Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => The Feeneyism Ghetto => Topic started by: Ladislaus on March 10, 2021, 09:03:48 AM
-
We've heard a lot about Popes Innocent II and/or Innocent the II endorsing the notion of BoD, but the proponents of BoD ignore this decree from Pope St. Siricius. Unlike those two letters from the Innocents, this was was presented as authoritative papal teaching, addressed to the entire Church, finishing with the statement that what he decreed should be observed by all those who qui nolunt ab apostolicae petrae, super quam Christus universalem construxit Ecclesiam, soliditate divelli "who do not wish to be severed from the solidity of the Apostolic Rock upon which Christ founded the universal Church." This docuмent seems to meet all the notes of papal infallibility (unlike the other two, which were not addressed to the Universal Church and in which the Popes were clearly opining rather than authoritatively teaching).
Here's the key section.
Sicut sacram ergo paschalem reverentiam in nullo dicimus esse minuendam, ita infantibus qui necdum loqui poterunt per aetatem vel his, quibus in qualibet necessitate opus fuerit sacra unda baptismatis, omni volumus celeritate succurri, ne ad nostrarum perniciem tendat animarum, si negato desiderantibus fonte salutari exiens unusquisque de saeculo et regnum perdat et vitam.
MY TRANSLATION:
"Not to derogate in any way from the respect owed to Easter [my comment: when Baptisms were normally done], so it is our will, in the case of infants who can not yet speak on account of their age, or in the case of those would have any kind of urgent need for the waters of Baptism, that they be given aid with all haste, lest it endanger our souls, were each an every one leaving this world to forfeit "both the kingdom and life" (very literal translation here) by denying the Saving Font to those desiring it."
Notice that he actually uses the term "desire" (vs. votum) here. His choice of terms is undoubtedly providential, since this teaching effectively shoots down Baptism of "Desire".
He's saying here that "each and every one" or "every single one" of those denied the Sacrament ("wave of Baptism", "water movement of Baptism", another water word like "laver" in Trent) would lose eternal life in the Kingdom while DESIRING to receive it.
In other words, of those desiring to receive it, every single one of them would lose their soul without the Sacrament of Baptism ("water pouring" of Baptism).
-
And the typical confirmation bias of those who promote BoD causes them to ignore this.
See, unlike the BoD zealouts, the "Feeneyites" acknowledge the existence of contrary indicators or contrary evidence. We admit that St. Thomas, St. Robert Bellarmine, et al. believed in BoD. There's no need to keep re-spamming these quotes over and over again. But, being objective, we ALSO see evidence AGAINST Baptism of Desire, including the 5 or 6 Church Fathers who categorically rejected it (Fathers whom the BoD zealots filter out of the equation).
So to look at the picture, some were in favor and some were against. This leaves the overall status of BoD as a controverted matter. I hold that this decree from Pope St. Siricius demolishes Baptism of Desire, as does the dogmatic definition that there's no salvation outside the "Church of the faithful."
-
Now, the Pope could have said, in Latin, ne quis ... lest ANY of those lose their soul in being denied the Sacrament while desiring it.
No, instead, he quite deliberately uses the emphatic Latin unusquisque which means EVERY SINGLE ONE.
He's saying that EVERY SINGLE ONE of them would be lost if they did not receive the Sacrament (the "washing" or "pouring of water") ... even while DESRING to receive it. This completely precludes any notion of Baptism of Desire.
-
But..but..but...St Alphonsus...
.
Nice to see quotes from long ago address problems of today.
-
And the typical confirmation bias of those who promote BoD causes them to ignore this.
See, unlike the BoD zealouts, the "Feeneyites" acknowledge the existence of contrary indicators or contrary evidence. We admit that St. Thomas, St. Robert Bellarmine, et al. believed in BoD. There's no need to keep re-spamming these quotes over and over again. But, being objective, we ALSO see evidence AGAINST Baptism of Desire, including the 5 or 6 Church Fathers who categorically rejected it (Fathers whom the BoD zealots filter out of the equation).
So to look at the picture, some were in favor and some were against. This leaves the overall status of BoD as a controverted matter. I hold that this decree from Pope St. Siricius demolishes Baptism of Desire, as does the dogmatic definition that there's no salvation outside the "Church of the faithful."
The OP is undeniable. And this seals the deal. Bod was controverted, period. Nothing about it is was approved or settled and it remains undefinable by it's nature. Bod is a long endured subversive tactic like the airplane-interview type continual deceptive Bergoglian redefinition of Catholic doctrine. Apparently discernment is rare these days. Otherwise respected Novus Ordo Fr J Hardon had the nerve to say, Baptism is the formal way to salvation, bod is the informal. How long for that garbage to penetrate the already compromised traditional Catholic?
