Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => The Feeneyism Ghetto => Topic started by: Nishant on November 27, 2014, 10:22:37 AM
-
This is Denzinger 388.
"To your inquiry we respond thus: We assert without hesitation that the priest whom you indicated in your letter had died without the water of Baptism, because he persevered in the faith of holy mother the Church and in the confession of the name of Christ, was freed from original sin and attained the joy of the heavenly fatherland. Read, brother, in the eighth book of Augustine's City of God, where among other things it is written, 'Baptism is ministered invisibly to one whom not contempt of religion but death excludes.' Read again also the book of the Blessed Ambrose concerning the death of Valentinian where he says the same thing. Therefore, to questions concerning the dead, you should hold the opinions of the learned Fathers, and in your Church you should join in prayers and you should have sacrifices offered to God for the priest mentioned."
This is the true meaning of Baptism of Desire. Holding the Catholic Faith taught by Holy Mother Church, persevering in the name of Christ and having a true desire for Baptism by desiring to do all that the Church commands. In this case, the person was invincibly in error about the fact of his invalid Baptism, and therefore his desire for Baptism was not explicit, but merely implicit, for he did not know he was unbaptized. His Catholic Faith and confession of Christ, however, was explicit, as it need to be. This is an example of a soul saved by Baptism of Desire, which therefore proves both Feeneyism wrong, and strongly reaffirms that the Catholic Faith is necessary for attaining salvation, as all the Doctors teach. As a side note, that Innocent II, following St. Ambrose who said the same of Valentian, says that prayers and sacrifices are necessary for his soul, proves that souls saved by Baptism of Desire ordinarily go to purgatory.
-
Actually, this quote is highly problematic for Baptism of Desire.
Evidently this priest never knew that he was unbaptized. Really the only thing you can figure is that this priest died and that, after he died, someone looked around and couldn't find a baptismal record. In point of fact, if anyone knew before he died that he was unbaptized, then a) he would not have been allowed to function as a priest and b) someone would have baptized him. This is a very strange set of circuмstances. Presumably before he was ordained to the priesthood, someone would have checked his baptismal records.
Now, since this priest evidently didn't know he wasn't baptized, he couldn't even really have a Baptism of Desire.
Pope Innocent here, in this letter, is actually speaking about "Baptism of Faith", not "Baptism of Desire" ... saying that the mechanism is the mere possession of supernatural faith without any votum. Consequently, where does the Sacrament come into play? It doesn't. Pope Innocent's "Baptism of Faith" actually contradicts Trent's teaching regarding the necessity of the Sacraments for salvation. This idea that the desire was implicit in just thinking he was Catholic is plain silly. Nor does Innocent mention this anywhere at all in this letter. He simply thinks that there's some "Baptism of Faith" mechanism at play, without any relationship to the Sacrament of Baptism.
Not to mention that this letter's authorship and authenticity are both disputed, and that he wrote it to a single bishop in the capacity of a private theologian and was not addressing this authoritatively to the universal Church.. In a similar letter, the same Innocent proposes the error that the Consecration at Mass would be valid if the priest merely thought but did not actually utter the words of consecration, something for which St. Thomas attacked him.
And clearly St. Alphonsus was greatly mistaken in adducing this as "evidence" for BoD being de fide. Of course that was before a definition of infallibility, but in retrospect this letter doesn't even come CLOSE to meeting the notes of infallibility.
At the end of the day, this letter means exactly nothing.
And, Innocent relies on the authority of St. Augustine (who later rejected BoD) and St. Ambrose (who's Valentinian oration is highly ambiguous). There's just nothing here.
And, as the final nail in the coffin, how can Innocent POSSIBLY know that this priest would have gone to heaven? He "assert(s) without hesitation" that the priest would have gone to heaven. He has ABSOLUTELY NO WAY OF KNOWING THAT regardless. Even if there would be such a thing as BoD in a hypothetical sense, there's absolutely zero guarantee of this and absolutely no way of knowing whether this "priest" would have had the dispositions necessary for BoD to be in play. At best he could have said there was a possibility that he could have gone to heaven.
Not to mention that it shows grave ignorance on the part of Innocence that he doesn't even bother to mention the issue that all the priest's Masses were invalid and that he was no priest at all given his lack of Baptism.
