Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => The Feeneyism Ghetto => Topic started by: Deliveringit1 on December 27, 2010, 04:15:57 PM
-
I'm wondering about this. I hear some Catholics claim that God is not bound to ordinary means of salvation(meaning through the Sacraments and the Church which he established), but that God may be able to save souls through extraordinary means(such as to intercede immedietaly at the point of that person's death).
What are your thoughts on this? :confused1:
-
I'm wondering about this. I hear some Catholics claim that God is not bound to ordinary means of salvation(meaning through the Sacraments and the Church which he established), but that God may be able to save souls through extraordinary means of salvation(such as to intecede immedietaly at the point of that person's death).
What are your thoughts on this? :confused1:
Do you really believe that God condemned all souls to hell who were unable to hear the Gospel from members (excepting those in heaven) of the Church?
Are Catholics bound to believe that?
I don't.
-
Telesphorus, so you believe there is "salvation outside of the Church" ?
-
I won't attempt to "re-invent the wheel", so here goes:
St. Augustine, "Treatise on Baptism"
"When we speak of within and without in relation to the Church, it is the position of the heart that we must consider, not that of the body."
St. Bernard, "De Baptismo"
"What is clearer than that the will is taken for the act, when the act is excluded by necessity?"
St. Thomas Aquinas "Summa Theologica"
"...a man receives the effect of Baptism by the power of the Holy Ghost, not only without Baptism of Water, but also without Baptism of Blood: forasmuch as his heart is moved by the Holy Ghost to believe in and love God and to repent of his sins: wherefore this is also called Baptism of Repentance."
St. Thomas Aquinas "Summa Theologica"
"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"
St. Thomas Aquinas "Summa Theologica"
"man receives the forgiveness of sins before Baptism in so far as he has Baptism of desire, explicitly or implicitly"
"Catechism of the Council of Trent":
"....should any unforeseen accident deprive adults of baptism, their intention of receiving it, and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness." [section on baptism]
"...such is the efficacy of true contrition...that through it we obtain from God the immediate pardon of our sins." [section on penance]
-
Bazz, those statements which you have posted from several Saints and from the catechism are not infallible statements. Plus there are numerous Saints who claimed that water baptism and the Church were the only means of salvation.
Are there any infallible statements from the Church that address this issue?
-
Telesphorus, so you believe there is "salvation outside of the Church" ?
No, I don't. I don't define Church membership as belonging only to those who have been baptized with water.
-
God created the ordinary motions of nature, etc., too...yet we see Him suspend/set aside those laws from time to time, for His own good reasons (which reasons usually involve the good of His creatures).
So long as something is, in fact, possible, He can do it -- this only excludes things like making a square 'circle', etc. Whether or not He chooses to do this or that is, of course, up to Him.
-
Articles of Interest:
Baptism of Desire and of Blood
MATER DEI SEMINARY newsletter "Adsum" (January, 2004)
http://www.traditionalcatholic.net/Tradition/Information/Baptism_of_Desire.html
Baptism of Desire and Theological Principles
http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/BaptDes-Proofed.pdf
Baptism of Desire: An Exchange
http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=28&catname=2
I don't define Church membership as belonging only to those who have been baptized with water.
This contradicts Pope Pius' teaching in Mystici Corporis Christi:
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius12/P12MYSTI.HTM
22. Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed.
What the deal is, is that it is not absolutely necessary to be a member of the Church to belong to the Church.
Two more links of interest:
Membership in the Church, Mons. Fenton Articles
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Membership-in-the-Church-2
Letter of the Holy Office
http://www.ewtn.com/library/curia/cdffeeny.htm
It's necessary for salvation for a person to belong to the soul of the Church in actuality, and the body of the Church at least in desire, and this desire can be implicit.
-
well, not formal members, but members of the Body of Christ, when they die.
-
Are there extraordinary means outside the sacraments? Of course there are.
Even though the Council of Trent session 14 canon 6 anathematizes any one who denies sacramental confession is “necessary to salvation” and also canon 7 that the sacrament of Penance is necessary “for the remission of sins”. Someone in mortal sin can still be saved by “perfect contrition” or by shedding their blood in martyrdom. These two are not sacramental confession but they have the effect of the sacrament.
-
All those who die in Sanctifying grace are within the Church, extraordinary means of salvation does not mean you are saved outside the Church.
It just means God can give His mercy and grsce to whoever He wills and either restore them to Sanctifying grace or instill them with His grace in an extradinary way, which is why we are taught not to judge the soul of anyone. We can always have hope to see our loved ones again someday, especially if we have prayed for them in their lifetime.
-
So far none of you have produced any dogmatic Church teachings which claims a soul can be saved by some "extraordinary means" outside of the Church and its sacraments.
However, I have seen apparent dogmatic pronouncements which claim there is no salvation outside the Church and outside of its sacraments.
So can anyone in this Forum show any established Church Dogma from Church Councils and Infallible statements from a Pope which makes "extraordinary means of salvation" a truth?
-
So far none of you have produced any dogmatic Church teachings which claims a soul can be saved by some "extraordinary means" outside of the Church and its sacraments.
However, I have seen apparent dogmatic pronouncements which claim there is no salvation outside the Church and outside of its sacraments.
So can anyone in this Forum show any established Church Dogma from Church Councils and Infallible statements from a Pope which makes "extraordinary means of salvation" a truth?
No one ever claimed that there is salvation outside the Church. Where are you getting this???
I gave you two examples of extraordinary means that have the effect of sacramental confession.
Do you deny "perfect contrition"?
-
Someone in mortal sin can still be saved by “perfect contrition” or by shedding their blood in martyrdom.
I know that a water baptized Catholic can receive remission of sins through an act of "perfect contrition" or by martyrdom, but can you show me the infallible dogmatic statements from the Church which says this also applies to non-catholic heretics who are outside the Church?
The reason I ask is because I remember seeing an infallible statement from a Pope which said nobody outside the Church can be saved by the shedding of their own blood in the name of Christ. Plus I also remember seeing another infallible statement which said there is no remission for sins whatsoever for anyone outside the Church
-
Ordinary versus extraordinary?
Think about how the ordinary minister of baptism is a priest. They say the extraordinary minister is a deacon, or in emergencies - a layman. The point being that ordinary is the common, usual way.
This is where you go totally wrong in the first place Deliveringit1 (DI), concerning infallibility. The ordinary and infallible way the Church teaches is NOT by the extraordinary method of papal definitions and Councils. See what the Vatican Council of 1870 taught about this:
"...all those things are to be believed with divine and Catholic faith which are contained in the Word of God, written or handed down, and which the Church, either by a solemn judgment or by her ordinary and universal magisterium, proposes for belief as having been divinely revealed."
So, what do you, DI, believe with divine and Catholics faith that has only been taught in the common, usual way and NOT by the extraordinary magisterium?
The quotes I gave were the common teaching believed by all, throughout the centuries, and without controversy. Had they been against solemn teaching, the Church would not have failed to mention they were heresy.
Your whole concept of infallibility, DI, is mistaken. This is a root problem with those infected by Feeneyism.
-
...
a water baptized Catholic
A novel Feeneyite distinction.
-
Your whole concept of infallibility, DI, is mistaken. This is a root problem with those infected by Feeneyism.
Bazz, so you hold fallible teachings,(much of which comes from theologians), as being more authoritative than infallible teachings(which comes from past Popes and past Church Councils).
Isn't a Catholic suppose to recognize infallible dogmatic teachings of the Church as something that one must accept and believe in? Therefore if any fallible teaching is put forth at some later date, then a Catholic can know that it is to be rejected.
-
...
a water baptized Catholic
A novel Feeneyite distinction.
Roman Catholic, you say its a novel Feeneyite distinction, but isn't Water Baptism an already established Dogmatic infallible teaching of the Church? Doesn't the Church already infallibly and dogmatically declare that Water Baptism is the only way by which a person can be brought into the Church? And doesn't the Church go on to infallibly and dogmatically declare that THERE IS NO SALVATION OUTSIDE THE CHURCH ???
-
...
a water baptized Catholic
A novel Feeneyite distinction.
Roman Catholic, you say its a novel Feeneyite distinction, but isn't Water Baptism an already established Dogmatic infallible teaching of the Church? Doesn't the Church already infallibly and dogmatically declare that Water Baptism is the only way by which a person can be brought into the Church? And doesn't the Church go on to infallibly and dogmatically declare that THERE IS NO SALVATION OUTSIDE THE CHURCH ???
First of all you have to prove sir that the terms "inside the Church" (outside ths Church) and "member of the Church" (non-member of the Church) mean the same thing...
-
...
a water baptized Catholic
A novel Feeneyite distinction.
Roman Catholic, you say its a novel Feeneyite distinction, but isn't Water Baptism an already established Dogmatic infallible teaching of the Church? Doesn't the Church already infallibly and dogmatically declare that Water Baptism is the only way by which a person can be brought into the Church? And doesn't the Church go on to infallibly and dogmatically declare that THERE IS NO SALVATION OUTSIDE THE CHURCH ???
You said a "water baptized Catholic" --- but the Church has never spoken in those terms. The Church has never made a distinction calling some people "water baptized Catholics" and calling other people who become Catholics through baptism of blood, "blood Catholics". Catholics are Catholics.
-
...
a water baptized Catholic
A novel Feeneyite distinction.
Roman Catholic, you say its a novel Feeneyite distinction, but isn't Water Baptism an already established Dogmatic infallible teaching of the Church? Doesn't the Church already infallibly and dogmatically declare that Water Baptism is the only way by which a person can be brought into the Church? And doesn't the Church go on to infallibly and dogmatically declare that THERE IS NO SALVATION OUTSIDE THE CHURCH ???
First of all you have to prove sir that the terms "inside the Church" (outside ths Church) and "member of the Church" (non-member of the Church) mean the same thing...
the Church has dogmatically taught,
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.” DZ 696
I have provided you just one infallible statement that Water Baptism is needed to become a member of the Catholic Church and that one must be a member of the Catholic Church to enter Heaven. There are many more infallible statements from past Popes and Councils that I can provide for you which makes the same case.
Cristian, now can any of you in this "TRADITIONAL" Catholic Forum provide any infallible dogmatic teachings from any past Popes and Councils which make the claim that Water Baptism is NOT necessary to become a member of the Church and that being a formal member of the Church is also NOT needed ???
-
Deliver it somewhere else.
-
You said a "water baptized Catholic" --- but the Church has never spoken in those terms. The Church has never made a distinction calling some people "water baptized Catholics" and calling other people who become Catholics through baptism of blood, "blood Catholics". Catholics are Catholics.
Roman Catholic, I have already posted the infallible teaching that only "WATER baptism" enables a person to become a member of the Catholic Church.
Now can you provide any infallible statements from any past Popes and/or Church Councils which make the case for an individual becoming a member through "Baptism of Blood"?
-
The Roman Martyrology
And yes, deliver it somewhere else. Or put differently: from deliveringit, deliver us O Lord.
-
Deliver it somewhere else.
SJB, so you don't want me to post "Traditional dogmatic infallible Church statements" in this "Traditional" catholic Forum?
-
The Roman Martyrology
And yes, deliver it somewhere else.
Or put differently: from deliveringit, deliver us O Lord.
Roman Catholic, so you also don't want me to post "Traditional dogmatic infallible Church statements" in this "Traditional" catholic Forum?
-
The Roman Martyrology
And yes, deliver it somewhere else.
Or put differently: from deliveringit, deliver us O Lord.
Roman Catholic, so you also don't want me to post "Traditional dogmatic infallible Church statements" in this "Traditional" catholic Forum?
The Roman Martyrology
-
All those who die in Sanctifying grace are within the Church, extraordinary means of salvation does not mean you are saved outside the Church.
Exactly.
-
The Roman Martyrology
And yes, deliver it somewhere else.
Or put differently: from deliveringit, deliver us O Lord.
Roman Catholic, so you also don't want me to post "Traditional dogmatic infallible Church statements" in this "Traditional" catholic Forum?
The Roman Martyrology
Roman Catholic, I guess you think you have just provided me with infallible and conclusive evidence of Church teachings for "baptism of blood", but apparently you do not know the difference between fallible and infallible.
I'll ask again,...can you provide any "INFALLIBLE DOGMATIC" teachings of the Holy Catholic Church which makes the case for "baptism of blood"
-
the Church has dogmatically taught,
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.” DZ 696
I have provided you just one infallible statement that Water Baptism is needed to become a member of the Catholic Church and that one must be a member of the Catholic Church to enter Heaven. There are many more infallible statements from past Popes and Councils that I can provide for you which makes the same case.
Cristian, now can any of you in this "TRADITIONAL" Catholic Forum provide any infallible dogmatic teachings from any past Popes and Councils which make the claim that Water Baptism is NOT necessary to become a member of the Church and that being a formal member of the Church is also NOT needed ???
Well that the sacrament of Baptism is necessary to be members of the Church was already defined by the Church I don`t think we need to discus it any longer. Besides we both agree.
Regarding the posibility of salvation for those who are not members of the Church I give you 3 reasons:
1) Pius XII M. Corporis
103. As you know, Venerable Brethren, from the very beginning of Our Pontificate, We have committed to the protection and guidance of heaven those who do not belong to the visible Body of the Catholic Church, solemnly declaring that after the example of the Good Shepherd We desire nothing more ardently than that they may have life and have it more abundantly. Imploring the prayers of the whole Church We wish to repeat this solemn declaration in this Encyclical Letter in which We have proclaimed the praises of the "great and glorious Body of Christ" and from a heart overflowing with love We ask each and every one of them to correspond to the interior movements of grace, and to seek to withdraw from that state in which they cannot be secure of their salvation. For even though by an unconscious desire and longing they have a certain relationship with the Mystical Body of the Redeemer, they still remain deprived of those many heavenly gifts and helps which can only be enjoyed in the Catholic Church. Therefore may they enter into Catholic unity and, joined with Us in the one, organic Body of Jesus Christ, may they together with us run on to the one Head in the Society of glorious love. Persevering in prayer to the Spirit of love and truth, We wait for them with open and outstretched arms to come not to a stranger's house, but to their own, their father's home
2) The common teaching of all theologians and canonists (even canon law itself) affirming you can have the effects of the sacrament of baptism through baptism of blood and of desire. This is Universal and Ordinary Magisterium.
3) How do you interpret the words of Our Lord "Then Jesus said to them: "Amen, amen, I say unto you: unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. He that eats my flesh and drinks my blood has everlasting life, and I will raise him up in the last day." (Jn VI, 53-54).
Should we conclude from this that any baptized infant will go to hell because he didn`t receive holy communion? What about those Catholics who die having use of reason and before doing his first communion? Same conclusion...?
Cristian
-
The real question is this: Are water baptized Feeneyites outside of the Church?
-
All those who die in Sanctifying grace are within the Church, extraordinary means of salvation does not mean you are saved outside the Church.
Exactly.
Roman Catholic, instead of looking to MyrnaM as your authoritative infallible source, can you provide the dogmatic infallible teaching of the Church which says someone can be saved through "extraordinary means"(meaning not through the sacraments of the Church)
-
The real question is this: Are water baptized Feeneyites outside of the Church?
Didn't Benedict claim that Feeneyism is not heretical and that a Catholic can indeed hold that belief? Also, didn't Benedict just recently accept several Feeneyite religious orders. Thats more than what the SSPX have gotten from Benedict so far.
-
Now you are just being childish and pestiferous.
I never said that MyrnaM was an authoritative infallible source. I just pointed out that what she said was correct.
Grow up and don't act like such a pest.
Has the Church been in error for centuries by honoring people a saints, who shed their blood in baptism when those souls are really in hell?
-
Roman Catholic, can you provide "infallible" evidence which shows that none of those Saints were previously "Water Baptized"?
-
The real question is this: Are water baptized Feeneyites outside of the Church?
Didn't Benedict claim that Feeneyism is not heretical and that a Catholic can indeed hold that belief? Also, didn't Benedict just recently accept several Feeneyite religious orders. Thats more than what the SSPX have gotten from Benedict so far.
The problem is, Roman Catholic (unless I am mistaken) does not accept B16 as a true Pope.
-
The real question is this: Are water baptized Feeneyites outside of the Church?
Didn't Benedict claim that Feeneyism is not heretical and that a Catholic can indeed hold that belief? Also, didn't Benedict just recently accept several Feeneyite religious orders. Thats more than what the SSPX have gotten from Benedict so far.
I don't know. So what if he did? He does not seem to like the concepts of Limbo or Hell, so it's likely that in his view all Feeneyites will be saved along with those who believe in BOB and BOD...as well as everyone else who ever lived.
-
Also, the ConciLIAR church accepts and promotes the acceptance of many versions of the Salvation doctrine, ie; the Joint Declaration on Justification with the Lutherans. So why would they also say they accept the strict adherance to the Dogmatic Definitions that Fr. Feeney preached.
-
Roman Catholic, can you provide "infallible" evidence which shows that none of those Saints were previously "Water Baptized"?
You show us some "infallible" evidence that any of them were.
-
Here's an interesting quote regarding the martyology issue:
Pope St. Gelasius, Decretal, 495: “Likewise the deeds of the holy martyrs… [which] with remarkable caution are not read in the holy Roman Church… because the names of those who wrote them are entirely unknown… lest an occasion of mockery might arise.”
-
Roman Catholic, can you provide "infallible" evidence which shows that none of those Saints were previously "Water Baptized"?
You show us some "infallible" evidence which show that any were.
Roman Catholic, I don't have to show any evidence that they were "water baptized". All I have to show is the already established infallible teaching of the Church that only Water Baptism gives sanctifying grace. Therefore, a Catholic knowing their Church's teaching would realize that any Saint had to have been "Water Baptized" to enter Heaven.
So I'll ask again,..can you or anyone in this "TRADITIONAL" catholic forum provide any "TRADITIONAL DOGMATIC INFALLIBLE" teachings of the Church which makes the case for "baptism of blood" and for "extraordinary means" of salvation(which means salvation outside of the sacraments of the Church) ?
I've presented dogmatic teachings to make my case, but not one of you, as of yet, have been able to provide any dogmatic teaching for your position. Why is that ?
-
Catecuмens who were marytred had not been previously baptized.
But you know what... I know this discussion is futile - you won't convince me to become a Feeneyite, and I won't convince you to cease being one. So I think I will pass on discussing further.
-
Deliver it somewhere else.
SJB, so you don't want me to post "Traditional dogmatic infallible Church statements" in this "Traditional" catholic Forum?
You're assuming that a lack of membership = outside the Church.
-
Catecuмens who were marytred had not been previously baptized.
Roman Catholic, unlike today, catechumens were water baptized long ago and then continued in their catholic educaton. Plus, a Catholic is not to believe in "Baptism of blood" based on some unauthoritative, obscure and unidentified source. Instead a Catholic is suppose to believe in already established traditional dogmatic teachings of the Church,..period.
-
Deliver it somewhere else.
SJB, so you don't want me to post "Traditional dogmatic infallible Church statements" in this "Traditional" catholic Forum?
You're assuming that a lack of membership = outside the Church.
I assume nothing, but instead I base my belief on already established traditional infallible dogmatic teaching from the Church.
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.” DZ 696
-
Deliver it somewhere else.
SJB, so you don't want me to post "Traditional dogmatic infallible Church statements" in this "Traditional" catholic Forum?
You're assuming that a lack of membership = outside the Church.
Deliverinqit1 We already heard it all!
Judge not, the souls of others; is that dogmatic enough for you!
-
I think I got it straight now.... Outside the Church There is No Salvation really means that outside the Church there IS salavtion because outside the Church doesn't really mean that your are outside the church because you can really be inside the Church even though you are outside the church????? Would that about sum up the Cushingite position? :sign-surrender:
-
Regarding the posibility of salvation for those who are not members of the Church I give you 3 reasons:
1) Pius XII M. Corporis
103. As you know, Venerable Brethren, from the very beginning of Our Pontificate, We have committed to the protection and guidance of heaven those who do not belong to the visible Body of the Catholic Church, solemnly declaring that after the example of the Good Shepherd We desire nothing more ardently than that they may have life and have it more abundantly. Imploring the prayers of the whole Church We wish to repeat this solemn declaration in this Encyclical Letter in which We have proclaimed the praises of the "great and glorious Body of Christ" and from a heart overflowing with love We ask each and every one of them to correspond to the interior movements of grace, and to seek to withdraw from that state in which they cannot be secure of their salvation. For even though by an unconscious desire and longing they have a certain relationship with the Mystical Body of the Redeemer, they still remain deprived of those many heavenly gifts and helps which can only be enjoyed in the Catholic Church. Therefore may they enter into Catholic unity and, joined with Us in the one, organic Body of Jesus Christ, may they together with us run on to the one Head in the Society of glorious love. Persevering in prayer to the Spirit of love and truth, We wait for them with open and outstretched arms to come not to a stranger's house, but to their own, their father's home
2) The common teaching of all theologians and canonists (even canon law itself) affirming you can have the effects of the sacrament of baptism through baptism of blood and of desire. This is Universal and Ordinary Magisterium.
3) How do you interpret the words of Our Lord "Then Jesus said to them: "Amen, amen, I say unto you: unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. He that eats my flesh and drinks my blood has everlasting life, and I will raise him up in the last day." (Jn VI, 53-54).
Should we conclude from this that any baptized infant will go to hell because he didn`t receive holy communion? What about those Catholics who die having use of reason and before doing his first communion? Same conclusion...?
1) Pius XII M. Corporis
103. As you know, Venerable Brethren, from the very beginning of Our Pontificate, We have committed to the protection and guidance of heaven those who do not belong to the visible Body of the Catholic Church, solemnly declaring that after the example of the Good Shepherd We desire(meaning they haven't come into the Church yet) nothing more ardently than that they may have life and have it more abundantly. Imploring the prayers of the whole Church We wish to repeat this solemn declaration in this Encyclical Letter in which We have proclaimed the praises of the "great and glorious Body of Christ" and from a heart overflowing with love We ask each and every one of them to correspond to the interior movements of grace(meaning they haven't come into the Church yet), and to seek to withdraw from that state in which they cannot be secure of their salvation(meaning they are still outside the church). For even though by an unconscious desire and longing they have a certain relationship with the Mystical Body of the Redeemer, they still remain deprived of those many heavenly gifts(meaning they haven't come into the Church yet) and helps which can only be enjoyed in the Catholic Church. Therefore may they enter into Catholic unity(meaning they haven't come into the Church yet) and, joined with Us in the one, organic Body of Jesus Christ, may they together with us run on to the one Head in the Society of glorious love. Persevering in prayer to the Spirit of love and truth, We wait for them(meaning they haven't come into the Church yet) with open and outstretched arms to come not to a stranger's house, but to their own, their father's home.(Christian, also, even if this statement said what you think it said, this still isn't infallible)
2) The common teaching of all (unauthoritative)theologians and (unauthoritative)canonists (even "fallible" canon law itself) affirming you can have the effects of the sacrament of baptism through baptism of blood and of desire. This is Universal and Ordinary Magisterium.(docuмents from theologians, canon lawers and even canon law are NOT an examples of infallible dogmatic church teaching)
3) How do you interpret the words of Our Lord "Then Jesus said to them: "Amen, amen, I say unto you: unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. He that eats my flesh and drinks my blood has everlasting life, and I will raise him up in the last day." (Jn VI, 53-54). ( Protestants and Apostates reject this Bible teaching, plus the Church dogmatically declares that those outside the Church, such as the Eastern Orthodox, receive NO sanctifying grace from the Eucharist because they receive Jesus illlicitly. )
-
I think I got it straight now.... Outside the Church There is No Salvation really means that outside the Church there IS salavtion because outside the Church doesn't really mean that your are outside the church because you can really be inside the Church even though you are outside the church????? Would that about sum up the Cushingite position? :sign-surrender:
If you are in sanctifying grace you are inside the church, study up!
Only God can see who is in the state of grace. study up!
-
) Pius XII M. Corporis
103. As you know, Venerable Brethren, from the very beginning of Our Pontificate, We have committed to the protection and guidance of heaven those who do not belong to the visible Body of the Catholic Church, solemnly declaring that after the example of the Good Shepherd We desire(meaning they haven't come into the Church yet) nothing more ardently than that they may have life and have it more abundantly. Imploring the prayers of the whole Church We wish to repeat this solemn declaration in this Encyclical Letter in which We have proclaimed the praises of the "great and glorious Body of Christ" and from a heart overflowing with love We ask each and every one of them to correspond to the interior movements of grace(meaning they haven't come into the Church yet), and to seek to withdraw from that state in which they cannot be secure of their salvation(meaning they are still outside the church). For even though by an unconscious desire and longing they have a certain relationship with the Mystical Body of the Redeemer, they still remain deprived of those many heavenly gifts(meaning they haven't come into the Church yet) and helps which can only be enjoyed in the Catholic Church. Therefore may they enter into Catholic unity(meaning they haven't come into the Church yet) and, joined with Us in the one, organic Body of Jesus Christ, may they together with us run on to the one Head in the Society of glorious love. Persevering in prayer to the Spirit of love and truth, We wait for them(meaning they haven't come into the Church yet) with open and outstretched arms to come not to a stranger's house, but to their own, their father's home
2) The common teaching of all (unauthoritative)theologians and (unauthoritative)canonists (even "fallible" canon law itself) affirming you can have the effects of the sacrament of baptism through baptism of blood and of desire. This is Universal and Ordinary Magisterium.(docuмents from theologians, canon lawers and even canon law are NOT an examples of infallible dogmatic church teaching)
3) How do you interpret the words of Our Lord "Then Jesus said to them: "Amen, amen, I say unto you: unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. He that eats my flesh and drinks my blood has everlasting life, and I will raise him up in the last day." (Jn VI, 53-54). ( Protestants and Apostates reject this Bible teaching, plus the Church dogmatically declares that those outside the Church, such as the Eastern Orthodox, receive NO sanctifying grace from the Eucharist because they receive Jesus illlicitly. )
God knows all things, basic catechism.
Not you!
-
I think I got it straight now.... Outside the Church There is No Salvation really means that outside the Church there IS salavtion because outside the Church doesn't really mean that your are outside the church because you can really be inside the Church even though you are outside the church????? Would that about sum up the Cushingite position? :sign-surrender:
If you are in sanctifying grace you are inside the church, study up!
Only God can see who is in the state of grace. study up!
Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis (# 22), June 29, 1943: “Actually only those are to be numbered among the members of the Church who have received the laver of regeneration [water baptism] and profess the true faith.”[xl]
Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis (# 27), June 29, 1943: “He (Christ) also determined that through Baptism (cf. Jn. 3:5) those who should believe would be incorporated in the Body of the Church.”[xli]
Pope Pius XII, Mediator Dei (# 43), Nov. 20, 1947: “In the same way, actually that baptism is the distinctive mark of all Christians, and serves to differentiate them from those who have not been cleansed in this purifying stream and consequently are not members of Christ, the sacrament of holy orders sets the priest apart from the rest of the faithful who have not received this consecration.”[xlii]
Ok Myrna, what would you have me "study up" on that indicates that Pope Pius XII was incorrect in these statements above?
-
I think I got it straight now.... Outside the Church There is No Salvation really means that outside the Church there IS salavtion because outside the Church doesn't really mean that your are outside the church because you can really be inside the Church even though you are outside the church????? Would that about sum up the Cushingite position? :sign-surrender:
No, it means that outside the Church there is no salvation, and being within the Church does not necessarily imply actual membership. These two ideas are not contradictory, as you seem to suggest.
-
I think I got it straight now.... Outside the Church There is No Salvation really means that outside the Church there IS salavtion because outside the Church doesn't really mean that your are outside the church because you can really be inside the Church even though you are outside the church????? Would that about sum up the Cushingite position? :sign-surrender:
No, it means that outside the Church there is no salvation, and being within the Church does not necessarily imply actual membership. These two ideas are not contradictory, as you seem to suggest.
:applause:
-
I think I got it straight now.... Outside the Church There is No Salvation really means that outside the Church there IS salavtion because outside the Church doesn't really mean that your are outside the church because you can really be inside the Church even though you are outside the church????? Would that about sum up the Cushingite position? :sign-surrender:
No, it means that outside the Church there is no salvation, and being within the Church does not necessarily imply actual membership. These two ideas are not contradictory, as you seem to suggest.
Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis (# 22), June 29, 1943: “Actually only those are to be numbered among the members of the Church who have received the laver of regeneration [water baptism] and profess the true faith.”[xl]
Not contradictory????? Beam me up Scotty
-
I think I got it straight now.... Outside the Church There is No Salvation really means that outside the Church there IS salavtion because outside the Church doesn't really mean that your are outside the church because you can really be inside the Church even though you are outside the church????? Would that about sum up the Cushingite position? :sign-surrender:
No, it means that outside the Church there is no salvation, and being within the Church does not necessarily imply actual membership. These two ideas are not contradictory, as you seem to suggest.
Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis (# 22), June 29, 1943: “Actually only those are to be numbered among the members of the Church who have received the laver of regeneration [water baptism] and profess the true faith.”[xl]
Not contradictory????? Beam me up Scotty
Yes, humbleman, Pius XII was defining membership in the Church. Supernatural Faith and the laver of regeneration.
-
I think I got it straight now.... Outside the Church There is No Salvation really means that outside the Church there IS salavtion because outside the Church doesn't really mean that your are outside the church because you can really be inside the Church even though you are outside the church????? Would that about sum up the Cushingite position? :sign-surrender:
No, it means that outside the Church there is no salvation, and being within the Church does not necessarily imply actual membership. These two ideas are not contradictory, as you seem to suggest.
Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis (# 22), June 29, 1943: “Actually only those are to be numbered among the members of the Church who have received the laver of regeneration [water baptism] and profess the true faith.”[xl]
Not contradictory????? Beam me up Scotty
Yes, humbleman, Pius XII was defining membership in the Church. Supernatural Faith and the laver of regeneration.
So can someone, according to you, be "inside" the Church & while not an actual member, be subject to the Roman Pontiff (if there is one at the time), or is this "non-actual member" also exempt from being subject to the Roman Pontiff and still included as being "inside" the Church while not being an "actual member"?
-
I think I got it straight now.... Outside the Church There is No Salvation really means that outside the Church there IS salavtion because outside the Church doesn't really mean that your are outside the church because you can really be inside the Church even though you are outside the church????? Would that about sum up the Cushingite position? :sign-surrender:
No, it means that outside the Church there is no salvation, and being within the Church does not necessarily imply actual membership. These two ideas are not contradictory, as you seem to suggest.
Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis (# 22), June 29, 1943: “Actually only those are to be numbered among the members of the Church who have received the laver of regeneration [water baptism] and profess the true faith.”[xl]
Not contradictory????? Beam me up Scotty
Yes, humbleman, Pius XII was defining membership in the Church. Supernatural Faith and the laver of regeneration.
So can someone, according to you, be "inside" the Church & while not an actual member, be subject to the Roman Pontiff (if there is one at the time), or is this "non-actual member" also exempt from being subject to the Roman Pontiff and still included as being "inside" the Church while not being an "actual member"?
How do you determine if somebody is "subject to the Roman Pontiff?" A protestant as a Protestant is clearly not subject to the Roman Pontiff. It doesn't mean he is known to reject the Roman Pontiff personally.
Anyway, the point is that no one can say a protestant is a member of the Church. Pius XII defined membership in the Church to correct those who were claiming an invisible membership.
-
No one is exempt from any dogma, yet they may be excused for their ignorance or lack of proper understanding of some dogmas.
This concept should not be hard to understand.
-
I thought this was a "Traditional" catholic forum. Isn't a "Traditional" catholic suppose to accept "Traditional" dogmatic teachings of the Church ?
So far, only umblehay and myself have produced the infallible dogmatic teachings of the Church which proves that through the Sacraments of the Church alone can one receive sanctifying grace.
Those who believe "extraordinary means" of salvation is a truth, have yet to produce any dogmatic teaching to back up their case.
-
No one is exempt from any dogma, yet they may be excused for their ignorance or lack of proper understanding of some dogmas.
This concept should not be hard to understand.
SJB, can you show us the dogmatic infallible teaching from the Church that says those who know nothing of the Church's teachings are excused and can therefore still receive santifying grace by some other means outside of the Sacraments ?
-
No one is exempt from any dogma, yet they may be excused for their ignorance or lack of proper understanding of some dogmas.
This concept should not be hard to understand.
SJB, can you show us the dogmatic infallible teaching from the Church that says those who know nothing of the Church's teachings are excused and can therefore still receive santifying grace by some other means outside of the Sacraments ?
I didn't say that.
-
How do you determine if somebody is "subject to the Roman Pontiff?" A protestant as a Protestant is clearly not subject to the Roman Pontiff. It doesn't mean he is known to reject the Roman Pontiff personally.
A: Pope Julius III, Council of Trent, On the Sacraments of Baptism and Penance, Sess. 14, Chap. 2, ex cathedra: “… since the Church exercises judgment on no one who has not previously entered it by the gate of baptism. For what have I to do with those who are without (1 Cor. 5:12), says the Apostle. It is otherwise with those of the household of the faith, whom Christ the Lord by the laver of baptism has once made ‘members of his own body’ (1 Cor. 12:13).”
Further, if a protestant, after reaching the age of reason contintues to follow the protestant faith he is certainly rejecting the authority of the Roman Pontiff and the Catholic Faith.
-
Deliveringit1 = So far, only umblehay and myself have produced the infallible dogmatic teachings of the Church which proves that through the Sacraments of the Church alone can one receive sanctifying grace.
Those who believe "extraordinary means" of salvation is a truth, have yet to produce any dogmatic teaching to back up their case.
We believe ALL the dogmatic teachings of the Church, however you seem to disagree with the dogmatic teaching that Jesus Christ is the final judge, as we pray in the Apostles Creed, He will come to judge the living and the dead
Will He shows you two the same mercy, as you do with whom you seem unfit.
I suggest in this day of confusion, you pay more attention to those who are members of the Church and lose their soul, then who is or is not in sanctifying grace at the moment of their death.
-
How do you determine if somebody is "subject to the Roman Pontiff?" A protestant as a Protestant is clearly not subject to the Roman Pontiff. It doesn't mean he is known to reject the Roman Pontiff personally.
Further, if a protestant, after reaching the age of reason contintues to follow the protestant faith he is certainly rejecting the authority of the Roman Pontiff and the Catholic Faith.
The point is that he is a Protestant and as such, is NOT a member of the Church. No one may claim he is a member either, because he is NOT a member by definition. Why do you wish to go further than this in your judgment? Is it just an obsession with wanting to know more than you can know?
-
How do you determine if somebody is "subject to the Roman Pontiff?" A protestant as a Protestant is clearly not subject to the Roman Pontiff. It doesn't mean he is known to reject the Roman Pontiff personally.
Further, if a protestant, after reaching the age of reason contintues to follow the protestant faith he is certainly rejecting the authority of the Roman Pontiff and the Catholic Faith.
The point is that he is a Protestant and as such, is NOT a member of the Church. No one may claim he is a member either, because he is NOT a member by definition. Why do you wish to go further than this in your judgment? Is it just an obsession with wanting to know more than you can know?
Would you then at least agree that this protestant in question is non subject to the Roman Pontiff by his/her own choice and therefore "outside" the Church ?
-
How do you determine if somebody is "subject to the Roman Pontiff?" A protestant as a Protestant is clearly not subject to the Roman Pontiff. It doesn't mean he is known to reject the Roman Pontiff personally.
Further, if a protestant, after reaching the age of reason contintues to follow the protestant faith he is certainly rejecting the authority of the Roman Pontiff and the Catholic Faith.
The point is that he is a Protestant and as such, is NOT a member of the Church. No one may claim he is a member either, because he is NOT a member by definition. Why do you wish to go further than this in your judgment? Is it just an obsession with wanting to know more than you can know?
Would you then at least agree that this protestant in question is non subject to the Roman Pontiff by his/her own choice and therefore "outside" the Church ?
You wish to go further. Why? He is not subject to the Pope because he is a member of a protestant sect.
-
1) Pius XII M. Corporis
103. As you know, Venerable Brethren, from the very beginning of Our Pontificate, We have committed to the protection and guidance of heaven those who do not belong to the visible Body of the Catholic Church, solemnly declaring that after the example of the Good Shepherd We desire(meaning they haven't come into the Church yet) nothing more ardently than that they may have life and have it more abundantly. Imploring the prayers of the whole Church We wish to repeat this solemn declaration in this Encyclical Letter in which We have proclaimed the praises of the "great and glorious Body of Christ" and from a heart overflowing with love We ask each and every one of them to correspond to the interior movements of grace(meaning they haven't come into the Church yet), and to seek to withdraw from that state in which they cannot be secure of their salvation(meaning they are still outside the church). For even though by an unconscious desire and longing they have a certain relationship with the Mystical Body of the Redeemer, they still remain deprived of those many heavenly gifts(meaning they haven't come into the Church yet) and helps which can only be enjoyed in the Catholic Church. Therefore may they enter into Catholic unity(meaning they haven't come into the Church yet) and, joined with Us in the one, organic Body of Jesus Christ, may they together with us run on to the one Head in the Society of glorious love. Persevering in prayer to the Spirit of love and truth, We wait for them(meaning they haven't come into the Church yet) with open and outstretched arms to come not to a stranger's house, but to their own, their father's home.(Christian, also, even if this statement said what you think it said, this still isn't infallible)
Well evidently you didn´t understand my point. Pius XII was talking here about the posibility of salvation for those non-members of the Church. As you agreed he is talking of non-members, but see that he says "to seek to withdraw from that state in which they cannot be secure of their salvation" ergo eventhough they can´t be secure of they salvation yet they can, absolutely speaking.
Are you sure the encyclical was not infallible? Do you think it is disputable wheter the episcopal jursidiction of the Bishops comes directly from the Pope (and not directly from Our Lord) or that the Catholic Church and the Mystical Body are one and the same thing? These two things were clearly tought in M.C....
I think you are confusing infallible statements with de fide definitions...
2) The common teaching of all (unauthoritative)theologians and (unauthoritative)canonists (even "fallible" canon law itself) affirming you can have the effects of the sacrament of baptism through baptism of blood and of desire. This is Universal and Ordinary Magisterium.(docuмents from theologians, canon lawers and even canon law are NOT an examples of infallible dogmatic church teaching)
1) Do you really think the Church may give a universal law contrary to faith and morals????
2) Even in the matter of that subjection which must be given in the act of divine faith, it should still not be restricted to those things that have been defined in the obvious decrees of the Ecuмenical Councils or of the Roman Pontiffs or of this See, but must also be extended to that which is taught as divinely revealed by the ordinary magisterium of the entire Church spread throughout the world and which, as a result, is presented as belonging to the faith according to the common and constant agreement of the Catholic theologians.
But, on the matter of that subjection to which all Catholics who are engaged in the work of the speculative sciences are obliged in conscience, so that, by their writings, they may bring new advantages to the Church, the members of this assembly [a convention of German theologians] must take cognizance of the fact that it is not enough for them to receive and to venerate the above-mentioned dogmas of the Church, but that it is also necessary that they subject themselves to the doctrinal decisions of the Pontifical Congregations and to those points of doctrine that are considered by the common and constant agreement of Catholics as theological truths and con¬clusions which are so certain that opinions opposed to these points of doctrine still merit some other theological censure, even though they may not be designated as heretical.
Pius IX, Tuas Libenter, DZ 1683 f.
There is a definite reason why the scholastic theologians as such can be cited as authorities in the work of teaching revealed doctrine. By far the greater number of these theologians have been priests who at one time or another were charged with the teaching of sacred theology in some university, seminary or religious house. As such they have acted as competent and authorized instruments of the hierarchy both in training candidates for the priesthood and instructing those priests who are preparing for theological degrees...
...however when the entire body of scholastics theologians asserts that some thesis is of Catholic faith, their testimony is absolutely reliable. Because of the particular function of the scholastics, if all of them should be in error on a point of this kind, then the Catholic Church would be deceived. They are the qualified exponents of Catholic doctrine in the schools of the Church. Their unanimous testimony to the effect that a definite doctrine has been reealed by God and is to be accepted by all with the assent of divine faith mirrors the teaching of the Church itself.
This unanimity of the scholastics must be reckoned in the same way as that of the Fathers of the Church. The moral unanimity in the scholastic testimony to the divine origin of a certain thesis is no way impaired if, in the course of the academic history, a limited number of writers have called this thesis into question. The fact that such a denial has been reproved by an overwhelming number of theologians would consitute this thesis as one attested by the moral unanimity of the scholastics.
The testimony of the theologians is valid even for propostions which are put forward as theologically certain. When a proposition is universally received as a theological conclusion, then the contradictory to it may be qualified as a simple theological error. Should the teaching of the theologians be sufficiently clear on a point that is not received with full unanimity, the opposition to this thesis would take the form of a rash or temerarious proposition"
Fenton, "The concept of sacred theology" pages 139.141)
3) How do you interpret the words of Our Lord "Then Jesus said to them: "Amen, amen, I say unto you: unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. He that eats my flesh and drinks my blood has everlasting life, and I will raise him up in the last day." (Jn VI, 53-54). ( Protestants and Apostates reject this Bible teaching, plus the Church dogmatically declares that those outside the Church, such as the Eastern Orthodox, receive NO sanctifying grace from the Eucharist because they receive Jesus illlicitly. )
Again, you misunderstood my point. I was referring to members of the Catholic Church who have not received the first communion yet. Suppose a 10 years old boy died 5 minutes before receiving first communion, will he be damned or you accept a votus or desire with regard to the Eucharist?
