserts, against the infallible ordinary magisterium on BOB/BOD, and against the explicit teaching of St. Pius V in the Roman Catechism, on the necessity of precept to receive water baptism. He merely asserts, against the perpetual doctrinal tradition of the Church, that water baptism is of absolute necessity of means for salvation, to the exclusion of both BOB & BOD. Contrary to the explicit teaching of Chapter 4 of the Decree on Justification, which states that "the laver of regeneration or the vow of it", fulfills the evangelical precept to be reborn of water and the Holy Ghost; Drew heretically denies this clear and patent doctrine of the Council of Trent; and refuses to address these points (except to blindly deny them), and instead limits himself to answer with a considerable volume of vapid verbosity.
-
Drew blindly rants against the doctrine of BOD stated in the 1949 Holy Office letter; as if it were the only pronouncement ever made by Rome on that point. That letter simply repeated the magisterial teaching of Pope St. Pius X. Drew is too much of a hypocrite to accuse St. Pius X of heresy for having taught BOB & BOD in his catechism, and in his Code of Canon Law. Feeney was guilty of the same thing: he said the 1949 letter was heresy; but stopped short of making a fool of himself by accusing St. Pius X of heresy.
-
Ladislaus suffers from memory loss: After I affirmed that acording to the Fathers, Baptism of Blood suffices even without water baptism; Ladislaus replied in the negative by saying that according to the Fathers, Baptism of Blood was merely a synonym for Baptism.
No, it's we (and the truth) who suffer from your lying.
It is abundantly clear from the most ancient accounts; and from two millennia of unanimous doctrinal tradition that Baptism of Blood has never been understood to be synonymous with martyrdom
Again, you make things up to suit your agenda.
St. John Damascene speaking of the PRIEST St. Lucian.
These things were well understood by our holy and inspired fathers -- thus they strove, after Holy Baptism, to keep spotless and undefiled. When some of them also thought fit to receive another Baptism: I mean that which is by blood and martyrdom.
-
Drew & Stubborn are such fanatical fundamentalists that they reject the authoritative interpretation of Trent's teaching on the necessity of the sacraments made by St. Pius V and St. Charles Borromeo in the Roman Catechism
There's no evidence that the passage to which you allude was "interpreting" the passage in question in Trent. Secondly, I understand that passage in the catechism differently, according to the meaning of St. Fulgentius. Charles Borromeo and St. Pius V did not write the entire thing (many hands were involved), and there are actually a couple blatant doctrinal errors in the catechism.
-
Drew blindly rants against the doctrine of BOD stated in the 1949 Holy Office letter; as if it were the only pronouncement ever made by Rome on that point.
SH's heretical novelty rested on its Pelagian assertion that good intentions supplied for the supernatural virtues and were salvific. It was concocted by the Freemasons who had already been deeply entrenched in the Vatican.
-
Drew hysterically and mendaciously asserts:
"This is the doctrine that Fr. Kramer is defending that any Jew, Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist, Orthodox, Protestant, etc. of "good will" can be saved as a Jew, Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist, Orthodox, Protestant, etc." ..."This is the doctrinal belief of Fr. Kramer."
That is definitely not the doctrine of Fr. Kramer; Fr. Kramer has never spoken or written; stated or implied that doctrine, which Drew maliciously attributes to him. Again Drew shows himself to be a sociopathic liar and a consummate hypocrite. Drew's personal creed is, "There is no salvation outside of my opinion" -- he has a severe case of that psychiatric disorder known as Narcissistic Personality Disorder or Megalomania.
-
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.
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.
Indeed, all of BoD is predicated upon the heretical notion that God is constrained by "impossibility". That's exactly what St. Augustine figured out in the end when he denounced this thinking as non-Catholic and as leading to the "vortex of confusion".
God uses natural means to supernatural ends in most cases. That is the norm. The fact that God does not always provide everything to everybody because of the lack of natural means isn't heretical, it is the way God works.
-
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.
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.
Indeed, all of BoD is predicated upon the heretical notion that God is constrained by "impossibility". That's exactly what St. Augustine figured out in the end when he denounced this thinking as non-Catholic and as leading to the "vortex of confusion".
God uses natural means to supernatural ends in most cases. That is the norm. The fact that God does not always provide everything to everybody because of the lack of natural means isn't heretical, it is the way God works.
Does not and cannot are two different things. I have asked why God would WILL to save someone via BoD when Our Lord taught the requirement of Sacramental Baptism for salvation.
-
Drew hysterically and mendaciously asserts:
"This is the doctrine that Fr. Kramer is defending that any Jew, Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist, Orthodox, Protestant, etc. of "good will" can be saved as a Jew, Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist, Orthodox, Protestant, etc." ..."This is the doctrinal belief of Fr. Kramer."
That is definitely not the doctrine of Fr. Kramer; Fr. Kramer has never spoken or written; stated or implied that doctrine, which Drew maliciously attributes to him. Again Drew shows himself to be a sociopathic liar and a consummate hypocrite. Drew's personal creed is, "There is no salvation outside of my opinion" -- he has a severe case of that psychiatric disorder known as Narcissistic Personality Disorder or Megalomania.
Paolo:
Fr.Kramer most certainly does. He sent me direct links to sites supporting the orthodoxy of the 1949 Holy Office Letter for the purpose of explaining and defending his personal doctrine. I have the record of this just as I have the record of him changing the words in a Catholic dogma so as to better fit his version of "orthodoxy." But, he probably does not trust you with that kind of personal information which is only shared with his friends. He might even find you a little creepy?
Be that as it may, Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop Fellay also consider the 1949 Holy Office Letter an orthodox expression of Catholic faith and the SSPX has referred to the 1949 Holy Office Letter from time to time in their publications when criticizing Fr. Feeney. You perhaps just need to think out the implications of your "Baptism of Desire" position a little better. When you throw Catholic dogma out the window you never really know where your going to end up. Your not calling Archbishop Lefebver and Bishop Fellay "heretics" are you?
Are you going to defend the 1949 Holy Office Letter that censored the teaching of Fr. Feeney, who you called a "heretic," or keep playing the "coward"?
Drew
P.S. Do you have a medical degree?
-
On the authority of his own Private Judgment, Ladislaus declares that the Roman Catechism teaches "blatant doctrinal errors". That Roman Catechism expressly sets forth, by the decree of Pope St. Pius V, the doctrines of the universal and ordinary magisterium:
Quamobrem Patres oecuмenicae Tridentinae Synodi, cuм tanto et tam pernicioso huic malo salutarem aliquam medicinam adhibere maxime cuperent, non satis esse putarunt graviora catholicae doctrinae capita contra nostri temporis haereses decernere; sed illud praeterea sibi faciendum censuerunt, ut certam aliquam formulam et rationem christiani populi ab ipsis fidei rudimentis instituendi traderent, quam in omnibus Ecclesiis illi sequerentur quibus legitimi pastoris et doctoris munus obeundum esset.
Multi quidem adhuc in hoc scriptionis genere cuм magna pietatis et doctrinae laude versati sunt; sed tamen Patribus visum est maxime referre, si liber sanctae Synodi auctoritate ederetur, ex quo parochi, vel omnes alii qui- bus docendi munus impositum est, certa praecepta petere atque depromere ad fidelium aedificationem possint; ut, quemadmodum unus est Dominus, una fides 17 , ita etiam una sit tradendae fidei ad omniaque pietatis officia populum christianum erudiendi communis regula atque praescriptio.
Furthermore, the Roman Catechism has been declared by Pope Clement XIII (In Dominico Agro, 14 June 1761) to be the doctrinal norm of the Church, and the doctrine of the universal Church according to the mind of the Council of Trent, and free from any doctrinal error:
Post quam igitur Tridentina Synodus eas, quae tum temporis Ecclesiae lucem obfuscare tentaverant, haereses condemnavit, et Catholicam veritatem, quasi discussa errorum nebula, in clariorem lucem eduxit; cuм iidem Praedecessores Nostri intelligerent, sacrum illum universalis Ecclesiae conventum tam prudenti consilio tantaque usum esse temperantia, ut ab opinionibus reprobandis abstineret, quae doctorum ecclesiasticorum auctoritatibus fulcirentur; ex eiusdem sacri Concilii mente aliud opus confici voluerunt, quod omnem doctrinam complecteretur, qua fideles informari oporteret, et quae ab omni errore quam longissime abesset. ... and,
Quem librum Catechismi Romani nomine typis impressum evulgarunt; dupliciter in ea re laudandi. Nam et illuc eam doctrinam contulerunt, quae communis est in Ecclesia, et procul abest ab omni periculo erroris; et hanc palam populo tradendam disertissimis verbis proposuerunt, ita Christi Domini praecepto obtemperantes, qui Apostolos dicere in lumine iussit, quod in tenebris ip- se dixisset, et quod in aure audierant, super tecta praedicare cf. Mt 10,27, Ecclesiaeque sponsae obsequuti, cuius illae voces indica mihi ubi cubes in meridie Ct 1,6; ubi enim non sit meridies, atque ita perspicua lux, ut liquido veritas cognoscatur, facile pro ea recipitur falsitas propter veri similitudinem, quae in obscuro difficulter a vero discernitur.
Ne igitur seducta vagaretur Ecclesia post greges sodalium, qui et ipsi sint vagi, nulla stabiles certitudine veritatis, semper discentes et nunquam ad scientiam veritatis pervenientes 2Tm3,7; idcirco, quae ad salutem tantummodo essent necessaria et maxime utilia, clare in Romano Catechismo et dilucide explanata, christiano populo tradenda proposuerunt. ... and,
Ac propterea hunc librum, quem veluti Catholicae fidei et christianae disciplinae norma, ut etiam in tradendae doctrinae ratione constaret omnium consensio, Romani Pontifices pastoribus propositum voluerunt, vobis, Venerabiles Fratres, nunc maxime commendamus, vosque etiam enixe in Domino cohortamur, ut iubeatis ab omnibus, qui animarum curam gerunt, in informandis Catholica veritate populis adhiberi, quo tum eruditionis unitas, tum charitas animorumque servetur concordia.
The Roman Catechism expressly sets forth those truths of divine revelation necessary for salvation; and that its doctrines are of the universal Church; and is furthermore declared to be free from any doctrinal error.
It was composed under the direction of St. Charles Borromeo, by appointment of St. Pius V; and then promulgated by Pope St. Pius V. That docuмent, the Roman Catechism teaches plainly and clearly (in the original Italian of St. Charles Borromeo) that the resolve to receive water baptism suffices as a remedy for salvation if the reception of the sacrament becomes impossible:
"In caso improvviso di pericolo, chi ha l'uso della ragione, pur impossibilitato a purificarsi nell'acqua sacramentale, può conseguire la grazia e la giustizia col semplice proposito di ricevere a suo tempo il Battesimo, unito al pentimento dei peccati commessi."; and furthermore the Decree on Justification, in the very last clause of Chapter 4 declares that the water of baptism or the vow or resolve of it, fulfills the command to be reborn by water and the Holy Ghost:
Quibus verbis iustificationis impii descriptio insinuatur ut sit translatio ab eo statu in quo homo nascitur filius primi Adae in statum gratiae et adoptionis filiorum Dei per secundum Adam Iesum Christum salvatorem nostrum; quae quidem translatio post Evangelium promulgatum sine lavacro regenerationis aut eius voto fieri non potest sicut scriptum est: nisi quis renatus fuerit ex aqua et Spiritu Sancto non potest introire in regnum Dei.
Thus it is patent that Baptism of Desire is recognized by the supreme magisterium of the Church to be a de fide definition of the umiversal and ordinary magisterium. Feeney and his Feeneyite followers who deny this definition of faith are all heretics.
-
Drew: That 1949 letter says nothing about Jews, Muslims, Budhists or Hindoos of good will being able to be saved. You are HYSTERICAL. It simply repeats the teaching of St. Pius X.
-
On the authority of his own Private Judgment, Ladislaus declares that the Roman Catechism teaches "blatant doctrinal errors".
You really weary me. Not sure why I waste my time on you.
There's a statement in the Catechism of Trent which states that there's no grace outside the Catholic Church, which is a condemned proposition (by Pope Clement XI).
Official docuмents have occasionally been issued by Popes to explain certain points of Catholic teaching to individuals, or to local Christian communities; whereas the Roman Catechism comprises practically the whole body of Christian doctrine, and is addressed to the whole Church. It's teaching is not infallible; ...
-
That 1949 letter ... simply repeats the teaching of St. Pius X.
:roll-laugh1:
-
St. Pope Pius X in his Catechism of Christian Doctrine (1908) taught:
The Creed, Ninth Article, The Church in Particular: 29 Q. But if a man through no fault of his own is outside the Church, can he be saved? A. If he is outside the Church through no fault of his, that is, if he is in good faith, and if he has received Baptism, or at least has the implicit desire of Baptism; and if, moreover, he sincerely seeks the truth and does God's will as best he can such a man is indeed separated from the body of the Church, but is united to the soul of the Church and consequently is on the way of salvation
Baptism, Necessity of Baptism and Obligations of the Baptized: 17 Q. Can the absence of Baptism be supplied in any other way? A. The absence of Baptism can be supplied by martyrdom, which is called Baptism of Blood, or by an act of perfect love of God, or of contrition, along with the desire, at least implicit, of Baptism, and this is called Baptism of Desire.
-
Drew: That 1949 letter says nothing about Jews, Muslims, Budhists or Hindoos of good will being able to be saved. You are HYSTERICAL. It simply repeats the teaching of St. Pius X.
Paolo:
Well, this is something. It is good to know that you, along with Fr. Kramer, hold that the 1949 Holy Office Letter that censored the teaching of Fr. Feeney is an orthodox exposition of Catholic doctrine. But before I begin to examine this "faith" you hold and the 1949 Holy Office Letter, I would like to know if you have any problem with the quotations provided from Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop Fellay regarding the salvation of "good willed" Jews, Muslims, Hindus, etc. while remaining Jews, Muslims, Hindus, etc.
Drew
-
Don Paolo,
Only desperation calls for so many insults. You have used: “hysterical” ,”malicious”, “Narcissistic Personality Disorder”, “Megalomania”, “Coward”…
Perhaps it’s time for a psychiatric evaluation for you? At least, turn your computer off for a few hours and get some rest lest someone else may end up truly saying that about you.
-
St. Pope Pius X in his Catechism of Christian Doctrine (1908) taught:
The Creed, Ninth Article, The Church in Particular: 29 Q. But if a man through no fault of his own is outside the Church, can he be saved? A. If he is outside the Church through no fault of his, that is, if he is in good faith, and if he has received Baptism, or at least has the implicit desire of Baptism; and if, moreover, he sincerely seeks the truth and does God's will as best he can such a man is indeed separated from the body of the Church, but is united to the soul of the Church and consequently is on the way of salvation
Baptism, Necessity of Baptism and Obligations of the Baptized: 17 Q. Can the absence of Baptism be supplied in any other way? A. The absence of Baptism can be supplied by martyrdom, which is called Baptism of Blood, or by an act of perfect love of God, or of contrition, along with the desire, at least implicit, of Baptism, and this is called Baptism of Desire.
Interesting citation, especially given that this notion that one can belong to the soul of the Church while not belonging to the body has been CONDEMNED.
Except of course that this catechism is speaking about this figuratively and does not say that they can be saved but that they are "on the way of salvation", i.e. on the path that leads TO salvation, which essentially implies that they have not made it to their destination. It's the same misreading that you make of similar passage sin Pius IX, all due to your bad-willed refusal to accept EENS.
Ambrose, if you accept Suprema Haec, then you have ZERO grounds for rejecting anything in Vatican II ... except that you're a bitter schismatic with a personal dislike for Jorge Bergoglio.
-
On the authority of his own Private Judgment, Ladislaus declares that the Roman Catechism teaches "blatant doctrinal errors".
You really weary me. Not sure why I waste my time on you.
There's a statement in the Catechism of Trent which states that there's no grace outside the Catholic Church, which is a condemned proposition (by Pope Clement XI).
Official docuмents have occasionally been issued by Popes to explain certain points of Catholic teaching to individuals, or to local Christian communities; whereas the Roman Catechism comprises practically the whole body of Christian doctrine, and is addressed to the whole Church. It's teaching is not infallible; ...
:facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm:
The Dimonds are the only ones I know of to have claimed such a monumental absurdity. Of course, the Catechism is talking about sanctifying grace, not actual grace.
Here is the complete quotation from Dr. Hagan.
"The Roman Catechism is a work of exceptional authority. At the very least it has the same authority as a dogmatic Encyclical, -- it is an authoritative exposition of Catholic doctrine given forth, and guaranteed to be orthodox by the Catholic Church and her supreme head on earth. The compilation of it was the work of various individuals; but the result of their combined labors was accepted by the Church as a precious abridgment of dogmatic and moral theology. Official docuмents have occasionally been issued by Popes to explain certain points of Catholic teaching to individuals, or to local Christian communities; whereas the Roman Catechism comprises practically the whole body of Christian doctrine, and is addressed to the whole Church. Its teaching is not infallible; but it holds a place between approved catechisms and what is de fide."
Your above post is an excellent illustration of the dangers of Feeneyism and how it completely blinds those it ensnares. That you would seek to overthrow the authority of the Roman Catechism is unbelievable. Wake up, Ladislaus, for heaven's sake!
Some other citations on the unimpeachable and matchless authority of the Catechism of Trent.
The Roman Catechism is unlike any other summary of Christian doctrine, not only because it is intended for the use of priests in their preaching, but also because it enjoys a unique authority among manuals. In the first place, as already explained, it was issued by the express command of the Ecuмenical Council of Trent, which also ordered that it be translated into the vernacular of different nations to be used as a standard source for preaching. Moreover it subsequently received the unqualified approval of many Sovereign Pontiffs. Not to speak of Pius IV who did so much to bring the work to completion, and of St. Pius V under whom it was finished, published and repeatedly commended, Gregory XIII, as Possevino testifies, so highly esteemed it that he desired even books of Canon Law to be written in accordance with its contents. In his Bull of June 14, 1761, Clement XIII said that the Catechism contains a clear explanation of all that is necessary for salvation and useful for the faithful, that it was composed with great care and industry and has been highly praised by all, that by it in former times the faith was strengthened, and that no other catechism can be compared with it. He concluded then, that the Roman Pontiffs offered this work to pastors as a norm of Catholic teaching and discipline so that there might be uniformity and harmony in the instructions of all. Nor have the Sovereign Pontiffs in our own days been less laudatory of the Catechism. Pope Leo XIII, in an Encyclical Letter of September 8, 1899, to the Bishops and clergy of France, recommended two books which all seminarians should possess and constantly read and study, namely, the Summa Theologica of St. Thomas and "that golden book," the Catechismus ad Parochos. Regarding the latter work he wrote: "This work is remarkable at once for the richness and exactness of its doctrine, and for the elegance of its style; it is a precious summary of all theology, both dogmatic and moral. He who understands it well, will have always at his service those aids by which a priest is enabled to preach with fruit, to acquit himself worthily of the important ministry of the confessional and of the direction of souls, and will be in a position to refute the objections of unbelievers." ...
Besides the Supreme Pontiffs who have extolled and recommended the Catechism, so many Councils have enjoined its use that it would be impossible here to enumerate them all. Within a few years after its first appearance great numbers of provincial and diocesan synods had already made its use obligatory. Of these the Preface to the Paris edition of 1893 mentions eighteen held before the year 1595. In five different Councils convened at Milan St. Charles Borromeo ordered that the Catechism should be studied in seminaries, discussed in the conferences of the clergy, and explained by pastors to their people on occasion of the administration of the Sacraments. In short, synods repeatedly prescribed that the clergy should make such frequent use of the Catechism as not only to be thoroughly familiar with its contents, but almost have it by heart.
In addition to Popes, and Councils, many Cardinals, Bishops and other ecclesiastics, distinguished for their learning and sanctity, vied with one another in eulogizing the Catechism of Trent. Among other things they have said that not since the days of the Apostles has there been produced in a single volume so complete and practical a summary of Christian doctrine as this Catechism, and that, after the Sacred Scriptures, there is no work that can be read with greater safety and profit.
In particular, Cardinal Valerius, the friend of St. Charles Borromeo, wrote of the Catechism: "This work contains all that is needful for the instruction of the faithful; and it is written with such order, clearness and majesty that through it we seem to hear holy Mother the Church herself, taught by the Holy Ghost, speaking to us.... It was composed by order of the Fathers of Trent under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, and was published by the authority of the Vicar of Christ."
Salmanticenses, the great Carmelite commentators on St. Thomas, paid the following high tribute to the Catechism: "The authority of this Catechism has always been of the greatest in the Church, because it was composed by the command of the Council of Trent, because its authors were men of highest learning, and because it was approved only after the severest scrutiny by Popes Pius V and Gregory XIII, and has been recommended in nearly all the Councils that have been held since the Council of Trent."
Antonio Possevino, an illustrious Jesuit, and the preceptor of St. Francis de Sales, said: "The Catechism of the Council of Trent was inspired by the Holy Ghost."
You really have to stop doing this, Ladislaus, my friend. By the time you're done and at the rate you're going, there'll be nothing anywhere left that Catholics can trust as safe and sure for learning their Faith from. Except you, and other lay posters here, of course.
-
Ladislaus says, "There's a statement in the Catechism of Trent . . ." etc. Unless you can provide a direct quotation and reference, your assertion is utterly worthless.
-
“Now, among the commandments of Christ, that one holds not the least place by which we are commanded to be incorporated by Baptism into the Mystical Body of Christ, which is the Church, and to remain united to Christ and to His Vicar... Therefore, no one will be saved who, knowing the Church to have been divinely established by Christ, nevertheless refuses to submit to the Church or withholds obedience from the Roman Pontiff, the Vicar of Christ on earth.”
Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, Nov. 18, 1302, ex cathedra:
“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.”
First, Suprema Haec Sacra gives the impression that some people, who have unknowingly failed to submit to the Church and the Roman Pontiff, can be saved, because they do not know any better. This opens the road to the heresy of invincible ignorance.
Second, the dogma of the necessity of submission to the Roman Pontiff for salvation goes from the application to every human creature to “those knowing the Church to have been divinely established”, meaning there is an exception in the dogma (the exception being the invincible ignorant).
“In his infinite mercy God has willed that the effects, necessary for one to be saved, of those helps to salvation which are directed toward man’s final end, not by intrinsic necessity, but only by divine institution, can also be obtained in certain circuмstances when those helps are used only in desire and longing...
“The same in its own degree must be asserted of the Church, in as far as she is the general help to salvation. Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member, but it is necessary that at least he be united to her by desire and longing.”
Yet...
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra: “The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews, heretics and schismatics can become participants in eternal life, but they will depart ‘into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels’ [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life they have been added to the flock; and that the unity of this ecclesiastical body (ecclesiastici corporis) is so strong that only for those who abide in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fasts, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of a Christian soldier produce eternal rewards. No one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has persevered within the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”
Here is a clear modernist denial of the Catholic Law of Salvation:
Catholic dogmas for salvation require:
1) explicit faith (cannot be a heretic),
2) reception of the sacraments (member of the Church),
3) and submission to the Roman Pontiff (cannot be a schismatic)
Dogmas are truths from Heaven that can never change. The invincible ignorant fails to have ALL of these requirements.
-
Hey Drew: Was Pope St. Pius X a heretic for teaching this:
"The Creed, Ninth Article, The Church in Particular: 29 Q. But if a man through no fault of his own is outside the Church, can he be saved? A. If he is outside the Church through no fault of his, that is, if he is in good faith, and if he has received Baptism, or at least has the implicit desire of Baptism; and if, moreover, he sincerely seeks the truth and does God's will as best he can such a man is indeed separated from the body of the Church, but is united to the soul of the Church and consequently is on the way of salvation.
Baptism, Necessity of Baptism and Obligations of the Baptized: 17 Q. Can the absence of Baptism be supplied in any other way? A. The absence of Baptism can be supplied by martyrdom, which is called Baptism of Blood, or by an act of perfect love of God, or of contrition, along with the desire, at least implicit, of Baptism, and this is called Baptism of Desire."
According to you, Drew, this doctrine of St. Pius X is heresy! Wouldn't that make St. Pius X a Modernist, Drew?
If Fr. Kramer is a heretic who denies the dogmas of Trent for professing this doctrine; doesn't that also make St. Pius X a heretic?
-
Ladislaus says, "There's a statement in the Catechism of Trent . . ." etc. Unless you can provide a direct quotation and reference, your assertion is utterly worthless.
For the Eucharist is the end of all the Sacraments and the symbol of unity and brotherhood in the Church, outside of which none can attain grace.
[CONDEMNED]: Outside the Church no grace is granted.
I can always back up everything I write. Unlike yourself, I don't make up things and lie to suit my agenda.
-
Hey Drew: Was Pope St. Pius X a heretic for teaching this:
"...and if, moreover, he sincerely seeks the truth and does God's will as best he can such a man is indeed separated from the body of the Church, but is united to the soul of the Church and consequently is on the way of salvation."
Point 1: This catechism was attributed to St. Pius X but was most likely not directly written by him.
Point 2: It wouldn't be heresy, but rather, error.
Point 3: (most importantly) Please examine the passage I put in bold. This notion that one can belong to the soul of the Church without belonging to the body of the Church has been CONDEMNED (by Pius XII in particular). Ambrose, SJB, LoT all follow Msgr. Fenton in admitting that this is condemned.
Ambrose, please address the issue of how a proposition that is erroneous (and later condemned as such) could appear in the Catechism of (aka attributed to) St. Pius X.
-
Drew: That 1949 letter says nothing about Jews, Muslims, Budhists or Hindoos of good will being able to be saved. You are HYSTERICAL. It simply repeats the teaching of St. Pius X.
Paolo:
Well, this is something. It is good to know that you, along with Fr. Kramer, hold that the 1949 Holy Office Letter that censored the teaching of Fr. Feeney is an orthodox exposition of Catholic doctrine. But before I begin to examine this "faith" you hold and the 1949 Holy Office Letter, I would like to know if you have any problem with the quotations provided from Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop Fellay regarding the salvation of "good willed" Jews, Muslims, Hindus, etc. while remaining Jews, Muslims, Hindus, etc.
Drew
Just a simple question. If you believe that the quotations from Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop Fellay are orthodox expositions of Catholic doctrine say so. If you are implying from your previous post that you consider them orthodox and consistent with the doctrine of salvation taught by St. Pius X, then plainly say so.
Drew
-
According to Drew, Stubborn, Cantarella, St. Pius X was a heretic for teaching this:
"The Creed, Ninth Article, The Church in Particular: 29 Q. But if a man through no fault of his own is outside the Church, can he be saved? A. If he is outside the Church through no fault of his, that is, if he is in good faith, and if he has received Baptism, or at least has the implicit desire of Baptism; and if, moreover, he sincerely seeks the truth and does God's will as best he can such a man is indeed separated from the body of the Church, but is united to the soul of the Church and consequently is on the way of salvation.", and this:
"Baptism, Necessity of Baptism and Obligations of the Baptized: 17 Q. Can the absence of Baptism be supplied in any other way? A. The absence of Baptism can be supplied by martyrdom, which is called Baptism of Blood, or by an act of perfect love of God, or of contrition, along with the desire, at least implicit, of Baptism, and this is called Baptism of Desire."
Ladislaus says this teaching of Pope St. Pius X is based on the Pelagian heresy; and claims that the teaching of St. Pius X and St. Robert Bellarmine, that a person not incorporated in the body of the Church can belong to the soul of the Church has been condemned. Since the Council of Trent, all the popes without exception have taught Baptism of Desire, either through their own words, or through the Holy Office and the Congregation of the Council. These phony Catholics judge all the popes since the 1560s to be heretics! How can anyone take these fanatical fundamentalists seriously?
-
We are discussing Baptism of Desire and the heresy of Feeneyism here. If you insist on rambling all over the place, you had better do it on some other thread. I don't know what Fellay said, nor will I discuss it here. This discussion is "on the Feeneyite Heresy".
-
St. Pope Pius X in his Catechism of Christian Doctrine (1908) taught:
The Creed, Ninth Article, The Church in Particular: 29 Q. But if a man through no fault of his own is outside the Church, can he be saved? A. If he is outside the Church through no fault of his, that is, if he is in good faith, and if he has received Baptism, or at least has the implicit desire of Baptism; and if, moreover, he sincerely seeks the truth and does God's will as best he can such a man is indeed separated from the body of the Church, but is united to the soul of the Church and consequently is on the way of salvation
Baptism, Necessity of Baptism and Obligations of the Baptized: 17 Q. Can the absence of Baptism be supplied in any other way? A. The absence of Baptism can be supplied by martyrdom, which is called Baptism of Blood, or by an act of perfect love of God, or of contrition, along with the desire, at least implicit, of Baptism, and this is called Baptism of Desire.
Interesting citation, especially given that this notion that one can belong to the soul of the Church while not belonging to the body has been CONDEMNED.
Indeed it has.
The Church is visible because she has a body. Therefore they are straying from divine truth who imagine the Church to be something which can neither be touched or seen, something merely "spiritual" as they say, a Churh in which many Christian communities, although separated from one another by faith, could be joined by some kind of bond invisible to the senses, How griveoulsy are they mistaken who have imagined a hidden and invisible Church according to their own devices!
Those who arbitrary conjure up and picture to themselves a hidden and invisible Church are in griveous and pernicious error.
Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all else to hold the Catholic Faith: unless each one preserve this whole and entire, he will without a doubt perish in eternity...(then he defines the Holy Trinity, the Incarnation, and the necessity to believe in these truths...)This is the Catholic Faith; unless each one believes this faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.
-
Indeed it has.
Thread killer, eh? They've admitted that it's an error to say that one can belong to the soul of the Church without belonging to the body. So they now have to say that the Catechism of St. Pius X contains an error and is not infallible. And so they have to thereby admit that there could theoretically be other error in the Catechism.
-
They also hypocritically attack us for rejecting the opinions of various Fathers and Doctors, and yet they reject the opinion of the 7-8 Fathers who explicitly reject BoD. Hypocrisy. Bad will.
Not one of them will ever make the statement, "It's possible that [e.g. St. Alphonsus] could have been wrong about something." Never. And they hold us as impious for suggesting the contrary.
But again, selectively so. Only when we reject the opinion of someone who happens to AGREE with them. So, if I were to reject the opinion of St. Gregory nαzιanzen, et al., with regard to their rejection of BoD, they'd not only be silent but would be giving me the old
:applause:
-
We are discussing Baptism of Desire and the heresy of Feeneyism here. If you insist on rambling all over the place, you had better do it on some other thread. I don't know what Fellay said, nor will I discuss it here. This discussion is "on the Feeneyite Heresy".
Paolo,
It was Ambrose who said that the 1949 Holy Office Letter censored Fr. Feeney because he rejected the doctrine of "Baptism by Implicit Desire." You and Ambrose have both called Fr. Feeney a "heretic." You should be able to see that there is direct relationship between these allegations and the thread topic, "Baptism of Desire and the heresy of Feeneyism"?
As for what Bishop Fellay said, I have provided a single specific quotation concerning his belief that "good willed" Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Protestants, etc., etc., as Jews, Muslims, Hindus, etc., etc., could be in the state of grace, temples of the Holy Ghost, members of the Church and heirs to Kingdom of Heaven. This belief of Bishop Fellay is in perfect accord with that of Archbishop Lefebvre as well as the great majority of priest they have formed.
These opinions of soteriology expressed by Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop Fellay are related to the interpretation offered by the 1949 Holy Office Letter on the Catholic dogma, EENS. You have made several remarks that indicate that you consider the comments of Bishop Fellay and Archbishop Lefebvre to be correct and in faithful accord with the teaching of St. Pius X. What you have strongly implied, you should openly admit.
All I want is a clear admission of your belief on these questions before a considered discussion begins on the 1949 Holy Office Letter. Do you, like Fr. Kramer, hold the 1949 Holy Office Letter to be an accurate exposition of Catholic doctrine? Do you agree with opinions expressed in the quotations provided by Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop Fellay? Certainly, this is fair enough?
Drew
-
St. Pope Pius X in his Catechism of Christian Doctrine (1908) taught:
The Creed, Ninth Article, The Church in Particular: 29 Q. But if a man through no fault of his own is outside the Church, can he be saved? A. If he is outside the Church through no fault of his, that is, if he is in good faith, and if he has received Baptism, or at least has the implicit desire of Baptism; and if, moreover, he sincerely seeks the truth and does God's will as best he can such a man is indeed separated from the body of the Church, but is united to the soul of the Church and consequently is on the way of salvation
Baptism, Necessity of Baptism and Obligations of the Baptized: 17 Q. Can the absence of Baptism be supplied in any other way? A. The absence of Baptism can be supplied by martyrdom, which is called Baptism of Blood, or by an act of perfect love of God, or of contrition, along with the desire, at least implicit, of Baptism, and this is called Baptism of Desire.
Ambrose,
Is your purpose to imply that the teaching of St. Pius X is in agreement with the doctrinal teaching of the "magisterial" 1949 Holy Office Letter? And further, that the previous quotations posted of Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop Fellay concerning the salvation of good willed Jews as Jews, Buddhists as Buddista, Muslims as Muslims, etc., etc. are in agreement with both St. Pius X and the 1949 Holy Office Letter on questions of salvation?
Drew
-
St. Pope Pius X in his Catechism of Christian Doctrine (1908) taught:
The Creed, Ninth Article, The Church in Particular: 29 Q. But if a man through no fault of his own is outside the Church, can he be saved? A. If he is outside the Church through no fault of his, that is, if he is in good faith, and if he has received Baptism, or at least has the implicit desire of Baptism; and if, moreover, he sincerely seeks the truth and does God's will as best he can such a man is indeed separated from the body of the Church, but is united to the soul of the Church and consequently is on the way of salvation
Baptism, Necessity of Baptism and Obligations of the Baptized: 17 Q. Can the absence of Baptism be supplied in any other way? A. The absence of Baptism can be supplied by martyrdom, which is called Baptism of Blood, or by an act of perfect love of God, or of contrition, along with the desire, at least implicit, of Baptism, and this is called Baptism of Desire.
Interesting citation, especially given that this notion that one can belong to the soul of the Church while not belonging to the body has been CONDEMNED.
Except of course that this catechism is speaking about this figuratively and does not say that they can be saved but that they are "on the way of salvation", i.e. on the path that leads TO salvation, which essentially implies that they have not made it to their destination. It's the same misreading that you make of similar passage sin Pius IX, all due to your bad-willed refusal to accept EENS.
Ambrose, if you accept Suprema Haec, then you have ZERO grounds for rejecting anything in Vatican II ... except that you're a bitter schismatic with a personal dislike for Jorge Bergoglio.
Show me the condemnation of the term, "soul of the Church."
SH has nothing to do with V2 theology, except in your imagination.
-
St. Pope Pius X in his Catechism of Christian Doctrine (1908) taught:
The Creed, Ninth Article, The Church in Particular: 29 Q. But if a man through no fault of his own is outside the Church, can he be saved? A. If he is outside the Church through no fault of his, that is, if he is in good faith, and if he has received Baptism, or at least has the implicit desire of Baptism; and if, moreover, he sincerely seeks the truth and does God's will as best he can such a man is indeed separated from the body of the Church, but is united to the soul of the Church and consequently is on the way of salvation
Baptism, Necessity of Baptism and Obligations of the Baptized: 17 Q. Can the absence of Baptism be supplied in any other way? A. The absence of Baptism can be supplied by martyrdom, which is called Baptism of Blood, or by an act of perfect love of God, or of contrition, along with the desire, at least implicit, of Baptism, and this is called Baptism of Desire.
Ambrose,
Is your purpose to imply that the teaching of St. Pius X is in agreement with the doctrinal teaching of the "magisterial" 1949 Holy Office Letter? And further, that the previous quotations posted of Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop Fellay concerning the salvation of good willed Jews as Jews, Buddhists as Buddista, Muslims as Muslims, etc., etc. are in agreement with both St. Pius X and the 1949 Holy Office Letter on questions of salvation?
Drew
No, my purpose is to show you approved Catholic teaching, so that all on here can be better educated on what they must believe.
There is no salvation a outside the Church, and that includes all who are outside the Church in false religions. If any are saved, they are no longer outside, but inside the arc of salvation.
-
The Feeneyite Heretic Brigade are at it again: They take the pronouncements that condemn the notion of an invisible church and misapply it to the doctrine that the visible Church has a body and a soul. Their misapplication of the condemnation of the notion of an invisible church would make St. Robert Bellarmine out to be a heretic! Bellarmine was the first to teach the doctrine that those sanctified by BOD are in the Church in virtue of pertaining to the soul of the Church. Bellarmine (and St. Pius X) did not teach that the Church is invisible; but only that those sanctified by BOD belong to the soul of the Church. He was not declared a heretic, but a Doctor of the Church. Similarly, the Feeneyite heretics claim that Pope Eugene IV and the Athanasian Creed require an explicit profession of faith as an absolute condition for salvation. That is utterly absurd -- if that were true, then baptized infants who die would be damned.
The Feeneyite heretics misinterpret the canons of Trent in such a manner that would construe them to stand in contradiction to the doctrines set forth in the decrees of that Council. They repeatedly parrot the canon that defines that for baptism, true and natural water is required; incoherently concluding from this premise that the grace and justification of baptism is not conferred by "the vow of it", and that "the vow of it" does not fulfill the divine command that one must be reborn of water and the Holy Ghost to enter the kingdom of God.The Decree on Justification defines that those who are justified by baptism or the vow of it are in the state of grace; that they thereby fulfill the requirement to be reborn of water and the Holy Ghost; and thus are inheritors according to the hope of eternal life. (Chapter 4) For so long as they remain in the justified state, they remain heirs of heaven on the path of salvation, having availed themselves of grace and righteousness. When they who have been justified depart from this world and appear before the tribunal of Christ in possession of the grace of justification, they enter eternal life. (Chapter 7)
The canon that the Feeneyites quote to their own perdition does not deny what the decree affirms, but merely specifies the matter that must be used for the valid administration of the sacrament of baptism. Likewise, Session XIV defines that for the sacrament of penance there must first of all be repentance, and there must be confession of sins, absolution, and satisfaction. The decree also defines that even without the administration of the sacrament, the remission of sins can be accomplished by perfect contrition and the resolve to receive the sacrament. Thus it is defined in Sess. 7 can. 4 that the sacraments are necessary for salvation in so far as the grace of justification can be obtained only by the sacraments "or the vow of them".
The doctrine of BOD is explicitly set forth, in its premises and its conclusion, in Chs. 4 & 7 of the Decree on Justification, and thus is explicitly contained in the Deceee, and is not contradicted but upheld by the canons. The Roman Catechism reaffirms the Council's doctrine on BOD; and henceforth the doctrine of BOD has been taught as a definition of the universal & ordinary magisterium; and has been explicitly taught, or been authorized to be taught by ALL of the post-Tridentine popes. According to Feeneyite insanity, ALL the post-Tridentine popes and Doctors are heretics -- and only Feeney and his followers are Catholic.
-
Clueless Drew is too dull witted to grasp the distinction that the unanimous agreement of the Fathers settles a question as a de fide matter; as the Council of Trent teaches. The unanimous agreement of the Fathers already settled the question of BOB as a de fide doctrine.
The disagreement of the Fathers on BOD proves nothing, except that the question of BOD was not closed but open. By the Middle Ages there was no more disagreement -- the Medieval Doctors were in unanimous agreement in favour of BOD. The Council of Trent closed the question by explicitly defining the premises and conclusion of BOD in the Decree on Justification; which, therefore, explicitly states the entire substance of BOD in its definitive text. That is why St. Alphonsus correctly taught that BOD is de fide, and the magisterium has ever since, confirmed that judgment.
-
These semi-universalists are clogging up thread after thread. Perhaps they should be off somewhere saving a native who does, not yet know that he is a Catholic. You can bring him the "good news" that he is saved.
-
The Feeneyite Heretic Brigade are at it again: They take the pronouncements that condemn the notion of an invisible church and misapply it to the doctrine that the visible Church has a body and a soul. Their misapplication of the condemnation of the notion of an invisible church would make St. Robert Bellarmine out to be a heretic! Bellarmine was the first to teach the doctrine that those sanctified by BOD are in the Church in virtue of pertaining to the soul of the Church. Bellarmine (and St. Pius X) did not teach that the Church is invisible; but only that those sanctified by BOD belong to the soul of the Church. He was not declared a heretic, but a Doctor of the Church.
The modern concept of the "soul of the Church" composed by non - Catholics or anonymus Christians is heretical. The Church is very much a visible BODY, (which one enters through Baptism) and the soul of the Church is understood to be the Holy Ghost, not an invisible extension of the mystical body which includes the unbaptized.
Let it suffice to state this, that, as Christ is the Head of the Church, the Holy Spirit is her soul.
For since the mystical body of Christ, in the same manner as His physical body, is one, compacted and fitly joined together, it were foolish and out of place to say that the mystical body is made up of members which are disunited and scattered abroad:whosoever therefore is not united with the body is no member of it, neither is he in communion with Christ its head.
-
the Athanasian Creed require an explicit profession of faith as an absolute condition for salvation. That is utterly absurd -- if that were true, then baptized infants who die would be damned.
Is the Church teaching that in the case of infants, the Act of Faith is supplied by the parents and godparents since they cannot profess their personal faith in Christ yet. But the Act of Faith (supplied by the parents) is still necessary requirement for the validity of Baptism. Children should only be brought to the church for Baptism when their parents have every intention of raising those children in a practicing Catholic household.
The Athanasian creed teaches that everyone above the age of reason must have a knowledge and belief in the mysteries of the Trinity and Incarnation to be saved. No exceptions. This creed eliminates the theory of invincible ignorance / salvation via implicit desire of non-Catholics, which really, is what the BOD adherents obsess about. The discussion is not about BOD, far from, but invincible ignorance.
-
According to Drew, Stubborn, Cantarella, St. Pius X was a heretic for teaching this:
"The Creed, Ninth Article, The Church in Particular: 29 Q. But if a man through no fault of his own is outside the Church, can he be saved? A. If he is outside the Church through no fault of his, that is, if he is in good faith, and if he has received Baptism, or at least has the implicit desire of Baptism; and if, moreover, he sincerely seeks the truth and does God's will as best he can such a man is indeed separated from the body of the Church, but is united to the soul of the Church and consequently is on the way of salvation.", and this:
"Baptism, Necessity of Baptism and Obligations of the Baptized: 17 Q. Can the absence of Baptism be supplied in any other way? A. The absence of Baptism can be supplied by martyrdom, which is called Baptism of Blood, or by an act of perfect love of God, or of contrition, along with the desire, at least implicit, of Baptism, and this is called Baptism of Desire."
Ladislaus says this teaching of Pope St. Pius X is based on the Pelagian heresy; and claims that the teaching of St. Pius X and St. Robert Bellarmine, that a person not incorporated in the body of the Church can belong to the soul of the Church has been condemned. Since the Council of Trent, all the popes without exception have taught Baptism of Desire, either through their own words, or through the Holy Office and the Congregation of the Council. These phony Catholics judge all the popes since the 1560s to be heretics! How can anyone take these fanatical fundamentalists seriously?
As said before:
No. A person is not a heretic if he/she believes in Baptism of Desire as previously taught by the Church: This is for sincere CATECHUMENS ONLY. Although the teaching of BOD/BOB has been tolerated within this context and for truly exceptional cases, still they are not dogmas, not even doctrines. BOD/BOB are theories that belong to the realm of speculation and are open for discussion. A Catholic is free to believe in them and do not cease to be a Catholic if does so.
The argument is that they are NOT INFALLIBLE. They are fallible theories, and so, they could be changed.
BOD / BOB have never been defide Catholic dogmas, but fallible theological opinions only and this was strictly for catechumens and martyrs ONLY. Although they were tolerated by the Church as evident in catechisms, nowadays, when we know better how the modern liberals have twisted these theories into indifferentism and universal salvation, a careful re-evaluation on the topic is necessary.
Again, this does not really apply anyway because let's face it: the discussion is not really about BOD/BOB. What the BOD adherents defend and obsess about is not Baptism of Desire at all but salvation by implicit desire of non-Catholics . A heretic novelty. BOD is just the convenient mask the modernist deniers of EENS hide behind and Fr. Feeney, God bless his soul, saw it with all clarity.
-
No one has answered how BoD CAN be a dogma when there's zero evidence that it was revealed, that it was part of the Deposit of Revelation.
You have ONE Church Father who threw it out there, admitted it was completely speculative and not representative of Church doctrine, and then later retracted it as unCatholic.
On the other side you have 7-8 Church Fathers who explicitly reject Baptism of Desire.
Consequently, on what basis can anyone conclude that BoD is dogma?
Nor has it been show that it derives necessarily from other revealed dogma (implicitly, by way of syllogism).
-
No one has answered how BoD CAN be a dogma when there's zero evidence that it was revealed, that it was part of the Deposit of Revelation.
You have ONE Church Father who threw it out there, admitted it was completely speculative and not representative of Church doctrine, and then later retracted it as unCatholic.
On the other side you have 7-8 Church Fathers who explicitly reject Baptism of Desire.
Consequently, on what basis can anyone conclude that BoD is dogma?
Nor has it been show that it derives necessarily from other revealed dogma (implicitly, by way of syllogism).
You've not been paying attention lol
The evidence is because NSAA is the catechisms and some fathers teach it - which supersede infallible decrees from Councils!
It's all about the UOM and their ability to make infallible teachings by simply teaching it. Who needs proof? Not NSAAers, that's a fact - I can hardly believe you could even ask them such a thing.
Never mind, as you have alreay said, that their screwed up belief SHOULD lead them to accept and embrace the Novus Ordo which is also a product of the UOM - but inconsistency is one of the rules of modernists and they proclaim the Church teaches that there are other ways to heaven except through the Church thanks to the UOM.
:facepalm:
-
Feeneyite heretic Cantarella says the doctrine of St. Robert Bellarmine, St. Pius X, and Ven. Pius XII, concerning those who not yet united to the body are nevertheless united to the soul of the Church is heretical. Of course the Holy Ghost is the soul of the Church -- does clueless Cantarella think that those three illustrious pontiffs were ignorant of that? It is precisely because such souls not yet washed by baptismal waters, (as St. Thomas Aq. explains), are sanctified by the unction of the Holy Ghost, that it is said of them, that they are united to the soul of the Church. The proposition that BOD only validly applies to catechumens is contrary to the entire post-Tridentine universal & ordinary magistetium.
I & Fr. Kramer have amply demonstrated that ALL the post Tridentine popes have taught BOB & BOD as a point of Catholic doctrine: it is absolutely absurd to call such teaching of the popes and corporate body of bishops a mere speculation on an open question. That proposition is heresy because it denies a definition of the universal & ordinary magisterium.
The argument that the validity of baptism depends on the act of faith to be supplied by the parents is unknown to Catholic doctrine. It is contrary to the doctrine of the universsl & ordinary magisterium. It is an invention. If that were true, then Fr. Edgardo Mortara was never s Catholic, and never a priest; and Pius IX offended gravely against the parental rights of his Jєωιѕн parents, by removing the baptized baby from his Jєωιѕн home. Mortara was apparently dying, and the Catholic housemaid baptized him. The child recovered his health. He was never rebaptized, but his baptism was and has always been judged valid by the Church.
-
St. Pope Pius X in his Catechism of Christian Doctrine (1908) taught:
The Creed, Ninth Article, The Church in Particular: 29 Q. But if a man through no fault of his own is outside the Church, can he be saved? A. If he is outside the Church through no fault of his, that is, if he is in good faith, and if he has received Baptism, or at least has the implicit desire of Baptism; and if, moreover, he sincerely seeks the truth and does God's will as best he can such a man is indeed separated from the body of the Church, but is united to the soul of the Church and consequently is on the way of salvation
Baptism, Necessity of Baptism and Obligations of the Baptized: 17 Q. Can the absence of Baptism be supplied in any other way? A. The absence of Baptism can be supplied by martyrdom, which is called Baptism of Blood, or by an act of perfect love of God, or of contrition, along with the desire, at least implicit, of Baptism, and this is called Baptism of Desire.
Ambrose,
Is your purpose to imply that the teaching of St. Pius X is in agreement with the doctrinal teaching of the "magisterial" 1949 Holy Office Letter? And further, that the previous quotations posted of Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop Fellay concerning the salvation of good willed Jews as Jews, Buddhists as Buddista, Muslims as Muslims, etc., etc. are in agreement with both St. Pius X and the 1949 Holy Office Letter on questions of salvation?
Drew
No, my purpose is to show you approved Catholic teaching, so that all on here can be better educated on what they must believe.
There is no salvation a outside the Church, and that includes all who are outside the Church in false religions. If any are saved, they are no longer outside, but inside the arc of salvation.
Ambrose:
Paolo is having a hard time making up his mind. He is afraid that he may say something that he will end up regretting. How about you? Can you answer plainly a few questions?
I know that Fr. Kramer and Bishop Fellay both agreed with and followed the opinion of Archbishop Lefebvre that the 1949 Holy Office Letter is a correct "magisterial" exposition on the Church doctrine, EENS. You have already said that the 1949 Holy Office Letter censored Fr. Feeney's for rejecting "implicit Baptism of Desire."
The first question is, Do you agree with this opinion of Fr. Kramer, Bishop Fellay and Archbishop Lefebvre that the 1949 Holy Office Letter is an orthodox exposition of Catholic doctrine?
Next question, Is the 1949 Holy Office Letter the same doctrine taught by St. Pius X in his catechism?
And last question, Do you agree with the quotations provided by Bishop Fellay and Archbishop Lefebvre that a "good willed" Jew, Hindu, Buddhist, Muslim, Protestant, etc. can be saved while being a Jew, Hindu, Buddhist, Muslim, Protestant, etc.?
Drew
-
All that matters is that the Catechism was promulgated by St. Pius X, and composed under his direction. It is his magisterium. Pius V didn't write the Roman Catechism, but it pertains to his magisterium because he apoointed Cardinal Charles Borromeo to supervise and direct its composition, and then he promulgated it.
-
Cantarella thinks the long abandoned opinion that BOD applies only to catachumens was defined Church doctrine! What a theological dilettante!
-
Don Paolo and Ambrose are just dishonest liars, and Don Paolo is practically rabid in his error.
Msgr. Fenton (your hero) wrote at least one long article talking about how Pius XII condemned the error that one can belong to the soul of the Church without belonging to the body of the Church.
-
Don Paolo and Ambrose are just dishonest liars, and Don Paolo is practically rabid in his error.
Msgr. Fenton (your hero) wrote at least one long article talking about how Pius XII condemned the error that one can belong to the soul of the Church without belonging to the body of the Church.
Then quote the condemnation or retract your accusation.
-
Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton, The Catholic Church and Salvation, 1958, p. 127: “By all means the most important and the most widely employed of all the inadequate explanations of the Church’s necessity for salvation was the one that centered around a distinction between the ‘body’ and the ‘soul’ of the Catholic Church. The individual who tried to explain the dogma in this fashion generally designated the visible Church itself as the ‘body’ of the Church and applied the term ‘soul of the Church’ either to grace and the supernatural virtues or some fancied ‘invisible Church.’…there were several books and articles claiming that, while the ‘soul’ of the Church was in some way not separated from the ‘body,’ it was actually more extensive than this ‘body.’ Explanations of the Church’s necessity drawn up in terms of this distinction were at best inadequate and confusing and all too frequently infected with serious error.”
-
Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton, The Catholic Church and Salvation, 1958, p. 127: “By all means the most important and the most widely employed of all the inadequate explanations of the Church’s necessity for salvation was the one that centered around a distinction between the ‘body’ and the ‘soul’ of the Catholic Church. The individual who tried to explain the dogma in this fashion generally designated the visible Church itself as the ‘body’ of the Church and applied the term ‘soul of the Church’ either to grace and the supernatural virtues or some fancied ‘invisible Church.’…there were several books and articles claiming that, while the ‘soul’ of the Church was in some way not separated from the ‘body,’ it was actually more extensive than this ‘body.’ Explanations of the Church’s necessity drawn up in terms of this distinction were at best inadequate and confusing and all too frequently infected with serious error.”
That's not a condemnation, I am still waiting.
-
:jumping2:
The Theological Proof For The Necessity Of The Catholic Church
Thirdly, there was the notion that the soul of the Church was some kind of an invisible society of the just, a company of those in the state of grace even outside the confines of the visible Catholic Church. Prior to the appearance of the encyclical Mystici corporis there were a good many Catholic writers and lecturers who attempted to explain the necessity of the Church in terms of this fictitious assembly, asserting that, in order to be saved, a man had a least to be a member of this invisible society. The appearance of the Mystici corporis, officially denying the existence of such an invisible society or Church, has been an unquestionable blessing for the Church of God in our times.
http://www.romancatholicism.org/fenton/proof1.html
-
Mr. Drew, your questions I will answer but first I ask you to answer these that I pose to you below.
Before that, Ladislaus, as for where BOD is found in revelation, it is sufficient that the Church judges it to be found therein. But these texts should be well known anyway, Jesus promises the indwelling of the Holy Trinity in any man who loves Him, He promises eternal life to any man who dies for Him, all these long after declaring the absolute necessity of baptism. Moreover, St. John says whoever loves is born of God etc.
Q. 654. How do we know that the baptism of desire or of blood will save us when it is impossible to receive the baptism of water?
A. We know that baptism of desire or of blood will save us when it is impossible to receive the baptism of water, from Holy Scripture, which teaches that love of God and perfect contrition can secure the remission of sins ; and also that Our Lord promises salvation to those who lay down their life for His sake or for His teaching.
When Catechisms such as this and all the others cited above approved by the Pope and bishops and taught throughout the Church teach a doctrine as certain after citing Sacred Scripture as proof, that doctrine must be firmly believed and held by all. To claim it is not contained in revelation because in your private reading of the Bible (or the Fathers, like the Greek schismatics do with the Immaculate Conception) you cannot find BOD in Scripture is not a Catholic approach.
Finally BOD logically derives from BOB, and BOB can independently be shown to have been a settled question even in the patristic age. Simply denying this without giving a contrary example of what you consider to be unanimous consent, and by what objective standard you judge something to be unanimous, does not pass, sorry.
1. Now, Mr. Drew, Do you believe your position that no one is saved without receiving the sacrament of baptism in re is compatible with the Encyclical Quanto Conficiamur Moeore? This Encyclical states plainly that God will lead those invincibly ignorant of the true religion to salvation through "the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace." This certainly does not refer to water baptism, but to supernatural faith. So Pius IX is teaching that God will save the invincibly ignorant through a baptism of desire. What is your view on this, and do you realize if correct it proves your position on Trent wrong?
2. Are you aware that this was discussed in Vatican I, as the historians who provide an account of the Council Father's acts tell us, and that the true meaning of this Encyclical was there explained exactly as all Catholics before Fr. Feeney believed it? Moreover Fr. Hardon relates the following, a Schema De Ecclesia accepted by the Council Fathers plainly taught baptism of desire, the two docuмents of Pius IX on invincible ignorance were quoted in extenso and the essential terms were fully explained. “By the words, ‘those who labor in invincible ignorance’ is indicated the possibility that a person may not belong to the visible and external communion of the Church, and yet may attain to justification and eternal life.” [25] Moreover the saving clause on invincibility was incorporated into a proposed definition, namely, “It is a dogma of faith that no one can be saved outside the Church. However, those who labor in invincible ignorance of Christ and His Church are not to be punished for this ignorance with eternal pains, since they are not burdened with guilt on this account in the eyes of God, who wishes all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth, and who does not deny His grace to the person who does what he can, to enable him to attain to justification and eternal life. But this salvation no one attains, who leaves this life culpably separated from the unity of faith and communion of the Church.” [26] Consequently, although the doctrine of Pius IX remained part of the unfinished business of the Vatican Council and was not formally defined, it is certainly definable and may be called proxima fidei or “practically of faith.”
This agreement of the episcopate with the Pope that such was definable not only proves your novel interpretation of Trent certainly wrong but it proves that the doctrine is already binding, like Pius XII said the agreement of the episcopate with the Pope that the Assumption was definable proves it was already binding doctrine even if he would not proceed to define it.
3. Thirdly, yes, Suprema Haec Sacra was issued by Cardinal Ottaviani who reliably informs us it was approved by Pius XII. Pius XII later excommunicated Fr. Feeney, so we are even more sure of it, this latter docuмent was placed in the Acta. Further, there is another authoritative statement in the AAS where Pius XII leaves no doubt that he is teaching baptism of desire where he states that an act of love of God is sufficient for an adult to obtain sanctifying grace. So yes, Suprema Haec Sacra (the Holy Office Letter) is correct and should be accepted.
-
Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton, The Catholic Church and Salvation, 1958, p. 127: “By all means the most important and the most widely employed of all the inadequate explanations of the Church’s necessity for salvation was the one that centered around a distinction between the ‘body’ and the ‘soul’ of the Catholic Church. The individual who tried to explain the dogma in this fashion generally designated the visible Church itself as the ‘body’ of the Church and applied the term ‘soul of the Church’ either to grace and the supernatural virtues or some fancied ‘invisible Church.’…there were several books and articles claiming that, while the ‘soul’ of the Church was in some way not separated from the ‘body,’ it was actually more extensive than this ‘body.’ Explanations of the Church’s necessity drawn up in terms of this distinction were at best inadequate and confusing and all too frequently infected with serious error.”
That's not a condemnation, I am still waiting.
Just your typical heretical cognitive dissonance. If the Church would come out and anathematize anyone who believed in Baptism of Desire, you'd find a way to get out of it.
-
When Catechisms such as this and all the others cited above approved by the Pope and bishops and taught throughout the Church teach a doctrine as certain after citing Sacred Scripture as proof, that doctrine must be firmly believed and held by all.
I'm sorry, Nishant, but I absolutely cannot take you seriously. You say that an EcuмENICAL COUNCIL "approved by the Pope and bishops and taught throughout the Church" contains grave error and need not be "firmly believed by all". Yet the Penny Catechism is infallible.
Talk about cognitive dissonance and utter absurdity.
Do you want to call him out on this, LoT, Ambrose, SJB?
-
BOD is in scripture: Acts. 10: 46-7: "τoτε ἀaπεκριθη Πeτρος, Μeτι τo υδωρ δυναται κωλυσαι τις τοuόµη βαπτισθηναι τουτους οιτινες το πνευµα το αγιονελαβον ως καιἡµεις;"; it was an open question in the Patristic period; it was unanimously taught by the Medieval Doctors; its premises and conclusion were definitively set forth in the Decree on Justification; it was taught in the Roman Catechism; it was subsequently taught by all the post Tridentine popes & Doctors; and since the late Sixternth Century it has been universally taught by the ordinary magisterium. I have already sufficiently demonstrated each point. NOD is de fide.
Ladislaus is wrong again: the Penny Catechism was approved by Rome and imposed by ecclesiastical authority to teach Catholic doctrine. Vatican II imposed its opinions on no one: 1) In the final official act of the Council Paul VI declared that no point of doctrine had been defined by the Council ("Ecclesiam per suum magisterium ...nullum doctrinae caput sententiis dogmaticis extraordinariis definire voluerit"); and 2) The appendix of Lumen Gentium ruled that no doctrine is to be considered binding in conscience unless it will have been expressly stated to be.
-
What's wrong with this site? It is supposed to be for theological discussion; but you can't even quote the NT in the original Greek?
-
Erratum: NOD should be "BOD"
The Church has always taught that if an infant is about to die; then if possible, the child must be administered emergency baptism. This is what I was taught in the 1950s, and it was likewise what the Catholic housemaid in the Mortara household was taught in the days of Pius IX. There is no question whatever that infant baptism is unquestionably valid, even if there are no parents or godparents to profess the Catholic faith in the child's name.
This argument of Ladislaus is a heretical argument of a desperate Feeneyite who will resort to any heresy, error or falsehood to support the Ferneyite denial of BOD. I have amply proven beyond all shadow of doubt that BOD is clearly de fide definita already since the Council of Trent. I (and Fr. Kramer) have conclusively demonstrated by critical examination of the canons and decrees of Trent; and presenting the evidence that clearly demonstrates beyond all doubt that BOB & BOD have been infallibly defined by the universal & ordinary magisterium. So far, you obstinate Feeneyite heretics have only, 1) ignored the theological arguments and evidence; or, 2) you attempt to refute my arguments by, a) misrepresenting my arguments and refuting your distorted caricatures of them; and, b) concocting specious and nonsensical arguments that betray your lack of formal training in Theology.
Drew, (contrary to the explicit teaching dogmatically set forth in the Decree on Justification, and infallibly taught by the universal & ordinary magisterium), catagorically and gratuitously asserts that there can be no salvation without the actual washing of sacramental water. His argument is based on the patently false and gratuitous assertion that the grace needed for salvation cannot be obtained without the administration of the waters of Baptism. He absurdly asserts that the canons of Trent condemn the notion of BOB & BOD, by abstracting them from their clearly expressed meaning and context in the decrees, and importing his own theologically incoherent meaning into them. Stubborn and Cantarella are likewise habitual offenders of gratuitously predicating their own logically incoherent signification and meaning into the canons. The most patent and ludicrous example of this abuse is Cantarella's (and Drew's) obsession for the canon which defines that for baptism, true and natural water is necessary. The canon can only mean, and does in fact mean, that for the valid administration of sacramental baptism, the absolutely necessary matter of the sacrament is WATER. In precisely the same manner that the absolutely necessary matter for Extreme Unction is OIL; and for the confecting of the Eucharist, BREAD & WINE. That is ALL that the canon defines about Baptism. It cannot rationally be construed to mean that without water there can be no justification or salvation, because that would directly contradict the teaching of the Decree on Justification which 1) defines that justification cannot take place without Baptism OR the vow of it ( Ch. 4), 2) that justification thus obtained fulfills the evangelical requirement of being reborn of water and the Holy Ghost ( Ch 4), 3) that those thus justified are made heirs on this earth in the hope of eternal life (Ch. 7), and, 4) that those who depart from this world and appear before the divine Judge in possession of justifying grace will enter eternal life (Ch. 7). These four points clearly and unequivocally expressed in the precision of ecclesiastical Latin constitute all the defining points of the doctrine of Baptism of Desire. The artificial and logically incoherent meaning that you Feeneyites gratuitously attribute to the canon, construes it to be understood as contradicting the unequivocally expressed doctrine of the Decree on Justification. Furthermore, Can. 4 of Session 7 defines the nature of that necessity for the sacraments; declaring them necessary for salvation precisely for the reason that without the sacraments or the vow of them, there is no justification. This is logically the only possible interpretation of this canon; because the gratuitous and esoteric Feeneyite interpretation of it sets it in irreconcilable logical opposition to the doctrine of justification and salvation defined in the above enumerated four points of the Decree on Justification.
A further example of the Feeneyite fairyland theology is Drew's most stupid insistence that BOD would make the reception of Baptism optional and superfluous. I have already exposed the fallacy of this silly argument, but Drew blindly, irrationally, and obstinately adheres to it. It does not require a genius level intelligence to grasp that if the administration of Baptism were optional or superfluous, then one could be justified by faith, repentance and charity alone; without any need at all for the resolve and desire to receive the sacrament! It is not that you Feeneyites lack the intellect to easily grasp the heretical absurdity of your beliefs, but rather, you obstinately refuse to abandon your perverse attachment to your heresy. You all have plainly demonstrated a rabid and blind refusal to turn away from your depraved belief and return to the purity of the faith you professed at your Baptism -- instead you prefer to propagate the lie, so typical of heretics, that your little sect is the last bastion of the true faith; and all the popes & Doctors, and all the faithful who together with them, were and are in heresy. Scripture says, "As the tree leans, so it falls." By remaining in blind and obstinate resistance to the divinely revealed truth, you blaspheme the Holy Ghost and ensure your fall into the pit of the eternal fires of hell.
-
I have amply proven beyond all shadow of doubt that BOD is clearly de fide definita already since the Council of Trent.
:roll-laugh1:
You couldn't prove yourself out of a wet paper bag.
-
Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton, The Catholic Church and Salvation, 1958, p. 127: “By all means the most important and the most widely employed of all the inadequate explanations of the Church’s necessity for salvation was the one that centered around a distinction between the ‘body’ and the ‘soul’ of the Catholic Church. The individual who tried to explain the dogma in this fashion generally designated the visible Church itself as the ‘body’ of the Church and applied the term ‘soul of the Church’ either to grace and the supernatural virtues or some fancied ‘invisible Church.’…there were several books and articles claiming that, while the ‘soul’ of the Church was in some way not separated from the ‘body,’ it was actually more extensive than this ‘body.’ Explanations of the Church’s necessity drawn up in terms of this distinction were at best inadequate and confusing and all too frequently infected with serious error.”
That's not a condemnation, I am still waiting.
Just your typical heretical cognitive dissonance. If the Church would come out and anathematize anyone who believed in Baptism of Desire, you'd find a way to get out of it.
Do you know what a condemnation is? Msgr. Fenton was not condemning the term, "soul" of the Church, he was aware of the fact that the term could be ambiguous and was inadequate for giving a precise explanation.
You just make this up as you go along. Will you concede that you are wrong and there is no condemnation?
-
Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton, The Catholic Church and Salvation, 1958, p. 127: “By all means the most important and the most widely employed of all the inadequate explanations of the Church’s necessity for salvation was the one that centered around a distinction between the ‘body’ and the ‘soul’ of the Catholic Church. The individual who tried to explain the dogma in this fashion generally designated the visible Church itself as the ‘body’ of the Church and applied the term ‘soul of the Church’ either to grace and the supernatural virtues or some fancied ‘invisible Church.’…there were several books and articles claiming that, while the ‘soul’ of the Church was in some way not separated from the ‘body,’ it was actually more extensive than this ‘body.’ Explanations of the Church’s necessity drawn up in terms of this distinction were at best inadequate and confusing and all too frequently infected with serious error.”
That's not a condemnation, I am still waiting.
Just your typical heretical cognitive dissonance. If the Church would come out and anathematize anyone who believed in Baptism of Desire, you'd find a way to get out of it.
Do you know what a condemnation is? Msgr. Fenton was not condemning the term, "soul" of the Church, he was aware of the fact that the term could be ambiguous and was inadequate for giving a precise explanation.
You just make this up as you go along. Will you concede that you are wrong and there is no condemnation?
Msgr. Fenton can't condemn anything. He was pointing out that Pius XII condemned it.
-
It is quite obvious that Msgr. Fenton's critical judgment on the term, "the soul of the Church", was not a judgment on the doctrine as such, which was taught by St. Robert Bellarmine and St. Pius X, but rather was focused on the less than satisfactory attempts by theologians to systematically elaborate the doctrine. As usual, the nebulous mind of Ladislaus is woefully inadequate for making such critical distinctions.
-
Mr. Drew, your questions I will answer but first I ask you to answer these that I pose to you below.
Before that, Ladislaus, as for where BOD is found in revelation, it is sufficient that the Church judges it to be found therein. But these texts should be well known anyway, Jesus promises the indwelling of the Holy Trinity in any man who loves Him, He promises eternal life to any man who dies for Him, all these long after declaring the absolute necessity of baptism. Moreover, St. John says whoever loves is born of God etc.
Q. 654. How do we know that the baptism of desire or of blood will save us when it is impossible to receive the baptism of water?
A. We know that baptism of desire or of blood will save us when it is impossible to receive the baptism of water, from Holy Scripture, which teaches that love of God and perfect contrition can secure the remission of sins ; and also that Our Lord promises salvation to those who lay down their life for His sake or for His teaching.
When Catechisms such as this and all the others cited above approved by the Pope and bishops and taught throughout the Church teach a doctrine as certain after citing Sacred Scripture as proof, that doctrine must be firmly believed and held by all. To claim it is not contained in revelation because in your private reading of the Bible (or the Fathers, like the Greek schismatics do with the Immaculate Conception) you cannot find BOD in Scripture is not a Catholic approach.
Finally BOD logically derives from BOB, and BOB can independently be shown to have been a settled question even in the patristic age. Simply denying this without giving a contrary example of what you consider to be unanimous consent, and by what objective standard you judge something to be unanimous, does not pass, sorry.
1. Now, Mr. Drew, Do you believe your position that no one is saved without receiving the sacrament of baptism in re is compatible with the Encyclical Quanto Conficiamur Moeore? This Encyclical states plainly that God will lead those invincibly ignorant of the true religion to salvation through "the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace." This certainly does not refer to water baptism, but to supernatural faith. So Pius IX is teaching that God will save the invincibly ignorant through a baptism of desire. What is your view on this, and do you realize if correct it proves your position on Trent wrong?
2. Are you aware that this was discussed in Vatican I, as the historians who provide an account of the Council Father's acts tell us, and that the true meaning of this Encyclical was there explained exactly as all Catholics before Fr. Feeney believed it? Moreover Fr. Hardon relates the following, a Schema De Ecclesia accepted by the Council Fathers plainly taught baptism of desire, the two docuмents of Pius IX on invincible ignorance were quoted in extenso and the essential terms were fully explained. “By the words, ‘those who labor in invincible ignorance’ is indicated the possibility that a person may not belong to the visible and external communion of the Church, and yet may attain to justification and eternal life.” [25] Moreover the saving clause on invincibility was incorporated into a proposed definition, namely, “It is a dogma of faith that no one can be saved outside the Church. However, those who labor in invincible ignorance of Christ and His Church are not to be punished for this ignorance with eternal pains, since they are not burdened with guilt on this account in the eyes of God, who wishes all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth, and who does not deny His grace to the person who does what he can, to enable him to attain to justification and eternal life. But this salvation no one attains, who leaves this life culpably separated from the unity of faith and communion of the Church.” [26] Consequently, although the doctrine of Pius IX remained part of the unfinished business of the Vatican Council and was not formally defined, it is certainly definable and may be called proxima fidei or “practically of faith.”
This agreement of the episcopate with the Pope that such was definable not only proves your novel interpretation of Trent certainly wrong but it proves that the doctrine is already binding, like Pius XII said the agreement of the episcopate with the Pope that the Assumption was definable proves it was already binding doctrine even if he would not proceed to define it.
3. Thirdly, yes, Suprema Haec Sacra was issued by Cardinal Ottaviani who reliably informs us it was approved by Pius XII. Pius XII later excommunicated Fr. Feeney, so we are even more sure of it, this latter docuмent was placed in the Acta. Further, there is another authoritative statement in the AAS where Pius XII leaves no doubt that he is teaching baptism of desire where he states that an act of love of God is sufficient for an adult to obtain sanctifying grace. So yes, Suprema Haec Sacra (the Holy Office Letter) is correct and should be accepted.
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9quanto.htm
QUANTO CONFICIAMUR MOERORE
8. Also well known is the Catholic teaching that no one can be saved outside the Catholic Church. Eternal salvation cannot be obtained by those who oppose the authority and statements of the same Church and are stubbornly separated from the unity of the Church and also from the successor of Peter, the Roman Pontiff, to whom "the custody of the vineyard has been committed by the Savior."[4] The words of Christ are clear enough: "If he refuses to listen even to the Church, let him be to you a Gentile and a tax collector;"[5] "He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you, rejects me, and he who rejects me, rejects him who sent me;"[6] "He who does not believe will be condemned;"[7] "He who does not believe is already condemned;"[8] "He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters."[9] The Apostle Paul says that such persons are "perverted and self-condemned;"[10] the Prince of the Apostles calls them "false teachers . . . who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master. . . bringing upon themselves swift destruction."[11]
9. God forbid that the children of the Catholic Church should even in any way be unfriendly to those who are not at all united to us by the same bonds of faith and love. On the contrary, let them be eager always to attend to their needs with all the kind services of Christian charity, whether they are poor or sick or suffering any other kind of visitation. First of all, let them rescue them from the darkness of the errors into which they have unhappily fallen and strive to guide them back to Catholic truth and to their most loving Mother who is ever holding out her maternal arms to receive them lovingly back into her fold. Thus, firmly founded in faith, hope, and charity and fruitful in every good work, they will gain eternal salvation.
-
I would like to see the verbatim quotation and precise reference of Pius XII's "condemnation" of Bellarmine's and St. Pius X's doctrine on "the soul of the Church". Only a total ignoramus could possibly be taken in by Ladislaus' extravagant claim -- after all, the Congregation for the Canonization of the Saints would not have approved the teaching of St. Pius X, if it had contained any doctrinal error; and Pius XII would not have canonized him if that were the case.
-
It is quite obvious that Msgr. Fenton's critical judgment on the term, "the soul of the Church", was not a judgment on the doctrine as such, which was taught by St. Robert Bellarmine and St. Pius X, but rather was focused on the less than satisfactory attempts by theologians to systematically elaborate the doctrine. As usual, the nebulous mind of Ladislaus is woefully inadequate for making such critical distinctions.
Major: It's erroneous to state that someone can belong to the soul of the Church while not belonging to the body.
Minor: Catechism of Pius X states that people can belong to the soul of the Church while not belonging to the body.
-
I would like to see the verbatim quotation and precise reference of Pius XII's "condemnation" of Bellarmine's and St. Pius X's doctrine on "the soul of the Church".
Msgr. Fenton wrote a long piece on the fact that St. Robert Bellarmine didn't teach this.
I don't really care what you'd like to see. You're not interested in the truth; you are a liar who contradicts anything that might be considered inconvenient for your own doctrinal depravity. Look it up yourself if you're interested in the truth. We know of course that you're not.
-
I can see your mission now, Don Paolo; your sole purpose here is to wear down the defenders of the Catholic Faith with torrents of stupidity until we get exasperated by it.
-
Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton, The Catholic Church and Salvation, 1958, p. 127: “By all means the most important and the most widely employed of all the inadequate explanations of the Church’s necessity for salvation was the one that centered around a distinction between the ‘body’ and the ‘soul’ of the Catholic Church. The individual who tried to explain the dogma in this fashion generally designated the visible Church itself as the ‘body’ of the Church and applied the term ‘soul of the Church’ either to grace and the supernatural virtues or some fancied ‘invisible Church.’…there were several books and articles claiming that, while the ‘soul’ of the Church was in some way not separated from the ‘body,’ it was actually more extensive than this ‘body.’ Explanations of the Church’s necessity drawn up in terms of this distinction were at best inadequate and confusing and all too frequently infected with serious error.”
That's not a condemnation, I am still waiting.
Just your typical heretical cognitive dissonance. If the Church would come out and anathematize anyone who believed in Baptism of Desire, you'd find a way to get out of it.
Do you know what a condemnation is? Msgr. Fenton was not condemning the term, "soul" of the Church, he was aware of the fact that the term could be ambiguous and was inadequate for giving a precise explanation.
You just make this up as you go along. Will you concede that you are wrong and there is no condemnation?
Msgr. Fenton can't condemn anything. He was pointing out that Pius XII condemned it.
I know that, but Pope Pius XII and not condemn it, and Msgr. Fenton did not say he did.
-
Marie Auxilliadora has produced a quotation of Pius IX that does not even remotely address the question of BOD. Like David Drew she is wallowing in logical incoherence -- she must be Mrs. Drew!
-
Marie Auxilliadora has produced a quotation of Pius IX that does not even remotely address the question of BOD. Like David Drew she is wallowing in logical incoherence -- she must be Mrs. Drew!
You're mentally disturbed.
-
Marie Auxilliadora has produced a quotation of Pius IX that does not even remotely address the question of BOD. Like David Drew she is wallowing in logical incoherence -- she must be Mrs. Drew!
:roll-laugh1:"Wallowing in logical incoherence."
:roll-laugh1:
Only you, only you could find "logic", "incoherent."
-
St. Pope Pius X in his Catechism of Christian D
Ambrose:
Paolo is having a hard time making up his mind. He is afraid that he may say something that he will end up regretting. How about you? Can you answer plainly a few questions?
I know that Fr. Kramer and Bishop Fellay both agreed with and followed the opinion of Archbishop Lefebvre that the 1949 Holy Office Letter is a correct "magisterial" exposition on the Church doctrine, EENS. You have already said that the 1949 Holy Office Letter censored Fr. Feeney's for rejecting "implicit Baptism of Desire."
The first question is, Do you agree with this opinion of Fr. Kramer, Bishop Fellay and Archbishop Lefebvre that the 1949 Holy Office Letter is an orthodox exposition of Catholic doctrine?
Next question, Is the 1949 Holy Office Letter the same doctrine taught by St. Pius X in his catechism?
And last question, Do you agree with the quotations provided by Bishop Fellay and Archbishop Lefebvre that a "good willed" Jew, Hindu, Buddhist, Muslim, Protestant, etc. can be saved while being a Jew, Hindu, Buddhist, Muslim, Protestant, etc.?
Drew
Were these questions ever answered?
-
In answer to Drew's questions:
The Holy Office Letter is a docuмent of the magisterium and must be believed under pain of sin. It is an orthodox explanation of doctrine.
There is no contradiction between the Catechism of St. Pius X and the Holy Office Letter. The Holy Office Letter is the most complete explanation, but it follows what was already being taught by the theologians for some time prior to the docuмent. It was not new doctrine.
No one can be saved outside the Church. It seems to me that Archbishop Lefebvre and Bp. Fellay are not denying this, just not being as precise as we would like them to be.
It is impossible for one outside the Church to be in the state of sanctifying grace, so if they are justified, they are already in the Church (though not yet a member) through Baptism of Desire (implicit).
It may be that Archbishop Lefebvre and Bp. Fellay accept the minority opinion among theologians, tolerated by the Holy See, which accepts the minimum acts of supernatural Faith as being a belief in the one true God (1) who is a rewarder of just and a punisher of evil (2).
The minimum amount of Faith necessary is still an unresolved question among the theologians, and not yet settled by the magisterium.
-
The minimum amount of Faith necessary is still an unresolved question among the theologians, and not yet settled by the magisterium.
Yet, the Catholic Church says that it is necessary to hold the Catholic Faith explicitly in Her ENTERITY for salvation. Explicit faith in the Incarnation and the Most Holy Trinity are REQUIRED for salvation.
ex cathedra[/u]]
“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.”
ex cathedra[/u]]
“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…”
ex cathedra[/u]]
“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.”
ex cathedra[/u]]
“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.”
ex cathedra[/u]] “This true Catholic faith, outside of which no one can be saved… I now profess and truly hold…”
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…”
“This true Catholic faith, outside of which none can be saved, which I now freely profess and truly hold…”
---------
After the Incarnation, all men, if they wish to be saved, are “bound to explicit faith in the mysteries of Christ, chiefly as regards those which are observed throughout the Church and publicly proclaimed, such as the articles that refer to the Incarnation.” 4 And, after the Incarnation, all men, in order to be saved, “are bound to explicit faith in the mystery of the Trinity.”
We begin the exposition of the dogmas of the Faith of Christ, whose knowledge is necessary for every one who earnestly desires the salvation of his soul
Moreover, when the only Begotten Son of God commanded His legates to teach all nations, He then bound all men with the duty to believe what was announced to them by “witnesses preordained by God.” He attached to His command the sanction, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be condemned.” Now, this double commandment of Christ, which must be observed, to teach and to believe so as to attain eternal salvation, cannot even be understood if the Church does not propose the evangelical doctrine entire and clear and if, in the teaching of it, it is not free from all danger of error
It is necessary that you inculcate this salutary teaching in the souls of those who exaggerate the power of human reason to such a point that they dare, by its power, to investigate and explain the mysteries themselves, than which nothing is more foolish, nothing more insane. Strive to call them back from such a perversity of mind, explaining indeed that nothing was granted to men by God’s Providence more excellent than the authority of the divine faith, that this faith is to us like a torch in the darkness, that it is the leader that we follow to Life, that it is absolutely necessary for salvation, since “without faith it is impossible to please God,” and “he that believeth not shall be condemned
....This is the Catholic faith, which except a man shall have believed faithfully and firmly he cannot be in a state of salvation.
-
Pope Innocent XI condemns the following heretical proposition on ignorance:
A man is capable of absolution, however much he may labor in ignorance of the mysteries of the faith, and even though through negligence, be it even culpable, he does not know the Mystery of the Most Holy Trinity and of the Incarnation of Our Lord Jesus Christ.
Also another error regarding the explicit faith in the Catholic Church and in her supremacy, the Council of Constance condemned the proposition of heretic John Wycliffsaid that said that it was not necessary for salvation to believe in the supremacy of the Roman Church.
-
Even St. Bellarmine himself teaches that no one can be a member of the Church "who is not visibly affiliated with the one visible society founded by Christ, subject to the authority of His vicar, the Roman Pontiff".
The Church is a society, not of Angels, nor of souls, but of men. But it cannot be called a society of men, unless it consist in external and visible signs; for it is not a society unless they who are called members acknowledge themselves to be so, but men cannot acknowledge themselves to be members unless the bonds of the society be external and visible. And this is confirmed by those customs of all human societies; for in an army, in a city, in a kingdom, and other similar societies men would not be enrolled otherwise than by visible signs. Whence Augustine, in Book 19 Against Faustus, Chapter 11, says: “Men cannot assemble in the name of any religion, whether it be true or false, unless they be bound together by some fellowship of visible signs or sacraments.
Thankfully, Ambrose and those like him, are no longer hiding behind the mask of "Baptism of Desire" no more. The discussion about BOD should really be over as it is pointless. These people happen to think that there is really not even need to have Faith in Our Lord Jesus Christ in order to achieve salvation. Not even the Protestants have descended this low. In theirs minds tainted by Modernist sentimentality, even atheists, agnostics, or pagans that believe in a God who punishes the bad and rewards the good (basically just about everyone) can go to Heaven and can be incorporated into the Holy Roman Catholic Church.
As modernists (Rahner style) they are, there is no longer need to hide. Their heresies are right in the open after the unfortunate Council. What is comical though is their alledged opposition to Vatican II that these so called traditionalist imagine to fight against, without realizing (or perhaps in purpose) that they are are undoubtedly adhering to the same heresies, the same unclean spirit of Modernism and Vatican II.
-
Oh, really, Ladislaus? St. Robert Bellarmine didn't teach this: any contradiction between:
"Outside the Church no one is saved, should be understood of those who belong to the Church neither in reality nor in desire, just as theologians commonly speak about baptism. Because catechumens, even though not in church in re (in reality), are in the church in voto (by desire) , and in that way they can be saved.” (De Ecclesia militante) , chap 3., ed. Giuliano, vol. 2, p. 76.
+
Pope Paul V didn't see any contrad
-
Cantarella and Ladislaus are both deliberately lying about the teaching of St. Robert Bellarmine:
"Outside the Church no one is saved, should be understood of those who belong to the Church neither in reality nor in desire, just as theologians commonly speak about baptism. Because catechumens, even though not in church in re (in reality), are in the church in voto (by desire) , and in that way they can be saved.” (De Ecclesia militante) , chap 3., ed. Giuliano, vol. 2, p. 76.
-
St. Robert Bellarmine explicitly teaches Baptism of Desire even after the Council of Trent (according to Feeneyite lunacy) condemned it:
"Perfect conversion and penitence is rightly called baptism of desire, and in necessity at least, it supplies for the baptism of water. It is to be noted that any conversion whatsoever cannot be called baptism of desire; but only perfect conversion, which includes true contrition and charity, and at the same time a desire or vowed intention of baptism." (De Sacramento Baptismi, Liber I cap. VI).
For teaching this (according to Feeneyite lunacy) "heresy", Bellarmine was rewarded by being canonized, and by being declared a Doctor of the Church. It's time for such dimwitted dullards like Cantarella, Ladislaus, Drew and Marie Auxilliadora do occupy themselves with some activity more commensurate with their intellectual capacity -- something like finger painting?
-
In one of his newsletters, Hutton Gibson who supports both BOD and BOB, wondered why Traditional Catholics waste so much time fighting with other Traditional Catholics over the fate of (non-baptized) non-Catholics!
-
The Feeneyites, in their crude fundamentalism, have completely misrepresented the teaching of Pius XII in Mystici Corporis, and Msgr. Fenton's commentary on it: What Pius XII condemned is, "an imaginary Church, a kind of Society that finds its origin and growth in charity, to which they somewhat contemptuously oppose another, which they call juridical."
What is condemned is a heretical notion of an invisible Church, which is a society distinct from and opposed to the Church, but still somehow connected to it. Clearly, however, Fenton was plainly unaware of the orthodox origin and use of the term "soul of the Church", which is used by Bellarmine and St. Pius X; and thus, he erroneously thought that the proponents of the funestus error condemned by Pius XII were the originators of the term, not understanding that the promoters of the error were had actually taken a legitimate term of approved magisterial doctrine, and had perverted it.
-
Ladislaus the liar says St. Robert Bellarmine did not teach the doctrine that those saved by Baptism of Desire are saved becaus they belong to the soul of the Church, and are therefore inside the Church "in voto":
"We must note, however, that, according to Augustine, the Church is a living Body, in which there is a body and a soul. The soul are the internal gifts of the Holy Spirit; faith, hope, and charity, and the rest. The body are the external profession of faith and communication of the Sacraments. From which it follows that some people belong to both the soul and the body of the Church, and are, therefore, united to Christ, the Head, both interiorly and exteriorly. And these are most perfectly in the Church. They are like living members in the body, although among them, too, some participate more and some less in the life (of the body), and some have only the beginnings of life, having, as it were, sensation without movement, like those who have faith without charity. Others, however, are of the soul but not of the body (of the Church), as Catechumens and those who have been excommunicated, who may have faith and charity which is possible. Finally, some belong to the body and not the soul (of the Church), like those who have no internal virtue, but yet, out of hope or (moved) by some temporal fear, they profess the faith and share in the Sacraments, under the rule of legitimate pastors.”
The precise reference will be provided presently.
-
St. Thomas explains precisely and in what manner and degree explicit faith is required. This is the basis of the teaching of Bellarmine, St. Alphonsus and St. Pius X on "implicit votum":
Explicit Faith in the Catholic Church and in her Teachings is Necessary for Salvation:
“Explicit faith in the articles of the Creed is necessary for salvation. But is this enough? Saint Thomas teaches that it is enough only if the person is unable to know more truths explicitly, and does not deny any articles of the Faith (2/2/2/7). On the contrary, a man who professes to hold the truths of the Faith and at the same time explicitly denies even one truth, does not have the Faith at all, and therefore cannot be saved (2/2/3/3). This would be true in the case of a man who denied the supremacy and infallibility of the Catholic and the necessity of the Church for salvation. “For further proof that explicit belief in the Catholic Church is necessary for salvation, let us quote St. Thomas… “Neither formed nor formless faith remains in a heretic who disbelieves one article of faith…. Consequently whoever does not adhere, as to an infallible and divine rule, to the teaching of the Church, which proceeds from the First Truth manifested in Holy Scriptures, has not the habit of faith, but holds the things which are of faith otherwise than by faith,” (2/2/5/3).
-
Here is the doctrine on the soul of the Church explicated by Bellarmine and magisterially taught by Pope St. Pius X:
De Ecclesia Militante, cap. 2. “Notandum autem est ex Augustino in breviculo collat. 3, Ecclesiam esse corpus vivum, in quo est anima et corpus, et quidem anima sunt interna Dona Spiritus Sancti, fides, spes, charitas, etc. Corpus unt externa profession fidei, et communictio sacramentorum. Ex quo fit, ut quidai sint de anima et de corpore Ecclesiae, et proinde uniti Christo capiti interius et exterius; et tales sunt oerfectussuine de Ecclesia; sunt enim quasi membra viva in corpore, Quamvis etiam inter istos aliqui magis minus vitam participeat, et aliqui etiam solum initium vitae habeant, et quasi seasum et non motum, ut qui habeat fidm sine charitate. Rursum aliqui sint de anima, et non de corpore, ut cate4chumeni, vel excommunicati, si fidem et charitatem habeant, quod fieri ptest. Denique, aliqui sint de corpore, et non de anima, ut qui nullam habent internam virtutem, et tamen spe aut timore aliquot temporali profiteatur fidem, et in sacramentis communicant, sub regimine pastorus, et tales sunt sicut capilli, aut ungues, aut mali humores in corpore humano.”
Ladislaus strongly inferred that Bellarmine did not teach this doctrine. How can one debate with someone who is so brazenly dishonest as Ladislaus? Such dishonesty is characteristic of the more rabid Feeneyite fundamentalists, such as Drew & Cantarella.
-
Here is the doctrine on the soul of the Church explicated by Bellarmine and magisterially taught by Pope St. Pius X:
De Ecclesia Militante, cap. 2. “Notandum autem est ex Augustino in breviculo collat. 3, Ecclesiam esse corpus vivum, in quo est anima et corpus, et quidem anima sunt interna Dona Spiritus Sancti, fides, spes, charitas, etc. Corpus unt externa profession fidei, et communictio sacramentorum. Ex quo fit, ut quidai sint de anima et de corpore Ecclesiae, et proinde uniti Christo capiti interius et exterius; et tales sunt oerfectussuine de Ecclesia; sunt enim quasi membra viva in corpore, Quamvis etiam inter istos aliqui magis minus vitam participeat, et aliqui etiam solum initium vitae habeant, et quasi seasum et non motum, ut qui habeat fidm sine charitate. Rursum aliqui sint de anima, et non de corpore, ut cate4chumeni, vel excommunicati, si fidem et charitatem habeant, quod fieri ptest. Denique, aliqui sint de corpore, et non de anima, ut qui nullam habent internam virtutem, et tamen spe aut timore aliquot temporali profiteatur fidem, et in sacramentis communicant, sub regimine pastorus, et tales sunt sicut capilli, aut ungues, aut mali humores in corpore humano.”
Ladislaus strongly inferred that Bellarmine did not teach this doctrine. How can one debate with someone who is so brazenly dishonest as Ladislaus? Such dishonesty is characteristic of the more rabid Feeneyite fundamentalists, such as Drew & Cantarella.
-
Francisco: They are not fighting over the fate of the unbaptized, but over a point of defined Catholic doctrine, namely, BOB/BOD, which must be believed under penalty of heresy. The dispute is formally about the Catholic faith and what must be believed. It only materially concerns the fate of the unbaptized.
-
Francisco: They are not fighting over the fate of the unbaptized, but over a point of defined Catholic doctrine, namely, BOB/BOD, which must be believed under penalty of heresy. The dispute is formally about the Catholic faith and what must be believed. It only materially concerns the fate of the unbaptized.
Yes, we are talking about the modern interpretation of Church doctrine, Extra Ecclesiam Salus.
-
St. Thomas explains precisely and in what manner and degree explicit faith is required. This is the basis of the teaching of Bellarmine, St. Alphonsus and St. Pius X on "implicit votum":
Explicit Faith in the Catholic Church and in her Teachings is Necessary for Salvation:
“Explicit faith in the articles of the Creed is necessary for salvation. But is this enough? Saint Thomas teaches that it is enough only if the person is unable to know more truths explicitly, and does not deny any articles of the Faith (2/2/2/7). On the contrary, a man who professes to hold the truths of the Faith and at the same time explicitly denies even one truth, does not have the Faith at all, and therefore cannot be saved (2/2/3/3). This would be true in the case of a man who denied the supremacy and infallibility of the Catholic and the necessity of the Church for salvation. “For further proof that explicit belief in the Catholic Church is necessary for salvation, let us quote St. Thomas… “Neither formed nor formless faith remains in a heretic who disbelieves one article of faith…. Consequently whoever does not adhere, as to an infallible and divine rule, to the teaching of the Church, which proceeds from the First Truth manifested in Holy Scriptures, has not the habit of faith, but holds the things which are of faith otherwise than by faith,” (2/2/5/3).
Inculpable ignorance of the true religion excuses a person from the sin of infidelity or heresy. But such ignorance has never been the means of salvation. From the fact that a person could potentially live a righteous life according to his conscience and not sin against the true Faith because of ignorance, many have drawn the false and heretical conclusion that such a soul is saved, or be granted sanctifying grace, thus making ignorance a means of salvation.
The dogma of "Outside of the Church there is no salvation," means that no one can go to Heaven unless he is in the state of sanctifying grace and furthermore, that in order to receive sanctifying grace, the soul must be prepared for it by divine Faith. Baptism is the entrance to this spiritual life and the gateway for this development. This preparation of the soul cannot be brought by inculpable ignorance. Every Catholic must know and believe the truths of Salvation as well as receive the Sacraments dispensed by the Church to receive the necessary graces.
According to the Angelic Doctor, God in His mercy will lead the worthy, righteous, well disposed souls, to the knowledge of the necessary truths of salvation, even send them an angel, if necessary, to instruct them, rather than let them perish without their fault. If they accept this grace, they will be saved as Catholics. Inculpable ignorance has never been a means of grace or salvation.
St. Thomas himself states that Faith in truths revealed by God is absolutely necessary for salvation. This faith must be explicit. Implicit desire does not suffice.
"After the Incarnation, all men, if they wish to be saved, are “bound to explicit faith in the mysteries of Christ, chiefly as regards those which are observed throughout the Church and publicly proclaimed, such as the articles that refer to the Incarnation.” 4 And, after the Incarnation, all men, in order to be saved, “are bound to explicit faith in the mystery of the Trinity.”
Invincible ignorants are not guilty of heresy or infidelity, only original and actual sins. It is important to make a clear distinction between the Hell torments for actual sins, and the mere absence of God which is the result of Original Sin. People that have a difficulty understanding God's justice is usually because they do not know about the extent of Original sin and the different levels of Hell. The invincible ignorant is not saved on account of original sin, at the very least.
St. Thomas himself explained that those who die invincibly ignorant, who have heard nothing about the Faith through no fault of their own are still damned for their sins, including original sin, which cannot be taken away without Baptism and the Faith.
“Unbelief has a double sense. First, it can be taken purely negatively; thus a man is called an unbeliever solely because he does not possess faith. Secondly, by way of opposition to faith; thus when a man refuses to hear of the faith or even contemns it, according to Isaiah, “Who has believed our report?” This is where the full nature of unbelief, properly speaking is found, and where the sin lies.
“If, however, unbelief be taken just negatively, as in those who have heard nothing about the faith, it bears the character, not of fault, but of penalty, because their ignorance of divine things is the result of the sin of our first parents. Those who are unbelievers in this sense are condemned on account of other sins, which cannot be forgiven without faith; they are not condemned for the sin of unbelief.”
The Roman Catholic Church infallibly defined at the ecuмenical councils of Lyons and Florence, that the guilt of original sin (which only the Sacrament of Baptism remits) suffices for damnation.
“The souls of those who die in mortal sin or with original sin only, however, immediately descend to hell, to be punished moreover with disparate punishments. […] They will go into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels.”
-
Francisco: They are not fighting over the fate of the unbaptized, but over a point of defined Catholic doctrine, namely, BOB/BOD, which must be believed under penalty of heresy. The dispute is formally about the Catholic faith and what must be believed. It only materially concerns the fate of the unbaptized.
Don Paolo, I'm completely at a loss on this topic. Maybe about 15 years ago in an Asian (Church) journal a priest queried whether the Bull Unam Sanctam (Pope Boniface VIII) had been superceded by current Church thinking. Yes, said the editor. The Theology of the Anonymous Christian (Karl Rahner) - part of the Church's magisterium (which part I dont know)- does indeed supercede this bull.
-
To our human eyes, there is probably no one more deserving of Heaven than a pure and innocent infant. Yet, the Church teaching is that unbaptized infants who die are deprived of the Beatific Vision. Why? Because is the Sacrament of Baptism ONLY what remits Original Sin and no soul enters Heaven with the stain of Original Sin. Would not babies who die be a good example for being "invincible ignorants" that are not baptized Catholic through no fault of their own, so they can be saved (they cannot have any actual sins in them). Yet the Church says:
Regarding children, indeed, because of the danger of death, which can often take place, since no other remedy can help other than the sacrament of Baptism, through which they are snatched from the domination of the Devil and adopted among the children of God, the Holy Roman Church, warns that holy Baptism ought not to be deferred, but it should be conferred as soon as can be done conveniently.
For they maintain that it is useless to confer Baptism on infants. Our answer is that Baptism has taken the place of circuмcision. Therefore as "the soul of the circuмcised was not destroyed out of his people", so shall he who is born again of water and the Holy Spirit gain entrance into the kingdom of Heaven....But through the Sacrament of Baptism sin is remitted and entrance is gained to the kingdom of Heaven. For it would not be fitting that all little children, so many of whom die each day, perish without having some remedy for salvation provided for them by the merciful God, who wishes no one should perish.
venerable Brethren, with pastoral zeal you deplore the now well known abuse which postpones the administration of Holy Baptism of infants for weeks, months, nay even for years, and you have done all in your power to banish this abuse. In truth, there is nothing more contrary to ecclesiastical laws, for not only does it, with unforgivable audacity, put it in evident danger the eternal salvation of many souls, but still more it undoubtly deprives them in this period of waiting of the ineffable gifts of sanctifying grace which are infused by the waters of regeneration. We cannot but approach and condemn this abuse with all Our might as detestable in God's sight.
-
Mr. Drew, your questions I will answer but first I ask you to answer these that I pose to you below.
Before that, Ladislaus, as for where BOD is found in revelation, it is sufficient that the Church judges it to be found therein. But these texts should be well known anyway, Jesus promises the indwelling of the Holy Trinity in any man who loves Him, He promises eternal life to any man who dies for Him, all these long after declaring the absolute necessity of baptism. Moreover, St. John says whoever loves is born of God etc.
Q. 654. How do we know that the baptism of desire or of blood will save us when it is impossible to receive the baptism of water?
A. We know that baptism of desire or of blood will save us when it is impossible to receive the baptism of water, from Holy Scripture, which teaches that love of God and perfect contrition can secure the remission of sins ; and also that Our Lord promises salvation to those who lay down their life for His sake or for His teaching.
When Catechisms such as this and all the others cited above approved by the Pope and bishops and taught throughout the Church teach a doctrine as certain after citing Sacred Scripture as proof, that doctrine must be firmly believed and held by all. To claim it is not contained in revelation because in your private reading of the Bible (or the Fathers, like the Greek schismatics do with the Immaculate Conception) you cannot find BOD in Scripture is not a Catholic approach.
Finally BOD logically derives from BOB, and BOB can independently be shown to have been a settled question even in the patristic age. Simply denying this without giving a contrary example of what you consider to be unanimous consent, and by what objective standard you judge something to be unanimous, does not pass, sorry.
1. Now, Mr. Drew, Do you believe your position that no one is saved without receiving the sacrament of baptism in re is compatible with the Encyclical Quanto Conficiamur Moeore? This Encyclical states plainly that God will lead those invincibly ignorant of the true religion to salvation through "the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace." This certainly does not refer to water baptism, but to supernatural faith. So Pius IX is teaching that God will save the invincibly ignorant through a baptism of desire. What is your view on this, and do you realize if correct it proves your position on Trent wrong?
2. Are you aware that this was discussed in Vatican I, as the historians who provide an account of the Council Father's acts tell us, and that the true meaning of this Encyclical was there explained exactly as all Catholics before Fr. Feeney believed it? Moreover Fr. Hardon relates the following, a Schema De Ecclesia accepted by the Council Fathers plainly taught baptism of desire, the two docuмents of Pius IX on invincible ignorance were quoted in extenso and the essential terms were fully explained. “By the words, ‘those who labor in invincible ignorance’ is indicated the possibility that a person may not belong to the visible and external communion of the Church, and yet may attain to justification and eternal life.” [25] Moreover the saving clause on invincibility was incorporated into a proposed definition, namely, “It is a dogma of faith that no one can be saved outside the Church. However, those who labor in invincible ignorance of Christ and His Church are not to be punished for this ignorance with eternal pains, since they are not burdened with guilt on this account in the eyes of God, who wishes all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth, and who does not deny His grace to the person who does what he can, to enable him to attain to justification and eternal life. But this salvation no one attains, who leaves this life culpably separated from the unity of faith and communion of the Church.” [26] Consequently, although the doctrine of Pius IX remained part of the unfinished business of the Vatican Council and was not formally defined, it is certainly definable and may be called proxima fidei or “practically of faith.”
This agreement of the episcopate with the Pope that such was definable not only proves your novel interpretation of Trent certainly wrong but it proves that the doctrine is already binding, like Pius XII said the agreement of the episcopate with the Pope that the Assumption was definable proves it was already binding doctrine even if he would not proceed to define it.
3. Thirdly, yes, Suprema Haec Sacra was issued by Cardinal Ottaviani who reliably informs us it was approved by Pius XII. Pius XII later excommunicated Fr. Feeney, so we are even more sure of it, this latter docuмent was placed in the Acta. Further, there is another authoritative statement in the AAS where Pius XII leaves no doubt that he is teaching baptism of desire where he states that an act of love of God is sufficient for an adult to obtain sanctifying grace. So yes, Suprema Haec Sacra (the Holy Office Letter) is correct and should be accepted.
Nishant:
I appreciate your reply. You are the first who seems willing to explore where the doctrine of "Baptism of Desire" leads. I think your comments in the Third question adequately answer mine. I do not have the time today to give the extended response that all your questions deserve. I will address the first question now and try to get to the other questions later today or tomorrow.
Faith, that is supernatural Faith as opposed to human faith, is believing what God has revealed on the authority of God. Those who deny anything God has revealed do not possess supernatural Faith because to deny one article of Faith is to reject the authority for all Faith. Dogma is a truth of divine revelation that is infallibly defined by the Church, structured in the form of a universal categorical proposition suitable for all the faithful, and authoritatively imposed as a formal object of divine and Catholic Faith. Dogmas are the truths by which all else is judged.
1. Now, Mr. Drew, Do you believe your position that no one is saved without receiving the sacrament of baptism in re is compatible with the Encyclical Quanto Conficiamur Moeore? This Encyclical states plainly that God will lead those invincibly ignorant of the true religion to salvation through "the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace." This certainly does not refer to water baptism, but to supernatural faith. So Pius IX is teaching that God will save the invincibly ignorant through a baptism of desire. What is your view on this, and do you realize if correct it proves your position on Trent wrong?
You have taken Pope Pius IX comments out of context of the encyclical. Not just out of the context of the docuмent as a whole but ripped it out of the context of the very paragraph in which it is found. This is very much like Fr. Kramer and his echo, Paolo, who take a single sentence from the Decree of Justification entirely out of context of the narrative, even of the very paragraph in which it is found, for the purpose of directly corrupting the literal meaning Catholic Dogma. They actually ended up changing the words of a dogma to correspond to their interpretation of the narrative. Every faithful Catholic instinctively recoils from such temerity to overturn a truth revealed by God.
Here, too, our beloved sons and venerable brothers, it is again necessary to mention and censure a very grave error entrapping some Catholics who believe that it is possible to arrive at eternal salvation although living in error and alienated from the true faith and Catholic unity. Such belief is certainly opposed to Catholic teaching. There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments.
Also well known is the Catholic teaching that no one can be saved outside the Catholic Church.
Pope Pius IX, Quanto Conficiamur
Pius IX begins this paragraph saying, “It is again necessary to mention and censure a very grave error entrapping some Catholics who believe that it is possible to arrive at eternal salvation although living in error and alienated from the true faith and Catholic unity. Such belief is certainly opposed to Catholic teaching.” You are the person who has been “entrapped” in a “very grave error” because you “believe that it is possible to arrive at eternal salvation although living in error and alienated from the true faith and Catholic unity.” This opinion of yours, as Pope Pius says, is “certainly opposed to Catholic teaching.”
The encyclical affirms that those living in “invincible ignorance” of the Catholic Faith can by the "the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace," be lead from “error and alienation” to the “true faith and Catholic unity” and thus obtain “eternal salvation.”
When you say, “This certainly does not refer to water baptism, but to supernatural faith,” you are offering a presupposition that is a gratuitous construct of your own invention. The result is that you interpret the last half of the paragraph to directly contradict its introductory sentence. The "certainty" that you have is grounded "plainly" on your human faith alone, not on the divine revelation of God from whom alone all that is "certain" regarding salvation is known. How, with your human faith, are you "certain" that "the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace" can bring the "supernatural faith" but not the sacraments? The God who has revealed that supernatural Faith is necessary for salvation is the same God who has revealed that the sacraments are necessary for salvation. Regarding this truth, you can be "certain." It has been revealed by God and proposed by the Church as dogmas of divine and Catholic Faith that explicit Faith, submission to the Roman Pontiff and the sacraments are necessary for salvation as necessities of means. God has the power to save souls within the economy of salvation that He has revealed. If God saves outside that economy you do not know it because He has not revealed it. You will soon find out that you have no grounds whatsoever to affirm that "supernatural faith" is necessary when you deny the necessity of the sacraments because they both rest on the same authority, that is, the authority of God who can neither deceive or be deceived.
I will next address the heretical 1949 Holy Office Letter which is the doctrinal foundation for the Prayer Meeting at Assisi.
Drew
-
Here is the doctrine on the soul of the Church explicated by Bellarmine and magisterially taught by Pope St. Pius X:
De Ecclesia Militante, cap. 2. “Notandum autem est ex Augustino in breviculo collat. 3, Ecclesiam esse corpus vivum, in quo est anima et corpus, et quidem anima sunt interna Dona Spiritus Sancti, fides, spes, charitas, etc. Corpus unt externa profession fidei, et communictio sacramentorum. Ex quo fit, ut quidai sint de anima et de corpore Ecclesiae, et proinde uniti Christo capiti interius et exterius; et tales sunt oerfectussuine de Ecclesia; sunt enim quasi membra viva in corpore, Quamvis etiam inter istos aliqui magis minus vitam participeat, et aliqui etiam solum initium vitae habeant, et quasi seasum et non motum, ut qui habeat fidm sine charitate. Rursum aliqui sint de anima, et non de corpore, ut cate4chumeni, vel excommunicati, si fidem et charitatem habeant, quod fieri ptest. Denique, aliqui sint de corpore, et non de anima, ut qui nullam habent internam virtutem, et tamen spe aut timore aliquot temporali profiteatur fidem, et in sacramentis communicant, sub regimine pastorus, et tales sunt sicut capilli, aut ungues, aut mali humores in corpore humano.”
Ladislaus strongly inferred that Bellarmine did not teach this doctrine. How can one debate with someone who is so brazenly dishonest as Ladislaus? Such dishonesty is characteristic of the more rabid Feeneyite fundamentalists, such as Drew & Cantarella.
There was once the heresy of the Pelagians, saying that baptism was not necessary for the remission of original sin, but only for the attainment of the kingdom of Heaven, as Augustine testifies in Chapter 69 of his book on heresies. But our heretics, more audacious than the Pelagians, deny that baptism is necessary, not only for the remission of sin, but also for the attainment of the kingdom of Heaven.
those who imagine that there is another remedy, besides baptism, openly contradict the Gospel, the Councils, the Fathers, and the consensus of the Universal Church.
Bellarmine was refuting the heretics Lutherans and Calvinists of his time. Little did he know back then, that nowadays are Catholic themselves who adhere to these same heresies he combated all his life and still have the nerve to misuse the thesis of this renown Doctor of the Church. The heretics of Bellarmine’s time were especially trying to invent other means of salvation for unbaptized babies, just as today the liberal modernists invent other means of salvation for the ignorant adults as well (Salvation by implicit desire via last minute BOD).
-
Also, this is the definition St. Bellarmine gives of the Catholic Church:
The Church is one only and not two, and this one and true Church is the congregation of men bound together by the profession of the same Christian Faith, and by the communion of the same sacraments, under the rule of the legitimate pastors, and especially of the one Vicar of Christ on Earth, the Roman Pontiff.
Clearly, we see that those who do not profess the Catholic Faith, or who do not participate in the sacraments of the Church or who do not submit to the authority of the Roman Pontiff, are not members of the Church and, therefore, cannot be saved.
-
Idiot Cantarella, as usual, assumes a false premise: St. Thomas does not teach that invincible ignorance is a means of salvation. What a total fool is Cantarella who oafishly construes the doctrine of St. Thomas to make a sacrament out of invincible ignorance! St. Thomas teaches the absolute necessity of faith, but limits the moral obligation to that which is possible for someone to know -- an ignorant person has the Catholic faith if he has it in its principles, but does not know the doctrinal ramifications. Such a one is not required to profess what he does not have the capacity to know, and has never heard: Nemo tenetur ad impossible. One who rejects Christ or adheres to a false religion is damned for the sin of infidelity. No one is damned for not knowing what is impossible to know. One is saved or damned according to ones belief or unbelief; not according to one's degree of knowledge.
-
Drew & Cantarella will always gratuitously claim that any authority you quote against their heretical lunacy was taken "out of context" -- no effort is ever made on their part to critically establish their claim. I have critically demonstrated again and again that their ignorantly crude and logically incoherent interpretation of the canons of Trent results in an understanding of the canons that logically opposes the doctrine set forth in the Decree on Justification. Do they think the Trent Council Fathers were so stupid that they wouldn't have noticed that their canons contradicted their decrees? The Church had to wait four centuries for Feeney to point out that the Council Fathers of Trent did not understand the decrees they were writing? The Church needed Feeney to point out that the post-Tridentine popes and Doctors all had a wrong understanding of the canons of Trent? This is the bill of goods that the Feeneyite heretics would sell the Catholic faithful. What has been their reply? Nothing but obufscation and obscurantism.
-
Idiot Cantarella, as usual, assumes a false premise: St. Thomas does not teach that invincible ignorance is a means of salvation. What a total fool is Cantarella who oafishly construes the doctrine of St. Thomas to make a sacrament out of invincible ignorance!
A high level Catholic apologist would never have to recourse to express himself in such a brute and uneducated manner. When one sees the need to recourse to personal insult, it is sure proof that one already has lost all argument.
It is evident that Don Paolo has not an adequate dominion of the English language nor sufficient knowledge of the Catholic religion, in order to debate on a high level. One can only wonder what is the state of the soul of a person who writes in such a rude and hateful manner. Certainly, the spirit of God is not in them.
Now, why Fr. Kramer would further discredit himself by allowing a severely uneducated person such as Don Paolo to defend his beliefs on a public level to a broader audience?. Not a well versed and learned Catholic can possibly take him seriously. Fr. Kramer himself is the responsible for losing all credibility to serious readers for doing so.
Given that this poster Don Paolo is unable to either write intelligibly or read with basic comprehension, I, for one, will be no longer attentive of his posts.
-
Double post
-
On the Feeneyite heresy, Fr. Framer is an expert, and understands it very well.
This simply is not true. An "expert" would never have a Don Nobody (Paolo) as a public spokesman.
A high profile "expert" should know better.
Fr. Kramer reputation is ruined. Bad move.
-
On the Feeneyite heresy, Fr. Framer is an expert, and understands it very well.
This simply is not true. An "expert" would never have a Don Nobody (Paolo) as a public spokesman.
A high profile "expert" should know better.
Fr. Kramer reputation is ruined. Bad move.
His reputation is only ruined among deniers of Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood.
Catholics who believe all of the truths of the Faith admire Fr. Kramer for defending the Faith against this heretical assault.
-
My & Fr. Kramer's analyses and interpretation of the Decree on Justification, and on the canons on justification and sacraments coincide and agree entirely with the unanimous teaching and interpretation of ALL of the post-Tridentine popes, Doctors and Catholic theologians, regarding their scope and signification; as well as their relation to and support of the doctrine of BOD. Drew's ludicrously gratuitous reply is that Fr. Kramer & I quote the Decree "out of context". If that were true, then the entire post-Tridentine magisterium and doctrinal tradition of Roman Catholicism has understood the Tridentine canons and decrees "out of context" on the point of BOD; and only after four centuries one lone American Jesuit (Feeney) finally understood Trent's doctrine correctly (???), contrary to the constant position of Rome and the corporate body Catholic bishops. (?!?)
Drew, like Feeney, typifies the arrogance of American exceptionalism, displaying contempt towards the teaching of Sancta Romana Ecclesia; and what has been for centuries the common belief of Catholics throughout the world; and opposing that Catholic teaching with an American heresy that has been and remains largely unknown to and ignored by the rest of the Catholic world. The universal Church does not need to be given lectures in doctrine by a miniscule sect of eccentric Americans. Here in Europe, the ancient heartland of Catholicism, Catholics have always dismissed out of hand such outlandish and eccentric doctrinal deviations that a mere handful of arrogant Americans presume to dictate to us and present to us under the guise of Catholic teaching.
The question of BOB was settled already by the Third Century. The question of BOD was definitively settled on the Sixteenth Century. The belief that these definitions of the universal magisterium oppose the dogma of EENS has no theological basis, is absurd on its face, and is alien to the perpetual doctrinal tradition of the Church. All the Fathers, Doctors and popes who ever taught BOB and/or BOD saw no conflict or contradiction between BOB/BOD and EENS. Only one disingenuous Twentieth Century American Jesuit priest finally came up with the wacky idea that BOB/BOD is opposed to the dogma of EENS. What further comment can one possibly make, but "LOL" !!!
-
Cantarella says:
" Don Paolo said: "Idiot Cantarella, as usual, assumes a false premise: St. Thomas does not teach that invincible ignorance is a means of salvation. What a total fool is Cantarella who oafishly construes the doctrine of St. Thomas to make a sacrament out of invincible ignorance!'
A high level Catholic apologist would never have to recourse to express himself in such a brute and uneducated manner. When one sees the need to recourse to personal insult, it is sure proof that one already has lost all argument."
Cantarella's argument is ad homimem. End of discussion on that point. My point was that Cantarella has crudely misconstrued and misrepresented the teaching of St. Thomas. If I am to be considered "brute" and "uneducated" for expressing contempt for Cantarella's heretical stupidity; then St. Thomas would need be considered doubly "brute" and "uneducated" for the contempt he expresses against Muhammad and his infidelity, and for his expression of abject contempt for "maximum foolishness" that the Angelic Doctor predicated of David of Dinant. I have furnished a precise theological refutation of Feeneyism; to which the likes of Cantarella reply with mere ad hominem attacks -- which confirms, in fact, that it is Cantarella, and not I, who has lost the argument.
-
This is Cantarella's (and Drew's) modus operandi in spreading heresy: State the half truth, conceal the other half, and present the half truth as the whole truth. Thus is exposed the deliberate mendacity of a lying spirit. Cantarella says this is what St. Robert Bellarmine teaches on EENS:
"Our heretics, deny that baptism is necessary, not only for the remission of sin, but also for the attainment of Heaven. However, those who imagine that there is another remedy besides baptism openly contradict the Gospel, the Council, the Fathers, and consensus of the Universal Church."
What Cantarella deliberatrly omits is Bellarmine's explicit teaching on Baptism of Desire in his treatise On Baptism, which I had already posted, and his theological basis for it:
"Outside the Church no one is saved, should be understood of those who belong to the Church neither in reality nor in desire, just as theologians commonly speak about baptism. Because catechumens, even though not in churchin re (in reality), are in the church in voto (by desire) , and in that way they can be saved.” (De Ecclesia militante) , chap 3., ed. Giuliano, vol. 2, p. 76.
Like Drew and Ladislaus, Cantarella misrepresents the Doctors, popes and councils to make them appear to support the Feeneyity heresy. The Holy Inquisition did not debate with such people, but handed them over to the state authorities to be burned.
-
Was it mere forgetfullnes or the deliberate will to deceive that Cantarella conveniently ommitted this passage of Bellarmine on the presentation of Ballarmine's quotations on Baptism? --
"Perfect conversion and penitence is rightly called baptism of desire, and in necessity at least, it supplies for the baptism of water. It is to be noted that any conversion whatsoever cannot be called baptism of desire; but only perfect conversion, which includes true contrition and charity, and at the same time a desire or vowed intention of baptism." (De Sacramento Baptismi, Liber I cap. VI).
I had already just posted this quotation, so it was clearly the patent intention of Cantarella to deceptively make Bellarmine's teaching appear contrary to BOD, whereas in fact, he taught explicitly the doctrine of BOD.
-
Cantaralla becomes increasingly mean spirited with the ad hominem attacks: "An "expert" would never have a Don Nobody (Paolo) as a public spokesman." Don Paolo is not an appointed spokesman, but a Roman educated theologian with multiple degrees who is fully qualified to express the mind of the Church on the point at issue. For Feeneyite Cantarella he is "Don Nobody', but for Cardinal Pietro Palazzini, he was "Reverendo e caro don Paolo" -- ("Reverend and dear Don Paolo).
-
My & Fr. Kramer's analyses and interpretation of the Decree on Justification, and on the canons on justification and sacraments coincide and agree entirely with the unanimous teaching and interpretation of ALL of the post-Tridentine popes, Doctors and Catholic theologians, regarding their scope and signification;
You fail to take into account that 98% of these Popes and Doctors are actually silent on the issue. In fact, I am not aware of any Pope ever having cited Trent as proof for Baptism of Desire in any papal magisterium.
Unanimity by itself matters little when the opinion itself cannot be shown to be part of the Deposit of Revelation or to derive from it. Just because the Popes and Doctors were agreed that grass is green doesn't make the proposition that "grass is green" part of the Deposit of Revelation. What you're ignoring are the theological notes (something which the Dimonds are famous for ignoring also).
Let me quote the modernist Karl "Anonymous Christian" Rahner. While definitely a modernist, no one can dispute his academic credentials. He was chosen to edit the Enchiridion Symbolorum back in the day. Rahner would have been perfectly happy to find evidence for his notion of "Anonymous Christian" in the Church Fathers, but he recluctantly "had to admit" (his own words) that there's no evidence for it. In fact, Rahner relies admittedly upon his modernist concept of the growing consciousness of dogma to back his "Anonymous Christian" theory.
“. . . we have to admit . . . that the testimony of the Fathers, with regard to the possibility of salvation for someone outside the Church, is very weak. Certainly even the ancient Church knew that the grace of God can be found also outside the Church and even before Faith. But the view that such divine grace can lead man to his final salvation without leading him first into the visible Church, is something, at any rate, which met with very little approval in the ancient Church. For, with reference to the optimistic views on the salvation of catechumens as found in many of the Fathers, it must be noted that such a candidate for baptism was regarded in some sense or other as already ‘Christianus,’ and also that certain Fathers, such as Gregory nαzιanzen and Gregory of Nyssa deny altogether the justifying power of love or of the desire for baptism. Hence it will be impossible to speak of a consensus dogmaticus in the early Church regarding the possibility of salvation for the non-baptized, and especially for someone who is not even a catechumen. In fact, even St. Augustine, in his last (anti-pelagian) period, no longer maintained the possibility of a baptism by desire.” (Rahner, Karl, Theological Investigations, Volume II, Man in the Church, translated by Karl H. Kruger, pp.40, 41, 57)
At least Rahner was honest in looking objectively at the evidence. As a modernist, he just didn't CARE what the evidence was.
-
False, Ladislaus: 98% of the post-Tridentine popes were NOT silent on the issue of BOD. In fact, 100% of the post-Tridentine popes have taught BOD, starting with St. Pius V in the Roman Catechism he promulgated; straight through to Pius XII. Some, like St. Pius V, Pius IX, St. Pius X, Pius XII taught BOD in their personal magisterial acts, either in their own discourses or writings, or in their juridical acts of promulgation; and the rest of the post-Tridentine popes authorized BOD to be taught magisterially by the bishops of the world by the authorizations issued by the delegated papal authority of the Sacred Congregation of the Council.
-
And so we have moved from the "if" and "can be" of earlier times, the concept of God dealing with such men on a case by case basis to an "infallible" alternative salvation, where you can have it, even if you don't want it, because if you only knew that you should want it, you would.
-
Ladislaus demonstrates his total inability to reason on a theological level: The popes saw no need to cite the Council of Trent as proof that BOD is taught by the supreme magisterium -- the Roman Catechism accomplished that. St. Pius V promulgated the Roman Catechism expressly in order to explicate Catholic Doctrine according to the mind of the Council of Trent. The Roman Catechism teaches BOD, which is clearly contained and expressed in the Decree on Justification; and all the subsequent popes and Doctors have unanimously upheld the doctrine of BOD ever since. St. Alphonsus explicitly stated that BOD is de fide because it is taught in the Decree on Justification; and the Holy Office, and the Congregation of the Council, and the popes have upheld his teaching.
Furthermore, the infallible magisterium of the Church has absolutely no need to furnish evidence to prove that a doctrine is taught by the Council of Trent, or produce any data to demonstrate that it is contained in the deposit of faith: it is sufficient that the doctrine be definitively taught either by the solemn extraordinary magisterium, or by the universal and ordinary magisterium, in order to establish infallibly that a doctrine pertains to the deposit of faith and must be believed with an assent of divine and Catholic faith.
All of the premises and the conclusion of BOD are explicitly set forth in the Decree on Justification; and BOD has been universally taught by the ordinary magisterium. The fact that the corporate body of the bishops in union with the popes have taught BOD as definitively pertaining to the deposit of faith, by teaching it in the catechisms and manuals throughout the world, establishes beyond all shadow of doubt that BOD is an infallible definition of faith and must be believed under penalty of heresy. The fact that Ladislaus refuses to accept the unanimity of teaching by the corporate body of bishops, and states that such unanimous teaching "matters little" proves beyond all shadow of doubt that he rejects the Doctrine of Dei Filius on the universal and ordinary magisterium, and rejects the universal and ordinary magisterium's infallible teaching on BOD.
-
J. Paul said: "And so we have moved from the "if" and "can be" of earlier times, the concept of God dealing with such men on a case by case basis to an "infallible" alternative salvation, where you can have it, even if you don't want it, because if you only knew that you should want it, you would."
This is a statement of the incoherent theology of the psychiatric ward. Absolutely over the top! Pure lunacy.
-
J. Paul said: "And so we have moved from the "if" and "can be" of earlier times, the concept of God dealing with such men on a case by case basis to an "infallible" alternative salvation, where you can have it, even if you don't want it, because if you only knew that you should want it, you would."
This is a statement of the incoherent theology of the psychiatric ward. Absolutely over the top! Pure lunacy.
Bone up on your conciliar theology and find out the inevitable result of the modern expansionist application of the "infallible" doctrine of BoD.
Pure lunacy indeed!
-
I think that Don Paolo just needs to be ignored ... for his own god if nothing else.
-
I think that Don Paolo just needs to be ignored ... for his own god if nothing else.
Indeed!
-
LOL. I obviously meant "good".
-
Just curious to know what will be the fate of the countless millions of baptized Catholics across the world - especially in Latin America, who have quit the Catholic Church and become Evangelical/Born-Again Christians, because they have concluded that they cannot reach Heaven via the Catholic Church. If these people keep the Commandments, and they have made the switch believing that their new religion will help them do so, what happens in the end?. Will it be the Big Toaster for them or will they be saved by their original baptism, or by BOD or what?
-
Just curious to know what will be the fate of the countless millions of baptized Catholics across the world - especially in Latin America, who have quit the Catholic Church and become Evangelical/Born-Again Christians, because they have concluded that they cannot reach Heaven via the Catholic Church. If these people keep the Commandments, and they have made the switch believing that their new religion will help them do so, what happens in the end?. Will it be the Big Toaster for them or will they be saved by their original baptism, or by BOD or what?
Baptism of Desire is not relevant in this case, since they have in fact been baptized.
-
Just curious to know what will be the fate of the countless millions of baptized Catholics across the world - especially in Latin America, who have quit the Catholic Church and become Evangelical/Born-Again Christians, because they have concluded that they cannot reach Heaven via the Catholic Church. If these people keep the Commandments, and they have made the switch believing that their new religion will help them do so, what happens in the end?. Will it be the Big Toaster for them or will they be saved by their original baptism, or by BOD or what?
Outside the Church there can be no salvation for anyone. Those outside the Church perish. Who exactly is a member of the Church and who is not?
This paragraph of St. Bellarmine perfectly illustrates it:
From this definition it can be easily gathered what men belong to the Church and what men do not. For there are three parts of this definition: the profession of the true Faith, the communion of the Sacraments, and the subjection to the legitimate Pastor, the Roman Pontiff.
By reason of the first part are excluded all infidels, as much those who have never been in the Church, like the Jews, Turks and Pagans; as those who have been and have fallen away, like heretics and apostates.
By reason of the second, are excluded catechumens and excommunicates, because the former are not to be admitted to the communion of the sacraments, the latter have been cut off from it.
By reason of the third, are excluded schismatics, who have faith and the sacraments, but are not subject to the lawful pastor, and therefore they profess the Faith outside, and receive the Sacraments outside. However, all others are included, even if they be reprobate, sinful and wicked.
-
Just curious to know what will be the fate of the countless millions of baptized Catholics across the world - especially in Latin America, who have quit the Catholic Church and become Evangelical/Born-Again Christians, because they have concluded that they cannot reach Heaven via the Catholic Church. If these people keep the Commandments, and they have made the switch believing that their new religion will help them do so, what happens in the end?. Will it be the Big Toaster for them or will they be saved by their original baptism, or by BOD or what?
Outside the Church there can be no salvation for anyone. Those outside the Church perish. Who exactly is a member of the Church and who is not?
This paragraph of St. Bellarmine perfectly illustrates it:
From this definition it can be easily gathered what men belong to the Church and what men do not. For there are three parts of this definition: the profession of the true Faith, the communion of the Sacraments, and the subjection to the legitimate Pastor, the Roman Pontiff.
By reason of the first part are excluded all infidels, as much those who have never been in the Church, like the Jews, Turks and Pagans; as those who have been and have fallen away, like heretics and apostates.
By reason of the second, are excluded catechumens and excommunicates, because the former are not to be admitted to the communion of the sacraments, the latter have been cut off from it.
By reason of the third, are excluded schismatics, who have faith and the sacraments, but are not subject to the lawful pastor, and therefore they profess the Faith outside, and receive the Sacraments outside. However, all others are included, even if they be reprobate, sinful and wicked.
Cantarella, Thanks for this information.
-
J. Paul: Do you expect your gratuitous assertions to be taken seriously? If you cannot demonstrate your propositions without even the slightest attempt at theological precision, then you are wasting words:
Quod gratuiter asseritur, gratuiter negatur.
-
AJNC asks: "Just curious to know what will be the fate of the countless millions of baptized Catholics across the world - especially in Latin America, who have quit the Catholic Church and become Evangelical/Born-Again Christians, because they have concluded that they cannot reach Heaven via the Catholic Church." ... "If these people keep the Commandments, and they have made the switch believing that their new religion will help them do so, what happens in the end?. Will it be the Big Toaster for them or will they be saved by their original baptism, or by BOD or what?"
The fallacy consists in the contradictory premises: "countless millions of baptized Catholics", "who have quit the Catholic Church", and "If these people keep the Commandments" . . .
It simply cannot be rationally held that such people can be said to keep the Commandments; because by quitting the Catholic Church they violate the first and most important Commandment of all, which commands everyone on earth, without exception, to worship God according to the Catholic faith and religion.
Bellarmine rightly excludes even catachumens; with the exception of those who are included in the Church not in act but in voto, by what he calls "baptism of desire" which requires the theological virtues, perfect contrition, and the firm resolve to receive sacramental baptism.
Cantarella would have you believe that Bellarmine excludes ALL catachumens without exception, which is patently false, and contradicts his explicit teaching in the already cited passage of De Sacramento Baptismi.
-
J. Paul: Do you expect your gratuitous assertions to be taken seriously? If you cannot demonstrate your propositions without even the slightest attempt at theological precision, then you are wasting words:
Quod gratuiter asseritur, gratuiter negatur.
The conciliar positions and doctrine relating to salvation in its catechism and docuмents should be well known to one who proclaims himself to be such a theologically well informed person.
You should know precisely of what I speak.
It is entirely unnecessary to spam page after page of proof texts to make the point, considering that this is regularly done via selective readings of such texts to support this or that position. You are familiar with that, are you not?
I did not advance a proposition, I pointed you to an objective fact. One which I suspect, you and the cadre of semi-universalists would dispute.
-
ON THE FEENEYITE HERESY, Fr. Paul Kramer
Translation of this thread subject (in the raw!):
(A) People who believe John 3:5 as it is written, are heretics.
Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. (John 3:5)
People who believe EENS as it is written in ALL the dogmatic decrees are heretics.
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.
(B)The people who believe that persons can be saved despite not having an explicit desire to be baptized, nor explicit desire to be a Catholic, nor knowledge of the Trinity and Incarnation, those who they say are saved by their invincible ignorance and "implicit faith" in a God that rewards, those people are of orthodox Catholic belief.
-
THE PATENT HERESY OF FEENEYISM
The Feeneyite knuckleheads (the Drews, the Dimonds, Ladislaus, et al.) are too obtuse to grasp the simplest theological notion -- that their denial of BOB & BOD is based on a patently heretical interpretation of EENS, and of the canons & decrees of the Council of Trent. The Catholic Church has unanimously and explicitly professed BOB since the Third Century: this is proven by the fact, 1) that it is attested to by Tertulian (during his Catholic period), and St. Cyprian (et al.); and, 2) by the patent fact that BOB was unanimously professed by the Fathers (including Pope St Leo the Great), all of whom also professed EENS. Both EENS and BOB have been explicitly professed by Sancta Romama Ecclesia for 17 1/2 centuries -- both are patently de fide. ERGO: Any interpretation of EENS or the canons and decrees of Trent, that would deny the doctrine of BOB is patently heretical. CORROLARY: 1) The Feeneyites' denial of BOD is based on a patently heretical interpretation of EENS and of Trent. 2) The Feeneyite denial of BOD, since it is based on their patently heretical understanding of EENS and Trent, is therefore, 1) totally without any dogmatic or theological basis; and 2) contrary to the constant post-Tridentine magisterium on both BOD and the proper orthodox interpretation of the canons and decrees of Trent. During the entire post-Tridentine period, no pope, no Doctor, no Catholic bishop, no approved Catholic theologian has EVER interpreted EENS or Trent in the patently heretical manner of that sole isolated case of that one American Jesuit , Feeney, and his insignificantly small group of followers in America. Hence: The denial of BOB & BOD is not taught by the Church, nor is or has ever been professed by the universal Church; but has only been professed solely by an insignificant sect of heretics geographically limited to the confines of the North American continent.
-
THE PATENT HERESY OF FEENEYISM
.....
You, like all BODers, in your "heart" believe that persons can be saved despite not having an explicit desire to be baptized, nor explicit desire to be a Catholic, nor knowledge of the Trinity and Incarnation, you believ e they are saved by their invincible ignorance and "implicit faith" in a God that rewards, and you believe that people who believe as you are of orthodox Catholic belief.
There is not one BODer that does not end up believing that. That is actually what they believe from the beginning before they know anything, then they seek teachers according to their own desires.
Basically, you are a hypocrite, for you quote saints that teach EXCLUSIVELY the restricted BOD for people who have explicit faith in Christ and the Trinity, yet you deny those same saints in your belief that people can be saved who have no belief in Christ.
-
The Feeneyite knuckleheads (the Drews, the Dimonds, Ladislaus, et al.) are too obtuse to grasp the simplest theological notion -- that their denial of BOB & BOD is based on a patently heretical interpretation of EENS, ...
It is you who don't understand the issues involved. BoD proper is only tangentially related to EENS. By itself, traditionally-understood BoD is relatively innocuous vis-a-vis EENS. It's only when it gets distorted and extended that it undermines the dogma EENS. If BoDers only restricted themselves to BoD for catechumens, I wouldn't waste five minutes of my time arguing about it.
-
Does Bowler believe the words of Christ as they are written:
Matthaeus 19:12 - "sunt enim eunuchi qui de matris utero sic nati sunt et sunt eunuchi qui facti sunt ab hominibus et sunt eunuchi qui se ipsos castraverunt propter regnum caelorum qui potest capere capiat"
Should we castrate ourselves?
Should we pluck out our eyes and amputate our hands? (Matthaeus 5:28-30)
No man can pass through the eye of a needle; so all rich men are damned?
St. Jerome already answered that question: the rich can be saved.
Ioannes 6:54-56:
54 dixit ergo eis Iesus amen amen dico vobis nisi manducaveritis carnem Filii hominis et biberitis eius sanguinem non habetis vitam in vobis
55 qui manducat meam carnem et bibit meum sanguinem habet vitam aeternam et ego resuscitabo eum in novissimo die
56 caro enim mea vere est cibus et sanguis meus vere est potus
If these words of Jesus Christ are to be understood exactly as written, then all childrem who die before receiving First Communion are DAMNED.
Bowler, like all Feeneyites is a fundamentalist. He interprets both scripture and dogma in a fundamentalistic sense that is patently heretical. Bowler is essentially a Protestant, who, like all Feeneyites, interprets both Scripture & Tradition like the Anglicans: against the constant magisterial interpretation of Sancta Romana Ecclesia; and according to the principle of Private Judgment.
-
Ladislaus: Do you not understand that an interpretation of EENS & Trent that denies BOB is patently heretical?
-
Ladislaus: Do you not understand that an interpretation of EENS & Trent that denies BOB is patently heretical?
As I just said, BoD is only tangentially related to EENS. With regard to Trent, I don't read Trent the way you do, and until this should be corrected by the Magisterium I will stick to my guns on it.
I'm not sure if you used BoB instead of BoD by mistake, but, as I have pointed, your reading of Trent actually rules out the existence of BoB, while, ironically, mine leaves the door open to it.
I'm not interested in discussing this issue any further with you, Don Paolo, since you are obviously not interested in rational discussion. This is the last post of yours to which I will respond ... until you show some semblance of self-control and rational thought.
-
Does Bowler believe the words of Christ as they are written:
Like I said:
You, like all BODers, in your "heart" believe that persons can be saved despite not having an explicit desire to be baptized, nor explicit desire to be a Catholic, nor knowledge of the Trinity and Incarnation, you believ e they are saved by their invincible ignorance and "implicit faith" in a God that rewards, and you believe that people who believe as you are of orthodox Catholic belief.
There is not one BODer that does not end up believing that. That is actually what they believe from the beginning before they know anything, then they seek teachers according to their own desires.
Basically, you are a hypocrite, for you quote saints that teach EXCLUSIVELY the restricted BOD for people who have explicit faith in Christ and the Trinity, yet you deny those same saints in your belief that people can be saved who have no belief in Christ.
-
Mr. Drew, your questions I will answer but first I ask you to answer these that I pose to you below.
Before that, Ladislaus, as for where BOD is found in revelation, it is sufficient that the Church judges it to be found therein. But these texts should be well known anyway, Jesus promises the indwelling of the Holy Trinity in any man who loves Him, He promises eternal life to any man who dies for Him, all these long after declaring the absolute necessity of baptism. Moreover, St. John says whoever loves is born of God etc.
Q. 654. How do we know that the baptism of desire or of blood will save us when it is impossible to receive the baptism of water?
A. We know that baptism of desire or of blood will save us when it is impossible to receive the baptism of water, from Holy Scripture, which teaches that love of God and perfect contrition can secure the remission of sins ; and also that Our Lord promises salvation to those who lay down their life for His sake or for His teaching.
When Catechisms such as this and all the others cited above approved by the Pope and bishops and taught throughout the Church teach a doctrine as certain after citing Sacred Scripture as proof, that doctrine must be firmly believed and held by all. To claim it is not contained in revelation because in your private reading of the Bible (or the Fathers, like the Greek schismatics do with the Immaculate Conception) you cannot find BOD in Scripture is not a Catholic approach.
Finally BOD logically derives from BOB, and BOB can independently be shown to have been a settled question even in the patristic age. Simply denying this without giving a contrary example of what you consider to be unanimous consent, and by what objective standard you judge something to be unanimous, does not pass, sorry.
1. Now, Mr. Drew, Do you believe your position that no one is saved without receiving the sacrament of baptism in re is compatible with the Encyclical Quanto Conficiamur Moeore? This Encyclical states plainly that God will lead those invincibly ignorant of the true religion to salvation through "the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace." This certainly does not refer to water baptism, but to supernatural faith. So Pius IX is teaching that God will save the invincibly ignorant through a baptism of desire. What is your view on this, and do you realize if correct it proves your position on Trent wrong?
2. Are you aware that this was discussed in Vatican I, as the historians who provide an account of the Council Father's acts tell us, and that the true meaning of this Encyclical was there explained exactly as all Catholics before Fr. Feeney believed it? Moreover Fr. Hardon relates the following, a Schema De Ecclesia accepted by the Council Fathers plainly taught baptism of desire, the two docuмents of Pius IX on invincible ignorance were quoted in extenso and the essential terms were fully explained. “By the words, ‘those who labor in invincible ignorance’ is indicated the possibility that a person may not belong to the visible and external communion of the Church, and yet may attain to justification and eternal life.” [25] Moreover the saving clause on invincibility was incorporated into a proposed definition, namely, “It is a dogma of faith that no one can be saved outside the Church. However, those who labor in invincible ignorance of Christ and His Church are not to be punished for this ignorance with eternal pains, since they are not burdened with guilt on this account in the eyes of God, who wishes all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth, and who does not deny His grace to the person who does what he can, to enable him to attain to justification and eternal life. But this salvation no one attains, who leaves this life culpably separated from the unity of faith and communion of the Church.” [26] Consequently, although the doctrine of Pius IX remained part of the unfinished business of the Vatican Council and was not formally defined, it is certainly definable and may be called proxima fidei or “practically of faith.”
This agreement of the episcopate with the Pope that such was definable not only proves your novel interpretation of Trent certainly wrong but it proves that the doctrine is already binding, like Pius XII said the agreement of the episcopate with the Pope that the Assumption was definable proves it was already binding doctrine even if he would not proceed to define it.
3. Thirdly, yes, Suprema Haec Sacra was issued by Cardinal Ottaviani who reliably informs us it was approved by Pius XII. Pius XII later excommunicated Fr. Feeney, so we are even more sure of it, this latter docuмent was placed in the Acta. Further, there is another authoritative statement in the AAS where Pius XII leaves no doubt that he is teaching baptism of desire where he states that an act of love of God is sufficient for an adult to obtain sanctifying grace. So yes, Suprema Haec Sacra (the Holy Office Letter) is correct and should be accepted.
Nishant:
In reply to your second question, the reference of what Vatican I did not say, but what they might have said had not the providence of God brought the Council to an end, is nothing but speculation. If the claims of Fr. Hardon are true, it can be more convincingly argued that God's providential car of His Church prevented the Council from formally teaching error in a Magisterial docuмent.
In Quanto Conficiamur, the quote that was referenced in you first question has been used repeatedly by "Baptism of Desire" defenders. It is in fact bizarre for two reasons:
1) The quote that is taken out of context is bizarre because it says nothing about "Baptism of Desire." If the quote were in fact an accurate description of Church teaching, which it is not, it would affirm what the 1949 Holy Office Letter teaches. The 1949 Holy Office Letter makes no reference to this encyclical. The 1949 Holy Office Letter teaches that the sacraments are not necessary for salvation, explicit faith beyond a belief in a god who rewards and punishes, is not necessary for salvation, visible membership in the Church Christ founded, and subjection to the Roman Pontiff is not necessary for salvation. All of these dogmas that teach the contrary are cast aside .