-
How does this one letter prove "Feeneyism" wrong, Nishant, and yet an entire Ecuмenical Council could teach serious error to the Universal Church. This was just a letter addressed to a single Bishop and does not have any authoritative tone behind it. Not to mention that it's authorship is disputed. Yet Vatican II could be wrong? And this letter is infallible? That's extremely inconsistent.
-
Nado, you've been shown countless texts, from theologians and the Magisterium, explaining that the Catholic Faith is necessary for salvation, Nostis et Nobiscuм, "ensure that the faithful are deeply and thoroughly convinced of the truth of the doctrine that the Catholic faith is necessary for attaining salvation." Summo Iugiter Studio, "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." Your opinion is liberal at best, and you are misguided on this point as the Pope teaches. Msgr. Fenton informs you that most theologians taught the Catholic Faith was necessary for salvation even up until the 1950's. If you don't want to believe what the Church teaches, nobody can help you.
Dear Ladislaus, I consider Trent, its Catechism and St. Pius V's condemnation of Michael Baius' to be the strongest evidence of the doctrine of BOD. But this letter isn't unimportant, it establishes what salvation by true implicit desire would look like. Also, I disagree that St. Ambrose' oration is "ambiguous", not a single one of the Doctors ever thought so, St. Bernard, St. Thomas, St. Robert and others expressly did not. That is Fr. Feeney's mistake. St. Ambrose clearly explains that as martyrs are washed in their own blood, his piety and desire have washed him also. This is not ambiguous, that St. Ambrose says prayers are necessary rules out both water baptism and BOB. This is the same meaning Innocent II applies to the priest, who persevered both in "faith" and "in confession" which includes the votum. Also, that St. Augustine changed his opinion is by no means universally admitted by traditional scholars. Even if he did, what matters is the teaching of his that the Magisterium approves, and that is that "Baptism is ministered invisibly to one whom not contempt of religion but death excludes." St. Alphonsus, you say, was mistaken, but the many Popes who approved his work as free from error and infallibly safe to hold and teach did not think so. Their approval shows the letter is truly authoritative. Finally, if you still dispute this letter's authenticity, Trent saying contrition perfect by charity or love of God together with the desire of the sacraments remits sins, St. Pius V applying this both to catechumens and penitents closes the question.
-
Actually, this quote is highly problematic for Baptism of Desire.
Evidently this priest never knew that he was unbaptized. Really the only thing you can figure is that this priest died and that, after he died, someone looked around and couldn't find a baptismal record. In point of fact, if anyone knew before he died that he was unbaptized, then a) he would not have been allowed to function as a priest and b) someone would have baptized him. This is a very strange set of circuмstances. Presumably before he was ordained to the priesthood, someone would have checked his baptismal records.
Now, since this priest evidently didn't know he wasn't baptized, he couldn't even really have a Baptism of Desire.
Pope Innocent here, in this letter, is actually speaking about "Baptism of Faith", not "Baptism of Desire" ... saying that the mechanism is the mere possession of supernatural faith without any votum. Consequently, where does the Sacrament come into play? It doesn't. Pope Innocent's "Baptism of Faith" actually contradicts Trent's teaching regarding the necessity of the Sacraments for salvation. This idea that the desire was implicit in just thinking he was Catholic is plain silly. Nor does Innocent mention this anywhere at all in this letter. He simply thinks that there's some "Baptism of Faith" mechanism at play, without any relationship to the Sacrament of Baptism.
Not to mention that this letter's authorship and authenticity are both disputed, and that he wrote it to a single bishop in the capacity of a private theologian and was not addressing this authoritatively to the universal Church.. In a similar letter, the same Innocent proposes the error that the Consecration at Mass would be valid if the priest merely thought but did not actually utter the words of consecration, something for which St. Thomas attacked him.
And clearly St. Alphonsus was greatly mistaken in adducing this as "evidence" for BoD being de fide. Of course that was before a definition of infallibility, but in retrospect this letter doesn't even come CLOSE to meeting the notes of infallibility.
At the end of the day, this letter means exactly nothing.
And, Innocent relies on the authority of St. Augustine (who later rejected BoD) and St. Ambrose (who's Valentinian oration is highly ambiguous). There's just nothing here.