Cristian
-
Why would Pius XII contradict his own Holy Office which cited his own encyclical in their letter condemning Feeneyism?
-
agreed he is talking of non-members, but see that he says "to seek to withdraw from that state in which they cannot be secure of their salvation", ergo eventhough they can´t be secure of their salvation and yet they can, absolutely speaking.
What !?!? You say they can´t be secure of their salvation and yet they can ?!?!? What king of strange logic is that ??? If you use real logic, then he is saying they have no security in their salvation because they are NOT members of the Church. I'm glad you at least agree they are not members of the Church.
Also, you seriously think the laity(Catholic theologians) have authority and are infallible in their teachings if the majority of theologians agree on a particular teaching? Can you show me any infallible dogmatic teaching of the Church which says that the Holy Spirit protects college theologians from error? Many of these so called academic University theologians are liberal modernists leading souls straight to Hell.
If common consent of theiologians were correct then Arianism would have been held correct since most theologians, laity, clergy and Bishops of the Church accepted Arianism
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.’
Suppose a 10 year old boy died 5 minutes before receiving first communion, will he be damned or you accept a votus or desire with regard to the Eucharist?
First Communion does not remove original sin and is not the door by which a soul becomes a member of the Church. Instead it is the Sacrament of Water Baptism which does that.
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.” DZ 696
They that have not received the Mark/Seal of Baptism can not receive any of the other sacraments:
Pope Pius XII "On the Mystical Body of Christ,"June 29, 1943-# 18: "Through the waters of Baptism those who are born into this world dead in sin are not only born again and made members of the Church, but being stamped with a spiritual seal they become able and fit to receive the other Sacraments
-
Why would Pius XII contradict his own Holy Office which cited his own encyclical in their letter condemning Feeneyism?
A "letter" sent to one individual Bishop which Pope Pius XII may or may not have initially even known about holds authoritative weight in your opinion?!?!? You can't be serious, especially since established dogmatic teaching of the Church says there is no salvation outside the Church. Which has more weight, infallible dogmatic teachings of the Church or a "letter"? Besides, the Holy Office today has no problem with Feeneyism.
If Sacramental Baptism wasn't necessary for salvation as you supposedly believe, then the Church would never have approved 3 Feeneyite communities by 3 different Popes ( Paul VI,JPII, B16)
OSB (men and priests)– Order of St. Benedict (Benedictines of Still River)
MICM (women)- Sisters of St. Benedict Center, Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary (Saint Anne's House)
MICM (men)– Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary (Immaculate Heart of Mary School)
If Canon Law made it a doctrine, then the well respected Canon Lawyer, Peter Vere, would not have approved Feeney's community situation
Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctum (1302): "We are compelled in virtue of our faith to believe and maintain that there is only one holy Catholic Church, and that one is apostolic. This we firmly believe and profess without qualification. Outside this Church there is no salvation and nor remission of sins",
This follows logically with the definition of Unam Sanctum that there is NO remission of sin outside the Church:
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…”
-
What !?!? You say they can´t be secure of their salvation and yet they can ?!?!? What king of strange logic is that ??? If you use real logic, then he is saying they have no security in their salvation because they are NOT members of the Church. I'm glad you at least agree they are not members of the Church.
Well it is very simple, the fact that you can´t be secure of something doesn´t mean you can´t get it, it is very obvious. If
I say i´m not secure of, let us say, arriving at some place if I take a bus, that doesn´t mean I cannot get that place but rather that it is possible I don´t get it. Pius XII is saying that Catholics have a relative security regarding their salvation since they cannot believe something against faith (if they follow the infallible teaching of the Church), they can´t commit mortal sin (if they follow the teaching of the Church on morals) and they will receive through the sacraments the graces necessary for salvation. Non members cannot enjoy these things and therefore they cannot be secure (yet they can!).
Also, you seriously think the laity(Catholic theologians) have authority and are infallible in their teachings if the majority of theologians agree on a particular teaching?
Sir, theologians are not lay people! :)
Can you show me any infallible dogmatic teaching of the Church which says that the Holy Spirit protects college theologians from error?
I did quote you Tuas Libenter sir...
Many of these so called academic University theologians are liberal modernists leading souls straight to Hell.[/i]
To me the last Pope was Pius XII, which theologians you refer to?
If common consent of theiologians were correct then Arianism would have been held correct since most theologians, laity, clergy and Bishops of the Church accepted Arianism
The burden of the proof is upon you here...
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.’
I totally agree with this. Common teaching of theologians is a sign and not the cause of some infallible statement.
Suppose a 10 year old boy died 5 minutes before receiving first communion, will he be damned or you accept a votus or desire with regard to the Eucharist?
First Communion does not remove original sin and is not the door by which a soul becomes a member of the Church. Instead it is the Sacrament of Water Baptism which does that.
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.” DZ 696
They that have not received the Mark/Seal of Baptism can not receive any of the other sacraments:
Pope Pius XII "On the Mystical Body of Christ,"June 29, 1943-# 18: "Through the waters of Baptism those who are born into this world dead in sin are not only born again and made members of the Church, but being stamped with a spiritual seal they become able and fit to receive the other Sacraments
You have not answered my question. If we don´t eat Our Lord´s flesh we cannot go to heaven. Do you believe this must be done solely by the reception of the Eucharist or that a desire of the Eucharist may be enough under certain conditions?
-
A "letter" sent to one individual Bishop which Pope Pius XII may or may not have initially even known about holds authoritative weight in your opinion?!?!?
The beginning of the letter goes:
"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..."
Nice try sir! :cheers:
-
Also, you seriously think the laity(Catholic theologians) have authority and are infallible in their teachings if the majority of theologians agree on a particular teaching?
Sir, theologians are not lay people! :)
Not all Catholic theologians have Holy Orders....
"US Lay Catholic Theologian Wins Pontifical Academy Prize" - ROME, JAN. 26, 2010 (Zenit.org).- A lay theologian from the United States has been selected for a €20,000 ($28,189) prize for his doctoral thesis, "Understanding St. Thomas on Analogy." John Mortensen, a Wyoming Catholic College professor, was selected to receive the prize given by the Coordination Council of the Pontifical Academies. This was announced today by Archbishop Gianfranco Ravasi, the president of the Pontifical Council for Culture. Archbishop Ravasi, also president of the coordination council, added that Mortensen will receive the award Thursday at an audience the Pope will have with representatives of the academies.
"ACU appoints prominent lay Catholic theologian" - The Australian Catholic University has appointed Dr Neil Ormerod to the position of Professor of Theology and Head of the Sub-Faculty of Philosophy and Theology, to be based at its Strathfield Campus in Sydney.
Lay Catholic Theologian's Society - It has been estimated that by the year 2015, 60% of all theologians in the Catholic Church will be lay (O'murchu, 91)
-
"US Lay Catholic Theologian Wins Pontifical Academy Prize" - ROME, JAN. 26, 2010 (
"ACU appoints prominent lay Catholic theologian" -
Lay Catholic Theologian's Society - It has been estimated that by the year 2015, 60% of all theologians in the Catholic Church will be lay (O'murchu, 91)
:roll-laugh1:
:rolleyes:
-
There is no salvation outside of the Church. That much you get right. The rest = :bob-marley:
Those who die without water baptism who would have been baptized had they known the Catholic Church was necessary for salvation can be saved.
What is so hard for you to understand about this? The belief that you can limit God to only saving whoever follows the normative means He set up or that God comes down and miraculously water Baptizes every invincibly ignorant pagan in the brush who goes to Heaven is absurd.
The Pope, Canon Loser Pete Vere, and the NO Church approving Feeneyite communities carries as much weight with me as this guy.. :clown:
The Pope approves of the Neo-Catechumenal Way, the Charismatics, and those who believe in Universal Salvation. The same authority you appeal to says we must "converge" with non-Catholics and the ecuмenism of "return" is over.
It is funny that the Feeneyites now revel in the fact that indifferentists and syncretists approve of them. They have made you yet another side show in their pan-ecuмenical circus. Do you think for a minute Pope Benedict holds your interpretation of EENS? He thinks you are as high as a Native American Shaman smoking peyote at Assisi. :smoke-pot:
All he cares about is that you are now part of the Matrix and can be controlled while you and your 10 adherents believe in your nutter theory in seclusion and silence.
For the love of Pete stop repeating your infallible pronouncements as if you understood what they mean and do something useful with your life.
-
There is no salvation outside of the Church. That much you get right. The rest = :bob-marley:
Those who die without water baptism who would have been baptized had they known the Catholic Church was necessary for salvation can be saved.
What is so hard for you to understand about this? The belief that you can limit God to only saving whoever follows the normative means He set up or that God comes down and miraculously water Baptizes every invincibly ignorant pagan in the brush who goes to Heaven is absurd.
The Pope, Canon Loser Pete Vere, and the NO Church approving Feeneyite communities carries as much weight with me as this guy.. :clown:
The Pope approves of the Neo-Catechumenal Way, the Charismatics, and those who believe in Universal Salvation. The same authority you appeal to says we must "converge" with non-Catholics and the ecuмenism of "return" is over.
It is funny that the Feeneyites now revel in the fact that indifferentists and syncretists approve of them. They have made you yet another side show in their pan-ecuмenical circus. Do you think for a minute Pope Benedict holds your interpretation of EENS? He thinks you are as high as a Native American Shaman smoking peyote at Assisi. :smoke-pot:
All he cares about is that you are now part of the Matrix and can be controlled while you and your 10 adherents believe in your nutter theory in seclusion and silence.
For the love of Pete stop repeating your infallible pronouncements as if you understood what they mean and do something useful with your life.
Good post Stevus..
Fanatical Feeneyism is just another diabolical distraction.
-
Thanks RC.
At least we can agree on something! :cheers:
-
You're welcome, and I think that despite those issues we disagree on, there are plenty of fundamentals and other things that we do agree on!
:cheers:
-
Can you show me any infallible dogmatic teaching of the Church which says that the Holy Spirit protects college theologians from error?
I did quote you Tuas Libenter sir...
As referenced at the beginning of that docuмent, it was defined as a dogma by the First Vatican Council that the ordinary and universal Magisterium is infallible. In his letter to the Archbishop of Munich, Pope Pius IX teaches that Catholic writers are bound by 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.” Notice, the obligation to the opinion of the theologians only arises from the fact that these matters were already taught as divinely revealed by the ordinary teaching power of the Church and therefore also held by universal and common agreement.
So you ignore the requirement stipulated by Pope Pius IX that the theologians must be in “universal and common agreement”! You fail to apply the “universal” part of it. Is baptism of desire something that has been held by universal and common agreement? Most certainly not,.. in fact, it is just the opposite
Furthermore, if a Catholic were bound to follow the “common” teaching of theologians at a particular time, and had lived during the Arian period in the 4th century, then one would have been bound by the Arian heresy (the denial of the Divinity of Jesus Christ), since this was not only the “common” teaching of alleged “Catholic” theologians and Bishops at the time, but almost the unanimous teaching
I will quote Pope Pius XII again, who himself contradicts the above assertion.......
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.’"
-
Those who die without water baptism who would have been baptized had they known the Catholic Church was necessary for salvation can be saved.
So far, you have yet to provide any infallible dogmatic teaching of the Church to back up your claim. While I have provided numerous infallible dogmatic statements to back up my case that remission of sins only occurs through Water baptism and that one can only become a member of the Church through Water baptism. Not to mention, the infallible teaching that says only those members within the Church can receive Salvation.
-
Furthermore, if a Catholic were bound to follow the “common” teaching of theologians at a particular time, and had lived during the Arian period in the 4th century, then one would have been bound by the Arian heresy (the denial of the Divinity of Jesus Christ), since this was not only the “common” teaching of alleged “Catholic” theologians and Bishops at the time, but almost the unanimous teaching
Baptism of Desire and Theological Principles
http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/BaptDes-Proofed.pdf
Section II
Why the Church Requires You to Believe or Adhere to Doctrines Commonly Taught by her Theologians.
Résumé translated by Fr. Cekada from Fr. Reginald-Maria SCHULTES OP, De Ecclesia Catholica: Praelectiones Apologeticae [Apologetic Lectures on the Catholic Church], 2nd. ed., Paris: Lethielleux 1931, pp. 667ff. This book was used by students for Doctoral degrees in theology in Roman Universities in the early 1900s. Fr. Schultes held the highest theological degree in the Domincan Order (OPSThMagister), and was a Professor at the Pontifical University of the Angelicuм in Rome. Sections marked with asterisks (*) = additional comments by Fr. Cekada.
I. Introductory Concepts.
A. Definition of Theologian = “learned men who after the time of the Church Fathers scientifically taught sacred doctrine in the Church.”
-
There is no salvation outside of the Church. That much you get right. The rest = :bob-marley:
Those who die without water baptism who would have been baptized had they known the Catholic Church was necessary for salvation can be saved.
What is so hard for you to understand about this? The belief that you can limit God to only saving whoever follows the normative means He set up or that God comes down and miraculously water Baptizes every invincibly ignorant pagan in the brush who goes to Heaven is absurd.
The Pope, Canon Loser Pete Vere, and the NO Church approving Feeneyite communities carries as much weight with me as this guy.. :clown:
The Pope approves of the Neo-Catechumenal Way, the Charismatics, and those who believe in Universal Salvation. The same authority you appeal to says we must "converge" with non-Catholics and the ecuмenism of "return" is over.
It is funny that the Feeneyites now revel in the fact that indifferentists and syncretists approve of them. They have made you yet another side show in their pan-ecuмenical circus. Do you think for a minute Pope Benedict holds your interpretation of EENS? He thinks you are as high as a Native American Shaman smoking peyote at Assisi. :smoke-pot:
All he cares about is that you are now part of the Matrix and can be controlled while you and your 10 adherents believe in your nutter theory in seclusion and silence.
For the love of Pete stop repeating your infallible pronouncements as if you understood what they mean and do something useful with your life.
Excuse me Stevus, but you don't hold the SV position do you? You believe B16 is a true Pope?
-
Yes, I do.
-
Trad 123,
I agree with you that Feeneyism is in error. That said, I wouldn't trust Fr. Cekada to accurately translate Mary had a Little Lamb much less a theological text.
Plus what does "believe" "adhere" "common opinion" and "theologian" mean. "Learned men" who "scientifically taught sacred doctrine in the Church" is still vague.
-
Yes, I do.
I just find it amusing that you chastise the Feenyites for being in communion with ( fill in this area with any laundry list of vatican II heresies ) and the leader of that Sect B16 and yet you yourself also hold communion with Benedict/Ratzinger... and by that very fact you also then hold communion with the Feenyites.
Quite a tangled web of illogic and conflicting doctrine on all sides there if you ask me. :confused1:
-
SECT. 27.— The Writings of Theologians.
I. By Theologians we mean men learned in Theology, who as members or masters of the theological schools which came into existence after the patristic era, taught and handed down Catholic doctrine on strictly scientific lines, in obedience to and under the supervision of the bishops. The title belongs primarily to the Schoolmen of the Middle Ages — the Scholastic Theologians strictly so-called; then to all who followed the methods of the School during the last three centuries; and, generally, to all distinguished and approved writers on Theology whether they have adhered to the Scholastic methods or not. It is only in exceptional cases that the Church gives a public approbation to an individual Theologian, and this is done by canonization or by the still further honour of conferring on him the title of Doctor of the Church. When we speak of an Approved Author, we mean one who is held in general esteem on account of his learning and the Catholic spirit of his teaching. Some approved authors are of acknowledged weight, while others are of only minor importance. What we are about to state concerning the authority of Theologians must not be applied indiscriminately to every Catholic writer, but only to such as are weighty and approved (auctores probati et graves).
II. The authority of Theologians, like that of the Fathers, may be considered either individually and partially, or of the whole body collectively. As a rule, the authority of a single Theologian (with the exception of canonized Saints, and perhaps some authors of the greatest weight) does not create the presumption that no point of his doctrine was opposed to the common teaching of the Church in his day; much less that, independently of his reasons, the whole of his doctrine is positively probable merely on account of his authority. When, however, the majority of approved and weighty Theologians agree, it must be presumed that their teaching is not opposed to that of the Church. Moreover, if their doctrines are based upon sound arguments propounded without any prejudice and not contradicted very decidedly, the positive probability of the doctrines must be presumed. No more than this probability can be produced by the consent of many or even of all Theologians when they state a doctrine as a common opinion (opinio communis) and not as a common conviction (sententia conmunis). These questions have been discussed at great length by Moral Theologians in the controversy on Probabilism. See Lacroix, Theol. Mor., lib. I., tr. i., c. 2.
The consent of Theologians produces certainty that a doctrine is Catholic truth only when on the one hand the doctrine is proposed as absolutely certain, and on the other and the consent is universal and constant (Consensus universalis et constans non solurn opinionis sed firmae et ratae sententiae). If all agree that a particular doctrine is a Catholic dogma and that to deny it is heresy, then that doctrine is certainly a dogma. If they agree that a doctrine cannot be denied without injuring Catholic truth, and that such denial is deserving of censure, this again is a sure proof that the doctrine is in some way a Catholic doctrine. If, again, they agree in declaring that a doctrine is sufficiently certain and demonstrated, their consent is not indeed a formal proof of the Catholic character of the doctrine, nevertheless the existence of the consent shows that the doctrine belongs to the mind of the Church (catholicus intellectus), and that consequently its denial would incur the censure of rashness.
These principles on the authority of Theologians were strongly insisted on by Pius IX in the brief, Gravissimas inter (cf. infra, § 29), and they are evident consequences of the Catholic doctrine of Tradition. Although the assistance of the Holy Ghost is not directly promised to Theologians, nevertheless the assistance promised to the Church requires that He should prevent them as a body from falling into error; otherwise the Faithful who follow them would all be led astray. The consent of Theologians implies the consent of the Episcopate, according to St. Augustine's dictum: “Not to resist an error is to approve of it — not to defend a truth is to reject it.” (“Error cui non resistitur approbatur, et veritas quae non defenditur opprimitur “ (Decr. Grat., dist. 83, c. error). And even natural reason assures us that this consent is a guarantee of truth. “Whatever is found to be one and the same among many persons is not an error but a tradition” (Tertullian). (Supra, p. 68.)
The Church holds the mediaeval Doctors in almost the same esteem as the Fathers. The substance of the teaching of the Schoolmen and their method of treatment have both been strongly approved of by the Church (cf. Syllab., prop xiii., and Leo XIII., encyclical AEterni Patris on the study of St. Thomas).
[Editor: We have additionally, since this work was published, the evidence of the Code of Canon Law (1917) concerning St. Thomas, which confirms and even strengthens the point made by Scheeben in this place. "The study of philosophy and theology and the teaching of these sciences to their students must be accurately carried out by Professors (in seminaries etc.) according to the arguments, doctrine, and principles of St. Thomas which they are inviolately to hold." CIC 1366, 2.]
SECT. 12.—Organization of the Apostolate (continued)—The Auxiliary Members of the Teaching Body.
The Teaching Body is a living organism, and consequently has the power of producing auxiliary members to assist in its work, and of conferring upon them the credentials required for their different functions. These auxiliary members may be divided into two classes: (1) auxiliaries of the Bishops, and (2) auxiliaries of the Chief Bishop.
I. The ordinary auxiliaries of the Episcopate are the priests and deacons. They receive their orders and their jurisdiction from the Bishops, and hold an inferior rank in the Hierarchy. Their position as regards the office of teaching, though far below that of the Bishops, is nevertheless important. They are the official executive organs of the Bishops, their missionaries and heralds for the promulgation of doctrine. They have a special knowledge of doctrine, and they receive, by means of the sacrament of Holy Orders, a share in the teaching office of the Bishops, and in the doctrinal influence of the Holy Ghost. Hence their teaching possesses a peculiar value and dignity, which may, however, vary with their personal qualifications. Moreover the Bishops should, under certain circuмstances, consult them in matters of doctrine, not, indeed, to receive direction from them, but in order to obtain information. When we remember the immense influence exercised by the uniform teaching of the clergy over the unity of Faith, we may fairly say that they participate in the infallibility of the Episcopate both extrinsically and intrinsically: extrinsically, because the universal consent of all the heralds is an external sign that they reproduce the exact message of the Holy Ghost; and intrinsically, inasmuch as by their ordination they obtain a share in the assistance of the Spirit of Truth promised to the Church.
When and where necessary, the Bishops have the power of erecting Schools or Seminaries for the religious or higher theological education of a portion of their flocks. The professors in these institutions are auxiliaries of the Bishops, and are, if possible, in still closer union with the Teaching Apostolate than the clergy engaged in the ministry.
II. The Chief of the Episcopate, in virtue of his universal teaching authority, has the power of sending Missionaries into regions beyond the bounds of the existing dioceses, and can also establish, even within the dioceses, Religious Orders as his own auxiliaries, subject immediately to himself. He can also found Universities for the more profound and scientific study of Revelation. He can make all these persons and corporations comparatively independent of the Bishops, and invest them with a teaching authority analogous to that of the Episcopate. The Universities of the Middle Ages, for example, were not private, or state, or even episcopal institutions. They derived their mission from the Popes, together with the power of perpetuating themselves by the creation of doctors and professors, and the power of passing judgment on matters of doctrine. These decisions, however, did not carry with them any binding force, because their authors had no jurisdiction; but they possessed a value superior to that of many episcopal decisions. It is evident that the importance of the Universities as representatives of the teaching of the Church depends upon their submission to the Apostolate, whose auxiliaries they are, and also upon the number, the personal qualifications, and influence of their members. Further, the Pope, in the exercise of his administrative power, can invest individual members of the inferior clergy, either for a time or permanently, with authoritative teaching power. But, even in this case, they are only auxiliaries of the Episcopate, existing side by side with it as, for instance, Abbots exempt from episcopal jurisdiction (Abbates nullius) and the generals of Religious Orders, or acting as delegates of the sovereign teaching power of the Popes, e.g. the Cardinals and the Roman Congregations. All these auxiliaries, like those above mentioned, are assisted by the Holy Ghost, but their decisions acquire force of law only when confirmed by the Head of the Apostolate.
III. From time to time the Holy Ghost raises certain persons to an extraordinary degree of supernatural knowledge. Their peculiar position gives them a special authority as guides for all the members of the Church. They are not, however, exempt from the universal law that within the Church no teaching is of value unless approved by lawful authority. In so far, then, as it is evident that the Pope and the Bishops approve of the doctrine of these burning and shining lights, such doctrine is to be considered as an infallible testimony coming from the Holy Ghost. Thus, in Apostolic times, “Prophets and Evangelists” (Eph. iv. ii) were given to the Apostles as extraordinary auxiliaries, not indeed for the purpose of enlightening the Apostles themselves, but to facilitate the diffusion and acceptance of their doctrine. In succeeding ages the Fathers and great Doctors have been of much use to the ordinary members of the Apostolate by helping them to a better knowledge of revealed truth. The function of these auxiliaries must, however, be carefully distinguished from those of the Prophets of the Old Testament. The former are not the organs of new revelations, nor do they possess independent authority — they are merely the extraordinary supports of the ordinary Teaching Body.
“It is indeed a great matter and ever to be borne in mind…that all Catholics should know that they should receive the doctors with the Church, not that they should quit the faith of the Church with the doctors ('se cuм Ecclesia doctores recipere, non cuм doctoribus Ecclesiae fidem deserere debere').” — Vinc. of Lerins, Common. n. 17.
-
I'm unsure what "hold communion" means. I'm in communion with the Catholic Faith of all time. Whoever is in "communion" with this is in communion with me.
Since the current Pope is diabolically disoriented he can go around approving whatever crazy crap he wants. I'll simply ignore him. Whatever he approves that is Traditional I already believe. Anything he approves that is against Tradition I reject. So why even listen to him?
It's like having a crazy old Father. You love him and pray for him and sometimes he spits out lucid thoughts, but all in all he's nuts so you disregard the insane statements he makes. Sort of like Roscoe...
-
SJB,
So, in other words, the "theologians", whoever they may be, are simply a guide at any given period in history to figure out what was everywhere and always taught and thus to discover what the universal and ordinary Magisterium was/is?
-
It sounds like Deliver has a minor point. The Bishops were over the theologians, thus in the time of Arius they had to obey Arian bishops.
Also the theologians from VCII on are mostly nutjobs, therefore we are bound to obey said nutjobs? Plus they have full approval from their nutjob Bishops.
Only in the sense of the universal and ordinary Magisterium does it make sense.
And the universal and ordinary Magisterium never taught Feeneyism.
-
Yes, I do.
I just find it amusing that you chastise the Feenyites for being in communion with ( fill in this area with any laundry list of vatican II heresies ) and the leader of that Sect B16 and yet you yourself also hold communion with Benedict/Ratzinger... and by that very fact you also then hold communion with the Feenyites.
Quite a tangled web of illogic and conflicting doctrine on all sides there if you ask me. :confused1:
I have to agree with you on that point!
Thank God, I can see the sede position all the better now.
Feenyites! Bah HumBug!!!
-
SJB,
So, in other words, the "theologians", whoever they may be, are simply a guide at any given period in history to figure out what was everywhere and always taught and thus to discover what the universal and ordinary Magisterium was/is?
They are the auxiliaries of the Bishops, and are members of the teaching apostolate by the authority of the Bishops.
-
Right. So what does that have to do with my statement?
-
Furthermore, if a Catholic were bound to follow the “common” teaching of theologians at a particular time, and had lived during the Arian period in the 4th century, then one would have been bound by the Arian heresy (the denial of the Divinity of Jesus Christ), since this was not only the “common” teaching of alleged “Catholic” theologians and Bishops at the time, but almost the unanimous teaching
Why the Church Requires You to Believe or Adhere to Doctrines Commonly Taught by her Theologians.
Résumé translated by Fr. Cekada......
Notice how Fr. Cekada conveniently ignores the requirement stipulated by Pope Pius IX that the theologians must be in “universal and common agreement”!
If he had faithfully applied the “Universal” part which is "Divinely Handed Down", then he wouldn't be in error,..But he ignores that part.
Fr. Cekada deems that the “theologians” who were “primarily responsible” for Vatican II were “European Modernists” and “enemies of traditional scholastic theology,” he is free to dump his entire thesis that a Catholic is bound to follow the “common” consent of theologians under pain of mortal sin. How convenient! A Catholic should easily see that by such a statement Fr. Cekada is arguing hypocritically and completely refuting himself. Fr. Cekada must be quite dedicated to his heresy to argue in such a contradictory fashion. Furthermore, his claim that because a few of the more radical of the Vatican II theologians were silenced, he is therefore free to reject the common consent of “theologians” after Vatican II, is a hopeless argument,.. for the fact remains that the “common” consent of purported “Catholic” theologians since Vatican II was to endorse Vatican II’s heretical docuмents, even if a few of the more radical ones were timidly “silenced” before Vatican II
Hence, as anyone with eyes to see can see, if one is free to reject the “common” consent of Vatican II theologians because one deems them “enemies of traditional scholastic theology,” then one can just as well dump the fallible, contradictory teaching of the pre-Vatican II theologians
-
Right. So what does that have to do with my statement?
You are wrong. Is that what you wanted to hear?
-
I agree with Deliveringit on this point, though I reject his/ her conclusion.
Well stated.
As I was saying it is basically the same thing as the universal and ordinary Magisterium.
-
Right. So what does that have to do with my statement?
You are wrong. Is that what you wanted to hear?
Your reply in no way proved my statement "wrong".
-
Deivering,
Can you quote the relevant section from Pius IX?
I'd rather get my directions straight from the Traditional Magisterium rather than a theology manual translated by a dishonest schismatic who doesn't comprehend basic moral theology.
-
Yes, I do.
I just find it amusing that you chastise the Feenyites for being in communion with ( fill in this area with any laundry list of vatican II heresies ) and the leader of that Sect B16 and yet you yourself also hold communion with Benedict/Ratzinger... and by that very fact you also then hold communion with the Feenyites.
Quite a tangled web of illogic and conflicting doctrine on all sides there if you ask me. :confused1:
Another thing that gets me is the lack of unity amongst BOD advocates of who can be "elegible" for BOD even amongst the few Church Fathers and Doctors of the Church who proposed it only for Catechumens and then look at the exponential differences that is found in modernist ideas swirling around.
For example... form Outside the Church There is Absolutely No Salvation...
"· Against the Heresies, by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre:
1. Page 216: “Evidently, certain distinctions must be made. Souls can be saved in a religion other than the Catholic religion (Protestantism, Islam, Buddhism, etc.), but not by this religion. There may be souls who, not knowing Our Lord, have by the grace of the good Lord, good interior dispositions, who submit to God...But some of these persons make an act of love which implicitly is equivalent to baptism of desire. It is uniquely by this means that they are able to be saved.”[dclxix]
2. Page 217: “One cannot say, then, that no one is saved in these religions…”[dclxx]
3. Pages 217-218: “This is then what Pius IX said and what he condemned. It is necessary to understand the formulation that was so often employed by the Fathers of the Church: ‘Outside the Church there is no salvation.’ When we say that, it is incorrectly believed that we think that all the Protestants, all the Moslems, all the Buddhists, all those who do not publicly belong to the Catholic Church go to hell. Now, I repeat, it is possible for someone to be saved in these religions, but they are saved by the Church, and so the formulation is true: Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus. This must be preached.”[dclxxi]
What we see here from the founder of the Society of St. Pius X is blatant heresy. He directly contradicts the solemnly defined dogma that Outside the Catholic Church There is No Salvation. Some adherents of the Society of St. Pius X have tried to defend these heretical words of Archbishop Lefebvre by pointing out that, although he did say that men can be saved in other religions, he emphasized that it is by the Catholic Church.
This response is a pathetic attempt to defend the indefensible. In fact, those who attempt to defend Lefebvre in this way actually mock God. I could say that all men go to heaven (universal salvation), but all men go to heaven “by the Catholic Church.” Does this change the heresy? No, of course not. Thus, it doesn’t matter how Lefebvre tried to explain away or justify his heresy; he was still teaching that souls can be saved in non-Catholic religions, which is heresy!
The dogma of the Catholic Church does not merely affirm that “no one is saved except by the Catholic Church”; it states that no one is saved outside the Catholic Church and that no one is saved without the Catholic Faith. This means that no one can be saved inside non-Catholic religions. The defenders of the SSPX need to get that through their heads. The dogma of the Catholic Church excludes the idea that anyone is saved in another religion.
Pope Gregory XVI, Summo Iugiter Studio (# 2), May 27, 1832:“Finally some of these misguided people attempt to persuade themselves and others that men are not saved only in the Catholic religion, but that even heretics may attain eternal life.”[dclxxii]"
-
There is absolutely nothing heretical in what ABL said.
All he is saying is that you aren't necessarily going straight to Hell if you aren't a water baptized Catholic. Was Aquinas a heretic as well?
-
All who die in Sanctifying grace are saved, and are within the Church.
You are guilty of judgement, which only God has a right to judge a soul.
You only see through a milky glass where God can see the entire picture. He and He alone knows who is in the state of grace, His timing is perfect and He gives all men a chance to accept His Church even if its on their last breath. Which is why you can't say that this or that person lost their soul no matter what religion it may seem they died in, because God gives His grace to many dying souls and can reveal His truth to them.
Who do you think you are to say who can benefit through the merits of God.
You and your feeny ilk are heretics! You deny the mercy of God and place yourself above Him. You deny the power of prayer and deny the virtue of Hope.
You are guilty of presumption the unforgiveable sin against the Holy Ghost because you presume to know who is in the state of grace at the moment of their death, which is all that really matters.
All those infallible dogmatic teachings you quote are guidelines for the peoples of the entire world, warnings, teachings and RULES for the world to heed, but it takes Gods grace to obey them. You can't obey or do anything good without the grace of God, so again who do the feeyites think they are to know WHEN GOD GIVES HIS GRACE TO A PARTICULAR PERSON. Does it ever occur to you that He can give His grace in a twinkle of a second, time means nothing to God. He can stop time and reason with the dying soul.
Not to say that many and most people do fall into Hell!
-
All who die in Sanctifying grace are saved, and are within the Church.
You are guilty of judgement, which only God has a right to judge a soul.
You only see through a milky glass where God can see the entire picture. He and He alone knows who is in the state of grace, His timing is perfect and He gives all men a chance to accept His Church even if its on their last breath. Which is why you can't say that this or that person lost their soul no matter what religion it may seem they died in, because God gives His grace to many dying souls and can reveal His truth to them.
Who do you think you are to say who can benefit through the merits of God.
You and your feeny ilk are heretics! You deny the mercy of God and place yourself above Him. You deny the power of prayer and deny the virtue of Hope.
You are guilty of presumption the unforgiveable sin against the Holy Ghost because you presume to know who is in the state of grace at the moment of their death, which is all that really matters.
All those infallible dogmatic teachings you quote are guidelines for the peoples of the entire world, warnings, teachings and RULES for the world to heed, but it takes Gods grace to obey them. You can't obey or do anything good without the grace of God, so again who do the feeyites think they are to know WHEN GOD GIVES HIS GRACE TO A PARTICULAR PERSON. Does it ever occur to you that He can give His grace in a twinkle of a second, time means nothing to God. He can stop time and reason with the dying soul.
Not to say that many and most people do fall into Hell!
You just "jugded" me and Feenyites (of which I am NOT one), AND you then make a decision about how many fall into Hell!!!!
You may want to extend the same (albeit questionable) charity that you give to Hindus', Jєωs, Muslems, etc. .. to the the people who read the clear and specific words of the Popes and take them as Dogmatic Truth.
Just for the sake of arguement, assuming that Jesus can allow those who throughout their lives deny Him, deny His Church and thereby deny the Father, if He can allow them entrance into Heaven and contradict what He and His Chruch have declared by absolute necessity to gain entrance into Heaven, then surely, He will know that (if I am indeed wrong) it was purely through invincible ignorance on my part and my desire to obey His commands to the fullest extent that I can.
-
All who die in Sanctifying grace are saved, and are within the Church.
You are guilty of judgement, which only God has a right to judge a soul.
You only see through a milky glass where God can see the entire picture. He and He alone knows who is in the state of grace, His timing is perfect and He gives all men a chance to accept His Church even if its on their last breath. Which is why you can't say that this or that person lost their soul no matter what religion it may seem they died in, because God gives His grace to many dying souls and can reveal His truth to them.
Who do you think you are to say who can benefit through the merits of God.
You and your feeny ilk are heretics! You deny the mercy of God and place yourself above Him. You deny the power of prayer and deny the virtue of Hope.
You are guilty of presumption the unforgiveable sin against the Holy Ghost because you presume to know who is in the state of grace at the moment of their death, which is all that really matters.
All those infallible dogmatic teachings you quote are guidelines for the peoples of the entire world, warnings, teachings and RULES for the world to heed, but it takes Gods grace to obey them. You can't obey or do anything good without the grace of God, so again who do the feeyites think they are to know WHEN GOD GIVES HIS GRACE TO A PARTICULAR PERSON. Does it ever occur to you that He can give His grace in a twinkle of a second, time means nothing to God. He can stop time and reason with the dying soul.
Not to say that many and most people do fall into Hell!
MyrnaM, you claim that we can not judge others as being "outside the church". Aren't you a sede ? Have you not placed judgement upon Benedict ? :rolleyes:
Also, you have said that God can do this and God can do that in your last post. So aren't you claiming authority for yourself as protestants so often do in determining on your own what God does and doesn't do? Why don't you believe what the Holy Spirit has revealed to you through the infallible dogmatic declarations of the Church ? Is not the Holy Spirit God ? :pray:
-
Christ and His Church have nowhere declared water baptism to be an absolute necessity to get to Heaven.
-
Christ and His Church have nowhere declared water baptism to be an absolute necessity to get to Heaven.
John 3:5 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.
-
Just from a common sense level, what logic would condemn catechumens and martyrs for Christ to Hell?
"Gee, I know you were on your way to getting baptized and died in the name of Christ, but by my reading of dogmatic pronouncements it looks like if you weren't water baptized, then off to eternal torment and damnation you go! Sorry."
Talk about Pharisaical. Talk about "letter of the law".
-
All who die in Sanctifying grace are saved, and are within the Church.
You are guilty of judgement, which only God has a right to judge a soul.
You only see through a milky glass where God can see the entire picture. He and He alone knows who is in the state of grace, His timing is perfect and He gives all men a chance to accept His Church even if its on their last breath. Which is why you can't say that this or that person lost their soul no matter what religion it may seem they died in, because God gives His grace to many dying souls and can reveal His truth to them.
Who do you think you are to say who can benefit through the merits of God.
You and your feeny ilk are heretics! You deny the mercy of God and place yourself above Him. You deny the power of prayer and deny the virtue of Hope.
You are guilty of presumption the unforgiveable sin against the Holy Ghost because you presume to know who is in the state of grace at the moment of their death, which is all that really matters.
All those infallible dogmatic teachings you quote are guidelines for the peoples of the entire world, warnings, teachings and RULES for the world to heed, but it takes Gods grace to obey them. You can't obey or do anything good without the grace of God, so again who do the feeyites think they are to know WHEN GOD GIVES HIS GRACE TO A PARTICULAR PERSON. Does it ever occur to you that He can give His grace in a twinkle of a second, time means nothing to God. He can stop time and reason with the dying soul.
Not to say that many and most people do fall into Hell!
Sounds good to me! Think of all our prayers and devotions for unbelievers, sinners and so forth! :pray: :pray: :pray:
-
Just for the sake of arguement, assuming that Jesus can allow those who throughout their lives deny Him, deny His Church and thereby deny the Father, if He can allow them entrance into Heaven...
I don't think anybody would be assuming the above.
-
Just for the sake of arguement, assuming that Jesus can allow those who throughout their lives deny Him, deny His Church and thereby deny the Father, if He can allow them entrance into Heaven...
I don't think anybody would be assuming the above.
Did you read what Archbishop Lefebve wrote about it? .....
-
Was Our Lady water baptized?
If not, she cannot enter Heaven as it was an absolute necessity. Neither can any OT saint enter Heaven without water Baptism.
God does not change and is the same yesterday today and tomorrow. If water Baptism is an absolute necessity for Heaven, then not one person in Heaven should have died without water Baptism.
-
Also, Christ was only given a Baptism of repentance by John the Baptist. He needed a Christian water baptism to be saved. Therefore since Christ was not water baptized we can only assume He is in Hell.
It's a shame He didn't obey His own command, but after all it was an absolute necessity.
-
Was Our Lady water baptized?{/quote]
If anyone else can prove that they were born without original sin then, you got me, they would not need baptism
If not, she cannot enter Heaven as it was an absolute necessity. Neither can any OT saint enter Heaven without water Baptism.
Catechism of the Council of Trent, Baptism made obligatory after Christ’s Resurrection, p. 171: “Holy writers are unanimous in saying that after the Resurrection of our Lord, when He gave His Apostles the command to go and teach all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, the law of Baptism became obligatory on all who were to be saved.”
Those in the Limbo of the Fathers prior to the Resurrection were saved under the Old covenant. This is also why the "Good Thief" argument doesnt carry any weight.
-
Also, Christ was only given a Baptism of repentance by John the Baptist. He needed a Christian water baptism to be saved. Therefore since Christ was not water baptized we can only assume He is in Hell.
It's a shame He didn't obey His own command, but after all it was an absolute necessity.
What you seem to keep wanting to ignore is that Christ as well as his Blessed Mother were concieved without the stain of original sin. The rest of humanity is not in that situation and the only remedy given is water Baptism and adherence to the one true Faith.
-
Christ and His Church have nowhere declared water baptism to be an absolute necessity to get to Heaven.
John 3:5 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.
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.” DZ 696
Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis (# 22), June 29, 1943:** “Actually only those are to be numbered among the members of the Church who have received the laver of regeneration(water baptism) and profess the true faith.”
Pope Pius XII, MEDIATOR DEI--On the Sacred Liturgy, 1947:#43.
"In the same way, actually that baptism is the distinctive mark of all Christians, and serves to differentiate them from those who have not been cleansed in this purifying stream(meaning water) and consequently are not members of Christ."
Pope Pius XII "On the Mystical Body of Christ,"June 29, 1943-# 18: "Through the waters of Baptism those who are born into this world dead in sin are not only born again and made members of the Church, but being stamped with a spiritual seal they become able and fit to receive the other Sacraments
Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis , June 29, 1943,# 27: “He (Christ) also determined that through Baptism (cf. Jn. 3:5 which says Water) those who should believe would be incorporated in the Body of the Church.”
and Leo the Great holds that the grace of sanctification cannot be separated from the Sacrament of (water)Baptism nor sanctification from the Sacrament:
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.”
-
All who die in Sanctifying grace are saved, and are within the Church.
You are guilty of judgement, which only God has a right to judge a soul.
