Author Topic: Pope Innocent II on Baptism of Desire (Read 5351 times)

Ladislaus · « **Reply #15 on:** November 30, 2014, 06:39:36 AM »

Quote from: Nado

I hope you know what gratuitous denial means, because that is what your response is.

And this is a substantive response? You haven't made a single substantive response ... which also confirms my assertion that you are not in good will (honestly seeking the truth) on this matter.

You just don't know what you're talking about. You have reduced the requirement for explicit belief to a necessity of precept, and all the theologians, majority opinion or minority opinion, concur that this explicit belief is necessary as a necessity of means, i.e. a sine qua non for supernatural faith and therefore for salvation; they are not talking about some precept that binds or does not bind depending on the circuмstances.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #16 on:** November 30, 2014, 06:42:59 AM »

Quote from: Tridentine MT

Quote from: Nado
What you appear to be implying is that you don't know how, theologically, an infant baptized at birth, and dying immediately, can go to heaven while explicitly believing NOTHING at all.

What is the case with unborn babies, whether aborted or miscarried?

Traditional teaching of the Church has always been that these cannot enjoy the beatific vision. To say anything else would be Pelagianism. Which by the way most BoD theorists promote even in the case of adults. In any case, for infants, that's Church dogma; until the Vatican II era no Catholic theologian has EVER held that such could enter into the beatific vision, but rather that they enjoy a natural state of happiness in Limbo state. It's been taught over and over by the Magisterium that unbaptized infants cannot be saved.

Nishant · « **Reply #17 on:** November 30, 2014, 10:33:35 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: Nado
Quote from: Ladislaus
Apparently you struggle with English, Nado, but the MINORITY OPINION people REJECT your allegation that no one has to explicitly believe ANY truths of the Faith at all. In fact, they say that people must explicitly believe in the existence of the Rewarder God, and obviously they need to do so with a supernatural motive of faith.

For probably the third time now, that requirement is necessary in a case where one is hoping to actually baptize a person in danger of death.

Here we are discussing about what happens only in God's realm between he and souls, their conversion and baptism of desire. There is no major or minor. It is what Pius IX wrote about imposing limits to ignorance.

For probably the fifth time now, your opinion is heretical. No, these theologians were NOT talking about something that's a necessity of precept.

You're right, Ladislaus, that opinion has been infallibly condemned and is heretical. Nado is hopelessly mistaken at very best. She appears to have not even the slightest idea of the things that were universally admitted by all traditional Catholic theologians before Vatican II. What she believes is Rahnerism.

These are propositions infallibly condemned by the Magisterium.

“Only faith in one God seems necessary by a necessity of means, not, however, the explicit faith in a Rewarder.” --- Condemned
(Denz. 1172, Pope Innocent XI, Holy Office, 4 March 1679: n. 22)

“Faith widely so-called according to the testimony of creation or by a similar reason suffices for justification.” --- Condemned
(Denz. 1173, Pope Innocent XI, Holy Office, 4 March 1679:n. 64)

With the promulgation of the Gospel and the revelation of the mystery of the Trinity, all Saints and Doctors, and the vast majority of traditional Catholic theologians teach that God established the Trinity and Incarnation as a means without which salvation is impossible, Pope Clement XI, Pope Benedict XIV and Pope St. Pius X teach this expressly. But how can we even go to the necessity of the Catholic Faith when you don't even believe faith in God is necessary? Nado's opinion is heterodox at best, and heretical at worst, rejected by all traditional theologians, and infallibly condemned by the Magisterium.

Jehanne · « **Reply #18 on:** November 30, 2014, 04:29:19 PM »

Quote from: Tridentine MT

Quote from: Cantarella
The Sacraments needed for salvation are only dispensed by the Catholic Church, VISIBLY. Everyone outside It perishes.

How can one apply this to the opinion expressed here?

It's heresy:

http://iteadjmj.com/aborto/eng-prn.html

Ergo, if aborted babies do not go to Heaven, then neither do those which perish through a miscarriage. Martyrdom for Christ and/or the explicit desire of Catholic parents to Baptize their unborn baby may provide sanctifying grace, but the existence of the Limbo of the Children is at least certain:

Quote

“The doctrine which rejects as a Pelagian fable that place of the lower regions (which the faithful generally designate by the name Limbo of the Children) in which the souls of those departing with the sole guilt of original sin are punished with the punishment of the condemned, exclusive of fire, just as if by this very fact, that those who remove the punishment of fire introduced that middle place and state, free of guilt and punishment between the kingdom of God and eternal damnation, such as that about which the Pelagians idly talk: Condemned as false, rash, injurious to Catholic schools (Denz. 1526).”

So, while the Limbo of the Children was never defined, the denial of it was condemned.

umblehay anmay · « **Reply #19 on:** November 30, 2014, 04:38:52 PM »

Quote from: Nado

If explicit faith were a necessity of means, then babies freshly baptized who die would not go to heaven.