And, as the final nail in the coffin, how can Innocent POSSIBLY know that this priest would have gone to heaven? He "assert(s) without hesitation" that the priest would have gone to heaven. He has ABSOLUTELY NO WAY OF KNOWING THAT regardless. Even if there would be such a thing as BoD in a hypothetical sense, there's absolutely zero guarantee of this and absolutely no way of knowing whether this "priest" would have had the dispositions necessary for BoD to be in play. At best he could have said there was a possibility that he could have gone to heaven.
Not to mention that it shows grave ignorance on the part of Innocence that he doesn't even bother to mention the issue that all the priest's Masses were invalid and that he was no priest at all given his lack of Baptism.
That letter of Pope Innocent was never a decree for the universal Church but a personal letter which was a response to a disciplinary question. It is strange that appears at Denzinger at all, along with the other letter, even more erroneous and doctrinally incorrect, about the Jew self - baptism.
Regarding Pope Innocent, this is what St. Thomas said about one of his errors ( that Christ consecrated by His divine power without words)
‘In good sooth it can be said that Christ accomplished this sacrament by His Divine power, and subsequently expressed the form under which those who came after were to consecrate.’ But in opposition to this view are the words of the Gospel in which it is said that Christ ‘blessed,’ and this blessing was effected by certain words. Accordingly those words of Innocent are to be considered as expressing an opinion, rather than determining the point’” (Summa, III, Q. 78, Art. 1, reply to objection 1).
-
Regarding st. Alphonsus in that famous quote, he apparently says that the Baptism of Desire is "de fide"; but then in this quote it seems to be a contradiction:
St. Alphonsus: “Baptism of blowing is perfect conversion to God through contrition or through the love of God above all things, with the explicit desire, or implicit desire of the true river of baptism whose place it supplies with respect to the remission of the guilt, but not with respect to the character to be imprinted, nor with respect to the full liability of the punishment to be removed: it is called of blowing because it is made through the impulse of the Holy Spirit, who is called a blowing.” (St. Alphonsus, Moral Theology, Volume V, Book 6, n. 96)
St Alphonsus teaches that "BOD" does not provide the remission of the punishment due to sin, however, it is de fide dogma that the grace of Baptism, as defined infallibly, does indeed provides full remission of punishment due to sin, then it follows that the BOD st Alphonsus is talking here, cannot provide the grace of Baptism, let alone salvation, as understood in the Infallible Church teaching. In the quote itself, we find then a denial of the efficacy of "desire" for Baptism.
Trent defines the absolute need to be born again in water and Holy Ghost in order to be justified. This means the removal of every punishment due to sin. There is then a contradiction in St Alphonsus quote since in it, we actually find that the BOD he is speaking of, is not sufficient to obtain this remission of sin, and therefore, justification, first step for Salvation, which is sealed by water Baptism.
-
This is Denzinger 388.
"To your inquiry we respond thus: We assert without hesitation that the priest whom you indicated in your letter had died without the water of Baptism, because he persevered in the faith of holy mother the Church and in the confession of the name of Christ, was freed from original sin and attained the joy of the heavenly fatherland. Read, brother, in the eighth book of Augustine's City of God, where among other things it is written, 'Baptism is ministered invisibly to one whom not contempt of religion but death excludes.' Read again also the book of the Blessed Ambrose concerning the death of Valentinian where he says the same thing. Therefore, to questions concerning the dead, you should hold the opinions of the learned Fathers, and in your Church you should join in prayers and you should have sacrifices offered to God for the priest mentioned."
This is the true meaning of Baptism of Desire. Holding the Catholic Faith taught by Holy Mother Church, persevering in the name of Christ and having a true desire for Baptism by desiring to do all that the Church commands. In this case, the person was invincibly in error about the fact of his invalid Baptism, and therefore his desire for Baptism was not explicit, but merely implicit, for he did not know he was unbaptized. His Catholic Faith and confession of Christ, however, was explicit, as it need to be. This is an example of a soul saved by Baptism of Desire, which therefore proves both Feeneyism wrong, and strongly reaffirms that the Catholic Faith is necessary for attaining salvation, as all the Doctors teach. As a side note, that Innocent II, following St. Ambrose who said the same of Valentian, says that prayers and sacrifices are necessary for his soul, proves that souls saved by Baptism of Desire ordinarily go to purgatory.