You only see through a milky glass where God can see the entire picture. He and He alone knows who is in the state of grace, His timing is perfect and He gives all men a chance to accept His Church even if its on their last breath. Which is why you can't say that this or that person lost their soul no matter what religion it may seem they died in, because God gives His grace to many dying souls and can reveal His truth to them.
Who do you think you are to say who can benefit through the merits of God.
You and your feeny ilk are heretics! You deny the mercy of God and place yourself above Him. You deny the power of prayer and deny the virtue of Hope.
You are guilty of presumption the unforgiveable sin against the Holy Ghost because you presume to know who is in the state of grace at the moment of their death, which is all that really matters.
All those infallible dogmatic teachings you quote are guidelines for the peoples of the entire world, warnings, teachings and RULES for the world to heed, but it takes Gods grace to obey them. You can't obey or do anything good without the grace of God, so again who do the feeyites think they are to know WHEN GOD GIVES HIS GRACE TO A PARTICULAR PERSON. Does it ever occur to you that He can give His grace in a twinkle of a second, time means nothing to God. He can stop time and reason with the dying soul.
Not to say that many and most people do fall into Hell!
You just "jugded" me and Feenyites (of which I am NOT one), AND you then make a decision about how many fall into Hell!!!!
You may want to extend the same (albeit questionable) charity that you give to Hindus', Jєωs, Muslems, etc. .. to the the people who read the clear and specific words of the Popes and take them as Dogmatic Truth.
Just for the sake of arguement, assuming that Jesus can allow those who throughout their lives deny Him, deny His Church and thereby deny the Father, if He can allow them entrance into Heaven and contradict what He and His Chruch have declared by absolute necessity to gain entrance into Heaven, then surely, He will know that (if I am indeed wrong) it was purely through invincible ignorance on my part and my desire to obey His commands to the fullest extent that I can.
I stand on my post, and I did not judge you, since you are not dead yet! At least I hope not.
You judged yourself with your ignorant posts here.
-
Also, Christ was only given a Baptism of repentance by John the Baptist. He needed a Christian water baptism to be saved. Therefore since Christ was not water baptized we can only assume He is in Hell.
It's a shame He didn't obey His own command, but after all it was an absolute necessity.
What you seem to keep wanting to ignore is that Christ as well as his Blessed Mother were concieved without the stain of original sin. The rest of humanity is not in that situation and the only remedy given is water Baptism and adherence to the one true Faith.
True, however in her humility she did obey her Jєωιѕн law and underwent the Purification, didn't she. I wonder why, since she was sinless.
-
Christ and His Church have nowhere declared water baptism to be an absolute necessity to get to Heaven.
John 3:5 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.
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.” DZ 696
Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis (# 22), June 29, 1943:** “Actually only those are to be numbered among the members of the Church who have received the laver of regeneration(water baptism) and profess the true faith.”
Pope Pius XII, MEDIATOR DEI--On the Sacred Liturgy, 1947:#43.
"In the same way, actually that baptism is the distinctive mark of all Christians, and serves to differentiate them from those who have not been cleansed in this purifying stream(meaning water) and consequently are not members of Christ."
Pope Pius XII "On the Mystical Body of Christ,"June 29, 1943-# 18: "Through the waters of Baptism those who are born into this world dead in sin are not only born again and made members of the Church, but being stamped with a spiritual seal they become able and fit to receive the other Sacraments
Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis , June 29, 1943,# 27: “He (Christ) also determined that through Baptism (cf. Jn. 3:5 which says Water) those who should believe would be incorporated in the Body of the Church.”
and Leo the Great holds that the grace of sanctification cannot be separated from the Sacrament of (water)Baptism nor sanctification from the Sacrament:
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.”
Can you make the word "water" a bit more bold please?
:laugh1:
-
Just for the sake of arguement, assuming that Jesus can allow those who throughout their lives deny Him, deny His Church and thereby deny the Father, if He can allow them entrance into Heaven...
I don't think anybody would be assuming the above.
Did you read what Archbishop Lefebve wrote about it? .....
Yes, and he didn't say what you just said above.
-
You judged yourself with your ignorant posts here.
If I say that Jєωs, Hindus, Muslems, etc. "judge" themselves according to Dogmas and according to Jesus, John 3:5., then you say that I am being judgemental and speaking for God.
However, you think that you can say that I "judged" myself according to YOU and that that is not being judgemental on your part? Hmmm???
-
Our Lady was alive after the Resurrection was she not? If water baptism is absolutely necessary then it admits of NO exceptions correct? Therefore in order for Our Lady to have been saved she must have been water baptized. If not, she is damned to Hell.
The first law, higher than God Himself, is water baptism.
Then comes God. Then comes the rest of His commandments. Even if God wanted to, He could not save but by water baptism, since the law of water baptism is above Him and His hands are tied.
-
What bothers you so much about my "so-called" judgement is you see yourself. :shocked:
-
I am amazed that MyrnaM and stevusmagnus would question why the blessed virgin Mary and our Lord Jesus would not have had to submit to the Christian New Covenant Water Baptismal Sacrament which removes "original sin" and also removes whatever other sins one may have had previously. As though this disqualifies Water Baptism in favor of Baptism of Desire and/or Baptism of Blood.
Catholic teaching 101 - the only 2 persons who ever lived without original sin and without sins of their own was Mary and Jesus
I certainly hope MyrnaM and stevusmagnus aren't comparing catechumens, protestants, Jєωs, hindus, buddhists and muslims to that of our blessed mother and her son.
-
All those infallible dogmatic teachings you quote are guidelines for the peoples of the entire world, warnings, teachings and RULES for the world to heed, but it takes Gods grace to obey them. You can't obey or do anything good without the grace of God, so again who do the feeyites think they are to know WHEN GOD GIVES HIS GRACE TO A PARTICULAR PERSON. Does it ever occur to you that He can give His grace in a twinkle of a second, time means nothing to God. He can stop time and reason with the dying soul.
Don't know if I am reading you right, but you come across as separating the dogmatic teachings as if they they are not from God.
-
All Hail our lord, water baptism, who can neither deceive nor be deceived nor admit of any exception.
Outside water baptism there is no salvation.
If water baptism is of absolute necessity then Our Lady is in Hell since she was never water baptized. She should have listened to Our Lord's dogmatic pronouncement. Even He never listened to it and so is also in Hell for He was never water baptized.
All Hail Water Baptism! The only law higher than God! He cannot save outside of this superior law. He is powerless against it.
-
If water baptism is of absolute necessity then Our Lady is in Hell since she was never water baptized.
stevusmagnus, you already know that Mary and Jesus had no "original sin" and no sins of their own, and yet you persist? Your true modernist, liberal, heretic beliefs are now on display for everyone in this Forum to witness.
What you are saying about our blessed Mother and our Lord really sickens me. You should be ashamed of yourself. Maybe your lack of respect for the blessed virgin Mary would be welcomed in a Protestant Forum since they believe she sinned, but your diabolical and evil comments are not welcomed here.
-
All those infallible dogmatic teachings you quote are guidelines for the peoples of the entire world, warnings, teachings and RULES for the world to heed, but it takes Gods grace to obey them. You can't obey or do anything good without the grace of God, so again who do the feeyites think they are to know WHEN GOD GIVES HIS GRACE TO A PARTICULAR PERSON. Does it ever occur to you that He can give His grace in a twinkle of a second, time means nothing to God. He can stop time and reason with the dying soul.
Don't know if I am reading you right, but you come across as separating the dogmatic teachings as if they they are not from God.
No, I apologize if you read it that way. As Catholics we all know these dogmatic teachings are inspired from God, for the world, not just Catholics, because it is God's Will that there be One Fold and One Shepherd. Grace is like a mustard seed, very tiny and when a person cooperates with the tiny, more is given, we are all on different levels. Some of us will receive more grace to understand and others just enough for salvation.
These quotes that the feeyies use are true, but we have to look at whom the Popes were directing them at. Most of them were directed at Catholics who should already know better, but were drifting toward some heresy, and these were warnings.
Take an infant Christian for example, who is dying, are they expected to know and then believe all those quotes, or are they expected to only know and believe the teachings in the Apostles Creed?
-
You are the one saying Our Lady needed to be water baptized to enter Heaven. Otherwise it was not an absolute requirement and admits of exceptions.
-
I am amazed that MyrnaM and stevusmagnus would question why the blessed virgin Mary and our Lord Jesus would not have had to submit to the Christian New Covenant Water Baptismal Sacrament which removes "original sin" and also removes whatever other sins one may have had previously. As though this disqualifies Water Baptism in favor of Baptism of Desire and/or Baptism of Blood.
Catholic teaching 101 - the only 2 persons who ever lived without original sin and without sins of their own was Mary and Jesus
***I certainly hope MyrnaM and stevusmagnus aren't comparing catechumens, protestants, Jєωs, hindus, buddhists and muslims to that of our blessed mother and her son.
***Not to worry, no comparison can even be thought of, expect in your mind.
Water Baptism is the IDEAL!
However in God's mercy He allows Baptism of desire and blood, whether you like it or not. This has nothing to do with if Mary consenting to water baptism after the Ascension of Jesus into heaven. All I said was, she may have, since she consented to the Jєωιѕн purification, we honor on Feb. 2, and that was not necessary for her either since she was sinless.
-
Myrna,
Get me off of ignore! I'm not a Vatican spy! ;)
-
All those infallible dogmatic teachings you quote are guidelines for the peoples of the entire world, warnings, teachings and RULES for the world to heed, but it takes Gods grace to obey them. You can't obey or do anything good without the grace of God, so again who do the feeyites think they are to know WHEN GOD GIVES HIS GRACE TO A PARTICULAR PERSON. Does it ever occur to you that He can give His grace in a twinkle of a second, time means nothing to God. He can stop time and reason with the dying soul.
Don't know if I am reading you right, but you come across as separating the dogmatic teachings as if they they are not from God.
No, I apologize if you read it that way. As Catholics we all know these dogmatic teachings are inspired from God, for the world, not just Catholics, because it is God's Will that there be One Fold and One Shepherd. Grace is like a mustard seed, very tiny and when a person cooperates with the tiny, more is given, we are all on different levels. Some of us will receive more grace to understand and others just enough for salvation.
These quotes that the feeyies use are true, but we have to look at whom the Popes were directing them at. Most of them were directed at Catholics who should already know better, but were drifting toward some heresy, and these were warnings.
Take an infant Christian for example, who is dying, are they expected to know and then believe all those quotes, or are they expected to only know and believe the teachings in the Apostles Creed?
An infant does not know and give assent to either, but baptism is the only means of salvation for the child. When they are baptized they are also established in the Faith of the Church.
-
What I meant by infant was, a Christian who might be an adult but just in the beginning stages of Christianity.
-
Myrna,
Get me off of ignore! I'm not a Vatican spy! ;)
Okay, I took you off, I just got mad one day because of what you said about sedevacantist. :cheers:
Merry Christmas!
-
I'm wondering about this. I hear some Catholics claim that God is not bound to ordinary means of salvation(meaning through the Sacraments and the Church which he established), but that God may be able to save souls through extraordinary means(such as to intercede immedietaly at the point of that person's death).
What are your thoughts on this? :confused1:
No one can be saved without belonging to the Catholic Church, but it's not absolutely necessary for a person to be a member of the Church to belong to her.
Code of Canon Law, Canon 1366, no. 2.:
"Mental philosophy and theology must be taught according to the method, teaching and principles of the Angelic Doctor, to which the professors should religiously adhere."
This is again reiterated in Pope Pius XI's encyclical, Studiorum Ducem:
http://www.ewtn.com/library/encyc/p11studi.htm
St. Thomas in his Summa Theologica states:
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4068.htm#article2
And such a man can obtain salvation without being actually baptized, on account of his desire for Baptism, which desire is the outcome of "faith that worketh by charity," whereby God, Whose power is not tied to visible sacraments, sanctifies man inwardly.
Article of interest:
St Thomas Aquinas's position on the Immaculate Conception
http://strobertbellarmine.net/stthomas/StThomas&IC.htm
-
No one can be saved without belonging to the Catholic Church, but it's not absolutely necessary for a person to be a member of the Church to belong to her.
Here we go again...
Definition of the word "member": a person, animal, or plant that belongs to a particular group
http://www.wordreference.com/definition/member
Kindly explain, one more time, how a person can be a member of the Catholic Church without belonging to Her.
St. Thomas in his Summa Theologica states:
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4068.htm#article2
And such a man can obtain salvation without being actually baptized, on account of his desire for Baptism, which desire is the outcome of "faith that worketh by charity," whereby God, Whose power is not tied to visible sacraments, sanctifies man inwardly.
Article of interest:
St Thomas Aquinas's position on the Immaculate Conception
http://strobertbellarmine.net/stthomas/StThomas&IC.htm
So, St. Thomas is saying that through Baptism of Desire one becomes a member of the Catholic Church, the same as through Baptism of Water. To say that one can belong to the Church without being a member is Modernist gobbledygook.
-
Kindly explain, one more time, how a person can be a member of the Catholic Church without belonging to Her.
You have things reversed, I stated one can belong to to the Church without being a member.
To say that one can belong to the Church without being a member is Modernist gobbledygook.
The essence of Modernism is the evolution of dogma, not to be confused with the development of dogma.
St. Ambrose says of Valentinian, who died while yet a catechumen: "I lost him whom I was to regenerate: but he did not lose the grace he prayed for."
I ask you, is St. Ambrose stating Modernist gobbledygook whereby Valentinian is stated to be saved, thereby belong to the Church, while yet never a did become a member?
I can post others, but I'm sure you're quite aware of them.
Give me some time to highlight from Monsignor Fenton to explain indeed that men can belong to the Church without being a member.
-
So, St. Thomas is saying that through Baptism of Desire one becomes a member of the Catholic Church, the same as through Baptism of Water. To say that one can belong to the Church without being a member is Modernist gobbledygook.
Let me quickly say that nowhere is it stated that such persons become members of the Church. Membership in the Church is not absolutely required for salvation.
-
So, St. Thomas is saying that through Baptism of Desire one becomes a member of the Catholic Church, the same as through Baptism of Water. To say that one can belong to the Church without being a member is Modernist gobbledygook.
Let me quickly say that nowhere is it stated that such persons become members of the Church. Membership in the Church is not absolutely required for salvation.
Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos (# 10), Jan. 6, 1928: “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.”
-
Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos (# 10), Jan. 6, 1928: “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 point is, is that men can be united to the Church without being a member. The instances which we are taking about concerning such individuals (when it comes to baptism of desire/blood) in these circuмstances is that they are in no way members and that membership is not essential to be inside the Church.
Now, I need to read Fenton again so I can highlight to explain this.
-
The point is, is that men can be united to the Church without being a member. The instances which we are taking about concerning such individuals (when it comes to baptism of desire/blood) in these circuмstances is that they are in no way members and that membership is not essential to be inside the Church.
Now, I need to read Fenton again so I can highlight to explain this.
Here I'll provide it for you;
►Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton, The Catholic Church and Salvation, 1958, pp. 9-10: “It is not, and it has never been, the teaching of the Catholic Church that only actual members of the Church can attain eternal salvation. According to the teaching of the Church’s own magisterium, salvation can be attained and, as a matter of fact, has been attained by persons who, at the moment of their death, were not members of this Church. The Church has thus never confused the notion of being ‘outside the Church’ with that of being a non-member of this society.”[cdlv]
-
The point is, is that men can be united to the Church without being a member. The instances which we are taking about concerning such individuals (when it comes to baptism of desire/blood) in these circuмstances is that they are in no way members and that membership is not essential to be inside the Church.
Now, I need to read Fenton again so I can highlight to explain this.
Here I'll provide it for you;
►Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton, The Catholic Church and Salvation, 1958, pp. 9-10: “It is not, and it has never been, the teaching of the Catholic Church that only actual members of the Church can attain eternal salvation. According to the teaching of the Church’s own magisterium, salvation can be attained and, as a matter of fact, has been attained by persons who, at the moment of their death, were not members of this Church. The Church has thus never confused the notion of being ‘outside the Church’ with that of being a non-member of this society.”[cdlv]
Here is a good refutation of Fentons little theory;
FENTON CONTRADICTED BY POPE PIUS XII
Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi (#30), June 29, 1943: “…it was on the tree of the Cross, finally, that He entered into possession of His Church, that is, of all the members of His Mystical Body; for they would not have been united to this Mystical Body through the waters of Baptism except by the salutary virtue of the Cross, by which they had already been under the complete sway of Christ.”[cdlvi]
Notice that Pope Pius XII equates the Church with “all the members of His Mystical Body”! Therefore, only the members are in the Church! Since the Church is THE MEMBERS, and there is no salvation outside the Church, there is no salvation outside being a member. Msgr. Fenton is simply wrong.
To further prove the point, let’s look at the Council of Trent’s Decree on Justification, Chap. 7.
FENTON CONTRADICTED BY THE COUNCIL OF TRENT
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.”[cdlvii]
The justified man is ingrafted into Christ. The concept of being “ingrafted” is again that of membership: all the justified are ingrafted into Christ as members. This is proven by the council’s declaration that becoming a living member of the Church doesn’t happen “unless” (”nisi“) hope and charity are added to faith. That means that if and when hope and charity are added to faith, one is made a living member of the Church. Well, hope and charity are added to faith in every justified person.
A person simultaneously receives faith, hope and charity infused into his soul at the moment of justification, as Trent says above. Therefore, every person who is justified, since they all have faith, hope and charity, is made a living member (“vivum membrum”) of the Church. This totally contradicts the teaching of Msgr. Fenton and Suprema haec sacra, which is that one can be justified by baptism of desire (and thus have faith, hope and charity) without being a “member” of Christ’s Body. Msgr. Fenton is simply wrong.
FENTON CONTRADICTED BY VATICAN I
Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, Sess. 4, Chap. 2: “For this reason ‘it has always been necessary because of mightier preeminence for every Church to come to the Church of Rome, that is those who are the faithful everywhere’, so that in this See, from which the laws of ‘venerable communion’ emanate over all, they as MEMBERS associated in one head, coalesce into one bodily structure.”[cdlviii]
Vatican I infallibly defines that from the See of Rome communion emanates over “all.” “All” what? “All” in the Church, of course. Vatican I: “all… as members associated in one head” form one bodily structure. All in the Church are “members”! In the face of this infallible teaching from Vatican I, the baptism of desire advocate who is advancing the Fenton argument is forced to argue that communion doesn’t emanate from the See of Peter over “all” in the Church, but only over those in the Church who are members! – not over the “others” supposedly inside the Church without being members! This is so ridiculous and patently absurd that it doesn’t require further comment except to say: Msgr. Fenton is proven wrong again."
-
OK, I got it now. I can belong to Cathinfo without being a member. Since I'm not a member, I can't post here, but I am unified with its cybernetic body, since I can visit the website and read the members' posts. So belonging to Cathinfo means that I am only unified cybernetically with it, not necessarily that I am a member. Now I can be saved by Cathinfo because I can read the posts, which indicates that I belong to it cybernetically, but I can't read the attachments because I am not a member. This however, will not affect the quality of my salvation, only my experience while I am here reading Cathinfo. I can still be saved, even though I only participate partially in all that Cathinfo has to offer. Also, not being a member, my name does not appear on the member's list at the bottom of the page, but since God knows my true intentions, He will include me anyway as having belonged to Cathinfo because at least I visited the website and read the posts. Perhaps I never became a member out of ignorance about the necessity of registering or of how to complete the registration process. Or maybe I just listened to Msgr. Fenton and he told me I didn't really need to sign up because although I am a nonmember of Cathinfo I am not "outside" of Cathinfo because of my cybernetic unification, which allows me to belong to it, cybernetically. All righty then.
So basically God just created the Catholic Church as a vehicle for people to learn things about God. They don't actually have to be inside the vehicle, they just have to watch it pass by and somehow they will be mystically united to it. There's no need to actually get inside.
Just like Noah's Ark, right? All of Noah's neighbors who watched him build the Ark and then float away on it were also saved from the Flood, just in a mystical way known only to God. The whole bit about only Noah and his family surviving the Flood was just to scare us a little bit into realizing that at least we have to pay some attention to the Ark, but not actually climb aboard. Yeah, I mean God says a lot of stuff, like "unless you be reborn of water and the Holy Ghost, you will not enter into the Kingdom of God" and so forth, but He doesn't really mean it. He's just trying to scare us a little bit. Of course a long time ago, the popes took Him literally, but that was before the doctrine developed properly.
OK, now I got it straight.
-
St.Jude, I didn't know you were one of them.......! :stare:
-
St.Jude, I didn't know you were one of them.......! :stare:
I'm not a Feenyite. I accept the possibility of BOD and BOB. I just don't like the convoluted semantics of saying that someone can belong to the Church without being a member. Just say that there are people who appear to be outside of the Church but who really belong to Her through desire. Maybe a pagan on a remote, undiscovered island who found a Bible washed up on the shore and read it and accepted its truths, and desired to be a member of that Church Jesus mentions. So he amends his life and does the best he can, according to what he read in that Bible. Maybe he gets another pagan to baptize him. I don't know the details. I do accept the possibility.
Just don't tell me that he belongs to the Church without being a member, though. That's simple misuse of the English language.
-
St.Jude, I didn't know you were one of them.......! :stare:
Actually Myrna, I wasn't "one of them" until the last several months when I began actually thinking about it and asking questions for defense of the BOD position. It was the answers I recieved from BOD defenders that have solidified my disagreement when them. My favorite pat answer has been, "oh yeah, well your just a big dumb feenyite".
-
I got a mess of docuмents opened all at once and I'm still in the process in putting the essential points together.
Let me give the link to the docuмents one more time:
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Membership-in-the-Church-2
Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi (#30), June 29, 1943: “…it was on the tree of the Cross, finally, that He entered into possession of His Church, that is, of all the members of His Mystical Body; for they would not have been united to this Mystical Body through the waters of Baptism except by the salutary virtue of the Cross, by which they had already been under the complete sway of Christ.”[cdlvi]
It doesn't look like this is a problem
Contemporary Questions About Membership In the Church:
"Let us understand this well. When we speak of a member of the Church (or, for that matter, of any other social unit), we mean one of the persons who goes to make up this gathering or group. After all, the true Church of Jesus Christ is a group of people now existing in this world. The people who compose or constitute or go to make up this group are the members of the Church. The membrum ecclesiae is the pars ecclesiae."
Two Recent Explanations of the Church's Neccessity for Salvation:
The Suprema haec sacra makes it completely clear that those who are in a position to be saved only by reason of the fact that they have at least an implicit intention or desire to enter the Church and to remain within it are not reapse or in reality members of the true Church. In other words, the social unit which is the supernatural kingdom of God in this world is not composed of people who intend or desire to enter it. As a matter of fact, if we look at the terminology carefully, we can easily see that a statement to the contrary involves a self-contradiction. It is impossible to desire to enter a social unit of which one is already a member or a part.
Emphasis on "in this world".
I think I've cited these two paragraphs from the correct docuмents.
I have much more to read.
-
Just like Noah's Ark, right? All of Noah's neighbors who watched him build the Ark and then float away on it were also saved from the Flood, just in a mystical way known only to God. The whole bit about only Noah and his family surviving the Flood was just to scare us a little bit into realizing that at least we have to pay some attention to the Ark, but not actually climb aboard. Yeah, I mean God says a lot of stuff, like "unless you be reborn of water and the Holy Ghost, you will not enter into the Kingdom of God" and so forth, but He doesn't really mean it. He's just trying to scare us a little bit. Of course a long time ago, the popes took Him literally, but that was before the doctrine developed properly.
OK, now I got it straight.
Interestingly, since you painted this picture, I recall that one of the Baltimore Catechisms has a picture of Noahs Ark with people hanging on ropes outside the ark and they are labled as representing BOD and BOB respectively...LOL.. I'll have to re-read Genesis to see where those people were mentioned.
-
Interestingly, since you painted this picture, I recall that one of the Baltimore Catechisms has a picture of Noahs Ark with people hanging on ropes outside the ark and they are labled as representing BOD and BOB respectively...LOL.. I'll have to re-read Genesis to see where those people were mentioned.
I suppose one could say that just as there was an Ark of the Old Testament, so the Church is the Ark of the New Testament, but instead of being saved from drowning in water, we're being saved from drowning in sin.
-
I may have erred in utilizing the term "belong" due to a casual reading of Fenton.
I'll know more in time.
-
Pope Eugene IV, The Council of Florence, “Exultate Deo,” Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra:* "‘unless we are born again of WATER and the Spirit, we cannot,’ as the Truth says, ‘enter into the kingdom of heaven' *The matter of this sacrament is real and natural WATER.” DZ 696
Our Lord, Jesus Christ, says the same thing in John 3:5
To deny this is to accept only what is taught by the "ordinary magisterium" and to reject what is taught by the "Universal Magisterium". A true Catholic would not accept anything taught by the "ordinary magisterium" unless it was in agreement with what has already been handed down by the "Universal Magisterium". The "Universal Magisterium" teaches that only WATER baptism is the door by which one enters the Church,..The "ordinary Vatican II magisterium" of today teaches that Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood are also doors by which one can enter the Church. So are you all Traditional Catholics or Vatican II so called "catholics" ?
-
I began this thread thinking that perhaps someone who is well schooled in the Catholic faith may be able to supply us all with already established infallible dogmatic teachings of the Church which declares "extraordinary means" of salvation as a truth. As of yet, not one person has been able to provide such teachings.
-
You never looked at this link, did you?
Baptism of Desire and of Blood
MATER DEI SEMINARY newsletter "Adsum" (January, 2004)
http://www.traditionalcatholic.net/Tradition/Information/Baptism_of_Desire.html
Note 1 and 2. Council of Trent and St. Alphonsus.
It parallels St. Thomas.
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4068.htm#article2
Objection 3. Further, as stated above (1; 65, 4), the sacrament of Baptism is necessary for salvation. Now that is necessary "without which something cannot be" (Metaph. v). Therefore it seems that none can obtain salvation without Baptism.
(. . .)
Reply to Objection 3. The sacrament of Baptism is said to be necessary for salvation in so far as man cannot be saved without, at least, Baptism of desire; "which, with God, counts for the deed" (Augustine, Enarr. in Ps. 57).
-
Just like Noah's Ark, right? All of Noah's neighbors who watched him build the Ark and then float away on it were also saved from the Flood, just in a mystical way known only to God. The whole bit about only Noah and his family surviving the Flood was just to scare us a little bit into realizing that at least we have to pay some attention to the Ark, but not actually climb aboard. Yeah, I mean God says a lot of stuff, like "unless you be reborn of water and the Holy Ghost, you will not enter into the Kingdom of God" and so forth, but He doesn't really mean it. He's just trying to scare us a little bit. Of course a long time ago, the popes took Him literally, but that was before the doctrine developed properly.
OK, now I got it straight.
Interestingly, since you painted this picture, I recall that one of the Baltimore Catechisms has a picture of Noahs Ark with people hanging on ropes outside the ark and they are labled as representing BOD and BOB respectively...LOL.. I'll have to re-read Genesis to see where those people were mentioned.
Well, some of those who didn`t enter the Ark repented and were saved... in case you didn`t know.
-
So, St. Thomas is saying that through Baptism of Desire one becomes a member of the Catholic Church, the same as through Baptism of Water. To say that one can belong to the Church without being a member is Modernist gobbledygook.
Let me quickly say that nowhere is it stated that such persons become members of the Church. Membership in the Church is not absolutely required for salvation.
Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos (# 10), Jan. 6, 1928: “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.”
There are two kinds of bounds in the Church:
1) External ones
a) Unity of faith: by professing all the Church teaches as dogma.
b) Unity of communion: both through the adherence to the legitimate Pastors and through the sharing of the Sacraments.
2) Internal ones: faith, hope, charity, etc.
The first ones are the one who make you member of the Church and Pius XI is talking of the unity of communion. Nowhere the Pope denies the possibility of salvation for non-members. He is talking about something different.
The internal bounds are the ones who put you "inside" the Church.
One question for all those who reject BOD, which is the minimum required to have the virtue of supernatural faith?
-
I'm wondering about this. I hear some Catholics claim that God is not bound to ordinary means of salvation(meaning through the Sacraments and the Church which he established), but that God may be able to save souls through extraordinary means(such as to intercede immedietaly at the point of that person's death).
What are your thoughts on this? :confused1:
while wondering, you may want to surf the archives as this topic and the water baptism vs BOD vs BOB was talked to death by CM, Raoul and many others within the last 1 to 1 1/2 yrs on this forum....
-
Just like Noah's Ark, right? All of Noah's neighbors who watched him build the Ark and then float away on it were also saved from the Flood, just in a mystical way known only to God. The whole bit about only Noah and his family surviving the Flood was just to scare us a little bit into realizing that at least we have to pay some attention to the Ark, but not actually climb aboard. Yeah, I mean God says a lot of stuff, like "unless you be reborn of water and the Holy Ghost, you will not enter into the Kingdom of God" and so forth, but He doesn't really mean it. He's just trying to scare us a little bit. Of course a long time ago, the popes took Him literally, but that was before the doctrine developed properly.
OK, now I got it straight.
Interestingly, since you painted this picture, I recall that one of the Baltimore Catechisms has a picture of Noahs Ark with people hanging on ropes outside the ark and they are labled as representing BOD and BOB respectively...LOL.. I'll have to re-read Genesis to see where those people were mentioned.
Well, some of those who didn`t enter the Ark repented and were saved... in case you didn`t know.
Actually I have been interested in getting a better understanding of that very question. Can you direct me to some relevant scripture passages and/or Papal statements on that issue?
-
So, St. Thomas is saying that through Baptism of Desire one becomes a member of the Catholic Church, the same as through Baptism of Water. To say that one can belong to the Church without being a member is Modernist gobbledygook.
Let me quickly say that nowhere is it stated that such persons become members of the Church. Membership in the Church is not absolutely required for salvation.
Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos (# 10), Jan. 6, 1928: “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.”
There are two kinds of bounds in the Church:
1) External ones
a) Unity of faith: by professing all the Church teaches as dogma.
b) Unity of communion: both through the adherence to the legitimate Pastors and through the sharing of the Sacraments.
2) Internal ones: faith, hope, charity, etc.
The first ones are the one who make you member of the Church and Pius XI is talking of the unity of communion. Nowhere the Pope denies the possibility of salvation for non-members. He is talking about something different.
The internal bounds are the ones who put you "inside" the Church.
One question for all those who reject BOD, which is the minimum required to have the virtue of supernatural faith?
Unity of communion is unity in Faith, can't have one without the other. The same goes for the internal and the external. The bond between the internal and external is not meant to be broken.
Gotta say, Karl Rahner's "anonimous christian" comes to mind.
-
Unity of communion is unity in Faith, can't have one without the other. The same goes for the internal and the external. The bond between the internal and external is not meant to be broken.
Gotta say, Karl Rahner's "anonimous christian" comes to mind.
Rahner's "anonymous christian" shouldn't come to mind. A catechumen is certainly within the internal union, yet is not within the external.
"The foundation of this argument is that the manifest heretic is not in any way a member of the Church, that is, neither spiritually nor corporally, which signifies that he is not such by internal union nor by external union. For even bad Catholics [i.e. who are not heretics] are united and are members, spiritually by faith, corporally by confession of faith and by participation in the visible sacraments; the occult heretics are united and are members although only by external union; on the contrary, the good catechumens belong to the Church only by an internal union, not by the external; but manifest heretics do not pertain in any manner, as we have already proved."
Will you now claim Rahner's idea was based on Bellarmine? Of course, we know Mystici Corporis actually was based on Bellarmine.
-
Just like Noah's Ark, right? All of Noah's neighbors who watched him build the Ark and then float away on it were also saved from the Flood, just in a mystical way known only to God. The whole bit about only Noah and his family surviving the Flood was just to scare us a little bit into realizing that at least we have to pay some attention to the Ark, but not actually climb aboard. Yeah, I mean God says a lot of stuff, like "unless you be reborn of water and the Holy Ghost, you will not enter into the Kingdom of God" and so forth, but He doesn't really mean it. He's just trying to scare us a little bit. Of course a long time ago, the popes took Him literally, but that was before the doctrine developed properly.
OK, now I got it straight.
Interestingly, since you painted this picture, I recall that one of the Baltimore Catechisms has a picture of Noahs Ark with people hanging on ropes outside the ark and they are labled as representing BOD and BOB respectively...LOL.. I'll have to re-read Genesis to see where those people were mentioned.
Well, some of those who didn`t enter the Ark repented and were saved... in case you didn`t know.
Actually I have been interested in getting a better understanding of that very question. Can you direct me to some relevant scripture passages and/or Papal statements on that issue?
1 Peter
18 Because Christ also died once for our sins, the just for the unjust: that he might offer us to God, being put to death indeed in the flesh, but enlivened in the spirit, 19 in which also coming he preached to those spirits that were in prison: 20 Which had been some time incredulous, when they waited for the patience of God in the days of Noe, when the ark was a building: wherein a few, that is, eight souls, were saved by water
-
Unity of communion is unity in Faith, can't have one without the other. The same goes for the internal and the external. The bond between the internal and external is not meant to be broken.
Gotta say, Karl Rahner's "anonimous christian" comes to mind.
Yet they can. You can have a Catholic who internally doesn`t have faith, hope, and charity. You can have a cathecuмen in state of grace as SJB rightly points you out, etc
If you have the external bounds you are member, if you have the internal ones you are in state of grace.
I ask once again: Which is the minimum some person must believe in order to have the supernatural virtue of faith?
-
Unity of communion is unity in Faith, can't have one without the other. The same goes for the internal and the external. The bond between the internal and external is not meant to be broken.
Gotta say, Karl Rahner's "anonimous christian" comes to mind.
Rahner's "anonymous christian" shouldn't come to mind. A catechumen is certainly within the internal union, yet is not within the external.
"The foundation of this argument is that the manifest heretic is not in any way a member of the Church, that is, neither spiritually nor corporally, which signifies that he is not such by internal union nor by external union. For even bad Catholics [i.e. who are not heretics] are united and are members, spiritually by faith, corporally by confession of faith and by participation in the visible sacraments; the occult heretics are united and are members although only by external union; on the contrary, the good catechumens belong to the Church only by an internal union, not by the external; but manifest heretics do not pertain in any manner, as we have already proved."
Will you now claim Rahner's idea was based on Bellarmine? Of course, we know Mystici Corporis actually was based on Bellarmine.
A catechumen is joined internally by Faith, and Faith is an attribute of both the internal and external. There is still a bond between the internal and external.
-
You can have a cathecuмen in state of grace as SJB rightly points you out, etc
How did this catechumen remove original sin from his/her soul before the Sacrament of Baptism?
-
A catechumen is joined internally by Faith, and Faith is an attribute of both the internal and external. There is still a bond between the internal and external.
An occult heretic has no Faith, he is not internally united, yet he maintains the external union.
-
You can have a cathecuмen in state of grace as SJB rightly points you out, etc
How did this catechumen remove original sin from his/her soul before the Sacrament of Baptism?
By desiring the Baptism :)
-
Unity of communion is unity in Faith, can't have one without the other. The same goes for the internal and the external. The bond between the internal and external is not meant to be broken.
Gotta say, Karl Rahner's "anonimous christian" comes to mind.
Yet they can. You can have a Catholic who internally doesn`t have faith, hope, and charity. You can have a cathecuмen in state of grace as SJB rightly points you out, etc
If you have the external bounds you are member, if you have the internal ones you are in state of grace.
I ask once again: Which is the minimum some person must believe in order to have the supernatural virtue of faith?
I don't believe I made the argument that the bond cannot be broken. I said it is not meant to be broken. A catechumen is in the process of completing the union.
As to your question on the minimum, I believe I've read from one Pope that one can believe almost all, but falling away in just one aspect of the Faith, puts the person out of Church.
-
You can have a cathecuмen in state of grace as SJB rightly points you out, etc
How did this catechumen remove original sin from his/her soul before the Sacrament of Baptism?
Do you really think for instance St. Augustine, St. Ambrose, etc were in mortal sin 1 minute before his baptism??? Come on!
-
A catechumen is joined internally by Faith, and Faith is an attribute of both the internal and external. There is still a bond between the internal and external.
An occult heretic has no Faith, he is not internally united, yet he maintains the external union.
An occult heretic has broken both the internal and external union. The heretic is like a broken branch, dead yet still "clinging" to the body.
-
Well, some of those who didn`t enter the Ark repented and were saved... in case you didn`t know.
Actually I have been interested in getting a better understanding of that very question. Can you direct me to some relevant scripture passages and/or Papal statements on that issue?
1 Peter
18 Because Christ also died once for our sins, the just for the unjust: that he might offer us to God, being put to death indeed in the flesh, but enlivened in the spirit, 19 in which also coming he preached to those spirits that were in prison: 20 Which had been some time incredulous, when they waited for the patience of God in the days of Noe, when the ark was a building: wherein a few, that is, eight souls, were saved by water
Cristian, when you talk about those saved outside of the Ark, were you referring to the "spirits that were in prison" that St. Peter mentions above? I always thought that he was talking about the souls in Limbo.
-
A catechumen is joined internally by Faith, and Faith is an attribute of both the internal and external. There is still a bond between the internal and external.
An occult heretic has no Faith, he is not internally united, yet he maintains the external union.
An occult heretic has broken both the internal and external union. The heretic is like a broken branch, dead yet still "clinging" to the body.
No, the occult has not broken the external union, that is why he is still a member of the Church. A heretic has neither internal nor external union, as Bellarmine clearly states in the excerpt I provided from De Romano Pontifice.
-
Unity of communion is unity in Faith, can't have one without the other. The same goes for the internal and the external. The bond between the internal and external is not meant to be broken.
Gotta say, Karl Rahner's "anonimous christian" comes to mind.
Yet they can. You can have a Catholic who internally doesn`t have faith, hope, and charity. You can have a cathecuмen in state of grace as SJB rightly points you out, etc
If you have the external bounds you are member, if you have the internal ones you are in state of grace.
I ask once again: Which is the minimum some person must believe in order to have the supernatural virtue of faith?
I don't believe I made the argument that the bond cannot be broken. I said it is not meant to be broken. A catechumen is in the process of completing the union.
Ok, therefore Cathecuмen may have the internal bounds and when he gets baptized he complete the union (external bounds)? Or am I misunderstanding you?
As to your question on the minimum, I believe I've read from one Pope that one can believe almost all, but falling away in just one aspect of the Faith, puts the person out of Church.
What about this? "Hebrews 11, 6 But without faith it is impossible to please God. For he that comes to God must believe that he is: and is a rewarder to them that seek him."
I don`t see here the necessity of the sacrament of baptism or to believe in the Catholic Church as including the minimum to have faith, and no one ever said such a thing! The most some theologians say is that Holy Trinity and the Incarnation must be believed explicitly to have faith.
-
Well, some of those who didn`t enter the Ark repented and were saved... in case you didn`t know.
Actually I have been interested in getting a better understanding of that very question. Can you direct me to some relevant scripture passages and/or Papal statements on that issue?
1 Peter
18 Because Christ also died once for our sins, the just for the unjust: that he might offer us to God, being put to death indeed in the flesh, but enlivened in the spirit, 19 in which also coming he preached to those spirits that were in prison: 20 Which had been some time incredulous, when they waited for the patience of God in the days of Noe, when the ark was a building: wherein a few, that is, eight souls, were saved by water
Cristian, when you talk about those saved outside of the Ark, were you referring to the "spirits that were in prison" that St. Peter mentions above? I always thought that he was talking about the souls in Limbo.
Well st Peter is talking about the souls in Limbo but he clearly states that among them there were some who perished during the flood. At least that is the exegesis I`ve read of it and the words of the Apostle are clear...
-
Well st Peter is talking about the souls in Limbo but he clearly states that among them there were some who perished during the flood. At least that is the exegesis I`ve read of it and the words of the Apostle are clear...
Maybe so... It's not 100% clear to me that those souls necessarily died from the Flood; I think there is room for the interpretation that they were already in Limbo when the Flood happened and were patiently waiting for God to free them from there.
At any rate, these events occurred before Christ had come, even before God announced His Covenant through circuмcision to Abraham.
Were non-circuмcised male Israelites considered to be "savable" in OT times?
-
Were non-circuмcised male Israelites considered to be "savable" in OT times?
To clarify: What I should have said is "Were male children of Jєωιѕн parents who for some reason were not circuмcised" still considered to be God's Chosen People and therefore members of His Covenant? Was circuмcision an absolute prerequisite for belonging to God's People?
-
St.Jude, I didn't know you were one of them.......! :stare:
I'm not a Feenyite. I accept the possibility of BOD and BOB. I just don't like the convoluted semantics of saying that someone can belong to the Church without being a member. Just say that there are people who appear to be outside of the Church but who really belong to Her through desire. Maybe a pagan on a remote, undiscovered island who found a Bible washed up on the shore and read it and accepted its truths, and desired to be a member of that Church Jesus mentions. So he amends his life and does the best he can, according to what he read in that Bible. Maybe he gets another pagan to baptize him. I don't know the details. I do accept the possibility.
Just don't tell me that he belongs to the Church without being a member, though. That's simple misuse of the English language.
Baptism gives us a permanent and distinctive quality which we call the character or the mark of Baptism.
BOD or BOB does not give us the same character or mark, however it does give sanctifying grace, which is why the soul can enter heaven without the actual MARK of Baptism.