Once again y'all are confusing the minimum requirements for receiving the Sacrament of baptism in danger of death, by mistakenly requiring those requirements for baptism of desire.

It is as simple as that. Once again, the other thread here shows Pius IX's words, confirming this.

There are different requirements for those reaching the age of reason. It is specifically spelled out in the docuмents of the Council of Trent. Why do you keep trying to make a point out of infant Baptism when it has nothing to do with adult Baptism?

Ladislaus · « **Reply #20 on:** November 30, 2014, 08:26:40 PM »

Quote from: Nado

The requirements are something the baptizing priest has a responsibility to have before he can responsibly administer the Sacrament of baptism. The requirements are for the priest, not a prerequisite for the candidate.

WRONG!

Cantarella · « **Reply #21 on:** November 30, 2014, 09:50:31 PM »

Quote from: Tridentine MT

Quote from: Cantarella
The Sacraments needed for salvation are only dispensed by the Catholic Church, VISIBLY. Everyone outside It perishes.

How can one apply this to the opinion expressed here?

It is heresy. Plain and simple.

Baptism by water is, since the promulgation of the Gospel necessary for all men, without exception, for salvation.

This is DE FIDE teaching stated in the Council of Trent.

The Catechism of Trent gives the exact time water Baptism became obligatory on all men for salvation, with no exceptions. It states that: "from the time of Our Lord's Ascension into Heaven, it was then obligatory by law to be baptised for all those who were to be saved".

Trent Canon 2 on Baptism (see my signature) actually anathemized those who say that water is to be understood metaphorically or find any "substitute" for water or turn real and true "water" into a "figure of speech".

Also, those unbaptized persons in false religions, not being members of the Church, are definitely not subject to the Roman Pontiff but it is a defined dogma of the Catholic Church that no one can be saved who is not subject to the Roman Pontiff.

It is one of the requirements for salvation:

"We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff."

(Pope Boniface VIII, in the bull, Unam Sanctam, 1302).

Unbaptized infants and little children who die are still in the state of original sin. Since no one can enter Heaven in state of original sin, these pour souls cannot be there. They are in Limbo. They do not suffer eternal fire and torment in Hell (only those beyond the age of reason, guilty of actual sins do). Their suffering consists only in the loss of the Beatific Vision.

Quote

Infallible Magisterium

Pope St. Zosimus:
"No one of our children is held not guilty until he is freed through Baptism".

Council of Lyons:
"The souls of those who die in mortal sin or with original sin only, however, immediately descend to Hell, yet to be punished with different punishments"

Council of Florence:
" It is likewise defined that the souls of those who depart in actual mortal sin or in original sin only, descend immediately into Hell but to undergo punishments of different kinds".

Pope Innocent III:
" The punishment of original sin is the loss of the vision of God; the punishment for actual sin is the torments of everlasting Hell".

Quote

One of the graces of Baptism is the remission of original sin.

Council of Florence:
"The effect of this sacrament is the remission of every sin, original and actual"

Cantarella · « **Reply #22 on:** November 30, 2014, 10:04:13 PM »

Quote from: Nado

If explicit faith were a necessity of means, then babies freshly baptized who die would not go to heaven.

As for the baptized who die before the age of reason who cannot make an act of Faith, here is the Church Infallible teaching. Baptism rules for babes are different than from adult catechumens. Pay attention!

Quote

Pope Innocent III Apostoli Letter on Baptism
For they maintain that it is useless to confer Baptism on infants. Our answer is that Baptism has taken the place of circuмcision. Therefore as "the soul of the circuмcised was not destroyed out of his people", so shall he who is born again of water and the Holy Spirit gain entrance into the kingdom of Heaven....But through the Sacrament of Baptism sin is remitted and entrance is gained to the kingdom of Heaven. For it would not be fitting that all little children, so many of whom die each day, perish without having some remedy for salvation provided for them by the merciful God, who wishes no one should perish.

Quote

Council of Trent, Canon 13 on Baptism
If anyone says that because infants do not make an act of faith, they are not to be numbered among the faithful after they receive Baptism and, moreover, that they are to be re baptized when they come to the use of reason; or if anyone says that it is better to omit the baptism of infants rather than to baptize, merely in the faith of the Church, those who do not believe by an act of their own: let it be anathema.