This is the point that Ladislaus, Stubborn, and Cantarella have argued, that is, "Baptism of Desire" had nothing to do with what Fr. Kramer, Ambrose and Paolo, really believe. For them, it is nothing but the sharp end of a very wide wedge to overturn all dogma and declare salvation for any good Jew as a Jew, Muslim as a Muslim, Hindu and a Hindu, Buddhist and a Buddhist, etc. etc. without the sacraments, the Church, the faith, or subjection to the Roman Pontiff being necessary for salvation. Ultimately their doctrine destroys all dogma. They are Modernists in principle.
2)But more importantly, the cited paragraph says nothing of the sort. It is bizarre because it is not a matter of an equivocal statement that permits more than one interpretation. Those who rip the quotation out of the context of the paragraph and the docuмent as a whole, violate the most fundamental rules of composition that are taught in any grade school English grammar and composition textbook. A paragraph is a "series of sentences developing one topic." It necessarily requires a "topic sentence." The "topic sentence" is generally placed at the beginning or near the beginning of the paragraph," but, a good writer will be able to move the topic sentence occasionally to different parts of the paragraph to bring greater variety and color to the composition. The "topic sentence" in the paragraph cited Quanto Conficiamur is the first sentence of the paragraph and the second sentence is a short "clincher sentence" that briefly restates the "topic sentence" for emphasis:
Quanto Conficiamur[/i]]Here, too, our beloved sons and venerable brothers, it is again necessary to mention and censure a very grave error entrapping some Catholics who believe that it is possible to arrive at eternal salvation although living in error and alienated from the true faith and Catholic unity. Such belief is certainly opposed to Catholic teaching. There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments.
Also well known is the Catholic teaching that no one can be saved outside the Catholic Church.
The rest of the sentences address the "grave error entrapping some Catholics" who believe is salvation by "invincible ignorance" that God is merciful and in His "supreme kindness and clemency," who searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts and thoughts and nature of all, will not permit a person of good will to be lost but will provide His "efficacious virtue of divine light and grace." For what end? Refer back to the topic sentence! So that they will no longer be "living in error and alienated from the true faith and Catholic unity" so that they will obtain "eternal salvation." The "topic sentence" of the following paragraph continues with the same truth that "no one can be saved outside the Catholic Church."
Those who claim the paragraph teaches salvation by "invincible ignorance" construct a paragraph where the supporting sentences directly contradicts the topic sentence which would then utterly destroy the "one topic" of a paragraph and its necessary unity. With the proper understanding, nothing of this sort occurs. Further, no dogma, the formal object of divine and Catholic faith is trampled upon. The topic sentence is exposited and defended by the evidence provided in the other sentences within the paragraph.
The most important question is your third. The 1949 Holy Office Letter which censored the teaching of Fr. Feeney on the dogma, EENS which I will address in the next post.
Drew
-
False Bowler -- you say: "You, like all BODers, in your "heart" believe that persons can be saved despite not having an explicit desire to be baptized, nor explicit desire to be a Catholic, nor knowledge of the Trinity and Incarnation, you believe they are saved by their invincible ignorance and "implicit faith" in a God that rewards, and you believe that people who believe as you are of orthodox Catholic belief."
We Catholics profess since it is explicitly taught by St. Pius X, that it is in virtue of explicit faith in God; and implicit faith in all the dogmas, and by implicit desire; that one is saved, and that such a one is in the Church in voto. It is only those who are invincibly ignorant who can be saved in this manner. It is NOT by invincible ignorance that they are saved, but by invincible ignorance they are excused from the requirement of a materially integral profession of faith. If I am not of integral and orthodox Catholic faith on this point, then neither were, St. Pius X, Ven. Pius XII, and the other popes who, through the Sacred Congregation of the Council, have approved the teaching on implicit faith & desire. Either The Feeneyites or Sancta Romana Ecclesia are wrong on this point -- either the Roman Church or the Feeneyites are in error on this point.
-
No, Ladislaus, it is not merely that you don't interpret Trent as I do, but you do not interpret Trent in the manner that the post Tridentine popes, Doctors and universal magisterium have interpreted it.
-
No, Ladislaus, it is not merely that you don't interpret Trent as I do, but you do not interpret Trent in the manner that the post Tridentine popes, Doctors and universal magisterium have interpreted it.
Correct. This is obvious. So what is Ladislaus missing? Does he go back to the Fathers who died before Trent to interpret Trent? Does he trust his own intellect or that of any other post 1948 Feeneyites intellect more than the Popes, Doctors and universal Magisteriusm? Does he come to a conclusion first and then try to support as the Protestants do?
For example:
All the catechisms, fathers, doctors, saints teach BOB/D almost without exception and all since the Council of Trent teach BOB/D without exception, and all the orthodox theologians agree as did two Popes named Pius including Pius XII and taught as much in encyclicals.
But instead of accepting the obvious conclusion that any Catholic would accept based upon these undeniable facts he goes back to a minority of Fathers, probably quoted on a Feeneyite web, 1 or two quotes, that he believes supports his claim and sends the mountain of contrary evidence toppling.
Am I missing something or is their another reason that he ignores all the evidence and trusts the Feeneyites and his own interpretation or one or two Fathers?
-
Ladislaus: Do you not understand that an interpretation of EENS & Trent that denies BOB is patently heretical?
As I just said, BoD is only tangentially related to EENS. With regard to Trent, I don't read Trent the way you do, and until this should be corrected by the Magisterium I will stick to my guns on it.
I'm not sure if you used BoB instead of BoD by mistake, but, as I have pointed, your reading of Trent actually rules out the existence of BoB, while, ironically, mine leaves the door open to it.
I'm not interested in discussing this issue any further with you, Don Paolo, since you are obviously not interested in rational discussion. This is the last post of yours to which I will respond ... until you show some semblance of self-control and rational thought.
Please Ladislaus, it is not about how you read Trent. It has already been interpreted by the ordinary universal magisterium of the Church and taught as de fide by a Doctor and Saint. We trust our popes, doctors, saints and catechisms. You don't. You trust yourself and those who agree with you. I do hope you gain the grace to accept this fact before you die.
-
This is the point that Ladislaus, Stubborn, and Cantarella have argued, that is, "Baptism of Desire" had nothing to do with what Fr. Kramer, Ambrose and Paolo, really believe. For them, it is nothing but the sharp end of a very wide wedge to overturn all dogma and declare salvation for any good Jew as a Jew, Muslim as a Muslim, Hindu and a Hindu, Buddhist and a Buddhist, etc. etc. without the sacraments, the Church, the faith, or subjection to the Roman Pontiff being necessary for salvation. Ultimately their doctrine destroys all dogma. They are Modernists in principle.
Here is how the modernist liberal interpretation on EESN destroys all Catholic dogma. The following heretical errors are what the modern BOD adherent actually defends. Not really "Baptism of Desire" for catechumens. BOD is just the convenient mask. All these errors oppose infallible Catholic dogma.
1.One can be saved outside the Church.
2.One can be saved without having the Catholic Faith.
3.Baptism is not necessary for salvation.
4.To confess the supremacy and infallibility of the Roman Church and of the Roman Pontiff is not necessary for salvation.
5.One can be saved without submitting personally to the authority of the Roman Pontiff.
6.Ignorance of Christ and His Church excuses one from all fault and confers justification and salvation.
7.One can be saved who dies ignorant of Christ and His Church.
8.One can be saved who dies hating Christ and His Church.
9.God, of His Supreme Goodness and Mercy, would not permit anyone to be punished eternally unless he had incurred the guilt of voluntary sin.
10.A man is sure of his salvation once he is justified.
11.One can be saved by merely an implicit desire for Baptism.
12.There are two Churches, the one visible, the other invisible.
-
Rational discussion???? You, Ladislaus, gratuitously claim that my interpretation of Trent rules out BOB (?). What a load of codswallop!
-
No, Ladislaus, it is not merely that you don't interpret Trent as I do, but you do not interpret Trent in the manner that the post Tridentine popes, Doctors and universal magisterium have interpreted it.
No, there is no reference to this passage in Trent by any of the post-Tridentine Popes. Period.
As for the Doctors and theologians, as with BoD itself, one or two interpreted it that way and then everyone jumped on board. So you can trace BoD DIRECTLY back to one passage in St. Augustine and then it spread and everyone hopped on board. That's not how doctrine and dogma work.
Again, you all hide behind BoD to deny EENS. As I told you, I would not waste five minutes of my time on BoD if you merely believed in BoD as has been traditionally held. I have pointed out to you how EVERY SINGLE source cited that has any authority behind it whatsoever was dealing SPECIFICALLY with the case of catechumens. St. Robert Bellarmine limited the scope of his discussion quite explicitly to catechumens. So did St. Thomas, so did the other Doctors, so did the 1917 Code of Canon Law, so did Innocent II / III, so did St. Alphonsus and St. Thomas.
So, again, I am not going to waste my time dicussing BoD. You guys like that because you can hide your heretical rejection of EENS behind quotes from various sources on BoD.
Every time I try to flush you out into the light of day, you slink back behind quotes from St. Robert or St. Thomas to PROVE that EENS means the opposite of EENS. I'm not going to keep letting you get away with it.
As drew put it so eloquently, you guys exploit your distorted view of BoD as a wedge to overturn EENS and traditional Catholic ecclesiology ... whereas St. Robert Bellarmine tried VERY HARD to reconcile the two. You think that St. Robert is on your side, but he's not; he's very much against your Protestantized ecclesiology.
I'm going to continue flushing you out on this.
-
Rational discussion???? You, Ladislaus, gratuitously claim that my interpretation of Trent rules out BOB (?). What a load of codswallop!
It's not a claim ... just objective truth.
Trent teaches that no one has ever been justified without either Baptism or the desire for it ... your either/or reading. Consequently, no one has ever been justified by BoB ... except in so far as it reduces to BoD. Your reading of Trent REDUCES BoB to BoD.
-
All the catechisms, fathers, doctors, saints teach BOB/D almost without exception and all since the Council of Trent teach BOB/D without exception, and all the orthodox theologians agree as did two Popes named Pius including Pius XII and taught as much in encyclicals.
Here is the Church actual theory on Baptism of Desire for pious catechumens ONLY. "Baptism of the Holy Spirit", without the actual reception of Baptism of water, could be sufficient for salvation if the following five conditions are fulfilled (Notice this is theory, not de fide dogma):
1. That person must have the Catholic Faith.
2. He must have an explicit will or desire to receive the Sacrament of Baptism.
3. He must have perfect charity.
4. He must have an explicit will to join the Catholic Church.
5. He must be dying and, although yearning for the Baptism of Water, is unable to receive it because of an "absolute impossibility", not because of a contempt for it.
Again this is not infallibly defined dogma but fallible teaching.
Even the fallible theory on BOD that the Church has allowed HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with Invincible Ignorance, in which there is not even need of Explicit Faith in Christ and His Church. Lunacy.
-
Yes, in short, the person must have all the prerequisites for Baptism as outlined by the Council of Trent. In other words, the person lacks NOTHING but the Sacrament itself in order to become justified via Baptism.
In fact, as Rahner pointed out, and as St. Robert Bellarmine tried to work out, the entire notion that a catechumen can be saved via BoD relies upon the presmise that these Catechumens are somehow part of the visible Church. St. Robert Bellarmine tries to say that they are "in the vestibule" of the Church, as it were, and in the early Church catechumens had a quasi-canonical status, were designated catechumens in a formal ceremony in which the sign of the cross was marked on their foreheads, and were honored with the title of "Christiani" (although refused the title "fideles").
Basically this garbage about the "Hindu in Tibet" being saved is a load of heretical vomit that would have been rejected as such by any of the authorities you typically cite.
-
In fact, there's absolute universal dogmatic consensus among the Church Fathers, and it's therefore revealed dogma, that everyone must have explicit Catholic faith, faith in Christ and faith in the Holy Trinity at bare minimum, in order to be saved.
-
Drew is a malicious heretic: not only does he interpret EENS and Trent against the explicit 171/2 century profession of Catholic Church in BOB; but he falsely and maliciously predicates a heresy to me (& Fr. Kramer). At no time ever have we stated or implied that Jews, Muslims, Pagans or any other infidels can be saved. All infidels are damned, including Feeneyite heretics who refuse to submit to the universal magisterium.
-
You know, Don Paolo, I used to find fault with the Dimonds for the same nasty bitter rhetoric that you are now employing, but you're raising the bar.
You discredit your position with every post you make. You think that you are serving the truth but you're doing quite the opposite.
You also discredit Mr. Kramer. Based on the fact you are evidently somehow allied with him (referring to yourselves as "we"), the name Kramer now turns my stomach. So you have done no service to him either.
-
Ladislaus says: "Trent teaches that no one has ever been justified without either Baptism or the desire for it ... your either/or reading. Consequently, no one has ever been justified by BoB ... except in so far as it reduces to BoD. Your reading of Trent REDUCES BoB to BoD."
This proposition is nothing but gratuitous codswallop. He makes no attempt to prove his irrational point. He simply asserts it.
-
Ladislaus says: "Trent teaches that no one has ever been justified without either Baptism or the desire for it ... your either/or reading. Consequently, no one has ever been justified by BoB ... except in so far as it reduces to BoD. Your reading of Trent REDUCES BoB to BoD."
This proposition is nothing but gratuitous codswallop. He makes no attempt to prove his irrational point. He simply asserts it.
Don Paolo, you have little grasp of language, much less even a rudimentary grasp of Logic 101. You resort to insults when you have nothing else to say.
-
I see that your alter ego "Don" up-thumbed your previous hateful comment.
-
Well, Ladislaus, if everyone must explicitly profess the Catholic faith in the manner you specify, then all baptized infants who die are damned. All people who were baptized but remain in invincible ignorance about the rudiments of their faith would likewise be damned -- even if after baptism they were never to have committed a single mortal sin.
-
Well, Ladislaus, if everyone must explicitly profess the Catholic faith in the manner you specify, then all baptized infants who die are damned. All people who were baptized but remain in invincible ignorance about the rudiments of their faith would likewise be damned -- even if after baptism they were never to have committed a single mortal sin.
You have no earthly idea of what you're talking about. St. Alphonsus admits that EVERYONE is required to have these prerequisites, and that the Church supplies them for even those without the use of reason.
And the second point you make hints at the fact that despite your vitriolic bloviations to the contrary, you really do reject EENS.
-
Cantarella says the doctrine (taught by the universal & ordinary magisterium) is only a theory -- sententia haeritica.
Cantarella interprets the Council of Trent in a manner that denies the Faith of the Church in BOB -- sententia haeritica.
-
Ladislaus, your comment on my second point is a gratuitous non sequitur:
My comment addressed the point of invincibly ignorant baptized Catholics -- how can that possibly conflict with EENS? I have already quoted St. Thomas on this point of the requirement of explicit faith. Does the Angelic Doctor's doctrine conflict with the dogma of EENS?
-
We Catholics profess .....
what I wrote is undeniable what you and all BODers believe. You seek teachers according to your own desires. IT is the reason why you all keep creating threads vomiting forth the same hypocritical comments. You believe that people can be saved who have no explicit faith in Christ or the Trinity, and when you are exposed to the light, you run for cover. You are all cowards who do not have the conviction to say what you really believe. The day I see one of you Boders CONDEMN the teaching that people can be saved who have no explicit belief in Christ, then I'll believe you. Instead you condemn as heretics and post ad-nauseum against those people who believe John 3:5 as it is written ans the dogmas on EENS and baptism as they are written.
Translation of all BODer started threads (in the raw!):
(A) People who believe John 3:5 as it is written, are heretics.
Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. (John 3:5)
People who believe EENS as it is written in ALL the dogmatic decrees are heretics.
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.
(B)The people who believe that persons can be saved despite not having an explicit desire to be baptized, nor explicit desire to be a Catholic, nor knowledge of the Trinity and Incarnation, those who they say are saved by their invincible ignorance and "implicit faith" in a God that rewards, those people are of orthodox Catholic belief.
-
Ladislaus does not wish to debate with me because I am (according to him) "irrational". It was he who made the wholly gratuitous and patently absurd claim that my understanding of Trent would exclude the possibility of BOB! Ladislaus has gone beyond the realm of mere irrationality into the land of lunacy -- where he walks with the fairies.
-
Bowler is a blowhard who is prolific at making assertions, but makes no attempt at a reasoned theological proof of the position he asserts. He quotes authorities but makes no logical application of the quoted passages. He quotes scripture in fundamentalist manner, but makes no attempt at a systematic exegesis of the quoted text. He arrives at conclusions which have no logical nexus with the premises. I have already cited St. Thomas Aquinas in my argument on the necessity of explicit faith. For Bowler, a follower of the doctrine of St. Thomas is one who is "vomiting forth the same hypocritical arguments". Bowler is correct on one point: I do have a teacher "according to my own desires" -- his name is St. Thomas Aquinas, the Doctor Agelicus. According to Bowler, my adherence to the doctrine of St. Thomss makes me a coward.
-
This is the point that Ladislaus, Stubborn, and Cantarella have argued, that is, "Baptism of Desire" had nothing to do with what Fr. Kramer, Ambrose and Paolo, really believe. For them, it is nothing but the sharp end of a very wide wedge to overturn all dogma and declare salvation for any good Jew as a Jew, Muslim as a Muslim, Hindu and a Hindu, Buddhist and a Buddhist, etc. etc. without the sacraments, the Church, the faith, or subjection to the Roman Pontiff being necessary for salvation. Ultimately their doctrine destroys all dogma. They are Modernists in principle.
Here is how the modernist liberal interpretation on EESN destroys all Catholic dogma. The following heretical errors are what the modern BOD adherent actually defends. Not really "Baptism of Desire" for catechumens. BOD is just the convenient mask. All these errors oppose infallible Catholic dogma.
1.One can be saved outside the Church.
2.One can be saved without having the Catholic Faith.
3.Baptism is not necessary for salvation.
4.To confess the supremacy and infallibility of the Roman Church and of the Roman Pontiff is not necessary for salvation.
5.One can be saved without submitting personally to the authority of the Roman Pontiff.
6.Ignorance of Christ and His Church excuses one from all fault and confers justification and salvation.
7.One can be saved who dies ignorant of Christ and His Church.
8.One can be saved who dies hating Christ and His Church.
9.God, of His Supreme Goodness and Mercy, would not permit anyone to be punished eternally unless he had incurred the guilt of voluntary sin.
10.A man is sure of his salvation once he is justified.
11.One can be saved by merely an implicit desire for Baptism.
12.There are two Churches, the one visible, the other invisible.
More errors brought by the modernist liberal interpretation on EENS and invincible ignorance:
13. There are two kinds of membership in the Church.
14. Membership in the Church can be invisible or even unconscious.
15.To know and love the Blessed Virgin is not necessary for salvation.
-
Furthermore, if invincible ignorance (again, this is not about "Baptism of Desire" but salvation of non Catholics via implicit Faith) could be salvific, then these potential results would follow:
1. The pope is not infallible because the three popes who solemnly defined the EENS dogma ex-cathedra were in error.
2. The Church has no ultimate authority and all dogmatic definitions are not infallible either and can be rejected or accepted at will. Fallible theologians supersede the Church's Divine appointed authority.
3. The Sacraments of the Church are not really necessary for salvation.
4. Priesthood to administer the Sacraments is not necessary either since they are not only "invisible" but are available to everybody by "desire".
5. Neither an ordained clergy nor a hierarchical structure are necessary because the Church is now an invisible entity and membership by Baptism in the visible Church is not necessary for Salvation.
-
Bowler is a blowhard ....
Typical ad-hominem attack from a frustrated BODer.
El dia que usted declare como herejes los que creen que hay salvacion sin creer en Christo, yo lo considare un hombre sincero. Hasta ese dia, usted no es nada mas que un hipocrita para mi.
-
Cantarella says:
"Here is the Church actual theory on Baptism of Desire for pious catechumens ONLY. "Baptism of the Holy Spirit", without the actual reception of Baptism of water, could be sufficient for salvation if the following five conditions are fulfilled (Notice this is theory, not de fide dogma):
1. That person must have the Catholic Faith.
2. He must have an explicit will or desire to receive the Sacrament of Baptism.
3. He must have perfect charity.
4. He must have an explicit will to join the Catholic Church.
5. He must be dying and, although yearning for the Baptism of Water, is unable to receive it because of an "absolute impossibility", not because of a contempt for it.
Again this is not infallibly defined dogma but fallible teaching.
Even the fallible theory on BOD that the Church has allowed HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with Invincible Ignorance, in which there is not even need of Explicit Faith in Christ and His Church."
Cantarella's doctrine is graruitous and entirely erroneous, save for two points, to wit, that the person must have the Catholic faith, and there must be perfect charity. All the other points are erroneous:
1) BOD is not a theory but has been taught by the universal & ordinary magisterium, and therefore is a definition of the universal Church which must be believed de fide.
2) The Church does not teach that explicit resolve or desire to receive baptism is always necessary; but there must be at least the implicit desire, as St. Pius X, Ven. Pius XII, and St. Alphonsus teach.
3) There must be at least the implicit will to enter the Catholic Church. The 'matuto' in the rain forest who has never heard or seen a missionary is morally excused from needing the explicit will.
4) Such a one need not be actually dying to be sanctified by BOD, as were the Gentiles sanctified by implicit desire before their Baptism in Acts 10: 46-7.
5) As a definition of the universal & ordinary magisterium, BOD is infallibly taught.
6) The doctrine of BOD, as set forth by the ordinary magisterium teaches that those who are in invincible ignorance can be saved by perfect contrition, charity and explicit faith that includes implicit faith in the revealed mysteries that one is ignorant of.
7)The erroneous propositions set forth in Cantarella's screed are entirely based on Private Judgment and have no basis in Catholic teaching
-
There is nothing ad hominem in my critique of Bowler's position; so, he is not only a blowhard, but a lying hypocrite as well.
-
Cantarella is addicted to gratuitous pontifications on doctrine, as if she were an infallible pontiff herself. Theologians need to systematically demonstrate their position; only pontiffs with the authority to teach may pontificate with authority. To all of Cantarella's babblings I reply;
QUOD GRATUITER ASSERITUR, GRATUITER NEGATUR.
Enough already!
-
"Invincible ignorance" is a modern error coming from the modernist liberal interpretation of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949. The error was carried over into Vatican Council II, Lumen Gentium 16, which is interpreted by the liberals as invincible ignorance being an exception to the dogma Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus.
To this day, the factual error still has not been solemnly condemned. An even "traditionalists" continue blindly adhering to it. At this point when the modernist heresy has spread this far, nothing short of an infallible pronouncement on the matter by the Roman Pontiff can put an end to these heretical modern teachings.
Most traditionalist orders assume that BOD and being saved in invincible ignorance is a de fide teaching, an explicit exception to the EENS dogma, but this is not so. The novel and heretical error has been, since the Letter of 49, carried over into Vatican Council II by Cardinal Cushing and the American Jesuits, placed in the Denzinger by Fr.Karl Rahner, supported by the pro-Mason Catholics, and sadly misinterpreted and spread across the whole globe, as part of the modernist liberal agenda.
-
Ladislaus: Do you not understand that an interpretation of EENS & Trent that denies BOB is patently heretical?
As I just said, BoD is only tangentially related to EENS. With regard to Trent, I don't read Trent the way you do, and until this should be corrected by the Magisterium I will stick to my guns on it.
I'm not sure if you used BoB instead of BoD by mistake, but, as I have pointed, your reading of Trent actually rules out the existence of BoB, while, ironically, mine leaves the door open to it.
I'm not interested in discussing this issue any further with you, Don Paolo, since you are obviously not interested in rational discussion. This is the last post of yours to which I will respond ... until you show some semblance of self-control and rational thought.
Please Ladislaus, it is not about how you read Trent. It has already been interpreted by the ordinary universal magisterium of the Church and taught as de fide by a Doctor and Saint. We trust our popes, doctors, saints and catechisms. You don't. You trust yourself and those who agree with you. I do hope you gain the grace to accept this fact before you die.
Actually it is how one submits to the objective declarations of Trent which are interpreted by the decrees and the language which is used in them. There is no further clarification which is needed to understand their intent.
Any subsequent teaching must be in keeping with the language and clear intent of Trent. Any departure in sentence or judgment would be heretical
-
DP
Cantarella is addicted to gratuitous pontifications on doctrine, as if she were an infallible pontiff herself. Theologians need to systematically demonstrate their position; only pontiffs with the authority to teach may pontificate with authority. To all of Cantarella's babblings I reply;
QUOD GRATUITER ASSERITUR, GRATUITER NEGATUR.
Enough already!
Your dull reply is noted, however, Canterella can pontificate and expound upon any dogma or doctrine of the Church as long as she is insubmision to the Divine laws as contained in said dogmas and does not depart from their objectively stated sense and meaning. So, to your arrogant babblings, I reply
Hogwash!
We would dearly like for it to be enough, but for you folks, there is never enough.
-
3. Thirdly, yes, Suprema Haec Sacra (the 1949 Holy Office Letter) was issued by Cardinal Ottaviani who reliably informs us it was approved by Pius XII. Pius XII later excommunicated Fr. Feeney, so we are even more sure of it, this latter docuмent was placed in the Acta. Further, there is another authoritative statement in the AAS where Pius XII leaves no doubt that he is teaching baptism of desire where he states that an act of love of God is sufficient for an adult to obtain sanctifying grace. So yes, Suprema Haec Sacra (the Holy Office Letter) is correct and should be accepted.
In answer to Drew's questions:
The Holy Office Letter is a docuмent of the magisterium and must be believed under pain of sin. It is an orthodox explanation of doctrine.
There is no contradiction between the Catechism of St. Pius X and the Holy Office Letter. The Holy Office Letter is the most complete explanation, but it follows what was already being taught by the theologians for some time prior to the docuмent. It was not new doctrine.
No one can be saved outside the Church. It seems to me that Archbishop Lefebvre and Bp. Fellay are not denying this, just not being as precise as we would like them to be.
It is impossible for one outside the Church to be in the state of sanctifying grace, so if they are justified, they are already in the Church (though not yet a member) through Baptism of Desire (implicit).
It may be that Archbishop Lefebvre and Bp. Fellay accept the minority opinion among theologians, tolerated by the Holy See, which accepts the minimum acts of supernatural Faith as being a belief in the one true God (1) who is a rewarder of just and a punisher of evil (2).
The minimum amount of Faith necessary is still an unresolved question among the theologians, and not yet settled by the magisterium.
The 1949 Holy Office Letter, which censored Fr. Feeney for his defense of the dogma EENS, is the core doctrine, or rather "dogma," on soteriology that is professed by Fr. Kramer, Ambrose, Paolo, et. al. It is the one defining "dogma" in their creed through which all other Catholic doctrines/dogmas are properly interpreted. Those who rejects this "dogma" are declared "heretics" and beyond the possibility of salvation.
The 1949 Holy Office Letter is correctly identified by Fr. Feeney as heresy. The Letter is a "private" letter from the Holy Office addressed to Archbishop Richard Cushing of Boston. It was subsequently published by Archbishop Cushing in 1952. The Letter was never published from Rome and was never entered into the Acts of the Apostolic See. It was subsequently entered into the 1962 edition of Denzinger's edited by Fr. Karl Rahner. The Letter was authoritatively referenced in Lumen Gentium, the "Dogmatic Constitution on the Church," from Vatican II, which established the New Ecclesiology. There is no evidence that the Letter was approved by Pope Pius XII beyond an anecdotal story by Cardinal John Wright of Boston whose truthfulness one is justified in doubting. The 1949 Holy Office Letter is not a Magisterial docuмent. It is not even an act of the "authentic magisterium."
The New Ecclesiology from Lumen Gentium, where it is taught that the "Church of Christ .... subsists in the Catholic Church," has the relationship with the Pastoral Decrees like the relationship between a theoretical first principle and its practical applications. Unitatis Redintegratio, the Vatican II decree on Ecuмenism, Nostra Aetate, the declaration in the Church’s relations with non-Christian religions and Dignitatis Humanae, on Religious Liberty are pastoral docuмents that are predicated upon the New Ecclesiology of Lumen Gentium. I will not provide references for this claim because of the length of the post but it is well established. If there is any question about this, I can provided authoritative quotations in support of this claim.
Lumen Gentium, while directly referencing the 1949 Holy Office Letter from Denzinger's, teaches that, "Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience.” This Lumen Gentium statement directly references as its authority the 1949 Holy Office Letter, and articulates the core doctrine of the New Ecclesiology that the Catholic Church "subsists in" the Church of Christ which is a broader entity. This New Ecclesiology in its theoretical sense was accepted by Archbishop Lefebvre, Bishop Fellay, the priests they formed at the SSPX, including most sedevacantist priests, and most interestingly of all, the great ecuмenist, Pope John Paul II.
Consider a Hindu in Tibet who has no knowledge of the Catholic Church. He lives according to his conscience and to the laws which God has put into his heart. He can be in the state of grace, and if he dies in this state of grace, he will go to heaven.
Bishop Bernard Fellay, The Angelus, A Talk Heard Round the World, April, 2006
The doctrine of the Church also recognizes implicit baptism of desire. This consists in doing the will of God. God knows all men and He knows that amongst Protestants, Muslims, Buddhists and in the whole of humanity there are men of good will. They receive the grace of baptism without knowing it, but in an effective way. In this way they become part of the Church.
The error consists in thinking that they are saved by their religion. They are saved in their religion but not by it. There is no Buddhist church in heaven, no Protestant church. This is perhaps hard to accept, but it is the truth. I did not found the Church, but rather Our Lord the Son of God. As priests we must state the truth.
Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Open Letter to Confused Catholics
For those, however, who have not received the Gospel proclamation, as I wrote in the Encyclical Redemptoris Missio, salvation is accessible… without external membership in the Church…It is mysterious for those who receive the grace (of salvation), because they do not know the Church and sometimes even outwardly reject her. John Paul II, General Audience, May 31, 1995
Normally, it will be in the sincere practice of what is good in their own religious traditions and by following the dictates of their own conscience that the members of other religions respond positively to God’s invitation and receive salvation in Jesus Christ, even while they do not recognize or acknowledge him as their Saviour.
John Paul II, The Seeds of the Word in the Religions of the World, September 9, 1998
The important quote on salvation from the 1949 Holy Office Letter:
Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member, but it is necessary that at least he be united to her by desire and longing.
However, this desire need not always be explicit, as it is in catechumens; but when a person is involved in invincible ignorance God accepts also an implicit desire, so called because it is included in that good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God.
These things are clearly taught in that dogmatic letter which was issued by the Sovereign Pontiff, Pope Pius XII, on June 29, 1943, (On the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ). For in this letter the Sovereign Pontiff clearly distinguishes between those who are actually incorporated into the Church as members, and those who are united to the Church only by desire. [......]
Toward the end of this same encyclical letter, when most affectionately inviting to unity those who do not belong to the body of the Catholic Church, he mentions those who "are related to the Mystical Body of the Redeemer by a certain unconscious yearning and desire," and these he by no means excludes from eternal salvation. [.......]
But it must not be thought that any kind of desire of entering the Church suffices that one may be saved. It is necessary that the desire by which one is related to the Church be animated by perfect charity. Nor can an implicit desire produce its effect, unless a person has supernatural faith: "For he who comes to God must believe that God exists and is a rewarder of those who seek Him" (Heb. 11:6).
What I descriptively call, “Salvation by Implicit Desire,” is taught by the 1949 Holy Office Letter. It could be called as "salvation by invincible ignorance," or "salvation by explicit desire to do the will of a god who rewards and punishes," or "salvation by implicit desire to join the Church," etc. These are all accurate descriptive terms for what the 1949 Holy Office Letter teaches. No matter how you describe it, it is not what the Catholic Church teaches. A necessary corollary for "salvation by implicit desire" is the belief in "salvation by justification alone" which the "Baptism of Desire" crowd erroneously claims that the Council of Trent taught. It has already been treated in detail in earlier posts how this corruption was done by Fr. Kramer involving the actual changing of the words of a Catholic dogma, divinely revealed truth that forms the formal object of divine and Catholic faith, to defend his novel doctrine of "salvation by justification alone."
The 1949 Holy Office Letter teaches that the only necessary and sufficient criterion for salvation is the "good disposition of the soul" who explicitly desires to 'do the will of a god who rewards and punishes.' This "explicit desire" is presumed, without supporting evidence, to contain within it an "implicit desire" to be "incorporated into the Church actually as a member." This membership in the Church produces a state of justification, and lastly, because of the doctrine of "salvation by justification alone," brings about "salvation." The material cause of salvation, is the "good disposition of the soul." The requirement of "perfect charity" is gratuitous concession that is purely subjective disposition that can be known only to God.
The 1949 Letter discards defined Catholic dogmas that explicit faith, submission to the Roman pontiff, and the sacraments are necessary for salvation as necessities of means. It does not deny these dogmas directly but rather treats them as perceptive norms of action and not as norms of believing, that is, it treats them as commands unrelated to truth and not as formal objects of divine and Catholic faith. Preceptive norms do not bind in the cases of physical or moral impossibility or excessive burden, while truths bind universally. Treating dogmas as preceptive norms of action rather than as revealed truths of God for believing is a formally condemned error of Modernism. Dogmas are divinely revealed truths. They are not commands. Once the burden of divine truth is discarded, it’s an easy matter to invent endless physical and/or moral impediments that eliminate the burdens of preceptive norms. As Pope John Paul II said, "It is mysterious for those who receive the grace (of salvation), because they do not know the Church and sometimes even outwardly reject her."
The only referenced authority for the novel doctrine of the 1949 Holy Office Letter is from the encyclical Mystici Corporis. It is important to note that the Letter does not reference either of the two quotations, both taken entirely out of context, from the encyclicals of Pope Pius IX, Singulari Quadam, 1854 and Quanto Conficiamur, that are so often claimed by the "Baptism of Desire" crowd to support their doctrine. In Fr. Fenton's defense of the 1949 Holy Office Letter, he also makes no reference to these quotations that supposedly support the doctrine of "salvation by implicit desire" attributed to Pope Pius IX. Fr. Fenton dates the teaching of "salvation by implicit desire" to its reference in the encyclical, Mystici Corporis.
What is particularly damaging is that the reference to the encyclical Mystici Corporis does not say what the Letter claims it said. The specific reference is mistranslated to give the text an entirely different meaning. The text is translated in the indicative mood as, " For even though by an unconscious desire and longing they (the invincible ignorant) have a certain relationship with the Mystical Body...." The original Latin is in the subjunctive mood and should literally be translated as, "may be ordained towards the Mystical Body...." There is a world of difference between, "certain relationship with" and "ordained towards." Furthermore, the original Latin is in the subjunctive mood and not the indicative mood. The subjunctive mood is "typically used to express various states of unreality such as wish, emotion, possibility, judgment, opinion, necessity, or action that has not yet occurred"(Wikipedia). Warriner's English Grammar says, "The only common uses of the subjunctive mood in modern English are to express a condition contrary to fact and to express a wish." The entire authority for the 1949 Holy Office Letter is based upon a mistranslation from the encyclical Mystici Corporis. It is grounded in a lie!
The belief in a 'god who rewards and punishes' is the only formal object of faith referred to the in the 1949 Holy Office Letter. This can be known by natural philosophy. The desire to do the will of this god can describe any ethical system, such as that of the Jews, Muslims, Hindus, etc. Once the doctrine of justification and salvation in the 1949 Holy Office Letter is accepted, there is no knowable criteria to determine the possibility that a person may be justified, in the state of grace, a temple of the Holy Ghost, or a member of the Church.
When a Catholic attends Mass on Sunday he has no idea whether or not the persons next to him are in the state of grace or not. He unites his prayers with theirs because they are bound by the sacraments which make them members of the Church, they stand in profession of the same Creed (are not heretics), and they pray for their local ordinary and the Holy Father (are not schismatics) which unites them in the bond of charity. In the New Ecclesiology, none of these outward visible signs are necessary for a state of grace. In the New Ecclesiology, everyone attending the Prayer Meeting at Assisi may have been in the state of grace. That being the case there is no reason not to pray with them anymore than for not praying with any other Catholic on any given Sunday.
Archbishop Lefebvre accepted, and Bishop Fellay accepts, the orthodoxy of the 1949 Letter and yet they were critical of John Paul II's Prayer Meeting at Assisi and have been critical of ecuмenism and religious liberty in general. It is a common experience that theoretical errors are not seen for what they are until their practical implications become evident. The theology of the 1949 Letter leads directly to the Prayer Meeting at Assisi. That is the “evident practical implication” that should be staring everyone in the face. For those who accept the 1949 Letter as orthodox what possible principled objection can be offered to oppose the Prayer Meeting at Assisi.
On the dais with John Paul II, fittingly holding potted plants, the vegetable kingdom being the common level unity, included a garden variety of heretics, schismatics, pagans, animists, idolaters, etc. The 1949 Letter affirms that the only things that are necessary for salvation are matters of the internal forum and can be know only to God. Everyone at the Prayer Meeting at Assisi may have been in the state of grace and temples of the Holy Ghost. That being the case, why not pray with them? After all, if truth is not an impediment to God why should it be an impediment to us?
What is painfully evident to all that those who quote Ss. Thomas, Alphonsus, Bellarmine etc. in their defense of "Baptism of Desire" are rank hypocrites. They do not really believe that "Baptism of Desire" either explicit or implicit is really needed for salvation. They do not believe that anything that can be known in the objective order is necessary for salvation. The difference between Fr. Feeney and any of these saints is so very trivial when compared to differences between these saints and those who believe in "salvation by implicit desire" and its corollary, "salvation by justification alone." Ultimately, "Baptism of Desire" has nothing to do with the argument. The argument really concerns the nature of dogma. What dogma actually is. Modernism as a heresy has as its ultimate aim the destruction of all dogma. There is not a dime's worth of difference in principle between Fr. Kramer, Ambrose, Paolo, et. al. and radical Modernists like Fr. Karl Rahner. While Fr. Rahner is generous in making everybody an Anonymous Christian, Fr. Kramer is petty and stingy. Should it be any surprise of someone who would have Paolo the Babbler as his spokesman? Fr. Rahner was honest enough to fairly and accurately judge the teaching of the Church Fathers on the question of the necessity of baptism for salvation while Fr. Kramer keeps lying to himself and anyone else who will listen.
The bottom line for the "Baptism of Desire" crowd is that any "good willed" Jew, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Orthodox, Protestant, agnostic, animist, etc. etc. can be justified, in the state of grace, a temple of the Holy Ghost, and a member of the Church, and obtain salvation while a baptized Catholic who believes every dogma of divine and Catholic faith, is subject to the Roman Pontiff, and keeps the commandments is a "heretic" and outside the possibility of salvation unless he "repents" and accepts the novel doctrine of "salvation by implicit desire."
It will be easier for the Pharisees on judgment day.
Drew
-
Cantarella's doctrine is graruitous and entirely erroneous, save for two points, to wit, that the person must have the Catholic faith, and there must be perfect charity.
Thus you anathematize yourself by denying the dogma taught by Trent that the Sacraments are necessary for salvation.
The 'matuto' in the rain forest who has never heard or seen a missionary is morally excused from needing the explicit will.
And thus you expose yourself. 'Matuto' does not have Catholic faith, ergo whether or not he has any desire is a moot point. Also, by using the term "excused" you reduce the necessity of Baptism to a necessity of precept rather than a necessity of means (which no theologian teaches).
You guys claim that you believe faith to be necessary for salvation but then state the opposite. You simply redefine faith.
Similary, you claim to believe in EENS and redefine "Church" and "outside" and even the meaning of the word "is".
-
If I may,
Ladislaus: Do you not understand that an interpretation of EENS & Trent that denies BOB is patently heretical?
As I just said, BoD is only tangentially related to EENS. With regard to Trent, I don't read Trent the way you do, and until this should be corrected by the Magisterium I will stick to my guns on it.
I'm not sure if you used BoB instead of BoD by mistake, but, as I have pointed, your reading of Trent actually rules out the existence of BoB, while, ironically, mine leaves the door open to it.
I'm not interested in discussing this issue any further with you, Don Paolo, since you are obviously not interested in rational discussion. This is the last post of yours to which I will respond ... until you show some semblance of self-control and rational thought.
Please Ladislaus, it is not about how you read Trent. It has already been interpreted by the ordinary universal magisterium of the Church and taught as de fide by a Doctor and Saint. We trust our popes, doctors, saints and catechisms. You don't. You trust yourself and those who agree with you. I do hope you gain the grace to accept this fact before you die.
Actually it is how one submits to the objective declarations of Trent which are interpreted by the decrees and the language which is used in them. There is no further clarification which is needed to understand their intent.
Any subsequent teaching must be in keeping with the language and clear intent of Trent. Any departure in sentence or judgment would be heretical
J Paul is spot on here. The Council of the Trent interpreted and declared as true, things revealed by God. The council is the explainer of Divine Revelation. Only a fault in pride can cause one to read an objective statement from and absolute authority and still need qualification ("interpretation").
CANON II.-If any one saith, that true and natural water is not of necessity for baptism, and, on that account, wrests, to some sort of metaphor, those words of our Lord Jesus Christ; Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost; let him be anathema.
CANON V.-If any one saith, that baptism is free, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema.
These are objective truth, clearly stated, with utmost authority, and easily understood (even in English).
Also, may I add, it is a logical fallacy to believe an interpreter needs another interpreter, and if any second interpreter tries, we may not simply assume the authority of the former speaks to us through the later.
I pray I've helped here,
JoeZ
-
The belief in a 'god who rewards and punishes' is the only formal object of faith referred to the in the 1949 Holy Office Letter. This can be known by natural philosophy.
I have pointed out the teaching of Vatican I which declares that supernatural faith must embrace truths which can ONLY be know by revelation, thus ending once and for all the minimalistic explicit belief in a rewarder god theory.
-
Heretic J. Paul, ( like Cantarella, Drew, and Ladislaus), understands the canons and decrees of Trent according to a private interpretation that is contrary to the perpetual explicit belief of the Church in BOB; and contrary to the constant interpretation of Trent of Sancta Romana Ecclesia, which has judged both BOB & BOD to be not in any way contrary to the doctrine of Trent. J. Paul, Drew, Cantarella & Ladislaus do not profess the doctrine of Christ and His Church, but profess the belief of the insignificant American Feeneyite sect, which professes a doctrine of baptism which is only a doctrinal deviation profssded by a miniscule American sect.
-
J. Paul, Drew, Cantarella & Ladislaus do not profess the doctrine of...., but profess the belief of the insignificant American Feeneyite sect, which professes a doctrine of baptism which is... professed by a miniscule American sect.
Many are called but few are chosen. I hope you all pray for me.
God bless,
JoeZ
-
Heretic J. Paul, ( like Cantarella, Drew, and Ladislaus), understands the canons and decrees of Trent according to a private interpretation that is contrary to the perpetual explicit belief of the Church in BOB; and contrary to the constant interpretation of Trent of Sancta Romana Ecclesia, which has judged both BOB & BOD to be not in any way contrary to the doctrine of Trent. J. Paul, Drew, Cantarella & Ladislaus do not profess the doctrine of Christ and His Church, but profess the belief of the insignificant American Feeneyite sect, which professes a doctrine of baptism which is only a doctrinal deviation profssded by a miniscule American sect.
Thank you, your Holiness! But a lie is still a lie. Shame on you who cannot accept the Divine doctrines of the Church, as She has proclaimed and defined them for all time.
Those who must add the concerns of man's sentiments and presumptions upon the revealed Heavenly mysteries.
-
DP,
but profess the belief of the insignificant American Feeneyite sect, which professes a doctrine of baptism which is only a doctrinal deviation profssded by a miniscule American sect.
Oh! yes,yes,....so miniscule in fact, that one can scarcely find a Catholic forum which is not inundated by the Apostles of semi-universalism with thread after thread of Baptism of Desire folk spamming that insignificant miniscule minority into oblivion.
Alas, that is the spirit of the age.
-
No one can be saved outside the Church. It seems to me that Archbishop Lefebvre and Bp. Fellay are not denying this, just not being as precise as we would like them to be.
What we would like them to be is entirely irrelevant. Who gave them, or any theologian etc. the right or authority to be imprecise when teaching that which the Church has infallibly and dogmatically declared, with the utmost precision, that is to say, the infinitely perfect precision of Christ Himself?
It is impossible for one outside the Church to be in the state of sanctifying grace, so if they are justified, they are already in the Church (though not yet a member) through Baptism of Desire (implicit).
And here is a demonstration of the circular thinking of the moderns, a statement whose beginning is its end, and its end, is its beginning.
A perfect Ouroboros of doctrine
-
Modernism as a heresy has as its ultimate aim the destruction of all dogma. There is not a dime's worth of difference in principle between Fr. Kramer, Ambrose, Paolo, et. al. and radical Modernists like Fr. Karl Rahner. While Fr. Rahner is generous in making everybody an Anonymous Christian, Fr. Kramer is petty and stingy. Should it be any surprise of someone who would have Paolo the Babbler as his spokesman? Fr. Rahner was honest enough to fairly and accurately judge the teaching of the Church Fathers on the question of the necessity of baptism for salvation while Fr. Kramer keeps lying to himself and anyone else who will listen.
What is sad and ironic is that most "traditionalists" who allegedly are commended for their affirmation of the ageless teachings of the Holy Catholic Church, however have one issue in common with the liberals, whom they correct. They assume that BOD and being saved in invincible ignorance via last minute BOD is de fide teaching and the restoration of the Latin Mass and "resisting" Vatican II are the main concerns.
But the restoration of the Tridentine Mass by itself or "resistance" to Vatican II will not solve the problems. The Mass can be solemn and beautidul but is the DOCTRINAL reality of the Mass what matters and what is mostly lacking. "Speaking of how to pray, dogmas come first, not liturgies." Many of those who have caused the most damage, such as Fr. Karl Rahner, S.J., said the Tridentine Mass for most of their careers and still was a modernist. Many traditionalists who incessantly condemn Vatican II fail to see what is the real doctrinal error behind the modern crisis and end up adhering to the same heresies of Vatican II anyway.
-
Modernism as a heresy has as its ultimate aim the destruction of all dogma. There is not a dime's worth of difference in principle between Fr. Kramer, Ambrose, Paolo, et. al. and radical Modernists like Fr. Karl Rahner. While Fr. Rahner is generous in making everybody an Anonymous Christian, Fr. Kramer is petty and stingy. Should it be any surprise of someone who would have Paolo the Babbler as his spokesman? Fr. Rahner was honest enough to fairly and accurately judge the teaching of the Church Fathers on the question of the necessity of baptism for salvation while Fr. Kramer keeps lying to himself and anyone else who will listen.
What is sad and ironic is that most "traditionalists" who allegedly are commended for their affirmation of the ageless teachings of the Holy Catholic Church, however have one issue in common with the liberals, whom they correct. They assume that BOD and being saved in invincible ignorance via last minute BOD is de fide teaching and the restoration of the Latin Mass and "resisting" Vatican II are the main concerns.
But the restoration of the Tridentine Mass by itself or "resistance" to Vatican II will not solve the problems. The Mass can be solemn and beautidul but is the DOCTRINAL reality of the Mass what matters and what is mostly lacking. "Speaking of how to pray, dogmas come first, not liturgies." Many of those who have caused the most damage, such as Fr. Karl Rahner, S.J., said the Tridentine Mass for most of their careers and still was a modernist. Many traditionalists who incessantly condemn Vatican II fail to see what is the real doctrinal error behind the modern crisis and end up adhering to the same heresies of Vatican II anyway.
False, we have nothing in common with the liberals. We defend the Faith from every angle of attack, and that includes the denial of Baptism of Desire and Blood.
Every heresy is a grave threat to the Church. This modern Americanist heresy of Feeneyism is just as dangerous as other heresies. They all attack the Catholic Faith.
Maybe someday you will come to realize this fact, and make amends for all the damage you and your comrades are doing to the Church.
-
Modernism as a heresy has as its ultimate aim the destruction of all dogma. There is not a dime's worth of difference in principle between Fr. Kramer, Ambrose, Paolo, et. al. and radical Modernists like Fr. Karl Rahner. While Fr. Rahner is generous in making everybody an Anonymous Christian, Fr. Kramer is petty and stingy. Should it be any surprise of someone who would have Paolo the Babbler as his spokesman? Fr. Rahner was honest enough to fairly and accurately judge the teaching of the Church Fathers on the question of the necessity of baptism for salvation while Fr. Kramer keeps lying to himself and anyone else who will listen.
What is sad and ironic is that most "traditionalists" who allegedly are commended for their affirmation of the ageless teachings of the Holy Catholic Church, however have one issue in common with the liberals, whom they correct. They assume that BOD and being saved in invincible ignorance via last minute BOD is de fide teaching and the restoration of the Latin Mass and "resisting" Vatican II are the main concerns.
But the restoration of the Tridentine Mass by itself or "resistance" to Vatican II will not solve the problems. The Mass can be solemn and beautidul but is the DOCTRINAL reality of the Mass what matters and what is mostly lacking. "Speaking of how to pray, dogmas come first, not liturgies." Many of those who have caused the most damage, such as Fr. Karl Rahner, S.J., said the Tridentine Mass for most of their careers and still was a modernist. Many traditionalists who incessantly condemn Vatican II fail to see what is the real doctrinal error behind the modern crisis and end up adhering to the same heresies of Vatican II anyway.
Is it true that it was the Denzinger edition under the editorship of Karl Rahner that published the letter of a curial cardinal condemning Fr Feeney?
I've seen Rahner's English version of "Anonymous Christian" leather bound, the same size as an altar missal, being sold at St Paul's Bookshop where I live. So much reverence is shown to this work of his.
-
This modern Americanist heresy of Feeneyism is just as dangerous as other heresies.
Translation of all BODer comments(in the raw!):
(A) People who believe John 3:5 as it is written, are heretics.
Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. (John 3:5)
People who believe EENS as it is written in ALL the dogmatic decrees are heretics.
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.
(B)The people who believe that persons can be saved despite not having an explicit desire to be baptized, nor explicit desire to be a Catholic, nor knowledge of the Trinity and Incarnation, those who they say are saved by their invincible ignorance and "implicit faith" in a God that rewards, those people are of orthodox Catholic belief.
-
This modern Americanist heresy of Feeneyism is just as dangerous as other heresies.
St. Francis Xavier:
Letter from Japan, to the Society of Jesus in Europe, 1552
One of the things that most of all pains and torments these Japanese is, that we teach them that the prison of hell is irrevocably shut, so that there is no egress therefrom. For they grieve over the fate of their departed children, of their parents and relatives, and they often show their grief by their tears. So they ask us if there is any hope, any way to free them by prayer from that eternal misery, and I am obliged to answer that there is absolutely none. Their grief at this affects and torments them wonderfully; they almost pine away with sorrow. But there is this good thing about their trouble---it makes one hope that they will all be the more laborious for their own salvation, lest they like their forefathers, should be condemned to everlasting punishment. They often ask if God cannot take their fathers out of hell, and why their punishment must never have an end. We gave them a satisfactory answer, but they did not cease to grieve over the misfortune of their relatives; and I can hardly restrain my tears sometimes at seeing men so dear to my heart suffer such intense pain about a thing which is already done with and can never be undone.
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1552xavier4.html
From: Henry James Coleridge, ed., The Life and Letters of St. Francis Xavier, 2d Ed., 2 Vols., (London: Burns & Oates, 1890), Vol. II, pp. 331-350; reprinted in William H. McNeil and Mitsuko Iriye, eds., Modern Asia and Africa, Readings in World History Vol. 9, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1971), pp. 20-30.
-
Feeneyite sectarian J. Paul says (to Don Paolo): . Shame on you who cannot accept the Divine doctrines of the Church, . . ."
I profess the dogmas of faith according to the perpetual sense, meaning and interpretation of Sancta Romana Ecclesia, to which the Dogmatic Constitution Dei Filius declares us to be bound. You, Drew, Cantarella (et al.) profess a heretical Americanist interpretation of dogma according to your Protestant principle of Private Judgment, and against the expressed mind and infallible teaching of the universal & ordinary magisterium, and constant teaching of the Roman Pontiffs. BOB & BOD are not theories or opinions tolerated by Rome; but are doctrines that the popes have authorized to be taught de fide by the ordinary magisterium. If BOB & BOD are errors and heresies as you claim, then the whole Church has been in heresy since the Third Century! If BOD as taught universally by the ordinary magisterium is contrary to the dogmas of Trent; then the corporate body of bishops together with all the post-Tridentine popes, and the general Catholic populations of the nations worldwide, all fell into heresy around the time of St. Robert Bellarmine (who, according to you was also in heresy).
The doctrine of Baptism of Desire at least implicitly willed was taught as de fide by St. Alphonsus de Liguori, based on the Decree on Justification of Trent. This is not a mere opinion of a Saint on an open question; but this doctrine was approved to be taught as de fide already by the authority of Pope Benedict XIV, and then likewise, by the authority of all his successors on the Chair of Peter -- and eventually taught explicitly by St. Pius X, together with the bishops of the world. That fact alone constitutes it as a definition of the universal & ordinary magisterium of the Church. If St. Alphonsus was in error on this point, then Benedict XIV erred gravely for authorizing it to be taught as de fide. Likewise, Gregory XVI would have erred gravely for declaring St. Liguori's doctrines to be free from error, if he were in error on this point of BOD being de fide. Bl. Pius IX would also have been a heretic for teaching BOD, and for declaring St. Alphonsus a Doctor of the Church, and for authorizing his teaching to be taught as Catholic doctrine, and for teaching BOD himself. Pope Leo XIII would also have been a heretic for delegating the authority to the Congregation of the Council to approve the BOD teaching Baltimore Catechism, and for not correcting such a grave error. St. Pius X would have been a heretic for teaching BOD by implicit desire in his Catechism; and Ven. Pius XII would likewise have been a heretic for teaching BOD in his discourses and writings. All the post-Tridentine popes since Bellarmine's time, have upheld the doctrine of BOD, and authorized it to be taught as de fide by the Catholic the bishops of the world. If Feeney's opinion that BOD is contrary to the canons of Trent were correct, then the whole Church would have been in heresy, and only Feeney and his miniscule American sect would have the Catholic faith!
NO! The popes, through the Sacred Congregation of the Council, have constantly judged BOB & BOD, as taught by St. Alphonsus, Pius IX, Pius X, Pius XII, et. al., and a unanimous multitude of approved theologians, to be in conformity with the canons and decrees of Trent, and authorized BOB & BOD to be taught by the universal & ordinary magisterium as de fide. The constant teaching of the papal magisterium and the infallible voice of the universal & ordinary magisterium uphold the doctrines of BOB & BOD as de fide definitions of the universal Church. It is only a miniscule American sect of Feeneyites, localized within the confines of North America, that adheres to its own Private Judgment in interpreting dogma, and rejects the faith of the Roman Pontiffs and the universal magisterium, and professes the heretical private opinion of Leonard Feeney SJ.
-
BODer standard operating procedure:
- Quote from saints and sources that taught about BOD of the catechumen and of people who had explicit belief in Christ, but then they teach that anyone can be saved even if they don't believe in Christ, nor explicitly even want to be Catholics.
- Keep repeating that it is defide (which if it was it would be infallible)
- Calling heretics those who believe the dogmas as they are written
-
Ambrose said:
This modern Americanist heresy of Feeneyism is just as dangerous as other heresies.
Oh yes, considering that it was the Americanist Cardinal Gibbons who was the chief apostle of the BoD crowd in the US when Leo XIII condemned Americanism.
It is the Americanists who are noted for Extra Ecclesiam salvation, and the watering down of Catholic doctrine.
Who are you folks trying to fool?
-
Clueless Bowler is a man who interprets Scripture & Dogma heretically according to the Protestant principle of Private Judgment, against the infallible teaching of the universal & ordinary magisterium of the Church. BOD & BOD are both infallibly defined by the universal & ordinary magisterium. The popes for centuries, through the Congregation of the Council, have authorized BOB & BOD to be taught universally as de fide by the infallible ordinary magisterium. The Feeneyite interpretations of Trent and EENS against BOB & BOD are patently false and heretical; because they would construe the infallible dogmas in opposition to the infallible definitions of the universal & ordinary magisterium -- a manifest absurdity. Thus it is patent, that the Feeneyite denial of BOB & BOD places them outside the Church as heretics.
-
DP,
J. Paul says (to Don Paolo): . Shame on you who cannot accept the Divine doctrines of the Church
For, the doctrine of faith which God revealed has not been handed down as a philosophic invention to the human mind to be perfected, but has been entrusted as a divine deposit to the Spouse of Christ, to be faithfully guarded and infallibly interpreted. Hence, also, that understanding of its sacred dogmas must be perpetually retained, which Holy Mother Church has once declared; and there must never be recession from that meaning under the specious name of a deeper understanding "
Holy Mother Church has ONCE declared. That which has been at once declared neither needs nor admits to any qualification or modification which violates its clear objective meaning.
Saying that you accept, and doing so, can be two different things.
If one does not fully submit to the meaning and sentence of once declared dogma, then, he has no ability to understand any following explanations in the proper sense of, and in submission to that dogma or its declared intent.
Heretic indeed!
You folks seem to start with you final "desire", and backwards engineer all of the opinions until you finally have all of your theologians and Saints determining what the dogma should mean. to fit your desired results.
That which comes after determines that which was
Ouroboros
-
BoDers are part of the problem and not part of the solution with regard to the present apostasy and falling away from the Faith. Their Traditional Catholicism reduces to nothing but a dogmatic adherence to using the correct aroma of incense.
They refuse to admit that BoD is what opens the door to the new inclusive ecclesiology of Vatican II. Karl Rahner has admitted this progression. Without BoD that could never have happened. Well, not with BoD proper, as all the Doctors who held it understood BoD, but their extended Suprema Haec version of BoD. If I were to accept Suprema Haec then I would have absolutely nothing to stand on to reject anything in Vatican II. V2 follows as a direct logical consequence of SH.
Having admitted that BoD is part of the problem, the root cause of religious indifferentism, even if you believe in it, THIS SHOULD NOT BE YOUR EMPHASIS. Emphasizing BoD in this day and age is incredibly inopportune AT BEST. It should be relegated to a footnote in the entire body of Catholic theology, but you guys beat on BoD as if it were THE foundational Catholic dogma when in fact it's quite the opposite.
BoD INVARIABLY leads to a disparaging if not outright denial of the necessity of the Sacraments for salvation as taught by Trent. When you extend BoD to those who don't explicitly hold the Catholic Faith, you create an ecclesiology where the invisible boundaries of the Church extend beyond its visible boundaries. You thus have subsistence ecclesiology. You have people who are within the Church but to varying degrees (Catholics, schismatics, Protestants, even "Matuto in the rainforest" or "Hindu in Tibet"). Clearly then, based on this, the "subsistence" language of Vatican II is nothing more than a profound way to express this reality. Only Catholics, who are actual members, form the subsistent core of the Church. THIS HAS NEVER BEEN REFUTED BY THE BODers. They IGNORE this. Because they CANNOT refute it. Then, given the subsistence ecclesiology, all the other "errors" of Vatican II vanish. In fact, if you were to convince me that SH is sound Catholic doctrine, then I would immediately cease to be a Traditional Catholic.
-
Clueless Bowler is a man who interprets Scripture & Dogma heretically according to the Protestant principle of Private Judgment, against the infallible teaching of the universal & ordinary magisterium of the Church. BOD & BOD are both infallibly defined by the universal & ordinary magisterium. The popes for centuries, through the Congregation of the Council, have authorized BOB & BOD to be taught universally as de fide by the infallible ordinary magisterium. The Feeneyite interpretations of Trent and EENS against BOB & BOD are patently false and heretical; because they would construe the infallible dogmas in opposition to the infallible definitions of the universal & ordinary magisterium -- a manifest absurdity. Thus it is patent, that the Feeneyite denial of BOB & BOD places them outside the Church as heretics.
More Horsehockey, Again the modern concept that meaning of the Church's ONCE declared dogmas are given their meaning by those who come after them. A complete inversion of the Catholic order whereby a dogma is declared with the meaning fully exposed in the declaration and ALL subsequent teaching is always in submission to, and perfectly in keeping with the original declaration.
Accepting the dogmas AS the Church has ONCE declared them is to be considered "private interpretation" to you folks, but adding auxiliary concepts which qualify the original intent is not.
Saint Galileo save us!
-
Modernism as a heresy has as its ultimate aim the destruction of all dogma. There is not a dime's worth of difference in principle between Fr. Kramer, Ambrose, Paolo, et. al. and radical Modernists like Fr. Karl Rahner. While Fr. Rahner is generous in making everybody an Anonymous Christian, Fr. Kramer is petty and stingy. Should it be any surprise of someone who would have Paolo the Babbler as his spokesman? Fr. Rahner was honest enough to fairly and accurately judge the teaching of the Church Fathers on the question of the necessity of baptism for salvation while Fr. Kramer keeps lying to himself and anyone else who will listen.
What is sad and ironic is that most "traditionalists" who allegedly are commended for their affirmation of the ageless teachings of the Holy Catholic Church, however have one issue in common with the liberals, whom they correct. They assume that BOD and being saved in invincible ignorance via last minute BOD is de fide teaching and the restoration of the Latin Mass and "resisting" Vatican II are the main concerns.
But the restoration of the Tridentine Mass by itself or "resistance" to Vatican II will not solve the problems. The Mass can be solemn and beautidul but is the DOCTRINAL reality of the Mass what matters and what is mostly lacking. "Speaking of how to pray, dogmas come first, not liturgies." Many of those who have caused the most damage, such as Fr. Karl Rahner, S.J., said the Tridentine Mass for most of their careers and still was a modernist. Many traditionalists who incessantly condemn Vatican II fail to see what is the real doctrinal error behind the modern crisis and end up adhering to the same heresies of Vatican II anyway.
False, we have nothing in common with the liberals. We defend the Faith from every angle of attack, and that includes the denial of Baptism of Desire and Blood.
Every heresy is a grave threat to the Church. This modern Americanist heresy of Feeneyism is just as dangerous as other heresies. They all attack the Catholic Faith.
Maybe someday you will come to realize this fact, and make amends for all the damage you and your comrades are doing to the Church.
You believe like Pope John Paul II that in the exercise of Religious Liberty Jews as Jews, Hindus as Hindus, Buddhists as Buddhists, Muslims as Muslims, Protestants as Protestants, etc. can be in the state of grace, temples of the Holy Ghost, members of the Church and obtain salvation. With your New Ecclesiology, it is possible that everyone on the dais at the Prayer Meeting at Assisi with Pope John Paul II could have been in a state of justification. The Prayer Meeting then is not only logical; it becomes a moral imperative. There is no principled objection you can offer against the Ecuмenical Prayer Meeting at Assisi. If you want to play the part of a punching bag, go ahead and try.
You defend nothing because the only defense against an abusive authority is dogma and you hold dogma in contempt. Maybe you are not as clumsy as Fr. Paul Kramer to actually do what he did and change the words in a Catholic dogma to fit his personal conceptions of what God really meant to say, of how the "truth" really should be expressed. But you have defended this act which is a most grave sin against the faith for dogmas are the formal objects of divine and Catholic faith the denial of which is the very definition of a heretic. St. Thomas says that sins against the faith are the most serious of sins.
"Americanist heresy of Feenyism" is as remarkably vacuous comment. The SSPX looked like idiots during the Doctrinal Discussions with Rome and after comments like this no one will have to wonder why. But you have not a clue what happened, which means you will continue to make the same mistakes again and again.
You are a worthless soldier who does not even know where the front is.
Drew
-
Ambrose said:
This modern Americanist heresy of Feeneyism is just as dangerous as other heresies.
Oh yes, considering that it was the Americanist Cardinal Gibbons who was the chief apostle of the BoD crowd in the US when Leo XIII condemned Americanism.
It is the Americanists who are noted for Extra Ecclesiam salvation, and the watering down of Catholic doctrine.
Who are you folks trying to fool?
This denial of Baptism of Desire and Blood heresy is an American heresy. It has only been seeping outside of America is recent years due to the internet and the Dimond media machine.
Btw, Cardinal Gibbons did not invent Baptism of Desire. You may not like him, but on this matter, he was certainly on the solid ground of orthodoxy, the Council of Trent itself.
-
This modern Americanist heresy of Feeneyism is just as dangerous as other heresies.
Translation of all BODer comments(in the raw!):
(A) People who believe John 3:5 as it is written, are heretics.
Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. (John 3:5)
People who believe EENS as it is written in ALL the dogmatic decrees are heretics.
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.
(B)The people who believe that persons can be saved despite not having an explicit desire to be baptized, nor explicit desire to be a Catholic, nor knowledge of the Trinity and Incarnation, those who they say are saved by their invincible ignorance and "implicit faith" in a God that rewards, those people are of orthodox Catholic belief.
Translation of Bowlers comments.
1. Privately interpret John 3:5 by insisting that it only means what they say it means.
2. Ignore the infallible teaching of the Council of Trent that explicitly taught Baptism of Desire.
3. Pretend that Baptism of Desire conflicts with EENS as taught by Cantate Domino.
-
Translation of Bowlers comments.
1. Privately interpret John 3:5 by insisting that it only means what they say it means.
2. Ignore the infallible teaching of the Council of Trent that explicitly taught Baptism of Desire.
3. Pretend that Baptism of Desire conflicts with EENS as taught by Cantate Domino.
So say the subjective characterizations of an expert.
Conclusion: Consider the source.
-
Ambrose said:
This modern Americanist heresy of Feeneyism is just as dangerous as other heresies.
Oh yes, considering that it was the Americanist Cardinal Gibbons who was the chief apostle of the BoD crowd in the US when Leo XIII condemned Americanism.
It is the Americanists who are noted for Extra Ecclesiam salvation, and the watering down of Catholic doctrine.
Who are you folks trying to fool?
This denial of Baptism of Desire and Blood heresy is an American heresy. It has only been seeping outside of America is recent years due to the internet and the Dimond media machine.
Btw, Cardinal Gibbons did not invent Baptism of Desire. You may not like him, but on this matter, he was certainly on the solid ground of orthodoxy, the Council of Trent itself.
Promotion of this doctrine was a key element of Gibbon's tenure, and yes he was a prominent Americanist.
Stop trying to invert reality, it is unbecoming.
-
Ambrose said:
This modern Americanist heresy of Feeneyism is just as dangerous as other heresies.
Oh yes, considering that it was the Americanist Cardinal Gibbons who was the chief apostle of the BoD crowd in the US when Leo XIII condemned Americanism.
It is the Americanists who are noted for Extra Ecclesiam salvation, and the watering down of Catholic doctrine.
Who are you folks trying to fool?
This denial of Baptism of Desire and Blood heresy is an American heresy. It has only been seeping outside of America is recent years due to the internet and the Dimond media machine.
Btw, Cardinal Gibbons did not invent Baptism of Desire. You may not like him, but on this matter, he was certainly on the solid ground of orthodoxy, the Council of Trent itself.
Promotion of this doctrine was a key element of Gibbon's tenure, and yes he was a prominent Americanist.
Stop trying to invert reality, it is unbecoming.
I am not inverting anything. You say he was "promoting" Baptism of Desire, but what do you mean when you say "promoting"?
-
Translation of Bowlers comments.
1. Privately interpret John 3:5 by insisting that it only means what they say it means.
2. Ignore the infallible teaching of the Council of Trent that explicitly taught Baptism of Desire.
3. Pretend that Baptism of Desire conflicts with EENS as taught by Cantate Domino.
So say the subjective characterizations of an expert.
Conclusion: Consider the source.
Not subjective, just facts that bother you.
-
Drew and the other Feeneyites profess that the instrumental cause of justification and the reception of sanctifying grace is exclusively water baptism. The Council of Trent defined differently: Trent declared in Ch. 4 of Session 6, that justification and the reception of sanctifying grace is accomplished by "the laver of regeneration or the resolve of it"; and that justification accomplished by the washing of baptism or the resolve of it, is what is meant in the Gospel by the words, "Unless one be reborn of water and the Holy Ghost . . .": Quibus verbis iustificationis impii descriptio insinuatur ut sit translatio ab eo statu in quo homo nascitur filius primi Adae in statum gratiae et adoptionis filiorum Dei per secundum Adam Iesum Christum salvatorem nostrum; quae quidem translatio post Evangelium promulgatum sine lavacro regenerationis aut eius voto fieri non potest sicut scriptum est: nisi quis renatus fuerit ex aqua et Spiritu Sancto non potest introire in regnum Dei.
The Decree on Justification defined explicitly that those thus justified, who appear before the judgment seat of Jesus Christ in possession of that justifying grace enter eternal life: Unde et statim verbum Christi audiunt: si vis ad vitam ingredi serva mandata. Itaque veram et christianam iustitiam accipientes eam ceu primam stolam pro illa quam Adam sua inobedientia sibi et nobis perdidit per Christum Iesum illis donatam candidam et immaculatam iubentur statim renati conservare ut eam perferant ante tribunal Domini nostri Iesu Christi et habeant vitam aeternam.
Drew objects that the instrumental cause of justification is only the actual washing of baptismal water, and cites the text of the Decree out of context: instrumentalis item sacramentum baptismi quod est sacramentum fidei sine qua nulli umquam contigit iustificatio.
The Decree already defined, as noted above, that the justification is accomplished by the "laver of regeneration or the resolve of it". Thus, the Council of Trent unequivocally defined that one is reborn of water and the Holy Ghost by water or votum; and that one thus reborn, who appeares before the divine tribunal in possession of justifying grace, enters eternal life.
The entire official post-Tridentine magisterium upholds this doctrine. Only Feeney's private interpretation, against the entire post-Tridentine magisterium, which would construe Trent to contradict its own doctrine, is against the clearly expressed mind of the Church. Drew's stupid objection that claims that justification and salvation by votum, when the reception of the sacrament is impossible, would make the sacrament "optional" or "superfluous" is patently absurd: If baptism were optional or superfluous, them one could be justified by faith, repentance, and charity -- without the resolve to receive the sacrament. Drew's response to the demolishing of his vacuous arguments, is to say that the reply says "nothing new", and repeats what was said before like a parrot. Drew thus reveals himself to be a sociopathic charlatan.
-
Drew and the other Feeneyites profess that the instrumental cause of justification and the reception of sanctifying grace is exclusively water baptism.
Uhm, Trent teaches explicitly that the instrumental cause of justification is Baptism. To say otherwise, as you have just done, is to anathematize yourself through a heretical denial of the necessity of the Sacraments for salvation.
the instrumental cause [of this justificaton] is the sacrament of Baptism
Even if you believe in BoD or BoB, you must say that the Sacrament of Baptism still operates via BoD or BoB as the instrumental cause of justification. Otherwise you deny Trent's dogmatic teaching regarding the necessity of the Sacraments.
EVERY BoDer eventually anathematizes himself.
-
Translation of Bowlers comments.
1. Privately interpret John 3:5 by insisting that it only means what they say it means.
2. Ignore the infallible teaching of the Council of Trent that explicitly taught Baptism of Desire.
3. Pretend that Baptism of Desire conflicts with EENS as taught by Cantate Domino.
So say the subjective characterizations of an expert.
Conclusion: Consider the source.
Not subjective, just facts that bother you.
Facts according to yourself, are little more than opinions.
No one is fooled.
-
Drew and the other Feeneyites profess that the instrumental cause of justification and the reception of sanctifying grace is exclusively water baptism. The Council of Trent defined differently: Trent declared in Ch. 4 of Session 6, that justification and the reception of sanctifying grace is accomplished by "the laver of regeneration or the resolve of it"; and that justification accomplished by the washing of baptism or the resolve of it, is what is meant in the Gospel by the words, "Unless one be reborn of water and the Holy Ghost . . .": Quibus verbis iustificationis impii descriptio insinuatur ut sit translatio ab eo statu in quo homo nascitur filius primi Adae in statum gratiae et adoptionis filiorum Dei per secundum Adam Iesum Christum salvatorem nostrum; quae quidem translatio post Evangelium promulgatum sine lavacro regenerationis aut eius voto fieri non potest sicut scriptum est: nisi quis renatus fuerit ex aqua et Spiritu Sancto non potest introire in regnum Dei.
The Decree on Justification defined explicitly that those thus justified, who appear before the judgment seat of Jesus Christ in possession of that justifying grace enter eternal life: Unde et statim verbum Christi audiunt: si vis ad vitam ingredi serva mandata. Itaque veram et christianam iustitiam accipientes eam ceu primam stolam pro illa quam Adam sua inobedientia sibi et nobis perdidit per Christum Iesum illis donatam candidam et immaculatam iubentur statim renati conservare ut eam perferant ante tribunal Domini nostri Iesu Christi et habeant vitam aeternam.
Drew objects that the instrumental cause of justification is only the actual washing of baptismal water, and cites the text of the Decree out of context: instrumentalis item sacramentum baptismi quod est sacramentum fidei sine qua nulli umquam contigit iustificatio.
The Decree already defined, as noted above, that the justification is accomplished by the "laver of regeneration or the resolve of it". Thus, the Council of Trent unequivocally defined that one is reborn of water and the Holy Ghost by water or votum; and that one thus reborn, who appeares before the divine tribunal in possession of justifying grace, enters eternal life.
The entire official post-Tridentine magisterium upholds this doctrine. Only Feeney's private interpretation, against the entire post-Tridentine magisterium, which would construe Trent to contradict its own doctrine, is against the clearly expressed mind of the Church. Drew's stupid objection that claims that justification and salvation by votum, when the reception of the sacrament is impossible, would make the sacrament "optional" or "superfluous" is patently absurd: If baptism were optional or superfluous, them one could be justified by faith, repentance, and charity -- without the resolve to receive the sacrament. Drew's response to the demolishing of his vacuous arguments, is to say that the reply says "nothing new", and repeats what was said before like a parrot. Drew thus reveals himself to be a sociopathic charlatan.
-
Since you repasted your heretical rant, I will quote my own reponse again. See the bolded part, you heretic you.
Drew and the other Feeneyites profess that the instrumental cause of justification and the reception of sanctifying grace is exclusively water baptism.
Uhm, Trent teaches explicitly that the instrumental cause of justification is Baptism. To say otherwise, as you have just done, is to anathematize yourself through a heretical denial of the necessity of the Sacraments for salvation.
the instrumental cause [of this justificaton] is the sacrament of Baptism
Even if you believe in BoD or BoB, you must say that the Sacrament of Baptism still operates via BoD or BoB as the instrumental cause of justification. Otherwise you deny Trent's dogmatic teaching regarding the necessity of the Sacraments.
EVERY BoDer eventually anathematizes himself.
-
Clueless Ladislaus is too obtuse to be aware of the fact that St. Thomas Aquinas already solved the question of BOB/BOD: The unity of the sacrament is preserved because the merciful God, and the unction of the Holy Ghost, by the merits of the passion of Christ, are the cause of justification, sanctification, and salvation for sacramental baptism, as well as BOB and BOD.
-
Ladislaus (et al.) is too dull witted to understand that a definition of the universal & ordinary magisterium is of equal authority, and is equally infallible as a solemn definition. BOB & BOD have been infallibly defined by the universal & ordinary magisterium. It is only the Feeneyite private interpretation of BOB/BOD/EENS/Trent, that judges BOB/BOD to be a heresy. The Church has already defined infallibly in favour of BOB/BOD in its ordinary magisterium.
-
Don Paolo is evidently too "clueless", "dull-witted", and "obtuse", due to a mind darkened with heretical depravity, a rabid foaming-at-the-mouth despiser of the dogma EENS and the necessity of the Sacraments for salvation, to be able to comprehend basic English. If you look again at my latest post, I didn't even ask you to renounce BoD/BoB due to Baptism being the instrumental cause. I was actually GIVING YOU AN OUT to keep your belief in BoD/BoB while at least upholding the necessity of the Sacraments for salvation.
Even in BoD/BoB you must at least say that the Sacrament of Baptism acts as the instrumental cause operating by way of the votum. I have repeatedly invited BoDers to change their formulation so as not to reject the dogmatic teaching of Trent. Were you to read the entire thing, one of the major emphases of "On Justification", against the prevailing Protestant heresies, is to emphasize and dogmatically declare the NECESSITY OF THE SACRAMENTS FOR SALVATION. Unless you acknowledge this truth, you a heretic and anathema and basically hold a by grace alone theory of justification. In Trent's treatment of Confession, as SJB pointed out, the original language simply stated that perfect contrition alone sufficed for being restored to a state of justification. But the Pope intervened and insisted that they add also the need for the Sacrament of Confession at least in voto. Theologians after Trent, even those who accepted BoD, said that people needed to receive Baptism in re or in voto and not that they could be saved WITHOUT the Sacrament, by grace alone.
So will you admit that even in BoD/BoB it is the Sacrament of Baptism that acts or operates via the votum to bring the soul into a state of justification? I'm giving you one last chance to back away from heresy.
PS -- I used the litany of insults at the beginning completely tongue-in-cheek and was smiling when I typed it out. I'm poking fun at your vitriolic rhetoric. Nevertheless, I am dead serious about asking you to affirm your believe in the necessity of the Sacraments for salvation.
-
Drew and the other Feeneyites profess that the instrumental cause of justification and the reception of sanctifying grace is exclusively water baptism. [.....] Drew thus reveals himself to be a sociopathic charlatan.
Paolo,
You have repeatedly attributed citations to me that were never said. If you claim that I have said something make sure you produce the specific quotation in the proper context.
A well known Catholic philosopher defined, “Wisdom (as) the most perfect knowledge of the most important truths in the right order of emphasis, accompanied by a total, permanent disposition to live accordingly.”
Every note of the definition is essential, and in every essential you fall far short of the mark. What is troublesome is that you are unable to recognize wisdom in others. You repeat again and again as “proofs” arguments that have been discredited long ago in this thread, sometimes discredited by several different people. I understand that wisdom is a gift of the Holy Ghost and it hard to fault someone who does not possess a “gift,” nevertheless; we have God’s promise that the gift is available to the humble for the asking. That means you have to do two things.
You and Fr. Kramer believe that a Jew as Jew, a Muslim as a Muslim, a Hindu as a Hindu, a Buddhist as a Buddhist, etc. etc. by an ‘explicit desire to do the will of a god who rewards and punishes’ is thereby justified, a temple of the Holy Ghost, member of the Church and heir to heaven. What are the instrumental cause and the material cause of their justification? Archbishop Lefebvre says it is their “good will”? Can you specifically identify one of these "justified" souls by name and introduce him to everyone? Are you planning a field trip to the next Prayer Meeting at Assisi? Do you need a potted plant?
Lastly, do you think that it was a good idea of Fr. Kramer to literally change the words in a Catholic dogma so that the meaning of the dogma would then agree to his idiosyncratic understanding of the narrative in the Decree of Justification?
It is amazing how close your posts resemble the emails I have from Fr. Kramer in structure, style, and vocabulary. Is Fr. Kramer writing your replies?
Drew
-
Yes, drew, when someone thinks that people are justified by their good will, that's nothing other than Pelagianism, the very heresy which caused St. Augustine to reconsider and then completely rejection Baptism of Desire.
-
It is only the Feeneyite private interpretation of BOB/BOD/EENS/Trent, that judges BOB/BOD to be a heresy.
This too is a total lie ... or else betrays the woeful ignorance of this self-proclaimed chess-master.
I have NEVER claimed that BoD/BoB is heresy. Nor, to my knowledge, did Father Feeney ever claim that.
What I consider heretical are:
1) assertions that the Sacraments are not necessary for salvation
and
2) that there's salvation outside the Church (for those who are in no way Catholic)
I consider BoD/BoB to be misguided and wrong, but if understood as referring to catechumens, relatively innocuous vis-à-vis the dogma EENS.
St. Robert Bellarmine tried very hard to reconcile BoD for catechumens with post Tridentine ecclesiology (with its emphasis against the Protestant errors on the visibility of the Church). When defining the Church, St. Robert excluded catechumens due to their not being part of the Church's Sacramental life but then at a different point said they were "in the vestibule" of the Church (not exactly a precise theology, just a weak metaphor related to a church building). He tried but, IMO, failed. You guys on the other hand have no problem embracing a gnostic, Protestant, Pelagian Vatican II ecclesiology and in the process reject a number of Catholic dogmas.
You continue to hide behind BoD to mask your contempt for EENS.
-
Translation of Bowlers comments.
1. Privately interpret John 3:5 by insisting that it only means what they say it means.
2. Ignore the infallible teaching of the Council of Trent that explicitly taught Baptism of Desire.
3. Pretend that Baptism of Desire conflicts with EENS as taught by Cantate Domino.
So say the subjective characterizations of an expert.
Conclusion: Consider the source.
Not subjective, just facts that bother you.
Facts according to yourself, are little more than opinions.
No one is fooled.
The only ones fooled are the tiny American sect of Feeneyites. All of you have created your own worldview around your position.
You ignore all of the mountains of readily available evidence that corrects you and just keep repeating the same old mantras.
You people remind me of a man that I know who truly believes the world is flat. No matter how much I and others try to convince him, he remains obstinate: in his mind the world is flat, all evidence that the world is round is false or based on my conspiracy.
Feeneyites are just the same. Ignore the Council of Trent, the Code of Canon Law, the Catechism of the Council of Trent, Popes, dozens of regional catechisms, the Doctors of the Church, and countless dogmatic theologians, all in favor of your personal ideas and interpretations.
It is scary, I hope I will never become so delusional.
-
The only ones fooled are the tiny American sect of Feeneyites. All of you have created your own worldview around your position.
You guys sure waste a lot of time and energy refuting a mere "tiny" American sect.
-
arta
The only ones fooled are the tiny American sect of Feeneyites. All of you have created your own worldview around your position.
You guys sure waste a lot of time and energy refuting a mere "tiny" American sect.
Sometimes tiny sects grow when Catholics will not stand up to them. Think of Martin Luther, he was small time priest like Feeney, but his heretical ideas spread and grew just like Feeney's.
Thank God for the courageous Catholics that stand against this heresy and love the truths enough to not stay silent and allow it to be trampled on.
-
Mr. Kramer creates another shill account "Amen". Matthew needs to investigate whether these are posting from the same IP address.
"Don Paolo" suddenly went silent after I convicted him of heresy in denying the necessity of the Sacraments for salvation.
-
Stop hiding behind BoD, Ambrose. I keep flushing you out into the light of day but then you slink back under the rock. YOU REJECT EENS. I could hardly care less if all you believed in was BoD for catechumens and wouldn't waste my time posting about it.
-
Mr. Drew, thanks for your reply, I will respond only mostly with citations now, touching on three different issues, what baptism of desire is, namely a perfect act of love of God, the need for explicit faith in the Trinity after the Gospel has been promulgated, and finally that Trent itself binds us to hold that justification and perseverance in the grace and justice received are both necessary and sufficient for final salvation.
I will quote the Popes, then go back to the Doctors and Saints to prove that Baptism of Desire exists, and then to explain what it is and what it is not (in brief, it is a perfect act of love of God, or of contrition, accompanied by explicit or implicit desire for baptism of water, with explicit faith in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation needed after the Gospel has been promulgated) and why it does not in anyway undermine the necessity of the sacraments, nor the preaching of the Faith, nor the fact there is no salvation outside the Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church. We will come back to the Holy Office Letter.
1. (a) The Popes on Baptism of Desire: You question whether Pope Pius XII would agree with the Catechism of St. Pius X, "The absence of Baptism can be supplied by ... an act of perfect love of God, or of contrition, along with the desire, at least implicit, of Baptism, and this is called Baptism of Desire"
and I answer that even leaving aside the Holy Office Letter, we know for certain that he would,
an act of love can suffice for an adult to acquire sanctifying grace and supply for the lack of baptism; to the unborn or newly born infant this way is not open"
(b) The Saints on Baptism of Desire: This is how it is defined by the Doctors and Saints, I will quote St. Alphonsus, St. Thomas and St. Catherine of Sienna, St. Alphonsus," "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 ...
Who can deny that the act of perfect love of God, which is sufficient for justification, includes an implicit desire of Baptism, of Penance, and of the Eucharist. He who wishes the whole wishes the every part of that whole and all the means necessary for its attainment. In order to be justified without baptism, an infidel must love God above all things, and must have an universal will to observe all the divine precepts, among which the first is to receive baptism: and therefore in order to be justified it is necessary for him to have at least an implicit desire of that sacrament."
And Christ the Lord to St. Catherine, "I poured from it Blood and Water, to show thee the baptism of water which is received in virtue of the Blood. I also showed the baptism of love in two ways, first in those who are baptized in their blood shed for Me which has virtue through My Blood, even if they have not been able to have Holy Baptism, and also those who are baptized in fire, not being able to have Holy Baptism, but desiring it with the affection of love. There is no baptism of desire without the Blood, because Blood is steeped in and kneaded with the fire of Divine charity, because through love was it shed."
And St. Thomas, "man receives the forgiveness of sins before Baptism in so far as he has Baptism of desire, explicitly or implicitly ... So also before Baptism Cornelius and others like him receive grace and virtues through their faith in Christ and their desire for Baptism, implicit or explicit"
"It is impossible for venial sin to be in anyone with original sin alone, and without mortal sin. The reason for this is because before a man comes to the age of discretion, the lack of years hinders the use of reason and excuses him from mortal sin, wherefore, much more does it excuse him from venial sin, if he does anything which is such generically. But when he begins to have the use of reason, he is not entirely excused from the guilt of venial or mortal sin. Now the first thing that occurs to a man to think about then, is to deliberate about himself. And if he then direct himself to the due end, he will, by means of grace, receive the remission of original sin"
and
2. On the necessity of explicit faith, we have St. Thomas, "Thus, if someone so brought up followed the direction of natural reason in seeking good and avoiding evil, we must most certainly hold that God would either reveal to him through internal inspiration what had to be believed, or he would send some preacher of the faith to him as He sent Peter to Cornelius (Acts 10:20)...
After grace had been revealed, both learned and simple folk are bound to explicit faith in the mysteries of Christ ... It is impossible to believe explicitly in the mystery of Christ, without faith in the Trinity, since the mystery of Christ includes that the Son of God took flesh ... And consequently, when once grace had been revealed, all were bound to explicit faith in the mystery of the Trinity"
Regarding the two articles of faith mentioned in Heb 11:6, St. Thomas says, "Explicit faith in those two things was necessary at all times and for all people: but it was not sufficient at all times and for all people."
Finally, St. Alphonsus “2. Is it required by a necessity of means or of precept to believe explicitly in the mysteries of the Holy Trinity and Incarnation after the promulgation of the gospel?
The first opinion and more common and held as more probable teaches belief is by necessity of means ...But the second opinion that is also sufficiently probable says by necessity of precept all must explicitly believe in the mysteries. However, for necessity of means it is sufficient to implicitly believe in the mysteries.
3. Trent against your mistaken dichotomy on justification and salvation: Your claim that the baptism or penance in voto suffices for justification but not for salvation is false, and must be retracted, because Trent binds us to believe that nothing else is necessary for the justified (who, by the way, even you must concede to be inside the Church, because there is no sanctifying grace outsid ethe Church) to be saved other than that they die in the state of grace, citing the Lord's words as proof.
...it is necessary to believe that the justified have everything necessary for them to be regarded as having completely satisfied the divine law for this life by their works, at least those which they have performed in God. And they may be regarded as having likewise truly merited the eternal life they will certainly attain in due time (if they but die in the state of grace) (see Apoc. 14:13; 606, can. 32), because Christ our Savior says: "He who drinks of the water that I will give him shall never thirst, but it will become in him a fountain of water, springing up into life everlasting" (see Jn. 4:13 ff.)
So your thesis that something other than justification and perseverance in the grace and justice received is necessary and sufficient for salvation is simply and factually condemned here, and cannot be tenably held.
Showing that both Pope Pius XII and Pope Pius IX in perfect agreement with these Doctors and that they in QCM and SHS approved and taught these same doctrines will have to wait for a later post. But just one thing for now, since you quote Msgr. Fenton on the Holy Office Letter so often, it may interest you to know of course that he frankly disagreed with you on it, to wit,
Now most theologians teach that the minimum explicit content of supernatural and salvific faith includes, not only the truths of God’s existence and of His action as the Rewarder of good and the Punisher of evil, but also the mysteries of the Blessed Trinity and the Incarnation. It must be noted at this point that there is no hint of any intention on the part of the Holy Office, in citing this text from the Epistle to the Hebrews, to teach that explicit belief in the mysteries of the Blessed Trinity and of the Incarnation is not required for the attainment of salvation. In the context of the letter, the Sacred Congregation quotes this verse precisely as a proof of its declaration that an implicit desire of the Church cannot produce its effect “unless a person has supernatural faith.”
-
POINT BY POINT REFUTATION OF FEENEYITE HERESY
The Feeneyites conclude that without the actual administration of water, there can be no salvation: 1) The sacraments are necesssry for salvation; 2) the instrumental cause of justification is baptism; 3) justification is distinct from salvation; 4) baptism by blood or in voto does not confer the sacramental character, and leaves one outside the Church; 5) without water baptism one is not sealed by the Holy Ghost, and therefore cannot be saved; 6) the phrase, sine lavacro regenerationis aut ejus voto" has been mistranslated to mean "or the votum of it", instead of the (according to some Feeneyites) correct translation: "and the votum of it".
Ad 1 - Sess. 7 can. 4 defines that the sacraments are necessary for salvation for the reason that there can be no justification without the sacraments or the votum of them: Si quis dixerit sacramenta novae legis non esse ad salutem necessaria sed superflua et sine eis aut eorum voto per solam fidem homines a Deo gratiam iustificationis adipisci licet omnia singulis necessaria non sint: a[nathema] s[it]. Thus, salvation is made to depend ultimately and entirely on possession of the state of grace which is effected by justification (as is demonstrated in the reply to point 3); which is brought about by the sacraments or the votum of them.
Thus also, justification can be brought about without the administration of the visible sacramental sign; as is the case with baptism: ch. 4 of the Decree on Justification defines that justification cannot take place "without the washing of regeneration or the votum of it". The second canon on Baptism of Session 7 most clearly does not mean and may not be interpreted in the Feeneyite manner that construes it to define that the grace and justification of Baptism cannot be received without the actual washing of baptismal water: such an interpretation of the canon construes this canon to contradict the clear and explicit teaching of Chapter 4 of the Decree on Justification, Canon 4 of Session 7, the unequivocal teaching of the Roman Catechism on the reception of baptismal grace and justification before the reception of the sacrament, as well as contradicting the constant and unanimous teaching of the post-Tridrntine magisterium on this point. Thus, the canon, "2. Si quis dixerit aquam veram et naturalem non esse de necessitate baptismi atque ideo verba illa Domini nostri Iesu Christi: nisi quis renatus fuerit ex aqua et Spiritu Sancto ad metaphoram aliquam detorserit: a[nathema] s[it]."; can only mean that true and natural water are necessary for the sacramental administration of Baptism; and cannot be construed in the patently heretical Feeneyite sense which would deny the reality of Baptism of Blood; and which would deny that the grace and efficacy of Baptism can be obtained by the "votum" alone, when the reception of Baptism is impossible.
Ad 2 - Thus, the instrumental cause of justification is indeed the sacrament of baptism, but it does not follow logically from that premise that justification cannot take place without the instrumentality of the visible sacremental sign; otherwise justification would be possible by baptismal water alone, and would not be possibly by the votum of it. Both the Decree on Justification and Sess. 7 can. 4 infallibly define that justification is accomplished by visible sacraments or by votum.
It is most patent, that the necessity of the sacraments for justification and salvation as taught by the Council of Trent does not strictly limit the reception of grace and justification of the sacraments to the instrumental causality ex opere operato of the visible sacramental signs. This is plainly set forth in Session 14 on the sacrament of Penance. The necessity of Penance for the remission of sins is defined as a necessary by divine law:
"6. Si quis negaverit confessionem sacramentalem vel institutam vel ad salutem necessariam esse iure divino; aut dixerit modum secrete confitendi soli sacerdoti quem Ecclesia Catholica ab initio semper observavit et observat alienum esse ab institutione et mandato Christi et inventum esse humanum: a[nathema] s[it].
7. Si quis dixerit in sacramento poenitentiae ad remissionem peccatorum necessarium non esse iure divino confiteri omnia et singula peccata mortalia quorum memoria cuм debita et diligenti praemeditatione habeatur etiam occulta et quae sunt contra duo ultima decalogi praecepta et circunstantias quae peccati speciem mutant; sed eam confessionem tantum esse utilem ad erudiendum et consolandum poenitentem et olim observatam fuisse tantum ad satisfactionem canonicam imponendam; aut dixerit eos qui omnia peccata confiteri student nihil relinquere velle divinae misericordiae ignoscendum; aut demum non licere confiteri peccata venialia: a[nathema] s[it]."
Nevertheless, the reconciliation of the sinner, which is the remission of sins and the return to the justified state of sanctifying grace can, as in the case of the votum for Baptism, take place before the reception of the sacrament without the ex opere operato instrumentality of the sacrament, by means of perfect contrition and the resolve to receive the sacrament, as is taught in Session 14:
Docet praeterea etsi contritionem hanc aliquando charitate perfectam esse contigat hominem que Deo reconciliare priusquam hoc sacramentum actu suscipiatur ipsam nihilominus reconciliationem ipsi contritioni sine sacramenti voto quod in illa includitur non esse adscribendam.
And thus, it is patent, that the proposition according to which justification cannot take place without the ex opere operato instrumental causality of the sacraments is heresy.
Ad 3 - The Feeneyites are most fond of the dictum that points out the distinction between justification and salvation, but they chronically fail to specify precisely what the essence of that distinction is. Justification is defined precisely in Ch. 4 of the Decree on Justification: "Quibus verbis iustificationis impii descriptio insinuatur ut sit translatio ab eo statu in quo homo nascitur filius primi Adae in statum gratiae et adoptionis filiorum Dei per secundum Adam Iesum Christum salvatorem nostrum". Thus, justification defined as the transfer of the sinner into the state of grace.
The Feeneyites insist that even if one can be justified by votum, that such justification by votum does not suffice for salvation, 1) because the sacraments are necessary for salvation, and 2) because one must be reborn of water and the Holy Ghost. The first point has already been addressed in Ad 1. The Decree on Justification defines in Ch. 4, that the evangelical requirement to be reborn of water and the Holy Ghost is fulfilled by the water of baptism or the votum of it: quae quidem translatio post Evangelium promulgatum sine lavacro regenerationis aut eius voto fieri non potest sicut scriptum est: nisi quis renatus fuerit ex aqua et Spiritu Sancto non potest introire in regnum Dei.
Thus, the proposition that the fulfillment of the requirement to be reborn of water and the Holy Ghost as a the necessary condition for salvation cannot be accomplished without the actual washing by baptismal water is heresy.
Simply stated, justification is the transition of the sinner from the state of sin to the state of sanctifying grace; which can only take place during one's earthly life, in statu viae. Thus, one justified in this life is made an heir to the hope of eternal life, but not yet saved: quae (justificatio) non est sola peccatorum remissio sed et sanctificatio et renovatio interioris hominis per voluntariam susceptionem gratiae et donorum unde homo ex iniusto fit iustus et ex inimico amicus ut sit haeres secundum spem vitae aeternae.
Salvation consists in appearing before the divine Judge, with the sole requirement of being in the justified state, in possession of sanctifying grace: "Itaque veram et christianam iustitiam accipientes eam ceu primam stolam pro illa quam Adam sua inobedientia sibi et nobis perdidit per Christum Iesum illis donatam candidam et immaculatam iubentur statim renati conservare ut eam perferant ante tribunal Domini nostri Iesu Christi et habeant vitam aeternam." (Decree on Justification Ch. 7)
Ad 4 - The proposition that one who is sanctified by baptism of blood or desire can be seen to be patently heretical, in so far as the Church has unanimously and explicitly professed baptism of blood since the Third Century; and, as is patent ex supradictis, that the entire doctrine of Baptism of Desire is explicitly set forth in Chs. 4 - 7 of the Decree on Justification. The ancient Fathers unanimously understood and interpreted the scriptures and divine revelation to include among the baptized all those who although not baptized with water, had been baptized in their own blood. The Dogmatic Constitution "Dei Filius" (Ch. 2) categorically forbids any interpretation of scripture in matters of faith & morals that is contrary to the magisterium of the Church or the unanimous consent of the Fathers:
"8. Now since the decree on the interpretation of Holy Scripture, profitably made by the Council of Trent, with the intention of constraining rash speculation, has been wrongly interpreted by some, we renew that decree and declare its meaning to be as follows: that in matters of faith and morals, belonging as they do to the establishing of Christian doctrine, that meaning of Holy Scripture must be held to be the true one, which Holy mother Church held and holds, since it is her right to judge of the true meaning and interpretation of Holy Scripture.
9. In consequence, it is not permissible for anyone to interpret Holy Scripture in a sense contrary to this, or indeed against the unanimous consent of the fathers."
Holy Mother Church has held and holds, in agreement with the unanimous consent of the Fathers, that those not baptized with water, but baptized by their own blood are saved, and are thus members of the Church Triumphant; and therefore, the proposition that excludes from the Church all those who have not recrived the visible sacramental sign of the washing by baptismal water, is heresy.
From this consideration it is already manifest that the proposition according to which one who has not received the indelible character of baptism is thereby excluded from the Church and salvation is patently heretical. The effects of the sacramental characters designate and signify exclusively the function of the person in the Church. The Roman Catechism succinctly adopts and sets forth the teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas on this point:
Iam vero character hoc praestat, tum ut apti ad aliquid sacri suscipiendum vel peragendum efficiamur; tum ut aliqua nota alter ab altero internoscatur. Ac baptismi quidem charactere utrumque consequimur, ut ad alia sacramen- ta percipienda reddamur idonei, et eo praeterea fidelis populus a gentibus, quae fidem non colunt, distinguatur. Idem autem in charactere confirmationis et sacri ordinis licet cognoscere; quorum altero veluti Christi milites ad eius nominis publicam confessionem et propugnationem, ac contra insitum nobis hostem et spiritualia nequitiae in caelestibus armamur atque instruimur 42 , simulque ab iis qui nuper baptizati tamquam modo geniti infantes sunt, discernimur 43 ; alter vero tum potestatem sacramenta conficiendi et minis- trandi coniunctam habet, tum eorum qui eiusmodi potestate praediti sunt, a reliquo fidelium coetu distinctionem ostendit. Tenenda igitur est catholicae Ecclesiae regula, qua docemur tria haec sacramenta characterem imprimere, neque ullo unquam tempore iteranda esse.
It has never been taught by any pope, council, synod, Father, or Doctor, that the reception of the sacramental character is a requirement for salvation.
Ad 5 -The scripture passage (Eph. 1:13) quoted to support this opinion states nowhere that the water of baptism is a prerequisite sine qua non for receiving the Holy Ghost. In thr Acts of the Apostles, St. Peter explicitly teaches the contrary; namely, that upon hearing the word of God, without having yet received baptism, the Gentiles already received the Holy Ghost "as have we" ":ως καιἡµεις;" The whole passage in the original Greek text of St. Luke: "τoτε ἀaπεκριθη Πeτρος, Μeτι τo υδωρ δυναται κωλυσαι τις τοuόµη βαπτισθηναι τουτους οιτινες το πνευµα το αγιονελαβον ως καιἡµεις;" (Acts 10:46-7).
Ad 6 - This objection is made only by the theologically illiterate Feenryites who have little or no working knowledge of the Latin Language. It is claimed on the basis that the Latin word "aut" can sometimes mean 'and', that the Decree on Justification does not teach that justification can be effected by "the laver of regeneration or the desire of it"; but rather, "by the laver of regeneration and the desire of it". In this context, however, the "aut" cannot possibly mean 'and'. Such a rendering confuses the meaning of "votum" with that of "intentio". To validly receive baptism, an adult must not only be baptized with water, but he must have the sacramental consent: the intention to receive the sacrament -- thus a sleeping Jew would not validly receive baptism if someone were to administer the rite of baptism on him. The Decree on Justification most clearly does not refer to sacramental consent by the words "aut ejus voto", because the word "votum" referrs exclusively to a desire or resolve to be fulfilled at some future time. This is patent from an examination of the use of the word "votum" by all the classical authors of antiquity, as well as in ecclesiastical Latin.
The original Italian text of the Roman Catechism explains this Latin passage of the Decree on Justification in the generally accepted sense, and not according to the absurd Feeneyite interpretation:
"In caso improvviso di pericolo, chi ha l'uso della ragione, pur impossibilitato a purificarsi nell'acqua sacramentale, può conseguire la grazia e la giustizia col semplice proposito di ricevere a suo tempo il Battesimo, unito al pentimento dei peccati commessi."
In English: "In a case of unforseen danger, one who has the use of reason, due to the impossibility to be purified in baptismal water, can receive grace and justification with the simple resolve to receive Baptism in its due time, together with repentance for sins committed."
Thus clearly is explained in the Catechism composed an promulgated by two eminent Council Fathers of Trent, the meaning of the expression "sine lavacro regenerationis aut ejus voto" in the Decree on Justification.
-
BODers here on CI are liberals and modernist, they just don't have anyone to tell them so, because the whole world has lost the faith. While they are losing theirs and others time continually trying to teach others that even people who do not believe in Christ can be saved, today NO ONE IS SAVED.
Scarcely anyone is saved today, for the only people that could be saved, Catholics, have all lost the faith. We are living in the time of the Anti-Christ and the Beast, the Faith is gone and no one knows it. The Titanic is about to go underwater and these BODers are arranging the deck chairs, talking about how non-Catholics can be saved, when 99% of Catholics would all go to Hell if the world ended today.
-
Thus clearly is explained in the Catechism composed an promulgated by two eminent Council Fathers of Trent, the meaning of the expression "sine lavacro regenerationis aut ejus voto" in the Decree on Justification.
Meanwhile ALL BODers believe that people can be saved who have no explicit desire to be a Catholic, nor belief in Christ. Therefore, BODers reject their very own interpretation of Trent and the catechism.
BODers are insane.
-
If the Feeneyites think Tradition is on their side, they need to think again:
Saint Cyprian (died A.D. 258) didn't see any contradiction between:
"He who has turned his back on the Church of Christ shall not come to the rewards of Christ; he is an alien, a worldling, an enemy. You cannot have God for your Father if you have not the Church for your mother. Our Lord warns us when He says: `he that is not with Me is against Me, and he that gathereth not with Me scattereth.' Whosoever breaks the peace and harmony of Christ acts against Christ; whoever gathers elsewhere than in the Church scatters the Church of Christ." (Unity of the Catholic Church)"The catechumens who were caught and killed confessing the Name [of Christ] before they were baptized in the Church... holding the integral Faith and truth of the Church... were not deprived of the sacrament of Baptism, being baptized by the most glorious and excellent Baptism, by which the Lord Himself said he had to be baptized [Lk. 12:50]. That those who are baptized in their own blood and sanctified by their passion were glorified and received the Divine promise, is taught to us by the Lord Himself in the Gospel, when He promised to the thief who believed and confessed [the Faith] that he would be with Him in paradise" (Epistle, lxxii: 22).
+
Saint Cyril of Jerusalem (died A.D. 386) didn't see any contradiction between:
"Abhor all heretics...heed not their fair speaking or their mock humility; for they are serpents, a `brood of vipers.' Remember that, when Judas said `Hail Rabbi,' the salutation was an act of betrayal. Do not be deceived by the kiss but beware of the venom. Abhor such men, therefore, and shun the blasphemers of the Holy Spirit, for whom there is no pardon. For what fellowship have you with men without hope. Let us confidently say to God regarding all heretics, `Did I not hate, O Lord, those who hated Thee, and did I not pine away because of Your enemies?' For there is an enmity that is laudable, as it is written, `I will put enmity between you and the woman, between your seed and her seed.' Friendship with the serpent produces enmity with God, and death. Let us shun those from whom God turns away." (The Fathers of the Church)"If anyone does not receive Baptism, he shall not be saved, except the martyrs, who even without the water shall receive the kingdom."
+
St. Ambrose didn't see any contradiction between:
"Where Peter is therefore, there is the Church. Where the Church is there is not death but life eternal. ...Although many call themselves Christians, they usurp the name and do not have the reward." (The Fathers of the Church)"I hear that you grieve since he did not receive the sacrament of Baptism... But even for a long time he had this desire that ... he should be baptized.... Surely because he asked, he received, and hence there is the Scripture: 'The just man by whatsoever death he may be overtaken, his soul shall be at rest'.... If [martyrs] are washed in their own blood, his devotedness and intention washed him" (De obitu Valentiniani consolatio).
+
St. Augustine didn't see any contradiction between:
`If any man be outside the Church he will be excluded from the number of sons, and will not have God for Father since he has not the Church for mother.'" (Encyclical, Ubi Primum)"Not only suffering for the sake of Christ can replace what is Baptism, but also faith and conversion of heart if perhaps the shortness of time does not permit the celebration of the mystery of Baptism" (on Baptism, IV, 22, 29).
+
Saint Fulgentius (died A.D. 533) didn't see any contradiction between:
"Most firmly hold and never doubt that not only pagans, but also all Jews, all heretics, and all schismatics who finish this life outside of the Catholic Church, will go into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels."(Enchiridion Patristicuм)"No one can, without the sacrament of Baptism, except those who, in the Catholic Church, without baptism, pour out their blood for Christ, receive the kingdom of heaven and life eternal." (The Rule of Faith 43).
+
Pope Innocent II didn't see any contradiction between:
This space open for an Innocent II quote.
"To your inquiry we respond thus: We assert without hesitation that the priest whom you indicated in your letter had died without the water of Baptism, because he persevered in the faith of holy mother the Church and in the confession of the name of Christ, was freed from original sin and attained the joy of the heavenly fatherland. Read, brother, in the eighth book of Augustine's City of God,1where among other things it is written, 'Baptism is ministered invisibly to one whom not contempt of religion but death excludes.' Read again also the book of the Blessed Ambrose concerning the death of Valentinian2 where he says the same thing. Therefore, to questions concernig the dead, you should hold the opinions of the learned Fathers, and in your church you should join in prayers and you should have sacrifices offered to God for the priest mentioned."
1. Augustine, De civ. Dei 13, 7 [ML 41, 381]; De baptismo IV 22,29 {ML 43, 173].
2. Cap. 51 [ML 16, 1374].
(Pope Innocent II in response to a query from the Bishop of Cremona about the eternal fate of a priest, who, after death, was found to be ordained although never sacramentally Baptized. The validity or invalidity of his Orders is not discussed. Denzinger 388/741)
+
Pope Innocent III didn't see any contradiction between:
"There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved." (Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215.)"A certain Jew at the moment of death... immersed himself in water saying 'I baptize me in the name of the Father...' now, there must be a difference between the baptizer and the baptized... yet if this one died he would have gone to the heavenly kingdom ... because of his faith in the sacrament." Denzinger 413/788
+
Saint Thomas Aquinas didn't see any contradiction between:
"There is no entering into salvation outside the Church, just as in the time of the deluge there was none outside the ark, which denotes the Church." (Summa Theologiae)"A man may, without Baptism of Water, receive the sacramental effect from Christ's passion insofar as he is conformed to Christ by suffering for him.... 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" (Summa Theol., III,Q.66,a.11).
+
The Council of Trent didn't see any contradiction between:
"That our Catholic faith, without which it is impossible to please God....(Session V, Decree on Original Sin, quoting Hebrews xi: 6.)
"For in virtue of this rule of faith handed down from the apostles, even infants who could not as yet commit any sin of themselves, are for this reason truly baptized for the remission of sins, in order that in them what they contracted by generation be washed away by regeneration. Forunless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven." (Session V, Chapter 5; quoting John iii: 5)
" In What the Justification of the Sinner Consists, and What are its Causes .... This disposition or preparation is followed by justification itself, which is not only a remission of sins but also the sanctification and renewal of the inward man through the voluntary reception of the grace and gifts whereby an unjust man becomes just and from being an enemy becomes a friend, that he may be an heir according to hope of life everlasting. the causes of this justification are: the final cause is the glory of God and of Christ and life everlasting; the efficient cause is the merciful God who washes and sanctifies.... the instrumental cause is the Sacrament of Baptism, which is the Sacrament of faith, without which no man was ever justified(Session VI, Chapter VII, emphasis added) .
"A brief description of the justification of a sinner as being a translation from that state in which man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of graceand of the adoption of the sons of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Savior. This translation however cannot, since the promulgation of the Gospel, be effected except through the laver of regeneration or its desire, as it is written: Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." (Session VI, Chapter IV, emphasis added)
"Canon 4. If anone says that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation but are surperfluous, and that without them or without the desire of them men obtain from God through faith alone the grace of justification . . . let him be anathema." (Session VI, Canons on the Sacraments in General., emphasis added.)
+
The Catechism of Trent didn't see any contradiction between:
"Following no chief but Christ, I am united in communion with your holiness, that is with the chair of Peter. I know that on that rock is built the Church. Whoever will eat the Lamb outside this house is profane; whoever is not in the ark of Noah shall perish in the flood." (Catechism of Trent, quoting Saint Jerome in its article on the the statement in the Creed, "I believe in the Holy Catholic Church," Pars I, Caput VI, No. 12; Page 103 in the Mc Hugh and Callan translation.)"... yet, even though things are so, it is nevertheless not customary for the Church to confer the Sacrament of Baptism on men immediately, but rather at fixed times appointed for this. For the delay is not a danger as is said it would be over a child, for those with the use of reason, the resolution and plan of receiving Baptism and the full repentance for the bad acts of life endows them with grace and justice if suddenly some misfortune impedes so that they are not able to be washed with the saving water. On the contrary, this delay appears to bring forth some usefulness .... (Catechism of Trent, Pars II, Caput II, No. 36; Translation mine. Cf. Page 179 in McHugh and Callan translation.)
+
St. Robert Bellarmine didn't see any contradiction between:
"Our heretics, deny that baptism is necessary, not only for the remission of sin, but also for the attainment of Heaven. However, those who imagine that there is another remedy besides baptism openly contradict the Gospel, the Council, the Fathers, and consensus of the Universal Church." ( in Br. Richard Ibranyi, OSB,Outside the Church there is no salvation: Only Baptized Roman Catholics can hope to attain Eternal Life!" (Most Holy Family Monastery} p.175 )"Outside the Church no one is saved, should be understood of those who belong to the Church neither in reality nor in desire, just as theologians commonly speak about baptism. Because catechumens, even though not in churchin re (in reality), are in the church in voto (by desire) , and in that way they can be saved.” (De Ecclesia militante) , chap 3., ed. Giuliano, vol. 2, p. 76.
+
Pope Paul V didn't see any contradiction between:
This space open for an Paul V quote.
"That holy baptism, the gateway to the Christian religion and to eternal life, holding as it does the first place among the sacraments instituted by Christ for the New Covenant, is necessary for salvation for all, either in act or desire, is testified by the divine Truth Himself in these words: "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God" (Jn 3.5). Therefore, the greatest concern is to be exercised for its correct and timely administration and reception" (Roman Ritual,Part II, Chapter I, para #1, emphasis added.)..
+
St. Alphonsus di Liguori didn't see any contradiction between:
`
This space open for a St. Alphonsus quote
"96. Below, we shall speak of baptism of water, which very likely according to St. Thomas, [Alphonso] Salmeron, [Franciscus Maria] Magius, [Dominic or Peter] Soto, [Antonius] Velasquez, etc. was instituted before the passion of Christ the Lord, at the time when Christ was baptized by John. However, Baptism of desire is a perfect conversion to God through contrition, or the love of God above all things, with an explicit or implicit wish of true Baptism of water, the change [i.e. of the soul] of which it supplies (according to Trent, sess. 14, c. 4) as far as the remission of guilt, but not as far as the impression of the character [of Baptism], neither as far as removing all pain of punishment: it is called [baptism] of desire [flaminis, lit. of blowing {as of the wind} -- this is how St. Alphonsus refers to Baptism of desire throughout], because it is by the impulse of the Holy Ghost, which is called a blowing [flamen]. So teach [Dominicus] Viva, Salmeron with Suarez, Vasquez, Croix, and others. IT IS DE FIDE that men are saved even by baptism of desire, taught in c. Apostolicam and Trent, where it is said that no one can be saved without the washing of regeneration, or the desire thereof. See Petro., p. 142, q. 6.
(Book 6, Tract 2, Chapter 1, n. 95-97, St. Alphonsus Maria de Liguori, Theologia Moralis. Vol. 5. P.J. Haicq (Summi Pontificis S. Congregationis de Propaganda Fide et Archiepiscopi Melchliniae): Melchlinia, 1845, pp. 309-310. Trans. Travis N. Yeager, 1999.)
+
Blessed Pope Pius IX didn't see any contradiction between:
"It must be held as a matter of faith that outside the Apostolic Roman Church, no one can be saved; that this is the only ark of salvation; that he who shall not have entered therein will perish in the flood." (Denzinger 1647)
Note that Blessed Pope Pius incorporates both teachings in the single statement in the right hand column --->
"Since it must be held by faith that nobody can be saved outside of the Roman Apostolic Church, this is the one, only, ark of salvation; anyone has not entered in it will perish in the deluge. But in the same time it must also be held for certain that those who ignore the true religion, when their ignorance is invincible, are not subject to guilt in the eyes of the Lord. Now, who will presume to determine the limits of that ignorance, taking into account the variety of the peoples, the regions, the various talents, and of many other things? When, freed from the bonds of the body, we will see God as He is, and we will see the close and beautiful tie that connects the divine mercy and the divine justice. But as long as we remain with the burdens of earth and the mortal mass that weights down the spirit, we firmly hold and agree with the Catholic doctrine, that there exists a single God, one single faith, a single baptism. Further investigating will only puff one up." [Dz. 1647
"In any event, as demands charity, let us continuously pray for the conversion of all people, of every land, who are not converted to Christ. Let us strive according to our power for the common salvation of all men, for the hand of the Lord is not shortened. The gifts of heavenly grace will not be withheld to those who, with sincere mind, ask to come to this light. This truth must itself be deeply imprinted in the minds of the faithful, so that they cannot come to the false doctrines that aim to foment that religious indifference, which we see spreading farther and more strongly and fortifying itself to damage of souls. [Dz. 1648
"Those afflicted with invincible ignorance of our holy religion, if they carefully keep the precepts of the natural law that have been written by God in the hearts of all men, if they are prepared to obey God, and lead a virtuous and dutiful life can attain eternal life by the power of divine light and grace. For God who reads comprehensively in every detail the minds and souls, the thoughts and habits of men, will not permit, in accordance with His infinite goodness and mercy, anone who is not guilty of voulntary fault to suffer eternal punishment. However also well known is the dogma that no one can be saved outside the Catholic Church, that those who obstinately oppose the authority and definitions of that Church, and who stubbornly remain separated from the Church and from the successor of Peter, the Roman Pontiff (to who the Savior has entrusted His vineyard), cannot obtain salvation" (Denzinger 1677/2866).
+
Pope Saint Pius X didn't see any contradiction between:
"It is our duty to recall to everyone great and small, as the Holy Pontiff Gregory did in ages past, the absolute necessity which is ours, to have recourse to this Church to effect our eternal salvation." (Encyclical, Jucunda Sane)"Baptism is absolutely necessary to salvation.... The absence of Baptism can be supplied by martyrdom, which is called Baptism of Blood, or by an act of perfect love of God, or of contrition, along with the desire, at least implicit, of Baptism, and this is called Baptism of Desire" (Catechism of Pope St. Pius X, Baptism Q.16, 17).
+
Pope Benedict XV didn't see any contradiction between:
This space open for an Benedict XV quote.
"Baptism, the gateway and foundation of the Sacraments, actually or at least in desire is necessary for all for salvation and is not validly conferred except by washing with true and natural water along with the prescribed formula of words" (1917 Code of Canon Law, , emphasis added.).
-
If the Feeneyites think Tradition is on their side, they need to think again...
Meanwhile ALL BODers believe that people can be saved who have no explicit desire to be a Catholic, nor belief in Christ. Therefore, BODers reject their very own quotes from tradition
BODers are insane.
-
Mr. Drew, thanks for your reply, I will respond only mostly with citations now, touching on three different issues, what baptism of desire is, namely a perfect act of love of God, the need for explicit faith in the Trinity after the Gospel has been promulgated, and finally that Trent itself binds us to hold that justification and perseverance in the grace and justice received are both necessary and sufficient for final salvation.
I will quote the Popes, then go back to the Doctors and Saints to prove that Baptism of Desire exists, and then to explain what it is and what it is not (in brief, it is a perfect act of love of God, or of contrition, accompanied by explicit or implicit desire for baptism of water, with explicit faith in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation needed after the Gospel has been promulgated) and why it does not in anyway undermine the necessity of the sacraments, nor the preaching of the Faith, nor the fact there is no salvation outside the Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church. We will come back to the Holy Office Letter.
Nishant:
What you suggest would perhaps have been a profitable exchange 60 years ago but it is out of place now. Fr. Joseph Fenton, who understood the dangers of the "new theology" and still accepted the 1949 Holy Office Letter, did probably as good a job as could be done in defending EENS, traditional ecclesiology, and "Baptism of Desire." But the end results of Fr. Fenton's theological writing at AER was tragic. He failed to defend the dogma as dogma when he accepted the erroneous opinion and grave error that holds that dogma is not the final word ending theological speculation, but rather a springboard for the Church hierarchy to exposit more developed nuanced interpretations of dogma in a non-literal sense. When modernist theologians took over in the 1960s they had a free rein on the new interpretations of dogma. Fr. Fenton had no place to go having helped undermine the only defense a faithful Catholic has against an abuse of authority.
We are in the middle of the great apostasy and it can only get worse. The reason why is because the nature of dogma has been undermined and there are few clerics coming to its defense. It has been relegated to something that need not be taken in a literal sense and requires a theologian to reveal its secret meanings. This corruption of dogma is evident in the replies of Fr. Kramer, Ambrose, Paolo, et. al. I have a communication from Fr. Kramer in which he actually changes the words of a Catholic dogma so that it will then literally fit his doctrine of "salvation by justification alone" that he divines from the narrative of the Decree on Justification. He actually believes that his priesthood and theological training are a license to change the revealed truth of God. He is so divorced from understanding the true nature of dogma that he sees no problem in making it subservient to his personal understanding rather than using it to arrive at the correct understanding of the narratives.
The 1949 Holy Office Letter teaches that the only necessary and sufficient cause of justification is the 'desire to do the will of a god who rewards and punishes.' It claims that this "belief" in a 'god who rewards and punishes' must be "supernatural" but offers nothing more as an object of faith, and that is for an obvious reason. Faith is believing what God has revealed on the authority of God. How is it possible for a person to have "supernatural faith" when he does not know if God has revealed anything, or what, if anything, God has revealed?
The only object of "belief" proposed by the 1949 Holy Office Letter is in a 'god who rewards and punishes' and that can be known by natural philosophy, therefore, it cannot have a "supernatural" motive. The Church has always regarded this natural belief as a necessary preparatory state to receive the gospel message. It of itself cannot produce a supernatural end.
This is where the doctrine that "Baptism of Desire" leads and it begins by relegating dogma to preceptive norms at worst, or theological maxims or axioms at best. Archbishop Lefebvre, as previously quoted, believed this doctrine of "salvation by implicit desire" and held that any Jew as a Jew, Muslim as a Muslim, Hindu as a Hindu, Buddhist as a Buddhist, Protestant as a Protestant, etc., etc., because of his "good will" could be in a state of grace, temple of the Holy Ghost, member of the Church, and obtain salvation. The Catholic dogmas, which are the revealed truths of God, that declare that explicit faith, submission to the Roman Pontiff and the sacraments are necessary as necessities of means for salvation are all indiscriminately set aside and ignored. They are changed from "formal objects of divine and Catholic faith" to preceptive norms that any physical or psychological burden may justify setting aside. This is the core doctrine of the New Ecclesiology. It explains Religious Liberty and Ecuмenism making them perfectly reasonable pastoral initiatives for all these people of "good will."
Rome did not have anything to worry about when they entered the Doctrinal Discussions with the SSPX. Bishop Fellay has the same understanding of dogma as the most radical modernists in the Roman curia. The only disagreement possible is one of degree and not one of kind. There can be no principled objection to Religious Liberty and Ecuмenism without the appeal to dogma and that appeal must begin by understanding what dogma is.
What I want is for you to defend the 1949 Holy Office Letter that you and Ambrose, and Fr. Kramer hold as an orthodox articulation of the Catholic dogma, EENS, and its doctrine of "salvation by implicit desire." Once you do that then you can reliably trace the 'doctrinal development' of "Baptism of Desire" to it first speculative expressions for anyone interested. But, the 1949 Holy Office Letter says nothing about the sacrament of baptism either in re or in voto. As said before, "Baptism of Desire" really has nothing to do with the argument. It is nothing more than a tool to justify the corruption of all dogma.
The 1949 Holy Office Letter leads directly to the Prayer Meeting at Assisi. If you spend your time on anything less you are just begging the question and wasting everyone's time.
Drew
-
Don Paolo has refused to recant his heresy (denying the necessity of the Sacraments for salvation); consequently he's a manifest heretic.
-
The Heretic Drew asserts:
"The 1949 Holy Office Letter teaches that the only necessary and sufficient cause of justification is the 'desire to do the will of a god who rewards and punishes.' It claims that this "belief" in a 'god who rewards and punishes' must be "supernatural" but offers nothing more as an object of faith, and that is for an obvious reason. Faith is believing what God has revealed on the authority of God. How is it possible for a person to have "supernatural faith" when he does not know if God has revealed anything, or what, if anything, God has revealed?"
Clueless Drew seems not to understand that if "the only necessary and sufficient cause of justification were the 'desire to do the will of a god who rewards and punishes'; then this 'desire', being the "only necessary and sufficient cause of justification", would logically exclude the sacraments as an instrumental cause of justification. It is patent that such an absurdly distorted understanding of the letter in question does not accurately, or in any manner correctly interpret the mind of the Holy Office or the pope who approved of its doctrinal content. Drew's inverted "reasoning", like that of Ladislaus, is of one who has passed through Alice's looking glass into fairyland, where they happily walk and dance with the fairies.
It is the clear intent of the 1949 Holy Office to briefly express the doctrine already promulgated in the Catechism by Pope St. Pius X; and which had already been fully explicated by approved Catholic theologians, and to be based on a systematic biblical exegesis. Faith is, indeed, believing all that God has revealed; but not necessarily knowing what God has revealed. Many ignorant Catholics, down through the ages, professed their belief in God, believing in Him, but not knowing the matter of revealed doctrine, but believing in "all that God has revealed". This constitutes the formal act of faith in the integral and entire object of faith; which in principle, implicitly includes all the matter of divine revelation -- as St. Thomas explains (in the question of the Summa Theologiae which I have already quoted previously). Drew, like Ladislaus, is addicted to the straw man argument: he obstinately refuses to reply directly to any theological proposition or argument he rejects, but chronically insists on constructing an inverted misrepresentation of it -- and then proceeds to refute the distorted caricature of his own making. It is impossible to carry on a rational discussion with such malicious individuals who are so brazenly and patently dishonest.
-
Drew's opinion on explicit faith make a heretic of St. Alphonsus, whose doctrines have been pronounced by the popes to be free of doctrinal error:
St. Alphonsus teaches: "“2. Is it required by a necessity of means or of precept to believe explicitly in the mysteries of the Holy Trinity and Incarnation after the promulgation of the gospel?
The first opinion and more common and held as more probable teaches belief is by necessity of means ...But the second opinion that is also sufficiently probable says by necessity of precept all must explicitly believe in the mysteries. However, for necessity of means it is sufficient to implicitly believe in the mysteries."
"Pope Drew" overrules the popes, and declares the doctrine of St. Alphonsus to be heresy. He declares all the post-Tridentine popes and Doctors who taught BOB & BOD to be in heresy. According to Drew thay were all fallible heretics -- Drew alone is infallible.
-
Bowler says: "Bowler is a man who believes John 3:5 as it is written. Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. (John 3:5)"
Bowler interprets these words, according to his Private Judgment, to mean that one may not enter the kingdom of God unless such a one will have been baptized with water, to the exclusion from salvation of those who have been justified and sanctified by "the vow of it" (Decree on Justification"), in accordance with the definition of Sess. 7 Can. 2 of Trent, on the necessity of the sacraments "or the vow of them". The Decree on Justification, (as will be demonstrated in the next paragraph), defines explicitly that the the sacramental water of Baptism "or the votum of it", fulfills the evangelical requirement to be "born again of water and the Holy Ghost".
The Decree on Justification defines in Ch. 4, that the evangelical requirement to be reborn of water and the Holy Ghost is fulfilled by "the water of baptism or the votum of it": "quae quidem translatio post Evangelium promulgatum sine lavacro regenerationis aut eius voto fieri non potest sicut scriptum est: nisi quis renatus fuerit ex aqua et Spiritu Sancto non potest introire in regnum Dei." Thus, by the words, "sicut scriptum est", the Council of Trent has definitively interpreted this Gospel verse to teach that one is reborn of "water and the Holy Ghost" by sacramental Baptism or the resolve to receive it; and therefore by such means, "can enter the kingdom of God". In this one sentence of the Decree on Justification, the doctrine of Baptism of Desire is already explicitly expressed and defined; and on that basis, St. Alphonsus, the post-Tridentine popes, and the universal and ordinary magisterium have taught Baptism of Desire as de fide. Bowler, Drew, and Ladislaus obstinately reject this infallible and dogmatic doctrine and interpretation of scripture of the Council of Trent.
Bowler, Drew, and Ladislaus obstinately reject this infallibly defined doctrine of Baptism of Desire; and contrary to the constant teaching of Holy Mother Church, they interpret the doctrine of Trent according to their own Private Judgment. Thus, they manifest themselves to be formal heretics, who have expelled themselves from communion with the Roman Catholic Church.
-
Bowler says: "Bowler is a man who believes John 3:5 as it is written. Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. (John 3:5)"
Bowler interprets these words, according to his Private Judgment, to mean that one may not enter the kingdom of God unless such a one will have been baptized with water, to the exclusion from salvation of those who have been justified and sanctified by "the vow of it" (Decree on Justification"), in accordance with the definition of Sess. 7 Can. 2 of Trent, on the necessity of the sacraments "or the vow of them". The Decree on Justification, (as will be demonstrated in the next paragraph), defines explicitly that the the sacramental water of Baptism "or the votum of it", fulfills the evangelical requirement to be "born again of water and the Holy Ghost".
The Decree on Justification defines in Ch. 4, that the evangelical requirement to be reborn of water and the Holy Ghost is fulfilled by "the water of baptism or the votum of it": "quae quidem translatio post Evangelium promulgatum sine lavacro regenerationis aut eius voto fieri non potest sicut scriptum est: nisi quis renatus fuerit ex aqua et Spiritu Sancto non potest introire in regnum Dei." Thus, by the words, "sicut scriptum est", the Council of Trent has definitively interpreted this Gospel verse to teach that one is reborn of "water and the Holy Ghost" by sacramental Baptism or the resolve to receive it; and therefore by such means, "can enter the kingdom of God". In this one sentence of the Decree on Justification, the doctrine of Baptism of Desire is already explicitly expressed and defined; and on that basis, St. Alphonsus, the post-Tridentine popes, and the universal and ordinary magisterium have taught Baptism of Desire as de fide. Bowler, Drew, and Ladislaus obstinately reject this infallible and dogmatic doctrine and interpretation of scripture of the Council of Trent.
Bowler, Drew, and Ladislaus obstinately reject this infallibly defined doctrine of Baptism of Desire; and contrary to the constant teaching of Holy Mother Church, they interpret the doctrine of Trent according to their own Private Judgment. Thus, they manifest themselves to be formal heretics, who have expelled themselves from communion with the Roman Catholic Church.
-
Lunatic Ladislaus says: "Don Paolo has refused to recant his heresy (denying the necessity of the Sacraments for salvation); consequently he's a manifest heretic." Ladislaus gratuitously asserts that I "deny the necessity of the sacraments for salvation.". He makes no attempt at any critical anslysis of my statements, in order to demonstrate my "heresy"; whereas I have posted a critical exegesis of the original Latin texts of Trent, and I have demonstrated that my understanding the dogmas are entirely in agreement with the constant interpretation, understanding, and teaching of the magisterium of Holy Mother Church.
Thus, it is not a gratuitous insult on my part to label Ladislaus as a "lunatic": He has more than amply demonstrated repeatedly that he dances with the fairies.
-
Drew's opinion on explicit faith make a heretic of St. Alphonsus, whose doctrines have been pronounced by the popes to be free of doctrinal error:
St. Alphonsus teaches: "“2. Is it required by a necessity of means or of precept to believe explicitly in the mysteries of the Holy Trinity and Incarnation after the promulgation of the gospel?
The first opinion and more common and held as more probable teaches belief is by necessity of means ...But the second opinion that is also sufficiently probable says by necessity of precept all must explicitly believe in the mysteries. However, for necessity of means it is sufficient to implicitly believe in the mysteries."
"Pope Drew" overrules the popes, and declares the doctrine of St. Alphonsus to be heresy. He declares all the post-Tridentine popes and Doctors who taught BOB & BOD to be in heresy. According to Drew thay were all fallible heretics -- Drew alone is infallible.
]Paolo,
You have repeatedly attributed citations to me that were never said. If you claim that I have said something make sure you produce the specific quotation in the proper context.
A well known Catholic philosopher defined, “Wisdom (as) the most perfect knowledge of the most important truths in the right order of emphasis, accompanied by a total, permanent disposition to live accordingly.”
Every note of the definition is essential, and in every essential you fall far short of the mark. What is troublesome is that you are unable to recognize wisdom in others. You repeat again and again as “proofs” arguments that have been discredited long ago in this thread, sometimes discredited by several different people. I understand that wisdom is a gift of the Holy Ghost and it hard to fault someone who does not possess a “gift,” nevertheless; we have God’s promise that the gift is available to the humble for the asking. That means you have to do two things.
You and Fr. Kramer believe that a Jew as Jew, a Muslim as a Muslim, a Hindu as a Hindu, a Buddhist as a Buddhist, etc. etc. by an ‘explicit desire to do the will of a god who rewards and punishes’ is thereby justified, a temple of the Holy Ghost, member of the Church and heir to heaven. What are the instrumental cause and the material cause of their justification? Archbishop Lefebvre says it is their “good will”? Can you specifically identify one of these "justified" souls by name and introduce him to everyone? Are you planning a field trip to the next Prayer Meeting at Assisi? Do you need a potted plant?
Lastly, do you think that it was a good idea of Fr. Kramer to literally change the words in a Catholic dogma so that the meaning of the dogma would then agree to his idiosyncratic understanding of the narrative in the Decree of Justification?
It is amazing how close your posts resemble the emails I have from Fr. Kramer in structure, style, and vocabulary. Is Fr. Kramer writing your replies?
Drew
Paolo,
You probably did not read this last post so I thought I would repeat again for your benefit.
The 1949 Holy Office Letter teaches that justification requires only a belief in a 'god who rewards and punishes.' St. Alphonsus apparently does not agree with you and the 1949 Holy Office Letter. So who is in error? St. Alphonsus or you and the 1949 Holy Office Letter?
Anyway, you and Fr. Kramer believe that a Jew as a Jew, a Muslim as a Muslim, a Buddhist as a Buddhist, a Hindu as a Hindu, etc. by an 'explicit desire to do the will of a god who rewards and punishes' can thereby be in a state of grace, temple of the Holy Ghost, member of the Church and obtain salvation. How can St. Alphonsus be right? If a Jew believed in the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation, he would no longer be a Jew. The same is true for the Muslim, the Buddhist, the Hindu, etc.
You have made a lot of unthinking remarks. This is just one more.
Do you plan to attend the next Prayer Meeting at Assisi?
Drew
-
Don Paolo = heretic.
-
Drew says: "You and Fr. Kramer believe that a Jew as Jew, a Muslim as a Muslim, a Hindu as a Hindu, a Buddhist as a Buddhist, etc. etc. by an ‘explicit desire to do the will of a god who rewards and punishes’ is thereby justified, a temple of the Holy Ghost, member of the Church and heir to heaven."
Drew's statement is false, malicious, and defamatory. Neither I now Fr. Kramer have ever stated or implied that proposition. Drew is a bold-faced liar.
-
Don Paolo = Mr. Kramer = heretic
-
This is all you have to say to avoid heresy:
"People who are saved through Baptism of Desire receive the graces of Baptism through their desire for it. Baptism remains the instrumental cause of justification even in cases of Baptism of Desire. People are not saved and cannot be saved WITHOUT Baptism."
Do you or do you not agree with this statement, Don Paolo?
-
The incorrigible and malicious Ladislaus is at it again: ""People who are saved through Baptism of Desire receive the graces of Baptism through their desire for it. Baptism remains the instrumental cause of justification even in cases of Baptism of Desire. People are not saved and cannot be saved WITHOUT Baptism."
What a gratuitous and grotesque caricature of what I & Fr. Kramer actually said -- STRAW MAN ARGUMENT.
-
Modernists think that Catholic heavenly dogmas may be expressed in terms affined to current human systems. The words of a dogmatic formula are not to be taken as figurative language, but are to be taken literally with the same sense and meaning for all time. In both Lamentabili and Pascendi Pope St. Pius X explicitly condemned the proposition that dogmas are to be understood as figurative-symbolic, having a merely practical function, and not as immutable laws from Heaven.
Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus as a clear example of a dogma that has received a brutal neo-modernist re-interpretation: they claim that the old and ageless formula that "there is no salvation outside the Church" must be abandoned; rather it is more meaningful to modern man to say that salvation is not in, but through the Church. People who are not "in" the Church may still be saved through the Church; thus, to the modernists the dogma that "there is no salvation outside the Church" means that there is really salvation outside the Church. Pope Pius XII condemned in Humani Generis those who "reduce to a meaningless formula the necessity of belonging to the true Church in order to gain eternal salvation".
Solid, timeless, eternal, true Catholic doctrine always says what it means and means what it says. There is no possibility of ambiguity, error, contradiction, subjectivism, relativism, etc.
No authority in the Church can change the clear meaning of infallible dogma. Vatican I taught" the meaning of Sacred Dogmas, which must always be preserved is that which Our Holy Mother the Church has determined. NEVER IS PERMISSIBLE TO DEPART FROM THIS IN THE NAME OF A DEEPER UNDERSTANDING"
We are taught de fide by the First Vatican Council that the meaning of sacred doctrine can NEVER change and that not even a Pope may teach a new doctrine. Vatican I taught: " The Holy Ghost was not promised to the successor of Peter that by the revelation of the Holy Ghost they might disclose a new doctrine, but by His help they might guard sacredly the revelation transmitted through the Apostles and the deposit of Faith, and might faithfully set it forth"
-
Ladislaus says to Don Paolo: "This is all you have to say to avoid heresy:
"People who are saved through Baptism of Desire receive the graces of Baptism through their desire for it. Baptism remains the instrumental cause of justification even in cases of Baptism of Desire. People are not saved and cannot be saved WITHOUT Baptism."
Do you or do you not agree with this statement, Don Paolo?
Posted Today, 10:06 pmLadislausDon Paolo = Mr. Kramer = heretic "
This man, Ladislaus is insane. He does not present an analysis of my words; but gives his own gratuitous interpolation of what he, in his deranged mind, thinks I said. Do I agree or not agree with that statement? Let it suffice to say that I never made that crudely fallacious statement that Ladidlsus falsely and maliciously attributes to me.
-
This man, Ladislaus is insane.
Do you really believe he is insane or are you a liar?
I ask because I have read many posts of Ladislaus without ever getting the impression that he is insane.
It is very serious to call a man insane because of a few posts on cathinfo.
-
Heretic Ladislaus does not want to admit that the Council of Trent Decree on Justification defined that those who are justified whether by Baptism or the resolve to receive it are heirs to eternal life; and if they at the end of their earthly life appear before the divine Tribunal of Christ in possession of that grace, they will enter eternal life. That is explicitly and unambiguously defined in Ch. 4 - 7 of the Decree on Justification. There is nothing more to say on the topic: The magisterium of Holy Mother Church has constantly upheld this doctrine for more than four centuries.
-
Stupid Matto:
Just consider this: Ladislaus claimed that my exposition in defense of BOB & BOD logically would exclude BOB according to the doctrine of Trent. The man is a lunatic. He walks with the fairies!
-
This needn't have anything to do with anything either of us has posted in the past, Don Paolo. Do you or do you not agree with the following?
"People who are saved through Baptism of Desire receive the graces of Baptism through their desire for it. Baptism remains the instrumental cause of justification even in cases of Baptism of Desire. People are not saved and cannot be saved WITHOUT Baptism."
-
Stupid Matto:
Just consider this: Ladislaus claimed that my exposition in defense of BOB & BOD logically would exclude BOB according to the doctrine of Trent. The man is a lunatic. He walks with the fairies!
-
Stupid Matto:
Just consider this: Ladislaus claimed that my exposition in defense of BOB & BOD logically would exclude BOB according to the doctrine of Trent. The man is a lunatic. He walks with the fairies!
-
Stupid Matto:
So you just like to insult people, calling them insane or now stupid. There is no use talking to people like you. How on earth do you know if I am stupid or not? You know nothing about me. Don't you know that insulting people and calling people insane or stupid is a sin?
-
Contrary to the interpolation of Ladislaus which misconstrues what I said, here are the actual words I posted: "The necessity of the grace of the sacraments, i.e., of Justification, is absolutely necessary for salvation. The Council of Trent decrees and canons define that the justification brought about by the sacraments can obtained not only by the reception of the sacraments, but also by the resolve to receive them. Thus, the necessity for justification brought about by the sacraments is absolute; while the necessity to receive those sacraments is a necessity of precept (as the Roman Catechism explains); and is conditional, depending on the the possibility or impossibility to receive them. St. Pius V teaches in his Roman Catechism that the resolve to receive baptism combined with repentance suffices for salvation if the reception of the sacrament is rendered impossible by some unforeseen event. The voluntary omission of the sacrament is not an option. One who has been justified by charity and repentance before baptism is bound by divine precept to receive the sacrament sub gravi, and therefore must have the resolve to receive it. Without that resolve to receive the sacrament there is neither justification nor salvation. The constant post-Tridentine magisterium is unanimous on this point that there must be the firm resolve, at least implicit (as in the case of the Gentile converts in Acts. 10:46-48), for one to be sanctified by Baptism of Desire. This is how the magisterium of the Church has constantly understood and interpreted the decrees and canons of Trent."