At a minimum, Baptism of Desire and/or Blood are not heresies, and Father Feeney never claimed such, nor do any of his followers. (The Dimonds are not followers of Father Feeney; in fact, the Saint Benedict Centers will hang-up on them when they call.) But, once again, the teaching of Saint Thomas on the question of heresy, schism, and infidelity was universal:
"All ceremonies are professions of faith, in which the interior worship of God consists. Now man can make profession of his inward faith, by deeds as well as by words: and in either profession, if he make a false declaration, he sins mortally." (Summa Theologica Ia IIae, q.103, a.4)
This is why Jews, pagans, infidels, Protestants, and all Coptics and Eastern Orthodox "Christians" cannot be regarded as being in a state of sanctifying grace, whether they have received sacramental Baptism or not.
-
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.
Because in infants the supernatural virtue of faith is infused ex opere operato through the Sacrament of Baptism, whereas in adults BoD would be ex opere operantis and would therefore require explicit belief in the core mysteries ... along with all the OTHER dispositions necessary in adults for justification (as taught by Trent).
There can be no Catholic faith without explicit belief in Jesus Christ and the Holy Trinity ... in adults. If you read the Council of Trent, it describes the dispositions necessary in ADULTS for justification in Baptism. These same conditions do not apply to infants due to the ex opere operato effect of the Sacrament and a Church-supplied votum.
Your grasp of Sacramental theology is quite woeful for someone who pretends to pontificate about it on a forum.
-
I have always believed the Catholic Faith is necessary for salvation.
It appears that you never believed this. Again, you pay lip service to a formula and then redefine all the terms; you redefine what "Catholic Faith" is to suit your own purposes.
-
You do understand that a human being can actually have the divine virtue of Faith without explicitly believing any truths of the Faith, right?
Only those who have not reached the age of reason. You try to pretend that the supernatural virtue of faith can be merely infused in those who have reached the age of reason without positive intellectual assent. Nonsense. And that intellectual assent requires a minimum supernatural material content. Trent clearly made the distinction. Not only must adults have what theologians later termed fides initialis, but they must have all the other requisite dispositions for the Sacrament in order to benefit from a "Baptism of Desire". These dispositions are supplied by the Church ONLY FOR THOSE WHO LACK THE USE OF REASON.
Now, Nado, you contradict yourself yet again, because even the "MINORITY opinion" people assert that the existence of a Rewarder God is necessary by necessity of means in adults for supernatural faith. Consequently, they would hold the existence of a "Rewarder-Punisher God" as some "truths of the Faith" that MUST be believed. Consequently, even the minority opinionists would reject your statement as heretical. You are claiming that supernatural faith in adults can be purely formal without any material content whatsoever.
But Vatican I closed the book on the "minority opinion". "Minority opinion" was heretical to being with, since the Ordinary Universal Magisterium taught otherwise for the first 1600 years of Church history. But Vatican I explicitly taught that supernatural truth REQUIRES material content that "can only be known through revelation"; Rewarder God is NOT something that can only be known through revelation, such as the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation.
But your previous post rejects even the minority opinion.
If you believe that someone who has attained the use of reason can have infused supernatural faith without even explicitly believing in the existence of a Rewarder-Punisher God, then you should be best friends with Jorge Bergoglio.
You JUST stated that adults can have supernatural faith without actually believing in ANYTHING at all. That clearly is manifest heresy on your part.
-
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.
-
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 are a gnostic-Pelagian heretic. You do not have the same faith that I do where people must come to a knowledge of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and the Holy Trinity in order to be saved. And my faith is the Faith of the Fathers who would not have countenanced your heretical drivel for even a second. If there is a soul who's in good will that God wishes to save, God can and will enlighten their minds or send a preacher to them to impart the truths necessary for salvation and even to confer the Sacrament of Baptism. That is the teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas; your problem is with him and not me.
You have absolutely ZERO grasp of theology and are not at all competent to discuss these matters.
-
God will draw souls to His flock, this is, the Holy Catholic Church, outside of which there is no salvation.
In the Book of Ezechiel, after revealing the promise of baptism (36:25), God tells us how His Spirit can change the heart of man and cause him to obey His commandments: (And I will give you a new heart, and put a new spirit within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and will give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my spirit in the midst of you: and I will cause you to walk in my commandments, and to keep my judgments, and do them¦ (36:26-27).