This is why some explain it as being a non member or, a person united to the body of the Church but not the soul of the Church.
I do not know if that makes a difference once the soul reaches Heaven, but I do know that all the souls are perfectly happy as much as they can contain happiness, might be the souls that are without the mark contain less happiness but are still perfectly happy, just my opinion about this paragraph.
-
Unity of communion is unity in Faith, can't have one without the other. The same goes for the internal and the external. The bond between the internal and external is not meant to be broken.
Gotta say, Karl Rahner's "anonimous christian" comes to mind.
Yet they can. You can have a Catholic who internally doesn`t have faith, hope, and charity. You can have a cathecuмen in state of grace as SJB rightly points you out, etc
If you have the external bounds you are member, if you have the internal ones you are in state of grace.
I ask once again: Which is the minimum some person must believe in order to have the supernatural virtue of faith?
I don't believe I made the argument that the bond cannot be broken. I said it is not meant to be broken. A catechumen is in the process of completing the union.
Ok, therefore Cathecuмen may have the internal bounds and when he gets baptized he complete the union (external bounds)? Or am I misunderstanding you?
As to your question on the minimum, I believe I've read from one Pope that one can believe almost all, but falling away in just one aspect of the Faith, puts the person out of Church.
What about this? "Hebrews 11, 6 But without faith it is impossible to please God. For he that comes to God must believe that he is: and is a rewarder to them that seek him."
I don`t see here the necessity of the sacrament of baptism or to believe in the Catholic Church as including the minimum to have faith, and no one ever said such a thing! The most some theologians say is that Holy Trinity and the Incarnation must be believed explicitly to have faith.
By being a catechumen, the person is already showing the union between the external and internal. Faith is an attribute of both internal and external union. Becoming a catechumen is the external reflection of Faith.
There is faith, and there is the Faith.
Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum
It is then undoubtedly the office of the church to guard Christian doctrine and to propagate it in its integrity and purity. But this is not all: the object for which the Church has been instituted is not wholly attained by the performance of this duty. For, since Jesus Christ delivered Himself up for the salvation of the human race, and to this end directed all His teaching and commands, so He ordered the Church to strive, by the truth of its doctrine, to sanctify and to save mankind. But faith alone cannot compass so great, excellent, and important an end. There must needs be also the fitting and devout worship of God, which is to be found chiefly in the divine Sacrifice and in the dispensation of the Sacraments, as well as salutary laws and discipline. All these must be found in the Church, since it continues the mission of the Saviour for ever. The Church alone offers to the human race that religion—that state of absolute perfection—which He wished, as it were, to be incorporated in it. And it alone supplies those means of salvation which accord with the ordinary counsels of Providence.
-
By being a catechumen, the person is already showing the union between the external and internal. Faith is an attribute of both internal and external union. Becoming a catechumen is the external reflection of Faith.
This is incorrect. There is not yet an external union in the good catechumen. They are not members of the Church, because they are catechumens. The occult heretic is a member, yet the internal bond is broken because he hasn't the Faith.
-
Well st Peter is talking about the souls in Limbo but he clearly states that among them there were some who perished during the flood. At least that is the exegesis I`ve read of it and the words of the Apostle are clear...
Maybe so... It's not 100% clear to me that those souls necessarily died from the Flood; I think there is room for the interpretation that they were already in Limbo when the Flood happened and were patiently waiting for God to free them from there.
At any rate, these events occurred before Christ had come, even before God announced His Covenant through circuмcision to Abraham.
Were non-circuмcised male Israelites considered to be "savable" in OT times?
The Douay-Rheims bible online has this interpretation:....[19] "Spirits that were in prison"... See here a proof of a third place, or middle state of souls: for these spirits in prison, to whom Christ went to preach, after his death, were not in heaven; nor yet in the hell of the damned: because heaven is no prison: and Christ did not go to preach to the damned.
I concur that it makes more sense that this is talking about the Souls that were in the Limbo of the Fathers from before the time of Noah. It's not talking about men who were alive in Noah's day.
The next verse begins... "[21] Whereunto baptism being of the like form, now saveth you also..."
DRBO interpretation of this passage says... [21] "Whereunto baptism"... Baptism is said to be of the like form with the water by which Noe was saved, because the one was a figure of the other.
-
A catechumen is joined internally by Faith, and Faith is an attribute of both the internal and external. There is still a bond between the internal and external.
An occult heretic has no Faith, he is not internally united, yet he maintains the external union.
An occult heretic has broken both the internal and external union. The heretic is like a broken branch, dead yet still "clinging" to the body.
No, the occult has not broken the external union, that is why he is still a member of the Church. A heretic has neither internal nor external union, as Bellarmine clearly states in the excerpt I provided from De Romano Pontifice.
You were incorrect here as well, as I have indicated.
-
Unity of communion is unity in Faith, can't have one without the other. The same goes for the internal and the external. The bond between the internal and external is not meant to be broken.
Gotta say, Karl Rahner's "anonimous christian" comes to mind.
Yet they can. You can have a Catholic who internally doesn`t have faith, hope, and charity. You can have a cathecuмen in state of grace as SJB rightly points you out, etc
If you have the external bounds you are member, if you have the internal ones you are in state of grace.
I ask once again: Which is the minimum some person must believe in order to have the supernatural virtue of faith?
I don't believe I made the argument that the bond cannot be broken. I said it is not meant to be broken. A catechumen is in the process of completing the union.
Ok, therefore Cathecuмen may have the internal bounds and when he gets baptized he complete the union (external bounds)? Or am I misunderstanding you?
As to your question on the minimum, I believe I've read from one Pope that one can believe almost all, but falling away in just one aspect of the Faith, puts the person out of Church.
What about this? "Hebrews 11, 6 But without faith it is impossible to please God. For he that comes to God must believe that he is: and is a rewarder to them that seek him."
I don`t see here the necessity of the sacrament of baptism or to believe in the Catholic Church as including the minimum to have faith, and no one ever said such a thing! The most some theologians say is that Holy Trinity and the Incarnation must be believed explicitly to have faith.
I was taught the minimum for Faith was everything in the Apostles Creed, and BTW the Creed teaches the Incarnation and Trinity. Interesting for the Feenities here, it does not mention ONLY BAPTISM OF WATER is necessary for salvation.
-
A catechumen is joined internally by Faith, and Faith is an attribute of both the internal and external. There is still a bond between the internal and external.
An occult heretic has no Faith, he is not internally united, yet he maintains the external union.
An occult heretic has broken both the internal and external union. The heretic is like a broken branch, dead yet still "clinging" to the body.
No, the occult has not broken the external union, that is why he is still a member of the Church. A heretic has neither internal nor external union, as Bellarmine clearly states in the excerpt I provided from De Romano Pontifice.
You were incorrect here as well, as I have indicated.
Pope Leo III Satis Cognitum
For this reason the Church is so often called in Holy Writ a body, and even the body of Christ—"Now you are the body of Christ" (I Cor. xii., 27)—and precisely because it is a body is the Church visible: and because it is the body of Christ is it living and energizing, because by the infusion of His power Christ guards and sustains it, just as the vine gives nourishment and renders fruitful the branches united to it. And as in animals the vital principle is unseen and invisible, and is evidenced and manifested by the movements and action of the members, so the principle of supernatural life in the Church is clearly shown in that which is done by it.
From this it follows that those who arbitrarily conjure up and picture to themselves a hidden and invisible Church are in grievous and pernicious error: as also are those who regard the Church as a human institution which claims a certain obedience in discipline and external duties, but which is without the perennial communication of the gifts of divine grace, and without all that which testifies by constant and undoubted signs to the existence of that life which is drawn from God. It is assuredly as impossible that the Church of Jesus Christ can be the one or the other, as that man should be a body alone or a soul alone. The connection and union of both elements is as absolutely necessary to the true Church as the intimate union of the soul and body is to human nature. The Church is not something dead: it is the body of Christ endowed with supernatural life. As Christ, the Head and Exemplar, is not wholly in His visible human nature, which Photinians and Nestorians assert, nor wholly in the invisible divine nature, as the Monophysites hold, but is one, from and in both natures, visible and invisible; so the mystical body of Christ is the true Church, only because its visible parts draw life and power from the supernatural gifts and other things whence spring their very nature and essence. But since the Church is such by divine will and constitution, such it must uniformly remain to the end of time. If it did not, then it would not have been founded as perpetual, and the end set before it would have been limited to some certain place and to some certain period of time; both of which are contrary to the truth. The union consequently of visible and invisible elements because it harmonizes with the natural order and by God's will belongs to the very essence of the Church, must necessarily remain so long as the Church itself shall endure. Wherefore Chrysostom writes: "Secede not from the Church: for nothing is stronger than the Church. Thy hope is the Church; thy salvation is the Church; thy refuge is the Church. It is higher than the heavens and wider than the earth. It never grows old, but is ever full of vigour. Wherefore Holy Writ pointing to its strength and stability calls it a mountain" (Hom. De capto Eutropio, n. 6).
-
An occult heretic has broken both the internal and external union. The heretic is like a broken branch, dead yet still "clinging" to the body.
This is incorrect. The excerpt from Pope Leo XIII does not change that. I'm pretty sure you don't have an understanding of the definition of an occult heretic.
-
An occult heretic has broken both the internal and external union. The heretic is like a broken branch, dead yet still "clinging" to the body.
This is incorrect. The excerpt from Pope Leo XIII does not change that.
Yea sure, If you say so.
-
An occult heretic has broken both the internal and external union. The heretic is like a broken branch, dead yet still "clinging" to the body.
This is incorrect. The excerpt from Pope Leo XIII does not change that.
Yea sure, If you say so.
I showed you, smartass. :)
-
An occult heretic has broken both the internal and external union. The heretic is like a broken branch, dead yet still "clinging" to the body.
This is incorrect. The excerpt from Pope Leo XIII does not change that.
Yea sure, If you say so.
I showed you, smartass. :)
Back at ya.
-
Bad Catholics are dead members. Heretics (as in manifest heretics) are not dead members, they are cut off.
-
The result is the same, death.
-
By being a catechumen, the person is already showing the union between the external and internal. Faith is an attribute of both internal and external union. Becoming a catechumen is the external reflection of Faith.
This is incorrect. There is not yet an external union in the good catechumen. They are not members of the Church, because they are catechumens. The occult heretic is a member, yet the internal bond is broken because he hasn't the Faith.
Besides Cathecuмens are not subject to the Church`s Laws and they don`t have any right to the sacraments...
-
From New Advent: Catechumen
To avert this danger a careful intellectual and moral preparation was needed: intellectual to guard against the arguments of the pagan philosophers; moral, to give strength against the torments of the persecutors. This is the "trial of faith more precious than gold which is tried by the fire" of which St. Peter speaks (1 Peter 1:7). Hence we find in St. Justin's first Apology (c. lxi, P.G, VI, 420), distinct reference to the twofold preparation and also to the more elaborate rites of initiation: "Those who are persuaded and believe in the truth of our teachings (didaskomena) and sayings undertake to live accordingly; they are taught to ask, with fasting, the remission of their sins; we also praying and fasting with them. Then they are led by us to a place where there is water, and they are regenerated in the same way that we have been regenerated", etc. By the end of the second century we find the catechumenate in force in all its main lines.
-
The result is the same, death.
So what. A bad Catholic is a member and a protestant is not. The "result" being the same does not make the difference between the two disappear.
-
From New Advent: Catechumen
To avert this danger a careful intellectual and moral preparation was needed: intellectual to guard against the arguments of the pagan philosophers; moral, to give strength against the torments of the persecutors. This is the "trial of faith more precious than gold which is tried by the fire" of which St. Peter speaks (1 Peter 1:7). Hence we find in St. Justin's first Apology (c. lxi, P.G, VI, 420), distinct reference to the twofold preparation and also to the more elaborate rites of initiation: "Those who are persuaded and believe in the truth of our teachings (didaskomena) and sayings undertake to live accordingly; they are taught to ask, with fasting, the remission of their sins; we also praying and fasting with them. Then they are led by us to a place where there is water, and they are regenerated in the same way that we have been regenerated", etc. By the end of the second century we find the catechumenate in force in all its main lines.
They are not members. Here is Pope Pius XII defining membership:
22. Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed. "For in one spirit" says the Apostle, "were we all baptized into one Body, whether Jєωs or Gentiles, whether bond or free." [17] As therefore in the true Christian community there is only one Body, one Spirit, one Lord, and one Baptism, so there can be only one faith. [18] And therefore if a man refuse to hear the Church let him be considered -- so the Lord commands -- as a heathen and a publican. [19] It follows that those are divided in faith or government cannot be living in the unity of such a Body, nor can they be living the life of its one Divine Spirit.
23. Nor must one imagine that the Body of the Church, just because it bears the name of Christ, is made up during the days of its earthly pilgrimage only of members conspicuous for their holiness, or that it consists only of those whom God has predestined to eternal happiness. it is owing to the Savior's infinite mercy that place is allowed in His Mystical Body here below for those whom, of old, He did not exclude from the banquet. [20] For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy. Men may lose charity and divine grace through sin, thus becoming incapable of supernatural merit, and yet not be deprived of all life if they hold fast to faith and Christian hope, and if, illumined from above, they are spurred on by the interior promptings of the Holy Spirit to salutary fear and are moved to prayer and penance for their sins.
-
Baptism gives us a permanent and distinctive quality which we call the character or the mark of Baptism.
BOD or BOB does not give us the same character or mark, however it does give sanctifying grace, which is why the soul can enter heaven without the actual MARK of Baptism.
Haven't we Feeneyites already provided all of you the infallible dogmatic declarations of the Church which says that THERE IS NO SANCTIFYING GRACE GIVEN TO ANYONE OUTSIDE OF THE CHURCH's SACRAMENTS ?
We all know that those outside the Church can receive grace from God, but where does it say any of them receive sanctifying grace ???
Can any of you provide even just one infallible dogmatic teaching of the Church which says that someone who does not hold the Catholic Faith and has not undergone Water Baptism can indeed receive sanctifying grace?
-
The problem with non-Feeneyites is that they put ex cathedra statements, non-infallible papal statements, encyclicals, apostolic letters, sermons, writings of the Saints, and catechisms all on the same level. This is what causes all of the confusion.
From what I have seen, they make no distinction of a hierarchy of teaching.
-
Delivering/Trady-one question, very easy question, dont need long multi-page dialogues
If a person (baptized and professing Christ) dies never having been Catholic, not in life, nor death bed, do then have any chance at all, however slim of seeing Heaven at some point??
-
The problem with non-Feeneyites is that they put ex cathedra statements, non-infallible papal statements, encyclicals, apostolic letters, sermons, writings of the Saints, and catechisms all on the same level. This is what causes all of the confusion.
You're only here to argue your position, which is at odds with what the living breathing Church has taught. You appeal to infallible statements, yet seem not to notice that no member of the Church's own Teaching Apostolate has ever understood the issues the way you do.
-
23. Nor must one imagine that the Body of the Church, just because it bears the name of Christ, is made up during the days of its earthly pilgrimage only of members conspicuous for their holiness, or that it consists only of those whom God has predestined to eternal happiness. it is owing to the Savior's infinite mercy that place is allowed in His Mystical Body here below for those whom, of old, He did not exclude from the banquet. [20] For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy. Men may lose charity and divine grace through sin, thus becoming incapable of supernatural merit, and yet not be deprived of all life if they hold fast to faith and Christian hope, and if, illumined from above, they are spurred on by the interior promptings of the Holy Spirit to salutary fear and are moved to prayer and penance for their sins.
Is the Pope here referring to lapsed Catholics, or to anybody, Catholic or not, who are "spurred on by... the Holy Spirit to salutary fear and are moved to prayer and penance for their sins"?
-
Trady in another thread quoted Popes and St. Thomas-but likely, that is fine as he did it.....
-
The result is the same, death.
So what. A bad Catholic is a member and a protestant is not. The "result" being the same does not make the difference between the two disappear.
Quibbling about the "difference" does change the result, death.
-
The problem with non-Feeneyites is that they put ex cathedra statements, non-infallible papal statements, encyclicals, apostolic letters, sermons, writings of the Saints, and catechisms all on the same level. This is what causes all of the confusion.
You're only here to argue your position, which is at odds with what the living breathing Church has taught. You appeal to infallible statements, yet seem not to notice that no member of the Church's own Teaching Apostolate has ever understood the issues the way you do.
Are you saying that the infallible statements do not represent what the "living breathing Church" has taught?
-
Delivering/Trady-one question, very easy question, dont need long multi-page dialogues
If a person (baptized and professing Christ) dies never having been Catholic, not in life, nor death bed, do then have any chance at all, however slim of seeing Heaven at some point??
Someone who has been baptized as a child is a Catholic until they reach the age of reason and obstinantly reject Catholic teaching, then they themselves become heretics and are therefore outside the Church.
Someone who is an adult, must hold to at least the belief in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation for the Baptismal sacrament to be valid and they must not reject any Catholic teaching they encounter afterwards,...in this sense one can refer to such a person as a "material heretic", but material heretics are still Catholic. They cease being Catholic when they find out about any given Catholic dogmatic teaching and obstinantly reject that teaching. So such a person becomes a formal heretic and is outside the Church.
Dogmatic teaching says "There is no salvation outside the Church"
Does that answer your question ?
-
so, if a Prot does not actively oppose Catholic dogma and know they are wrong?
Example-Joe Smith is a Prot. He was baptised in the name of the Trinity correctly, tries to read his bible, pray a lot to Jesus and live a morally correct life.
He never knowingly rejects Catholic doctrine, he may not know what the CC teaches on "A" or "B",etc
His knowledge is limited in Catholicism-largely what he knows he sees by NO Catholics, the news, false history,etc.
Joe is honest and follows the truth as best as he can.
Joe dies a Protestant.....
Where is Joe likely now? Purgatory or Hell?
-
23. Nor must one imagine that the Body of the Church, just because it bears the name of Christ, is made up during the days of its earthly pilgrimage only of members conspicuous for their holiness, or that it consists only of those whom God has predestined to eternal happiness. it is owing to the Savior's infinite mercy that place is allowed in His Mystical Body here below for those whom, of old, He did not exclude from the banquet. [20] For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy. Men may lose charity and divine grace through sin, thus becoming incapable of supernatural merit, and yet not be deprived of all life if they hold fast to faith and Christian hope, and if, illumined from above, they are spurred on by the interior promptings of the Holy Spirit to salutary fear and are moved to prayer and penance for their sins.
Is the Pope here referring to lapsed Catholics, or to anybody, Catholic or not, who are "spurred on by... the Holy Spirit to salutary fear and are moved to prayer and penance for their sins"?
He is referring to membership in both sections.
-
so, if a Prot does not actively oppose Catholic dogma and know they are wrong?
Example-Joe Smith is a Prot. He was baptised in the name of the Trinity correctly, tries to read his bible, pray a lot to Jesus and live a morally correct life.
He never knowingly rejects Catholic doctrine, he may not know what the CC teaches on "A" or "B",etc
His knowledge is limited in Catholicism-largely what he knows he sees by NO Catholics, the news, false history,etc.
Joe is honest and follows the truth as best as he can.
Joe dies a Protestant.....
Where is Joe likely now? Purgatory or Hell?
Why did you just say he died a protestant ? He would not have died a protestant, but instead a Catholic.
-
The problem with non-Feeneyites is that they put ex cathedra statements, non-infallible papal statements, encyclicals, apostolic letters, sermons, writings of the Saints, and catechisms all on the same level. This is what causes all of the confusion.
You're only here to argue your position, which is at odds with what the living breathing Church has taught. You appeal to infallible statements, yet seem not to notice that no member of the Church's own Teaching Apostolate has ever understood the issues the way you do.
Are you saying that the infallible statements do not represent what the "living breathing Church" has taught?
No, I'm saying you don't understand them. Then you want us to believe that before you, nobody has ever noticed. :)
-
Someone who is an adult, must hold to at least the belief in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation for the Baptismal sacrament to be valid...
Are you saying a baptism in a sect is invalidated later, after the age of reason?
-
he never formally converted to the Catholic faith, no sacrements,etc.......hence he died not officially a professing Catholic....nor proffesing said doctrines....
so-is he still mystically united to the Church??
where is good old Joe now likely???
-
Someone who is an adult, must hold to at least the belief in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation for the Baptismal sacrament to be valid...
Are you saying a baptism in a sect is invalidated later, after the age of reason?
Someone who is receiving Baptism and is above the age of reason must at least believe in the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation for the Baptismal Saceament to be valid,..not to mention the words of the Baptism must be "In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit"
-
Someone who is an adult, must hold to at least the belief in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation for the Baptismal sacrament to be valid...
Are you saying a baptism in a sect is invalidated later, after the age of reason?
I think I explained the situation quite clearly in my earlier post.
I see.
Someone who has been baptized as a child is a Catholic until they reach the age of reason and obstinantly reject Catholic teaching, then they themselves become heretics and are therefore outside the Church.
Do they reject Catholic teaching immediately when they reach the age of reason? When are legally presumed to be heretics? Is it possible that they have not obstinately rejected any Catholic teaching at the age of 10 ... 12 ... 15?
-
he never formally converted to the Catholic faith, no sacrements,etc.......hence he died not officially a professing Catholic....nor proffesing said doctrines....
so-is he still mystically united to the Church??
where is good old Joe now likely???
Water Baptism is a Sacrament,...and he does profess the teachings of the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation. Therefore he is a Catholic.
-
he never formally converted to the Catholic faith, no sacrements,etc.......hence he died not officially a professing Catholic....nor proffesing said doctrines....
so-is he still mystically united to the Church??
where is good old Joe now likely???
Water Baptism is a Sacrament,...and he does profess the teachings of the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation. Therefore he is a Catholic.
I now understand what you are saying about Joe, but
many NOits have a valid water baptism and profess the Trinity, yet they are labeleld heretical......a can of worms, unless we give Joe leeway as he knows no better, the NO has access to knowledge.......
-
Do they reject Catholic teaching immediately when they reach the age of reason? When are legally presumed to be heretics? Is it possible that they have not obstinately rejected any Catholic teaching at the age of 10 ... 12 ... 15?
Only God knows for certian when a person reaches that age of reason, since not all persons are the same mentally. So once a person reaches that point, then if they have mistaken understandings on the faith and have never been corrected, then they are still Catholic and would be classified as "material heretics" within the Church. However, those who above the age of reason who hold incorrect beliefs and are told what the correct teachings are, then that person must accept the correct teachings, otherwise that person becomes a "formal heretic" and is no longer a member of the Church.
-
he never formally converted to the Catholic faith, no sacrements,etc.......hence he died not officially a professing Catholic....nor proffesing said doctrines....
so-is he still mystically united to the Church??
where is good old Joe now likely???
Water Baptism is a Sacrament,...and he does profess the teachings of the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation. Therefore he is a Catholic.
I now understand what you are saying about Joe, but
many NOits have a valid water baptism and profess the Trinity, yet they are labeleld heretical......a can of worms, unless we give Joe leeway as he knows no better, the NO has access to knowledge.......
You can classify the Novus Ordo as "material heretics" if they have not been confronted with the true teachings of the Church, and therefore they would still be Catholic. However, if a Novus Ordo is confronted with true Traditional Catholic teaching, such as that which Father Feeney held to, and that Novus Ordo obstinantly rejects traditional Catholic dogmatic teachings of the Church, then that Novus Ordo ceases to be Catholic and is instead a "formal heretic" who is outside the Church.
-
Only God knows for certian when a person reaches that age of reason, since not all persons are the same mentally. So once a person reaches that point, then if they have mistaken understandings on the faith and have never been corrected, then they are still Catholic and would be classified as "material heretics" within the Church.
Do we have an obligation to educate ourselves about our faith, or is that responsibility entirely on the shoulders of others, or shared?
-
Do they reject Catholic teaching immediately when they reach the age of reason? When are legally presumed to be heretics? Is it possible that they have not obstinately rejected any Catholic teaching at the age of 10 ... 12 ... 15?
Only God knows for certian when a person reaches that age of reason, since not all persons are the same mentally. So once a person reaches that point, then if they have mistaken understandings on the faith and have never been corrected, then they are still Catholic and would be classified as "material heretics" within the Church. However, those who above the age of reason who hold incorrect beliefs and are told what the correct teachings are, then that person must accept the correct teachings, otherwise that person becomes a "formal heretic" and is no longer a member of the Church.
How do we know who these people are? You seem to be saying that a 15 year old protestant is a member of the Church when he clearly is NOT a member. He is a member of a heretical sect.
"Material HERETICS" are NOT members.
-
Only God knows for certian when a person reaches that age of reason, since not all persons are the same mentally. So once a person reaches that point, then if they have mistaken understandings on the faith and have never been corrected, then they are still Catholic and would be classified as "material heretics" within the Church.
Do we have an obligation to educate ourselves about our faith, or is that responsibility entirely on the shoulders of others, or shared?
If this "material heretic", who is still a Catholic, does his own research into the faith(Scripture, Church Fathers, Catholic Church's teachings etc..) and yet rejects such teachings, then he becomes a "formal heretic" and is no longer Catholic.
Jesus said, "They hear my voice and follow me"
-
Only God knows for certian when a person reaches that age of reason, since not all persons are the same mentally. So once a person reaches that point, then if they have mistaken understandings on the faith and have never been corrected, then they are still Catholic and would be classified as "material heretics" within the Church.
Do we have an obligation to educate ourselves about our faith, or is that responsibility entirely on the shoulders of others, or shared?
If this "material heretic", who is still a Catholic, does his own research into the faith(Scripture, Church Fathers, Catholic Church's teachings etc..) and yet rejects such teachings, then he becomes a "formal heretic" and is no longer Catholic.
Jesus said, "They hear my voice and follow me"
What if he doesn't bother to do his own research?
Does he have an obligation to do any more research beyond what he has always been told?
-
Only God knows for certian when a person reaches that age of reason, since not all persons are the same mentally. So once a person reaches that point, then if they have mistaken understandings on the faith and have never been corrected, then they are still Catholic and would be classified as "material heretics" within the Church.
Do we have an obligation to educate ourselves about our faith, or is that responsibility entirely on the shoulders of others, or shared?
If this "material heretic", who is still a Catholic, does his own research into the faith(Scripture, Church Fathers, Catholic Church's teachings etc..) and yet rejects such teachings, then he becomes a "formal heretic" and is no longer Catholic.
Jesus said, "They hear my voice and follow me"
You have a faulty understanding of material HERESY, a material HERETIC, and the legal presumptions that are made by the Church.
-
Do they reject Catholic teaching immediately when they reach the age of reason? When are legally presumed to be heretics? Is it possible that they have not obstinately rejected any Catholic teaching at the age of 10 ... 12 ... 15?
Only God knows for certian when a person reaches that age of reason, since not all persons are the same mentally. So once a person reaches that point, then if they have mistaken understandings on the faith and have never been corrected, then they are still Catholic and would be classified as "material heretics" within the Church. However, those who above the age of reason who hold incorrect beliefs and are told what the correct teachings are, then that person must accept the correct teachings, otherwise that person becomes a "formal heretic" and is no longer a member of the Church.
How do we know who these people are? You seem to be saying that a 15 year old protestant is a member of the Church when he clearly is NOT a member. He is a member of a heretical sect.
"Material HERETICS" are NOT members.
Several questions,...
1. Had this 15 yr old boy gone through a valid "Water Baptism"
2. Has this 15 yr old boy ever come across Catholic teachings before? If so, did he reject such teachings?
-
Do they reject Catholic teaching immediately when they reach the age of reason? When are legally presumed to be heretics? Is it possible that they have not obstinately rejected any Catholic teaching at the age of 10 ... 12 ... 15?
Only God knows for certian when a person reaches that age of reason, since not all persons are the same mentally. So once a person reaches that point, then if they have mistaken understandings on the faith and have never been corrected, then they are still Catholic and would be classified as "material heretics" within the Church. However, those who above the age of reason who hold incorrect beliefs and are told what the correct teachings are, then that person must accept the correct teachings, otherwise that person becomes a "formal heretic" and is no longer a member of the Church.
How do we know who these people are? You seem to be saying that a 15 year old protestant is a member of the Church when he clearly is NOT a member. He is a member of a heretical sect.
"Material HERETICS" are NOT members.
Several questions,...
1. Had this 15 yr old boy gone through a valid "Water Baptism"
2. Has this 15 yr old boy ever come across Catholic teachings before? If so, did he reject such teachings?
So you don't understand.
-
What if he doesn't bother to do his own research?
Does he have an obligation to do any more research beyond what he has always been told?
Not if this Catholic believes he has been told the truth by his protestant sect. He may believe that he already has the truth. This is where "invincible ignorance" comes into play. Invincible Ignorance" in traditional Catholic teaching is only referring to Water Baptized Catholics who don't know any better through no fault of their own, but if they were confronted with true Catholic teachings, then they would not obstinantly reject those teachings.
Liberal Modernists have taken "Invincible Ignorance" and have tried to make it apply to non-Catholics who have not been Water Baptized. They have even tried to make it apply to non-Catholics who clearly reject the Church's teachings.
-
still sticking to the "water or damnation only" approach I see-guess multiple saitns are in Hell. as well as that thief on the cross next to Christ....
and no, if you are too lazy to reference the debates on this within the last yr, not going to go into again for like the 100th time......
again, it concerned me, Stevus, Matthew, Raoul CM, SJB,etc,etc......long and multiple threads wasted on that topic, no resolution......CM could not explain how a non-baptized pagan Roman who died on that Armenia ice was a saint/martyr (he replaced on of the 40 that apostasized). No proof said soldier was water baptized w/Trinitarian formula at all by anyone........
-
still sticking to the "water or damnation only" approach I see-guess multiple saitns are in Hell. as well as that thief on the cross next to Christ....
and no, if you are too lazy to reference the debates on this within the last yr, not going to go into again for like the 100th time......
again, it concerned me, Stevus, Matthew, Raoul CM, SJB,etc,etc......long and multiple threads wasted on that topic, no resolution......CM could not explain how a non-baptized pagan Roman who died on that Armenia ice was a saint/martyr (he replaced on of the 40 that apostasized). No proof said soldier was water baptized w/Trinitarian formula at all by anyone........
Each and every Saint had to have been Water Baptized either knowingly or unknowingly in order to enter Heaven. There is not one soul in Heaven which did not get Water Baptized. Any history books which claims unbaptized persons have become Saints is simply wrong. Why believe a "fallible" history book ?(note: many historians are modernist liberals). Why not instead believe the already established infallible statements from Popes that only through Water Baptism can one enter Heaven?
Also, the thief on the cross had died before Jesus had instituted Water Baptism for the remission of sins. Also, that thief died before Jesus' death and resurrection, so therefore that thief died under the Old Covenant and not the New Covenant. The "Paradise" Jesus was speaking of there was Abraham's Bosom, not Heaven.
-
What if he doesn't bother to do his own research?
Does he have an obligation to do any more research beyond what he has always been told?
Not if this Catholic believes he has been told the truth by his protestant sect. He may believe that he already has the truth. This is where "invincible ignorance" comes into play. Invincible Ignorance" in traditional Catholic teaching is only referring to Water Baptized Catholics who don't know any better through no fault of their own, but if they were confronted with true Catholic teachings, then they would not obstinantly reject those teachings.
Liberal Modernists have taken "Invincible Ignorance" and have tried to make it apply to non-Catholics who have not been Water Baptized. They have even tried to make it apply to non-Catholics who clearly reject the Church's teachings.
You seem to be saying there are members of the Church who are also members of a heretical sect. This is contrary to membership as defined by Pope Pius XII in Mystici Corporis.
-
Are you saying that the infallible statements do not represent what the "living breathing Church" has taught?
Only a man of bad will could misinterpret SJB's words in such a manner.
-
Only God knows for certian when a person reaches that age of reason, since not all persons are the same mentally.
This is certain.
So once a person reaches that point, then if they have mistaken understandings on the faith and have never been corrected, then they are still Catholic and would be classified as "material heretics" within the Church.
This idea is at variance with the habitual attitudes/practice of the most vocal 'strict-EENS-ers' (for lack of a better term), such as the Dimonds -- who tend to cast off large numbers of people, rather non-chalantly.
-
Do they reject Catholic teaching immediately when they reach the age of reason? When are legally presumed to be heretics? Is it possible that they have not obstinately rejected any Catholic teaching at the age of 10 ... 12 ... 15?
Only God knows for certian when a person reaches that age of reason, since not all persons are the same mentally. So once a person reaches that point, then if they have mistaken understandings on the faith and have never been corrected, then they are still Catholic and would be classified as "material heretics" within the Church. However, those who above the age of reason who hold incorrect beliefs and are told what the correct teachings are, then that person must accept the correct teachings, otherwise that person becomes a "formal heretic" and is no longer a member of the Church.
Well this is not the teaching of the Church regarding material heretics.
Benedict XIV (fourteen!!!!!!!) teaches: "Finally we hold it as a certainty that those who have been baptized by heretics, as soon as they arrive at the age where they can distinguish good from evil by themselves, if they adhere to the errors of those who baptized them, they are certainly rejected from the unity of the Church and deprived of the goods that are enjoyed by those who remain in the Church, but they are not for that reason set free from its laws or its authority, as Gonzales has illustrated with wisdom in Sicut, No. 12, on the subject of heretics." (Singulari nobis DZ 2567)
(I ought the translation to Raoul!)
-
Do they reject Catholic teaching immediately when they reach the age of reason? When are legally presumed to be heretics? Is it possible that they have not obstinately rejected any Catholic teaching at the age of 10 ... 12 ... 15?
Only God knows for certian when a person reaches that age of reason, since not all persons are the same mentally. So once a person reaches that point, then if they have mistaken understandings on the faith and have never been corrected, then they are still Catholic and would be classified as "material heretics" within the Church. However, those who above the age of reason who hold incorrect beliefs and are told what the correct teachings are, then that person must accept the correct teachings, otherwise that person becomes a "formal heretic" and is no longer a member of the Church.
Well this is not the teaching of the Church regarding material heretics.
Benedict XIV (fourteen!!!!!!!) teaches: "Finally we hold it as a certainty that those who have been baptized by heretics, as soon as they arrive at the age where they can distinguish good from evil by themselves, if they adhere to the errors of those who baptized them, they are certainly rejected from the unity of the Church and deprived of the goods that are enjoyed by those who remain in the Church, but they are not for that reason set free from its laws or its authority, as Gonzales has illustrated with wisdom in Sicut, No. 12, on the subject of heretics." (Singulari nobis DZ 2567)
(I ought the translation to Raoul!)
every person above the age of reason is not bound to positively know "all" articles of the Catholic Faith to be saved....
Pope Benedict XIV, cuм Religiosi (# 1), June 26, 1754:
“We could not rejoice, however, when it was subsequently reported to Us that in the course of religious instruction preparatory to Confession and Holy Communion, it was very often found that these people were ignorant of the mysteries of the faith, even those matters which must be known by necessity of means; consequently they were ineligible to partake of the Sacraments.”
Pope Benedict XIV, cuм Religiosi (# 4):
“See to it that every minister performs carefully the measures laid down by the holy Council of Trent… that confessors should perform this part of their duty whenever anyone stands at their tribunal who does not know what he must by necessity of means know to be saved…”
Notice here that there are certain mysteries of Catholic Faith that all above reason must know to be saved. But all aspects of Catholic Faith one does not have to know. Pope Pius X reiterates the same truth:
Pope St. Pius X, Acerbo Nimis (# 2), April 15, 1905:
“And so Our Predecessor, Benedict XIV, had just cause to write: ‘We declare that 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.’”
So what mysteries does everyone above reason have to positively know, without any exceptions for anyone, to be saved? The answer is very clear in the dogmatic teaching of the Church, as well as in Church Tradition. The answer is that the Catholic Faith, if defined by its simplest mysteries, is belief in the Trinity and the Incarnation. These are the essential mysteries of the Catholic Faith which all persons above reason must positively know to be saved without any exceptions for ignorance. Those above reason who are ignorant of these mysteries cannot be saved.
-
Do they reject Catholic teaching immediately when they reach the age of reason? When are legally presumed to be heretics? Is it possible that they have not obstinately rejected any Catholic teaching at the age of 10 ... 12 ... 15?
Only God knows for certian when a person reaches that age of reason, since not all persons are the same mentally. So once a person reaches that point, then if they have mistaken understandings on the faith and have never been corrected, then they are still Catholic and would be classified as "material heretics" within the Church. However, those who above the age of reason who hold incorrect beliefs and are told what the correct teachings are, then that person must accept the correct teachings, otherwise that person becomes a "formal heretic" and is no longer a member of the Church.
Well this is not the teaching of the Church regarding material heretics.
Benedict XIV (fourteen!!!!!!!) teaches: "Finally we hold it as a certainty that those who have been baptized by heretics, as soon as they arrive at the age where they can distinguish good from evil by themselves, if they adhere to the errors of those who baptized them, they are certainly rejected from the unity of the Church and deprived of the goods that are enjoyed by those who remain in the Church, but they are not for that reason set free from its laws or its authority, as Gonzales has illustrated with wisdom in Sicut, No. 12, on the subject of heretics." (Singulari nobis DZ 2567)
(I ought the translation to Raoul!)
every person above the age of reason is not bound to positively know "all" articles of the Catholic Faith to be saved....
Pope Benedict XIV, cuм Religiosi (# 1), June 26, 1754:
“We could not rejoice, however, when it was subsequently reported to Us that in the course of religious instruction preparatory to Confession and Holy Communion, it was very often found that these people were ignorant of the mysteries of the faith, even those matters which must be known by necessity of means; consequently they were ineligible to partake of the Sacraments.”
Pope Benedict XIV, cuм Religiosi (# 4):
“See to it that every minister performs carefully the measures laid down by the holy Council of Trent… that confessors should perform this part of their duty whenever anyone stands at their tribunal who does not know what he must by necessity of means know to be saved…”
Notice here that there are certain mysteries of Catholic Faith that all above reason must know to be saved. But all aspects of Catholic Faith one does not have to know. Pope Pius X reiterates the same truth:
Pope St. Pius X, Acerbo Nimis (# 2), April 15, 1905:
“And so Our Predecessor, Benedict XIV, had just cause to write: ‘We declare that 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.’”
So what mysteries does everyone above reason have to positively know, without any exceptions for anyone, to be saved? The answer is very clear in the dogmatic teaching of the Church, as well as in Church Tradition. The answer is that the Catholic Faith, if defined by its simplest mysteries, is belief in the Trinity and the Incarnation. These are the essential mysteries of the Catholic Faith which all persons above reason must positively know to be saved without any exceptions for ignorance. Those above reason who are ignorant of these mysteries cannot be saved.
It seems we are seeing two different movies, sir!
The quote I just made says that an infant baptized in a heretical sect is Catholic untill he reaches the age of reason and decides to embrace the errors of those who batized him.
So here you have, for instance, a person baptized in a protestant sect who at the age of 7 or 8 years (when he has reason) decides to accept the errors of he who baptized him. From that very moment he ceases to be Catholic. Now you cannot posibly say that that little boy commited necessarily mortal sin by acepting those errors, can you?
What you just quoted is something completely different. The Popes are talking about Catholics who ignore some dogmas becessary for their salvation.
The difference between the 2 cases is that in the first case you have a person who rejects the proximate rule of faith (the Ecclesia docens) whereas in the other case he merely fails to know some especific truths while accepting the primacy of the Pope (proximate rule of faith).
It is the same difference that exists between an error iuris and an error facti, as Billot wisely points out!
Vale!
Cristian
-
The Theological Proof For The Necessity Of The Catholic Church – Part I:
The man who is not thus brought or transferred into the Body of Jesus Christ, but who remains merely a member of the fallen Family of Adam, will not attain to the Beatific Vision. Even though such a man has had no means of knowing the existence of the true Church of Jesus Christ, and consequently is in no way to blame for not entering this society or not even desiring to enter it, he will remain deprived of the Beatific Vision if he departs from this life in such a condition. The mortal sins which he many have committed in this life, together with original sin itself, would suffice to constitute him as unworthy of heaven. The fact that he had not been incorporated into the one supernatural society within which the divine fellowship is to be found in this world render him ineligible for the essentially supernatural beatitude of the Church triumphant.
This reminds me to some extent of what Fr. Muller had stated in his book quoted by Raoul (if anyone remembers that).
I'm not absolutely sure what to quote in regards to the situation of a person with a desire to enter the Church, including a merely implicit desire, when it comes to Fenton.
The Holy Office letter is the best in regards to being explicit and laying down all points.
Neither by Fenton or in the letter is "body" and "soul" of the Church distinguished from each other, but the Church is taken as one whole.
-
The quote I just made says that an infant baptized in a heretical sect is Catholic untill he reaches the age of reason and decides to embrace the errors of those who batized him.
So here you have, for instance, a person baptized in a protestant sect who at the age of 7 or 8 years (when he has reason) decides to accept the errors of he who baptized him. From that very moment he ceases to be Catholic.
There are only 2 circuмstances whereby he ceases to be Catholic...
1. If he obstinantly rejects any Catholic dogmatic teaching revealed to him of which he previously was unaware of.
2. If he is taught by those who Baptized him that the Holy Trinity and Incarnation are not truths, and he accepts what they tell him.