-
Contrary to the interpolation of Ladislaus which misconstrues what I said, here are the actual words I posted: "The necessity of the grace of the sacraments, i.e., of Justification, is absolutely necessary for salvation. The Council of Trent decrees and canons define that the justification brought about by the sacraments can obtained not only by the reception of the sacraments, but also by the resolve to receive them. Thus, the necessity for justification brought about by the sacraments is absolute; while the necessity to receive those sacraments is a necessity of precept (as the Roman Catechism explains); and is conditional, depending on the the possibility or impossibility to receive them. St. Pius V teaches in his Roman Catechism that the resolve to receive baptism combined with repentance suffices for salvation if the reception of the sacrament is rendered impossible by some unforeseen event. The voluntary omission of the sacrament is not an option. One who has been justified by charity and repentance before baptism is bound by divine precept to receive the sacrament sub gravi, and therefore must have the resolve to receive it. Without that resolve to receive the sacrament there is neither justification nor salvation. The constant post-Tridentine magisterium is unanimous on this point that there must be the firm resolve, at least implicit (as in the case of the Gentile converts in Acts. 10:46-48), for one to be sanctified by Baptism of Desire. This is how the magisterium of the Church has constantly understood and interpreted the decrees and canons of Trent."
-
The sly rattlesnake, Drew, posted Fr. Kramer's briefest reply to him. Drew did not want you to see his more lengthy reply, which I present below:
A Further Reply to the Hereric Feeneyite:
Mr Drew,
Your stubborn insistence to argue a point that has already been thoroughly refuted is like the neophyte chess player, whose understanding of the game is so limited that he remains at the board after the master has walked away -- gloating over the narcissistic delusion of victory; not grasping the fact that he has been checkmated by the master. You say:
1) "The term 'Baptism of Desire' is a term that has never been defined by the Church and, as I have explained to you, it has many different shades of understanding which includes the doctrine of Fr. Karl Rahner's Annonymous Christian that makes everyone a "Christian" by virtue of the Incarnation."
I answer saying:
Baptism of Desire has been defined by the ordinary magisterium. Its principles in which consist the premises and conclusion of BOD are dogmatically set forth by the Council of Trent. On that basis St. Pius V taught BOD in the Roman Catechism, the post-Tridentine Doctors taught it in their works; the post-Tridentine popes authorized it to be taught throughout the world, and some of them taught it explicitly in the exercise of their ordinary magisterium. The doctrine must be understood according to the meaning and sense that has been set forth by the ecclesiastical magisterium, and not according to the opinions of Karl Rahner and his ilk. Moreover, your argument is a red herring: Even terms such as "Transubstantiation", "Immaculate Conception", "Hypostatic Union" needed centuries of theological developnent to take place before they could be defined. Even the term "Trinity" was totally absent from the works of the earliest writers of Catholic doctrine. Your argument is worthless and nonsensical; and only underscores the the already obvious reality that you are incapable of formulating a logically coherent theological argument.
Furthermore, you, like the more rabid of Feeneyites desperately argue that the Roman Catechism does not teach Baptism of Desire, claiming that it only teaches justification by votum; while not teaching salvation by that means. First, it must be noted that Chapter 4 of the Decree on Justification already defined that those who have been justified by the laver of regeneration or the votum of it, have been reborn by water and the Holy Ghost; and Chapter 7 defines that those who have been thus justified, and bring that grace with them before the divine Judge will enter heaven. The question was already definitively closed; and no further explication was necessary on this point. The Roman Catechism (which I quote in its original language) teaches exactly the same doctrine; to wit, that the resolve alone for baptism, combined with repentance, can effect the reception of grace and justification in the case that the cleansing of sacramental water becomes impossible : In caso improvviso di pericolo, chi ha l'uso della ragione, pur impossibilitato a purificarsi nell'acqua sacramentale, può conseguire la grazia e la giustizia col semplice proposito di ricevere a suo tempo il Battesimo, unito al pentimento dei peccati commessi.
And (in the official Latin text) that it is by obtaining grace and justification through Jesus Christ, that one obtains salvation: "per Christum Dominum possunt gratiam et iustitiam consequi, ut regnent in vita."
The first of these two passages treats specifically of some unforseen circuмstance that causes not the mere delay of the reception of baptism, but which renders the reception of baptism "impossible". The context of this teaching is established in the previous section which insists on the importance of not delaying infant baptism because children are particularly exposed to the danger of death; and it is impossible except by the actual reception of the sacrament, for infants to receive the grace and justification to enter heaven -- and baptism, therefore, must not be delayed because infants have no other remedy for salvation: "Nam cuм pueris infantibus nulla alia salutis comparandae ratio . . .", but for adults, "a different method is to be followed" -- because they do have another remedy for salvation: for adults, who are endowed with the use if reason, there is not the same danger of delaying baptism as there is for infants; because if baptism becomes impossile for adults, they can receive the grace and justification (which in the preceeding article is stated to be the requisite to enter heaven), if they have repentance for their sins and the firm resolve and intention to receive baptism: "Neque enim ea dilatio periculum quod quidem pueris imminere supra dictum est, coniunctum habet, cuм illis qui rationis usu praediti sunt, baptismi suscipiendi propositum atque consilium, et male ac- tae vitae paenitentia satis futura sit ad gratiam et iustitiam, si repentinus aliquis casus impediat quominus salutari aqua ablui possint."
Hence, it is absolutely clear from the text of the Roman Catechism that salvation can be obtained for adults by Baptism of Desire if the reception of the sacrament is rendered impossible. This Catechism was compiled under the direction of St. Charles Borromeo, who organized the final sessions of the Council of Trent; and was promulgated by St. Pius V, who was a most eminent Council Father and a high official of the Roman Inquisition during the sessions that formulated the Council's canons and decrees on justification and sacraments. Incredibly, however, you think you understand the Council of Trent's teaching better than the Tridentine Council Fathers themselves!
You say:
2) "In Fr. Joseph Fenton's published analysis and defense of the 1949 Holy Office Letter he, as an authoritative theologian and editor of American Ecclesiastical Review,specifically dates the teaching of 'salvation by explicit desire' from the time of St. Robert Bellarmine and the teaching of 'salvation by implicit desire' from the time of Pope Pius XII encyclicalMystici Corporis which is based upon a misquoted text from that encyclical. Yet you affirm that it is the 'universal teaching' of the Church."
I answer saying:
You do not have a theological grasp of the notion of what constitutes a "universal teaching" of the Church. You most stupidly refer to Msgr. Fenton's article; as if, sonehow, it supports your irrational argument that BOD is not a teaching of the universal magisterium. Dogma originates from the "sacred deposit" of divine revalation, and its sources are sacred Scripture and sacred Tradition. Dogma develops over centuries and millennia, as it is formulated by theologians and set forth, and explicated by the ordinary magisterium; and then solemnly defined by the extraordinary magisterium, if and when the need arises. (There are some excellent theological expositions on the topic of the developnent of dogma; such as The Homogeneous Evolution of Catholic Dogma, by Francisco Marin-Sola OP.)
Dogma develops from out of its principles in which it is implicitly contained; hence: a point of dogma usually begins with an open question, develops sometimes with a diversity of often conflicting opinions, and may eventually become a common or unanimous opinion before it is proposed by the ordinary magisterium; or may even be settled straightaway with a dogmatic pronouncement of the supreme magisterium.
The principles of Baptism of Desire are explicitly defined by the Council of Trent (as I have already demonstrated previously), and the specific explication of BOD is set forth in the Roman Catechism, (which has the dogmatic authority equivalent to a dogmatic encyclical because it has been promulgated by the pope to teach doctrine to the universal Church). Msgr. Fenton attests to the fact that the universal and ordinary magisterium had already taught baptism by explicit desire at the time of Bellarmine; and baptism by implicit desire in the pontificate of Pius XII. Baptism by votum is most clearly a doctrine of sacred Scripture, since St. Peter declared that the newly evangelized Gentiles who had just been taught redemption and salvation through Jesus Christ could be baptized straightaway, because they had already been sanctified by the the Holy Ghost as the apostles themselves had been: "τoτε ἀaπεκριθη Πeτρος, Μeτι τo υδωρ δυναται κωλυσαι τις τοuόµη βαπτισθηναι τουτους οιτινες το πνευµα το αγιονελαβον ως καιἡµεις;" (Acts 10:46-7)
3) Thus far, I have nowhere even commented on the doctrine of implicit votum. I have only demonstrated that the Council of Trent definitively taught justification and salvation by the laver of regeneration or votum; that the Roman Catechism teaches it explicitly; and subsequently it has been explicitly taught by the popes and Doctors; and eventually taught universally in the catechisms. However, the scripture verse I quoted in the preceeding point also provides an excellent source for the doctrine of justification by implicit votum; since, those Gentiles, upon their first hearing about redemption and salvation through Christ, received the sanctification of baptism without yet having heard of baptism. Justification by implicit votum has since been taught by St. Alphonsus, St. Pius X, and St. Pius XII -- so why do you not also accuse them of heresy on this point as you do me.
The doctrine of implicit votum is explicitly taught by St. Alphonsus and by St. Pius X. It cannot possibly be a heresy, because the Church has judged their teachings to be orthodox.
4) I did not state that BOD was taught unanimously by the Fathers; but rather I explicitly acknowledged it to have still been an open question during the Patristic period. It is now a closed question since the Council of Trent and the Roman Catechism teach it, and it is a universally taught doctrine of the ordinary magisterium since the epoch of Bellarmine (just a few decades after the Council of Trent), as Mons. Fenton pointed out. As a doctrine of the universal magisterium it must be believed de fide, as well as on the basis of the doctrine on justification of Session 6 of the Council of Trent, as St. Alphonsus points out.
You say:
"St. Alphonsus, as previously described, erred in his understanding on the Decree of Justification and you have followed him in this error."
I answer saying: Pope Gregory XVI declared the writings of St. Alphonsus to be free of doctrinal error. Pope Pius IX declared him a Doctor of the Church. No less than fourteen pre-Vatican II popes have expressly recommended his works and praised his doctrinal orthodoxy. Pope Benedict XIV approved his writings while the saint was still alive, and personally praised and estermed his doctrinal teaching so greatly, that when a missionary brought a question to him (considered to have been the most erudite of the popes), Benedict XIV deferred to St. Alphonsus' judgment; telling the missionary, "You have the Fr. Liguori at Naples, consult him."
I have already theologically demonstrated previously, by way of a critical analysis of the Latin texts of the Decree on Justification (and related canons), that Chapter 4 defines that one who has been justified by the laver of regeneration OR the votum of it, to have been reborn by water and the Holy Ghost. It is plainly set forth in the unequivocal and straightforward Latin of the decree. Chapter 7 declares unequivocally and defines that one who brings that grace of justification before the judgment seat of Christ will enter eternal life. Canon 4 of Session 7 defines clearly in this same sense that the sacraments are necessary for salvation precisely because by them or the votum of them, one receives the grace of justification. The Roman Catechism, in the section on Baptism explains that the actual reception of sacramental baptism is a necessity of divine precept; and unless they be reborn by grace of baptism, they will go to eternal misery:
Sed cuм ceterarum rerum cognitio quae hactenus expositae sunt fidelibus utilissima habenda sit, tum vero nihil magis necessarium videri potest quam ut doceantur omnibus hominibus baptismi legem a Domino praescriptam esse ita ut, nisi per baptismi gratiam Deo renascantur, in sempiternam miseriam et intentum, a parentibus, sive illi fideles sive infideles sint, procreentur. Igitur saepius a pastoribus explicandum erit quod apud Evangelistam legitur: Nisi quis renatus fuerit ex aqua et Spiritu, non potest introire in regnum Dei
The post-Tridentine popes, Doctors, and universal magisterium are in agreement with me on this point. It is you who err; and not St. Alphonsus, not St. Robert Bellarmine, not St. Pius V, not Bl. Pius IX, not St. Pius X, not Ven. Pius XII -- and not I who agree with them and not with you.
St. Alphonsus not only taught BOD, but taught the doctrine of the implicit votum. The Church has judged him free from error. St. Robert Bellarmine explained that those sanctified by the votum are not outside the Church because they are united to the "soul of the Church". St. Pius X explicitly teaches the same. I have already cited previously the verbatim texts. The Church has judged them to be orthodox in their doctrine and free from error. You rant against these doctrines of the popes and Doctors who have been judged by the Church to be orthodox, because you have judged them to be heretical and the source of Modernism.
You have plainly demonstrated your megalomania by according a higher authority to your own private judgment than to the popes, Doctors, and the infallible magisterial authority of the Church. I cannot (nor can any other sane and rational Catholic) take you seriously.
P.S. You say my words in The Devil's Final Battle prove my hypocricy! (?) You are too much of a coward to even quote those words you attribute to me. I was only a co-author and editor of the first edition. I was so busy writing The Mystery of Iniquity at the time the need had arisen to revise DFB, that I allowed my co-authors to revise and publish the second edition of the book without my involvment. So, how would you know those words are even mine? You don't. As usual, you don't know what you are talking about.
Your foolish observation on justification and salvation is utterly devoid of theological foundation. It is clear from the perpetual doctrinal tradition of the Church and the explicit teaching of Trent that one who has been sanctified by the grace of justification is an heir to the hope of the kingdom if heaven; provided that he not lose that grace and appear before the divine tribunal without it. The Church perpetually has professed that those sanctified by justifying grace will enter heaven on the sole condition that they appear before the divine Judge in the state of grace. This is the perpetual dogma of Catholic faith. Your opinion is HERESY.
I have not yet read the PDF file you sent me, nor do I intend to read it any time soon (if ever). You have shown yourself to be a heretic and megalomanic. You are obvlious to the reality that your doctrinal writings on BOD/BOB/EENS are nothing but worthless and heretical drivel; and amount to nothing but an immense load of codswallop.
-------------------------------------------------------
-
So, Ladislaus the liar said this: "They've admitted that it's an error to say that one can belong to the soul of the Church without belonging to the body. So they now have to say that the Catechism of St. Pius X contains an error and is not infallible. And so they have to thereby admit that there could theoretically be other error in the Catechism."
In reality, St. Robert Bellarmine taught that those sanctified before Baptism are united in act to the soul of the Church, but only in voto are they in the body of the Church. Ladislsus makes the supreme effort to misrepresent the teaching of the Fathers, Doctors, popes, and Councils of the Church.
-
Still waiting.
Do you or do you not agree with the following?
"People who are saved through Baptism of Desire receive the graces of Baptism through their desire for it. Baptism remains the instrumental cause of justification even in cases of Baptism of Desire. People are not saved and cannot be saved WITHOUT Baptism."
-
Don Paolo:
-
Drew says: "You and Fr. Kramer believe that a Jew as Jew, a Muslim as a Muslim, a Hindu as a Hindu, a Buddhist as a Buddhist, etc. etc. by an ‘explicit desire to do the will of a god who rewards and punishes’ is thereby justified, a temple of the Holy Ghost, member of the Church and heir to heaven."
Drew's statement is false, malicious, and defamatory. Neither I now Fr. Kramer have ever stated or implied that proposition. Drew is a bold-faced liar.
Paolo:
I have emails from Fr. Kramer directing me to two web pages that consider Fr. Feeney a heretic and defend the 1949 Holy Office Letter that censored Fr. Feeney's defense of the Catholic dogma, EENS. Furthermore, I have your admission that you consider the 1949 Holy Office Letter to be an orthodox expression of Catholic doctrine on soteriology. And that should be as good as anything from Fr. Kramer.
The following quote was also sent to Fr. Kramer.
The doctrine of the Church also recognizes implicit baptism of desire. This consists in doing the will of God. God knows all men and He knows that amongst Protestants, Muslims, Buddhists and in the whole of humanity there are men of good will. They receive the grace of baptism without knowing it, but in an effective way. In this way they become part of the Church.
The error consists in thinking that they are saved by their religion. They are saved in their religion but not by it. There is no Buddhist church in heaven, no Protestant church. This is perhaps hard to accept, but it is the truth. I did not found the Church, but rather Our Lord the Son of God. As priests we must state the truth.
This doctrine of salvation by Archbishop Lefebvre which has its origin from the 1949 Holy Office Letter was shared with Fr. Kramer. He had no objections to this quotation.
Now your problem and Fr. Kramer's problem concerns the teaching of the 1949 Holy Office Letter. The 1949 Holy Office Letter teaches that a person by an ‘explicit desire to do the will of a god who rewards and punishes’ can thereby be justified, a temple of the Holy Ghost, member of the Church and heir to heaven.
It is accurate statement to say that since you and Fr. Kramer believe that the 1949 Holy Office Letter to be an orthodox exposition of Catholic doctrine, therefore:
"You and Fr. Kramer believe that a Jew as Jew, a Muslim as a Muslim, a Hindu as a Hindu, a Buddhist as a Buddhist, etc. etc. by an ‘explicit desire to do the will of a god who rewards and punishes’ is thereby justified, a temple of the Holy Ghost, member of the Church and heir to heaven."
Why do you not just get to work and defend the 1949 Holy Office Letter. This is such a common problem with the "Baptism of Desire" crowd. They always get queezy when you insist that they take responsibility for the consequences that their doctrinal perversion has wrecked upon the Church. Taking responsibility is a constant characteristic of maturity.
Drew
P.S. An elderly priest once warned me to be careful about another cleric because of his "immaturity." I took his advice but admit now that I had no real understanding what "immaturity" meant with regard to a priest and how damaging that character flaw can be in a person with those responsibilities. Well, I got an education by experience. Unfortunately, my experience is something that cannot be simply passed along. You cannot tell an immature person to "grow up" and expect any improvement. The only answer for immaturity is conversion. It boils down to the difference between turning toward oneself or turning toward God. Another thing the elderly priest told me was that an immature cleric can never, under any circuмstances, be given any authority or serious responsibilities whatsoever. His advice improves with age.
-
They are out there! I know it!
We have the Church Militant, the Church suffering, the Church Triumphant, and ................the Church desiring to do the will of God......................
We have everyone covered now..........universal salvation is within our grasp, at last.
-
In the same manner as Drew, Ladislaus is a verbal con-artist: a charlatan -- I explained that the 'matuto' in the rain forest, who has never heard the preaching of a missionary, is excused from the explicit resolve to receive Baptism. Ladislsus maliciously misrepresents my words, falsely stating that I say the 'matuto" is excused from the need for explicit faith. As usual, Ladislaus is a bold faced liar.
-
Drew, the charlatan, posted one of Fr. Kramer's preliminary replies at the beginning of this thread; as if that were all that Fr. Kramer had to say on the topic of Baptism of Desire. Drew did not want the readers to see Fr. Kramer's critical commentary on the dogmatic texts of Trent which teach BOD. Here is Fr. Kramer's commentary (N.B. The quoted text of Chapter 4 explicitly states that those justified by Baptism or the votum of it, fulfill the requirement to enter the kingdom of God, namely, to be reborn of water and the Holy Ghost. Thus, the doctrine of BOD is dogmatically stated explicitly in this final sentence of Chapter 4 of the Decree on Justification):
Session 7 Canon 4. - Si quis dixerit sacramenta novae legis non esse ad salutem necessaria sed superflua et sine eis aut eorum voto per solam fidem homines a Deo gratiam iustificationis adipisci licet omnia singulis necessaria non sint: a[nathema] s[it].
This dogmatic canon of Trent defines specifically and precisely in what manner the sacraments are necessary for salvation: They are not superfluous or optional (which means that there does not exist an option to freely choose some other means); but one simply cannot be justified without them or the votum of them. Here it is infallibly defined that there is no salvation without the justification of the sacraments "aut eorum voto", which means 'without the sacraments or the firm resolve to receive them".
Session 6 Decree on Justification, Chapter 4 - Quibus verbis iustificationis impii descriptio insinuatur ut sit translatio ab eo statu in quo homo nascitur filius primi Adae in statum gratiae et adoptionis filiorum Dei per secundum Adam Iesum Christum salvatorem nostrum; quae quidem translatio post Evangelium promulgatum sine lavacro regenerationis aut eius voto fieri non potest sicut scriptum est: nisi quis renatus fuerit ex aqua et Spiritu Sancto non potest introire in regnum Dei.
In this text of Chapter 4, the Council of Trent declares that justification is the change from the state of sin to the state of grace, which cannot take place without the laver of regeneration or the firm resolve to receive it (aut eius voto).
Chapter 7 - Itaque veram et christianam iustitiam accipientes eam ceu primam stolam pro illa quam Adam sua inobedientia sibi et nobis perdidit per Christum Iesum illis donatam candidam et immaculatam iubentur statim renati conservare ut eam perferant ante tribunal Domini nostri Iesu Christi et habeant vitam aeternam.
In this text of Chapter 7, it is defined that those who have been justified are enjoined to preserve that grace so that they may bring it before the judgment seat of Jesus Christ and have eternal life. It is thereby infallibly set forth that the condition required to enter eternal life is to be in the state of justifying or sanctifying grace at the Judgment.
Session 14 Cann. 6,7:
6. Si quis negaverit confessionem sacramentalem vel institutam vel ad salutem necessariam esse iure divino; aut dixerit modum secrete confitendi soli sacerdoti quem Ecclesia Catholica ab initio semper observavit et observat alienum esse ab institutione et mandato Christi et inventum esse humanum: a[nathema] s[it].
7. Si quis dixerit in sacramento poenitentiae ad remissionem peccatorum necessarium non esse iure divino confiteri omnia et singula peccata mortalia quorum memoria cuм debita et diligenti praemeditatione habeatur etiam occulta et quae sunt contra duo ultima decalogi praecepta et circunstantias quae peccati speciem mutant; sed eam confessionem tantum esse utilem ad erudiendum et consolandum poenitentem et olim observatam fuisse tantum ad satisfactionem canonicam imponendam; aut dixerit eos qui omnia peccata confiteri student nihil relinquere velle divinae misericordiae ignoscendum; aut demum non licere confiteri peccata venialia: a[nathema] s[it].
These two canons of Session 14 of the Council of Trent infallibly set forth that for one who has fallen into mortal sin it is of divine law (iure divino) that sacramental confession is necessary for salvation and remission of sins.
Session 14 Ch. 4:
Docet praeterea etsi contritionem hanc aliquando charitate perfectam esse contigat hominem que Deo reconciliare priusquam hoc sacramentum actu suscipiatur ipsam nihilominus reconciliationem ipsi contritioni sine sacramenti voto quod in illa includitur non esse adscribendam.
It is here in this text of the same Session XIV infallibly set forth that the reconciliation with God which is the restoration to the state of grace by justification (defined in Chapter 4), can be effected by perfect contrition even before the actual sacramental confession provided that there is the votum for the reception of the sacrament.
HENCE: The Council of Trent infallibly teaches that the necessity of the sacraments for justification and salvation is a necessity to receive them, or at least have the votum to receive them while in a state of perfect contrition. The parallel passages on justification, baptism and sacramental confession employ the same terms in exactly the same manner; which is explicitly clear in the above cited Canon 4 of Session 7. Thus the Council of Trent explicitly defines the necessity of the sacraments for salvation to be a necessity of reception of them or the firm resolve (votum) to receive them. On the basis of this dogmatic teaching of the Council of Trent, St. Alphonsus de Liguori teaches that the doctrine of "baptism of spirit", i.e., baptism of desire, must be believed de fide. The Decree of 1831 of Pope Gregory XVI on the doctrine of St. Alphonsus, and that of Pius IX, declaring him to be a Doctor of the Church, eliminate any possibility that his doctrine is an error or a heresy against the teaching of Trent. Either the more than 14 popes who approved the teaching of St. Alphonsus erred gravely in doing so, or those who incoherently and irrationally claim that the doctrine of baptism of desire, taught for centuries universally by the ordinary magisterium is heresy, are in error. If the universal & ordinary msgisterium were to have failed on this point, then the indefectable Church would have defected.
-
I explained that the 'matuto' in the rain forest, who has never heard the preaching of a missionary, is excused from the explicit resolve to receive Baptism.
Excused = necessity of precept. if something is necessary by a necessity of means, one can never be excused.
-
STILL waiting.
Do you or do you not agree with the following?
"People who are saved through Baptism of Desire receive the graces of Baptism through their desire for it. Baptism remains the instrumental cause of justification even in cases of Baptism of Desire. People are not saved and cannot be saved WITHOUT Baptism."
-
DP,
I explained that the 'matuto' in the rain forest, who has never heard the preaching of a missionary, is excused from the explicit resolve to receive Baptism.
Now explain why God has left Matuto without a missionary, if he was destined for salvation?
-
Fr. Kramer's detailed reply to Drew, which Drew ignored:
You argue as one who has passed through Alice's looking glass into the irrational realm of the fairies. You stubbornly insist that doctrine of Baptism of Desire & Baptism of Blood is a "common error", and "heresy", that it offends against the dogma of nulla salus extra Ecclesiam (EENS), and has been infallibly condemned by the Council of Trent. If that were indeed the case, then what would be the source of this heresy? The source of this "heresy" would be the writings of the Fathers & Doctors of the Church! The worst propagators of this heresy would be the Doctors of the Church, -- and the popes who have either, 1) taught it explicitly, 2) formally approved of it by declaring the authors of this heresy to be Doctors of the Church, 3) by authorizing this heresy to be officially taught by the ordinary & universal magisterium throughout the world (especially in the catechisms and the sacred liturgy), and 4) by never having issued any explicit condenation of it.
The principal culprits for corrupting the Catholic faith throughout the world would be the popes who explicitly taught this "heresy"; starting with Pope St. Leo the Great who explicitly taught the doctrine of Baptism of Blood:
”Those whom the wicked king removed from this world were brought to heaven by Christ, and He conferred the dignity of martyrdom on those upon whom He had not yet bestowed the redemption of his blood.” (In Epiph, 1,3)
Then the popes who approved the writings of these Doctors, and who canonized St. Thomas Aquinas and the other Doctors of the Church who affirmed this doctrine would also have been gravely complicit in spreading this "heresy". The dogma of EENS had already been solemnly defined by the Fourth Lateran Council, some ten years before St. Thomas was born; so if indeed it were the case that Aquinas' teaching on BOB/BOD were contrary to that dogma, it would not have been a mere material error on an open question, but would be a heresy in the proper sense of the word. You scoff at the notion that the writings of canonized saints are without any error against faith; thereby manifesting your ignorance on this point. The canonical process of canonization was very strict before Vatican II, because the Church judges it abhorrent that any unworthy candidate would be promoted to sainthood. In the canonization process the very first criterion that must be met is that the candidate's writings must be found to be free of any doctrinal error. If there is any heresy in the writings of a candidate for canonization, that one is forever disqualified from sainthood. Forty-nine years after his death, and after his writings had been thoroughly examined for their doctrinal content, St. Thomas Aquinas was solemnly canonized in 1323. In the homily at the Mass of canonization, Pope John XXII emphasized in particular the doctrinal excellence of St. Thomas' writings, declaring, "One can learn more in one year of study of the writings of St. Thomas than a lifetime of study of all the other doctors." The Church would have erred gravely for canonizing not only St. Thomas, but all the other Doctors who taught this (according to you) erroneous and heretical doctrine of Baptism of Desire. Similarly, Pope Sixtus IV would have been guilty of the same grievous offence for having canonized such a "heretic" as St. Bonaventure.
Yet, far more grievous than the canonization all of these (according to you) most unworthy heretics, would be their having been proclaimed Doctors of the Church. One is declared to be a Doctor of the Church whose writings or preaching has been judged to be preeminent for the excellence of their doctrine; and thus judged to be of great value for teaching of the Catholic faith. St. Pius V would indeed have been the most villanous and vile of heresiarchs for having declared St. Thomas a Doctor of the Church, if his doctrine on BOB/BOD were heretical. Fr. Michele Ghislieri OP was, by appointment of Paul IV, a high official of the Roman Inquisition at the time of the sixth and seventh sessions of the Council of Trent. In 1558 he was appointed Grand Inquisitor by Julius III. Having the official task of overseeing and guarding the orthodoxy of doctrine, during the Council of Trent, it is inconceivable that as pope, only a few years after the council, that he would misinterpreted the doctrine on sacraments and justification, as well as the dogma of EENS, and have propagated the errors which (according to you) the council had condemned.
As Pope Pius V, he declared the principal propagator of this "heresy", St. Thomas Aquinas, to be a Doctor of the Church, and he ordered a new edition of his (according to you heretical) works to be published. No clarification was ever issued by Pius V to warn the clergy and faithful that the Angelic Doctor's teaching on the point in question was a "heresy" that had been condemned before he had even been born. It is inconceivable and utterly irrational that St. Pius V, who had been such an eminent figure during the Council of Trent would not only have promoted the "heresy" in this manner, but also would have allowed Cardinal Charles Borromeo to formulate this "heresy" in the Roman Catechism, and then to have ordered its publication as the official catechism of the Roman Catholic Church -- even after the "heresy" had been condemned. Even during the Council, Pope Julius III, would have been a major culprit in this regard for having allowed the text of the Decree on Justification to be so "ambiguous" so as to clearly appear to be teaching this "heresy" while in reality (according you) condemning it; and for having issued no dogmatic canon that would explicitly anathematize this "error". Both Pope Julius and Fr. Ghislieri would have been grievously negligent for having allowed a Spanish bishop to propose this "heresy" during a session of the council that dealt with this doctrinal issue without uttering a word of objection. Neither the pope, nor the future Pope Pius V, nor any Council Father whosoever voiced any objection whatsoever to the proposal of this "heresy" right there in the session of the Council; but all present, by their consenting silence, unanimously expressed their approval of Baptism of Desire. This incident is no anecdote but is recorded in the Acts of the Council of Trent.
Likewise, Pope Sixtus V would have been inexcusably guilty for having committed the sacrilegious crime of declaring St. Bonaventure a Doctor of the Church, if indeed his writings were heretical on this point. Since you claim that Baptism of Blood and of Desire cannot be means of salvation; among other erroneous reasons, because one thus justified would remain outside the Church; then indeed all the Doctors and Fathers who ever taught this doctrine would be heretics; since, it has been a dogma of the universal magisterium since the Apostolic period. The first known explicit formulation of "extra Ecclesism nulla salus" was pronounced by St. Cyprian of Carthage (ca. 200 - 258 A.D.); who explicitly taught the doctrine of Baptism of Blood:
“On which place some, as if by human reasoning they were able to make void the truth of the gospel declaration, object to the case of catechumens; asking if any one of these, before he is baptized in the Church, should be apprehended and slain on confession of the name, whether he would lose the hope of salvation and the reward of confession, because he had not previously been born again of water? Let men of this kind, who are aiders and favourers of heretics, know therefore, first, that those catechumens hold the sound faith and truth of the Church, and advance from the divine camp to do battle with the devil, with a full and sincere acknowledgement of God the Father, and of Christ, and of the Holy Ghost; then, that they certainly are not deprived of the sacrament of baptism who are baptized with the most glorious and greatest baptism of blood, concerning which the Lord also said, that He had “another baptism to be baptized."(Epistle lxxii; To Jubianus, concerning the Baptism of Heretics, 22-3)
The doctrine was given written expression already by the Apostolic Father, St. Ireneus; hence, the explicit formulation and profession of this article of faith (EENS) of the universal magisterium is of the greatest antiquity. Since The doctrines of BOB in particular, is of equally great antiquity, it is of particular importance to note that no pope, no synod, no council, no Father, no Doctor has ever taught that this point of doctrine, offends against the dogma of EENS. It is only heretics who have ever made that charge. Such men are designated by St. Cyprian as "aiders and favourers of heretics", and such as those have still been commonly recognized as heretics in the 20th Century who deny the doctrine of BOD, as Francisco Marin-Sola OP attests. Fr. Marin-Sola states in his theological treatise on the sacraments: “Certain heretics have affirmed that no adult can be saved without receiving baptism itself before he dies, however much he would burn with desire for it, and that it would do him no good unless he were washed with water."
The proposition that BOB/BOD offends against the dogma of EENS is utterly foreign to the entire history of Catholic doctrine, and is a charge that historically has only made by by those who are commonly acknowledged to be heretics. The great number of Fathers & Doctors who taught BOB and/or BOD also firmly professed EENS, and saw no opposition between them. No pope, no Council, no synod, no Father, no Doctor, no approved theologian has ever declared that BOB/BOD is opposed to EENS -- it is a mere private opinion of that miniscule minority of dissidents who have been commonly recognized as heretics and favourers of heresy, who have ever stated that silly opinion.
If indeed, (assuming the absurd), that BOB & BOD are heresies that offend against the dogma of EENS (and the definitions of Trent), then all those who have ever professed it were heretics! And all the popes and bishops who taught these doctrines were likewise heretics. Before and after Trent, popes & bishops, as well as many Doctors of the Church have explicitly professed and taught both doctrines (BOB/BOD & EENS), and have seen no opposition between them. Such an opposition is nothing but an extravagant delusion that exists only in the degenerate minds of heretics.
Although you gratuitously and uncritically deny it; the doctrine of BOB/BOD is indeed the teaching of the universal & ordinary magisterium. The Church has established criteria for determining if a doctrine is truly of the universal magisterium: 1) If a doctrine has been the constant teaching of the Roman Pontiffs & the bishops thruoughout the world, 2) if it is the common profession of the faithful thruoughout the world, and, 3) if it is of the universal and constant consensus of theologians. (This third is not a condition but an indication that a doctrine is indeed of the universal magisterium.) BOB/BOD meet these criteria and have met them for many centuries:
There was already a moral unanimity of the ancient Fathers affirming the doctrine of BOB, among them Pope St. Leo the Great. The belief was common among the faithful already in the Third Century, as St. Cyprian attests, saying that only dissidents reject it.The theological explication of BOD was not yet fully elaborated in the Patristic period, but some of them did explicitly teach BOD. None of them explicitly rejected it; not even St. Gregory of nαzιanzen, who explicitly professed BOB, and who correctly affirmed that desire alone does not effect justification; but never denied that those who repent with faith, hope, charity and perfect contrition could be saved without water. Since the difference between BOB & BOD is only accidental, to wit, one involves the shedding of blood, the other not; but both consist in justification by means of faith, hope & charity together with perfect contrition (or attrition for BOB, as some theologians hold), which includes in it the votum to receive sacramental baptism; and hence, they are in essence the same. After the theological elaboration of the doctrine of BOD came to be more fully developed, it was then unanimously taught by the Medieval Doctors and explicitly by one medieval pope (Innocent II). Far from condemning BOD, the Council of Trent dogmatically defined the principal point of the doctrine of BOB & BOD, which is that justification can be effected not only by means of the sacraments, but also by the votum of them. Canon 4 of Session 7 precisely specifies exactly in what manner the sacraments are necessary for salvation:
Si quis dixerit sacramenta novae legis non esse ad salutem necessaria sed superflua et sine eis aut eorum voto per solam fidem homines a Deo gratiam iustificationis adipisci licet omnia singulis necessaria non sint: a[nathema] s[it]
The canon fulminates the anathema against anyone who says that the sacraments are superfluous, and not necessary for salvation. It also specifies precisely the reason why they are absolutely necessary; and that reason is that without the sacraments or the votum of them, justification cannot be obtained. Salvation, according to the canon, hinges entirely on justification which cannot be obtained without the sacraments or the votum of them.
Chapter 4 of the Decree on Justification sets forth dogmatically the reason why only one who is reborn of water and the Holy Ghost can enter the kingdom of heaven, which is that such a one has been justified by the laver of regenerstion or the votum of it. Again, it is dogmatically set forth that salvation depends on being in the justified state by means of baptism or its votum; and that this is what is meant by the words, "Unless one be born of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter the kingdom of heaven.":
Session 6 Decree on Justification, Chapter 4 - Quibus verbis iustificationis impii descriptio insinuatur ut sit translatio ab eo statu in quo homo nascitur filius primi Adae in statum gratiae et adoptionis filiorum Dei per secundum Adam Iesum Christum salvatorem nostrum; quae quidem translatio post Evangelium promulgatum sine lavacro regenerationis aut eius voto fieri non potest sicut scriptum est: nisi quis renatus fuerit ex aqua et Spiritu Sancto non potest introire in regnum Dei.
It is then dogmatically affirmed in Chaprer 7 that it is by the grace of justification that one is made an heir (heres) of the kingdom of heaven.
Hanc dispositionem seu praeparationem iustificatio ipsa consequitur quae non est sola peccatorum remissio sed et sanctificatio et renovatio interioris hominis per voluntariam susceptionem gratiae et donorum unde homo ex iniusto fit iustus et ex inimico amicus ut sit haeres secundum spem vitae aeternae.
And therefore, one who brings the sanctifying grace of justification before the judgment seat of God will enter into eternal life:
Unde et statim verbum Christi audiunt: si vis ad vitam ingredi serva mandata. Itaque veram et christianam iustitiam accipientes eam ceu primam stolam pro illa quam Adam sua inobedientia sibi et nobis perdidit per Christum Iesum illis donatam candidam et immaculatam iubentur statim renati conservare ut eam perferant ante tribunal Domini nostri Iesu Christi et habeant vitam aeternam.
Thus it is dogmatically defined that one is justified by means of the sacrament of baptism or its votum, and that one who has been thus sanctified by justifying grace becomes an heir to the kingdom of heaven; and finally those who present themselves before the judgment seat of Our Lord Jesus Christ, having this grace, will enter eternal life.
Hence, it is in this manner that the sacrament of baptism is the instrumental cause of justification and therefore necessary for salvation:
Huius iustificationis causae sunt: finalis quidem gloria Dei et Christi ac vita aeterna; efficiens vero misericors Deus qui gratuito abluit et sanctificat signans et ungens spiritu promissionis sancto qui est pignus haereditatis nostrae; meritoria autem dilectissimus unigenitus suus Dominus noster Iesus Christus qui cuм essemus inimici propter nimiam charitatem qua dilexit nos sua sanctissima passione in ligno crucis nobis iustificationem meruit et pro nobis Deo Patri satisfecit; instrumentalis item sacramentum baptismi quod est sacramentum fidei sine qua nulli umquam contigit iustificatio.
In this text of the Decree it is defined that Our Lord Jesus Christ, by His most holy passion on the wood of the cross merited for us the grace of justification.It is precisely for this reason, (as St. Thomas explains), that the unity of the sacrament is not destroyed, because whether by water or votum, the grace of justification has for its efficient cause the merciful God who washes and sanctifies by the unction of the Holy Ghost, and the meritorious cause, the shedding of Christ's blood on the cross. Thus justification is accomplished by the instrumentality of the sacrament of baptism, or the votum of it. This doctrine of baptism by water or votum dogmatically set forth by the Council of Trent, comes straight out of the Summa Theologiae of St. Thomas -- a copy of which was placed on the desks of all the council fathers of Trent. Justification by votum without the water of baptism is possible because the almighty power of God is not restricted to visible sacraments:
“the sacrament of baptism can be lacking in reality but not in desire, as happens when a person desires to be baptized but chances to die before receiving baptism. Such a person can attain salvation without actually being baptized because of his desire for baptism which comes from faith working through love, through which God, whose power is not restricted to visible sacraments, inwardly sanctifies a man.
Summa Theologiae III, 68, 2)
It is patent, therefore, that, according to the doctrine of Trent, that the necessity of means of the sacraments for salvation hinges directly on the grace of justification which cannot be obtained without the instrumentality of the sacraments or the votum of them; and hence, the doctrine of justification set forth by the Council of Trent cannot be construed to exclude justification by means of votum of the sacraments without the actual reception of the sacraments, or that the grace of justification thus obtained does not suffice for salvation; otherwise the Council of Trent would have erred in its teaching that salvation hinges directly on the grace of justification and that one who appears before the divine tribunal with this justifying grace enters eternal life; and it would have erred as well for teaching that justification can take place by the sacrament of water or the votum of it; and the doctrine of Session 14 on the Sacrament of Pennance, which explicitly sets forth the teaching that reconciliation of the sinner can take place by an act of perfect contrition, which includes the votum before the reception of the sacrament, would likewise be erroneous; as well as canon 4 of Session 7 which defines that the sacraments are necessary for salvation precisely for the reason that without them or the votum of them, the grace of justification cannot be obtained, would similarly be erroneous. (And thus is exposed the sophistry of the fallaciously asserted proposition that I have reduced the necessity of means to a necessity of precept, since the necessity of means for justification and salvation is clearly established by the Council of Trent to be the reception of the sacraments or the votum; both of which receive their efficacy from the unction and grace of the Holy Ghost freely bestowed upon men; and from the merits of the most holy passion and death of Our Lord Jesus Christ on the wood of the cross.)
The Council's teaching on justification and salvation has always been interpreted in this sense, and never according to the heretical interpretation of the Feeneyites; firstly, because the doctrinal tradition of BOB/BOD was already well established in the writings of popes, Fathers and Doctors of the Church before the Council of Trent; and secondly, since the Council Fathers were firmly rooted in that tradition (already unanimous for centuries by the time of the Council of Trent), they gave dogmatic expression and authority to the doctrine of BOB/BOD by dogmatically affirming explicitly the premises and conclusion of that teaching in the canons and decrees of that Council. Thus, since the Council of Trent, the popes have explicitly taught BOB and especially BOD in their discourses, encyclicals and catechisms, and they have canonized and declared Doctors of the Church those sainted theologians who with clarity and persuasion taught the doctrine of BOD and affirmed it to be de fide.
The post-Tridentine popes especially have unanimously taught BOB/BOD sometimes explicitly in their own magisterium, such as Pius IX, Pius X, Pius XII, ( Pius IX: Quanto Conficiamur Maerore, 1863), St. Pius X in the Catechism which he imposed on the Ecclesiastical Province of Rome: (Catechism of Christian Doctrine"17 Q: Can the absence of Baptism be supplied in any other way?A: The absence of Baptism can be supplied by martyrdom, which is called Baptism of Blood, or by an act of perfect love of God, or of contrition, along with the desire, at least implicit, of Baptism, and this is called Baptism of Desire." Catechism of Pope St. Pius X, The Sacraments - Baptism, Necessity of Baptism and Obligations of the Baptized), Pius XII in his Address to Midwives of Oct. 29, 1951:
(Without it, [Baptism] 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.”)
St. Pius V directly authotized the propagation of the doctrine of BOD by ordering the publication of the Roman Catechism which teaches it. Pope Clement XIII declared in his Encyclical In Dominico Agro (1761) that the Roman Catechism is free from doctrinal error, and that its teachings are of the universal magisterium. Thus, the Roman Catechism which teaches BOD became the basis for all the subsequent catechisms that teach BOB/BOD, and which have universally been imposed by the ecclesiastical authorities of the dioceses and ecclesiastical provinces thruought the world.
It was not by accident that the Roman Catechism became the basis for the subsequent catechisms of the universal Church, which unanimously teach BOB/BOD. Pope Pius IV immediately after the Council of Trent estsblished the Sacra Congregatio Cardinalium pro executione et interpretatione Concilii Tridentini interpretum
in 1564; which thereafter became commonly known as the Sacred Congregation of the Council. In January 1588, Pope Sixtus V, (who had declared the BOD teaching St. Bonaventure a doctor of the Church), expanded the Congregations jurisdiction, entrusting to it the proper interpretation of the Council's canons, resolving controversial questions relating to it. To the jurisdiction of the Congregation of the Council pertained also the examining of the doctrinal content; and correcting, and authorizing all official catechisms to be imposed by the magisterial authority of the particular churches and ecclesiastical provinces throughout the world. So it was this dicastery, the Congregation of the Council, encharged with delegated papal authority to interpret the canons of the Council of Trent; and to examine and authorize the publication of catechisms, (such as the Douai Catechism of 1649 which explicitly teaches BOB/BOD), which directly brought about the propagation of the magisterial teaching of BOB/BOD throughout the world, under the watchful eyes of the post-Tridentine popes.
Thus it is patent that BOB/BOD has been universally taught.
You scoff at the magistetial authority of the liturgy, and dismiss the teaching of BOB in the Roman Martyrology with heretical contempt. The doctrines set forth in the sacred liturgy are the law of belief: "Lex orandi lex credendi". Already, Pope St. Celestine I (422 - 432) declared, "Statuat legem credendi lex orandi." The popes have repeated this dictum of papal magisterium for more than one and a half millenia, yet you dismiss it as nothing. The doctrine of BOB is clearly taught in both the Roman Martyrology and the Roman Breviary. This liturgy is an extension of the liturgy of the Mass, which is "the most important organ of the ordinary magisterium" (Piys XI, Quas Primas, 11.12.1925).
The Roman Martyrology commemorates (among others):
1) St. Emerentiana, a catechumen who was stoned for praying at the tomb of her martyr foster sister, St. Agnes.
2) At Braga, St. Victor, a catechumen who refused to worship an idol, and was tortured and beheaded, "and thus merited to be baptized in his own blood."
3) At Verulam in England the companion of St. Alban, who was one of the soldiers leading the martyr to execution, and was converted along the way; "and merited to be baptized in his own blood." The Martyrology also adds, "St. Bede the Venerable has left an account of the noble combat of St. Alban and his companion."
4) At Alexandria, the holy martyr, St. Heraclides, a catechumen.
The Roman Breviary affirms that St. Emerentiana was still a catechumen, but was "baptized in her own blood." By scoffing at the account of her holy martrydom, like a true heretic, you spit on the tomb of a holy martyr whose feast is celebrated in the Roman Missal, and on the tombs of all the other holy martyrs whom the Church has professed, since the most ancient times, to have been baptized in their own blood.
As I already nentioned above, by the Middle Ages the Doctors had already unanimously professed BOB/BOD. Since then not a single theologian of repute has ever denied this doctrine, but only those reputed to be heretics. Leonard Feeney SJ was a highly reputable theologian, regarded by some to be possessed of the premier theological intellect in America -- until he fell into disrepute by professing a doctrine well known not to be of the ancient Sacred Tradition, but what in fact was long known to be just an old heresy professed by a few odd cranks who are scarcely even a footnote of Church History; and whose names have sunk into oblivion.
The doctrine of BOB/BOD has been and continues to be commonly and generally professed by faithful Catholics throughout the world. Having traveled to forty countries, and having met with bishops, and a multitude of priests and laity on five continents, I can safely declare that Baptism of Blood and of Desire is commonly professed; and that only the more learned of the faithful are even aware that there are some few heretics who deny it. Outside of the English speaking world where hardly anyone has ever heard the name "Feeney", practicly no one (except the more learned) is even aware that there exists a few pockets of dissident heretical oddballs who stubbornly and ignorantly reject this Catholic doctrine, in the delusional belief that they are adhering to Catholic tradition! Generations of Catholics have been catechized with the doctrine of BOB/BOD, not because they fell away from the orthodox teaching of Sancta Romana Ecclesia, but rather, that they were well instructed with papaly approved catechisms, authorized by the Congregation of the Council, which taught them BOB/BOD.
The Feeneyites have accomplished a diabolical inversion, professing a heresy in order to remain faithful to the dogmas of faith (!). They invert the patently clear teaching of the most solemnly defined dogmas and construe them to mean exactly the opposite of what the Church has always professed them to mean; and what the saints, Doctors, popes, theologians, and the vast multitude of faithful have constantly professed them to mean. They fancy themselves to be a tiny faithful remnant, loyal to tradition -- but in reality, the voice of tradition expressed down through the ages testifies against them and identifies them as the "aiders and favourers of heretics" (St. Cyprian of Carthage), and a few heretical dissidents who have alienated themselves from communion with the One Holy Roman Catholic Church, outside of which there is no salvation.
Fr. Paul Kramer
-
In the end, Baptism of Desire really is not needed at all by anyone to obtain "salvation by implicit desire (in a god that rewards)."
That is the bottom line of this insane obsession of BODers. Nothing else needs be said. They are teaching contradiction. They teach that BOD is defide, infallible, that anyone that denies it is a heretic, then they deny it by teaching that people can be saved without baptism of desire.
See thread: "BODers Obsessed w Teaching No Christ Necessary for Salvation"
-
Quote: I explained that the 'matuto' in the rain forest, who has never heard the preaching of a missionary, is excused from the explicit resolve to receive Baptism.
"Now explain why God has left Matuto without a missionary, if he was destined for salvation?"
A. J Paul asks me to explain the mystery of God's will! This is a matter of divine Providence, election, and predestination. Only God can answer this question. St. Augustine says it is presumptuous to ask such a question.
-
Drew posted my brief four paragraph reply as my definitive reply to him; making no mention that I had already sent him the far more detailed and systematic reply which I just posted above. What a charlatan!
-
Clueless Drew said: "In the end, Baptism of Desire really is not needed at all by anyone to obtain 'salvation by implicit desire' (in a god that rewards)."
Idiot! The popes and Doctors explain that without at least the implicit desire, the God who rewards will not reward, but punish.
-
Drew posted Fr. Kramer's brief four paragraph reply as his definitive reply to him; making no mention that he had already sent him the more lenghthy and systematic reply which was posted earlier today. What a charlatan!
-
Fr. Kramer's detailed reply to Drew, which Drew ignored:
You argue as one who has passed through Alice's looking glass into the irrational realm of the fairies. You stubbornly insist that doctrine of Baptism of Desire & Baptism of Blood is a "common error", and "heresy", that it offends against the dogma of nulla salus extra Ecclesiam (EENS), and has been infallibly condemned by the Council of Trent. If that were indeed the case, then what would be the source of this heresy? The source of this "heresy" would be the writings of the Fathers & Doctors of the Church! The worst propagators of this heresy would be the Doctors of the Church, -- and the popes who have either, 1) taught it explicitly, 2) formally approved of it by declaring the authors of this heresy to be Doctors of the Church, 3) by authorizing this heresy to be officially taught by the ordinary & universal magisterium throughout the world (especially in the catechisms and the sacred liturgy), and 4) by never having issued any explicit condenation of it.
The principal culprits for corrupting the Catholic faith throughout the world would be the popes who explicitly taught this "heresy"; starting with Pope St. Leo the Great who explicitly taught the doctrine of Baptism of Blood:
”Those whom the wicked king removed from this world were brought to heaven by Christ, and He conferred the dignity of martyrdom on those upon whom He had not yet bestowed the redemption of his blood.” (In Epiph, 1,3)
Then the popes who approved the writings of these Doctors, and who canonized St. Thomas Aquinas and the other Doctors of the Church who affirmed this doctrine would also have been gravely complicit in spreading this "heresy". The dogma of EENS had already been solemnly defined by the Fourth Lateran Council, some ten years before St. Thomas was born; so if indeed it were the case that Aquinas' teaching on BOB/BOD were contrary to that dogma, it would not have been a mere material error on an open question, but would be a heresy in the proper sense of the word. You scoff at the notion that the writings of canonized saints are without any error against faith; thereby manifesting your ignorance on this point. The canonical process of canonization was very strict before Vatican II, because the Church judges it abhorrent that any unworthy candidate would be promoted to sainthood. In the canonization process the very first criterion that must be met is that the candidate's writings must be found to be free of any doctrinal error. If there is any heresy in the writings of a candidate for canonization, that one is forever disqualified from sainthood. Forty-nine years after his death, and after his writings had been thoroughly examined for their doctrinal content, St. Thomas Aquinas was solemnly canonized in 1323. In the homily at the Mass of canonization, Pope John XXII emphasized in particular the doctrinal excellence of St. Thomas' writings, declaring, "One can learn more in one year of study of the writings of St. Thomas than a lifetime of study of all the other doctors." The Church would have erred gravely for canonizing not only St. Thomas, but all the other Doctors who taught this (according to you) erroneous and heretical doctrine of Baptism of Desire. Similarly, Pope Sixtus IV would have been guilty of the same grievous offence for having canonized such a "heretic" as St. Bonaventure.
Yet, far more grievous than the canonization all of these (according to you) most unworthy heretics, would be their having been proclaimed Doctors of the Church. One is declared to be a Doctor of the Church whose writings or preaching has been judged to be preeminent for the excellence of their doctrine; and thus judged to be of great value for teaching of the Catholic faith. St. Pius V would indeed have been the most villanous and vile of heresiarchs for having declared St. Thomas a Doctor of the Church, if his doctrine on BOB/BOD were heretical. Fr. Michele Ghislieri OP was, by appointment of Paul IV, a high official of the Roman Inquisition at the time of the sixth and seventh sessions of the Council of Trent. In 1558 he was appointed Grand Inquisitor by Julius III. Having the official task of overseeing and guarding the orthodoxy of doctrine, during the Council of Trent, it is inconceivable that as pope, only a few years after the council, that he would misinterpreted the doctrine on sacraments and justification, as well as the dogma of EENS, and have propagated the errors which (according to you) the council had condemned.
As Pope Pius V, he declared the principal propagator of this "heresy", St. Thomas Aquinas, to be a Doctor of the Church, and he ordered a new edition of his (according to you heretical) works to be published. No clarification was ever issued by Pius V to warn the clergy and faithful that the Angelic Doctor's teaching on the point in question was a "heresy" that had been condemned before he had even been born. It is inconceivable and utterly irrational that St. Pius V, who had been such an eminent figure during the Council of Trent would not only have promoted the "heresy" in this manner, but also would have allowed Cardinal Charles Borromeo to formulate this "heresy" in the Roman Catechism, and then to have ordered its publication as the official catechism of the Roman Catholic Church -- even after the "heresy" had been condemned. Even during the Council, Pope Julius III, would have been a major culprit in this regard for having allowed the text of the Decree on Justification to be so "ambiguous" so as to clearly appear to be teaching this "heresy" while in reality (according you) condemning it; and for having issued no dogmatic canon that would explicitly anathematize this "error". Both Pope Julius and Fr. Ghislieri would have been grievously negligent for having allowed a Spanish bishop to propose this "heresy" during a session of the council that dealt with this doctrinal issue without uttering a word of objection. Neither the pope, nor the future Pope Pius V, nor any Council Father whosoever voiced any objection whatsoever to the proposal of this "heresy" right there in the session of the Council; but all present, by their consenting silence, unanimously expressed their approval of Baptism of Desire. This incident is no anecdote but is recorded in the Acts of the Council of Trent.
Likewise, Pope Sixtus V would have been inexcusably guilty for having committed the sacrilegious crime of declaring St. Bonaventure a Doctor of the Church, if indeed his writings were heretical on this point. Since you claim that Baptism of Blood and of Desire cannot be means of salvation; among other erroneous reasons, because one thus justified would remain outside the Church; then indeed all the Doctors and Fathers who ever taught this doctrine would be heretics; since, it has been a dogma of the universal magisterium since the Apostolic period. The first known explicit formulation of "extra Ecclesism nulla salus" was pronounced by St. Cyprian of Carthage (ca. 200 - 258 A.D.); who explicitly taught the doctrine of Baptism of Blood:
“On which place some, as if by human reasoning they were able to make void the truth of the gospel declaration, object to the case of catechumens; asking if any one of these, before he is baptized in the Church, should be apprehended and slain on confession of the name, whether he would lose the hope of salvation and the reward of confession, because he had not previously been born again of water? Let men of this kind, who are aiders and favourers of heretics, know therefore, first, that those catechumens hold the sound faith and truth of the Church, and advance from the divine camp to do battle with the devil, with a full and sincere acknowledgement of God the Father, and of Christ, and of the Holy Ghost; then, that they certainly are not deprived of the sacrament of baptism who are baptized with the most glorious and greatest baptism of blood, concerning which the Lord also said, that He had “another baptism to be baptized."(Epistle lxxii; To Jubianus, concerning the Baptism of Heretics, 22-3)
The doctrine was given written expression already by the Apostolic Father, St. Ireneus; hence, the explicit formulation and profession of this article of faith (EENS) of the universal magisterium is of the greatest antiquity. Since The doctrines of BOB in particular, is of equally great antiquity, it is of particular importance to note that no pope, no synod, no council, no Father, no Doctor has ever taught that this point of doctrine, offends against the dogma of EENS. It is only heretics who have ever made that charge. Such men are designated by St. Cyprian as "aiders and favourers of heretics", and such as those have still been commonly recognized as heretics in the 20th Century who deny the doctrine of BOD, as Francisco Marin-Sola OP attests. Fr. Marin-Sola states in his theological treatise on the sacraments: “Certain heretics have affirmed that no adult can be saved without receiving baptism itself before he dies, however much he would burn with desire for it, and that it would do him no good unless he were washed with water."
The proposition that BOB/BOD offends against the dogma of EENS is utterly foreign to the entire history of Catholic doctrine, and is a charge that historically has only made by by those who are commonly acknowledged to be heretics. The great number of Fathers & Doctors who taught BOB and/or BOD also firmly professed EENS, and saw no opposition between them. No pope, no Council, no synod, no Father, no Doctor, no approved theologian has ever declared that BOB/BOD is opposed to EENS -- it is a mere private opinion of that miniscule minority of dissidents who have been commonly recognized as heretics and favourers of heresy, who have ever stated that silly opinion.
If indeed, (assuming the absurd), that BOB & BOD are heresies that offend against the dogma of EENS (and the definitions of Trent), then all those who have ever professed it were heretics! And all the popes and bishops who taught these doctrines were likewise heretics. Before and after Trent, popes & bishops, as well as many Doctors of the Church have explicitly professed and taught both doctrines (BOB/BOD & EENS), and have seen no opposition between them. Such an opposition is nothing but an extravagant delusion that exists only in the degenerate minds of heretics.
Although you gratuitously and uncritically deny it; the doctrine of BOB/BOD is indeed the teaching of the universal & ordinary magisterium. The Church has established criteria for determining if a doctrine is truly of the universal magisterium: 1) If a doctrine has been the constant teaching of the Roman Pontiffs & the bishops thruoughout the world, 2) if it is the common profession of the faithful thruoughout the world, and, 3) if it is of the universal and constant consensus of theologians. (This third is not a condition but an indication that a doctrine is indeed of the universal magisterium.) BOB/BOD meet these criteria and have met them for many centuries:
There was already a moral unanimity of the ancient Fathers affirming the doctrine of BOB, among them Pope St. Leo the Great. The belief was common among the faithful already in the Third Century, as St. Cyprian attests, saying that only dissidents reject it.The theological explication of BOD was not yet fully elaborated in the Patristic period, but some of them did explicitly teach BOD. None of them explicitly rejected it; not even St. Gregory of nαzιanzen, who explicitly professed BOB, and who correctly affirmed that desire alone does not effect justification; but never denied that those who repent with faith, hope, charity and perfect contrition could be saved without water. Since the difference between BOB & BOD is only accidental, to wit, one involves the shedding of blood, the other not; but both consist in justification by means of faith, hope & charity together with perfect contrition (or attrition for BOB, as some theologians hold), which includes in it the votum to receive sacramental baptism; and hence, they are in essence the same. After the theological elaboration of the doctrine of BOD came to be more fully developed, it was then unanimously taught by the Medieval Doctors and explicitly by one medieval pope (Innocent II). Far from condemning BOD, the Council of Trent dogmatically defined the principal point of the doctrine of BOB & BOD, which is that justification can be effected not only by means of the sacraments, but also by the votum of them. Canon 4 of Session 7 precisely specifies exactly in what manner the sacraments are necessary for salvation:
Si quis dixerit sacramenta novae legis non esse ad salutem necessaria sed superflua et sine eis aut eorum voto per solam fidem homines a Deo gratiam iustificationis adipisci licet omnia singulis necessaria non sint: a[nathema] s[it]
The canon fulminates the anathema against anyone who says that the sacraments are superfluous, and not necessary for salvation. It also specifies precisely the reason why they are absolutely necessary; and that reason is that without the sacraments or the votum of them, justification cannot be obtained. Salvation, according to the canon, hinges entirely on justification which cannot be obtained without the sacraments or the votum of them.
Chapter 4 of the Decree on Justification sets forth dogmatically the reason why only one who is reborn of water and the Holy Ghost can enter the kingdom of heaven, which is that such a one has been justified by the laver of regenerstion or the votum of it. Again, it is dogmatically set forth that salvation depends on being in the justified state by means of baptism or its votum; and that this is what is meant by the words, "Unless one be born of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter the kingdom of heaven.":
Session 6 Decree on Justification, Chapter 4 - Quibus verbis iustificationis impii descriptio insinuatur ut sit translatio ab eo statu in quo homo nascitur filius primi Adae in statum gratiae et adoptionis filiorum Dei per secundum Adam Iesum Christum salvatorem nostrum; quae quidem translatio post Evangelium promulgatum sine lavacro regenerationis aut eius voto fieri non potest sicut scriptum est: nisi quis renatus fuerit ex aqua et Spiritu Sancto non potest introire in regnum Dei.
It is then dogmatically affirmed in Chaprer 7 that it is by the grace of justification that one is made an heir (heres) of the kingdom of heaven.
Hanc dispositionem seu praeparationem iustificatio ipsa consequitur quae non est sola peccatorum remissio sed et sanctificatio et renovatio interioris hominis per voluntariam susceptionem gratiae et donorum unde homo ex iniusto fit iustus et ex inimico amicus ut sit haeres secundum spem vitae aeternae.
And therefore, one who brings the sanctifying grace of justification before the judgment seat of God will enter into eternal life:
Unde et statim verbum Christi audiunt: si vis ad vitam ingredi serva mandata. Itaque veram et christianam iustitiam accipientes eam ceu primam stolam pro illa quam Adam sua inobedientia sibi et nobis perdidit per Christum Iesum illis donatam candidam et immaculatam iubentur statim renati conservare ut eam perferant ante tribunal Domini nostri Iesu Christi et habeant vitam aeternam.
Thus it is dogmatically defined that one is justified by means of the sacrament of baptism or its votum, and that one who has been thus sanctified by justifying grace becomes an heir to the kingdom of heaven; and finally those who present themselves before the judgment seat of Our Lord Jesus Christ, having this grace, will enter eternal life.
Hence, it is in this manner that the sacrament of baptism is the instrumental cause of justification and therefore necessary for salvation:
Huius iustificationis causae sunt: finalis quidem gloria Dei et Christi ac vita aeterna; efficiens vero misericors Deus qui gratuito abluit et sanctificat signans et ungens spiritu promissionis sancto qui est pignus haereditatis nostrae; meritoria autem dilectissimus unigenitus suus Dominus noster Iesus Christus qui cuм essemus inimici propter nimiam charitatem qua dilexit nos sua sanctissima passione in ligno crucis nobis iustificationem meruit et pro nobis Deo Patri satisfecit; instrumentalis item sacramentum baptismi quod est sacramentum fidei sine qua nulli umquam contigit iustificatio.
In this text of the Decree it is defined that Our Lord Jesus Christ, by His most holy passion on the wood of the cross merited for us the grace of justification.It is precisely for this reason, (as St. Thomas explains), that the unity of the sacrament is not destroyed, because whether by water or votum, the grace of justification has for its efficient cause the merciful God who washes and sanctifies by the unction of the Holy Ghost, and the meritorious cause, the shedding of Christ's blood on the cross. Thus justification is accomplished by the instrumentality of the sacrament of baptism, or the votum of it. This doctrine of baptism by water or votum dogmatically set forth by the Council of Trent, comes straight out of the Summa Theologiae of St. Thomas -- a copy of which was placed on the desks of all the council fathers of Trent. Justification by votum without the water of baptism is possible because the almighty power of God is not restricted to visible sacraments:
“the sacrament of baptism can be lacking in reality but not in desire, as happens when a person desires to be baptized but chances to die before receiving baptism. Such a person can attain salvation without actually being baptized because of his desire for baptism which comes from faith working through love, through which God, whose power is not restricted to visible sacraments, inwardly sanctifies a man.
Summa Theologiae III, 68, 2)
It is patent, therefore, that, according to the doctrine of Trent, that the necessity of means of the sacraments for salvation hinges directly on the grace of justification which cannot be obtained without the instrumentality of the sacraments or the votum of them; and hence, the doctrine of justification set forth by the Council of Trent cannot be construed to exclude justification by means of votum of the sacraments without the actual reception of the sacraments, or that the grace of justification thus obtained does not suffice for salvation; otherwise the Council of Trent would have erred in its teaching that salvation hinges directly on the grace of justification and that one who appears before the divine tribunal with this justifying grace enters eternal life; and it would have erred as well for teaching that justification can take place by the sacrament of water or the votum of it; and the doctrine of Session 14 on the Sacrament of Pennance, which explicitly sets forth the teaching that reconciliation of the sinner can take place by an act of perfect contrition, which includes the votum before the reception of the sacrament, would likewise be erroneous; as well as canon 4 of Session 7 which defines that the sacraments are necessary for salvation precisely for the reason that without them or the votum of them, the grace of justification cannot be obtained, would similarly be erroneous. (And thus is exposed the sophistry of the fallaciously asserted proposition that I have reduced the necessity of means to a necessity of precept, since the necessity of means for justification and salvation is clearly established by the Council of Trent to be the reception of the sacraments or the votum; both of which receive their efficacy from the unction and grace of the Holy Ghost freely bestowed upon men; and from the merits of the most holy passion and death of Our Lord Jesus Christ on the wood of the cross.)
The Council's teaching on justification and salvation has always been interpreted in this sense, and never according to the heretical interpretation of the Feeneyites; firstly, because the doctrinal tradition of BOB/BOD was already well established in the writings of popes, Fathers and Doctors of the Church before the Council of Trent; and secondly, since the Council Fathers were firmly rooted in that tradition (already unanimous for centuries by the time of the Council of Trent), they gave dogmatic expression and authority to the doctrine of BOB/BOD by dogmatically affirming explicitly the premises and conclusion of that teaching in the canons and decrees of that Council. Thus, since the Council of Trent, the popes have explicitly taught BOB and especially BOD in their discourses, encyclicals and catechisms, and they have canonized and declared Doctors of the Church those sainted theologians who with clarity and persuasion taught the doctrine of BOD and affirmed it to be de fide.
The post-Tridentine popes especially have unanimously taught BOB/BOD sometimes explicitly in their own magisterium, such as Pius IX, Pius X, Pius XII, ( Pius IX: Quanto Conficiamur Maerore, 1863), St. Pius X in the Catechism which he imposed on the Ecclesiastical Province of Rome: (Catechism of Christian Doctrine"17 Q: Can the absence of Baptism be supplied in any other way?A: The absence of Baptism can be supplied by martyrdom, which is called Baptism of Blood, or by an act of perfect love of God, or of contrition, along with the desire, at least implicit, of Baptism, and this is called Baptism of Desire." Catechism of Pope St. Pius X, The Sacraments - Baptism, Necessity of Baptism and Obligations of the Baptized), Pius XII in his Address to Midwives of Oct. 29, 1951:
(Without it, [Baptism] 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.”)
St. Pius V directly authotized the propagation of the doctrine of BOD by ordering the publication of the Roman Catechism which teaches it. Pope Clement XIII declared in his Encyclical In Dominico Agro (1761) that the Roman Catechism is free from doctrinal error, and that its teachings are of the universal magisterium. Thus, the Roman Catechism which teaches BOD became the basis for all the subsequent catechisms that teach BOB/BOD, and which have universally been imposed by the ecclesiastical authorities of the dioceses and ecclesiastical provinces thruought the world.
It was not by accident that the Roman Catechism became the basis for the subsequent catechisms of the universal Church, which unanimously teach BOB/BOD. Pope Pius IV immediately after the Council of Trent estsblished the Sacra Congregatio Cardinalium pro executione et interpretatione Concilii Tridentini interpretum
in 1564; which thereafter became commonly known as the Sacred Congregation of the Council. In January 1588, Pope Sixtus V, (who had declared the BOD teaching St. Bonaventure a doctor of the Church), expanded the Congregations jurisdiction, entrusting to it the proper interpretation of the Council's canons, resolving controversial questions relating to it. To the jurisdiction of the Congregation of the Council pertained also the examining of the doctrinal content; and correcting, and authorizing all official catechisms to be imposed by the magisterial authority of the particular churches and ecclesiastical provinces throughout the world. So it was this dicastery, the Congregation of the Council, encharged with delegated papal authority to interpret the canons of the Council of Trent; and to examine and authorize the publication of catechisms, (such as the Douai Catechism of 1649 which explicitly teaches BOB/BOD), which directly brought about the propagation of the magisterial teaching of BOB/BOD throughout the world, under the watchful eyes of the post-Tridentine popes.
Thus it is patent that BOB/BOD has been universally taught.
You scoff at the magistetial authority of the liturgy, and dismiss the teaching of BOB in the Roman Martyrology with heretical contempt. The doctrines set forth in the sacred liturgy are the law of belief: "Lex orandi lex credendi". Already, Pope St. Celestine I (422 - 432) declared, "Statuat legem credendi lex orandi." The popes have repeated this dictum of papal magisterium for more than one and a half millenia, yet you dismiss it as nothing. The doctrine of BOB is clearly taught in both the Roman Martyrology and the Roman Breviary. This liturgy is an extension of the liturgy of the Mass, which is "the most important organ of the ordinary magisterium" (Piys XI, Quas Primas, 11.12.1925).
The Roman Martyrology commemorates (among others):
1) St. Emerentiana, a catechumen who was stoned for praying at the tomb of her martyr foster sister, St. Agnes.
2) At Braga, St. Victor, a catechumen who refused to worship an idol, and was tortured and beheaded, "and thus merited to be baptized in his own blood."
3) At Verulam in England the companion of St. Alban, who was one of the soldiers leading the martyr to execution, and was converted along the way; "and merited to be baptized in his own blood." The Martyrology also adds, "St. Bede the Venerable has left an account of the noble combat of St. Alban and his companion."
4) At Alexandria, the holy martyr, St. Heraclides, a catechumen.
The Roman Breviary affirms that St. Emerentiana was still a catechumen, but was "baptized in her own blood." By scoffing at the account of her holy martrydom, like a true heretic, you spit on the tomb of a holy martyr whose feast is celebrated in the Roman Missal, and on the tombs of all the other holy martyrs whom the Church has professed, since the most ancient times, to have been baptized in their own blood.
As I already nentioned above, by the Middle Ages the Doctors had already unanimously professed BOB/BOD. Since then not a single theologian of repute has ever denied this doctrine, but only those reputed to be heretics. Leonard Feeney SJ was a highly reputable theologian, regarded by some to be possessed of the premier theological intellect in America -- until he fell into disrepute by professing a doctrine well known not to be of the ancient Sacred Tradition, but what in fact was long known to be just an old heresy professed by a few odd cranks who are scarcely even a footnote of Church History; and whose names have sunk into oblivion.
The doctrine of BOB/BOD has been and continues to be commonly and generally professed by faithful Catholics throughout the world. Having traveled to forty countries, and having met with bishops, and a multitude of priests and laity on five continents, I can safely declare that Baptism of Blood and of Desire is commonly professed; and that only the more learned of the faithful are even aware that there are some few heretics who deny it. Outside of the English speaking world where hardly anyone has ever heard the name "Feeney", practicly no one (except the more learned) is even aware that there exists a few pockets of dissident heretical oddballs who stubbornly and ignorantly reject this Catholic doctrine, in the delusional belief that they are adhering to Catholic tradition! Generations of Catholics have been catechized with the doctrine of BOB/BOD, not because they fell away from the orthodox teaching of Sancta Romana Ecclesia, but rather, that they were well instructed with papaly approved catechisms, authorized by the Congregation of the Council, which taught them BOB/BOD.
The Feeneyites have accomplished a diabolical inversion, professing a heresy in order to remain faithful to the dogmas of faith (!). They invert the patently clear teaching of the most solemnly defined dogmas and construe them to mean exactly the opposite of what the Church has always professed them to mean; and what the saints, Doctors, popes, theologians, and the vast multitude of faithful have constantly professed them to mean. They fancy themselves to be a tiny faithful remnant, loyal to tradition -- but in reality, the voice of tradition expressed down through the ages testifies against them and identifies them as the "aiders and favourers of heretics" (St. Cyprian of Carthage), and a few heretical dissidents who have alienated themselves from communion with the One Holy Roman Catholic Church, outside of which there is no salvation.
Fr. Paul Kramer
Fr. Kramer's detailed reply to Drew, which Drew ignored.
Paolo/Fr. Kramer,
This is the third time that this reply to Paolo/Fr. Kramer has been posted on a Cath Info thread. How it possible that you can be so obtuse as to say that the argument of Paolo/Fr. Kramer has been "ignored"?
There is nothing new in your post. There is nothing new in this reply that has not already been discussed in detail. In fact, it is getting tiresome. How many times will Fr. Kramer/Paolo say that "Baptism of desire has been universally taught" by the Church? It is parroted ad nauseam by Fr. Kramer/Paolo in the face of overwhelming facts that prove the claim to be absurd. The decree of the Council of Braga forbidding ecclesiastical burial for catechumens that was approved by Rome alone proves this claim to be false. Still, it is repeated again and again and again.
I just have one last question for you. Since you have admitted that there are parts of the book, The Devil's Final Battle that you did not write, specifically, the part that pertains to the authority of dogma, what part did you write? And since the book, The ѕυιcιdє of Altering the Faith in the Liturgy, is entirely based upon the immutability of Catholic dogma, which you now deny, is there parts of that book you did not write either?
You have done more damage to your reputation than I think your reputation can endure.
Drew[/b]
Further Reply To Feeneyite;
You have made a multutude of gratuitous assertions. You demand that I refute your "arguments", but you provide no arguments: you make assertions
-- you state conclusions. You say the Council of Trent must be understood according to your esoteric understanding of the canons, (which conflicts with the plainly evident meaning of the doctrine set forth in the decrees); you say the doctrine of BOD is based on a mistranslation of the Latin text of St. Ambrose -- yet, you make no attempt to demonstrate by way of anslysis of the Latin text of St. Ambrose's words that they are indeed mistranslated. You quote the Second Council of Braga as if it had definitively settled the question of BOD; whereas in fact it was only an open question at the time; and had not yet been theologically explicated out of the sources of dogma. (And it was only a regional council of eight bishops who ruled against the prevailing universal customs of the Roman Patriarchate on the question of the burial of catechumens.) You say I reduce the necessity of means to a neccesity of precept, etc., etc, etc. Do you really have the expertise to judge on the questions of interpretation of dogmatic texts written in Latin? I have been reading Latin for 40 years. You have provided no theological analysis of the Latin texts of the dogmatic decrees of Trent, or any other Council or ex cathedra pronouncement. You only quote English translations, which, like all vernacular translations, are worthless for theoligical analysis.
Your comments are utterly untheological, gratuitous, and worthless. Do you really expect me to parse through all the fallacies and misrepresentations, so as to write a multivolume refutation of your huge aggregation of errors? I have demonstrated that BOB/BOD is the doctrinal tradition of the Church. "Paradodis esti, meden pleon zeite" (St. John Chrysostom: "Is it tradition; ask no more."
Fr. Paul Kramer
Ambrose:
Once again you are starting a thread with an edited personal reply that Fr. Paul Kramer sent to me. You apparently are playing the persona of the "respectable Fr. Kramer" that he wants as his public image while Paolo is playing just plain old Fr. Kramer.
This excerpt from our exchanges was odd in that I had never quoted anything whatsoever to Fr. Kramer from St. Ambrose at the time of this reply. I had referenced the Council of Braga, not that it had "settled the question" on "Baptism of Desire.," but rather the Council's refusal to give ecclesiastical burial to catechumens that was approved by Rome, proves that "Baptism of Desire" was not, as Fr. Kramer had claimed, a "universal" belief of the Catholic Church.
What is particularly disturbing in this quotation from Fr. Kramer is his accusation, "Do you really have the expertise to judge on the questions of interpretation of dogmatic texts written in Latin?"
This is the claim that the dogmas of the Catholic Church require a theological expert to render their meanings intelligible to the faithful. Dogma is a revealed truth from God infallibly defined by the Church in the form of a universal categorical proposition, and proposed as a formal object of divine and Catholic faith.
Fr. Kramer is claiming for the "theologian" the infallibility that belongs to dogma. Fr. Kramer wants to pretend he is a divine oracle. Nearly every heresy in the history of the Church was started by a like minded theologian.
With this corrupted perspective, it is understandable how Fr. Kramer could then actually change the words of a Catholic dogma so that the literal meaning would correspond to his personal theology beliefs.
I am posting below the same reply that was posted on an earlier thread that you opened with another reply of Fr. Kramer sent to me.
If anyone would like to see the entire exchange between Fr. Kramer and myself posted, it could be done. These self-serving posting could then be seen in their proper context. They would not provided any additional to the arguments but, for those interested in textual criticism, they would clearly show Fr. Kramer's authorship in postings.
Drew
A Further Reply to the Heretic Feeneyite:
Mr XXXX,
Your stubborn insistence to argue a point that has already been thoroughly refuted is like the neophyte chess player, whose understanding of the game is so limited that he remains at the board after the master has walked away -- gloating over the narcissistic delusion of victory; not grasping the fact that he has been checkmated by the master.
P.S. You say my words in The Devil's Final Battle prove my hypocricy! (?) You are too much of a coward to even quote those words you attribute to me. I was only a co-author and editor of the first edition. I was so busy writing The Mystery of Iniquity at the time the need had arisen to revise DFB, that I allowed my co-authors to revise and publish the second edition of the book without my involvment. So, how would you know those words are even mine? You don't. As usual, you don't know what you are talking about.
Your foolish observation on justification and salvation is utterly devoid of theological foundation. It is clear from the perpetual doctrinal tradition of the Church and the explicit teaching of Trent that one who has been sanctified by the grace of justification is an heir to the hope of the kingdom if heaven; provided that he not lose that grace and appear before the divine tribunal without it. The Church perpetually has professed that those sanctified by justifying grace will enter heaven on the sole condition that they appear before the divine Judge in the state of grace. This is the perpetual dogma of Catholic faith. Your opinion is HERESY.
The opening post on this thread was an email exchange between myself and Fr. Kramer. Rather than reply to that post, since it contains nothing new, I am posting the last email I received from Fr. Kramer unedited with my replies to his arguments. When compared to the opening post of this thread, you will be able to see that he has trouble addressing any critical comments of his position. His only answer is to repeat himself again and again.
The exchange is lengthy but hopefully worth a look. You will see a good example of how Fr. Kramer willfully destroys dogma by corrupting it in its fundamental nature. It is important to know for two reasons. Firstly, the essential target of Modernism and Neo-modernism is the destruction of dogma. The technique used by Fr. Kramer is not any different in kind than what most Modernist employ. Secondly, the only tool the faithful have to oppose a corrupt authority is the immutable truth of divine revelation, that is, dogma. Traditional Catholics have to know what dogma is. In my opinion, it is because the SSPX shares the same dogmatic theories as Fr. Kramer's that they failed in their "Doctrinal Discussions" with Rome to defend the faith or protect the purity of worship.
The quotations taken from The Devil's Final Battle are from the "Advanced Reading Copy" of the first edition. I am not sure what to make of Fr. Kramer's disclaimer that he really did not write significant portions of the book. It is evident is that I did in fact send him a lengthy quotation from the book. Whether or not Fr. Kramer actually wrote this citation, the quotation represents an excellent understanding of the nature of dogma and is worth reading. If Fr Kramer actually wrote is, his present opinions on dogma are a complete betrayal of the faith he once defended.
Drew
Leonard Feeney SJ was a highly reputable theoligian, regarded by some to be possessed of the premier theoligical intellect in America -- until he fell into disrepute by professing a doctrine well known not to be of the ancient Sacred Tradition, but what in fact was long known to be just an old heresy professed by a few odd cranks who are scarcely even a footnote of Church History; and whose names have sunk into oblivion.[......] The Feeneyites have accomplished a diabolical inversion, professing a heresy in order to remain faithful to the dogmas of faith (!).
The censoring of Fr. Feeney's teaching of the Catholic dogma, EENS, was from the 1949 Holy Office Letter sent to Cardinal Cushing of Boston and published by him in 1952. It was not published from Rome or ever entered into in the AAS. It has no greater authority than a personal correspondence between two bishops. It was Fr. Karl Rahner S.J., who as editor, entered the docuмent into Denzinger in 1962. From Denzinger it was authoritatively referenced in Lumen Gentium, The Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, at Vatican II and forms the doctrinal foundation for the new ecclesiology and its moral imperative of ecuмenism. It is also the foundational reference for Rahner's Anonymous Christian theology.
The 1949 Holy Office Letter teaches that any pagan, Jew, Moslem, Hindu, Buddhist, agnostic, Protestant, Orthodox, etc., etc., can obtain justification by an 'explicit desire to do the will of a god who rewards and punishes.' This desire is regarded as evidence of an 'implicit desire of Church membership' from which a person can obtain salvations. This is what I call "salvation by implicit desire." Its necessary corollary is "salvation by justification alone" which holds that nothing more than the state of justification that the 'explicit desire to do the will of a god who rewards and punishes' produces is all that is necessary for salvation.
The two web links you sent me provide an exposition and defense of this teaching of salvation by implicit desire. The Catholic dogmas that explicit faith (cannot be a heretic), submission to the Roman Pontiff (cannot be a schismatic), and Church membership (must receive the sacraments) are uniformly set aside. Rather than being treated as dogmatic truths, they are reduced to simple preceptive norms that do not bind in any case of moral, psychological or physical inconvenience. It is a condemned proposition to treat dogmatic truths only as preceptive norms:
The dogmas of the Faith are to be held only according to their practical sense; that is to say, as preceptive norms of conduct and not as norms of believing. Pope St. Pius X, Lamentabili Sane
The 1949 Holy Office Letter had nothing to do whatsoever with the sacrament of Baptism in re or in voto. Fr. Joseph C. Fenton, editor of American Ecclesiastical Review, published an article in 1952 defending the 1949 Holy Office Letter. In this article Fr. Fenton dates the Church's teaching on 'salvation by explicit desire' to the "time of St. Robert Bellarmine" and he dates the doctrine of 'salvation by implicit desire' to the 1949 Holy Office Letter. The authoritative reference in the 1949 Holy Office Letter for the novel doctrine of "salvation by implicit desire" is a mistranslated citation from the encyclical, Mystici Corporis.
These then are the two "dogmas" of your religion:
1) "Salvation by justification alone"
2) "Salvation by implicit desire"
With these doctrines you believe that any "good" Jew, Moslem, Hindu, Buddhist, Protestant, Orthodox, etc. can obtain justification and salvation by being a "good" Jew, Moslem, Hindu, Buddhist, Protestant, Orthodox, etc. Furthermore, you hold that any Catholic who rejects your doctrines on salvation are "in heresy and outside the Catholic Church." This is the plain truth of where Baptism of Desire leads. You are in agreement with Archbishop Lefebvre, Bishop Fellay and Pope John Paul II on this doctrine of salvation.
The doctrine of the Church also recognizes implicit baptism of desire. This consists in doing the will of God. God knows all men and He knows that amongst Protestants, Muslims, and Buddhists and in the whole of humanity there are men of good will. They receive the grace of baptism without knowing it, but in an effective way. In this way they become part of the Church. The error consists in thinking that they are saved by their religion. They are saved in their religion but not by it. There is no Buddhist church in heaven, no Protestant church. This is perhaps hard to accept, but it is the truth. I did not found the Church, but rather Our Lord the Son of God. As priests we must state the truth.
Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Open Letter to Confused Catholics
And the Church has always taught that you have people who will be in heaven, who are in the state of grace, who have been saved without knowing the Catholic Church. We know this. And yet, how is it possible if you cannot be saved outside the Church? It is absolutely true that they will be saved through the Catholic Church because they will be united to Christ, to the Mystical Body of Christ, which is the Catholic Church. It will, however, remain invisible, because this visible link is impossible for them. Consider a Hindu in Tibet who has no knowledge of the Catholic Church. He lives according to his conscience and to the laws which God has put into his heart. He can be in the state of grace, and if he dies in this state of grace, he will go to heaven.
Bishop Bernard Fellay, The Angelus, A Talk Heard Round the World, April, 2006
Normally, it will be in the sincere practice of what is good in their own religious traditions and by following the dictates of their own conscience that the members of other religions respond positively to God’s invitation and receive salvation in Jesus Christ, even while they do not recognize or acknowledge him as their Saviour.
John Paul II, The Seeds of the Word in the Religions of the World, September 9, 1998
For those, however, who have not received the Gospel proclamation, as I wrote in the Encyclical Redemptoris Missio, salvation is accessible in mysterious ways, inasmuch as divine grace is granted to them by virtue of Christ's redeeming sacrifice, without external membership in the Church, but nonetheless always in relation to her (cf. RM 10). It is a mysterious relationship. It is mysterious for those who receive the grace, because they do not know the Church and sometimes even outwardly reject her.
John Paul II, General Audience, May 31, 1995
Fr. Feeney held the 1949 Holy Office Letter to be heretical. Only by serious reflection and prayer on the implications of this novel doctrine did he trace the theological problem to its foundation. The problem only apparently has to do with the desire for sacramental baptism as being sufficient for salvation. In the end, Baptism of Desire really is not needed at all by anyone to obtain "salvation by implicit desire." The real argument always distills to the question, What is the nature of dogma? The new theology corrupts dogma in its essential nature.
There is nothing new in your last post as far as argument is concerned and again, you do not address the criticisms leveled against your doctrinal belief in "salvation by implicit desire" and its corollary, "salvation by justification alone." You do however provide more specific details with regard to your beliefs and the theological methods you employ that corrupt Catholic dogma. It is not a surprise that you call Fr. Feeney's doctrine a "diabolical inversion" because you are using your head to stand on rather than to think with. You have adopted the same techniques that Modernist use to destroy Catholic dogma and I hope to demonstrate exactly how you have done it.
But before I begin replying to your last email I want to remind you that the method you are now using to corrupt dogma is a complete about-face from what you have previously said regarding the nature of dogmatic truth.
In your book, The Devil's Final Battle, who identified correctly the "Four sources of infallible teaching" none of which pertain to Baptism of Desire. You then offer an excellent exposition on the true nature of Catholic dogma:
Now, for the most part, this assault (on dogma) has been rather indirect. The infallible definition is usually not directly denied, but rather undermined through criticism or "revision." The innovators in the Church are not so stupid as simply to declare that an infallible Church teaching is wrong. And, in their supposed "enlightenment" these innovators may actually think they are "deepening" or "developing" Catholic teaching for the good of the Church - again, we are not judging their subjective motivations. But the effect of what they do is obvious: the undermining of the infallibly defined teachings of the Magisterium.
Another example of this undermining is the attack on the dogma that ourside the Catholic Church there is no salvation. The Tridentine creed, quoted in full above, states: "I shall most constantly hold and profess this true Catholic faith, outside which no one can be saved..." In Chapter 6 we show how, over and over again, the Magisteriium has solemnly defined the dogma that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church. Yet today, the dogma is denied and undermined by an "ecuмenism" which declares that neither the Protestant heretics nor the Orthodox schismatics need return to the Catholic Church, because this ir "outdated ecclesiology." And in many places today, the dogma is directly denied, and in other places it is not directly denied but in practice it collapses from insidious, repeated, in direct attacks and, as a result, it is no longer believed and followed in those places.[......]
There Cannot be a "New Understanding" of Catholic Dogma. This post-conciliar attack on dogma through undermining and implicit contradiction cannot be justified as a "development" or "new insight" into dogma. As the First Vatican Council solemnly taught: "For, the Holy Spirit was not promised to the successors of Peter that they might disclose new doctrine, but that by His help they might guard sacredly the revelation transmitted through the apostle and the deposit of faith, and might faithfully set it forth." Further, as Vatican I taught, there cannot be any "new understanding" of what the Church has already infallibly defined. [....] Therefore, this "new" doctrine can only be pseudo-doctrine. This pseudo-doctrine contradicts doctrines that have been infallibly defined, then Catholics must cling to the infallible doctrines and reject the "new" doctrines. The dogma of the Faith cannot fail; but novelties can fail us. Men can fail; lay people can fail; priests can fail; bishops can fail; Cardinals can fail; and even the Pope can fail in matters which do not involve his charism of infallibility, as history has shown us with more than one Pope who taught or appeared to teach some novelty. [.....] From these examples in Church history we learn that everything proposed to us for our belief must be judged by those definitions. And so if a Cardinal , a bishop, a priest, a layman or even the Pope teaches us some novelty that is contrary to any definition of the Faith (dogma), we can know that the teaching is wrong and that it must be rejected for the salvation of our immortal souls. Yes even the Pope can fail, and he does fail in he expresses an opinion that is contrary to a solemn, infallible definition of the Catholic Church. This does not mean the Church fails when this happens, but only that the Pope has made a mistake without imposing it on the whole Church. And, of course, if even the Pope can make a mistake in teaching some novelty, then certainly Cardinals, bishops, and priests can make mistakes in their teaching and opinions.[......]
To summarize, truth is not a matter of numbers or rank; truth is a matter of what Christ and God have revealed in Sacred Scripture and Tradition, what has been solemnly defined by the Catholic Church, and what the Catholic Church has always taught - taught always, not just since 1965!
The Disastrous Effects of Tampering With Infallible Definitions. History likewise provides us with a prime example of what can happen to the Church when even one dogma is contradicted on a wide scale. The heresy of Arianism caused catastrophic confusion in the Church from 336 A.D. to 381 A.D. [.........]
Infallible Definitions Are Higher than Any Learning or Rank in the Church. Why did Athanasius know he was right? Because he clung to the infallible definition (dogma), no matter what everyone else said. Not all the learning in the world, nor all the rank of office, can substitute for the truth of one infallibly defined Catholic teaching. Even the simplest member of the faithful, clinging to an infallible definition (dogma), will know more than the most "learned" theologian who denies or undermines the definition. That is the whole purpose of the Church's infallibly defined teaching - to make us independent of the mere opinions of men, however learned, however high their rank. Now, in 325 the solemn definition of the Council of Nicea was infallible, but many people then did not fully realize that solemn definitions of the Faith were infallible. That is, at this time in Church history the Church had not yet issued the solemn definition teaching that the definitions of Faith are infallible. But in 1870, the First Vatican Council solemnly and infallibly defined the infallibility of the Church's solemn definitions. Now we know, infallibly, that solemn definitions are infallible. Once again: they cannot fail - ever.
The Infallible Definitions Are Under Attack in Our Time. In our day, therefore, there is no excuse for being taken in by heresy and giving up the defense of solemn definitions. But that is precisely what is happening today, just as in the time of Arius. Churchmen are judging things in light of the Second Vatican Council instead of judging the Second Vatican Council in light of the infallible definitions. They have forgotten that the infallible definitions, not Vatican II, are the unchanging standard by which on measures every doctrine, just as a 36-inch yardstick is the unchanging standard for measuring a yard.
Fr. Paul Kramer, The Devil's Final Battle
Dogma, as detailed in your book, The Devil's Final Battle, is:
1) A divinely revealed TRUTH by God, Who can neither deceive or be deceived.
2) A TRUTH of divine revelation that has been defined by the Church.
3) Dogma is expressed in the form of universal categorical propositions that admit only of being everywhere and always true or everywhere and always false.
4) Dogmas are by definition immutable and unchangeable.
5) Dogmas are formal objects of divine and Catholic Faith.
6) Dogmas are NOT maxims or axioms.
7) Dogmas mark the end of theological speculation.
8) The tools needed for correct understanding of dogma are proper definition and correct grammar.
This was written by you more than 12 years ago. The only criticism I or Fr. Feeney might offer is the reference to the year 1965 as the beginning of dogmatic corruption. The very essence of the heresy of Modernism and Neo-modernism is the destruction of dogma. The work was well underway by 1965. But what has happened to you in these last 12 years so that you should take an complete contrary attitude towards dogma so as to reject its literal meaning so that you can accept such beliefs as "salvation by implicit desire" and "salvation by justification alone"?
When the nature of dogma is understood then it is easy to see how you corrupt it to arrive at your doctrinal novelties.
Catholic dogmas for salvation require:
1) explicit faith (cannot be a heretic),
2) reception of the sacraments (member of the Church),
3) and submission to the Roman Pontiff (cannot be a schismatic)
which are all necessary as necessities of means to obtain salvation. You get around the problem the same way as Modernists do like Fr. Karl Rahner in his Anonymous Christian theology, that is, by corrupting dogma in its very nature.
You, like the Modernists, corrupt dogma by:
1) calling things "dogmas" that are not,
2) by changing the meaning of dogmatic terminology,
3) and by corrupting the grammar of dogmatic propositions.
Dogmas are formulated for all the faithful:[Dogma] by the very sense by which it is defined must be held to be by itself a sufficient demonstration, very sure and adapted to all the faithful. Pope Pius IX, Inter Gravissimas Afflictiones, Oct. 28, 1870
Let nothing of the truths that have been defined be lessened, nothing altered, nothing added, but let them be preserved intact, in word and meaning.
Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos
The Church has never accepted even the most holy and most eminent Doctors, and does not now accept even a single one of them, as the principal source of truth. The Church certainly considers Thomas and Augustine great Doctors, and she accords them the highest praise; but, by divine mandate, the interpreter and guardian of the Sacred Scriptures and depository of Sacred Tradition living within her, the Church alone is the entrance to salvation, she alone by herself, and under the protection and guidance of the Holy Ghost is the source of truth.
Pope Pius XII, Allocution at the Gregorian, Oct, 17, 1953
Canon 4. If anyone says that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation but are superfluous, and that without them or without the desire of them men obtain from God through faith alone the grace of justification, though all are not necessary for each one, let him be anathema.
Canon 2. If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism and thus twists into some metaphor the words of our Lord Jesus Christ: "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost," let him be anathema.
Canon 5. If anyone says that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation, let him be anathema.
Canon 33. If anyone says that the Catholic doctrine of justification as set forth by the holy council in the present decree, derogates in some respect from the glory of God or the merits of our Lord Jesus Christ, and does not rather illustrate the truth of our faith and no less the glory of God and of Christ Jesus, let him be anathema.
Errors in the treatment of dogma in your posts:
1) You affirm that the doctrinal and moral opinions of Doctors of the Church are necessarily free from all error because the Church has declared them "doctors."
2) You regard theological opinions as "dogmas" because they are commonly held.
3) You insist that the narratives from Trent are the "dogmas."
4) You insist that you interpretation of the narratives justify a non-literal explanation of dogmatic canons.
Now, some comments on your last reply.
"Canon 4 of Session 7 precisely specifies exactly in what manner the sacraments are necessary for salvation: The canon fulminates the anathema against anyone who says that the sacraments are superfluous, and not necessary for salvation. It also specifies precisely the reason why they are absolutely necessary; and that reason is that without the sacraments or the votum of them, justification cannot be obtained. Salvation, according to the canon, hinges entirely on justification which cannot be obtained without the sacraments or the votum of them."
Every canon is in the form of a categorical universal proposition that can only be always and everywhere true or always and everywhere false. The canon does not "specify exactly in what manner the sacraments are necessary for salvation." The canon in question does not "specify precisely the reason why they are absolutely necessary." This canon 4 contains two dogmatic categorical propositions. The propositions are distinct independent clauses. They say nothing whatsoever about the "manner" or the "reason" that the sacraments are necessary for salvation, or for justification. The dogma is not offering an argument. The word uniting the two propositions is "and," which is a coordinating conjunction, it is not the subordinating conjunction "because," which would make the second proposition a subordinate clause. But that is how you are interpreting the canon as if the one proposition is offered as an explanation for the other.
The canon declares that the sacraments are necessary for salvation. If you deny it, anathema sit. It also declares that sacraments, or at least the desire of them, are necessary of justification. If you deny it, anathema sit. When you say, "salvation, according to the canon, hinges entirely on justification....," you simply are corrupting the literal meaning of the text. Nowhere does it say anything like "salvation hinges entirely on justification." The canon offers no explanation on the relationship between "justification" and "salvation." If you like, I will diagram the two distinct propositions that are anathematized so you can visualize the relationships. If you just stare at a correct diagram you will see that your interpretation is impossible.
In an earlier exchange you said that the "necessity" in the dogma was a "moral necessity." In doing this you have changed the necessity for the sacraments from a necessity of means to necessity of precept. That is very helpful for because a necessity of precept is always conditional. When this is added to changing the coordinating conjunction "and" with the subordinating conjunction "because." Thus we get Fr. Kramer's new dogma on the sacraments:
If anyone says that the sacraments of the New Law are not (morally) necessary for salvation but are superfluous, and that (because) without them or without the desire of them men obtain from God through faith alone the grace of justification, though all are not necessary for each one, let him be anathema.
This is a specific example of corrupting dogma. The reason given for it is that you interpret the dogma in a manner to conform with your understanding of the non-dogmatic narrative. You corrupt the narrative twice. First by taking a single sentence out of the context of the narrative to affirm you belief in "salvation by justification alone." And secondly, by giving your interpretation of the narrative the authority to judge the dogmatic canon. The dogma is the divinely revealed truth, the formal object of divine and Catholic faith, that provides the key to proper understanding of the narrative on Justification.
Chapter 4 of the Decree on Justification sets forth dogmatically the reason why only one who is reborn of water and the Holy Ghost can enter the kingdom of heaven, which is that such a one has been justified by the laver of regenerstion or the votum of it. Again, it is dogmatically set forth that salvation depends on being in the justified state by means of baptism or its votum; and that this is what is meant by the words, "Unless one be born of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter the kingdom of heaven.":
Session 6 Decree on Justification, Chapter 4 - Quibus verbis iustificationis impii descriptio insinuatur ut sit translatio ab eo statu in quo homo nascitur filius primi Adae in statum gratiae et adoptionis filiorum Dei per secundum Adam Iesum Christum salvatorem nostrum; quae quidem translatio post Evangelium promulgatum sine lavacro regenerationis aut eius voto fieri non potest sicut scriptum est: nisi quis renatus fuerit ex aqua et Spiritu Sancto non potest introire in regnum Dei.
The Decree on Justification is not a dogma. It is a narrative explanation on the Catholic doctrine of Justification. The dogmas are the canons that follow the narrative explanation. Only the canons are formal objects of divine and Catholic faith. If you have any question of conflict between the narrative and the canons, the narrative is interpreted in light of the canon and not vice-versa. The narrative can only offer help in the proper definition of canonical terminology. The tools for understanding dogma are proper definition and correct grammar. You are using the lesser authority to corrupt the greater authority. When everything is said and done you have eviscerated the dogma so its non-literal meaning will not interfere you belief.
Canon 2 on the sacraments declares as an infallible formal object of divine and Catholic faith that the words of our Lord, Jesus Christ, "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost he cannot enter the kingdom of heaven," must be understood just as literally as the words, "This is My Body.... This is My Blood." This declaration of divine truth is in the form of a universal categorical proposition that admits of only being either always and everywhere true or always and everywhere false.
You said, "It is dogmatically set forth that salvation depends on being in the justified state by means of baptism or its votum; and that this is what is meant by the words, "Unless one be born of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter the kingdom of heaven." It is always amazing how you can say, "It is dogmatically set forth..." and yet never quote any dogma. Why? Because the dogma does not say this. It is dogmatically set forth that salvation nec
-
Drew: You have not answered the points which it demonstrates, namely, 1) that BOD is explicitly set forth in the Decree on Justification, 2) that BOB has been professed by the Church for 17 1/2 centuries, 3) that BOD has been constantly taught and defined by the post-Tridentine universal and ordinary magisterium, 4) that your interpretation of Trent contradicts the explicit teaching of Trent; and opposes the constant understanding of those dogmas as understood by the post-Tridentine magisterium, 5) that your fundamentalistic notions of necessity of means and instrumental causality opposes the unequivocally and explicitly expressed teaching of the canons and decrees of the Council of Trent, 6) that in general you have a total incapacity to properly formulate or understand theological arguments. You have refused to reply directly to these and related points, preferring to distort them and reply to the straw men of your own making; while basing your positions on gratuitous assertions and crudely fallacious arguments (such as your silly syllogism on the necessity of water for salvation!). You are a theological train wreck. I am a Roman educated theologian. I have neither time nor patience for any more of your ignorant insolence or your theological incoherence.
I am now ready to write my next book, which will expose and refute the heresy of Feeneyism. I have absolutely no need and no more use for you or for your silly heresy.
Fr. Paul Kramer (known in Rome as sac. Don Paolo Kramer)
-
One final Postscript:
As always, Drew, you have lied again. I have posted my long and detailed reply only once. Unlike you intellectually undisciplined Feeneyite theological simpletons; I rethink a question every time I write on a topic. Those were all different postings. If you had not been so crudely undisciplined in your reading, you would have noticed that.
-
Don Paolo just needs to be ignored.
-
Drew: You have not answered the points which it demonstrates, namely, 1) that BOD is explicitly set forth in the Decree on Justification, 2) that BOB has been professed by the Church for 17 1/2 centuries, 3) that BOD has been constantly taught and defined by the post-Tridentine universal and ordinary magisterium, 4) that your interpretation of Trent contradicts the explicit teaching of Trent; and opposes the constant understanding of those dogmas as understood by the post-Tridentine magisterium, 5) that your fundamentalistic notions of necessity of means and instrumental causality opposes the unequivocally and explicitly expressed teaching of the canons and decrees of the Council of Trent, 6) that in general you have a total incapacity to properly formulate or understand theological arguments. You have refused to reply directly to these and related points, preferring to distort them and reply to the straw men of your own making; while basing your positions on gratuitous assertions and crudely fallacious arguments (such as your silly syllogism on the necessity of water for salvation!). You are a theological train wreck. I am a Roman educated theologian. I have neither time nor patience for any more of your ignorant insolence or your theological incoherence.
I am now ready to write my next book, which will expose and refute the heresy of Feeneyism. I have absolutely no need and no more use for you or for your silly heresy.
Fr. Paul Kramer (known in Rome as sac. Don Paolo Kramer)
Your admission that you are Fr. Kramer is actually very sad. I never heard any priest use so many insults before for (not just Drew) but many others just for disagreeing with you. I've been praying for you, Father, and will continue to do so.
-
Drew: You have not answered the points which it demonstrates, namely, 1) that BOD is explicitly set forth in the Decree on Justification, 2) that BOB has been professed by the Church for 17 1/2 centuries, 3) that BOD has been constantly taught and defined by the post-Tridentine universal and ordinary magisterium, 4) that your interpretation of Trent contradicts the explicit teaching of Trent; and opposes the constant understanding of those dogmas as understood by the post-Tridentine magisterium, 5) that your fundamentalistic notions of necessity of means and instrumental causality opposes the unequivocally and explicitly expressed teaching of the canons and decrees of the Council of Trent, 6) that in general you have a total incapacity to properly formulate or understand theological arguments. You have refused to reply directly to these and related points, preferring to distort them and reply to the straw men of your own making; while basing your positions on gratuitous assertions and crudely fallacious arguments (such as your silly syllogism on the necessity of water for salvation!). You are a theological train wreck. I am a Roman educated theologian. I have neither time nor patience for any more of your ignorant insolence or your theological incoherence.
I am now ready to write my next book, which will expose and refute the heresy of Feeneyism. I have absolutely no need and no more use for you or for your silly heresy.
Fr. Paul Kramer (known in Rome as sac. Don Paolo Kramer)
Your admission that you are Fr. Kramer is actually very sad. I never heard any priest use so many insults before for (not just Drew) but many others just for disagreeing with you. I've been praying for you, Father, and will continue to do so.
:facepalm:
Then we wonder why the Church is in modernist crisis and has descended this low.
The level of Her "priesthood" has a lot to do with it.
-
I suspected this from the beginning but found it difficult to swallow that this kind of vitriol could be coming from a priest. I called it a couple days ago though. Don Paolo's lack of theological training also came out during this thread, the product of Novus Ordo seminaries, Novus Ordo spiritual formation, and Novus Ordo "Holy Orders".
Interestingly, several "Don" accounts joined around the same time.
-
Don Paolo = Mr. Kramer = heretic
From yesterday.
Mr. Paolo never answered my straightforward question and seemed at a loss when actually confronted with things like, say, syllogisms. It's well known that Novus Ordo seminaries do not have any training in Logic.
-
Mr. Kramer declared Francis a manifest heretic for some line about the Jews. Of course, he completely failed to distinguish between the Old "Law" and the Old "Covenant". Not to mention that ALL the V2 Popes have held the same position and that this was by no means unique to Francis. Ironically, the only thing that might stick to Francis in terms of heresy is EENS-denial, but Mr. Kramer holds the same position as Francis on that issue.
-
With that said, I must say that I did enjoy his books on the subject of Fatima.
Most of us have at one time or another gotten frustrated on the forum and we've used harsh or vitriolic language, but Mr. Kramer took it to such a new and almost unprecedented level that I had come to the conclusion that he had become mentally unhinged. I'm starting to suspect, from this alone, that he must be lacking the graces of state from Holy Orders and that in fact he's not a validly ordained priest. Now that you're a Traditional Catholic, Mr. Kramer, I would advise you to seek conditional ordination from a valid Traditional Bishop, and it may serve you well to spend a couple of years at a solid Traditional Catholic seminary to get the Catholic formation (both spiritual and theological) of which you were deprived by the Modernist Institution masquerading at the Catholic Church.
-
This thread has become for me a real eye opener. A man who seemed to me was a Catholic priest fighting the good fight is now something very different. Makes me sad.
God bless,
JoeZ
-
I suspected this from the beginning but found it difficult to swallow that this kind of vitriol could be coming from a priest. I called it a couple days ago though. Don Paolo's lack of theological training also came out during this thread, the product of Novus Ordo seminaries, Novus Ordo spiritual formation, and Novus Ordo "Holy Orders".
.
Unbelievable. Hard to believe. Vitriol is a sign of frustration from lack of knowledge. He sounded just like Ambrose and Lover of Truth and the rest of the know nothing repeaters of the same material that's been refuted 1000 times.
Like I said, BODers are insane.
Drew said:
In the end, Baptism of Desire really is not needed at all by anyone to obtain "salvation by implicit desire (in a god that rewards)."
That is the bottom line of this insane obsession of BODers. Nothing else needs be said. They are teaching contradiction. They teach that BOD is defide, infallible, that anyone that denies it is a heretic, then they deny it by teaching that people can be saved without baptism of desire.
See thread: "BODers Obsessed w Teaching No Christ Necessary for Salvation"
-
And I'll be dipped if I'm ever going to read or recommend "his" material again.
-
It has been pointed out on another forum that this is likely not Fr. Kramer's Facebook account, but rather a fake one made by a troll.
-
He sounded just like Ambrose and Lover of Truth and the rest of the know nothing repeaters of the same material that's been refuted 1000 times.
Ambrose and Lover of Truth never came close to what Don Paolo was dishing out.
-
It has been pointed out on another forum that this is likely not Fr. Kramer's Facebook account, but rather a fake one made by a troll.
I'm not sure what this has to do with Facebook.
-
0
-
I am now ready to write my next book, which will expose and refute the heresy of Feeneyism. I have absolutely no need and no more use for you or for your silly heresy.
Fr. Paul Kramer (known in Rome as sac. Don Paolo Kramer)
Another idiotic book? What is this sick obsession with traditionalist priests trying to teach the world that people can be saved even if they not want to be Catholics nor believe in Christ? This is pure insanity.
The whole world already believes that they are saved without belief in Christ nor being a member of the Catholic Church, what is this insane urgency to shove this HERESY down the throats of the few remaining Catholics with common sense?
Drew said:
In the end, Baptism of Desire really is not needed at all by anyone to obtain "salvation by implicit desire (in a god that rewards)."
That is the bottom line of this insane obsession of BODers. Nothing else needs be said. They are teaching contradiction. They teach that BOD is defide, infallible, that anyone that denies it is a heretic, then they deny it by teaching that people can be saved without baptism of desire.
See thread: "BODers Obsessed w Teaching No Christ Necessary for Salvation"
-
It has been pointed out on another forum that this is likely not Fr. Kramer's Facebook account, but rather a fake one made by a troll.
I'm not sure what this has to do with Facebook.
The writings attributed to Fr Kramer that are being posted here are being copied from a Facebook page that supposedly is Fr. Kramer's account, but likely isn't actually him, but a fake account made by a troll. Notice how no links are given in the original post to an article from a legitmate Catholic publication authored by Fr. Kramer. If a traditional priest wanted to write about serious theological subjects he wouldn't choose Facebook as his avenue.
-
It has been pointed out on another forum that this is likely not Fr. Kramer's Facebook account, but rather a fake one made by a troll.
I'm not sure what this has to do with Facebook.
The writings attributed to Fr Kramer that are being posted here are being copied from a Facebook page that supposedly is Fr. Kramer's account, but likely isn't actually him, but a fake account made by a troll. Notice how no links are given in the original post to an article from a legitmate Catholic publication authored by Fr. Kramer. If a traditional priest wanted to write about serious theological subjects he wouldn't choose Facebook as his avenue.
The posts are most likely copied from Cathinfo to Fr. Kramer personal facebook profile and not the other way around. I don't think this is the case of a hacked account since there are some personal posts and pictures in between and it is nothing new that Fr. Kramer is not fond of "feeneyites". This has been going on for days and even some ill informed, vulnerable Catholics continue showing support to the anti-feeneyite Kramer's agenda.
-
The Facebook account has not just been made by a troll since it is not new. It is his actually personal page.
-
It has been pointed out on another forum that this is likely not Fr. Kramer's Facebook account, but rather a fake one made by a troll.
I'm not sure what this has to do with Facebook.
The writings attributed to Fr Kramer that are being posted here are being copied from a Facebook page that supposedly is Fr. Kramer's account, but likely isn't actually him, but a fake account made by a troll. Notice how no links are given in the original post to an article from a legitmate Catholic publication authored by Fr. Kramer. If a traditional priest wanted to write about serious theological subjects he wouldn't choose Facebook as his avenue.
MarylandTrad:
Paolo is Fr. Kramer and Paolo may not be the only name under which Fr. Kramer is posting on CathInfo. I have had Fr. Kramer's personal email address and his phone number for some time through a mutual friend. Just last fall I spoke on the phone with Fr. Kramer when he told me he was unable to afford a pre-1962 Missale Romanum. I arranged to purchase a suitable edition for him and sent it to his address in Ireland at the time. I contacted him again through email when our mutual friend died last January.
When Fr. Kramer's Facebook posting attacking Fr. Feeney were forwarded to me I entered into an exchange of emails with Fr. Kramer. Those emails that I sent to Fr. Kramer's personal email address were posted on CathInfo by Paolo and Ambrose. Several of the same emails replies that Fr. Kramer wrote to me were posted by Paolo but in a manner that made my arguments look unintelligible. Fr. Kramer's last email to me was copied to several prominent Catholics: John Vennari, Fr. Gruner, Brian Kelly, Andy Cesanek, Fr. Francois Chazal, Fr. Pfeiffer. Again, what was copied to others did not accurately present any of my arguments. As I have said in previous posts, I have no problem with publishing the entire email exchange with Fr. Kramer for the record.
I would not call Fr. Kramer a personal friend but I have spoken with him from time to time for well over twenty years. In a couple of his CathInfo postings with the name Paolo he intimated personal information about myself that only Fr. Kramer would know. I do not have any doubt that Paolo is Fr. Kramer as he has admitted, and I am reasonably certain that he is posting under other pseudonyms as well.
Drew
-
It is not that EENSers are more educated and the BODers are ignorant that makes the BODers always come out on the loosing end of debates, it is simply that the EENSers have truth on their side. It's that simple.
If the BODers would stick to defending the innocuous theory of baptism of desire of the catechumen (and those like them, that is non-baptized persons who want to be Catholics and believe in the Incarnation and the Trinity), they would not find many EENSers who would loose time with them discussing the matter. If BODers would also condemn at the same time, the teaching that people can be saved who have no desire to be Catholics nor belief in Christ. However, that is not the case. In fact in my 20 years of debating this subject of salvation without believing in Christ, only one BODer condemned the HERESY of salvation by implicit faith in a god that rewards. One BODer !
No one, no matter how educated can defend such a contradiction:
Drew said:
In the end, Baptism of Desire really is not needed at all by anyone to obtain "salvation by implicit desire (in a god that rewards)."
That is the bottom line of this insane obsession of BODers. Nothing else needs be said. They are teaching contradiction. They teach that BOD is defide, infallible, that anyone that denies it is a heretic, then they deny it by teaching that people can be saved without baptism of desire.
See thread: "BODers Obsessed w Teaching No Christ Necessary for Salvation"
-
What are you Feeneyites smoking? The writings in Fr. Kramer's Facebook account were copied by himself from his email correspondence, and from his email or Facebook account made their way to cathinfo. Conversely, some of his cathinfo posts were then copied by himself to his email and his Facebook account. If the Facebook accounts are the fabrication pf an impostor, then why has Fr. Kramer never declared it to be so? It is only a few oddball malcontents who claim that Fr. Kramer's Facebook account is not his -- but he himself has never stated so. To the contrary, people have contacted him directly and asked him; and he replied that his two Facebook accounts are indeed his own.
Drew lies again when he makes the patently false claim that I have not replied to his arguments: I have demonstrated conclusively by critical exegesis of the Latin text of the canons and decrees of Trent, that, 1) Drew's understanding of the instrumental causality of justification by the sacraments is logically flawed; and is contrary to the plain literal sense of the Latin text of the Trent canons & decrees; 2) his interpretation of Trent's doctrine of the necessity of the sacraments directly contradicts the univocally expressed literal meaning of the Latin text of the canons and decrees on justification and sacraments; 3) his interpretation of the Gospel words, "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost ... etc.", flatly contradicts the interpretation of that verse plainly set forth and defined in Chapter 4 of the Decree on Justification; and 4) that my critical-theological understanding of the doctrines defined by the Council of Trent coincides and is in full conformity and agreement with the constant post-Tridentine magisterium of Rome and the universal Church; whereas Drew's Feeneyite interpretation of Trent & EENS is a patently fundamentalistic deviation from the doctrine of the universal magisterium, the teachings of the popes, and the commonly and constantly held belief of Catholics throughout the world. To my direct point by point refutation of his arguments, Drew resorts to the patent lie that I have not replied to his arguments! His demented attachment to his little world of Feeneyite delusions has resulted in his placing himself into a checkmated position a from which there is no escape. I have replied to his arguments and have demolished them, so he simply denies the patent fact that I have even replied to them at all!
-
What are you Feeneyites smoking? The writings in Fr. Kramer's Facebook account were copied by himself from his email correspondence, and from his email or Facebook account made their way to cathinfo. Conversely, some of his cathinfo posts were then copied by himself to his email and his Facebook account. If the Facebook accounts are the fabrication pf an impostor, then why has Fr. Kramer never declared it to be so? It is only a few oddball malcontents who claim that Fr. Kramer's Facebook account is not his -- but he himself has never stated so. To the contrary, people have contacted him directly and asked him; and he replied that his two Facebook accounts are indeed his own.
Drew lies again when he makes the patently false claim that I have not replied to his arguments: I have demonstrated conclusively by critical exegesis of the Latin text of the canons and decrees of Trent, that, 1) Drew's understanding of the instrumental causality of justification by the sacraments is logically flawed; and is contrary to the plain literal sense of the Latin text of the Trent canons & decrees; 2) his interpretation of Trent's doctrine of the necessity of the sacraments directly contradicts the univocally expressed literal meaning of the Latin text of the canons and decrees on justification and sacraments; 3) his interpretation of the Gospel words, "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost ... etc.", flatly contradicts the interpretation of that verse plainly set forth and defined in Chapter 4 of the Decree on Justification; and 4) that my critical-theological understanding of the doctrines defined by the Council of Trent coincides and is in full conformity and agreement with the constant post-Tridentine magisterium of Rome and the universal Church; whereas Drew's Feeneyite interpretation of Trent & EENS is a patently fundamentalistic deviation from the doctrine of the universal magisterium, the teachings of the popes, and the commonly and constantly held belief of Catholics throughout the world. To my direct point by point refutation of his arguments, Drew resorts to the patent lie that I have not replied to his arguments! His demented attachment to his little world of Feeneyite delusions has resulted in his placing himself into a checkmated position a from which there is no escape. I have replied to his arguments and have demolished them, so he simply denies the patent fact that I have even replied to them at all!
Paolo/Fr. Kramer:
Once again you claim that I have said something without producing a single specific quotation from me. That is your style. I will let others judge the merits of your claim that you have "demonstrated conclusively by critical exegesis" that your belief in "salvation by implicit desire" and its necessary corollary, "salvation by justification alone" are the "universal" teaching of the Church. Any real "conclusive" demonstration will always speak for itself.
You have proclaimed the orthodoxy of the 1949 Holy Office Letter without defending what it teaches. In the end, like Archbishop Lefebvre, you place Jews as Jews, Muslims as Muslims, Hindus as Hindus, Buddhists as Buddhists, etc., etc., in the state of grace, temples of the Holy Ghost, members of the Church and heirs to heaven because they have an 'explicit desire to do the will of a god who rewards and punishes.'
Dogmas of the Church that define otherwise are relegated to simple preceptive norms and dismissed. I have your communication in which you arrogantly with the hubris of a Pharisee change the words of a Catholic dogma to conform to your doctrine. And this is what you call "critical exegesis of the Latin texts." That is a grave sin against the faith that you will one day have to answer.
You and other soft-skinned Modernists, more so than radical Modernists like Fr. Rahner, will have to bear the greater responsibility for the current destruction of the Church and loss of Faith. This is because you have accepted the Modernists conception of the nature of Dogma, and disguising yourself in traditional garments, have been more effective then the radical Modernists could have ever been in undermining the faith in those Catholics who believe the revealed truths of God that constitute formal objects of divine and Catholic faith, that is, Dogma.
Your book, The Devil's Final Battle, will be the witness against you.
Drew
-
Drew says: "Once again you claim that I have said something without producing a single specific quotation from me. That is your style . . . You have proclaimed the orthodoxy of the 1949 Holy Office Letter without defending what it teaches."
Drew has not even hinted at what I claimed he said -- that is his style. Drew has mendaciously complained quite openly, alleging that I have not addressed his points. He does not deny it. What need is there for me to docuмent something that has been stated openly in this forum, and in private correspondence; which he has not denied, and which cannot be credibly denied?
My postings have proclaimed the orthodoxy of the doctrine of Baptism of Desire as taught by the Council of Trent, the Roman Catechism, St. Alphonsus Liguori, St. Robert Bellarmine, Bl. Pius IX, St. Pius X, Ven. Pius XII, and the post-Tridentine papal and universal ordinary magisterium. The focus of my writing has not been to "proclaim the orthodoxy of the 1949 Holy Office letter" -- so I see absolutely no need to go about "defending what it teaches".
Bold faced liar Drew gratuitously and falsely asserts, "you place Jews as Jews, Muslims as Muslims, Hindus as Hindus, Buddhists as Buddhists, etc., etc., in the state of grace, temples of the Holy Ghost, members of the Church and heirs to heaven because they have an 'explicit desire to do the will of a god who rewards and punishes.'
Nowhere have I ever stated or implied any such thing: Quod gratuiter asseritur gratuiter negatur. Drew obstinately refuses to reply to my points of rebuttal against his heretical interpretations of dogma; but instead, resorts to this ludicrously absurd and mendacious red herring argument.
Drew asserts gratuitously and maliciously: "Dogmas of the Church that define otherwise are relegated to simple preceptive norms and dismissed. I have your communication in which you arrogantly with the hubris of a Pharisee change the words of a Catholic dogma to conform to your doctrine. And this is what you call "critical exegesis of the Latin texts." That is a grave sin against the faith that you will one day have to answer."
Again, Drew makes no attempt to critically demonstrate that in fact, the "dogmas define otherwise". Drew gratuitously pontificates that the dogmas mean what he says they mean, and the fact that the expressed mind of entire post-Tridentine magisterium contradicts his fundamentalistic and theologically incoherent interpretation of dogma, is of no consequence in his estimation. For megalomaniac Drew, the entire post-Tridentine magisterium is not infallible, and is in error; and only Drew's interpretation of dogma bears the note of infallibility.
-
Highlighting of text not mine, but due to some glitch.
-
Bold faced liar Drew gratuitously and falsely asserts, "you place Jews as Jews, Muslims as Muslims, Hindus as Hindus, Buddhists as Buddhists, etc., etc., in the state of grace, temples of the Holy Ghost, members of the Church and heirs to heaven because they have an 'explicit desire to do the will of a god who rewards and punishes.'
To prove Drew "a liar", all you have to do is condemn the teaching of salvation by implicit faith in a God that rewards (which is what he is describing above). We keep telling you that that is what this debate is about and you keep doing the same thing that all BODers do, you post evidence for baptism of desire of the catechumen (and those like them that have explicit desire to be Catholics and believe in Christ), but yet you deny baptism of desire by teaching that no desire to be a Catholic or belief in Christ is necessary for salvation.
It's that simple.
-
What are you Feeneyites smoking? The writings in Fr. Kramer's Facebook account were copied by himself from his email correspondence, and from his email or Facebook account made their way to cathinfo. Conversely, some of his cathinfo posts were then copied by himself to his email and his Facebook account. If the Facebook accounts are the fabrication pf an impostor, then why has Fr. Kramer never declared it to be so? It is only a few oddball malcontents who claim that Fr. Kramer's Facebook account is not his -- but he himself has never stated so. To the contrary, people have contacted him directly and asked him; and he replied that his two Facebook accounts are indeed his own
Wow! Reserved persons on CI post the excellent advice that we should be cautious in claiming that the unbecoming of a priest, vitriolic, frustrated by not being knowledgeable on the subject, Don Paolo, is Fr. Kramer. And now Fr. Kramer insults them?
If Fr. Kramer does not see that, then he is blind.
-
drew, I very much appreciate your defense of EENS , especially because you point out that ABL himself failed to defend it. From what I've read here (which is by no means extensive), no one else seems to have gone that far. The confusion caused by his failure is staggering. God bless you and yours!
-
Correction God should be god.
Bold faced liar Drew gratuitously and falsely asserts, "you place Jews as Jews, Muslims as Muslims, Hindus as Hindus, Buddhists as Buddhists, etc., etc., in the state of grace, temples of the Holy Ghost, members of the Church and heirs to heaven because they have an 'explicit desire to do the will of a god who rewards and punishes.'
To prove Drew "a liar", all you have to do is condemn the teaching of salvation by implicit faith in a God god that rewards (which is what he is describing above). We keep telling you that that is what this debate is about and you keep doing the same thing that all BODers do, you post evidence for baptism of desire of the catechumen (and those like them that have explicit desire to be Catholics and believe in Christ), but yet you deny baptism of desire by teaching that no desire to be a Catholic or belief in Christ is necessary for salvation.
It's that simple.
-
Bowler says," It's that simple." What's so simple? A. His mind. He has made no attempt to theologically demonstrate his gratuitous assertions that betray his total lack of theological knowledge. Bowler claims to understand the scripture as it is written; but his understanding of, "Unless a man be reborn of water and the Holy Ghost . . .", is contrary to the interpretation of that verse, infallibly set forth in the 4th chapter of the Decree on Justification.The Decree on Justification defines in Ch. 4, that the evangelical requirement to be reborn of water and the Holy Ghost is fulfilled by the water of baptism OR the votum of it: "quae quidem translatio post Evangelium promulgatum sine lavacro regenerationis aut eius voto fieri non potest sicut scriptum est: nisi quis renatus fuerit ex aqua et Spiritu Sancto non potest introire in regnum Dei."
It is thus, patent, that the requirement to be reborn of water and the Holy Ghost is fulfilled by water baptism OR the resolve to receive it. Bowler (like Drew) on this point is in heresy.
-
Stupid Bowler says that I, a Roman educated theologian, am not knowledgeable in the subject!!!! And he is knowledgeable in the subject? Has he ever read even one scholarly article in a theological journal on the topic? What are his credentials in Theology?
-
If I may,
Bowler says," It's that simple." What's so simple? A. His mind. He has made no attempt to theologically demonstrate his gratuitous assertions that betray his total lack of theological knowledge. Bowler claims to understand the scripture as it is written; but his understanding of, "Unless a man be reborn of water and the Holy Ghost . . .", is contrary to the interpretation of that verse, infallibly set forth in the 4th chapter of the Decree on Justification.The Decree on Justification defines in Ch. 4, that the evangelical requirement to be reborn of water and the Holy Ghost is fulfilled by the water of baptism OR the votum of it: "quae quidem translatio post Evangelium promulgatum sine lavacro regenerationis aut eius voto fieri non potest sicut scriptum est: nisi quis renatus fuerit ex aqua et Spiritu Sancto non potest introire in regnum Dei."
It is thus, patent, that the requirement to be reborn of water and the Holy Ghost is fulfilled by water baptism OR the resolve to receive it. Bowler (like Drew) on this point is in heresy.
(My emphasis added.)
If the above is an either/or proposition, that is water or desire fulfill the requirement, then either the laver of regeneration (absent desire) or desire thereof (absent water) fulfill the requirement. Do you hold this to be the meaning of the chapter?
God bless,
JoeZ
-
Stupid Bowler says that I, a Roman educated theologian, am not knowledgeable in the subject!!!! And he is knowledgeable in the subject? Has he ever read even one scholarly article in a theological journal on the topic? What are his credentials in Theology?
rogo autem vos fratres ut observetis eos qui dissensiones et offendicula praeter doctrinam quam vos didicistis faciunt et declinate ab illis huiusmodi enim Christo Domino nostro non serviunt sed suo ventri et per dulces sermones et benedictiones seducunt corda innocentium
-
"Roman educated theologian" is precisely the problem. I've known many Roman-educated "theologians".
-
Stupid Bowler says that I, a Roman educated theologian, am not knowledgeable in the subject!!!! And he is knowledgeable in the subject? Has he ever read even one scholarly article in a theological journal on the topic? What are his credentials in Theology?
Stop beating around the bush and answer the simple question.
To prove Drew "a liar", all you have to do is condemn the teaching of salvation by implicit faith in a God that rewards (which is what he is describing above). We keep telling you that that is what this debate is about and you keep doing the same thing that all BODers do, you post evidence for baptism of desire of the catechumen (and those like them that have explicit desire to be Catholics and believe in Christ), but yet you deny baptism of desire by teaching that no desire to be a Catholic or belief in Christ is necessary for salvation.
It's that simple.
-
si linguis hominum loquar et angelorum caritatem autem non habeam factus sum velut aes sonans aut cymbalum tinniens
-
It is thus, patent, that the requirement to be reborn of water and the Holy Ghost is fulfilled by water baptism OR the resolve to receive it.
Isn't it interesting, however, that although the BoDers constantly denounce the Feeneyite heretics, it is WE so-called Feeneyites heretics who evidently know more theology than they do and keep correcting them?
So, for instance, when they speak about being saved "without" Baptism rather than receiving Baptism in voto, they anathematize themselves by denying the necessity of the Sacraments for salvation as taught by Trent. So now DP here finally slightly alters the rhetoric from "by grace alonism" -- of course he never answered the direct question I put to him because DP is incredibly arrogant, and he'd never admit that he was corrected by the ignorant Feeneyites.
LoT, despite blogging on the subject as if he were some kind of expert, kept talking about how Baptism was necessary by precept and finally had to retract that in a recent blog post after being corrected by the ignorant Feeneyites.
Also, they have to pay lip service to the fact that Baptism is necessary by necessity of means but then keep talking about people who are "excused" and for whom there are "exceptions" ... being too dull to know that by positing exceptions they are in fact reducing Baptism to necessary by necessity of precept.
DP, despite his modernist Roman education (I know someone with an MA in theology from Rome who, I kid you not, had never heard of St. Thomas Aquinas). Those degrees aren't worth the toilet paper they're printed on.
-
"Roman educated theologian" is precisely the problem. I've known many Roman-educated "theologians".
All the heresies in the Church were started by theologians.
-
"Roman educated theologian" is precisely the problem. I've known many Roman-educated "theologians".
All the heresies in the Church were started by theologians.
In that sense, then you might consider that they were also ended by them.
-
"Roman educated theologian" is precisely the problem. I've known many Roman-educated "theologians".
All the heresies in the Church were started by theologians.
All the heresies in the Church have started by individuals not submitting to the infallible dogmas of Holy Mother Church by giving them false interpretations to fit their private judgement. In doing so, they invert the Divine authority.
-
"Roman educated theologian" is precisely the problem. I've known many Roman-educated "theologians".
All the heresies in the Church were started by theologians.
In that sense, then you might consider that they were also ended by them.
Correct. But as Fr. Kramer wrote in the DFB:
St. Paul taught: “But though we, or an angel from Heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema.” (Gal. 1:8) The faithful are to regard even an Apostle as anathema—accursed, cut off from the Church, worthy of hellfire—if he contradicts the infallible teaching of the Church. That is why theologians were able to correct Pope John XXII in his erroneous teaching from the pulpit; and it is why Catholics today can tell right from wrong teaching, even if they have a rank lower than the prelate who is committing the error.
-
Drew says: "Once again you claim that I have said something without producing a single specific quotation from me. That is your style . . . You have proclaimed the orthodoxy of the 1949 Holy Office Letter without defending what it teaches."
Drew has not even hinted at what I claimed he said -- that is his style. Drew has mendaciously complained quite openly, alleging that I have not addressed his points. He does not deny it. What need is there for me to docuмent something that has been stated openly in this forum, and in private correspondence; which he has not denied, and which cannot be credibly denied?
My postings have proclaimed the orthodoxy of the doctrine of Baptism of Desire as taught by the Council of Trent, the Roman Catechism, St. Alphonsus Liguori, St. Robert Bellarmine, Bl. Pius IX, St. Pius X, Ven. Pius XII, and the post-Tridentine papal and universal ordinary magisterium. The focus of my writing has not been to "proclaim the orthodoxy of the 1949 Holy Office letter" -- so I see absolutely no need to go about "defending what it teaches".
Bold faced liar Drew gratuitously and falsely asserts, "you place Jews as Jews, Muslims as Muslims, Hindus as Hindus, Buddhists as Buddhists, etc., etc., in the state of grace, temples of the Holy Ghost, members of the Church and heirs to heaven because they have an 'explicit desire to do the will of a god who rewards and punishes.'
Nowhere have I ever stated or implied any such thing: Quod gratuiter asseritur gratuiter negatur. Drew obstinately refuses to reply to my points of rebuttal against his heretical interpretations of dogma; but instead, resorts to this ludicrously absurd and mendacious red herring argument.
Drew asserts gratuitously and maliciously: "Dogmas of the Church that define otherwise are relegated to simple preceptive norms and dismissed. I have your communication in which you arrogantly with the hubris of a Pharisee change the words of a Catholic dogma to conform to your doctrine. And this is what you call "critical exegesis of the Latin texts." That is a grave sin against the faith that you will one day have to answer."
Again, Drew makes no attempt to critically demonstrate that in fact, the "dogmas define otherwise". Drew gratuitously pontificates that the dogmas mean what he says they mean, and the fact that the expressed mind of entire post-Tridentine magisterium contradicts his fundamentalistic and theologically incoherent interpretation of dogma, is of no consequence in his estimation. For megalomaniac Drew, the entire post-Tridentine magisterium is not infallible, and is in error; and only Drew's interpretation of dogma bears the note of infallibility.
Teachings of the "universal and ordinary magisterium" are infallible. "Baptism of Desire" has never been taught by the "universal" magisterium. You now know that there is not a single father of the Church who taught it except St. Augustine and he retracted this belief in his later writings. It is specifically rejected by several Church fathers, especially the great Eastern fathers. The Council of Braga specifically refused ecclesiastical burial for catechumens and its decrees were approved by Rome. The term "Baptism of Desire" has never been formally defined. The definition of "Baptism of Desire" held by St. Alphonsus is different in important essentials than that held by St. Robert Bellarmine. St. Robert believed that a Jew or Muslim, pretending to be a Catholic, even for the purpose of damaging Catholics and the Catholic faith, if he were accepted by the community as being a Catholic, would thereby become a member of the Church.
Erroneous theological opinions have been permitted by the Church for considerable periods of time in the past and even unto this day. For 800 years the general opinion was that unbaptized children suffered the punishments of hell. Copernican cosmology has been permitted in spite of the universal opinion of the Church fathers and the condemnation of Galileo. Biological evolution has been permitted in spite of the decree of Vatican I and the testimony of Sacred Scripture. The error that the divine liturgy was merely a matter of Church discipline is a modern error of the last 500 years that has had devastating consequences. Fr. Joseph Fenton in his critique of the 1949 Holy Office Letter dates the Church teaching of baptism of explicit desire to the "time of St. Robert Bellarmine" and dates the teaching of salvation by implicit desire to the encyclical Mystici Corporis. It is absurd to affirm that "Baptism of Desire" is a teaching of the "universal" Church. I can only conclude that you have no idea what the word "universal" means.
You have affirmed the 1949 Holy Office Letter is in accord with the doctrine of St. Pius X that you have repeatedly taken as your own.
Drew blindly rants against the doctrine of BOD stated in the 1949 Holy Office letter; as if it were the only pronouncement ever made by Rome on that point. That letter simply repeated the magisterial teaching of Pope St. Pius X. Drew is too much of a hypocrite to accuse St. Pius X of heresy for having taught BOB & BOD in his catechism, and in his Code of Canon Law. Feeney was guilty of the same thing: he said the 1949 letter was heresy; but stopped short of making a fool of himself by accusing St. Pius X of heresy.
Drew: That 1949 letter [......] simply repeats the teaching of St. Pius X.
At least Ambrose, Lover of Truth, and Nishant had the moral courage of rectitude of intellect to plainly state that they believed that the 1949 Holy Office was a magisterial docuмent and orthodox exposition of the Catholic faith. But what you have said is enough to include you along with them. You sent me an email referring me to sites defending your version of "Baptism of Desire" that explicitly defended the orthodoxy of the 1949 Holy Office Letter. When this was brought to your attention you made no further clarification. You have offered no criticism of the quotations from Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop Fellay on salvation of non-Catholics. You have affirmed that the 1949 Holy Office Letter "repeats the teaching of St. Pius X" and that it "simply repeated the magisterial teaching of Pope St. Pius X." You have accused Fr. Feeney of being a "heretic" and it is the 1949 Holy Office Letter that censored his defense of the dogma, EENS. You are like 'Brer Rabbit' and the 1949 Holy Office Letter is your Tar Baby. You have thoughtlessly punched yourself into a mess. You have called Fr. Feeney a "heretic" and now you cowardly pretend that:
The focus of my writing has not been to "proclaim the orthodoxy of the 1949 Holy Office letter" -- so I see absolutely no need to go about "defending what it teaches".
To try to separate yourself from this mess at this time by pretending it has nothing to do with your calumny against Fr. Feeney and your doctrine of "salvation by justification alone" is the act of a shameful coward. You claim that the 1949 Holy Office Letter is "simply repeats the teaching of St. Pius X" and yet, you "see absolutely no need to go about defending what it teaches" while calling anyone who does not accept the catechism of St. Pius X a "heretic."
The 1949 Holy Office Letter affirms your doctrine of "salvation by justification alone" that you ripped from the Decree on Justification by taking a sentence entirely out of context of the very paragraph in which it appears. The 1949 Holy Office Letter says that any Jew as a Jew, Muslim as a Muslim, Hindu as a Hindu, etc., etc., etc., can obtain salvation by an 'explicit desire to do the will of a god who rewards and punishes.' That desire includes, it is presumed, an "implicit desire" to be a member of the Church, which produces in the person justification, a state of grace, temple of the Holy Ghost, and heir to heaven.
The 1949 says nothing about "Baptism of Desire" whether explicit or implicit, either in re or in votum. The argument about "salvation" has nothing to do with "Baptism of Desire." This is where your doctrine disappears and the true purpose of your theology becomes evident.
I offer no interpretation of dogma beyond what the dogma literally says. I do not have to "critically demonstrate" anything about a Catholic dogma beyond the correct use of definition and proper grammar. It is the dogma itself that is "infallible" and that is your problem. You think that the "infallibility" lies in the theological exposition of dogma by a certified 'Roman theologian and Latin expert.' Your idea of a "critically demonstration" requires an inventive and adventurous treatment of the revealed word of God to, as Benedict XVI would say, sift the perennial truths for the contingent elements.
I have your email that has already been posted in which you changed the words of Canon 4 on the sacraments. You added the adjective "moral" to the noun, "necessity" thereby changing the kind of "necessity" to one of precept. You further corrupted the dogma by changing the coordination conjunction, "and," to the subordination conjunction, "because," when you claimed that the second proposition was offering a "reason" for the first. It is you who have a problem with the literal meaning of dogma. You have also falsely claimed that dogma is open to the interpretation of theological experts. You also gave a non-literal metaphorical explanation to our Lord's words, "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost....." which not only corrupts dogma but offends simple grammar.
Thus, the necessity for justification brought about by the sacraments is absolute; while the necessity to receive those sacraments is a necessity of precept (as the Roman Catechism explains); and is conditional, depending on the possibility or impossibility to receive them.
If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not (morally) necessary unto salvation, but superfluous; and (because) 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.
You believe that you can divine your own interpretation of the Decree on Justification and then apply that interpretation to change a dogma to interpret it in a non-literal sense. This is a sin against the faith. For dogma is the divine revelation of God infallibly defined by the Church and proposed to the faithful as a formal object of divine and Catholic faith. It is the dogma that determines the proper understanding of the narrative. You have been told this now many times. You have no excuse. Your own words from The Devil's Final Battle condemn exactly what you are doing.
Drew
-
On Theologians
Pope Benedict XIV, Apostolica (# 6), June 26 1749:
“The Church s judgment is preferable to that of a Doctor renowed for his holiness and teaching.”
Pope Pius XII, Humani generis (#21, Aug. 12. 1950:
“This deposit of faith our Divine Redeemer has given for authentic interpretation not to each of the faithful, not even to theologians, but only to the Teaching Authority of the Church .”
-
If I may,
Bowler says," It's that simple." What's so simple? A. His mind. He has made no attempt to theologically demonstrate his gratuitous assertions that betray his total lack of theological knowledge. Bowler claims to understand the scripture as it is written; but his understanding of, "Unless a man be reborn of water and the Holy Ghost . . .", is contrary to the interpretation of that verse, infallibly set forth in the 4th chapter of the Decree on Justification.The Decree on Justification defines in Ch. 4, that the evangelical requirement to be reborn of water and the Holy Ghost is fulfilled by the water of baptism OR the votum of it: "quae quidem translatio post Evangelium promulgatum sine lavacro regenerationis aut eius voto fieri non potest sicut scriptum est: nisi quis renatus fuerit ex aqua et Spiritu Sancto non potest introire in regnum Dei."
It is thus, patent, that the requirement to be reborn of water and the Holy Ghost is fulfilled by water baptism OR the resolve to receive it. Bowler (like Drew) on this point is in heresy.
(My emphasis added.)