Christ says: (No man can come to me, except the Father, who hath sent me, draw him; and I will raise him up in the last day¦ (v. 44). If one is to come to Christ, he must be drawn by the Father¦s efficacious grace; he cannot come to Christ by his own natural powers.
Do you really think that for the one who the Father draws will be impossible to receive Baptism (and the rest of the Sacraments) and thus fulfill His promise? No, the worthy souls that Gods draws will not be deprived of the means of Salvation.
The Sacraments needed for salvation are only dispensed by the Catholic Church, VISIBLY. Everyone outside It perishes.
-
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?
-
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 (http://www.amm.org/PrayWithUs/unbaptizedbabies.aspx)?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 (http://www.amm.org/PrayWithUs/unbaptizedbabies.aspx)?
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:
“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.
-
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?
-
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!
-
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 (http://www.amm.org/PrayWithUs/unbaptizedbabies.aspx)?
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.
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".
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"
-
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!
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.
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.
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
“‘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
"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."
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.
-
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.
“‘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
"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."
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
Yes, I know there is a difference between the Sacrament itself, and baptism of desire. That is why your MAJORITY/MINORITY claim applies to one and not the other.
My point about mentioning that a baptized infant doesn't actually have explicit faith himself, is to show not only that souls have gone to heaven without explicitly believing themselves in the truths of the Faith, but that you were forced to not be satisfied with the literal meaning of some of the quotes you give about explicit faith. You realize that distinctions must be made, and other things need to be referenced to qualify Church teaching....which is good, because that is what we must do....not oppose Catholic quote with other Catholic quotes.
Why is it so incredibly difficult for Nado to comprehend that the Church has explicitly made the distinction between babes and adults? Only willful ignorance could possibly be the answer.
Is the Church teaching that in the case of infants, the Act of Faith is supplied by the parents and godparents since they cannot profess their personal faith in Christ yet. But the Act of Faith (supplied by the parents) is still necessary requirement for the validity of Baptism. Children should only be brought to the church for Baptism when their parents have every intention of raising those children in a practicing Catholic household.
The Athanasian creed teaches that everyone above the age of reason must have a knowledge and belief in the mysteries of the Trinity and Incarnation to be saved. No exceptions. This creed eliminates the theory of invincible ignorance / salvation via implicit desire of non-Catholics, which really, is what these pelagians obsess about.
-
Now, are you saying the Holy Office was Pelagian that allowed the offering of Mass for Jews with indication of good-will in their error?
Are you accusing theologian Joseph Pohle (the author of Pelagianism in the Catholic Encyclopedia) of being a Pelagian heretic for saying what I am saying
Are you calling Pius IX a Pelagian for insisting we don't put limits on ignorance?
You persist, in bad will, to misinterpret Pius IX, despite the abundance of evidence to the contrary.
As for the Holy Office and Pohle, repost their quotes and I will give you my take on them. I can't find them offhand, but I'm sure that you have these embossed in gold letters hanging from your dining-room wall ... along with
There is no salvation outside the Church,
when interpreted according to the mind of the Church means
There is salvation outside the Church
-
Now, are you saying the Holy Office was Pelagian that allowed the offering of Mass for Jews with indication of good-will in their error?
Are you accusing theologian Joseph Pohle (the author of Pelagianism in the Catholic Encyclopedia) of being a Pelagian heretic for saying what I am saying
Are you calling Pius IX a Pelagian for insisting we don't put limits on ignorance?
You persist, in bad will, to misinterpret Pius IX, despite the abundance of evidence to the contrary.
As for the Holy Office and Pohle, repost their quotes and I will give you my take on them. I can't find them offhand, but I'm sure that you have these embossed in gold letters hanging from your dining-room wall ... along with
There is no salvation outside the Church,
when interpreted according to the mind of the Church means
There is salvation outside the Church
This post of yours proves you either have a horrible memory, or you really don't read what you reply to.
Yes, pardon me for not having committed both those citations to memory verbatim and for wanting to address what they actually said rather than going from memory. What, are you too lazy to repost them? I tried searching but couldn't find them. In the time that it took you to post that snarky comment, you could have posted the citation.
-
Dear Ladislaus, I consider Trent, its Catechism and St. Pius V's condemnation of Michael Baius' to be the strongest evidence of the doctrine of BOD. But this letter isn't unimportant, it establishes what salvation by true implicit desire would look like.