Quote

Pope Leo XIII Apostolic Letter Gratae Vehementer 1899
venerable Brethren, with pastoral zeal you deplore the now well known abuse which postpones the administration of Holy Baptism of infants for weeks, months, nay even for years, and you have done all in your power to banish this abuse. In truth, there is nothing more contrary to ecclesiastical laws, for not only does it, with unforgivable audacity, put it in evident danger the eternal salvation of many souls, but still more it undoubtly deprives them in this period of waiting of the ineffable gifts of sanctifying grace which are infused by the waters of regeneration. We cannot but approach and condemn this abuse with all Our might as detestable in God's sight.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #23 on:** December 01, 2014, 09:44:45 AM »

Again, Nado doesn't understand Sacramental theology. SACRAMENTS (unlike BoD) work ex opere operato. In those who have reached the age of reason, there's required the cooperation of the will, so that the Sacrament does not confer its grace unless the cooperation is present. That is the solemn teaching of Trent. And that IMO is all that Trent is teaching in the famous "or desire for it" phrase, but that's a side issue. In infants, however, who merely lack the ability to cooperate with the will, the Church supplies the requisite dispositions for Baptism, since, again, the grace is conferred ex opere operato.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #24 on:** December 01, 2014, 01:37:11 PM »

No, Nado, the point is that you don't know what you're talking about. Your theology is based on what you want to believe and not actual theological principles.

You will find no pre-V2 Catholic theologian who claims that adults are not required to explicitly believe ANYTHING at all, that they can have a purely formal faith without any material content.

You are not even following the minority opinion.

Your position is patently heretical.

Even the "minority opinion" theologians claim that you have to believe explicitly in the existence of the Rewarder/Punisher God ... with the supernatural motive of faith.

You're not even on the same page where we can argue minority opinion vs. majority opinion because you in fact believe NEITHER of these.

Nishant · « **Reply #25 on:** December 01, 2014, 02:16:15 PM »

Expecting Nado to correct her opinion, based on the numerous pre-Vatican II authorities that have already been shown to her, seems at this point to be optimistic to the point of foolishness, Ladislaus, but anyway, for anyone of good will seeking the truth on this question I put it out there.

Quote from: Fr. Michael Mueller, CSSR, 19th century

“‘Some theologians hold that the belief of the two other articles - the Incarnation of the Son of God, and the Trinity of Persons - is strictly commanded but not necessary, as a means without which salvation is impossible; so that a person inculpably ignorant of them may be saved. But according to the more common and truer opinion, the explicit belief of these articles is necessary as a means without which no adult can be saved

Quote from: St. Pius X

"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."

Quote from: Msgr. Fenton, 1950s

most theologians teach that the minimum explicit content of supernatural and salvific faith includes, not only the truths of God’s existence and of His action as the Rewarder of good and the Punisher of evil, but also the mysteries of the Blessed Trinity and the Incarnation.

So, clearly Nado is mistaken. If Nado really is willing to learn from approved pre-Vatican II theologians, she will recognize that the necessity of means according to these authorities relates to salvation. As the Athanasian Creed plainly puts it, as Catholics have always and everywhere believed.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #26 on:** December 01, 2014, 02:41:07 PM »

Quote from: Nishant

Expecting Nado to correct her opinion, based on the numerous pre-Vatican II authorities that have already been shown to her, seems at this point to be optimistic to the point of foolishness, Ladislaus, but anyway, for anyone of good will seeking the truth on this question I put it out there.

Quote from: Fr. Michael Mueller, CSSR, 19th century
“‘Some theologians hold that the belief of the two other articles - the Incarnation of the Son of God, and the Trinity of Persons - is strictly commanded but not necessary, as a means without which salvation is impossible; so that a person inculpably ignorant of them may be saved. But according to the more common and truer opinion, the explicit belief of these articles is necessary as a means without which no adult can be saved

Quote from: St. Pius X
"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."

Quote from: Msgr. Fenton, 1950s
most theologians teach that the minimum explicit content of supernatural and salvific faith includes, not only the truths of God’s existence and of His action as the Rewarder of good and the Punisher of evil, but also the mysteries of the Blessed Trinity and the Incarnation.

So, clearly Nado is mistaken. If Nado really is willing to learn from approved pre-Vatican II theologians, she will recognize that the necessity of means according to these authorities relates to salvation. As the Athanasian Creed plainly puts it, as Catholics have always and everywhere believed.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #27 on:** December 01, 2014, 03:03:21 PM »

Nobody's running away from Pius IX. It's quite clear what Pius IX meant. You simply twist his meaning into something that supports your position.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #28 on:** December 01, 2014, 03:06:22 PM »

Quote from: Nado

A Fr. Mueller and Fenton can go wrong.

Not sure of the chronology of Father Mueller, but Msgr. Fenton was very well aware of the Pius IX quote and understood it in the exact manner of the "Feeneyites". I love how you just lump anyone who believes in EENS together with "Feeneyites". Neither Msgr. Fenton nor Nishant were/are "Feeneyites".

I'll say it one last time, Nado; you are a Pelagian heretic.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #29 on:** December 01, 2014, 03:26:07 PM »

Be gone, heretic. I'm sure that Msgr. Fenton was an idiot compared to you ... because he interprets Pius IX the same way we do.