1:If the above is an either/or proposition, that is water or desire fulfill the requirement, then either the laver of regeneration (absent desire) or desire thereof (absent water) fulfill the requirement. Do you hold this to be the meaning of the chapter?
2:Concerning the words I have highlighted in red; why are you changing Trent's phrase "laver of regeneration" into "water baptism"? The meanings are not synonymous.
God bless,
JoeZ
-
On Theologians
Pope Benedict XIV, Apostolica (# 6), June 26 1749:
“The Church s judgment is preferable to that of a Doctor renowed for his holiness and teaching.”
Pope Pius XII, Humani generis (#21, Aug. 12. 1950:
“This deposit of faith our Divine Redeemer has given for authentic interpretation not to each of the faithful, not even to theologians, but only to the Teaching Authority of the Church .”
There could not be any dispute that the teachings of the Church are superior to those of theologians. I am not sure how this applies to the conversation though. Has someone here represented that a theologian is superior to the Church's Teaching Authority? I did not read that, but then again, I have a number of contributor's comments hidden, and they seem to disregard the teaching authority of the Church on a regular basis, so perhaps this does apply here.
-
On Theologians
Pope Benedict XIV, Apostolica (# 6), June 26 1749:
“The Church s judgment is preferable to that of a Doctor renowed for his holiness and teaching.”
Pope Pius XII, Humani generis (#21, Aug. 12. 1950:
“This deposit of faith our Divine Redeemer has given for authentic interpretation not to each of the faithful, not even to theologians, but only to the Teaching Authority of the Church .”
There could not be any dispute that the teachings of the Church are superior to those of theologians. I am not sure how this applies to the conversation though. Has someone here represented that a theologian is superior to the Church's Teaching Authority? I did not read that, but then again, I have a number of contributor's comments hidden, and they seem to disregard the teaching authority of the Church on a regular basis, so perhaps this does apply here.
They do so by trying to redefine the meaning of the "Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus" salutary dogma, which clearly states that everyone with no exception needs to formally enter the Catholic Church for salvation. In 2014, there is only one known way to formally enter into the Church: through water baptism. There are not 3 baptisms but only one. BOD is only the mask the modernists hide behind to justify their belief on salvation of non Catholics via implicit desire (in which they do not even need to explicitly believe in Christ!)
The Church, in its supreme teaching authority, has not changed, indeed cannot change, an ex cathedra doctrine. But the impression is given to the world that it had, as the modernists continue making up fuzzy definitions of the ageless dogmas. They can get away with a great deal as it has been proven. Often times, these modernists also call themselves "traditionalists" but are actually conducting a campaign of practically obliterating Catholic dogma in the exact same manner that the Arians did thousands of years ago.
To deny or change an ex cathedra dogma is grave matter, one of the conditions for mortal sin. When committed in public by a priest it is a manifest public mortal sin. Canon 915 states a priest in persistent mortal sin must not be allowed to offer Mass.
-
On Theologians
Pope Benedict XIV, Apostolica (# 6), June 26 1749:
“The Church s judgment is preferable to that of a Doctor renowed for his holiness and teaching.”
Pope Pius XII, Humani generis (#21, Aug. 12. 1950:
“This deposit of faith our Divine Redeemer has given for authentic interpretation not to each of the faithful, not even to theologians, but only to the Teaching Authority of the Church .”
There could not be any dispute that the teachings of the Church are superior to those of theologians. I am not sure how this applies to the conversation though. Has someone here represented that a theologian is superior to the Church's Teaching Authority? I did not read that, but then again, I have a number of contributor's comments hidden, and they seem to disregard the teaching authority of the Church on a regular basis, so perhaps this does apply here.
This is their game, ignore the Doctors and theologians who accurately explain the Church's teaching, and then twist the teaching of the magisterium to agree with their agenda.
They then say, "we are not bound by the Doctors and theologians," as if the Doctors and theologians have misrepresented Catholic doctrine!
-
All heresies were started by theologians? Such as Pope St. Leo the Great, who taught BOB? Such as St. Charles Borromeo? And, St. Pius V, and St. Robert Bellarmine? They taught BOD. Such as St. Alphonsus, who taught BOD by at least implicit desire? Such as theologians like St. Pius X and Ven. Pius XII, who taught that for the invincibly ignorant, explicit faith in God suffices, along with implicit faith in the revealed mysteries? What are you Feeneyites smoking?
The Feeneyites gratuitously pontificate that the doctrine of implicit faith of the invincibly ignorant would include Jews, Muslims, Hindoos and Buddhists in the Church! The cluless Feeneyites are too obtuse to grasp that Jews & Muslims reject the revealed mysteries, and therefore have NO FAITH -- neither implicit nor explicit. Buddhists and Hindoos do not believe in God -- they have NO FAITH. The Feeneyite assertion is a logical NON SEQUITUR.
-
JoeZ:
It is not an either/or proposition; but it is a conditional "or" proposition: an "either/or" would make Baptism optional. One is justified by "laver of regeneration" -- or -- if Baptism is impossible, then on the condition of impossibility the resolve to receive Baptism suffices.
-
All heresies were started by theologians? Such as Pope St. Leo the Great, who taught BOB? Such as St. Charles Borromeo? And, St. Pius V, and St. Robert Bellarmine? They taught BOD. Such as St. Alphonsus, who taught BOD by at least implicit desire? Such as theologians like St. Pius X and Ven. Pius XII, who taught that for the invincibly ignorant, explicit faith in God suffices, along with implicit faith in the revealed mysteries? What are you Feeneyites smoking?
The Feeneyites gratuitously pontificate that the doctrine of implicit faith of the invincibly ignorant would include Jews, Muslims, Hindoos and Buddhists in the Church! The cluless Feeneyites are too obtuse to grasp that Jews & Muslims reject the revealed mysteries, and therefore have NO FAITH -- neither implicit nor explicit. Buddhists and Hindoos do not believe in God -- they have NO FAITH. The Feeneyite assertion is a logical NON SEQUITUR.
That's very cute!
To begin with:
The Circuмcisers (1st Century)
Montanism (Late 2nd Century)
Sabellianism (Early 3rd Century)
Arianism (4th Century)
Pelagianism (5th Century)
Semi-Pelagianism (5th Century)
Nestorianism (5th Century)
Monophysitism (5th Century)
Iconoclasm (7th and 8th Centuries)
Catharism (11th Century)
Protestantism (16th Century)
Jansenism (17th Century)
Modernism
-
The Feeneyites gratuitously pontificate that the doctrine of implicit faith of the invincibly ignorant would include Jews, Muslims, Hindoos and Buddhists in the Church!
Don't be stupid. Obviously it depends on which flavor of BoDism we're dealing with. 95% of BoDers extend it to Jews, Muslims, Hindus, etc. It depends on the BoDer, obviously, and not the "Feeneyite". You really to struggle with basic logic, don't you? That's another reason BoD is such junk; there's no consistent understanding of what "BoD" actually means, as there seems to be a different definition or understanding for each BoDers you talk to. Yet they all join hands in asserting that BoD (whatever one happens to mean by it) is dogma.
-
The Feeneyites gratuitously pontificate that the doctrine of implicit faith of the invincibly ignorant would include Jews, Muslims, Hindoos and Buddhists in the Church!
Neither does 'Matuto' in the rain forest. Like any other Roman-educated modernist you speak out of both sides of your mouth. You just redefine "Faith".
If you say those without Catholic faith cannot be saved, then you reject Suprema Haec, which says otherwise?
-
THE PATENT HERESY OF FEENEYISM
Drew and the Feeneyite crowd fail to grasp the plain literal sense of Tridentine doctrine on the necessity of Baptism. They claim on the basis that Baptism is the instrumental cause of justification, that there can be no justification without the instrumentality of the actually administered baptismal water -- Non sequitur: The fact that Baptism IS the instrumental cause does not establish that justification intrinsically requires an instrumental cause; which would render the process of justification impossible without the means of an instrumental cause. There is no intrinsic necessity of sacraments for justification, because there is no intrinsic need for an instrumental cause to produce the effect of justification: Abraham was justified by faith. The Decree on Justification (Ch. 4) defines that with the institution of the New Law by Jesus Christ, there can be no justification "without the laver of regeneration or the resolve of it as is written: 'unless a man be reborn of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter the kingdom of God'." Thus, the necessity for baptismal water is a precept of the New Covenant, which is fulfilled by the actual reception of the sacrament, or its reception in voto. One who is thus justified by Baptism in re or in voto, is thereby "reborn by water and the Holy Ghost"; and thus can enter the kingdom of God"; which is "eternal life" , if he appears before the tribunal of Christ in possesion of the garment of justifying grace. (Ch. 7)
The reception of Baptism is not an "either/or" option, which, in fact, would render the sacrament superfluous; but the "votum", i.e., the resolve to receive the sacrament, supplies for Baptism only if the reception of the sacrament is impossible, (as St. Pius V & St. Pius X teach in their catechisms). Thus, Canon 7 of Session 4 defines that the sacraments are necessary for salvation, because without them or the resolve of them; i.e., without the sacraments in re or in voto, there can be no justification.
The Feeneyites object further, claiming that those who would be justified in voto without baptismal water, would not be members of the Church; and therefore would be outside the Church, and therefore, excluded from salvation. This argument can be shown to be totally false and specious: 1) because one cannot be justified without the virtues of faith, hope, and charity, which constitute one as an adoptive son of God and an heir of eternal life -- a status that is exclusively reserved for members of God's household, which is the Church; and thus there can be no justification outside the Church, 2) those justified by "votum" are in actu, in the soul of the Church; and thus, are members of the body of the Church in voto, (as St. Robert Bellarmine explains).
It cannot be otherwise, because if those justified by "votum", and thereby baptized in voto, remain outside the Church; then those who die, or are martyred before Baptism would die outside the Church. However, those who were baptized by blood were, as is the case of those not martyred but baptized in voto by Baptism of desire; were likewise properly justified by the "votum" or resolve to receive baptismal water. This cannot be otherwise, because the Decree on Justification defines that justification can only take place by 1) baptismal water; or, 2) the "votum", i.e. the "resolve" to receive Baptism. Martyrdom does not cause justification, but only Baptism in re or in voto. The shedding of blood only secures salvation for the justified soul who appears before the divine Judge with the crown of martyrdom.
If the martyrs baptized only by blood but not by water, were to have died outside the Church; then the whole Church would have defected into heresy 17 1/2 centuries ago. Since the Third Century, the Church has professed such martyrs to number among the baptized and venerates them as saints with the cult of dulia.
Since the Church infallibly professes and teaches that those justified by "votum" and baptized by blood, but not by water are truly in heaven, and members of the Church Triumphant; then likewise, those justified by "votum", who die, but not by martyrdom, before they can be cleansed by baptismal water, must be counted as members of the Church Suffering or Triumphant; because the same "votum" which brought the martyrs into the Church must necessrily produce the same effect in those who die of some other cause than martyrdom, because the proper effect of the "votum" is to justify, and thereby make one a member of the Church in voto.
-
Your objections, Ladislaus, are patently irrational to the point of being comical. I don't have time to waste with comedians.
-
THE PATENT HERESY OF FEENEYISM
Drew and the Feeneyite crowd fail to grasp the plain literal sense of Tridentine doctrine on the necessity of Baptism. They claim on the basis that Baptism is the instrumental cause of justification, that there can be no justification without the instrumentality of the actually administered baptismal water -- Non sequitur: The fact that Baptism IS the instrumental cause does not establish that justification intrinsically requires an instrumental cause; which would render the process of justification impossible without the means of an instrumental cause. There is no intrinsic necessity of sacraments for justification, because there is no intrinsic need for an instrumental cause to produce the effect of justification: Abraham was justified by faith. The Decree on Justification (Ch. 4) defines that with the institution of the New Law by Jesus Christ, there can be no justification "without the laver of regeneration or the resolve of it as is written: 'unless a man be reborn of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter the kingdom of God'." Thus, the necessity for baptismal water is a precept of the New Covenant, which is fulfilled by the actual reception of the sacrament, or its reception in voto. One who is thus justified by Baptism in re or in voto, is thereby "reborn by water and the Holy Ghost"; and thus can enter the kingdom of God"; which is "eternal life" , if he appears before the tribunal of Christ in possesion of the garment of justifying grace. (Ch. 7)
The reception of Baptism is not an "either/or" option, which, in fact, would render the sacrament superfluous; but the "votum", i.e., the resolve to receive the sacrament, supplies for Baptism only if the reception of the sacrament is impossible, (as St. Pius V & St. Pius X teach in their catechisms). Thus, Canon 7 of Session 4 defines that the sacraments are necessary for salvation, because without them or the resolve of them; i.e., without the sacraments in re or in voto, there can be no justification.
The Feeneyites object further, claiming that those who would be justified in voto without baptismal water, would not be members of the Church; and therefore would be outside the Church, and therefore, excluded from salvation. This argument can be shown to be totally false and specious: 1) because one cannot be justified without the virtues of faith, hope, and charity, which constitute one as an adoptive son of God and an heir of eternal life -- a status that is exclusively reserved for members of God's household, which is the Church; and thus there can be no justification outside the Church, 2) those justified by "votum" are in actu, in the soul of the Church; and thus, are members of the body of the Church in voto, (as St. Robert Bellarmine explains).
It cannot be otherwise, because if those justified by "votum", and thereby baptized in voto, remain outside the Church; then those who die, or are martyred before Baptism would die outside the Church. However, those who were baptized by blood were, as is the case of those not martyred but baptized in voto by Baptism of desire; were likewise properly justified by the "votum" or resolve to receive baptismal water. This cannot be otherwise, because the Decree on Justification defines that justification can only take place by 1) baptismal water; or, 2) the "votum", i.e. the "resolve" to receive Baptism. Martyrdom does not cause justification, but only Baptism in re or in voto. The shedding of blood only secures salvation for the justified soul who appears before the divine Judge with the crown of martyrdom.
If the martyrs baptized only by blood but not by water, were to have died outside the Church; then the whole Church would have defected into heresy 17 1/2 centuries ago. Since the Third Century, the Church has professed such martyrs to number among the baptized and venerates them as saints with the cult of dulia.
Since the Church infallibly professes and teaches that those justified by "votum" and baptized by blood, but not by water are truly in heaven, and members of the Church Triumphant; then likewise, those justified by "votum", who die, but not by martyrdom, before they can be cleansed by baptismal water, must be counted as members of the Church Suffering or Triumphant; because the same "votum" which brought the martyrs into the Church must necessrily produce the same effect in those who die of some other cause than martyrdom, because the proper effect of the "votum" is to justify, and thereby make one a member of the Church in voto.
I like the way you explained that because you are not saying someone can be ignorant of faith like people are saying you are saying, but are cleaned of sins because of their faith and resolve.
I have been trying to learn more reading the threads and it seems like Feeny's followers are confused. They are kind of like protestants who say they dont believe in the Catholic Church because it does not say it in the bible, or like scribes that live by the letter of the law.
-
Drew and the Feeneyite crowd fail to grasp the plain literal sense of Tridentine doctrine on the necessity of Baptism. They claim on the basis that Baptism is the instrumental cause of justification, that there can be no justification without the instrumentality of the actually administered baptismal water
:roll-laugh1:
I basically FORCED you to have to change your language so as not to deny the necessity of Baptism for salvation. Before that you were openly denying the necessity of Baptism for salvation. And yet you talk about us being unable "to grasp the plain literal sense of Tridentine doctrine on the necessity of Baptism". Give us a break.
How many times have the "ignorant Feeneyites" corrected your blunders and shoddy theology?
You're not fooling anyone ... except for yourself.
-
Your objections, Ladislaus, are patently irrational to the point of being comical. I don't have time to waste with comedians.
No, the truth is that you can't refute any of my objections but then resort to insults and ridicule.
You are a joke, plain and simple. You couldn't argue your way out of a wet paper bag.
-
:popcorn: ......this is going to be a perennial thread...........
-
Your objections, Ladislaus, are patently irrational to the point of being comical. I don't have time to waste with comedians.
Then why do you persevere in presenting your endless themes on Extra Ecclesiam?
You might have a more receptive audience on Catholic answers where everyone is saved and Vatican II is king.
-
BoDers continue to misapply the distinction between extrinsic and intrinsic necessity; they define extrinsic necessity as being the equivalent of necessity of precept. Again, because they have no earthly idea of what they're talking about and because they don't have Traditional theological training.
EVERY Sacrament is necessary by extrinsic necessity, i.e. not because God so WILLED it and not because the matter and form of the Sacrament are intrinsically necessary to confer grace. Nevertheless, even though, say, Holy Orders is also only extrinsically necessary, no man has ever received Holy Orders apart from the Sacrament of Holy Orders because God willed it to be a necessity of MEANS. So this misapplied distinction doesn't wash.
While extrinsic, many of the Sacraments are necessary by necessity of MEANS.
-
the resolve to receive the sacrament, supplies for Baptism only if the reception of the sacrament is impossible
By speaking of impossibility you immediately reduce the necessity of Baptism to a necessity of precept, as you do when you use language about how people can be "excused" or there can be "exceptions".
-
The Feeneyites object further, claiming that those who would be justified in voto without baptismal water, would not be members of the Church; and therefore would be outside the Church, and therefore, excluded from salvation. This argument can be shown to be totally false and specious: 1) because one cannot be justified without the virtues of faith, hope, and charity, which constitute one as an adoptive son of God and an heir of eternal life -- a status that is exclusively reserved for members of God's household, which is the Church; and thus there can be no justification outside the Church,
What an incredible display of ignorance. You deny the teaching of Mystici Corporis about the requirements for membership in the Church. Most of the BoDers on this board acknowledge that those whom they believe are saved by BoD are NOT members of the Church.
-
If the martyrs baptized only by blood but not by water, were to have died outside the Church; then the whole Church would have defected into heresy 17 1/2 centuries ago. Since the Third Century, the Church has professed such martyrs to number among the baptized and venerates them as saints with the cult of dulia.
We have absolutely nothing to back up the allegation that such saints died without the Sacrament of Baptism. All we have is references to martyrs who were "still catechumens". But you know nothing of Church history, and this designation does not preclude water Baptism. In times of persecution, catechumens were routinely baptized early but still carried on as catechumens and were treated as such in terms of lack of access to the Mass of the Faithful and the other Sacraments. They continued in their training, albeit baptized, and continued to be called "catechumens". In addition, there's nothing to preclude that fellow Christians would baptize one another before they were actually martyred. In other words, there's ZERO proof that anyone who has not received water baptism is a saint or is in heaven.
And then you try to extrapolate BoB to BoD, and that doesn't follow. 7 or 8 Church Fathers believed in BoB while at the same time rejecting BoD. If you read Trent the way you claim, however, there is no such thing as BoB on its own, but it just reduces to BoD. Consequently, you claim that these Church Fathers, whom you cite as authorities, had it completely backwards.
As I said, EVERYWHERE you look with BoD it's shoddy pseudo-theology, blatant contradictions, and even heresies.
-
Ladislaus must be smoking some strong stuff -- in his state of reduced mental capacity he is unable to distinguish between the Catholic doctrine of BOD, and its heretical distortion by the Modernists; so he just dumps them all together into one broad and motley category of "BODers".
-
Ladislaus says, "What an incredible display of ignorance. . ."
He most stupidly asserts that I deny the teaching of Mystici Corporis!!! -- as if the doctrine of St. Robert Bellarmine is opposed to Mystici Corporis! Dull witted Ladislaus has simply failed to take into account the distinction between membership in the Church in actu, and membership in voto; distorting my words in order to make my use of the term "member" to appear to be without any distinguishing nuance of qualification. On making the distinction I simply follow the doctrine of St. Robert Bellarmine -- Doctor of the Church (something that Ladislaus will never be!). What an incredible display of ignorance!
-
LADISLAUS SAYS:
"We have absolutely nothing to back up the allegation that such saints died without the Sacrament of Baptism. All we have is references to martyrs who were "still catechumens". But you know nothing of Church history, and this designation does not preclude water Baptism. In times of persecution, catechumens were routinely baptized early but still carried on as catechumens and were treated as such in terms of lack of access to the Mass of the Faithful and the other Sacraments. They continued in their training, albeit baptized, and continued to be called "catechumens". In addition, there's nothing to preclude that fellow Christians would baptize one another before they were actually martyred. In other words, there's ZERO proof that anyone who has not received water baptism is a saint or is in heaven.
And then you try to extrapolate BoB to BoD, and that doesn't follow. 7 or 8 Church Fathers believed in BoB while at the same time rejecting BoD. If you read Trent the way you claim, however, there is no such thing as BoB on its own, but it just reduces to BoD. Consequently, you claim that these Church Fathers, whom you cite as authorities, had it completely backwards."
Ladislaus heaps error upon error: "We have absolutely nothing to back up the allegation that such saints died without the Sacrament of Baptism. All we have is references to martyrs who were 'still catechumens'. "
FALSE. 1. We have the many docuмented cases recorded in the Roman Martyrology which specifically detail how some of those martyrs died without Baptism -- some of them were not even catechumens, but were instantly converted and executed straightaway. What id most important, however, is not whether or not someone had historically been martyred without Baptism, but that the whole Church, already in the Third Century professed the Doctrine of the Baptism of Blood for those martyred without the water of Baptism.
2. "this designation does not preclude water Baptism." FALSE. I have already produced the verbatim quotations of Chrysostom and Tertulian which explicitly bear witness to the fact that in the early Church, Baptism of Blood was applied to both the baptized and unbaptized martyrs. It was most certainly used in reference to unbaptized martyrs. I already produced the evidence on a previous page in reply to Ladislaus; so now it is patent that he is deliberately lying.
3. "And then you try to extrapolate BoB to BoD, and that doesn't follow." Here Ladislaus merely produces some more of his gratuitous verbal flatulence (his trademark) -- he simply asserts; making no attempt whatever to prove his vacuous claim. I did not "try to extrapolate BOB to BOB" -- they are not identical in every respect, but both achieve justification by Baptism in voto: because the Decree on Justification, and Sess. 7 Can. 4 define explicitly that there is no justification without the sacrament(s) or the votum of them. Heretic Ladislaus says he doesn't "read" Trent that way -- which is like preferring to "read" white to mean black. And from this last consideration is is patent that neither I nor any of the Fathers have it backwards; but rather, it is Ladidlaus who stands the truth on its head.
-
LADISLAUS SAYS:
"We have absolutely nothing to back up the allegation that such saints died without the Sacrament of Baptism. All we have is references to martyrs who were "still catechumens". But you know nothing of Church history, and this designation does not preclude water Baptism. In times of persecution, catechumens were routinely baptized early but still carried on as catechumens and were treated as such in terms of lack of access to the Mass of the Faithful and the other Sacraments. They continued in their training, albeit baptized, and continued to be called "catechumens". In addition, there's nothing to preclude that fellow Christians would baptize one another before they were actually martyred. In other words, there's ZERO proof that anyone who has not received water baptism is a saint or is in heaven.
And then you try to extrapolate BoB to BoD, and that doesn't follow. 7 or 8 Church Fathers believed in BoB while at the same time rejecting BoD. If you read Trent the way you claim, however, there is no such thing as BoB on its own, but it just reduces to BoD. Consequently, you claim that these Church Fathers, whom you cite as authorities, had it completely backwards."
Ladislaus heaps error upon error: "We have absolutely nothing to back up the allegation that such saints died without the Sacrament of Baptism. All we have is references to martyrs who were 'still catechumens'. "
FALSE. 1. We have the many docuмented cases recorded in the Roman Martyrology which specifically detail how some of those martyrs died without Baptism -- some of them were not even catechumens, but were instantly converted and executed straightaway. What id most important, however, is not whether or not someone had historically been martyred without Baptism, but that the whole Church, already in the Third Century professed the Doctrine of the Baptism of Blood for those martyred without the water of Baptism.
2. "this designation does not preclude water Baptism." FALSE. I have already produced the verbatim quotations of Chrysostom and Tertulian which explicitly bear witness to the fact that in the early Church, Baptism of Blood was applied to both the baptized and unbaptized martyrs. It was most certainly used in reference to unbaptized martyrs. I already produced the evidence on a previous page in reply to Ladislaus; so now it is patent that he is deliberately lying.
3. "And then you try to extrapolate BoB to BoD, and that doesn't follow." Here Ladislaus merely produces some more of his gratuitous verbal flatulence (his trademark) -- he simply asserts; making no attempt whatever to prove his vacuous claim. I did not "try to extrapolate BOB to BOB" -- they are not identical in every respect, but both achieve justification by Baptism in voto: because the Decree on Justification, and Sess. 7 Can. 4 define explicitly that there is no justification without the sacrament(s) or the votum of them. Heretic Ladislaus says he doesn't "read" Trent that way -- which is like preferring to "read" white to mean black. And from this last consideration is is patent that neither I nor any of the Fathers have it backwards; but rather, it is Ladidlaus who stands the truth on its head.
-
LADISLAUS SAYS:
"I basically FORCED you to have to change your language so as not to deny the necessity of Baptism for salvation. Before that you were openly denying the necessity of Baptism for salvation."
Ha Ha Ha! DREAM ON YOU DELUSIONAL LIAR!
-
This is like trying to argue with a 5-year-old.
-
LADISLAUS SAYS:
"I basically FORCED you to have to change your language so as not to deny the necessity of Baptism for salvation. Before that you were openly denying the necessity of Baptism for salvation."
Ha Ha Ha! DREAM ON YOU DELUSIONAL LIAR!
You are absolutely pathetic. Not only that but abhorrent ... if indeed you are "Father" Paul Kramer. You cause scandal against the dignity of the priesthood. You need to be defrocked at once (if indeed you are a valid priest).
-
Ladidlaus says 'BODers', "don't have Traditional theological training."
Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha! St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Bonaventure, St. Bernard, St. Charles Borromeo, St. Pius V, St. Robert Bellarmine, St. Alphonsus, Bl. Pius IX, St. Pius X, Ven. Pius XII -- did not have traditional theological training???? WHAT A DELUSIONAL IDIOT!
Ladislaus' rant on necessity of means would exclude that the sacraments in voto are able to effect justification -- flatly contradicting Sess. 7 Can 4.
-
JoeZ: "laver of regeneration" and water baptism are patently synonymous. "laver" means "washing", which is accomplished by water. You gratuitously deny it, while making no attempt whatever to prove it means something else. If it means something else, then it is this "something else" and not the sacrament of Baptism or the resolve of it that produces justification -- a patent absurdity.
-
Simple question still avoided by "Fr. Kramer". For the third time:
Bold faced liar Drew gratuitously and falsely asserts, "you place Jews as Jews, Muslims as Muslims, Hindus as Hindus, Buddhists as Buddhists, etc., etc., in the state of grace, temples of the Holy Ghost, members of the Church and heirs to heaven because they have an 'explicit desire to do the will of a god who rewards and punishes.'
To prove Drew "a liar", all you have to do is condemn the teaching of salvation by implicit faith in a god that rewards (which is what he is describing above). We keep telling you that that is what this debate is about and you keep doing the same thing that all BODers do, you post evidence for baptism of desire of the catechumen (and those like them that have explicit desire to be Catholics and believe in Christ), but yet you deny baptism of desire by teaching that no desire to be a Catholic or belief in Christ is necessary for salvation.
It's that simple.
-
LADISLAUS SAYS:
"By speaking of impossibility you immediately reduce the necessity of Baptism to a necessity of precept, as you do when you use language about how people can be "excused" or there can be "exceptions". "
What a load of codswsllop! The decrees and canons of Trent define explicitly and precisely the necessity of the sacraments: They are necessary because "without them or the resolve of them" there is no justification.ERGO: The sacraments are necessary in re, and if that is not possible, then in voto. This is plainly stated in the most starkly precise language -- only an obstinate heretic or one of diminished mental capacity could possibly deny it.
-
I see that Drew is still obsessing over the 1949 Holy Office letter! He has a real obsessive fixation on that letter. His proposition that the doctrine of that letter brings Hindoos, Jews, Muslims, etc., is gratuitously asserted, and has already been refuted in one of my earlier posts. He also denies the obvious: That since the time of Bellarmine, BOD has been taught by the universal magisterium. This I have already conclusively demonstrated in earlier posts. Instead of attempting to refute my irrefutable evidence; Drew launches a theologically pointless rant about the ancient Fathers not unanimously agreeing on BOD. What that proves only is that the doctrine of BOD was still an open question in the Patristic period. If there were unanimity for or against BOD, that would have closed the question. By the Middle Ages, there was already unanimity of the Doctors and approved theologians -- thereby settling and closing the question. By the late Sixteenth Century, BOD was already a definition of the universal & ordinary magisterium; and from the reign of Pius X to Pius XII, it was patently so; thus, BOD is an infallible definition of the ordinary magisterium.
-
All heresies were started by theologians? Such as Pope St. Leo the Great, who taught BOB? Such as St. Charles Borromeo? And, St. Pius V, and St. Robert Bellarmine? They taught BOD. Such as St. Alphonsus, who taught BOD by at least implicit desire? Such as theologians like St. Pius X and Ven. Pius XII, who taught that for the invincibly ignorant, explicit faith in God suffices, along with implicit faith in the revealed mysteries? What are you Feeneyites smoking?
The Feeneyites gratuitously pontificate that the doctrine of implicit faith of the invincibly ignorant would include Jews, Muslims, Hindoos and Buddhists in the Church! The cluless Feeneyites are too obtuse to grasp that Jews & Muslims reject the revealed mysteries, and therefore have NO FAITH -- neither implicit nor explicit. Buddhists and Hindoos do not believe in God -- they have NO FAITH. The Feeneyite assertion is a logical NON SEQUITUR.
Fr. Kramer, are you calling Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop Fellay heretics? Are you saying that they are "too obtuse to grasp that Jews & Muslims reject the revealed mysteries, and therefore have NO FAITH -- neither implicit nor explicit. Buddhists and Hindoos do not believe in God -- they have NO FAITH."
The doctrine of the Church also recognizes implicit baptism of desire. This consists in doing the will of God. God knows all men and He knows that amongst Protestants, Muslims, Buddhists and in the whole of humanity there are men of good will. They receive the grace of baptism without knowing it, but in an effective way. In this way they become part of the Church.
The error consists in thinking that they are saved by their religion. They are saved in their religion but not by it. There is no Buddhist church in heaven, no Protestant church. This is perhaps hard to accept, but it is the truth. I did not found the Church, but rather Our Lord the Son of God. As priests we must state the truth.
Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Open Letter to Confused Catholics
And the Church has always taught that you have people who will be in heaven, who are in the state of grace, who have been saved without knowing the Catholic Church. We know this. And yet, how is it possible if you cannot be saved outside the Church? It is absolutely true that they will be saved through the Catholic Church because they will be united to Christ, to the Mystical Body of Christ, which is the Catholic Church. It will, however, remain invisible, because this visible link is impossible for them. Consider a Hindu in Tibet who has no knowledge of the Catholic Church. He lives according to his conscience and to the laws which God has put into his heart. He can be in the state of grace, and if he dies in this state of grace, he will go to heaven.
Bishop Bernard Fellay, The Angelus, A Talk Heard Round the World, April, 2006
-
On Theologians
Pope Benedict XIV, Apostolica (# 6), June 26 1749:
“The Church s judgment is preferable to that of a Doctor renowed for his holiness and teaching.”
Pope Pius XII, Humani generis (#21, Aug. 12. 1950:
“This deposit of faith our Divine Redeemer has given for authentic interpretation not to each of the faithful, not even to theologians, but only to the Teaching Authority of the Church .”
There could not be any dispute that the teachings of the Church are superior to those of theologians. I am not sure how this applies to the conversation though. Has someone here represented that a theologian is superior to the Church's Teaching Authority? I did not read that, but then again, I have a number of contributor's comments hidden, and they seem to disregard the teaching authority of the Church on a regular basis, so perhaps this does apply here.
They do so by trying to redefine the meaning of the "Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus" salutary dogma, which clearly states that everyone with no exception needs to formally enter the Catholic Church for salvation. In 2014, there is only one known way to formally enter into the Church: through water baptism. There are not 3 baptisms but only one. BOD is only the mask the modernists hide behind to justify their belief on salvation of non Catholics via implicit desire (in which they do not even need to explicitly believe in Christ!)
The Church, in its supreme teaching authority, has not changed, indeed cannot change, an ex cathedra doctrine. But the impression is given to the world that it had, as the modernists continue making up fuzzy definitions of the ageless dogmas. They can get away with a great deal as it has been proven. Often times, these modernists also call themselves "traditionalists" but are actually conducting a campaign of practically obliterating Catholic dogma in the exact same manner that the Arians did thousands of years ago.
To deny or change an ex cathedra dogma is grave matter, one of the conditions for mortal sin. When committed in public by a priest it is a manifest public mortal sin. Canon 915 states a priest in persistent mortal sin must not be allowed to offer Mass.
You have made a very good answer Canteralla. I would like to add an additional comment.
"There could not be any dispute that the teachings of the Church are superior to those of theologians. I am not sure how this applies to the conversation though. Has someone here represented that a theologian is superior to the Church's Teaching Authority?"
The "someone" who was questioning this evident fact was Fr. Kramer who said many posts ago that when the Church makes a saint a Doctor of the Church, they are declaring that whatever they teach is free from all moral and doctrinal error.
This was shown to be a false opinion of Fr. Kramer's.
-
LADISLAUS makes the elementary blunder of claiming that by using the expression of justification "without baptism" that those who employ this term in reference to justification by votum effectively anathematize themselves. This is a malicious argument. Ladislaus knows perfectly well that there is no contradiction if a term is used in a proposition according to a nuance that is different from its usage in another proposition that it is only superficially appears to contradict. The context is clearly meaning "justification without water baptism", but not "without baptism either of water or of votum".This rule I just explained is a basic corollary of the principle of contradiction. Ladislaus deliberately disregards this rule of logic in order to engage in sophistry for the purpose to deceive; and to lead souls into his heresy.
-
The Feeneyites gratuitously pontificate that the doctrine of implicit faith of the invincibly ignorant would include Jews, Muslims, Hindoos and Buddhists in the Church!
Don't be stupid. Obviously it depends on which flavor of BoDism we're dealing with. 95% of BoDers extend it to Jews, Muslims, Hindus, etc. It depends on the BoDer, obviously, and not the "Feeneyite". You really to struggle with basic logic, don't you? That's another reason BoD is such junk; there's no consistent understanding of what "BoD" actually means, as there seems to be a different definition or understanding for each BoDers you talk to. Yet they all join hands in asserting that BoD (whatever one happens to mean by it) is dogma.
What an excellent reply Ladislaus!! Fr. Kramer's comment is "stupid." That says it all. It is amazing to see the mind fall apart by those who try to overturn the truths of our faith (dogmas). Fr. Kramer cannot think straight.
-
Marie Auxilliadora joins Drew in the realm of fairyland:
"The "someone" who was questioning this evident fact was Fr. Kramer who said many posts ago that when the Church makes a saint a Doctor of the Church, they are declaring that whatever they teach is free from all moral and doctrinal error."
This was shown to be a false opinion of Fr. Kramer's."
Shown by whom? By what argument? It is not my personal opinion. No one can be made a Doctor who has taught doctrinal error agsinst the magisterium. No one can even be canonized if any of their doctrines opposed the teaching of the magisterium. Don't take my word for it -- go look it up in any reputable dictionary of Theology.
Marie Auxilliadora expresses lunacy to say that the Doctors St. Alphonsus, Bellarmine, etc.) and popes (Pius IX, Pius X, Pius XII) have changed the meaning of EENS. What is she smoking?
-
THE PATENT HERESY OF FEENEYISM
Drew and the Feeneyite crowd fail to grasp the plain literal sense of Tridentine doctrine on the necessity of Baptism. They claim on the basis that Baptism is the instrumental cause of justification, that there can be no justification without the instrumentality of the actually administered baptismal water -- Non sequitur: The fact that Baptism IS the instrumental cause does not establish that justification intrinsically requires an instrumental cause; which would render the process of justification impossible without the means of an instrumental cause. There is no intrinsic necessity of sacraments for justification, because there is no intrinsic need for an instrumental cause to produce the effect of justification: Abraham was justified by faith. The Decree on Justification (Ch. 4) defines that with the institution of the New Law by Jesus Christ, there can be no justification "without the laver of regeneration or the resolve of it as is written: 'unless a man be reborn of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter the kingdom of God'." Thus, the necessity for baptismal water is a precept of the New Covenant, which is fulfilled by the actual reception of the sacrament, or its reception in voto. One who is thus justified by Baptism in re or in voto, is thereby "reborn by water and the Holy Ghost"; and thus can enter the kingdom of God"; which is "eternal life" , if he appears before the tribunal of Christ in possesion of the garment of justifying grace. (Ch. 7)
The reception of Baptism is not an "either/or" option, which, in fact, would render the sacrament superfluous; but the "votum", i.e., the resolve to receive the sacrament, supplies for Baptism only if the reception of the sacrament is impossible, (as St. Pius V & St. Pius X teach in their catechisms). Thus, Canon 7 of Session 4 defines that the sacraments are necessary for salvation, because without them or the resolve of them; i.e., without the sacraments in re or in voto, there can be no justification.
The Feeneyites object further, claiming that those who would be justified in voto without baptismal water, would not be members of the Church; and therefore would be outside the Church, and therefore, excluded from salvation. This argument can be shown to be totally false and specious: 1) because one cannot be justified without the virtues of faith, hope, and charity, which constitute one as an adoptive son of God and an heir of eternal life -- a status that is exclusively reserved for members of God's household, which is the Church; and thus there can be no justification outside the Church, 2) those justified by "votum" are in actu, in the soul of the Church; and thus, are members of the body of the Church in voto, (as St. Robert Bellarmine explains).
It cannot be otherwise, because if those justified by "votum", and thereby baptized in voto, remain outside the Church; then those who die, or are martyred before Baptism would die outside the Church. However, those who were baptized by blood were, as is the case of those not martyred but baptized in voto by Baptism of desire; were likewise properly justified by the "votum" or resolve to receive baptismal water. This cannot be otherwise, because the Decree on Justification defines that justification can only take place by 1) baptismal water; or, 2) the "votum", i.e. the "resolve" to receive Baptism. Martyrdom does not cause justification, but only Baptism in re or in voto. The shedding of blood only secures salvation for the justified soul who appears before the divine Judge with the crown of martyrdom.
If the martyrs baptized only by blood but not by water, were to have died outside the Church; then the whole Church would have defected into heresy 17 1/2 centuries ago. Since the Third Century, the Church has professed such martyrs to number among the baptized and venerates them as saints with the cult of dulia.
Since the Church infallibly professes and teaches that those justified by "votum" and baptized by blood, but not by water are truly in heaven, and members of the Church Triumphant; then likewise, those justified by "votum", who die, but not by martyrdom, before they can be cleansed by baptismal water, must be counted as members of the Church Suffering or Triumphant; because the same "votum" which brought the martyrs into the Church must necessrily produce the same effect in those who die of some other cause than martyrdom, because the proper effect of the "votum" is to justify, and thereby make one a member of the Church in voto.
I like the way you explained that because you are not saying someone can be ignorant of faith like people are saying you are saying, but are cleaned of sins because of their faith and resolve.
I have been trying to learn more reading the threads and it seems like Feeny's followers are confused. They are kind of like protestants who say they dont believe in the Catholic Church because it does not say it in the bible, or like scribes that live by the letter of the law.
Yes, you must be very careful of these deniers of Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood. Their arguments are clever sophistries and are extremely dangerous to your Catholic Faith.
If we lived in normal times under a Pope, Catholics would be forbidden to read such writings, and their leaders would most certainly be excommunicated.
Unfortunately for us, we must face this problem without the voice of authority. When the Church reforms, these people will have to make a choice: remain in the Church and abandon their heresies, or become another formal sect among so many others. The Pope will not tolerate doctrinal criminals in the Church.
-
All heresies were started by theologians? Such as Pope St. Leo the Great, who taught BOB? Such as St. Charles Borromeo? And, St. Pius V, and St. Robert Bellarmine? They taught BOD. Such as St. Alphonsus, who taught BOD by at least implicit desire? Such as theologians like St. Pius X and Ven. Pius XII, who taught that for the invincibly ignorant, explicit faith in God suffices, along with implicit faith in the revealed mysteries? What are you Feeneyites smoking?
The Feeneyites gratuitously pontificate that the doctrine of implicit faith of the invincibly ignorant would include Jews, Muslims, Hindoos and Buddhists in the Church! The cluless Feeneyites are too obtuse to grasp that Jews & Muslims reject the revealed mysteries, and therefore have NO FAITH -- neither implicit nor explicit. Buddhists and Hindoos do not believe in God -- they have NO FAITH. The Feeneyite assertion is a logical NON SEQUITUR.
Fr. Kramer, are you calling Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop Fellay heretics? Are you saying that they are "too obtuse to grasp that Jews & Muslims reject the revealed mysteries, and therefore have NO FAITH -- neither implicit nor explicit. Buddhists and Hindoos do not believe in God -- they have NO FAITH."
The doctrine of the Church also recognizes implicit baptism of desire. This consists in doing the will of God. God knows all men and He knows that amongst Protestants, Muslims, Buddhists and in the whole of humanity there are men of good will. They receive the grace of baptism without knowing it, but in an effective way. In this way they become part of the Church.
The error consists in thinking that they are saved by their religion. They are saved in their religion but not by it. There is no Buddhist church in heaven, no Protestant church. This is perhaps hard to accept, but it is the truth. I did not found the Church, but rather Our Lord the Son of God. As priests we must state the truth.
Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Open Letter to Confused Catholics
And the Church has always taught that you have people who will be in heaven, who are in the state of grace, who have been saved without knowing the Catholic Church. We know this. And yet, how is it possible if you cannot be saved outside the Church? It is absolutely true that they will be saved through the Catholic Church because they will be united to Christ, to the Mystical Body of Christ, which is the Catholic Church. It will, however, remain invisible, because this visible link is impossible for them. Consider a Hindu in Tibet who has no knowledge of the Catholic Church. He lives according to his conscience and to the laws which God has put into his heart. He can be in the state of grace, and if he dies in this state of grace, he will go to heaven.
Bishop Bernard Fellay, The Angelus, A Talk Heard Round the World, April, 2006
Those sayings prove the Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ. Those guys are just a few of the pioneers to bring out the false religion and then if you add in some Sheen who corrupted millions on tv is it a wonder there is no faith in this world.
-
THE PATENT HERESY OF FEENEYISM
Thus, the necessity for baptismal water is a precept of the New Covenant, which is fulfilled by the actual reception of the sacrament, or its reception in voto. One who is thus justified by Baptism in re or in voto, is thereby "reborn by water and the Holy Ghost"; and thus can enter the kingdom of God"; which is "eternal life" , if he appears before the tribunal of Christ in possesion of the garment of justifying grace. (Ch. 7)
The reception of Baptism is not an "either/or" option, which, in fact, would render the sacrament superfluous; but the "votum", i.e., the resolve to receive the sacrament, supplies for Baptism only if the reception of the sacrament is impossible, (as St. Pius V & St. Pius X teach in their catechisms). Thus, Canon 74 of Session 4 defines that the sacraments are necessary for salvation, because without them or the resolve of them; i.e., without the sacraments in re or in voto, there can be no justification.
The ABCs of Kramerism - Modernism 101
This is the doctrine of Kramerism on salvation. It has been repeated repeatedly and repeated again and again by the Kramerite Paolo. It is a "dogma" of his religion that if you repeat a lie often enough, peppered with enough insults, it will someday become true.
From the Decree on Justification Fr. Kramer takes a sentence entirely out of context of the Decree to arrive at his doctrine of "salvation by justification alone." He then applies his doctrine of "salvation by justification alone" to the dogmatic canons and reinterprets the canon 4 from its literal meaning. He claims that Canon 4 says that the sacraments are necessary for salvation also explains why the sacraments are necessary for salvation. He says it is "because without them or the resolve of them..... there can be no justification."
Canon 4 is a dogma with two independent clauses joined by a coordinating conjunction. Both of these independent clauses are formal objects of divine and Catholic faith. Fr. Kramer changes the coordinating conjunction "and" to the subordination conjunction "because." This change makes the second independent clause into a subordinating clause that explains the reason for the first independent clause. The dogma is then tweaked by adding "of precept" to modify the noun "necessity."
If anyone says that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation but are superfluous, and that without them or without the desire of them men obtain from God through faith alone the grace of justification, though all are not necessary for each one, let him be anathema.
If anyone says that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary (of precept) for salvation but are superfluous, and (because) that without them or without the desire of them men obtain from God through faith alone the grace of justification, though all are not necessary for each one, let him be anathema.
This is the shell game of Kramerism. The belief that dogma, the divinely revealed truth of God that is the formal object of divine and Catholic faith, can be changed whenever a 'Roman theologian Latin expert' finds it useful. The faithful taking dogmas literally are thus "fundamental" amateurs lost in a theological jungle without a competent guide.
Kramerism is a grave sin against the faith. The denial of dogma is the definition of heresy. The Modernist Fr. Kramer, like all Modernists, does not like to directly deny dogma. They prefer the more subtle style of corrupting its literal meaning. The result is the same.
The 1949 Holy Office Letter Fr. Kramer believes is an orthodox expression of Catholic doctrine. The Letter presupposes the Kramerite doctrine of "salvation by justification alone" and teaches further that the only necessary and sufficient requirement for justification is an 'explicit desire to do the will of a god who rewards and punishes'. Fr. Kramer says that this is the same doctrine taught by St. Pius X and to reject this doctrine is heresy.
Fr. Kramer has to address the 1949 Holy Office Letter that censored Fr. Feeney for his defense of EENS. It is the reason Fr. Kramer calls Fr. Feeney a "heretic." The 1949 Holy Office Letter says nothing about baptism either in re or in voto.
In the end Kramerism evolves into the Prayer Meeting at Assisi.
Drew
-
There is only one DOCTRINE of BOD: That one which is taught by the popes, Doctors, and universal MAGISTERIUM. All the other versions of BOD are Modernist deviations; but if Marie Auxilliadora & Ladislaus were not so "stupid" (and ignorant as well) they would have understood this simple truth. Ladislaus makes an ass of himself: after all his incoherent arguments; he tells a theologian with three degrees that he does not understand theology! It was I, and not Ladislaus or Drew, who graduated Summa cuм Laude in Theology in Rome; having studied under some of the most renowned preconciliar Dominican scholars in the world. I present systematic arguments -- Ladislaus & Drew pontificate, asserting their propositions as if that were self evident axioms. In fact, both of them suffer from a systemic theological incoherence, due to their lack of complete or comprehensive understanding of theology. I spent nine years in Rome studying Thomist Philosophy & Theology. I earned three degrees, but you buffoons are insane to the degree that you claim to have a better understanding of traditional Theology than I! You Feeneyites have most amply demonstrated that your grasp of Theology and doctrine is no better than the understanding of those of whom the prophet Jonah wrote, saying they didn't know their left hand from their right. Your every post shouts out the messsge, "We are ignorant!" -- but you are so ignorant, that you think your paucity of knowledge makes you learned! Thus, your wisdom is the wisdom of fools.
-
For the fifth time, The simple question still avoided by "Fr. Kramer":
Simple question still avoided by "Fr. Kramer". For the third time:
Bold faced liar Drew gratuitously and falsely asserts, "you place Jews as Jews, Muslims as Muslims, Hindus as Hindus, Buddhists as Buddhists, etc., etc., in the state of grace, temples of the Holy Ghost, members of the Church and heirs to heaven because they have an 'explicit desire to do the will of a god who rewards and punishes.'
To prove Drew "a liar", all you have to do is condemn the teaching of salvation by implicit faith in a god that rewards (which is what he is describing above). We keep telling you that that is what this debate is about and you keep doing the same thing that all BODers do, you post evidence for baptism of desire of the catechumen (and those like them that have explicit desire to be Catholics and believe in Christ), but yet you deny baptism of desire by teaching that no desire to be a Catholic or belief in Christ is necessary for salvation.
It's that simple.
-
THE PATENT HERESY OF FEENEYISM
Drew and the Feeneyite crowd fail to grasp the plain literal sense of Tridentine doctrine on the necessity of Baptism. They claim on the basis that Baptism is the instrumental cause of justification, that there can be no justification without the instrumentality of the actually administered baptismal water -- Non sequitur: The fact that Baptism IS the instrumental cause does not establish that justification intrinsically requires an instrumental cause; which would render the process of justification impossible without the means of an instrumental cause. There is no intrinsic necessity of sacraments for justification, because there is no intrinsic need for an instrumental cause to produce the effect of justification: Abraham was justified by faith. The Decree on Justification (Ch. 4) defines that with the institution of the New Law by Jesus Christ, there can be no justification "without the laver of regeneration or the resolve of it as is written: 'unless a man be reborn of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter the kingdom of God'." Thus, the necessity for baptismal water is a precept of the New Covenant, which is fulfilled by the actual reception of the sacrament, or its reception in voto. One who is thus justified by Baptism in re or in voto, is thereby "reborn by water and the Holy Ghost"; and thus can enter the kingdom of God"; which is "eternal life" , if he appears before the tribunal of Christ in possesion of the garment of justifying grace. (Ch. 7)
The reception of Baptism is not an "either/or" option, which, in fact, would render the sacrament superfluous; but the "votum", i.e., the resolve to receive the sacrament, supplies for Baptism only if the reception of the sacrament is impossible, (as St. Pius V & St. Pius X teach in their catechisms). Thus, Canon 7 of Session 4 defines that the sacraments are necessary for salvation, because without them or the resolve of them; i.e., without the sacraments in re or in voto, there can be no justification.
The Feeneyites object further, claiming that those who would be justified in voto without baptismal water, would not be members of the Church; and therefore would be outside the Church, and therefore, excluded from salvation. This argument can be shown to be totally false and specious: 1) because one cannot be justified without the virtues of faith, hope, and charity, which constitute one as an adoptive son of God and an heir of eternal life -- a status that is exclusively reserved for members of God's household, which is the Church; and thus there can be no justification outside the Church, 2) those justified by "votum" are in actu, in the soul of the Church; and thus, are members of the body of the Church in voto, (as St. Robert Bellarmine explains).
It cannot be otherwise, because if those justified by "votum", and thereby baptized in voto, remain outside the Church; then those who die, or are martyred before Baptism would die outside the Church. However, those who were baptized by blood were, as is the case of those not martyred but baptized in voto by Baptism of desire; were likewise properly justified by the "votum" or resolve to receive baptismal water. This cannot be otherwise, because the Decree on Justification defines that justification can only take place by 1) baptismal water; or, 2) the "votum", i.e. the "resolve" to receive Baptism. Martyrdom does not cause justification, but only Baptism in re or in voto. The shedding of blood only secures salvation for the justified soul who appears before the divine Judge with the crown of martyrdom.
If the martyrs baptized only by blood but not by water, were to have died outside the Church; then the whole Church would have defected into heresy 17 1/2 centuries ago. Since the Third Century, the Church has professed such martyrs to number among the baptized and venerates them as saints with the cult of dulia.
Since the Church infallibly professes and teaches that those justified by "votum" and baptized by blood, but not by water are truly in heaven, and members of the Church Triumphant; then likewise, those justified by "votum", who die, but not by martyrdom, before they can be cleansed by baptismal water, must be counted as members of the Church Suffering or Triumphant; because the same "votum" which brought the martyrs into the Church must necessrily produce the same effect in those who die of some other cause than martyrdom, because the proper effect of the "votum" is to justify, and thereby make one a member of the Church in voto.
I like the way you explained that because you are not saying someone can be ignorant of faith like people are saying you are saying, but are cleaned of sins because of their faith and resolve.
I have been trying to learn more reading the threads and it seems like Feeny's followers are confused. They are kind of like protestants who say they dont believe in the Catholic Church because it does not say it in the bible, or like scribes that live by the letter of the law.
Yes, you must be very careful of these deniers of Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood. Their arguments are clever sophistries and are extremely dangerous to your Catholic Faith.
If we lived in normal times under a Pope, Catholics would be forbidden to read such writings, and their leaders would most certainly be excommunicated.
Unfortunately for us, we must face this problem without the voice of authority. When the Church reforms, these people will have to make a choice: remain in the Church and abandon their heresies, or become another formal sect among so many others. The Pope will not tolerate doctrinal criminals in the Church.
Ambrose:
You have for the record proclaimed the orthodoxy of the 1949 Holy Office Letter. That Letter teaches that the only necessary and sufficient cause for justification is the 'explicit desire to do the will of a god who rewards and punishes' This is the end of your doctrine of "Baptism of Desire." This is the deformed product of your doctrinal conception.
Anything you say without addressing the 1949 Holy Office Letter which censored Fr. Feeney's defense of the Catholic dogma, EENS, is just one great big begging of the question. You have the temerity to call a Catholic priest a "heretic" but lack the courage to defend the "magisterial" docuмent that censored his teaching. The length of this discussion is caused entirely by the "Baptism of Desire" crowd refusing to address this question.
The only "voice of authority" against the abuse of authority is Catholic dogma. The reason that you cannot have any part in helping the "Church reform" is because you have thrown away the only weapon that faithful Catholics possess, and that is the truth of divine revelation, the formal object of divine and Catholic faith, dogma.
You have not a clue why the SSPX failed in their Doctrinal Discussions with Rome and you will by no more successful then they until you figure out why.
Drew
-
he tells a theologian with three degrees that he does not understand theology! It was I, and not Ladislaus or Drew, who graduated Summa cuм Laude in Theology in Rome; having studied under some of the most renowned preconciliar Dominican scholars in the world.
Here is "THE MOST RENOWN pre-conciliar Dominican scholar" of the 20th century teaching salvation by implicit faith in a god that rewards. The teaching that says that people can be saved without baptism of desire, that is, can be saved without explicit desire to be a Catholic or belief in Christ and the Trinity (What Drew referred to as "Jews as Jews, Muslims as Muslims, Hindus as Hindus, Buddhists as Buddhists, etc., etc., in the state of grace, temples of the Holy Ghost, members of the Church and heirs to heaven because they have an 'explicit desire to do the will of a god who rewards and punishes."):
To anyone knowledgeable on the subject, it is well known fact that Garrigou-Lagrange believed in salvation by implicit faith in a god that rewards. This is what the "Dominican scholars" were teaching young men like yourself in Rome.
From LaGrange's book Life Everlasting, under the chapter "The Number of The Elect" is the following:
..."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 for 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. These, as Pius IX says, can arrive at salvation. God never commands the impossible. To him who does what is in his power God does not refuse grace."
So, will you now be so kind as to answer my simple question with a yes or a no, what could be simpler?
-
Obertray imonday:
If you read my posts, I am exposing here the heresy of Leonard Feeney SJ. I am not addressing the topic of Mgr. Lefebvre or Bishop Fellay. I discuss one topic at a time -- I am a Roman university educated theologian: I address one point at a time; without wandering all over the place from topic to topic in one discussion, like people in a conversation at a picnic.
-
Ladidlaus says 'BODers', "don't have Traditional theological training."
I was talking specifically of you; you prove my point with every post.
-
I am a Roman university educated theologian.
:roll-laugh1:
-
I am a Roman university educated theologian.
:roll-laugh1:
LOL!
A Novus Ordo Theologian - and he agrees with Ambrose, LoT and the rest of the sacrament despisers.
That Don P, an "educated NOer", who like Ambrose and the other NSAAers, cannot get himself to defend the necessity of the sacraments, is but another example to all the NSAAers where their perverted thinking comes from - the NO.
-
I've been out of CI for like two months since I have a family to support and I made my point. Besides Ladislaus was doing and continues to do an excellent job. He is young and has not yet concluded as I have that all BODers are in reality insincere, bad willed, deniers of baptism of desire, and teachers of salvation by implicit faith. If anyone has not noticed, I no longer waste my time discussing baptism of desire and go straight to their real belief, their real purpose for their obsession with the subject:
they want to shove down our throats the plague with which they are infested (actually their denial of baptism of desire) their belief in salvation by implicit faith in a god that rewards.
I've been studying this subject of BOD for 20 years and debating on the internet for 12 years, starting at Angelqueen, I've seen every argument. Fr. Kramer may have a degree in theology, however, he likely studied BOD for only a few months in his LIFE. I judge people by what they say and write, not by their titles. Judging as I do, I can say that Fr. Kramer's knowledge of BOD comes from recently reading internet sights operated by BODers. And this is his first attempt at debating. That is obvious from what he writes. He is winging it!
Now, from my experience, in all those years of debating on the internet with "the experts", I only met one BODer who limited his belief to the baptism of desire of St. Thomas Aquinas, simply put: explicit desire to be a Catholic and belief in the Trinity and the Incarnation. It get's tiring to have to keep hearing the same tactic over and over from BODers, their tactic is to discuss the baptism of desire of St. Thomas, an innocuous theory that applies to practically no one (and indeed there may never have been ONE person saved by baptism of desire), and then go on to their real belief, that anyone can be saved in any religion by implicit faith in a god that rewards.
Having only known of one BODer who limited his belief to the innocuous theory of St. Thomas (and who condemned the teaching of implicit faith!!!), I can safely say what I wrote above:
BODers are insincere, bad willed, undercover deniers of baptism of desire, and in reality just overt teachers of salvation by implicit faith.
That is the bottom line of all these BOD threads and subterfuge, the truth behind all the chaff thrown out into the air by BODers.
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_NyXGIFk_jjk/TFEYxWSNFoI/AAAAAAAAAuo/MFldb0_h7_0/s1600/chaff.jpg)
-
There is only one thing simpler: Bowler's simpleton's mind. Bowler presents the quotation, but makes absolutely no attempt to critically explicate its meaning:
"From LaGrange's book Life Everlasting, under the chapter "The Number of The Elect":
..."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 for 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. These, as Pius IX says, can arrive at salvation. God never commands the impossible. To him who does what is in his power God does not refuse grace."
LaGrange is simply explaining that from among the Jews, Infidels & pagans; there are those to whom sufficient grace for salvation is provided, and who will cooperate with that grace; so that they will convert from their errors, and attain to sufficient knowledge of God to make an act of faith and perfect contrition. He is not saying that remaining as Christ denying Jews or Muslims, or idol worshiping heathens, that they can be saved, but only that among them are some who will convert to the true faith and number among the elect, notwithstanding how little they may know about the doctrines of that true faith. Only the crude and undisciplined mind of a rabid fundamentalist Feeneyite could be so obtuse, so as to misinterpret LaGrange in such an ignorant manner.
-
Drew wrote:
You have for the record proclaimed the orthodoxy of the 1949 Holy Office Letter. That Letter teaches that the only necessary and sufficient cause for justification is the 'explicit desire to do the will of a god who rewards and punishes' This is the end of your doctrine of "Baptism of Desire." This is the deformed product of your doctrinal conception.
I know you have asserted that the Holy Office letter "teaches that the only necessary and sufficient cause for justification is the 'explicit desire to do the will of a god who rewards and punishes'"
This is your assertion, and is not found in the Holy Office letter.
The Holy Office taught:
But it must not be thought that any kind of desire of entering the Church suffices that one may be saved. It is necessary that the desire by which one is related to the Church be animated by perfect charity. Nor can an implicit desire produce its effect, unless a person has supernatural faith: "For he who comes to God must believe that God exists and is a rewarder of those who seek Him" (Heb. 11:6). The Council of Trent declares (Session VI, chap. 8): "Faith is the beginning of man's salvation, the foundation and root of all justification, without which it is impossible to please God and attain to the fellowship of His children" (Denzinger, n. 801).
Drew wrote:
Anything you say without addressing the 1949 Holy Office Letter which censored Fr. Feeney's defense of the Catholic dogma, EENS, is just one great big begging of the question. You have the temerity to call a Catholic priest a "heretic" but lack the courage to defend the "magisterial" docuмent that censored his teaching. The length of this discussion is caused entirely by the "Baptism of Desire" crowd refusing to address this question.
The Holy Office Letter corrected Fr. Feeney and his followers on their initial doctrinal error (not heresy) of denying implicit Baptism of Desire.
The SBC position later evolved to a full denial of Baptism of Desire, both explicit and implicit. It was this position that is heretical, not the former.
Drew wrote:
The only "voice of authority" against the abuse of authority is Catholic dogma. The reason that you cannot have any part in helping the "Church reform" is because you have thrown away the only weapon that faithful Catholics possess, and that is the truth of divine revelation, the formal object of divine and Catholic faith, dogma.
We are bound to all Catholic dogma, but not the private inventions of men. When the SBC began their shift from a defense of EENS to a denial of Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood, they lost their way. They began privately interpreting John 3:5, and creating a false interpretation of the canons from the Council of Trent.
Drew wrote:
You have not a clue why the SSPX failed in their Doctrinal Discussions with Rome and you will by no more successful then they until you figure out why.
The SSPX problems in theology have nothing to do with EENS. They have major ecclesiological problems, along with incorrect ideas about the papacy.
-
LaGrange is simply explaining that from among the Jews, Infidels & pagans; there are those to whom sufficient grace for salvation is provided, and who will cooperate with that grace; so that they will convert from their errors, and attain to sufficient knowledge of God to make an act of faith and perfect contrition.
So, "Fr. Kramer" finally admits (in the overt way of all BODers) that he believes as Garrigou-Lagrange that people can be saved without baptism of desire, nor belief in Christ. Case closed, just another insincere BODer without the conviction to teach openly what he believes, that non-Catholics can be saved without baptism of desire, even though they have no explicit desire to be Catholics nor belief in Christ and the Trinity, something taught by no Father, Saint, Doctor, Council, and opposed to the Council of Trent and the Catechism of Trent. And THAT is what all this obsession is with "writing a book"!
For the fifth time, The simple question still avoided by "Fr. Kramer":
Simple question still avoided by "Fr. Kramer". For the third time:
Bold faced liar Drew gratuitously and falsely asserts, "you place Jews as Jews, Muslims as Muslims, Hindus as Hindus, Buddhists as Buddhists, etc., etc., in the state of grace, temples of the Holy Ghost, members of the Church and heirs to heaven because they have an 'explicit desire to do the will of a god who rewards and punishes.'
To prove Drew "a liar", all you have to do is condemn the teaching of salvation by implicit faith in a god that rewards (which is what he is describing above). We keep telling you that that is what this debate is about and you keep doing the same thing that all BODers do, you post evidence for baptism of desire of the catechumen (and those like them that have explicit desire to be Catholics and believe in Christ), but yet you deny baptism of desire by teaching that no desire to be a Catholic or belief in Christ is necessary for salvation.
It's that simple.
-
Ladislaus ... has not yet concluded as I have that all BODers are in reality insincere, bad willed, deniers of baptism of desire, and teachers of salvation by implicit faith.
I'm pretty much there now, my friend. "Father Kramer" has pretty much sealed the deal in that regard.
-
Drew wrote:
You have for the record proclaimed the orthodoxy of the 1949 Holy Office Letter. That Letter teaches that the only necessary and sufficient cause for justification is the 'explicit desire to do the will of a god who rewards and punishes' This is the end of your doctrine of "Baptism of Desire." This is the deformed product of your doctrinal conception.
I know you have asserted that the Holy Office letter "teaches that the only necessary and sufficient cause for justification is the 'explicit desire to do the will of a god who rewards and punishes'"
This is your assertion, and is not found in the Holy Office letter.
The Holy Office taught:
But it must not be thought that any kind of desire of entering the Church suffices that one may be saved. It is necessary that the desire by which one is related to the Church be animated by perfect charity. Nor can an implicit desire produce its effect, unless a person has supernatural faith: "For he who comes to God must believe that God exists and is a rewarder of those who seek Him" (Heb. 11:6). The Council of Trent declares (Session VI, chap. 8): "Faith is the beginning of man's salvation, the foundation and root of all justification, without which it is impossible to please God and attain to the fellowship of His children" (Denzinger, n. 801).
In answer to Drew's questions:
The Holy Office Letter is a docuмent of the magisterium and must be believed under pain of sin. It is an orthodox explanation of doctrine.
There is no contradiction between the Catechism of St. Pius X and the Holy Office Letter. The Holy Office Letter is the most complete explanation, but it follows what was already being taught by the theologians for some time prior to the docuмent. It was not new doctrine.
No one can be saved outside the Church. It seems to me that Archbishop Lefebvre and Bp. Fellay are not denying this, just not being as precise as we would like them to be.
It is impossible for one outside the Church to be in the state of sanctifying grace, so if they are justified, they are already in the Church (though not yet a member) through Baptism of Desire (implicit).
It may be that Archbishop Lefebvre and Bp. Fellay accept the minority opinion among theologians, tolerated by the Holy See, which accepts the minimum acts of supernatural Faith as being a belief in the one true God (1) who is a rewarder of just and a punisher of evil (2).
The minimum amount of Faith necessary is still an unresolved question among the theologians, and not yet settled by the magisterium.
[/color]
Maybe you have not read the 1949 Holy Office Letter? You say a few things that indicate to me that you have not read the Letter but rather have an understanding of the Letter that has been given to you by someone else. Nevertheless, I am glad to have you begin your defense of the 1949 Holy Office Letter which you, like Fr. Kramer, hold, and Archbishop Lefebvre held, as an orthodox exposition on the Catholic doctrine on salvation. The 1949 Holy Office Letter does teach that the only necessary and sufficient cause of salvation is the 'explicit desire to do the will of a god who rewards and punishes.' Nothing beyond this that is affirmed in the Letter has any material significance whatsoever and you, yourself, have already said as much in your previous post quoted above.
You are beginning at the wrong end of the argument. You have overlooked the pertinent citation from the 1949 Holy Office Letter that precedes your quote. When the problem is approached with an agenda, this commonly happens.
That one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member, but it is necessary that at least he be united to her by desire and longing. However, this desire need not always be explicit, as it is in catechumens; but when a person is involved in invincible ignorance, God accepts also an implicit desire, so called because it is included in that good disposition of soul whereby a person wants his will to be conformed to the Will of God. These things are clearly taught in the dogmatic letter which was issued by the Sovereign Pontiff, Pope Pius XII, on June 29, 1943 (Mystici Corporis)... he mentions those who are related to the Mystical Body of the Redeemer "by a certain unconscious yearning and desire," and these he by no means excludes from eternal salvation; but on the other hand, he states that they are in a condition "in which they cannot be sure of their salvation" since "they still remain deprived of those many heavenly gifts and helps which can only be enjoyed in the Catholic Church!" With these wise words he reproves both those who exclude from salvation all united to the Church only by implicit desire, and those who falsely assert that men can be saved equally as well in every religion. (Letter to the Archbishop of Boston, August 8, 1949).
“One may obtain eternal salvation…. it is necessary that at least he be united to (the Church) by desire and longing…. God accepts also an implicit desire, so called because it is included in that good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God.”
The Holy Office Letter 1949 says that the “implicit desire (to be a member of the Church) is included in that good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God.” Desire exists in the subject. The only object of desire, which is explicit, is “to be conformed to the will of God.” Implicit desire to be united to the Church is an assumed attribute of the “good disposition of soul” when the person has the object of his intention to be “conformed to the will of God.” Such an "implicit desire" is unknown both subjectively and objectively. It is the assumption of this “implicit desire” exists and that it leads to salvation that is novel. It has not been revealed by God. The one and only thing that is known in the objective order is a 'desire to do the will of a god who rewards and punishes.' The 1949 Holy Office Letter affirms that this is the only objective necessary and sufficient criteria to obtain salvation. Everything thing else affirmed by the Letter is unknown and unknowable.
I know, and you have said, that that Holy Office Letter 1949 refers to supernatural faith, hope, and charity are necessary for salvation. But what are they in fact saying? Supernatural hope and charity presuppose supernatural faith. Supernatural faith is believing what God has revealed on the authority of God. The Holy Office Letter 1949, and Msgr. Joseph Fenton's defense of that Letter, do not mention a single article of Catholic faith that is necessary for salvation and neither have you. Not one!
What is this “supernatural faith” the you and the Holy Office Letter 1949 require? Msgr. Fenton says, “He must accept explicitly and precisely as revealed truths the existence of God as the Head of the supernatural order and the fact that God rewards good and punishes evil. Our letter (Holy Office Letter 1949) manifestly alludes to this necessity when it quotes, in support of its teaching on the necessity of supernatural faith in all those who are saved, the words of the Epistle to the Hebrews: 'For he who comes to God must believe that God exists and is a rewarder of those who seek Him.'”
The problem here is that the existence of God who punishes evil and rewards good is know by natural philosophy. It is the common belief of Jews, Moslems, Hindus, Buddhists, Aztecs, Satanists, and countless others. Msgr. Fenton says in defense of the Letter that, "this salvific and supernatural faith is an acceptance of these teachings, not as naturally ascertainable doctrines, but precisely as revealed statements, which are to be accepted on the authority of God who has revealed them to man" but that is not in the Holy Office Letter 1949, and it is unknowable on what grounds a person believes in a God who punishes and rewards both objectively and subjectively.
A belief in a 'god who rewards and punishes' is known by natural philosophy. Vatican I defined that the existence of God can be known by natural reason. You will never know if anyone ever believes this truth by "supernatural faith." The only objective criteria is the 'desire to do the will of this god who rewards and punishes.' That can be said of any of those attending the Prayer Meeting at Assisi.
Drew wrote:
Anything you say without addressing the 1949 Holy Office Letter which censored Fr. Feeney's defense of the Catholic dogma, EENS, is just one great big begging of the question. You have the temerity to call a Catholic priest a "heretic" but lack the courage to defend the "magisterial" docuмent that censored his teaching. The length of this discussion is caused entirely by the "Baptism of Desire" crowd refusing to address this question.
The Holy Office Letter corrected Fr. Feeney and his followers on their initial doctrinal error (not heresy) of denying implicit Baptism of Desire.
The SBC position later evolved to a full denial of Baptism of Desire, both explicit and implicit. It was this position that is heretical, not the former.
This is wrong. It is the second time you have repeated this error. The 1949 Holy Office Letter said nothing about "Baptism of Desire," either explicit or implicit, either in re or in voto. It said nothing whatsoever about "denying implicit Baptism of Desire." Msgr. Joseph Fenton in his defense of the Letter said nothing whatsoever about "Baptism of Desire." This is the second time you have made this reply to me. In this you are a clone of Fr. Kramer who repeats the same errors again and again.
It is absurd to say that "full denial of Baptism of Desire, both explicit and implicit.... is heretical" and denial of "implicit Baptism of Desire...(is) not heresy." "Doctrinal error" is at least material heresy.
The 1949 Holy Office Letter specifically said it was censoring Fr. Feeney for his understanding of the dogma EENS. This leads me to believe that you have never read the Letter.
After having examined all the docuмents that are necessary or useful in this matter, among them information from your Chancery, as well as appeals and reports in which the associates of "St. Benedict Center" explain their opinions and complaints, and also many other docuмents pertinent to the controversy, officially collected, the same Sacred Congregation is convinced that the unfortunate controversy arose from the fact that the axiom, "outside the Church there is no salvation," was not correctly understood and weighed....
Drew wrote:
The only "voice of authority" against the abuse of authority is Catholic dogma. The reason that you cannot have any part in helping the "Church reform" is because you have thrown away the only weapon that faithful Catholics possess, and that is the truth of divine revelation, the formal object of divine and Catholic faith, dogma.
We are bound to all Catholic dogma, but not the private inventions of men. When the SBC began their shift from a defense of EENS to a denial of Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood, they lost their way. They began privately interpreting John 3:5, and creating a false interpretation of the canons from the Council of Trent.
But you reject dogma as dogma. You give lip service to it like all Modernists, but in the end you reject dogma as dogma. That is, you reject dogma it in its literal meaning. You defend Fr. Kramer when he changes the actual words of a Catholic dogma to conform to his personal doctrine. You call the literal meaning of the dogmatic text "the private inventions of men." You do the same thing with John 3:5, which every Catholic is dogmatically bound to interpret literally and not metaphorically just as literally as the words, "This is My Body.... This is My Blood." You again defend Fr. Kramer when he corrupts the most basic rules of grammar and syntax in his treatment of our Lord's words. Again, the literal meaning is called "the private inventions of men."
Dogma is divine revelation. It is a special kind of divine revelation that has been infallibly defined by the Church in the form of a universal categorical proposition that admits only of being always and everywhere true or always and everywhere false. These propositions are suitable for all the faithful and constitute the formal object of divine and Catholic faith. The denial of any dogma is the definition of heresy. Fr. Kramer has been caught in the act of mutilating dogma by changing the literal meaning and you have been caught in the act of defending this mutilation.
Drew wrote:
You have not a clue why the SSPX failed in their Doctrinal Discussions with Rome and you will by no more successful then they until you figure out why.
The SSPX problems in theology have nothing to do with EENS. They have major ecclesiological problems, along with incorrect ideas about the papacy.
That is what I have been saying! Of course it had "nothing to do with EENS." The Modernists in Rome and the SSPX are in complete agreement on the New Ecclesiology and the 1949 Holy Office Letter that teaches the Modernist version of EENS. They both believe that the only necessary and sufficient criteria for salvation is the 'explicit desire to do the will of a god who rewards and punishes. Read the quotes again posted below. There is no substantial difference between Archbishop Lefebvre, Bishop Fellay and the great ecuмenist, Pope John Paul II.
The doctrine of the Church also recognizes implicit baptism of desire. This consists in doing the will of God. God knows all men and He knows that amongst Protestants, Muslims, Buddhists and in the whole of humanity there are men of good will. They receive the grace of baptism without knowing it, but in an effective way. In this way they become part of the Church.
The error consists in thinking that they are saved by their religion. They are saved in their religion but not by it. There is no Buddhist church in heaven, no Protestant church. This is perhaps hard to accept, but it is the truth. I did not found the Church, but rather Our Lord the Son of God. As priests we must state the truth.
Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Open Letter to Confused Catholics
Consider a Hindu in Tibet who has no knowledge of the Catholic Church. He lives according to his conscience and to the laws which God has put into his heart. He can be in the state of grace, and if he dies in this state of grace, he will go to heaven.
Bishop Bernard Fellay, The Angelus, A Talk Heard Round the World, April, 2006
For those, however, who have not received the Gospel proclamation, as I wrote in the Encyclical Redemptoris Missio, salvation is accessible… without external membership in the Church…It is mysterious for those who receive the grace (of salvation), because they do not know the Church and sometimes even outwardly reject her. John Paul II, General Audience, May 31, 1995
Normally, it will be in the sincere practice of what is good in their own religious traditions and by following the dictates of their own conscience that the members of other religions respond positively to God’s invitation and receive salvation in Jesus Christ, even while they do not recognize or acknowledge him as their Saviour.
John Paul II, The Seeds of the Word in the Religions of the World, September 9, 1998
The 1949 Holy Office Letter discards the Catholic dogmas that explicit faith, submission to the Roman Pontiff, membership in the Church and the sacraments are necessary, as a necessity of means, for salvation. They are all uniformly treated as preceptive norms that are excused by "invincible ignorance." This is a condemned error of Modernism and is nothing more that the entire repudiation of dogma as dogma. And you are as responsible for this as any of the radical of Modernists.
It is a remarkable level of hypocrisy to suggest that Ss. Thomas, Alphonsus and Bellarmine can be called upon to defend this rubbish. Lastly Fr. Fenton dates the teaching of salvation by an 'explicit desire to do the will of a god who rewards and punishes' to the encyclical Mystici Corporis. But as I have said before, the quotation taken from the encyclical to support this non-sense is a serious mistranslation.
Drew
-
Bowler is still smoking that strong stuff, he claims I believe,
"that people can be saved without baptism of desire, nor belief in Christ. Case closed, just another insincere BODer without the conviction to teach openly what he believes, that non-Catholics can be saved without baptism of desire, even though they have no explicit desire to be Catholics nor belief in Christ and the Trinity, something taught by no Father, Saint, Doctor, Council. . ." -- but Bowler fails to say "no pope" because the doctrine of implicit faith in the divine truths of revelation is taught by popes.
St. Alphonsus, St. Pius X, Ven. Pius XII teach baptism by implicit desire, and so do I. The judgment of the Church has consistently held that this doctrine is not contrary to the Council of Trent or any other dogmatic pronouncement. The error of Bowler's theological quackery is to reduce implicit desire to no desire, and implicit faith in Christ to no faith in Christ. The entire Old Testament required for salvation an implicit faith in Jesus Christ. Like all Feeneyites, Bowler is a theological quack attempting to present himself as a theologian. For Bowler, the popes are fallible but his illustrious self is not. For all Feeneyites, the popes can be noninfallible, but Feeney was infallible and inerrrant: for them, the opinions of Feeney are the word of God.
-
Drew wrote:
Maybe you have not read the 1949 Holy Office Letter? You say a few things that indicate to me that you have not read the Letter but rather have an understanding of the Letter that has been given to you by someone else. Nevertheless, I am glad to have you begin your defense of the 1949 Holy Office Letter which you, like Fr. Kramer, hold, and Archbishop Lefebvre held, as an orthodox exposition on the Catholic doctrine on salvation. The 1949 Holy Office Letter does teach that the only necessary and sufficient cause of salvation is the 'explicit desire to do the will of a god who rewards and punishes.' Nothing beyond this that is affirmed in the Letter has any material significance whatsoever and you, yourself, have already said as much in your previous post quoted above.
I have read the Holy Office letter dozens of times at a minimum, so your ideas about whether I have read it are incorrect.
It is interesting that I have the same thoughts about you that you do of me: I believe that you do not understand the letter, and it appears to me that you have been influenced by others in your views.
The Holy Office letter is an orthodox explanation of Catholic teaching. The false caricature of the Holy Office letter put forth by deniers of the Catholic truth of Baptism of Desire is another matter.
Drew wrote:
The 1949 Holy Office Letter does teach that the only necessary and sufficient cause of salvation is the 'explicit desire to do the will of a god who rewards and punishes.'
False. The Holy Office letter does not say this, and this is part of the false caricature.
Drew wrote:
You are beginning at the wrong end of the argument. You have overlooked the pertinent citation from the 1949 Holy Office Letter that precedes your quote. When the problem is approached with an agenda, this commonly happens.
Drew wrote:
The Holy Office Letter 1949 says that the “implicit desire (to be a member of the Church) is included in that good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God.” Desire exists in the subject. The only object of desire, which is explicit, is “to be conformed to the will of God.” Implicit desire to be united to the Church is an assumed attribute of the “good disposition of soul” when the person has the object of his intention to be “conformed to the will of God.” Such an "implicit desire" is unknown both subjectively and objectively. It is the assumption of this “implicit desire” exists and that it leads to salvation that is novel. It has not been revealed by God. The one and only thing that is known in the objective order is a 'desire to do the will of a god who rewards and punishes.' The 1949 Holy Office Letter affirms that this is the only objective necessary and sufficient criteria to obtain salvation. Everything thing else affirmed by the Letter is unknown and unknowable.
False again. The Holy Office letter states explicitly that one must have:
1. Supernatural Faith.
2. Perfect charity.
3. At least an implicit desire of entering the Church.
You are reading the Holy Office letter with an agenda. Ironically, it is the same thing you are saying that I am doing. Read the words for what they say, not what the Dimonds or the SBC tell you!
Drew wrote:
I know, and you have said, that that Holy Office Letter 1949 refers to supernatural faith, hope, and charity are necessary for salvation. But what are they in fact saying? Supernatural hope and charity presuppose supernatural faith. Supernatural faith is believing what God has revealed on the authority of God. The Holy Office Letter 1949, and Msgr. Joseph Fenton's defense of that Letter, do not mention a single article of Catholic faith that is necessary for salvation and neither have you. Not one!
The magisterium has never settled this point of the exact minimum of Faith to be believed. The majority of theologians hold that four truths must be believed explicitly, the Trinity, the Incarnation, the one true God, and God as a rewarder and punisher. The minority hold that the latter two are sufficient. All hold that one must implicitly hold to the rest of Divine revelation.
The Holy Office left this question unresolved.
Drew wrote:
What is this “supernatural faith” the you and the Holy Office Letter 1949 require? Msgr. Fenton says, “He must accept explicitly and precisely as revealed truths the existence of God as the Head of the supernatural order and the fact that God rewards good and punishes evil. Our letter (Holy Office Letter 1949) manifestly alludes to this necessity when it quotes, in support of its teaching on the necessity of supernatural faith in all those who are saved, the words of the Epistle to the Hebrews: 'For he who comes to God must believe that God exists and is a rewarder of those who seek Him.'”
I require nothing. I only learn from those commissioned and authorized to teach me the Faith.
Drew wrote:
The problem here is that the existence of God who punishes evil and rewards good is know by natural philosophy. It is the common belief of Jews, Moslems, Hindus, Buddhists, Aztecs, Satanists, and countless others. Msgr. Fenton says in defense of the Letter that, "this salvific and supernatural faith is an acceptance of these teachings, not as naturally ascertainable doctrines, but precisely as revealed statements, which are to be accepted on the authority of God who has revealed them to man" but that is not in the Holy Office Letter 1949, and it is unknowable on what grounds a person believes in a God who punishes and rewards both objectively and subjectively.
You are confusing natural truths with supernatural truths. How much have you read about the act of Faith? What sources are you relying on to form your judgments? If you wish to debate this point, I will provide sources, but I am more interested in your supposed sources.
Drew wrote:
A belief in a 'god who rewards and punishes' is known by natural philosophy. Vatican I defined that the existence of God can be known by natural reason. You will never know if anyone ever believes this truth by "supernatural faith." The only objective criteria is the 'desire to do the will of this god who rewards and punishes.' That can be said of any of those attending the Prayer Meeting at Assisi.
You are right, you and I will never know of anyone who believes the truth about the one God who is a rewarder and punisher with supernatural Faith. But God knows this fact. Baptism of Desire along with its conditions, supernatural Faith and charity are not visibly ascertained.
Drew wrote:
This is wrong. It is the second time you have repeated this error. The 1949 Holy Office Letter said nothing about "Baptism of Desire," either explicit or implicit, either in re or in voto. It said nothing whatsoever about "denying implicit Baptism of Desire." Msgr. Joseph Fenton in his defense of the Letter said nothing whatsoever about "Baptism of Desire." This is the second time you have made this reply to me. In this you are a clone of Fr. Kramer who repeats the same errors again and again.
The letter describes over and over again Baptism of Desire. The desire of joining the Church is Baptism of Desire. Did you not understand this?
Drew wrote:
It is absurd to say that "full denial of Baptism of Desire, both explicit and implicit.... is heretical" and denial of "implicit Baptism of Desire...(is) not heresy." "Doctrinal error" is at least material heresy.
No, there is a world of difference between doctrinal error and heresy. Your assertion shows me that you do not understand Catholic teaching on heresy. You really need to stop this and learn your Faith from the ground up, and stop reading junk theology.
Drew wrote:
The 1949 Holy Office Letter specifically said it was censoring Fr. Feeney for his understanding of the dogma EENS. This leads me to believe that you have never read the Letter.
The specific correction given by the Holy Office to the SBC, and by that Fr. Feeney was the denial of implicit desire. Read the Holy Office Letter. The correction was for error, not heresy.
Drew wrote:
But you reject dogma as dogma. You give lip service to it like all Modernists, but in the end you reject dogma as dogma. That is, you reject dogma it in its literal meaning. You defend Fr. Kramer when he changes the actual words of a Catholic dogma to conform to his personal doctrine. You call the literal meaning of the dogmatic text "the private inventions of men." You do the same thing with John 3:5, which every Catholic is dogmatically bound to interpret literally and not metaphorically just as literally as the words, "This is My Body.... This is My Blood." You again defend Fr. Kramer when he corrupts the most basic rules of grammar and syntax in his treatment of our Lord's words. Again, the literal meaning is called "the private inventions of men."
I do not reject dogma, I reject man made perversions of dogma. It is not for you to determine the "literal meaning" of dogma, that is for the Church.
Can you name me a single Catholic prior to the Feeneyite movement, (in the late 1940s,) in the last 1,000 years who ever agreed with your supposedly obvious literal dogmas?
Regarding John 3:5, you are using a Protestant method, called "private interpretation," to form your ideas about this verse. Your duty as a Catholic is to submit to the teaching authority of the Church, and to the approved explanations of this verse, not your own ideas.
Drew wrote:
Dogma is divine revelation. It is a special kind of divine revelation that has been infallibly defined by the Church in the form of a universal categorical proposition that admits only of being always and everywhere true or always and everywhere false. These propositions are suitable for all the faithful and constitute the formal object of divine and Catholic faith. The denial of any dogma is the definition of heresy. Fr. Kramer has been caught in the act of mutilating dogma by changing the literal meaning and you have been caught in the act of defending this mutilation.
Dogma is the divinely revealed truths, but in this case, that is not what you are presenting. You are presenting your ideas about what you privately believe the Church teaches. Do you see the difference?
Drew wrote:
That is what I have been saying! Of course it had "nothing to do with EENS." The Modernists in Rome and the SSPX are in complete agreement on the New Ecclesiology and the 1949 Holy Office Letter that teaches the Modernist version of EENS. They both believe that the only necessary and sufficient criteria for salvation is the 'explicit desire to do the will of a god who rewards and punishes. Read the quotes again posted below. There is no substantial difference between Archbishop Lefebvre, Bishop Fellay and the great ecuмenist, Pope John Paul II.
Wrong. Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop Fellay have nothing in common with John Paul II's theological ideas on the definition of the Church or ecuмenism. This is a typical Feeneyite oversimplification.
Drew wrote:
The 1949 Holy Office Letter discards the Catholic dogmas that explicit faith, submission to the Roman Pontiff, membership in the Church and the sacraments are necessary, as a necessity of means, for salvation. They are all uniformly treated as preceptive norms that are excused by "invincible ignorance." This is a condemned error of Modernism and is nothing more that the entire repudiation of dogma as dogma. And you are as responsible for this as any of the radical of Modernists.
False. The Holy Office did not "discard" Catholic teaching on explicit Faith, but explicitly affirmed it. The Church has never taught that membership in the Church is necessary for salvation. The Church teaches that the sacraments are necessary in re or in voto.
Drew wrote:
It is a remarkable level of hypocrisy to suggest that Ss. Thomas, Alphonsus and Bellarmine can be called upon to defend this rubbish. Lastly Fr. Fenton dates the teaching of salvation by an 'explicit desire to do the will of a god who rewards and punishes' to the encyclical Mystici Corporis. But as I have said before, the quotation taken from the encyclical to support this non-sense is a serious mistranslation.
St. Thomas and St. Alphonsus never taught rubbish. They both witnessed to the truths of the Catholic Faith. Both of these Doctors both affirmed Catholic teaching on Baptism of Desire and including the implicit Baptism of Desire.
-
QUACK THEOLOGIAN DREW MAKES NO REPLY TO THE THEOLOGICAL PROOF DEMONSTRATING THE HERESY OF FEENEY, BUT MERELY RANTS ON ABOUT A 1949 LETTER.
THE PATENT HERESY OF FEENEYISM
Drew and the Feeneyite crowd fail to grasp the plain literal sense of Tridentine doctrine on the necessity of Baptism. They claim on the basis that Baptism is the instrumental cause of justification, that there can be no justification without the instrumentality of the actually administered baptismal water -- Non sequitur: The fact that Baptism IS the instrumental cause does not establish that justification intrinsically requires an instrumental cause; which would render the process of justification impossible without the means of an instrumental cause. There is no intrinsic necessity of sacraments for justification, because there is no intrinsic need for an instrumental cause to produce the effect of justification: Abraham was justified by faith. The Decree on Justification (Ch. 4) defines that with the institution of the New Law by Jesus Christ, there can be no justification "without the laver of regeneration or the resolve of it as is written: 'unless a man be reborn of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter the kingdom of God'." Thus, the necessity for baptismal water is a precept of the New Covenant, which is fulfilled by the actual reception of the sacrament, or its reception in voto. One who is thus justified by Baptism in re or in voto, is thereby "reborn by water and the Holy Ghost"; and thus can enter the kingdom of God"; which is "eternal life" , if he appears before the tribunal of Christ in possesion of the garment of justifying grace. (Ch. 7)
The reception of Baptism is not an "either/or" option, which, in fact, would render the sacrament superfluous; but the "votum", i.e., the resolve to receive the sacrament, supplies for Baptism only if the reception of the sacrament is impossible, (as St. Pius V & St. Pius X teach in their catechisms). Thus, Canon 7 of Session 4 defines that the sacraments are necessary for salvation, because without them or the resolve of them; i.e., without the sacraments in re or in voto, there can be no justification.
The Feeneyites object further, claiming that those who would be justified in voto without baptismal water, would not be members of the Church; and therefore would be outside the Church, and therefore, excluded from salvation. This argument can be shown to be totally false and specious: 1) because one cannot be justified without the virtues of faith, hope, and charity, which constitute one as an adoptive son of God and an heir of eternal life -- a status that is exclusively reserved for members of God's household, which is the Church; and thus there can be no justification outside the Church, 2) those justified by "votum" are in actu, in the soul of the Church; and thus, are members of the body of the Church in voto, (as St. Robert Bellarmine explains).
It cannot be otherwise, because if those justified by "votum", and thereby baptized in voto, remain outside the Church; then those who die, or are martyred before Baptism would die outside the Church. However, those who were baptized by blood were, as is the case of those not martyred but baptized in voto by Baptism of desire; were likewise properly justified by the "votum" or resolve to receive baptismal water. This cannot be otherwise, because the Decree on Justification defines that justification can only take place by 1) baptismal water; or, 2) the "votum", i.e. the "resolve" to receive Baptism. Martyrdom does not cause justification, but only Baptism in re or in voto. The shedding of blood only secures salvation for the justified soul who appears before the divine Judge with the crown of martyrdom.
If the martyrs baptized only by blood but not by water, were to have died outside the Church; then the whole Church would have defected into heresy 17 1/2 centuries ago. Since the Third Century, the Church has professed such martyrs to number among the baptized and venerates them as saints with the cult of dulia.
Since the Church infallibly professes and teaches that those justified by "votum" and baptized by blood, but not by water are truly in heaven, and members of the Church Triumphant; then likewise, those justified by "votum", who die, but not by martyrdom, before they can be cleansed by baptismal water, must be counted as members of the Church Suffering or Triumphant; because the same "votum" which brought the martyrs into the Church must necessrily produce the same effect in those who die of some other cause than martyrdom, because the proper effect of the "votum" is to justify, and thereby make one a member of the Church in voto.
-
Mr. Warren Goddard has falsely stated that my post, The Patent Heresy of Feeneyism, was written in reply to him. The statement is absolutely false. It was posted here first, and directed to all participants on this thread. Mr. Goddard is a liar and a charlatan.
Fr. Paul Kramer
-
The very elementary error of Drew and his Feeneyite gang is a matter of basic theology: I have consistently stated that as a necessity of means for justification and salvation, there must be the sacrament of Baptism OR the votum to receive it. This is plainly defined by the Council of Trent, as I have systematically demonstrated.
According to the sophistry of Drew, et al., this would reduce the necessity of means to a necessity of precept. The proposition is false, and is based on a fallacy which confuses a relative necessity of means with a necessity of precept. The necessity for salvation of the sacraments is a relative necessity of means, because the justification required to be saved can be obtained by the sacraments or the votum of them. (Sess. 7 can. 4) Hence, the necessity of means for Baptism is not an absolute necessity of means, but a relative one. The absolute moral necessity to receive the water of Baptism is a necessity of precept, which may not be transgressed under penalty of damnation. However, one is morally excused if the reception of the sacrament is impossible; and under such circuмstances the votum suffices as a substitute.
See, Catholic Encyclopedia on Necessity:
"In theology the notion of necessity is sometimes applied with special meaning. Theologians divide necessity into absolute and moral. A thing is said to be absolutely necessary when without it a certain end cannot possibly be reached. Thus revelation is absolutely necessary for man to know the mysteries of faith, and grace to perform any supernatural act. Something is said to be morally necessary when a certain end could, absolutely speaking, be reached without it, but cannot actually and properly be reached without it, under existing conditions. Thus, we may say that, absolutely speaking, man as such is able to know all the truths of the natural order or to observe all the precepts of the natural law; but considering the concrete circuмstances of human life in the present order, men as a whole cannot actually do so without revelation or grace. Revelation and grace are morally necessary to man to know sufficiently all the truths of the natural law (cf. Summa Theologica, I:1:1; "Contra Gentil.", I, iv).
Again, in relation to the means necessary to salvation theologians divide necessity into necessity of means and necessity of precept. In the first case the means is so necessary to salvation that without it (absolute necessity) or its substitute (relative necessity), even if the omission is guiltless, the end cannot be reached. Thus faith and baptism of water are necessary by a necessity of means, the former absolutely, the latter relatively, for salvation. In the second case, necessity is based on a positive precept, commanding something the omission of which, unless culpable, does not absolutely prevent the reaching of the end."
-
The very elementary error of Drew and his Feeneyite gang is a matter of basic theology: I have consistently stated that as a necessity of means for justification and salvation, there must be the sacrament of Baptism OR the votum to receive it.
And you would be consistently wrong and heretical. It's the SACRAMENT OF BAPTISM that is necessary by a necessity of means for salvation. It's along the lines of what Father Feeney famously said, that the more you talk about BoD, the less people might be able to avail themselves of it, since they would more and more desire the desire for Baptism than Baptism itself.
DESIRE ITSELF does absolutely nothing. If there were such a thing as BoD, it would derive its efficacy from the OBJECT of that desire, namely Baptism. Recall Trent's language, the desire for IT (meaning Baptism). Because you are too dense to actually understand this simple distinction (with your Roman-educated mind), you continue in your heresy. To give the DESIRE itself on its own any power is nothing other than Pelagianism. If the desire were to have any efficacy, it's due to its object, Baptism. Thus you would be able to avoid heresy and thereby uphold Trent's dogmatic teaching that the Sacraments are necessary for salvation.
But, since you are too obtuse to understand this, you persist in your heresy.
-
QUACK THEOLOGIAN DREW MAKES NO REPLY TO THE THEOLOGICAL PROOF DEMONSTRATING THE HERESY OF FEENEY, BUT MERELY RANTS ON ABOUT A 1949 LETTER.
Perhaps Drew just has more duties of state than you do. Simulating a Mass once a week gives you plenty of free time to post.
-
I have consistently stated that as a necessity of means for justification and salvation, there must be the sacrament of Baptism OR the votum to receive it.
Not to mention that you're a liar. I called you out on this after your first set of screeds talking about how Baptism was not necessary for salvation and one needed only the supernatural virtues (as if those could be had without Baptism). It's only after we shamed you into it that you had to change your rhetoric a little bit.
-
I have consistently stated that as a necessity of means for justification and salvation, there must be the sacrament of Baptism OR the votum to receive it.
Not to mention that you're a liar. I called you out on this after your first set of screeds talking about how Baptism was not necessary for salvation and one needed only the supernatural virtues (as if those could be had without Baptism). It's only after we shamed you into it that you had to change your rhetoric a little bit.
Yes, DP is an blatant liar and a hypocrite. Only concerned about winning an argument even though he is wrong - and even though he knows he is wrong.
Let's give thanks to God Almighty that it was not up to DP, Ambrose, Fr. Kramer, Cardinal Cushing, the modernist clergy and popes or the other NSAAers these posters are in league with to defend the sacraments till the end of time - because if it were up to them, there would be No Sacraments At All today.
-
Bowler is still smoking that strong stuff, he claims I believe,
"that people can be saved without baptism of desire, nor belief in Christ. Case closed, just another insincere BODer without the conviction to teach openly what he believes, that non-Catholics can be saved without baptism of desire, even though they have no explicit desire to be Catholics nor belief in Christ and the Trinity, something taught by no Father, Saint, Doctor, Council. . ." -- but Bowler fails to say "no pope" because the doctrine of implicit faith in the divine truths of revelation is taught by popes.
St. Alphonsus, St. Pius X, Ven. Pius XII teach baptism by implicit desire, and so do I.
You claim to be a "theologian", but your responses are those of a kindergarten BODer. Because you are a theologian, I'm not going to waste my precious time further explaining to you the most basic material. I was talking about salvation by implicit faith in a god that rewards, and you are coming back with the same old childish BODer subterfuge of switching the discussion to implicit desire of St. Alphonsus Ligouri . Two totally different subjects, but you don't know that. There is no point in communicating with you, you are "a genius" in your mind, go ahead and write your book, no one is going to read it anyways.
The clear uncompromising teaching of the doctrine that one must at least believe explicitly in the Incarnation (=Christ) and the Trinity for salvation, is the basis for the labors of all who seek to maintain and restore traditional Catholicity, though most of those who are engaged in this struggle have yet to realize the fact. Without at least this doctrine, assented to absolutely, and the condemnation of the opposing view, Traditionalists have no case nor argument against anything in Vatican II. Anyone who says they "don't condemn" the opposite opinion, by the very act, approve it, and thus become like the salt that looses its flavor, neutralized, precisely where the enemies of the Church want them to be neutralized.
But whoever dares to say: “Outside the Church is no salvation”, ought to be driven from the State
Jean-Jacques Rousseau, The Social Contract, Book IV, Ch. 8
( http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/economics/rousseau/social-contract/ )
The Catholic Church has always held that there is a twofold order of knowledge, and that these two orders are distinguished from one another not only in their principle but in their object; in one we know by natural reason, in the other by Divine faith; the object of the one is truth attainable by natural reason, the object of the other is mysteries hidden in God, but which we have to believe and which can only be known to us by Divine revelation.
This is why I have always held that the opinion that the existence of God as rewarder cannot suffice for supernatural faith. Vatican I here finishes off holding to that opinion once and for all.
It confirms the unanimous opinion of the Fathers (considered infallible) as expounded in the ancient Athanasian Creed, it was the teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas, and it was clearly infallible decreed at the Council of Florence:
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Sess. 8, Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra: “Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic faith; unless each one preserves this whole and inviolate, he will without a doubt perish in eternity.– But the Catholic faith is this, that we worship one God in the Trinity, and the Trinity in unity... Therefore let him who wishes to be saved, think thus concerning the Trinity. “But it is necessary for eternal salvation that he faithfully believe also in the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ...the Son of God is God and man...– This is the Catholic faith; unless each one believes this faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.”
Athanasian Creed
1. Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic faith;
2. Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.
3. And the Catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity;
4. Neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance.
5. For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit.
6. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is all one, the glory equal, the majesty coeternal.
7. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit.
8. The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated.
9. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible.
10. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal.
11. And yet they are not three eternals but one eternal.
12. As also there are not three uncreated nor three incomprehensible, but one uncreated and one incomprehensible.
13. So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Spirit almighty.
14. And yet they are not three almighties, but one almighty.
15. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God;
16. And yet they are not three Gods, but one God.
17. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord;
18. And yet they are not three Lords but one Lord.
19. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord;
20. So are we forbidden by the catholic religion to say; There are three Gods or three Lords.
21. The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten.
22. The Son is of the Father alone; not made nor created, but begotten.
23. The Holy Spirit is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.
24. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Spirit, not three Holy Spirits.
25. And in this Trinity none is afore or after another; none is greater or less than another.
26. But the whole three persons are coeternal, and coequal.
27. So that in all things, as aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped.
28. He therefore that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity.
29. Furthermore it is necessary to everlasting salvation that he also believe rightly the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.
30. For the right faith is that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and man.
31. God of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and man of substance of His mother, born in the world.
32. Perfect God and perfect man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting.
33. Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching His manhood.
34. Who, although He is God and man, yet He is not two, but one Christ.
35. One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking of that manhood into God.
36. One altogether, not by confusion of substance, but by unity of person.
37. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ;
38. Who suffered for our salvation, descended into hell, rose again the third day from the dead;
39. He ascended into heaven, He sits on the right hand of the Father, God, Almighty;
40. From thence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead.
41. At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies;
42. and shall give account of their own works.
43. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting and they that have done evil into everlasting fire.
44. This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully he cannot be saved.
St. Thomas Aquinas:
St. Thomas, Summa Theologica: "After grace had been revealed both the learned and simple folk are bound to explicit faith in the mysteries of Christ chiefly as regards those which are observed throughout the Church, and publicly proclaimed, such as the articles which refer to the Incarnation, of which we have spoken above."(Pt.II-II, Q.2, A.7.)
Saint Thomas, Summa Theologica: "And consequently, when once grace had been revealed, all were bound to explicit faith in the mystery of the Trinity." (Pt.II-II, Q.2, A.8.)
-
Wow. Can we all calm down just a little bit, please? Polemics tend to end up like that, but there's no need really for any of us to take up a bitter and acerbic tone in defending what we believe to be the teaching of the Church.
1. Mr. Drew, you ask me to defend the Holy Office Letter, first of all I ask in turn, what is your opinion on the texts of Innocent II and III that teach salvation by Baptism of Desire, (Dz. 388 and 413)? These texts are well known and cited by the Doctors, but I don't think you've got around to answering it.
As for the Holy Office Letter, I've already told you I agree with it entirely, but since you do not admit its authority, I gave you other Papal sources teaching the same doctrine, that an act of perfect love of God suffices to obtain sanctifying grace. The Saints explain the reason why this is, whoever loves God above all things and for His sake is united to God's will and desires to do everything that God has commanded, thus we read "for an infidel to be justified, it is necessary to love God above all things and have a universal will to obey all the divine precepts ... hence it is necessary to have at least an implicit desire of the sacrament".
You criticize what you call "salvation by justification alone" and "salvation by implicit desire" but I've already shown the Popes, Saints and Doctors teach both. In fact, to St. Alphonsus, one and the same act of perfect love of God or of contrition "contains an implicit desire of baptism, of penance and the Eucharist" because "he who desires the whole desires the every part of that whole and all the means necessary for its attainment."
The issue, then, is evidently not implicit desire but how explicit faith and the knowledge of God must be. What the Saints and Doctors teach in addition is that while in the earlier dispensation it sufficed to love God in a general way, in the New dispensation it is necessary to love God as the Holy Trinity, or in other words to know and love Jesus Christ in particular, in order to be saved. I hold exactly what they hold, and I deny, with Msgr. Fenton, that the Holy Office Letter taught what you believe it did. Msgr. Fenton follows St. Thomas, who had said concerning the two articles of faith mentioned in Heb 11:6 that "belief in those two things was necessary at all times and for all people, but it was not sufficient at all times and for all people" because after the Gospel had been promulgated or "after grace had been revealed, all were bound to explicit faith in the mystery of the Trinity." Such a person is no more a pagan or infidel, he believes in Jesus Christ and so is a Christian or Catholic and has entered the Church, outside of which no one is saved.
2.This is what St. Thomas means when he says God will send them either a Saint or an Angel, or at least by an interior illumination teach them what must be explicitly believed for salvation. And both Pius IX and Pius XII are teaching the same thing.
They explain that EENS means that "Also well known is the Catholic teaching that no one can be saved outside the Catholic Church. Eternal salvation cannot be obtained by those who oppose the authority and statements of the same Church and are stubbornly separated from the unity of the Church and also from the successor of Peter, the Roman Pontiff" (Quanto Conficiamur Moerore) and "Therefore, no one will be saved who, knowing the Church to have been divinely established by Christ, nevertheless refuses to submit to the Church or withholds obedience from the Roman Pontiff, the Vicar of Christ on earth" (Suprema Haec Sacra) and in each case it should be obvious that they are saying that all who are culpably ignorant of the necessity of entering the Church are lost. Anyone who is aware of his obligation to enter the Church, whether he is unbaptized or baptized in a heretical or schismatical sect, but refuses to do so cannot be saved.
(Even Feeneyites who concede that the sacrament of penance can be received in voto would understand the necessity of penance in the same way - no one who has fallen after baptism can be saved without penance in re or in voto, therefore no one who refuses to go for confession, after he is informed of its necessity, can be contrite, or be saved. Trent says something on this subject, but we'll come back to that)
Pius IX does not speak of "justification alone" but says they attain eternal life through an efficacious virtue, and water baptism has never ever been called a virtue and cannot be. Therefore, Pius IX speaks of justification by the faith that works by charity, along with a universal will to obey all the commands of God, when he says the invincibly ignorant in good faith who are "observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace." Since they are enlightened about the Trinity and Incarnation, they are not saved without the Catholic Faith "Now this is the Catholic Faith, that we worship God in Trinity and Trinity in unity ... whoever will be saved, let him think thus on the Trinity ... further it is necessary for eternal salvation that he believe in the Incarnation of Our Lord Jesus Christ." Hence all who are saved are catechumens, or catechumen like persons who are not saved without supernatural faith, which is the Catholic Faith.
3. Since you concede that baptism just like penance can be received in voto, I want you to address the quote I provided earlier. Before that, you did not answer the question I posed to you - is a man who is justified inside or outside the Church? If you answer outside, you deny EENS, because you are teaching that sanctifying grace can be obtained outside the Church which is heretical. But if you say he is inside, then you concede that he has entered the Church, and therefore you are wrong to say there is a conflict with EENS.
And this irresolvable dilemma is the Achilles' heel of Feeneyism.
...it is necessary to believe that the justified have everything necessary for them to be regarded as having completely satisfied the divine law for this life by their works, at least those which they have performed in God. And they may be regarded as having likewise truly merited the eternal life they will certainly attain in due time (if they but die in the state of grace) (see Apoc. 14:13; 606, can. 32), because Christ our Savior says: "He who drinks of the water that I will give him shall never thirst, but it will become in him a fountain of water, springing up into life everlasting" (see Jn. 4:13 ff.)
This is a dogmatic proof, from the plain words of the Savior and the infallible teaching of His Church, that nothing else is necessary for the salvation of the justified other than perseverance in the grace and justice received, thus all those who die justified are saved, and to say that they will not be and that something else besides is necessary is not only wrong but it's very difficult to see how it would not be heresy.
There is another proof I can provide from Trent that baptism, like penance, is necessary in fact or in desire not for justification only but for salvation, but I would like to see you address this first.
-
Bottom Line of Nishant's long journey "explaining" dogma:
nothing else is necessary for the salvation of the justified other than perseverance in the grace and justice received, thus all those who die justified are saved
In other words all who are justified go to heaven, how they are justified is of no consequence.
-
.
There are some good posts in this relentless thread, but none by Ambrosia..
Post (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=32206&min=185#p0)
Even St. Bellarmine himself teaches that no one can be a member of the Church "who is not visibly affiliated with the one visible society founded by Christ, subject to the authority of His vicar, the Roman Pontiff".
The Church is a society, not of Angels, nor of souls, but of men. But it cannot be called a society of men, unless it consist in external and visible signs; for it is not a society unless they who are called members acknowledge themselves to be so, but men cannot acknowledge themselves to be members unless the bonds of the society be external and visible. And this is confirmed by those customs of all human societies; for in an army, in a city, in a kingdom, and other similar societies men would not be enrolled otherwise than by visible signs. Whence Augustine, in Book 19 Against Faustus, Chapter 11, says: “Men cannot assemble in the name of any religion, whether it be true or false, unless they be bound together by some fellowship of visible signs or sacraments.
Thankfully, Ambrosia and those like him, are no longer hiding behind the mask of "Baptism of Desire." The discussion about BoD should really be over as it is pointless. These people happen to think that there is really not even need to have Faith in Our Lord Jesus Christ in order to achieve salvation.
Not even the Protestants have descended this low.
In their minds, tainted by Modernist sentimentality, even atheists, agnostics, or pagans that believe in a God who punishes the bad and rewards the good (basically just about everyone) can go to Heaven and can be incorporated into the Holy Roman Catholic Church.
As the Modernists (Rahner style) they are, there is no longer need to hide.
Their heresies are right in the open after the unfortunate Council. What is comical though, is their alleged opposition to Vatican II that these so called traditionalists imagine to fight against, without realizing (or perhaps on purpose) that they are are undoubtedly adhering to the same heresies, the same unclean spirit of Modernism and Vatican II.
..which goes to show that even out of a dirty battle, some good can be found.
Ambrosia and his ilk are no longer hiding behind the mask of BoD because as the Modernists they are (Rahner style) they have no further need to hide.
In their minds, tainted by Modernist sentimentality, even atheists, agnostics, or pagans that believe in a God who punishes the bad and rewards the good (basically just about everyone) can go to Heaven and can be incorporated into the Holy Roman Catholic Church.
The discussion about BoD should really be over, as it is pointless.
Actually, it IS over, but Ambrosia and his ideological cripples continue to squirm in the mire of their Modernist falsehood.
Their heresy is right in the open after the unfortunate Council.
In their feigned opposition to Vatican II, these so-called traditionalists imagine themselves fighting against its errors, without realizing (or perhaps on purpose) that they are are undoubtedly adhering to the same heresies, the same unclean spirit of Modernism and Vatican II.
How pathetic is that?
.
-
Bottom Line of Nishant's long journey "explaining" dogma:
nothing else is necessary for the salvation of the justified other than perseverance in the grace and justice received, thus all those who die justified are saved
In other words all who are justified go to heaven, how they are justified is of no consequence.
Haven't you heard how NSAAers interpret defined dogma? - the NSAAers say that the sacrament of baptism is optional, that is, not necessary unto salvation. . . . . . and whoever says it is necessary and is not optional is anathema. You obviously do not understand! HA!
CANON V.-If any one saith, that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema.
-
0
-
1. Mr. Drew, you ask me to defend the Holy Office Letter, first of all I ask in turn, what is your opinion on the texts of Innocent II and III that teach salvation by Baptism of Desire, (Dz. 388 and 413)?
BODer standard operating procedure:
Quote the only two papal sources they have that teaches explicit baptism of desire of those who want to be Catholics and believe in the Trinity (then of course go on to teach that one can be saved without them), two private letters from like 700 years ago. One letter is a forgery, it even says it in Denzinger in the footnotes.
Standard BODer operating procedure, quote "as dogma"a forgery and aprivate letter by "an Innocent II or III",and ignore clear infallible dogma by Pope Innocent III:
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.”
Copy and paste from my and others having answered this Dz. 388 and 413 subterfuge:
-
1. Mr. Drew, you ask me to defend the Holy Office Letter, first of all I ask in turn, what is your opinion on the texts of Innocent II and III that teach salvation by Baptism of Desire, (Dz. 388 and 413)?
BODer standard operating procedure:
Quote the only two papal sources they have that teaches explicit baptism of desire of those who want to be Catholics and believe in the Trinity (then of course go on to teach that one can be saved without them), two private letters from like 700 years ago. One letter is a forgery, it even says it in Denzinger in the footnotes.
Standard BODer operating procedure, quote "as dogma" a forgery and a private letter by "an Innocent II or III", and ignore clear infallible dogma by Pope Innocent III:
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.”
Copy and paste from prior answers to this Dz. 388 and 413 subterfuge:
The same doctrine is taught by:
Pope Innocent III (cap. Debitum, iv, De Bapt.), letter to the Bishop of Metz, Aug. 28, 1206:
“We respond that, since there should be a distinction between the one baptizing and the one baptized, as is clearly gathered from the words of the Lord, when he says to the Apostles: ‘Go, baptize all nations in the name etc.,” the Jew mentioned must be baptized again by another, that it may be shown that he who is baptized is one person, and he who baptizes another...If, however, such a one had died immediately, he would have rushed to his heavenly home without delay because of the faith of
the sacrament, although not because of the sacrament of faith.”
This obscure letter to a bishop has no magisterial authority whatsoever. If BOD was a doctrine, how come this is the only docuмent the author can come up with (one letter from 1206!)?
Indeed Pope Innocent III had every chance to infallible define any other exceptions to the constant tradition in the Fathers that the Gospel message of "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost he cannot enter into the kingdom of God" is to be taken absolutely. Yet he didn't mention any when he declared infallible:
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.”
------------------------------------
Nishant,
What you wrote is your opinion that is all. You are explaining away an endless list of clear dogmas with air.
And in all of those clear dogmas NEVER ONCE did any of the popes place any qualifiers like you add. That should tell you something.
It is remarkable someone can quote Pope Innocent III on EENS, and fail to mention he taught both BOD and EENS (Dz. 388 and 413), because, as is plain to everyone .
The dogma is declared by the Holy Ghost through Innocent III.
Innocent III's personal opinions (which you claim he had) did not make it into the dogma. Why is that?
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, …
Why has not ONCE any dogmatic decree OF THE HOLY GHOST declared anything other than what Cantate Domino clearly states?
-
1. Mr. Drew, you ask me to defend the Holy Office Letter, first of all I ask in turn, what is your opinion on the texts of Innocent II and III that teach salvation by Baptism of Desire, (Dz. 388 and 413)? These texts are well known and cited by the Doctors, but I don't think you've got around to answering it.
I know that I've answered this at least half a dozen times. These are not teachings addressed to the Universal Church. Innocent explicitly states that his opinion is based on St. Augustine and St. Ambrose; it's quite demonstrable that the entire BoD house of cards rests upon one quote from St. Augustine, a quote in which he was tentatively expressing a personal opinion rooted in nothing more than speculative theology.
In a similar letter, Innocent expressed the opinion that the Mass was valid even if the priest merely thought the words of consecration but did not pronounce them, an opinion for which St. Thomas rightly excoriated him.
-
1. Mr. Drew, you ask me to defend the Holy Office Letter, first of all I ask in turn, what is your opinion on the texts of Innocent II and III that teach salvation by Baptism of Desire, (Dz. 388 and 413)? These texts are well known and cited by the Doctors, but I don't think you've got around to answering it.
I know that I've answered this at least half a dozen times. These are not teachings addressed to the Universal Church. Innocent explicitly states that his opinion is based on St. Augustine and St. Ambrose; it's quite demonstrable that the entire BoD house of cards rests upon one quote from St. Augustine, a quote in which he was tentatively expressing a personal opinion rooted in nothing more than speculative theology.
In a similar letter, Innocent expressed the opinion that the Mass was valid even if the priest merely thought the words of consecration but did not pronounce them, an opinion for which St. Thomas rightly excoriated him.
And again, this has nothing to do with salvation by implicit faith in a god that rewards. It is a subterfuge, chaff. In that erroneous private letter, and opinion, both St. Augustine and Innocent III are talking about explicit baptism of desire, which all BODers deny is necessary for salvation when they go on to teach salvation by implicit faith in a God that rewards, or they don't condemn implicit faith.
-
And again, this has nothing to do with salvation by implicit faith in a god that rewards. It is a subterfuge, chaff.
Chaff- is a radar countermeasure in which aircraft spread a cloud of small thin pieces of aluminum which appears as a cluster of primary targets on radar screens and swamps the screen with multiple returns.
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_NyXGIFk_jjk/TFEYxWSNFoI/AAAAAAAAAuo/MFldb0_h7_0/s1600/chaff.jpg)
-
Modernists will, at least in public, affirm the words of this defined dogma. But they will teach a meaning that is different from what the words literally say and mean.
This crafty Modernist hermeneutic (method of interpretation) allows for an evolution of meaning within a dogma. This undermines and even denies the immutability of divinely revealed truth. It then allows for an actual denial of dogma as the Church understands it and has always understood it. We clearly see this happening with the most important dogma of all: EENS, the Law of Salvation.
Pope Pius X solemnly condemned this method of interpretation employed by Modernists. Alas, it is nonetheless quite wide spread today. Hence, loyal Catholics need to know that in a Catholic dogmatic statement its object language is fixed in both what the statement means to teach (sense) and that or whom to which it refers (the referent).
How does the Church understand her dogmas? As Venerable Pope Pius IX(1846-78) declared, a dogma must be understood "by the very sense by which it is defined" (Inter Gravissimas, 1870). In other words, that understanding which the Church has of her sacred dogmas is exactly what she has once declared.
This is precisely what was defined at Vatican Council I:
Hence, also, that understanding of its sacred dogmas must be perpetually retained, which Holy Mother Church has once declared; and there must never be recession from that meaning under the specious name of a deeper understanding.
-
.
There are some good posts in this relentless thread, but none by Ambrosia..
Post (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=32206&min=185#p0)
Even St. Bellarmine himself teaches that no one can be a member of the Church "who is not visibly affiliated with the one visible society founded by Christ, subject to the authority of His vicar, the Roman Pontiff".
The Church is a society, not of Angels, nor of souls, but of men. But it cannot be called a society of men, unless it consist in external and visible signs; for it is not a society unless they who are called members acknowledge themselves to be so, but men cannot acknowledge themselves to be members unless the bonds of the society be external and visible. And this is confirmed by those customs of all human societies; for in an army, in a city, in a kingdom, and other similar societies men would not be enrolled otherwise than by visible signs. Whence Augustine, in Book 19 Against Faustus, Chapter 11, says: “Men cannot assemble in the name of any religion, whether it be true or false, unless they be bound together by some fellowship of visible signs or sacraments.
Thankfully, Ambrosia and those like him, are no longer hiding behind the mask of "Baptism of Desire." The discussion about BoD should really be over as it is pointless. These people happen to think that there is really not even need to have Faith in Our Lord Jesus Christ in order to achieve salvation.
Not even the Protestants have descended this low.
In their minds, tainted by Modernist sentimentality, even atheists, agnostics, or pagans that believe in a God who punishes the bad and rewards the good (basically just about everyone) can go to Heaven and can be incorporated into the Holy Roman Catholic Church.
As the Modernists (Rahner style) they are, there is no longer need to hide.
Their heresies are right in the open after the unfortunate Council. What is comical though, is their alleged opposition to Vatican II that these so called traditionalists imagine to fight against, without realizing (or perhaps on purpose) that they are are undoubtedly adhering to the same heresies, the same unclean spirit of Modernism and Vatican II.
..which goes to show that even out of a dirty battle, some good can be found.
Ambrosia and his ilk are no longer hiding behind the mask of BoD because as the Modernists they are (Rahner style) they have no further need to hide.
In their minds, tainted by Modernist sentimentality, even atheists, agnostics, or pagans that believe in a God who punishes the bad and rewards the good (basically just about everyone) can go to Heaven and can be incorporated into the Holy Roman Catholic Church.
The discussion about BoD should really be over, as it is pointless.
Actually, it IS over, but Ambrosia and his ideological cripples continue to squirm in the mire of their Modernist falsehood.
Their heresy is right in the open after the unfortunate Council.
In their feigned opposition to Vatican II, these so-called traditionalists imagine themselves fighting against its errors, without realizing (or perhaps on purpose) that they are are undoubtedly adhering to the same heresies, the same unclean spirit of Modernism and Vatican II.
How pathetic is that?
.
So says Neil Obstat.
-
LADISLAUS REPLIES WITH HIS CUSTOMARY ERUDITION:
"Not to mention that you're a liar. I called you out on this after your first set of screeds talking about how Baptism was not necessary for salvation and one needed only the supernatural virtues (as if those could be had without Baptism). It's only after we shamed you into it that you had to change your rhetoric a little bit."
This is all that Ladislaus can say in rebuttal? He can do nothing but blow off more of his endless supply of gratuitous and hysterical verbal flatulence!
-
You have a lot of nerve, DP. I've made several arguments and "rebuttals", but you are the one who ignores everything and results to insults.
-
Let's take this one ... which you have completely ignored.
The very elementary error of Drew and his Feeneyite gang is a matter of basic theology: I have consistently stated that as a necessity of means for justification and salvation, there must be the sacrament of Baptism OR the votum to receive it.
And you would be consistently wrong and heretical. It's the SACRAMENT OF BAPTISM that is necessary by a necessity of means for salvation. It's along the lines of what Father Feeney famously said, that the more you talk about BoD, the less people might be able to avail themselves of it, since they would more and more desire the desire for Baptism than Baptism itself.
DESIRE ITSELF does absolutely nothing. If there were such a thing as BoD, it would derive its efficacy from the OBJECT of that desire, namely Baptism. Recall Trent's language, the desire for IT (meaning Baptism). Because you are too dense to actually understand this simple distinction (with your Roman-educated mind), you continue in your heresy. To give the DESIRE itself on its own any power is nothing other than Pelagianism. If the desire were to have any efficacy, it's due to its object, Baptism. Thus you would be able to avoid heresy and thereby uphold Trent's dogmatic teaching that the Sacraments are necessary for salvation.
But, since you are too obtuse to understand this, you persist in your heresy.
-
REFUTATION OF DREWS POINTS
Drew's argument against Baptism of Desire rests on five points: 1) That justification & salvation by means of the votum for Baptism reduces the necessity of means for the sacraments to a necessity of precept; 2) That the sacraments as the instrumental cause of justifification are an absolute necessity of means, and; 3) That the words of Christ, "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter the kingdom of God", are to be interpreted to mean that the water of Baptism are an absolute necessity of means for justification and salvation, and; 4) That one who is not baptized by water is outside the Church, and 5) That Baptism of Desire would render the Sacrament of Baptism optional and superfluous.
I reply saying:
Ad 1- The very elementary error of Drew and his Feeneyite gang is a matter of basic theology: I have consistently stated that as a necessity of means for justification and salvation, there must be the sacrament of Baptism OR the votum to receive it. This is plainly defined by the Council of Trent, as I have systematically demonstrated.
According to the sophistry of Drew, et al., this would reduce the necessity of means to a necessity of precept. The proposition is false, and is based on a fallacy which confuses a relative necessity of means with a necessity of precept. The necessity for salvation of the sacraments is a relative necessity of means, because the justification required to be saved can be obtained by the sacraments or the votum of them. (Sess. 7 can. 4) Hence, the necessity of means for Baptism is not an absolute necessity of means, but a relative one. The absolute moral necessity to receive the water of Baptism is a necessity of precept, which may not be transgressed under penalty of damnation. However, one is morally excused if the reception of the sacrament is impossible; and under such circuмstances the votum suffices as a substitute.
Ad 2 - From the fact that Baptism IS the instrumental cause of justification, it does not follow that justification absolutely or intrinsically requires an instrumental cause; which would render the process of justification impossible without the means of an instrumental cause. There is no absolute or intrinsic necessity of sacraments for justification, because there is no absolute or intrinsic need for an instrumental cause to produce the effect of justification: Abraham was justified by faith. The Decree on Justification (Ch. 4) defines that with the institution of the New Law by Jesus Christ, there can be no justification "without the laver of regeneration or the resolve of it as is written: 'unless a man be reborn of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter the kingdom of God'." Thus, the necessity for baptismal water is a precept of the New Covenant, which is fulfilled by the actual reception of the sacrament, or its reception in voto. One who is thus justified by Baptism in re or in voto, is thereby "reborn by water and the Holy Ghost"; and thus can enter the kingdom of God"; which is "eternal life" , if he appears before the tribunal of Christ in possession of the garment of justifying grace. (Ch. 7)
Ad 3 - The Decree on Justification (Ch. 4) defines that with the institution of the New Law by Jesus Christ, there can be no justification "without the laver of regeneration or the resolve of it as is written: 'unless a man be reborn of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter the kingdom of God'." Thus the explicit text of the Decree on Justification explicitly interprets the rebirth "in water and the Holy Ghost" to consist in that justification brought about by Baptism or the resolve of it; thereby establishing the water of Baptism to be of relative necessity of means, as well as a necessity of precept.
Ad 4 - Drew claims that those who would be justified in voto without baptismal water, would not be members of the Church; and therefore would be outside the Church, and therefore, excluded from salvation. This argument can be shown to be totally false and specious: 1) because one cannot be justified without the reception of the theological virtues of faith, hope, and charity, by the fruition of the merits of Christ's passion and reception of the unction and indwelling of the Holy Ghost, which constitute one as an adoptive son of God and an heir of eternal life -- a status that is exclusively reserved for members of God's household (Eph. 2), which is the Church; and thus there can be no justification outside the Church, 2) those justified by "votum" are in actu, in the soul of the Church (as Pope St. Pius X teaches); and thus, are members of the body of the Church in voto, (as St. Robert Bellarmine explains).
It cannot be otherwise, because if those justified by "votum", and thereby baptized in voto, remain outside the Church; then those who die, or are martyred before Baptism would die outside the Church. However, those who were baptized by blood were, as is the case of those not martyred but baptized in voto by Baptism of desire; were likewise properly justified by the "votum" or resolve to receive baptismal water. This cannot be otherwise, because the Decree on Justification defines that justification can only take place by 1) baptismal water; or, 2) the "votum", i.e. the "resolve" to receive Baptism. Martyrdom does not cause justification, but only Baptism in re or in voto. The shedding of blood only secures salvation for the justified soul who appears before the divine Judge with the crown of martyrdom.
If the martyrs baptized only by blood but not by water, were to have died outside the Church; then the whole Church would have defected into heresy 17 1/2 centuries ago. Since the Third Century, the Church has professed such martyrs to number among the baptized and venerates them as saints with the cult of dulia.
Since the Church infallibly professes and teaches that those justified by "votum" and baptized by blood, but not by water are truly in heaven, and members of the Church Triumphant; then likewise, those justified by "votum", who die, but not by martyrdom, before they can be cleansed by baptismal water, must be counted as members of the Church Suffering or Triumphant; because the same "votum" which brought the martyrs into the Church must necessrily produce the same effect in those who die of some other cause than martyrdom, because the proper effect of the "votum" is to justify, and thereby make one a member of the Church in voto.
Ad 5 - The reception of Baptism or the votum of it, is not an "either/or" option, which, in fact, would render the sacrament superfluous; but the "votum", i.e., the resolve to receive the sacrament, supplies for Baptism only if the reception of the sacrament is impossible, (as St. Pius V & St. Pius X teach in their catechisms). Thus, Canon 7 of Session 4 defines that the sacraments are necessary for salvation, because without them or the resolve of them; i.e., without the sacraments in re or in voto, there can be no justification.
The reception of the Baptism is a precept of divine law; and therefore without the grace of Baptism one cannot be saved, as Pope St. Pius V teaches in the Roman Catechism:
"nihil magis necessarium videri potest quam ut doceantur omnibus hominibus baptismi legem a Domino praescriptam esse ita ut, nisi per baptismi gratiam Deo renascantur, in sempiternam miseriam et intentum, a parentibus, sive illi fideles sive infideles sint, procreentur. Igitur saepius a pastoribus explicandum erit quod apud Evangelistam legitur: Nisi quis renatus fuerit ex aqua et Spiritu, non potest introire in regnum Dei."
CONCLUSION
Therefore, since Baptism is prescribed by divine law, one is excused from the reception of Baptism solely for reason of impossibility, as the Roman Catechism explains (in the original Italian text edited by St. Charles Borromeo):
"In caso improvviso di pericolo, chi ha l'uso della ragione, pur impossibilitato a purificarsi nell'acqua sacramentale, può conseguire la grazia e la giustizia col semplice proposito di ricevere a suo tempo il Battesimo, unito al pentimento dei peccati commessi."
Furthermore, is the consistent teaching of the popes that if one thus baptized in voto dies in the state of sanctifying grace before being able to receive the sacrament of water; that one will be saved because Baptism of Desire suffices to supply for the Sacrament under those circuмstances:
Pope Innocent III:
We respond that, since there should be a distinction between the one baptizing and the one baptized, as is clearly gathered from the words of the Lord, when He says to the Apostles: "Go, baptize all nations in the name etc.," the Jew mentioned must be baptized again by another, that it may be shown that he who is baptized is one person, and he who baptizes another ... If, however, such a one had died immediately, he would have rushed to his heavenly home without delay because of the faith of the sacrament, although not because of the sacrament of faith (Dz. 413, emphasis added).
Pope Innocent II:
Read (brother) in the eighth book of Augustine’s City of God where, among other things it is written, "Baptism is ministered invisibly to one whom not contempt of religion but death excludes." Read again the book also of the blessed Ambrose concerning the death of Valentinian where he says the same thing. Therefore, to questions concerning the dead, you should hold the opinions of the learned Fathers, and in your church you should join in prayers and you should have sacrifices offered to God for the priest mentioned (Innocent II, Letter Apostolicam Sedem, Dz. 388, emphasis added)
Pope St. Pius X (Q. 17 in the Catechism of Pope St. Pius X):
The absence of Baptism can be supplied by martyrdom, which is called Baptism of Blood, or by an act of perfect love of God, or of contrition, along with the desire, at least implicit, of Baptism, and this is called Baptism of Desire."
Pope Pius XII (October 29 1951):
"An act of love is sufficient for the adult to obtain sanctifying grace and to supply the lack of baptism; to the still unborn or newly born this way is not open."
Finally, as I have demonstrated in my previous posts, the universal & ordinary magisterium has definitively taught Baptism of Blood & Desire; that these supply for water Baptism when the latter is impossible; and that those who die thus sanctified by these extraordinary forms of Baptism obtain salvation, and THEREFORE: Whoever denies that Baptism of Blood or of Desire does not suffice for justification and salvation as a substitute for Baptism, when the reception of the sacrament of water is impossible, professes heresy.
-
The very elementary error of Drew and his Feeneyite gang is a matter of basic theology: I have consistently stated that as a necessity of means for justification and salvation, there must be the sacrament of Baptism OR the votum to receive it.
How many times do I have to point out that this is WRONG? It is the SACRAMENT of Baptism itself that is necessary by a necessity of means for salvation. It is NOT the "desire" itself of Baptism that is necessary by a necessity of means. If there is any efficacy in the desire, it's due to the OBJECT of that desire, namely the Sacrament of Baptism, operating through the desire for it. In that way one can preserve the dogmatic teaching regarding the necessity of the Sacraments for salvation and yet cling with white knuckles to your belief in BoD.
I am GIVING YOU THE ANSWER. If I were dishonest, like you, I would withhold this answer, but I'm actually trying to keep you from joining the ranks of all the other blundering buffoons who end up in heresy when they articulate their notion of Baptism of Desire.
-
LADISLAUS SAYS:
"And you would be consistently wrong and heretical. It's the SACRAMENT OF BAPTISM that is necessary by a necessity of means for salvation."
Again Ladislaus blows off more of his gratuitous verbal flatulence. No attempt is made at a critical refutation of my exposition. I had just explained the theological distinction between absolute necessity of means and relative necessity of means; and that in Sess. 7 can. 4 of Trent, it is defined that the sacraments are necessary for salvation, because there is no justification without them or the votum of them -- thereby establishing the necessity of means to be a relative necessity of means. I have just explained precisely in what manner Baptism is of necessity of means; and he replies inferring that I deny that it is of necessity of means. Ladislaus is either insane, or a troll -- probably both.
-
and he replies inferring that I deny that it is of necessity of means. Ladislaus is either insane, or a troll -- probably both.
I'm not "inferring" anything. You openly stated that the votum itself can be necessary as a necessity of means. That's false. Even in the case of Baptism by votum, the Sacrament itself operates as the instrumental cause THROUGH the votum. This shows your incredible intellectual pride (despite not having much in reality to base it on) ... since you persist in your contempt for the Sacrament despite the fact that I offered you a formulation that would leave your belief in BoD intact while at the same time not damaging the necessity of Baptism for salvation. Yet you persist in deriding the necessity of Baptism for salvation. Your bad will borders on the diabolical, and your over-the-top insults only confirm that in my mind.
-
Again Ladislaus blows off more of his gratuitous verbal flatulence.
You also appear to be obsessed with flatulance.
-
Again Ladislaus blows off more of his gratuitous verbal flatulence.
You also appear to be obsessed with flatulance.
Thats all DP, this NO theologian has, ad hominems.
In dialectics, this tactic is referred to as "argumentum ad hominem", that is, seeking to disparage the opposing argument by attacking the person of him who holds it; logicians agree that this is the weakest form of argument. Good thing DP is, among other things, illogical.
Fr. Feeney's teaching was the traditional teaching of the Church. DP surely knows that the Liberals who handled the case of Fr. Feeney and St. Benedict Center acted most unfairly and contemptuously of all Church law. When Father Feeney appealed to Rome for a proper canonical settlement of charges made against him, he was ignored. His condemnation by the Church authorities was utterly indefensible, something which was implicitly admitted, when, toward the end of his life, he was "reconciled" with the Church without being required to recant any of his positions.
Of all people on this forum, you'd think the Novus Ordo educated theologian Don Poalo would embrace the truth that the crooks who attacked the good Fr. Feeney could not make him change his faith, but no, instead, he sides with the crooks, then goes around telling us that Fr. Feeney was no good. If that does not demonstrate his blatant hypocrisy then what does?
Typical confused Novus Ordo nit wit - but to be an educated Novus Ordo nit wit is even worse.
-
It is now considered "ad hominem" (at least for Ladislaus) to point out that he says I say the opposite from what I'm saying! I explain the doctrine of the relative necessity of means for baptism as set forth by the Council of Trent. He then infers that I deny what I affirm -- and that, for him is ad hominem??? The statements of Ladislaus are patently irrational.
-
I just noticed this topic has gotten to page 99 !!
I'll just do my part with this reply to get us to page 100 !!!
BoD/BoB good for a hundred pages of controversy !!
-
Stubborn is walking with the fairies: I have posted theological expositions of my position on BOD, and point by point critical refutation of Drew's fundamentalism; and that fool, stubborn says it's all ad hominem! What has he been smoking?
-
It is now considered "ad hominem" (at least for Ladislaus) to point out that he says I say the opposite from what I'm saying! I explain the doctrine of the relative necessity of means for baptism as set forth by the Council of Trent. He then infers that I deny what I affirm -- and that, for him is ad hominem??? The statements of Ladislaus are patently irrational.
The difference is that you have no idea what you are talking about, Ladislaus does.
Best thing for you to do is repeat the words of Trent over and over to yourself - "The sacraments are necessary unto salvation". Say this 5000 times a day until you believe it.
Other than that, you have very little hope that you will ever accept the truth. . . . . and unlike the teaching you preach, you won't be able to plead ignorance.
-
Stubborn is walking with the fairies: I have posted theological expositions of my position on BOD, and point by point critical refutation of Drew's fundamentalism; and that fool, stubborn says it's all ad hominem! What has he been smoking?
Whatever it is, you need to smoke some of it! :smoke-pot:
-
Stubborn is walking with the fairies: I have posted theological expositions of my position on BOD, and point by point critical refutation of Drew's fundamentalism; and that fool, stubborn says it's all ad hominem! What has he been smoking?
Even though you share your beliefs with Cardinal Cushing and Ambrose and all the conciliar popes - especially pope Francis, all anyone needs to squash your heretical beliefs is one canon from Trent:
CANON V.-If any one saith, that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema.
Per Trent, you are anathema and try tho we may, there is nothing we can do for you to change that.
-
"Fr.Kramer",
Reading your material is like watching The Three Stooges, it's a torture to see someone make such a fool of themselves. At least Ambrose and Lover of Truth have the sense to "wing it on CI" without revealing their real identity.
I for one can't stand to watch your reputation (if you have one left) get flushed down the toilet. Enough already.
If you are going to write a book about salvation for those that do not want to be Catholic nor believe in Christ, write the book, and stop bleeding yourself to death on CI.
In the words of Tuco Benedicto Pacifico Juan Maria Ramirez:
When you have to shoot, shoot, don't talk.
-
0
-
Yes, this new BoD book, like all other BoD books before it, will begin by making the gratuitous assertion that the Church Fathers unanimously approved BoD, then will quote a handful of the BoB Fathers, quote none of the Church Fathers who don't accept BoD, and then move on to the next gratuitous assertion.
"Fr. Kramer" is wasting his time. That book has already been written multiple times. Why even write such a book when 95% of even Traditional Catholics already believe in BoD, nay, even in salvation outside the Church? You'd be just preaching to the proverbial choir.
What we really need is a truly scholarly book on the subject, one which examines all the evidence, pro and con, and draws a conclusion based on EVERYTHING, not just on selective quotations from sources that happen to agree with the author's viewpoint. While the Dimonds, for instance, do treat the contrary positions, they do so only for the sake of refutation, and the book has a decidedly polemical tone to it. So, people might readily dismiss it because of perceived bias.
What's scary is that the closest thing one might find to this can be found in the works of Karl Rahner. Rahner just doesn't care what the evidence says and believes in "Anonymous Christianity"; yet he was honest enough to trace what he called the growing "hope for the salvation of non-Catholics" over time, i.e. his progress of dogma (something which as a modernist he had no problem with). Rahner was also honest enough to admit that this BoDism culminated in Vatican II and that it was the core of Vatican II.
-
The quote below was written in the 1700's, when the faith still existed. Today we are in the great deluge of spiritual poisoning, the time of the anti-Christ, truly, scarcely anyone is saved today:
"In the great deluge in the days of Noah, all mankind perished, eight persons alone being saved in the Ark. In our days a deluge, not of water, but sins, continually inundates the earth, and out of this deluge very few escape. Scarcely anyone is saved". ( St. Alphonsus Liguori)
Scarcely any Catholic is saved today, meanwhile, people like "Fr. Kramer" are arranging the chairs on the deck of the Titanic, wasting their time writing a book on how people can be saved without explicit belief in Christ.
BODers are insane.
-
The problem with Fr. Feeney's doctrine is that is is most explicitly set forth in Ch. 4 of the Decree on Justification that justification cannot be accomplished without the "laver of regeneration or the votum of it, as is written: unless a man be reborn of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter the kingdom of God".
This passage states quite plainly not only that one is justified by water baptism or the resolve to receive it; but that justification obtained in this manner fulfills the requirement of rebirth by water and the Holy Ghost, as the condition to enter heaven. Thus, the doctrine of Baptism of Desire is explicitly expressed in the Decree. In Chapter 7 it is further stated that once justified, those who bring that grace of justification before the tribunal of Christ may enter heaven. Thus, according to the Council of Trent, Baptism of Desire is sufficient for salvation. St. Alphonsus grasped that, and taught that BOD is de fide. It is not possible that he was in error on this point: if it was not de fide, he would have made a grave error, and then neither the Congregation of the Council nor the Holy Office, under Benedict XIV, would not have allowed him to publish that opinion in his Moral Theology. After his death, Gregory XVI explicitly upheld the correctness of his doctrine, and Pius IX declared him a Doctor of the Church.
Well before St. Alphonsus time, already in the late Sixteenth Century, the Congregation of the Council (specifically wielding the papal authority to interpret the doctrine of Trent since 1588) was already approving the teaching of BOD to be taught in all the catechisms. Thus it came about that by the time St. Alphonsus was writing his Moral Theology, BOD was already being definitively taught as Catholic doctrine by the ordinary magisterium throughout the world; and continued to be so taught from at least the 1540s right up through the reign of Pius XII. BOD was already taught explicitly by Popes Innocent II & III, and later also explicitly by Pius IX, X, & XII. Having been taught universally by the orrdinary magisterium of the corporate body of bishops for four centuries before Vatican II, BOD is clearly, and without any shadow of doubt a definition of faith of the universal & ordinary magisterium which must be believed with divine and Catholic faith, (as well as being dogmatically set forth in the Decree on Justification).