I'll come back to you and will stop wasting my time with the bad-willed Nadette. I'm done with her. She's an outright Pelagian and doesn't have the same faith that I do.
Nishant, I've actually TRIED to read Trent as teaching BoD but just can't do it. I'll explain why sometime tomorrow. Yes, clearly, Trent would be the strongest evidence. I don't read the Baius stuff the same way you do; I think that Baius was teaching something altogether different than a rejection of BoD. This "Innocent" letter has very little authority, and St. Alphonsus was clearly mistaken in citing it as evidence of BoD being de fide. The majority of theologians who do NOT consider BoD de fide seem to agree.
With that said, BoD is the least of my worries. In principle, I could be convinced of it in 30 seconds with the right argument. Father Feeney was the same way. In fact, Father Feeney didn't adopt his BoD opinion until much later in the game. Father Feeney was being attacked for simply teaching EENS and teaching that people had to have Catholic faith in order to be saved.
-
So, Nishant, yes, I agree that the "Priest Not Baptized" would show an "implicit" Baptism of Desire as understood by St. Alphonsus. I've long ago distinguished between types of "implicit" Baptism of Desire. There's implicit and then there's implicit.
Implicit 1: I want to be a Catholic but do not consciously think "I want to be Baptized."
Implicit 2: I'm a good guy who wants to do whatever The Great Thumb wants me to do, which therefore implicitly includes Baptism.
-
Actually, this quote is highly problematic for Baptism of Desire.
Evidently this priest never knew that he was unbaptized. Really the only thing you can figure is that this priest died and that, after he died, someone looked around and couldn't find a baptismal record. In point of fact, if anyone knew before he died that he was unbaptized, then a) he would not have been allowed to function as a priest and b) someone would have baptized him. This is a very strange set of circuмstances. Presumably before he was ordained to the priesthood, someone would have checked his baptismal records.
Now, since this priest evidently didn't know he wasn't baptized, he couldn't even really have a Baptism of Desire.
Pope Innocent here, in this letter, is actually speaking about "Baptism of Faith", not "Baptism of Desire" ... saying that the mechanism is the mere possession of supernatural faith without any votum. Consequently, where does the Sacrament come into play? It doesn't. Pope Innocent's "Baptism of Faith" actually contradicts Trent's teaching regarding the necessity of the Sacraments for salvation. This idea that the desire was implicit in just thinking he was Catholic is plain silly. Nor does Innocent mention this anywhere at all in this letter. He simply thinks that there's some "Baptism of Faith" mechanism at play, without any relationship to the Sacrament of Baptism.
Not to mention that this letter's authorship and authenticity are both disputed, and that he wrote it to a single bishop in the capacity of a private theologian and was not addressing this authoritatively to the universal Church.. In a similar letter, the same Innocent proposes the error that the Consecration at Mass would be valid if the priest merely thought but did not actually utter the words of consecration, something for which St. Thomas attacked him.
And clearly St. Alphonsus was greatly mistaken in adducing this as "evidence" for BoD being de fide. Of course that was before a definition of infallibility, but in retrospect this letter doesn't even come CLOSE to meeting the notes of infallibility.
At the end of the day, this letter means exactly nothing.
And, Innocent relies on the authority of St. Augustine (who later rejected BoD) and St. Ambrose (who's Valentinian oration is highly ambiguous). There's just nothing here.
And, as the final nail in the coffin, how can Innocent POSSIBLY know that this priest would have gone to heaven? He "assert(s) without hesitation" that the priest would have gone to heaven. He has ABSOLUTELY NO WAY OF KNOWING THAT regardless. Even if there would be such a thing as BoD in a hypothetical sense, there's absolutely zero guarantee of this and absolutely no way of knowing whether this "priest" would have had the dispositions necessary for BoD to be in play. At best he could have said there was a possibility that he could have gone to heaven.
Not to mention that it shows grave ignorance on the part of Innocence that he doesn't even bother to mention the issue that all the priest's Masses were invalid and that he was no priest at all given his lack of Baptism.
Can you quote st Augustine when he says that I do bit believe in baptism of desire anymore? Because centuries before Feeney's birth other theologians still state that Augustine taught it and say it is a catholic teaching. I do not think the valentinian address is ambiguous because no one seemed confused by it. Every theologian I have ever read on it interprets it the same way. When did all this confusion enter into this question?