-
a person who is or who is not baptized, but possesses the theological virtues and sanctifying grace with at least an implicit desire to join the Church.
Fenton says that a person is "within" the Church, some theologians have gone to say that in such a circuмstance that a person belongs to the soul of the Church in actuality and the body of the Church in desire.
I recall what St. Thomas said:
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4068.htm#article2
The sacrament or Baptism may be wanting to someone in two ways. First, both in reality and in desire; as is the case with those who neither are baptized, nor wished to be baptized: which clearly indicates contempt of the sacrament, in regard to those who have the use of the free-will. Consequently those to whom Baptism is wanting thus, cannot obtain salvation: since neither sacramentally nor mentally are they incorporated in Christ, through Whom alone can salvation be obtained.
"Neither sacramentally nor mentally", that totality bypasses any distinction between the body and soul of the Church.
-
"Neither sacramentally nor mentally", that totality bypasses any distinction between the body and soul of the Church.
I meant to say totally.
Sacramentally, a person with baptism, mentally--without baptism.
But still, in regards to a material heretic who is baptized, it's still possible for them to possess the theological virtues and sanctifying grace and have at least an implicit desire to join the Church, but they're not members of the Church, couldn't it be said that such a person is mentally incorporated into Christ, even though they already have baptism...
-
Might as well post this again in regards to membership and public material heretics:
Dogmatic Theology Volume II: Christ's Church, Van Noort, p. 241-242
b. Public heretics (and a fortiori, apostates) are not members of the Church. They are not members because they separate themselves from the unity of Catholic faith and from the external profession of that faith. Obviously, therefore, they lack one of three factors—baptism, profession of the same faith, union with the hierarchy—pointed out by Pius XII as requisite for membership in the Church. The same pontiff has explicitly pointed out that, unlike other sins, heresy, schism, and apostasy automatically sever a man from the Church. "For not every sin, however grave and enormous it be, is such as to sever a man automatically from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy" (MCC 30; italics ours).
By the term public heretics at this point we mean all who externally deny a truth (for example Mary's Divine Maternity), or several truths of divine and Catholic faith, regardless of whether the one denying does so ignorantly and innocently (a merely material heretic), or willfully and guiltily (a formal heretic). It is certain that public, formal heretics are severed from the Church membership. It is the more common opinion that public, material heretics are likewise excluded from membership. Theological reasoning for this opinion is quite strong: if public material heretics remained members of the Church, the visibility and unity of Christ's Church would perish. If these purely material heretics were considered members of the Catholic Church in the strict sense of the term, how would one ever locate the "Catholic Church"? How would the Church be one body? How would it profess one faith? Where would be its visibility? Where its unity? For these and other reasons we find it difficult to see any intrinsic probability to the opinion which would allow for public heretics, in good faith, remaining members of the Church.
I actually don't have my dogmatic theology manuals in my possession any more, I gave them to my priest as he only possessed catechisms.
-
In the book, Is Feeneyism Catholic?, the author states, p. 106:
Hence in the long list of testimonies from Fathers, Doctors or theologians in this book, it is clear that they consider that those with baptism of desire are members of the Mystical Body of Christ...
Quoting these again...
Contemporary Questions About Membership In the Church:
"Let us understand this well. When we speak of a member of the Church (or, for that matter, of any other social unit), we mean one of the persons who goes to make up this gathering or group. After all, the true Church of Jesus Christ is a group of people now existing in this world. The people who compose or constitute or go to make up this group are the members of the Church. The membrum ecclesiae is the pars ecclesiae."
Two Recent Explanations of the Church's Neccessity for Salvation:
The Suprema haec sacra makes it completely clear that those who are in a position to be saved only by reason of the fact that they have at least an implicit intention or desire to enter the Church and to remain within it are not reapse or in reality members of the true Church. In other words, the social unit which is the supernatural kingdom of God in this world is not composed of people who intend or desire to enter it. As a matter of fact, if we look at the terminology carefully, we can easily see that a statement to the contrary involves a self-contradiction. It is impossible to desire to enter a social unit of which one is already a member or a part.
I wonder if there is a distinction between being a member of the Church as a visible society and a member of the Mystical Body.
-
The quote I just made says that an infant baptized in a heretical sect is Catholic untill he reaches the age of reason and decides to embrace the errors of those who batized him.
So here you have, for instance, a person baptized in a protestant sect who at the age of 7 or 8 years (when he has reason) decides to accept the errors of he who baptized him. From that very moment he ceases to be Catholic.
There are only 2 circuмstances whereby he ceases to be Catholic...
1. If he obstinantly rejects any Catholic dogmatic teaching revealed to him of which he previously was unaware of.
2. If he is taught by those who Baptized him that the Holy Trinity and Incarnation are not truths, and he accepts what they tell him.
Nowhere Benedict XIV says such a thing.... you are simply making this up.
-
I wonder if there is a distinction between being a member of the Church as a visible society and a member of the Mystical Body.
Mmmm... I don´t think so. The Catholic Church is the Mistical Body.
-
Cristian,, it is possible for a person who has been baptized, and believes in the essential mysteries of the Catholic Faith, to be saved without having set foot in a Catholic church. For instance, some of the heathen whom St. Isaac Jogues converted were instructed in the essential mysteries of the Catholic Faith (the Trinity and the Incarnation) and were baptized just before they were tortured and killed. They were Catholics even though they never set foot in a Catholic church.
In order to be a Catholic and a member of the Church, one must at least be baptized and, if above reason, know at least the essential mysteries of the Catholic Faith (the Trinity and the Incarnation) – and not reject any teaching of the Church. Persons such as those described above (baptized just before death by St. Isaac Jogues) are also subject to the Roman Pontiff, just like infants, by virtue of their baptism.
Such persons would not be exceptions to the dogma at all, since those persons are Catholics and are within the bosom and unity of the Church,... they are also part of the visible Church, by virtue of their baptism and acceptance of the essential mysteries of Catholicism
-
..
it is possible for a person who has been baptized, and believes in the essential mysteries of the Catholic Faith, to be saved without having set foot in a Catholic church. For instance, some of the heathen whom St. Isaac Jogues converted were instructed in the essential mysteries of the Catholic Faith (the Trinity and the Incarnation) and were baptized just before they were tortured and killed. They were Catholics even though they never set foot in a Catholic church.
Any believers of the Catholic Faith in similar circuмstances who were of good will and were martyred, shedding their blood for Christ as catecuмens before they had been baptized, are in hell according to Feeneyites. :scratchchin:
-
Any believers of the Catholic Faith in similar circuмstances who were of good will and were martyred, shedding their blood for Christ as catecuмens before they had been baptized, are in hell according to Feeneyites. :scratchchin:
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,....that nobody can be saved, ....,even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church."
I can show you other infallible statements where it proclaims that only those who have undergone WATER baptism is in the unity of the Catholic Church
-
Deliveringit1 SAIDPope 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,....that nobody can be saved, ....,even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church."
Of course he was warning schismatics when he said that, those Catholics who fell away, telling them if they continue to leave the Church, even if they now shed their blood......
These schismatics he was speaking to were already Baptized by water, but he was warning them, no salvation outside the Church in spite of their baptism of water. Even if YOU shed your blood.... etc. HE TOLD THEM.
-
Deliveringit1 SAIDPope 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,....that nobody can be saved, ....,even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church."
Of course he was warning schismatics when he said that, those Catholics who fell away, telling them if they continue to leave the Church, even if they now shed their blood......
These schismatics he was speaking to were already Baptized by water, but he was warning them, no salvation outside the Church in spite of their baptism of water. Even if YOU shed your blood.... etc. HE TOLD THEM.
If you read Cantate Domino you will notice he doesn't say YOU cannot be saved, he says NOBODY can be saved. If he were only addressing the schismatics he would have said "YOU".
Pope Eugene is stating a categorical truth.
-
Thank you! Sorry I upset you. Merry Christmas! :cheers:
[q :reporter: :surprised: :scratchchin:uote=MyrnaM]Myrna,
Get me off of ignore! I'm not a Vatican spy! ;)
Okay, I took you off, I just got mad one day because of what you said about sedevacantist. :cheers:
Merry Christmas![/quote]
-
Any believers of the Catholic Faith in similar circuмstances who were of good will and were martyred, shedding their blood for Christ as catecuмens before they had been baptized, are in hell according to Feeneyites. :scratchchin:
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,....that nobody can be saved, ....,even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church."
I can show you other infallible statements where it proclaims that only those who have undergone WATER baptism is in the unity of the Catholic Church
No, it is impossible for you to show me other infallible statements where it proclaims that only those who have undergone WATER baptism is (sic) in the unity of the Catholic Church, because that statement you posted was not even one itself!
-
Deliveringit1 SAIDPope 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,....that nobody can be saved, ....,even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church."
Of course he was warning schismatics when he said that, those Catholics who fell away, telling them if they continue to leave the Church, even if they now shed their blood......
These schismatics he was speaking to were already Baptized by water, but he was warning them, no salvation outside the Church in spite of their baptism of water. Even if YOU shed your blood.... etc. HE TOLD THEM.
If you read Cantate Domino you will notice he doesn't say YOU cannot be saved, he says NOBODY can be saved. If he were only addressing the schismatics he would have said "YOU".
Pope Eugene is stating a categorical truth.
Why not research when, where and why the Pope said it, instead of your posting what you hope.
Funny too, many were saved shedding their blood, they are canonized Saints today. Do you also deny that???
-
No, it is impossible for you to show me other infallible statements where it proclaims that only those who have undergone WATER baptism is (sic) in the unity of the Catholic Church
The Catholic Church has always taught that receiving the Sacrament of Water Baptism is the only way into Christ’s Church, outside of which there is no salvation........
Pope Julius III, Council of Trent, On the Sacraments of Baptism and Penance, Sess. 14, Chap. 2, ex cathedra: “But in fact this sacrament [Penance] is seen to differ in many respects from baptism. For, apart from the fact that the matter and form, by which the essence of a sacrament is constituted, are totally distinct, there is certainly no doubt that the minister of baptism need not be a judge, since the Church exercises judgment on no one who has not previously entered it by the gate of baptism. For what have I to do with those who are without (1 Cor. 5:12), says the Apostle. It is otherwise with those of the household of the faith, whom Christ the Lord by the laver of baptism has once made ‘members of his own body’ (1 Cor. 12:13).”
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 Pius XII, Mystici Corporis (# 22), June 29, 1943: “Actually only those are to be numbered among the members of the Church who have received the laver of regeneration [water baptism] and profess the true faith.”
Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis (# 27), June 29, 1943: “He (Christ) also determined that through Baptism (cf. Jn. 3:5) those who should believe would be incorporated in the Body of the Church.”
Pope Pius XII, Mediator Dei (# 43), Nov. 20, 1947: “In the same way, actually that baptism is the distinctive mark of all Christians, and serves to differentiate them from those who have not been cleansed in this purifying stream and consequently are not members of Christ, the sacrament of holy orders sets the priest apart from the rest of the faithful who have not received this consecration.”
Also, in the early Church, the unbaptized catechumens (i.e., those who had not received the Sacrament of Baptism) had to leave after the Mass of the catechumens, when the faithful professed the Creed. The unbaptized were not allowed to stay for the Mass of the faithful, because it is only by receiving the Sacrament of Baptism that one becomes one of the faithful. This is the teaching of Tradition.
-
many were saved shedding their blood, they are canonized Saints today. Do you also deny that???
I agree that Water Baptized Catholic martyrs within the Church are Saints. So far, I have provided numerous infallible dogmatic declarations from numerous Popes that says only those who have been WATER Baptized can enter into the Kingdom of Heaven.
MyrnaM, so if you want to prove your point that unbaptized persons became Saints, then you are required to provide infallible dogmatic teachings from the Church which backs up your case. Please don't provide casual comments from Doctors, Theologians, Popes, Bishops, Priests and other Saints. Such commentaries are fallible and meaningless, when compared to already established infallible dogmatic statements which all Catholics must accept and believe.
Also, for every Doctor, Saint and Theologian you provide who claims a person can become a Saint without Water baptism, then I can provide a Doctor, Saint and Theologian who says the exact opposite.
-
Also, in the early Church, the unbaptized catechumens (i.e., those who had not received the Sacrament of Baptism) had to leave after the Mass of the catechumens, when the faithful professed the Creed. The unbaptized were not allowed to stay for the Mass of the faithful, because it is only by receiving the Sacrament of Baptism that one becomes one of the faithful. This is the teaching of Tradition.
Interesting. If the Church were aware of this wouldn't She have shortened the catechumen's wait? I would think it would go something like this: "You want to be saved and you believe what the Church teaches? Well, hang on while I pull the chariot around and we'll get you over to the baptistery/river/gutter out front because time is a wasting"
. Also, you'd see admonishing stories about the guy that waited too late, and God struck him down on his way to the baptism.
-
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,....that nobody can be saved, ....,even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church."
As I said, he was warning the schismatics, just as today he would be pointing his finger at the feeynities with the same words.
-
St. John Chrysostom (Hom. in Io. 25, 3), (4th Century):
“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 [unbaptized], though we have ten thousand virtues, our portion will be none other than hell, and the venomous worm, and fire unquenchable, and bonds indissoluble.”
-
Also, in the early Church, the unbaptized catechumens (i.e., those who had not received the Sacrament of Baptism) had to leave after the Mass of the catechumens, when the faithful professed the Creed. The unbaptized were not allowed to stay for the Mass of the faithful, because it is only by receiving the Sacrament of Baptism that one becomes one of the faithful. This is the teaching of Tradition.
Interesting. If the Church were aware of this wouldn't She have shortened the catechumen's wait? I would think it would go something like this: "You want to be saved and you believe what the Church teaches? Well, hang on while I pull the chariot around and we'll get you over to the baptistery/river/gutter out front because time is a wasting"
. Also, you'd see admonishing stories about the guy that waited too late, and God struck him down on his way to the baptism.
Pope Benedict XIV, Nuper ad nos, March 16, 1743, Profession of Faith: “Likewise (I profess) that baptism is necessary for salvation, and hence, if there is imminent danger of death, it should be conferred at once and without delay, and that it is valid if conferred with the right matter and form and intention by anyone, and at any time.”[lxiii]
Is that a strong enough admonition?
-
Also, in the early Church, the unbaptized catechumens (i.e., those who had not received the Sacrament of Baptism) had to leave after the Mass of the catechumens, when the faithful professed the Creed. The unbaptized were not allowed to stay for the Mass of the faithful, because it is only by receiving the Sacrament of Baptism that one becomes one of the faithful. This is the teaching of Tradition.
Interesting. If the Church were aware of this wouldn't She have shortened the catechumen's wait? I would think it would go something like this: "You want to be saved and you believe what the Church teaches? Well, hang on while I pull the chariot around and we'll get you over to the baptistery/river/gutter out front because time is a wasting"
. Also, you'd see admonishing stories about the guy that waited too late, and God struck him down on his way to the baptism.
St. Augustine, 391: “When we shall have come into His [God’s] sight, we shall behold the equity of God’s justice. Then no one will say:… ‘Why was this man led by God’s direction to be baptized, while that man, though he lived properly as a catechumen, was killed in a sudden disaster, and was not baptized?’ Look for rewards, and you will find nothing except punishments.”
-
Also, in the early Church, the unbaptized catechumens (i.e., those who had not received the Sacrament of Baptism) had to leave after the Mass of the catechumens, when the faithful professed the Creed. The unbaptized were not allowed to stay for the Mass of the faithful, because it is only by receiving the Sacrament of Baptism that one becomes one of the faithful. This is the teaching of Tradition.
Interesting. If the Church were aware of this wouldn't She have shortened the catechumen's wait? I would think it would go something like this: "You want to be saved and you believe what the Church teaches? Well, hang on while I pull the chariot around and we'll get you over to the baptistery/river/gutter out front because time is a wasting"
. Also, you'd see admonishing stories about the guy that waited too late, and God struck him down on his way to the baptism.
Pope St. Siricius, Letter to Himerius, 385:
“As we maintain that the observance of the holy Paschal time should in no way be relaxed, in the same way we desire that infants who, on account of their age, cannot yet speak, or those who, in any necessity, are in want of the water of holy baptism, be succored with all possible speed, for fear that, if those who leave this world should be deprived of the life of the Kingdom for having been refused the source of salvation which they desired, this may lead to the ruin of our souls. If those threatened with shipwreck, or the attack of enemies, or the uncertainties of a siege, or those put in a hopeless condition due to some bodily sickness, ask for what in their faith is their only help, let them receive at the very moment of their request the reward of regeneration they beg for. Enough of past mistakes![/b] From now on, let all the priests observe the aforesaid rule if they do not want to be separated from the solid apostolic rock on which Christ has built his universal Church.”
That seems like a pretty stern warning, eh?
-
Happy New Year :dancing-banana:
-
Happy New Year :dancing-banana:
The same to you and everyone else reading this. God save us all.
:pray:
-
God save us all.
Amen.
Just one more thought about our poor fellow who with his own free will chooses what God wants, and is trying to meet God's requirements, but God throws a piano down on him in the very act of answering God's call.
Sounds like predestination to damnation to me.
-
This is probably the 'ol worn out debate of baptism of desire and all of that.
Why don't people just worry about themselves and stop worrying, and start PRAYING for the poor pygmies in Africa, that they get some missionaries out there from SSPX.
God deals with death and judgment, not us. I never understood why people felt the need to argue about this when it does NOT concern our OWN salvation or even that of ANYONE we know.
:facepalm:
-
..
it is possible for a person who has been baptized, and believes in the essential mysteries of the Catholic Faith, to be saved without having set foot in a Catholic church. For instance, some of the heathen whom St. Isaac Jogues converted were instructed in the essential mysteries of the Catholic Faith (the Trinity and the Incarnation) and were baptized just before they were tortured and killed. They were Catholics even though they never set foot in a Catholic church.
Any believers of the Catholic Faith in similar circuмstances who were of good will and were martyred, shedding their blood for Christ as catecuмens before they had been baptized, are in hell according to Feeneyites. :scratchchin:
I don't recall that ever being claimed by a Feenyite. Would someone clarify this? Because, my confirmation saint was Saint Catherine of Alexandria, and she converted many people, and even the Emperor's wife, and they were dancing to their deaths for being martyred. Then you have the Holy Innocents, who also spilled their blood for the sake of Christ. (However, this was before the New Covenant was established, so likely, they were first in the Bosom of Abraham like everyone else until Christ opened the Gates of Heaven after He died on the Cross.)
As far as I'm concerned, baptism of Blood has already been legitimatized, and those people, already making an act of faith in the Church (in the case of the martyrs of Saint Catherine of Alexandria), are already Catholic, and their baptism took place in their blood.
Catherine was born in Alexandria and raised a pagan, but converted to Christianity in her late teens. It is said that she visited her contemporary, the Roman Emperor Maxentius, and attempted to convince him of the moral error in persecuting Christians. She succeeded in converting his wife, the Empress, and many pagan philosophers whom the Emperor sent to dispute with her, all of whom were subsequently martyred. (without water baptism.) Upon the failure of the Emperor to win Catherine over, he ordered her to be put in prison; and when the people who visited her converted, she was condemned to death on the breaking wheel, an instrument of torture. According to legend, the wheel itself broke when she touched it, so she was beheaded.
-
God save us all.
Amen.
Just one more thought about our poor fellow who with his own free will chooses what God wants, and is trying to meet God's requirements, but God throws a piano down on him in the very act of answering God's call.
Sounds like predestination to damnation to me.
Did you take the time to read the quotes I provided on the previous page to your question about the Church giving a warning to those who were in danger of death prior to baptism?
-
God save us all.
Amen.
Just one more thought about our poor fellow who with his own free will chooses what God wants, and is trying to meet God's requirements, but God throws a piano down on him in the very act of answering God's call.
Sounds like predestination to damnation to me.
Did you take the time to read the quotes I provided on the previous page to your question about the Church giving a warning to those who were in danger of death prior to baptism?
Of course all Catholic believe the Church would warn. Just because Catholics are taught not to judge a persons soul, that does not mean we deny that most/many souls are lost.
What we are saying is, God can give His mercy to whoever He wishes for His own reasons.
Our Lady said: "souls are lost because there is no one to pray for them" therefore if we pray for our non-Catholic loved ones God may have mercy on them, even if its their last breath. He may have other reasons to save some, NOT ALL.
-
This is probably the 'ol worn out debate of baptism of desire and all of that.
Why don't people just worry about themselves and stop worrying, and start PRAYING for the poor pygmies in Africa, that they get some missionaries out there from SSPX.
God deals with death and judgment, not us. I never understood why people felt the need to argue about this when it does NOT concern our OWN salvation or even that of ANYONE we know.
:facepalm:
The reason this matters, PforT, is that when Catholics start believing that any one who simply has a good heart or good intentions will somehow be mystically saved without having to convert, or that God will convert them in their last few seconds of life, and then they see Discovery Channel or PBS about the pygmies or whoever and how wonderful they are, and how gentle, and kind, and inclusive, and tolerant, then the Catholics get the idea that there is no need to send them a missionary because God undoubtedly will somehow give them some kind of implicit desire which will substitute for baptism, all the other Sacraments, the prayers, the fasts, the vigils, the Masses, the sacramentals, the reading, the examinations of conscience, the repentance and penance, and everything else that a Catholic does in order to please God.
In fact, according to this theory, becoming a Catholic is actually a liability, because Catholics will be judged more harshly!
The people who say these things are trying to make comparisons with Biblical times, when Jesus seemed to come down harder on the scribes and Pharisees than on the Gentiles. What they are forgetting is that the Gentiles were being baptized and converting, something most of the Jєωs at that time were refusing to do.
The situation of a non-Catholic (supposed equivalent of the NT Gentiles) who does not convert is not at all analogous with that of the Gentiles in the NT who did hear about Christ from missionaries, were baptized by missionaries, and began attending Holy Mass. Apples and oranges.
-
What we are saying is, God can give His mercy to whoever He wishes for His own reasons.
I hope that no one is debating this. We are all in agreement on this point, from what I can see.
We just notice that in the last 50-60 years excessive emphasis has been given to the "extraordinary" means as opposed to the ordinary ones.
-
Of course all Catholic believe the Church would warn. Just because Catholics are taught not to judge a persons soul, that does not mean we deny that most/many souls are lost.
St. John Chrysostom (Hom. in Io. 25, 3), (4th Century):
“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 [unbaptized], though we have ten thousand virtues, our portion will be none other than hell, and the venomous worm, and fire unquenchable, and bonds indissoluble.”
-
Of course all Catholic believe the Church would warn. Just because Catholics are taught not to judge a persons soul, that does not mean we deny that most/many souls are lost.
St. John Chrysostom (Hom. in Io. 25, 3), (4th Century):
“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 [unbaptized], though we have ten thousand virtues, our portion will be none other than hell, and the venomous worm, and fire unquenchable, and bonds indissoluble.”
And the point is..... what? Since we all agree.
-
What we are saying is, God can give His mercy to whoever He wishes for His own reasons.
I hope that no one is debating this. We are all in agreement on this point, from what I can see.
We just notice that in the last 50-60 years excessive emphasis has been given to the "extraordinary" means as opposed to the ordinary ones.
Probably because the Modernist were already at the door!
In place and were already promoting their evil before Vatican II.
-
Did you take the time to read the quotes I provided on the previous page to your question about the Church giving a warning to those who were in danger of death prior to baptism?
Yes.
-
Of course all Catholic believe the Church would warn. Just because Catholics are taught not to judge a persons soul, that does not mean we deny that most/many souls are lost.
St. John Chrysostom (Hom. in Io. 25, 3), (4th Century):
“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 [unbaptized], though we have ten thousand virtues, our portion will be none other than hell, and the venomous worm, and fire unquenchable, and bonds indissoluble.”
And the point is..... what? Since we all agree.
Wait a minute please.... I thought that you believed that some of the catecuмen who died before baptism could still be saved by their desire?
-
I do believe that some could be saved through desire, and I thought you understood the Saint was warning the Catechumen not to delay their conversion.
You know the type, even today people are thinking or even studying the Faith, but they put it off and drag their feet. When all along the priest is telling them they are ready. In those days of the Saints they didn't miss any words, today everything is sugar coated, and if someone tries to use such strong words even in a sermon, people get so :scared2:
I don't know about you but I think its about time the priests of today gave a strong sermon as did the Saints, and even Padre Pio was accustomed of doing I read.
-
I do believe that some could be saved through desire, and I thought you understood the Saint was warning the Catechumen not to delay their conversion.
Why would you think that I "understood" the Saint to mean some thing totally the opposite of what he is plainly saying? Get out of your paradigm of believing that plain speach that dissagrees with you just has to really mean something else and weakly worded phrases that truely can be interpreted in different ways such as the fallible quotes from Pope Pius XII are rock solid evidence that you are right.
The part of St. John's quote you simply have to avoid like a 5 year old fighitng his parent to fend off a spoon full of medicine is the part where he says that the only portin of the unbaptised will be none other than hell.
I would like to read that entire sermon, if you or anyone has a link to it, please let me know, but the Saint absolutely is NOT just giving a warning with use of hyperbole. He is speaking very matter of fact.
This is not to say that he could have possibly been mistaken. If a later Pope infallibly declared that Catechumens or anyone could still attain Heaven without the sacrament of Baptism then this message from St. John Chrysostom would have to be understood to have been in error because of the fact that he (not being a Pope) could err. A simple example of this would be the error that some held regarding who could validly baptise until it was defined infallibly that in time of necessity anyone, even a pagan could perform a valid baptism if he used the valid form and with proper intent.
-
Did you take the time to read the quotes I provided on the previous page to your question about the Church giving a warning to those who were in danger of death prior to baptism?
Yes.
Juse out of curiosity, had you ever seen those before?
-
Did you take the time to read the quotes I provided on the previous page to your question about the Church giving a warning to those who were in danger of death prior to baptism?
Yes.
Juse out of curiosity, had you ever seen those before?
Some yes. I have no idea the total of everything I've seen before. It's been a long road with a lot of seeing.
I see nothing that would change my disagreement with your methodology, or your final conclusion, so I guess we should just leave it at that.
-
Did you take the time to read the quotes I provided on the previous page to your question about the Church giving a warning to those who were in danger of death prior to baptism?
Yes.
Juse out of curiosity, had you ever seen those before?
Some yes. I have no idea the total of everything I've seen before. It's been a long road with a lot of seeing.
I see nothing that would change my disagreement with your methodology, or your final conclusion, so I guess we should just leave it at that.
But your original post sounded like you believed that such warnings had never been issued
-
Cristian,, it is possible for a person who has been baptized, and believes in the essential mysteries of the Catholic Faith, to be saved without having set foot in a Catholic church. For instance, some of the heathen whom St. Isaac Jogues converted were instructed in the essential mysteries of the Catholic Faith (the Trinity and the Incarnation) and were baptized just before they were tortured and killed. They were Catholics even though they never set foot in a Catholic church.
In order to be a Catholic and a member of the Church, one must at least be baptized and, if above reason, know at least the essential mysteries of the Catholic Faith (the Trinity and the Incarnation) – and not reject any teaching of the Church. Persons such as those described above (baptized just before death by St. Isaac Jogues) are also subject to the Roman Pontiff, just like infants, by virtue of their baptism.
Such persons would not be exceptions to the dogma at all, since those persons are Catholics and are within the bosom and unity of the Church,... they are also part of the visible Church, by virtue of their baptism and acceptance of the essential mysteries of Catholicism
To be Catholic you need to be baptized and if you are adult you must profess the Catholic Faith, submit to the legitimate authorities (chiefly the Pope) and not being excommunicated as vitandus (Pius XII)
Now a baby baptized and raised up by protestants when he reaches the use of reason and decides to follow the errors of the one who baptized him, ceases to be member of the Catholic Church. Now it is up to you that that person commited necessarily any mortal sin at all and which one.
-
Our Lady said: "souls are lost because there is no one to pray for them"
Myrna, was that from Fatima?
-
But your original post sounded like you believed that such warnings had never been issued
Sorry, the way I worded it may have given that impression. What I meant to say was it never seemed to be Church standard procedure to rush somebody down to the well once they offered their agreement with the faith.
What I definitely don't believe is that someone has nominated you to sift through certain papal writings, blithely say that some are ex cathedra and that only those can be paid attention to. Private interpreptation of papal writings with no context whatsoever is no more Catholic than private
interpretation of Scripture.
It leaves no meaning to the term "theologian" or Doctor of the Church. Except in your case. You seem to be under the illusion that you are both.
I ask you again, do you believe that God predestines certain people to damnation?
-
Christian, MyrnaM and Lighthouse,..... Aquinas never had authority to speak infallibly on any matter of the faith. Obviously you would not agree with Aquinas that the virgin Mary was not born of Immaculate Conception, right? Therefore though theologians, saints and doctors of the Church can be helpful as a sign of what the Church teaches as doctrine, it doesn't mean they are always correct. Especially since theologians, saints and doctors disagreed with each other over this topic? Popes and Councils settle such disputes by speaking infallibly on those matters of faith. I have provided in previous posts the infallible statements from Popes and Councils that only Water baptism is the Sacrament of baptism. Now show us all in this Forum the infallible statements from Popes and Councils that Baptism of Blood and Baptism of Desire are "parts" of the Sacrament of Baptism. You can't, because such statements simply do not exists. Why do you continue to place your trust in fallible sources, when the already established infallible teaching of the Church declares that one cannot receive sanctifying saving grace unless through the Sacrament of WATER baptism?
notice below the infallible teaching which says that WATER baptism cannot be separated from the other 2 necessities by which we receive the Lord's gift of sanctifying "saving" grace........
I profess that in Sanctification by the Spirit (i.e., Justification from the state of original sin), the Spirit of Sanctification(Holy Spirit), the Blood of Redemption(Christ's sacrifice) and the Water of Baptism are one and remain indivisible; none of them is separable from its link with the others .(Pope St. Leo the Great, Dogmatic Letter to Flavian, Council of Chalcedon, 451).-14 [/size]
-
Christian, MyrnaM and Lighthouse,..... Aquinas never had authority to speak infallibly on any matter of the faith. Obviously you would not agree with Aquinas that the virgin Mary was not born of Immaculate Conception, right?
FWIW, St Thomas changed his mind regarding the Immaculate Conception...
Therefore though theologians, saints and doctors of the Church can be helpful
as a sign of what the Church teaches as doctrine, it doesn't mean they are always correct.
If they agree on some topic then it is more than a helpful sign as Pius IX tought.
Especially since theologians, saints and doctors disagreed with each other over this topic?
Show me one theologian, saint and/or doctor who doesn`t believe in BOD and BOB.
I have provided in previous posts the infallible statements from Popes and Councils that only Water baptism is the Sacrament of baptism.
Nobody ever denied this.
Now show us all in this Forum the infallible statements from Popes and Councils that Baptism of Blood and Baptism of Desire are "parts" of the Sacrament of Baptism.
Again. Nobody ever said this! You are creating your own enemy so you can easily destroy it. What everybody teaches is that the effects of the sacrament of Baptism may be attained by the desire of Baptism or by Martyrdom.
I profess that in Sanctification by the Spirit (i.e., Justification from the state of original sin), the Spirit of Sanctification(Holy Spirit), the Blood of Redemption(Christ's sacrifice) and the Water of Baptism are one and remain indivisible; none of them is separable from its link with the others .(Pope St. Leo the Great, Dogmatic Letter to Flavian, Council of Chalcedon, 451).-14 [/size]
That could be obtained by the actual reception of the sacrament or by desiring it.
-
Our Lady said: "souls are lost because there is no one to pray for them"
Myrna, was that from Fatima?
Yes at Fatima
"Here you see hell, where the souls of poor sinners go. To save them, God wishes to establish in the world devotion to my Immaculate Heart… Pray, pray a great deal and make sacrifices for sinners. So many souls go to hell because there is no one to pray and sacrifice for them.”
-
Our Lady said: "souls are lost because there is no one to pray for them"
Myrna, was that from Fatima?
Yes at Fatima
"Here you see hell, where the souls of poor sinners go. To save them, God wishes to establish in the world devotion to my Immaculate Heart… Pray, pray a great deal and make sacrifices for sinners. So many souls go to hell because there is no one to pray and sacrifice for them.”
So I would agree that our prayers and sacrifices can help give sinners the grace to repent and for those who are not baptised to convert and be baptised. What does that have to do with buddhists, Jєωs, muslems, etc. getting into heaven without first becoming members of the Catholic Church?
-
Did ShoutingIt and some of his friends all buy their keyboards at a rummage sale? Darn Cap Lock Key on all these babies doesn't seem to work.
Next time, go with a name brand.
-
Did ShoutingIt and some of his friends all buy their keyboards at a rummage sale? Darn Cap Lock Key on all these babies doesn't seem to work.
Next time, go with a name brand.
Are you talking about the enlarged text bold print?
-
roudpay anmay,
Hasten down the wind.
-
roudpay anmay,
Hasten down the wind.
I may be wrong, but nothing I've ever put into bold print or enlarged, or God forbid, capitalized for emphasis, has EVER been anything I've said...(until now of course to draw the point). It has (as far as I'm aware), always been the quotes from Councils, Popes, Church Fathers and such. It's not "pride" to emphasize what the Church has infallibly declared is it?
-
Are there extraordinary means outside the sacraments? Of course there are.
Even though the Council of Trent session 14 canon 6 anathematizes any one who denies sacramental confession is “necessary to salvation” and also canon 7 that the sacrament of Penance is necessary “for the remission of sins”. Someone in mortal sin can still be saved by “perfect contrition” or by shedding their blood in martyrdom. These two are not sacramental confession but they have the effect of the sacrament.
Excellant point! Now, since we see that Trent saw it necessary to spell out this excepton, where is that exception spelled out for Baptism?
-
Decree on Iustification, Council of Trent Dz 796.
796 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 the 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 [can. 5 de bapt.], 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" [John 3:5].
Valete! :cheers:
-
Decree on Iustification, Council of Trent Dz 796.
796 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 the 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 [can. 5 de bapt.], 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" [John 3:5].
Valete! :cheers:
TO SAY THAT SOMETHING CANNOT TAKE PLACE WITHOUT “X” OR “X” IS NOT NECESSARILY TO SAY THAT SOMETHING CAN TAKE PLACE WITH EITHER “X” OR “X”,... no man can be saved without at least the desire/vow for the waters of baptism. If a man(above the age of reason) was Baptized with Water, but had no desire for it, then his Baptism is null and void as though it had never happened. Therefore all who submit to the required Water Baptismal Sacrament must also have a desire to receive it.
"aut" means "and/with",.. not "or". This is the correct understanding. For example, without a groom or bride, then there cannot be a wedding. Also, without peanut butter or jelly, then one cannot eat a peanut butter jelly sandwich.
Infact Trent goes on to say ("as it is written: "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God"), therefore "aut" , meaning "and/with" , is all that makes sense there. It wouldn't make sense any other way.
Water baptism taught by the Church to be a Sacrament, whereas baptism of desire and baptism of blood are not.
So this is what the Council of Trent says about the "SACRAMENT"(water baptism)......
Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, Canons on the Sacrament of Baptism, canon 5, 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.”
-
I'm wondering about this. I hear some Catholics claim that God is not bound to ordinary means of salvation(meaning through the Sacraments and the Church which he established), but that God may be able to save souls through extraordinary means(such as to intercede immedietaly at the point of that person's death).
What are your thoughts on this? :confused1:
Thoughts and opinions and warm fuzzy feelings aside, there is only one truth to the matter, and it should be simple enough that all Catholics can understand it. That the whole topic of "who is saved outside the Church" (can we even say that?!) comes down to this: We know God is perfect, and so we know that He IS, REALLY and TRULY... perfectly just. Furthermore, we know that He, and He ALONE, knows all things. These two simple facts tell us all there is to know about the matter, and are the only two real and true "details" about the matter that it is possible for us mere human beings to comprehend, because we do NOT know all things, NOR are we perfectly just (though we may very well know all things and be heroes of perfect justice in our own minds... but that is another issue). In other words, because we (literally) cannot judge souls as God alone can judge them, perfectly and justly and in all knowledge, it is impossible for us to say who, specifically, can or would be saved "outside of the Church."
The bottom line is, God, being perfect and knowing all things, will really and truly spare those who are REALLY and TRULY innocent or "invincibly ignorant". But only God knows, or CAN know, or can judge, exactly who those people are.
Ultimately, though, there ARE no other details. Everything else is pure speculation by us beings of very limited knowledge and of imperfect justice, the fruits of which knowledge and imperfect justice will be themselves imperfect if not FALSE.
It is LITERALLY true that only God can (justly and perfectly and rightly) judge man, or has the RIGHT to. Since that is literally true, it is both foolish and dangerous, and deceptive of ourselves and others, for people to pretend that we can, as mere human beings, possibly sort it out down to particular circuмstances. For all we know, two people in the very same APPARENT circuмstances, can be one of them guilty and one of them innocent. As only God knows which is which, it is foolish, if not wrong, for us to attempt to know it.
There are also people in this world who believe law, punishment, discipline, and justice are all synonyms for "cruelty," "abuse," "evil," or "meanness". Such people are dangerously drawn into speculations about this particular subject (aside from those who really do want to know the truth), especially when someone they love very much, is someone that they love SO much that they cannot accept God condemning that person to hell, even if that person really does deserve it.
Others cannot accept that all of the "nice people" they know out there could possibly go to Hell, "simply" for not belonging to God's Church. Never mind that such people are not at all nice to GOD! Never mind that their sins, too, crucified Him. Never mind all that God has done for them, and all that they owe to God, including their very existence, and all that they thereby owe to God in justice, that they have simply ignored, even heaping sins... additional insults... on the injustice of not obeying and loving Him! But so long as they're "nice" to other human beings, some people cannot accept them going to hell.
It's a false, sick idea of justice, and a false, sick idea of being "nice", whereby people pretend that it is absolutely okay for mere human beings to treat God no better than the way He was treated during His passion and death, and to be absolutely unjust to Him, just so long as they are "nice" to everyone else... the sum of which "niceness" typically consists of (at best) good manners, a kind voice and a nice smile, and maybe donating to some charities or doing some volunteer work to make themselves feel good... quite aside from the question of how many souls by thought, word or deed they may be dragging with them to hell day by day, in spite of their gentle manners and nice smile. After all, the famous last words in the aftermath of many a discovered serial killer or child predator are, "but he was so NICE! So KIND! Always so POLITE! Never a harsh word! He was a good, law abiding citizen!" Yes! Only behind all of that, he was killing little children and cutting them up or some such thing! That kind of nice has got nothing to do with God, and nothing to do with justice, and nothing at all to do with real charity, which first is concerned with SOULS, not smiles.
But people who are taken in by all of the "nice" people, all around them, are more and more being deceived into thinking that these people really ARE nice. But they're not at all being nice to God, or to the souls of everyone around them, and that comes first! And it DOES matter, even more than it matters whether that person gives you rides, or buys you dinner, or smiles at you, or pets your dog or so on. Those people CAN go to hell, and they WILL be judged, and they will be judged JUSTLY... according to how they treated God on the first place, and SOULS on the second place, and maybe in a sloppy eighth place, how "nice" they were and whether or not they made us smile all of the time.
Many saints had terrible problems with their personalities or tempers. But they're in heaven, and the smiling child killers, along with a good number of "nice" atheists and so on, are right now down in hell. And that's justice. Even if it's my brother or sister, or best friend, or dearest cousin, or beloved grandfather or the nice lady I sit next to every day at work, who goes to hell, and even if I loved them more than anything else in the world. (God forbid!) The only thing that matters is whether or not they were just and loving to GOD, not what I thought of them or felt about them. They belong to HIM. And they owe Him an enormous debt of justice for what He has done for them and what He has given them, same as the rest of us. And they owe Him their obedience and their love and their adoration. And THAT is justice. Justice is a two-way street, and feelings have got nothing to do with it.
Even so, many people want to pretend that there is more to this topic than there is, just so they can feel like someone they love or that all of those "nice people" won't REALLY go to hell. Sorry, but the truth is God alone knows who will be spared if they're not Catholic. And they will be judged on HIS terms, not on how much we loved them, and not on how "nice" they were to everyone here, even if they really WERE "nice" to everyone here. (Barring the way they were to souls.) Many "nice" girls are having their unborn babies murdered in cold blood in the womb, and they may very well go to hell for it, even if they're sweet as honey to everyone else in the world.
God is perfect and just, but it's for HIM to sort out who will be spared who are not Catholic. We can't do it, and we're fools if we try. And we're even bigger fools the day we start judging people (making our impressions of someone) based only upon how much we love them or how sweet they are to everybody, rather than how they are living, how they are treating God, and how they are treating the SOULS around them. If we take God seriously and put Him first REALLY... it's hard to think about people in any other way than how they treat HIM. And that's where the issue of justice begins, with Him. Put Him first, and suddenly you realize that yes, it is just, even for someone I love very much to go to hell, if they really do deserve it. It's hard, but true. But this issue is why many, many people want to pretend that WE can judge this question, and not God only. They don't love God the way they should love Him... over and above even those they love most dearly in this world. To them, justice is on THEIR terms, and if God's REAL terms don't agree with their feelings and sentiments, they'd much rather disbelieve in the truth or reject it outright, than accept God sending to hell someone they think is nice, who really does deserve to go there. Sad, but true. But it's not God who puts people in hell. It's the people themselves who put themselves in hell by their lives. It's their choice, and they have to make it, same as we do.