So, the doctrinal problem is not whether or not souls justified by BOD go to heaven or not, but rather, that the Church infallibly teaches that the sacrament of Baptism or its votum constitutes the means sufficient for salvation; and therefore; if anyone says that one who dies having been justified by perfect contrition, the theological virtues, and the resolve to receive the water of Baptism; still canot enter heaven without the cleansing of baptismal water -- such a one professes heresy.
-
The problem with Fr. Feeney's doctrine is that is is most explicitly set forth in Ch. 4 of the Decree on Justification
You are totally winging it, trying to test your theories here on CI. Total amateur night!
And again, this has nothing to do with salvation by implicit faith in a god that rewards. It is a subterfuge, chaff.
Chaff- is a radar countermeasure in which aircraft spread a cloud of small thin pieces of aluminum which appears as a cluster of primary targets on radar screens and swamps the screen with multiple returns.
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_NyXGIFk_jjk/TFEYxWSNFoI/AAAAAAAAAuo/MFldb0_h7_0/s1600/chaff.jpg)
-
Bowler is quoting the same St. Alphonsus de Liguori, who taught in book 6, nn. 95-7 of his Theologia Moralis:
"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 presbytero 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."
-
So, the doctrinal problem is not whether or not souls justified by BOD go to heaven or not, but rather, that the Church infallibly teaches that the sacrament of Baptism or its votum constitutes the means sufficient for salvation; and therefore; if anyone says that one who dies having been justified by perfect contrition, the theological virtues, and the resolve to receive the water of Baptism; still canot enter heaven without the cleansing of baptismal water -- such a one professes heresy.
Does it look to you like the Church below is proclaiming that the sacrament or it's votum suffices?
CANON V.-If any one saith, that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema.
When the priest asks the sponsors or the adult catechumen; "What do you ask of the Church of God?"
The answer is: "Faith!" said aloud.
Try this.........the next adult sacramental baptism you participate in, tell the catechumen to remain silent throughout his Baptismal Votums, that all he needs do is implicitly answer the priest - see how that works out.
-
Unfortunately the Cushingite heretics cannot be reasoned with.
-
The problem with Fr. Feeney's doctrine is that is is most explicitly set forth in Ch. 4 of the Decree on Justification that justification cannot be accomplished without the "laver of regeneration or the votum of it, as is written: unless a man be reborn of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter the kingdom of God".
As I've argued many times before, I do not buy this interpretation of Trent. Clearly Trent was making an analogy between the laver and Our Lord's "water" (that's why it uses the descriptive term "laver" for the Sacrament of Baptism) and between the votum and the Holy Spirit (Trent spent several paragraphs discussing how the Holy Spirit works to properly dispose the will (same Latin root word as votum). So you really expect me to believe that Trent taught, "Justification cannot happen without the laver or the votum, since Jesus said a man cannot enter the kingdom of God unless he be reborn of the laver AND the votum."? Because Jesus said X and Y, we teach X OR ELSE Y. If you look at the Canons in Trent and read the entire treatise on justification in context, Trent is teaching about the necessary cooperation between grace and free will, between the ex opere operato effect of the Sacrament and the proper cooperation of the free will, against the Protestant errors. This is NOT a teaching on BoD. If it were, one would fully expect at least a token mention of BoB. In fact, if we read Trent the way you claim it should be read, there's no such thing as BoB, but BoB must reduce to BoD ... which is contrary to all the theological speculation about BoB and which contradicts those BoB Church Fathers who at the same time rejected BoD. Ironically, MY reading of Trent does not rule out BoB, whereas yours does.
Bill says that we cannot play baseball without a bat or a ball.
Ambiguous. Could mean either 1) that we can play if we have one or the other or else 2) that we cannot play unless we have both. In the sense of #2, the "or" would be used to EMPHASIZE the need for EACH rather than lumping them together in a single logical entity. To use mathematical notation (symbolic logic):
WITHOUT (A OR B) -- your reading
WITHOUT (A AND B) -- what Trent didn't do to avoid lumping A & B together instead of calling them out distinctly
WITHOUT A OR WITHOUT B -- my reading
But if we add the following, it's immediately disambiguated.
Bill says that we cannot play baseball without a bat or a ball, since we need a bat and a ball to play baseball.
That's exactly what Trent does. Immediately disambiguated. Justification cannot happen without water or the Holy Spirit, since Jesus taught that we need the water and the Holy Spirit in order to be reborn.
Justification = rebirth (as taught by Trent), laver=water, votum=Holy Spirit. No BoDer has EVER addressed and refuted my argument for reading Trent this way.
To use analogy notation -- laver:water::votum:Holy Spirit (and justification = rebirth). It's very beautifully and profoundly taught by the Holy Spirit to the Church.
God allowed this error to creep into the theology because it set the groundwork for the sifting of the faithful from the unfaithful in this last apostasy. Catholics are separated from the apostates based on whether or not the believe in EENS and have a proper faith regarding the necessity of the Church and of the Sacraments for salvation.
You, sir, are failing the test.
-
The problem with Fr. Feeney's doctrine is that is is most explicitly set forth in Ch. 4 of the Decree on Justification that justification cannot be accomplished without the "laver of regeneration or the votum of it, as is written: unless a man be reborn of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter the kingdom of God".
In addition, it's quite obvious that you know absolutely nothing of Father Feeney's doctrine. Father Feeney made a distinction between justification and salvation, saying that one can be justified by the votum but not saved by it. I think that he was mistaken on that point, but I just want to expose your ignorance on this matter.
-
Unfortunately, the Cushingite heretics cannot be reasoned with.
Well, duuh.
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.
This was never the consensus of the Fathers or the teaching of the Church, but merely another theological speculation. It is now well-established that the Sacrament of Baptism cannot be placed any earlier than the Ascension to be certain, due to the words of Our Lord in Scripture, cf. Acts i. 5; Matt. xxviii. 19:
After Our Lord had told the Apostles they had been baptized with water, but not many days hence they would be baptized in the Holy Ghost, He instructed them to go forth and baptize all nations in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. Not only was the Sacrament of Confirmation instituted after Our Lord's 40 days since His Resurrection, but the Sacrament of Baptism was likewise instituted at the time of Our Lord's Ascension.
Acts i. 9: "And when he had said these things, while they looked on, he was raised up: and a cloud received him out of their sight."
Whatever theological speculation comes to mind, the first test of it is to confer Sacred Scripture, and in that way, if it does not square up with that, it must be rejected. Since saying that Baptism may have been instituted before Our Lord said these things, above, would be nonsense, the necessary conclusion is, that Baptism was instituted at the time of His Ascension.
Therefore, whatever happened at the time of Our Lord's baptism by St. John, it was NOT the institution of the Sacrament. It could have been something like the sanctification of the water itself, with the potency to Baptize, but this potency would not have become efficacious until after the Sacrament had been instituted, some 3 years later.
Cf. Mark xvi. 14f.
But, once again, as Ladislaus says so well:
Unfortunately, the Cushingite heretics cannot be reasoned with.
.
-
If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism and thus twists into some metaphor the words of Our Lord Jesus Christ: “Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven,” let him be anathema. [Canon 2 of the Canons on Baptism, 7th Session, Sacrament of Baptism]
This dogmatic statement undoubtedly tells us that:
1. Water is necessary for Baptism, so the metaphorical baptisms of desire and blood can not be considered apart from the necessity of water Baptism for salvation. There are not substitutes.
2. The Church confirms that John 3:5 is not to be taken metaphorically, but as literally true.
-
The insurmountable problem with Ladislaus' interpretation of the Decree on Justification is that it is as esoteric as the Kaballah: the entire Church for centuries understands the Decree differently than does Ladislaus, which by that very fact proves him wrong. I simply understand it literally as it is written.
-
If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism and thus twists into some metaphor the words of Our Lord Jesus Christ: “Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven,” let him be anathema.
[Canon 2 of the Canons on Baptism, 7th Session, Sacrament of Baptism]
This dogmatic statement undoubtedly tells us that:
1. Water is necessary for Baptism, so the metaphorical baptisms of desire and blood cannot be considered apart from the necessity of water Baptism for salvation. There are no substitutes.
2. The Church confirms that John 3:5 is not to be taken metaphorically, but as literally true.
This is an infallible decree, a condemnation in an approved Council of the Church, therefore it is a matter of faith, which is condemned by the pope, so it is a doctrine of the faith; as such, anyone who denies it places himself outside the Church.
It's really funny to see Ambrosia deny this doctrine, as he accuses others of denying his pet speculation, a speculation which itself twists into some metaphor the words of Our Lord Jesus Christ in John 3:5 -- even though his pet speculation has never been defined (BoB and BoB as he interprets them).
.
-
Unfortunately for Stubborn, his intellectual prowess is not quite up to the task of grasping the simplest of notions: That the one who dies after having been justified by Baptism of Desire, did not choose BOD as an option. The fact that such a one could not be justified without the resolve to be baptized proves that Baptism of water is mandatory, and not optional.
-
The insurmountable problem with Ladislaus' interpretation of the Decree on Justification is that it is as esoteric as the Kaballah: the entire Church for centuries understands the Decree differently than does Ladislaus, which by that very fact proves him wrong. I simply understand it literally as it is written.
Nice try. Now please try to refute it.
Start with this. If Trent teaches that there can be no justification without Baptism or the desire for it, does this not in fact reduce BoB to BoD and declare that there are "TWO" Baptisms, not the "Three" alleged in most of the pseudo-authoritative sources always cited by BoDers?
-
Cantarella makes the oafish blunder of not grasping the plain and simple language of the canon she quotes: The fact that true and natural water are necessary for Baptism does not mean that true and natural water are necessary for the desire of it, i.e.,for the "votum" to obtain the grace of Baptism. Session 7 can. 4 defines that without the sacraments or the desire of them, there can be no justification. The votum can obtain the grace of Baptism, and no water is necessary to have a firm resolve to receive Baptism.
-
Unfortunately for Stubborn, his intellectual prowess is not quite up to the task of grasping the simplest of notions: That the one who dies after having been justified by Baptism of Desire, did not choose BOD as an option. The fact that such a one could not be justified without the resolve to be baptized proves that Baptism of water is mandatory, and not optional.
But why would God will to save someone via BoD? This idea of "impossibility" is utter nonsense. There's no such thing as impossibility for God. So, in the end, you're positing that God wills that some people should be saved via BoD vs. Baptism proper ... after His Son declared solemnly the need for "water" AND the Holy Spirit for salvation. Why would God deny the Sacrament of Baptism to His elect, those whom He wills to save?
-
If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism and thus twists into some metaphor the words of Our Lord Jesus Christ: “Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven,” let him be anathema. [Canon 2 of the Canons on Baptism, 7th Session, Sacrament of Baptism]
This dogmatic statement undoubtedly tells us that:
1. Water is necessary for Baptism, so the metaphorical baptisms of desire and blood can not be considered apart from the necessity of water Baptism for salvation. There are not substitutes.
2. The Church confirms that John 3:5 is not to be taken metaphorically, but as literally true.
But Ambrose would have us believe, that the Church is then guilty of private interpretation, as a Protestant does.
-
.
Matthew must love this thread because it has 12,244 views and 517 replies.
It's good for business to show so much action!!
.
-
Unfortunately for Stubborn, his intellectual prowess is not quite up to the task of grasping the simplest of notions: That the one who dies after having been justified by Baptism of Desire, did not choose BOD as an option. The fact that such a one could not be justified without the resolve to be baptized proves that Baptism of water is mandatory, and not optional.
But why would God will to save someone via BoD? This idea of "impossibility" is utter nonsense. There's no such thing as impossibility for God. So, in the end, you're positing that God wills that some people should be saved via BoD vs. Baptism proper ... after His Son declared solemnly the need for "water" AND the Holy Spirit for salvation. Why would God deny the Sacrament of Baptism to His elect, those whom He wills to save?
So the statement that nothing is impossible for God meets with a downthumb by some anonymous coward? So you heretically supposed that God can be constrained by impossibility?
-
J.Paul[/url]]
Yet another............. :facepalm:
J.Paul saw this one coming a mile away. :jester:
.
-
Drew wrote:
Maybe you have not read the 1949 Holy Office Letter? You say a few things that indicate to me that you have not read the Letter but rather have an understanding of the Letter that has been given to you by someone else. Nevertheless, I am glad to have you begin your defense of the 1949 Holy Office Letter which you, like Fr. Kramer, hold, and Archbishop Lefebvre held, as an orthodox exposition on the Catholic doctrine on salvation. The 1949 Holy Office Letter does teach that the only necessary and sufficient cause of salvation is the 'explicit desire to do the will of a god who rewards and punishes.' Nothing beyond this that is affirmed in the Letter has any material significance whatsoever and you, yourself, have already said as much in your previous post quoted above.
I have read the Holy Office letter dozens of times at a minimum, so your ideas about whether I have read it are incorrect.
It is interesting that I have the same thoughts about you that you do of me: I believe that you do not understand the letter, and it appears to me that you have been influenced by others in your views.
The Holy Office letter is an orthodox explanation of Catholic teaching. The false caricature of the Holy Office letter put forth by deniers of the Catholic truth of Baptism of Desire is another matter.
It was you who said, "The Holy Office Letter corrected Fr. Feeney and his followers on their initial doctrinal error (not heresy) of denying implicit Baptism of Desire." In a previous post you used the term, "injurious to the faith" to describe Fr. Fenney's teaching.
Whatever deficiencies I may have with regard to the evaluation of the 1949 Holy Office Letter, pure fabrication is not one of them. You claim to have read the 1949 Holy Office Letter "dozens of times at a minimum" and yet you do not know that the Letter says nothing about "Baptism of Desire." Nothing whatsoever. Wherever you got this idea, it is not from the Letter. When you claim that the Letter contains something which it does not, it is grounds to wonder whether or not you have actually read it.
The Letter does not specify exactly what errors are being censored. Msgr. Fenton says it is only in regard to an improper understanding about EENS. Nothing more is said. The Letter claims that there is great harm being done to those both inside and outside the Church but nothing is specified beyond what Msgr. Fenton identifies. There is no accusation of "doctrinal error," no claim of "denial of implicit Baptism of Desire, " no accusation of teachings that are "injurious to the faith."
If you insist the Letter censors "deniers of the Catholic truth of Baptism of Desire" then you need to produce you evidence.
Drew wrote:The 1949 Holy Office Letter does teach that the only necessary and sufficient cause of salvation is the 'explicit desire to do the will of a god who rewards and punishes.'
False. The Holy Office letter does not say this, and this is part of the false caricature.
Drew wrote:
You are beginning at the wrong end of the argument. You have overlooked the pertinent citation from the 1949 Holy Office Letter that precedes your quote. When the problem is approached with an agenda, this commonly happens.
Drew wrote:
The Holy Office Letter 1949 says that the “implicit desire (to be a member of the Church) is included in that good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God.” Desire exists in the subject. The only object of desire, which is explicit, is “to be conformed to the will of God.” Implicit desire to be united to the Church is an assumed attribute of the “good disposition of soul” when the person has the object of his intention to be “conformed to the will of God.” Such an "implicit desire" is unknown both subjectively and objectively. It is the assumption of this “implicit desire” exists and that it leads to salvation that is novel. It has not been revealed by God. The one and only thing that is known in the objective order is a 'desire to do the will of a god who rewards and punishes.' The 1949 Holy Office Letter affirms that this is the only objective necessary and sufficient criteria to obtain salvation. Everything thing else affirmed by the Letter is unknown and unknowable.
False again. The Holy Office letter states explicitly that one must have:
1. Supernatural Faith.
2. Perfect charity.
3. At least an implicit desire of entering the Church.
You are reading the Holy Office letter with an agenda. Ironically, it is the same thing you are saying that I am doing. Read the words for what they say, not what the Dimonds or the SBC tell you!
I no doubt that you believe that the 1949 Holy Office Letter is an "orthodox explanation of Catholic teaching." The problem for you will be to offer objective principled reasons for any opposition to the Prayer Meeting at Assisi once the necessary consequences of this doctrine are clear. The 1949 Holy Office Letter says it is necessary to have "supernatural faith" and then offers, as the only sufficient and necessary object of that faith, a 'belief in a god who rewards and punishes.' Nothing more is required and you admitted this in a previous post that where you said, "the minority opinion among theologians, tolerated by the Holy See, which accepts the minimum acts of supernatural Faith as being a belief in the one true God who is a rewarder of just and a punisher of evil ."
The 'belief in a god who rewards and punishes' can be known by natural philosophy with the same natural certitude that a person may know that 2 +2 = 4. Natural truths are evident when demonstrated to the intellect and require no act of the will. Revealed truths of our faith are not self-evident or demonstrated with certainty and require assent of the will. You now must produce evidence that a person who 'believes in a god who rewards and punishes' has "supernatural faith." What is the possible evidence? The claim for "supernatural Charity" is moot because it presupposes "supernatural faith" for it is impossible to love what is unknown. Faith is believing in the revelation of God on the authority of God. Where is the source of the revelation the 'belief in a god who rewards and punishes' is the only necessary and sufficient object of faith? What evidence can you produce that this revelation has been made?
St. Thomas say, "The unfolding of matters of faith is the result of Divine revelation: for matters of faith surpass natural reason." St Thomas, II,II, Q2, a6.
The Church teaches that there are two kinds of religious cognition, natural and supernatural. What man can learn of God by his natural powers, such as the existence of God, cannot, in and of itself, produce a supernatural end. The knowledge of a 'god who rewards and punishes' is in the domain of natural knowledge. Vatican I declared that the natural powers of human reason can arrive at the knowledge of the existence of God, Creator and Lord of the moral order. Supernatural faith must have an object of that faith that is a truth revealed by God. As Vatican I says, "Divine things.... even in this present condition of the human race, be known readily by all with firm certitude and with no admixture of error. Nevertheless, it is not for this reason that revelation is said to be absolutely necessary, but because God in His infinite goodness has ordained man for a supernatural end, to participation, namely, in the divine goods which altogether surpass the understanding of the human mind...."
At the Prayer Meeting at Assisi the 'belief in a god who rewards and punishes' could be predicated about everyone present, including the Pope.
As far as "implicit desire to enter the Church," this is something that you know even less about. Any judgment that "implicit desire" exists must rest upon some objective evidence. Without evidence, implicit desire has no possible known object both subjectively and objectively. The only evidence offered that there exists an "implicit desire to enter the Church" is grounded upon an "explicit desire to do the will of a god who rewards and punishes.' The 1949 Holy Office Letter presupposes that this "explicit desire" contains the "implicit desire to enter the Church." What evidence exists for this presumption? It has not been revealed by God. Again this "explicit desire" could be predicated about everyone at the Prayer Meeting at Assisi.
The only objective criteria necessary for anyone to be in the state of grace, justified, a temple of the Holy Ghost, a member of the Church and heir to heaven is the 'explicit desire to do the will of god who rewards and punishes.' The is it. Everything else in a matter of the internal forum that you know nothing about any more than those who wrote the 1949 Holy Office Letter because God has not revealed it.
The Catholic dogmas that membership in the Church, the sacraments, explicit faith and submission to the Roman Pontiff and all dismissed as unnecessary or relegated to the category of preceptive norms that do not bind in cases of physical or moral burdens. But to address your case specifically. There is nothing about "Baptism of Desire" whatsoever. Nothing. So in the end you do not believe that the sacraments are necessary for salvation in re or in votum, either explicitly or implicitly.
Drew wrote:
I know, and you have said, that that Holy Office Letter 1949 refers to supernatural faith, hope, and charity are necessary for salvation. But what are they in fact saying? Supernatural hope and charity presuppose supernatural faith. Supernatural faith is believing what God has revealed on the authority of God. The Holy Office Letter 1949, and Msgr. Joseph Fenton's defense of that Letter, do not mention a single article of Catholic faith that is necessary for salvation and neither have you. Not one!
The magisterium has never settled this point of the exact minimum of Faith to be believed. The majority of theologians hold that four truths must be believed explicitly, the Trinity, the Incarnation, the one true God, and God as a rewarder and punisher. The minority hold that the latter two are sufficient. All hold that one must implicitly hold to the rest of Divine revelation.
The Holy Office left this question unresolved.
You hold, along with the 1949 Holy Office Letter that the 'belief in god who rewards and punishes' is the only necessary and sufficient object of "faith" for salvation. This is in the domain of natural knowledge. It is pure Pelagianism to claim that this natural knowledge can be formal object of supernatural faith and productive of a supernatural end. It is the work of malice to confuse the natural and supernatural.
The object of supernatural faith identifies, "by divine and Catholic faith, all those things must be believed which are contained in the written word of God and in tradition, and those which are proposed by the Church, either in a solemn pronouncement or in her ordinary and universal teaching power, to be believed as divinely revealed" (Vatican I).
Drew wrote:
What is this “supernatural faith” the you and the Holy Office Letter 1949 require? Msgr. Fenton says, “He must accept explicitly and precisely as revealed truths the existence of God as the Head of the supernatural order and the fact that God rewards good and punishes evil. Our letter (Holy Office Letter 1949) manifestly alludes to this necessity when it quotes, in support of its teaching on the necessity of supernatural faith in all those who are saved, the words of the Epistle to the Hebrews: 'For he who comes to God must believe that God exists and is a rewarder of those who seek Him.'”
I require nothing. I only learn from those commissioned and authorized to teach me the Faith.
This is quite an admission. I was only offering the opinion expressed by the esteemed Msgr. Fenton who was defending the 1949 Holy Office Letter so as not be charged with giving only my personal interpretation. You say, "I require nothing" as for a formal object of supernatural faith. Jesus said, "He who believes and is baptized will be saved..." The faith and the sacraments are given equal grammatical weight. You have already done away with the sacraments either in re or in votum, explicitly or implicitly, why should you have any problem doing away with the faith?
Drew wrote:
The problem here is that the existence of God who punishes evil and rewards good is know by natural philosophy. It is the common belief of Jews, Moslems, Hindus, Buddhists, Aztecs, Satanists, and countless others. Msgr. Fenton says in defense of the Letter that, "this salvific and supernatural faith is an acceptance of these teachings, not as naturally ascertainable doctrines, but precisely as revealed statements, which are to be accepted on the authority of God who has revealed them to man" but that is not in the Holy Office Letter 1949, and it is unknowable on what grounds a person believes in a God who punishes and rewards both objectively and subjectively.
You are confusing natural truths with supernatural truths. How much have you read about the act of Faith? What sources are you relying on to form your judgments? If you wish to debate this point, I will provide sources, but I am more interested in your supposed sources.
Your are commenting without understanding. I am not confusing anything. Msgr. Fenton, an expert who is offering a better, but nevertheless insufficient, defense of the 1949 Holy Office Letter, is being referenced because of his understanding of the Letter. He recognizes that the Letter does not require any formal object of supernatural faith. He therefore is trying to make up for this deficiency. Msgr. Fenton is claiming that the natural knowledge of a 'god who rewards and punishes' must be believed with a 'supernatural faith.' That is impossible as the previous quotation from Vatican I makes clear that Divine revelation is "necessary" because the natural knowledge of God cannot produce a supernatural end.
Not only did you not understand what you commented upon, it is not even clear how you misunderstood it.
Drew wrote:
A belief in a 'god who rewards and punishes' is known by natural philosophy. Vatican I defined that the existence of God can be known by natural reason. You will never know if anyone ever believes this truth by "supernatural faith." The only objective criteria is the 'desire to do the will of this god who rewards and punishes.' That can be said of any of those attending the Prayer Meeting at Assisi.
You are right, you and I will never know of anyone who believes the truth about the one God who is a rewarder and punisher with supernatural Faith. But God knows this fact. Baptism of Desire along with its conditions, supernatural Faith and charity are not visibly ascertained.
Thank you for this admission. The problem is that God has not revealed it either. Again, "Baptism of Desire" has nothing to do with this argument. It is nothing but a tool to used to undermine the authority of all dogma because the undermining of all dogma is necessary to accept the novel doctrines taught in the 1949 Holy Office Letter.
You pray with fellow Catholics on any given Sunday that may or may not be in the state of grace. You pray with them because you are bound by common membership in the Church, common profession of the same faith, and common unity in charity under the Roman Pontiff. These outward signs, all dogmatically defined as necessary for salvation, are indicators of the possibility of inward justification.
The 1949 Holy Office Letter has removed every single outward sign beyond the 'explicit desire to do the will of a god who rewards and punishes.' This is what Archbishop Lefebvre was referring when he spoke of Hindus as Hindus being the state of grace, members of the Church, and heirs of heaven. If this is the only necessary attribute to indicate the possibility of justification then you can offer no principled objection to the doctrine of Religious Liberty by which this Hindu became justified. You can offer no principled objecting to ecuмenical relations with this Hindu. And you can offer no principled objection to the Prayer Meeting at Assisi
Drew wrote:
This is wrong. It is the second time you have repeated this error. The 1949 Holy Office Letter said nothing about "Baptism of Desire," either explicit or implicit, either in re or in voto. It said nothing whatsoever about "denying implicit Baptism of Desire." Msgr. Joseph Fenton in his defense of the Letter said nothing whatsoever about "Baptism of Desire." This is the second time you have made this reply to me. In this you are a clone of Fr. Kramer who repeats the same errors again and again.
The letter describes over and over again Baptism of Desire. The desire of joining the Church is Baptism of Desire. Did you not understand this?
This comment is just bizarre. If you were a lawyer, your client would end up in jail. If you were a doctor, he would be dead. The 1949 Holy Office Letter mentions the sacrament of Baptism only in an introductory paragraph referring to its preceptive obligation and when it states that only those who are baptized can be considered "members of the Church." Not another word about baptism at all. Not on word about "Baptism of Desire." Not in re, not in votum. Not in explicit votum. Not in implicit votum. Not one word. Msgr. Fenton in his defense of the 1949 Holy Office Letter does not say one word about the sacrament of baptism. Nothing. And you have accused me of "reading the Holy Office letter with an agenda."
The only "explicit desire" described in the 1949 Holy Office Letter is 'to do the will of a god who rewards and punishes.' That is it. An "explicit desire" has a known object. To predicate the existence of any "implicit desire" requires evidence. There is not one shred of objective evidence offered in the 1949 Holy Office Letter to suppose the existence of any implicit desire whatsoever. It is simply assumed as a corrupt judge might take judicial notice of any alleged "fact." If you have evidence for this assumption, produce it. But you will not find it in the 1949 Holy Office Letter.
The 1949 Holy Office Letter was referenced in Lumen Gentium as the authority for the New Ecclesiology. Fr. Rahner used the exact quotation from Lumen Gentium that referenced the 1949 Holy Office Letter as the first principle for the development of his Anonymous Christian theology. He did this by doing the exact same thing that you are doing but to a greater degree.
Anonymous Christianity means that a person lives in the grace of God and attains salvation outside of explicitly constituted Christianity — Let us say, a Buddhist monk — who, because he follows his conscience, attains salvation and lives in the grace of God; of him I must say that he is an anonymous Christian; if not, I would have to presuppose that there is a genuine path to salvation that really attains that goal, but that simply has nothing to do with Jesus Christ. But I cannot do that. And so, if I hold if everyone depends upon Jesus Christ for salvation, and if at the same time I hold that many live in the world who have not expressly recognized Jesus Christ, then there remains in my opinion nothing else but to take up this postulate of an anonymous Christianity.
There is no substantial difference between what Fr. Rahner says and what Archbishop Lefebvre, Bishop Fellay, and Pope John Paul II said in the previous citations. They all have accepted the New Ecclesiology which requires the destruction of dogma as dogma.
Drew wrote:
It is absurd to say that "full denial of Baptism of Desire, both explicit and implicit.... is heretical" and denial of "implicit Baptism of Desire...(is) not heresy." "Doctrinal error" is at least material heresy.
No, there is a world of difference between doctrinal error and heresy. Your assertion shows me that you do not understand Catholic teaching on heresy. You really need to stop this and learn your Faith from the ground up, and stop reading junk theology.
The distinction is between "doctrinal error" and "material heresy." You previously used the term "injurious to the faith" in reference to the censoring of Fr. Feeney in the 1949 Holy Office Letter. Prummer's Moral Theology equates this term with material heresy. I am assuming that you are using the term "doctrinal error" in the same sense that you previously said, "injurious to the faith" in your reference to the 1949 Holy Office Letter and Fr. Feeney. If you are making a further clarification on you charges against Fr. Feeney than be specific.
Nevertheless, the 1949 Holy Office Letter says nothing about teaching "injurious to the faith," nothing about "doctrinal error." I have already addressed this above with a specific quotation from Msgr. Fenton on this question.
But if you want a great example of "junk theology," you will not see anything better than Fr. Kramer who has been on a steady diet of it. I have in Fr. Kramer's own words his corrupting the revealed truth of God by changing the words of a Catholic dogma to fit his theology. I also have you defending it.
Drew wrote:
The 1949 Holy Office Letter specifically said it was censoring Fr. Feeney for his understanding of the dogma EENS. This leads me to believe that you have never read the Letter.
The specific correction given by the Holy Office to the SBC, and by that Fr. Feeney was the denial of implicit desire. Read the Holy Office Letter. The correction was for error, not heresy.
This is the second time in this posting that you have claimed that the 1949 Holy Office Letter said something without producing a specific reference. Again, this is bizarre. I never said that the Letter censored Fr. Feeney for "heresy." You are attributing something to me that was not said. It is habit the Fr. Kramer repeatedly exhibits. I have added the words "Baptism of" to you quotation for clarity because that is what you previously said. Again, there is not one word in the 1949 Holy Office Letter concerning "Baptism of Desire" which makes that claim that it censored Fr. Feeney's doctrinal error for "denial of Baptism of Desire" absurd.
Msgr. Fenton in his defense of the 1949 Holy Office Letter says:
Both here and in the doctrinal part of the letter we encounter the clear implication that the Holy Office is taking cognizance of many varieties of mistakes about the Catholic Church’s necessity for salvation. When the letter sets out to place the blame for the embitterment of the controversy, it directly inculpates the St. Benedict Center group, which was guilty of disrespect and disobedience to ecclesiastical authority, and which, incidentally, was originally punished precisely for that disobedience. When, on the other hand, the docuмent speaks of the origin of the dispute, it simply ascribes the controversy itself to a failure to know and to appreciate the formula “extra ecclesiam nulla sallus.”
Msgr. Fenton is writing as a critic in defense of the 1949 Holy Office Letter. He does not say anything about "denial of implicit Baptism of Desire." The reason for this is because it is not there. In fact, no "error" is specifically identified. It is common to confuse the imagination with fantasy. For the imagination, reality is a boundary, for fantasy, it is a impediment.
Drew wrote:
But you reject dogma as dogma. You give lip service to it like all Modernists, but in the end you reject dogma as dogma. That is, you reject dogma it in its literal meaning. You defend Fr. Kramer when he changes the actual words of a Catholic dogma to conform to his personal doctrine. You call the literal meaning of the dogmatic text "the private inventions of men." You do the same thing with John 3:5, which every Catholic is dogmatically bound to interpret literally and not metaphorically just as literally as the words, "This is My Body.... This is My Blood." You again defend Fr. Kramer when he corrupts the most basic rules of grammar and syntax in his treatment of our Lord's words. Again, the literal meaning is called "the private inventions of men."
I do not reject dogma, I reject man made perversions of dogma. It is not for you to determine the "literal meaning" of dogma, that is for the Church.
Can you name me a single Catholic prior to the Feeneyite movement, (in the late 1940s,) in the last 1,000 years who ever agreed with your supposedly obvious literal dogmas?
Regarding John 3:5, you are using a Protestant method, called "private interpretation," to form your ideas about this verse. Your duty as a Catholic is to submit to the teaching authority of the Church, and to the approved explanations of this verse, not your own ideas.
This is the whining complaint we constantly hear for the "Baptism of Desire" crowd. You have most certainly "reject dogma." I have your own words in defense of Fr. Kramer on the matter. Fr. Kramer changed the words of a dogma to change its meaning for the purpose of using it to support his own version of "salvation by justification alone" that he stripped out of context from the narrative on the Decree of Justification from Trent. And I have your defense of the act by Fr. Kramer. St. Thomas says, heresy "is a species of infidelity in men who, having professed the faith of Christ, corrupt its dogmas" (II-II, Q xi, a 1).
You do not believe in the "literal (meaning of) dogmas" which you characterize as "man made perversions of dogma." The liar and thief will wail that the "'literal meaning' of dogma... is for the Church" to determine. This is an admission that either you have no idea what dogma is, or knowing what it is, you reject it. Fr. Kramer in his book The Devil's Final Battle gives an excellent description of the nature of dogma. The book was written 12 years ago, but since then, once having known the "whatness" of dogma he has now rejected it. And you have defended him in this act.
Dogma is divine revelation of God that the Church has formally and infallibly defined for all the faithful in the form of a universal categorical proposition that is always and everywhere true or always and everywhere false, and then proposed to the faithful as a formal object of divine and Catholic faith. It is the dogma that is infallibly defined doctrine. Dogma marks the end of theological speculation. Fr. Kramer makes this same stupid mistake as you but he most certainly should know better. As an aside, Fr. Kramer makes the argument in The Devil's Final Battle that it was not until the decrees of Vatican I that the nature of dogma as the infallible formal object of divine and Catholic faith was definitively taught and that that truth may not have been fully understood before the Council. But now, he arrogantly claims for himself, with the hubris of a Pharisee, the authority that belongs to dogma.
As for John 3:5, the Church teaches dogmatically that the words cannot be interpreted metaphorically. I have already posted a brief grammatical analysis of the text. You cannot make "water" a metaphor for desire without making the "Holy Ghost" a metaphor for something else.
It is dogma that you cannot stand. Modernism is the heresy that attacks dogma in its very nature.
Drew wrote:
Dogma is divine revelation. It is a special kind of divine revelation that has been infallibly defined by the Church in the form of a universal categorical proposition that admits only of being always and everywhere true or always and everywhere false. These propositions are suitable for all the faithful and constitute the formal object of divine and Catholic faith. The denial of any dogma is the definition of heresy. Fr. Kramer has been caught in the act of mutilating dogma by changing the literal meaning and you have been caught in the act of defending this mutilation.
Dogma is the divinely revealed truths, but in this case, that is not what you are presenting. You are presenting your ideas about what you privately believe the Church teaches. Do you see the difference?
Fr. Kramer, with your support, has been caught in the act of changing the literal meaning of dogma. You believe that your theological training is a license to change the revealed word of God. I do most certainly "see the difference." When God reveals something, I believe Him because He has revealed it. Not because of any intrinsic reasonableness of the thing revealed. The "difference" is that you do not.
The end of the 1949 Holy Office Letter is salvation for any Jew as a Jew, Muslim as a Muslim, Hindu as a Hindu, Buddhist as a Buddhist, etc., etc., etc., who had an 'explicit desire to do the will of a god who rewards and punishes.' That is the central doctrine of your religion. But it requires first that the literal meaning of dogma be sifted in the "hermeneutic of continuity" to distinguish its 'perennial truths from its contingent historical accretions' until it conforms with the New Ecclesiology.
The author of dogma is God. To change what God has revealed is not just to attack the truth of what is revealed. It is to attack the Revealer. You do not possess the virtue of faith. No matter what else of Catholic doctrine you believe it is not believed on the authority of God but on your own human estimations.
Drew wrote:
That is what I have been saying! Of course it had "nothing to do with EENS." The Modernists in Rome and the SSPX are in complete agreement on the New Ecclesiology and the 1949 Holy Office Letter that teaches the Modernist version of EENS. They both believe that the only necessary and sufficient criteria for salvation is the 'explicit desire to do the will of a god who rewards and punishes. Read the quotes again posted below. There is no substantial difference between Archbishop Lefebvre, Bishop Fellay and the great ecuмenist, Pope John Paul II.
Wrong. Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop Fellay have nothing in common with John Paul II's theological ideas on the definition of the Church or ecuмenism. This is a typical Feeneyite oversimplification.
There is not one dime's worth of difference in principle between the quotations provided by Archbishop Lefebvre, Bishop Fellay, Pope John Paul II and Fr. Rahner. They all accept the doctrine of soteriology taught in the 1949 Holy Office Letter. The difference in only one of degree and not one of kind. All of them claim that the Hindu as a Hindu can obtain salvation without explicit faith, without membership in the Church, without the sacraments and without subjection to the Roman Pontiff.
The only thing the is "oversimplified" is you.
Drew wrote:
The 1949 Holy Office Letter discards the Catholic dogmas that explicit faith, submission to the Roman Pontiff, membership in the Church and the sacraments are necessary, as a necessity of means, for salvation. They are all uniformly treated as preceptive norms that are excused by "invincible ignorance." This is a condemned error of Modernism and is nothing more that the entire repudiation of dogma as dogma. And you are as responsible for this as any of the radical of Modernists.
False. The Holy Office did not "discard" Catholic teaching on explicit Faith, but explicitly affirmed it. The Church has never taught that membership in the Church is necessary for salvation. The Church teaches that the sacraments are necessary in re or in voto.
The 1949 Holy Office Letter does not mention as necessary for salvation a single article of divine revelation as a formal object of "supernatural faith." You are again affirming something from the Letter without evidence. "Supernatural faith" requires on object of that faith. The only object discussed in the 1949 Holy Office Letter is the "belief in a god who rewards and punishes.'
I have offered specific quotations from Msgr. Fenton who is defending this Letter and who affirms this fact. The problem for you is that Vatican I teaches that truths of the natural order cannot produce a supernatural end.
The Church teaches that the "sacraments are necessary in re or in voto" for possible justification. The Church teaches that the sacraments are necessary for salvation. Those who deny this literal meaning of the dogma, anathema sit. This is the dogma you and Fr. Kramer have a problem with the literal meaning of the words. You have followed and defended Fr. Kramer's exercise in theological "license" by his actual changing the words of the dogma to change its literal meaning.
You say that "The Church has never taught that membership in the Church is necessary for salvation." This claim is in agreement in part with the 1949 Holy Office Letter which says, "one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member." What is not true is the claim that, "The Church has never taught that membership in the Church is necessary for salvation." But what does that have to do with you. You are a member of the New Ecclesial Reality where the Church of Christ and the Catholic Church converge and diverge as overlapping but distinguishable entities. You believe in the doctrine of "subsist in" that was taught in Lumen Gentium, the docuмent that established the New Ecclesiology.
“There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved.”
Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215
“We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”
Pope Boniface VIII, the Bull Unam Sanctam, 1302
“The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.”
Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441
The 1949 Holy Office Letter calls EENS an "axiom." You treat it as an "axiom" as well. It is not. It is a dogma, a revealed truth of God that constitutes a formal object of divine and Catholic faith.
Drew wrote:
It is a remarkable level of hypocrisy to suggest that Ss. Thomas, Alphonsus and Bellarmine can be called upon to defend this rubbish. Lastly Fr. Fenton dates the teaching of salvation by an 'explicit desire to do the will of a god who rewards and punishes' to the encyclical Mystici Corporis. But as I have said before, the quotation taken from the encyclical to support this non-sense is a serious mistranslation.
St. Thomas and St. Alphonsus never taught rubbish. They both witnessed to the truths of the Catholic Faith. Both of these Doctors both affirmed Catholic teaching on Baptism of Desire and including the implicit Baptism of Desire.
Ss. Thomas and Alphonsus never taught "rubbish" because they never taught salvation by a faith alone that has as its only necessary and sufficient object as an 'explicit desire to do the will of a god who rewards and punishes.' Your claim that they do is a lie. Again, the 1949 Holy Office Letter says nothing about "Baptism of Desire." Noting whatsoever. Your repeated efforts to bring "Baptism of Desire" into the 1949 Holy Office Letter is analogues to Fr. Kramer's "dogmatic improvs." Maybe like him you think that the principle of identity and non-contradiction are just bug-a-boos of a small mind, an obstacle to creative theology.
By the way, what is your relationship with Fr. Kramer? How is it that you were in possession of personal emails sent to Fr. Kramer that you posted on CathInfo before publicized on other forums? It is a fair question that I and any readers of this thread deserve to know. Some think that you and Fr. Kramer are both related to Paolo.
You along with Fr. Kramer, Archbishop Lefebvre, Bishop Fellay, Fr. Rahner, and Pope John Paul II, all hold as Catholic doctrine the New Ecclesiology taught in the 1949 Holy Office Letter that authoritatively referenced a mistranslation from Mystici Corporis, published by Cardinal Richard Cushing, placed into Denzinger's by Fr. Karl Rahner, footnoted in Lumen Gentium and practically applied at the Prayer Meeting at Assisi by Pope John Paul II.
You all believe that a Jew as a Jew, a Muslim as a Muslim, a Hindu as a Hindu, a Buddhist as a Buddhist, etc., etc., etc., by virtue of an 'explicit belief in a god who rewards and punishes' can become justified, in the state of grace, temple of the Holy Ghost, and obtain salvation. You can offer no principled objection to praying with them anymore than a faithful Catholic can object to praying with another faithful Catholic at Sunday Mass. There is nothing preventing you from attending the next Prayer Meeting at Assisi.
The SSPX failed in its Doctrinal Discussions with Rome because there is no difference in their mutual understanding of the nature of dogma. The divine truth of dogma being set aside, the faithful have no defense against the abuse of authority. One thing is for certain, any Catholic who relies upon Fr. Kramer for his understanding of dogma will lose his Catholic faith because Fr. Kramer denies that dogma is in the infallible word of God. If he thought that it was, he would never have the temerity to change it to suit his own theology.
Lastly, the 1989 Profession of Faith imposed in the Doctrinal Preamble cannot be opposed without the appeal to the literal meaning of dogmatic truth. Neither can the immemorial Roman rite of Mass be defended without the appeal to dogma. Fr. Kramer demonstrated that fact very well in his book, The ѕυιcιdє of Altering the Faith in the Liturgy. It is a real tragedy that faithful traditional Catholics at this critical point in history have been represented by such bunglers.
Drew
-
The SSPX failed in its Doctrinal Discussions with Rome because there is no difference in their mutual understanding of the nature of dogma.
It fails because of the same cushinguite error that the SSPX shares in doctrine: the real issue is the literal interpretation of the EENS dogma and NOT Vatican II. Therefore, the "feeneyites" could get canonical status and are in full communion with Rome, while the SSPX is not.
The whole modernist crisis cringes on the denial of EENS.
-
Cantarella makes the oafish blunder of not grasping the plain and simple language of the canon she quotes: The fact that true and natural water are necessary for Baptism does not mean that true and natural water are necessary for the desire of it, i.e.,for the "votum" to obtain the grace of Baptism. Session 7 can. 4 defines that without the sacraments or the desire of them, there can be no justification. The votum can obtain the grace of Baptism, and no water is necessary to have a firm resolve to receive Baptism.
-
Unfortunately for Stubborn, his intellectual prowess is not quite up to the task of grasping the simplest of notions: That the one who dies after having been justified by Baptism of Desire, did not choose BOD as an option. The fact that such a one could not be justified without the resolve to be baptized proves that Baptism of water is mandatory, and not optional.
DP has no shortage of head spinning novus ordo double talk.
-
Drew rants on with his gratuitous codswallop, but does not reply to my specific points which refute all of the arguments he advances against. BOD.
-
Cantarella makes the oafish blunder of not grasping the plain and simple language of the canon she quotes: The fact that true and natural water are necessary for Baptism does not mean that true and natural water are necessary for the desire of it, i.e.,for the "votum" to obtain the grace of Baptism. Session 7 can. 4 defines that without the sacraments or the desire of them, there can be no justification. The votum can obtain the grace of Baptism, and no water is necessary to have a firm resolve to receive Baptism.
Then the next time you participate in a sacramental baptism, tell the catechumen he is free to leave after taking his baptismal votum - since the votum can obtain the grace of baptism he has no need to receive the actual sacrament. He just won't be able to receive any other sacrament the rest of his life - but that's OK because you hypocritically preach they are not necessary anyway.
-
Drew rants on with his gratuitous codswallop, but does not reply to my specific points which refute all of the arguments he advances against. BOD.
Begone, Satan. Drew posted a long, thorough, thoughtful, well-thought-out reply of multiple paragraphs and this is what you come back with? As I said before, you are a sad, pathetic joke. But then heresy will do that to you.
-
I REPLIED TO YOUR SPECIFIC POINTS, DREW. YOU SEEM INCAPABLE TO GIVE DIRECT REPLY TO MY REFUTATION OF YOUR POINTS. ALL YOU DO IS RANT ON ABOUT THE HOLY OFFICE LETTER; AND STUPIDLY CLAIM IN YOUR ASSININE RANT THAT I HAVE CHANGED THE DOGMAS! WHAT A LUDICROUS CLAIM FROM ONE WHO THEOLOGICALLY DOES NOT KNOW HIS LEFT HAND FROM HIS RIGHT! IN CASE YOU HAVE FORGOTTEN, DREW, HERE ARE MY POINTS AGAIN:
REFUTATION OF DREWS POINTS
Drew's argument against Baptism of Desire rests on five points: 1) That justification & salvation by means of the votum for Baptism reduces the necessity of means for the sacraments to a necessity of precept; 2) That the sacraments as the instrumental cause of justifification are an absolute necessity of means, and; 3) That the words of Christ, "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter the kingdom of God", are to be interpreted to mean that the water of Baptism are an absolute necessity of means for justification and salvation, and; 4) That one who is not baptized by water is outside the Church, and 5) That Baptism of Desire would render the Sacrament of Baptism optional and superfluous.
I reply saying:
Ad 1- The very elementary error of Drew and his Feeneyite gang is a matter of basic theology: I have consistently stated that as a necessity of means for justification and salvation, there must be the sacrament of Baptism OR the votum to receive it. This is plainly defined by the Council of Trent, as I have systematically demonstrated.
According to the sophistry of Drew, et al., this would reduce the necessity of means to a necessity of precept. The proposition is false, and is based on a fallacy which confuses a relative necessity of means with a necessity of precept. The necessity for salvation of the sacraments is a relative necessity of means, because the justification required to be saved can be obtained by the sacraments or the votum of them. (Sess. 7 can. 4) Hence, the necessity of means for Baptism is not an absolute necessity of means, but a relative one. The absolute moral necessity to receive the water of Baptism is a necessity of precept, which may not be transgressed under penalty of damnation. However, one is morally excused if the reception of the sacrament is impossible; and under such circuмstances the votum suffices as a substitute.
Ad 2 - From the fact that Baptism IS the instrumental cause of justification, it does not follow that justification absolutely or intrinsically requires an instrumental cause; which would render the process of justification impossible without the means of an instrumental cause. There is no absolute or intrinsic necessity of sacraments for justification, because there is no absolute or intrinsic need for an instrumental cause to produce the effect of justification: Abraham was justified by faith. The Decree on Justification (Ch. 4) defines that with the institution of the New Law by Jesus Christ, there can be no justification "without the laver of regeneration or the resolve of it as is written: 'unless a man be reborn of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter the kingdom of God'." Thus, the necessity for baptismal water is a precept of the New Covenant, which is fulfilled by the actual reception of the sacrament, or its reception in voto. One who is thus justified by Baptism in re or in voto, is thereby "reborn by water and the Holy Ghost"; and thus can enter the kingdom of God"; which is "eternal life" , if he appears before the tribunal of Christ in possession of the garment of justifying grace. (Ch. 7)
Ad 3 - The Decree on Justification (Ch. 4) defines that with the institution of the New Law by Jesus Christ, there can be no justification "without the laver of regeneration or the resolve of it as is written: 'unless a man be reborn of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter the kingdom of God'." Thus the explicit text of the Decree on Justification explicitly interprets the rebirth "in water and the Holy Ghost" to consist in that justification brought about by Baptism or the resolve of it; thereby establishing the water of Baptism to be of relative necessity of means, as well as a necessity of precept.
Ad 4 - Drew claims that those who would be justified in voto without baptismal water, would not be members of the Church; and therefore would be outside the Church, and therefore, excluded from salvation. This argument can be shown to be totally false and specious: 1) because one cannot be justified without the reception of the theological virtues of faith, hope, and charity, by the fruition of the merits of Christ's passion and reception of the unction and indwelling of the Holy Ghost, which constitute one as an adoptive son of God and an heir of eternal life -- a status that is exclusively reserved for members of God's household (Eph. 2), which is the Church; and thus there can be no justification outside the Church, 2) those justified by "votum" are in actu, in the soul of the Church (as Pope St. Pius X teaches); and thus, are members of the body of the Church in voto, (as St. Robert Bellarmine explains).
It cannot be otherwise, because if those justified by "votum", and thereby baptized in voto, remain outside the Church; then those who die, or are martyred before Baptism would die outside the Church. However, those who were baptized by blood were, as is the case of those not martyred but baptized in voto by Baptism of desire; were likewise properly justified by the "votum" or resolve to receive baptismal water. This cannot be otherwise, because the Decree on Justification defines that justification can only take place by 1) baptismal water; or, 2) the "votum", i.e. the "resolve" to receive Baptism. Martyrdom does not cause justification, but only Baptism in re or in voto. The shedding of blood only secures salvation for the justified soul who appears before the divine Judge with the crown of martyrdom.
If the martyrs baptized only by blood but not by water, were to have died outside the Church; then the whole Church would have defected into heresy 17 1/2 centuries ago. Since the Third Century, the Church has professed such martyrs to number among the baptized and venerates them as saints with the cult of dulia.
Since the Church infallibly professes and teaches that those justified by "votum" and baptized by blood, but not by water are truly in heaven, and members of the Church Triumphant; then likewise, those justified by "votum", who die, but not by martyrdom, before they can be cleansed by baptismal water, must be counted as members of the Church Suffering or Triumphant; because the same "votum" which brought the martyrs into the Church must necessrily produce the same effect in those who die of some other cause than martyrdom, because the proper effect of the "votum" is to justify, and thereby make one a member of the Church in voto.
Ad 5 - The reception of Baptism or the votum of it, is not an "either/or" option, which, in fact, would render the sacrament superfluous; but the "votum", i.e., the resolve to receive the sacrament, supplies for Baptism only if the reception of the sacrament is impossible, (as St. Pius V & St. Pius X teach in their catechisms). Thus, Canon 7 of Session 4 defines that the sacraments are necessary for salvation, because without them or the resolve of them; i.e., without the sacraments in re or in voto, there can be no justification.
The reception of the Baptism is a precept of divine law; and therefore without the grace of Baptism one cannot be saved, as Pope St. Pius V teaches in the Roman Catechism:
"nihil magis necessarium videri potest quam ut doceantur omnibus hominibus baptismi legem a Domino praescriptam esse ita ut, nisi per baptismi gratiam Deo renascantur, in sempiternam miseriam et intentum, a parentibus, sive illi fideles sive infideles sint, procreentur. Igitur saepius a pastoribus explicandum erit quod apud Evangelistam legitur: Nisi quis renatus fuerit ex aqua et Spiritu, non potest introire in regnum Dei."
CONCLUSION
Therefore, since Baptism is prescribed by divine law, one is excused from the reception of Baptism solely for reason of impossibility, as the Roman Catechism explains (in the original Italian text edited by St. Charles Borromeo):
"In caso improvviso di pericolo, chi ha l'uso della ragione, pur impossibilitato a purificarsi nell'acqua sacramentale, può conseguire la grazia e la giustizia col semplice proposito di ricevere a suo tempo il Battesimo, unito al pentimento dei peccati commessi."
Furthermore, is the consistent teaching of the popes that if one thus baptized in voto dies in the state of sanctifying grace before being able to receive the sacrament of water; that one will be saved because Baptism of Desire suffices to supply for the Sacrament under those circuмstances:
Pope Innocent III:
We respond that, since there should be a distinction between the one baptizing and the one baptized, as is clearly gathered from the words of the Lord, when He says to the Apostles: "Go, baptize all nations in the name etc.," the Jew mentioned must be baptized again by another, that it may be shown that he who is baptized is one person, and he who baptizes another ... If, however, such a one had died immediately, he would have rushed to his heavenly home without delay because of the faith of the sacrament, although not because of the sacrament of faith (Dz. 413, emphasis added).
Pope Innocent II:
Read (brother) in the eighth book of Augustine’s City of God where, among other things it is written, "Baptism is ministered invisibly to one whom not contempt of religion but death excludes." Read again the book also of the blessed Ambrose concerning the death of Valentinian where he says the same thing. Therefore, to questions concerning the dead, you should hold the opinions of the learned Fathers, and in your church you should join in prayers and you should have sacrifices offered to God for the priest mentioned (Innocent II, Letter Apostolicam Sedem, Dz. 388, emphasis added)
Pope St. Pius X (Q. 17 in the Catechism of Pope St. Pius X):
The absence of Baptism can be supplied by martyrdom, which is called Baptism of Blood, or by an act of perfect love of God, or of contrition, along with the desire, at least implicit, of Baptism, and this is called Baptism of Desire."
Pope Pius XII (October 29 1951):
"An act of love is sufficient for the adult to obtain sanctifying grace and to supply the lack of baptism; to the still unborn or newly born this way is not open."
_____________________________________________
Finally, as I have demonstrated in my previous posts, the universal & ordinary magisterium has definitively taught Baptism of Blood & Desire; that these supply for water Baptism when the latter is impossible; and that those who die thus sanctified by these extraordinary forms of Baptism obtain salvation, and THEREFORE: Whoever denies that Baptism of Blood or of Desire does not suffice for justification and salvation as a substitute for Baptism, when the reception of the sacrament of water is impossible, professes heresy.
The problem I see with Fr. Feeney's doctrine is that is is most explicitly set forth in Ch. 4 of the Decree on Justification that justification cannot be accomplished without the "laver of regeneration or the votum of it, as is written: unless a man be reborn of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter the kingdom of God".
This passage states quite plainly not only that one is justified by water baptism or the resolve to receive it; but that justification obtained in this manner fulfills the requirement of rebirth by water and the Holy Ghost, as the condition to enter heaven. Thus, the doctrine of Baptism of Desire is explicitly expressed in the Decree. In Chapter 7 it is further stated that once justified, those who bring that grace of justification before the tribunal of Christ may enter heaven. Thus, according to the Council of Trent, Baptism of Desire is sufficient for salvation. St. Alphonsus grasped that, and taught that BOD is de fide. It is not possible that he was in error on this point: if it was not de fide, he would have made a grave error, and then neither the Congregation of the Council nor the Holy Office, under Benedict XIV, would not have allowed him to publish that opinion in his Moral Theology. After his death, Gregory XVI explicitly upheld the correctness of his doctrine, and Pius IX declared him a Doctor of the Church.
Well before St. Alphonsus time, already in the late Sixteenth Century, the Congregation of the Council (specifically wielding the papal authority to interpret the doctrine of Trent since 1588) was already approving the teaching of BOD to be taught in all the catechisms. Thus it came about that by the time St. Alphonsus was writing his Moral Theology, BOD was already being definitively taught as Catholic doctrine by the ordinary magisterium throughout the world; and continued to be so taught from at least the 1540s right up through the reign of Pius XII. BOD was already taught explicitly by Popes Innocent II & III, and later also explicitly by Pius IX, X, & XII. Having been taught universally by the orrdinary magisterium of the corporate body of bishops for four centuries before Vatican II, BOD is clearly, and without any shadow of doubt a definition of faith of the universal & ordinary magisterium which must be believed with divine and Catholic faith, (as well as being dogmatically set forth in the Decree on Justification).
So, the doctrinal problem is not whether or not souls justified by BOD go to heaven or not, but rather, that the Church infallibly teaches that the sacrament of Baptism or its votum constitutes the means sufficient for salvation; and therefore; if anyone says that one who dies having been justified by perfect contrition, the theological virtues, and the resolve to receive the water of Baptism; still canot enter heaven without the cleansing of baptismal water -- such a one professes heresy.
______________________________
-
The insurmountable problem with Ladislaus' interpretation of the Decree on Justification is that it is as esoteric as the Kaballah: the entire Church for centuries understands the Decree differently than does Ladislaus, which by that very fact proves him wrong. I simply understand it literally as it is written.
By esoteric, you mean that you are too dull-witted to understand it.
-
Trent did, in the Decree on Justification, define that all those in possession of justifying grace at the judgment, enter heaven, without qualification regarding the means of justification: Justification can take place by sacrament or by votum; and that those thus justified are made heirs; and when they appear before the divine Judge having preserved the justified state, they enter eternal life. This is all clearly set forth in the Decree. By declaring without any qualification that the justified souls, (regardless of the means by which they were justified) at the judgment enter heaven; it is thereby defined that those justified souls, whether baptized in water, or in voto, enter heaven. There was no need to define again that which was already defined: That at the judgment, the justified souls enter heaven. The Council Fathers saw no need to be redundant, by belabouring the point already clearly defined. They did not formulate an explicit anathema against the proposition that those justified without baptismal water cannot enter heaven, because that error was not being professed by anyone.
I did not say St. Alphonsus could not err in a theological matter, but rather, the Church has pronounced, by Gregory XVI, that there is no error in faith or morals in the works of St. Alphonsus. St. Alphonsus is declared to have taught nothing against what the magisterium has taught. No one can be canonized or declared a Doctor who taught against what the magisterium had proposed. It is, therefore, plainly false, what many who deny BOD assert, namely, that St. Alphonsus erred against the magisterium when he taught in book 6, nn. 95-7 of his Theologia Moralis:
"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 presbytero 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."
If this teaching were against the teaching of Trent, or against the mind of the Church, it would not have been allowed to be published. It was during the reign of Benedict XIV, that St. Alohonsus wrote and first published his Moral Theology. Benedict XIV is reputed to have been the most erudite of the popes. When asked a difficult theological point by a famous missionary, Benedict XIV deferred to the saint's judgment, and replied, "You have the Father Liguori in Naples; go consult him."
Finally: Justification is not salvation. Salvation is the consummation of grace which takes in the next world after the Judgment.
Justification takes place in this world, and is the means by which sanctifying grace is received, which makes the justified soul an heir to eternal salvation. The sole condition for the heir to receive the inheritance of eternal beatitude is to preserve that justifying grace and present it to the divine Judge. Thus, the grace of justification is the beginning of glory in us; and salvation is the consummation of that grace.
-
Since you allege the BoD is de fide, i.e. that it's revealed dogma, then please demonstrate how BoD was either
1) show to have been revealed by the unanimous consensus of the Fathers (you can't because exactly ONE Father believed in it and several rejected it)
or
2) how it derives necessarily from other revealed dogma.
#1 can't be done. #2 has NEVER been done by any theologian. You get nothing but gratuitous assertion of its existence. You've got absolutely nothing but your assertion that it's taught by the magisterium. If BoD is true, then you should have no problem demonstrating #2. Too bad no one has ever attempted 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.
According to your own reading of Trent, there's no such thing as Baptism of Blood. Trent teaches, according to you, that no one has ever been justified except by Baptism or the desire thereof. Consequently, no one has ever been justified through Baptism of Blood. Your teaching on Baptism of Blood is heretical ... based of course on your false reading of Trent. All your drivel about a quasi ex opere operato effect is heretical.
-
No, that's wrong, no matter how sincerely you may believe it to be right, Ladislaus. No one has been justified other than by baptism in re or in voto. Catechumens receive baptism in voto by an act of love of God, whereas, in the case of BOB, and this is important to understand, martyrdom itself is the act of love of God. That is why and how martyrs, though they be even infants, receive baptism in voto simply by the fact of being martyred. Moreover, if the act of martyrdom was intrinsically sufficient to confer sanctifying grace in any age, which even you concede it was in the case of the Holy Innocents, then it is sufficient now, which is how the Fathers argue from the Scriptural examples to martyrs in their day. The Savior and the Fathers call martyrdom a baptism, as indeed it is. Baptism of Blood is nothing other than the most perfect form of Baptism of Desire.
Already in the Gospel Jesus made reference to this when He promised sanctifying grace to any man who loved Him, and declared also that there was no greater deed of love than laying down one's life for a Friend. For those who died for Him the Lord promised eternal life, as the Fathers taught and understood. Finally, there is another place in Scripture where the Fathers saw the Baptism of Water and Blood revealed, it is in the fact that Christ the Lord poured out Blood and Water from His pierced and wounded Heart, the stream of the Church and all the sacraments. [St. Cyril for e.g. "For when the Saviour, in redeeming the world by His Cross, was pierced in the side, He shed forth blood and water; that men, living in times of peace, might be baptized in water, and, in times of persecution, in their own blood. For martyrdom also the Saviour is wont to call a baptism, saying, Can ye drink rite cup which I drink, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with? ... For since in the Gospels the power of salutary Baptism is twofold, one which is granted by means of water to the illuminated, and a second to holy martyrs, in persecutions, through their own blood, there came out of that saving Side blood and water, to confirm the grace of the confession made for Christ, whether in baptism, or on occasions of martyrdom."
And when the Lord explained it to St. Catherine, "I poured from it Blood and Water, to show thee the baptism of water which is received in virtue of the Blood. I also showed the baptism of love in two ways, first in those who are baptized in their blood shed for Me which has virtue through My Blood, even if they have not been able to have Holy Baptism, and also those who are baptized in fire, not being able to have Holy Baptism, but desiring it with the affection of love. There is no baptism of desire without the Blood, because Blood is steeped in and kneaded with the fire of Divine charity, because through love was it shed."
He called both the baptism of Desire and of Blood the "Baptism of love" revealed in two ways since both are acts of love of God, and the most perfect of these is to be martyred for Christ, as He had said in the Gospel. And this is the meaning of that Scriptural statement, "This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood ... , the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one." where St. John says the Spirit, the Water and the Blood are one comparing them to the Holy Trinity, which as St. Catherine here and St. Cyril above shows refers to the triune baptism, to the three means by which the one baptism is received, and we incorporated into His Body and His Cross, the water, the blood and the Spirit.
I challenge you to answer this,
1. Provide some objective criteria of what constitutes unanimous consent, preferably with an example, among the Fathers.
2. Show how your example fulfils it while Baptism of Blood does not.
I just reviewed the sources again, and I find there are more than 25+sources, including ecclesiastical records and ancient martyrologies besides patristic testimonies, that expressly teach baptism of blood. The Fathers teach it as a revealed truth, as a certainty, (to the point of encouraging others to do the same, to go die for Christ without being water baptized if the situation arises) and condemn and attack those who deny it, in no way treating this as if it were an open question on which disagreement is permissible, but as an already closed and settled one, even in the patristic age.
St. Robert teaches Baptism of Desire at first was not certain among the ancient Fathers, but Baptism of Blood certainly was. And since Baptism of Desire logically derives from the revealed de fide dogma of Baptism of Blood, as St. Robert and several other later Doctors proved, the second part of your question is answered.
-
According to your own reading of Trent, there's no such thing as Baptism of Blood. Trent teaches, according to you, that no one has ever been justified except by Baptism or the desire thereof. Consequently, no one has ever been justified through Baptism of Blood. Your teaching on Baptism of Blood is heretical ... based of course on your false reading of Trent. All your drivel about a quasi ex opere operato effect is heretical.
It's like Feenyites are just generally ignorant or lack the ability to think rationally.
Please tell me how many people would have poured out their blood for Christ, and simultaneously NOT desire to do all that he wills, i.e. Receive the sacrament of baptism.
Feenyites are a small sect of dillusional people residing in the US and are not Catholics.
-
According to your own reading of Trent, there's no such thing as Baptism of Blood. Trent teaches, according to you, that no one has ever been justified except by Baptism or the desire thereof. Consequently, no one has ever been justified through Baptism of Blood. Your teaching on Baptism of Blood is heretical ... based of course on your false reading of Trent. All your drivel about a quasi ex opere operato effect is heretical.
It's like Feenyites are just generally ignorant or lack the ability to think rationally.
Please tell me how many people would have poured out their blood for Christ, and simultaneously NOT desire to do all that he wills, i.e. Receive the sacrament of baptism.
Feenyites are a small sect of dillusional people residing in the US and are not Catholics.
According to you and the rest of the sacrament despisers, the whole council was dillusional to teach things they didn't actually mean. For example, canon V below, is, according to you, a product of a dillusional council. The dillusion, according to you NSAAers, is because they declared things that mean something contrary to what they explicitly say.
CANON V.-If any one saith, that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema.
We let you be anathema because even though we try to cure you, you choose to remain anathema.
-
According to your own reading of Trent, there's no such thing as Baptism of Blood. Trent teaches, according to you, that no one has ever been justified except by Baptism or the desire thereof. Consequently, no one has ever been justified through Baptism of Blood. Your teaching on Baptism of Blood is heretical ... based of course on your false reading of Trent. All your drivel about a quasi ex opere operato effect is heretical.
It's like Feenyites are just generally ignorant or lack the ability to think rationally.
Please tell me how many people would have poured out their blood for Christ, and simultaneously NOT desire to do all that he wills, i.e. Receive the sacrament of baptism.
Feenyites are a small sect of dillusional people residing in the US and are not Catholics.
No, you are the one incapable of rational thought. I'm not saying that the martyrs wouldn't ALSO have the necessary votum. What I'm saying is that, according to your reading of Trent, there is NO SUCH THING as Baptism of Blood that's distinct from and does not ultimately reduce to Baptism of Desire. So all of DP's drivel about the quasi-ex opere operato effect of matyrdom is heretical. According to YOUR (false] reading of Trent, there's only the votum working ex opere operantis. You accuse us of not being able to think rationally when it's quite the opposite; you can't comprehend basic logic.
-
No, that's wrong, no matter how sincerely you may believe it to be right, Ladislaus. No one has been justified other than by baptism in re or in voto. Catechumens receive baptism in voto by an act of love of God, whereas, in the case of BOB, and this is important to understand, martyrdom itself is the act of love of God.
See my previous response. It applies to your answer also.
-
Already in the Gospel Jesus made reference to this when He promised sanctifying grace to any man who loved Him, and declared also that there was no greater deed of love than laying down one's life for a Friend.
Taking Scripture out of context to suit your agenda. Jesus also promised salvation to those who would feed the hungry and clothe the naked. So I guess that means that anyone who does corporal works of mercy must be saved. Now we have Baptism of soup kitchen work?
-
There's simply no reasoning with the Cushingite heretics.
-
Please tell me how many people would have poured out their blood for Christ, and simultaneously NOT desire to do all that he wills, i.e. Receive the sacrament of baptism.
The Church theory on martyrdom is that baptism of blood could replace water ONLY in case of a catechumen who has the Catholic Faith and confesses Christ and His Catholic Church, and who, because of his apprehension by pagans or heretics, is unable to receive the baptism of water.
Basically, martyrdom can replace Baptism only in the case of a man who cannot receive the Sacrament of Baptism because he is dying for Christ and His Church. Also, it is not enough to confess Christ in order to have the BOD. One needs also to confess His Church and to be dying as a Catholic, although prevented by martyrdom from receiving water baptism.
Again, this teaching is NOT INFALLIBLE.
The discussion is not about martyrdom. Actually, there is not really way to know if martyrs were water baptism or not. Most likely they were.
The discussion is about salvation of non-Catholics via implicit desire, in which an "anonymous Christian" or a "invincible ignorant" can be saved without even believing in Christ, Our Lord.
-
Also, it is not enough to confess Christ in order to have the BOD. One needs also to confess His Church and to be dying as a Catholic, although prevented by martyrdom from receiving water baptism.
Meant BOB, sorry
-
Double Post
-
No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.
Baptism of Blood only could apply to catechumens who have and professes the Faith in Christ and His Church. A person who is ignorant of Christ and His Church (whether culpably or not) cannot possibly receive BOB, since an open confession of the true Faith and of the true Church is indispensable for martyrdom.
Salvation can be attained to....
"Those who are killed for Christ in the confession of the true Faith, and in the unity of the Church. For heretics and schismatics cannot be martyrs, since they place an obstacle to the grace of God by their sin of infidelity and schism, in which they actually persevere".
If such (heretics or schismatics) should even suffer martyrdom for the name of Christ, they would not expiate their crime. There can be no such thing as a martyr out of the church.
-
Unfortunately the Cushingite heretics cannot be reasoned with.
In my long experience I have concluded that it is a waste of time to discuss the subject with a BODer that is not convinced that it is a heresy to believe in salvation by implicit faith in a god that rewards, that it is opposed to all of tradition, the Fathers, Athanasian Creed, Saints, Doctors, Councils, and all the catechisms prior to the 20th century. As long as they don't condemn salvation by implicit faith, you will never convince them of anything by logic or the St. Vincent of Lerin method of finding truth, the Catholic system.
Anyone that believes in salvation by implicit faith in a god that rewards lives a contradiction, they give lip service to baptism of desire and at the very same time they reject it in their belief that a person can be saved without it.
Below is what I and all others like me believe, there is no one that God can't reach. From before the beginning of the world He foreknew where he was going to place every predestined in this world and time.
St. Augustine: “If you wish to be a Catholic, do not venture to believe, to say, or to teach that they whom the Lord has predestinated for baptism can be snatched away from his predestination, or die before that has been accomplished in them which the Almighty has predestined.’ There is in such a dogma more power than I can tell assigned to chances in opposition to the power of God, by the occurrence of which casualties that which He has predestinated is not permitted to come to pass. It is hardly necessary to spend time or earnest words in cautioning the man who takes up with this error against the absolute vortex of confusion into which it will absorb him, when I shall sufficiently meet the case if I briefly warn the prudent man who is ready to receive correction against the threatening mischief.” (On the Soul and Its Origin 3, 13)
The absolute vortex of confusion into which BODers are absorbed is legion!
-
Idiot Ladislaus, like Drew, seems to think that the unanimous consent of the Fathers is a condition for a doctrine to be de fide. Those ignorant fools do not grasp what the whole Church understands on this point: if there is unanimous consent, then the doctrine is de fide. If there is not unanimous consent of the Fathers, then that means only that the question was not yet settled. Once a doctrine is definitively taught by the universal & ordinary magisterium, it is a definition of faith of the universal Church. The idea that only what is defined solemnly ex cathedra is de fide, is a heresy. The definitions of the universal & ordinary magisterium are of equal authority with the solemn definitions, because they must be believed with divine & Catholic faith.
-
Idiot Ladislaus, like Drew, seems to think that the unanimous consent of the Fathers is a condition for a doctrine to be de fide. Those ignorant fools do not grasp what the whole Church understands on this point: if there is unanimous consent, then the doctrine is de fide. If there is not unanimous consent of the Fathers, then that means only that the question was not yet settled. Once a doctrine is definitively taught by the universal & ordinary magisterium, it is a definition of faith of the universal Church. The idea that only what is defined solemnly ex cathedra is de fide, is a heresy. The definitions of the universal & ordinary magisterium are of equal authority with the solemn definitions, because they must be believed with divine & Catholic faith.
Yes, we understand that you, as a Novus Ordo theologian and despiser of the sacraments, think this is how it works, but you have no idea what you are talking about and will only fool other weak faithed individuals with your unceasing heretical babble.
-
Idiot Ladislaus, like Drew, seems to think that the unanimous consent of the Fathers is a condition for a doctrine to be de fide. Those ignorant fools do not grasp what the whole Church understands on this point: if there is unanimous consent, then the doctrine is de fide. If there is not unanimous consent of the Fathers, then that means only that the question was not yet settled. Once a doctrine is definitively taught by the universal & ordinary magisterium, it is a definition of faith of the universal Church. The idea that only what is defined solemnly ex cathedra is de fide, is a heresy. The definitions of the universal & ordinary magisterium are of equal authority with the solemn definitions, because they must be believed with divine & Catholic faith.
I honestly cannot believe that I'm reading this. And you have the audacity to call ME an idiot? You're heretical on this point also. You are a modernist.
This is Theology 101. In order for something to be de fide it must have been part of Public Revelation, which ceased with the death of the Last Apostle. Consequently, one of the criteria used by theologians to ascertain that something was revealed is the unanimous consensus of scattered and disparate Church Fathers. If Church Fathers all over the world, without significant disagreement, hold some point of doctrine, then that's considered a very good indicator that something was revealed, taught by Our Lord, and transmitted through the Apostles.
And something can also be revealed in the sense that it exists implicitly within other known revealed truths and can be derived from them by way of syllogism.
It's not a question of "setting" anything, you ignorant heretical modernist you. So much for your Roman edumacation. I think that I learned this basic principle, oh, two months into my time at a REAL Catholic seminary.
-
Idiot Ladislaus, like Drew, seems to think that the unanimous consent of the Fathers is a condition for a doctrine to be de fide. Those ignorant fools do not grasp what the whole Church understands on this point: if there is unanimous consent, then the doctrine is de fide. If there is not unanimous consent of the Fathers, then that means only that the question was not yet settled. Once a doctrine is definitively taught by the universal & ordinary magisterium, it is a definition of faith of the universal Church. The idea that only what is defined solemnly ex cathedra is de fide, is a heresy. The definitions of the universal & ordinary magisterium are of equal authority with the solemn definitions, because they must be believed with divine & Catholic faith.
I honestly cannot believe that I'm reading this. And you have the audacity to call ME an idiot? You're heretical on this point also. You are a modernist.
This is Theology 101. In order for something to be de fide it must have been part of Public Revelation, which ceased with the death of the Last Apostle. Consequently, one of the criteria used by theologians to ascertain that something was revealed is the unanimous consensus of scattered and disparate Church Fathers. If Church Fathers all over the world, without significant disagreement, hold some point of doctrine, then that's considered a very good indicator that something was revealed, taught by Our Lord, and transmitted through the Apostles.
And something can also be revealed in the sense that it exists implicitly within other known revealed truths and can be derived from them by way of syllogism.
It's not a question of "setting" anything, you ignorant heretical modernist you. So much for your Roman edumacation. I think that I learned this basic principle, oh, two months into my time at a REAL Catholic seminary.
Don Paolo (Kramer) so fears his opponents defending dogma that his only recourse seems to be defamation and telling everyone who wants to believe him, what the opponent really means. He should have been an anchor, not a priest.
-
He should have been an anchorman.
betcha nobody here can.... uhm.......me either :(
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/embed/GoFV8lTD4ug[/youtube]
-
He should have been an anchorman.
betcha nobody here can.... uhm.......me either :(
You seem to have -- mercifully -- killed this thread with that post. Congratulations !
:applause:
-
I REPLIED TO YOUR SPECIFIC POINTS, DREW. YOU SEEM INCAPABLE TO GIVE DIRECT REPLY TO MY REFUTATION OF YOUR POINTS. ALL YOU DO IS RANT ON ABOUT THE HOLY OFFICE LETTER; AND STUPIDLY CLAIM IN YOUR ASSININE RANT THAT I HAVE CHANGED THE DOGMAS! WHAT A LUDICROUS CLAIM FROM ONE WHO THEOLOGICALLY DOES NOT KNOW HIS LEFT HAND FROM HIS RIGHT! IN CASE YOU HAVE FORGOTTEN, DREW, HERE ARE MY POINTS AGAIN:
REFUTATION OF DREWS POINTS
Drew's argument against Baptism of Desire rests on five points: 1) That justification & salvation by means of the votum for Baptism reduces the necessity of means for the sacraments to a necessity of precept; 2) That the sacraments as the instrumental cause of justifification are an absolute necessity of means, and; 3) That the words of Christ, "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter the kingdom of God", are to be interpreted to mean that the water of Baptism are an absolute necessity of means for justification and salvation, and; 4) That one who is not baptized by water is outside the Church, and 5) That Baptism of Desire would render the Sacrament of Baptism optional and superfluous.
Paolo/Fr. Kramer:
Once again you launch a post and do not produce a single quotation to support your allegations of what I said or did not say. After all these exchanges you still do not understand the nature of the problem. You have not refuted anything until you refute dogma. Let me help you.
The problem concerns dogma. What exactly it is. I began the exchange with you because I thought you already knew what dogma was. Your book, The Devil’s Final Battle, offers a very good exposition of the subject. The book, The ѕυιcιdє of Altering the Faith in the Liturgy, is entirely grounded upon the immutable truth of Catholic dogma. All of its arguments and conclusion necessarily follow from the first truths established in dogma.
I now know that you have admitted that you are not the author of significant parts of the book that is attributed to you. From you posts in this thread I have real doubts about other material that is attributed to you as its author because you clearly reject dogma as dogma.
Dogma is specific kind of divine revelation. It is divine revelation that is infallibly defined by the Church in the form of a universal proposition that is always and everywhere either true or false. The dogmatic proposition is suitable to all the faithful. Dogma is the end of theological speculation on the question and may serve as a certain first principle from which necessary conclusions can be logically demonstrated. The only tools required for understanding dogma are correct definition and proper grammar.
Therefore:
1) Anyone who denies dogma is a heretic. The denial of one dogma cuts the heretic off from the Church because he is denying the authority and truthfulness of the God who reveals.
2) The Church has dogmatically defined that the sacraments are necessary for salvation as a necessity of means. You deny this dogma and intentionally changed the words of this divine revelation to conform to your doctrinal understanding that you extracted from the Decree on Justification by taking a sentence out of the context of the narrative.
I have the docuмented email from you in which you added an adverb, “morally,” to modify the word “necessary”for the purpose of changing the necessity of the sacraments to a necessity of precept. You then changed the coordinating conjunction “and,” that joined two independent clauses to a subordinating conjunction which made the second proposition a “reason” for the first. You are a rank hypocrite with the hubris of Pharisee for doing.
3) You regard dogma as your theological playground. What you have done is a grave sin against the faith. The sin admits only of serious matter.
4) “Baptism of Desire” is not a universal teaching of the Church. That has been proven from the Church Fathers and the Council of Braga that testify that the doctrine is not universal. It cannot be a doctrine of the ordinary and universal magisterium. The extra-ordinary infallible magisterium of the Church has infallibly defined that the sacraments are necessary for salvation. The sacrament is the form and matter. Even the definition to this day of “Baptism of Desire” is not consistently understood or applied. The term as used by St. Robert Bellarmine is different in significant essentials from that of St. Alphonsus. Both of these saints would recoil in horror from the doctrine taught in the 1949 Holy Office Letter.
5) You hold the 1949 Holy Office Letter as an orthodox exposition of Catholic doctrine. You said on two occasions that the Letter was consistent with the teaching of St. Pius X and you have called anyone who rejects “Baptism of Desire” in the Pius X catechism a heretic. You have referred me to two web sites that defend the 1949 Holy Office Letter as Catholic doctrine.
The 1949 Holy Office Letter is an exposition of where the doctrine of “Baptism of Desire” leads and for what purpose.
6) The real proof that you hate the revealed truth of God is evident in the end where your doctrine of “Baptism of Desire” leads. You believe that any Jew as a Jew, Hindu as Hindu, Muslim as a Muslim, Protestant as a Protestant, etc., etc., etc., by virtue of an ‘explicit desire to do the will of a god who rewards and punishes’ can be justified, in the state of grace, united to the Church, temple of the Holy Ghost, and heir to heaven. In the end, you deny that any sacrament in re or in voto is necessary for salvation; you deny that membership in the Church is necessary for salvation; you deny that subjection to the Roman Pontiff is necessary for salvation; you deny that any truth of divine revelation is necessary as a formal object of “supernatural faith” for salvation.
7) You call Catholic faithful “heretics” who believe all the revealed truths of God because God has revealed them, keep the commandments of God, are members of the Catholic Church and subjects of the Roman Pontiff.
8) The difference between you and me is that I know what dogma is which I assent to its propositions with divine and Catholic faith and you do not.
9) This thread will remain an excellent education tool for Catholics on the importance of dogma and the results the follow from its denial. The doctrine of “Baptism of Desire” is a rotten swollen corpse and we have you, Fr. Kramer, to thank for making that evident. You declare yourself a priest with advanced expert theological training from Rome, yet you have displayed remarkable intellectual sterility and a level of immaturity that can only be called infantile. You have disgraced yourself and your priesthood but we can all be thankful that your doctrine has suffered with you. Your doctrine could not have had better champion.
A reputation take years to establish and, as you have demonstrated, can be flushed down the toilet in a minutes.
Drew
-
I REPLIED TO YOUR SPECIFIC POINTS, DREW. YOU SEEM INCAPABLE TO GIVE DIRECT REPLY TO MY REFUTATION OF YOUR POINTS. ALL YOU DO IS RANT ON ABOUT THE HOLY OFFICE LETTER; AND STUPIDLY CLAIM IN YOUR ASSININE RANT THAT I HAVE CHANGED THE DOGMAS! WHAT A LUDICROUS CLAIM FROM ONE WHO THEOLOGICALLY DOES NOT KNOW HIS LEFT HAND FROM HIS RIGHT! IN CASE YOU HAVE FORGOTTEN, DREW, HERE ARE MY POINTS AGAIN:
REFUTATION OF DREWS POINTS
Drew's argument against Baptism of Desire rests on five points: 1) That justification & salvation by means of the votum for Baptism reduces the necessity of means for the sacraments to a necessity of precept; 2) That the sacraments as the instrumental cause of justifification are an absolute necessity of means, and; 3) That the words of Christ, "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter the kingdom of God", are to be interpreted to mean that the water of Baptism are an absolute necessity of means for justification and salvation, and; 4) That one who is not baptized by water is outside the Church, and 5) That Baptism of Desire would render the Sacrament of Baptism optional and superfluous.
Paolo/Fr. Kramer:
Once again you launch a post and do not produce a single quotation to support your allegations of what I said or did not say. After all these exchanges you still do not understand the nature of the problem. You have not refuted anything until you refute dogma. Let me help you.
The problem concerns dogma. What exactly it is. I began the exchange with you because I thought you already knew what dogma was. Your book, The Devil’s Final Battle, offers a very good exposition of the subject. The book, The ѕυιcιdє of Altering the Faith in the Liturgy, is entirely grounded upon the immutable truth of Catholic dogma. All of its arguments and conclusion necessarily follow from the first truths established in dogma.
I now know that you have admitted that you are not the author of significant parts of the book that is attributed to you. From you posts in this thread I have real doubts about other material that is attributed to you as its author because you clearly reject dogma as dogma.
Dogma is specific kind of divine revelation. It is divine revelation that is infallibly defined by the Church in the form of a universal proposition that is always and everywhere either true or false. The dogmatic proposition is suitable to all the faithful. Dogma is the end of theological speculation on the question and may serve as a certain first principle from which necessary conclusions can be logically demonstrated. The only tools required for understanding dogma are correct definition and proper grammar.
Therefore:
1) Anyone who denies dogma is a heretic. The denial of one dogma cuts the heretic off from the Church because he is denying the authority and truthfulness of the God who reveals.
2) The Church has dogmatically defined that the sacraments are necessary for salvation as a necessity of means. You deny this dogma and intentionally changed the words of this divine revelation to conform to your doctrinal understanding that you extracted from the Decree on Justification by taking a sentence out of the context of the narrative.
I have the docuмented email from you in which you added an adverb, “morally,” to modify the word “necessary”for the purpose of changing the necessity of the sacraments to a necessity of precept. You then changed the coordinating conjunction “and,” that joined two independent clauses to a subordinating conjunction which made the second proposition a “reason” for the first. You are a rank hypocrite with the hubris of Pharisee for doing.
3) You regard dogma as your theological playground. What you have done is a grave sin against the faith. The sin admits only of serious matter.
4) “Baptism of Desire” is not a universal teaching of the Church. That has been proven from the Church Fathers and the Council of Braga that testify that the doctrine is not universal. It cannot be a doctrine of the ordinary and universal magisterium. The extra-ordinary infallible magisterium of the Church has infallibly defined that the sacraments are necessary for salvation. The sacrament is the form and matter. Even the definition to this day of “Baptism of Desire” is not consistently understood or applied. The term as used by St. Robert Bellarmine is different in significant essentials from that of St. Alphonsus. Both of these saints would recoil in horror from the doctrine taught in the 1949 Holy Office Letter.
5) You hold the 1949 Holy Office Letter as an orthodox exposition of Catholic doctrine. You said on two occasions that the Letter was consistent with the teaching of St. Pius X and you have called anyone who rejects “Baptism of Desire” in the Pius X catechism a heretic. You have referred me to two web sites that defend the 1949 Holy Office Letter as Catholic doctrine.
The 1949 Holy Office Letter is an exposition of where the doctrine of “Baptism of Desire” leads and for what purpose.
6) The real proof that you hate the revealed truth of God is evident in the end where your doctrine of “Baptism of Desire” leads. You believe that any Jew as a Jew, Hindu as Hindu, Muslim as a Muslim, Protestant as a Protestant, etc., etc., etc., by virtue of an ‘explicit desire to do the will of a god who rewards and punishes’ can be justified, in the state of grace, united to the Church, temple of the Holy Ghost, and heir to heaven. In the end, you deny that any sacrament in re or in voto is necessary for salvation; you deny that membership in the Church is necessary for salvation; you deny that subjection to the Roman Pontiff is necessary for salvation; you deny that any truth of divine revelation is necessary as a formal object of “supernatural faith” for salvation.
7) You call Catholic faithful “heretics” who believe all the revealed truths of God because God has revealed them, keep the commandments of God, are members of the Catholic Church and subjects of the Roman Pontiff.
8) The difference between you and me is that I know what dogma is which I assent to its propositions with divine and Catholic faith and you do not.
9) This thread will remain an excellent education tool for Catholics on the importance of dogma and the results the follow from its denial. The doctrine of “Baptism of Desire” is a rotten swollen corpse and we have you, Fr. Kramer, to thank for making that evident. You declare yourself a priest with advanced expert theological training from Rome, yet you have displayed remarkable intellectual sterility and a level of immaturity that can only be called infantile. You have disgraced yourself and your priesthood but we can all be thankful that your doctrine has suffered with you. Your doctrine could not have had better champion.
A reputation take years to establish and, as you have demonstrated, can be flushed down the toilet in a minutes.
Drew
Not very fond of this icon but there is not better words than:
:applause:
-
Marie Auxiliadora does not even know the basic principles of Ecclesiology on the point of "magisterium". When a doctrine is implicitly contained in a dogma already taught, that doctrine remains an OPEN QUESTION, until it is settled by the magisterium. When the magisterium teaches explicitly on that point of doctrine, the question is then CLOSED, and must be given a religious assent of mind and will. Once the point has defined, either by the solemn EXTRAORDINARY MAGISTERIUM, or by the UNIVERSAL & ORDINARY MAGISTERIUM, it must be given the assent of faith, i.e., it is DE FIDE. (cf. Constitutio Dogmatica de Fide Catholica "Dei Filius", Caput 2)
-
The politeness, grammar, and communication skills of Drew and Ladisalus, stands out in stark contrast to the vitriol and babel of so-called "Fr. Kramer".
By their deeds you shall know them.
I can only guess that Drew and Ladislaus dedicated so much time to answering "Fr. Kramer" because he said he was a theologian. I congratulate and thank them for their time and effort. Personally, I would not have wasted 5 minutes on him. He knows nothing more about the subject than any newcomer who has read a few pro-BOD websites.
Novus Ordo theologian so-called "Fr. Kramer" the BOD expert.
"In the country of blind men, the one eyed man is a king".
-
You hold the 1949 Holy Office Letter as an orthodox exposition of Catholic doctrine. You said on two occasions that the Letter was consistent with the teaching of St. Pius X and you have called anyone who rejects “Baptism of Desire” in the Pius X catechism a heretic. You have referred me to two web sites that defend the 1949 Holy Office Letter as Catholic doctrine.
Pius X did not write that catechism. One might as well say the St. Joseph's Baltimore catechism was written by St. Joseph.
Here is something that was authorized by Pius X. Who could have a greater chance of salvation by implicit faith in a god that rewards than Confucius or some other "prophet", "holy man" like him?
The Sacred Congregation of the Propagation of the Faith, under Pope Pius X, 1907, in answer to a question as to whether Confucius could have been saved?:
“It is not allowed to affirm that Confucius was saved. Christians, when interrogated, must answer that those who die as infidels are damned”.
Here is a real priest answering the same:
"Before their Baptism, certain Japanese were greatly troubled by a hateful scruple: that God did not appear merciful, because He had never made Himself known to the Japanese people before, especially that those who had not worshipped God were doomed to everlasting Hell. They grieve over the fate of their departed children, parents, and relatives; so they ask if there is any way to free them by prayer from the eternal misery. And I am obligated to answer: there is absolutely none."
Saint Francis Xavier
-
DREW: You are again indulging in SOPHISTRY. I have stated quite explicitly that Baptism is of NECESSITY OF MEANS; but it is a RELATIVE necessity of means according to Canon 4 of Session 7, and Chapter 4 of the Decree on Justification. It is defined explicitly in those texts that the sacraments are necessary for salvation precisely because there can be no justification without them or the votum of them. This is also plainly taught in the Roman Catechism, as I have already pointed out, citing verbatim passages of the original Borromeo edited text: "In caso improvviso di pericolo, chi ha l'uso della ragione, pur impossibilitato a purificarsi nell'acqua sacramentale, può conseguire la grazia e la giustizia col semplice proposito di ricevere a suo tempo il Battesimo, unito al pentimento dei peccati commessi." --
so it is clearly not MY interpretation, but is the MIND OF THE CHURCH. Lkkewise, the reception of the sacrament of Baptism is a precept of divine law (legem a Domino praescriptam); and therefore without the grace of Baptism (nisi per Baptismi gratiam) one cannot be saved, as Pope St. Pius V teaches in the Roman Catechism:
"nihil magis necessarium videri potest quam ut doceantur omnibus hominibus baptismi legem a Domino praescriptam esse ita ut, nisi per baptismi gratiam Deo renascantur, in sempiternam miseriam et intentum, a parentibus, sive illi fideles sive infideles sint, procreentur. Igitur saepius a pastoribus explicandum erit quod apud Evangelistam legitur: Nisi quis renatus fuerit ex aqua et Spiritu, non potest introire in regnum Dei."
The moral necessity is a necessity of precept de jure divino (as the Roman Catechism teaches) to receive the sacrament of Baptism; and precisely because it is morally binding sub gravi, if the sacrament for some unforeseen reason becomes impossible to receive, one can receive justifying grace by means of repentance, and the resolve to receive Baptism, as is stated in the above cited passage.
Your objection ("Once again you launch a post and do not produce a single quotation to support your allegations of what I said or did not say."), is a red herring argument. You have not denied stating those points, which I have refuted, but you limit yourself to stating that I have not produced any direct quotation -- as if there were any need for that: your points were plainly stated, and you do do not deny having stated them. You did not restate your points, by way of clarification, but rather, you launch into a theologically flawed tirade on "dogma"; making gratuitous assertions and misrepresentations; making nine new points, while still obsessing over the 1949 Holy Office letter.
You have completely ignored every point of refutation I have made of your points. You are plainly dishonest -- s charlatan.
-
RELATIVE necessity of means
There's no such thing. Once you qualify it as "relative" it's no longer a necessity of means. Just as when you tried to define "extrinsic" necessity as essentially being a necessity of precept. You wordsmith different fake distinctions but end up every time with the same result -- YOU CONSIDER BAPTISM TO BE A NECESSITY OF PRECEPT, and therefore optional, and therefore fall under Trent's anathema.
You have an easy out but refuse to take it due to your intellectual pride. All you have to do is to say that in Baptism of Desire the Sacrament remains the instrumental cause of salvation operating through the votum. I've served up the answer for you but you refuse to take it, persisting instead in your obstinate denial of the necessity of the Sacraments for salvation. It's ironic that you call us heretics when you yourself are in heresy on this and several other points.
-
Marie Auxiliadora does not even know the basic principles of Ecclesiology on the point of "magisterium". When a doctrine is implicitly contained in a dogma already taught, that doctrine remains an OPEN QUESTION, until it is settled by the magisterium. When the magisterium teaches explicitly on that point of doctrine, the question is then CLOSED, and must be given a religious assent of mind and will. Once the point has defined, either by the solemn EXTRAORDINARY MAGISTERIUM, or by the UNIVERSAL & ORDINARY MAGISTERIUM, it must be given the assent of faith, i.e., it is DE FIDE. (cf. Constitutio Dogmatica de Fide Catholica "Dei Filius", Caput 2)
Fr. Kramer,
Would you please quote "me"? I have no idea what are you talking about or what you are replying to. Thank you.
-
This is also plainly taught in the Roman Catechism, as I have already pointed out, citing verbatim passages of the original Borromeo edited text: "In caso improvviso di pericolo, chi ha l'uso della ragione, pur impossibilitato a purificarsi nell'acqua sacramentale, può conseguire la grazia e la giustizia col semplice proposito di ricevere a suo tempo il Battesimo, unito al pentimento dei peccati commessi." --
so it is clearly not MY interpretation, but is the MIND OF THE CHURCH.
There's no evidence that this passage is an interpretation of Trent. Moreover, this passage echoes directly the teaching of St. Fulgentius, whose language was also basically quoted nearly verbatim in Cantate Domino.
And as for that young man whom we know to have believed and confessed his faith, ... God desired that his confession should avail for his salvation ...
Just like the Catechism of Trent says.
Oh, wait ...
Let me finish that quote.
But God desired that his confession should avail for his salvation, since He preserved him in this life until the time of his holy regeneration.
-
If anyone is not baptized, not only in ignorance, but even knowingly, he can in no way be saved. For his path to salvation was through the confession, and salvation itself was in baptism. At his age, not only was confession without baptism of no avail: Baptism itself would be of no avail for salvation if he neither believed nor confessed.
Notice, both the CONFESSION AND THE BAPTISM are necessary for salvation, harkening back to Trent's teaching that both the laver AND the "votum" are required for justification, and harkening back to Our Lord's teaching that we must be born again of water AND the Holy Spirit.
In fact, you see the language of St. Fulgentius reflected in the Council of Trent. Trent describes the votum (so-called "desire") as the PATH TO SALVATION, the disposition to Baptism, and then says that "JUSTIFICATION ITSELF" (St. Fulgentius says "SALVATION ITSELF") follows the dispositions in the Sacrament of Baptism.
Yet another solid argument for why Trent is teaching that BOTH the votum AND the Sacrament are required for justification. Trent was clearly echoing St. Fulgentius on this point.
-
Mr. Drew, you keep going back to the Holy Office Letter, yet have not once bothered to explain on what basis you reject it, when we are reliably informed by Alfredo Cardinal Ottaviani, that the Holy Office, and by a different statement in the Acta, that Pope Pius XII after a careful examination of the matter, approved all the Holy Office's proceedings along with the Eminent Fathers and ordered his approval to be made known. Are you accusing them all of teaching heresy? If so, have the courage to state it frankly.
Accordingly, the Most Eminent and Most Reverend Cardinals of this Supreme Congregation, in a plenary session held on Wednesday, July 27, 1949, decreed, and the august Pontiff in an audience on the following Thursday, July 28, 1949, deigned to give his approval, that the following explanations pertinent to the doctrine, and also that invitations and exhortations relevant to discipline be given ...
In His infinite mercy God has willed that the effects, necessary for one to be saved, of those helps to salvation which are directed toward man's final end, not by intrinsic necessity, but only by divine institution, can also be obtained in certain circuмstances when those helps are used only in desire and longing. This we see clearly stated in the Sacred Council of Trent, both in reference to the sacrament of regeneration and in reference to the sacrament of penance (Denzinger, nn. 797, 807) ...
+ F. Cardinal Marchetti-Selvaggiani.
A. Ottaviani, Assessor.
And the decree of Fr. Feeney's excommunication.
The Holy Office has been obliged repeatedly to make your teaching and conduct in the Church the object of its special care and attention, and recently, after having again carefully examined and calmly weighed all the evidence collected in your cause, it has found it necessary to bring this question to a conclusion ... On Thursday, 12 February 1953, our Most Holy Lord Pius XII, by Divine Providence Pope, approved and confirmed the decree of the Most Eminent Fathers, and ordered that it be made a matter of public law.
Given at Rome, at the headquarters of the Holy Office, 13 February 1953.
Marius Crovini, Notary
AAS (February 16, 1953) Vol. XXXXV, Page 100
So, if you really want to call this authoritative teaching heresy, then be frank about it and tell us you are accusing Pope Pius XII and his entire Holy Office of heresy.
This is exactly what the Doctors taught. Why do you claim the Doctors would have recoiled in horror at the teaching contained in the Letter without backing it up, or addressing the points where they have already been shown to disagree with you?
The Popes have already declared this moral teaching found in the Church's Doctor of Moral Theology's Theologia Moralis to be free from error and infallibly safe. If you condemn those who hold and teach it, you are a schismatic because you condemn what the Church has declared to be safe and sure.
“No ecclesiastical writer has ever received more direct, positive and formal approbation than that accorded by the Holy See to the moral writings of this Doctor of the Church. While still alive, four Popes expressed their admiration of his prudent doctrine. (…) In 1831, Pope Gregory XVI enhanced this approbation when he decreed that professors of theology could safely teach any opinion of St. Alphonsus, and that confessors, without weighting reasons, could safely follow him – simply on the fact that St. Alphonsus said so. Each of the thirteen predecessors of Pius XII in the chair of Peter has in some way or another recommended, approved or exalted the ‘Moral Theology’ of the Patron of confessors. (Homoletic and Pastoral Review: New Patron of Confessors, St. Alphonsus de Liguori, Vol. LI, No. 6, March 1951, Fr. Galvin J. J. C.SS.R., 1951, p. 511)
It is in Theologia Moralis that we find the famous statement of St. Alphonsus that BOD is de fide because of Trent, and the discussion on whether explicit faith in Christ is necessary as a means or a precept, two opinions being presented as probable. This is the mind of the Church, which all are free to hold and teach. All who condemn it condemn the Church and the Popes who approved this, and commanded it to be taught in all Catholic seminaries, as all traditional Catholics have always done and will always do. You Feeneyites are the purveyors of novelty and heresy, and not Fr. Kramer nor others who defend the Catholic teaching, nor the Doctors of the Church.
"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 ... it is "de fide" that men are also saved by Baptism of desire, by virtue of the Canon Apostolicam, "de presbytero 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.'" ...
“2. Is it required by a necessity of means or of precept to believe explicitly in the mysteries of the Holy Trinity and Incarnation after the promulgation of the gospel?
The first opinion and more common and held as more probable teaches belief is by necessity of means; Sanch. in Dec. lib. 2. c. 2. n. 8. Valent. 2. 2. d. 1. qu. 2. p. 4. Molina 1. part. qu. 1. a. 1 d. 2. Cont. Tourn. de praeceptis Decal. cap. 1. art. 1. §. 2. concl. 1. Juven. t. 6. diss. 4. a. 3. Antoine de virt. theol. cap. 1. qu. 2. Wigandt tr. 7. ex. 2. de fide n. 22. Concina t. 1. diss. 1. de fide cap. 8. n. 7. cuм Ledesma, Serra, Prado, etc. Also Salm. tr. 21. c. 2. punct. 2. n. 15. Cuniliat. tr. 4. de 1. Dec. praec. c. 1. §. 2. et Ronc. tr. 6. c. 2. But the last three say that in rare cases it may happen that one can be justified by implicit faith only…
But the second opinion that is also sufficiently probable says by necessity of precept all must explicitly believe in the mysteries. However, for necessity of means it is sufficient to implicitly believe in the mysteries.
So Dominicus Soto (in 4. sentent. t. 1. d. 5. qu. un. art. 2. concl. 2.) where he says: Even though the precept of explicit faith (in the Trinity and Incarnation) absolutely obliges the whole world, yet there also are many who are invincibly ignorant [of the mysteries] from which the obligation excuses.
Franciscus Sylvius (t. 3. in 2. 2. qu. 2. art. 7. and 8. concl. 6.) writes: After the promulgation of the gospel explicit faith in the Incarnation is necessary for all for salvation by a necessity of precept, and also (that it is probable) a necessity of means…
Card. Gotti (Theol. t. 2. tr. 9. qu. 2. d. 4. §. 1. n. 2.) says: In my judgment the opinion which denies that explicit faith in Christ and in the Trinity is so necessary that no one can be justified without it is very probable. And he adds that Scotus holds this opinion…
Elbel. (t. 1. conferent. 1. n. 17.) writes today that this opinion is held by notables. DD. Castropal. part. 2. tr. 4. d. 1. p. 9. Viva in Prop. 64 damn. ab Innocent. XI. n. 10, Sporer. tr. 11. cap. 11. sect. 11. §. 4. n. 9. Laym. lib. 2. tr. 1. cap. 8. n. 5. who teach this is not less probable than the first, with Richard. Medin. Vega, Sa, and Turriano. Card. de Lugo, de fide d. 12. n. 91. calls the first speculatively probable, but defends this second view at length and in absolute terms as more probable, with Javell, Zumel, and Suarez d. 12. sect. 4. n. 10. the writings of Lugo likewise seem to be the opinion of St. Thomas 3. part. qu. 69. a. 4. ad 2. where the Doctor says: Before Baptism Cornelius and others like him receive grace and virtues through their faith in Christ and their desire for Baptism, implicit or explicit. Wherefore, argues Lugo, just as Cornelius freely obtained grace by implicit faith, so even one can obtain the same in a place where the gospel is not perfectly promulgated. He will be able in such a place to obtain the same who is invincibly ignorant of the mysteries in a place where the gospel has not been sufficiently promulgated.
Again, if you want to condemn something here, have the honesty and sincerity to condemn St. Alphonsus Liguori, and identify him as the progenitor of what you believe to be a heresy. As well as condemning the long and incredible list of Popes who commanded his teaching to be taught, decreed it as completely safe to follow even for those who did not know the reason behind it, and decreed it be taught and learned in all seminaries by all professors of theology.
-
The politeness, grammar, and communication skills of Drew and Ladisalus, stands out in stark contrast to the vitriol and babel of so-called "Fr. Kramer".
By their deeds you shall know them.
I can only guess that Drew and Ladislaus dedicated so much time to answering "Fr. Kramer" because he said he was a theologian. I congratulate and thank them for their time and effort. Personally, I would not have wasted 5 minutes on him. He knows nothing more about the subject than any newcomer who has read a few pro-BOD websites.
Novus Ordo theologian so-called "Fr. Kramer" the BOD expert.
"In the country of blind men, the one eyed man is a king".
And last but not least, Cantarella. Thank you, Cantarella.
-
Mr. Drew, you keep going back to the Holy Office Letter, yet have not once bothered to explain on what basis you reject it, when we are reliably informed by Alfredo Cardinal Ottaviani, that the Holy Office, and by a different statement in the Acta, that Pope Pius XII after a careful examination of the matter, approved all the Holy Office's proceedings along with the Eminent Fathers and ordered his approval to be made known.
Yet you reject an entire Ecuмenical Council. Give me a break.
-
Bowler is a man who speaks like a complete ass: St. Pius X oversaw the composition of his Catechism; and officially promulgated it as an act of his ordinary magisterium.
-
when we are reliably informed by Alfredo Cardinal Ottaviani, that the Holy Office, and by a different statement in the Acta, that Pope Pius XII after a careful examination of the matter, approved all the Holy Office's proceedings along with the Eminent Fathers and ordered his approval to be made known.
Reliably informed is just your own sanctimonious spin because you want this to be true. Notice how you name-drop Ottaviani into this because people might associate him with doctrinal conservatism, but his was only the second signature beneath that of Selvaggiani and most likely therefore just a rubber-stamp to verify the signature of Selvaggiani.
Since Suprema Haec did NOT appear in AAS, that creates suspicion on its face that this was done to pull the wool over Pius XII's eyes because he would certainly have examined anything going into AAS. And because it's not in AAS it is NOT CONSIDERED TO BE AN AUTHENTIC TEACHING OF THE HOLY SEE. Period. End of story.
So, if you really want to call this authoritative teaching heresy, then be frank about it and tell us you are accusing Pope Pius XII and his entire Holy Office of heresy.
"authoritative teaching" my behind. Since it did not appear in AAS it's not considered authoritative teaching by any means.
Modernists and Masons and Communists and Jews had been well entrenched in the Vatican well before Vatican II. These people were the same ones who brought us Vatican II. Pius XII put Bugnini into place and enabled / authorized his liturgical experimentations. Pius XII opened the flood gates on evolution and NFP. Pius XII failed to consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary together with the bishops and failed to reveal the Third Secret of Fatima.
-
Bowler is a man who speaks like a complete ass: St. Pius X oversaw the composition of his Catechism; and officially promulgated it as an act of his ordinary magisterium.
He also instructed you to unequivocally declare non-Catholics to be in hell.
-
Marie Auxiliadora, a.k.a. Mrs. Drew, can hardly be accused of objectivity or impartiality in her mindless defense of her bigoted husband. Drew gratuitously pontificates his own private interpretations of dogmatic pronouncements which plainly contrast with the constant and authoritative teaching of the papal magisterium on the sacramental and soteriological doctrines on the points of justification, Baptism, instrumental causality of Baptism, the necessity of means of Baptism, etc. I have pointed out the flaws in his arguments, but he replies with red herring objections; and gratuitous off point pontifications which do not address the points at issue, which I have just mentioned. Drew blindly asserts that his gratuitous, bizarre, and patently errant interpretations of Trent are "dogma". His assertions are utterly baseless and patently contrary to the mind of the Church expressed in the constant teaching of the magisterium. In his insolent opposition to the constant teaching of the popes, the Doctors, and the ordinary magisterium on justification, sacraments and salvation, which authoritatively, coherently, and faithfully interpret those points of dogma; Drew makes patent that he has no other basis for his interpretations of dogma than his own fallaciously incoherent and utterly gratuitous assertions, which he ignorantly declares to be "dogma". Drew, the self-proclaimed authority on "dogma" has thus amply demonstrated that he has no expertise whatever on matters dogmatic, but rather, his expertise is limited solely to the art of buffoonery.
-
DP is capable of little more than long-winded personal attacks and insults.
-
16 Q: Is Baptism necessary to salvation?
A: Baptism is absolutely necessary to salvation, for our Lord has expressly said: "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God."
So much for your "relative" (vs. "absolute") necessity, DP.
CONDEMNED !
-
As I pointed out, your lame attempt to apply "relative" necessity to Baptism had the effect of reducing it to a necessity of precept. So here I am proven right.
-
this was done to pull the wool over Pius XII's eyes because he would certainly have examined anything going into AAS
Firstly, I don't rely much on the Holy Office Letter anyway, but Mr. Drew kept bringing it up. Thus I replied, we know Pope Pius XII approved it, because we know Ottaviani is quite a credible source, and he would not put his signature to a docuмent affirming "the august Pontiff in an audience on the following Thursday, July 28, 1949, deigned to give his approval that the following explanations pertinent to the doctrine ... be given" had not Pope Pius XII really done so. We can rule out that he was lying, and he's reliable enough that it's unlikely he was misinformed. Secondly, why do you keep talking about the AAS when you reject the AAS docuмent showing Pope Pius XII was fully abreast of all the goings-on with Fr. Feeney and "approved and confirmed the decree of the Most Eminent Fathers, and ordered that it be made a matter of public law"?
Can you say, "If it can be shown beyond reasonable doubt that Pius XII really approved this letter, then I would accept it"? Very probably not, and that is the reason for your criticism of Pius XII above, you wouldn't accept it even if you were sure he approved it, so it's a moot point. The case for Baptism of Desire can be easily made without reference to the letter. Although the letter is useful here to the extent that it does show you are wrong about a claim you've made in the past, that no Pope or Roman congregation has cited Trent as proof of BOD. The letter, by the way, appeared at the time in several peer-reviewed ecclesiastical publications of the highest repute, including the American Ecclesiastical Review and the Canon Law Digest, and no theologian or Church authority ever alleged what you do about it, all of them taking the contrary for granted.
Thirdly, the thrust of the letter, the main portion you reject, "when a person is involved in invincible ignorance God accepts also an implicit desire, so called because it is included in that good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God ... But it must not be thought that any kind of desire of entering the Church suffices that one may be saved. It is necessary that the desire by which one is related to the Church be animated by perfect charity" is taught by the same Pope in another authoritative statement in the AAS anyway, "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..." which only makes what you think, that Pius XII would have wished to reject this letter, only even less probable.
-
Marie Auxiliadora, a.k.a. Mrs. Drew, can hardly be accused of objectivity or impartiality in her mindless defense of her bigoted husband.
I don’t “defend” my husband. He does quite well while you continue to disgrace yourself and your office. I already asked you to quote me before you rant.
-
this was done to pull the wool over Pius XII's eyes because he would certainly have examined anything going into AAS
Can you say, "If it can be shown beyond reasonable doubt that Pius XII really approved this letter, then I would accept it"? Very probably not, and that is the reason for your criticism of Pius XII above, you wouldn't accept it even if you were sure he approved it, so it's a moot point. The case for Baptism of Desire can be easily made without reference to the letter. Although the letter is useful here to the extent that it does show you are wrong about a claim you've made in the past, that no Pope or Roman congregation has cited Trent as proof of BOD. The letter, by the way, appeared at the time in several peer-reviewed ecclesiastical publications of the highest repute, including the American Ecclesiastical Review and the Canon Law Digest, and no theologian or Church authority ever alleged what you do about it, all of them taking the contrary for granted.
The case for Baptism of Desire had never even been relevant or an issue with Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus: the Americanists made it one. It had nothing to do with the most salutary dogma. The error of invincible ignorance comes from the interpretation of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 and was carried over Vatican II docuмents and rapidly spread by the modernist liberals who are in power and control all channels of information. Invincible Ignorance is a NOVELTY.
Pope Pius XII mentions implicit desire in Mystici Corporis (1943) in response to a campaign at that time by the modernists. For some, Pope Pius XII made an objective mistake. For others, he was misunderstood by the liberals and (also, ironically the traditionalists). Fact is that no pope, cardinal or bishop made the correction or affirmed EENS dogma. The misunderstanding was carried over into Vatican Council II. Lumen Gentium 16 (invincible ignorance). It has never been corrected by the appointed authorities.
The Letter of 1949 assumes that being saved in invincible ignorance and BOD are exceptions to the literal interpretation of EENS. Fact is, the dogma, that infallible teaching, truth from Heaven, says all need to enter the Church for salvation and not only those who know. In 2014, there are no exceptions known to humans.
-
Ladislaus is a totally amoral and unscrupulous troll. I have already cited the verbatim quotation of the St. Pius X Catechism, in which it is taught that Baptism of water can be supplied for by BOB or BOD. The reason why Baptism can be supplied for by BOB/BOD is that there can be no salvation without the GRACE of Baptism, (as St. Pius V teaches in the Roman Catechism), and therefore by divine dispensation, when the reception of Baptism is impossible, one can be saved not by the sacrament of faith; but by the faith in the sacrament -- as Innocent III taught. So, you can accept the private opinions of heretics, like David & Claudia Drew (and madman Ladislaus); or you can submit to the constant teaching and judgment of the Roman Pontiffs (Pius V, Pius IX, Pius X, Pius XII),who, unlike Drew, teach officially in Christ's name. Drew pontificates like one who fancies himself to be an infallible pontiff, but the charism of the Petrine Office was not given to Drew; but to the legitimate successors of Peter, who all, unlike Drew, teach differently than heretic Drew.
-
Ladislaus is a totally amoral and unscrupulous troll. I have already cited the verbatim quotation of the St. Pius X Catechism, in which it is taught that Baptism of water can be supplied for by BOB or BOD.
I understand that it says this in the St. Pius X Catechism. My point is that your EXPLANATION in referring to "relative" vs. "absolute" necessity is completely debunked and you need to retract that based on the St. Pius X catechism. You need to come up with yet another (I believe this'll be your fifth try after we've shot down your first 4 attempts) explanation for your assertion (usually that's prima facie evidence for petitio principii ... aka dishonesty. You have been discredited as a pseudo-theologian and self-proclaimed chessmaster. Checkmate.
-
The reason why Baptism can be supplied for by BOB/BOD is that there can be no salvation without the GRACE of Baptism, ...
bzzzzzzt. Wrong answer, heretic / pseudo-theologian. Baptism ITSELF is necessary for salvation. Trent did not teach that the "GRACE" of the Sacraments is necessary for salvation but that the Sacraments themselves are. You once again heretically deny the necessity of the SACRAMENTS for salvation. You refuse to accept the solution, which is what I would state if I believed in BoD, namely that with BoD people receive the Sacrament in voto and that the Sacrament of Baptism operates as instrumental cause of justification via the votum.
-
The reason why Baptism can be supplied for by BOB/BOD is that there can be no salvation without the GRACE of Baptism, ...
bzzzzzzt. Wrong answer, heretic / pseudo-theologian. Baptism ITSELF is necessary for salvation. Trent did not teach that the "GRACE" of the Sacraments is necessary for salvation but that the Sacraments themselves are. You once again heretically deny the necessity of the SACRAMENTS for salvation. You refuse to accept the solution, which is what I would state if I believed in BoD, namely that with BoD people receive the Sacrament in voto and that the Sacrament of Baptism operates as instrumental cause of justification via the votum.
Why do you call him a heretic when you don't even believe heresy has consequences?
Straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel.
-
Only an ignorant theological incompetent could possibly think one heretical and schismatic for not accepting the doctrinal novelties of Vatican II: 1) In the final official act of the Council Paul VI declared that no point of doctrine had been defined by the Council ("Ecclesiam per suum magisterium ...nullum doctrinae caput sententiis dogmaticis extraordinariis definire voluerit"); and 2) The appendix of Lumen Gentium ruled that no doctrine is to be considered binding in conscience unless it will have been expressly stated to be.
Your "justification" for rejecting Vatican 2 here is what only an ignorant theological incompetent would say, or a blatantly dishonest person, a liar. You seem like the latter.
If you believe Paul the Sick was a true Pope you have only the Vatican 2 dish in your menu, otherwise the Church defected.
Pick: Paul the Sick was a false apostate antipope and Vatican 2 a devilish fraud from Hell and sedevacantism is true, or the Church defected.
-
The reason why Baptism can be supplied for by BOB/BOD is that there can be no salvation without the GRACE of Baptism, ...
bzzzzzzt. Wrong answer, heretic / pseudo-theologian. Baptism ITSELF is necessary for salvation. Trent did not teach that the "GRACE" of the Sacraments is necessary for salvation but that the Sacraments themselves are. You once again heretically deny the necessity of the SACRAMENTS for salvation. You refuse to accept the solution, which is what I would state if I believed in BoD, namely that with BoD people receive the Sacrament in voto and that the Sacrament of Baptism operates as instrumental cause of justification via the votum.
Why do you call him a heretic when you don't even believe heresy has consequences?
Pray tell, what are you talking about?
-
The reason why Baptism can be supplied for by BOB/BOD is that there can be no salvation without the GRACE of Baptism, ...
bzzzzzzt. Wrong answer, heretic / pseudo-theologian. Baptism ITSELF is necessary for salvation. Trent did not teach that the "GRACE" of the Sacraments is necessary for salvation but that the Sacraments themselves are. You once again heretically deny the necessity of the SACRAMENTS for salvation. You refuse to accept the solution, which is what I would state if I believed in BoD, namely that with BoD people receive the Sacrament in voto and that the Sacrament of Baptism operates as instrumental cause of justification via the votum.
Why do you call him a heretic when you don't even believe heresy has consequences?
Pray tell, what are you talking about?
You are not a sedevacantist, so you believe the novus ordo is the real Church, in which case you don't believe public and manifest heretic apostate antichrists lose all office and authority ipso facto without any declaration. You believe the bogus novus ordo hierarchy still is in the Church and holds authority.
Then again you're doing your own thing and answer to no one anyways so what kind of a Church do you believe in?
-
The case for Baptism of Desire had never even been relevant or an issue with Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus: the Americanists made it one. It had nothing to do with the most salutary dogma.
Good. So, then, hold to EENS and to BOD alike as it was taught before, without denying either, and you will do well. Let me ask you, Cantarella, why doesn't the possibility that Catholics can receive the sacramental effect of penance in voto undermine the necessity of the sacrament of penance? Penance is also necessary for salvation by a necessity of means, as Trent and all theologians teach, yet the principal sacramental effect can be received in desire.
The reason is very simple, that love of God or contrition of its nature only avails if it is universal, that is if we have a true remorse for every sin committed, and an earnest desire to confess them all as soon as possible. So no one one can be truly contrite unless he has a truly universal desire to fulfil all that God commands, for love is in the will, and to love God above all things is to desire to do all that He wills.
How does this work out in practice, since priests cannot judge interior dispositions? Priests simply tell all penitents to go to confession, if a person is truly contrite, by the very fact that he is contrite, he will be the first to obey. And if a person, on the pretext of being perfectly contrite, refuses to go to confession, we know that he is not contrite, and will not be saved, unless he repents of this.
So how must the necessity of the sacrament be expressed and taught, exactly as Pius IX and Pius XII speak of it - if anyone informed of the necessity of the sacrament does not avail himself of it, when it becomes possible for him to do so, such a person cannot receive forgiveness.
And the same that is true for an Act of Perfect Contrition in relation to the actual sacrament of penance is true for the Baptism of Desire, in relation to the actual sacrament of Baptism. Whoever therefore, informed of the necessity of the sacrament of baptism for salvation, does not hasten to avail himself of it, cannot be saved. And the same is true for those Protestants and schismatics who are informed of the necessity of the sacrament of penance for their salvation (since they are baptized), and do not hasten to the Church to avail themselves of it, these too cannot be saved. If you keep this simple point in mind, you will not be ensnared by Feeneyite novelties and delusions. Or, you can choose to follow their silliness and continue to attack what Popes, Saints and Doctors have commanded and taught in the Church and in Catholic seminaries for centuries.
Since you speak of America, Fr. Arnold Damen was a great traditional priest, a Catholic priest sent to America, whose missionary zeal no one can question. By the grace of God, he won for the Church some 13,000 heretics. He fully accepted and believed the Church's teaching as I have explained above, including on BOD, BOB and perfect contrition http://www.olrl.org/apologetics/one_church.shtml) I don't see any Feeneyites today who win for God and His Church even a few converts from Protestantism and the Greek schism, let alone from paganism and infidelity. If Feeneyites were going around water baptizing souls by the thousands, as these great missionaries who accepted and taught BOD and such were, then nobody would criticize them. In truth, Feeneyites simply seek to confuse Catholics, to attack and deride what Holy Mother Church has already received and taught.
-
i have a quick question. If God wants to can He inwardly sanctify a man with faith, hope and charity not just faith alone without the help of the priests?
-
The case for Baptism of Desire had never even been relevant or an issue with Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus: the Americanists made it one. It had nothing to do with the most salutary dogma.
Good. So, then, hold to EENS and to BOD alike as it was taught before, without denying either, and you will do well.
No, that is a cowards position, a lukewarm position, that Our God will vomit out. We are condemning a modernist heresy that has not basis whatsoever in tradition, and contradicts baptism of desire and blood, we are condemning the teaching of salvation by implicit faith in a God that rewards. You on the other hand do not condemn it, you actually believe it, though you won't admit it anymore:
The Nine Ways of Being an Accessory to Another’s Sin
1. By counsel. 2. By command. 3. By consent. 4. By provocation. 5. By praise or flattery. 6. By concealment. 7. By partaking. 8. By silence. 9. By defense of the ill done.
-
The Nine Ways of Being an Accessory to Another’s Sin
1. By counsel. 2. By command. 3. By consent. 4. By provocation. 5. By praise or flattery. 6. By concealment. 7. By partaking. 8. By silence. 9. By defense of the ill done.
St. John Chrysostom, sometime Patriarch of Constantinople:
“I do not speak rashly, but as I feel and think, I do not think that many priests are saved but that those that perish are far more numerous. The reason is that the office requires a great soul. For there are many things to make a priest swerve from rectitude, and he requires great vigilance on every side. Do you not perceive how many qualities a bishop must have that he may be apt to teach; patient towards the wicked, firm and faithful in teaching the Word? How many difficulties therein.
Moreover the loss of others is imputed to him. I need say no more. If but one dies without baptism, does it not entirely endanger his salvation? For the loss of one soul is so great an evil as no man can understand. If the salvation of one soul is of such importance that, for its sake, the Son of God became man and suffered so much, think of the penalty the loss of one soul will entail”. (Third Homily, Acts of the Apostles)
-
You are not a sedevacantist, so you believe the novus ordo is the real Church,
Perhaps you haven't followed, but I do personally believe that the Holy See is most likely vacant. I am not a sedevacantist for the very reasons Father Jenkins articulated, namely, that I will not arrogate unto myself the ability to depose popes. That leads to an undermining of the entire Magisterium.
in which case you don't believe public and manifest heretic apostate antichrists lose all office and authority ipso facto without any declaration.
No, the ipso facto desposition of so-called "manifest" heretics is fraught with problems that bitter sedevacantists like yourself refuse to admit. That's why there were several other opinions other than that of St. Robert Bellarmine, which you guys raise to the level of dogma. I follow the opinion of John of St. Thomas on this question. Yes, if someone went around directly denying, for instance, the Divinity of Our Lord, knowing full well that this was Church teaching, then that's a clear-cut case ... where the person pretty much admits to rejecting Catholic dogma. On the other hand, when people hold an opinion while claiming that it's Catholic, based on various logical gyrations, then clearly the judgment of the Church is required to determine whether there is in fact manifest heresy. Ironically, the only heresy per se that the V2 popes have is a denial of EENS, based on reasoning that's identical to that of sedevacantists. So if the V2 popes are manifest heretics and outside the Church, then so are 95% of all you sedevacantists, for most of you reject the very dogma of EENS that the V2 papal claimants reject. Ironic, isn't it?
I believe that we are in a "papa dubius" situation.
You believe the bogus novus ordo hierarchy still is in the Church and holds authority.
I consider this doubtful, and so none of what this hierarchy does is binding until the Church resolves this matter.
Then again you're doing your own thing and answer to no one anyways so what kind of a Church do you believe in?
You arrogate unto yourself the authority of the Church, for only the Church can decide who is the pope ... and who isn't.
-
Ladislaus is a totally amoral and unscrupulous troll. I have already cited the verbatim quotation of the St. Pius X Catechism, in which it is taught that Baptism of water can be supplied for by BOB or BOD. The reason why Baptism can be supplied for by BOB/BOD is that there can be no salvation without the GRACE of Baptism, (as St. Pius V teaches in the Roman Catechism), and therefore by divine dispensation, when the reception of Baptism is impossible, one can be saved not by the sacrament of faith; but by the faith in the sacrament -- as Innocent III taught. So, you can accept the private opinions of heretics, like David & Claudia Drew (and madman Ladislaus); or you can submit to the constant teaching and judgment of the Roman Pontiffs (Pius V, Pius IX, Pius X, Pius XII),who, unlike Drew, teach officially in Christ's name. Drew pontificates like one who fancies himself to be an infallible pontiff, but the charism of the Petrine Office was not given to Drew; but to the legitimate successors of Peter, who all, unlike Drew, teach differently than heretic Drew.
Don Paolo Kramer,
The only reply I have for you is in your own words. That is, before you became associated with the SSPX Resistance. In 2002, you, like the Drews, would have been considered a rank heretic by the SSPX or "a Feeneyite" for beliving in the literal meaning of dogma. Were you a heretic in 2002 when you published your book The Devil's Final Battle"? Or are you a real heretic today for denying what you correctly held then?
What is dogma? Dogma is what has been infallibly defined by the Church. Dogma is what Catholics must believe in order to be Catholic. The dogmas of the Faith are what is contained in the solemn, infallible definitions of the Magisterium—namely, the Pope alone, speaking in a way that clearly binds the Universal Church to believe in what he is pronouncing, or an ecuмenical council of all the Catholic bishops presided over by the Pope which issues such binding pronouncements, or those things taught by the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium of the Church.
What is meant by the infallible definition of dogma? The word infallible means “cannot fail”. Therefore, the definitions of the Faith, solemnly defined by the Church, cannot fail. We know what the Faith is, what the dogmas of the Faith are, by means of the infallible definitions. If we believe and hold fast to these infallible definitions, then we cannot be deceived in those matters so defined.
How do we know that a matter has been defined infallibly as an article of the Catholic faith? We know it from the manner in which the teaching is presented.
Four Sources of Infallible Teaching
There are four principal ways Church teaching is presented to us infallibly:
First, through the promulgation of creeds by the Popes and ecuмenical councils, which provide a summary of what Catholics must believe in order to be Catholic.
Second, by means of solemn definitions containing such phrases as “We declare, pronounce and define,” or some similar formula indicating that the Pope or the Pope together with an ecuмenical council clearly intend to bind the Church to believe in the teaching. Such definitions are usually accompanied by anathemas (condemnations) of those who would in any way deny the defined teaching.
Third, the definitions of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium, meaning the constant teaching of the Church in an “ordinary” manner, always and everywhere, even if the teaching is never solemnly defined by such words as “We declare, pronounce and define...” (One example of this is the Church's constant teaching, throughout Her history, that contraception and abortion are gravely immoral.)
Fourth, there are definitive judgements of the Pope, usually condemned propositions, which are those propositions a Catholic is forbidden to believe. When a Pope, or a Pope and council together, solemnly condemn a proposition, we can know infallibly that it is contrary to the Catholic Faith.
An example of a creed is the Profession of Faith promulgated by the Council of Trent. We present it here, conveniently arranged in the form of points, with the language unaltered:
• I, N., with firm faith believe and profess each and every article contained in the Symbol of faith which the holy Roman Church uses; namely:
• I believe in one God, the Father almighty, Creator of Heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible; and in
• one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, born of the Father before all ages; God from God, light from light, true God from true God; begotten not made, of one substance (consubstantial) with the Father; through whom all things were made;
• who for us men and for our salvation came down from Heaven, and was made incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the Virgin Mary, and was made man.
• He was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate, died, and was buried; and
• He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures, and ascended into Heaven;
• He sits at the right hand of the Father, and He shall come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and of His kingdom there will be no end.
• And I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, and giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son; who equally with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified; who spoke through the prophets.
• And I believe that there is one, holy, Catholic, and apostolic Church.
• I confess one baptism for the remission of sins; and I hope for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen. ...
• I resolutely accept and embrace the apostolic and ecclesiastical traditions and the other practices and regulations of that same Church.
• In like manner I accept Sacred Scripture according to the meaning which has been held by holy Mother Church and which She now holds. It is Her prerogative to pass judgement on the true meaning and interpretation of Sacred Scripture. And I will never accept or interpret it in a manner different from the unanimous agreement of the Fathers.
• I also acknowledge that there are truly and properly seven sacraments of the New Law, instituted by Jesus Christ our Lord, and that they are necessary for the salvation of the human race, although it is not necessary for each individual to receive them all.
• I acknowledge that the seven sacraments are: Baptism, Confirmation, Eucharist, Penance, Extreme Unction, Holy Orders, and Matrimony; and that they confer grace; and that of the seven, Baptism, Confirmation, and Holy Orders cannot be repeated without committing a sacrilege.
• I also accept and acknowledge the customary and approved rites of the Catholic Church in the solemn administration of these sacraments.
• I embrace and accept each and every article on Original Sin and justification declared and defined in the most holy Council of Trent.
• I likewise profess that in the Mass a true, proper, and propitiatory sacrifice is offered to God on behalf of the living and the dead, and that the Body and Blood together with the Soul and Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ is truly, really, and substantially present in the most holy Sacrament of the Eucharist, and that there is a change of the whole substance of the bread into the Body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the Blood; and this change the Catholic Church calls transubstantiation.
• I also profess that the whole and entire Christ and a true Sacrament is received under each separate species.
• I firmly hold that there is a purgatory, and that the souls detained there are helped by the prayers of the faithful.
• I likewise hold that the saints reigning together with Christ should be honored and invoked, that they offer prayers to God on our behalf, and that their relics should be venerated.
• I firmly assert that images of Christ, of the Mother of God ever Virgin, and of the other saints should be owned and kept, and that due honor and veneration should be given to them.
• I affirm that the power of indulgences was left in the keeping of the Church by Christ, and that the use of indulgences is very beneficial to Christians.
• I acknowledge the holy, Catholic, and apostolic Roman Church as the mother and teacher of all churches; and
• I promise and swear true obedience to the Roman Pontiff, vicar of Christ and successor of Blessed Peter, Prince of the Apostles.
• I unhesitatingly accept and profess all the doctrines (especially those concerning the primacy of the Roman Pontiff and his infallible teaching authority9) handed down, defined, and explained by the sacred canons and ecuмenical councils and especially those of this most holy Council of Trent (and by the ecuмenical Vatican Council I). And at the same time:
• I condemn, reject, and anathematize everything that is contrary to those propositions, and all heresies without exception that have been condemned, rejected, and anathematized by the Church.
• I, N., promise, vow, and swear that, with God's help, I shall most constantly hold and profess this true Catholic faith, outside which no one can be saved and which I now freely profess and truly hold. With the help of God, I shall profess it whole and unblemished to my dying breath; and, to the best of my ability, I shall see to it that my subjects or those entrusted to me by virtue of my office hold it, teach it, and preach it. So help me God and His holy Gospel.
As for solemn and infallible definitions of Catholic dogma, one recent example is the Apostolic Letter of Pope Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus (1854), infallibly defining the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of Mary:
We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of Her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of Original Sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful...
Finally, there is the condemned proposition. A prime example of this is the Syllabus of Errors of Blessed Pius IX, wherein this great Pope enumerated the many errors of liberalism in the form of propositions which he solemnly, definitively and infallibly condemned as errors against the Faith,10 including proposition #80 (which we mentioned earlier): “The Roman Pontiff can and ought to reconcile himself and come to terms with progress, liberalism and modern civilization.” ...
As we have shown, here too Cardinal Ratzinger has sought to undermine prior Church teaching, telling us that the teaching of Vatican II was a “countersyllabus” which was “an attempt at an official reconciliation with the new era inaugurated in 1789” and an effort to correct what he dared to call “the one-sidedness of the position adopted by the Church under Blessed Pius IX and Saint Pius X in response to the situation created by the new phase of history inaugurated by the French Revolution …”11 To make his rejection of the solemn, infallible teaching of Blessed Pope Pius IX even more explicit, Cardinal Ratzinger declares that at Vatican II, “the attitude of critical reserve toward the forces that have left their imprint on the modern world is to be replaced by a coming to terms with their movement.”12 This opinion of Cardinal Ratzinger's flatly contradicts the teaching of Blessed Pope Pius IX that the Church must not “come to terms” with “progress, liberalism and modern civilization.”
Cardinal Ratzinger's outrageous abuse of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception and his arrogant dismissal of the Syllabus as “one-sided” exposes the very core of the post-conciliar crisis in the Church: an assault on the infallible definitions of the Magisterium.
Now, for the most part, this assault has baptism ofbeen rather indirect. The infallible definition is usually not directly denied, but rather undermined through criticism or “revision.” The innovators in the Church are not so stupid as simply to declare that an infallible Church teaching is wrong. And, in their supposed “enlightenment” these innovators may actually think they are “deepening” or “developing” Catholic teaching for the good of the Church—again, we are not judging their subjective motivations. But the effect of what they do is obvious: the undermining of the infallibly defined teachings of the Magisterium.
Another example of this undermining is the attack on the dogma that outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation. The Tridentine creed, quoted in full above, states: “I shall most constantly hold and profess this true Catholic faith, outside which no one can be saved …” In Chapter 6 we show how, over and over again, the Magisterium has solemnly defined the dogma that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church. Yet today, the dogma is denied and undermined by an “ecuмenism” which declares that neither the Protestant heretics nor the Orthodox schismatics need return to the Catholic Church, because this is “outdated ecclesiology.”13 And in many places today, the dogma is directly denied, and in other places it is not directly denied but in practice it collapses from insidious, repeated, indirect attacks and, as a result, it is no longer believed and followed in those places.
It is undeniable that since Vatican II a host of novel notions has been passed off in the Church as “development” of Catholic doctrine, even though these novelties at least implicitly (and sometimes explicitly) contradict and undermine the infallible definitions. The idea, for example, that the Council docuмent Gaudium et Spes is a “countersyllabus” that counters the solemn condemnations of Blessed Pope Pius IX14 undermines the whole integrity of the infallible Magisterium. Such talk is an assault on the very credibility of the teaching office of the Church, and is thus, in the end, an assault on Catholic dogma itself.
There Cannot be a “New Understanding” of Catholic Dogma
This post-conciliar attack on dogma through undermining and implicit contradiction cannot be justified as a “development” or “new insight” into dogma. As the First Vatican Council solemnly taught: “For, the Holy Spirit was not promised to the successors of Peter that they might disclose new doctrine, but that by His help they might guard sacredly the revelation transmitted through the Apostles and the deposit of faith, and might faithfully set it forth.”15
Further, as Vatican I taught, there cannot be any “new understanding” of what the Church has already infallibly defined:
[T]hat understanding of its sacred dogmas must be perpetually retained, which Holy Mother Church has once declared; and there must never be a recession [moving away] from that meaning under the specious name of a deeper understanding.16
Thus, it is a matter of Catholic Faith that we believe that no new doctrine has been revealed by God since the death of the last Apostle, Saint John and that no new understanding of doctrine has arisen because of Vatican II or otherwise.
Therefore, this “new” doctrine or “counter”-doctrine we have heard so much about since Vatican II can only be pseudo-doctrine. This pseudo-doctrine is being taught very subtly. When pseudo-doctrine contradicts doctrines that have been infallibly defined, then Catholics must cling to the infallible doctrines and reject the “new” doctrines.
The dogma of the Faith cannot fail, but novelties can fail us. Men can fail; lay people can fail; priests can fail; bishops can fail; Cardinals can fail; and even the Pope can fail in matters which do not involve his charism of infallibility, as history has shown us with more than one Pope who taught or appeared to teach some novelty.
For example, Pope Honorius was posthumously condemned by the Third Council of Constantinople in 680 A.D. for aiding and abetting heresy,17 and that condemnation was approved by Pope Leo II and repeated by later Popes. As another example, Pope John XXII, back in the 14th Century (1333 A.D.), gave sermons (but not solemn definitions) in which he insisted that the blessed departed do not enjoy the Beatific Vision until the day of General Judgment. For this he was denounced and corrected by theologians, and he finally retracted his heretical opinion on his deathbed.
In the case of Pope John XXII, knowledgeable Catholics (in this case theologians) knew that John XXII was wrong in his teaching about the Particular Judgment. They knew that something was wrong with Pope John XXII's teaching because it contradicted what the Church had always believed, even if there had not yet been an infallible definition. Catholics who knew their faith in the 14th Century did not simply say: “Oh, the Pope has given a sermon, therefore we must change our belief.” Looking at the Church's constant teaching that the blessed departed enjoy the Beatific Vision immediately after Purgatory, the theologians knew Pope John XXII was wrong, and they told him so.
As it turned out, the immediacy of the Beatific Vision was solemnly and infallibly defined by Pope John XXII's successor in 1336. This placed the matter beyond all further dispute—which is precisely why an infallible definition was needed. The same is true with every other matter infallibly defined by the Church. We can, and must, rely on these infallible definitions with absolute certainty, rejecting all opinions to the contrary—even if contrary opinions were to come from a Cardinal or even a Pope.
There are other examples of Popes failing. Even the first Pope, St. Peter, failed, as shown in Sacred Scripture—not by what he said but by the example he gave. Saint Peter refused to sit at table with Gentile converts, in Antioch about 50 A.D. By shunning these converts he gave the false impression that the First Council of Jerusalem was wrong in its infallible teaching that the Mosaic ceremonial law, including the prohibition against Jews eating with “unclean” Gentiles, was not binding on the Catholic Church. This was the incident for which St. Paul rebuked St. Peter to his face in public. (Gal. 2:11)
Another example is Pope Liberius in 357 A.D. (or thereabouts), who failed by signing a Creed which the Arians proposed to him, leaving out any reference to the Son being consubstantial with the Father. He did this after two years in exile and under the threat of death. And he also failed (under duress while in exile) by wrongly condemning and excommunicating—in reality, only giving the appearance of excommunicating—St. Athanasius, who was defending the Faith in this matter. Pope Liberius, the first Pope not to be proclaimed a saint by the Church, was wrong because Athanasius was teaching the Catholic doctrine—the true doctrine, the infallible doctrine—taught infallibly by the Council of Nicea in 325 AD. It was that infallible definition, not the defective teaching of Pope Liberius, that had to be followed in that case.
From these examples in Church history we learn that everything proposed to us for our belief must be judged by those definitions. And so if a Cardinal, a bishop, a priest, a layman or even the Pope teaches us some novelty that is contrary to any definition of the Faith, we can know that the teaching is wrong and that it must be rejected for the salvation of our immortal souls. Yes, even the Pope can fail, and he does fail if he expresses an opinion that is contrary to a solemn, infallible definition of the Catholic Church. This does not mean the Church fails when this happens, but only that the Pope has made a mistake without imposing it on the whole Church. And, of course, if even the Pope can make a mistake in teaching some novelty, then certainly Cardinals, bishops and priests can make mistakes in their teaching and opinions.
And so, when Our Lady speaks about the “dogma of the Faith”, She indicates to us that the danger to the Faith—and to “the life of the Christian and therefore (the life) of the world”, to recall Cardinal Ratzinger's admission—will arise when solemn dogmatic definitions of the Catholic Faith are contradicted or undermined; for it is these definitions which are the very foundation of the Catholic Faith, and therefore the foundation of our salvation, to recall the Pope's 1982 sermon at Fatima.
To the objection that mere priests, or mere lay people, cannot disagree with high-ranking prelates like Cardinal Ratzinger, or even (in the kind of extraordinary case for which we have just given examples) the Pope, one must reply: That is why the Church has infallible definitions. It is by measuring any given teaching against solemn, infallible definitions that one can know that a teaching is true or false—not by what rank in the clergy a person has. As St. Paul taught: “But though we, or an angel from Heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema.” (Gal. 1:8) The faithful are to regard even an Apostle as anathema—accursed, cut off from the Church, worthy of hellfire—if he contradicts the infallible teaching of the Church. That is why theologians were able to correct Pope John XXII in his erroneous teaching from the pulpit; and it is why Catholics today can tell right from wrong teaching, even if they have a rank lower than the prelate who is committing the error.
A prime historical example of this is found in the case of a lawyer named Eusebius, who pointed out that Nestorius, a high-ranking Archbishop in Constantinople, the highest ranking prelate after the Pope, was wrong when he denied that Mary is the Mother of God. Eusebius stood up in his pew on Christmas Day, during Mass, and denounced Nestorius for preaching heresy. Yet all the “high-ranking” priests and bishops had remained silent in the face of Nestorius' heresy. Thus, a mere layman was right and all the rest of them were in error. The Council of Ephesus was called to hear the matter, and it was solemnly and infallibly defined that Mary is the Mother of God. And since Nestorius refused to recant, he was deposed and declared a heretic. Nestorius was excommunicated!
To summarize, truth is not a matter of numbers or rank; truth is a matter of what Christ and God have revealed in Sacred Scripture and Tradition, what has been solemnly defined by the Catholic Church, and what the Catholic Church has always taught—taught always, not just since 1965!