-
Can you quote st Augustine when he says that I do bit believe in baptism of desire anymore? Because centuries before Feeney's birth other theologians still state that Augustine taught it and say it is a catholic teaching.
This article is well worth the read:
http://catholicism.org/baptism-of-desire-its-origin-and-abandonment-in-the-thought-of-saint-augustine.html
Be patient, since sometimes the website has issues loading this page and you get an error. Just try again.
You have to realize that access to texts was much more limited before the Printing Press. Some of St. Augustine's texts would disappear for all intents and purposes for centuries from certain parts of the world.
Even Karl "Anonymous Christian" Rahner had the honesty to admit that St. Augustine eventually rejected the idea ... despite the fact that he would want to find evidence there. What's funny is that we reject "Anonymous Christian" by Rahner because Rahner was a "modernist" and yet 99% of all Traditional Catholics believe in Rahner's "Anonymous Christian" theology.
I do not think the valentinian address is ambiguous because no one seemed confused by it. Every theologian I have ever read on it interprets it the same way. When did all this confusion enter into this question?
I believe that the above link also addresses Valentinian. St. Ambrose elsewhere can be quoted as unambiguously rejecting Baptism of Desire even for catechumens. He did, however, believe in Baptism of Blood. One speculation was that St. Ambrosed hoped that Valentinian's death would qualify under BoB because he may have been killed by Arians for opposing Arianism. Why would the Christians in St. Ambrose's church have been weeping bitterly at the news if they solidly believed in BoD? Answer: they wouldn't have.
But another thing you have to remember is that those were before the days of the internet and twitter. It probably took weeks and months before all the information could reliably make it around. Details would not have been available or would have been very sketchy. Was there a servant of Valentinian's near him at the time who could have administered Baptism as Valentinian lay dying? Who knows?
-
Actually, this quote is highly problematic for Baptism of Desire.
Evidently this priest never knew that he was unbaptized. Really the only thing you can figure is that this priest died and that, after he died, someone looked around and couldn't find a baptismal record. In point of fact, if anyone knew before he died that he was unbaptized, then a) he would not have been allowed to function as a priest and b) someone would have baptized him. This is a very strange set of circuмstances. Presumably before he was ordained to the priesthood, someone would have checked his baptismal records.
Now, since this priest evidently didn't know he wasn't baptized, he couldn't even really have a Baptism of Desire.
Pope Innocent here, in this letter, is actually speaking about "Baptism of Faith", not "Baptism of Desire" ... saying that the mechanism is the mere possession of supernatural faith without any votum. Consequently, where does the Sacrament come into play? It doesn't. Pope Innocent's "Baptism of Faith" actually contradicts Trent's teaching regarding the necessity of the Sacraments for salvation. This idea that the desire was implicit in just thinking he was Catholic is plain silly. Nor does Innocent mention this anywhere at all in this letter. He simply thinks that there's some "Baptism of Faith" mechanism at play, without any relationship to the Sacrament of Baptism.
Not to mention that this letter's authorship and authenticity are both disputed, and that he wrote it to a single bishop in the capacity of a private theologian and was not addressing this authoritatively to the universal Church.. In a similar letter, the same Innocent proposes the error that the Consecration at Mass would be valid if the priest merely thought but did not actually utter the words of consecration, something for which St. Thomas attacked him.
And clearly St. Alphonsus was greatly mistaken in adducing this as "evidence" for BoD being de fide. Of course that was before a definition of infallibility, but in retrospect this letter doesn't even come CLOSE to meeting the notes of infallibility.
At the end of the day, this letter means exactly nothing.
And, Innocent relies on the authority of St. Augustine (who later rejected BoD) and St. Ambrose (who's Valentinian oration is highly ambiguous). There's just nothing here.
And, as the final nail in the coffin, how can Innocent POSSIBLY know that this priest would have gone to heaven? He "assert(s) without hesitation" that the priest would have gone to heaven. He has ABSOLUTELY NO WAY OF KNOWING THAT regardless. Even if there would be such a thing as BoD in a hypothetical sense, there's absolutely zero guarantee of this and absolutely no way of knowing whether this "priest" would have had the dispositions necessary for BoD to be in play. At best he could have said there was a possibility that he could have gone to heaven.