-
Decree on Iustification, Council of Trent Dz
796 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 the 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 [can. 5 de bapt.], 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" [John 3:5].
Valete! :cheers:
Look up a Latin version of the text of Trent and you will see that the word "sine" was translated in your citation above as "except through". Then find an online Latin-English translation tool online or dictionary and see what the word "sine" really means in English. Then ask yourself, "why are the people/theologions/Priests who I trust using a false translation of that word which changes the entire meaning of that portion of the sentence?" And if you don't believe me, look on www.dailycatholic.com/ and you will find that they have the correct translation: "without" instead of "exept through".
-
Decree on Iustification, Council of Trent Dz 796.
796 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 the 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 [can. 5 de bapt.], 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" [John 3:5].
Valete! :cheers:
TO SAY THAT SOMETHING CANNOT TAKE PLACE WITHOUT “X” OR “X” IS NOT NECESSARILY TO SAY THAT SOMETHING CAN TAKE PLACE WITH EITHER “X” OR “X”,... no man can be saved without at least the desire/vow for the waters of baptism. If a man(above the age of reason) was Baptized with Water, but had no desire for it, then his Baptism is null and void as though it had never happened. Therefore all who submit to the required Water Baptismal Sacrament must also have a desire to receive it.
"aut" means "and/with",.. not "or". This is the correct understanding. For example, without a groom or bride, then there cannot be a wedding. Also, without peanut butter or jelly, then one cannot eat a peanut butter jelly sandwich.
Infact Trent goes on to say ("as it is written: "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God"), therefore "aut" , meaning "and/with" , is all that makes sense there. It wouldn't make sense any other way.
Water baptism taught by the Church to be a Sacrament, whereas baptism of desire and baptism of blood are not.
So this is what the Council of Trent says about the "SACRAMENT"(water baptism)......
Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, Canons on the Sacrament of Baptism, canon 5, 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.”
You must be kidding us, right? If they wanted to say "and" they would have used the word "et". Instead the word "aut" "it is useful to show the essential difference between two things" (Latin-Spanish dictionary made by Raimundo de Miguel)
-
Decree on Iustification, Council of Trent Dz
796 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 the 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 [can. 5 de bapt.], 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" [John 3:5].
Valete! :cheers:
Look up a Latin version of the text of Trent and you will see that the word "sine" was translated in your citation above as "except through". Then find an online Latin-English translation tool online or dictionary and see what the word "sine" really means in English. Then ask yourself, "why are the people/theologions/Priests who I trust using a false translation of that word which changes the entire meaning of that portion of the sentence?" And if you don't believe me, look on www.dailycatholic.com/ and you will find that they have the correct translation: "without" instead of "exept through".
I know enough Latin sir! :) to know that "sine" means "without" and althoug the Spanish version I´ve literally translates into "sin", yet the meaning is exactly the same. To say "except through" or "without" the laver of regeneration or a desire for it... is exactly the same.
Cristian
-
I know enough Latin sir! :) to know that "sine" means "without" and althoug the Spanish version I´ve literally translates into "sin", yet the meaning is exactly the same. To say "except through" or "without" the laver of regeneration or a desire for it... is exactly the same.
Cristian
Yeah sure, "except through" means "without".... this sounds like the same argument with liberals who try to say that many is the same thing as all. You can't be serious.
-
I know enough Latin sir! :) to know that "sine" means "without" and althoug the Spanish version I´ve literally translates into "sin", yet the meaning is exactly the same. To say "except through" or "without" the laver of regeneration or a desire for it... is exactly the same.
Cristian
Yeah sure, "except through" means "without".... this sounds like the same argument with liberals who try to say that many is the same thing as all. You can't be serious.
This is funny. Even if it is mistranslated (dato sed non conceso) and you have to read "without" yet the text is clear: "this translation after the promulgation of the Gospel cannot be effected without the laver of regeneration [can. 5 de bapt.], 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" [John 3:5]"
Why is it so hard to understand something too simple? How do you understand this text?
There is a clear reference to a BOD here, right?
Cristian
PS: BTW, may anybody check how is it translated this text into English? I don´t have an English translation and the one I quoted was from internet. Thanks in advance.
-
I know enough Latin sir! :) to know that "sine" means "without" and althoug the Spanish version I´ve literally translates into "sin", yet the meaning is exactly the same. To say "except through" or "without" the laver of regeneration or a desire for it... is exactly the same.
Cristian
Yeah sure, "except through" means "without".... this sounds like the same argument with liberals who try to say that many is the same thing as all. You can't be serious.
This is funny. Even if it is mistranslated (dato sed non conceso) and you have to read "without" yet the text is clear: "this translation after the promulgation of the Gospel cannot be effected without the laver of regeneration [can. 5 de bapt.], 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" [John 3:5]"
Why is it so hard to understand something too simple? How do you understand this text? There is a clear reference to a BOD here, right?
Cristian
PS: BTW, may anybody check how is it translated this text into English? I don´t have an English translation and the one I quoted was from internet. Thanks in advance.
First your regarding your PS... you can see the translation on www.dailycatholic.com/ which is a pro BOD website. They have it as "without"
Regarding the understanding of the phrase; If you can't take a shower without water or the desire for it, it doesn't mean that you can take a shower with just desire for it. This is reinforced by the fact that John 3:5 is immediately quoted and stipulated to be understood as literal or "as it is written". In order to call that statement a support of BOD you have to read something into it that is not there AND you have to ignore John 3:5.
-
Regarding the understanding of the phrase; If you can't take a shower without water or the desire for it, it doesn't mean that you can take a shower with just desire for it.
The example you give is not analogous. If you would have said "if you can´t get clean without water or the desire for it, etc..." then you could have an analogy of Trent´s statement.
Trent says you can be clean of original/mortal sin by the sacrament of baptism or by desiring the sacrament of baptism. It is so simple!
This is reinforced by the fact that John 3:5 is immediately quoted and stipulated to be understood as literal or "as it is written"
.
No, it is not. Because you understand the text as you wish and not according to the teaching of the Church. Our Lord´s words clearly refer to the Sacrament of Baptism but it is about the actual reception of it or its desire!
In order to call that statement a support of BOD you have to read something into it that is not there AND you have to ignore John 3:5.
No I don´t need to ignore that text because Trent quotes it when it deals with the desire of the sacrament of Baptism. It is exactly the same meaning given by Our Lord: "Then Jesus said to them: "Amen, amen, I say unto you: unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. 54 He that eats my flesh and drinks my blood has everlasting life, and I will raise him up in the last day." (Jn VI, 53-54).
If you require actual reception of the sacrament of Baptism and deny the desire of it, there is no reason why you should interpret the other text in the same way and therefore denying the fruits of a spiritual communion and you are bound to believe also that no one may be saved if he doesn´t receive the sacrament of the Eucharist, which is too absurd...
-
The new and improved version of John 3:5 ...
Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, or at least has a desire for it, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
-
The new and improved version of John 3:5 ...
Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, or at least has a desire for it, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
Well it is not new sir... read any theology manual or the words of Trent I just quoted you...
The new and improved version of John VI 53-54 ""Amen, amen, I say unto you: unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. He that eats my flesh and drinks my blood has everlasting life, and I will raise him up in the last day. Don´t do any spiritual communion since it is useless" :cool:
-
Decree on Iustification, Council of Trent Dz 796.
796 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 the 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 [can. 5 de bapt.], 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" [John 3:5].
Valete! :cheers:
TO SAY THAT SOMETHING CANNOT TAKE PLACE WITHOUT “X” OR “X” IS NOT NECESSARILY TO SAY THAT SOMETHING CAN TAKE PLACE WITH EITHER “X” OR “X”,... no man can be saved without at least the desire/vow for the waters of baptism. If a man(above the age of reason) was Baptized with Water, but had no desire for it, then his Baptism is null and void as though it had never happened. Therefore all who submit to the required Water Baptismal Sacrament must also have a desire to receive it.
"aut" means "and/with",.. not "or". This is the correct understanding. For example, without a groom or bride, then there cannot be a wedding. Also, without peanut butter or jelly, then one cannot eat a peanut butter jelly sandwich.
Infact Trent goes on to say ("as it is written: "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God"), therefore "aut" , meaning "and/with" , is all that makes sense there. It wouldn't make sense any other way.
Water baptism taught by the Church to be a Sacrament, whereas baptism of desire and baptism of blood are not.
So this is what the Council of Trent says about the "SACRAMENT"(water baptism)......
Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, Canons on the Sacrament of Baptism, canon 5, 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.”
So all english translations are fine except when it contradicts the Feeneyite position. Rather then waste time analyzing the different english translations, I submit the following quote.
St. Alphonsus Liguori Moral Theology - (Bk. 6)"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.'"

St. Alphonsus Liguori who obviously read canon 5 on the sacrament of Baptism, says that Session 6 Chap 4/Dz 796 teaches baptism of desire. St. Alphonsus never read this chapter in english (did he even know english?) He read it in LATIN. So that puts the translation issue to rest.
St. Alphonsus, Moral Theology, (Bk. 6) “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."
I know these statements are fallible but they create another problem for Feeneyites who think that baptism of desire and baptism of blood are heresies because they think these teachings somehow contradict the dogmas on Sacramental Baptism and of No Salvation Outside the Church.
It’s possible for St. Thomas Aquinas to be confused about the teaching on the Immaculate Conception and even claim the same about Baptism because many dogmas were not yet defined. But they can’t make this claim about St. Alphonsus, because he knew the dogmas. This would mean that St. Alphonsus is a heretic!
St. Alphonsus suffered from scruples, so I would think that he was VERY careful not to teach anything that contradicted dogmas of the Church, yet he never retracted these statements, therefore he died a heretic. How can the Church canonize a heretic, then make him a Doctor of the Church? This is impossible.
-
Are there extraordinary means outside the sacraments? Of course there are.
Even though the Council of Trent session 14 canon 6 anathematizes any one who denies sacramental confession is “necessary to salvation” and also canon 7 that the sacrament of Penance is necessary “for the remission of sins”. Someone in mortal sin can still be saved by “perfect contrition” or by shedding their blood in martyrdom. These two are not sacramental confession but they have the effect of the sacrament.
Excellant point! Now, since we see that Trent saw it necessary to spell out this excepton, where is that exception spelled out for Baptism?
St. Alphonsus says: Session 6, Chapter 4
-
Is there anyone in this Forum who is able to give at least one example in history of God using "extraordinary means" outside of the the Church's sacraments(i.e.- Water baptism) which had enabled a person to receive sanctifying grace?
Please don't use the Martyred Saints by whom you "think" may have not been water baptized and don't use Catechum Saints as examples because you don't know for certian that any of them was NOT water baptized either. Also, don't use the thief on the cross, St. Dismas, since he had died under the Old Covenant, before water baptism was instituted by Jesus for the remission of sins as a sacrament within the New Covenant.
By the way, we Traditional Catholics can give historical evidence of God having used "ordinary means"(Church's sacraments) to deliver sanctifying grace by not using the Priests within the Church, but instead by administering the sacraments directly from Heaven, which therefore totally destroys Baptism of Desire. But I'll wait for the BoD supporters to provide their historical evidence first,..so take your best shot :good-shot:
-
Can I just ask if it makes any sense for Our Father, Love incarnate, to damn a man to the torments of Hell for all eternity who shed his blood for Christ and had the sincere intent to be Baptized but was killed before he had the opportunity?
Could a god who did this be anything other than an unjust monster?
-
Can I just ask if it makes any sense for Our Father, Love incarnate, to damn a man to the torments of Hell for all eternity who shed his blood for Christ and had the sincere intent to be Baptized but was killed before he had the opportunity?
Could a god who did this be anything other than an unjust monster?
What about a member of the Jєωιѕн nation who rejects Jesus?
-
Is there anyone in this Forum who is able to give at least one example in history of God using "extraordinary means" outside of the the Church's sacraments(i.e.- Water baptism) which had enabled a person to receive sanctifying grace?
Please don't use the Martyred Saints by whom you "think" may have not been water baptized and don't use Catechum Saints as examples because you don't know for certian that any of them was NOT water baptized either. Also, don't use the thief on the cross, St. Dismas, since he had died under the Old Covenant, before water baptism was instituted by Jesus for the remission of sins as a sacrament within the New Covenant.
By the way, we Traditional Catholics can give historical evidence of God having used "ordinary means"(Church's sacraments) to deliver sanctifying grace by not using the Priests within the Church, but instead by administering the sacraments directly from Heaven, which therefore totally destroys Baptism of Desire. But I'll wait for the BoD supporters to provide their historical evidence first,..so take your best shot :good-shot:
umblehay anmay, notice how there isn't anyone in this Forum who has yet stepped up to the plate to take a swing at the question I posed......
Its so quiet that one can hear crickets chirping :rolleyes:
-
Is there anyone in this Forum who is able to give at least one example in history of God using "extraordinary means" outside of the the Church's sacraments(i.e.- Water baptism) which had enabled a person to receive sanctifying grace?
Please don't use the Martyred Saints by whom you "think" may have not been water baptized and don't use Catechum Saints as examples because you don't know for certian that any of them was NOT water baptized either. Also, don't use the thief on the cross, St. Dismas, since he had died under the Old Covenant, before water baptism was instituted by Jesus for the remission of sins as a sacrament within the New Covenant.
By the way, we Traditional Catholics can give historical evidence of God having used "ordinary means"(Church's sacraments) to deliver sanctifying grace by not using the Priests within the Church, but instead by administering the sacraments directly from Heaven, which therefore totally destroys Baptism of Desire. But I'll wait for the BoD supporters to provide their historical evidence first,..so take your best shot :good-shot:
Wow, let me see if I can get all you RULES straight here.
At least one example,
of God using extraordinary means,
outside of the Church’s Sacraments,
received sanctifying grace,
not a martyr, (physically)
not a Catechumen,
not water baptized,
not St. Dismas,
and lived under the New Covenant.
Answer: Blessed Virgin Mary.
Another example of someone who would never have to be water baptized, even if he had lived under the New Covenant, is St. John the Baptist, since he was baptized before he was born.
I answered your original post and now this. C’mon man, give it up! :good-shot:
-
GregorianChat, you can't use John the Baptist as an example for the same reason you can't use the good Thief on the cross, since both men died before the New Covenant baptismal Sacrament was instituted by Jesus for the remission of sins. Therefore they both died under the old law of the Old Covenant.
The Church doesn't claim that Mary's Immaculate Conception was an "extraordinary means" of salvation outside of the Church's sacraments because she was born without original sin "BEFORE" the Sacrament of Water baptism was insituted under the New Covenant and made obligatory as a requirement for all who are born with original sin.
Obviously my question/challenge pertained to those whom you all claim have original sin and are sanctified by some other means other than the Sacrament of WATER baptism. So, I am still waiting for you and others in this Forum to provide us "Feeneyites" such an example which had occured in history,...
So again, where can one find a definite, absolute, unquestionable example of "Extraordinary means" outside of the Church's Sacraments for receiving sanctifying grace for catechumens, protestants, Jєωs, muslims, buddhists, hindus, other pagans and all others which are outside the Church?
GregorianChat, you fired 2 bullets and missed,....
Would you or anyone else in this Forum like to give it another shot? :good-shot:
-
GregorianChat, you can't use John the Baptist as an example for the same reason you can't use the good Thief on the cross, since both men died before the New Covenant baptismal Sacrament was instituted by Jesus for the remission of sins. Therefore they both died under the old law of the Old Covenant.
The Church doesn't claim that Mary's Immaculate Conception was an "extraordinary means" of salvation outside of the Church's sacraments because she was born without original sin "BEFORE" the Sacrament of Water baptism was insituted under the New Covenant and made obligatory as a requirement for all who are born with original sin.
Obviously my question/challenge pertained to those whom you all claim have original sin and are sanctified by some other means other than the Sacrament of WATER baptism. So, I am still waiting for you and others in this Forum to provide us "Feeneyites" such an example which had occured in history,...
So again, where can one find a definite, absolute, unquestionable example of "Extraordinary means" outside of the Church's Sacraments for receiving sanctifying grace for catechumens, protestants, Jєωs, muslims, buddhists, hindus, other pagans and all others which are outside the Church?
GregorianChat, you fired 2 bullets and missed,....
Would you or anyone else in this Forum like to give it another shot? :good-shot:
I would like to offer one correction to the above; some protestants have valid baptism, therefore not pertinent to this question.
-
True umblehay, however not all protestants have been water baptized. Also, some had water placed upon them, but the baptismal wording was not properly used. Such as when they say "You are baptized in Jesus name" ,...therefore it wasn't a true baptism at all.
-
I'll admit that I have not read through all 31 pages of this thread.
Deliveringit, if there are extraordinary means to salvation then it's impossible for us to know what they are. Would God establish the means of salvation for us then choose another way? I'm not so sure - it seems to imply that their is someone out there who is in such an extraordinary situation that God Himself cannot help that person out. That's nonsense. The Apostles were whipped around like dust by the Holy Ghost. When the Indians of the Americas had people of good will on the continent God sent missionaries. I don't find this hard or difficult to understand and there is ample evidence (especially by the Church Fathers) that the indians were evangelized by the Apostles themselves (specifically St. Thomas the Apostle) then later apostacized from the faith.
Nobody is going to find a dogmatic statement saying there is salvation outside the Church, which is in essence what you're asking people to produce. Unknown and extraordinary means are not part of the deposit of faith if they exist. If they do that is God's business and not ours and should remove any impetus to preach or teach them.
BTW, do you go on youtube by the same name? If so, good vids on EENS - especially the letter of the Holy Office!
-
It looks like none of the "Baptism of Desire" supporters was able to provide any historical evidence for anyone having ever been sanctified through Baptism of Desire.
So as I had promised, I said that after it is shown that "BoD" supporters are unable to meet my challenge, then we Feeneyite Traditional Catholics would provide our evidence which totally refutes "BoD". We Feeneyite Traditional Catholics can show a historical case where God actually sent an angel to administer Sacraments to persons on Earth, which completely discredits the concept of "BoD". I will reveal where and when this miracle had taken place tomorrow at this same time 10 PM Central Time.
-
Whoa, I'm afraid to give my two cents in this chain! Sheesh! What I have been taught as a traditional catholic from traditional priests is that there is no salvation outside the catholic church. I believe in that. It's a very touchy matter, goes along with the matter of aborted babies if they will see the fires of hell. They cannot see God's face in the end, so where will they be? I do know there are some questions we cannot answer, questions that the church has racked her brain about for centuries. The way I see it, is that all of mankinds questions will be answered in the end of times when God shows Himself to us. In the mean while I do my best to keep Him happy.
-
All those who die in Sanctifying grace are within the Church, extraordinary means of salvation does not mean you are saved outside the Church.
Exactly.
Roman Catholic, instead of looking to MyrnaM as your authoritative infallible source, can you provide the dogmatic infallible teaching of the Church which says someone can be saved through "extraordinary means"(meaning not through the sacraments of the Church)
Can you provide us with a quote that shows that the Church has infallibly stated that water baptism is the ONLY means by which a person joins the Church?
You can't because it hasn't happened. The first decree you quoted on page one says:
“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’"
In scholastic terms - the philosophy of the Church - that does not exclude other means - it describes ONE means. To exclude BoB and BoD it would need to say:
"“Holy baptism, which is the gateway to the spiritual life, holds the first place among all the sacraments; through it ALONE we are made members of Christ and of the body of the Church."
Pope Eugene wasn't stupid - if he meant that it was the SOLE means of membership of the Church he would have said what I just posted.
Feeneyism (and sedevacantism) are the result of a lack of logic and understanding of scholastic terms.
-
It looks like none of the "Baptism of Desire" supporters was able to provide any historical evidence for anyone having ever been sanctified through Baptism of Desire.
So as I had promised, I said that after it is shown that "BoD" supporters are unable to meet my challenge, then we Feeneyite Traditional Catholics would provide our evidence which totally refutes "BoD". We Feeneyite Traditional Catholics can show a historical case where God actually sent an angel to administer Sacraments to persons on Earth, which completely discredits the concept of "BoD". I will reveal where and when this miracle had taken place tomorrow at this same time 10 PM Central Time.
As I just said - a lack of scholastic logic is the problem here (as with all feeneyites). You are saying that God sending an angel to baptise someone means that God cannot have a person join the Church without baptism - that all cases of those who are known as saints whilst not being Catholic must therefore have been secretly baptised.
God sending an angel to baptise a person does not mean that he has done this in all cases everywhere. Effectively it is like saying "John sent lunch to his daughter at school because she didn't have any - therefore, whenever John's daughter doesn't have lunch, he sends it to her at school".
Obviously you have made a logical fallacy.
-
Decree on Iustification, Council of Trent Dz 796.
796 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 the 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 [can. 5 de bapt.], 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" [John 3:5].
Valete! :cheers:
TO SAY THAT SOMETHING CANNOT TAKE PLACE WITHOUT “X” OR “X” IS NOT NECESSARILY TO SAY THAT SOMETHING CAN TAKE PLACE WITH EITHER “X” OR “X”,... no man can be saved without at least the desire/vow for the waters of baptism. If a man(above the age of reason) was Baptized with Water, but had no desire for it, then his Baptism is null and void as though it had never happened. Therefore all who submit to the required Water Baptismal Sacrament must also have a desire to receive it.
"aut" means "and/with",.. not "or". This is the correct understanding. For example, without a groom or bride, then there cannot be a wedding. Also, without peanut butter or jelly, then one cannot eat a peanut butter jelly sandwich.
Infact Trent goes on to say ("as it is written: "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God"), therefore "aut" , meaning "and/with" , is all that makes sense there. It wouldn't make sense any other way.
Water baptism taught by the Church to be a Sacrament, whereas baptism of desire and baptism of blood are not.
So this is what the Council of Trent says about the "SACRAMENT"(water baptism)......
Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, Canons on the Sacrament of Baptism, canon 5, 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.”
Goodness - the same old feeneyite quoting a website. You obviously don't know Latin. In the singular, aut most certainly can mean "or". Here is a quote from Lewis and Short:
"aut, conj. I. in general it puts in the place of a previous assertion another, objectively and absolutely antithetical to it, while"vel" indicates that the contrast rests upon subjective opinion or choice. a. Used singly, "or".
-
Christian, MyrnaM and Lighthouse,..... Aquinas never had authority to speak infallibly on any matter of the faith. Obviously you would not agree with Aquinas that the virgin Mary was not born of Immaculate Conception, right?
FWIW, St Thomas changed his mind regarding the Immaculate Conception...
I just want to say that this is true - St Thomas did change his view - his later works say absolutely and with no doubt that our Blessed Mother was immaculately conceived.
-
Whoa, I'm afraid to give my two cents in this chain! Sheesh! What I have been taught as a traditional catholic from traditional priests is that there is no salvation outside the catholic church. I believe in that. It's a very touchy matter, goes along with the matter of aborted babies if they will see the fires of hell. They cannot see God's face in the end, so where will they be? I do know there are some questions we cannot answer, questions that the church has racked her brain about for centuries. The way I see it, is that all of mankinds questions will be answered in the end of times when God shows Himself to us. In the mean while I do my best to keep Him happy.
You are right - one must be in the Church to be saved. To be in the Church one must be baptised (of which a number of the church a number of possibilities exist - BoB, BoD, BoW). All of those people (who are very few) are members of the Church. Unfortunately babies (or any child beneath the age of reason) cannot have BoD (for obvious reasons) and abortion is not martyrdom - though some members of the new church have tried to say it is in order to give tacit approval to abortion which is no surprise for a satanically motivated religion.
Unbaptised babies who are slaughtered in the womb go to limbo - this is certain as it has been taught so long and so clearly that it doesn't require an infallible decree.
-
My understanding is that the Dominicans( along w/ Card Pecci) opposed( although they later submitted) the Immaculate Conception of Mary promulgated by Pius IX.
-
Can you provide us with a quote that shows that the Church has infallibly stated that water baptism is the ONLY means by which a person joins the Church?
Pope Julius III, Council of Trent, On the Sacraments of Baptism and Penance, Sess. 14, Chap. 2, ex cathedra: “But in fact this sacrament [Penance] is seen to differ in many respects from baptism. For, apart from the fact that the matter and form, by which the essence of a sacrament is constituted, are totally distinct, there is certainly no doubt that the minister of baptism need not be a judge, since the Church exercises judgment on no one who has not previously entered it by the gate of baptism. For what have I to do with those who are without (1 Cor. 5:12), says the Apostle. It is otherwise with those of the household of the faith, whom Christ the Lord by the laver of baptism has once made ‘members of his own body’ (1 Cor. 12:13).”
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]. The matter of this sacrament is real and natural water.”
Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis (# 22), June 29, 1943: “Actually only those are to be numbered among the members of the Church who have received the laver of regeneration [water baptism] and profess the true faith.”
Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis (# 27), June 29, 1943: “He (Christ) also determined that through Baptism (cf. Jn. 3:5) those who should believe would be incorporated in the Body of the Church.”
Pope Pius XII, Mediator Dei (# 43), Nov. 20, 1947: “In the same way, actually that baptism is the distinctive mark of all Christians, and serves to differentiate them from those who have not been cleansed in this purifying stream and consequently are not members of Christ , the sacrament of holy orders sets the priest apart from the rest of the faithful who have not received this consecration.”
Jamie, if you would like to see more infallible quotes, then I can provide you with many more. Now can you provide us with several infallible quotes which make the case for Baptism of Desire? I'm guessing you'll only provide the mis-translated and misunderstood quote from the Council of Trent.
-
Can you provide us with a quote that shows that the Church has infallibly stated that water baptism is the ONLY means by which a person joins the Church?
Pope Julius III, Council of Trent, On the Sacraments of Baptism and Penance, Sess. 14, Chap. 2, ex cathedra: “But in fact this sacrament [Penance] is seen to differ in many respects from baptism. For, apart from the fact that the matter and form, by which the essence of a sacrament is constituted, are totally distinct, there is certainly no doubt that the minister of baptism need not be a judge, since the Church exercises judgment on no one who has not previously entered it by the gate of baptism. For what have I to do with those who are without (1 Cor. 5:12), says the Apostle. It is otherwise with those of the household of the faith, whom Christ the Lord by the laver of baptism has once made ‘members of his own body’ (1 Cor. 12:13).”
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]. The matter of this sacrament is real and natural water.”
Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis (# 22), June 29, 1943: “Actually only those are to be numbered among the members of the Church who have received the laver of regeneration [water baptism] and profess the true faith.”
Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis (# 27), June 29, 1943: “He (Christ) also determined that through Baptism (cf. Jn. 3:5) those who should believe would be incorporated in the Body of the Church.”
Pope Pius XII, Mediator Dei (# 43), Nov. 20, 1947: “In the same way, actually that baptism is the distinctive mark of all Christians, and serves to differentiate them from those who have not been cleansed in this purifying stream and consequently are not members of Christ , the sacrament of holy orders sets the priest apart from the rest of the faithful who have not received this consecration.”
Jamie, if you would like to see more infallible quotes, then I can provide you with many more. Now can you provide us with several infallible quotes which make the case for Baptism of Desire? I'm guessing you'll only provide the mis-translated and misunderstood quote from the Council of Trent.
Not one of those quotes explicitly excludes baptism of desire or blood. And in most cases when it mentions water it is in brackets because it is an interpretation.
The language used by the Church is extremely precise and clear - if it doesn't say outright that ONLY water baptism is required, it doesn't mean it. So you are still yet to give me an infallible declaration that explicitly states that only water baptism is needed.
-
Jamie, so I guess the word "Laver" doesn't mean water to you. Well lets see what the Latin dictionary says shall we...
laver : lavo : lavi : lautus : (-ere) to wash, bathe/ moisten, get wet / wash away
Hence, this is where the word Lavatory is derived from. Most everyone has a lavatory in their home inwhich WATER pours out of.
Pope Pius XI, Quas Primas (# 15), Dec. 11, 1925 (to all patriarchs, primates, archbishops, and bishops): "Indeed this kingdom is presented in the Gospels as such, into which men prepare to enter by doing penance; moreover, they cannot enter it except through faith and baptism, which, although an external rite , yet signifies and effects an interior regeneration."
Jamie, notice here that Pope Pius XI says a person "cannot" enter God's Kingdom except through baptism. Plus, we know he is speaking about Water baptism and not some invisible baptism of Desire because he clearly says it is an "external rite". Therefore he is speaking of external ordinary means, and not extraordinary means such as BoD(Baptism of Desire).
Therefore, Jamie, I have provided quite a few infallible dogmatic statements which clearly make the case that only through WATER baptism can one enter the Church and enter God's Kingdom. You have yet to provide even one infallible statement which supports Baptism of Desire. Again, I'm guessing you'll only provide that one mis-translated, misunderstood quote from the Council of Trent.
-
Sheesh Delievering it! Is this all the cathinfo forum is good for? :argue: arguing about who is right and who is wrong? There are somethings, things like this that we can never have the 100% answer to. Have a smidge of humility and realize that in the end we will find out from God Himself what He has planned for those souls!
-
Sheesh Delievering it! Is this all the cathinfo forum is good for? :argue: arguing about who is right and who is wrong? There are somethings, things like this that we can never have the 100% answer to. Have a smidge of humility and realize that in the end we will find out from God Himself what He has planned for those souls!
But dogmas have to be believed as they were once declared. You can't say, "well, we can't really know with 100% certainty that Mary was immaculately concieved, or we can't really know with 100% certainty that Jesus was true God and true Man". To question the exact wording of the EENS dogma is just as wrong and is what has lead to the extremely heretical Vatican II religions false ecuмenism.
-
The Council of Trent never taught BoD. Those who believe Trent taught BoD are misunderstanding it based on the mistranslation of "aut" and "voto". Also most of the early Church fathers rejected Baptism of Desire. Therefore BoD is not a teaching of the Universal Magisterium since it was rejected by the early Church.
St. Thomas Aquinas had said that if baptism were essential to the salvation of such a man(who was unable to be baptized by anyone on Earth), then God would sooner send an Angel to (water)baptize him than allow him to be lost.
Today, we now have an example of an angel which did administer a Sacrament from Heaven. The Sacrament of Holy Communion was administered by an Angel for the 3 little children at Fatima, Portugal in 1917. Obviously if an angel can administer the sacrament of the Holy Eucharist, then an angel can easily Water baptize a person. Infact the Church even teaches that an atheist can Water baptize someone and it would be valid.
Therefore, since we know God sends angels to deliver Sacraments, then this completely destroys the case for Baptism of Desire.
-
The Council of Trent never taught BoD. Those who believe Trent taught BoD are misunderstanding it based on the mistranslation of "aut" and "voto". Also most of the early Church fathers rejected Baptism of Desire. Therefore BoD is not a teaching of the Universal Magisterium since it was rejected by the early Church.
St. Thomas Aquinas had said that if baptism were essential to the salvation of such a man(who was unable to be baptized by anyone on Earth), then God would sooner send an Angel to (water)baptize him than allow him to be lost.
Today, we now have an example of an angel which did administer a Sacrament from Heaven. The Sacrament of Holy Communion was administered by an Angel for the 3 little children at Fatima, Portugal in 1917. Obviously if an angel can administer the sacrament of the Holy Eucharist, then an angel can easily Water baptize a person. Infact the Church even teaches that an atheist can Water baptize someone and it would be valid.
Therefore, since we know God sends angels to deliver Sacraments, then this completely destroys the case for Baptism of Desire.
No it doesn't - your lack of logic is preventing you from seeing the errors in your posts. The fact that angels can administer the sacraments does not mean that God uses them always to provide sacraments for those who have no ability to receive them from humans - it means that the angels can do it if God deems it necessary.
You are tying God's hands by saying he has to follow the external form of the sacraments for their grace to be imparted.
And as I said earlier, "aut" can mean "or" - you are the one mistranslating Trent.
-
The Council of Trent never taught BoD. Those who believe Trent taught BoD are misunderstanding it based on the mistranslation of "aut" and "voto". Also most of the early Church fathers rejected Baptism of Desire. Therefore BoD is not a teaching of the Universal Magisterium since it was rejected by the early Church.
St. Thomas Aquinas had said that if baptism were essential to the salvation of such a man(who was unable to be baptized by anyone on Earth), then God would sooner send an Angel to (water)baptize him than allow him to be lost.
Today, we now have an example of an angel which did administer a Sacrament from Heaven. The Sacrament of Holy Communion was administered by an Angel for the 3 little children at Fatima, Portugal in 1917. Obviously if an angel can administer the sacrament of the Holy Eucharist, then an angel can easily Water baptize a person. Infact the Church even teaches that an atheist can Water baptize someone and it would be valid.
Therefore, since we know God sends angels to deliver Sacraments, then this completely destroys the case for Baptism of Desire.
No it doesn't - your lack of logic is preventing you from seeing the errors in your posts. The fact that angels can administer the sacraments does not mean that God uses them always to provide sacraments for those who have no ability to receive them from humans - it means that the angels can do it if God deems it necessary.
You are tying God's hands by saying he has to follow the external form of the sacraments for their grace to be imparted.
And as I said earlier, "aut" can mean "or" - you are the one mistranslating Trent.
Leave them Jamie... you are wasting your time. Their ignorance about all these matters is so patent... you won´t change them.
-
Sheesh Delievering it! Is this all the cathinfo forum is good for? :argue: arguing about who is right and who is wrong? There are somethings, things like this that we can never have the 100% answer to. Have a smidge of humility and realize that in the end we will find out from God Himself what He has planned for those souls!
Riddle, how right you are. The church has ALWAYS believed and taught Baptism of Water and Desire.
In the past, Feenyites have been banned from this forum.
I guess some have crept back in and are using this forum for their heresy.
Matthew! take note! :heretic:
-
Clearly...We'll deal with them :dwarf:
-
Look, Humble Man, you read too much into things. My opinion doesn't matter to anyone here. All I am stating is that I prefere to leave the judgement of souls to God, as is where it should be. Don't you think?
-
Christ and His Church have nowhere declared water baptism to be an absolute necessity to get to Heaven.
Afraid Trent (http://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct07.html) did say it was necessary and anathematized what you just posted:
CANON II.-If any one saith, that true and natural water is not of necessity for baptism................CANON IV.-If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation.......
-
I was going to present arguments against BOD, but I don't feel like doing that at the moment.
Instead, I'll post some things floating around inside my thick skull and I will look forward to all those folks who support BOD to present their side, centering on the issue, not the poster.
Feel free to add to or alter the statements to present your view - no giant bolded text allowed!
I'm not trying to fool anyone! I believe that the entire BOD "doctrine" is not only a theological theory, it is also in the obvious position of being completely incompatible, contrary and is heretical compared with not only the numerous infallible declarations, but also and perhaps especially the law of Divine Providence, which is universal and can in no way be denied - and IMO, that it is this mirage that has contributed majorly to where we are today - by it's very nature.
Should you be interested enough to suffer through this whole post, please make all your statements answered either True or False - then add your commentary WITH LINKS when applicable on whichever ones suit you ~ good luck:
1) Baptism of Desire, ie the desire to be baptized, is necessary and present within the heart of unbaptized martyrs, who are then the recipients of Baptism of Blood.
2) If #1 is true, then Baptism of Blood is merely an alternate label of BOD.
3) If #1 is false, then there is no need to desire Baptism, not even implicitly.
4) If #1 is false, then BOB and BOD are one and the same.
5) The Ordinary Magisterium, Doctors of the Church, Popes, Catechisms, Church Theologians and Fathers, priests, bishops, nuns, saints etc. can teach contrary to infallible teachings of the Church and such teachings are binding.
6) BOD/BOB are teachings that we are bound to believe, under pain of anathema.
7) The defined dogma of Baptism with water we are bound to believe under pain of anathema.
8) The Law of Divine Providence, simply stated is this: Nothing happens in the universe without God willing and allowing it.
9) Our Lord cannot act contrary to the laws of Divine Providence because to do so He would act contrary to Himself.
10) God is all-mighty and all-present.
11) There are no "accidental deaths" to God.
12) God can and would wait till after baptism, till the catechumen was on his way home after being baptized before taking him.
13) To take a sincere catechumen from this life prior to receiving the actual Sacrament that he was desiring, God just acted contrary to Himself by: a) denying that which was desired, which is also necessary for salvation and b) sending the sincere catechumen to hell for not having received it.
14) The sincere catechumen died prior to baptism with water and did not go to hell, BOD saved him.
15) The catechumen was not sincere and went to heaven via implicit BOD.
16) BOD came to be some time after the Apostles were commissioned to go to the ends of the earth to baptize etc and preach the Gospel to all creatures.
17) God could have saved a lot of time and effort for the Apostles by simply infusing BOD into all creatures.
18) The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
19) BOD is not a "good intention".
20) Fr. Feeney invented a teaching contrary to defined dogma.
-
I was going to present arguments against BOD, but I don't feel like doing that at the moment.
Instead, I'll post some things floating around inside my thick skull and I will look forward to all those folks who support BOD to present their side, centering on the issue, not the poster.
Feel free to add to or alter the statements to present your view - no giant bolded text allowed!
I'm not trying to fool anyone! I believe that the entire BOD "doctrine" is not only a theological theory, it is also in the obvious position of being completely incompatible, contrary and is heretical compared with not only the numerous infallible declarations, but also and perhaps especially the law of Divine Providence, which is universal and can in no way be denied - and IMO, that it is this mirage that has contributed majorly to where we are today - by it's very nature.
Should you be interested enough to suffer through this whole post, please make all your statements answered either True or False - then add your commentary WITH LINKS when applicable on whichever ones suit you ~ good luck:
Ok, I take it. Some quotes will be provided later...
1) Baptism of Desire, ie the desire to be baptized, is necessary and present within the heart of unbaptized martyrs, who are then the recipients of Baptism of Blood.
True
2) If #1 is true, then Baptism of Blood is merely an alternate label of BOD.
Not necessarily... it may mean it adds something to BOD
5) The Ordinary Magisterium, Doctors of the Church, Popes, Catechisms, Church Theologians and Fathers, priests, bishops, nuns, saints etc. can teach contrary to infallible teachings of the Church and such teachings are binding.
The Ordinary Magisterium is infallible. Dz 1792 [The object 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
6) BOD/BOB are teachings that we are bound to believe, under pain of anathema.
Under pain of heresy? I`m not sure. It is at least Catholic Doctrine which is enough.
7) The defined dogma of Baptism with water we are bound to believe under pain of anathema.
I distinguish. We are bound to believe the existence of the sacrament of Baptism under pain of anathema, I concede; we are bound to believe under pain of anathema the effects of the sacrament of baptism may be obtained only through the sacrament of Baptism, peto probationem.
8) The Law of Divine Providence, simply stated is this: Nothing happens in the universe without God willing and allowing it.
Without God willing or, at least, allowing it. Otherwise sins would be attributed to God.
9) Our Lord cannot act contrary to the laws of Divine Providence because to do so He would act contrary to Himself
.
Common sense.
10) God is all-mighty and all-present.
True.
11) There are no "accidental deaths" to God.
True.
12) God can and would wait till after baptism, till the catechumen was on his way home after being baptized before taking him.
God can do whatever he wants, true. God should or even must, I deny.
13) To take a sincere catechumen from this life prior to receiving the actual Sacrament that he was desiring, God just acted contrary to Himself by: a) denying that which was desired, which is also necessary for salvation and
I distinguish. He desired the Sacrament and didn`t get it, I conc., he desired also the effects of the sacrament and didn`t get them, peto probationem.
b) sending the sincere catechumen to hell for not having received it.
It would be against divine mercy to send to hell someone who sincerely was looking for him. My question is: which mortal(s) sin(s) will be the cause for his etrnal punishment?
14) The sincere catechumen died prior to baptism with water and did not go to hell, BOD saved him.
True.
15) The catechumen was not sincere and went to heaven via implicit BOD.
False, for 2 reasons:
1) If he was not sincere, then he didn`t have that desire.
2) Catechumens have explicit desire of the sacrament.
16) BOD came to be some time after the Apostles were commissioned to go to the ends of the earth to baptize etc and preach the Gospel to all creatures.
False. BoD was taught by Our Lord.
17) God could have saved a lot of time and effort for the Apostles by simply infusing BOD into all creatures.
That`s not the point. God found the Church so every human being be member of it. You can only be member of the Church via the Sacrament of Baptism. Besides as Pius XII teaches, non-members cannot be secure about their salvation, whereas Catholics have a relative security. Non-members lack a lot of graces they can get only as members.
18) The road to hell is paved with good intentions
.
True.
19) BOD is not a "good intention".
It is more than that. It is a prayer.
20) Fr. Feeney invented a teaching contrary to defined dogma.
I don`t know if he was the first one and I`m not sure it is defined dogma. It is, at least Catholic doctrine, which is enough for us to be obliged to accept it.