The Disastrous Effects of Tampering With Infallible Definitions
History likewise provides us with a prime example of what can happen to the Church when even one dogma is contradicted on a wide scale. The heresy of Arianism caused catastrophic confusion in the Church from 336 A.D. to 381 A.D. Arianism was condemned in 325 A.D.; and yet in 336, it arose again. Beginning around 336, the heresy eventually claimed about 90% of the bishops before it was finally defeated about fifty years later. In the resulting confusion and loss of faith, even the great St. Athanasius was “excommunicated” by the Pope in 357. By 381 Arianism had been defeated by the First Council of Constantinople. However, it was still in full bloom for some time between 360 and 380. The results were utterly devastating to the Church.
The Arian crisis has more to teach us about the probable contents of the missing text of the Third Secret. One reason the Arians were able to succeed for a time, was that they “successfully” attacked a dogma that had been solemnly and infallibly defined at the Council of Nicea in 325—that Christ is God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God; begotten not made, consubstantial with the Father. This solemn and infallible definition is in the Credo of the Council of Nicea, which we say every Sunday at Mass.
The Arians overturned the definition by getting many of the “faithful” to argue for replacing it with a false definition that was not infallible. In 336 they replaced the Greek word Homoousion with another word Homoiousion. The word Homoousion basically means “consubstantial” with the Father. For God the Son to be consubstantial with the Father, the Son must not only be God but the same one God as the Father, so that the substance of the Father is the substance of the Son, even though the Person of the Father is not the Person of the Son. Thus, there are three Persons in one God—Father, Son and Holy Ghost—but there is only one God, with one substance, in three Persons. That is the mystery of the Trinity. The new word Homoiousion, however, means “of similar substance” to the Father. Thus, the critical phrase in the dogma— “consubstantial with the Father”—was changed to “of similar substance with the Father” or “like the Father.”
Thus the Arians brought about mass confusion in the Church by adding one letter to the word Homoousion to create a new word with a new meaning: Homoiousion. They attacked a solemn definition, claiming that their new definition would be better than the solemn definition. But, of course, the new definition could not be better than the solemn definition, because the solemn definition of the Council of Nicea was infallible.
By adding one letter to one word, the Arians got rid of an infallible definition. This opened the way for the Arians and the semi-Arians, leading to actual warfare. People were martyred, persecuted, driven out into the desert, driven into exile over this one change to one infallible dogma. St. Athanasius was driven into exile five different times by the Synod of Egypt (and spent at least 17 years in exile as a result.) But he was right and the heretical bishops of that Synod were all wrong.
Infallible Definitions Are Higher
than Any Learning or Rank in the Church
Why did Athanasius know he was right? Because he clung to the infallible definition, no matter what everyone else said. Not all the learning in the world, nor all the rank of office, can substitute for the truth of one infallibly defined Catholic teaching. Even the simplest member of the faithful, clinging to an infallible definition, will know more than the most “learned” theologian who denies or undermines the definition. That is the whole purpose of the Church's infallibly defined teaching—to make us independent of the mere opinions of men, however learned, however high their rank.
Now, in 325 the solemn definition of the Council of Nicea was infallible, but many people then did not fully realize that solemn definitions of the Faith were infallible. That is, at this time in Church history the Church had not yet issued the solemn definition teaching that the definitions of Faith are infallible. But in 1870, the First Vatican Council solemnly and infallibly defined the infallibility of the Church's solemn definitions. Now we know, infallibly, that solemn definitions are infallible. Once again: they cannot fail— ever.
The Infallible Definitions Are Under Attack in Our Time
In our day, therefore, there is no excuse for being taken in by heresy and giving up the defense of solemn definitions. But that is precisely what is happening today, just as in the time of Arius. Churchmen are judging things in light of the Second Vatican Council instead of judging the Second Vatican Council in light of the infallible definitions. They have forgotten that the infallible definitions, not Vatican II, are the unchanging standard by which one measures every doctrine, just as a 36-inch yardstick is the unchanging standard for measuring a yard. One does not suddenly decide that the new standard for measuring a yard is a 35-inch stick. Likewise, the Church cannot suddenly decide that Vatican II is the new yardstick of the Faith…
http://www.devilsfinalbattle.com/ch13.htm
Well, Father, which is true. Your "teaching" of 2014, or the Magisterium you once defended? What has happened to you? You personally attack people that have the Catholic faith and try to destroy their reputation because you know they are right.
-
By the way, Father Kramer, I call you Don Paolo Kramer because you stated that in Rome you were known as such. So I trust it is acceptable to you.
-
The case for Baptism of Desire had never even been relevant or an issue with Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus: the Americanists made it one. It had nothing to do with the most salutary dogma.
Good. So, then, hold to EENS and to BOD alike as it was taught before, without denying either, and you will do well. Let me ask you, Cantarella, why doesn't the possibility that Catholics can receive the sacramental effect of penance in voto undermine the necessity of the sacrament of penance? Penance is also necessary for salvation by a necessity of means, as Trent and all theologians teach, yet the principal sacramental effect can be received in desire.
Nobody has made an issue with Penance (in regards to EENS) but with Baptism, because it is through Baptism, that the person is incorporated into the Church, the body of Christ, so Baptism defines who is a Catholic and part of the Church and who is not. Baptism is the entrance to spiritual life, the rebirth of man, as a son of god. Because Baptism is the most important sacrament, which grants an indelible mark in the soul, the liberals have taken this sacrament and twisted it in their aim to allow the incorporation of non-Catholics and those in false religions into the body of Christ.
They seek to prove that the sacrament of Baptism is not necessary for salvation and therefore, that there is salvation outside the church. It is pretty obvious that revealed infallible dogmas are applicable for all time, not subjective to interpretation which contradict the obvious: that unless a man is a visible member of the visible Church on earth, subject in spiritual matters to the pope visible reigning, he is not in the path of salvation. Genuine teaching on BOD is invisible to us. Only God knows it, and therefore is quite irrelevant.
I don't see any Feeneyites today who win for God and His Church even a few converts from Protestantism and the Greek schism, let alone from paganism and infidelity. If Feeneyites were going around water baptizing souls by the thousands, as these great missionaries who accepted and taught BOD and such were, then nobody would criticize them. In truth, Feeneyites simply seek to confuse Catholics, to attack and deride what Holy Mother Church has already received and taught.
I don't know how familiar are you with the real "feeneyites", this is the Saint Benedict Center in NH. It seems that your version of "feeneyites" comes more from the Dimond Brothers and those alike, which propaganda tend to be more appealing to wounded souls fueled with anger and resentment, instead of a sincere zeal for souls. It is unfortunate that people always associate followers of Fr. feeney with such a bizarre group. But this is the official position of the Saint Benedict Center, the genuine and real "feeneyites"as far as BOD and BOB (which are not infallible) is concerned:
Without contradicting the thrice defined Dogma, “No Salvation Outside the Catholic Church”, and the infallible teaching of the Council of Trent, how can one define the expression baptism of desire?
Answer: The following definition of baptism of desire can be made which will be totally consistent with the infallible teaching of the Council of Trent and with the thrice defined dogma of “No Salvation Outside the Catholic Church”. This definition of baptism of desire goes as follows:
In its proper meaning, this consists of an act of perfect contrition or perfect love [that is Charity, which necessarily implies that one has the True Faith], and the simultaneous desire for baptism. It does not imprint an indelible character on the soul and the obligation to receive Baptism by water remains.
Baptism of Blood only could apply to catechumens who have and professes the Faith in Christ and His Church. A person who is ignorant of Christ and His Church (whether culpably or not) cannot possibly receive BOB, since an open confession of the true Faith and of the true Church is indispensable for martyrdom.
"Feeneyites" are actively working towards the salvation of souls and the evangelization, or better said, re - evangelization of America. We have a VERY active apostolate which focuses on:
1. The propagation and defense of Catholic dogma — especially extra ecclesiam nulla salus and
2. The conversion of America to the one, true Church.
There have been many conversions, and as a matter of fact, a community of more than 300 souls has been formed and being expanded in NH. Hopefully, more communities are formed throughout the country. Things are not as easy in this country to just go and "water" baptized souls around. It is a process. We are busy trying to spread the Faith by improving techniques of massive media communication so more souls can be reached, instead of complaining unceasingly and bitterly about Vatican II, which is what most traditionalists do. We know that the real issue is the denial of EENS, instead of Vatican II. Therefore Saint Benedict Center (and the genuine feeneyite communities) have canonical status and are in full communion with Rome. Why would the Church do that if "feeneyites" were indeed heretics? Canonical status was granted by the Church without the need of watering down our strict interpretation of EENS.
-
You are not a sedevacantist, so you believe the novus ordo is the real Church,
Perhaps you haven't followed, but I do personally believe that the Holy See is most likely vacant. I am not a sedevacantist for the very reasons Father Jenkins articulated, namely, that I will not arrogate unto myself the ability to depose popes. That leads to an undermining of the entire Magisterium.
Jenkins himself is a sede, although i hear they are not that "open" about it.
How it is possible that someone can still make this argument? That sedevacantists "depose" popes? It's beyond moronic!
So while you say that you will not arrogate unto yourself the ability to "depose popes", you sure undermine the entire Magisterium by REJECTING what you deem is the Magisterium.
You are your own Pope. You decide what you will believe and follow from your "church" (nothing) and what you will reject (everything!).
You are not in union with your "bishop" and your diocese. You hold them all as non-Catholic apostates do you not? What does that say of your church?
You reject everything that comes from what you think is the Church. You reject what you think is the Church's Magisterium.
How come you can arrogate authority unto yourself to do all that?
in which case you don't believe public and manifest heretic apostate antichrists lose all office and authority ipso facto without any declaration.
No, the ipso facto desposition of so-called "manifest" heretics is fraught with problems that bitter sedevacantists like yourself refuse to admit.
"Fraught with problems"...go ahead, name one.
I don't refuse to admit anything. I am always challenging people like you to debate this but you are all cowards and always run away and don't want to debate.
Are you oblivious to the fact that sedevacantism can be proven several other ways without even using the manifestly apostate/heretical/antichrist "popes"?
That's why there were several other opinions other than that of St. Robert Bellarmine,
Yeah, which he refuted and proved false.
which you guys raise to the level of dogma.
The CHURCH raised him to the level of Doctor of the Church, and he isn't the only one who teaches this anyways, but then again you believe even Doctors can teach open heresy so i suppose that title means nothing to you does it?
You are a schismatic. The last thing you are is Catholic.
I follow the opinion of John of St. Thomas on this question.
Oh dear me.
So you choose to cling to what ONE non-Saint who was refuted thought, and reject what the Saints and Doctors and Popes taught? Why? Why do you choose the lesser (almost zero) authority? For what reason? To what end?
Yes, if someone went around directly denying, for instance, the Divinity of Our Lord, knowing full well that this was Church teaching, then that's a clear-cut case ...where the person pretty much admits to rejecting Catholic dogma.
Now here is where YOU people show your arrogance and stupidity.
You all say, "oh, if he said THIS or did THAT, THEN i will be a sede", as if someone being automatically deposed depended on what YOU pipsqueaks "deem" sufficient.
Who the Hell do you people think you are...
ONE HERESY IS ENOUGH, ONE.
Cekada and others have already shown the truth of this matter several times and you have nothing to say about it nor can you disprove it.
Yes, fortunately we do not have to rely and go by what liars such as yourself say, but by Catholic teaching, which is clear and which you boldly reject.
Do you see why sedevacantism is such a breath of fresh, true air, as opposed to the damnable lies people like you throw around?
Now, these novus ordo antipopes are MODERNISTS, as you people even say, they are THE SYNTHESIS OF ALL HERETICS, the worst of them all, and yet you still moronically say that they don't directly deny dogma?
On the other hand, when people hold an opinion while claiming that it's Catholic, based on various logical gyrations, then clearly the judgment of the Church is required to determine whether there is in fact manifest heresy.
More silliness. How are you not embarrassed to say such things?
You ALREADY reject Vatican 2 and say it is non-Catholic before any determination from the Church. Why do you not accept Vatican 2 and the new mass and "wait for the judgment of the Church"?
I'll tell you why. Because you are a L-Y-I-N-G H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-T-E.
Were all the HERESIES AND APOSTASY of Vatican 2 proposed as mere "opinion"?
Ironically, the only heresy per se that the V2 popes have is a denial of EENS,
You're out of your mind and out of touch with reality.
Maybe you should pay a visit to NovusOrdoWatch.org or even the Dimonds website in this case.
Needless to say what you say here is FALSE and a LIE because as you yourself even know, THESE PEOPLE ARE MODERNISTS and are worse that the likes of Luther and Calvin.
based on reasoning that's identical to that of sedevacantists. So if the V2 popes are manifest heretics and outside the Church, then so are 95% of all you sedevacantists, for most of you reject the very dogma of EENS that the V2 papal claimants reject.
What you deem is heresy against EENS (there we go again with you people's arrogance) is not and they do not believe what we believe. They believe in complete religious indifferentism, that even people who KNOW about the Church don't need to be Catholic at all. They don't believe anybody has to convert. They don't believe you need to have supernatural faith and charity without exception to be saved, we do. They don't even believe in original sin.
Are you aware that you are spouting countless LIES and bearing false witness? Does that even faze you? Have you forgotten lying and dishonesty are sins against the 8th commandment?
Maybe you should get out of these forums for a while and see what is actually going on in the world.
Ironic, isn't it?
No, it isn't.
I believe that we are in a "papa dubius" situation.
And where did you arrogate authority unto yourself to say such a thing? Did you consult with your local novus ordo bishop? Does he agree with you?
You believe the bogus novus ordo hierarchy still is in the Church and holds authority.
I consider this doubtful, and so none of what this hierarchy does is binding until the Church resolves this matter.
Doubtful why?
Then again you're doing your own thing and answer to no one anyways so what kind of a Church do you believe in?
You arrogate unto yourself the authority of the Church, for only the Church can decide who is the pope ... and who isn't.
And then after all you said you still accuse me of arrogation of authority?
-
So while you say that you will not arrogate unto yourself the ability to "depose popes", you sure undermine the entire Magisterium by REJECTING what you deem is the Magisterium.
You are misapplying the usual trite sedevacantist rhetoric. No, I consider the status of this "Magisterium" to be doubtful. Consequently, in the practical order, I do not accept it.
I don't refuse to admit anything. I am always challenging people like you to debate this but you are all cowards and always run away and don't want to debate.
No one's afraid of you; perhaps you think too highly of yourself.
Are you oblivious to the fact that sedevacantism can be proven several other ways without even using the manifestly apostate/heretical/antichrist "popes"?
But it cannot be proven with the certainty of faith, and the legitimacy of the Pope must be known with the certainty of faith. Consequently, it can never be a matter for private judgment, regardless of how strong the arguments may appear to be. That in essence is the position taken by John of St. Thomas.
That's why there were several other opinions other than that of St. Robert Bellarmine,
Yeah, which he refuted and proved false.
In your opinion.
You are a schismatic. The last thing you are is Catholic.
I suspect that you are in fact the schismatic, and you're a very bitter and angry person. You need to apply St. Ignatius' rules for the discernment of spirits to see that the evil spirits have taken root in your soul.
Who the Hell do you people think you are...
This, my friend, is what initially caused me to abandon sedevacantism, its bad fruits. You are filled with bitter zeal and incredibly angry and arrogant on top of it.
Do you see why sedevacantism is such a breath of fresh, true air, as opposed to the damnable lies people like you throw around?
From where I stand, and judging by your display, it appears to be rather putrid air indeed.
-
Why don't you start another thread? You're getting way off topic with sedevacantism.
-
When I was a sedevacantist, I ran into very few people indeed who were not filled with this kind of bitter zeal, and I saw the rot entering into me as well. I prayed to Our Blessed Mother about it, and she gave me some very strong signal graces to stay away from sedevacantism. I did so, but then asked her to show me what was wrong with it. Over the course of a few weeks, my mind was enlightened about how sedevacantism undermines the authority of the Church and of the Magisterium, presenting to my mind various reasons that had never occurred to me before I prayed to her for help. I suggest that you do the same. Step One, however, is to be open, and to pray, "Blessed Mother, if sedevacantism isn't the right path, please show me what pleases God and take me there." Please also pray that Our Lady might lift this bitter zeal from your soul; it appears to be consuming you.
Similarly, I constantly pray to Our Lady to help me understand where the truth lies with issues like BoD, NFP, and the status of the V2 Popes. At the end of the day, I recognize that I am following my own lights and can easily be led astray. Better men than I have gone astray. Yet I do not rely upon myself, but upon Our Blessed Mother. Only in her arms can we find safe refuge during this horrible trial and crisis. God gave her that special power in these end times.
-
When I was a sedevacantist, I ran into very few people indeed who were not filled with this kind of bitter zeal, and I saw the rot entering into me as well. I prayed to Our Blessed Mother about it, and she gave me some very strong signal graces to stay away from sedevacantism. I did so, but then asked her to show me what was wrong with it. Over the course of a few weeks, my mind was enlightened about how sedevacantism undermines the authority of the Church and of the Magisterium, presenting to my mind various reasons that had never occurred to me before I prayed to her for help. I suggest that you do the same. Step One, however, is to be open, and to pray, "Blessed Mother, if sedevacantism isn't the right path, please show me what pleases God and take me there." Please also pray that Our Lady might lift this bitter zeal from your soul; it appears to be consuming you.
Similarly, I constantly pray to Our Lady to help me understand where the truth lies with issues like BoD, NFP, and the status of the V2 Popes. At the end of the day, I recognize that I am following my own lights and can easily be led astray. Better men than I have gone astray. Yet I do not rely upon myself, but upon Our Blessed Mother. Only in her arms can we find safe refuge during this horrible trial and crisis. God gave her that special power in these end times.
By their fruits ye shall know them, says Our Lord.
"Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves. "You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes nor figs from thistles, are they? "So every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit.…
Uncharitableness always shows the spirit of darkness. A soul in which the Holy Ghost does not dwells in.
Vulgarity always speaks of ignorance.
-
So while you say that you will not arrogate unto yourself the ability to "depose popes", you sure undermine the entire Magisterium by REJECTING what you deem is the Magisterium.
You are misapplying the usual trite sedevacantist rhetoric. No, I consider the status of this "Magisterium" to be doubtful. Consequently, in the practical order, I do not accept it.
Trite, in your opinion. See, I can play that game too.
Well, since when are Catholics free to reject the entire living Magisterium based on "I consider this doubtful"?
The Magisterium has the same authority of Christ Himself, but you consider it doubtful just like that.
Where is your submission to what you deem is the Church and lawful authority?
I don't refuse to admit anything. I am always challenging people like you to debate this but you are all cowards and always run away and don't want to debate.
No one's afraid of you; perhaps you think too highly of yourself.
Actually i think lowly of myself and because of that it surprises me how weak the arguments against SV are, because someone like myself can make mincemeat of them.
Are you oblivious to the fact that sedevacantism can be proven several other ways without even using the manifestly apostate/heretical/antichrist "popes"?
But it cannot be proven with the certainty of faith,
There you go again inventing your own standards, just like I said. Who says it needs to be? Evidence please.
Thought you were smart enough to know that.
and the legitimacy of the Pope must be known with the certainty of faith.
False. One look at the Great Western Schism, for one, proves this.
Did people know then with the certainty of faith who was the real Pope?
Consequently, it can never be a matter for private judgment,
It isn't; the teaching of the Church has already said what happens in such situations.
The fact that some obstinate people like the SSPX and the likes of Vennari etc. just "can't see it" means nothing other than they are blind obstinate fools.
regardless of how strong the arguments may appear to be.
Strong indeed they are, and irrefutable.
That in essence is the position taken by John of St. Thomas.
You still have not answered why you cling to this man and not to the Saints and Doctors and Popes of the Church.
That's why there were several other opinions other than that of St. Robert Bellarmine,
Yeah, which he refuted and proved false.
In your opinion.
In your opinion he didn't.
See, i can do it too.
But in deadly earnest, you have been shown to dismiss the authority of the Church Itself and of Saints and Doctors so you have no say in this.
You are a schismatic. The last thing you are is Catholic.
I suspect that you are in fact the schismatic,
I am not the one who rejects communion with what he deems is the Church, Hierarchy and Pope, as you people do. Nor do I reject communion with real Catholics, with people who hold to the Faith whole and undefiled. You people don't hold it, so i refuse communion with you, so i am not a schismatic.
and you're a very bitter and angry person.
You mistake my intolerance for blatantly false and baloney arguments which you people obstinately keep repeating over and over again for bitter zeal, which is a totally different thing.
Yes, i get angry with lies and false arguments and can't stand them from people who should know better.
You need to apply St. Ignatius' rules for the discernment of spirits to see that the evil spirits have taken root in your soul.
You are the one consumned with things like bod/bob and i have seen how you have treated others here, and you accuse me of bitter zeal and of evil spirits taking root in my soul?
The blindness!
Who the Hell do you people think you are...
This, my friend, is what initially caused me to abandon sedevacantism, its bad fruits. You are filled with bitter zeal and incredibly angry and arrogant on top of it.
It's a fair question, because as i have said already and you have ignored, you people make up rules and standards and criterions which the Church never made and you distort and hide the truth, all damnable and abominable things.
You people have twisted and kept the truth from others and spouted lies for decades, the damage you have done is incalculable.
You expect niceness and a reward for all your lies and misrepresentations of the truth?
Delusional!
-
Uncharitableness always shows the spirit of darkness. A soul in which the Holy Ghost does not dwells in.
Vulgarity always speaks of ignorance.
Says a heretic who rejects the teaching of the Church as yourself.
-
Well, since when are Catholics free to reject the entire living Magisterium based on "I consider this doubtful"?
Based on the widely-accepted principle of Papa dubius, nullus papa. Father Jenkins has some pertinent theological quotes on the matter. In addition, Canon Lawyers state that one is not considered schismatic if a refusal to submit it based upon well-founded doubts regarding the legitimacy of the Pope.
-
Actually i think lowly of myself and because of that it surprises me how weak the arguments against SV are, because someone like myself can make mincemeat of them.
That's quite laughable. SVs think that their reasoning enjoys the certainty of faith because they oversimply the matter and are incapable of making the necessary distinctions.
-
False. One look at the Great Western Schism, for one, proves this.
Did people know then with the certainty of faith who was the real Pope?
Nope. Which is precisely why the people that happened to pick the WRONG pope were not considered to be in schism. In addition, some theologians argue that the magisterial acts of even the legitimate Pope were null and void due to the doubt about his legitimacy. This only proves MY point.
-
Sneakyticks, your soul is being poisoned by bitterness and pride. You really need to stop or it'll destroy you.
-
Sneskyticks said: "You are not a sedevacantist, so you believe the novus ordo is the real Church" ---- Now, that is a howler of a non sequitur.
-
Sneakyticks, please start a new thread on sedevacantism. Last thing we need is a combined BoD / SVism thread. This could go on for thousands of pages.
-
When I was a sedevacantist, I ran into very few people indeed who were not filled with this kind of bitter zeal, and I saw the rot entering into me as well.
What rot? To have no patience for lies and false arguments?
I prayed to Our Blessed Mother about it, and she gave me some very strong signal graces to stay away from sedevacantism.
Says the man who obstinately rejects teachings of the Church to begin with.
And, i thought Catholics went by faith and doctrinal principles, not "feelings" like you describe here.
Well back at you anyways. I can show you examples of the same in favor of SV and against holding to r&r.
So where does that leave us?
It leaves us in Protestantism, where one believes what is true based on feelings and "private revelations".
It's no surprise the novus ordos i have dealt with all say "can you show me some private revelations that prove sedevacantism? Can you show me God spoke to you and told you this is the truth?"
They ask that because they are all Protestants now and have abandonded the doctrinal principles and teachings one is supposed to go by and instead cling to feelings and revelations.
I did so, but then asked her to show me what was wrong with it. Over the course of a few weeks, my mind was enlightened about how sedevacantism undermines the authority of the Church and of the Magisterium,
Oh brother. YOU ALREADY UNDERMINE THE AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH AND OF THE MAGISTERIUM AS IT IS.
You are in some serious spiritual fog.
presenting to my mind various reasons that had never occurred to me before
Such as?
I suggest that you do the same.
What makes you think i haven't?
Step One, however, is to be open,
Who says im not?
and to pray, "Blessed Mother, if sedevacantism isn't the right path, please show me what pleases God and take me there." Please also pray that Our Lady might lift this bitter zeal from your soul; it appears to be consuming you.
I grew up in the Novus Ordo. You think i just decided one day out of the blue, hey SV looks nice, so this is what i will believe now?
I studied it for MONTHS, looking at all the alternatives, all the objections, you name it.
The more i read, the more i saw the truth of SV and the falsity of r&r or any other position.
Soon i found out about the false traditionalists and their lies, and their absurdity never appealed to me at all. I saw it for the hoax that it is from the beginning, and i have never tolerated it.
Similarly, I constantly pray to Our Lady to help me understand where the truth lies with issues like BoD, NFP, and the status of the V2 Popes.
Well aint that something. You already call people here heretics on the EENS issue and are already cemented in what you believe on it.
Hint: that's NOT how someone who is humbly trying to "understand where the truth lies" behaves.
At the end of the day, I recognize that I am following my own lights and can easily be led astray.
And completely astray you have gone indeed, precisely for doing your own thing and not following what the Church teaches.
Better men than I have gone astray.
Explain.
-
Sneakyticks, please start a new thread on sedevacantism. Last thing we need is a combined BoD / SVism thread. This could go on for thousands of pages.
I don't intend to carry on with this much longer, for i am sure it wont lead anywhere, probably only in my being banned, and it really is a waste of time as it is.
-
Well, since when are Catholics free to reject the entire living Magisterium based on "I consider this doubtful"?
Based on the widely-accepted principle of Papa dubius, nullus papa. Father Jenkins has some pertinent theological quotes on the matter.
Not so fast, we are talking about you people rejecting the entire living Magisterium for decades, not a Pope.
And if a doubtful pope is no pope, then what is your problem with SV?
In addition, Canon Lawyers state that one is not considered schismatic if a refusal to submit it based upon well-founded doubts regarding the legitimacy of the Pope.
So why did you call me a schismatic?
Also, Canon Lawyers also say a manifestly heretical pope ceases to be pope ipso facto, so why do bring them over as if you think they have any authority when you reject what they teach?
Actually i think lowly of myself and because of that it surprises me how weak the arguments against SV are, because someone like myself can make mincemeat of them.
That's quite laughable. SVs think that their reasoning enjoys the certainty of faith because they oversimply the matter and are incapable of making the necessary distinctions.
There we go, we "oversimplify" the matter and "are incapable of making the necessary distinctions", while you "humble" knuckleheads keep "scratching your brains" over it.
You see, i cant stand that kind of nonsense.
You are the ones who are MAKING UP YOUR OWN THEOLOGY and you accuse us of "being incapable of making the necessary distinctions"?
False. One look at the Great Western Schism, for one, proves this.
Did people know then with the certainty of faith who was the real Pope?
Nope. Which is precisely why the people that happened to pick the WRONG pope were not considered to be in schism. In addition, some theologians argue that the magisterial acts of even the legitimate Pope were null and void due to the doubt about his legitimacy. This only proves MY point.
Only proves your point? Surely you jest. You just totally refuted and shot yourself in the foot.
You FIRST said that "the legitimacy of the Pope must be known with the certainty of faith", but NOW you just admitted that the people in the GWS DID NOT know "the legitimacy of the Pope must be known with the certainty of faith", so which is it?
Sneakyticks, your soul is being poisoned by bitterness and pride. You really need to stop or it'll destroy you.
No, what happens is that you can't handle the truth and i make uncomfortable questions for you.
-
Also Ladislaus, Canon lawyers teach that the Church cannot give evil or error, so how can you say the novus ordo is still the Church since it has been doing precisely that for decades now?
-
And, i thought Catholics went by faith and doctrinal principles, not "feelings" like you describe here.
Not feelings. Rational analysis of the fruits of sedevacantism and application of St. Ignatius' rules for the discernment of spirits.
-
And, i thought Catholics went by faith and doctrinal principles, not "feelings" like you describe here.
Not feelings. Rational analysis of the fruits of sedevacantism and application of St. Ignatius' rules for the discernment of spirits.
Answer my whole post and stop taking little snippets of what i say.
You see? You can't deal with this.
-
And, i thought Catholics went by faith and doctrinal principles, not "feelings" like you describe here.
Not feelings. Rational analysis of the fruits of sedevacantism and application of St. Ignatius' rules for the discernment of spirits.
Answer my whole post and stop taking little snippets of what i say.
You see? You can't deal with this.
I don't see a point on a forum like this to spin out five-paragraph responses to five-paragraph responses. That's why I try to break it down. As I've said, this discussion is off-topic from the thread subject.
-
And, i thought Catholics went by faith and doctrinal principles, not "feelings" like you describe here.
Not feelings. Rational analysis of the fruits of sedevacantism and application of St. Ignatius' rules for the discernment of spirits.
Answer my whole post and stop taking little snippets of what i say.
You see? You can't deal with this.
I don't see a point on a forum like this to spin out five-paragraph responses to five-paragraph responses. That's why I try to break it down. As I've said, this discussion is off-topic from the thread subject.
Then create a new thread and answer there.
-
Ladislaus is a totally amoral and unscrupulous troll. I have already cited the verbatim quotation of the St. Pius X Catechism, in which it is taught that Baptism of water can be supplied for by BOB or BOD. The reason why Baptism can be supplied for by BOB/BOD is that there can be no salvation without the GRACE of Baptism, (as St. Pius V teaches in the Roman Catechism), and therefore by divine dispensation, when the reception of Baptism is impossible, one can be saved not by the sacrament of faith; but by the faith in the sacrament -- as Innocent III taught. So, you can accept the private opinions of heretics, like David & Claudia Drew (and madman Ladislaus); or you can submit to the constant teaching and judgment of the Roman Pontiffs (Pius V, Pius IX, Pius X, Pius XII),who, unlike Drew, teach officially in Christ's name. Drew pontificates like one who fancies himself to be an infallible pontiff, but the charism of the Petrine Office was not given to Drew; but to the legitimate successors of Peter, who all, unlike Drew, teach differently than heretic Drew.
Don Paolo Kramer,
The only reply I have for you is in your own words. That is, before you became associated with the SSPX Resistance. In 2002, you, like the Drews, would have been considered a rank heretic by the SSPX or "a Feeneyite" for beliving in the literal meaning of dogma. Were you a heretic in 2002 when you published your book The Devil's Final Battle"? Or are you a real heretic today for denying what you correctly held then?
What is dogma? Dogma is what has been infallibly defined by the Church. Dogma is what Catholics must believe in order to be Catholic. The dogmas of the Faith are what is contained in the solemn, infallible definitions of the Magisterium—namely, the Pope alone, speaking in a way that clearly binds the Universal Church to believe in what he is pronouncing, or an ecuмenical council of all the Catholic bishops presided over by the Pope which issues such binding pronouncements, or those things taught by the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium of the Church.
What is meant by the infallible definition of dogma? The word infallible means “cannot fail”. Therefore, the definitions of the Faith, solemnly defined by the Church, cannot fail. We know what the Faith is, what the dogmas of the Faith are, by means of the infallible definitions. If we believe and hold fast to these infallible definitions, then we cannot be deceived in those matters so defined.
How do we know that a matter has been defined infallibly as an article of the Catholic faith? We know it from the manner in which the teaching is presented.
Four Sources of Infallible Teaching
There are four principal ways Church teaching is presented to us infallibly:
First, through the promulgation of creeds by the Popes and ecuмenical councils, which provide a summary of what Catholics must believe in order to be Catholic.
Second, by means of solemn definitions containing such phrases as “We declare, pronounce and define,” or some similar formula indicating that the Pope or the Pope together with an ecuмenical council clearly intend to bind the Church to believe in the teaching. Such definitions are usually accompanied by anathemas (condemnations) of those who would in any way deny the defined teaching.
Third, the definitions of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium, meaning the constant teaching of the Church in an “ordinary” manner, always and everywhere, even if the teaching is never solemnly defined by such words as “We declare, pronounce and define...” (One example of this is the Church's constant teaching, throughout Her history, that contraception and abortion are gravely immoral.)
Fourth, there are definitive judgements of the Pope, usually condemned propositions, which are those propositions a Catholic is forbidden to believe. When a Pope, or a Pope and council together, solemnly condemn a proposition, we can know infallibly that it is contrary to the Catholic Faith.
An example of a creed is the Profession of Faith promulgated by the Council of Trent. We present it here, conveniently arranged in the form of points, with the language unaltered:
• I, N., with firm faith believe and profess each and every article contained in the Symbol of faith which the holy Roman Church uses; namely:
• I believe in one God, the Father almighty, Creator of Heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible; and in
• one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, born of the Father before all ages; God from God, light from light, true God from true God; begotten not made, of one substance (consubstantial) with the Father; through whom all things were made;
• who for us men and for our salvation came down from Heaven, and was made incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the Virgin Mary, and was made man.
• He was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate, died, and was buried; and
• He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures, and ascended into Heaven;
• He sits at the right hand of the Father, and He shall come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and of His kingdom there will be no end.
• And I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, and giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son; who equally with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified; who spoke through the prophets.
• And I believe that there is one, holy, Catholic, and apostolic Church.
• I confess one baptism for the remission of sins; and I hope for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen. ...
• I resolutely accept and embrace the apostolic and ecclesiastical traditions and the other practices and regulations of that same Church.
• In like manner I accept Sacred Scripture according to the meaning which has been held by holy Mother Church and which She now holds. It is Her prerogative to pass judgement on the true meaning and interpretation of Sacred Scripture. And I will never accept or interpret it in a manner different from the unanimous agreement of the Fathers.
• I also acknowledge that there are truly and properly seven sacraments of the New Law, instituted by Jesus Christ our Lord, and that they are necessary for the salvation of the human race, although it is not necessary for each individual to receive them all.
• I acknowledge that the seven sacraments are: Baptism, Confirmation, Eucharist, Penance, Extreme Unction, Holy Orders, and Matrimony; and that they confer grace; and that of the seven, Baptism, Confirmation, and Holy Orders cannot be repeated without committing a sacrilege.
• I also accept and acknowledge the customary and approved rites of the Catholic Church in the solemn administration of these sacraments.
• I embrace and accept each and every article on Original Sin and justification declared and defined in the most holy Council of Trent.
• I likewise profess that in the Mass a true, proper, and propitiatory sacrifice is offered to God on behalf of the living and the dead, and that the Body and Blood together with the Soul and Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ is truly, really, and substantially present in the most holy Sacrament of the Eucharist, and that there is a change of the whole substance of the bread into the Body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the Blood; and this change the Catholic Church calls transubstantiation.
• I also profess that the whole and entire Christ and a true Sacrament is received under each separate species.
• I firmly hold that there is a purgatory, and that the souls detained there are helped by the prayers of the faithful.
• I likewise hold that the saints reigning together with Christ should be honored and invoked, that they offer prayers to God on our behalf, and that their relics should be venerated.
• I firmly assert that images of Christ, of the Mother of God ever Virgin, and of the other saints should be owned and kept, and that due honor and veneration should be given to them.
• I affirm that the power of indulgences was left in the keeping of the Church by Christ, and that the use of indulgences is very beneficial to Christians.
• I acknowledge the holy, Catholic, and apostolic Roman Church as the mother and teacher of all churches; and
• I promise and swear true obedience to the Roman Pontiff, vicar of Christ and successor of Blessed Peter, Prince of the Apostles.
• I unhesitatingly accept and profess all the doctrines (especially those concerning the primacy of the Roman Pontiff and his infallible teaching authority9) handed down, defined, and explained by the sacred canons and ecuмenical councils and especially those of this most holy Council of Trent (and by the ecuмenical Vatican Council I). And at the same time:
• I condemn, reject, and anathematize everything that is contrary to those propositions, and all heresies without exception that have been condemned, rejected, and anathematized by the Church.
• I, N., promise, vow, and swear that, with God's help, I shall most constantly hold and profess this true Catholic faith, outside which no one can be saved and which I now freely profess and truly hold. With the help of God, I shall profess it whole and unblemished to my dying breath; and, to the best of my ability, I shall see to it that my subjects or those entrusted to me by virtue of my office hold it, teach it, and preach it. So help me God and His holy Gospel.
As for solemn and infallible definitions of Catholic dogma, one recent example is the Apostolic Letter of Pope Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus (1854), infallibly defining the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of Mary:
We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of Her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of Original Sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful...
Finally, there is the condemned proposition. A prime example of this is the Syllabus of Errors of Blessed Pius IX, wherein this great Pope enumerated the many errors of liberalism in the form of propositions which he solemnly, definitively and infallibly condemned as errors against the Faith,10 including proposition #80 (which we mentioned earlier): “The Roman Pontiff can and ought to reconcile himself and come to terms with progress, liberalism and modern civilization.” ...
As we have shown, here too Cardinal Ratzinger has sought to undermine prior Church teaching, telling us that the teaching of Vatican II was a “countersyllabus” which was “an attempt at an official reconciliation with the new era inaugurated in 1789” and an effort to correct what he dared to call “the one-sidedness of the position adopted by the Church under Blessed Pius IX and Saint Pius X in response to the situation created by the new phase of history inaugurated by the French Revolution …”11 To make his rejection of the solemn, infallible teaching of Blessed Pope Pius IX even more explicit, Cardinal Ratzinger declares that at Vatican II, “the attitude of critical reserve toward the forces that have left their imprint on the modern world is to be replaced by a coming to terms with their movement.”12 This opinion of Cardinal Ratzinger's flatly contradicts the teaching of Blessed Pope Pius IX that the Church must not “come to terms” with “progress, liberalism and modern civilization.”
Cardinal Ratzinger's outrageous abuse of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception and his arrogant dismissal of the Syllabus as “one-sided” exposes the very core of the post-conciliar crisis in the Church: an assault on the infallible definitions of the Magisterium.
Now, for the most part, this assault has baptism ofbeen rather indirect. The infallible definition is usually not directly denied, but rather undermined through criticism or “revision.” The innovators in the Church are not so stupid as simply to declare that an infallible Church teaching is wrong. And, in their supposed “enlightenment” these innovators may actually think they are “deepening” or “developing” Catholic teaching for the good of the Church—again, we are not judging their subjective motivations. But the effect of what they do is obvious: the undermining of the infallibly defined teachings of the Magisterium.
Another example of this undermining is the attack on the dogma that outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation. The Tridentine creed, quoted in full above, states: “I shall most constantly hold and profess this true Catholic faith, outside which no one can be saved …” In Chapter 6 we show how, over and over again, the Magisterium has solemnly defined the dogma that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church. Yet today, the dogma is denied and undermined by an “ecuмenism” which declares that neither the Protestant heretics nor the Orthodox schismatics need return to the Catholic Church, because this is “outdated ecclesiology.”13 And in many places today, the dogma is directly denied, and in other places it is not directly denied but in practice it collapses from insidious, repeated, indirect attacks and, as a result, it is no longer believed and followed in those places.
It is undeniable that since Vatican II a host of novel notions has been passed off in the Church as “development” of Catholic doctrine, even though these novelties at least implicitly (and sometimes explicitly) contradict and undermine the infallible definitions. The idea, for example, that the Council docuмent Gaudium et Spes is a “countersyllabus” that counters the solemn condemnations of Blessed Pope Pius IX14 undermines the whole integrity of the infallible Magisterium. Such talk is an assault on the very credibility of the teaching office of the Church, and is thus, in the end, an assault on Catholic dogma itself.
There Cannot be a “New Understanding” of Catholic Dogma
This post-conciliar attack on dogma through undermining and implicit contradiction cannot be justified as a “development” or “new insight” into dogma. As the First Vatican Council solemnly taught: “For, the Holy Spirit was not promised to the successors of Peter that they might disclose new doctrine, but that by His help they might guard sacredly the revelation transmitted through the Apostles and the deposit of faith, and might faithfully set it forth.”15
Further, as Vatican I taught, there cannot be any “new understanding” of what the Church has already infallibly defined:
[T]hat understanding of its sacred dogmas must be perpetually retained, which Holy Mother Church has once declared; and there must never be a recession [moving away] from that meaning under the specious name of a deeper understanding.16
Thus, it is a matter of Catholic Faith that we believe that no new doctrine has been revealed by God since the death of the last Apostle, Saint John and that no new understanding of doctrine has arisen because of Vatican II or otherwise.
Therefore, this “new” doctrine or “counter”-doctrine we have heard so much about since Vatican II can only be pseudo-doctrine. This pseudo-doctrine is being taught very subtly. When pseudo-doctrine contradicts doctrines that have been infallibly defined, then Catholics must cling to the infallible doctrines and reject the “new” doctrines.
The dogma of the Faith cannot fail, but novelties can fail us. Men can fail; lay people can fail; priests can fail; bishops can fail; Cardinals can fail; and even the Pope can fail in matters which do not involve his charism of infallibility, as history has shown us with more than one Pope who taught or appeared to teach some novelty.
For example, Pope Honorius was posthumously condemned by the Third Council of Constantinople in 680 A.D. for aiding and abetting heresy,17 and that condemnation was approved by Pope Leo II and repeated by later Popes. As another example, Pope John XXII, back in the 14th Century (1333 A.D.), gave sermons (but not solemn definitions) in which he insisted that the blessed departed do not enjoy the Beatific Vision until the day of General Judgment. For this he was denounced and corrected by theologians, and he finally retracted his heretical opinion on his deathbed.
In the case of Pope John XXII, knowledgeable Catholics (in this case theologians) knew that John XXII was wrong in his teaching about the Particular Judgment. They knew that something was wrong with Pope John XXII's teaching because it contradicted what the Church had always believed, even if there had not yet been an infallible definition. Catholics who knew their faith in the 14th Century did not simply say: “Oh, the Pope has given a sermon, therefore we must change our belief.” Looking at the Church's constant teaching that the blessed departed enjoy the Beatific Vision immediately after Purgatory, the theologians knew Pope John XXII was wrong, and they told him so.
As it turned out, the immediacy of the Beatific Vision was solemnly and infallibly defined by Pope John XXII's successor in 1336. This placed the matter beyond all further dispute—which is precisely why an infallible definition was needed. The same is true with every other matter infallibly defined by the Church. We can, and must, rely on these infallible definitions with absolute certainty, rejecting all opinions to the contrary—even if contrary opinions were to come from a Cardinal or even a Pope.
There are other examples of Popes failing. Even the first Pope, St. Peter, failed, as shown in Sacred Scripture—not by what he said but by the example he gave. Saint Peter refused to sit at table with Gentile converts, in Antioch about 50 A.D. By shunning these converts he gave the false impression that the First Council of Jerusalem was wrong in its infallible teaching that the Mosaic ceremonial law, including the prohibition against Jews eating with “unclean” Gentiles, was not binding on the Catholic Church. This was the incident for which St. Paul rebuked St. Peter to his face in public. (Gal. 2:11)
Another example is Pope Liberius in 357 A.D. (or thereabouts), who failed by signing a Creed which the Arians proposed to him, leaving out any reference to the Son being consubstantial with the Father. He did this after two years in exile and under the threat of death. And he also failed (under duress while in exile) by wrongly condemning and excommunicating—in reality, only giving the appearance of excommunicating—St. Athanasius, who was defending the Faith in this matter. Pope Liberius, the first Pope not to be proclaimed a saint by the Church, was wrong because Athanasius was teaching the Catholic doctrine—the true doctrine, the infallible doctrine—taught infallibly by the Council of Nicea in 325 AD. It was that infallible definition, not the defective teaching of Pope Liberius, that had to be followed in that case.
From these examples in Church history we learn that everything proposed to us for our belief must be judged by those definitions. And so if a Cardinal, a bishop, a priest, a layman or even the Pope teaches us some novelty that is contrary to any definition of the Faith, we can know that the teaching is wrong and that it must be rejected for the salvation of our immortal souls. Yes, even the Pope can fail, and he does fail if he expresses an opinion that is contrary to a solemn, infallible definition of the Catholic Church. This does not mean the Church fails when this happens, but only that the Pope has made a mistake without imposing it on the whole Church. And, of course, if even the Pope can make a mistake in teaching some novelty, then certainly Cardinals, bishops and priests can make mistakes in their teaching and opinions.
And so, when Our Lady speaks about the “dogma of the Faith”, She indicates to us that the danger to the Faith—and to “the life of the Christian and therefore (the life) of the world”, to recall Cardinal Ratzinger's admission—will arise when solemn dogmatic definitions of the Catholic Faith are contradicted or undermined; for it is these definitions which are the very foundation of the Catholic Faith, and therefore the foundation of our salvation, to recall the Pope's 1982 sermon at Fatima.
To the objection that mere priests, or mere lay people, cannot disagree with high-ranking prelates like Cardinal Ratzinger, or even (in the kind of extraordinary case for which we have just given examples) the Pope, one must reply: That is why the Church has infallible definitions. It is by measuring any given teaching against solemn, infallible definitions that one can know that a teaching is true or false—not by what rank in the clergy a person has. As St. Paul taught: “But though we, or an angel from Heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema.” (Gal. 1:8) The faithful are to regard even an Apostle as anathema—accursed, cut off from the Church, worthy of hellfire—if he contradicts the infallible teaching of the Church. That is why theologians were able to correct Pope John XXII in his erroneous teaching from the pulpit; and it is why Catholics today can tell right from wrong teaching, even if they have a rank lower than the prelate who is committing the error.
A prime historical example of this is found in the case of a lawyer named Eusebius, who pointed out that Nestorius, a high-ranking Archbishop in Constantinople, the highest ranking prelate after the Pope, was wrong when he denied that Mary is the Mother of God. Eusebius stood up in his pew on Christmas Day, during Mass, and denounced Nestorius for preaching heresy. Yet all the “high-ranking” priests and bishops had remained silent in the face of Nestorius' heresy. Thus, a mere layman was right and all the rest of them were in error. The Council of Ephesus was called to hear the matter, and it was solemnly and infallibly defined that Mary is the Mother of God. And since Nestorius refused to recant, he was deposed and declared a heretic. Nestorius was excommunicated!
To summarize, truth is not a matter of numbers or rank; truth is a matter of what Christ and God have revealed in Sacred Scripture and Tradition, what has been solemnly defined by the Catholic Church, and what the Catholic Church has always taught—taught always, not just since 1965!
The Disastrous Effects of Tampering With Infallible Definitions
History likewise provides us with a prime example of what can happen to the Church when even one dogma is contradicted on a wide scale. The heresy of Arianism caused catastrophic confusion in the Church from 336 A.D. to 381 A.D. Arianism was condemned in 325 A.D.; and yet in 336, it arose again. Beginning around 336, the heresy eventually claimed about 90% of the bishops before it was finally defeated about fifty years later. In the resulting confusion and loss of faith, even the great St. Athanasius was “excommunicated” by the Pope in 357. By 381 Arianism had been defeated by the First Council of Constantinople. However, it was still in full bloom for some time between 360 and 380. The results were utterly devastating to the Church.
The Arian crisis has more to teach us about the probable contents of the missing text of the Third Secret. One reason the Arians were able to succeed for a time, was that they “successfully” attacked a dogma that had been solemnly and infallibly defined at the Council of Nicea in 325—that Christ is God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God; begotten not made, consubstantial with the Father. This solemn and infallible definition is in the Credo of the Council of Nicea, which we say every Sunday at Mass.
The Arians overturned the definition by getting many of the “faithful” to argue for replacing it with a false definition that was not infallible. In 336 they replaced the Greek word Homoousion with another word Homoiousion. The word Homoousion basically means “consubstantial” with the Father. For God the Son to be consubstantial with the Father, the Son must not only be God but the same one God as the Father, so that the substance of the Father is the substance of the Son, even though the Person of the Father is not the Person of the Son. Thus, there are three Persons in one God—Father, Son and Holy Ghost—but there is only one God, with one substance, in three Persons. That is the mystery of the Trinity. The new word Homoiousion, however, means “of similar substance” to the Father. Thus, the critical phrase in the dogma— “consubstantial with the Father”—was changed to “of similar substance with the Father” or “like the Father.”
Thus the Arians brought about mass confusion in the Church by adding one letter to the word Homoousion to create a new word with a new meaning: Homoiousion. They attacked a solemn definition, claiming that their new definition would be better than the solemn definition. But, of course, the new definition could not be better than the solemn definition, because the solemn definition of the Council of Nicea was infallible.
By adding one letter to one word, the Arians got rid of an infallible definition. This opened the way for the Arians and the semi-Arians, leading to actual warfare. People were martyred, persecuted, driven out into the desert, driven into exile over this one change to one infallible dogma. St. Athanasius was driven into exile five different times by the Synod of Egypt (and spent at least 17 years in exile as a result.) But he was right and the heretical bishops of that Synod were all wrong.
Infallible Definitions Are Higher
than Any Learning or Rank in the Church
Why did Athanasius know he was right? Because he clung to the infallible definition, no matter what everyone else said. Not all the learning in the world, nor all the rank of office, can substitute for the truth of one infallibly defined Catholic teaching. Even the simplest member of the faithful, clinging to an infallible definition, will know more than the most “learned” theologian who denies or undermines the definition. That is the whole purpose of the Church's infallibly defined teaching—to make us independent of the mere opinions of men, however learned, however high their rank.
Now, in 325 the solemn definition of the Council of Nicea was infallible, but many people then did not fully realize that solemn definitions of the Faith were infallible. That is, at this time in Church history the Church had not yet issued the solemn definition teaching that the definitions of Faith are infallible. But in 1870, the First Vatican Council solemnly and infallibly defined the infallibility of the Church's solemn definitions. Now we know, infallibly, that solemn definitions are infallible. Once again: they cannot fail— ever.
The Infallible Definitions Are Under Attack in Our Time
In our day, therefore, there is no excuse for being taken in by heresy and giving up the defense of solemn definitions. But that is precisely what is happening today, just as in the time of Arius. Churchmen are judging things in light of the Second Vatican Council instead of judging the Second Vatican Council in light of the infallible definitions. They have forgotten that the infallible definitions, not Vatican II, are the unchanging standard by which one measures every doctrine, just as a 36-inch yardstick is the unchanging standard for measuring a yard. One does not suddenly decide that the new standard for measuring a yard is a 35-inch stick. Likewise, the Church cannot suddenly decide that Vatican II is the new yardstick of the Faith…
http://www.devilsfinalbattle.com/ch13.htm
Well, Father, which is true. Your "teaching" of 2014, or the Magisterium you once defended? What has happened to you? You personally attack people that have the Catholic faith and try to destroy their reputation because you know they are right.
I forgot to highlight the red portion. It is important because that is what Fr. P. Kramer did buy adding two words to a dogma, as demonstrated by D. Drew in previous posts. He has the private exchange to prove it.
-
Sneakyticks, please start a new thread on sedevacantism. Last thing we need is a combined BoD / SVism thread. This could go on for thousands of pages.
One hundred and twenty three pages and counting ! Yes, mix in sedevacantism and if possible women wearing pants and 'race' and we wouldn't even need any other threads here on CI...
One thread to rule them all,
One thread to find them,
One thread to bring them all,
and in the darkness bind them.
:devil2:
-
False. One look at the Great Western Schism, for one, proves this.
Did people know then with the certainty of faith who was the real Pope?
Nope. Which is precisely why the people that happened to pick the WRONG pope were not considered to be in schism. In addition, some theologians argue that the magisterial acts of even the legitimate Pope were null and void due to the doubt about his legitimacy. This only proves MY point.
This is incorrect. There was & is no 'wrong pope' from GWS. My understanding is that the Council reached a compromise. To settle the schism it was decided that the Faithful are free( to this day) to recognise either the Fr or It pope of the moment during GWS.
Source--- von Pastor :detective:
-
Sneakyticks, please start a new thread on sedevacantism. Last thing we need is a combined BoD / SVism thread. This could go on for thousands of pages.
One hundred and twenty three pages and counting!
Yes, mix in sedevacantism and if possible women wearing pants and 'race' and we wouldn't even need any other threads here on CI...
One thread to rule them all
One thread to find them,
One thread to bring them all
And in the darkness bind them.
:devil2:
:jester:
.
-
One thread to rule them all,
One thread to find them,
One thread to bring them all,
and in the darkness bind them.
I love it.
Let's see if we can also work in NFP and stretch this thing to 1000 pages.
-
False. One look at the Great Western Schism, for one, proves this.
Did people know then with the certainty of faith who was the real Pope?
Nope. Which is precisely why the people that happened to pick the WRONG pope were not considered to be in schism. In addition, some theologians argue that the magisterial acts of even the legitimate Pope were null and void due to the doubt about his legitimacy. This only proves MY point.
This is incorrect. There was & is no 'wrong pope' from GWS. My understanding is that the Council reached a compromise. To settle the schism it was decided that the Faithful are free( to this day) to recognise either the Fr or It pope of the moment during GWS.
Source--- von Pastor :detective:
This was based on a theological source quoted by Father Jenkins and an application of the principle papa dubius nullus papa. It was an interesting spin on the subject that I hadn't heard before and it made sense.
-
He should have been an anchorman.
Failed thread killer 1#
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/embed/GoFV8lTD4ug[/youtube]
Another pathetic attempt 2#
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/embed/KJq8ddN9op8[/youtube]
third and last try.... #3
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/embed/1JBzWZq4fXg[/youtube]
-
One thread to rule them all,
One thread to find them,
One thread to bring them all,
and in the darkness bind them.
I love it.
Let's see if we can also work in NFP and stretch this thing to 1000 pages.
Here's a question I need help with.
Why do sedes steer clear of St. Louis-Marie Grignion de Montfort?
The apostle of Our Lady's Immaculate Conception and Assumption body and soul into heaven -- a century before they were defined -- has no following among sedevacantists. They might pick and choose an item here or there, but they do not champion the whole of his body of work nor his method of evangelization.
Why do you suppose that is?
And whenever I have asked them about it, they change the subject. They seem to be unwilling to think about the answer.
Watch: there won't be any answers here on this thread. Ambrosia, for example, isn't going to chime in, wait and see. He's usually quick to snipe about BoD or BoB, but this? No way. Plutonium.
.
-
.
3 days later............ I guess I called that one right. :judge:
.
-
.
3 days later............ I guess I called that one right. :judge:
.
What do you suppose might account for this, Neil?
-
.
OH! I'm so glad you asked! :rolleyes:
.
3 days later............ I guess I called that one right. :judge:
.
What do you suppose might account for this, Neil?
How many ways would there be to account for this?
Let me count the ways.............
We can start with the Act of Consecration to the Immaculate Heart of Mary
according to the method of St. Louis-Marie Grignion de Montfort:
I, N., a faithless sinner -- renew and ratify today in thy hands, Immaculate Mother, the vows of my Baptism: I renounce forever satan, his pomps and works; and I give myself entirely to Jesus Christ, the Incarnate Wisdom, to carry my cross after Him all the days of my life, and to be more faithful to Him than I have ever been before.
In the presence of all the heavenly court I choose thee this day, for my Mother and Mistress. I deliver and consecrate to thee, as thy slave, my body and soul, my goods, both interior and exterior, and even the value of all my good actions, past, present and future, leaving to thee the entire and full right of disposing of me, and all that belongs to me, without exception, according to thy good pleasure, for the greater glory of God, in time and in eternity. Amen.
Where does baptism of desire fit in with this? How does the vague longing for something good displace all these ideals? What would this consecration look like with the notion of invincible ignorance and implicit desire inserted where it may apply?
How about this, the updated version for the ignorant and noble native:
I, the ignorant but noble native, a faithless sinner, at least, that is, I might perhaps have some vague notion that perhaps I'm not always the pinnacle of my own subjective reality, okay, that much I might go for -- renew and ratify today in thy hands, Immaculate Mother, the vows of my Baptism, that is, since I haven't been baptized, perhaps by my desire to be baptized I might therefore receive all the effects of baptism through my implicit desire, even if I have never heard of 'baptism' or the Church, or, if I have heard of it, perhaps I have spent my whole life fighting against it, but now that I'm breathing my last, I would set my life's work aside and suddenly have a whole new outlook, by the infinite mercy of God, and thereby would assent to these baptismal vows, which BTW I've never heard of: I renounce forever satan, his pomps and works, even if I've lived day after day, year after year, in the deliberate service of this same demon, or something like that; and I give myself entirely to Jesus Christ, of whom I have never heard, the Incarnate Wisdom, a concept I've never so much as dreamed of, to carry my cross after Him all the days of my life, even though I have no idea what this "cross" thingy is, and to be more faithful to Him than I have ever been before, especially seeing as how I have never before been faithful AT ALL to him. Therefore, any faithfulness AT ALL for me, would be an improvement! HAHAHAHA
In the presence of all the heavenly court, whom absolutely escapes my vaguest imagination because they've never crossed my mind, I choose thee this day -- regardless of the fact that I haven't the vaguest clue who "thou art" or who "you are," or whether you even exist -- for my Mother and Mistress. Now, "mother and mistress" I can understand, because I have had both,,,,,, well,,,,,, not much of the former but several of the latter! I deliver and consecrate to thee, as thy slave,... uhh, wait a minute..., my body and soul, my goods, both interior and exterior, and even the value of all my good actions, past, present and future, leaving to thee the entire and full right of disposing of me, and all that belongs to me, without exception, according to thy good pleasure -- uhhh, whose idear was this again? -for the greater glory of God- and who is this "God" anyway? -in time and in eternity- and what is this "eternity" thingy? Amen. Say what?
.
-
The Entire Doctrine of Baptism of Desire is Explicitly Taught by the Council of Trent:
The Council of Trent's Decree on Justification (Ch. 4) sets forth the infallible truth that one can be justified, and thereby established in the state of grace by water or by the desire or resolve (votum) to receive Baptism (as is explained in the Roman Catechism of St. Pius V).
Quibus verbis iustificationis impii descriptio insinuatur ut sit translatio ab eo statu in quo homo nascitur filius primi Adae in statum gratiae et adoptionis filiorum Dei per secundum Adam Iesum Christum salvatorem nostrum; quae quidem translatio post Evangelium promulgatum sine lavacro regenerationis aut eius voto fieri non potest sicut scriptum est: nisi quis renatus fuerit ex aqua et Spiritu Sancto non potest introire in regnum Dei.
In English:
"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."
and again (Sess. VII can. iv):
Si quis dixerit sacramenta novae legis non esse ad salutem necessaria sed superflua et sine eis aut eorum voto per solam fidem homines a Deo gratiam iustificationis adipisci licet omnia singulis necessaria non sint: a[nathema] s[it].
In English:
"CANON IV.-If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous; and 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."
The grace of Justification makes one an heir to the hope of eternal life in this life (Decree on Justification Ch. 7):
Hanc dispositionem seu praeparationem iustificatio ipsa consequitur quae non est sola peccatorum remissio sed et sanctificatio et renovatio interioris hominis per voluntariam susceptionem gratiae et donorum unde homo ex iniusto fit iustus et ex inimico amicus ut sit haeres secundum spem vitae aeternae.
In English:
"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."
and those who appear before the divine Judge in possession of that grace will "have eternal life":
Itaque veram et christianam iustitiam accipientes eam ceu primam stolam pro illa quam Adam sua inobedientia sibi et nobis perdidit per Christum Iesum illis donatam candidam et immaculatam iubentur statim renati conservare ut eam perferant ante tribunal Domini nostri Iesu Christi et habeant vitam aeternam. (Ch. 7)
In English:
"Wherefore, when receiving true and Christian justice, they are bidden, immediately on being born again, to preserve it pure and spotless, as the first robe given them through Jesus Christ in lieu of that which [Page 36] Adam, by his disobedience, lost for himself and for us, that so they may bear it before the judgment-seat of our Lord Jesus Christ, and may have life everlasting."
Chapter 16 teaches explicitly that the justified have fulfilled the law of God, and in order to enter heaven, only one thing is required: that they die in the state of grace:
cuм enim ille ipse Christus Iesus tamquam caput in membra et tamquam vitis in palmites in ipsos iustificatos iugiter virtutem influat quae virtus bona eorum opera semper antecedit comitatur et subsequitur et sine qua nullo pacto Deo grata et meritoria esse possent nihil ipsis iustificatis amplius deesse credendum est quominus plene illis quidem operibus quae in Deo sunt facta divinae legi pro huius vitae statu satisfecisse et vitam aeternam suo etiam tempore (si tamen in gratia decesserint) consequendam vere promeruisse censeantur. (Decree on Justification Ch. 16)
In English:
"For, whereas Jesus Christ Himself continually infuses his virtue into the said justified,-as the head into the members, and the vine into the branches,-and this virtue always precedes and accompanies and follows their good works, which without it could not in any wise be pleasing and meritorious before God,-we must believe that nothing further is wanting to the justified, to prevent their being accounted to have, by those very works which have been done in God, fully satisfied the divine law according to the state of this life, and to have truly merited eternal life, to be obtained also in its (due) time, if so be, however, that they depart in grace: . . ."
Thus the doctrine of Baptism of Desire is explicitly taught in the Decree on Justification.
FEENEY WAS IN HERESY
The heretical proposition:
"It is now: Baptism of Water, or damnation! If you do not desire that Water, you cannot be justified. And if you do not get it, you cannot be saved." (Bread of Life, p. 25)
The proposition directly contradicts and opposes the doctrine of Justification as is explicitly set forth by the Council of Trent, and explained by the Roman Catechism, promulgated by St. Pius V; as well as opposing the doctrine of Baptism of Desire, approved and authorized by ALL post-Tridentine popes; taught unanimously by the medieval and post-Tridentine Doctors; taught explicitly and constantly by the post-Tridentine universal & ordinary magisterium, together with the explicit ordinary magisterium of Bl.Pius IX, St. Pius X, and Ven. Pius XII. Thus, Baptism of Desire is unquestionably de fide.
The proposition directly opposes the unanimous teaching of the ancient Fathers (Including Pope St. Leo I) on Baptism of Blood; which both St. Cyprian and Tertullian (during his Catholic period) attest to have been professed by the whole Church. Thus, the doctrine of justification and salvation by "votum" (without water Baptism) has been unanimously professed by the Church in relation to the martyrs for at least 17 1/2 centuries; and unanimously for those who were not martyrs since the Middle Ages.
The objections against Baptism of Blood and Desire are all, without exception based on fallacious assumptions, and defective private interpretations of scripture and dogma. I have dealt with them individually in my previous writings on the topic. However, some deserve mention here:
1) I is falsely asserted that Baptism of Desire is a novelty. This is plainly false: In the Acts of the Apostles, St. Peter clearly teaches that there is justification even before reception of Baptism: that upon hearing the word of God, without having yet received baptism, the group of Gentiles had already received the Holy Ghost "as have we" ":ως καιἡµεις;" (Acts 10:46-7). And thus, they were judged fit to be baptized without any further instruction. If one in such a justified state should die before Baptism, but in the state of grace, that one is saved: because it is the perpetual dogma and the teaching of Scripture (Matthew 22:11-12; Decree on Justification Ch. 7, 16) that whoever dies in the state of grace is saved. Thus the doctrine of Baptism of Desire is implicitly contained in the Deposit of Faith from the beginning.
2) It is falsely asserted that the water of Baptism is of absolute necessity of means. Fr. Joseph Pfeiffer has already sufficiently replied to this false doctrine on necessity:
"Did not Our Lord Himself say that "unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost he cannot enter into the kingdom of God" [Jn. 3:5]? How necessary is it to be baptized, according to the saints and the Church’s teaching? The Council of Trent teaches in the following de fide
Can. 4. If anyone shall say that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation, but are superfluous, and that although all are not necessary for every individual, without them or without the desire for them through faith alone men obtain from God the grace of justification; let him be anathema (On the Sacraments in General, Dz. 847, emphasis added).
Can. 5. If anyone saith that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema (On the Sacrament of Baptism, Dz
From the above teaching of Trent, which is a canonization of the teaching of St. Thomas on the necessity of baptism, it is de fide that baptism is necessary in a double way, by a necessity of precept, and more importantly, by a necessity of means. A thing is necessary for salvation by a necessity of precept, when it obliges because of the command of a superior. If the command is not known, or too difficult to fulfill, one is not obliged to fulfill it. In such a way, Sunday Mass attendance is necessary for salvation. Infants are not obliged to attend Mass, and even adults, if they are ill or a great distance from Mass, are not obliged to attend.
A thing is necessary also by a necessity of means when by its own nature or by the Divine institution it is so necessary for salvation, that without it, salvation cannot be obtained, even if it is involuntarily omitted. In this manner sanctifying grace is necessary for eternal life.
Baptism is necessary by a necessity of means for salvation by the Divine institution, since it is the God-given means of entrance into the Mystical Body of Christ, in which body alone is found sanctifying life, True Faith, Divine Hope and Divine Charity. Baptism is the doorway to the indwelling of the Holy Ghost, which is the beginning of heaven. Is baptism necessary? Yes. It is a necessary means, a means to obtain the reality of sanctifying grace, that grace found only in Christ:
He that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him and will manifest myself in him...we will come to him and make our abode with him. (Jn. 14:21-23)
According to Trent, baptism is so necessary that it must be had, in re aut in voto in reality or desire, before one can be in the state of Justification, or Sanctifying Grace. The Fathers of the Council state the following in Chapter 4 of Session 6:
In these words a description of the justification of a sinner is given as being a translation from that state in which man is born a child of the first Adam to the state of grace and of the "adoption of sons" [Rom.8:15] of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ our Savior; and this translation after the promulgation of the Gospel cannot be effected except through the laver of regeneration or a desire for it as it is written: "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God Dz. 796, emphasis added)
Before proceeding, please note that in this above passage, Trent interprets John (3:5) to mean that one must be baptized with water, either in reality or in desire to attain justification. All Catholics, therefore, are obliged to accept this interpretation of Trent. St. Augustine in City of God, Book 13, Ch.7, gives a similar interpretation to these words, as well as Hugh of St. Victor in his Summa Sententiarum, Tract. V. Cap. V."
3) The absolute necessity of means for water Baptism is also claimed on the basis of the doctrine of instrumental causality set forth in Ch. 4 of the Decree on Justification, and on private misinterpretations of the teaching of Trent. An author has already sufficiently elucidated these points:
"The Council of Trent teaches that Baptism of Desire is sufficient for justification. It is very explicitly stated in Session 7 Canon 4 on the sacraments in general: "If anyone says that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation, but that they are superfluous; and that men can, without the sacraments or the desire of them, obtain the grace of justification by faith alone, although it is true that not all the sacraments are necessary for each individual, let him be anathema." (Dz 847).
"Beware of ambiguous translations! In their [i.e. the Feeneyites] recent flyer on "Desire, Justification and Salvation at the Council of Trent", they use an ambiguous translation of Session 6 Chapter 7 (Dz 799): "the instrumental cause [of justification] is the sacrament of baptism, which is the sacrament of faith, without which no man was ever justified…" Now the Latin has "sine QUA nulli unquam contigit iustificatio" : thus the terms "without which" refer to the faith (feminine in Latin) and not to the sacrament (neutral in Latin: it would then have: sine quo). Thus in the translation found in "The Church Teaches" (TCT 563), one finds: "… without [which] Faith no one has ever been justified." Why not use the established unambiguous English translation? Why replace it with an ambiguous one?
"Now if they had read carefully the Council of Trent, they would have seen that this Council teaches: "it is necessary to believe that the justified have everything necessary for them to be regarded as having completely satisfied the divine law for this life by their works, at least those which they have performed in God. And they may be regarded as having likewise truly merited the eternal life they will certainly attain in due time, if they but die in the state of grace…" In other words, salvation (which is at the end of the Christian life on earth) only requires perseverance in the state of grace received at justification (which is at the beginning of the Christian life on earth). Baptism is the sacrament of justification, the sacrament of the beginning of the Christian life. If one has received sanctifying grace (which is the reality of the sacrament, res sacramenti, of Baptism), he only needs to persevere in that grace to be saved. Perseverance in grace requires obedience to the Commandments of God, including the commandment to receive the sacrament of Baptism: thus there remains for him the obligation to receive baptism of water, but it is necessary for him no longer as mean (since he already received by grace the ultimate fruit of that mean), but only as precept. In case of circuмstances not depending on our will and preventing us from fulfilling such a precept, "God takes the will as the fact." This is the principle applied by St. Cyprian, St. Ambrose, St. Augustine, etc.
"It is false to pretend that canon 4 on the Sacraments in general (where desire is explicitly mentioned in the expression "re aut voto") deals with justification as opposed to salvation and canon 5 on Baptism deals with salvation as opposed to justification. Indeed canon 4 (quoted above) deals explicitly with the necessity of sacraments "for salvation", the expression "grace of justification" in that context appears manifestly as being precisely the only essential requisite for salvation, as is taught explicitly in session 6 chapter 16 (see above). That which is said of the sacraments in general applies to each sacrament in particular, without having to be repeated each time. Simplistic reasoning, disregarding the explicit teaching of the Church on baptism of desire, only reach false conclusions.
"That it is not necessary to repeat the clause "re aut voto" is so much the more true since baptism of desire is an exception, a special case, not the normal one. One needs not mention exceptions each time one speaks of a law. Thus, there are many definitions of the church on original sin that do not mention the Immaculate Conception, for instance Pope St. Zozimus wrote: "nullus omnino --
absolutely nobody" (Dz 109a) was exempt of the guilt of original sin: such "definition" must be understood as the Church understands it, i.e., not including the Blessed Virgin Mary. In the same way, it is sufficient that Baptism of desire be explicitly taught by the Church, by the Council of Trent, in some place, it is not necessary to expect it at every page of her teaching; silence on an exception is not a negation of it. This principle is important to remember, in order not to be deceived by a frequent technique of the Feeneyites: they accuмulate quotes on the general necessity of Baptism, as if it were against the doctrine on Baptism of Desire. Often the very persons they quote hold explicitly the common teaching on Baptism of Desire. The fact is that the general necessity of Baptism, as understood "in the same sense and in the same words" as the Church always understood it, far from excluding Baptism of Blood and of Desire includes this doctrine."
4) Feeney heretically claimed that the state of grace without sacramental water does not suffice for salvation, because the indelible character is also necessary; and those justified without water were "outside the Church".
Holy Mother Church has held and holds, in agreement with the unanimous consent of the Fathers, that those not baptized with water, but baptized by their own blood are saved, and are thus members of the Church Triumphant; and therefore, the proposition that excludes from the Church all those who have not received the visible sacramental sign of the washing by baptismal water, is heresy.
From this consideration it is already manifest that the proposition according to which one who has not received the indelible character of baptism is thereby excluded from the Church and salvation is patently heretical. The effects of the sacramental characters designate and signify exclusively the function of the person in the Church. The Roman Catechism succinctly adopts and sets forth the teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas on this point:
Iam vero character hoc praestat, tum ut apti ad aliquid sacri suscipiendum vel peragendum efficiamur; tum ut aliqua nota alter ab altero internoscatur. Ac baptismi quidem charactere utrumque consequimur, ut ad alia sacramen- ta percipienda reddamur idonei, et eo praeterea fidelis populus a gentibus, quae fidem non colunt, distinguatur. Idem autem in charactere confirmationis et sacri ordinis licet cognoscere; quorum altero veluti Christi milites ad eius nominis publicam confessionem et propugnationem, ac contra insitum nobis hostem et spiritualia nequitiae in caelestibus armamur atque instruimur 42 , simulque ab iis qui nuper baptizati tamquam modo geniti infantes sunt, discernimur 43 ; alter vero tum potestatem sacramenta conficiendi et minis- trandi coniunctam habet, tum eorum qui eiusmodi potestate praediti sunt, a reliquo fidelium coetu distinctionem ostendit. Tenenda igitur est catholicae Ecclesiae regula, qua docemur tria haec sacramenta characterem imprimere, neque ullo unquam tempore iteranda esse.
It has never been taught by any pope, council, synod, Father, or Doctor, that the reception of the sacramental character is a requirement for salvation.
5) It is claimed, the phrase, sine lavacro regenerationis aut ejus voto" has been mistranslated to mean "or the votum of it", instead of the (according to some Feeneyites) correct translation: "and the votum of it".
This objection is made only by the theologically illiterate Feenryites who have little or no working knowledge of the Latin Language. It is claimed on the basis that the Latin word "aut" can sometimes mean 'and', that the Decree on Justification does not teach that justification can be effected by "the laver of regeneration or the desire of it"; but rather, "by the laver of regeneration and the desire of it". In this context, however, the "aut" cannot possibly mean 'and'. Such a rendering confuses the meaning of "votum" with that of "intentio". To validly receive baptism, an adult must not only be baptized with water, but he must have the sacramental consent: the intention to receive the sacrament -- thus a sleeping Jew would not validly receive baptism if someone were to administer the rite of baptism on him. The Decree on Justification most clearly does not refer to sacramental consent by the words "aut ejus voto", because the word "votum" referrs exclusively to a desire or resolve to be fulfilled at some future time. This is patent from an examination of the use of the word "votum" by all the classical authors of antiquity, as well as in ecclesiastical Latin.
The original Italian text of the Roman Catechism explains the doctrine of this Latin passage of the Decree on Justification in the generally accepted sense, and not according to the absurd Feeneyite interpretation:
"In caso improvviso di pericolo, chi ha l'uso della ragione, pur impossibilitato a purificarsi nell'acqua sacramentale, può conseguire la grazia e la giustizia col semplice proposito di ricevere a suo tempo il Battesimo, unito al pentimento dei peccati commessi."
In English: "In a case of unforeseen danger, one who has the use of reason, due to the impossibility to be purified in baptismal water, can receive grace and justification with the simple resolve to receive Baptism in its due time, together with repentance for sins committed."
Thus clearly is explained in the Catechism composed an promulgated by two eminent Council Fathers of Trent, the meaning of the expression "sine lavacro regenerationis aut ejus voto" in the Decree on Justification.
A final consideration on the underlying cause of the heresy of Feeneyism from the above quoted anonymous author at Catholic Apologetics:
"The root of the error of the Feeneyites: lack of proper Thomistic Theology
To remedy the errors of modernism, St. Pius X has ordered the study of St. Thomas Aquinas’ philosophy and theology. A book like "desire and deception" put out by a Feeneyite is very dangerous for his opposition to that philosophy of St. Thomas, which is made mandatory by St. Pius X. Let us hear St. Pius X: "We will and strictly ordain that scholastic philosophy be made the basis of the sacred sciences… And let it be clearly understood above all things that when We prescribe scholastic philosophy We understand chiefly that which the Angelic Doctor has bequeathed to us… They cannot set aside St. Thomas, especially in metaphysical questions, without grave disadvantage."
St. Thomas distinguishes three elements in each sacrament: 1/ the exterior sign, called sacramentum tantum, sacrament itself, signifying and producing the other two elements. This exterior sign is composed of matter such as water, and form such as the words of the sacrament. 2/ An intermediate reality, called sacramentum et res, sacrament and reality, which, in case of baptism, is the character. This intermediate reality is both signified and produced by the exterior sign and further signifies and produces the third element. 3/ The ultimate reality, res sacramenti, the (ultimate) reality of the sacrament, which is the sacramental grace, i.e. sanctifying grace, as source of further actual graces to live as child of God, as soldier of Christ, etc.
A sacrament may be valid but not fruitful. To be valid the exterior sign needs valid matter, form, intention and proper minister, it then signifies and produces always the second element. To be fruitful, there must be no obstacle. Thus baptism in a heretical church, if done with proper matter, form and intention, does give the character of baptism but does not give sanctifying grace; the person thus remains with the original sin and actual sins; he has not become a child of God: Baptism is thus deprived of its ultimate effect, the most important one, because of the obstacle of a false faith, i.e. of heresy. In the same way, baptism in a Catholic Church of a person who had stolen and refuses to render that which he stole: such attachment to sin is an obstacle that deprives baptism of its ultimate effect, sanctifying grace.
One can go to Hell with the character of Baptism. And there are saints in Heaven, such as the Saints of the Old Testament (Abraham, David, etc.) without the character of Baptism. But nobody dying with sanctifying grace goes to Hell (as the Council of Trent says above), and nobody dying without sanctifying grace goes to Heaven.
Thus the necessity of Baptism for salvation is absolute for the third element of Baptism, the new birth by sanctifying grace, element which is found in each of the Three Baptism (even more perfectly in baptism of blood than in baptism of water, as is the constant teaching of the Church). Hence the common teaching on the necessity of Baptism includes the three Baptisms.
The necessity of the exterior element of Baptism, i.e. the sacrament itself, is relative to the third element, as the only mean at our disposal to receive the third element, living Faith; the sacrament itself is "the sacrament of Faith, without which [Faith] no one ever was justified" as says the Council of Trent (Dz 799). See how this holy Council clearly sets the absolute necessity on the third element (living faith, i.e. faith working through charity). One finds the same distinction in the Holy Scripture, chapter 3 of St. John’s Gospel: that which is absolutely necessary is the new birth, i.e. the infusion of the new life, sanctifying grace, the life of God in us. Five times Our Lord insists on the necessity to be "reborn, born of the Spirit". The water is mentioned only once as the mean for that rebirth, the only mean at our disposal, but not limiting God’s power Who can infuse this new life, (justification) even without water, as He did to Cornelius (Act. 10).
The confusion of the writings of the Feeneyites when they deal with sacramental character or with "fulfilled/unfulfilled justice" (confusion on the third element of the sacrament) is appalling. (Reply to Verbum, Res Fidei Feb.87, p.22, with refutation in Baptism of Desire published at the Angelus). Dare one add with St. Pius X as cause of their error: pride that makes them more attached to their novelty than to the age-old teaching of the Popes, Fathers, Doctors and Saints?"
-
The Entire Doctrine of Baptism of Desire is Explicitly Taught by the Council of Trent:
The Council of Trent's Decree on Justification (Ch. 4) sets forth the infallible truth that one can be justified, and thereby established in the state of grace by water or by the desire or resolve (votum) to receive Baptism (as is explained in the Roman Catechism of St. Pius V).
Maybe you can explain what the difference is between your a BOD and the prot version which teaches that if you accept the lord jesus into your heart as your personal savior, all your sins are forgiven at that moment and you are saved.
None of your BOD brothers can - why not give it a try?
-
The Entire Doctrine of Baptism of Desire is Explicitly Taught by the Council of Trent:
The Council of Trent's Decree on Justification (Ch. 4) sets forth the infallible truth that one can be justified, and thereby established in the state of grace by water or by the desire or resolve (votum) to receive Baptism (as is explained in the Roman Catechism of St. Pius V).
Maybe you can explain what the difference is between your a BOD and the prot version which teaches that if you accept the lord jesus into your heart as your personal savior, all your sins are forgiven at that moment and you are saved.
None of your BOD brothers can - why not give it a try?
One might point out that to desire and, to resolve to do a thing, are entirely different. Resolving is making an act of the will, and represents a tangible movement which is far beyond desiring something. It is clear that Trent required something beyond a mere desire, in using the word Votum
-
The Entire Doctrine of Baptism of Desire is Explicitly Taught by the Council of Trent:
The Council of Trent's Decree on Justification (Ch. 4) sets forth the infallible truth that one can be justified, and thereby established in the state of grace by water or by the desire or resolve (votum) to receive Baptism (as is explained in the Roman Catechism of St. Pius V).
Quibus verbis iustificationis impii descriptio insinuatur ut sit translatio ab eo statu in quo homo nascitur filius primi Adae in statum gratiae et adoptionis filiorum Dei per secundum Adam Iesum Christum salvatorem nostrum; quae quidem translatio post Evangelium promulgatum sine lavacro regenerationis aut eius voto fieri non potest sicut scriptum est: nisi quis renatus fuerit ex aqua et Spiritu Sancto non potest introire in regnum Dei.
In English:
"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."
and again (Sess. VII can. iv):
Si quis dixerit sacramenta novae legis non esse ad salutem necessaria sed superflua et sine eis aut eorum voto per solam fidem homines a Deo gratiam iustificationis adipisci licet omnia singulis necessaria non sint: a[nathema] s[it].
In English:
"CANON IV.-If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous; and 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."
The grace of Justification makes one an heir to the hope of eternal life in this life (Decree on Justification Ch. 7):
Hanc dispositionem seu praeparationem iustificatio ipsa consequitur quae non est sola peccatorum remissio sed et sanctificatio et renovatio interioris hominis per voluntariam susceptionem gratiae et donorum unde homo ex iniusto fit iustus et ex inimico amicus ut sit haeres secundum spem vitae aeternae.
In English:
"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."
and those who appear before the divine Judge in possession of that grace will "have eternal life":
Itaque veram et christianam iustitiam accipientes eam ceu primam stolam pro illa quam Adam sua inobedientia sibi et nobis perdidit per Christum Iesum illis donatam candidam et immaculatam iubentur statim renati conservare ut eam perferant ante tribunal Domini nostri Iesu Christi et habeant vitam aeternam. (Ch. 7)
In English:
"Wherefore, when receiving true and Christian justice, they are bidden, immediately on being born again, to preserve it pure and spotless, as the first robe given them through Jesus Christ in lieu of that which [Page 36] Adam, by his disobedience, lost for himself and for us, that so they may bear it before the judgment-seat of our Lord Jesus Christ, and may have life everlasting."
Chapter 16 teaches explicitly that the justified have fulfilled the law of God, and in order to enter heaven, only one thing is required: that they die in the state of grace:
cuм enim ille ipse Christus Iesus tamquam caput in membra et tamquam vitis in palmites in ipsos iustificatos iugiter virtutem influat quae virtus bona eorum opera semper antecedit comitatur et subsequitur et sine qua nullo pacto Deo grata et meritoria esse possent nihil ipsis iustificatis amplius deesse credendum est quominus plene illis quidem operibus quae in Deo sunt facta divinae legi pro huius vitae statu satisfecisse et vitam aeternam suo etiam tempore (si tamen in gratia decesserint) consequendam vere promeruisse censeantur. (Decree on Justification Ch. 16)
In English:
"For, whereas Jesus Christ Himself continually infuses his virtue into the said justified,-as the head into the members, and the vine into the branches,-and this virtue always precedes and accompanies and follows their good works, which without it could not in any wise be pleasing and meritorious before God,-we must believe that nothing further is wanting to the justified, to prevent their being accounted to have, by those very works which have been done in God, fully satisfied the divine law according to the state of this life, and to have truly merited eternal life, to be obtained also in its (due) time, if so be, however, that they depart in grace: . . ."
Thus the doctrine of Baptism of Desire is explicitly taught in the Decree on Justification.
FEENEY WAS IN HERESY
The heretical proposition:
"It is now: Baptism of Water, or damnation! If you do not desire that Water, you cannot be justified. And if you do not get it, you cannot be saved." (Bread of Life, p. 25)
The proposition directly contradicts and opposes the doctrine of Justification as is explicitly set forth by the Council of Trent, and explained by the Roman Catechism, promulgated by St. Pius V; as well as opposing the doctrine of Baptism of Desire, approved and authorized by ALL post-Tridentine popes; taught unanimously by the medieval and post-Tridentine Doctors; taught explicitly and constantly by the post-Tridentine universal & ordinary magisterium, together with the explicit ordinary magisterium of Bl.Pius IX, St. Pius X, and Ven. Pius XII. Thus, Baptism of Desire is unquestionably de fide.
The proposition directly opposes the unanimous teaching of the ancient Fathers (Including Pope St. Leo I) on Baptism of Blood; which both St. Cyprian and Tertullian (during his Catholic period) attest to have been professed by the whole Church. Thus, the doctrine of justification and salvation by "votum" (without water Baptism) has been unanimously professed by the Church in relation to the martyrs for at least 17 1/2 centuries; and unanimously for those who were not martyrs since the Middle Ages.
The objections against Baptism of Blood and Desire are all, without exception based on fallacious assumptions, and defective private interpretations of scripture and dogma. I have dealt with them individually in my previous writings on the topic. However, some deserve mention here:
1) I is falsely asserted that Baptism of Desire is a novelty. This is plainly false: In the Acts of the Apostles, St. Peter clearly teaches that there is justification even before reception of Baptism: that upon hearing the word of God, without having yet received baptism, the group of Gentiles had already received the Holy Ghost "as have we" ":ως καιἡµεις;" (Acts 10:46-7). And thus, they were judged fit to be baptized without any further instruction. If one in such a justified state should die before Baptism, but in the state of grace, that one is saved: because it is the perpetual dogma and the teaching of Scripture (Matthew 22:11-12; Decree on Justification Ch. 7, 16) that whoever dies in the state of grace is saved. Thus the doctrine of Baptism of Desire is implicitly contained in the Deposit of Faith from the beginning.
2) It is falsely asserted that the water of Baptism is of absolute necessity of means. Fr. Joseph Pfeiffer has already sufficiently replied to this false doctrine on necessity:
"Did not Our Lord Himself say that "unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost he cannot enter into the kingdom of God" [Jn. 3:5]? How necessary is it to be baptized, according to the saints and the Church’s teaching? The Council of Trent teaches in the following de fide
Can. 4. If anyone shall say that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation, but are superfluous, and that although all are not necessary for every individual, without them or without the desire for them through faith alone men obtain from God the grace of justification; let him be anathema (On the Sacraments in General, Dz. 847, emphasis added).
Can. 5. If anyone saith that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema (On the Sacrament of Baptism, Dz
From the above teaching of Trent, which is a canonization of the teaching of St. Thomas on the necessity of baptism, it is de fide that baptism is necessary in a double way, by a necessity of precept, and more importantly, by a necessity of means. A thing is necessary for salvation by a necessity of precept, when it obliges because of the command of a superior. If the command is not known, or too difficult to fulfill, one is not obliged to fulfill it. In such a way, Sunday Mass attendance is necessary for salvation. Infants are not obliged to attend Mass, and even adults, if they are ill or a great distance from Mass, are not obliged to attend.
A thing is necessary also by a necessity of means when by its own nature or by the Divine institution it is so necessary for salvation, that without it, salvation cannot be obtained, even if it is involuntarily omitted. In this manner sanctifying grace is necessary for eternal life.
Baptism is necessary by a necessity of means for salvation by the Divine institution, since it is the God-given means of entrance into the Mystical Body of Christ, in which body alone is found sanctifying life, True Faith, Divine Hope and Divine Charity. Baptism is the doorway to the indwelling of the Holy Ghost, which is the beginning of heaven. Is baptism necessary? Yes. It is a necessary means, a means to obtain the reality of sanctifying grace, that grace found only in Christ:
He that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him and will manifest myself in him...we will come to him and make our abode with him. (Jn. 14:21-23)
According to Trent, baptism is so necessary that it must be had, in re aut in voto in reality or desire, before one can be in the state of Justification, or Sanctifying Grace. The Fathers of the Council state the following in Chapter 4 of Session 6:
In these words a description of the justification of a sinner is given as being a translation from that state in which man is born a child of the first Adam to the state of grace and of the "adoption of sons" [Rom.8:15] of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ our Savior; and this translation after the promulgation of the Gospel cannot be effected except through the laver of regeneration or a desire for it as it is written: "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God Dz. 796, emphasis added)
Before proceeding, please note that in this above passage, Trent interprets John (3:5) to mean that one must be baptized with water, either in reality or in desire to attain justification. All Catholics, therefore, are obliged to accept this interpretation of Trent. St. Augustine in City of God, Book 13, Ch.7, gives a similar interpretation to these words, as well as Hugh of St. Victor in his Summa Sententiarum, Tract. V. Cap. V."
3) The absolute necessity of means for water Baptism is also claimed on the basis of the doctrine of instrumental causality set forth in Ch. 4 of the Decree on Justification, and on private misinterpretations of the teaching of Trent. An author has already sufficiently elucidated these points:
"The Council of Trent teaches that Baptism of Desire is sufficient for justification. It is very explicitly stated in Session 7 Canon 4 on the sacraments in general: "If anyone says that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation, but that they are superfluous; and that men can, without the sacraments or the desire of them, obtain the grace of justification by faith alone, although it is true that not all the sacraments are necessary for each individual, let him be anathema." (Dz 847).
"Beware of ambiguous translations! In their [i.e. the Feeneyites] recent flyer on "Desire, Justification and Salvation at the Council of Trent", they use an ambiguous translation of Session 6 Chapter 7 (Dz 799): "the instrumental cause [of justification] is the sacrament of baptism, which is the sacrament of faith, without which no man was ever justified…" Now the Latin has "sine QUA nulli unquam contigit iustificatio" : thus the terms "without which" refer to the faith (feminine in Latin) and not to the sacrament (neutral in Latin: it would then have: sine quo). Thus in the translation found in "The Church Teaches" (TCT 563), one finds: "… without [which] Faith no one has ever been justified." Why not use the established unambiguous English translation? Why replace it with an ambiguous one?
"Now if they had read carefully the Council of Trent, they would have seen that this Council teaches: "it is necessary to believe that the justified have everything necessary for them to be regarded as having completely satisfied the divine law for this life by their works, at least those which they have performed in God. And they may be regarded as having likewise truly merited the eternal life they will certainly attain in due time, if they but die in the state of grace…" In other words, salvation (which is at the end of the Christian life on earth) only requires perseverance in the state of grace received at justification (which is at the beginning of the Christian life on earth). Baptism is the sacrament of justification, the sacrament of the beginning of the Christian life. If one has received sanctifying grace (which is the reality of the sacrament, res sacramenti, of Baptism), he only needs to persevere in that grace to be saved. Perseverance in grace requires obedience to the Commandments of God, including the commandment to receive the sacrament of Baptism: thus there remains for him the obligation to receive baptism of water, but it is necessary for him no longer as mean (since he already received by grace the ultimate fruit of that mean), but only as precept. In case of circuмstances not depending on our will and preventing us from fulfilling such a precept, "God takes the will as the fact." This is the principle applied by St. Cyprian, St. Ambrose, St. Augustine, etc.
"It is false to pretend that canon 4 on the Sacraments in general (where desire is explicitly mentioned in the expression "re aut voto") deals with justification as opposed to salvation and canon 5 on Baptism deals with salvation as opposed to justification. Indeed canon 4 (quoted above) deals explicitly with the necessity of sacraments "for salvation", the expression "grace of justification" in that context appears manifestly as being precisely the only essential requisite for salvation, as is taught explicitly in session 6 chapter 16 (see above). That which is said of the sacraments in general applies to each sacrament in particular, without having to be repeated each time. Simplistic reasoning, disregarding the explicit teaching of the Church on baptism of desire, only reach false conclusions.
"That it is not necessary to repeat the clause "re aut voto" is so much the more true since baptism of desire is an exception, a special case, not the normal one. One needs not mention exceptions each time one speaks of a law. Thus, there are many definitions of the church on original sin that do not mention the Immaculate Conception, for instance Pope St. Zozimus wrote: "nullus omnino --
absolutely nobody" (Dz 109a) was exempt of the guilt of original sin: such "definition" must be understood as the Church understands it, i.e., not including the Blessed Virgin Mary. In the same way, it is sufficient that Baptism of desire be explicitly taught by the Church, by the Council of Trent, in some place, it is not necessary to expect it at every page of her teaching; silence on an exception is not a negation of it. This principle is important to remember, in order not to be deceived by a frequent technique of the Feeneyites: they accuмulate quotes on the general necessity of Baptism, as if it were against the doctrine on Baptism of Desire. Often the very persons they quote hold explicitly the common teaching on Baptism of Desire. The fact is that the general necessity of Baptism, as understood "in the same sense and in the same words" as the Church always understood it, far from excluding Baptism of Blood and of Desire includes this doctrine."
4) Feeney heretically claimed that the state of grace without sacramental water does not suffice for salvation, because the indelible character is also necessary; and those justified without water were "outside the Church".
Holy Mother Church has held and holds, in agreement with the unanimous consent of the Fathers, that those not baptized with water, but baptized by their own blood are saved, and are thus members of the Church Triumphant; and therefore, the proposition that excludes from the Church all those who have not received the visible sacramental sign of the washing by baptismal water, is heresy.
From this consideration it is already manifest that the proposition according to which one who has not received the indelible character of baptism is thereby excluded from the Church and salvation is patently heretical. The effects of the sacramental characters designate and signify exclusively the function of the person in the Church. The Roman Catechism succinctly adopts and sets forth the teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas on this point:
Iam vero character hoc praestat, tum ut apti ad aliquid sacri suscipiendum vel peragendum efficiamur; tum ut aliqua nota alter ab altero internoscatur. Ac baptismi quidem charactere utrumque consequimur, ut ad alia sacramen- ta percipienda reddamur idonei, et eo praeterea fidelis populus a gentibus, quae fidem non colunt, distinguatur. Idem autem in charactere confirmationis et sacri ordinis licet cognoscere; quorum altero veluti Christi milites ad eius nominis publicam confessionem et propugnationem, ac contra insitum nobis hostem et spiritualia nequitiae in caelestibus armamur atque instruimur 42 , simulque ab iis qui nuper baptizati tamquam modo geniti infantes sunt, discernimur 43 ; alter vero tum potestatem sacramenta conficiendi et minis- trandi coniunctam habet, tum eorum qui eiusmodi potestate praediti sunt, a reliquo fidelium coetu distinctionem ostendit. Tenenda igitur est catholicae Ecclesiae regula, qua docemur tria haec sacramenta characterem imprimere, neque ullo unquam tempore iteranda esse.
It has never been taught by any pope, council, synod, Father, or Doctor, that the reception of the sacramental character is a requirement for salvation.
5) It is claimed, the phrase, sine lavacro regenerationis aut ejus voto" has been mistranslated to mean "or the votum of it", instead of the (according to some Feeneyites) correct translation: "and the votum of it".
This objection is made only by the theologically illiterate Feenryites who have little or no working knowledge of the Latin Language. It is claimed on the basis that the Latin word "aut" can sometimes mean 'and', that the Decree on Justification does not teach that justification can be effected by "the laver of regeneration or the desire of it"; but rather, "by the laver of regeneration and the desire of it". In this context, however, the "aut" cannot possibly mean 'and'. Such a rendering confuses the meaning of "votum" with that of "intentio". To validly receive baptism, an adult must not only be baptized with water, but he must have the sacramental consent: the intention to receive the sacrament -- thus a sleeping Jew would not validly receive baptism if someone were to administer the rite of baptism on him. The Decree on Justification most clearly does not refer to sacramental consent by the words "aut ejus voto", because the word "votum" referrs exclusively to a desire or resolve to be fulfilled at some future time. This is patent from an examination of the use of the word "votum" by all the classical authors of antiquity, as well as in ecclesiastical Latin.
The original Italian text of the Roman Catechism explains the doctrine of this Latin passage of the Decree on Justification in the generally accepted sense, and not according to the absurd Feeneyite interpretation:
"In caso improvviso di pericolo, chi ha l'uso della ragione, pur impossibilitato a purificarsi nell'acqua sacramentale, può conseguire la grazia e la giustizia col semplice proposito di ricevere a suo tempo il Battesimo, unito al pentimento dei peccati commessi."
In English: "In a case of unforeseen danger, one who has the use of reason, due to the impossibility to be purified in baptismal water, can receive grace and justification with the simple resolve to receive Baptism in its due time, together with repentance for sins committed."
Thus clearly is explained in the Catechism composed an promulgated by two eminent Council Fathers of Trent, the meaning of the expression "sine lavacro regenerationis aut ejus voto" in the Decree on Justification.
A final consideration on the underlying cause of the heresy of Feeneyism from the above quoted anonymous author at Catholic Apologetics:
"The root of the error of the Feeneyites: lack of proper Thomistic Theology
To remedy the errors of modernism, St. Pius X has ordered the study of St. Thomas Aquinas’ philosophy and theology. A book like "desire and deception" put out by a Feeneyite is very dangerous for his opposition to that philosophy of St. Thomas, which is made mandatory by St. Pius X. Let us hear St. Pius X: "We will and strictly ordain that scholastic philosophy be made the basis of the sacred sciences… And let it be clearly understood above all things that when We prescribe scholastic philosophy We understand chiefly that which the Angelic Doctor has bequeathed to us… They cannot set aside St. Thomas, especially in metaphysical questions, without grave disadvantage."
St. Thomas distinguishes three elements in each sacrament: 1/ the exterior sign, called sacramentum tantum, sacrament itself, signifying and producing the other two elements. This exterior sign is composed of matter such as water, and form such as the words of the sacrament. 2/ An intermediate reality, called sacramentum et res, sacrament and reality, which, in case of baptism, is the character. This intermediate reality is both signified and produced by the exterior sign and further signifies and produces the third element. 3/ The ultimate reality, res sacramenti, the (ultimate) reality of the sacrament, which is the sacramental grace, i.e. sanctifying grace, as source of further actual graces to live as child of God, as soldier of Christ, etc.
A sacrament may be valid but not fruitful. To be valid the exterior sign needs valid matter, form, intention and proper minister, it then signifies and produces always the second element. To be fruitful, there must be no obstacle. Thus baptism in a heretical church, if done with proper matter, form and intention, does give the character of baptism but does not give sanctifying grace; the person thus remains with the original sin and actual sins; he has not become a child of God: Baptism is thus deprived of its ultimate effect, the most important one, because of the obstacle of a false faith, i.e. of heresy. In the same way, baptism in a Catholic Church of a person who had stolen and refuses to render that which he stole: such attachment to sin is an obstacle that deprives baptism of its ultimate effect, sanctifying grace.
One can go to Hell with the character of Baptism. And there are saints in Heaven, such as the Saints of the Old Testament (Abraham, David, etc.) without the character of Baptism. But nobody dying with sanctifying grace goes to Hell (as the Council of Trent says above), and nobody dying without sanctifying grace goes to Heaven.
Thus the necessity of Baptism for salvation is absolute for the third element of Baptism, the new birth by sanctifying grace, element which is found in each of the Three Baptism (even more perfectly in baptism of blood than in baptism of water, as is the constant teaching of the Church). Hence the common teaching on the necessity of Baptism includes the three Baptisms.
The necessity of the exterior element of Baptism, i.e. the sacrament itself, is relative to the third element, as the only mean at our disposal to receive the third element, living Faith; the sacrament itself is "the sacrament of Faith, without which [Faith] no one ever was justified" as says the Council of Trent (Dz 799). See how this holy Council clearly sets the absolute necessity on the third element (living faith, i.e. faith working through charity). One finds the same distinction in the Holy Scripture, chapter 3 of St. John’s Gospel: that which is absolutely necessary is the new birth, i.e. the infusion of the new life, sanctifying grace, the life of God in us. Five times Our Lord insists on the necessity to be "reborn, born of the Spirit". The water is mentioned only once as the mean for that rebirth, the only mean at our disposal, but not limiting God’s power Who can infuse this new life, (justification) even without water, as He did to Cornelius (Act. 10).
The confusion of the writings of the Feeneyites when they deal with sacramental character or with "fulfilled/unfulfilled justice" (confusion on the third element of the sacrament) is appalling. (Reply to Verbum, Res Fidei Feb.87, p.22, with refutation in Baptism of Desire published at the Angelus). Dare one add with St. Pius X as cause of their error: pride that makes them more attached to their novelty than to the age-old teaching of the Popes, Fathers, Doctors and Saints?"
Don Paolo, This is a wonderful explanation. Thank you for your most knowledgeable contribution!
-
"Resolve" is a far more accurate and precise term than "desire", which, depending on the context may be equivalent to a resolve, or may not. St. Charles Boromeo employed the Italian word proposito, equivalent to the English "resolve". Unfortunately, most translators render the term 'votum" as "desire". In some contexts, as can be seen from classical usage, 'desire' can be a correct translation of "votum"; but I would judge "desire" in this context to be too weak to be considered an accurate rendition of "votum".
-
Stubborn said:
"Maybe you can explain what the difference is between your a BOD and the prot version which teaches that if you accept the lord jesus into your heart as your personal savior, all your sins are forgiven at that moment and you are saved."
A really stupid question. BOD requires 1) an act of divine and Catholic faith; 2) perfect contrition; and, 3) the resolve to receive Baptism. The Protestant doctrine of Justification by faith alone requires none of the above.
-
The Entire Doctrine of Baptism of Desire is Explicitly Taught by the Council of Trent:
The Council of Trent's Decree on Justification (Ch. 4) sets forth the infallible truth that one can be justified, and thereby established in the state of grace by water or by the desire or resolve (votum) to receive Baptism (as is explained in the Roman Catechism of St. Pius V).
Maybe you can explain what the difference is between your a BOD and the prot version which teaches that if you accept the lord jesus into your heart as your personal savior, all your sins are forgiven at that moment and you are saved.
None of your BOD brothers can - why not give it a try?
One might point out that to desire and, to resolve to do a thing, are entirely different. Resolving is making an act of the will, and represents a tangible movement which is far beyond desiring something. It is clear that Trent required something beyond a mere desire, in using the word Votum
Depending on who you ask, the word "Votum" has different meanings that all lead to simply desiring to be saved.
-
Stubborn said:
"Maybe you can explain what the difference is between your a BOD and the prot version which teaches that if you accept the lord jesus into your heart as your personal savior, all your sins are forgiven at that moment and you are saved."
A really stupid question. BOD requires 1) an act of divine and Catholic faith; 2) perfect contrition; and, 3) the resolve to receive Baptism. The Protestant doctrine of Justification by faith alone requires none of the above.
Your idea of salvation via a BOD is no different than the prots idea.
1) A prot believes he is performing an act of faith, therefore he performs the same act of faith as your infidel - how could he not?
2) A Prot certainly is JUST AS CONTRITE as your infidel BOD recipient is, prove he isn't.
3) A Prot would certainly desire baptism if he knew about it. But per this "excellent" reference (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=24193&min=319&num=1) he receives a BOD - and I quote: "Even though he never even heard of the sacrament of baptism"
So want to try again?
-
The Entire Doctrine of Baptism of Desire is Explicitly Taught by the Council of Trent:
The Council of Trent's Decree on Justification (Ch. 4) sets forth the infallible truth that one can be justified, and thereby established in the state of grace by water or by the desire or resolve (votum) to receive Baptism (as is explained in the Roman Catechism of St. Pius V).
Maybe you can explain what the difference is between your a BOD and the prot version which teaches that if you accept the lord jesus into your heart as your personal savior, all your sins are forgiven at that moment and you are saved.
None of your BOD brothers can - why not give it a try?
One might point out that to desire and, to resolve to do a thing, are entirely different. Resolving is making an act of the will, and represents a tangible movement which is far beyond desiring something. It is clear that Trent required something beyond a mere desire, in using the word Votum
Depending on who you ask, the word "Votum" has different meanings that all lead to simply desiring to be saved.
And therein lies the crux, whether or not something is actually required of a man for him to fulfill God's justice?
For we know, that all to soon, we move from that simple desire, to the simple desire that he would have, if he knew that he should have such a desire.
Any "good" man would have such desire if he knew that he should, and therefore most good men can be saved by that simple desire that they would have if the knew, sans Sacraments.
-
"Resolve" is a far more accurate and precise term than "desire", which, depending on the context may be equivalent to a resolve, or may not. St. Charles Boromeo employed the Italian word proposito, equivalent to the English "resolve". Unfortunately, most translators render the term 'votum" as "desire". In some contexts, as can be seen from classical usage, 'desire' can be a correct translation of "votum"; but I would judge "desire" in this context to be too weak to be considered an accurate rendition of "votum".
That is absolutely correct, however, that has not prevented the more liberal and sentimental minded among us, from insisting upon the term desire in their supplications, finding that the more correct understanding of it, is far to restrictive and rigid to advert to many of their speculative assertions about salvation via ignorance, so called, or by the merits of being a good man.
And so they appeal to that word in Trent and elsewhere, as their authority, but refuse the mind of Trent in its true meaning, allowing for them a more elastic concept of salvation of non-Catholics, which they then designate as "infallible doctrine", leaving those who will not likewise stretch their belief to the same designated lengths in so called, "heresy".
-
"Resolve" is a far more accurate and precise term than "desire", which, depending on the context may be equivalent to a resolve, or may not. St. Charles Boromeo employed the Italian word proposito, equivalent to the English "resolve". Unfortunately, most translators render the term 'votum" as "desire". In some contexts, as can be seen from classical usage, 'desire' can be a correct translation of "votum"; but I would judge "desire" in this context to be too weak to be considered an accurate rendition of "votum".
Yes, "resolve" is the far more accurate word, much more precise than "desire".
When we pray our act of contrition in confession, we say: "......but most of all because they have offended Thee, my God . . . I firmly resolve, with the help of Thy grace, to confess my sins, to do penance, and to amend my life. Amen."
This resolve, this "firmly resolve" is even more precise than just plain old "resolve" now isn''t it? But strong though it may be, it is not what forgives us, nor is it able to grant forgiveness no matter how strongly our resolve to amend our life.
In fact, quite often we return to confession within a month give or take - which only demonstrates that no matter how "accurate" or how "precise" the word "resolve" is, our firm resolve often times lasts for only a relatively short time.
Now a "votum", well, now there's a real precise word. That word makes all the difference and once we "votum" baptism, that "votum", being even more precise than "resolve" makes all the difference.
What a joke.
Where do you come up with this stuff?
-
Fr. Kramer is back to further discredit himself with his anti-feeneyite propaganda, which is simply copied and pasted from Facebook, in order to target the most vulnerable and ill informed audience.
Once again, much time is lost discussing the hypothetical Baptism of Desire which they (just as feeneyites) do not believe in anyway. What they believe in and promote is the pelagian heresy of Faith of Desire for the anonymous Christian, based upon Rahner's sentimental theology.
-
Marie Auxiliadora (Claudia Drew) made the incredibly irrational statement:
"The only reply I have for you is in your own words. That is, before you became associated with the SSPX Resistance. In 2002, you, like the Drews, would have been considered a rank heretic by the SSPX or "a Feeneyite" for beliving in the literal meaning of dogma. Were you a heretic in 2002 when you published your book The Devil's Final Battle"? Or are you a real heretic today for denying what you correctly held then?"
Claudia thinks one is a Feeneyite for "believing in the literal meaning of dogma" !!! No, Claudia, one is a Feeneyite for denying dogma as Feeney ( and Drew) denied dogma. Feeney stated that a soul justified by "votum", but who dies without water Baptism is damned -- i.e., is not saved. Chapter 16 of the Decree on Justification teaches the opposite: one who was justified and dies in the state of grace goes to heaven.
-
There is No Such Thing as a 'Feeneyite'. :kick-can:
-
Stubborn seems to be incapable of intelligibly expressing the point of his latest rant.
-
What a load of off-point crap: Cantarella said:
"Fr. Kramer is back to further discredit himself with his anti-feeneyite propaganda, which is simply copied and pasted from Facebook, in order to target the most vulnerable and ill informed audience.
Once again, much time is lost discussing the hypothetical Baptism of Desire which they (just as feeneyites) do not believe in anyway. What they believe in and promote is the pelagian heresy of Faith of Desire for the anonymous Christian, based upon Rahner's sentimental theology."
Just one gratuitous assertion after another. I wrote the essay in question; emailed it, posted it on facebook, and then posted it here. Stupid Cantarella is too dull witted to understand that the author can post his writing in multiple media. Really, how does it discredit me that after I wrote the piece, posted it on facebook, I then posted it here? And "the Faith of Desire for the anonymous Christian" ??? Q. What has that got to do with justification in voto, and salvation of the justified who die in the state of grace? A. NOTHING! Cantarella is just on another of her wildly irrational rants.
-
If Feeney's propositions were correct -- that there is no salvation for those who were justified by Baptism in voto, but died before they could receive the sacrament; that those souls remained outside the Church; and therefore cannot attain salvation: then the whole Church already defected 17 1/2 centuries ago. The whole Church explicitly professed BOB already in the Third Century. The Fathers unanimously taught BOB. If Feeney's propositions were correct, then the infallible universal & ordinary magisterium would have defected for teaching BOD. If the radical Feeneyites like Drew and his ilk have interpreted dogma correctly; then the infallible extraordonary magisterium would have taught doctrines that oppose the definitive teachings of the infallible ordinary magisterium. That would by itself constitute a defection of the divinely instituted magisterium. The very notion of the infallibility of the Church would be thereby discredited -- if David Drew and his Feeneyite ilk were correct in their understanding of dogma.
-
Stubborn said:
"Maybe you can explain what the difference is between your a BOD and the prot version which teaches that if you accept the lord jesus into your heart as your personal savior, all your sins are forgiven at that moment and you are saved."
A really stupid question. BOD requires 1) an act of divine and Catholic faith; 2) perfect contrition; and, 3) the resolve to receive Baptism. The Protestant doctrine of Justification by faith alone requires none of the above.
Your idea of salvation via a BOD is no different than the prots idea.
1) A prot believes he is performing an act of faith, therefore he performs the same act of faith as your infidel - how could he not?
2) A Prot certainly is JUST AS CONTRITE as your infidel BOD recipient is, prove he isn't.
3) A Prot would certainly desire baptism if he knew about it. But per this "excellent" reference (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=24193&min=319&num=1) he receives a BOD - and I quote: "Even though he never even heard of the sacrament of baptism"
So want to try again?
Stubborn seems to be incapable of intelligibly expressing the point of his latest rant.
So does that mean you don't want to try again?
I give you credit where credit is due - unlike your BOD brethren, you at least attempted to answer, yet like your BOD brethren, you are just as much a lying hypocrite for continuing to promote your lie after being shown yet another indisputable truth exposing your a BOD for what it is, a prot teaching.
-
If Feeney's propositions were correct -- that there is no salvation for those who were justified by Baptism in voto, but died before they could receive the sacrament; that those souls remained outside the Church; and therefore cannot attain salvation: then the whole Church already defected 17 1/2 centuries ago. The whole Church explicitly professed BOB already in the Third Century. The Fathers unanimously taught BOB. If Feeney's propositions were correct, then the infallible universal & ordinary magisterium would have defected for teaching BOD. If the radical Feeneyites like Drew and his ilk have interpreted dogma correctly; then the infallible extraordonary magisterium would have taught doctrines that oppose the definitive teachings of the infallible ordinary magisterium. That would by itself constitute a defection of the divinely instituted magisterium. The very notion of the infallibility of the Church would be thereby discredited -- if David Drew and his Feeneyite ilk were correct in their understanding of dogma.
Your idea of infallibility of the extraordinary magisterium is wrong. Your claim that a BOD was universally taught is wrong. Your thinking that a BOD is a doctrine is wrong. Trent explicitly condemns salvation via faith alone - which is what a BOD is.
No one who sincerely desires the sacrament dies before they can receive the sacrament. Never have and never will. You do not believe this because you have no faith. You must have faith to believe this.
"There is no one about to die in the state of justification whom God cannot secure Baptism for, and indeed, Baptism of Water. The schemes concerning salvation, I leave to the sceptics. The clear truths of salvation, I am preaching to you." - Fr. Feeney
-
Since 1588 EVERY POPE has authorized the teaching of BOD through the Congregation of the Council. Were they all Protestants?
-
None of those canons deny BOD or BOB. The Entire Doctrine of Baptism of Desire is Explicitly Taught by the Councol of Trent:
The Council of Trent's Decree on Justification (Ch. 4) sets forth the infallible truth that one can be justified, and thereby estsblished in the state of grace by water or by the desire or resolve (votum) to receive Baptism (as is explained in the Roman Catechism of St. Pius V).
Quibus verbis iustificationis impii descriptio insinuatur ut sit translatio ab eo statu in quo homo nascitur filius primi Adae in statum gratiae et adoptionis filiorum Dei per secundum Adam Iesum Christum salvatorem nostrum; quae quidem translatio post Evangelium promulgatum sine lavacro regenerationis aut eius voto fieri non potest sicut scriptum est: nisi quis renatus fuerit ex aqua et Spiritu Sancto non potest introire in regnum Dei.
In English:
"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."
and again (Sess. VII can. iv):
Si quis dixerit sacramenta novae legis non esse ad salutem necessaria sed superflua et sine eis aut eorum voto per solam fidem homines a Deo gratiam iustificationis adipisci licet omnia singulis necessaria non sint: a[nathema] s[it].
In English:
"CANON IV.-If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous; and 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 ineed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema."
The grace of Justification makes one an heir to the hope of eternal life in this life (Decree on Justification Ch. 7):
Hanc dispositionem seu praeparationem iustificatio ipsa consequitur quae non est sola peccatorum remissio sed et sanctificatio et renovatio interioris hominis per voluntariam susceptionem gratiae et donorum unde homo ex iniusto fit iustus et ex inimico amicus ut sit haeres secundum spem vitae aeternae.
In English:
"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."
and those who appear before the divine Judge in possession of that grace will "have eternal life":
Itaque veram et christianam iustitiam accipientes eam ceu primam stolam pro illa quam Adam sua inobedientia sibi et nobis perdidit per Christum Iesum illis donatam candidam et immaculatam iubentur statim renati conservare ut eam perferant ante tribunal Domini nostri Iesu Christi et habeant vitam aeternam. (Ch. 7)
In English:
"Wherefore, when receiving true and Christian justice, they are bidden, immediately on being born again, to preserve it pure and spotless, as the first robe given them through Jesus Christ in lieu of that which [Page 36] Adam, by his disobedience, lost for himself and for us, that so they may bear it before the judgment-seat of our Lord Jesus Christ, and may have life everlasting."
Chapter 16 teaches explicitly that the justified have fulfilled the law of God, and in order to enter heaven, only one thing is required: that they die in the state of grace:
cuм enim ille ipse Christus Iesus tamquam caput in membra et tamquam vitis in palmites in ipsos iustificatos iugiter virtutem influat quae virtus bona eorum opera semper antecedit comitatur et subsequitur et sine qua nullo pacto Deo grata et meritoria esse possent nihil ipsis iustificatis amplius deesse credendum est quominus plene illis quidem operibus quae in Deo sunt facta divinae legi pro huius vitae statu satisfecisse et vitam aeternam suo etiam tempore (si tamen in gratia decesserint) consequendam vere promeruisse censeantur. (Decree on Justification Ch. 16)
In English:
"For, whereas Jesus Christ Himself continually infuses his virtue into the said justified,-as the head into the members, and the vine into the branches,-and this virtue always precedes and accompanies and follows their good works, which without it could not in any wise be pleasing and meritorious before God,-we must believe that nothing further is wanting to the justified, to prevent their being accounted to have, by those very works which have been done in God, fully satisfied the divine law according to the state of this life, and to have truly merited eternal life, to be obtained also in its (due) time, if so be, however, that they depart in grace: . . ."
Thus the doctrine of Baptism of Desire is explicitly taught in the Decree on Justification.
The doctrine of BOD plainly set forth in the Roman Caechism of St. Pius V:
Here is the doctrine of Justification and salvation without water plainly stated in the original Italian of St. Charles Borromeo and promulgated by Pope St. Pius V in the Roman Catechism. Two of the most prominent council fathers of Trent:
"In caso improvviso di pericolo, chi ha l'uso della ragione, pur impossibilitato a purificarsi nell'acqua sacramentale, può conseguire la grazia e la giustizia col semplice proposito di ricevere a suo tempo il Battesimo, unito al pentimento dei peccati commessi."
In English: "In a case of unforseen danger, one who has the use of reason, due to the impossibility to be purified in baptismal water, can receive grace and justification with the simple resolve to receive Baptism in its due time, together with repentance for sins committed."
N.B. -- Chapter 16 of the Decree on Justification teaches explicitly that Justification suffices for salvation provided that one dies in the state if grace.
Who interprets the Council of Trent correctly, David Drew & Peter Dimond; or the canonized council fathers of Trent, St. Charles Borromeo and St. Pius V?
-
Since 1588 EVERY POPE has authorized the teaching of BOD through the Congregation of the Council. Were they all Protestants?
In your dreams they have.
Your earlier answer proved there is no difference between your idea of a BOD aka saved via faith alone, and a prot's idea - yet you say every pope authorized that teaching.
As I said, you are another lying hypocrite promoting salvation via faith alone.
"CANON IV.-If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous; - - - note that this part of the canon states the sacraments are a necessity and whoever saith otherwise is anathema. You say otherwise and are therefore anathema.
In the second part of the canon, we see them talking about you. You are the "anyone" who "saith":
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."
Here below again, the grace of Justification makes one an "heir to the hope" - it does not grant salvation.
The grace of Justification makes one an heir to the hope of eternal life in this life (Decree on Justification Ch. 7):
How did you ever miss the part of Ch 7 which states:
"Of this Justification.........the instrumental cause is the sacrament of baptism, which is the sacrament of faith, without which (faith) no man was ever justified..."
No, you certainly didn't read that part and if you did and purposely did not post it because it does not jive with your promoting of protestant teaching, then you are a lying hypocrite.
If you read the proem to Ch 7, you will read that this teaching on Justification comes from Our Lord, to the Apostles to the Church and the Church has always maintained and you are forbidden to presume to believe, preach or teach otherwise - yet YOU say a BOD has been a universal teaching for the last 500 years:
".....in the name of our most holy father and lord in Christ, Paul III., by the providence of God, Pope, purposes, unto the praise and glory of Almighty God, the tranquillising of the Church, and the salvation of souls, to expound to all the faithful of Christ the true and sound doctrine touching the said Justification; which (doctrine) the sun of justice, Christ Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith, taught, which the apostles transmitted, and which the Catholic Church, the Holy Ghost reminding her thereof, has always retained; most strictly forbidding that any henceforth presume to believe, preach, or teach, otherwise than as by this present decree is defined and declared."
-
One cannot confect the sacrament of Baptism without water. What that means, according to the magisterium, is that the visible sign (sacramentum tantum) cannot be brought about without water. That is all that the canon is defining. It does not mean that the supernatural grace of the sacrament (res sacramenti) cannot be effected without the visible sacramental sign, or that the res sacramenti cannot be effected without the instrumentality of the visible sign of water. Such a stupid Feeneyite interpretation is heretical in so far as it denies that the grace of Baptism (which is Justification) can be received by "the resolve of it" (Sess.6); as well as flatly contradicting the doctrine on the sacrament of penance (Sess. 14) on contrition; which explicitly teaches that the grace of that sacrament can be received before the actual reception of the sacrament by perfect contrition; and that the resolve to receive the sacrament must be included in the contrition: Docet praeterea etsi contritionem hanc aliquando charitate perfectam esse contigat hominem que Deo reconciliare priusquam hoc sacramentum actu suscipiatur ipsam nihilominus reconciliationem ipsi contritioni sine sacramenti voto quod in illa includitur non esse adscribendam.
This stupid Feeneyite argument is a favourite of David Drew and all the radical Feeneyites who interpret the Tridentine doctrine of instrumental causality according to a sense that is not supported by the literal text, which simply states that the sacrament is the instrumental cause of justification; but does not expressly or implicitly deny (what the Council explicitly taught) that justification can be received by the sacrament in re aut in voto.
-
Can someone provide the proof of unanimity among the Fathers of the Church in the Third century regarding Baptism of Desire.
If such things are in Tradition, then they are to be found in the unanimous consent of the Fathers. which means that all agreed, and none dissented from this proposition, and that it issues from the scriptures and the teachings of the Apostles.
Does this proof exist?
-
I have already posted on this thread the verbatim quotations of the Fathers on Baptism of Blood. Already in the Third Century the whole Church professed Baptism of Blood. Baptism of Blood cannot take place without the resolve to receive Baptism of water -- like Baptism of Desire, it is a form of Baptism "in voto"; because without at least the resolve to receive water Baptism, there is no Justification (Decree on Justification, Ch. 4).
-
I have already posted on this thread the verbatim quotations of the Fathers on Baptism of Blood. Already in the Third Century the whole Church professed Baptism of Blood. Baptism of Blood cannot take place without the resolve to receive Baptism of water -- like Baptism of Desire, it is a form of Baptism "in voto"; because without at least the resolve to receive water Baptism, there is no Justification (Decree on Justification, Ch. 4).
Was that the unanimous consent of the Fathers?
-
Stubborn has shown himself to be a truly stubborn HERETIC. He denies salvation for those justified "in voto" but not with water, AGAINST THE DECREE ON JUSTIFICATION (Ch. 16). He is long on gratuitous assertions against what I have already proven.
-
Can someone provide the proof of unanimity among the Fathers of the Church in the Third century regarding Baptism of Desire.
If such things are in Tradition, then they are to be found in the unanimous consent of the Fathers. which means that all agreed, and none dissented from this proposition, and that it issues from the scriptures and the teachings of the Apostles.
Does this proof exist?
It does not. There is no Father of the Church who taught that there was an apostolic Tradition favoring a saving efficacy of a "Baptism of Desire" for salvation. There is the misinterpretation of St. Ambrose’s eulogy for Valentinian for which later on a reinvidication is found. There is no speculation concerning BOD in St. Ambrose's definitive writing on the sacraments (in De Mysteriis).
The only one Father to specifically speculate about BOD was St Augustine but his position was definitely recanted in his later anti-Pelagian writings. From the time of St Augustine until the 12th century, there is no doctor of the Church who wrote in favor of BOD. St Bernard of Clairvaux was the first but he used the writing of st. Augustine and Ambrose to support his position.
Such consensus among the Fathers favoring BOD just does not exist. St. Gregory nαzιanzen, eastern doctor of the Church, explicitly rejected the idea of Baptism of Desire. There is an overwhelming consensus among the Fathers about the need of the sacraments (first of all water Baptism) and the Catholic Faith for salvation.
-
Stubborn has shown himself to be a truly stubborn HERETIC. He denies salvation for those justified "in voto" but not with water, AGAINST THE DECREE ON JUSTIFICATION (Ch. 16). He is long on gratuitous assertions against what I have already proven.
No one is justified "in voto"; you continue to use sloppy language, a tribute no doubt to your classical Roman (aka modernist) education. If one reads Trent the way you do, it's a question of receiving the Sacrament of Baptism "in voto". There's no such thing as a "votum" for justification, but rather a "votum" for the Sacraments. You however have your agenda of extending so-called "Baptism of Desire" to "matuto" in rainforest, as you've already made clear. Your intent is to undermine EENS.
I consider your interpretation of Decree on Justification to be mistaken, but if you limited BoD to the catechumens, as .. oh by the way ... does St. Ambrose, St. Augustine, St. Bernard, Innocent II, Innocent III, Trent, Catechism of Trent, St. Thomas, St. Robert Bellarmine, and 1917 Code of Canon Law, then really I wouldn't bother arguing with you about it. But you heretically twist BoD into some implicit desire for justification and thereby undermine EENS and the necessity of supernatural faith in Our Lord Jesus Christ and the Holy Trinity for justification.
You're not honest, so just go away and stop hiding behind Trent as justification for your heresy. You reject the necessity of the Sacraments for justification ... heresy.
-
Stubborn has shown himself to be a truly stubborn HERETIC. He denies salvation for those justified "in voto" but not with water, AGAINST THE DECREE ON JUSTIFICATION (Ch. 16). He is long on gratuitous assertions against what I have already proven.
See how corrupted you made yourself?
I quoted word for word Trent's canon - and for that you say I'm a heretic.
This means you are saying that Trent is heretical - if you ever realize how screwed up you are you can begin to try to fix it - until then, you may as well join the nearest prot church, at least there you'd be preaching your version of salvation via faith alone to the choir and you'd all get along really great.
-
Stubborn has shown himself to be a truly stubborn HERETIC. He denies salvation for those justified "in voto" but not with water, AGAINST THE DECREE ON JUSTIFICATION (Ch. 16). He is long on gratuitous assertions against what I have already proven.
Ah, dear noble defender of the Faith against the pernicious "Feeneyites", let us be clear in our use of terms lest we discredit our position. People can receive the Sacrament of Baptism in voto but there is no such thing as "justification" in voto; that's an imprecise and made-up term that will only serve to discredit us in our crusade and make us look like ignorant fools. Trent never taught "justification in voto" but rather justification that comes from both having all the proper dispositions to receive the Sacrament for justification and then the reception in voto of the Sacrament itself. There's no such thing as justification "not with water" or without Baptism. That would be heretical since Trent taught the necessity of the Sacraments for salvation. In Baptism of Desire, the Sacrament still acts as the instrumental cause of justification through the votum.
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Baptism-of-Desire-Conceded
-
J. Paul asks, "Was that the unanimous consent of the Fathers? "
A. Absolutely YES. The Fathers all professes BOB; only one of them wavered and was somewhat equivocal -- which does not by any means weigh against the moral unanimity of the common consent of the Fathers.
-
CODSWALLOP - Ladislaus: Chapter 4 of the Decree on Justification teaches that there is Justification by water Baptism OR by the "votum" of it. END OF DISCUSSION.
-
Stubborn says, "I quoted word for word Trent's canon - and for that you say I'm a heretic."
Indeed, you quoted the Council of Trent, BUT YOU HERETICALLY INTERPRETED IT AGAINST THE EXPLICIT TEACHING OF THE COUNCIL OF TRENT.
-
CODSWALLOP - Ladislaus: Chapter 4 of the Decree on Justification teaches that there is Justification by water Baptism OR by the "votum" of it. END OF DISCUSSION.
And, pray tell, Mr. Linguist, what is the antecedent of the "it" in votum of "it"? Again, lest we make fools of ourselves while trying to combat Feeneyism, we have to be precise; there's no such thing as justification in "voto". No theologian has ever used that phrase. There's receiving the Sacrament "in voto", but not justification "in voto". By making such idiotic and theologically imprecise statements we're just giving them ammunition with which to discredit us.
-
I have already posted on this thread the verbatim quotations of the Fathers on Baptism of Blood. Already in the Third Century the whole Church professed Baptism of Blood. Baptism of Blood cannot take place without the resolve to receive Baptism of water -- like Baptism of Desire, it is a form of Baptism "in voto"; because without at least the resolve to receive water Baptism, there is no Justification (Decree on Justification, Ch. 4).
According to Trent, there's no such thing as Baptism of Blood, so we have to stop saying that.
-
Three decades ago I thought Feeneyites were simply good Catholics who didn't correctly understand the teaching of the Church. But , NO -- that is not true. The Feeneyites are the most blindly obstinate of all heretics. No evidence will convince them. They reject the infallible teaching of the ordinary magisterium -- including the Doctors and popes; but then they will quote Feeney -- as if he were a divine oracle and source of dogma. They are lost souls.
-
Ladislaus is a lunatic. He says Trent teaches that there is no Baptism of Blood. There is not one single passage in the decrees and canons of Trent that judges against BOB. What an idiot!
-
BOB was already taught infallibly by the universal & ordinary msgisterium during the patristic period. The medieval Doctors unanimously taught it. Trent taught absolutely NOTHING against BOB. Ladislaus, as usual, is walking with the fairies.
-
BOB was already taught infallibly by the universal & ordinary msgisterium during the patristic period. The medieval Doctors unanimously taught it. Trent taught absolutely NOTHING against BOB. Ladislaus, as usual, is walking with the fairies.
I was not referring to medieval doctors or theologians. To find out whether something has always been believed and thus is part of Tradition, we must look to the unanimous consent of the early Fathers from whence we have received the clear teaching of the Apostles. Trent had nothing to condemn in its own restricted understanding of BoD.
The truth of the matter is to be found in antiquity.
-
Stubborn says, "I quoted word for word Trent's canon - and for that you say I'm a heretic."
Indeed, you quoted the Council of Trent, BUT YOU HERETICALLY INTERPRETED IT AGAINST THE EXPLICIT TEACHING OF THE COUNCIL OF TRENT.
Very telling reply DP. Again, I did not interpret anything, what I did was quote it.
You've corrupted yourself to the point that what happened is, is that you finally read it as it is written for the first time and you actually understand what it says - and you don't like it - not one bit. Now that you understand what it says, you understand it condemns your a BOD while infallibly decreeing the necessity of the sacraments for salvation - rather than embracing that truth, you reject it same as Ambrose did when he read it.
In fact you despise it so much that you think the actual infallible quote when read as it is written is heretical, you even call it an interpretation - which demonstrates that you've been wrong and never understood it's meaning - not until just now, yet you choose to remain blind to the truth - well, that's of your own free will.
I remember some months ago when Ambrose reacted the exact same way as you when he finally read what was written - he called me a heretic and said I was interpreting it and everything - just like you - and I am sure that like him, now that you certainly understand the infallible canon, that you will will remain just as steadfast as him arguing against it.
As I already said, you're just another lying hypocrite. Would not surprise me if you were a Schuckardite too.
-
Ladislaus said:
"And, pray tell, Mr. Linguist, what is the antecedent of the "it" in votum of "it"? Again, lest we make fools of ourselves while trying to combat Feeneyism, we have to be precise; there's no such thing as justification in "voto". No theologian has ever used that phrase. There's receiving the Sacrament "in voto", but not justification "in voto". By making such idiotic and theologically imprecise statements we're just giving them ammunition with which to discredit us."
The moron quotes the verbatim text of my post, and then proceeds to make a hair-splitting commentary that patently distorts the clear meaning of my words. The man needs professional help -- either of a psychiatrist or an exorcist; or most likely both.
-
Stubborn said:
"Again, I did not interpret anything, what I did was quote it."
Yes indeed, he quoted it -- in support of his heretical denial of the plainly set forth doctrine of the Decree on Justification. That is interpreting it -- and interpreting it heretically.
-
The Decree on Justification makes no distinction between those justified by Baptism in re (by water) and those justified by Baptism "in voto" (by the resolve and desire to receive Baptism). The Council of Trent infallibly teaches that the justified who die in the state of grace enter eternal life (Ch. 16). Feeney denied this perpetual teaching of the Church and professed the heresy that those who die in the state of grace, but were justified not by water Baptism but by means of the grace of the sacrament and the resolve to receive it (Ch. 4); and who die before they can receive baptismal water are damned.
-
Stubborn said:
"Again, I did not interpret anything, what I did was quote it."
Yes indeed, he quoted it -- in support of his heretical denial of the plainly set forth doctrine of the Decree on Justification. That is interpreting it -- and interpreting it heretically.
Did you even read what you just posted?
Of course I posted it without interpretation in support of the necessity of the sacraments for salvation - because that is what the canon decrees - yet again, you call this heretical. You call Trent heretical.
It also decrees that whoever says the sacraments are not a necessity are saying they are superfluous - which is what YOU say, and for saying that, per Trent, you are anathema.
It also says that you are anathema for saying that man can be justified without the sacraments. But plainly, you now understand all of this and you vehemently reject all of this.
Trent plainly anathematizes you for the heresies you spew and you don't care too much for that - which is understandable - yet you can change your beliefs so they follow the teaching of the Church - yet you refuse to do that of your own free will.
What this demonstrates is your bad will. You are a perfect example of what bad will in a person is and why bad willed people condemn themselves. IOW, you now know the absolute truth of the matter and for reasons known only to you, you absolutely reject it.
See if you can do the strictly Catholic thing by starting a thread defending, promoting and championing defending the absolute necessity of the sacraments for salvation. This is the only sure way to prove me completely wrong.
When you discover that to do such a Catholic thing as defending the sacraments is not only impossible for you to even consider much less actually do, and that the whole idea is actually repulsive to you - you will have discovered for yourself and on your own that what I just wrote above is true.
-
The Decree on Justification makes no distinction between those justified by Baptism in re (by water) and those justified by Baptism "in voto" (by the resolve and desire to receive Baptism).
So, Mr. Roman-Educated one, if there's "no distinction" between the two, how is it that those who receive the Sacrament of Baptism have the Sacramental character and those justified by the desire for it do not? Every time you post, oh august one, you simply discredit our position on BoD. Let those of us who know something about Catholic theology defend BoD. You make a mockery of our position every time you post.
-
those justified by Baptism in re (by water) and those justified by Baptism "in voto" (by the resolve and desire to receive Baptism)
Thank you for correcting your language in the wake of my fraternal admonition. This language is an acceptable formulation of a Catholic BoD ... vs. your previous teaching of justification without Baptism. I did actually learn a lot in my former Feeneyite days, so I'm happy to have been able to set you straight from your ignorant denial of Catholic teaching. Putting it this way avoids rejecting the dogmatic teaching of Trent regarding the necessity of Baptism for salvation.
Now for the next friendly correction. "Votum" is much more than just resolve and desire to receive Baptism. "Votum" refers to ALL the necessary dispositions required for justification even in Sacramental Baptism as taught by Trent.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm
We have rendered votum by "desire" for want of a better word. The council does not mean by votum a simple desire of receiving baptism or even a resolution to do so. It means by votum an act of perfect charity or contrition, including, at least implicitly, the will to do all things necessary for salvation and thus especially to receive baptism.
I rejoice every time I am able to bring a fellow BoDer closer to Catholic truth and away from the confusion of muddled illogical thinking, pseudo-theology, and ignorance.
-
The Feeneyites always interpret the Tridentine canon which says there is not the sacrament without true and natural water in a manner that contradicts the teaching of the Decree on Justification -- as if the Council of Trent had contradicted itself!
One cannot confect the sacrament of Baptism without water. What that means, according to the magisterium, is that the visible sign (sacramentum tantum) cannot be brought about without water. That is all that the canon is defining. It does not mean that the supernatural grace of the sacrament (res sacramenti) cannot be effected without the visible sacramental sign, or that the res sacramenti cannot be effected without the instrumentality of the visible sign of water. Such a stupid Feeneyite interpretation is heretical in so far as it denies that the grace of Baptism (which is Justification) can be received by "the resolve of it" (Sess.6); in the same manner that their interpretation of instrumental causality flatly contradicts the doctrine on the sacrament of penance (Sess. 14) on contrition; which explicitly teaches that the grace of that sacrament can be received before the actual reception of the sacrament by perfect contrition; and that the resolve to receive the sacrament must be included in the contrition: Docet praeterea etsi contritionem hanc aliquando charitate perfectam esse contigat hominem que Deo reconciliare priusquam hoc sacramentum actu suscipiatur ipsam nihilominus reconciliationem ipsi contritioni sine sacramenti voto quod in illa includitur non esse adscribendam.
This stupid Feeneyite argument is a favourite of David Drew and all the radical Feeneyites who interpret the Tridentine doctrine of instrumental causality according to a sense that is not supported by the literal text, which simply states that the sacrament is the instrumental cause of justification; but does not expressly or implicitly deny (what the Council explicitly taught) that justification can be received by the sacrament in re aut in voto.
-
Ladislaus said:
"Don Paolo said:those justified by Baptism in re (by water) and those justified by Baptism "in voto" (by the resolve and desire to receive Baptism)
Thank you for correcting your language in the wake of my fraternal admonition."
What an ass. The man needs a psychiatrist.
-
That ass, Ladislaus is at it again:
"So, Mr. Roman-Educated one, if there's "no distinction" between the two, how is it that those who receive the Sacrament of Baptism have the Sacramental character and those justified by the desire for it do not? Every time you post, oh august one, you simply discredit our position on BoD. Let those of us who know something about Catholic theology defend BoD. You make a mockery of our position every time you post."
I was commenting on Chapter 16 of the Decree on Justification, which says that the justified have fulfilled the law of God; and that when they die, they will enter eternal life if they die in the state of grace. The text I quoted makes no distinction on whether they were justified by the sacrament in re or in voto: whoever dies in the justified state is saved. Idiot Ladislaus has taken my words totally out of context and has deliberately distorted and falsified their meaning.
-
Stupid Stubborn is again making wild and gratuitous assertions which totally falsify and misrepresent what I have written. He and Ladislaus ought to be sharing a padded cell in a lunatic asylum.
-
Stupid Stubborn is again making wild and gratuitous assertions which totally falsify and misrepresent what I have written. He and Ladislaus ought to be sharing a padded cell in a lunatic asylum.
Say whatever it is you want, but the one thing you will never be able to say is the Catholic thing - any thing defending the absolute necessity of the sacraments for every human being for their salvation.
This should prove to yourself that you are of bad will.
-
Ah, brother Don, you should be grateful for the numerous times I have corrected your sloppy theology, such as when you kept referring to Baptism as necessary by necessity of precept. I would rather believe that asses (like myself) can fly than that clerics can lie.
-
Ah, brother Don, you should be grateful for the numerous times I have corrected your sloppy theology, such as when you kept referring to Baptism as necessary by necessity of precept. I would rather believe that asses (like myself) can fly than that clerics can lie.
Sacramental Baptism is necessary by by necessity of precept and by a necessity of means.
He would be wrong if he said Sacramental Baptism is necessary only by a necessity of precept or if it was implied by what he said. I do not know what he said or implied BTW. I can tell you he is not stupid. Or put another way, and as charitably as possible, in the objective realm, he knows more theology than Stubborn, that is manifestly obvious.
-
The Feeneyites always interpret the Tridentine canon which says there is not the sacrament without true and natural water in a manner that contradicts the teaching of the Decree on Justification -- as if the Council of Trent had contradicted itself!
One cannot confect the sacrament of Baptism without water. What that means, according to the magisterium, is that the visible sign (sacramentum tantum) cannot be brought about without water. That is all that the canon is defining. It does not mean that the supernatural grace of the sacrament (res sacramenti) cannot be effected without the visible sacramental sign, or that the res sacramenti cannot be effected without the instrumentality of the visible sign of water. Such a stupid Feeneyite interpretation is heretical in so far as it denies that the grace of Baptism (which is Justification) can be received by "the resolve of it" (Sess.6); in the same manner that their interpretation of instrumental causality flatly contradicts the doctrine on the sacrament of penance (Sess. 14) on contrition; which explicitly teaches that the grace of that sacrament can be received before the actual reception of the sacrament by perfect contrition; and that the resolve to receive the sacrament must be included in the contrition: Docet praeterea etsi contritionem hanc aliquando charitate perfectam esse contigat hominem que Deo reconciliare priusquam hoc sacramentum actu suscipiatur ipsam nihilominus reconciliationem ipsi contritioni sine sacramenti voto quod in illa includitur non esse adscribendam.
This stupid Feeneyite argument is a favourite of David Drew and all the radical Feeneyites who interpret the Tridentine doctrine of instrumental causality according to a sense that is not supported by the literal text, which simply states that the sacrament is the instrumental cause of justification; but does not expressly or implicitly deny (what the Council explicitly taught) that justification can be received by the sacrament in re aut in voto.
There is No Such Thing as a 'Feeneyite'..... :laugh2:
-
I have written and explained more times than I can count, the distinction between one "justified by the sacrament of water" i.e. in re, and one "justification by the resolve to receive it", i.e., by means of the 'votum'. The stupid ass, Ladislaus takes issue if one would write of these and similar expressions in an abbreviated manner in which the precise meaning is clearly intended and understood; but he, in his unstable mind construes theological errors where there are none. Only a mentally imbalanced ass would want to waste time by indulging in in such pointless quibbling.
-
There is no such thing as a Feeneyite?