Not to mention that it shows grave ignorance on the part of Innocence that he doesn't even bother to mention the issue that all the priest's Masses were invalid and that he was no priest at all given his lack of Baptism.
Can you quote st Augustine when he says that I do bit believe in baptism of desire anymore? Because centuries before Feeney's birth other theologians still state that Augustine taught it and say it is a catholic teaching. I do not think the valentinian address is ambiguous because no one seemed confused by it. Every theologian I have ever read on it interprets it the same way. When did all this confusion enter into this question?
"How many rascals are saved by being baptized on their deathbeds? And how many sincere catechumens die unbaptized, and are thus lost forever!
There was a favorable opinion on BOD (for catechumens only), in St. Augustine’s earlier writings, but in his latter works it is clear that his final conviction was the absolute necessity of sacramental baptism by water for salvation. His refutation of the Pelagians, who denied original sin and the necessity of baptism for infants, led him to see the flaws in his earlier opinion (favorable on BOD for catechumens) and change his earlier position.
St. Augustine teaches that there are no accidents in the eyes of God, and God is all powerful. Therefore, if a man is among the predestined, the elect, God will get him whatever he needs before he dies, which first and foremost is sacramental Baptism by water.
St. Augustine: “If you wish to be a Catholic, do not venture to believe, to say, or to teach that ‘they whom the Lord has predestinated for baptism can be snatched away from his predestination, or die before that has been accomplished in them which the Almighty has predestined.’ There is in such a dogma more power than I can tell assigned to chances in opposition to the power of God, by the occurrence of which casualties that which He has predestinated is not permitted to come to pass. It is hardly necessary to spend time or earnest words in cautioning the man who takes up with this error against the absolute vortex of confusion into which it will absorb him, when I shall sufficiently meet the case if I briefly warn the prudent man who is ready to receive correction against the threatening mischief.” (On the Soul and Its Origin 3, 13)
St. Augustine: “Not one of the elect and predestined perishes, regardless of his age at death. Never be it said that a man predestined to life would be permitted to end his life without the sacrament of the Mediator. Because, of these men, Our Lord says: ‘This is the will of the Father, that I should lose nothing of what he has given me.’” (Against Julian 5, 4)
-
In his earlier days, St. Augustine himself had a slightly-Pelagian bent, with a favorable view of the "free will" being able to attain anything on its own; that's due to his background in the Greco-Roman philosophical schools that had little emphasis on the notion of Original Sin and no concept whatsoever of the supernatural. As he matured in the faith, he thought otherwise.
From the article I linked to above:
Early on in his writings, Augustine laid great emphasis on the natural power of the will under the influence of actual graces but, as yet, unaided by sanctifying grace. Later, in his battle against the Pelagians, he put all the emphasis on grace, which no man can merit. Even the most virtuous of unbaptized believers, he would later argue, could not merit the gift of grace that comes with the sacrament. God will call whom He will. More on this further on. For now, I would like to quote from Augustine the Theologian by Eugene Teselle, where the author makes a most revealing insight that could explain why the African doctor favored a baptism in desire, at least at one point after his conversion: “Augustine asserts that nothing is more within the power of the will than the will itself, so that whoever wishes to love rightly and honorably, can achieve it simply by willing it; the velle is already the habere.” (Teselle cites Augustine’s De Libero Arbitrio. I, 12, 26, & 13, 29 as a source for his assertion.)
-
The Feeneyites here are noticeably, now, avoiding my posts....because they are have a crisis handling the truth of them.
:roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1:
No, we've decided to stop wasting our time and casting pearls before a heretical swine such as yourself. You are not of good will and are not searching the truth. There have been numerous defenders of BoD who are easily head and shoulders above you; you discredit the position.
On this particular thread, furthermore, one might note that you tried to derail the point Nishant was making, so I was simply ignoring your off-topic trolling and trying to answer Nishant's question.
-
Not of good-will. Not of good-will.
....because they can't find their way out of their paper bag.
No, just explaining why I'm not going to spend any significant amount of time replying to you. You have made up your mind and are not seeking the truth. Therefore the discussion is pointless at best and a waste of everyone's time. Nishant is the only person on CI here who believes in BoD with whom it's worth discussing the issue.
Nishant has been very articulate and posted at length refuting your errors, but you are the one who has refused to make any reply to him.