-
Awesome! Thanks Cristian! I honestly thought no one would bother lol - - - your skull must be thick as mine! lol
For item #2 you replied: Not necessarily... it may mean it adds something to BOD
Please be specific with this reply, remember, someone's eternal salvation is dependent upon it.
For item #5 you replied: The Ordinary Magisterium is infallible. Dz 1792 [The object 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.
My reply to you is: I agree, provided the teaching of the Ordinary Magisterium agrees with infallibly Defined Dogma - not the other way around.
#6 you replied: Under pain of heresy? I`m not sure. It is at least Catholic Doctrine which is enough.
My reply to you is: Please site your source..
For #8 you replied:
Without God willing or, at least, allowing it. Otherwise sins would be attributed to God.
My reply to you is: I can agree, I guess I took for granted that God does not will sin.
For #13 a) you replied:
I distinguish. He desired the Sacrament and didn`t get it, I conc., he desired also the effects of the sacrament and didn`t get them, peto probationem.
My reply to you is: First, I do not know what "I conc." means - second, God, being all loving and first and foremost seeks to always give each one of us whatever we ask, would have never deprived one so loved, by taking him before receiving that which he so ardently desired.
For 13 b) you replied: It would be against divine mercy to send to hell someone who sincerely was looking for him. My question is: which mortal(s) sin(s) will be the cause for his etrnal punishment?
My reply to you is: God saw that the catechumen was not sincere. When one faces God, he faces God's Justice - hence, God took him, judged and sentenced him.
For #14 you answered: True
My reply to you is: This answer is False, via the infallible teaching of the Church: Trent (http://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct07.html) stated that Baptism with water is necessary for salvation - (see Canon IV ~ If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation...........)
For #16 you answered: False. BoD was taught by Our Lord.
My reply: Please provide your source.
-
Awesome! Thanks Cristian! I honestly thought no one would bother lol - - - your skull must be thick as mine! lol
:cheers:
For item #2 you replied: Not necessarily... it may mean it adds something to BOD
Please be specific with this reply, remember, someone's eternal salvation is dependent upon it.
Well I think we will all agree that it is not the same merely to desire Baptism than to shed our blood for Christ, right?
For item #5 you replied: The Ordinary Magisterium is infallible. Dz 1792 [The object 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.
My reply to you is: I agree, provided the teaching of the Ordinary Magisterium agrees with infallibly Defined Dogma - not the other way around.
The thing is not “agree with” or “not agree with”. Ordinary magisterium may define some dogma too. Both ordinary and extraordinary magisterium are two different ways the Church may teach or define something. Both have the guarantee of God´s promise in the sense that both are infallible.
#6 you replied: Under pain of heresy? I`m not sure. It is at least Catholic Doctrine which is enough.
My reply to you is: Please site your source..
Universal agreement of Theologians: Pius IX Tuas libenter: “Even in the matter of that subjection which must be given in the act of divine faith, it should still not be restricted to those things that have been defined in the obvious decrees of the Ecuмenical Councils or of the Roman Pontiffs or of this See, but must also be extended to that which is taught as divinely revealed by the ordinary magisterium of the entire Church spread throughout the world and which, as a result, is presented as belonging to the faith according to the common and constant agreement of the Catholic theologians. But, on the matter of that subjection to which all Catholics who are engaged in the work of the speculative sciences are obliged in conscience, so that, by their writings, they may bring new advantages to the Church, the members of this assembly [a convention of German theologians] must take cognizance of the fact that it is not enough for them to receive and to venerate the above-mentioned dogmas of the Church, but that it is also necessary that they subject themselves to the doctrinal decisions of the Pontifical Congregations and to those points of doctrine that are considered by the common and constant agreement of Catholics as theological truths and con¬clusions which are so certain that opinions opposed to these points of doctrine still merit some other theological censure, even though they may not be designated as heretical.”
I think you´ll hardly find any theologian denying BoD.
Ordinary and Universal Magisterium of the Church: Cn 737.1.”Baptism…omnibus in re vel saltem in voto necessarius ad salutem…” This canon is quite explicit on the subject and it was taught without anyone contradicting it all around the world, by Bishops, Canonists, professors, theologians, etc.
For #8 you replied:
Without God willing or, at least, allowing it. Otherwise sins would be attributed to God.
My reply to you is: I can agree, I guess I took for granted that God does not will sin.
Ok, it is just that God allows sin. He doesn´t want it. He is not the cause of it.
For #13 a) you replied:
I distinguish. He desired the Sacrament and didn`t get it, I conc., he desired also the effects of the sacrament and didn`t get them, peto probationem.
My reply to you is: First, I do not know what "I conc." means - second, God, being all loving and first and foremost seeks to always give each one of us whatever we ask, would have never deprived one so loved, by taking him before receiving that which he so ardently desired.
I´m sorry. “I conc.” Is “I concede, I admit” and “peto probationem” is something like “I ask for a proof”
Well the whole question here is if the person who seeks Baptism get sanctifying grace before receiving the sacrament or not, otherwise you are implying that as long as a person sincerely desire Baptism he cannot die… Usually Catechumens used to prepare during a year before getting the sacrament. You see my point?
For 13 b) you replied: It would be against divine mercy to send to hell someone who sincerely was looking for him. My question is: which mortal(s) sin(s) will be the cause for his etrnal punishment?
My reply to you is: God saw that the catechumen was not sincere. When one faces God, he faces God's Justice - hence, God took him, judged and sentenced him.
But we are talking here about sincere catechumens, or do you deny the very possibility of a sincere cathecuмen? Do you think for instance St. Ambrose, St. Augustine, Constantine, etc., etc. etc were not sincere while catechumens?
Again, my question is: you have a non- Catholic who knows the Catholic Church, its doctrine and sacraments, he embrace it, he ask for Baptism… now which mortal sin does he have? He knows God and yet he cannot love Him until he gets the Sacrament of Baptism? Why?
For #14 you answered: True
My reply to you is: This answer is False, via the infallible teaching of the Church: Trent (http://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct07.html) stated that Baptism with water is necessary for salvation - (see Canon IV ~ If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation...........)
The very Canon you just quoted confirms BoD: “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” (Denz. 847)
For #16 you answered: False. BoD was taught by Our Lord.
My reply: Please provide your source.
Trent: http://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct06.html ch IV
"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" (DZ 796)
Cristian
-
Its really quite simple. None of you BoD( Baptism of Desire ) supporters can make the claim that a Catholic must accept the present day Church's teaching of BoD as being Church doctrine. This is because BoD is only being taught by today's "ordinary magisterium", but was never taught by the "Universal Magisterium". The "Universal Magisterium" trumpts the "ordinary magisteium", so therefore a Catholic is to adhere to what the "Universal Magisterium" has always taught.,... Its that simple.
Oh, and if your going to make the claim that BoD has been the Universal and Constant teaching of the Church, then you will have to show evidence that the majority of early Church fathers accepted BoD as a truth. However, if it is shown that the majority of early Church Fathers rejected BoD, then that means you have no case.
-
#2 = Baptism of Blood is merely an alternate label of BOD.
Well I think we will all agree that it is not the same merely to desire Baptism than to shed our blood for Christ, right?
True, it is not the same thing, however, whether the person got scared to death (no blood was shed) just before being killed or was actually killed, according to BOD, that person would have attained salvation. Right?
What I am getting at, is that under either circuмstance regarding BOB or BOD, without BOD, there would be no BOB - right?
#5 The Ordinary Magisterium, Doctors of the Church, Popes, Catechisms, Church Theologians and Fathers, priests, bishops, nuns, saints etc. can teach contrary to infallible teachings of the Church and such teachings are binding.
The thing is not “agree with” or “not agree with”. Ordinary magisterium may define some dogma too. Both ordinary and extraordinary magisterium are two different ways the Church may teach or define something. Both have the guarantee of God´s promise in the sense that both are infallible.
Yes and no. Ordinary Magisterium can teach what is binding, however, when that teaching conflicts with or contradicts defined dogma, then we must reject that teaching as error.
#6 you replied: Under pain of heresy? I`m not sure. It is at least Catholic Doctrine which is enough. . . . . . . .here is your source.
Your source below is a letter addressed to a convention of German theologians , it is not an official Church docuмent, it is not infallible nor is there anything wrong with it - but you seem to be reading into it what is not there - see my comment below it.
Universal agreement of Theologians: Pius IX Tuas libenter: “Even in the matter of that subjection which must be given in the act of divine faith, it should still not be restricted to those things that have been defined in the obvious decrees of the Ecuмenical Councils or of the Roman Pontiffs or of this See, but must also be extended to that which is taught as divinely revealed by the ordinary magisterium of the entire Church spread throughout the world and which, as a result, is presented as belonging to the faith according to the common and constant agreement of the Catholic theologians. But, on the matter of that subjection to which all Catholics who are engaged in the work of the speculative sciences are obliged in conscience, so that, by their writings, they may bring new advantages to the Church, the members of this assembly [a convention of German theologians] must take cognizance of the fact that it is not enough for them to receive and to venerate the above-mentioned dogmas of the Church, but that it is also necessary that they subject themselves to the doctrinal decisions of the Pontifical Congregations and to those points of doctrine that are considered by the common and constant agreement of Catholics as theological truths and con¬clusions which are so certain that opinions opposed to these points of doctrine still merit some other theological censure, even though they may not be designated as heretical.”
I think you´ll hardly find any theologian denying BoD.
Re-read this: the members of this assembly [a convention of German theologians] must take cognizance of the fact that it is not enough for them to receive and to venerate the above-mentioned dogmas of the Church, but that it is also necessary that they subject themselves to the doctrinal decisions of the Pontifical Congregations.
The pope is saying they must subject themselves to dogmas of the Church and Pontifical Congregations. Nowhere does the Pope admit they may contradict dogma or Pontifical Congregations.
Pius IX Syllabus of Errors (http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9syll.htm)
33. It does not appertain exclusively to the power of ecclesiastical jurisdiction by right, proper and innate, to direct the teaching of theological questions. -- Letter to the Archbishop of Munich, "Tuas libenter," Dec. 21, 1863
Ordinary and Universal Magisterium of the Church: Cn 737.1.”Baptism…omnibus in re vel saltem in voto necessarius ad salutem…” This canon is quite explicit on the subject and it was taught without anyone contradicting it all around the world, by Bishops, Canonists, professors, theologians, etc.
Then it seems obvious (and tragic) that they all contradict the necessity of the reception of the actual sacrament.
Trent (http://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct07.html) does not allow for Baptism of Desire, read the common translation:
CANON IV.-If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous;
Now stop right here and re-read again what the canon above says up to this point.............
In Canon IV, Trent declares baptism necessary for salvation. Right?...............
Then the same Canon goes on to say: 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 "desire thereof", in this case, Baptism, affords one the grace of justification, not salvation. Right?
Hence, one cannot deny the above infallible canon declaring baptism with water is necessary for salvation. No Baptism with water, no salvation - right?
Same as one cannot deny that a firm resolve to actually get baptized with water (which I equate to a perfect act of contrition) will put a soul in the state of justification, not salvation - right?
This format sucks lol
-
This format sucks lol
Loooooooooooooooooooool... Btw, I PM`ed you, you saw it?
-
#2 = Baptism of Blood is merely an alternate label of BOD.
Well I think we will all agree that it is not the same merely to desire Baptism than to shed our blood for Christ, right?
True, it is not the same thing, however, whether the person got scared to death (no blood was shed) just before being killed or was actually killed, according to BOD, that person would have attained salvation. Right?
What I am getting at, is that under either circuмstance regarding BOB or BOD, without BOD, there would be no BOB - right?
#5 The Ordinary Magisterium, Doctors of the Church, Popes, Catechisms, Church Theologians and Fathers, priests, bishops, nuns, saints etc. can teach contrary to infallible teachings of the Church and such teachings are binding.
The thing is not “agree with” or “not agree with”. Ordinary magisterium may define some dogma too. Both ordinary and extraordinary magisterium are two different ways the Church may teach or define something. Both have the guarantee of God´s promise in the sense that both are infallible.
Yes and no. Ordinary Magisterium can teach what is binding, however, when that teaching conflicts with or contradicts defined dogma, then we must reject that teaching as error.
#6 you replied: Under pain of heresy? I`m not sure. It is at least Catholic Doctrine which is enough. . . . . . . .here is your source.
Your source below is a letter addressed to a convention of German theologians , it is not an official Church docuмent, it is not infallible nor is there anything wrong with it - but you seem to be reading into it what is not there - see my comment below it.
Universal agreement of Theologians: Pius IX Tuas libenter: “Even in the matter of that subjection which must be given in the act of divine faith, it should still not be restricted to those things that have been defined in the obvious decrees of the Ecuмenical Councils or of the Roman Pontiffs or of this See, but must also be extended to that which is taught as divinely revealed by the ordinary magisterium of the entire Church spread throughout the world and which, as a result, is presented as belonging to the faith according to the common and constant agreement of the Catholic theologians. But, on the matter of that subjection to which all Catholics who are engaged in the work of the speculative sciences are obliged in conscience, so that, by their writings, they may bring new advantages to the Church, the members of this assembly [a convention of German theologians] must take cognizance of the fact that it is not enough for them to receive and to venerate the above-mentioned dogmas of the Church, but that it is also necessary that they subject themselves to the doctrinal decisions of the Pontifical Congregations and to those points of doctrine that are considered by the common and constant agreement of Catholics as theological truths and con¬clusions which are so certain that opinions opposed to these points of doctrine still merit some other theological censure, even though they may not be designated as heretical.”
I think you´ll hardly find any theologian denying BoD.
Re-read this: the members of this assembly [a convention of German theologians] must take cognizance of the fact that it is not enough for them to receive and to venerate the above-mentioned dogmas of the Church, but that it is also necessary that they subject themselves to the doctrinal decisions of the Pontifical Congregations.
The pope is saying they must subject themselves to dogmas of the Church and Pontifical Congregations. Nowhere does the Pope admit they may contradict dogma or Pontifical Congregations.
Pius IX Syllabus of Errors (http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9syll.htm)
33. It does not appertain exclusively to the power of ecclesiastical jurisdiction by right, proper and innate, to direct the teaching of theological questions. -- Letter to the Archbishop of Munich, "Tuas libenter," Dec. 21, 1863
Ordinary and Universal Magisterium of the Church: Cn 737.1.”Baptism…omnibus in re vel saltem in voto necessarius ad salutem…” This canon is quite explicit on the subject and it was taught without anyone contradicting it all around the world, by Bishops, Canonists, professors, theologians, etc.
Then it seems obvious (and tragic) that they all contradict the necessity of the reception of the actual sacrament.
Trent (http://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct07.html) does not allow for Baptism of Desire, read the common translation:
CANON IV.-If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous;
Now stop right here and re-read again what the canon above says up to this point.............
In Canon IV, Trent declares baptism necessary for salvation. Right?...............
Then the same Canon goes on to say: 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 "desire thereof", in this case, Baptism, affords one the grace of justification, not salvation. Right?
Hence, one cannot deny the above infallible canon declaring baptism with water is necessary for salvation. No Baptism with water, no salvation - right?
Same as one cannot deny that a firm resolve to actually get baptized with water (which I equate to a perfect act of contrition) will put a soul in the state of justification, not salvation - right?
Hope you don't mind I quoted all but that last line because when I first read this post of yours, I knew that that last line would be the only thing focused on and responded to.
Now, could someone please respond to he substance of the post.
-
Hope you don't mind I quoted all but that last line because when I first read this post of yours, I knew that that last line would be the only thing focused on and responded to.
Now, could someone please respond to he substance of the post.
No I don't mind.
I meant that this format is no good to discuss 20 T/F questions like we were trying to do. Sorry about that.
-
#2 = Baptism of Blood is merely an alternate label of BOD.
Well I think we will all agree that it is not the same merely to desire Baptism than to shed our blood for Christ, right?
True, it is not the same thing, however, whether the person got scared to death (no blood was shed) just before being killed or was actually killed, according to BOD, that person would have attained salvation. Right?
I´m sorry. I´m not sure what you mean here.
What I am getting at, is that under either circuмstance regarding BOB or BOD, without BOD, there would be no BOB - right?
I distinguish :). Without BOD, there would be no BOB, in adults,I agree; in infants I deny.
#5 The Ordinary Magisterium, Doctors of the Church, Popes, Catechisms, Church Theologians and Fathers, priests, bishops, nuns, saints etc. can teach contrary to infallible teachings of the Church and such teachings are binding.
The thing is not “agree with” or “not agree with”. Ordinary magisterium may define some dogma too. Both ordinary and extraordinary magisterium are two different ways the Church may teach or define something. Both have the guarantee of God´s promise in the sense that both are infallible.
Yes and no. Ordinary Magisterium can teach what is binding, however, when that teaching conflicts with or contradicts defined dogma, then we must reject that teaching as error.
The very supposition that Ordinary Magisterium is fallible is wrong. The Church is infallible both in its Extraordinary and in its Ordinary Magisterium. The sole difference between them is the way the Church presents some teaching. It is obviously not the same way a teaching made in a solemn way via an Ecuмenical Council (Extraordinary or solemn magisterium of the Universal Church) or a Dogmatic Bull (Solemn magisterium of the Pope) or either in an ordinary way via the Universal Church dispersed around the world (ordinary magisterium of the Church) or through an Encyclical letter or allocution (ordinary magisterium of the Pope). They are all guaranteed with the charisma of infallibility. Many dogmas were taught and believed without any solemn teaching, think for instance on the divinity of Our Lord, etc.
#6 you replied: Under pain of heresy? I`m not sure. It is at least Catholic Doctrine which is enough. . . . . . . .here is your source.
Your source below is a letter addressed to a convention of German theologians , it is not an official Church docuмent, it is not infallible nor is there anything wrong with it - but you seem to be reading into it what is not there - see my comment below it.
Are you sure? Not an official docuмent and then a source of the Syllabus?
Universal agreement of Theologians: Pius IX Tuas libenter: “Even in the matter of that subjection which must be given in the act of divine faith, it should still not be restricted to those things that have been defined in the obvious decrees of the Ecuмenical Councils or of the Roman Pontiffs or of this See, but must also be extended to that which is taught as divinely revealed by the ordinary magisterium of the entire Church spread throughout the world and which, as a result, is presented as belonging to the faith according to the common and constant agreement of the Catholic theologians. But, on the matter of that subjection to which all Catholics who are engaged in the work of the speculative sciences are obliged in conscience, so that, by their writings, they may bring new advantages to the Church, the members of this assembly [a convention of German theologians] must take cognizance of the fact that it is not enough for them to receive and to venerate the above-mentioned dogmas of the Church, but that it is also necessary that they subject themselves to the doctrinal decisions of the Pontifical Congregations and to those points of doctrine that are considered by the common and constant agreement of Catholics as theological truths and con¬clusions which are so certain that opinions opposed to these points of doctrine still merit some other theological censure, even though they may not be designated as heretical.”
I think you´ll hardly find any theologian denying BoD.
Re-read this: the members of this assembly [a convention of German theologians] must take cognizance of the fact that it is not enough for them to receive and to venerate the above-mentioned dogmas of the Church, but that it is also necessary that they subject themselves to the doctrinal decisions of the Pontifical Congregations.
The pope is saying they must subject themselves to dogmas of the Church and Pontifical Congregations. Nowhere does the Pope admit they may contradict dogma or Pontifical Congregations.
I´m not sure what you mean here, sorry. Pius IX´s point is the following: we must submit with an act of divine faith not only the solemn magisterium but the ordinary and universal as well, and then he adds that even though there are things that are not dogmas yet that doesn´t mean it is free to adhere them or not, and among them you have: “to the doctrinal decisions of the Pontifical Congregations and to those points of doctrine that are considered by the common and constant agreement of Catholics as theological truths and conclusions which are so certain that opinions opposed to these points of doctrine still merit some other theological censure, even though they may not be designated as heretical.”
This quote of Pius XII may help also: “nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not in itself demand consent, since in writing such letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their teaching authority (<assensum per se non postulare, cuм in iis Pontifices supremam sui Magisterii potestatem non exerceant>). For these things are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is also true to say: "He who heareth you, heareth me"; and generally what is
expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official docuмents (<in actis suis>) purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that this matter, according to the mind and will of the same Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians.”
“Some say that they are not bound by the doctrine, explained in Our Encyclical Letter of a few years ago, and based on the sources of revelation, which teaches that the Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same thing”
Pius IX Syllabus of Errors
33. It does not appertain exclusively to the power of ecclesiastical jurisdiction by right, proper and innate, to direct the teaching of theological questions. -- Letter to the Archbishop of Munich, "Tuas libenter," Dec. 21, 1863
True. This is very well known. Our Lord entrusted His revelation to the magisterium (Pope and Bishops) and not to theologians.
Ordinary and Universal Magisterium of the Church: Cn 737.1.”Baptism…omnibus in re vel saltem in voto necessarius ad salutem…” This canon is quite explicit on the subject and it was taught without anyone contradicting it all around the world, by Bishops, Canonists, professors, theologians, etc.
Then it seems obvious (and tragic) that they all contradict the necessity of the reception of the actual sacrament.
Perhaps this is a sign the necessity of actual reception for salvation is wrong, could be?
Trent[/color][/url] does not allow for Baptism of Desire, read the common translation:
CANON IV.-If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous;
Now stop right here and re-read again what the canon above says up to this point.............
In Canon IV, Trent declares baptism necessary for salvation. Right?...............
You are taking it out of context :). And take note that after the word “superfluous” you have a comma and not a semicolon.
Then the same Canon goes on to say: 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 "desire thereof", in this case, Baptism, affords one the grace of justification, not salvation. Right?
Hence, one cannot deny the above infallible canon declaring baptism with water is necessary for salvation. No Baptism with water, no salvation - right?
Same as one cannot deny that a firm resolve to actually get baptized with water (which I equate to a perfect act of contrition) will put a soul in the state of justification, not salvation - right?
You are admitting here exactly what Feeney denied :) The whole question here is if the state of sanctifying grace may be obtained only through the reception of the sacrament or if its desire may be enough. If you admit you can be justified by its desire then you are accepting BoD! If you are justified, that means you were taken from the state of perdition into which we are all born into the state of friendship with God, and since the life of heaven is the continuation of the life of sanctifying grace in this life, then if you die in the state of grace you will obtain salvation, you will, necessarily, go to heaven; of course you may need to satisfy your sins in Purgatory, but that is another story.
Cristian
-
Cristian said:
The very supposition that Ordinary Magisterium is fallible is wrong. The Church is infallible both in its Extraordinary and in its Ordinary Magisterium.
You are presuming that the OM cannot err - that is not true. The OM is guided by the EM - not the other way around.
If it is true that the OM cannot err, then what need is there for the EM?
First Vatican Council (http://www.piar.hu/councils/ecuм20.htm) Furthermore, it follows from that supreme power which the Roman pontiff has in governing the whole church, that he has the right, in the performance of this office of his, to communicate freely with the pastors and flocks of the entire church, so that they may be taught and guided by him in the way of salvation. - and it goes on and on.
It seems to me that if what you say were actually true, then there would be no Novus Ordo and BOB/BOD would be a defined dogma.
Because we are living today with a NO that is the Ordinary Form, that fact alone should suffice to at least see that the OM can and in fact does preach contrary to the EM.
Cristian said:
You are taking it out of context :). And take note that after the word “superfluous” you have a comma and not a semicolon.
Well, I'm no english major but, Comma schmamma, it says what it says.
-
Cristian said:
The very supposition that Ordinary Magisterium is fallible is wrong. The Church is infallible both in its Extraordinary and in its Ordinary Magisterium.
You are presuming that the OM cannot err - that is not true. The OM is guided by the EM - not the other way around.
If it is true that the OM cannot err, then what need is there for the EM?
First Vatican Council (http://www.piar.hu/councils/ecuм20.htm) Furthermore, it follows from that supreme power which the Roman pontiff has in governing the whole church, that he has the right, in the performance of this office of his, to communicate freely with the pastors and flocks of the entire church, so that they may be taught and guided by him in the way of salvation. - and it goes on and on.
It seems to me that if what you say were actually true, then there would be no Novus Ordo and BOB/BOD would be a defined dogma.
Because we are living today with a NO that is the Ordinary Form, that fact alone should suffice to at least see that the OM can and in fact does preach contrary to the EM.
Pointing out the fallibility of the Vatican II church “Ordinary Magisterium” is not proof against BoD/BoB, rather it proves that the Vatican II church is NOT the Catholic Church. :pop:
-
Cristian said:
The very supposition that Ordinary Magisterium is fallible is wrong. The Church is infallible both in its Extraordinary and in its Ordinary Magisterium.
You are presuming that the OM cannot err - that is not true. The OM is guided by the EM - not the other way around.
If it is true that the OM cannot err, then what need is there for the EM?
First Vatican Council (http://www.piar.hu/councils/ecuм20.htm) Furthermore, it follows from that supreme power which the Roman pontiff has in governing the whole church, that he has the right, in the performance of this office of his, to communicate freely with the pastors and flocks of the entire church, so that they may be taught and guided by him in the way of salvation. - and it goes on and on.
It seems to me that if what you say were actually true, then there would be no Novus Ordo and BOB/BOD would be a defined dogma.
Because we are living today with a NO that is the Ordinary Form, that fact alone should suffice to at least see that the OM can and in fact does preach contrary to the EM.
Pointing out the fallibility of the Vatican II church “Ordinary Magisterium” is not proof against BoD/BoB, rather it proves that the Vatican II church is NOT the Catholic Church. :pop:
Actually, Vatican II is the Catholic Church, but that's neither here nor there.
The point of this discussion is that the OM, the folks y'all claim to be infallible, innovated both the NO and BOD.
BOD = saved via Faith without works, that sounds an awful lot like the NO - no?
-
Cristian said:
The very supposition that Ordinary Magisterium is fallible is wrong. The Church is infallible both in its Extraordinary and in its Ordinary Magisterium.
You are presuming that the OM cannot err - that is not true. The OM is guided by the EM - not the other way around.
If it is true that the OM cannot err, then what need is there for the EM?
First Vatican Council (http://www.piar.hu/councils/ecuм20.htm) Furthermore, it follows from that supreme power which the Roman pontiff has in governing the whole church, that he has the right, in the performance of this office of his, to communicate freely with the pastors and flocks of the entire church, so that they may be taught and guided by him in the way of salvation. - and it goes on and on.
It seems to me that if what you say were actually true, then there would be no Novus Ordo and BOB/BOD would be a defined dogma.
Because we are living today with a NO that is the Ordinary Form, that fact alone should suffice to at least see that the OM can and in fact does preach contrary to the EM.
Pointing out the fallibility of the Vatican II church “Ordinary Magisterium” is not proof against BoD/BoB, rather it proves that the Vatican II church is NOT the Catholic Church. :pop:
BOD = saved via Faith without works, that sounds an awful lot like the NO - no?
No my friend, you have it wrong! nobody ever claimed such a thing!!!! :)
-
BOD = saved via Faith without works, that sounds an awful lot like the NO - no?
No my friend, you have it wrong! nobody ever claimed such a thing!!!! :)
That depends on which interpretation / version of BOD you choose to believe.
-
BOD = saved via Faith without works, that sounds an awful lot like the NO - no?
No my friend, you have it wrong! nobody ever claimed such a thing!!!! :)
That depends on which interpretation / version of BOD you choose to believe.
Well I´ve always read only one onterpretation of it... you have any author saying BoD denies the need of works?
-
I've always read only one interpretation of it... you have any author saying BoD denies the need of works?
Do you know of any author which says that BoD requires Works? If so, then can you tell us what Works must be done alongside BoD for a soul to receive sanctifying grace?
-
BOD = saved via Faith without works, that sounds an awful lot like the NO - no?
No my friend, you have it wrong! nobody ever claimed such a thing!!!! :)
That depends on which interpretation / version of BOD you choose to believe.
Well I´ve always read only one onterpretation of it... you have any author saying BoD denies the need of works?
I'll echo what Deliveringit1 asked, and add I've read many different interpretations of BOD, none of which involves "works".
Perhaps you can agree that this definition of Fr. Wathen's is the most accurate one I am aware of: BOD is where "desire" takes the place of the water of Baptism, "invincible ignorance" takes the place of faith, and "good will" or "sincerity" takes the place of supernatural charity ("works")--the love of the Triune God in Christ.
"Baptism of desire" is defined differently - depending on the source of it's definition. This can be categorized into at least two different camps - liberal and conservative.
At best, one may be able to label BOD as "proxima fidei", or "nearly a doctrine."
Even so, the problem with that is that several de fide definitions of the Church condemn it. Two canons of the Council of Trent contradict and censure it. There is no foundation in the Scriptures for the idea of "baptism of desire". None of those who promote the idea, which they want to call the "doctrine of baptism of desire," explain how it can have the same effect in the soul as the Sacrament has, that is, how it can dispose one for Heaven and there is no solid evidence that anyone has been saved by "baptism of desire."
-
Perhaps you can agree that this definition of Fr. Wathen's is the most accurate one I am aware of:
BOD is where "desire" takes the place of the water of Baptism,
Regarding the effects, I agree.
St Thomas III q 66 art. 11.
I answer that, As stated above (Question 62, Article 5), Baptism of Water has its efficacy from Christ's Passion, to which a man is conformed by Baptism, and also from the Holy Ghost, as first cause. Now although the effect depends on the first cause, the cause far surpasses the effect, nor does it depend on it. Consequently, a man may, without Baptism of Water, receive the sacramental effect from Christ's Passion, in so far as he is conformed to Christ by suffering for Him. Hence it is written (Apocalypse 7:14): "These are they who are come out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes and have made them white in the blood of the Lamb."
In like manner a man receives the effect of Baptism by the power of the Holy Ghost, not only without Baptism of Water, but also without Baptism of Blood: forasmuch as his heart is moved by the Holy Ghost to believe in and love God and to repent of his sins: wherefore this is also called Baptism of Repentance. Of this it is written (Isaiah 4:4): "If the Lord shall wash away the filth of the daughters of Zion, and shall wash away the blood of Jerusalem out of the midst thereof, by the spirit of judgment, and by the spirit of burning." Thus, therefore, each of these other Baptisms is called Baptism, forasmuch as it takes the place of Baptism. Wherefore Augustine says (De Unico Baptismo Parvulorum iv): "The Blessed Cyprian argues with considerable reason from the thief to whom, though not baptized, it was said: 'Today shalt thou be with Me in Paradise' that suffering can take the place of Baptism. Having weighed this in my mind again and again, I perceive that not only can suffering for the name of Christ supply for what was lacking in Baptism, but even faith and conversion of heart, if perchance on account of the stress of the times the celebration of the mystery of Baptism is not practicable."
And later: "Reply to Objection 2. As stated above (Question 60, Article 1), a sacrament is a kind of sign. The other two, however, are like the Baptism of Water, not, indeed, in the nature of sign, but in the baptismal effect. Consequently they are not sacraments."
"invincible ignorance" takes the place of faith,
No. Faith is something positive in which you have to believe at least, "6 But without faith it is impossible to please God. For he that comes to God must believe that he is: and is a rewarder to them that seek him."
Fenton commenting Singulary quadam says: "As a part of their tactic the opponents of the true Catholic teaching tried to make it appear that a genuine acceptance of the dogma that there is no salvation outside the Church implied the teaching that God would punish men for being invincibly ignorant of the true Church. Pope Pius IX set out to meet this contention also in the Singulari quadam. He stated simply that it is certain Catholic truth that God will blame no man for invincible ignorance of the Catholic Church, any more than He will blame anyone for invincible ignorance of anything else.
Incidentally, on this point, there have been Catholic writers who have been led astray by an incomplete translation of this portion of the Singulari quadam. The allocution says that people who are invincibly ignorant of the true religion "will never be charged with any guilt on this account before the eyes of the Lord." The Latin text reads ". . . qui verae religionis ignorantiam laborent, si ea sit invincibilis, nulla ipsos obstringi huiusce rei culpa ante oculos Domini." Some persons have attempted a translation of this passage which takes no account of the words "huiusce rei." Such translations tend to present invincible ignorance of the true religion as a sort of sacrament, since they make it appear that the Sovereign Pontiff taught that persons invincibly ignorant of the true religion are simply not blameworthy in the eyes of the Lord.
The fact of the matter is (and this is the gist of the teaching of Pope Pius IX here and in the encyclical Quanto conficiamur moerore) that non-appurtenance to the Catholic Church is by no means the only reason why men are deprived of the Beatific Vision. Ultimately, the only factor that will exclude a man from the eternal and supernatural enjoyment of God in heaven is sin, either original or mortal"
and "good will" or "sincerity" takes the place of supernatural charity ("works")--the love of the Triune God in Christ.
Fentons says: "The love of charity is, by its very nature, a sovereign affection. It is definable in terms of intention rather than of mere velleity; and it necessarily embodies an intention, rather than a mere velleity, to do what Our Lord actually wills we should do. And Our Lord wills that all men should enter and remain within the one society of His disciples, His Kingdom and His Mystical Body in this world.
An intention, incidentally, is an act of the will which is expressed by the statement that I am actually setting out to do a certain thing; a velleity, on the other hand, is an act of the will expressed in the declaration that I would like to do a thing. If I really intend to do a certain thing-to take a definite trip, for example-that intention necessarily affects all the rest of my plans and my conduct at the time. The man who really intends to take a plane to New York certainly will not make any plans or enter into any agreements incom¬patible with the taking of the trip he has set out to make. The mere velleity, on the other hand, has no such effectiveness. If I say I would like to take a trip to New York, this statement and the act of the will of which it is the expression have no influence whatsoever on the rest of my plans. The velleity is a mere complacency in an idea. It involves no actual preparation to accomplish its objective.
The love of charity is essentially something in the line of intention rather than of mere velleity. The man who loves God with the true affection of charity actually intends, insofar as it is possible for him to do so, to do the will of God. It is definitely the will of God that all men should enter and live within the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ. It is impossible for a man who really loves God with the affection of divine charity not to be within the Church as a member or at least to desire with a sincere and effective, even though perhaps only an implicit, intention to enter this company."
At best, one may be able to label BOD as "proxima fidei", or "nearly a doctrine."
Sisxtus Cartechini (http://www.the-pope.com/theolnotes.html) says that if you believe something against that which is "proxima fidei" you commit mortal sin against "faith", which means that whether you believe on BoD or not you commit mortal sin! :surprised:
Even so, the problem with that is that several de fide definitions of the Church condemn it. Two canons of the Council of Trent contradict and censure it.
Quite the opposite. They explicitly talks about BoD...
There is no foundation in the Scriptures for the idea of "baptism of desire".
You have several sources,
Jn, 3, 5; Jesus answered: Amen, amen, I say to you, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
Jn 6, 53-54, "Then Jesus said to them: "Amen, amen, I say unto you: unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. 54 He that eats my flesh and drinks my blood has everlasting life, and I will raise him up in the last day"
Acts 10, 1-5: "And there was a certain man in Caesarea, named Cornelius, a centurion of that which is called the Italian band: 2 A religious man, and fearing God with all his house, giving much alms to the people and always praying to God. 3 This man saw in a vision manifestly, about the ninth hour of the day, an angel of God coming in unto him and saying to him: Cornelius. 4 And he, beholding him, being seized with fear, said: What is it, Lord? And he said to him: Your prayers and your alms are ascended for a memorial in the sight of God.
None of those who promote the idea, which they want to call the "doctrine of baptism of desire," explain how it can have the same effect in the soul as the Sacrament has,
See Summa Theologica III pars. q. 66 art. 11 and 12; q 68 art. 2 and 3; q. 69 art. 1 ad 2 and art. 4 ad 2.
To end this already too long post I quote Pius IX "Quanto conficiamur moerore"
"It is known to Us and to you that those who labor in invincible ignorance of our most holy religion, and who, carefully observing the natural law and its precepts which God has inscribed in the hearts of all, and who, being ready to obey God, live an honest and upright life, can, through the working of the divine light and grace, attain eternal life, since God, who clearly sees, inspects, and knows the minds, the intentions, the thoughts, and the habits of all, will, by reason of His goodness and kindness, never allow anyone who has not the guilt of willful sin to be punished by eternal suffering."
Here you have the required good works!
Valete!
Cristian
-
Ok, now I propose this other argument for you:
1) Major: In order to be saved we must eat the flesh and drink the blood of Jesus Christ.
2) Minor: This can be done spiritually, that is by desire, by those who can´t do it physically.
3) Ergo: Those who have that desire may be saved.
4) Minor: Non-members may have that desire.
5) Ergo: Non-members may be saved.
6) Minor: Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus.
7) Ergo: Those non-members are inside the Church.
Proof:
1) Jn. VI, 54-59.
2) Per reductionem ad absurdum: There are Catholics with use of reason that do their first communion at the age of 12 more or less, and nobody can affirm they will be damned if they die before their first communion.
3) Sequitur.
4) Patet. As in the case of cathecuмens.
5) Sequitur.
6) De Fide.
7) Sequitur.
-
BOD = saved via Faith without works, that sounds an awful lot like the NO - no?
Sounds quite a bit like Luther... and I would take it even farther toward modernism than that by adding some BOD writers have even stated that those who don't even know about Christ can get into heaven by desire. The quotes I have seen to this effect mention nothing about works.
Therefore the salvation doctrine for BoD can be...
"Lack of faith" without works...
Even Martin Luther would have lauged at that thought!
-
Even so, the problem with that is that several de fide definitions of the Church condemn it. Two canons of the Council of Trent contradict and censure it.
Quite the opposite. They explicitly talks about BoD...
I can answer definitively your entire post, but not your comment above - and this I gotta see. Please post where Trent "talks explicitly" about BOD.
-
Even so, the problem with that is that several de fide definitions of the Church condemn it. Two canons of the Council of Trent contradict and censure it.
Quite the opposite. They explicitly talks about BoD...
I can answer definitively your entire post, but not your comment above - and this I gotta see. Please post where Trent "talks explicitly" about BOD.
DZ 796: Cap. 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' (Rom 8,15) Dei, per secundum Adam Iesum Christum Salvatorem nostrum; quae quidem translatio post Evangelium promulgatum sine lavacro regenerationis (can. 5 de bapt.) aut eius voto fieri non potest, sicut scriptum est: 'Nisi quis renatus fuerit ex aqua et Spiritu Sancto, non potest introire in regnum Dei' (Jo 3,5).
Trent clearly states Baptism may be "desired" and the effect of it is justification.
-
Even so, the problem with that is that several de fide definitions of the Church condemn it. Two canons of the Council of Trent contradict and censure it.
Quite the opposite. They explicitly talks about BoD...
I can answer definitively your entire post, but not your comment above - and this I gotta see. Please post where Trent "talks explicitly" about BOD.
DZ 796: Cap. 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' (Rom 8,15) Dei, per secundum Adam Iesum Christum Salvatorem nostrum; quae quidem translatio post Evangelium promulgatum sine lavacro regenerationis (can. 5 de bapt.) aut eius voto fieri non potest, sicut scriptum est: 'Nisi quis renatus fuerit ex aqua et Spiritu Sancto, non potest introire in regnum Dei' (Jo 3,5).
Trent clearly states Baptism may be "desired" and the effect of it is justification.
That's not BOD. There is only one baptism, the desire of it can afford one the grace of justification.
The "desire thereof", is the desire for Baptism, and affords one the grace of justification, not salvation.
Try again. Without the sacrament, Trent says no salvation in that canon.
-
That's not BOD. There is only one baptism, the desire of it can afford one the grace of justification.
The "desire thereof", is the desire for Baptism, and affords one the grace of justification, not salvation.
Try again. Without the sacrament, Trent says no salvation in that canon.
Please tell us, do you believe that a person who dies in the state of justification won't go to Heaven, that a person who is in this state and dies without the sacrament, but not without the effects of Baptism will go to Hell?
-
Even so, the problem with that is that several de fide definitions of the Church condemn it. Two canons of the Council of Trent contradict and censure it.
Quite the opposite. They explicitly talks about BoD...
I can answer definitively your entire post, but not your comment above - and this I gotta see. Please post where Trent "talks explicitly" about BOD.
DZ 796: Cap. 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' (Rom 8,15) Dei, per secundum Adam Iesum Christum Salvatorem nostrum; quae quidem translatio post Evangelium promulgatum sine lavacro regenerationis (can. 5 de bapt.) aut eius voto fieri non potest, sicut scriptum est: 'Nisi quis renatus fuerit ex aqua et Spiritu Sancto, non potest introire in regnum Dei' (Jo 3,5).
Trent clearly states Baptism may be "desired" and the effect of it is justification.
That's not BOD. There is only one baptism, the desire of it can afford one the grace of justification.
The "desire thereof", is the desire for Baptism, and affords one the grace of justification, not salvation.
Try again. Without the sacrament, Trent says no salvation in that canon.
But Stubborn, I´m not denying there is only one sacrament of Baptism, what I´m saying (against Feeney) is that you can obtain justification with BoD, and if you accept this then you are against the main thesis of Fr. Feeney.
If you die in the state of sanctifying grace you will obtain salvation, this is very obvious! You can just go to hell if you die in state of mortal sin, and conversely if you die in the state of grace you will go to heaven (be it directly or after Purgatory).
-
Please tell us, do you believe that a person who dies in the state of justification won't go to Heaven, that a person who is in this state and dies without the sacrament, but not without the effects of Baptism will go to Hell?