A Feeneyite is one who professes the heresy of Feeney, who denied that one who dies justified by repentance and the resolve to receive Baptism can be saved: "It is now: Baptism of Water, or damnation! If you do not desire that Water, you cannot be justified. And if you do not get it, you cannot be saved." (Bread of Life, p. 25)
-
Ah, brother Don, you should be grateful for the numerous times I have corrected your sloppy theology, such as when you kept referring to Baptism as necessary by necessity of precept. I would rather believe that asses (like myself) can fly than that clerics can lie.
Sacramental Baptism is necessary by by necessity of precept and by a necessity of means.
He would be wrong if he said Sacramental Baptism is necessary only by a necessity of precept or if it was implied by what he said. I do not know what he said or implied BTW. I can tell you he is not stupid. Or put another way, and as charitably as possible, in the objective realm, he knows more theology than Stubborn, that is manifestly obvious.
Yes, he certainly knows more NO theology than me - that much is painfully obvious. No doubt that comes from you guys being born and raised NO and you still cling to the heresies.
And like you, he STILL will never in this life be able to defend the absolute necessity of the sacraments for every human creature because like you, he believes they are an option - in spite of Trent's explicit teaching.
-
There is no such thing as a Feeneyite?
A Feeneyite is one who professes the heresy of Feeney, who denied that one who dies justified by repentance and the resolve to receive Baptism can be saved: "It is now: Baptism of Water, or damnation! If you do not desire that Water, you cannot be justified. And if you do not get it, you cannot be saved." (Bread of Life, p. 25)
Here again, Fr. Feeney echoes Trent, you say he echoes heresy.
How long did the NO hold you hostage anyway?
-
DEBATE WITH A FEENEYITE
Feeneyite - Hello I guess you saw my recent post of MHFM, challenging you to a debate on the isssue of BOD? Brother Peter Dimond just posted on their website that on July of this year ( about two months ago) , they wrote to you and challenged you to a debate on the issue of baptism of desire but you refused you didn't responded?
Fr. K. - I don't know if he invited me or not. I trashed his message without opening it.
What's there to debate? The Council of Trent teaches in the Decree on Justification (Ch. 4) that one can be justified by the "laver of regeneration or the resolve of it"; and that once justified, they will enter eternal life if they die in the state of grace (Ch. 16). Feeney denied this doctrine of Trent.
Feeney's heresy which denies that the grace of justification suffices for salvation:
"It is now: Baptism of Water, or damnation! If you do not desire that Water, you cannot be justified. And if you do not get it, you cannot be saved." (Bread of Life, p. 25)
F. - since you are sure on the issue, why don't you just accept the debate challange so as to prove your points?
so that those who follow you woundn't think you are afraid to face the facts
Fr. K. - What's to prove, it is patent: The Council of Trent teaches explicitly that Justification suffices for salvation. The Feeneyites deny this doctrine, saying that Justification does not suffice, but water Baptism is also absolutely necessary.
F. - so that means you are not going to do any debate
Fr. K. - It is a waste of time to debate Feeneyites. They should be burned.
F. - It is never a watse of time don't know you know your debate might change them
Fr. K. - No. They are blind hardheaded, obstinate heretics. If they refuse to accept the infallible teaching of the Church, then there's no remedy for them.
F. - But the Church has also taught that no one can be saved without water baptism
Fr. K.- No, the Church has not taught that. The Church has explicitly taught Baptism of Blood already in the Third Century -- it is the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, and is therefore de fide.
F. - so what about the following dogmatic statements
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.”
Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, Sess. 7, Can. 5 on the Sacrament of Baptism, ex cathedra: “If anyone says that baptism [the Sacrament] is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation (cf. Jn. 3:5): let him be anathema.”
Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, Can. 2 on the Sacrament of Baptism, Sess. 7, 1547, ex cathedra: “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’ [John 3:5], are distorted into some sort of metaphor : let him be anathema.”
Fr. K. - The Feeneyites always interpret the Tridentine canon which says there is not the sacrament without true and natural water in a manner that contradicts the teaching of the Decree on Justification -- as if the Council of Trent had contradicted itself!
One cannot confect the sacrament of Baptism without water. What that means, according to the magisterium, is that the visible sign (sacramentum tantum) cannot be brought about without water. That is all that the canon is defining. It does not mean that the supernatural grace of the sacrament (res sacramenti) cannot be effected without the visible sacramental sign, or that the res sacramenti cannot be effected without the instrumentality of the visible sign of water. Such a stupid Feeneyite interpretation is heretical in so far as it denies that the grace of Baptism (which is Justification) can be received by "the resolve of it" (Sess.6); in the same manner that their interpretation of instrumental causality flatly contradicts the doctrine on the sacrament of penance (Sess. 14) on contrition; which explicitly teaches that the grace of that sacrament can be received before the actual reception of the sacrament by perfect contrition; and that the resolve to receive the sacrament must be included in the contrition: Docet praeterea etsi contritionem hanc aliquando charitate perfectam esse contigat hominem que Deo reconciliare priusquam hoc sacramentum actu suscipiatur ipsam nihilominus reconciliationem ipsi contritioni sine sacramenti voto quod in illa includitur non esse adscribendam.
This stupid Feeneyite argument is a favourite of all the radical Feeneyites who interpret the Tridentine doctrine of instrumental causality according to a sense that is not supported by the literal text, which simply states that the sacrament is the instrumental cause of justification; but does not expressly or implicitly deny (what the Council explicitly taught) that justification can be received by the sacrament in re aut in voto.
The "three baptisms" are in fact one, as St. Thomas Aq. explains the unction of the Holy Ghost, the divine action on the soul produces the res sacramenti, which the visible sign (sacramentum tantum) signifies.
F. - It is defined Catholic dogma that there is only one baptism. This is why the dogmatic Nicene Creed, historically professed every Sunday in the Roman Rite, reads: “I confess one baptism for the remission of sins.” And this dogma that there is one baptism for the remission of sins comes from Our Lord and the Apostles. It is affirmed by St. Paul in Ephesians 4:5: “One Lord, one faith, one baptism.” Could it be possible that there is more than one baptism for the remission of sins when Catholics have prayed and believed for 2000 years that there is only one? No.
Pope Pius XI, Quas Primas (# 12), Dec. 11, 1925: “The perfect harmony of the Eastern liturgies with our own in this continual praise of Christ the King shows once more the truth of the axiom: Legem credendi lex statuit supplicandi. The rule of faith is indicated by the law of our worship.” Throughout history many popes have expressly reaffirmed this rule of faith: that there is only one baptism for the remission of sins.
The Nicene‐Constantinople Creed, 381, ex cathedra: “We confess one baptism for the remission of sins.”
Pope St. Celestine I, Council of Ephesus, 431: “Having read these holy phrases and finding ourselves in agreement (for ‘there is one Lord, one faith, one baptism’ [Eph. 4:5]), we have given glory to God who is the savior of all…”
Pope St. Leo IX, Congratulamur Vehementer, April 13, 1053: “I believe that the one true Church is holy, Catholic and apostolic, in which is given one baptism and the true remission of all sins.”
Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, Nov. 18, 1302, ex cathedra: “One is my dove, my perfect one… which represents the one mystical body whose head is Christ, of Christ indeed, as God. And in this, ‘one Lord, one faith, one baptism’ (Eph. 4:5).”
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 Pius VI, Inscrutabile (# 8), Dec. 25, 1775: “… We exhort and advise you to be all of one mind and in harmony as you strive for the same object, just as the Church has one faith, one baptism, and one spirit.”
Pope Leo XII, Ubi Primum (# 14), May 5, 1824: “By it we are taught, and by divine faith we hold one Lord, one faith, one baptism, and that no other name under heaven is given to men except the name of Jesus Christ in which we must be saved. This is why we profess that there is no salvation outside the Church.”
Pope Pius VIII, Traditi Humilitati (# 4), May 24, 1829: “Against these experienced sophists the people must be taught that the profession of the Catholic faith is uniquely true, as the apostle proclaims: one Lord, one faith, one baptism (Eph. 4:5).”
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.”
Pope Leo XIII, Graves de communi re (# 8), Jan. 18, 1901: “Hence the doctrine of the Apostle, who warns us that ‘We are one body and spirit called to the one hope in our vocation; one Lord, one faith and one baptism…”
To say that there are “three baptisms,” as many unfortunately do, is heretical. There is only one baptism, which is celebrated in water (de fide).
Pope Clement V, Council of Vienne, 1311‐1312, ex cathedra: “Besides, one baptism which regenerates all who are baptized in Christ must be faithfully confessed by all just as ‘one God and one faith’ [Eph. 4:5], which celebrated in water
in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit we
believe to be commonly the perfect remedy for salvation for adults as for children.
Here Pope Clement V defines as a dogma that ONE BAPTISM must be faithfully confessed by all, which is celebrated in water. This means that all Catholics must profess one baptism of water, not three baptisms: of water, blood and desire. To confess “three baptisms,” and not one, is to contradict defined Catholic dogma.
Fr. K. - Did you not read: The "three baptisms" are in fact one, as St. Thomas Aq. explains the unction of the Holy Ghost, the divine action on the soul produces the res sacramenti, which the visible sign (sacramentum tantum) signifies.
The res sacramenti is ONE and the same, regardless as to whether it is received by Baptism of water or Baptism in voto. The Council of Trent teaches infallibly that the grace of Baptism can be received by the "laver of regeneration or the resolve to receive it". Your bogus interpretstion of the canon contradicts the explicit teaching of the Decree on Justification.
Feeney's proposition that there is no salvation without water Baptism directly opposes Baptism of Blood, which had already been universally professed by the Church in the Third Century; and which was taught by Pope Leo I together with the unanimous consent of the Fathers -- which therefore constitutes BOB as de fide.
If Feeney's proposition that there is no salvation without water were correct, then the whole Church would have defected into heresy already in the Third Century.
The whole Church has explicitly professed BOB for 17 1/2 centuries. Either the Feeneyites are in heresy; or the whole Church has been in heresy since the Third Century.
F. - The Council of Trent does not can teach that Justification take place by the water of baptism or the desire for it. It says that justification in the impious CANNOT TAKE PLACE WITHOUT the water of baptism or the desire for it. This is totally different from the idea that justification can take place by the water of baptism or the desire for it.
you only misinterpreted the passage
Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Sess. 6, Chap. 4: “In these words there is suggested a description of the justification of the impious, how there is a transition from that state in which a person is born as a child of the first Adam to the state of grace and of adoption as sons of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ our savior; indeed, this transition, once the gospel has been promulgated, CANNOT TAKE PLACE WITHOUT the laver of regeneration or a desire for it, AS IT IS WRITTEN : Unless a man is born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God (John 3:5).”
Fr. K. - It's the same proposition, stated in negative form, "cannot take place without the laver of regeneration or the resolve of it"; or, "can only be received by the laver of regeneration or the resolve of it". It is the selfsame proposition in negative and in positive form. The passage quoted explicitly affirms that there can be no justification without "the laver of regeneration OR the resolve of it; AS IS WRITTEN ... etc. (Jn. 3:15). Thus, the Decree explicitly interprets that Jn. 3:15 is fulfilled by the "laver of regeneration OR the resolve of it"; which is, by Baptism in re aut in voto.
F. - What you should know is that this crucial passage from Trent has been horribly mistranslated in the popular English version of Denzinger, the Sources of Catholic Dogma, which is cited above.
This mistranslation of the Latin word “sine” (without) – which is found in the original Latin278 – to “except through” completely alters the meaning of the passage to favor the error of baptism of desire
Fr. K. - Who cares whether an English translation is wrong. That is a red herring argument. Theologians don't work with translations; but strictly with the official Latin texts.
F - That is why I gave the following examples which you have to admit
Is just like saying, “This shower cannot take place without water or the desire to take one.” Does this mean that a shower can take place by the desire to take a shower? No it doesn’t. It means that both (water and desire) are necessary. Or suppose I said, “There cannot be a wedding without a bride or a groom.” Does this mean that you can have a wedding with a groom and not a bride? Of course not. It means that both are necessary for the wedding. One could give hundreds of other examples. Likewise, the passage above in Trent says that Justification CANNOT PLACE WITHOUT TAKE water or desire; in other words, both are necessary. It does not that Justification does take place by either water or desire!
Fr. K. - It is claimed, the phrase, sine lavacro regenerationis aut ejus voto" has been mistranslated to mean "or the votum of it", instead of the (according to some Feeneyites) correct translation: "and the votum of it".
This objection is made only by the theologically illiterate Feenryites who have little or no working knowledge of the Latin Language. It is claimed on the basis that the Latin word "aut" can sometimes mean 'and', that the Decree on Justification does not teach that justification can be effected by "the laver of regeneration or the desire of it"; but rather, "by the laver of regeneration and the desire of it". In this context, however, the "aut" cannot possibly mean 'and'. Such a rendering confuses the meaning of "votum" with that of "intentio". To validly receive baptism, an adult must not only be baptized with water, but he must have the sacramental consent: the intention to receive the sacrament -- thus a sleeping Jew would not validly receive baptism if someone were to administer the rite of baptism on him. The Decree on Justification most clearly does not refer to sacramental consent by the words "aut ejus voto", because the word "votum" referrs exclusively to a desire or resolve to be fulfilled at some future time. This is patent from an examination of the use of the word "votum" by all the classical authors of antiquity, as well as in ecclesiastical Latin.
The original Italian text of the Roman Catechism explains the doctrine of this Latin passage of the Decree on Justification in the generally accepted sense, and not according to the absurd Feeneyite interpretation:
"In caso improvviso di pericolo, chi ha l'uso della ragione, pur impossibilitato a purificarsi nell'acqua sacramentale, può conseguire la grazia e la giustizia col semplice proposito di ricevere a suo tempo il Battesimo, unito al pentimento dei peccati commessi."
In English: "In a case of unforeseen danger, one who has the use of reason, due to the impossibility to be purified in baptismal water, can receive grace and justification with the simple resolve to receive Baptism in its due time, together with repentance for sins committed."
Thus clearly is explained in the Catechism composed an promulgated by two eminent Council Fathers of Trent, the meaning of the expression "sine lavacro regenerationis aut ejus voto" in the Decree on Justification.
F. - that is why I told you to accept the debate challenge so you can discuss the issue more better
Fr. K. - I will not dignify the Dimonds by speaking or communicating with them. They are moral lepers who rabidly attack the Catholic faith. The Dimonds are phony monks -- they are heretic laymen.
-
Heretic Cantarella with malicious deception has quoted St. Ambrose out of context. In my Debate With A Feebeyite, the point of the oneness of the sacrament is explained according to the mind of the Church; as opposed to the heretical Feeneyite belief. Cantarella deliberately glosses over in silence the words of St. Ambrose which affirm BOD.
-
Here are the words of St. Ambrose in favour of BOD which the heretic Cantarella deliberately left out in order to deceive people into thinking that St. Ambrose was anti BOD:
“But I hear that you grieve because he did not receive the sacrament of baptism. Tell me: What else is in your power other than the desire, the request? But he even had this desire for a long time, that, when he should come into Italy, he would be initiated, and recently he signified a desire to be baptized by me, and for this reason above all others he thought that I ought to be summoned. Has he not, then, the grace which he desired; has he not the grace which he requested? And because he asked, he received, and therefore is it said: “By whatsoever death the just man shall be overtaken, his soul shall be at rest” (Wisd. 4:7). Grant, therefore, O holy Father, to Thy servant the gift which Moses received, because he saw in spirit; the gift which David merited, because he knew from revelation. Grant, I pray, to Thy servant Valentinian the gift which he longed for, the gift which he requested while in health, vigor, and security. If, stricken with sickness, he had deferred it, he would not be entirely without Thy mercy who has been cheated by the swiftness of time, not by his own wish. Grant, therefore, to Thy servant the gift of Thy grace which he never rejected, who on the day before his death refused to restore the privileges of the temples although he was pressed by those whom he could well have feared. A crowd of pagans was present, the Senate entreated, but he was not afraid to displease men so long as he pleased Thee alone in Christ. He who had Thy Spirit, how has he not received Thy grace? Or if the fact disturbs you that the mysteries have not been solemnly celebrated, then you should realize that not even martyrs are crowned if they are catechumens, for they are not crowned if they are not initiated. But if they are washed in their own blood, his piety and his desire have washed him, also.” (Oration at the Funeral of the Emperor Valentinian I)
-
But he even had this desire for a long time, that, when he should come into Italy, he would be initiated, and recently he signified a desire to be baptized by me, and for this reason above all others he thought that I ought to be summoned. Has he not, then, the grace which he desired; has he not the grace which he requested?
An obvious observation, "he had this desire for a long time", well, why did he not act upon that desire a long time before? This apparently was not a sudden death relative to said desire. Do we say that he received this grace by delaying the act?
Saint Ambrose providing comfort to mourners at a funeral does not translate his speculations and desires into doctrine.
Grant, I pray, to Thy servant Valentinian the gift which he longed for, the gift which he requested while in health, vigor, and security..............etc.
Affirmed in this as well that he did not act upon this desire while he was fully able, and also we notice that Ambrose is praying to God that he will grant him this mercy despite his not having the sacraments. It is not an accomplished thing.
Again, Ambrose speaking in favor of his own petition does not translate into doctrine or fact.
Is Ambrose here, not petitioning God for an exception to the usual procedure? Does he not go on to equate Valentinian's demise to that of martydom?
I do not think that this oration does anything at all to prove Baptism of Desire, except for those who are zealous to believe in it.
I think that this actually exculpates Canterella from the derogatory labels which have been thrown at her.
-
You should most definitely debate the Dimonds so as to prove the truth of our position.
-
As said before, BOD adherents only see what they want to see in St. Ambrose eulogy which in fact could have been interpreted in many other different ways. There is an incorrect interpretation that modernists held in the matter of Ambrose and the emperor in the matter of BOD. Many people believed that St. Ambrose said that Valentinian had been saved without being water baptized but that is incorrect. St Ambrose did not teach "Baptism of Desire" (and most definitely not what the liberals have done with the hypothesis of BOD) as proved by the following words by St. Ambrose himself:
"You have read, therefore, that the three witnesses in Baptism are one: water, blood, and the spirit; and if you withdraw any one of these, the Sacrament of Baptism is not valid. For what is water without the cross of Christ? A common element without any sacramental effect. Nor on the other hand is there any mystery of regeneration without water: for 'unless a man be born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.' [John 3:5] Even a catechumen believes in the cross of the Lord Jesus, by which also he is signed; but, unless he be baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, he cannot receive the remission of sins nor be recipient of the gift of spiritual grace." (Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 2: 1330.)
Also,
For no one ascends into the kingdom of Heaven except through the Sacrament of Baptism. No one is excused from Baptism. Not infants, not anyone hindered by any necessity.
ONE is the Baptism with the Church administers, the Baptism of water and the Holy Ghost, with which catechumens NEED to be baptized.
-
Father Jacques Paul Migne back in XIX century, one of the great, if not the greatest authorities on patristic teaching, says:
“From among the Catholic Fathers perhaps no one insists more than Ambrose on the absolute necessity of receiving Baptism, in various places, but especially in Book II De Abraham; Sermon 2 In Psalm.; and the book De Mysteriis.” (Migne, Patrologia Latina 16, 394, translated in Nicene Fathers, Vol. 10, p. 319)
In his book, De Mysteriis, Ambrose affirms:
“One is the Baptism which the Church administers: the Baptism of water and the Holy Ghost, with which catechumens need to be baptized . . . Nor does the mystery of regeneration exist at all without water, for ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom.’ Now, even the catechumen believes in the cross of the Lord Jesus, with which he also signs himself; but, unless he be baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, he cannot receive remission of his sins nor the gift of spiritual grace.” (4,4: 4,20 Patrologia Latina, 16, 394)
-
If you read my post, the quotation of St. Ambrose was not given to prove BOD. BOD has already been taught as Catholic doctrine by the universal magisterium -- it is already proven.
-
BOD is not a "new doctrine" but is implicitly contained in the deposit of revelation. Pius XI explained in Mortalium Animos: a doctrine must be at least implicitly contained in the previously taught doctrine: "Nothing new is ever added to the number of those truths which are at least implicitly contained within the deposit of revelation divinely committed to the Church." (no. 14) A formulation can be new, but its doctrine is not new if it is implicitly contained in previously taught doctrine. Justification without water is taught in Scripture (Acts Ch. 10), and was already taught universally (with the unanimous consent of the Fathers) in the Third Century (Baptism of Blood), and is taught in Chapter 4 of the Decree on Justification. Salvation without water was likewise taught universally (and with the unanimous teaching of the Fathers). That the soul of anyone and everyone who dies in the state of sanctifying grace has been perpetually believed, and is explicitly taught by the Council of Trent (DoJ ch. 16). Therefore, it is patent that Baptism of Desire is implicitly contained in the perpetual doctrine of the Church, and hence, is not a new doctrine. BOD has been explicitly taught by the post-Tridentine universal & ordinary magisterium; and therefore must be believed with divine & Catholic faith.
Feeneyites, typically argue with insolent obstinacy, employing every malicious fallacy and deceptive artifice to defend their heretical beliefs. The ultra-Feeneyite, David Drew, in typical Feeneyite manner, separates the canons of Trent, and calls them "dogma"; whereas the doctrinal pronouncements of the dogmatic decrees are dismissed as mere "narrative". (As if a doctrinal pronouncement could be called a "narrative"! What an ass!) This separation of the canons from their decrees is done in order to interpret the canons against the doctrines of the decrees; resulting in a bogus interpretation of the canons that is contrary to the understanding and interpretation of them as the Church has understood and understands them. The dogmatic constitution Dei Filius solemnly teaches that the dogmas must be understood as the Church has understood and understands them; and that only the magisterium of Holy Mother Church possesses the authority to interpret them.
The insolent heretic, David Drew, has denied that there is any need to interpret dogma -- directly contradicting the Dogmatic Constitution on Revelation (Dei Filius) of Vatican Council I.
-
The Feeneyites do not accept the authority of the universal magisterium, but only that of the solemn extraordinary magisterium. Anything less is for them "not infallible", and therefore "fallible". This belief of theirs is also heresy. The solemn definitions are infallible in virtue of the charism of papal infallibility. The dogmatic canons fall under this category.
The dogmatic teachings of the decrees of Trent, and the doctrines of the Roman Catechism are not in and of themselves infallible in virtue of the Petrine charism, but are infallible in virtue of the attribute of Infallibility of the whole Church. Thus, the Roman Catechism was promulgated by St. Pius V as explicitly setting forth the doctrines of the universal magisterium -- which is infallible. The doctrines of the dogmatic decrees and encyclicals are also infallible when they fulfill that criterion.
The Feeneyites dismiss all such docuмents as "not infallible" -- even when they set forth the infallible teaching of the universal magisterium.
-
Since the Council of Trent, the popes have authorized the teaching of BOD universally throughout the world,(most notably by authorizing the universal teaching of BOD in the official catechisms by authority of the Congregation of the Council), and since the 19th Century the popes themselves have taught BOD explicitly in their ordinary magisterium. It is utterly beyond all legitimate debate that BOD is a doctrine of the universal magisterium which must be believed with divine and Catholic faith.
-
Don Paulo,
BOD is not a "new doctrine" but is implicitly contained in the deposit of revelation.
Where?
-
Since the Council of Trent, the popes have authorized the teaching of BOD universally throughout the world,(most notably by authorizing the universal teaching of BOD in the official catechisms by authority of the Congregation of the Council), and since the 19th Century the popes themselves have taught BOD explicitly in their ordinary magisterium. It is utterly beyond all legitimate debate that BOD is a doctrine of the universal magisterium which must be believed with divine and Catholic faith.
You have failed to take into account the translations and translators of the original Catechism which contained Trent's true intent.
BoD is a theological speculation which cannot be known to be true. It is a good and pious hope for souls which are in peril.
The Church does not teach Her children what, She does not know.
-
You stupid Feeneyites are really getting desperate -- talking about bloody translations. I shit on translations! I am reading Latin every day for more than 40 years. Don't you morons tell me what is the meaning of Trent's doctrine, based on your understanding of the bloody translations of Trent! Any ass knows that translations are worthless. You must interpret the original Latin text according to the mind of the Magisterium.
-
You stupid Feeneyites are really getting desperate -- talking about bloody translations. I scite on translations! I am reading Latin every day for more than 40 years. Don't you morons tell me what is the meaning of Trent's doctrine, based on your understanding of the bloody translations of Trent! Any ass knows that translations are worthless. You must interpret the original Latin text according to the mind of the Magisterium.
-
You stupid Feeneyites are really getting desperate -- talking about bloody translations. I #### on translations! I am reading Latin every day for more than 40 years.
Nothing but ad hominems, and bringing disrepute upon the priesthood with your crassness.
I know a little Latin myself. 4 Years Latin, 3 Years Greek in High School. Double Major in Greek and Latin in College, completed Ph.D. Coursework in Patristic Greek & Latin program at The Catholic University of America. I taught Latin at the SSPX seminary. You just try to throw your considerable weight around.
So nice try.
I read the entire Treatise on Justification in Trent in Latin ... not just one sentence taken out of context.
You may now resume your "sciting".
-
Don Paulo,
You must interpret the original Latin text according to the mind of the Magisterium.
Not quite, you must accept the Latin text, as it is written. That IS, the mind of the Magisterium.
Once you begin "interpreting", it will say anything that suits you, as we have amply seen in these BoD threads.
-
Bullturd, Ladislaus. There is absolutely nothing ad hominem in pointing out that pointing to faulty translations as the basis for misinterpretation of doctrine is a red herring argument. As always, you resort to distortion and deception whenever proof for your opinion is wanting.
-
J. Paul: I have already posted the proof that BOD is implicitly contained in the deposit of faith. Your question, "Where?", mendaciously suggests that I have not already posted the proof.
-
J. Paul said: "Not quite, you must accept the Latin text, as it is written. That IS, the mind of the Magisterium."
Bullturd! When the Magisterium of the Church authoritatively interprets a dogmatic pronouncement, you must understand it according to the mind of the Church, and not as you imagine to be the meaning of the Latin text as it is written. This is explicitly taught in the Dogmatic Constitution on Revelation "Dei Filius" of Vatican Council I. Holy Mother Church alone possesses the authority to interpret dogmatic pronouncements.
-
There is absolutely nothing ad hominem in pointing out that pointing to faulty translations as the basis for misinterpretation of doctrine is a red herring argument. As always, you resort to distortion and deception whenever proof for your opinion is wanting.
I was referring to your use of the word stupid ... and your constant stream of insults in general.
-
J. Paul said: "Not quite, you must accept the Latin text, as it is written. That IS, the mind of the Magisterium."
Bullturd! When the Magisterium of the Church authoritatively interprets a dogmatic pronouncement, you must understand it according to the mind of the Church, and not as you imagine to be the meaning of the Latin text as it is written. This is explicitly taught in the Dogmatic Constitution on Revelation "Dei Filius" of Vatican Council I. Holy Mother Church alone possesses the authority to interpret dogmatic pronouncements.
You most heartily refuse to believe that when the Church once pronounces or declares, that such, is the interpretation which is to be held, and all that comes after Her presentation of the Truth must submit to that judgment and sense. Any nuances or explanations which come after are always to be understood in the same sense and the same judgment period! That is what the Council taught.
So....I say hogwash to your protestations
-
J. Paul: I have already posted the proof that BOD is implicitly contained in the deposit of faith. Your question, "Where?", mendaciously suggests that I have not already posted the proof.
You've never offered a shred of proof.
-
"Father" (bullturd scite) Paolo shows himself much more proficient in scatology than theology.
:roll-laugh1:
Scatological obsession is very often associated with demonic activity.
-
"Father" (bullturd scite) Paolo shows himself much more proficient in scatology than theology.
:roll-laugh1:
Scatological obsession is very often associated with demonic activity.
.....and #ews...............
-
If the Feeneyites interpret dogma correctly, then the whole Church already defected into heresy in the Third Century by professing BOB. The Feeneyite doctrine that excludes those martyrs from the Church is HERESY. The Feeneyite doctrine that justification does not suffice for salvation (but that baptismal water is also of absolute necessity of means), directly opposes the explicitly taught doctrine of the Decree on Justification (Ch. 16), and is therefore patently heretical.
-
Your last post is so full of errors that it's embarrassing.
"Feeneyites" do not hold that BoB is "heresy", and consequently the Church would not have defected into heresy. "Feeneyites" hold that it's a matter of theological speculation that gradually gained wide acceptance among Catholics. Of the survey of theologians done by Father Cekada on the subject, NOT ONE THEOLOGIAN claimed that rejection of BoB was heresy.
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Baptism-of-Desire-de-fide
Of all the theologians surveyed by Father Cekada, only 7 of the 25 claimed that rejection of BoD is heresy.
Consequently, what you are expressing is nothing more than a minority theological opinion.
You are mentally incapable, due to extreme bad will, of making the simplest distinctions. There are additional notes, besides that of broad acceptance by Catholics, to constitute dogma.
-
"For, the doctrine of faith which God revealed has not been handed down as a philosophic invention to the human mind to be perfected, but has been entrusted as a divine deposit to the Spouse of Christ, to be faithfully guarded and infallibly interpreted." - Dei Filius
Only the magisterial authority of the Church can authentically interpret the doctrine of the faith.
-
In this passage, the First Vatican Council officially interprets the teaching of the Council of Trent:
"But, since the rules which the holy Synod of Trent salutarily decreed concerning the interpretation of Divine Scripture in order to restrain impetuous minds, are wrongly explained by certain men, We, renewing the same decree, declare this to be its intention: that, in matters of faith and morals pertaining to the instruction of Christian Doctrine, that must be considered as the true sense of Sacred Scripture which Holy Mother Church has held and holds, whose office it is to judge concerning the true understanding and interpretation of the Sacred Scriptures; and, for that reason, no one is permitted to interpret Sacred Scripture itself contrary to this sense, or even contrary to the unanimous agreement of the Fathers."
-
Feeneyites claim that the dogmatic canons of Trent teach that there is no salvation without WATER. If that were true, then BOB and BOD would be HERESY.
Ladislaus most stupidly misrepresents my position. While there are some Feeneyites who do say that BOB & BOD are heresies, I did not state the proposition that Ladislaus stupidly attributes to me: What I said was that if the Feeneyite doctrine on the absolute necessity of baptismal water for salvation were the authentic doctrine of Trent; then indeed BOB would be a heresy.
BOB is not a "theological speculation", as some Feeneyites claim; it was already taught by the universal magisterium in the Third Century? and has been constantly taught by the universal & ordinary magisterium ever since, and has been unanimously taught by the Fathers. Hence, it must be believed with divine & Catholic faith. Whoever obstinately denies or doubts a truth that must be believed with divine & Catholic faith is guilty of HERESY. (can. 751)
-
Every other word of your post is a distortion and displays a grave lack of knowledge regarding both facts and theological principles.
-
BOB refers to "martyrdom". Most likely martyrs had already been water baptized. No proof is found otherwise. There is nothing from the Solemn Magisterium regarding BOB but actually we find many historical examples of Divine Providence miraculously supplying water for baptism before the martyrdom of some saints.
Hypothetical Baptism of Blood only could apply to catechumens who have and professes the Faith in Christ and His Church. A person who is ignorant of Christ and His Church (whether culpably or not) cannot possibly receive BOB, since an open confession of the true Faith and of the true Church is indispensable for martyrdom.
“The Holy Roman Church believes, professes, and preaches that no one remaining outside the Catholic Church, not just pagans, but also Jews or heretics or schismatics, can become partakers of eternal life; but they will go to the ‘everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels’ (Matt.25:41), unless before the end of life they are joined to the Church. For union with the body of Christ is of such importance that the sacraments of the Church are helpful to salvation only for those remaining in it; and fasts, almsgiving, other works of piety, and the exercise of Christian warfare bear eternal rewards for them alone. And no one can be saved, no matter how much alms he has given, even if he sheds his blood for the name of Christ, unless he remains in the bosom and unity of the Church” (Denz. 714).
Although there is not a direct condemnation of BOB in this infallible dogmatic statement, it certainly is saying that even martyrdom for Christ cannot save outside the Church.
-
BOB refers to "martyrdom". Most likely martyrs had already been water baptized. No proof is found otherwise. There is nothing from the Solemn Magisterium regarding BOB but actually we find many historical examples of Divine Providence miraculously supplying water for baptism before the martyrdom of some saints.
Hypothetical Baptism of Blood only could apply to catechumens who have and professes the Faith in Christ and His Church. A person who is ignorant of Christ and His Church (whether culpably or not) cannot possibly receive BOB, since an open confession of the true Faith and of the true Church is indispensable for martyrdom.
“The Holy Roman Church believes, professes, and preaches that no one remaining outside the Catholic Church, not just pagans, but also Jews or heretics or schismatics, can become partakers of eternal life; but they will go to the ‘everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels’ (Matt.25:41), unless before the end of life they are joined to the Church. For union with the body of Christ is of such importance that the sacraments of the Church are helpful to salvation only for those remaining in it; and fasts, almsgiving, other works of piety, and the exercise of Christian warfare bear eternal rewards for them alone. And no one can be saved, no matter how much alms he has given, even if he sheds his blood for the name of Christ, unless he remains in the bosom and unity of the Church” (Denz. 714).
Although there is not a direct condemnation of BOB in this infallible dogmatic statement, it certainly is saying that even martyrdom for Christ cannot save outside the Church.
DP cannot figure out how the heck to interpret that into meaning something it does not say. He would rather use sayings that others have already figured out how to misinterpret and take out of context.
-
With regard to Baptism of Blood, not ONE of the 25 major theologians surveyed by Father Cekada (who's decidedly hostile to "Feeneyism") taught BoB to be de fide.
-
Feeneyites claim that the dogmatic canons of Trent teach that there is no salvation without WATER.
You lump all "Feeneyites" together first of all. Father Feeney himself held to a distinction between justification and salvation. Not everyone who holds a strict interpretation of EENS and the necessity of the Sacraments applies that distinction to this debate.
Again, you try to blasphemously disparage the Sacrament of Baptism by referring it to as "water", actually "WATER" (shouting your insult). Salvation cannot happen without the Sacrament of Baptism, with water merely being the matter for the Sacrament.
Then you distort the opinions of about 7-8 Church Fathers into some kind of unanimous consensus, demonstrating that you have no idea what the term means. Just because you can't find a Church Father who explicitly rejects BoB doesn't create a "unanimous consensus". I've described on other threads what constitutes unanimous consensus and why.
There are distinctions between 1) tolerating an opinion, 2) having something be widely held as an opinion, and 3) teaching something to be de fide and divinely revealed.
ASSUMING that Trent actually mentioned BoD in the text usually cited (I do not agree with the common interpretation here), mere mention does not constitute dogmatic definition. Theologians commonly distinguish between the narrative portions of the Council and the definitions (which are in fact usually reinforced in the Canons). There are long sections of expository teaching, not every word of which constitutes dogmatic definition. So, even assuming that Trent mentioned BoD, there's nothing to indicate that Trent was imposing belief in BoD or just was teaching that one must hold that the Sacrament is necessary "at least by votum" to avoid heresy (something which the Protestants at the time and most modern BoDers hold actually). So one could easily read Trent's narrative as ALLOWING or PERMITTING the BoD opinion, not as dogmatically teaching or defining it. That is most likely why 18 of the 25 theologians cited by Father Cekada did not characterize BoD as de fide
You know nothing about dogmatic Catholic theology. You're just a blundering buffoon with an agenda.
-
Canon 5.If anyone says that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation, let him be anathema.
Canon 6.If anyone says that one baptized cannot, even if he wishes, lose grace, however much he may sin, unless he is unwilling to believe, let him be anathema.
Canon 7.If anyone says that those baptized are by baptism made debtors only to faith alone, but not to the observance of the whole law of Christ, let him be anathema.
The dogmas are the canons that follow the narrative explanation. Only the canons are formal objects of divine and Catholic faith. If there is any conflict between the narrative and the canons, the narrative is interpreted in light of the canon and not vice-versa.
-
Yes, usually when a Council "defines" something, i.e. proposes it for belief, it's CLOSING the matter entirely, whereas the language of Trent (assuming that the common interpretation of the one passage is correct) simply leaves it open as a hypothetical possibility. There's no proof whatsoever that anyone has ever been saved by BoD.
-
Yes, usually when a Council "defines" something, i.e. proposes it for belief, it's CLOSING the matter entirely, whereas the language of Trent (assuming that the common interpretation of the one passage is correct) simply leaves it open as a hypothetical possibility. There's no proof whatsoever that anyone has ever been saved by BoD.
According to NSAAers everywhere, infallible definitions are meant to be interpreted in order to have a more profound understanding.
According to NSAAers, that meaning of the sacred dogmas usually is Never to be maintained as declared by Holy Mother Church, rather, depending on what they want to believe, there must be an abandonment of what was declared under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding. This is the way NSAAers operate.
When Don read Trent's canon teaching that the sacraments are a necessity for salvation and that there is no justification without the sacraments - he accused me of heresy for posting Trent's canon, as though I was the one interpreting it. Ambrose did the exact same thing some months ago when he read the canon for the first time.
They are so far gone that they understand the heresy to be dogma and dogma to be heresy.
-
No good Catholic ought to entertain even the slightest doubt about the salvific efficacy of the Baptism of Desire and Blood.
The Roman Catechism plainly teaches, "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", thus clearly proving catechumens - including but not limited to martyrs - can be saved when it is impossible to "be washed in the salutary waters" without their own fault.
The Catechism follows St. Thomas word for word, and thus disproves Feeneyism in all its forms. It even disproves the innocuous theory Fr. Feeney proposed, that those who die justified may go to an eternal limbo-like state. For the Catechism had earlier stated the danger of dying and going to hell - i.e. limbo - was really present for infants. And it clearly says this same danger is not present for adults, proving that these adults who die justified do not go to limbo or hell, but will ultimately go to heaven.
CANON IV.-If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous; and 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 ineed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema.
The irreformable doctrine taught by the Roman Catechism is only the plain explanation, for the benefit of the faithful, of the dogma infallibly defined above. For in this infallible canon, it is dogmatically taught the sacraments that effect justification are necessary for salvation in re or in voto, since no one obtains justification without them or without the desire of them ("aut eurom voto" literally means the desire of them, proving that the desire of not one but two sacraments effects justification).
Also, it should not need to be repeated, but apparently there's no end to this - voto never refers to a supposed disposition, voto always refers to the reception of the sacramental effect in desire, in particular through perfect charity or contrition, combined with the desire to receive the sacrament. In this sense, Trent speaks of the voto not only of baptism but also of penance and the Eucharist.
You would know this if only you knew Latin, but most Feeneyites are ignorant of it. Feeneyites also generally disregard St. Thomas, but St. Pius X tells you that you have no hope of understanding the dogmas of the Church without understanding St. Thomas. If you don't know in other words what voto means in St. Thomas, and in Catholic sacramental theology, you won't know what it means in Trent. The same saintly Pope, like the great St. Pius V, of course explains it for the benefit of the faithful plainly in his Catechism, but you reject that.
Can he be a good Catholic who not only doubts but even openly denies the salvific efficacy of Perfect Contrition, of the sacrament of penance in voto? No, never. At best, he is excused by ignorance, at worst, he sins mortally. Can he boast of loving the Holy Eucharist who, guided by obstinacy and self-will, impiously denies the teaching of the Church on the Spiritual Communion, of the Eucharist in voto? Not possible. Neither can a man deny the doctrine of the Baptism of Desire and hope to remain a good Catholic.
-
According to Cantarella and Drew, the text of a dogmatic decree is mere "narrative" -- what CODSWALLOP!
-
BOB fulfills the criteria for a doctrine of the universal & ordinary magisterium; ERGO: de fide divina et catholica.
-
Ladislaus says: "You know nothing about dogmatic Catholic theology. You're just a blundering buffoon with an agenda."
Gratuitous ad hominem.
-
BOB is taught unanimously by the Fathers; it is taught by popes ) starting with St. Leo I); it is unanimously taught by the Doctors; it has been taught by the universal magisterium: ERGO - de fide.
-
Ladislsus says: "You know nothing about dogmatic Catholic theology. You're just a blundering buffoon with an agenda."
The Pontificia Studiorum Universitas a S. Thoma Aq. in Urbe said differently, Ladislaus: "Summa cuм Laude".
-
BOB fulfills the criteria for a doctrine of the universal & ordinary magisterium; ERGO: de fide divina et catholica.
In this you find ZERO support from any REAL Catholic theologians. Cf. the work done by Father Cekada. You just make it up because you want it to be the case.
-
BOB is taught unanimously by the Fathers; it is taught by popes ) starting with St. Leo I); it is unanimously taught by the Doctors; it has been taught by the universal magisterium: ERGO - de fide.
None of that is even remotely true.
-
Even if all those pre-conciliar theologians do not agree on the theological note; they are, nevertheless, in unanimous agreement in favour of BOB -- one of the indicators that a doctrine is of the universal magisterium. BOB is taught unanimously as Catholic Doctrine in catechisms -- another indicator . . .
-
Ladislaus has lost touch with reality. He says: "None of that is even remotely true." (After I provided copious docuмentation.)
-
Ladislaus is wasting my time with his gratuitous codswallop.
-
Get a life, Ladislaus.
-
BOB is taught unanimously by the Fathers; it is taught by popes ) starting with St. Leo I); it is unanimously taught by the Doctors; it has been taught by the universal magisterium: ERGO - de fide.
None of that is even remotely true.
Was it by the unanimous consent of the early Fathers? Was it taught by the Apostles to their direct successors, and then to theirs?
Things such as the Assumption were believed from the beginning. The Apostles were witnesses to this. Did they or the first Fathers claim witness to a BoD?
-
Don Paolo has no concept about what unanimous consensus of the Fathers means. It's actually referred to by theologians as a dogmatic consensus because there's a lot more to it than just not having an explicit dissenting voice. Let's say you had ONE Father, or even TWO voice an opinion ... and no one holds an opposite opinion. So that now constitutes de fide teaching because it's "unopposed"? Codswallop, DP. Unopposed does not equal unanimous from the standpoint of dogmatic consensus. Unanimous consent refers to the idea that if Fathers all over the world universally agree on some truth of faith, teaching that it was taught by the Apostles, in that case it can be concluded that it was taught by the Apostles and therefore part of public revelation. There has to be testimony from all over the world from disparate Fathers about the subject, and they have to agree that it was Apostolic teaching.
With regard to BoB, 7-8 Church Fathers believed in it. But most of that opinion can be traced to St. Cyprian. But St. Augustine himself, in his famous passage on BoD, says that St. Cyprian inferred BoB from his interpretation of Scripture. There was no evidence that this was directly taught by the Apostles and therefore part of Public Revelation.
"That the place of baptism is sometimes supplied by martyrdom is supported by an argument by no means trivial, which the blessed Cyprian adduces from the thief, to whom, though he was not baptized, it was yet said, "To-day shall thou be with me in Paradise."
OK, so not directly taught by the Apostles but derived from Scripture. It's based on an ARGUMENT made by St. Cyprian. ERGO, it does not fall under the "unanimous consensus" category. ERGO, it's not based on Apostolic authority but is only as strong as the argument itself. It's founded upon St. Cyprian's argumentation and not upon Apostolic authority. St. Cyprian actually claimed Apostolic authority for his heretical belief that Baptism conferred by heretics was
Two little problems with St. Cyprian's argument. 1) Good thief was being killed not due to faith in Christ but because of his crimes. 2) Good thief died in the old economy of salvation, before the Sacrament of Baptism had been made mandatory. So FAIL in terms of it being deduced from Scripture.
St. Cyprian also had major flaws with the rest of his sacramental theology, as his theorizing about the invalidity of Baptism conferred by heretics was later condemned as heretical.
Bzzzt. Fail.
Maybe Don Mr. Paol that's why of the 25 theologians surveyed by Father Cekada exactly ZERO agree with your unfounded allegation that BoB is de fide.
As I said, just another buffoon with an agenda, making up theology after having begged the question regarding BoB. Your Modernist Theological Degree and $1 will get you a cup of coffee at a gas station. I took graduate level theology courses at The Catholic University of America, and these were complete jokes. I learned more in two months of Traditional theology at SSPX seminary than I did in many theology courses and modernist institutions.
-
Even if all those pre-conciliar theologians do not agree on the theological note; they are, nevertheless, in unanimous agreement in favour of BOB . . .
Actually they did agree; they were unanimous in saying that BoB is NOT de fide.
Yet you claim it is based upon buffoonish "reasoning" ... a warped definition of "unanimous consensus".
-
Don Paolo has no concept about what unanimous consensus of the Fathers means.
Yes, this is typical of all NSAAers and is generally true for all sedes.
He already called Trent heretical and agreed that his idea of salvation via NSAA is identical to the whole protestant's: "accept jesus into your heart, your sins will be forgiven and you will be saved brutha".
Don and LoE, Ambrose, JAM and the rest, being indoctrinated into the Novus Ordo for most of their lives, quote Trent as though Trent was as ambiguous as V2.
They wrongfully think that Trent needs interpretation to be understood, same as V2 - this comes from the corrupted ideas they adhere to which they were taught most of their lives - they simply cannot free themselves from damage done to them in their NO upbringing.
-
Ladislaus says: "Don Paolo has no concept about what unanimous consensus of the Fathers means."
What a stupid ass. Ladislaus is nothing but a nuisance -- and a BORE.
-
Ladislaus says: "Don Paolo has no concept about what unanimous consensus of the Fathers means."
What a stupid ass. Ladislaus is nothing but a nuisance -- and a BORE.
DP has nothing but ad hominems. I gave a lengthy explanation of what unanimous consensus ACTUALLY means, pointed out that NO theologian of those surveyed by Father Cekada agrees with you that BoB is de fide. You cannot counter my explanation of what "unanimous consensus" means. This is all you've got, a personal insult?
-
Ladislaus Continues with his incoherent blabbering.
-
St. Vincent of Lerins, explains the Church’s teaching: “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,” which, as the name itself and the reason of the thing declare, comprehends all universally. This rule we shall observe if we follow universality, antiquity, consent. We shall follow universality if we confess that one faith to be true, which the whole Church throughout the world confesses; antiquity, if we in no wise depart from those interpretations which it is manifest were notoriously held by our holy ancestors and fathers; consent, in like manner, if in antiquity itself we adhere to the consentient definitions and determinations of all, or at the least of almost all priests and doctors” (Commonitory 2). Notice that St. Vincent mentions “almost all priests and doctors”.
We have the testimony of St. Cyprian and Tertullian that BOB was universally professed in the Third Century; and the unanimous agreement of the Fathers in favour of BOB.
-
I have made extensive postings on BOB & BOD; demonstrating that they are of the universal & ordinary magisterium: which suffices to prove that BOB & BOD are de fide.
-
Is this teaching present in the Apostles direct successors or in their disciples teaching?
In the Tradition and teaching of the Church has a BoD been witnessed?
The antiquity of which St. Vincent speaks, is to be found in the unanimous belief and teaching of the early Fathers.
-
We have the testimony of St. Cyprian and Tertullian that BOB was universally professed in the Third Century;
1) Where?
2) St. Cyprian claimed that his notion that baptism administered by heretics is not valid also came from the Apostles. Tertullian left the Church.
-
I have made extensive postings on BOB & BOD; demonstrating that they are of the universal & ordinary magisterium: which suffices to prove that BOB & BOD are de fide.
In the opinion of you and ZERO other theologians (or, rather, actual theologians) ... in the case of BoB.
-
We have the testimony of St. Cyprian and Tertullian that BOB was universally professed in the Third Century;
1) Where?
2) St. Cyprian claimed that his notion that baptism administered by heretics is not valid also came from the Apostles. Tertullian left the Church.
That would mean that all of the third century's Fathers will have professed the teaching of BoD, would it not?
Universally means everywhere by all. There must be abundant evidence of this.
-
Don Paolo said:
We have the testimony of St. Cyprian and Tertullian that BOB was universally professed in the Third Century;
This still does not speak to the early Fathers of the first and second centuries, the realm of true antiquity.
-
Red Herring arguments. St. Cyprian's position on the baptism by heretics has no bearing whatsoever on his testimony on BOB; and Tertulian's testimony in his Catholic period is in no manner discredited by the fact that he later fell into heresy. You, Ladislaus & J Paul are not theologians -- you are comedians. I have wasted far too much time arguing with you.
-
I've never seen a quote from St. Cyprian or Tertullian claiming that everyone believes this. But even if there's such a quote, one Father's allegation doesn't suffice. See my explanation of "universal consensus" above, something which DP never addresses. St. Cyprian also claimed Apostolic authority for his eventually-heretical teaching that Baptism conferred by heretics was invalid.
-
Until DP produces the quote alleged, I will go on record to state that he simply pulled it from his scatological posterior.
-
You, Ladislaus & J Paul are not theologians -- ...
And YOU are?
:roll-laugh1:
Karl Rahner had theological training that would put every modern "theologian" to shame.
Again, explain, DP, why of 25 pre Vatican II theologians (you know, actual theologians, not those who passed through the modernist excuse for theological training) not ONE of them happens to notice that BoB is de fide ... since you claim it's obvious.
-
Until DP produces the quote alleged, I will go on record to state that he simply pulled it from his scatological posterior.
I'm guessing that DP is just pretending that because St. Cyprian and Tertullian believed in BoB, this itself constitutes UNIVERSAL CONSENSUS ... a completely idiotic claim. I have never seen a quote from any Father alleging that everyone throughout the Catholic world believes this. And given the years and years during which I have been participating in the debate, surely SOMEONE would have cited this.
I believe that DP is just a shameless liar.
-
St Cyprian's opinion on BOD was in regards to the converted heretics who were received back into the Church without being rebaptized. This has nothing to do with the fallible teaching of BOD for catechumens.
“God is powerful in His mercy to give forgiveness also to those who were admitted into the Church in simplicity [of heart] and who died in the Church and not to separate them from the gifts of the Church” (Letter to Jubaianus, n. 23, Patrologia Latina 3, 1125).
-
St. Cyprian ...
1) claimed that those who receive BoB actually receive the Sacrament of Baptism ... thus displaying faulty Sacramental theology in the very act of proposing BoB (a claim that's been rejected by every theologian since him).
2) has other grave errors regarding the Sacraments
3) according to St. Augustine, inferred BoB in grossly FAULTY manner from a passage in Sacred Scripture.
Bzzzt. Fail.
Tertullian also seemed to regard BoB as a quasi-Sacrament.
Both these Fathers also rejected BoD, so by the same "logic" that DP applies, the rejection of BoD is dogma.
Let's get this straight. Church Fathers are not infallible and do not have some kind of inherent authority or magical powers. Several fell into heresy. Their unique place in Church history consists merely in their proximity in time to the Apostles, who alone transmitted Public Revelation, and it's sometimes tricky business to determine what was of Apostolic origin and what was inferred by the Fathers themselves. St. Augustine is one of the greatest Fathers, but had had to publish an entire BOOK of corrections to errors he had made.
Idiot.
Bad-willed idiot.
-
St Cyprian's opinion on BOD was in regards to the converted heretics who were received back into the Church without being rebaptized. This has nothing to do with the fallible teaching of BOD for catechumens.
“God is powerful in His mercy to give forgiveness also to those who were admitted into the Church in simplicity [of heart] and who died in the Church and not to separate them from the gifts of the Church” (Letter to Jubaianus, n. 23, Patrologia Latina 3, 1125).
Yes, St. Cyprian actually REJECTED BoD. We're talking about his belief in BoB here.
-
Even the great St. Augustine, would say over a hundred years later, in his treatise De Baptismo, that St. Cyprian had atoned for his "excess" by his martyrdom. This in regards to his error about the invalidity of the baptisms in heretical sects and questioning Pope Stephen's authority on this matter.
-
First of all, Cantarella, the passage cited shows that St. Cyprian, who by the way first formulated EENS as we now know it, taught that those who did not receive baptism of water through no fault of their own, but desired to be good Catholics, would be saved. They thought they had been baptized, but they were not. Such cases probably exist in great number today, given the changes and laxity in administering the new sacraments. They were not unknown to Innocent III, and the medieval Church. What would you say would be the fate of such souls? Saved, because they desired to be good Catholics, and thought they had been baptized, or lost?
Also, you overlook something both St. Cyprian and St. Augustine point out, that the case of the Good Thief proves that love of Christ is intrinsically sufficient to obtain sanctifying grace. They then apply this to catechumens in their day, showing that this still avails through conversion of heart, if they are impeded from receiving Baptism through no fault of their own, but not if they have despised it. This shows that the Fathers have refuted your misunderstanding about dispensations. The same reasoning, applied to the Holy Innocents, proves BOB. That is because it proves that martyrdom, being intrinsically sufficient in any age to confer sufficient grace, is also sufficient now. It also proves the act of martyrdom works quasi ex opere operato, since infants lack volition. Infants receive the great and glorious Baptism of Blood just as they receive Holy Baptism, in Water, without their volition, but by the very work worked (the meaning of ex opere operato). Martyrdom is, to those privileged to receive it, the sacrament of baptism in voto and suffices for salvation.
For something to be unanimous, btw, it suffices that every, or almost every, Catholic authority that treats the subject teaches the doctrine in question, that no Catholic authority that treats the subject doubts or denies it. Numerical preponderance is not relevant. This btw is not necessary, but sufficient. And this is true for BOB.
St. Robert and scores of other later Catholic authorities tell us the doctrine of the Baptism of Desire, although taught by a few Fathers, was not yet settled with certainty at this time. But the doctrine of the Baptism of Blood certainly was, and its denial is heterodox.
Not even the heretical Peter Abelard, the last writer to contest the salvific efficacy of BOD in the Catholic Church, contested the salvific efficacy of BOB. It simply didn't occur to him to suggest, as you Feeneyites absurdly and fancifully do, that all the Saints in the early Church, who were known to have been publicly killed while yet catechumens scheduled to receive Holy Baptism in future, were secretly water baptized at the last moment.
Such a suggestion is an utter and profane novelty, and only comes about because you doubt the power of the Baptism of Blood, which according to immemorial Tradition is even more glorious than the Baptism of Water.
: "Let men of this kind, who are aiders and favourers of heretics, know therefore, first, that those catechumens hold the sound faith and truth of the Church, and advance from the divine camp to do battle with the devil, with a full and sincere acknowledgment of God the Father, and of Christ, and of the Holy Ghost; then, that they certainly are not deprived of the sacrament of baptism who are baptized with the most glorious and greatest baptism of blood".
: "That the place of baptism is sometimes supplied by martyrdom is supported by an argument by no means trivial, which the blessed Cyprian adduces from the thief, to whom, though he was not baptized, it was yet said, "To-day shall thou be with me in Paradise." On considering which, again and again, I find that not only martyrdom for the sake of Christ may supply what was wanting of baptism, but also faith and conversion of heart, if recourse may not be had to the celebration of the mystery of baptism for want of time. For neither was that thief crucified for the name of Christ, but as the reward of his own deeds; nor did he suffer because he believed, but he believed while suffering. It was shown, therefore, in the case of that thief, how great is the power even without the visible sacrament of baptism, of what the apostle says, "With the heart man believeth unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation." But the want is supplied invisibly only when the administration of baptism is prevented, not by contempt for religion, but by the necessity of the moment."
Lecture XIII: "For since in the Gospels the power of salutary Baptism is twofold, one which is granted by means of water to the illuminated, and a second to holy martyrs, in persecutions, through their own blood, there came out of that saving Side blood and water, to confirm the grace of the confession made for Christ, whether in baptism, or on occasions of martyrdom."
: "And ere now there have been some who in their championship of true religion have undergone the death for Christ's sake, not in mere similitude, but in actual fact, and so have needed none of the outward signs of water for their salvation, because they were baptized in their own blood. Thus I write not to disparage the baptism by water, but to overthrow the arguments of those who exalt themselves against the Spirit; who confound things that are distinct from one another, and compare those which admit of no comparison."
: "A Roman virgin, step-sister of the blessed Agnes, while still a catechumen, burning with faith and charity, when she vehemently rebuked idol-worshippers who were stealing from Christians, was stoned and struck down by the crowd which she had angered. Praying in her agony at the tomb of holy Agnes, baptized by her own blood which she poured forth unflinchingly for Christ, she gave up her soul to God."
See the force with which these Fathers and Doctors controvert the proponents of heterodoxy in their day. "Aiders and favorers of heretics", "those who exalt themselves against the Spirit" all showing that this was in no way regarded as a permissible opinion.
-
First of all, Cantarella, the passage cited shows that St. Cyprian, who by the way first formulated EENS as we now know it, taught that those who did not receive baptism of water through no fault of their own, but desired to be good Catholics, would be saved. They thought they had been baptized, but they were not. Such cases probably exist in great number today, given the changes and laxity in administering the new sacraments. They were not unknown to Innocent III, and the medieval Church. What would you say would be the fate of such souls? Saved, because they desired to be good Catholics, and thought they had been baptized, or lost?
There are no such people. Never have been and never will be. And why did you leave out the correct choice?
Anyone who lives as a good Catholic yet is unbaptized, will be baptized in God's time before He takes them from this world. The Providence of God assures us of this.
Why does this reality never, not ever, not even in their wildest theological conclusions does this ever enter into the hearts of proponents of salvation via NSAA?
Would you let your child live a good Catholic life but neglect to see to it, that your child was baptized? "If you then being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children: how much more will your Father who is in heaven, give good things to them that ask him?"
Also, you overlook something both St. Cyprian and St. Augustine point out, that the case of the Good Thief proves that love of Christ is intrinsically sufficient to obtain sanctifying grace.
This thinking has been condemned. You are preaching the protestant version of salvation via faith alone. What you just stated is exactly the same belief prots hold to: "Believe in the lord jesus and accept him as your personal savior and your sins will be forgiven and you will be saved."
How many times must it be repeated before it is accepted that the Sacrament of Baptism was not made obligatory upon every human being until after Pentecost?
-
You know, this is something I've grappled with for a little while. I always got the sense that the Fathers like St. Cyprian and Tertullian who believed in BoB believed that BoB was just an extraordinary form of the Sacrament of Baptism itself.
Cantarella uncovered a quote from St. Cyprian that completely backs this up.
[Martyrdom] is a baptism greater in grace, more lofty in power, more precious in honor-a baptism wherein angels baptize-a baptism in which God and His Christ exult-a baptism after which no one sins any more-a baptism which completes the increase of our faith-a baptism which, as we withdraw from the world, immediately associates us with God.
This now explains his other famous quote about BoB:
Catechumens who suffer martyrdom before they have received Baptism with water are not deprived of the Sacrament of Baptism. Rather, they are baptized with the most glorious and greatest Baptism of Blood…
It's as if St. Cyprian believed that in BoB the blood substituted in the place of water for the matter of the Sacrament and the angels would pronounce the words of Baptism as the blood flowed.
Neither of these Fathers believed in salvation without the Sacrament of Baptism but instead had this concept of the Sacrament being administered in an extraordinary fashion in BoB.
Both these men REJECTED the notion of BoD.
If their testimony is definitive regarding the existence of BoB, then it should be taken as equally definitive in their rejection of BoD.
Again, this is not proof for any belief that there could be salvation without the Sacrament of Baptism, since St. Cyprian states that in BoB people receive THE SACRAMENT of Baptism, an expression which most modern BoB advocates would reject as faulty.
See the BoDers would love to have their cake an eat it to. St. Cyprian MUST have been right about BoB in general even if he HAPPENED to be mistaken about how it worked and what it actually was? Well, WHY MUST he be correct about its existence when it's possible that he was completely wrong in his explanation of how it worked? Answer: there is not reason at all, except that's what the BoDers dishonestly WANT to be the case.
-
Sorry, Nishant, but St. Cyprian did not believe in any "love of Christ" baptism. He believed that the Sacrament of Baptism was required for salvation. In my previous post is unlocked the reason why a number of Church Fathers believed in BoB but at the same time rejected BoD, because they believe that blood replaced water as matter for the Sacrament, while the form was supplied by the "angels".
-
Protestants believe in the heresy of faith alone, without the sacraments or the desire of them. Trent teaches that faith that works by charity and contrition, together with the desire of the sacraments avails one to grace and justice. This is true of both sacraments that effect justification, namely baptism and penance. That such is the effect of contrition is the unanimous testimony of Tradition, Holy Writ and the Magisterium.
Moreover, the Fathers, Saints and Doctors apply the Scriptural examples to catechumens and martyrs in their day. So, you are wrong to believe there are no such people, as the Church has already taught us specific souls have been saved by Baptism of Desire and Blood. God certainly could have predestined every one of His elect to receive water baptism, but He has not done so. God could also have predestined that every mortal sinner who desires penance will be provided with a priest, but He has chosen to save some souls through perfect contrition, combined with a desire for penance. The same is true in both instances, what matters is not what God could have done, but what the Church informs us that He has done.
St. John Vianney, St. Padre Pio, St. Catherine of Sienna, St. Therese Liseux, St. Ambrose and St. Eusebius are just a few in a long list of Saints who inform us souls have been saved by Baptism of Desire. The Church has declared Theologia Moralis of St. Alphonsus to be free from error and that book teaches that souls are saved by Baptism of Desire.
Q. 654. How do we know that the baptism of desire or of blood will save us when it is impossible to receive the baptism of water?
A. We know that baptism of desire or of blood will save us when it is impossible to receive the baptism of water, from Holy Scripture, which teaches that love of God and perfect contrition can secure the remission of sins ; and also that Our Lord promises salvation to those who lay down their life for His sake or for His teaching.
Baptism, Necessity of Baptism and Obligations of the Baptized: 17 Q. Can the absence of Baptism be supplied in any other way? A. The absence of Baptism can be supplied by martyrdom, which is called Baptism of Blood, or by an act of perfect love of God, or of contrition, along with the desire, at least implicit, of Baptism, and this is called Baptism of Desire.
What will you answer all these Popes and all these Saints when they ask you why you did not believe in what they plainly taught?
-
BOB & BOD, (as I demonstrated earlier) is implicitly contained in the apostolic tradition. The doctrines developed -- they were not new doctrines.
-
BOB & BOD, (as I demonstrated earlier) is implicitly contained in the apostolic tradition. The doctrines developed -- they were not new doctrines.
You keep saying that without any proof.
You make up this idea that St. Cyprian and Tertullian say that belief in BoB is universal.
You just make gratuitous assertions and follow them up with insults ... but bring no substance whatsoever.
-
I'm sorry, Ladislaus, but I have trouble seeing how the passage in St. Cyprian says what you are saying, on either martyrdom or BOD. Let's start with BOD. What is your opinion on the fate of those who, desiring to be good Catholics but not baptized or baptized invalidly, ended their lives in Catholic communion? If they are saved, it is by BOD. So are they lost? And if you say no such persons exist, you can't deny St. Cyprian thinks they do. St. Cyprian says the Lord in His mercy will provide for them. The person mentioned by Innocent II (Dz. 388), in the Apostolic Canon cited later by St. Alphonsus, is held to be one such known example, a person saved by Baptism of Desire, who died in Catholic communion and in the bosom of the Church. You will not say he, and all such like persons, are saved by a secret water baptism, will you?
-
Protestants believe in the heresy of faith alone, without the sacraments or the desire of them. Trent teaches that faith that works by charity and contrition, together with the desire of the sacraments avails one to grace and justice. This is true of both sacraments that effect justification, namely baptism and penance. That such is the effect of contrition is the unanimous testimony of Tradition, Holy Writ and the Magisterium.
This has been hashed over a million times here - suffice to say that my prot infidel who accepts the lord has his sins forgiven and is saved in the exact same manner as your catechumen. Both are saved via NSAA. Neither need to actually desire the sacrament and according to this (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=24193&min=319&num=1) both are saved "even though they have never heard of the existence of the sacrament of baptism."
Both my prot infidel and your catholic(?) infidel made the required perfect act of love, both have perfect contrition, both are presumed saved via faith alone.
In short, both are saved through their desire to be saved - in that aspect, there is zero difference between your infidel and my infidel.
Q. 654. How do we know that the baptism of desire or of blood will save us when it is impossible to receive the baptism of water?
A. We know that baptism of desire or of blood will save us when it is impossible to receive the baptism of water, from Holy Scripture, which teaches that love of God and perfect contrition can secure the remission of sins ; and also that Our Lord promises salvation to those who lay down their life for His sake or for His teaching.
Baptism, Necessity of Baptism and Obligations of the Baptized: 17 Q. Can the absence of Baptism be supplied in any other way? A. The absence of Baptism can be supplied by martyrdom, which is called Baptism of Blood, or by an act of perfect love of God, or of contrition, along with the desire, at least implicit, of Baptism, and this is called Baptism of Desire.
What will you answer all these Popes and all these Saints when they ask you why you did not believe in what they plainly taught?
The popes did not teach a BOD, text books called "catechisms" taught it - and why don't you quote Pope John Paul II's catechism? - since it explains a BOD much clearer than any other catechism.
You have not answered my questions, so please answer them:
Anyone who lives as a good Catholic yet is unbaptized, will be baptized in God's time before He takes them from this world. The Providence of God assures us of this.
Why does this reality never, not ever, not even in their wildest theological conclusions does this ever enter into the hearts of proponents of salvation via NSAA?
Would you let your child live a good Catholic life but neglect to see to it, that your child was baptized? "If you then being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children: how much more will your Father who is in heaven, give good things to them that ask him?"
Well, would you let your child live a good Catholic life but neglect to see to it, that your child was baptized?
-
I posted the direct quotations earlier. You are lying, Ladislaus.
-
Since 1588 the popes (through the Congregation of the Council) have monitored and authorized what may be taught in official Catechisms. Catechisms are not textbooks written and published by private authors; but are official compendia of Catholic Doctrine. The popes authorized that BOB & BOD be taught in the catechisms, and notably St. Pius X promulgated his catechism, and imposed it on all the suffragan dioceses of the ecclesiastical province of Rome. There is hardly a more clear cut example of doctrines infallibly taught by the universal & ordinary magisterium than BOB & BOD.
-
Since 1588 the popes (through the Congregation of the Council) have monitored and authorized what may be taught in official Catechisms. Catechisms are not textbooks written and published by private authors; but are official compendia of Catholic Doctrine. The popes authorized that BOB & BOD be taught in the catechisms, and notably St. Pius X promulgated his catechism, and imposed it on all the suffragan dioceses of the ecclesiastical province of Rome. There is hardly a more clear cut example of doctrines infallibly taught by the universal & ordinary magisterium than BOB & BOD.
Then start quoting from Pope John Paul II's catechism.
-
I posted the direct quotations earlier. You are lying, Ladislaus.
Post them again. This is a 154-page thread.
-
I'm sorry, Ladislaus, but I have trouble seeing how the passage in St. Cyprian says what you are saying, on either martyrdom or BOD. Let's start with BOD. What is your opinion on the fate of those who, desiring to be good Catholics but not baptized or baptized invalidly, ended their lives in Catholic communion? If they are saved, it is by BOD. So are they lost? And if you say no such persons exist, you can't deny St. Cyprian thinks they do. St. Cyprian says the Lord in His mercy will provide for them. The person mentioned by Innocent II (Dz. 388), in the Apostolic Canon cited later by St. Alphonsus, is held to be one such known example, a person saved by Baptism of Desire, who died in Catholic communion and in the bosom of the Church. You will not say he, and all such like persons, are saved by a secret water baptism, will you?
I'm sorry, Nishant, but it's right there in St. Cyprian. I'm not interested right now in Innocent II or St. Alphonsus or anyone else.
St. Cyprian says that in BoB people are not deprived of the Sacrament of Baptism, and elsewhere he says that the angels administer Baptism to those in BoB scenarios. Both St. Cyprian and Tertullian reject BoD.
-
Since 1588 the popes (through the Congregation of the Council) have monitored and authorized what may be taught in official Catechisms. Catechisms are not textbooks written and published by private authors; but are official compendia of Catholic Doctrine. The popes authorized that BOB & BOD be taught in the catechisms, and notably St. Pius X promulgated his catechism, and imposed it on all the suffragan dioceses of the ecclesiastical province of Rome. There is hardly a more clear cut example of doctrines infallibly taught by the universal & ordinary magisterium than BOB & BOD.
Stop changing the subject. I'm not interested in that right now. I'm refuting your gratuitous and false assertion that there's unanimous consensus of the Fathers on BoB. That's how you keep slinking away from being refuted. You just change the subject, hurl ad hominems and pretend that you already proved your point.
Explain how of the 25 pre-Vatican II theologians (actual real big-name theologians) surveyed by Father Cekada, exactly ZERO of them agree with you that BoB is de fide. Evidently you're the first great luminary to have spotted this.
-
BOB & BOD have been the universal teaching of the ordinary magisterium since the Sixteenth Century -- they must be believed with divine & Catholic faith.
-
Baptism in voto is de fide. Decree on Justification, Ch. 4. Justification takes place by Baptismal Water or by repentance and the resolve to receive it. Justification alone suffices for salvation (provided that one die in the justified state (Ch. 16). Feeney's doctrine that one can be justified by BOD, but not enter heaven without water baptism is HERESY.
-
BOB & BOD have been the universal teaching of the ordinary magisterium since the Sixteenth Century -- they must be believed with divine & Catholic faith.
Again, I am asking for this teaching in antiquity, that of the first and second century, not fourteen centuries later.
-
Then start quoting from Pope John Paul II's catechism.
The mention of this heretical volume never seems to elicit an answer.
-
BOB is of the universal & ordinary magisterium since the Third Century, unanimously taught by the Fathers and Pope St. Leo I.
-
BOB is of the universal & ordinary magisterium since the Third Century, unanimously taught by the Fathers and Pope St. Leo I.
Quod gratis affirmatur, gratis et negatur.
You just keep saying this over and over again; you have no idea what unanimous consensus means.
-
First of all, Cantarella, the passage cited shows that St. Cyprian, who by the way first formulated EENS as we now know it, taught that those who did not receive baptism of water through no fault of their own, but desired to be good Catholics, would be saved. They thought they had been baptized, but they were not. Such cases probably exist in great number today, given the changes and laxity in administering the new sacraments
Yes, this is St Cyprian's teaching on EENS and notice the last statement:
“He who has turned his back on the Church of Christ shall not come to the rewards of Christ; he is an alien, a worldling, an enemy. You cannot have God for your Father if you have not the Church for your mother. Our Lord warns us when He says: `he that is not with Me is against Me, and he that gathereth not with Me scattereth.’ Whosoever breaks the peace and harmony of Christ acts against Christ; whoever gathers elsewhere than in the Church scatters the Church of Christ.” (Unity of the Catholic Church )
“He who does not hold this unity, does not hold the law of God, does not hold the faith of the Father and the Son, does not hold life and salvation.” (Patrologiae Cursus Completus: Latina , Father Migne)
“Nay, though they should suffer death for the confession of the Name, the guilt of such men is not removed even by their blood…No martyr can he be who is not in the Church.” (Ancient Christian Writers )
It is clear that those who suffer death for Christ and the Faith but are outside the Church cannot be saved. This in accordance with the Council of Florence, which defined infallibly 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” (“Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra)".
-
BOB is of the universal & ordinary magisterium since the Third Century, unanimously taught by the Fathers and Pope St. Leo I.
So it is not to be found in the earliest Fathers, but it was taught by all of the Fathers from the Third Century forward, is that what you are proposing?
-
The neurotic troll, Ladislaus says: "You just keep saying this over and over again; you have no idea what unanimous consensus means." The first affirmation is a lie -- I produced ample quotations from the Fathers in support of unanimous agreement of the Fathers. The second clause is a baseless and gratuitous ad hominem. Ladislsus needs psychiatric therapy.
-
J. Paul: I have already posted the quotations of the Fathers. They are in unanimous agreement on BOB. It is of no importance whatever that the earlier apostolic Fathers are silent on a point: it is sufficient that a doctrine be of unanimous agreement; and that the doctrine be at least implicitly contained in the deposit of revelation, as Pius XI explains in Mortalium Animos.
-
Maryknoll Catholic Dictionary, “When the Fathers of the Church are morally unanimous in their teaching that a certain doctrine is a part of revelation, or is received by the universal Church, or that the opposite of a doctrine is heretical, then their united testimony is a certain criterion of divine tradition. As the Fathers are not personally infallible, the counter-testimony of one or two would not be destructive of the value of the collective testimony; so a moral unanimity only is required” (Wilkes-Barre, Penn.: Dimension Books, 1965), pg. 153.
-
Yves Congar in Traditions and Tradition: An Historical and a Theological Essay (New York: Macmillan Company, 1966), pp. 397-400: “In every age the consensus of the faithful, still more the agreement of those who are commissioned to teach them, has been regarded as a guarantee of truth: not because of some mystique of universal suffrage, but because of the Gospel principle that unanimity and fellowship in Christian matters requires, and also indicates, the intervention of the Holy Spirit. From the time when the patristic argument first began to be used in dogmatic controversies-it first appeared in the second century and gained general currency in the fourth-, theologians have tried to establish agreement among qualified witnesses of the faith, and have tried to prove from this agreement that such was in fact the Church’s belief. As a matter of fact, a few testimonies sufficed, even that of one single man if his particular situation or the consideration accorded him by the Church were such as to give to what he said the value of coming from a quasi-personification of the whole Church at that time. The decisive factor was not mere quantity but the representative quality of the testimony: “Non numerentur, sed ponderentur!”
-
Ladislsus needs psychiatric therapy.
Don Paolo needs an exorcism.
-
Maryknoll Catholic Dictionary, “When the Fathers of the Church are morally unanimous in their teaching that a certain doctrine is a part of revelation, or is received by the universal Church, or that the opposite of a doctrine is heretical, then their united testimony is a certain criterion of divine tradition. As the Fathers are not personally infallible, the counter-testimony of one or two would not be destructive of the value of the collective testimony; so a moral unanimity only is required” (Wilkes-Barre, Penn.: Dimension Books, 1965), pg. 153.
Too bad for you that the overwhelming moral unanimity teaches that there is no salvation without the sacrament of baptism. Pretty much blows your whole prot idea of a BOD right outta the water.
-
Don Paolo is nothing but a bad-willed simpleton. No, the issue isn't about numbers per se.
Church Fathers do not have any kind of inherent dogmatic force; what's at issue is the probative value of such testimony with regard to what was or what was not part of Apostolic Tradition. There are many considerations involved. One key indicator usually applied is that the Fathers claim that a certain teaching is in fact of Apostolic origin. But even THAT by itself does not suffice, for St. Cyprian claimed that regarding his erroneous position regarding the validity of Baptism conferred by heretics. We have the testimony of St. Augustine that St. Cyprian inferred the concept of BoB from various arguments made from Scripture. But we've already pointed out that those arguments were faulty. Patristic evidence with regard to BoB is sparse. There are about 7-8 Fathers who hold it. In a number of these cases, it's either clear that the Father is referring to a second Baptism in martyrdom, or unclear that the Father is NOT referring to it in this way. There are about 5-6 others that can be traced directly back to St. Cyprian, who appears to have been one of the originators of the idea.
On the other hand 7-8 Church Fathers REJECT Baptism of Desire, with only one (by his own opinion speculating to the contrary). One can easily argue that there's unanimous Patristic consensus AGAINST there being Baptism of Desire.
But DP in his rabid need to reject EENS just gratuitously claims that the testimony of St. Cyprian and Tertullian suffice to establish unanimous consensus. They do not.
-
Maryknoll Catholic Dictionary, “When the Fathers of the Church are morally unanimous in their teaching that a certain doctrine is a part of revelation, or is received by the universal Church, or that the opposite of a doctrine is heretical, then their united testimony is a certain criterion of divine tradition. As the Fathers are not personally infallible, the counter-testimony of one or two would not be destructive of the value of the collective testimony; so a moral unanimity only is required” (Wilkes-Barre, Penn.: Dimension Books, 1965), pg. 153.
See bolded sections ... which DP failed to comprehend in his cut-and-paste job from a Google search. That's why it's referred to as DOGMATIC consensus by the theologians who know what they are doing (and not "unanimous" consensus).
Please find a quote from a Church Father which teaches that BoB was revealed, i.e. of Apostolic Tradition, was held by the Universal Church, or that the rejection of BoB was heretical. That's why I was interested when you alleged that St. Cyprian and Tertullian taught this. But you have yet to produce a quote.
-
Here is Don's a BOD, taken from a prot website:
Forgiveness – is it really that easy?
Yes it is that easy! You can’t earn forgiveness from God. You can’t pay for your forgiveness from God. You can only receive it, by faith, through the grace and mercy of God. If you accept Jesus Christ as your Savior you will receive forgiveness from God and you will be saved!
- can I get an "amen"?
One difference between a BOD as promoted here on CI and the prot version is......the prot version does not require an unforeseen accidental death, other than that, they are the same, which either means that a BOD is a protestant teaching or the prots err in missing the unforeseen accidental death.
Which is it?
-
I have already provided the patristic quotations, troll. Ladislaus is becoming repetetive with his fallacious arguments. What a bore.
-
What Stobborn does not take into account is that the same Fathers and Doctors who teach BOB and/or BOD, also teach the necessity of Baptism, and EENS. Baptism "in voto" is taught by the Council of Trent. It is a desperate argument to say there is never the res sacramenti of Baptism without the sacramental water. What is absolutely necessary is the res sacramenti, and not the sacramentum tantum.
-
Ladislaus comes up with yet another preposterously incoherent rant:
"Church Fathers do not have any kind of inherent dogmatic force; what's at issue is the probative value of such testimony with regard to what was or what was not part of Apostolic Tradition. There are many considerations involved. One key indicator usually applied is that the Fathers claim that a certain teaching is in fact of Apostolic origin. But even THAT by itself does not suffice, for St. Cyprian claimed that regarding his erroneous position regarding the validity of Baptism conferred by heretics. We have the testimony of St. Augustine that St. Cyprian inferred the concept of BoB from various arguments made from Scripture. But we've already pointed out that those arguments were faulty. Patristic evidence with regard to BoB is sparse. There are about 7-8 Fathers who hold it. In a number of these cases, it's either clear that the Father is referring to a second Baptism in martyrdom, or unclear that the Father is NOT referring to it in this way. There are about 5-6 others that can be traced directly back to St. Cyprian, who appears to have been one of the originators of the idea.
On the other hand 7-8 Church Fathers REJECT Baptism of Desire, with only one (by his own opinion speculating to the contrary). One can easily argue that there's unanimous Patristic consensus AGAINST there being Baptism of Desire.
But DP in his rabid need to reject EENS just gratuitously claims that the testimony of St. Cyprian and Tertullian suffice to establish unanimous consensus. They do not."
The stupid ass seems to think that by adhering to the teaching of the Doctors, popes, and the ordinary magisterium, I am rejecting EENS. I never stated that Tertullian and St. Cyprian suffice to establish unanimous consensus. Ladislaus is a totally amoral liar who chronically resorts to deception: he does not reply to a argument; but replies to his own distorted misrepresentation of my arguments with his own theologically incoherent rants.
-
You Feeneyites are obstinate in your heresy. I shake the dust of heretic Drew's thread from my shoes! You are all on your way to hell.
-
What Stobborn does not take into account is that the same Fathers and Doctors who teach BOB and/or BOD, also teach the necessity of Baptism, and EENS. Baptism "in voto" is taught by the Council of Trent. It is a desperate argument to say there is never the res sacramenti of Baptism without the sacramental water. What is absolutely necessary is the res sacramenti, and not the sacramentum tantum.
The problem is that those who speculated about a BOD did not make it into dogma as you do - it is nothing more than an opinion which turned out to be wrong - simple as that.
This wrong opinion is what the prots use to get themselves saved, but since you think it's dogma, you refuse to see that your idea of a BOD is protestant right through.
Baptism in voto was not ever, no never, taught by the Council of Trent and no matter how many times you say it was, that fact will remain the same.
What you say about those who echo Trent's teaching that the sacraments are a necessity unto salvation is what you say about Trent. IOW, you literally condemn Trent in your error of promoting the prot idea of salvation via a desire, which is salvation via NSAA - and THAT is heresy.
-
As Pius XII supports Fr Feeney in Humani Generis, there is No Such Thing as a 'Feeneyite'. :pop:
-
Never an actual argument from the invalidly-ordained priest, just insults and scatological ad hominems.
-
DP has never addressed the issue of why he can claim that rejection of BoB is heresy when not a single actual, real theologian claims that it is. He just keeps repeating himself and hurling additional insults; the sum total of his wit and wisdom consists in coming up with different variant expressions related to fecal matter.
-
I'm beginning to think that this DP is an imposter and not actually "Fr." Kramer. Fr. Kramer appears to come across as somewhat intelligent and articulate overall. This DP here wouldn't know a basic logical construct if it hit him in the face. He's a complete ignoramus. LoT and Ambrose run circles around him when it comes to actually being somewhat reasonable and articulate, and Nishant makes him look like an absolute bumbling idiot.
-
You Feeneyites are obstinate in your heresy. I shake the dust of heretic Drew's thread from my shoes! You are all on your way to hell.
Let's pray that they abandon their heresies and mortally sinful errors while they still have time. I hope that they abandon their heresies, confess their sins, and come back to the full Catholic Faith, not just 99% of the Church's Teaching, but 100%.
Every page of the catechism must be believed, none denied. Catholicism is not al la carte.
-
You Feeneyites are obstinate in your heresy. I shake the dust of heretic Drew's thread from my shoes! You are all on your way to hell.
Let's pray that they abandon their heresies and mortally sinful errors while they still have time. I hope that they abandon their heresies, confess their sins, and come back to the full Catholic Faith, not just 99% of the Church's Teaching, but 100%.
Every page of the catechism must be believed, none denied. Catholicism is not al la carte.
Then start quoting from every page of Pope John Paul II's catechism.
-
Let's pray that they abandon their heresies and mortally sinful errors while they still have time.
Thus says the Pelagian Cushingite heretic who's gone on record to ridicule the Sacrament of Baptism and admits that his motivation is rejection of EENS. Interesting that Nishant posted a condemnation of your position but then never actually surfaces to rebuke you for your Pelagian heresy.
DP, why don't you address Ambrose's and LoT's allegation that you are not a validly ordained priest. Ambrose, would you like to admonish brother Kramer and advise him to seek conditional ordination? That way perhaps he might obtain the graces of state to abandon his Pelagian heresy and so that he can actually represent the priesthood in a becoming fashion.
-
Ladislaus, you are mistaken. Denying the doctrine of the Baptism of Desire, according to theologians and the Church, is a mortal sin.
I do not agree with the minority position (neither does Ambrose, for that matter), and I personally have argued against it before, and will argue against it in future, as I did there, and as the Doctors personally did and taught us.
You ought to read the below carefully, then explain how Feeneyites do not do precisely what the Pope condemns.
For Catholics among the simple faithful, it suffices to learn and hold the Faith entirely as they learnt it in their catechisms. For those who have studied the Faith and sacred theology, it is an absolute obligation the Church has laid down to hold to all the truths taught by the Church according to the degrees and grades of certitude theologians under the guidance of the Church have assigned to them. Otherwise, one cannot be of service to Her, as the Pope clearly teaches.
Explain.
1679 Indeed we were aware, Venerable Brother, that some Catholics who devote their time to cultivating the higher studies, trusting too much in the powers of human ability, have not been frightened by the dangers of errors, lest, in asserting the false and insincere liberty of science, they be snatched away beyond the limits beyond which the obedience due to the teaching power of the Church, divinely appointed to preserve the integrity of all revealed truth, does not permit them to proceed. Therefore, it happens that Catholics of this sort are unhappily deceived, and often agree with those who decry and protest against the decrees of this Apostolic See and of Our Congregations, that they (decrees) hinder the free progress of science [see n. 1712]; and they expose themselves to the danger of breaking those sacred ties of obedience by which, according to the will of God, they are bound to this same Apostolic See which has been appointed by God as the teacher and defender of truth.
1680 Nor, are We ignorant that in Germany also there prevailed a false opinion against the old school, and against the teaching of those supreme doctors [see n. 1713], whom the universal Church venerates because of their admirable wisdom and sanctity of life. By this false opinion the authority of the Church itself is called into danger, especially since the Church, not only through so many continuous centuries has permitted that theological science be cultivated according to the method and the principles of these same Doctors, sanctioned by the common consent of all Catholic schools, but it (the Church) also very often extolled their theological doctrine with the highest praises, and strongly recommended it as a very strong buttress of faith and a formidable armory against its enemies.
1683 While, in truth, We laud these men with due praise because they professed the truth which necessarily arises from their obligation to the Catholic faith, We wish to persuade Ourselves that they did not wish to confine the obligation, by which Catholic teachers and writers are absolutely bound, only to those decrees which are set forth by the infallible judgment of the Church as dogmas of faith to be believed by all [see n. 1722]. And We persuade Ourselves, also, that they did not wish to declare that that perfect adhesion to revealed truths, which they recognized as absolutely necessary to attain true progress in the sciences and to refute errors, could be obtained if faith and obedience were given only to the dogmas expressly defined by the Church. For, even if it were a matter concerning that subjection which is to be manifested by an act o f divine faith, nevertheless, it would not have to be limited to those matters which have been defined by express decrees of the ecuмenical Councils, or of the Roman Pontiffs and of this See, but would have to be extended also to those matters which are handed down as divinely revealed by the ordinary teaching power of the whole Church spread throughout the world, and therefore, by universal and common consent are held by Catholic theologians to belong to faith.
1684 But, since it is a matter of that subjection by which in conscience all those Catholics are bound who work in the speculative sciences, in order that they may bring new advantages to the Church by their writings, on that account, then, the men of that same convention should recognize that it is not sufficient for learned Catholics to accept and revere the aforesaid dogmas of the Church, but that it is also necessary to subject themselves to the decisions pertaining to doctrine which are issued by the Pontifical Congregations, and also to those forms of doctrine which are held by the common and constant consent of Catholics as theological truths and conclusions, so certain that opinions opposed to these same forms of doctrine, although they cannot be called heretical, nevertheless deserve some theological censure.
-
Ah, Nishant; just when I thought that I had found an honest advocate of BoD.
From what you posted earlier, with my emphases added:
Throughout the Christian ages, the Athanasian Creed was ALWAYS AND EVERYWHERE understood to mean no one was saved without the Catholic Faith, "Whoever wishes to be saved, before all things he must hold the Catholic Faith. Now the Catholic Faith is this, that we worship God in Trinity, and Trinity in unity ... whoever wishes to be saved must think thus on the Trinity. Furthermore it is necessary for everlasting salvation that he also believe faithfully the Incarnation of Our Lord Jesus Christ. This is the Catholic Faith, which except a man believe firmly and faithfully, he cannot be saved." This is Tradition, this is what we must believe and must defend, the necessity of the Catholic Faith.
The idea that this refers to a necessity of precept only is a novelty, first seriously suggested in the 15th and 16th centuries.
...
This is nothing other than the consecrated Tradition of the Fathers, contained in the infallible Athanasian Creed, repeated by St. Thomas, St. Alphonsus, St. Bernard and St. Bellarmine, that no one will be saved without the Catholic Faith, without believing in the Trinity and Incarnation, without knowing and loving Jesus Christ.
OK, so for about, oh, say, 1400-1500 years, it was believed, always, everywhere, and by all, a consecrated Tradition of the Fathers, that one must have explicit belief in the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation in order to be saved. If THAT does not constitute an infallible, dogmatic teaching of the Ordinary Universal Magisterium, then I HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA what Ordinary Universal Magisterium even means. Based on that 1500-year Tradition of the Ordinary Universal Magisterium, that's DOGMA !
But now you call its rejection "minority position"????? Not heresy? Not "mortal sin"? But "minority position"?
Again, so much for your honesty.
Like Diogenes, I should walk around with a flashlight during the day. When asked what I'm doing, I'll respond that I'm searching for an honest BoDer.
You rightly exposed the contrary view as rooted in Pelagianism and rightly denounced the rejection of the necessity of the Sacraments for salvation as heresy, and yet the only time you pop up is when you're attacking "Feeneyism". You have NOT ONCE emerged to slap down Ambrose, LoT, and Don Paolo for their advocation of Pelagianism, for their rejection of the dogma that the Sacraments are necessary for salvation, and for their often derrogatory comments regarding the Holy Sacrament of Baptism.
Yet, Nishant, you believe that the Ordinary Universal Magisterium can fail in rejecting Vatican II. So why couldn't there have been a similar previous failure with regard to "BoD"? You're not even consistent with yourself, man.
So my search continues for the honest BoDer.
-
Ladislaus, you are mistaken. Denying the doctrine of the Baptism of Desire, according to theologians and the Church, is a mortal sin.
According to SOME theologians. Something must be universally acknowledged as at least theologically certain in order for its rejection to constitute mortal sin. In Father Cekada's survey of the major pre Vatican II theologians, only ELEVEN of TWENTY-FIVE hold BoB to be at least theologically certain. Consequently, you hold the minority opinion that rejection of BoB is a mortal sin. FOURTEEN of the TWENTY-FIVE, only a slight majority, hold BoD to be at least theologically certain. Interestingly, you find more Patristic evidence for BoB than you do for BoD (majority of the Church Fathers rejected BoD), but you find next-to-zero actual Magisterial or even quasi-Magisterial support for it. Trent, in allegedly promoting BoD, was conspicuously silent on the subject of BoB.
BoD is nothing more than something that eventually became a widely-held opinion rooted in speculative theology and which has long been tolerated by the Church. There is ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE to establish that it has ever been anything more than that or ever COULD be anything more than that. There's ZERO evidence for it having been revealed or that it's even implicitly contained anywhere in Public Revelation. There's ZERO proof that anyone has ever been saved by BoD. There's more Patristic evidence for BoB, but it's NOT CONCLUSIVE, and there's next-to-zero Magisterial or quasi-Magisterial support for it anywhere to be found (which is why fewer of the pre-V2 theologians in the Father Cekada survey hold it to be at least theologically certain). In order for something to be established de fide it must be established as such with the certainty of faith, and there's no such certainty with regard to the Patristic evidence.
Like DP, Ambrose, LoT, and all the others, you just blow smoke and won't objectively look at the evidence.
-
I always wondered why you thought he was an honest BODer. There is no such thing.
They *always* revert back to salvation via NSAA being dogma and those who reject salvation via NSAA are the heretics. It's like the needle is stuck.
-
Ladislaus wrote:
DP, why don't you address Ambrose's and LoT's allegation that you are not a validly ordained priest. Ambrose, would you like to admonish brother Kramer and advise him to seek conditional ordination? That way perhaps he might obtain the graces of state to abandon his Pelagian heresy and so that he can actually represent the priesthood in a becoming fashion.
Quote my supposed allegation, or have the honesty to retract your statement.
-
Very briefly for now, I learn theology from those approved to teach, and books the Church has declared to be free from error, which all Catholics can hold and teach as their own, such as the below.
“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 Presbytero Non Baptizato and 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.” ...
“2. Is it required by a necessity of means or of precept to believe explicitly in the mysteries of the Holy Trinity and Incarnation after the promulgation of the gospel?
The first opinion and more common and held as more probable teaches belief is by necessity of means; Sanch. in Dec. lib. 2. c. 2. n. 8. Valent. 2. 2. d. 1. qu. 2. p. 4. Molina 1. part. qu. 1. a. 1 d. 2. Cont. Tourn. de praeceptis Decal. cap. 1. art. 1. §. 2. concl. 1. Juven. t. 6. diss. 4. a. 3. Antoine de virt. theol. cap. 1. qu. 2. Wigandt tr. 7. ex. 2. de fide n. 22. Concina t. 1. diss. 1. de fide cap. 8. n. 7. cuм Ledesma, Serra, Prado, etc. Also Salm. tr. 21. c. 2. punct. 2. n. 15. Cuniliat. tr. 4. de 1. Dec. praec. c. 1. §. 2. et Ronc. tr. 6. c. 2. But the last three say that in rare cases it may happen that one can be justified by implicit faith only…
But the second opinion that is also sufficiently probable says by necessity of precept all must explicitly believe in the mysteries. However, for necessity of means it is sufficient to implicitly believe in the mysteries.
-
Very briefly for now, I learn theology from those approved to teach, ...
Like the Vatican II Fathers???
-
Very briefly for now, I learn theology from those approved to teach, and books the Church has declared to be free from error, which all Catholics can hold and teach as their own, such as the below.
“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 ####o Non Baptizato and 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.” ...
“2. Is it required by a necessity of means or of precept to believe explicitly in the mysteries of the Holy Trinity and Incarnation after the promulgation of the gospel?
The first opinion and more common and held as more probable teaches belief is by necessity of means; Sanch. in Dec. lib. 2. c. 2. n. 8. Valent. 2. 2. d. 1. qu. 2. p. 4. Molina 1. part. qu. 1. a. 1 d. 2. Cont. Tourn. de praeceptis Decal. cap. 1. art. 1. §. 2. concl. 1. Juven. t. 6. diss. 4. a. 3. Antoine de virt. theol. cap. 1. qu. 2. Wigandt tr. 7. ex. 2. de fide n. 22. Concina t. 1. diss. 1. de fide cap. 8. n. 7. cuм Ledesma, Serra, Prado, etc. Also Salm. tr. 21. c. 2. punct. 2. n. 15. Cuniliat. tr. 4. de 1. Dec. praec. c. 1. §. 2. et Ronc. tr. 6. c. 2. But the last three say that in rare cases it may happen that one can be justified by implicit faith only…
But the second opinion that is also sufficiently probable says by necessity of precept all must explicitly believe in the mysteries. However, for necessity of means it is sufficient to implicitly believe in the mysteries.
"And books the Church has declared to be free from error".
Show us the Church declarations in these error free books where you learned that salvation via NSAA is taught.
-
Mr. Stubborn: the magisterium of the Church has not defined what what must be explicitly believed. St. Thomas teaches that if one does not have enough knowledge, but believes in God, and is properly disposed to be justified, then God will either enlighten that soul, or send a missionary to teach him. That question is totally distinct from the question of BOD. You people are so ignorant of Catholic doctrine.
-
Well Don,
He is the one who stated that he learned his theology "books the Church has declared to be free from error," and seeing as how he only backs it up with teachings which contradict defined dogma, it should be obvious even to you that wherever he learned his theology from, it was not from books declared to be free from error by the Church.
Since he and you and all NSAAers reject defined *dogma*, which is certainly infallibly taught in favor of "profound explanations" which, BTW, was condemned by V1, why should any one believe he learned theology from the supposed infallible book?
Outside of the Bible or the Missal, there is no such book in existence - just fyi.
-
Mr. Stubborn: the magisterium of the Church has not defined what what must be explicitly believed. St. Thomas teaches that if one does not have enough knowledge, but believes in God, and is properly disposed to be justified, then God will either enlighten that soul, or send a missionary to teach him. That question is totally distinct from the question of BOD. You people are so ignorant of Catholic doctrine.
Nobody's ignorant except you. We know that it's a separate question. It's invariably the BoDers who conflate the two issues. It is you who apply BoD to the "mutato" in the jungle, however, so your protestations which imply that you believe in explicit BoD only are disingenuous and mendacious.
-
Your question is not meaningful, Stubborn. The Moral Theology of St. Alphonsus, quoted above, teaches souls are saved by Baptism of Desire, on account of Trent and Innocent II. That Trent teaches this can easily be proved from Trent itself and from its Catechism, but the mere fact of the Church approval of this work in the manner shown below contains an independent proof that it is infallibly safe to hold and teach the doctrine of the Baptism of Desire.
A sample text describing the Church's approval of this work. Hence, all Catholics according to the mind of the Church can freely hold and teach, with St. Alphonsus, that souls are saved by Baptism of Desire.
“ ... his books on moral theology provide perhaps the principal reason why he is Patron of confessors. They have run through at least 465 editions to date, are printed even in Arabic, Annamite and Armenian, and can be found in every Catholic seminary in the world. His large ‘Moral Theology,’ the ninth edition of which came from his hands at the age of eighty-nine, comprised 4,000 pages in quarto. This, his final edition, in which he sifts and synthesizes the opinions of 800 authors and cites them seven thousand times, has to date run through eighty-two editions. Since the first edition in 1749, who can say the thousands of priests who have been trained for the confessional through the study of his pages, and are still being trained today! The recently canonized St. Vincent Strambi C.P., was one, as was also the sainted Curé of Ars. Canon Sheehan goes so far as to say: «If a priest were to leave these shores (Ireland) in the morning, and go off in the Scriptural sense without scrip or staff or shoe, he must at least, in his most abject poverty, take three books with him – his Breviary, his Missal, an the ‘Moral Theology’ of St. Alphonsus ...
No ecclesiastical writer has ever received more direct, positive and formal approbation than that accorded by the Holy See to the moral writings of this Doctor of the Church. While still alive, four Popes expressed their admiration of his prudent doctrine ... In 1831, Pope Gregory XVI enhanced this approbation when he decreed that professors of theology could safely teach any opinion of St. Alphonsus, and that confessors, without weighting reasons, could safely follow him – simply on the fact that St. Alphonsus said so. Each of the thirteen predecessors of Pius XII in the chair of Peter has in some way or another recommended, approved or exalted the ‘Moral Theology’ of the Patron of confessors. In his Apostolic Brief of April 26, 1950, Pope Pius XII alludes to some of them. «By his learned writings, especially his ‘Moral Theology,’ he dissipated the darkness of error with which Jansenists and unbelievers have cloaked the world» (Pius IX). He was «the most illustrious and benign of moralists» (Leo XIII). «He illumined obscurity, made doubts plain and clear, and in the maze of over-strict and over-lax theological opinions, he hewed a path which directors of souls can tread in safety» (Pius IX). To this chorus of pontifical voices, Pope Pius XII felt, he said, constrained to add his own, declaring St. Alphonsus Maria de Liguori the celestial Patron of both confessors and moral theologians
By the way, Innocent II, cited above by St. Alphonsus, provides us with one known example of a soul saved by Baptism of Desire. And St. Ambrose, cited by Innocent II in the Apostolic Canon, despite Feeneyite wresting of his work, with another, as was always traditionally understood. Both these authorities say that prayers are necessary for the departed person, meaning he was saved by Baptism of Desire, and not water Baptism, since those who are saved by a supposed secret water baptism before their death as you imagine these persons to be would go to heaven without purgatory. This also answers your other question, God may wish to save some souls who convert on their deathbed without purgatory, and these He provides with water baptism, others through purgatory, and these He provides with the Baptism of Desire and yet others, He allows to be lost, without Baptism in re or in voto.
-
Your question is not meaningful, Stubborn. The Moral Theology of St. Alphonsus, quoted above, teaches souls are saved by Baptism of Desire, on account of Trent and Innocent II. That Trent teaches this can easily be proved from Trent itself and from its Catechism, but the mere fact of the Church approval of this work in the manner shown below contains an independent proof that it is infallibly safe to hold and teach the doctrine of the Baptism of Desire.
A sample text describing the Church's approval of this work. Hence, all Catholics according to the mind of the Church can freely hold and teach, with St. Alphonsus, that souls are saved by Baptism of Desire.
Trent nor the catechism of Trent in no way shape or form teaches salvation via NSAA, which is what a BOD is. Like the Council, at least a dozen times in that catechism it teaches the sacrament is a necessity, yet you say that someplace in there, it (and the Council) teach salvation via NSAA.
Please quote just two quotes from the catechism that teaches the sacrament is a necessity - after you do that, I will quote the catechism's teaching on a BOD.
Fair enough?
In The Glories of Mary, St. Alphonsus teaches that there is no salvation without recourse to Mary - and he quotes numerous saints and Fathers as references - how does that fit in with salvation via NSAA?
Presumably you would not raise your child in the faith nor let your child die without first being baptized, so why do you think God would? - (You never answered this one the last two times I asked.)
-
Sorry, Stubborn.
You have no answer as to why St. Alphonsus teaches that souls are saved by BOD, nor how the Church and Her Popes could have infallibly declared it to be safe and commanded it to be taught in every Catholic seminary in the world. You ought to pause and reflect why this is. It is because your view that voto refers to a disposition (which comes from ignorance or disregard of Latin, and St. Thomas) is a novelty foreign to Tradition and to the mind of the Church, a novelty that first originated in the 20th century. Your novel opinion regarding voto by the way was not accepted even by Fr. Feeney, who knew that justification could be obtained by desire. But I think you deny this, and the Catechism whose authority you admit refutes you.
Baptism is necessary in fact or in desire, how many times does this need to be explained to you? No, sorry, I don't intend to jump through hoops for you, however, you can quote yourself from this Catechism whatever you think proves your novel idea, the plain teaching of the Church that souls can be saved by BOD is contained below.
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.
The Catechism mentions the same danger of dying and going to hell - really present for infants - is not present for adults. Therefore, their desire for baptism, combined with contrition for past sins, suffices to save them and ensure they will not go to hell (or limbo, like Fr. Feeney believed), because this same danger is not present for them.
Contrary to what Ladislaus believes, the Catechism clearly proves that according to the mind of St. Pius V and the Fathers of Trent, martyrs also can be saved through their intention to be baptized and repentance for past sins, when being washed in "the salutary waters" is impossible through no fault of their own.
I already answered that question, based on your private interpretation of Our Lord's words. First of all, I am not God, and I don't decide who goes to heaven, who to purgatory and who to hell. If whoever asks will receive, can someone go to heaven directly just because he asks to go there? Obviously not, he must also dispose himself properly to receive that great grace. Otherwise, he may be saved only through purgatory. Therefore God is not obliged to provide water baptism to whoever desires it, especially if he only desires baptism near death and was a great sinner in his life. He may choose to do it if He wills, but He may choose not to. In His Justice, He may condemn the soul foreknowing her obstinacy. Or, in His Mercy, He may wish to save her, but only through purgatory, and therefore provide her with the Baptism of Desire.
As for devotion to the divine Mother and BOD, read this and get back to me. http://papastronsay.blogspot.in/2011/10/text-of-letter-prophesied-to-father.html
-
It would seem that the longer that this discussion continues, the more superfluous is the necessity for the Church.
-
You have no answer as to why St. Alphonsus teaches that souls are saved by BOD, ...
You'd have to ask him. He felt that it was taught by Trent. I disagree.
You're just not consistent with yourself, Nishant. You talk about BoD being taught by the ordinary universal magisterium but then think that the same magisterium could go completely off the deep-end at Vatican II. That part of your position has just NEVER made any sense to me whatsoever. Except that Ambrose of Truth is too cowardly to call you out on it, he would agree.
-
You have no answer as to why St. Alphonsus teaches that souls are saved by BOD, ...
You'd have to ask him. He felt that it was taught by Trent. I disagree.
You're just not consistent with yourself, Nishant. You talk about BoD being taught by the ordinary universal magisterium but then think that the same magisterium could go completely off the deep-end at Vatican II. That part of your position has just NEVER made any sense to me whatsoever. Except that Ambrose of Truth is too cowardly to call you out on it, he would agree.
False. Nishant and I have dealt with sedevacantism and the surrounding issues at length in the past.
On the matter of Catholic teaching on Baptism of Desire and Blood, he has explained the Church's teaching magnificently, as have many others on here.
-
Sorry, Stubborn.
You have no answer as to why St. Alphonsus teaches that souls are saved by BOD, nor how the Church and Her Popes could have infallibly declared it to be safe and commanded it to be taught in every Catholic seminary in the world. You ought to pause and reflect why this is. It is because your view that voto refers to a disposition (which comes from ignorance or disregard of Latin, and St. Thomas) is a novelty foreign to Tradition and to the mind of the Church, a novelty that first originated in the 20th century. Your novel opinion regarding voto by the way was not accepted even by Fr. Feeney, who knew that justification could be obtained by desire. But I think you deny this, and the Catechism whose authority you admit refutes you.
First off, St. Alphonsus was a Moral Theologian, not a Dogmatic Theologian. As such, he can say whatever he wants, but his opinion remains a fallible opinion and nothing more.
St. Alphonsus preached different than Trent in this. You and all NSAAers do not agree with that - so be it, why keep hashing over the same argument?
Trent plainly decrees the sacrament is not optional and that the sacraments are a necessity for salvation - you disagree with this as well, again, so be it.
You think like all liberals and NOers that ALL papal decrees, infallible or not, like the docuмents of V2 for example, were purposefully declared to be interpreted, even though V1 condemned that. You disagree with that - so be it, why keep hashing over the same arguments?
As is typical with all heresies, heresy is dogma and dogma is heresy - such is the same with this. You are the one creating or accepting exceptions to dogma which are non existent in the dogma - not me.
Reception of the sacraments cannot be both necessary and unnecessary. My dogma states they are necessary, your dogma states they are necessary and not necessary. My dogma is taught infallibly, your dogma is an opinion taught by saints whom you say are "the Church", but they are not the Church nor are they infallible.
My dogma explicitly and without exception denies salvation to infidels, your dogma is so full of exceptions and variables that it rewards salvation to infidels, yet you deny prots salvation even when they explicitly perform all the proposed requirements of a BOD.
Baptism is necessary in fact or in desire, how many times does this need to be explained to you? No, sorry, I don't intend to jump through hoops for you, however, you can quote yourself from this Catechism whatever you think proves your novel idea, the plain teaching of the Church that souls can be saved by BOD is contained below.
If the sacrament is necessary in fact, then it cannot be necessary in desire only.
If you cannot grasp that indisputable fact then all I can suggest is that you meditate on it until you accept this simple reality.
It is also an indisputable fact, that to say that "Baptism is necessary in fact or in desire" is to say that the sacrament is optional - which by now you KNOW is a proposition which Trent explicitly condemned. This is indisputable - yet, NSAAers dispute it.
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.
The Catechism mentions the same danger of dying and going to hell - really present for infants - is not present for adults. Therefore, their desire for baptism, combined with contrition for past sins, suffices to save them and ensure they will not go to hell (or limbo, like Fr. Feeney believed), because this same danger is not present for them.
1) The catechism gives the reason for the delay, but you did not post that part, if you would have posted the next paragraph from the catechism, you would have posted the Church's reason for the delay, but you did not do that - and your commentary is completely wrong - the reason you are completely wrong is because you are ignoring the reason the catechism gives for the delay while inserting your own reasoning in it's place. If you cannot agree with that indisputable fact then you are disputing the indisputable and we will get nowhere.
2) If you read the part you quoted, you will see that FIRST, there is no danger of death. Now, in another part of the catechism, you can read what the Church teaches to do when the danger of death is present - but the part you quoted specifically states there is no danger of death. "The delay is not attended with the same danger as in the case of infants which we have already mentioned" - go find the part that teaches what to do when there actually is a danger of death - AND POST THAT.
3) It is a teaching of the Church that "their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness" - this is indisputable.
4) You want me to agree with you that #3 says: "their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail reward them to grace and righteousness" salvation" - but because it does not say any such a thing I can not and I will not ever agree with you.
5) What you cannot accept is that #3 is actually and in reality the "desire thereof" for the sacrament that the Council of Trent decreed in canon IV, "On the Sacraments in General".
Contrary to what Ladislaus believes, the Catechism clearly proves that according to the mind of St. Pius V and the Fathers of Trent, martyrs also can be saved through their intention to be baptized and repentance for past sins, when being washed in "the salutary waters" is impossible through no fault of their own.
Hopefully you now admit that this statement of yours is indisputably wrong.
Also, I did not expect you to actually answer my clear questions with a clear answer, and you met my expectation.
-
Your question is not meaningful, Stubborn. The Moral Theology of St. Alphonsus, quoted above, teaches souls are saved by Baptism of Desire, on account of Trent and Innocent II. That Trent teaches this can easily be proved from Trent itself and from its Catechism, but the mere fact of the Church approval of this work in the manner shown below contains an independent proof that it is infallibly safe to hold and teach the doctrine of the Baptism of Desire.
A sample text describing the Church's approval of this work. Hence, all Catholics according to the mind of the Church can freely hold and teach, with St. Alphonsus, that souls are saved by Baptism of Desire.
Trent nor the catechism of Trent in no way shape or form teaches salvation via NSAA, which is what a BOD is. Like the Council, at least a dozen times in that catechism it teaches the sacrament is a necessity, yet you say that someplace in there, it (and the Council) teach salvation via NSAA.
Please quote just two quotes from the catechism that teaches the sacrament is a necessity - after you do that, I will quote the catechism's teaching on a BOD.
Fair enough?
In The Glories of Mary, St. Alphonsus teaches that there is no salvation without recourse to Mary - and he quotes numerous saints and Fathers as references - how does that fit in with salvation via NSAA?
Presumably you would not raise your child in the faith nor let your child die without first being baptized, so why do you think God would? - (You never answered this one the last two times I asked.)
The Cathechism of Trent gives the exact time water Baptism became obligatory on all men for salvation, with no exceptions. It states that: "from the time of Our Lord's Ascension into Heaven, it was then obligatory by law to be baptized for all those who were to be saved".
Baptism by water is, since the promulgation of the Gospel necessary for all men, without exception, for salvation.
This is DE FIDE teaching stated in the Council of Trent.
Trent Canon 2 on Baptism actually anathemized those who say that water is to be understood methaphorically or find any "substitute" for water or turn real and true "water" into a "figure of speech".
-
Ladislaus, what you are asking is like saying "If we can question Vatican II, why can't we question also Vatican I?". There is all the difference in the world, between holding firmly to what was always traditionally taught, and refusing a novelty when it is first proposed, and on the other hand, inventing a novelty ourselves in opposition to what was always traditionally taught.
Now in all honesty, Ladislaus, ask yourself if Fr. Feeney adn the Dimonds in particular have done the former or the latter.
In Benedictus Deus, the Pope condemns under automatic excommunication all who publish unauthorized commentaries on the decrees of Trent, without approval by the Pope. The teaching of the Saints and Doctors like St. Robert and St. Alphonsus on Trent, beside countless other theologians, has been approved and authorized by the Holy See.The doctrine that Baptism is necessary in re or in voto the Church has made Her own in canon law. This is the only meaning any of us are allowed to hold and teach, according to the Pope in Benedictus Deus.
According to Feeneyites, we can each not only hold and even teach another sense according to our own ideas, but also without any authority we can condemn the former one and declare it false, even though the Church declared it infallibly safe.
How can it be infallibly safe to teach "it is de fide that souls are saved by Baptism of Desire" unless it were at least Catholic doctrine that "souls are saved by Baptism of Desire"? It cannot be, and therefore the Church approval in this sense irreformably settles the question. "the judgments of the Roman Pontiff (than which there is no higher authority) are not subject to revision by anyone, nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon" (Vatican I on irreformable Papal judgments)
Therefore, if you are right about what the Saints and Doctors have taught, they are the progenitors of a grave error if not a heresy. Moreover, your problem is also with the Popes and thus the Church who irreformably approved them in the manner shown earlier, and commanded that all may freely hold and teach what St. Alphonsus taught in Theologia Moralis, even without knowing the reason why it was taught. How can you explain this? It is obvious you are mistaken on this point, dear Ladislaus, there is no possibility of Feeneyism being correct.
Regarding Vatican II and the OUM, I know this is considered by you to be a good argument for sedevacantism/doubtism, but I disagree, because Vatican II is itself a novelty among Councils. Furthermore, it expressly disavowed saying anything it decreed required the de fide assent of divine and Catholic Faith, in direct contradiction to Vatican I on the OUM, and rather that it required the obsequium religiosum.
Stubborn,
Trent dogmatically defines that the sacraments that effect justification are necessary in fact or in desire, since no one obtains justification without them or without the desire of them - that is what re aut voto means. This canon infallibly proves that the desire of two sacraments effect the grace of justification, these two being baptism and penance.
The sense in which this dogma was once declared by the Church, and the sense in which the Church has always understood and understands Her dogma, do not and cannot contradict each other. Both are infallible ccording to Vatican I. Whoever denies either risks heresy or grave sin.
What is in contradiction is your heterodox and fallible understanding of this canon with the plain sense, evident in the Latin and to those who know what voto means in Catholic sacramental theology, of what it clearly says.
Your "commentary" on the Roman Catechism is utterly fanciful, but I will get back to that later.
-
The Roman Catechism plainly says that water baptism is rendered impossible. There is absolutely no way around this for you. If the Catechism wanted to teach Feeneyism, it would have said, when the accident makes it impossible to be washed in the salutary waters, these catechumens are lost. Period. That is Feeneyism, and we would all be Feeneyites if only Trent, its Catechism and all Tradition and the Church had ever really taught this.
You are wrong because Trent is clearly speaking of the children dying without water baptism, and this same danger, i.e. of adults dying without water baptism, does not cause them to be lost, even though it is impossible for them to be washed in the salutary waters. Thus they die with the desire for Baptism and contrition for their past sins, and are not lost - meaning they ultimately go to heaven saved by Baptism of Desire. So Fr. Feeney is wrong.
The Catechism, following St. Thomas in distinguishing thus between adults and infants, condemns Feeneyism.The same citations and Scriptural examples the Angelic Doctor goes on to give are later cited in Trent's Catechism.
The voto of Baptism effecting justification was admitted to refer to the Baptism of Desire even by Fr. Feeney, because he at least knew his Latin, unlike you and most modern Feeneyites who speak not a single word of it.
You don't need to know Latin to be saved. But if you don't know Latin, and nonetheless set yourself up as a teacher, against St. Alphonsus and those who are really teachers of the Faith, who knew Latin and theology, and more importantly, whose teaching on this subject the Church has already irreformably made Her own, you will be very harshly judged by God, rest assured, as St. James says of those who teach, for every single mistake you make, whether culpable or not. If you are very fortunate, and repent, you will probably have to spend years if not decades in purgatory expiating such a fault even if only partially culpable. I hope and pray that doesn't happen in your case, but I can't help you if you deliberately wish to remain ignorant.
If your error originated in the 20th century, as Feeneyism did, it is not Tradition, but novelty, and it is not the sense in which the Church understands Her dogma, and is therefore heterodox.
If anyone says that it is possible that at some time, given the advancement of knowledge, a sense may be assigned to the dogmas propounded by the Church which is different from that which the Church has understood and understands: let him be anathema.
You Feeneyites argue exactly this is not only possible but has actually happened.
Fr. Feeney's mistake regarding justification and salvation would only be a minor triviality if it were not for the obstinate ignorance displayed by Feeneyites in his name, which causes it to be very grave.
Feeneyism in all its variants is also indirectly proscribed by St. Pius V, in condemning the errors of the heretic Michael Baius, among them, "That charity which is the fulness of the law is not always connected with the remission of sins" who had proposed the heterodox thesis that the remission of sins was received only in the laver of baptism - in direct contradiction to Trent that said it was not received without the laver of regeneration or the desire thereof - and that charity in catechumens could not avail toward this end, infallibly condemned as error and bordering on heresy by the sainted Pope.
The Feeneyite "justification but not salvation" error which you, Stubborn, appear now to hold again is refuted in Trent itself later on, when Trent says that in all the justified, whether they have preserved justice uninterruptedly or recovered it when lost, nothing is lacking for ultimate salvation other than that they die in the state of grace. This should be obvious, for it is de fide that all the justified are inside the Church, and if someone says they are outside, then, there would be sanctifying grace outside the Church, which is heretical. Hence, the same irreformable doctrine taught in the Roman Catechism is here infallibly taught in Trent itself. Consequently, it is close to heresy to say that it is insufficient to die justified to go ultimately to heaven, but that something else beside this is necessary, which is precisely the novel error of Fr. Feeney.
-
Ladislaus, what you are asking is like saying "If we can question Vatican II, why can't we question also Vatican I?".
Not even close. You all claim that BoD is a teaching of the ordinary universal Magisterium and therefore cannot be in error. Your claim to exempt Vatican II is that it made no dogmatic teaching. Well, then neither has BoD been taught dogmatically. Same difference. You're not consistent with yourself. At least Ambrose and LoT are consistent that way.
-
Nishant,
"Feeneyism" is in total accord with the thrice defined Catholic dogma of "Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus" and has actually being the constant teaching of the Church before the heresy of Modernism. It holds the literal and traditional interpretational of the dogma and defends the truths which must be believed: the absolute necessity of the Catholic Faith, the absolute necessity of membership in the Catholic Church, the absolute necessity of submission to the Roman Pontiff, and the absolute necessity of baptism of water, for salvation.
"Feeneyism" did not originate in the XX century but with the words of Our Lord in John 3:5 which the Church takes literally: " Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God".
A "Feeneyite" does not necessarily "deny" the possibility of a Baptism of Desire / Blood. That is a common misconception and a quick maneuver to accuse us of "heresy" following the Cushinguite error. A "feeneyite" is someone who accepts the evidence that BOD is not a dogma of the Faith but only an hypothesis and those saved by it in invincible ignorance if ever exist are only known to God. This is, BOD (for those who hold the Catholic Faith, which is foundation for all justification) is a possibility but not a known exception to the literal interpretation of Fr. Feeney, on EENS.
Fr. Feeney mentioned the Baptism of Desire and so spoke about it as a concept. Something we can discuss intellectually. He rejected it as knowable de facto. St.Thomas Aquinas mentioned invincible ignorance as a concept, a possibility known only to God and not as an actual fact that one can judge in a person. For St.Thomas Aquinas everyone had to de facto with no exception enter the Catholic Church to avoid Hell.
-
The Feeneyite "justification but not salvation" error which you, Stubborn, appear now to hold again is refuted in Trent itself later on, when Trent says that in all the justified, whether they have preserved justice uninterruptedly or recovered it when lost, nothing is lacking for ultimate salvation other than that they die in the state of grace. This should be obvious, for it is de fide that all the justified are inside the Church, and if someone says they are outside, then, there would be sanctifying grace outside the Church, which is heretical. Hence, the same irreformable doctrine taught in the Roman Catechism is here infallibly taught in Trent itself. Consequently, it is close to heresy to say that it is insufficient to die justified to go ultimately to heaven, but that something else beside this is necessary, which is precisely the novel error of Fr. Feeney.
It is true that Fr. Feeney taught that the desire for Baptism could produce a state of justification (but not salvation), because he held the dogma of the necessity of the sacraments for salvation. This is the authentic "feeneyite" teaching summed up: Justification can be attained by a person with the Catholic Faith together with at least a desire for the Sacraments. He cannot attain Salvation unless he receives the Sacraments and the obligation to receive the water Baptism remains.
When asked about the justified soul who dies without having received the sacrament Baptism Fr. Feeney simply answered that no one knows if such a soul exists and those who claim that they did where placing the laws of probability over the Providence of God.
-
When asked about the justified soul who dies without having received the sacrament Baptism Fr. Feeney simply answered that no one knows if such a soul exists and those who claim that they did where placing the laws of probability over the Providence of God.
That is precisely the point, no one can know, only God knows, but we are told that it is a fact that it happens anyway. Where is the witness to a soul saved by BoD?
Is there one in two thousand years of Church teaching?
-
From the Dimonds book ......]Outside the Catholic Church there is Absolutly No Salvation
THE ERRORS OF THE CURRENT ST. BENEDICT CENTER
The St. Benedict Center was founded by Fr. Feeney before Vatican II. As I have docuмented, it was a beacon of truth on the salvation dogma when the Fr. Feeney controversy erupted in Boston. But the fact that Fr. Feeney staunchly defended this truth on salvation during his day does not mean, of course, that everything he said on the topic
was cogent or correct. He was, in fact, mistaken in his belief that catechumens could be justified (put in a state of grace) by the desire for water baptism. Fr. Feeney knew that the Catholic Church infallibly teaches that no catechumen can be saved without water baptism (Council of Trent, Can. 5 on the Sacrament), but he erroneously thought that the Council of Trent taught that catechumens could be justified by the desire for baptism, when it didn’t (See the section on Sess. 6, Chap. 4.).
This mistaken position – which I believe was held by him in good faith and which he would have changed if he were today presented with the evidence and the argument showing that Trent does not teach that catechumens can be justified – caused him to be unable to explain the situation of the so-called “justified” catechumen who hadn’t been baptized.
Father Feeney, Bread of Life, p. 137:
“Q. Can anyone now be saved without Baptism of Water?
A. No one can be saved without Baptism of Water.
Q. Are the souls of those who die in the state of justification saved, if they have not received Baptism of Water?
A. No. They are not saved.
Q. Where do these souls go if they die in the state of justification but have not received Baptism of Water?
A. I do not know.
Q. Do they go to Hell?
A. No.
Q. Do they go to Heaven?
A. No.
Q. Are there any such souls?
A. I do not know! Neither do you!
Q. What are we to say to those who believe there are such souls?
A. We must say to them that they are making reason prevail over Faith, and the laws of probability over the Providence of God.”
Fr. Feeney was caught in an insoluble dilemma because of his mistaken and incorrect position that a catechumen can be justified without water baptism. And the liberal heretics have a field day with this passage of his book, and they literally spill pages worth of ink gleefully pointing out that Fr. Feeney was inconsistent on this point.
By doing so, however, they only demonstrate their profound bad will and; for whereas Fr. Feeney did make a mistake on this point of Justification (I believe in good faith), the liberal heretics who feign concern for doctrinal integrity in pointing out this mistake don’t even believe that one needs to be a Catholic or believe in Christ to be saved! They hold that Jews, pagans, heretics, schismatics can all be saved without baptism or the Catholic Faith.
Thus, to put it simply: the liberal heretics try to cover up for their own heretical belief that non-Catholics can be saved by focusing page after page after page after page on this one mistake of Fr. Feeney, while they dishonestly fail to address Fr. Feeney’s main point, which was that they are denying the dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation and are complete heretics and doctrinal perverts.
So, don’t be fooled by the heretical priests and bishops who pretend to give an entire course on Fr. Feeney’s Justification error without addressing their own beliefs on whether non-Catholics can be saved; they are just covering up for their own horrible heresy.
Bishop Clarence Kelly of the Society of St. Pius V, for example, produced a long docuмent and gave a lengthy presentation focusing only on the Justification error of Fr. Feeney, while never once addressing his own abominable and heretical belief that Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims and Protestants can be saved without the Catholic Faith (but more on the SSPV later)!
Fr. Feeney’s error on Justification, however, has become a major problem for some; namely, the current members of the St. Benedict Center in New Hampshire. The current members of both St. Benedict Centers affirm communion with the Vatican II sect and bishops who completely reject Outside the Church There is No Salvation. They are, therefore (and most unfortunately) in heresy for obstinately affirming communion with heretics who deny this and other dogmas. Besides this, the Richmond, NH St. Benedict Center obstinately refuses to correct Fr. Feeney’s error on Justification and even condemns us as “heretical” for our position!
In May of 1999, the St. Benedict Center (Richmond, NH) accused us in their newsletter of holding a “strange heresy.” They hold that while baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation by divine law, one can be regenerated (justified/born again) by the mere desire for baptism. They follow Fr. Feeney’s own erroneous conclusion in this regard.
They believe in a baptism of desire that justifies but does not save, and they call our view that there is no justification at all without baptism heretical. The falsity of such an assertion by the modern-day St. Benedict Center in New Hampshire becomes very clear when this topic is examined more deeply. For example, they accuse us of holding a “strange heresy” when this was the teaching of St. Ambrose (not to mention Catholic dogma, as we will see)
.
St. Ambrose, De mysteriis, 390-391 A.D.:
“You have read, therefore, that the three witnesses in Baptism are one: water, blood, and the spirit; and if you withdraw any one of these, the Sacrament of Baptism is not valid.
For what is water without the cross of Christ? A common element without any sacramental effect. Nor on the other hand is there any mystery of regeneration without water: for ‘unless a man be born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.’ [John 3:5] Even a catechumen believes in the cross of the Lord Jesus, by which also he is signed; but, unless he be baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, he cannot receive the remission of sins nor be recipient of the gift of spiritual grace.”
What’s amazing about this is that the St. Benedict Center (Richmond, NH) even quotes this very passage from St. Ambrose in their book to prove their position (e.g., Father Feeney and the Truth about Salvation, p. 132). So this position – that one cannot be justified without baptism – is put forward as true by the St. Benedict Center when they quote St. Ambrose; but in their newsletter they call this very same position a “strange heresy” because they feel like attacking Schism House. What incredible hypocrisy!
This means that the St. Benedict Center holds that, by the mere desire for baptism, one can: be born again; be adopted as a son of God; be regenerated; have his original sin remitted; have his actual sins remitted; be united with Christ; possess the infused virtues of faith, hope and charity; receive the application of the Blood of Christ; and receive the Spirit of Sanctification.
This is what Justification brings about in a soul, according to the infallible teaching of the Catholic Church. And all of this can occur by the mere desire for baptism, according to the St. Benedict Center, even though they hold that this same person must receive the Sacrament of Baptism in order to be saved.
As stated already, there is no doubt that many members of the St. Benedict Center, including Father Feeney himself, held this erroneous position in good faith in the past. They misunderstood the Council of Trent’s teaching in Sess. 6, Chap. 4 on Justification. They thought that this Chapter was teaching that Justification can take place by the desire for baptism (and they knew that Trent excluded the possibility of salvation without actually receiving baptism), so they concluded that justification can take place by the desire for the Sacrament of Baptism, but that salvation can only come from actually receiving Baptism. Their writings are filled with the distinction between justification and salvation.
Even though this erroneous position may have been a sincere attempt to uphold the Church’s teaching on the necessity of Baptism for salvation (in the face of what they mistakenly thought was the Church’s teaching on desire being sufficient for justification), there are many problems with this explanation.
1) Trent doesn’t teach that the desire for baptism is sufficient for Justification. This has been shown in this docuмent. And this was the root cause of their erroneous belief.
2) In Justification, the Spirit of Sanctification and the Blood of Redemption cannot be separated from the water of baptism (de fide). As has been shown already, Pope St. Leo the Great eliminates the St. Benedict Center’s entire theory.
Pope St. Leo the Great, dogmatic letter to Flavian, Council of Chalcedon, 451:
“Let him heed what the blessed apostle Peter preaches, that sanctification by the Spirit is effected by the sprinkling of Christ’s blood (1 Pet. 1:2)… It is He, Jesus Christ, who has come through water and blood, not in water only, but in water and blood. And because the Spirit is truth, it is the Spirit who testifies. For there are three who give testimony – Spirit and water and blood. And the three are one. (1 Jn. 5:4-8) IN OTHER WORDS, THE SPIRIT OF SANCTIFICATION AND THE BLOOD OF REDEMPTION AND THE WATER OF BAPTISM. THESE THREE ARE ONE AND REMAIN INDIVISIBLE. NONE OF THEM IS SEPARABLE FROM ITS LINK WITH THE OTHERS.”[dcxxxi]
It is defined dogma that no one can be Justified without the Blood of Redemption (Trent, Sess. 5 and 6, Denz. 790; 795). Pope St. Leo defines that in Sanctification, the Spirit of Sanctification (Justification) and the Blood of Redemption are inseparable from the water of baptism. This means that there can be no Justification – no application of the Blood of Redemption – without water baptism (de fide). There can be no Justification by desire.
The St. Benedict Center holds that a sinner can have the Spirit of Sanctification and the Blood of Redemption by desire, without water baptism, and are therefore contradicting this dogmatic pronouncement.
3) Outside the Church there is no remission of sins (de fide). The St. Benedict Center holds that an unbaptized catechumen is outside the Catholic Church (which is correct, since only Baptism makes one a member). Proof that this is their belief is found on page 77 of their book, Father Feeney and the Truth about Salvation. But while they profess that it is only through Baptism that one can be inside the Church, they hold that an unbaptized catechumen can have Justification (remission of sins and sanctifying grace) by his desire for baptism, while he is still outside the Church.
This is directly contrary to the ex cathedra definition of Pope Boniface VIII below. It is therefore heresy to say, as they do, that one who is outside the Church can have his sins remitted.
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…”
Some of the defenders of the St. Benedict Center have argued that only the end of the Bull Unam Sanctam is solemn (and therefore infallible), not the part quoted above. This is a desperate attempt to defend their false position on Justification, and it is proven wrong by Pope Pius XII
.
Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi (# 40), June 29, 1943: “That Christ and His Vicar constitute one only Head is the solemn teaching of Our predecessor of immortal memory Boniface VIII in the Apostolic Letter Unam Sanctam; and his predecessors have never ceased to repeat the same.”
Pope Pius XII is referring to the part of Unam Sanctam which the defenders of the St. Benedict Center argue is not solemn (infallible), and he says that it is “solemn” (infallible). This demonstrates that the part of the Bull quoted above is indeed solemn and infallible. In fact, the paragraph of Unam Sanctam that Pius XII is referring to in Mystici Corporis incorporates even less solemn language than the paragraph quoted above on outside the Church there is no remission of sins.
The bottom-line is that the teaching of the Bull on Faith is an ex cathedra pronouncement which no one can deny. The St. Benedict Center denies it by their position that catechumens can be justified outside the Church.
4) The Justified are heirs according to hope of life everlasting (de fide). The Church teaches that one who is justified is an heir to heaven. This means that if one dies in a state of Justification he will go to heaven. The St. Benedict Center teaches that one can be justified without baptism, but such a person still isn’t an heir to heaven because he hasn’t received baptism yet. This position contradicts dogma.
Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Session 6, Chap. 7 on Justification, ex cathedra:
“Justification … is not merely remission of sins, but also the sanctification and renewal of the interior man through the voluntary reception of the grace and gifts, whereby an unjust man becomes a just man, and from being an enemy becomes a friend, that he may be ‘an heir according to hope of life everlasting’ [Tit. 3:7].”
The true position is that every truly justified person is indeed an heir to heaven (de fide) and will go to heaven if he dies in that state, because only the baptized are truly justified from sin.
5) The Justified have fully satisfied the divine law and have merited heaven according to their state in life (de fide). This one really crushes the St. Benedict Center’s position.
Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Sess. 6, Chap. 16: “… hence IT MUST BE BELIEVED THAT NOTHING MORE IS NEEDED FOR THE JUSTIFIED TO BE CONSIDERED TO HAVE FULLY SATISFIED THE DIVINE LAW, according to this state in life, by the deeds they have wrought in him and to have truly merited eternal life to be obtained in its own time (if they shall have departed this life in grace)…”
The St. Benedict Center’s position is that a person justified without baptism is not yet in a state worthy of salvation and has not yet merited heaven. He still needs to fulfill the divine law requiring baptism, according to them. Remember, they constantly focus on the distinction between justification and salvation. But the Council of Trent contradicts this by asserting that the justified have fully satisfied the divine law and have merited eternal life to be obtained in its own time (if they shall have departed this life in grace). Nothing more is needed for the justified to get to heaven; they need only to maintain the state of Justification and die in it.
This is not consistent with the St. Benedict Center’s position, but it is consistent with the teaching of the Church (e.g., Pope St. Leo the Great) that no sinner can be justified without the Sacrament of Baptism. This quotation from Trent actually blows the St. Benedict Center’s position away.
6) The possession of faith, hope and charity makes one a member of Christ’s Body (de fide). From Trent’s definition on the Justification of the sinner, one learns that it is not possible for a sinner to possess the infused, supernatural virtues of faith, hope and charity without being a member of Christ’s Body. These virtues are infused at the time of Justification.
Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Sess. 6, Chap. 7 on Justification: “Hence man through Jesus Christ, into whom he is ingrafted, receives in the said justification together with the remission of sins all these gifts infused at the same time: faith, hope and charity. For faith, unless hope and charity be added to it, neither unites one perfectly with Christ, nor makes him a living member of his body.”
This means that if hope and charity are added to faith, faith does unite one perfectly with Christ and make him a living member of Christ’s body. This is not consistent with the St. Benedict Center’s position, because they hold that it’s possible for hope and charity to be united with faith in a justified catechumen who is not a member of Christ’s body.
Since these errors that I have described deal with finer points of this issue, there is no doubt that many supporters of the St. Benedict Center have held – and some still may hold – these errors in good faith, while affirming the dogma that the Catholic Faith and Baptism are necessary for salvation.
However, they cannot lawfully hold these errors after they have been pointed out to them. And unfortunately, the current day leaders of the St. Benedict Center, as well as many of its affiliates, members and writers, refuse to correct themselves, and must be considered heretical. Further, they bring down on their heads definite condemnation when they condemn the teaching of the Church described above as a “strange heresy,” as they did in their newsletter.
We pray that the affiliates of the St. Benedict Center will change their position on these matters, as well as their heretical allegiance to the Vatican II sect, because they have endured unjust persecution from heretics who hate the dogma Outside the Catholic Church There is No Salvation and Our Lord Jesus Christ’s doctrine on the necessity of Baptism.
-
Here is the hypothesis based on the Session 6, Chapter IV, Decree Concerning Justification (Jan. 13, 1547):
Justification is a passing from the state in which man is born a don of the first Adam, to the state of grace and adoption as sons of God, through the Second Adam, Jesus Christ Our Savior. After the promulgation of the Gospel, this translation however cannot take place without the laver of regeneration or the vow (votum) to receive it, as it is written: Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
We could speculate that it COULD be possible although extremely unlikely that there is a soul among the billions, that hypothetically could be saved without the water baptism. Of that, only God knows, never us, as the Modernist liberals pretend. What we know is that all souls are required by God to formally enter the Catholic Church for salvation through ONE Baptism and profess ONE Faith. Fr. Feeney thought that Justification, (therefore, and sanctifying grace), could come to a person before the actual reception of the sacrament of baptism, such as the example of Cornelius, provided explicit faith in Christ, explicit purpose to receive the sacrament and to join the Catholic Church, and perfect charity are not lacking.However,as in the example of justified Cornelius, God would not let that person die before receiving the water baptism, Sacrament absolutely needed for salvation.Justification and salvation are different things. Justification is the first step to salvation, but not salvation itself.
Where does "salvation by justification alone" comes from? Where exactly does it say, explicitly, infallibly, that a merely Justified soul can possibly enter Heaven without first receiving the water Baptism?
-
Logic:
-Major: God commands every human being, without exception, to be water baptized for entrance to Heaven.
-Minor 1: The Commandments of God are not impossible for us to fulfill.
-Minor 2: God is certainly capable of bringing about the fulfillment of His commands:
“There is NO ONE about to die in the state of justification WHOM GOD CANNOT SECURE BAPTISM FOR, and indeed, Baptism of Water. The schemes concerning salvation, I leave to the sceptics. The clear truths of salvation, I am preaching to you.” (Bread of Life, pg. 56)
-
J. Paul, there are many examples of souls saved by Baptism of Desire and Blood throughout Christian history. To limit ourselves only to the Apostolic age, Sts. Emerentiana and Victor of Braga were saved by means of the Baptism of Blood, as Tradition informs us and was always believed before Fr. Feeney, and Valentian and Herais were saved by means of the Baptism of Desire, as Tradition informs us and was, again, always believed before the 20th century.
The Popes have irreformably approved the teaching that "souls are saved Baptism of Desire" which St. Alphonsus bases on Trent and on Innocent II, and this latter letter tells us of a soul saved by Baptism of Desire. So it is not right to say what Fr. Feeeney mistakenly - and surely in good faith - said, and Catholics must not say it anymore, but hold to the traditional understanding on this point.
Saints like Catherine of Sienna, Therese Liseux, Padre Pio, John Vianney and countless others all bear witness, by special revelation made to them by the Lord or His Mother, that souls were saved by means of the Baptism of Desire.
"I wished thee to see the secret of the Heart, showing it to thee open, so that you mightest see how much more I loved than I could show thee by finite pain. I poured from it Blood and Water, to show thee the baptism of water which is received in virtue of the Blood. I also showed the baptism of love in two ways, first in those who are baptized in their blood shed for Me which has virtue through My Blood, even if they have not been able to have Holy Baptism, and also those who are baptized in fire, not being able to have Holy Baptism, but desiring it with the affection of love. There is no baptism of desire without the Blood, because Blood is steeped in and kneaded with the fire of Divine charity, because through love was it shed.
I honestly cannot understand how someone can read the Savior Himself explain the reason He poured out Blood and Water from His own Sacred Heart with such precision and doctrinal exactitude and then refuse to believe Him. Anyway, many of the Fathers of the Church, commenting on this passage in the Gospel of St. John, see revealed therein the Baptism of Water and of Blood. Many Doctors and other authorities see in the epistle of St. John the doctrine that baptism is triune - in water, in the blood and in the Spirit - just as God Himself is Triune and not a monad, 1 Jn 5:5Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God? 6This is he that came by water and blood, Jesus Christ: not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit which testifieth, that Christ is the truth. 7And there are three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. And these three are one. 8And there are three that give testimony on earth: the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three are one. " St. Thomas in particular discourses in this sense.
Cantarella, yes, the Dimonds claim that the doctrine "souls are saved by Baptism of Desire" is a heresy and they claim their heresy is dogma. You are also correct Cornelius is an example of justification by Baptism of Desire. I understand the SBC is much better, they do not believe it is a heresy, however, they are also incorrect to think it is only an opinion. No, it is a doctrine we must accept as we accept any other, for example, perfect contrition or spiritual communion.
Ironically, Director's post above contains a good summary of why the "justification but not salvation" view is untenable. I mentioned some of the reasons above, and if only a dogmatic definition will satisfy you.
Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Sess. 6, Chap. 16: “… hence IT MUST BE BELIEVED THAT NOTHING MORE IS NEEDED FOR THE JUSTIFIED TO BE CONSIDERED TO HAVE FULLY SATISFIED THE DIVINE LAW, according to this state in life, by the deeds they have wrought in him and to have truly merited eternal life to be obtained in its own time (if they shall have departed this life in grace)…”
It is de fide that nothing else is necesary for the justified to be saved other than perseverance in the grace and justice received, in other words, justification is the translation to the state of grace, perseverance is dying in the state of grace, and this passage in Trent says it must be believed that the justified are heirs to eternal life and considered to have fully satisfied the divine law and will certainly inherit eternal life if they but die in the state of grace. So if not heretical, it is at least next door to heresy, to say that this is insufficient but that something else is necessary.
-
Stubborn,
Trent dogmatically defines that the sacraments that effect justification are necessary in fact or in desire, since no one obtains justification without them or without the desire of them - that is what re aut voto means. This canon infallibly proves that the desire of two sacraments effect the grace of justification, these two being baptism and penance.
No, you are wrong here.
Trent states that If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous - is anathema. It states this in canon IV Session 7.
The same canon further decrees that if any one 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.
You are corrupting the infallible canon and making the sacraments superflous by saying Trent teaches that the sacraments that effect justification are necessary in fact or in desire because it explicitly decrees that whoever says what you just said is anathema.
The sense in which this dogma was once declared by the Church, and the sense in which the Church has always understood and understands Her dogma, do not and cannot contradict each other. Both are infallible ccording to Vatican I. Whoever denies either risks heresy or grave sin.
What is in contradiction is your heterodox and fallible understanding of this canon with the plain sense, evident in the Latin and to those who know what voto means in Catholic sacramental theology, of what it clearly says.
No, you are wrong because the Church understands dogma as it is declared - this is infallibly taught at Vatican 1: "Hence, too,that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by holy mother church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding."
You are attempting to abandon the dogma "as once declared" under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding, while saying the Church understands the dogma differently than once declared.
This is condemned Nishant, V1 condemned it as I posted above.
Your "commentary" on the Roman Catechism is utterly fanciful, but I will get back to that later.
It's only "utterly fanciful" when you replace what it teaches with your own ideas.
-
Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Sess. 6, Chap. 16: “… hence IT MUST BE BELIEVED THAT NOTHING MORE IS NEEDED FOR THE JUSTIFIED TO BE CONSIDERED TO HAVE FULLY SATISFIED THE DIVINE LAW, according to this state in life, by the deeds they have wrought in him and to have truly merited eternal life to be obtained in its own time (if they shall have departed this life in grace)…”
Ok, once in the state of Grace (justification), man can truly merit an eternal reward because he has the principle of supernatural life in him. However, the obligation to tangibly receive the Sacraments remains; otherwise, all the dogmatic truths found in the canons about the necessity of the Sacraments for salvation, would be a complete mockery.
Can. 5. If anyone says that baptism is optional , that is, not necessary for salvation, let him be anathema.
Can. 2. If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism and thus twists into some metaphor the words of our Lord Jesus Christ: “Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost,” let him be anathema.
-
o, Stubborn, you are mistaken. It can never happen that the Church understands Her dogma in a sense otherwise than that in which She once declared it. You correctly say the sense in which it was once declared is infallible. You wrongly think the sense in which it was always understood before Fr. Feeney can be fallible. That is impossible. That both are infallible and therefore can never contradict is the dogmatic teaching of the Church, and this canon below clearly condemns your view.
If anyone says that it is possible that at some time, given the advancement of knowledge, a sense may be assigned to the dogmas propounded by the Church which is different from that which the Church has understood and understands: let him be anathema.
By the way, the whole Church at Vatican I where this infallible canon was declared understood and understands the dogma of EENs in the true and traditional sense. Namely, that no one attains salvation who dies culpably separated from the Church. That very fact suffices to prove you are mistaken, since the Church understood and understands Her dogma differently than you do, and if you think Fr. Feeney corrected Her after several centuries of Her misunderstanding the dogma, the above canon infallibly condemns you with anathema.
... the two docuмents of Pius IX on invincible ignorance were quoted in extenso and the essential terms were fully explained. “By the words, ‘those who labor in invincible ignorance’ is indicated the possibility that a person may not belong to the visible and external communion of the Church, and yet may attain to justification and eternal life.” (Acta Concilii Vaticani, Collectio Lacensis, vol. VII, col. 591) Moreover the saving clause on invincibility was incorporated into a proposed definition, namely, “It is a dogma of faith that no one can be saved outside the Church. However, those who labor in invincible ignorance of Christ and His Church are not to be punished for this ignorance with eternal pains, since they are not burdened with guilt on this account in the eyes of God, who wishes all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth, and who does not deny His grace to the person who does what he can, to enable him to attain to justification and eternal life. But this salvation no one attains, who leaves this life culpably separated from the unity of faith and communion of the Church.” (Ibid., col. 569) Consequently, although the doctrine of Pius IX remained part of the unfinished business of the Vatican Council and was not formally defined, it is certainly definable and may be called proxima fidei or “practically of faith.”
This historical fact is well known to a few Feeneyites, and related in any history of the acts of the First Vatican Council, but not known to most Feeneyites.
Since you simply don't understand what Trent declared in the first place, you are in no position to be claiming it is on your side. You wouldn't err in this obstinate way if you had even the slightest inkling of what voto means in Catholic sacramental theology before and after Trent. Since you believe in Sola Trent, I'm going to explain this from the Latin of the Council text itself and illustrate its meaning for you only once, so pay attention.
1. verum etiam eorundem sacramentalem confessionem saltem in voto et suo tempore faciendam, et sacerdotalem absolutionem; itemque satisfactionem per jejunia, eleemosynas, orationes et alia pia spiritualis vitæ exercitia; non quidem pro pœna æterna, quæ vel sacramento, vel sacramenti voto[/u] una cuм culpa remittitur
(but also the sacramental confession of the said sins,—at least in desire, and to be made in its season,—and sacerdotal absolution; and likewise satisfaction by fasts, alms, prayers, and the other pious exercises of a spiritual life; not indeed for the eternal punishment,—which is, together with the guilt, remitted, either by the sacrament, or by the desire of the sacrament[/u])
Docet præterea, etsi contritionem hanc aliquando caritate perfectam esse contingat, hominemque Deo reconciliare, priusquam hoc sacramentum actu suscipiatur, ipsam nihilominus reconciliationem ipsi contritioni sine sacramenti voto, quod in illa includitur, non esse adscribendam[/u].
(The Synod teaches moreover, that, although it sometimes happens that this contrition is perfect through charity, and reconciles man with God before this sacrament be actually received, the said reconciliation, nevertheless, is not to be ascribed to that contrition, independently of the desire of the sacrament which is included therein[/u])
Trent clearly teaches the voto of the sacrament of penance remits the eternal punishment of sin, that when contrition is perfect by charity, and joined to the desire of doing all that God commands, it reconciles man to God before the sacrament is received, effected by the desire of the sacrament contained in that act of contrition.
-
2.
Quosdam enim docuerunt sacramentaliter dumtaxat id sumere ut peccatores; alios tantum spiritualiter, illos nimirum, qui voto propositum illum cœlestem panem edentes, fide viva, quæ per dilectionem operatur, fructum ejus et utilitatem sentiunt (For they have taught that some receive it sacramentally only, to wit, sinners: others spiritually only, those to wit who eating in desire that heavenly bread which is set before them[/u], are, by a lively faith which worketh by charity, made sensible of the fruit and usefulness thereof)
Voto here clearly refers to a spiritual communion. It means the reception of the sacramental effect of the Eucharist in desire.
So voto never refers to a supposed disposition but always refers to the reception of the sacramental effect by way of desire.
3. quæ quidem translatio post evangelium promulgatum, sine lavacro regenerationis, aut ejus voto, fieri non potest
(And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, can not be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof)
By thus using voto to refer to Holy Baptism, Trent shows clearly that according to the plain meaning once declared, and the mind of the Council Fathers, the proper effect of Baptism, which is justification or this translation from sin to grace, can be received by the desire of the same.
4. Si quis dixerit, sacramenta novæ legis non esse ad salutem necessaria, sed superflua; et sine eis aut eorum voto per solam fidem homines a Deo gratiam justificationis adipisci[/u]; licet omnia singulis necessaria non sint: anathema sit (Canon IV.—If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous; and that, without them, or without the desire thereof, men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification[/u];—though all [the sacraments] are not indeed necessary for every individual: let him be anathema. )
Again, this canon plainly teaches that the sacraments necessary for salvation are necessary in such a way that no one obtains justification "without them or without the desire of them" - that is the meaning of re aut voto. Therefore, the desire of not one but of two sacraments, where contrition is perfect by charity, effects the grace of justification, and these two are baptism and penance. Trent plainly teaches the effects of three sacraments can be received by way of desire, the Eucharist, Penance and Baptism and the voto of these three sacraments refer never to dispositions in receiving the actual sacraments but rather refer specifically to reconciliation or grace that can be received before the reception of the actual sacraments, namely, they refer to the Spiritual communion, the Act of Perfect contrition and the Baptism of Desire respectively.
-
Again, this canon plainly teaches that the sacraments necessary for salvation are necessary in such a way that no one obtains justification "without them or without the desire of them" - that is the meaning of re aut voto. Therefore, the desire of not one but of two sacraments, where contrition is perfect by charity, effects the grace of justification, and these two are baptism and penance. Trent plainly teaches the effects of three sacraments can be received by way of desire, the Eucharist, Penance and Baptism and the voto of these three sacraments refer never to dispositions in receiving the actual sacraments but rather refer specifically to reconciliation or grace that can be received before the reception of the actual sacraments, namely, they refer to the Spiritual communion, the Act of Perfect contrition and the Baptism of Desire respectively.
First of all, "without the desire of them" is, according to this catechism (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=24193&min=319&num=1
), not a requirement at all. It plainly states that the person receives a BOD "even though the person has never even heard of the existence of the sacrament of baptism".
Now since according to all a BODers everywhere, all catechisms, being a part of the Universal teaching of the Ordinary Magisterium, are infallible, as a BODer, you must accept this as dogma. You say that one place teaches the infidel must desire the sacrament, yet another place it teaches he does not.
This is one of the reasons I say that your dogma is so full of exceptions and variables that it rewards salvation to infidels, yet you deny prots salvation even when they explicitly perform all the proposed requirements of a BOD.
-
Fr. Feeney said:
“There is NO ONE about to die in the state of justification WHOM GOD CANNOT SECURE BAPTISM FOR, and indeed, Baptism of Water. The schemes concerning salvation, I leave to the sceptics. The clear truths of salvation, I am preaching to you.” (Bread of Life, pg. 56
Here again your repeating the Error of Fr. Feeney. No matter how you try to present it differently ,,,,
There is no need for one to obtain Baptism if he is in the State of Justification. The Church teaches water Baptism puts one in the State of Justification.
No water , No State of Justification , No Salvation
-
Fr. Feeney did not believe that someone who dies justified (in state of grace) could be lost. What Fr. Feeney believed is that God WILL ensure that all those who are justified will also be given the grace of water baptism before dying. Basically, he held that all those who are justified before baptism, will not die in that state before receiving baptism, by the workings of Divine Providence. Since Baptism is the seal of Justification.
The controversial passage in Bread of Life about the hypothetical justified soul that dies before receiving the water Baptism was perhaps inadequately addressed and understood but Fr. Feeney teaching was not heretical as it has been demonstrated.
-
This is true, especially considering the Catholic doctrine of predestination:
"For whom he foreknew, he also predestinated to be made conformable to the image of his Son; that he might be the firstborn amongst many brethren. And whom he predestinated, them he also called. And whom he called, them he also justified. And whom he justified, them he also glorified." (Rom 8:29-30)
God's foreknowledge of His elect will ensure that the sacrament that makes His chosen souls members of Christ's Mystical Body (water Baptism) will not be denied before death.
-
. Basically, he held that all those who are justified before baptism, will not die in that state before receiving baptism, by the workings of Divine Providence. Since Baptism is the seal of Justification.
What your saying is that a Catechumen can be Justified (in the state of Santfying Grace), before receiving water Baptism. ? Is that correct ?
-
. Basically, he held that all those who are justified before baptism, will not die in that state before receiving baptism, by the workings of Divine Providence. Since Baptism is the seal of Justification.
What your saying is that a Catechumen can be Justified (in the state of Santfying Grace), before receiving water Baptism. ? Is that correct ?
No one who has been justified dies in that state without receiving Baptism of water and no one is justified without holding the Catholic Faith first.
-
. Basically, he held that all those who are justified before baptism, will not die in that state before receiving baptism, by the workings of Divine Providence. Since Baptism is the seal of Justification.
What your saying is that a Catechumen can be Justified (in the state of Santfying Grace), before receiving water Baptism. ? Is that correct ?
No one who has been justified dies in that state without receiving Baptism of water and no one is justified without holding the Catholic Faith first.
It is heresy to deny that justification does not happen with Baptism of Desire.
It is a separate heresy to deny that a justified soul through Baotism of desire cannot attain the Beatific Vision.
-
. Basically, he held that all those who are justified before baptism, will not die in that state before receiving baptism, by the workings of Divine Providence. Since Baptism is the seal of Justification.
What your saying is that a Catechumen can be Justified (in the state of Santfying Grace), before receiving water Baptism. ? Is that correct ?
No one who has been justified dies in that state without receiving Baptism of water and no one is justified without holding the Catholic Faith first.
It is heresy to deny that justification does not happen with Baptism of Desire.
It is a separate heresy to deny that a justified soul through Baotism of desire cannot attain the Beatific Vision.
But the catechism (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=24193&min=319&num=1) misinterprets Trent as teaching much the same as you, only it goes a step further and is much clearer in it's heresy.
You say the sacrament is not necessary (heresy in itself) but the desire for it is, but the catechism (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=24193&min=319&num=1) teaches that without the sacrament or without the desire for the sacrament means that neither the sacrament nor even the desire for the sacrament is necessary because it teaches that the person receives a BOD "even though they never even heard of the existence of the sacrament of baptism."
So you've been saying the person receives a BOD if he desires the sacrament - but "without them or without the desire thereof" means that neither the sacrament or the desire for it is necessary according to the catechism (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=24193&min=319&num=1).
So now you will need to start saying that the sacrament is not necessary in either fact or desire from now on, because that is what is in the catechism, which according to you, is infallible.
-
Create a separate thread for this, Director. That's why BoD is impossible to discuss. These threads from from one unrelated topic to another and start new topics on page 165. Ridiculous.
-
It is heresy to deny that justification does not happen with Baptism of Desire.
False ... regardless of how many times you claim try to repeat this. Everyone knows your false opinion on this matter. It's just trollish behavior to pop in every few posts and say, "Denying BoD is heresy." without any further argument or elaboration that's relevant to the context of the discussion.
-
In most cases, the catechism isn't even interpreting Trent; that wasn't its intent. It goes way beyond what Trent taught.
In addition, the alleged BoD passage in the catechism isn't even teaching BoD definitively. It's merely saying that in the case of adults it's OK to postpone Baptism for a while (vs. in the case of infants) because if the person's dispositions are good they will not be prevented by some accident from attaining to God's grace. In fact, it's the same language as used by St. Fulgentius, that their proper dispositions would "avail them to grace", a thought which St. Fulgentius completes by saying that God would bring such as these to Baptism.
-
Yes, actually the delay for adults is primarily to allow them to prepare to receive the sacrament, not that if they die in the meantime turns out they didn't really need it anyways.
The catechism (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=24193&min=319&num=1), which according to Nishant, LoE, Ambrose, JAM and the rest is infallible by virtue of it being a teaching of the UOM.
Well, since that's what they choose to believe, then they have to change their promoting of the sacrament being necessary "in fact or in desire" (absurdity at it's finest) because it states right there in the catechism that the person receives a BOD without desiring the sacrament. Therefore, per the catechism, one achieves salvation without them or without the desire thereof.
This effectively achieves the goal of all a BODers everywhere by entirely removing any need for the sacrament and does so, according to them, infallibly.
-
What the Feeneyite heretics refuse to grasp is that the in the Roman Catechism the Council Fathers of Trent themselves explain and interpret the doctrines on sacraments, justification and salvation expressly according to the mind of the Council of Trent. According to the Feeneyite sect, the Council Fathers of Trent, (and the popes Doctors, theologians and the vast majority of Catholics in general after them) did not correctly understand the doctrine they set forth in their own canons and decrees -- and therefore, the ecclesiastical magisterium misinterpreted the canons and decrees on Justification and the sacraments; until Feeney finally set them straight by interpreting Trent correctly -- and therefore (according to them) the true Catholic faith is professed only by the Feeneyite Sect; while all the post Tridentine popes, Doctors, theologians, magisterium and the vast majority of Catholics in general fell into heresy and defected from the Church.
-
What the Feeneyite heretics refuse to grasp is that in the Roman Catechism the Council Fathers of Trent themselves explain and interpret the doctrines on sacraments, justification and salvation expressly according to the mind of the Council of Trent. According to the Feeneyite sect, the Council Fathers of Trent, (and the popes Doctors, theologians and the vast majority of Catholics in general after them) did not correctly understand the doctrine they set forth in their own canons and decrees -- and therefore, the ecclesiastical magisterium misinterpreted the canons and decrees on Justification and the sacraments; until Feeney finally set them straight by interpreting Trent correctly -- and therefore (according to them) the true Catholic faith is professed only by the Feeneyite Sect; while all the post Tridentine popes, Doctors, theologians, magisterium and the vast majority of Catholics in general fell into heresy and defected from the Church.
-
Didn't read the post before yours?
"Without them or without the desire thereof" means the sacrament is not necessary in fact or desire according to what you consider to be the infallible catechism.
So stop arguing and renew your heresy, since according to your catechism, you've been in error teaching that infidels needed to actually desire the sacrament.
Now you have all the ammunition you need to proclaim no one really needs the sacrament at all, just as you've been saying.
-
Man was created in the Image and Likeness of God and ever since then man tries to re-create God in his own image and likeness, always questioning God's ways, trying to make little gods of themselves.
Why is it that is so hard to accept the Divine Revelation as it is? without loopholes.
Christ Our Lord instituted only ONE baptism (that, of water) for the remission of sin, original and actual, and the incorporation into the True Church, the body of Christ. Absolutely NOTHING is missing from the Law of Salvation He established through the exclusive means of the ONLY Church He created.
If a person in a false religion can be saved, then everything that Lord Jesus did, taught, and died for, makes absolutely no sense. These words then are meaningless: "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe ALL THAT I COMMANDED YOU and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age."
-
In the Roman Catechism, Pope St. Pius V promulgated the Tridentine Council Fathers' own interpretation and explication of the teaching of the Council of Trent on the necessity of Baptism for salvation; which teaches that infants must be baptized immediately, because they have NO OTHER WAY TO BE SAVED; but for adults, Baptism must be deferred; since they do not have the danger of death that threatens infants. And in case of an unforseen danger of death, they can receive the grace and justification of Baptism through repentance and the resolve to receive Baptism. Thus, the doctrine of Baptism in voto, taught in the Decree on Justification and in Sess. 7 can. 4, is expressly taught and understood by the Council Fathers of Trent as a MEANS OF SALVATION for those cases in which the reception of baptismal water is impossible:
The text of the Roman Catechism in the precision and clarity of the original language:
" Ma nessun insegnamento è più necessario di questo: che la legge del Battesimo è prescritta dal Signore per tutti gli uomini i quali, se non rinascono a Dio con la grazia del Battesimo, son procreati dai loro genitori, siano questi fedeli o no, per la miseria e la morte eterna. Molto spesso i pastori dovranno commentare la sentenza evangelica: 'Chi non rinascer‚ per acqua e Spirito Santo non può entrare nel regno di Dio' (Gv 3,5)." ...
" Perciò i pastori insegneranno che i bambini devono assolutamente essere battezzati." ...
" Si pensi che ai piccoli non è lasciata alcuna possibilità di guadagnare la salvezza, se non è loro impartito il Battesimo." ...
" 178 Diverso metodo deve seguirsi, secondo l'antico uso ecclesiastico, a proposito di adulti che, nati da infedeli, hanno raggiunto il pieno uso della ragione. A essi deve essere proposta la fede cristiana e con ogni cura devono essere esortati, spinti e condotti ad accoglierla. Convertiti a Dio, dovranno poi essere ammoniti a non differire il sacramento del Battesimo oltre il tempo fissato dalla Chiesa."
" Nonostante ciò fu consuetudine della Chieda di non concedere subito a questa classe di individui il sacramento del Battesimo; si stabilì al contrario di ritardarlo per un certo tempo. Per essi del resto la dilazione non implica il pericolo che incombe per i bambini.
In caso improvviso di pericolo, chi ha l'uso della ragione, pur impossibilitato a purificarsi nell'acqua sacramentale, può conseguire la grazia e la giustizia col semplice proposito di ricevere a suo tempo il Battesimo, unito al pentimento dei peccati commessi."
And in English:
"But no teaching is more necessary than this one: that the law of Baptism is prescribed by the Lord for all men who, if are not reborn to God with the grace of Baptism, are procreated by their parents, whether they be faithful or not, for misery and eternal death. Very often the pastors will have to mention the evangelical pronouncement: "He who is not reborn by water and the Holy Ghost cannot enter the kingdom of God." (John 3:5) ...
Therefore the pastors shall teach that infants must absolutely be baptized." ...
" One must consider that for infants there is provided no other possibility to gain salvation, if they are not given Baptism." ...
" A different method must be followed for adults according to the ancient custom of the Church, who, born as infidels, have reached the full use of reason. To them the Christian faith must be set forth and with all dilligence they must be exhorted, prompted and led to embrace it."
" Notwithstanding that was the custom of the Church to not immediately give the sacrament of Baptism to this class of individuals; the contrary was established to delay it for a certain time. For them, on the other hand, there is not the danger that threatens infants. In the case of unforseen danger [of death] one who has the use of reason, due to the impossibility to be purified in baptismal water, can receive grace and justification with the simple resolve to receive Baptism in its due time, together with repentance for sins committed."
We have ABSOLUTE CERTITUDE that the Roman Catechism correctly explains the doctrine of the Council of Trent on Baptism, justification & salvation; because it was COMPILED AND PROMULGATED BY TRENT COUNCIL FATHERS.
The teaching is infallible: it is the unanimous teaching of the Council of Trent explained by the Fathers of Trent; and it is the unanimous and explicit teaching of the universal and ordinary magisterium for more than four centuries. Catholics are not free to accept only solemn infallible pronouncements of the extraordinary magisterium, but must assent with divine and Catholic faith to the definitive teachings of the universal magisterium under penalty of heresy (can. 751) Therefore, dear Feeneyites: Do you profess these doctrines which have been declared to be without error; and taught expressly as pertaining to the universal magisterium by Pope Clement XIII? Yes or No? If you say "NO" you excommunicate yourselves and place yourselves outside the Church, where there is no salvation.
-
Ha Ha Ha! Heretic priest? I'm a heretic (according to Ladislaus) because I profess the doctrine of the Council Fathers of Trent, the post Tridentine Doctors and Popes !!! Stupid Feeneyite ass Ladislaus says I deny EENS by professing BOB & BOD!
According to the Ferneyite heresy, those who repent and resolve to receive Baptism, and thereby receive justification are still outside the Church. The proposition is heretical: Since the Third Century, it has been explicitly professed by the Church that those who were justified by the votum to receive Baptism, but were martyred before they could be baptized are saints of the Church Triumphant. The perpetual teaching of the Church upholds both Baptism in voto and EENS. It is the heretical novelty of Feeney to see a contradiction between the two. That is why the stupid ass asserts that I deny EENS! According to his heresy there is a contradiction between BOB/BOD and EENS; but according to the constant teaching of the magisterium there is none. Justification produces sanctification. There is no sanctifying grace outside the Church. Feeney's heresy was to believe that those justified and sanctified by Baptism in voto without baptismal water remain outside the Church.
-
Ha Ha Ha! Heretic priest? I'm a heretic (according to Ladislaus) because I profess the doctrine of the Council Fathers of Trent, the post Tridentine Doctors and Popes !!! Stupid Feeneyite ass Ladislaus says I deny EENS by professing BOB & BOD!
No, I am the first one to say that BoD and BoB are NOT heretical. I have denounced the Dimond brothers as schismatic for holding that position. My problem is that a large number of your explanations and articulations of BoD and BoB have been Pelagian, i.e. heretical. If you want to hold BoD/BoB in a non-Pelagian manner, then I am no one to contest your opinion except for by way of friendly disagreement.
Problem with BoD/BoB is precisely that for every single person who says he believes in it, you get a different explanation of what it is, what it's scope is, what it can and cannot supply for, etc. That's just another reason why it cannot be dogma; dogmas need to be clearly defined.
-
The Council Fathers of Trent explain explicitly in what manner the sacrament of Baptism is necessary for salvation, stating in the Roman Catechism that the grace of Baptism, (but not always the water), is absolutely necessary for salvation. The absolute necessity of Baptism is therefore an absolute necessity of means in respect to the res sacramenti, which is the immediate instrumental cause of justification and sanctification. The visible sign of the washing of baptismal water is NOT of an absolute necessity of means, but of a relative necessity; because if it were of absolute necessity, then the Council of Trent would have defined erroneously that justification is effected by the sacrament or by the votum of it.
The res sacramenti is of absolute necessity of means for justification and salvation, because it consists in the divine and supernatural operation on the soul, by which man is cleansed from sin and sanctified by grace:
“Gratia baptismalis, cuм sit quaedem generatio, duos terminos importat: terminum a quo seu corruptionem prioris formae et terminum ad quem seu productionem novae formae vitalis.
Ex parte termini a quo gratia baptismalis est totalis remissio peccati originalis, seu ipsius peccati orignis, peccati actualis tum mortalis tum venialis, poenae aeternae ac totius poenae temporalis pro peccatis debitae, omnis poenalitatis.
Ex parte termini ad quem gratia baptismalis est perfect restitutio justitiae originalis, i.e. gratiae sanctificantis et doni integritatis.* Haec tamen restitutio quae vi Baptismi perficietur in coelo, nunc immediate post susceptionem Baptismi est tantum incompleta; consistit autem in gratia communi sanctificante, per quam restituitur substantia justitiae originalis, et in gratia sacramentali (strictius dicta) quae est quidam modus vel vigor gratiae sanctificanti additus, qui eam specialiter ordinat ad omnes effectus et proprietates quae ad generationem referuntur et virtute cujus, incipienter in hac vita per virtutum exercitium ac perfecte in altera vita per purificationem purgatorii et retirbutionem gloriae, restituitur donum illud integritatis quo justitia originalis perficiebatur.” (Doronzo, De Baptismo et Confirmatione, Bruce publishing 1947, pg. 86)
The dogma is clear: What is necessary for salvation are the sacraments in re or in voto (Sess. 7 can. 4). The first clause of the canon defines the necessity of the sacraments for salvation; and the subordinate clause defines in what manner they are necesssary: in re or in voto, because there cannot be justification without them or the votum of them.
The doctrine of Trent is explicitly set forth and magisterially interpreted in the Roman Catechism by the Council Fathers themselves: Baptism in voto as a means of salvation for whom water baptism is impossible. The Feeneyites reply by claiming that they understand the dogma as it is written; and heretically assert that dogma is absolutely clear in its meaning, and has absolutely no need to be interpreted. I have already quoted earlier the verbatim text of the dogmatic constitution of Vatican I, "Dei Filius", which teaches that the magisterium of Holy Mother Church alone possesses the authority to interpret dogma. Yet the Feeneyites obstinately persist in their heresy, saying, "There is only one interpretation of dogma ... what the dogma says." This is nothing but heretical Feeneyite Voodoo theology: Chapter 2 of the Dogmatic Constitution "Dei Filius" explicitly defines that the magisterium of the Church alone possesses the authotity to interpret dogma; and further explains that the Tridentine pronouncement on the unanimous consent of the Fathers was misinterpreted by many, and therefore the dogma of Trent is now authentically interpreted in Dei Filius of Vatican Council I. Thus, the adherents of the Feeneyite cult heretically deny the magisterial authority to interpret the dogmas, so that they can justify their heretical understanding of the dogmas in a manner that opposes the understanding of them according to the mind of Holy Mother Church.
-
You are lying again, Ladislaus: When I professed BOB, you stated that I deny the dogma of EENS. Thus, you manifested patently your Feeneyite heresy.
-
There is no perennial TEACHING about BoD. BoD is a speculative opinion that has become widely adopted based on the reverence people have for St. Thomas, who himself adopted it due to reverence for St. Augustine. One of the Innocents admitted that his opinion was based on the authority of St. Augustine (was not teaching it of his own papal authority).
-
You are lying again, Ladislaus: When I professed BOB, you stated that I deny the dogma of EENS. Thus, you manifested patently your Feeneyite heresy.
Nope, it was for the way in which you applied BoD to those outside the Church, not for BoD per se. You fail to make simple distinctions.
-
There is only one way to believe dogma: as Holy Mother Church has declared it. The EENS dogma has been thrice infallibly declared.
Pope Pius IX, First Vatican Council, Sess.3, Chap. 2 on Revelation, 1870, Ex-Cathedra Dogma >>>: “Hence, also, that understanding of its sacred dogmas must be perpetually retained, which Holy Mother Church has once declared; and there must never be a recession from that meaning under the specious name of a deeper understanding."
This doctrine made in First Vatican Council is vitally important for dogmatic purity, because the primary way that Satan attempts to corrupt Christ’s doctrines is by getting men to move away from the Church’s dogmas as they were once declared. There is no meaning of a dogma other than what the words themselves state and declare, so the Devil tries to get men to “understand” and “interpret” these words in a way that is different from how the Church has declared them.
Outside the Church There is No Salvation: There is no need to add anything to it or "understand” the dogmas in a different way than what the words themselves state and declare.
Pope St. Pius X, Lamentabile, The Errors of the Modernists, July 3, 1907, #22:
“The dogmas which the Church professes as revealed are not truths fallen from heaven, but they are a kind of interpretation of religious facts, which the human mind by a laborious effort prepared for itself.”- Condemned
Pope St. Pius X, Lamentabile, The Errors of the Modernists, July 3, 1907, #54:
“The dogmas, the sacraments, the hierarchy, as far as pertains both to the notion and to the reality, are nothing but interpretations and the evolution of Christian intelligence, which have increased and perfected the little germ latent in the Gospel.”- Condemned
Dogmas of the faith, like Outside the Church There is No Salvation, are truths fallen from heaven which cannot be contradicted and must be believed by all faithful.
However, this is not pertaining to BOD since BOD is NOT and never has been a dogma.
Any one who says that we must interpret or understand the meaning of a dogmatic definition, in a way which contradicts its actual wording, is denying the whole point of Infallibility and dogmatic definitions. Also, those who insist that infallible DEFINITIONS must be interpreted by non-infallible statements (e.g., from theologians, catechisms, etc.) are denying the whole purpose of the Chair of Peter. They are subordinating the Heavenly dogmatic teaching to the re-evaluation of fallible humans thereby inverting their authority.
-
Gratuitous Crap:
"There is no perennial TEACHING about BoD. BoD is a speculative opinion that has become widely adopted based on the reverence people have for St. Thomas, who himself adopted it due to reverence for St. Augustine. One of the Innocents admitted that his opinion was based on the authority of St. Augustine (was not teaching it of his own papal authority)."
No, Ladislaus, it is the constant and explicit teaching of the post Tridentine ordinary magisterium. It is de fide divina et Catholica.
-
The ѕυιcιdє of Altering the Faith in the Liturgy - p. 45:
The Magisterium
By Magisterium, is meant, “The authority of the Church, by di- vine appointment, to teach the truths of religious belief; the commis- sion of the Church to teach; the teaching office of the Church; the teaching and interpreting of the doctrines of faith carried on by the Church through the Pope and bishops and those commissioned by them. It may be ordinary when a doctrine is proclaimed throughout the Church as a part of divine revelation; or extraordinary when a general council defines a doctrine ratified by the Pope or when the Pope speaks as the official teacher of the Church (ex cathedra) pro- claiming or defining a matter of faith or morals.”130 There is infalli-
ble magisterium only when the Church proclaims or defines doctrine in its extraordinary or universal and ordinary magisterium.
A precise and official formulation on Magisterium is to be found in the 1983 Code of Canon Law. Canon 749 declares: p. 46:
1 “The Supreme Pontiff, in virtue of his office, possesses infallible teaching authority when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful ... he proclaims with a definitive act that a doctrine of faith or morals is to be held as such.”
2. “The college of bishops also possesses infallible teaching authority when the bishops exercise their teaching office gathered together in an ecuмenical council when, as teachers and judges of faith and morals, they declare that for the universal Church a doctrine of faith or morals must be definitively held; they also exercise it scattered throughout the world but united in a bond of communion among themselves and with the Successor of Peter when together with that same Roman Pontiff in their capacity as authentic teachers of faith and morals they agree on an opinion to be held as definitive.”
It is to be noted that in both extraordinary and ordinary Magisterium, the doctrine must either be proclaimed with a “defini- tive act” (extraordinary) or it is agreed that it is “to be held as defini- tive.” The teaching of both the extraordinary and the universal and ordinary Magisterium are defined doctrines. Any doctrine that is not defined does not pertain to the infallible Magisterium of the Church. Francisco Marin-Sola O.P. explains:
The Church’s doctrinal authority or magisterium has for its proper and specific purpose the conservation and ex- position of the revealed deposit. To determine or to fix in- fallibly the true meaning of the divine deposit is called a definition of faith by the Church ...
These two ways of exercising the magisterium on the content and the meaning of the revealed deposit are of equal dogmatic value, and both are true definitions of faith. Between them there exists only an accidental difference, to wit, that the magisterium exercised by the Ecuмenical Council or by the Pope speaking ex cathedra is done with a greater solemnity and show of for- mulae and is easily discernible by all; on the other hand, the p. 47:
ordinary magisterium is exercised through the universal teaching of the Church without any special display or set formulae, and at times it is not so easy to determine its scope and signification.131
What is taught by the infallible Magisterium of the Church is to be believed “with divine and Catholic Faith”:
Further, by divine and Catholic faith, all those things must be believed which are contained in the written word of God and in tradition, and those which are proposed by the Church, either in a solemn pronouncement or in her or- dinary and universal teaching power, to be believed as di- vinely revealed.132 cf. The ѕυιcιdє of Altering the Faith in the Liturgy - www.alteringliturgy.com
Thus, another point of superstition in the Voodoo theology of the Feeneyite sect is to consider only solemn definitions of the popes and ecuмenical councils to be de fide definitions; whereas the Church has always judged heresy according to the definitions of faith of both the solemn Extraordinary Magisterium, and the universal and ordinary magisterium. The immemorial custom of the Roman Inquisition was to judge heresy according to both criteria, and not just the solemn magisterium.
-
Gratuitous Crap:
...
No, Ladislaus, it is the constant and explicit teaching of the post Tridentine ordinary magisterium. It is de fide divina et Catholica.
Not gratuitous ... just an opinion based on my analysis. Don't feel like posting a 5-page explanation since you just reject it all anyway, so it's not worth my time. As I've repeatedly pointed out, I really don't care about BoD proper. What I care about is the Pelagian version of BoD and the subsequent undermining of EENS ... something which very few BoDers do NOT do (e.g. Nishant).
-
Nonsense, DP; we all believe in the infallibility of the Ordinary Universal Magisterium. Only problem is that you have no idea what belongs to it and what doesn't, i.e. have no idea what it actually is. We simply dispute that BoD has been defined by that infallible Ordinary Universal Magisterium.
-
No, Ladislaus, it is the constant and explicit teaching of the post Tridentine ordinary magisterium. It is de fide divina et Catholica.
Will you then denounce the heresy of thinking that explicit belief in the Rewarder God suffices for supernatural faith? Didn't think so, haeretice malefactor.
-
Ladislaus says: "; we all believe in the infallibility of the Ordinary Universal Magisterium. Only problem is that you have no idea what belongs to it and what doesn't, i.e. have no idea what it actually is."
This is again the typical gratuitous crap reply of Ladislaus. I have posted extensively on the ordinary magisterium -- the statement is patent idiocy.
-
Ladislaus says: "Will you then denounce the heresy of thinking that explicit belief in the Rewarder God suffices for supernatural faith? Didn't think so, haeretice malefactor."
The stupid ass, Ladislaus, thinks he possesses the authority to define doctrine, and judge in a matter not yet defined by the magisterium. As I have stated elsewhere, I follow the teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas, who states that IF there is more than belief in God, and that he rewards the good and punishes the wicked is required for salvation, then God will reveal to the soul what is required to profess. Nevertheless, Pius IX and Pius XII have taught the doctrine that Ladislaus declares to be heresy -- what an ASS.
-
After exposing the fallacy of the proposition, idiot Cantaralla just repeats the same crude error again, like a mindless parrot:
"There is only one way to believe dogma: as Holy Mother Church has declared it. The EENS dogma has been thrice infallibly declared." Cantarella presumes that she, rather than the teaching authority of the Church, may teach what is the way to believe that "Holy Mother Church has declared it."
The Feeneyites do not interpret the dogma as the Church has understood and understands it, but interprets and understands it in a manner that is contrary to the Church's perpetual understanding of it. The Feeneyite sect believes that those justified and sanctified by Baptism in voto, remain outside the Church and absolutely cannot be saved without baptismal water. This is a heretical interpretation of the dogma that opposes the proper sense and meaning of it that the Church has perpetually understood and taught.
It pertains exclusively to the magisterial authority of the Church to explain and interpret the dogmas of faith: "For, the doctrine of faith which God revealed has not been handed down as a philosophic invention to the human mind to be perfected, but has been entrusted as a divine deposit to the Spouse of Christ, to be faithfully guarded and infallibly interpreted." (Vatican I "Dei Filius", Ch. 1)
When certain men wrongly explained the dogma of Trent, Vatican I renewed the decree of Trent and interpreted it:
"But, since the rules which the holy Synod of Trent salutarily decreed concerning the interpretation of Divine Scripture in order to restrain impetuous minds, are wrongly explained by certain men, We, renewing the same decree, declare this to be its intention: that, in matters of faith and morals pertaining to the instruction of Christian Doctrine, that must be considered as the true sense of Sacred Scripture which Holy Mother Church has held and holds, whose office it is to judge concerning the true understanding and interpretation of the Sacred Scriptures; and, for that reason, no one is permitted to interpret Sacred Scripture itself contrary to this sense, or even contrary to the unanimous agreement of the Fathers."
The Roman Catechism and the post-Tridentine magisterium have faithfully and authoritatively interpreted the Tridentine canons and decrees in a manner which upholds the doctrine of Baptism in voto as being entirely consistent and in no way opposed to EENS. It is the heretical novelty of Feeney that declares Baptism in voto to be opposed to EENS. The dogmas must be understood as the authority of the Church interprets and understands them -- "Hence, also, that understanding of its sacred dogmas must be perpetually retained, which Holy Mother Church has once declared; and there must never be recession from that meaning". The Feeneyites departed from that meaning and interpreted the dogma of EENS in their own novel manner.
-
Ladislaus says: "Will you then denounce the heresy of thinking that explicit belief in the Rewarder God suffices for supernatural faith? Didn't think so, haeretice malefactor."
The stupid ass, Ladislaus, thinks he possesses the authority to define doctrine, and judge in a matter not yet defined by the magisterium. As I have stated elsewhere, I follow the teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas, who states that IF there is more than belief in God, and that he rewards the good and punishes the wicked is required for salvation, then God will reveal to the soul what is required to profess. Nevertheless, Pius IX and Pius XII have taught the doctrine that Ladislaus declares to be heresy -- what an ASS.
Well, by your definition of the Ordinary Universal Magisterium, since no one ever believed that there could be supernatural faith without explicit belief in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation, its denial is heresy. Consequently, that's a dogma by the Ordinary Universal Magisterium. It's only in the 16th century that this dogma came to be questioned.
Piux IX taught no such thing.
Neither did Pius XII; Suprema Haec is a heretical fraud.
-
Please tell me that you're not actually Father Kramer. Really, the scandal that you're causing vis-a-vis the priesthood are very difficult to bear, with your constant "idiot", "stupid ass", and various scatalogical insults. That alone suffices to prove that you are not honestly and sincerely seeking the truth.
-
Ladislaus says, "Well, by your definition of the Ordinary Universal Magisterium, since no one ever believed that there could be supernatural faith without explicit belief in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation, its denial is heresy." --- Gratuitous and fallacious crap.
Ladislaus replies to theological argumentation with irrational ad hominem crap:
"Please tell me that you're not actually Father Kramer. Really, the scandal that you're causing vis-a-vis the priesthood are very difficult to bear, with your constant "idiot", "stupid ass", and various scatalogical insults. That alone suffices to prove that you are not honestly and sincerely seeking the truth.
-
You need to be defrocked immediately ... assuming that you are in fact a valid priest.
:facepalm:
-
Please tell me that you're not actually Father Kramer. Really, the scandal that you're causing vis-a-vis the priesthood are very difficult to bear, with your constant "idiot", "stupid ass", and various scatalogical insults. That alone suffices to prove that you are not honestly and sincerely seeking the truth.
Evidently, Fr. Kramer does not know how to express himself like a "Prince of the Church" should.
-
The ultra-Feeneyite megalomaniacs always claim that they "understand the dogma as it is written", in the same manner as Protestant fundamentalists understand the Bible "as it is written": according to Private Interpretation. From St. Pius V to Benedict XVI, the magisterium of the Church has constantly understood and authoritatively taught the doctrine of the Decree on Justification, Chapter 4, exactly as it is explained in the Roman Catechism, and applied by St. Alphonsus Liguori and St. Robert Bellarmine, and all approved post-Tridentine theologians -- to wit, as the dogmatic basis of the doctrine of Baptism of Desire. That is how the Catholic Church has understood and understands the Tridentine doctrine of Baptism and Justification. The Feeneyite sect's understanding of the Tridentine doctrine is not supported by so much as one pope, Doctor or even one approved theologian: NOT ONE HAS UNDERSTOOD THE DECREES AND CANONS OF TRENT AS THEY DO. The Feeneyite doctrine is patently not the doctrine of the Catholic Church.
-
The ultra-Feeneyite megalomaniacs always claim that they "understand the dogma as it is written", in the same manner as Protestant fundamentalists understand the Bible "as it is written": according to Private Interpretation.
As per usual you have no idea what you're talking about. When the Church defined that "There's absolutely no salvation outside the Church." it's an act of simple childlike faith to accept it at face value. Catholics are not expected to regurgitate a 5-page explanation which basically turns the dogma into the opposite of what the dogma says. You boneheads claim that accepting EENS literally is heresy. I've never heard anything so preposterous, and so diabolical. I teach my children that only Catholics go to heaven. They take this in a very simple way to mean exactly what it says. You pernicious enemies of the Faith reduce Our Church's holy dogmas to meaningless formulas and into the opposite of what they actually say. Mr. self-proclaimed "Fatima Expert" Kramer might want to take note of the recently-discovered passage in Sister Lucy's diary where Our Blessed Mother emphasized "one Baptism". I'm sure that St. Bernadatte, when told that there's no salvation outside the Church, immediately began to apply one distinction after another until she believed that the "mutato" could be saved.
Shame on you, Kramer; you are doing the devil's work and have taken the devil's side in this "Devil's Final Battle".
-
No Ladislaus, you obstinate ass, it is not childlike faith to understand EENS in a manner that is contrary to the unanimous agreement of the Fathers, who professed both EENS and BOB, and saw no contradiction between them; and contrary to the unanimous teaching of the medieval Doctors and popes, who saw no contradiction or opposition between BOB/BOD and EENS; and contrary to the Council Fathers of Trent who taught Baptism in voto; and the unanimous teaching of the post-Tridentine popes, Doctors and theologians who all agree on BOB/BOD and EENS, and none has ever held that there is any contradiction or opposition between them. Accepting EENS as it has been taught by the Church is not heresy; but accepting it as it is understood by Feeneyites is indeed heresy.
And as far as the salvation of the matuto is concerned, I have already quoted the popes who taught on this question. What's so shameful about following the opinion of papal teaching in a matter that has not been defined, Mr. Hypocritical ass?
You claim I am one of the "pernicious enemies of the faith" because I accept the teaching of the popes and Doctors of the Church who have not speculated or opined, but taught BOB, BOD and EENS. If BOB & BOD were really the doctrines of the enemies of the faith, then how can it be that the Magisterium of the Church has constantly approved them for so many centuries; and has never condemned them? Did the Holy Ghost miss these errors and forget to bring about their condemnation? How could the infallible and indefectible Church have allowed the rampant and universal proliferation of these "errors" of the "pernicious enemies of the Church" to infect the whole Church for so many centuries, even to the point that Catholics generally and universally have professed BOB & BOD for many centuries? That would amount to the defection and failure of the divinely instituted Magisterium. No Ladislaus, you insolent ass and obstinate heretic, it is not I and the popes and Doctors who are the "pernicious enemies of the faith"; but you Feeneyites who reject their teaching, preferring the errors of Feeney, who are the "pernicious enemies of the faith".
-
The popes and Doctors who professed and taught BOB/BOD also professed EENS and ONE BAPTISM -- it is not they who got it wrong, but you Feeneyite knuckleheads who fell into heresy who are the ones who just don't get it.
-
The popes and Doctors who professed and taught BOB/BOD also professed EENS and ONE BAPTISM -- it is not they who got it wrong, but you Feeneyite knuckleheads who fell into heresy who are the ones who just don't get it.
Yes, THEY did; you don't, you Pelagian heretic you.
-
No Ladislaus, you obstinate ass, it is not childlike faith to understand EENS in a manner that is contrary to the unanimous agreement of the Fathers, who professed both EENS and BOB, and saw no contradiction between them; and contrary to the unanimous teaching of the medieval Doctors and popes, who saw no contradiction or opposition between BOB/BOD and EENS; and contrary to the Council Fathers of Trent who taught Baptism in voto; and the unanimous teaching of the post-Tridentine popes, Doctors and theologians who all agree on BOB/BOD and EENS, and none has ever held that there is any contradiction or opposition between them. Accepting EENS as it has been taught by the Church is not heresy; but accepting it as it is understood by Feeneyites is indeed heresy.
And as far as the salvation of the matuto is concerned, I have already quoted the popes who taught on this question. What's so shameful about following the opinion of papal teaching in a matter that has not been defined, Mr. Hypocritical ass?
You claim I am one of the "pernicious enemies of the faith" because I accept the teaching of the popes and Doctors of the Church who have not speculated or opined, but taught BOB, BOD and EENS. If BOB & BOD were really the doctrines of the enemies of the faith, then how can it be that the Magisterium of the Church has constantly approved them for so many centuries; and has never condemned them? Did the Holy Ghost miss these errors and forget to bring about their condemnation? How could the infallible and indefectible Church have allowed the rampant and universal proliferation of these "errors" of the "pernicious enemies of the Church" to infect the whole Church for so many centuries, even to the point that Catholics generally and universally have professed BOB & BOD for many centuries? That would amount to the defection and failure of the divinely instituted Magisterium. No Ladislaus, you insolent ass and obstinate heretic, it is not I and the popes and Doctors who are the "pernicious enemies of the faith"; but you Feeneyites who reject their teaching, preferring the errors of Feeney, who are the "pernicious enemies of the faith".
:applause: :applause: :applause: Thank you for the defense of the doctrines of baptism of Blood and desire! Excellent.
This is such a well put statement:
If BOB & BOD were really the doctrines of the enemies of the faith, then how can it be that the Magisterium of the Church has constantly approved them for so many centuries; and has never condemned them? Did the Holy Ghost miss these errors and forget to bring about their condemnation? How could the infallible and indefectible Church have allowed the rampant and universal proliferation of these "errors" of the "pernicious enemies of the Church" to infect the whole Church for so many centuries,
Why cant you Feenyites understand that the doctrines of BOB and BOD have been professed since the beginnings of the Church. If they were erroneous, there have been over 70 popes since then. DONT YA THINK ONE OF THEM WOULD HAVE CAUGHT THE ERRORS AND RULLED THEM HERESY?
I guess it was left to the great "hero" Fr Feeney to finally discover the errors! What nonsense!
-
If BOB & BOD were really the doctrines of the enemies of the faith, then how can it be that the Magisterium of the Church has constantly approved them for so many centuries; and has never condemned them?
Again, a simple failure to make distinctions, something which they did not evidently teach at your modernist "seminary". I am not attacking BoB / BoD per se (I think this is about the 500th time I've said this) as the doctrine of the Church's enemies; I am attacking the Pelagian form of these opinions. You constantly hide behind the "Catholic" opinion on BoD as cover for your denial of EENS and for your Pelagian heresy. We try to flush you out into the light but you keep slinking back into the shadows.
-
Thank you for the defense of the doctrines of baptism of Blood and desire! Excellent.
:roll-laugh1:
This pseudo-priest has not made a single cogent argument in favor of BoD/BoB, much less his Pelagian heresy.
-
Lunatic Ladislaus says: "This pseudo-priest has not made a single cogent argument in favor of BoD/BoB, much less his Pelagian heresy."
Gratuitous ravings! What delusional codswallop! YOU ARE WALKING WITH THE FAIRIES, LUNATIC LADISLAUS! I am a Thomist, you fool. It is utterly assinine and theologically incoherent to ascribe Pelagianism to me. You are a patent IDIOT!
-
Now you need to put your ad hominems in all caps, eh? Appears as if I'm not the one losing my mind.
-
I am a Thomist
:roll-laugh1:
-
No Ladislaus, you obstinate ass, it is not childlike faith to understand EENS in a manner that is contrary to the unanimous agreement of the Fathers, who professed both EENS and BOB, and saw no contradiction between them; and contrary to the unanimous teaching of the medieval Doctors and popes, who saw no contradiction or opposition between BOB/BOD and EENS; and contrary to the Council Fathers of Trent who taught Baptism in voto; and the unanimous teaching of the post-Tridentine popes, Doctors and theologians who all agree on BOB/BOD and EENS, and none has ever held that there is any contradiction or opposition between them. Accepting EENS as it has been taught by the Church is not heresy; but accepting it as it is understood by Feeneyites is indeed heresy.
And as far as the salvation of the matuto is concerned, I have already quoted the popes who taught on this question. What's so shameful about following the opinion of papal teaching in a matter that has not been defined, Mr. Hypocritical ass?
You claim I am one of the "pernicious enemies of the faith" because I accept the teaching of the popes and Doctors of the Church who have not speculated or opined, but taught BOB, BOD and EENS. If BOB & BOD were really the doctrines of the enemies of the faith, then how can it be that the Magisterium of the Church has constantly approved them for so many centuries; and has never condemned them? Did the Holy Ghost miss these errors and forget to bring about their condemnation? How could the infallible and indefectible Church have allowed the rampant and universal proliferation of these "errors" of the "pernicious enemies of the Church" to infect the whole Church for so many centuries, even to the point that Catholics generally and universally have professed BOB & BOD for many centuries? That would amount to the defection and failure of the divinely instituted Magisterium. No Ladislaus, you insolent ass and obstinate heretic, it is not I and the popes and Doctors who are the "pernicious enemies of the faith"; but you Feeneyites who reject their teaching, preferring the errors of Feeney, who are the "pernicious enemies of the faith".
:applause:
Well said! If only they would hear the truth rather than closing their minds. This heresy of denying Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood is among the most dangerous to Catholics in our times.
-
Well said! If only they would hear the truth rather than closing their minds. This heresy of denying Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood is among the most dangerous to Catholics in our times.
Yes, the defense of EENS and the necessity of the Sacraments for salvation is the "most dangerous heresy in our times", no, not the outright Cushingite Pelagian denial of EENS, not modernism, but the rejection of your Pelagian flavor of BoD and the opinion that BoD is an opinion rooted in speculative theology and has never been dogmatically defined.
You've completely lost your minds; your diabolically-perverted evil wills, twisted by a refusal to accept EENS, have caused you to go insane, and you only cling to the Catholic faith by the skins of your teeth.
-
And the scatalogical perversity continually being vomited forth from the mouth of pseudo-priest Kramer proves the evil will and the diabolical influence; frankly, I wonder if Kramer hasn't become diabolically possessed.
-
:applause:
Well said! If only they would hear the truth rather than closing their minds. This heresy of denying Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood is among the most dangerous to Catholics in our times.
You Cushingites preach a prot BOD and say that denying that heresy is dangerous to Catholics?
The truth is that too much time in the Novus Ordo has infected the minds of you and Don and the rest of those who are / were willing partakers of the most pernicious of heresies for many years.
Many have cleansed themselves of that disease, but you and Don and the rest of the sacrament despisers will never come to know or accept the truth as long as you keep feeding your infection with modernist lies.
-
And the scatalogical perversity continually being vomited forth from the mouth of pseudo-priest Kramer proves the evil will and the diabolical influence; frankly, I wonder if Kramer hasn't become diabolically possessed.
I never would have thought that Fr. Kramer was that stupid - I know he wasn't that stupid 30 years ago - sad to see what happens when the faith is lost, very sad indeed.
-
And it can only be diabolical perversity that would cause Emerentiana and Ambrose to praise the pseudo-priest Kramer (since both of these consider Novus Ordo ordination to be doubtful), despite the fact that Kramer completely disgraces the Priesthood with every post. You partisans of evil would bring out the "clapping" smilie if Satan himself posted in favor of BoD.
-
Schuckardites and Cushingites stick together and seek to bring in whoever they can snare.
-
Indeed, Ambrose, Feeneyism is a truly dangerous heresy that has proliferated in the post-conciliar milieu of "dialogue", announced so poignantly in the infamous words of the theologically incompetent John XXIII, who declared in the opening discourse that in his Council, the Church would not make use condemnations: "Frequently she has condemned them [errors] with the greatest severity. Nowadays however, the Spouse of Christ prefers to make use of the medicine of mercy rather than that of severity. She consider that she meets the needs of the present day by demonstrating the validity of her teaching rather than by condemnations." -- a milieu of ecuмenical dialogue of the Conciliar Church which refuses allow for condemnation of even the most pernicious and deadliest of errors.
Feeneyism is a particularly deadly and most pernicious heresy because its fanatical adherents present their depraved doctrines as a standard and litmus test of Catholic orthodoxy. Under the guise of upholding the dogma of EENS, they propose their own heretical understanding of that dogma, which they support with a theologically incoherent and cabalistically sectarian interpretation of the decrees and canons of the ecuмenical councils, the solemn pronouncements of the popes, and the teachings of the Fathers; which contrast with and oppose the teaching and orthodox understanding of them that has been constantly set forth down through the centuries by the authority of the supreme magisterium, and the ordinary magisterium of the universal Church.
The Feeneyites propagate their absurdly incoherent beliefs with an enthusiasm that reaches a level of of hysteria that blindly interprets dogma and scripture according its own errant and logically defective principles; while remaining utterly impervious and obstinately unconvinced by the authority of the magisterium, and the vast array of approved theologians who have, century after century, carried out their appointed mission to systematically elaborate and explicate the Church's magisterial teaching.
While I have been able to rescue some innocent souls who had been ensnared by these Feeneyite doctrinal perverts; I must also acknowledge that the hardened Feeneyite sectarians adhere to their utterly unfounded beliefs with an obstinate and irrational tenacity that is utterly impervious to reasoned theological argument, or the divinely instituted authority, or even basic common sense.
The Feeneyite method of argumentation will invariably evade any directly proposed argument that refutes any point of their doctrine. This is accomplished first by misrepresenting the argument, and then refuting the (straw man) caricature of the argument. I have repeatedly exposed the fraudulent misrepresentations of Drew and Ladislaus of my arguments. Their reply has been to gratuitously accuse me of misrepresenting them. I challengee Drew to prove the accusation, but of course, that is not possible for him to do, because I had diligently refuted his points without misrepresentation or any manner of distortion.
Ladislaus, on the other hand, has resorted to the most crude and gratuitous ad hominem arguments: 1) "You don't know anything about dogmatic theology", 2) "You know nothing about the unanimous consent of the Fathers . . . 3) about the universal and ordinary magisterium . . . " etc. Ladislaaus replies to theological arguments supported by ample citations of sources with gratuitous outbursts, such as, 1) "You don't know what you are talking about", and, "You couldn't argue your way out of a paper bag." When I pointed out to him that his assertion is gratuitous, he made the disingenuous reply that his position is not gratuitous, but is based on his analysis , but he will not present his analysis because (he says) I will just reject it! (This excuse of Ladislaus is about as convincing as that of the schoolboy who tells the teacher that the dog ate his homework.) The sophist's self deception leaves him with a gratuitously asserted proposition which he says is not gratuitous! When I point out the absurdity of this kind of clowish buffoonery he engages in; he replies that my arguments are mere ad hominems! The mendacity of the man is utterly patent. I have wasted far too much time arguing with such a malicious deceiver as this Ladislaus, whose malicious mendacity is patent to anyone possessed of the use of right reason.
The others, Stubborn, Cantarella, Boxer, Claudia Drew, etc., are fundamentalist simpletons who, no matter how many times their fallacy is exposed and their argument is refuted; they just become repetetive, and return to their utterly exploded thesis like the proverbial dog that returns to its vomit -- "As a dog returns to its vomit, so fools repeat their folly." (Prov. 26:11)
-
Hey Don,
Prior to your hero Cardinal Cushing, (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/50-Years-ago-Cardinal-Cushing-helped-forever-change-Catholic) the entire world understood that no one made it to heaven without the sacrament of baptism. He was the one who brought in the popular understanding of your prot a BOD.
You being the Cushingite that you are, also a Schuckardite if you belong to the CMRI sect, are preach the same Cushingite NO crap on a BOD that he preached, the same Cushingite NO crap that the conciliar popes and conciliar church preach.
To avoid doing that, repeat 15000 times a day the teaching of Trent saying to yourself "the sacraments are necessary for salvation" until you believe it.
Come back after you believe it and let us know how long it took before you believed it.
-
Kramer continues his lying ways, claiming to be Thomist, yet he rejects the teaching of St. Thomas that explicit belief in the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation are required for supernatural faith and therefore for salvation, applying BoD to "mutato in the rainforest".
-
To avoid doing that, repeat 15000 times a day the teaching of Trent saying to yourself "the sacraments are necessary for salvation" until you believe it.
This ^^^
Very few of the BoDers actually believe this (Nishant being the sole exception).
-
Ladislaus loves to prove he is an incompetent ass and an ignorant buffoon: St. Thomas does not unconditionally state that one must absolutely believe in the mysteries of the Incarnation and the Trinity without exception; but for those who are ignorant of divinely reveled mysteries, but believe in God, and are properly disposed; then, IF God requires explicit profession of the mysteries, then God will either enlighten the soul or send a missionary.
-
You, Cushing and the conciliar popes all think and preach the same thing.
-
St. Thomas does not unconditionally state that one must absolutely believe in the mysteries of the Incarnation and the Trinity without exception;
Yes he does. You see, unlike yourself, St. Thomas understands necessity of means. You have just buffoonishly turned it into necessity of precept (for the umpteenth time).
-
Some theologians hold that the belief of the two other articles - the Incarnation of the Son of God, and the Trinity of Persons - is strictly commanded but not necessary, as a means without which salvation is impossible; so that a person inculpably ignorant of them may be saved. But according to the more common and truer opinion, the explicit belief of these articles is necessary as a means without which no adult can be saved.
Here St. Alphonsus explicitly distinguishes between the Traditional necessity of means teaching (as held by St. Thomas and St. Alphonsus) and your buffoonish necessity of precept explanation. You obviously fail to comprehend the difference between the two with your modernistic "theological" "training".
-
Stubborn joins Ladislaus in the clown brigade; only a blind and ignorant fool could say this with a straight face: "Prior to your hero Cardinal Cushing, the entire world understood that no one made it to heaven without the sacrament of baptism. He was the one who brought in the popular understanding of your prot a BOD."
No Stubborn, prior to Cushing, (whose liberalism I despise), it was already taught explicitly by many ancient Fathers that the martyrs who died without water baptism are saved; and it is taught by St. Pius V in the Roman Catechism that repentance and the resolve to receive baptism suffices as a means of salvation for those whom the reception of baptism is impossible; and Baptism of Desire was taught explicitly by the post-Tridentine Doctors, SS. Alphonsus & Bellarmine; and by Pius IX, X, & XII; as well as authorized by ALL popes from 1588 onwards to be taught officially in the Catholic manuals and catechisms.
Your ignorant buffoonery, Stubborn, utterly discredits you.
-
After grace had been revealed, both the learned and simple folk are bound to explicit faith in the mysteries of Christ, chiefly as regards those which are observed throughout the Church, and publicly proclaimed, such as the articles which refer to the Incarnation, of which we have spoken above.
And consequently, when once grace had been revealed, all were bound to explicit faith in the mystery of the Trinity.
So necessary by necessity of means did St. Thomas hold this to be that he taught that the "mutato in the rainforest" would be instructed of these truths either by internal enlightenment or by having a preacher of faith sent to him.
It is the characteristic of Divine Providence to provide every man with what is necessary for salvation… provided on his part there is no hindrance. In the case of a man who seeks good and shuns evil, by the leading of natural reason, God would either reveal to him through internal inspiration WHAT HAD TO BE BELIEVED, or would send some preacher of the faith to him…
You're the only BoD buffoon I've ever come across who denies that St. Thomas taught this.
-
Neither St. Thomas (whom you pretend to follow) nor St. Alphonsus believed that mutato could be saved without first having explicit faith in the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation.
-
Ladislaus, you stupid fool, you just quoted St. Alphonsus holding the "more common" opinion, in a matter that is, therefore, most patently NOT DEFINED. If the point had been defined, then the question would have been closed, and diverse opinions would no longer have been permitted. There would no longer be permitted "more common" or "less probable" opinions in a matter that is defined; but only the one defined would be permissible and binding on all, and all other divergent opinions would be judged heretical. You stupid Feeneyite -- you declare people who don't profess to your undefined opinions to be heretics! What an ignorant ASS! Ladislaus says in effect, "THERE IS NO SALVATION OUTSIDE OF MY OPINION". What a CLOWN!
-
Stubborn joins Ladislaus in the clown brigade; only a blind and ignorant fool could say this with a straight face: "Prior to your hero Cardinal Cushing, the entire world understood that no one made it to heaven without the sacrament of baptism. He was the one who brought in the popular understanding of your prot a BOD."
No Stubborn, prior to Cushing, (whose liberalism I despise), it was already taught explicitly by many ancient Fathers that the martyrs who died without water baptism are saved; and it is taught by St. Pius V in the Roman Catechism that repentance and the resolve to receive baptism suffices as a means of salvation for those whom the reception of baptism is impossible; and Baptism of Desire was taught explicitly by the post-Tridentine Doctors, SS. Alphonsus & Bellarmine; and by Pius IX, X, & XII; as well as authorized by ALL popes from 1588 onwards to be taught officially in the Catholic manuals and catechisms.
Your ignorant buffoonery, Stubborn, utterly discredits you.
Your own stupidity condemns you.
How many years were you a NOer anyway?
I just posted an article in the "What would Cushing to?" thread, written by one who was there stating what True Catholics already knew:
What made Cushing's excommunication of Feeney astounding was that Feeney's line had been official Church teaching for most of a thousand years: No salvation outside the Church. Feeney confidently appealed to Rome, forcing the Vatican to take a position on the question. When the Vatican supported Cushing and upheld the excommunication of Feeney, the long-held doctrine of Catholic exclusivism was overturned.
You have corrupted yourself so thoroughly that you cannot understand plain truth.
Do what I asked you to do and repeat the teaching of Trent 150000 times a day until you believe it.
Just keep repeating "the sacraments are necessary for salvation".
Let us know when you finally believe and accept it.
-
Although Ladislaus loves to say I know nothing about theology, and that I don't know what I'm talking about; it is rather evident and plainly manifest that clueless Ladislaus does not know what he's talking about in the matter of the doctrine of St. Thomas on the need for explicit belief in the revealed mysteries:
Summa Theologiae II - IIae Q. 2, a. 7, ad 3: "If, however, some were saved without receiving any revelation, they were not saved without faith in a Mediator, for, though they did not believe in Him explicitly, they did, nevertheless, have implicit faith through believing in Divine providence, since they believed that God would deliver mankind in whatever way was pleasing to Him, and according to the revelation of the Spirit to those who knew the truth, as stated in Job 35:11: "Who teacheth us more than the beasts of the earth."
-
Fr. Kramer, Ladislaus is in fact correct on this point, St. Thomas teaches that under the New Covenant, after the mystery of the Trinity was revealed, no one attains salvation without believing in the Triune God and the Incarnation of Christ. Those are the essential mysteries of the Catholic Faith. It is inconsistent to appeal to the authority of St. Thomas and St. Alphonsus, and then reject that authority by holding to an opinion contrary to their teaching. Do you believe the following?
“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.”
"Christians, when interrogated, must answer that those who die as infidels are damned."
These are Papal teachings every Catholic must believe. They say that neither infidels nor heretics can be saved but men are saved only in the Catholic religion.
St. Alphonsus puts it like this, God gives to all, even heretics and infidels, the grace sufficient and all the means necessary to embrace the Faith and be saved, if only they are willing, “Still we answer the Semipelagians, and say, that infidels who arrive at the use of reason, and are not converted to the Faith, cannot be excused, because though they do not receive sufficient proximate grace, still they are not deprived of remote grace, as a means of becoming converted ... Thus, then, according to the Angelic Doctor, God, at least remotely, gives to infidels, who have the use of reason, sufficient grace to obtain salvation, and this grace consists in a certain instruction of the mind, and in a movement of the will, to observe the natural law; and if the infidel cooperates with this movement, observing the precepts of the law of nature, and abstaining from grievous sins, he will certainly receive, through the merits of Jesus Christ, the grace proximately sufficient to embrace the Faith, and save his soul.”
And St. Pius X likewise, in Acerbo Nimis, "A great number of those who are condemned to eternal punishment suffer that everlasting calamity because of ignorance of those mysteries of Faith which must be known and believed in order to be numbered among the elect."
Now, if there are mysteries of Faith that must be known to be numbered among the elect, then it surely follows as a certain conclusion that no one can be saved by believing in a rewarder God alone, if he remains in ignorance of the Catholic Faith, and its essential mysteries. This rules out the necessity being a precept only. Now, these essential mysteries according to theologians are the Trinity and Incarnation, relating to the primary object of supernatural faith, the Triune God Himself. Pius IX and the First Vatican Council supports this, they teach that a mystery of Faith is the proper object of supernatural faith, a truth to which natural reason cannot attain.
There is no reason not to believe and teach this, it is supported by the best authorities, taught by Scripture and Tradition, by the Fathers, Doctors, Saints and the Church in many of Her official docuмents.
-
Although Ladislaus loves to say I know nothing about theology, and that I don't know what I'm talking about; it is rather evident and plainly manifest that clueless Ladislaus does not know what he's talking about in the matter of the doctrine of St. Thomas on the need for explicit belief in the revealed mysteries:
Summa Theologiae II - IIae Q. 2, a. 7, ad 3: "If, however, some were saved without receiving any revelation, they were not saved without faith in a Mediator, for, though they did not believe in Him explicitly, they did, nevertheless, have implicit faith through believing in Divine providence, since they believed that God would deliver mankind in whatever way was pleasing to Him, and according to the revelation of the Spirit to those who knew the truth, as stated in Job 35:11: "Who teacheth us more than the beasts of the earth."
He's talking about the old dispensation here, the implicit faith in Christ of the Old Testament.
That's why St. Thomas uses the expression "when once grace had been revealed".
-
Persionally, I would be very happy if every Catholic believed this, if the Conciliar Popes in particular believed and taught that only Catholics are saved, that would be the beginning of the end of the crisis in the Church, it would put an absolute end to false ecuмenism and all interfaith abominations. So, this is a very important teaching, little known and little believed today.
BOD is not the issue. It is a settled matter that souls are saved by Baptism of Desire and Blood. The Feeneyites are wrong. The more important teaching, which the Conciliar Popes do not believe, but neither do many others, is that you must be Catholic and know the essential mysteries of the Catholic Faith to be saved.
Not even the CCC, although it does not of course clearly teach it, fails at least to give a lip service to 2000 years of Tradition, so plainly evident in the texts of the New Testament, that explicit faith in Jesus Christ is necessary for salvation.
161 Believing in Jesus Christ and in the One who sent him for our salvation is necessary for obtaining that salvation. "Since "without faith it is impossible to please [God]" and to attain to the fellowship of his sons, therefore without faith no one has ever attained justification, nor will anyone obtain eternal life 'But he who endures to the end.'"
"Now, this is the Catholic Faith, that we worship God in Trinity, and Trinity in unity. Which Faith except a man hold firmly and faithfully, without doubt he will perish forever ... Whoever will be saved must think thus on the Trinity... Furthermore, it is necessary for eternal salvation that he believe faithfully in the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ." - Athanasian Creed, cited by Pope Gregory XVI in Mirari Vos.
“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.
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.[4]
4. This doctrine, received from Christ and emphasized by the Fathers and Councils, is also contained in the formulae of rhe profession of faith used by Latin, Greek, and Oriental Catholics.
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9nostis.htm
-
Persionally, I would be very happy if every Catholic believed this, if the Conciliar Popes in particular believed and taught that only Catholics are saved, that would be the beginning of the end of the crisis in the Church, it would put an absolute end to false ecuмenism and all interfaith abominations. So, this is a very important teaching, little known and little believed today.
BOD is not the issue.
I couldn't agree with you more. Were you to ask Father Feeney himself, he would say the same thing. Most modern "Feeneyites" (of the SBC variety vs. the Dimond variety) would absolutely agree. Most of us don't really care about BoD proper. We just happen to see how BoD was used to undermine EENS, Nishant. What happens, however, is that people like Don Paolo, Ambrose, and LoT keep quoting St. Thomas and St. Alphonsus and St. Robert Bellarmine to "PROVE", as it were, their hypothesis that non-Catholics can be saved; they quote their BoD statements and then hide behind these to pretend that it's justification from authority for their Pelagianism.
-
Persionally, I would be very happy if every Catholic believed this, if the Conciliar Popes in particular believed and taught that only Catholics are saved, that would be the beginning of the end of the crisis in the Church, it would put an absolute end to false ecuмenism and all interfaith abominations. So, this is a very important teaching, little known and little believed today.
BOD is not the issue.
I couldn't agree with you more. Were you to ask Father Feeney himself, he would say the same thing. Most modern "Feeneyites" (of the SBC variety vs. the Dimond variety) would absolutely agree. Most of us don't really care about BoD proper. We just happen to see how BoD was used to undermine EENS, Nishant. What happens, however, is that people like Don Paolo, Ambrose, and LoT keep quoting St. Thomas and St. Alphonsus and St. Robert Bellarmine to "PROVE", as it were, their hypothesis that non-Catholics can be saved; they quote their BoD statements and then hide behind these to pretend that it's justification from authority for their Pelagianism.
Untrue, yet again. You have been corrected on this point many times, but act as though you haven't.
Let me state it for you again:
There is no salvation outside the Church. Non-Catholics cannot be saved. This does not contradict the 1949 Holy Office Letter approved by Pope Pius XII.
-
LADISLAUS IS NOT CORRECT: In De Veritate Q. 14, a. 11, St. Thomas does say that explicit belief in something is necessary for those who were brought up in the forest or among wild beasts; but he does not unconditionally specify in this context anything more than St. Paul states to the Hebrews in 11:6, ("For he that cometh to God, must believe that he is, and is a rewarder to them that seek him"), when he says on faith in the Summa Theologiae, (as quoted earlier): "Therefore, everyone in every age is bound explicitly to believe that God exists and exercises providence over human affairs."
If something more is required, then God will provide:
"1. Granted that everyone is bound to believe something explicitly, no untenable conclusion follows even if someone is brought up in the forest or among wild beasts. For it pertains to divine providence to furnish everyone with what is necessary for salvation, provided that on his part there is no hindrance. Thus, if someone so brought up followed the direction of natural reason in seeking good and avoiding evil, we must most certainly hold that God would either reveal to him through internal inspiration what had to be believed, or would send some preacher of the faith to him as he sent Peter to Cornelius (Acts 10:20)."
The Church has not defined on this point. I have already quoted the popes who teach that those in invincible ignorance are bound to believe explicitly in God and that He rewards them that seek him. Since this point has not yet been defined, it is just one more patent manifestation of Feeneyite sectarian pretence that they insist that their opinion, although condidered the safer and more common opinion at the time of St. Alphonsus, is to be considered a dogma. But now that in the 19th and 20th Centuries, the pre-Vatican II popes have taught what St. Alphonsus judged to be the less probable opinion on this question, it can only be considered as an expression of contempt for the supreme magisterium of the Church, that they adamantly insist that the opinion contrary to theirs is a heresy.
-
Untrue, yet again. You have been corrected on this point many times, but act as though you haven't.
Liar. You simply redefine all the terms. What I wrote stands.
-
LADISLAUS IS NOT CORRECT.
Nishant is correct about my being correct. You have absolutely no earthly idea what you're talking about.
-
What a complete dunce!
:facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm:
Thus, if someone so brought up followed the direction of natural reason in seeking good and avoiding evil, we must most certainly hold that God would either reveal to him through internal inspiration WHAT HAD TO BE BELIEVED, or would send some preacher of the faith to him as he sent Peter to Cornelius (Acts 10:20).
-
Blessed Pius IX in Quanto Conficiamur Maerore:
"There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. By sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments.”
I have quoted earlier the same doctrine in the magisterial docunents of St. Pius X, and Pius XII.
The key words are, "By sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts . . . they ... are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace". Therefore it is abundantly clear from the literal text of Pius IX, that those who are truly invincibly ignorant are not bound to profess explicitly that which they cannot know. For them, implicit faith in the revealed mysteries suffices for salvation.
While this teaching is not defined, it us not proposed as a mere opinion or speculation, but is set forth in a doctrinal encyclical; so it is absolutely preposterous that most Feeneyites resort to the pretense that the stricter opinion, according to which explicit faith in the principal mysteries is absolutely necessary for salvation without exception, is de fide; since that proposition also has not been defined. According to Ladislaus, anyone who holds to this teaching of Pius IX is a Pelagian heretic. That would make Bl. Pius IX a heretic!
-
The same doctrine as that if Quanto Conficiamur Amore is more simply expressed in the magisterium of St. Pius X:
"A person outside the Church by his own fault, and who dies without perfect contrition, will not be saved. But he who finds himself outside without fault of his own, and who lives a good life, can be saved by the love called charity, which unites unto God, and in a spiritual way also to the Church, that is, to the soul of the Church." (Pope St. Pius X, Catechism of Christian Doctrine)
According to Ladislaus, not only Bl. Pius IX was a Pelagian heretic, but so also was St. Pius X.
-
Clueless Ladislaus quotes a passage of St. Thomas THAT DOES NOT SPECIFY THAT WHICH THE MATUTO IN THE FOREST MUST EXPLICITLY PROFESS in support of his rigorist Feeneyite position that all without exception must explicitly profess the revealed mysteries of faith:
"Thus, if someone so brought up followed the direction of natural reason in seeking good and avoiding evil, we must most certainly hold that God would either reveal to him through internal inspiration WHAT HAD TO BE BELIEVED, or would send some preacher of the faith to him as he sent Peter to Cornelius (Acts 10:20)."
St. Thomas, in Q. 14 a. 11 De Veritate specifies "THAT WHICH MUST BE BELIEVED", i.e., what it is that such a matuto or caipira in the rain forest, who has no access to any means of instruction in the doctrine of the faith must believe explicitly in order to be saved:
"That all the faithful in every age must believe something explicitly is evident from the fact that there is a parallel between the reception of faith with reference to our ultimate perfection and a pupil’s reception of those things which his master first teaches him, and through which he is guided to prior principles. However, he could not be so guided unless he actually considered something. Hence, the pupil must receive something for actual consideration; likewise, the faithful must explicitly believe something. And these are the two things which the Apostle tells us must be believed explicitly: “For he that cometh to God must believe that He is, and is the rewarder to them that love Him” (Hebrews 11:6). Therefore, everyone in every age is bound explicitly to believe that God exists and exercises providence over human affairs."
The key words: "And these are the two things which the Apostle tells us must be believed explicitly: 'For he that cometh to God must believe that He is, and is the rewarder to them that love Him' (Hebrews 11:6). Therefore, everyone in every age is bound explicitly to believe that God exists and exercises providence over human affairs."
Thus it is absolutely clear what must be explicitly professed by the invincibly ignorant matuto in the forest.
-
After the Incarnation, all men, if they wish to be saved, are “bound to explicit faith in the mysteries of Christ, chiefly as regards those which are observed throughout the Church and publicly proclaimed, such as the articles that refer to the Incarnation.” 4 And, after the Incarnation, all men, in order to be saved, “are bound to explicit faith in the mystery of the Trinity.”
The "matuto in the forest" (or any "invincible ignorant) is not damned on account of heresy or infidelity, but only original and actual sins. Baptism is the only remedy for original sin. It is important to make a clear distinction between the Hell torments for actual sins, and the mere absence of God which is the result of Original Sin. People that have a difficulty understanding God's justice is usually because they do not know about the extent of Original sin and the different levels of Hell. The invincible ignorant is not saved on account of original sin, at the very least.
The Angelic Doctor himself explained that those who die invincibly ignorant, who have heard nothing about the Faith through no fault of their own are still damned for their sins, including original sin, which cannot be taken away without Baptism and the Faith.
“Unbelief has a double sense. First, it can be taken purely negatively; thus a man is called an unbeliever solely because he does not possess faith. Secondly, by way of opposition to faith; thus when a man refuses to hear of the faith or even contemns it, according to Isaiah, “Who has believed our report?” This is where the full nature of unbelief, properly speaking is found, and where the sin lies.
“If, however, unbelief be taken just negatively, as in those who have heard nothing about the faith, it bears the character, not of fault, but of penalty, because their ignorance of divine things is the result of the sin of our first parents. Those who are unbelievers in this sense are condemned on account of other sins, which cannot be forgiven without faith; they are not condemned for the sin of unbelief.”
The Catholic Faith is the foundation of all Justification. The Matuto in the forest has not the Catholic Faith.
-
In Summa Theol. II - IIae Q. 1 a. 5, St. Thomas teaches that which by necessity of precept must be explicitly professed: "I answer that, The precepts of the Law, which man is bound to fulfill, concern acts of virtue which are the means of attaining salvation. Now an act of virtue, as stated above (I-II, 60, 5) depends on the relation of the habit to its object." He then specifies precisely what men are bound to believe by divine precept: "Therefore, as regards the primary points or articles of faith, man is bound to believe them, just as he is bound to have faith; but as to other points of faith,man is not bound to believe them explicitly, but only implicitly, or to be ready to believe them, in so far as he is prepared to believe whatever is contained in theDivine Scriptures. Then alone is he bound to believesuch things explicitly, when it is clear to him that they are contained in the doctrine of faith."
On the other hand, St. Thomas explains in De Veritate that which is of absolute necessity of means for salvation: "the two things which the Apostle tells us must be believed explicitly: 'For he that cometh to God must believe that He is, and is the rewarder to them that love Him' (Hebrews 11:6). Therefore, everyone in every age is bound explicitly to believe that God exists and exercises providence over human affairs."
In the typically simplistic manner of the fundamentalist, Ladislaus fails to make the elementary distinction between necessity of precept and necessity of means. (Yet the stupid ass has the sacrilegious insolence to say that I am the dunce! What a clueless Feeneyite troll!)
-
A person that has reached the age of reason, is obliged to profess an explicit belief in the Holy Trinity, The Incarnation, and the Catholic Faith before they die. This truth is necessary to believe for Salvation as a necessity of means.
Pope Eugene IV Exultate Deo ex cathedra:
"Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all else to hold the Catholic Faith: unless each one preserve this whole and entire, he will without a doubt perish in eternity...then he defines the Holy Trinity, the Incarnation, and the necessity to believe in these truths...This is the Catholic Faith; unless each one believes this faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved."
There is the necessity to explicitly believe and profess the Catholic Faith. Popes such as Pius X, Clement XI, Pius IX all have reaffirm and re-stated this dogma. Modern BODers have fallen pray of liberal ideas and false notions concerning ecuмenism and universal salvation. Watered down, lukewarm Catholics are the real enemies of the Faith and a real thread for the purity of it.
-
And Cantarella has just made the same elementary blunder as Ladislaus.
-
Untrue, yet again. You have been corrected on this point many times, but act as though you haven't.
Liar. You simply redefine all the terms. What I wrote stands.
Being called a liar by you is a compliment.
I will stick with the Catholic Church of all ages. You can have your tiny 60 year old sect.
-
And Cantarella has just made the same elementary blunder as Ladislaus.
They keep blundering all of this because they refuse approved sources. They love their private judgment and private authority, like all heretics before them. A building built on sand will crumble.
Our Lord Jesus Christ taught, "He who hears you, hears me."
-
I will stick with the Catholic Church of all ages. You can have your tiny 60 year old sect.
The outside - the - Church CMRI cult was founded in 1967 and there is where this false "Catholic Church of all ages" is coming from in Ambrose's case.
-
Clueless Ladislaus quotes a passage of St. Thomas THAT DOES NOT SPECIFY THAT WHICH THE MATUTO IN THE FOREST MUST EXPLICITLY PROFESS in support of his rigorist Feeneyite position that all without exception must explicitly profess the revealed mysteries of faith:
You must be a genius, Kramer, since you're the only person who has ever thought that St. Thomas did not teach the necessity (by necessity of means) of explicit belief in the Holy Trinity and of the Incarnation for supernatural faith and for salvation. But a special kind of genius for sure.
No, Kramer, my point in reposting your own quote, with my emphasis, was to show that St. Thomas made in your own proof text a reference to the "what must be believed" which he then clearly expounds upon elsewhere; in other words, it absolutely does not prove your point. In fact, you disagree with St. Alphonsus on the matter as well.
You're a Pelagian heretic, as are Ambrose and LoT; Nishant is not. You should read Nishant's postings to actually learn something about the Catholic understanding of "BoD". If you took Nishant's position, then I would have not problem with you. As it is, however, you are Pelagian Cushingite heretic.
-
Being called a liar by you is a compliment.
I will stick with the Catholic Church of all ages. You can have your tiny 60 year old sect.
We've gone through this myriad times, Ambrose of Truth. You pay lip service to the notion that only Catholics can be saved, but then you redefine Catholic in such a way that it can basically include any infidel whatsoever.
You continue to lie by pretending that you "stick with the Catholic Church of all ages"; your saying that doesn't make you any less of a Pelagian heretic and a liar. Every heretic like you claims to stick with the Church of all ages. You hide behind BoD as cover for your Pelagian Cushingite heresy.
-
The Matuto in the forest has not the Catholic Faith.
According to Kramer he does because Kramer has redefined "faith".
-
At the end of the day, though, I suspect that Kramer has ulterior motives:
1) wants to be consecrated a bishop by a trad group [someone needs to tell him that he needs to be a priest first]
or
2) wants to write a book to raise funds in order to reimburse people for years of Mass stipends he took only to invalidly simulate Mass
-
I will stick with the Catholic Church of all ages. You can have your tiny 60 year old sect.
The outside - the - Church CMRI cult was founded in 1967 and there is where this false "Catholic Church of all ages" is coming from in Ambrose's case.
CMRI believes all teachings of the Church, including Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood.
Your sect rejects that page of the catechism.
-
Being called a liar by you is a compliment.
I will stick with the Catholic Church of all ages. You can have your tiny 60 year old sect.
We've gone through this myriad times, Ambrose of Truth. You pay lip service to the notion that only Catholics can be saved, but then you redefine Catholic in such a way that it can basically include any infidel whatsoever.
You continue to lie by pretending that you "stick with the Catholic Church of all ages"; your saying that doesn't make you any less of a Pelagian heretic and a liar. Every heretic like you claims to stick with the Church of all ages. You hide behind BoD as cover for your Pelagian Cushingite heresy.
Yes, we have gone through this before. We are at an impasse. You plan on remaining in heresy, I plan on remaining with the Catholic Church. We each have made a choice.
I hope for your sake that when a Pope comes again, you will recant and confess your heresy. Every day God gives you is one more chance to embrace the Catholic Faith again.
-
CMRI believes all teachings of the Church, including Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood.
Your sect rejects that page of the catechism.
The Salvation of Those Outside the Catholic Church
by Rev. Fr. Noel Barbara Link (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=26486&f=16&min=0&num=5)
This is the crap the CMRI believes in.
Same thing Cushing, Schuckard and all the conciliar popes believe in and FYI, it is NOT a teaching of the Church.
-
CMRI believes all teachings of the Church, including Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood.
Your sect rejects that page of the catechism.
The Salvation of Those Outside the Catholic Church
by Rev. Fr. Noel Barbara Link (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=26486&f=16&min=0&num=5)
This is the crap the CMRI believes in.
Same thing Cushing, Schuckard and all the conciliar popes believe in and FYI, it is NOT a teaching of the Church.
At the end, this Modernist Cushing error is what Fr. Kramer is trying to defend, as well as everyone else that has any interest at all in defending BOD. No exception.
-
CMRI believes all teachings of the Church, including Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood.
Your sect rejects that page of the catechism.
The Salvation of Those Outside the Catholic Church
by Rev. Fr. Noel Barbara Link (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=26486&f=16&min=0&num=5)
This is the crap the CMRI believes in.
Same thing Cushing, Schuckard and all the conciliar popes believe in and FYI, it is NOT a teaching of the Church.
At the end, this Modernist Cushing error is what Fr. Kramer is trying to defend, as well as everyone else that has any interest at all in defending BOD. No exception.
Yes, the sacrament despisers, who abhor the thought of actually defending the necessity of the sacrament, believe Modernist Cardinal Cushing, to them he is the hero - so it is little wonder that they embrace his blatant heresy and conciliar teaching of salvation outside the Church as the above article by one of the Schuckardite priests demonstrates.
They cannot accept the fact that prior to their hero Cushing arriving on the scene that the entire world knew that the Church taught that no one at all is saved outside the Church and without the sacrament of baptism.
I hope and pray that they don't have to depend on the the Last Rites of Desire when it comes their turn.
-
Blind and CLUELESS Ladislaus says: "You must be a genius, Kramer, since you're the only person who has ever thought that St. Thomas did not teach the necessity (by necessity of means) of explicit belief in the Holy Trinity and of the Incarnation for supernatural faith and for salvation. But a special kind of genius for sure."
St. Thomas teaches:
II -IIae 1.5: Whether man is bound to believe anything explicitly:
"On the contrary, It is written (Hebrews 11:6): "He that cometh to God, must believe that He is, and is a rewarder to them that seek Him."
I answer that, The precepts of the Law, which man is bound to fulfill, concern acts of virtue which are the means of attaining salvation. Now an act of virtue, as stated above (I-II, 60, 5) depends on the relation of the habit to its object. Again two things may be considered in the object of any virtue; namely, that which is the proper and direct object of that virtue, and that which is accidental and consequent to the object properly so called. Thus it belongs properly and directly to the object of fortitude, to face the dangers of death, and to charge at the foe with danger to oneself, for the sake of the common good: yet that, in a just war, a man be armed, or strike another with his sword, and so forth, is reduced to the object of fortitude, but indirectly.
Accordingly, just as a virtuous act is required for the fulfilment of a precept, so is it necessary that the virtuous act should terminate in its proper and direct object: but, on the other hand, the fulfillment of the precept does not require that a virtuous act should terminate in those things which have an accidental or secondary relation to the proper and direct object of that virtue, except in certain places and at certain times. We must, therefore, say that the direct object of faith is that whereby man is made one of the Blessed, as stated above (Question 1, Article 8): while the indirect and secondary object comprises all things delivered by God to us in Holy Writ, for instance that Abraham had two sons, that David was the son of Jesse, and so forth.
Therefore, as regards the primary points or articles of faith, man is bound to believe them, just as he is bound to have faith; but as to other points of faith,man is not bound to believe them explicitly, but only implicitly, or to be ready to believe them, in so far as he is prepared to believe whatever is contained in the Divine Scriptures. Then alone is he bound to believe such things explicitly, when it is clear to him that they are contained in the doctrine of faith."
De Veritate Q. 14 a. 11:
"Properly speaking, that is called implicit in which many things are contained as in one, and that is called explicit in which each of the things is considered in itself. These appellations are transferred from bodily to spiritual things. When a number of things are contained virtually in one thing, we say they are there implicitly, as, for instance, conclusions in principles. A thing is contained explicitly in another if it actually exists in it. Consequently, one who knows some general principles has implicit knowledge of all the particular conclusion. One, however, who actually considers the conclusions is said to know them explicitly. Hence, we are also said explicitly to believe certain things when we affirm those things about which we are actually thinking. We believe these same things implicitly when we affirm certain other things in which they are contained as in general principles. Thus, one who believes that the faith of the Church is true, implicitly in this believes the individual points which are included in the faith of the Church.
We must note, accordingly, that there are some matters of faith which everyone is bound to believe explicitly in every age. Other matters of faith must be believed explicitly in every age but not by everyone. Still other matters everyone must believe explicitly, but not in every age. And, finally, there are things that need not be believed explicitly by everyone nor in every age."
That which must be believed by everyone in every age:
"That all the faithful in every age must believe something explicitly is evident from the fact that there is a parallel between the reception of faith with reference to our ultimate perfection and a pupil’s reception of those things which his master first teaches him, and through which he is guided to prior principles. However, he could not be so guided unless he actually considered something. Hence, the pupil must receive something for actual consideration; likewise, the faithful must explicitly believe something. And these are the two things which the Apostle tells us must be believed explicitly: “For he that cometh to God must believe that He is, and is the rewarder to them that love Him” (Hebrews 11:6). Therefore, everyone in every age is bound explicitly to believe that God exists and exercises providence over human affairs."
Then St. Thomas elaborates on what must be explicitly professed by the faithful of different rank on different ages:
"However, it is not possible for anyone in this life to know explicitly the whole of God’s knowledge, in which our beatitude consists. Yet it is possible for someone in this life to know all those things which are proposed to the human race in its present state as first principles with which to direct itself to its final end. Such a person is said to have faith which is completely explicit. But not all believers have this completeness; hence, there are levels of belief in the Church, so that some are placed over others to teach them in matters of faith. Consequently, not all are required explicitly to believe all matters of faith, but only those are so bound who are appointed teachers in matters of faith, such as superiors and those who have pastoral duties."
"And even these are not bound to believe everything explicitly in every age. For there is a gradual progress in faith for the whole human race just as there is for individual men. This is why Gregory says that down the ages there has been a growing development of divine knowledge.
"Now, the fullness of time, which is the prime of life of the human race, is in the age of grace. So, in this age, the leaders are bound to believe all matters of faith explicitly. But, in earlier ages, the leaders were not bound to believe everything explicitly. However, more had to be believed explicitly after the age of the law and the prophets than before that time.
"Accordingly, before sin came into the world, it was not necessary to believe explicitly the matters concerning the Redeemer, since there was then no need of the Redeemer. Nevertheless, this was implicit in their belief in divine providence, in so far as they believed that God would provide everything necessary for the salvation of those who love Him. Before and after the fall, the leaders in every age had to have explicit faith in the Trinity. Between the fall and the age of grace, however, the ordinary people did not have to have such explicit belief. Perhaps before the fall there was not such a distinction of persons that some had to be taught the faith by others. Likewise, between the fall and the age of grace, the leading men had to have explicit faith in the Redeemer, and the ordinary people only implicit faith. This was contained either in their belief in the faith of the patriarchs and prophets or in their belief in divine providence.
"However, in the time of grace, everybody, the leaders and the ordinary people, have to have explicit faith in the Trinity and in the Redeemer. However, only the leaders, and not the ordinary people, are bound to believe explicitly all the matters of faith concerning the Trinity and the Redeemer. The ordinary people must, however, believe explicitly the general articles, such as that God is triune, that the Son of God was made flesh, died, and rose from the dead, and other like matters which the Church commemorates in her feasts."
It is patent from the text presented here in its its full context that St. Thomas teaches that for faithful of the Church in the time of grace (i.e. the BAPTIZED), there is the necessity to profess explicitly the principal mysteries of faith; which he expressly qualifies in II -II Q. 2 a.5 as a NECESSITY OF PRECEPT. This precept clearly is not applicable to those not yet baptized and who labour under invincible ignorance; since St. Thomas expressly applies this necessity of precept to those who are already members of the Church.
Therefore, it is also patent that St. Thomas did not apply that necessity of precept to those who are not yet baptized and in invincible ignorance; but to the question of whether man is bound to believe anything explicitly, he states: "On the contrary, It is written (Hebrews 11:6): "He that cometh to God, must believe that He is, and is a rewarder to them that seek Him."
This teaching of St. Thomas is the basis of the above quoted teachings of Bl. Pius IX and St. Pius X, on the question of the salvation of the unbaptized invincibly ignorant. Ignorant (but not invincibly) Ladislaus says I have redefined faith, but I have made no innovation: I merely follow the teaching of St. Thomas, Bl. Pius IX, and St. Pius X. Ladislaus prefers to adhere to the rigorist doctrine of the heretic founder of his sect, Leonard Feeney SJ.
-
Ladislaus prefers to adhere to the rigorist doctrine of the heretic founder of his sect, Leonard Feeney SJ.
In your haste to reject the necessity of the sacrament, hence the Church for salvation, you missed your own error of embracing and promoting the error of Cushing.
What made Cushing's excommunication of Feeney astounding was that Feeney's line had been official Church teaching for most of a thousand years: No salvation outside the Church. Feeney confidently appealed to Rome, forcing the Vatican to take a position on the question. When the Vatican supported Cushing and upheld the excommunication of Feeney, the long-held doctrine of Catholic exclusivism was overturned.
It's plain to see you have not done what I asked you to do - repeat the teaching of Trent: "The sacraments are a necessity unto salvation" 150000 times each day until you believe it.
-
It is patent from the text presented here in its its full context that St. Thomas teaches that for faithful of the Church in the time of grace (i.e. the BAPTIZED), there is the necessity to profess explicitly the principal mysteries of faith;
I'm absolutely repulsed by your evil will, Kramer. Get the behind me, Satan.
"in time of grace" has nothing to do with Baptism but with the New Testament, thus St. Thomas' reference to not all things being necessary "in every age"; in other places St. Thomas says "after grace was revealed". This has absolutely nothing to do with Baptism.
The issue here, Kramer, is that in order to have SUPERNATURAL FAITH, there must be a supernatural object of faith, as taught by Vatican I. Thus it's an obvious necessity of means. Nor does this have to do with "profession"; these articles are sine qua non for supernatural faith.
-
It's obvious now that Kramer is a Pelagian heretic, having reduced faith to a necessity of precept.
-
It's obvious now that Kramer is a Pelagian heretic, having reduced faith to a necessity of precept.
Yes, the whole batch of sacrament despisers are really incredible - I mean think about how they preach heaven, thanks to a BOD, has many non-Catholic saints - yet they scoff at the canonization of JP2 who certainly made the same implicit act of perfect contrition that infidels make just before he died.
-
The Salvation of Those Outside the Catholic Church
by Rev. Fr. Noel Barbara Link (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=26486&f=16&min=0&num=5)
This is precisely what CMRI sedevacantists such Ambrose (among all other modern pelagians defenders and promoters of "BOD", which in reality is not BOD proper at all) mean when they say they believe in "Outside the Church There is No Salvation". They redefine what is meant by the "Church" and what is meant by "outside" until there is nothing left of the original dogma.
-
GJC,
That is exactly the correct place for invincible ignorance as a way to separate the Elect from the Reprobate. No one that calls himself a "Thomist" can deny the fact that according to st. Thomas, the reprobate “seem to be preordained by God for the good of the elect, in whose regard all things work together unto good". Therefore, God wills to permit things to fail in their goodness, and thus evil to result, to manifest His goodness to the greatest extent possible.
St.Thomas also teaches that when God withholds His grace is a punishment for sin, as ignorance of the Faith is a punishment as well, for "God is the cause of spiritual blindness, deafness of ear, and hardness of heart". He does this and permits some to fall only for the greater good of the Elect. God loves all men, but loves some more than others, because He creates more goodness in one sinner than in another. One sinner would not be better than another unless he were loved more and given more by God.
-
Monsignor Fenton traced the history of those theologians who started to deny that explicit belief in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation are ncessary for salvation by a necessity of means:
Cano, Melchior
1509-1560
Suarez
1548-1617
Bonal
1600-1653
Salmanticenses
1700’s
Legrand, Louis
1711-1780
Marchini
1800’s
Liebermann, Bruno Franz Leopold
1759-1844
...
I'll leave out the rest. As you can see, this starts up in the 16th century. Prior to that it was believed always, everywhere, and by all that explicit faith in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation are necessary for salvation ... as professed in the Athanasian Creed.
-
At the end of the day, NO CATHOLIC THEOLOGIAN has EVER interpreted St. Thomas NOT to teach that explicit belief in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation are necessary by a necessity of means for salvation ... in the New Covenant.
Basically, Kramer was rebuked not only by myself but even by Nishant, but his grave intellectual pride and stubborn bad will do not allow him to admit his mistake on the matter.
So Kramer has diabolically twisted this into making explicit belief in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation into a necessity of precept only for the baptized.
-
Your replies, Ladislaus, are replete with premises that are intrinsically undermined by underlying fallacies. I will not go on forever pointing them out and refuting them. You quite obviously missed St. Thonas' conspicuous use of the word "precept" in his article in II - IIae on the need for explicit belief, which I quoted. He elaborates that point more fully in De Veritate, Q. 14.
For any properly trained theologian from a pontifical university faculty, it is as plain as the light of day that St. Thomas teaches explicit necessity to profess the mysteries of the Incarnation and the Trinity, as of a necessity of precept. That is patently manifest in the text I quoted. St. Thomas explained the point even more completely in De Veritate, so there is not any possibility to misconstrue his meaning as you so crudely misconstrue it.
You repeatedly reply by gratuitously stating that I don't know what I"m talking about; but it was not you, but I, who studied under Athanan De Vos OP, in the pontifical faculty in Rome, where he had been dean of Philosophy for 32 years (before Vatican II); and it was while studying under him in the Licentiate course, that I heard his illustrious lectures on De Veritate, and read through De Veritate in the Latin Leonine text.So, as a former seminary professor myself, I can only recommend that you read and reread St. Thomas until you finally can grasp the notions he is teaching. Up until now, you have shown yourself to be too obtuse and dull witted to grasp the subtlety of his distinctions and the complexity of his exposition.
-
Take it up with Msgr. Fenton, Kramer; I trust his theological credentials over yours, thank you. Have a nice day.
-
Let's all please calm down and discuss this rationally, there's no need for polemics.
Fr. Kramer, if you want 20th and 19th century theologians who hold and defend the teaching in question, I will give you two of the highest repute - Fr. Michael Mueller, CSSR, who singlehandedly oversaw innumerable conversions into the Church, (and good friend of Fr. Arnold Damen, who himself personally received 13,000 heretics into the Church), and who never published anything withtout the approval of two of his superiors, and Msgr. Fenton, who needs no introduction.
1. Fr. Michael Mueller at the turn of the 19th century cites many authorities in its favor,
This doctrine is clearly expressed in the following words of the Athanasian Creed: "He, therefore, who wishes to be saved, must thus think of the Trinity," that is, he must believe the doctrine of the Holy Trinity as explained in this Creed. "Furthermore it is necessary to everlasting salvation that he also believe rightly the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. Hence St. Peter says: "Be it known to you, that there is no salvation in any other name than that of Jesus Christ; for there is no other name under heaven given to men whereby we must be saved." (Acts, iv. 10, 10).
"Thus," says St. Alphonsus, " there is no hope of salvation except in the merits of Jesus Christ. Hence St. Thomas and all theologians conclude that, since the promulgation of the Gospel, it is necessary, not only as a matter of precept, but also as a means of salvation (necessitate medii, without which no adult can be saved), to believe explicitly that we can be saved only through our Redeemer." (Reflections on the Passion of Jesus Christ, Chapt. I., No. 19).
The explicit belief in the mysteries of the Holy Trinity and of the Incarnation of the Son of God is therefore of the greatest importance. This belief teaches the origin of the world, its creation by God the Father; it teaches us the supernatural end of man, his fall, and the redemption of mankind by God the Son; it teaches the sanctification of souls by the gifts of the Holy Ghost ...
Likewise, Fr. Fenton in the 1950s tells us,
... most theologians teach that the minimum explicit content of supernatural and salvific faith includes, not only the truths of God’s existence and of His action as the Rewarder of good and the Punisher of evil, but also the mysteries of the Blessed Trinity and the Incarnation.
Each of these theologians, like St. Alphonsus and others, cite many authorities in their works, and strenuously argue in favor of this teaching, which it is certainly their right and, as I will show below, arguably their duty, to do.
2. From the Popes,
"A great number of those who are condemned to eternal punishment suffer that everlasting calamity because of ignorance of those mysteries of Faith which must be known and believed in order to be numbered among the elect."
What is a mystery of Faith? A mystery of Faith is a truth to which natural reason cannot attain, it is the proper object of supernatural Faith, according to Vatican I.
With regard to the source, we know at the one level by natural reason, at the other level by divine faith. With regard to the object, besides those things to which natural reason can attain, there are proposed for our belief mysteries hidden in God which, unless they are divinely revealed, are incapable of being known.
There is a much earlier Holy Office decree, which was promulgated in the context of a missionary asking whether someone could be baptized with a promise to believe, but without actually believing the Faith. Rome's answer was that as the primary mysteries of the Faith like the Trinity and Incarnation are necessary as a means, therefore, a promise is not sufficient, but these must be explicitly confessed by all adults, even dying ones.
A promise is not sufficient, but a missionary is bound to explain to an adult, even a dying one who is not entirely incapacitated, the mysteries of Faith which are necessary by a necessity of means, as are especially the mysteries of the Trinity and the Incarnation.”
Now, it doesn't seem that this can be reconciled with your opinion. If you wish to argue to the contrary, then give some explanation for these statements. In that St. Pius X in particular says "known", he rules out a mere implicit belief in these mysteries, and says it must be explicitly believed, or known.
3. Fr. Kramer, you have yourself said you think Fr. Feeney was a good man, and I agree. Fr. Feeney did not know how to answer those who were saying Jews and Protestants can be saved without being Catholic, and so do not need to convert. So, he mad the mistake that he did. But let's leave Fr. Feeney for a moment. Today, over a billion nominal Catholics, and the leaders of the mainstream Church, no longer believe the Catholic Faith is a means without which salvation cannot be attained, they no longer tell Jews and Protestants, or anyone else for that matter, that they must be Catholic to be saved. Do you deny that false ecuмenism and interfaith horrors would not be possible if they did?
Also, how can we credibly claim to be traditional Catholics if we positively refuse to believe something upheld by very great traditional authorities?
This is consecrated Tradition, it is taught by the Church, Her Popes, Saints, Doctors, Fathers. It is taught by St. Thomas and St. Alphonsus, St. Bernard and St. Robert, St. Augustine and St. Ambrose. It is contained in the Athanasian Creed, which is infallible, and taught by Popes down to Gregory XVI, Pius IX and St. Pius X, and, if you desire to hear it from them, other traditional Catholic theologians like Fr. Mueller and Msgr. Fenton before Vatican II.
-
No, Nishant, you quote Pius X and the theologians out of context: in Acerbo Nimis, St. Pius X speaks expressly of the ignorant baptized "Catholics" who culpably know nothing of the faith into which they were baptized. St. Thomas most clearly teaches that the necessity of precept & means to profess explicitly the Incarnation & the Trinity is for the faithful, i.e., the baptized; but not an absolute necessity of means, but a relative necessity of means for the unbaptized (invincibly ignorant) -- otherwise he contradicts himself when he teaches otherwise in De Veritate. Your interpretation not only makes St. Thomas a self contradicting teacher, but St. Pius X as well.
-
Thank you, Nishant. Great post.
-
Let me expand the Vatican I citation by adding a sentence that comes just before it (with my emphasis).
The perpetual agreement of the catholic church has maintained and maintains this too: that there is a twofold order of knowledge, distinct not only as regards its source, but also as regards its object. With regard to the source, we know at the one level by natural reason, at the other level by divine faith. With regard to the object, besides those things to which natural reason can attain, there are proposed for our belief mysteries hidden in God which, unless they are divinely revealed, are incapable of being known.
Supernatural faith is distinguished from natural knowledge BY VIRTUE OF ITS OBJECT, which Vatican I clearly defines as things that can ONLY be known by reason. God's existence as a rewarder can be known through natural reason.
-
At the end of the day, Vatican II is nothing other than the Church embracing this "minority opinion" and adding a merely pastoral presumption of good will vis-a-vis our attitudes toward the "separated brethren".
If I believed in this "minority opinion" (aka heresy), then I would immediately accept Vatican II in substance, considering it merely to have been imprudent or inopportune given the climate of our day and the tendencies towards religious indifferentism.
You see, the popes since the Renaissance saw a growing trend towards religious indfferentism, and often condemned it, but they failed to see the root cause error behind it all, this "minority opinion" or heresy. THIS needed to have been stamped out in order to halt the tide of religious indifferentism, but they failed. God of course allowed them to fail, because this is what has led to the sifting of faith in these end times.
I am not content to call this minority opinion, per my other thread. It's heresy.
For nearly SIXTEEN HUNDRED YEARS it was believed always, everywhere, and by all that there could be no supernatural faith and no salvation without explicit faith in Our Lord Jesus Christ and the Holy Trinity. That makes it a dogma of the ordinary universal magisterium. If it doesn't, then I have absolutely no idea what ordinary universal magisterium is. So let's stop sugar-coating this heresy by calling it minority opinion.
-
While St. Thomas explicitly refers to the "precept" that the ordinary faithful absolutely must explicitly believe in the principal revealed mysteries, which would appear to indicate that he considers that to be a necessity of means for them, but not for all; he clearly does not apply it unconditionally to all classes of men in the time of grace as an absolute necessity of means. Thus, as an absolute and universal necessity of means, St. Thonas quotes St. Paul: ""On the contrary, It is written (Hebrews11:6): 'He that cometh to God, must believe that He is, and is a rewarder to them that seek Him'." -- and it is in this sense that Piys IX, X, and XII apply that apostolic teaching to the question of the salvation of the invincibly ignorant unbaptized adults who believe in God and are disposed to believe His revelation and obey Him. Although this doctrine is not solemnly defined, it is taught in the doctrinal encyclical Quanto Cunficiamur Maerore, and in the magisterium of St. Pius X and Pius XII; so one is morally bound to give it a religious assent of intellect and will; and one sins gravely (as does Ladislaus) who rejects it and impiously declares it to be a heresy.
Ladislaus says I am a Pelagian for assenting to papal teaching; but he is too slippery, guileful, and cowardly to declare Bl. Pius IX, St. Pius X, and Ven. Pius XII heretics for teaching this "Pelagianism", as he calls it.
-
As with most Pelagian BoDers, you falsely claim support from Pius IX, St. Pius X, Pius XII.
-
Ladislaus says I am a Pelagian for assenting to papal teaching; but he is too slippery, guileful, and cowardly to declare Bl. Pius IX, St. Pius X, and Ven. Pius XII heretics for teaching this "Pelagianism", as he calls it.
No, you are a pelagian for assigning Novus Ordo meaning to magisterial teachings. You read with the mind of the prots, the mind of NOers - not the mind of a Roman Catholic priest and certainly not with the mind of the Church.
-
What Fr. Kramer, as well as the other BODer modern pelagians, falsely believe is that BOD can ever apply to a person that "has a desire for baptism" while being totally ignorant of the Catholic Faith and ignorant of the baptism. However, the Church infallibly and timeless teaching on EENS is clear. It is absolutely impossible to attain salvation outside the Catholic Church and this is what the Church has always meant by that:
-No soul, that we know of, can ever be saved if he does not, (whether through ignorance or obstinacy), explicitly confess the Catholic Faith.
-No soul, that we know of, can ever be saved who dies ignorant of the Catholic Church, or who, having known the Church, refuses to become one of her members.
-No soul, that we know of, can ever be saved who dies ignorant of baptism or who, having heard of it, refuses to receive it.
-No soul, that we know of, can ever be saved who is baptized into a heretical or schismatical church, unless before he dies he joins the Catholic Church;
-No soul, that we know of, can ever be saved if he does not explicitly confess the Catholic Faith, or if he denies one truth of the Faith, or if he does not submit fully to the authority of the Pope.
-No child soul, that we know of, who dies unbaptized can ever be saved.
-
"God's existence as a rewarder can be known through natural reason." And? Ladislaus states only one premise. What does that prove? NOTHING.
THER IS NO MINOR PREMISE.
-
"God's existence as a rewarder can be known through natural reason." And? Ladislaus states only one premise. What does that prove? NOTHING.
THER IS NO MINOR PREMISE.
Oh, come on now, do I have to spell everything out for the great theologian?
MAJOR: Vatican I teaches that supernatural faith requires an object that is incapable of being known by natural reason.
MINOR: God's existence as Rewarder is capable of being known by natural reason.
CONCLUSION: God's existence as Rewarder does not suffice for supernatural faith.
-
FALSEPROPOSITION : "God's existence as Rewarder is capable of being known by natural reason."
God can be known by the light of natural reason, as Dei Filius affirms. God as a rewarder can only be believed by faith; since the reward is strictly a manner of grace given freely by God, and it is supernatural; and hence it is impossible for mere natural human reason unaided by grace to reach that conclusion which pertains to the supernatural economy of salvation.
-
It is also a crude fallacy to state that since the existence of God can be known by human reason, it cannot be professed as the object of faith. God has revealed His existence as the first article of faith: Credo in unum Deum. Belief in the infallibly revealed truth far surpasses the certitude of human reason. I know God through human reason. I do not lie when I profess my belief in the first article of faith, "I believe in one God"; because it is on the infallible authority of the revealing God that I profess Him to be, which far exceeds the certitude of my fallible human reason by which I know God exists.
Furthermore, not all men have the clarity of philosophical understanding to attain to the certain knowledge of God by reason alone; and therefore there are some who can only attain to knowledge of God through revelation.
-
FALSEPROPOSITION : "God's existence as Rewarder is capable of being known by natural reason."
God can be known by the light of natural reason, as Dei Filius affirms. God as a rewarder can only be believed by faith;
Wrong again. From which Cracker Jack box did you extract your "theology" degree again?
When I have time later today, I'll re-locate the the article from Catholic Encyclopedia which discusses the natural attributes of God that can be known through reason. Justice being a natural perfection can be known by reason as an attribute of God.
-
It is also a crude fallacy to state that since the existence of God can be known by human reason, it cannot be professed as the object of faith.
So now you call the teaching of Vatican I "crude fallacy"?
Get thee behind me, Satan. I don't know how much more of you I can take.
You are a constant occasion of sin and scandal to all the faithful.
-
You spew non sequiturs in profusion, Ladislaus: We know from reason that God is just; but it is only by supernatural faith that we believe in a reward that strictly pertains to the order of grace. God does not owe us a heavenly reward in the afterlife. Reason cannot arrive at knowledge of things that pertain to the order of grace -- "But as it is written, That which eye has not seen nor ear heard neither has entered into the heart of man is that which God has prepared for those that love him. But as it is written, Eye has not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God has prepared for them that love him." - 1 Cor. 2:9
The Pharisee is Jew who believes all that God had revealed through the prophets. His religious beliefs are not based on reason. He believes that God rewards and punishes because it is revealed in the Torah. Those who have a philosophical knowledge of God and his justice understand that God providently orders the world according to wisdom and justice. That does not require faith. It is by supernatural faith, i.e., reason aided by grace that one whose point of departure is natural knowledge of God, arrives not at the logical conclusion but at the belief that God has a reward for those who love Him.
"So now you call the teaching of Vatican I "crude fallacy"? " Stupid ASS -- it is not the teaching of Vatican I that is a crude fallacy; but rather it is your moronic proposition that is a crude fallacy. What an IDIOT! Only an idiot could say that the Pontificia Studiorum Universitas a S. Thoma Aq. in Urbe is a "Cracker Jack box". I already knew you wwre stupid, but I did not fathom that you are THAT stupid.
-
You spew non sequiturs in profusion, Ladislaus: We know from reason that God is just; but it is only by supernatural faith that we believe in a reward that strictly pertains to the order of grace.
Yeah, I'm sure that "mutato" believes in God as a Rewarder in the "order of grace".
Just admit it; you hate the dogma EENS.
-
You spew non sequiturs in profusion, Ladislaus: We know from reason that God is just; but it is only by supernatural faith that we believe in a reward that strictly pertains to the order of grace.
Yeah, I'm sure that "mutato" believes in God as a Rewarder in the "order of grace".
Just admit it; you hate the dogma EENS.
As sadly is the case of any poster who feels like "defending" or "promoting" BOD... Except perhaps Nishant.
-
Yes, Nishant is a clear exception.
At least Father Cekada ADMITTED that he couldn't stand the thought of EENS, which is why he wanted to believe in BoD (his Pelagian version of it, that is).
See, most BoDers think that BoD allows them to circuмvent EENS, and that's WHY they believe in it. That's why they're so dogmatic about it. If it was some rare exception that happened every once in a while, it wouldn't be worth all the time and energy they put into promoting it. It's because it allows them to ignore EENS that they are so hell-bent on pushing it. Otherwise, THE CATHOLIC EMPHASIS MUST ALWAYS BE THE NECESSITY OF BAPTISM FOR SALVATION, with BoD perhaps being relegated to an obscure footnote in some dusty old Latin theology manual.
-
So, the inescapable conclusion, according to Ladislaus and Cantarella's errant reasoning is that Bl. Pius IX, St. Pius X and Ven. Pius XII and all who adhere to their doctrine on the point of invincible ignorance are all Pelagian heretics; and only the rigorist adherents to their sect are Catholics.
GJC just reposts the same objection made earlier by Ladislaus. He ought read my already posted reply on that point, rather than repeat an already answered question.
-
So, the inescapable conclusion, according to Ladislaus and Cantarella's errant reasoning is that Bl. Pius IX, St. Pius X and Ven. Pius XII and all who adhere to their doctrine on the point of invincible ignorance are all Pelagian heretics; and only the rigorist adherents to their sect are Catholics.
GJC just reposts the same objection made earlier by Ladislaus. He ought read my already posted reply on that point, rather than repeat an already answered question.
No, the inescapable conclusion is that you misinterpret Pius IX, that Pius XII had nothing to do with Suprema Haec, and St. Pius X didn't adhere to your Pelagian beliefs in any way. You are a pertinacious heretic.
-
Explain the "doctrine of invincible ignorance". Invincible ignorance cannot be salvific, but merely exculpatory ... unless you're a completely full-blown Pelagian.
-
So, the inescapable conclusion, according to Ladislaus and Cantarella's errant reasoning is that Bl. Pius IX, St. Pius X and Ven. Pius XII and all who adhere to their doctrine on the point of invincible ignorance are all Pelagian heretics; and only the rigorist adherents to their sect are Catholics.
GJC just reposts the same objection made earlier by Ladislaus. He ought read my already posted reply on that point, rather than repeat an already answered question.
so the inescapable conclusion according to you is that St Alphonsus is wrong here?
St. Alphonsus: “See also the special love which God has shown you in
bringing you into life in a Christian country, and in the bosom of the Catholic
or true Church. How many are born among the pagans, among the Jews,
among the Mohometans and heretics, and ALL are lost.”4
-
And:
"All the misfortunes of unbelievers spring from too great an attachment to the things of life. This sickness of heart weakens and darkens the understanding, and leads to eternal ruin. If they would try to heal their hearts by purging them of their vices, they would soon receive light, which would show them the necessity of joining the Catholic Church, where alone is salvation. We should constantly thank the Lord for having granted us the gift of the true Faith, by associating us with the children of the Holy Catholic Church ... How many are the infidels, heretics, and schismatics who do not enjoy the happiness of the true Faith! Earth is full of them and they are all lost!"
-
Father Kramer, let's take this step by step.
1. First of all, can you give me an unqualified statement, "I believe whatever St. Alphonsus and St. Thomas teach, and if it could be shown that they teach the opposite of what I believe, I would rethink my opinion, and submit to their authority?" If not, then how can you call yourself a Thomist?
Here is St. Alphonsus again, please read carefully, he clearly says no infidel is saved as an infidel, but those who correspond to the grace given to them receive the proximate grace to embrace the Faith and save their soul. He even cites St. Thomas.
"Thus, then, according to the Angelic Doctor God, at least remotely, gives to infidels, who have the use of reason, sufficient grace to obtain salvation, and this grace consists in a certain instruction of the mind, and in a movement of the will, to observe the natural law; and if the infidel cooperates with this movement, observing the precepts of the law of nature, and abstaining from grievous sins, he will certainly receive, through the merits of Jesus Christ, the grace proximately sufficient to embrace the Faith, and save his soul.”
You'd earlier said St. Alphonsus' writings on this subject were declared by the Church to be irreformable and free from error. So, then, what hinders you from believing and professing this, Father?
In the same vein, how can you deny the text of the Holy Office under St. Pius X that says plainly in so many words, "Christians, when interrogated must answer that those who die as infidels are damned?" Again, St. Pius X is teaching the same thing as St. Alphonsus, that infidels, to be saved, must embrace the Faith during their lives and if they die as infidels they are lost.
2. Secondly, you did not address the Roman response to the missionary concerning the baptism of a dying adult. That response says plainly and in so many words that "the mysteries of the Trinity and Incarnation" are "necessary by a necessity of means" and not as a precept only.
You responded to St. Pius X by saying this is true for the baptized only. But that is not so. St. Pius X said this was true for all the elect, that to belong to their number the knowledge of the mysteries of Faith was necessary. This rules out a purely implicit faith.
Again, St. Thomas said God would send some preacher of Faith to the infidel who seeks to know the truth precisely so that the preacher may teach him that truth he must know to be saved, not to confirm him in his error, as modern "preachers" do. Recall that Scripture says God wills all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth, and St. Alphonsus and other authorities understand it as explained above, that God gives infidels who seek to know God and do His will the sufficient grace to turn from their error and embrace the Faith during their lives.
-
3. Fr. Fenton's statement on this subject is well known.
Now most theologians teach that the minimum explicit content of supernatural and salvific faith includes, not only the truths of God’s existence and of His action as the Rewarder of good and the Punisher of evil, but also the mysteries of the Blessed Trinity and the Incarnation.
This teaching, published in a reputed Catholic journal, the American Ecclesiastical Review in the 1950s, shows that even on practically the eve of the disastrous Council, the majority of the Catholic world still believed in this teaching consecrated by Tradition that the Catholic Faith was necessary for the salvation of all. Although not yet solemnly pronounced upon by the Magisterium, it is infallibly safe for all theologians to hold and teach it, since the Church has declared St. Alphonsus' work teaching it to be such. On account of the Magisterial texts cited above, under Clement XI and Pius X, this teaching is also irreformable and certainly definable by an extraordinary judgment of the Church in the future.
Please explain the text of Msgr. Fenton if you think otherwise. Finally, there are some knowledgeable traditional and other priests even today who hold and teach the same thing, that with the institution of the New Covenant, God established the Catholic Faith is a means without which no one is saved. Which brings me to the next point.
4. Just one other thing, you vehemently opposed Pope Francis when he said Jews can still please God and be saved in their religion, just like Muslims and others, nothing at all different from what JPII or Pope Benedict had said. This you took as incontrovertible proof that he was a formal and notorious heretic, and not Pope. But what is substantially different, pray tell, from that perverse opinion and what you believe?
Trust me when I say it will be possible indefinitely to multiply testimonies from the greatest traditional authorities, from the Apostolic age to the present, in proof that no one is saved without the Catholic Faith.
Though I do not agree with what you've said on this subject in this thread, I've read both the Devil's Final Battle, and some of your interviews and works in the Fatima Crusader, Father Kramer. I still think you are a good man, a good priest, who desires to be a faithful servant of Our Lady.
I will cite one last testimony, from one of the greatest Marian Apostles of all time, sent by God to teach us the truths of True Devotion and Marian Consecration necessary for the Age of Mary to come, who also teaches that no one is saved without knowing and loving the true God, Our Lord Jesus Christ.
“My heart is penetrated with grief when I think of the almost infinite number of souls who are damned for lack of knowing the true God and the Christian religion. The greatest misfortune, O my God, is not to know Thee, and the greatest of punishments not to love Thee ...
The knowledge of Jesus Christ is the science of Christians and the science of salvation; it surpasses, says Saint Paul, all human sciences in value and perfection ...Because of its necessity; for no one can be saved without the knowledge of Jesus Christ, while a person who knows absolutely nothing of any other science will be saved as long as he is enlightened by the knowledge of Jesus Christ.”
Be a good and faithful apostle of Our Lady yourself, Father Kramer. Hold most firmly and without the slightest doubt to this teaching and teach it to those under your care, and Almighty God and His Holy Mother will reward you for it.
-
Thanks again for flushing this out, Nishant. BoD is not the issue here; it's the USE of BoD to promote the notion that salvation is possible without Catholic faith. BoD gets deliberately CONFLATED with this issue by both sides of the argument. Most modern BoD proponents use BoD for no other reason than to promote the idea that infidels can be saved. It's all about EENS. Father Feeney and the SBC (vs. Dimond) school of "Feeneyism" would be the first to state this. None of us could care less if someone held BoD in the way you hold it, Nishant. I have absolutely no problem with your position. I don't agree with it 100%, but I would never go after you for it or attack you for it or declare your a heretic. My issue is with the neo-Pelagians. Someone like yourself could actually serve as an ambassador for BoD, whereas the Pelagian BoDers cause us to recoil in horror.
-
Thanks again for flushing this out, Nishant. BoD is not the issue here; it's the USE of BoD to promote the notion that salvation is possible without Catholic faith. BoD gets deliberately CONFLATED with this issue by both sides of the argument. Most modern BoD proponents use BoD for no other reason than to promote the idea that infidels can be saved. It's all about EENS. Father Feeney and the SBC (vs. Dimond) school of "Feeneyism" would be the first to state this. None of us could care less if someone held BoD in the way you hold it, Nishant. I have absolutely no problem with your position. I don't agree with it 100%, but I would never go after you for it or attack you for it or declare your a heretic. My issue is with the neo-Pelagians. Someone like yourself could actually serve as an ambassador for BoD, whereas the Pelagian BoDers cause us to recoil in horror.
Yet, LoT, SJB and I have told you over and over again that supernatural Faith is necessary, along with perfect charity, and at least an implicit desire to join the Church, and you would not hear it.
Now Nishant says the very same thing, and you finally get it. :fryingpan:
It seems to me that Dom Paulo (don't think I missed that you broke Matthews rules by using real names) is holding the tolerated minority view, which I believe is mistaken, but has been permitted by Rome.
-
Yet, LoT, SJB and I have told you over and over again that supernatural Faith is necessary, along with perfect charity, and at least an implicit desire to join the Church, and you would not hear it.
No, you guys believe in a merely infused supernatural faith (along the lines of what a baptized infant has) without explicit belief in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation; that's how you posit that infidels can be saved. You have paid lip service to the idea that Catholic faith is necessary for salvation but then redefine faith. I think I spent an entire 100-page thread arguing against LoT about this. Same thing with you and SJB. You declare the need for supernatural faith, but then 3 posts later are talking about the invincibly ignorant savage who can be saved by BoD.
It seems to me that Dom Paulo (don't think I missed that you broke Matthews rules by using real names) is holding the tolerated minority view, which I believe is mistaken, but has been permitted by Rome.
Wrong. It's heresy. 1600 years of unanimous belief by every Catholic from the beginning of the Church constitutes a dogmatic teaching of the Ordinary Universal Magisterium. Failure to explicitly condemn does not mean active "permission".
-
Yet, LoT, SJB and I have told you over and over again that supernatural Faith is necessary, along with perfect charity, and at least an implicit desire to join the Church, and you would not hear it.
No, you guys believe in a merely infused supernatural faith (along the lines of what a baptized infant has) without explicit belief in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation; that's how you posit that infidels can be saved. You have paid lip service to the idea that Catholic faith is necessary for salvation but then redefine faith. I think I spent an entire 100-page thread arguing against LoT about this. Same thing with you and SJB. You declare the need for supernatural faith, but then 3 posts later are talking about the invincibly ignorant savage who can be saved by BoD.
It seems to me that Dom Paulo (don't think I missed that you broke Matthews rules by using real names) is holding the tolerated minority view, which I believe is mistaken, but has been permitted by Rome.
Wrong. It's heresy. 1600 years of unanimous belief by every Catholic from the beginning of the Church constitutes a dogmatic teaching of the Ordinary Universal Magisterium. Failure to explicitly condemn does not mean active "permission".
Untrue. All of us that have answered you, Lot, SJB, and myself have told you repeatedly and constantly that supernatural Faith is necessary for salvation. I have told you and others on here time and time again, that I believe the four conditions as explained by St. Thomas for the minimum Faith necessary for salvation.
Every time I state this to you, your blinders prevent you from reading clear and explicit words. It's as though you want me to believe the minority view so I can fit into your caricature of your opponents.
Regarding the minority view, it's not heresy, it remains unsettled by the Magisterium. Real Pope's don't sit idly by as theologians publish heresy for centuries and let it go. The position was permitted tacitly by Rome since it was not heretical.
All, except heretics, believe that supernatural Faith is necessary for salvation, the only area of disagreement is what the minimum is.
-
The theory of "invincible ignorance" being salvific was first speculated in the times of conquistadores regarding the natives by Andreas de Vega; but this theory was actually rejected by the Magisterium.
Pope Innocent XI in XVII century condemned the following proposition which implied that one could be saved without supernatural faith: "A faith amply indicated from the testimony of creation, or from a similar motive, suffices for justification". As St. Paul taught, "if salvation were possible by the Mosaic Law, or by the natural law as well, then "Christ died in vain"!
During the missions in XVIII century, the Holy Office responded to an inquiry from the bishop of Quebec:
Question: Whether it is possible for a crude and uneducated adult, as it might be with a barbarian, to be baptized, if there were given to him only an understanding of God and some of His attributes, especially His justice in rewarding and punishing, according to this remark of the Apostle: “He that cometh to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder”, from which it is to be inferred that a barbarian adult in a certain case of urgent necessity, can be baptized even though he does not explicitly believe in Jesus Christ.
Response: A missionary should not baptize one who does not explicitly believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, but is bound to instruct him about all those matters which are necessary, by a necessity of means, in accordance with the capacity of the one to be baptized"
To an additional inquiry the Holy Office responded, that even an adult Indian at the point of death, must make an act of faith in the Trinity and the Incarnation before he could be baptized.
-
The theory of "invincible ignorance" being salvific was first speculated in the times of conquistadores regarding the natives by Andreas de Vega; but this theory was actually rejected by the Magisterium.
Pope Innocent XI in XVII century condemned the following proposition which implied that one could be saved without supernatural faith: "A faith amply indicated from the testimony of creation, or from a similar motive, suffices for justification". As St. Paul taught, "if salvation were possible by the Mosaic Law, or by the natural law as well, then "Christ died in vain"!
During the missions in XVIII century, the Holy Office responded to an inquiry from the bishop of Quebec:
Question: Whether it is possible for a crude and uneducated adult, as it might be with a barbarian, to be baptized, if there were given to him only an understanding of God and some of His attributes, especially His justice in rewarding and punishing, according to this remark of the Apostle: “He that cometh to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder”, from which it is to be inferred that a barbarian adult in a certain case of urgent necessity, can be baptized even though he does not explicitly believe in Jesus Christ.
Response: A missionary should not baptize one who does not explicitly believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, but is bound to instruct him about all those matters which are necessary, by a necessity of means, in accordance with the capacity of the one to be baptized"
To an additional inquiry the Holy Office responded, that even an adult Indian at the point of death, must make an act of faith in the Trinity and the Incarnation before he could be baptized.
Yes, the Holy Office required this act of explicit Faith prior to sacramental Baptism. This does not mean that the question of the minimum amount of Faith necessary for salvation is settled.
-
This does not mean that the question of the minimum amount of Faith necessary for salvation is settled.
No, that was settled from the beginning of the Church, since it was believed always, everywhere, and by all, that explicit belief in Our Lord Jesus Christ and the Holy Trinity are necessary for salvation.
-
I agree that when the Church permits two opinions (think of for example the opinion of Cajetan on the Pope question, or the relative novelty of Molinism on free will and grave vis-a-vis Molinism), we cannot call the other group heretics. But the teaching that God established the divine and Catholic Faith - which necessarily includes explicitly at least the Trinity and Incarnation - it is certainly definable and is arguably irreformable
Great and glorious was that Holy Roman Church that spoke in this way to the Armenian and Greek schismatic "Orthodox" under Pope Clement VI.
"In the second place, we ask whether you and the Armenians obedient to you believe that no man of the wayfarers outside of the Faith of this Church, and outside the obedience of the Pope of Rome, can finally be saved… In the ninth place, if you have believed and do believe that all who have raised themselves against the Faith of the Roman Church and have died in final impenitence have been damned and have descended to the eternal punishments of hell."
This was required of them in their Profession of Faith. There are few greater weapons the Church has in Her armory than the sacred dogma of EENS, in that same sense as She has always taught it and everywhere understood it, and consequently none feared so much by the enemies of the Church, who desire nothing more than that She either cease to preach it, or at least water it down.
This Creed shows that even faith in the Trinity and Incarnation profits nothing either if a single article of the divine and Catholic Faith is denied, as all heretics do, or the unity of Faith under Peter is not preserved, as all schismatics do.
When one undertakes a study of what Tradition and the Magisterium have said on this subject, including in countless sacred creeds consecrated by antiquity and ecclesiastical approbation, one sees the clear emphasis on the necessity of the Catholic Faith for salvation.
This true Catholic faith, outside of which no one can be saved… I now profess and truly hold…”
“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…”
The same is seen in the profession of Faith used during the reception of converts, and of course, there is that most ancient of Creeds, the Athanasian Creed, that most marvelously shows us the testimony of Tradition on this subject.
Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic Faith.
Which Faith except everyone do keep whole and undefiled,without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. And the Catholic Faith is this: that we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity, neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the Substance ... Furthermore, it is necessary to everlasting salvation that he alsobelieve rightly the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. This is the Catholic Faith, which except a man believe faithfully, he cannot be saved.
Whoever wants to try and explain this away, let him. But as for those who say they are traditional Catholics, they should hold it as Tradition has always and everywhere taught it.
-
The theory of "invincible ignorance" being salvific was first speculated in the times of conquistadores regarding the natives by Andreas de Vega; but this theory was actually rejected by the Magisterium.
Pope Innocent XI in XVII century condemned the following proposition which implied that one could be saved without supernatural faith: "A faith amply indicated from the testimony of creation, or from a similar motive, suffices for justification". As St. Paul taught, "if salvation were possible by the Mosaic Law, or by the natural law as well, then "Christ died in vain"!
During the missions in XVIII century, the Holy Office responded to an inquiry from the bishop of Quebec:
Question: Whether it is possible for a crude and uneducated adult, as it might be with a barbarian, to be baptized, if there were given to him only an understanding of God and some of His attributes, especially His justice in rewarding and punishing, according to this remark of the Apostle: “He that cometh to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder”, from which it is to be inferred that a barbarian adult in a certain case of urgent necessity, can be baptized even though he does not explicitly believe in Jesus Christ.
Response: A missionary should not baptize one who does not explicitly believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, but is bound to instruct him about all those matters which are necessary, by a necessity of means, in accordance with the capacity of the one to be baptized"
To an additional inquiry the Holy Office responded, that even an adult Indian at the point of death, must make an act of faith in the Trinity and the Incarnation before he could be baptized.
Yes, the Holy Office required this act of explicit Faith prior to sacramental Baptism. This does not mean that the question of the minimum amount of Faith necessary for salvation is settled.
To an additional inquiry the Holy Office responded, that even an adult Indian at the point of death, must make an act of faith in the Trinity and the Incarnation before he could be baptized.
As the mystery of the Incarnation was believed from the beginning, so, also, was it necessary to believe the mystery of the Most Holy Trinity; for the mystery of the Incarnation cannot be explicitly believed without faith in the Most Holy Trinity, because the mystery of the Incarnation teaches that the Son of God took to himself a human body and soul by the power of the Holy Ghost. Hence, as the mystery of the Incarnation was explicitly believed by the teachers of religion, and implicitly by the rest of the people, so, also, was the mystery of the Most Holy Trinity explicitly believed by the teachers of religion and implicitly by the rest of the people. But in the New Law it must be explicitly believed by all.(De Fide, Q ii., art. vii. et viii.)"
Undoubtly, there is a necessity of explicit Faith in the Incarnation and Trinity for salvation.
-
So, Nishant, based on your principles, is Feeneyism "heresy"?
-
First, to clarify that contrary to popular belief "Fenneyism" is not "denying" Baptism of Desire and Blood but asserting that these are only hypothetical (are theological conclusions, not Catholics dogmas) and, in themselves, cannot be means of salvation. Fr. Feeney never labeled as heretical the "Baptism of Desire" as it was used in its traditional sense[/i]. This is, for the catechumen awaiting baptism that dies unexpectedly prior to receiving the water sacrament, provided that he had an ardent desire to be baptized, along with the true Faith and perfect sorrow for his sins.
As for the Baptism of Blood, Fr. Feeney did not teach that a martyr who shed his blood for his Catholic Faith and died without baptism, would be lost as it is often believed. What Father taught was that God would have seen to it that those few martyrs who were reported to have died without baptism would not have left this life without baptism. [b]In sum, that there cannot be a justified soul that God cannot provide the waters of regeneration (baptism) for, before dying.
[/b]
-
I'm trying to get clarification from Nishant on his principles. He claims that something can't be heresy if the Church has failed to condemn it.
-
ON THE FEENEYITE HERESY
Leonard Feeney SJ did not invent the heresy which denies Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood. It was alredy known to be a heresy propagated long before Feeney began to profess this heresy.
BAPTISM OF DESIRE IS DE FIDE
The denial of BOD was aleady known to be a heresy well before Fr. Feeney fell for this old heresy. In my reply to a Feeneyite along with its links to informative articles, you will find all you need in order to understand that BOD & BOB are defined doctrines of the universal & ordinary magisterium that must be believed with divine and Catholic faith.
Dear Feeneyite,
I have examined your entire exposition attempting to critique my position on Baptism of Desire. It is riddled with fallacious assumptions; such as your false attribution to me of an error on the point of necessity of precept vs. necessity of means. Another gross error you make is to equate the doctrine of Baptism of Desire, which pertains to the universal magisterium of the Church, with mere opinions that the Church has tolerated but never has taught or approved.
Before the doctrine of BOD would have been explicitly and universally set forth by the ordinary magisterium, it would have been permissible to hold a contrary opinion; but that is now and for many centuries no longer the case. BOD as well as BOB (explicitly professed in the Roman Martyrology) have been definitively set forth by the universal & ordinary magisterium, and are therefore infallible and must be believed with divine and Catholic faith. It has become universally defined by the magisterium in no small part, first; because it had been taught by St. Thomas Aquinas and other medieval Doctors, secondly; because the application of the dogma of Trent to this point by St. Alphonsus has been formally approved by Gregory XVI and by Pius IX, and has been explicitly taught by Pope Pius IX and Pope Pius X in their ordinary magisterium. Furthermore, the 1917 Code of Canon Law prescribed as a universal statute that deceased Catechumens are to be given a Catholic burial and "are to be counted among the bapitzed" (can. 1239). St. Pius X teaches that those who have been sanctified by baptism of desire are in the Church not as incorporated members, but in so far as they belong to "the soul of the Church". The basis for this teaching of St. Pius X is the doctrine of St. Robert Bellarmine who succinctly explains in what manner such catechumens are to be considered to belong to the soul of the Church. This distinction was already taught by St. Augustine.
Leonard Feeney SJ was not the originator of this heresy. The eminent late Nineteenth Century early 20th Century theologian, Francisco Marin-Sola OP, mentions that there have already been some heretics teaching this doctrine: “Certain heretics have affirmed that no adult can be saved without receiving baptism itself before he dies, however much he would burn with desire for it, and that it would do him no good unless he were washed with water."
The precise quotations from magisterial sources are presented in the two articles indicated below which more than sufficiently demonstrate beyond all shadow of doubt that Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood are infallible definitions of the Church which must be believed with divine and Catholic faith, under penalty of heresy and eternal damnation.
Fr. Paul Kramer
http://www.catholicessentials.net/baptismofdesire.htm
http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/currenterrors/bapdesire.htm
This is the most viewed thread on the topic, I enjoyed re-reading it
-
Punxsutawney Phil, RIP
"I got you babe."
-
In all my life I have never met an incessant pusher of BOD & BOB, that was not hiding behind them while really wanting to push salvation by belief in a God that rewards, that Jews, Mohamedans, Hindus, Buddhist etc. can be saved without explicit belief in Chist and the Holy Trinity, without explicit desire to be a Catholic or baptized. Even when they insisted that they limit their belief to say BOD of the catechumen, upon further pressure I always found them to be liars. Those who incessantly push BOB and BOD are obsessed in their mission to infect others to believe that Jews, Mohamedans, Hindus, Buddhist etc. can be saved. They do not feel altogether convinced about their belief, so they seek company
-
In all my life I have never met an incessant pusher of BOD & BOB, that was not hiding behind them while really wanting to push salvation by belief in a God that rewards, that Jews, Mohamedans, Hindus, Buddhist etc. can be saved without explicit belief in Chist and the Holy Trinity, without explicit desire to be a Catholic or baptized. Even when they insisted that they limit their belief to say BOD of the catechumen, upon further pressure I always found them to be liars. Those who incessantly push BOB and BOD are obsessed in their mission to infect others to believe that Jews, Mohamedans, Hindus, Buddhist etc. can be saved. They do not feel altogether convinced about their belief, so they seek company
It is against forum rules to post the same thing twice within 24 hours and you have posted this at least three times within 24 hours. You must think it is a brilliant post, and of course it must be since it comes from your own mind, this shows the limits of your intelligence and your anti-Catholic spirit of making false accusations and hoping it sticks and the underhanded guilt by made up association tactic resorted to by the desperate who know they do not have a leg to stand on..
-
It is against forum rules to post the same thing twice within 24 hours and you have posted this at least three times within 24 hours.
That never stopped you before.
-
FR. EDUARDUS GENICOT, S.]., Theologiae Moralis Institutiones (Vol. II), Tractatus XII, 1902
Baptism of the Spirit (flaminis) consists in an act of perfect charity or contrition, with which there is always an infusion of sanctifying grace connected...
Both are called “of desire” (in voto)...; perfect charity, because it has always connected the desire, at least the implicit one, of receiving this sacrament, absolutely necessary for salvation.
-
It is against forum rules to post the same thing twice within 24 hours and you have posted this at least three times within 24 hours. You must think it is a brilliant post, and of course it must be since it comes from your own mind, this shows the limits of your intelligence and your anti-Catholic spirit of making false accusations and hoping it sticks and the underhanded guilt by made up association tactic resorted to by the desperate who know they do not have a leg to stand on..
"It's against moral rules to get divorced and murder your wives." Henry VIII
"Meat is murder!" J. Dahmer
-
Pope Innocent II (12th Century): From his letter "Apostolicam Sedem" to the Bishop of Cremona, "We assert without hesitation (on the authority of the holy Fathers Augustine and Ambrose) that the 'priest' whom you indicated (in your letter) had died without the water of baptism, because he persevered in the Faith of Holy Mother Church and in the confession of the name of Christ, was freed from original sin and attained the joys of the heavenly fatherland. Read [brother] in the eighth book of Augustine's City of God where among other things it is written: 'Baptism is administered invisibly to one whom not contempt of religion, but death excludes.' Read again the book also of the blessed Ambrose concerning the death of Valentinian where he says the same thing. Therefore, to questions concerning the dead, you should hold the opinions of the learned Fathers, and in your church you should join in prayers and you should have sacrifices offered to God for the 'priest' mentioned." (Denzinger 388)