CANON IV.-If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous;.............. let him be anathema.
No sacrament, no salvation. They said it plain enough - no?
-
But Stubborn, I´m not denying there is only one sacrament of Baptism, what I´m saying (against Feeney) is that you can obtain justification with BoD, and if you accept this then you are against the main thesis of Fr. Feeney.
If you die in the state of sanctifying grace you will obtain salvation, this is very obvious! You can just go to hell if you die in state of mortal sin, and conversely if you die in the state of grace you will go to heaven (be it directly or after Purgatory).
Fr. Feeney, far as I recall, never denied justification via "BOD". It is salvation that is not possible without the sacrament, as infallibly defined (see my post above) that he echoed.
-
CANON IV.-If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous;.............. let him be anathema.
No sacrament, no salvation. They said it plain enough - no?
The sacraments are necessary, but not absolutely so.
-
CANON IV.-If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous;.............. let him be anathema.
No sacrament, no salvation. They said it plain enough - no?
The sacraments are necessary, but not absolutely so.
Trent says that whoever says what you just said is anathema.
-
But Stubborn, I´m not denying there is only one sacrament of Baptism, what I´m saying (against Feeney) is that you can obtain justification with BoD, and if you accept this then you are against the main thesis of Fr. Feeney.
If you die in the state of sanctifying grace you will obtain salvation, this is very obvious! You can just go to hell if you die in state of mortal sin, and conversely if you die in the state of grace you will go to heaven (be it directly or after Purgatory).
Fr. Feeney, far as I recall, never denied justification via "BOD". It is salvation that is not possible without the sacrament, as infallibly defined (see my post above) that he echoed.
What you understand by justification and what by salvation?
-
But Stubborn, I´m not denying there is only one sacrament of Baptism, what I´m saying (against Feeney) is that you can obtain justification with BoD, and if you accept this then you are against the main thesis of Fr. Feeney.
If you die in the state of sanctifying grace you will obtain salvation, this is very obvious! You can just go to hell if you die in state of mortal sin, and conversely if you die in the state of grace you will go to heaven (be it directly or after Purgatory).
Fr. Feeney, far as I recall, never denied justification via "BOD". It is salvation that is not possible without the sacrament, as infallibly defined (see my post above) that he echoed.
What you understand by justification and what by salvation?
Fr. Feeney: If you do not desire that Water, you cannot be justified. And if you do not get it, you cannot be
saved. This is also what Trent has defined.
Justification can be lost, Salvation is eternal.
Justification is not salvation.
-
But Stubborn, I´m not denying there is only one sacrament of Baptism, what I´m saying (against Feeney) is that you can obtain justification with BoD, and if you accept this then you are against the main thesis of Fr. Feeney.
If you die in the state of sanctifying grace you will obtain salvation, this is very obvious! You can just go to hell if you die in state of mortal sin, and conversely if you die in the state of grace you will go to heaven (be it directly or after Purgatory).
Fr. Feeney, far as I recall, never denied justification via "BOD". It is salvation that is not possible without the sacrament, as infallibly defined (see my post above) that he echoed.
What you understand by justification and what by salvation?
Fr. Feeney: If you do not desire that Water, you cannot be justified. And if you do not get it, you cannot be
saved. This is also what Trent has defined.
Justification can be lost, Salvation is eternal.
Justification is not salvation.
If you are justified, you have no mortal sin, right?
If you have no mortal sin, you are in the state of grace, right?
If you die in the state of grace, you will obtain salvation right?
-
If you are justified, you have no mortal sin, right?
If you have no mortal sin, you are in the state of grace, right?
If you die in the state of grace, you will obtain salvation right?
Right
Right
Per Trent, not without the Sacrament..........right?
-
If you are justified, you have no mortal sin, right?
If you have no mortal sin, you are in the state of grace, right?
If you die in the state of grace, you will obtain salvation right?
Right
Right
Per Trent, not without the Sacrament..........right?
Then you can die in state of sanctifying grace and go to hell????
-
If you are justified, you have no mortal sin, right?
If you have no mortal sin, you are in the state of grace, right?
If you die in the state of grace, you will obtain salvation right?
Right
Right
Per Trent, not without the Sacrament..........right?
Then you can die in state of sanctifying grace and go to hell???? :scratchchin:
Just answer the question first.
-
If you are justified, you have no mortal sin, right?
If you have no mortal sin, you are in the state of grace, right?
If you die in the state of grace, you will obtain salvation right?
Right
Right
Per Trent, not without the Sacrament..........right?
Then you can die in state of sanctifying grace and go to hell???? :scratchchin:
Just answer the question first.
Well, if Trent, by saying (as you think) that you can be justified without the sacrament but not saved without it, means that he who dies in state of grace may go to hell, then the interpretation you made of Trent is contrary to everything and everybody! It is a clear sign your principles are wrong.
The mere thought you can go to hell in state of sanctifying grace sounds blasfemy.
-
If you are justified, you have no mortal sin, right?
If you have no mortal sin, you are in the state of grace, right?
If you die in the state of grace, you will obtain salvation right?
Right
Right
Per Trent, not without the Sacrament..........right?
Then you can die in state of sanctifying grace and go to hell???? :scratchchin:
Just answer the question first.
Well, if Trent, by saying (as you think) that you can be justified without the sacrament but not saved without it, means that he who dies in state of grace may go to hell, then the interpretation you made of Trent is contrary to everything and everybody! It is a clear sign your principles are wrong.
The mere thought you can go to hell in state of sanctifying grace sounds blasfemy.
1st, How I think has absolutely nothing to do with anything. If how I thought mattered, I would let everyone into heaven with or without baptism.
2nd, Unlike Scripture (which the Church interprets for us) Dogma come to us "interpreted" - IOW, already defined by the very words.
The words of defined dogma are not chosen so as to have any ambiguity, because they are guarded and guided by the Holy Ghost, they mean precisely what they say. We cannot change that under any pretense whatsoever per Vatican 1.
The truth is, we do not know what happens to those who die without the water. All we know for certain, per Trent (and others), is that without the sacrament, there is no salvation.
Does that mean Hell? IMO, yes.....for the insincere....but I do not know and neither does anyone.
Does that mean Limbo? IMO, that is a possibility.
BUT, OTOH, I may have missed it................has anyone posted what the definitive "doctrine" is for BOD?
Regardless, the whole BOD thing never takes into account the Divine Providence of God. I mean, is God a monster (for Whom nothing is impossible or difficult) who instructs certain individuals in the absolute necessity of Baptism, grants them the grace of wishing it, then cuts off their life so that they can never receive it? And then casts them into Hell forever for not having received it?
-
At best, one may be able to label BOD as "proxima fidei", or "nearly a doctrine."
Even so, the problem with that is that several de fide definitions of the Church condemn it. Two canons of the Council of Trent contradict and censure it. There is no foundation in the Scriptures for the idea of "baptism of desire". None of those who promote the idea, which they want to call the "doctrine of baptism of desire," explain how it can have the same effect in the soul as the Sacrament has, that is, how it can dispose one for Heaven and there is no solid evidence that anyone has been saved by "baptism of desire."
[/quote]
All these thing can be said about “Perfect contrition”
It is “fidei proxima”
According to feeneyite logic it is contradicted by two canons (session 14 canon 6 & 7)
There is no foundation in the Scriptures for the idea of “perfect contrition”
There is no solid evidence that anyone has been saved by “perfect contrition”
Yet feeneyites (that I know of) do not reject this teaching.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm :scratchchin:
-
At best, one may be able to label BOD as "proxima fidei", or "nearly a doctrine."
Even so, the problem with that is that several de fide definitions of the Church condemn it. Two canons of the Council of Trent contradict and censure it. There is no foundation in the Scriptures for the idea of "baptism of desire". None of those who promote the idea, which they want to call the "doctrine of baptism of desire," explain how it can have the same effect in the soul as the Sacrament has, that is, how it can dispose one for Heaven and there is no solid evidence that anyone has been saved by "baptism of desire."
All these thing can be said about “Perfect contrition”
It is “fidei proxima”
According to feeneyite logic it is contradicted by two canons (session 14 canon 6 & 7)
There is no foundation in the Scriptures for the idea of “perfect contrition”
There is no solid evidence that anyone has been saved by “perfect contrition”
Yet feeneyites (that I know of) do not reject this teaching.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm :scratchchin:
[/quote]
I'm not going to speak for "Feeneyites" but I can speak for Fr. Feeney by saying that perfect contrition (if the person achieves it) can place one in the state of justification. If that person dies justified, he can attain salvation via perfect act of contrition - but that person must first have been baptized.
IF that person has never been baptized, he cannot get into heaven via perfect contrition, BOB or BOD.
Too bad to whoever doesn't like that dogma - all I can say is take it up with our current Pope - perhaps he'll change it. Won't do any good - but afterall, it is the thought (desire) that counts - no?
-
Cristian et al.,
If 'being justified' is something other than 'being in the state of sanctifying grace', can you kindly explain the distinction?
Many thanks!
Best,
Janet C.
-
CANON IV.-If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous;.............. let him be anathema.
No sacrament, no salvation. They said it plain enough - no?
The sacraments are necessary, but not absolutely so.
Trent says that whoever says what you just said is anathema.
Nope, even you yourself will say a person who receives baptism and dies right after, and receiving no other sacrament will be saved. Only baptism has a absolute necessity, not the sacrament, but the effects which can be supplied through the desire thereof, which you admit.
http://www.ewtn.com/library/curia/cdffeeny.htm
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).
Dogmatic Theology, Pohle, Volume 8, The Sacraments 1., p. 238-39:
Since Baptism is necessary for infants no less than for adults, it follows that all men need it as a means of salvation (necessitas medii), and that for adults it is also of precept (necessitas praecepti). However, since the Baptism of water may sometimes be supplied by the Baptism of desire or the Baptism of blood, Baptism of water is not absolutely necessary as a means of salvation but merely in a hypothetical way. That Baptism is necessary for salvation is an expressly defined dogma, for the Council of Trent declares: "If any one saith that Baptism is free, that is, not necessary unto salvation, let him be anathema".
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10733a.htm
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.
-
If 'being justified' is something other than 'being in the state of sanctifying grace', can you kindly explain the distinction?
The state of justification and the state of sanctifying grace are one and the same.
-
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4065.htm#article4
Article 4. Whether all the sacraments are necessary for salvation?
Objection 1. It seems that all the sacraments are necessary for salvation. For what is not necessary seems to be superfluous. But no sacrament is superfluous, because "God does nothing without a purpose" (De Coelo et Mundo i). Therefore all the sacraments are necessary for salvation.
Objection 2. Further, just as it is said of Baptism (John 3:5): "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter in to the kingdom of God," so of the Eucharist is it said (John 6:54): "Except you eat of the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink of His blood, you shall not have life in you." Therefore, just as Baptism is a necessary sacrament, so is the Eucharist.
Objection 3. Further, a man can be saved without the sacrament of Baptism, provided that some unavoidable obstacle, and not his contempt for religion, debar him from the sacrament, as we shall state further on (68, 2). But contempt of religion in any sacrament is a hindrance to salvation. Therefore, in like manner, all the sacraments are necessary for salvation.
On the contrary, Children are saved by Baptism alone without the other sacraments.
I answer that, Necessity of end, of which we speak now, is twofold. First, a thing may be necessary so that without it the end cannot be attained; thus food is necessary for human life. And this is simple necessity of end. Secondly, a thing is said to be necessary, if, without it, the end cannot be attained so becomingly: thus a horse is necessary for a journey. But this is not simple necessity of end.
In the first way, three sacraments are necessary for salvation. Two of them are necessary to the individual; Baptism, simply and absolutely; Penance, in the case of mortal sin committed after Baptism; while the sacrament of order is necessary to the Church, since "where there is no governor the people shall fall" (Proverbs 11:14).
But in the second way the other sacraments are necessary. For in a sense Confirmation perfects Baptism; Extreme Unction perfects Penance; while Matrimony, by multiplying them, preserves the numbers in the Church.
Reply to Objection 1. For a thing not to be superfluous it is enough if it be necessary either in the first or the second way. It is thus that the sacraments are necessary, as stated above.
Reply to Objection 2. These words of our Lord are to be understood of spiritual, and not of merely sacramental, eating, as Augustine explains (Tract. xxvi super Joan.).
Reply to Objection 3. Although contempt of any of the sacraments is a hindrance to salvation, yet it does not amount to contempt of the sacrament, if anyone does not trouble to receive a sacrament that is not necessary for salvation. Else those who do not receive orders, and those who do not contract Matrimony, would be guilty of contempt of those sacraments.
-
http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=28&catname=2
Some add Pope St. Pius V’s condemnation of the following proposition of Baius: “Perfect and sincere charity… can exist both in catechumens and in penitents without the remission of sins.” This is cited because: “The contradictory of this proposition is true. Therefore, charity cannot exist in unbaptized catechumens without the remission of their sins.” (McAuliffe, Sacramental Theology, 84.)
-
Nope, even you yourself will say a person who receives baptism and dies right after, and receiving no other sacrament will be saved. Only baptism has a absolute necessity, not the sacrament, but the effects which can be supplied through the desire thereof, which you admit.
All that you have quoted below assumes that there is another baptism, and *that* contradicts dogma - and Scripture.
Had Trent (are the others) declared that there was any other baptism, I would concede. But they did not.
http://www.ewtn.com/library/curia/cdffeeny.htm
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).
Please, please, please, show me where This we see clearly stated in the Sacred Council of Trent. Point it out to me please.
Dogmatic Theology, Pohle, Volume 8, The Sacraments 1., p. 238-39:
Since Baptism is necessary for infants no less than for adults, it follows that all men need it as a means of salvation (necessitas medii), and that for adults it is also of precept (necessitas praecepti). However, since the Baptism of water may sometimes be supplied by the Baptism of desire or the Baptism of blood, Baptism of water is not absolutely necessary as a means of salvation but merely in a hypothetical way. That Baptism is necessary for salvation is an expressly defined dogma, for the Council of Trent declares: "If any one saith that Baptism is free, that is, not necessary unto salvation, let him be anathema".
The underlined clearly contradicts Trent (and the others), the canons have already been posted ad nausem.
Look at your quote. Why do you choose to believe the canon at the end of your quote does not mean what it says? How is that even possible?
-
If 'being justified' is something other than 'being in the state of sanctifying grace', can you kindly explain the distinction?
The state of justification and the state of sanctifying grace are one and the same.
No they are not.
If you do not die in the state of justification, you will never attain salvation.
-
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4065.htm#article4
Article 4. Whether all the sacraments are necessary for salvation?
Objection 1. It seems that all the sacraments are necessary for salvation. For what is not necessary seems to be superfluous. But no sacrament is superfluous, because "God does nothing without a purpose" (De Coelo et Mundo i). Therefore all the sacraments are necessary for salvation.
Objection 2. Further, just as it is said of Baptism (John 3:5): "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter in to the kingdom of God," so of the Eucharist is it said (John 6:54): "Except you eat of the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink of His blood, you shall not have life in you." Therefore, just as Baptism is a necessary sacrament, so is the Eucharist.
The rest of the post is double talk. "Baptism in necessary, but it's not necessary when......."
-
http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=28&catname=2
Some add Pope St. Pius V’s condemnation of the following proposition of Baius: “Perfect and sincere charity… can exist both in catechumens and in penitents without the remission of sins.” This is cited because: “The contradictory of this proposition is true. Therefore, charity cannot exist in unbaptized catechumens without the remission of their sins.” (McAuliffe, Sacramental Theology, 84.)
Thanks. I have heard this before.............it defeats BOD, it does not support it.
-
http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=28&catname=2
Some add Pope St. Pius V’s condemnation of the following proposition of Baius: “Perfect and sincere charity… can exist both in catechumens and in penitents without the remission of sins.” This is cited because: “The contradictory of this proposition is true. Therefore, charity cannot exist in unbaptized catechumens without the remission of their sins.” (McAuliffe, Sacramental Theology, 84.)
Thanks. I have heard this before.............it defeats BOD, it does not support it.
Think again, the theological virtue of charity in a unbaptized (sacramentally) catechumen is always conjoined with the remission of sins. So far from being defeated, the affirmation does the opposite, such an individual who receives the remission of sins is within the Church, since we firmly believe that the remission of sins cannot be had outside of Her.
-
If 'being justified' is something other than 'being in the state of sanctifying grace', can you kindly explain the distinction?
The state of justification and the state of sanctifying grace are one and the same.
No they are not.
If you do not die in the state of justification, you will never attain salvation.
Are you aware that the grace of justification is sanctifying grace? You can't have justification without sanctifying grace.
-
All that you have quoted below assumes that there is another baptism, and *that* contradicts dogma - and Scripture.
Let me quote this again.....
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4066.htm#article11
Objection 1. It seems that the three kinds of Baptism are not fittingly described as Baptism of Water, of Blood, and of the Spirit, i.e. of the Holy Ghost. Because the Apostle says (Ephesians 4:5): "One Faith, one Baptism." Now there is but one Faith. Therefore there should not be three Baptisms.
Reply to Objection 1. The other two Baptisms are included in the Baptism of Water, which derives its efficacy, both from Christ's Passion and from the Holy Ghost. Consequently for this reason the unity of Baptism is not destroyed.
Please, please, please, show me where This we see clearly stated in the Sacred Council of Trent. Point it out to me please.
If you don't have a copy of Denzinger then here is the electronic format:
http://www.catecheticsonline.com/SourcesofDogma.php
807 is cited for penance, 797 for baptism, but I believe 796 is the correct citation.
Why do you choose to believe the canon at the end of your quote does not mean what it says? How is that even possible?
The canon:
"If any one saith that Baptism is free, that is, not necessary unto salvation, let him be anathema."
How is baptism necessary?
....and this translation after the promulgation of the Gospel cannot be effected without 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" [John 3:5].
It's necessary to be received actually or by desire.
-
If anyone is familiar with Fr. Stepanich I'm sure you've read his articles concerning this topic. They've been collected into PDF for easier viewing, no need now to juggle links on your browser.
http://www.christorchaos.com/docuмents/OutsidetheChurchThereisNoSalvation.pdf
-
http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=28&catname=2
Some add Pope St. Pius V’s condemnation of the following proposition of Baius: “Perfect and sincere charity… can exist both in catechumens and in penitents without the remission of sins.” This is cited because: “The contradictory of this proposition is true. Therefore, charity cannot exist in unbaptized catechumens without the remission of their sins.” (McAuliffe, Sacramental Theology, 84.)
Thanks. I have heard this before.............it defeats BOD, it does not support it.
Think again, the theological virtue of charity in a unbaptized (sacramentally) catechumen is always conjoined with the remission of sins. So far from being defeated, the affirmation does the opposite, such an individual who receives the remission of sins is within the Church, since we firmly believe that the remission of sins cannot be had outside of Her.
lol, this one is like a mental tongue twister.
I am trying to read it in favor of bod, however, it says that this is true........charity cannot exist in unbaptized catechumens without the remission of their sins.” - which seems to me to at least be partially true.
-
If 'being justified' is something other than 'being in the state of sanctifying grace', can you kindly explain the distinction?
The state of justification and the state of sanctifying grace are one and the same.
No they are not.
If you do not die in the state of justification, you will never attain salvation.
Are you aware that the grace of justification is sanctifying grace? You can't have justification without sanctifying grace.
I was absolutely wrong, you are absolutely right. I read the post in haste and screwed that one up royally.
-
All that you have quoted below assumes that there is another baptism, and *that* contradicts dogma - and Scripture.
Let me quote this again.....
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4066.htm#article11
Objection 1. It seems that the three kinds of Baptism are not fittingly described as Baptism of Water, of Blood, and of the Spirit, i.e. of the Holy Ghost. Because the Apostle says (Ephesians 4:5): "One Faith, one Baptism." Now there is but one Faith. Therefore there should not be three Baptisms.
Reply to Objection 1. The other two Baptisms are included in the Baptism of Water, which derives its efficacy, both from Christ's Passion and from the Holy Ghost. Consequently for this reason the unity of Baptism is not destroyed.
Please, please, please, show me where This we see clearly stated in the Sacred Council of Trent. Point it out to me please.
If you don't have a copy of Denzinger then here is the electronic format:
http://www.catecheticsonline.com/SourcesofDogma.php
807 is cited for penance, 797 for baptism, but I believe 796 is the correct citation.
Why do you choose to believe the canon at the end of your quote does not mean what it says? How is that even possible?
The canon:
"If any one saith that Baptism is free, that is, not necessary unto salvation, let him be anathema."
How is baptism necessary?
....and this translation after the promulgation of the Gospel cannot be effected without 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" [John 3:5].
It's necessary to be received actually or by desire.
Denzinger is fallible. It is a very good source for dogma etc, however, one needs look no further than the defined dogma, which is in perfect harmony with spoken tradition and Scripture.
I mean, water is water - Trent defined that water is necessary for baptism. The ―"or" means both conditions apply. It does not mean that we can choose one or the other.
It says One cannot be justified ―without the laver of regeneration or without the desire thereof. If you are forced, coerced or otherwise being baptized without desiring it, the baptism is invalid. Otherwise, John 3:5 is meaningless, is it not?
-
Denzinger is fallible. It is a very good source for dogma etc, however, one needs look no further than the defined dogma, which is in perfect harmony with spoken tradition and Scripture.
I posted it so citations could be viewed.
I mean, water is water - Trent defined that water is necessary for baptism. The ―"or" means both conditions apply. It does not mean that we can choose one or the other.
Not a single theologian has taken the "or" in that decree to mean "and".
I've never read in any theology manual that it's one or the other in the sense that you're reading it. That one could have the laver, but not the desire. Free-will is necessary, that's a given.
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4068.htm#article7
By the way, you stated further back:
That's not BOD. There is only one baptism, the desire of it can afford one the grace of justification.
The "desire thereof", is the desire for Baptism, and affords one the grace of justification, not salvation.
Are you denying this now? The concession of this is due to the same decree were talking about now.
It says One cannot be justified ―without the laver of regeneration or without the desire thereof. If you are forced, coerced or otherwise being baptized without desiring it, the baptism is invalid. Otherwise, John 3:5 is meaningless, is it not?
Yes, as stated already free-will on the part of the recipient is necessary.
Why would it be meaningless? because you put more emphasis on the matter of the sacrament and not the effect?
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4068.htm#article2
Objection 1. It seems that no man can be saved without Baptism. For our Lord said (John 3:5): "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." But those alone are saved who enter God's kingdom. Therefore none can be saved without Baptism, by which a man is born again of water and the Holy Ghost.
Reply to Objection 1. As it is written (1 Samuel 16:7), "man seeth those things that appear, but the Lord beholdeth the heart." Now a man who desires to be "born again of water and the Holy Ghost" by Baptism, is regenerated in heart though not in body. thus the Apostle says (Romans 2:29) that "the circuмcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not of men but of God."
You won't say the same thing about the desire for confession, perfect contrition, which God seeing the heart forgives a person of their sins before the actual reception of the sacrament. Or, Communion, the fact that the desire to receive our Lord spiritually affords one the grace of the sacrament without actual reception (of course you need to be in the state of grace) and you can make spiritual communions once ever hour. Of course these apply only to members of the Church.
But in the case of baptism it applies to all who are properly disposed to receive it.
Read in scripture:
Acts 10:22 Who said: Cornelius, a centurion, a just man, and one that feareth God, and having good testimony from all the nation of the Jєωs, received an answer of an holy angel, to send for thee into his house, and to hear words of thee.
"a just man", this is before the reception of baptism.
Read St. Augustine commenting on verses 44-47 of the same chapter:
Such may be the grace of God occasionally towards men, and such their great charity and contrition, that they may have remission, justification, and sanctification, before the external sacraments of baptism, confirmation, and penance be received; as we see in this example: where, at Peter's preaching, they all received the Holy Ghost before any sacrament. But here we also learn one necessary lesson, that such, notwithstanding, must needs receive the sacraments appointed by Christ, which whosoever contemneth, can never be justified. (St. Augustine, sup. Levit. q. 84. T. 4.)
Such a soul who receives "remission, justification, and sanctification" before actual reception of the sacraments must still receive the appointed sacraments according to divine precept, not intrinsic necessity (because the effects have already been produced) and if through some unfortunate accident a person is removed from this world before the actual reception of the sacraments, through no fault of their own--that divine precept ceases, for God does not command the impossible.
-
Justification can be lost, Salvation is eternal.
Justification is not salvation.
A person in the state of justification has original sin remitted and has no mortal sin on their soul.
If such a person dies-- where, according to you do they go?
They can't go to Hell, for what sin will you accuse them of?
Same with Limbo, which is an abode of souls in the state of original sin alone, no voluntary mortal sin on their part.
Tell me, where do they go?
-
They are justified through sanctifying grace, and therefore are saved.
-
Article 1. Whether the justification of the ungodly is the remission of sins?
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/2113.htm#article1
-
I gotta say, this format is tough to do these long posts.......they need to switch the giant emoticon space with this puny text box - imo.
Denzinger is fallible. It is a very good source for dogma etc, however, one needs look no further than the defined dogma, which is in perfect harmony with spoken tradition and Scripture.
I posted it so citations could be viewed.
I mean, water is water - Trent defined that water is necessary for baptism. The --"or" means both conditions apply. It does not mean that we can choose one or the other.
Not a single theologian has taken the "or" in that decree to mean "and".
I've never read in any theology manual that it's one or the other in the sense that you're reading it. That one could have the laver, but not the desire. Free-will is necessary, that's a given.
EXAMPLE: “You cannot confect the sacraments without the proper form, matter, or intention.” Use the word “or” in context with the dogma, including John 3:5 or it does not make an ounce of sense.
John 3:5 does not give and option does it?
As much as I wish it did for BODers sake, it does not say "Unless a man is born again of water or desire does it? No, certainly not - hope we agree on that.
-
Justification can be lost, Salvation is eternal.
Justification is not salvation.
A person in the state of justification has original sin remitted and has no mortal sin on their soul.
No debate there.
If such a person dies-- where, according to you do they go?
Heaven, assuming they were already baptized with water.
They can't go to Hell, for what sin will you accuse them of?
Assuming they were already baptized with water, I agree with you.
Same with Limbo, which is an abode of souls in the state of original sin alone, no voluntary mortal sin on their part.
No debate there.
Tell me, where do they go?
Assuming they were baptized with water, they go to heaven.
CANON IV.-If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation................let him be anathema.
If they were not baptized with water, then our answer must be: We do not know.
Whoever cannot live with that answer can take it up with Trent, or wait till the whole BOD gets defined - until then, other than knowing they cannot get to heaven, we do not know what happens to the unbaptized catechumen.
-
CANON IV.-If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation................let him be anathema.
If they were not baptized with water, then our answer must be: We do not know.
How about we quote the entire canon:
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.
Why didn't you include that? The sacraments are necessary in actuality or desire.
For reference:
http://www.sspx.org/miscellaneous/three_errors_of_feeneyites.htm
When the Council of Trent is read carefully, we see that the Council teaches that:
...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.)8 [Session VI, Chap. 16; Dz 809].
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, this is no longer absolutely necessary (by necessity of means), since he has already received by grace the ultimate fruit of that means. It still remains necessary in virtue of our Lord’s precept to be baptized by water. When and if circuмstances independent of our will prevent us from fulfilling such a precept, the principle taught by St. Cyprian, St. Ambrose, St. Augustine, and others is to be applied: "God takes the will as the fact." 9 This means that God accepts the intention to receive the sacrament of baptism as equivalent to the actual reception of the sacrament.
This coincides with what I've already said:
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=13647&min=375#p4
-
I gotta say, this format is tough to do these long posts.......they need to switch the giant emoticon space with this puny text box - imo.
Denzinger is fallible. It is a very good source for dogma etc, however, one needs look no further than the defined dogma, which is in perfect harmony with spoken tradition and Scripture.
I posted it so citations could be viewed.
I mean, water is water - Trent defined that water is necessary for baptism. The --"or" means both conditions apply. It does not mean that we can choose one or the other.
Not a single theologian has taken the "or" in that decree to mean "and".
I've never read in any theology manual that it's one or the other in the sense that you're reading it. That one could have the laver, but not the desire. Free-will is necessary, that's a given.
EXAMPLE: “You cannot confect the sacraments without the proper form, matter, or intention.” Use the word “or” in context with the dogma, including John 3:5 or it does not make an ounce of sense.
John 3:5 does not give and option does it?
As much as I wish it did for BODers sake, it does not say "Unless a man is born again of water or desire does it? No, certainly not - hope we agree on that.
Note what I said:
Not a single theologian has taken the "or" in that decree to mean "and".
Find me a single theologian that does the opposite.
-
CANON IV.-If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation................let him be anathema.
If they were not baptized with water, then our answer must be: We do not know.
How about we quote the entire canon:
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.
Why didn't you include that? The sacraments are necessary in actuality or desire.
For reference:
http://www.sspx.org/miscellaneous/three_errors_of_feeneyites.htm
When the Council of Trent is read carefully, we see that the Council teaches that:
...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.)8 [Session VI, Chap. 16; Dz 809].
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, this is no longer absolutely necessary (by necessity of means), since he has already received by grace the ultimate fruit of that means. It still remains necessary in virtue of our Lord’s precept to be baptized by water. When and if circuмstances independent of our will prevent us from fulfilling such a precept, the principle taught by St. Cyprian, St. Ambrose, St. Augustine, and others is to be applied: "God takes the will as the fact." 9 This means that God accepts the intention to receive the sacrament of baptism as equivalent to the actual reception of the sacrament.
This coincides with what I've already said:
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=13647&min=375#p4
For whatever reason, my formatting is not working properly with this post.
As for your above quote that says "9 This means that God accepts the intention to receive the sacrament of baptism as equivalent to the actual reception of the sacrament" and tells us that St. Cyprian, St. Ambrose, St. Augustine, and others teach it, that is not true.
St. Augustine, in his book Retractationes (Retractions) said:
Nor let us wonder that we cannot trace His unsearchable ways. For, to say nothing of innumerable other things which are given by the Lord God to some men, and to others are not given, since with Him is no respect of persons; such things as are not conferred on the merits of will, as bodily swiftness, strength, good health, and beauty of body, marvellous intellects and mental natures capable of many arts, or such as fall to man's lot from without, such as are wealth, nobility, honours, and other things of this kind, which it is in the power of God alone that a man should have; not to dwell even on the baptism of infants (which none of those objectors can say does not pertain, as might be said of those other matters, to the kingdom of God), why it is given to this infant and not given to that, since both of them are equally in God's power, and without that sacrament none can enter into the kingdom of God—to be silent, then, on these matters, or to leave them on one side, let men consider those very special cases of which we are treating. For we are discoursing of such as have not perseverance in goodness, but die in the decline of their good will from good to evil.
As for your first point about why I did not post the entire canon - it was because I was trying to get you to focus on what it says - not what you want it to say.
I will make another try at it.............
Trent does not allow for Baptism of Desire, here is the entire canon, broke down to clarify for you: CANON IV. If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous;
In Canon IV, Trent declares baptism (the sacrament) necessary for salvation. Right?...............
The same Canon goes on to say: 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 "desire thereof", in this case, Baptism, affords one the grace of justification, not salvation. Right?
Hence, one cannot deny the above infallible canon declaring baptism with water is necessary for salvation. No Baptism with water, no salvation - right?
Same as one cannot deny that a firm resolve to actually get baptized with water (which I equate to a perfect act of contrition) will put a soul in the state of justification, not salvation - right?
-
I gotta say, this format is tough to do these long posts.......they need to switch the giant emoticon space with this puny text box - imo.
Denzinger is fallible. It is a very good source for dogma etc, however, one needs look no further than the defined dogma, which is in perfect harmony with spoken tradition and Scripture.
I posted it so citations could be viewed.
I mean, water is water - Trent defined that water is necessary for baptism. The --"or" means both conditions apply. It does not mean that we can choose one or the other.
Not a single theologian has taken the "or" in that decree to mean "and".
I've never read in any theology manual that it's one or the other in the sense that you're reading it. That one could have the laver, but not the desire. Free-will is necessary, that's a given.
EXAMPLE: “You cannot confect the sacraments without the proper form, matter, or intention.” Use the word “or” in context with the dogma, including John 3:5 or it does not make an ounce of sense.
John 3:5 does not give and option does it?
As much as I wish it did for BODers sake, it does not say "Unless a man is born again of water or desire does it? No, certainly not - hope we agree on that.
Note what I said:
Not a single theologian has taken the "or" in that decree to mean "and".
Find me a single theologian that does the opposite.
I guess that I do not understand why do you need a theologian to tell you what you are reading.
Does it make even a shred of sense to say what you think it says in light of: .....as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.
It would make sense if "as it is written" was: unless a man be born again of water or the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.
IMO, people who believe in BOD cannot agree on what it is that they believe in and even just wth BOD even is, hence, they do not have a clue exactly what the H they are even defending.
Here is a question for you - or any BODer - If Trent did not infallibly teach the absolute necessity of water baptism for sanctification, what did they infallibly teach?
-
St. Augustine, in his book Retractationes (Retractions) said:
Nor let us wonder that we cannot trace His unsearchable ways. For, to say nothing of innumerable other things which are given by the Lord God to some men, and to others are not given, since with Him is no respect of persons; such things as are not conferred on the merits of will, as bodily swiftness, strength, good health, and beauty of body, marvellous intellects and mental natures capable of many arts, or such as fall to man's lot from without, such as are wealth, nobility, honours, and other things of this kind, which it is in the power of God alone that a man should have; not to dwell even on the baptism of infants (which none of those objectors can say does not pertain, as might be said of those other matters, to the kingdom of God), why it is given to this infant and not given to that, since both of them are equally in God's power, and without that sacrament none can enter into the kingdom of God—to be silent, then, on these matters, or to leave them on one side, let men consider those very special cases of which we are treating. For we are discoursing of such as have not perseverance in goodness, but die in the decline of their good will from good to evil.
What are you doing? Not even reading the passage, just copying from the Dimond brothers?
Read the part before you bolded:
not to dwell even on the baptism of infants (which none of those objectors can say does not pertain, as might be said of those other matters, to the kingdom of God), why it is given to this infant and not given to that, since both of them are equally in God's power, and without that sacrament none can enter into the kingdom of God
He's speaking of infants.
-
I guess that I do not understand why do you need a theologian to tell you what you are reading.
http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=28&catname=2
In practice, your criteria (and those of the typical Feeney adherent) appear to be these:
1. No anathema, no belief. A Catholic’s obligation to adhere to Church teaching is restricted to only those matters that the infallible judgment of the Church has solemnly proposed for belief as dogmas of the faith.
2. Free interpretation of magisterial texts. The individual lay Catholic is free to determine for himself the “literal meaning” of these (few) solemn infallible pronouncements, and contradict what popes, bishops, and approved theological manuals have taught about them for centuries.
The first principle was condemned by Pius IX in the Syllabus of Errors (Dz 1722).
The second is the Protestant principle of unmediated free interpretation — but instead of a Bible, each lay believer examines a vernacular Denzinger.
So, when you ask me, “If one accepts these canons [on baptism] as they are written… does one, in any way, fall into error?” my response is: If someone accepts them as you think they were written, he falls in every way into error.
For you approach these canons, and indeed all pronouncements of the magisterium, without having first submitted to all the obligations for belief or adherence that Vatican I and Pius IX imposed.
This refusal of submission — and not the particular issue of extra Ecclesiam — is the fundamental error from which all the other errors of Feeneyism flow.
The Church’s requirements are a package. You accept and submit to them all, or you can’t honestly call yourself a Catholic.
And no matter what category theologians may attach to baptism of desire or baptism of blood — de fide, Catholic doctrine, or just “theologically certain” — to refuse adherence to a teaching in any of these categories is still a mortal sin against the faith.
http://www.ewtn.com/library/curia/cdffeeny.htm
We are bound by divine and Catholic faith to believe all those things which are contained in the word of God, whether it be Scripture or Tradition, and are proposed by the Church to be believed as divinely revealed, not only through solemn judgment but also through the ordinary and universal teaching office (<Denzinger>, n. 1792).
Now, among those things which the Church has always preached and will never cease to preach is contained also that infallible statement by which we are taught that there is no salvation outside the Church.
However, this dogma must be understood in that sense in which the Church herself understands it. For, it was not to private judgments that Our Savior gave for explanation those things that are contained in the deposit of faith, but to the teaching authority of the Church.
(. . .)
Hence, one cannot understand how the St. Benedict Center can consistently claim to be a Catholic school and wish to be accounted such, and yet not conform to the prescriptions of canons 1381 and 1382 of the Code of Canon Law, and continue to exist as a source of discord and rebellion against ecclesiastical authority and as a source of the disturbance of many consciences.
Furthermore, it is beyond understanding how a member of a religious Institute, namely Father Feeney, presents himself as a "Defender of the Faith," and at the same time does not hesitate to attack the catechetical instruction proposed by lawful authorities, and has not even feared to incur grave sanctions threatened by the sacred canons because of his serious violations of his duties as a religious, a priest, and an ordinary member of the Church.
Finally, it is in no wise to be tolerated that certain Catholics shall claim for themselves the right to publish a periodical, for the purpose of spreading theological doctrines, without the permission of competent Church authority, called the "<imprimatur,>" which is prescribed by the sacred canons.
Therefore, let them who in grave peril are ranged against the Church seriously bear in mind that after "Rome has spoken" they cannot be excused even by reasons of good faith. Certainly, their bond and duty of obedience toward the Church is much graver than that of those who as yet are related to the Church "only by an unconscious desire." Let them realize that they are children of the Church, lovingly nourished by her with the milk of doctrine and the sacraments, and hence, having heard the clear voice of their Mother, they cannot be excused from culpable ignorance, and therefore to them apply without any restriction that principle: submission to the Catholic Church and to the Sovereign Pontiff is required as necessary for salvation.
-
St. Augustine, in his book Retractationes (Retractions) said:
Nor let us wonder that we cannot trace His unsearchable ways. For, to say nothing of innumerable other things which are given by the Lord God to some men, and to others are not given, since with Him is no respect of persons; such things as are not conferred on the merits of will, as bodily swiftness, strength, good health, and beauty of body, marvellous intellects and mental natures capable of many arts, or such as fall to man's lot from without, such as are wealth, nobility, honours, and other things of this kind, which it is in the power of God alone that a man should have; not to dwell even on the baptism of infants (which none of those objectors can say does not pertain, as might be said of those other matters, to the kingdom of God), why it is given to this infant and not given to that, since both of them are equally in God's power, and without that sacrament none can enter into the kingdom of God—to be silent, then, on these matters, or to leave them on one side, let men consider those very special cases of which we are treating. For we are discoursing of such as have not perseverance in goodness, but die in the decline of their good will from good to evil.
What are you doing? Not even reading the passage, just copying from the Dimond brothers?
Read the part before you bolded:
not to dwell even on the baptism of infants (which none of those objectors can say does not pertain, as might be said of those other matters, to the kingdom of God), why it is given to this infant and not given to that, since both of them are equally in God's power, and without that sacrament none can enter into the kingdom of God
He's speaking of infants.
Not so - it is written directly from the book. Feel free to get your own copy.
-
It's useless to attempt to show St. Augustine did not teach BOD when St. Thomas quotes him in his Summa Theologica in support of this very doctrine, multiple times.
-
I see you have avoided answering my question to you - so I will try again..........................................
If Trent did not infallibly teach the absolute necessity of water baptism for sanctification, what did they infallibly teach?
-
It's useless to attempt to show St. Augustine did not teach BOD when St. Thomas quotes him in his Summa Theologica in support of this very doctrine, multiple times.
The point is that the OM was not unanimous. AND I can post St. Thomas saying that water was an absolute necessity.
Either way - please, feel free to post what the H you are defending - - - - -PLEASE QUOTE THE CHURCH'S DOCTRINE OF BOD.
-
I see you have avoided answering my question to you - so I will try again..........................................
If Trent did not infallibly teach the absolute necessity of water baptism for sanctification, what did they infallibly teach?
It teaches that the necessity of baptism is in actuality or desire, just the same as St. Thomas:
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4068.htm#article2
Objection 3. Further, as stated above (1; 65, 4), the sacrament of Baptism is necessary for salvation. Now that is necessary "without which something cannot be" (Metaph. v). Therefore it seems that none can obtain salvation without Baptism.
Reply to Objection 3. The sacrament of Baptism is said to be necessary for salvation in so far as man cannot be saved without, at least, Baptism of desire; "which, with God, counts for the deed" (Augustine, Enarr. in Ps. 57).
-
It's useless to attempt to show St. Augustine did not teach BOD when St. Thomas quotes him in his Summa Theologica in support of this very doctrine, multiple times.
The point is that the OM was not unanimous. AND I can post St. Thomas saying that water was an absolute necessity.
Either way - please, feel free to post what the H you are defending - - - - -PLEASE QUOTE THE CHURCH'S DOCTRINE OF BOD.
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4066.htm#article4
There's the article you think where he contradicts himself.
Here's the Catechism of the Council of Trent, McHugh/Callan, p. 179:
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.
-
I'm leaving for class, I'll continue this discussion later.