-
The OP is undeniable. And this seals the deal. Bod was controverted, period. Nothing about it is was approved or settled and it remains undefinable by it's nature. Bod is a long endured subversive tactic like the airplane-interview type continual deceptive Bergoglian redefinition of Catholic doctrine. Apparently discernment is rare these days. Otherwise respected Novus Ordo Fr J Hardon had the nerve to say, Baptism is the formal way to salvation, bod is the informal. How long for that garbage to penetrate the already compromised traditional Catholic?
Right, I regularly hear the NO types on EWTN radio speak of the Sacraments are merely a more certain or better path to justification and salvation, in other words, as being "optional" ... which was condemned by Trent as heretical. NONE of the modern Novus Ordites (that I've heard) even pay lipservice to the dogma by saying that these people receive the Sacraments in voto.
Anyone who OBJECTIVELY (i.e. without an agenda) looks at the history of BoD, it is absolutely clear that it was nothing more than speculation. It was NOT revealed and not part of Apostolic Tradition.
It's alarming how many Traditional Catholics believe in Rahner's αnσnymσus Christianity ... without even knowing it. One might say that they are αnσnymσus αnσnymσus Christians.
-
But..but..but...St Alphonsus...
.
Nice to see quotes from long ago address problems of today.
Sure, and there are 5 or 6 Church Fathers who can be quoted as explicitly and unequivocally rejecting Baptism of Desire, but the BoD zealots like to claim that this is something that's been believed "always and everywhere" by all Catholics. Hogwash, or to use a Fr. Cekada expression, "nonsense on stilts." They'll pretend these quotes don't exist and keep dragging out the same one from St. Augustine .. while also ignoring quotes from the later Augustine.
I imagine that there will be no comment on this thread by any of the BoD zealots. They'll simply ignore it, refuse to look at the overall objective picture, and will keep re-spamming the same BoD quotes they have ready in their PC clipboard for any occasion.
-
Questions for BoDers (rhetorical since they'll never actually answer);
1) So, were the 5 or 6 Church Fathers who rejected BoD simply mistaken?
If they answer yes, then the followup question: Well, if they were mistaken, how is it not possible that St. Augustine was in fact mistaken, while these were actually right?
2) Was St. Augustine mistaken in believing that he had been earlier mistaken about BoD?
3) Was Pope St. Siricius mistaken in maintaining that every one who dies without Baptism is lost, despite desiring it?
Followup: Well, how do we know, then, that Pope Innocent II and II weren't mistaken, rather than Pope St. Siricius?
-
If they answer yes, then the followup question: Well, if they were mistaken, how is it not possible that St. Augustine was in fact mistaken, while these were actually right?
Answer: St. Augustine was not mistaken because later Popes talked about BoD.
Rebuttal: Well, that's interesting, since those Popes based their opinion on the "authority" of St. Augustine. So St. Augustine was right because of the authority of Popes who based their opinion on the authority of St. Augustine. That is CIRCULAR authority.
You'll notice that all of BoD theory rests upon a self-contained "authority" cycle, where all roads lead back to St. Augustine. But then St. Augustine rejected BoD ... which completely wrecks the entire house of cards.
-
Right, I regularly hear the NO types on EWTN radio speak of the Sacraments are merely a more certain or better path to justification and salvation, in other words, as being "optional" ... which was condemned by Trent as heretical. NONE of the modern Novus Ordites (that I've heard) even pay lipservice to the dogma by saying that these people receive the Sacraments in voto.
Anyone who OBJECTIVELY (i.e. without an agenda) looks at the history of BoD, it is absolutely clear that it was nothing more than speculation. It was NOT revealed and not part of Apostolic Tradition.
It's alarming how many Traditional Catholics believe in Rahner's αnσnymσus Christianity ... without even knowing it. One might say that they are αnσnymσus αnσnymσus Christians.
Watching bod develop has been aggravating. The progression of what was once perhaps innocently considered, to what is now accepted is a clue that this has always been an attack on the sacraments and on baptism specifically. Either that, or the devil forgot to bother.
-
Watching bod develop has been aggravating. The progression of what was once perhaps innocently considered, to what is now accepted is a clue that this has always been an attack on the sacraments and on baptism specifically. Either that, or the devil forgot to bother.
Well, it's interesting in that you can see it develop even in St. Augustine. He realized, unfortunately too late, that BoD, even in its "innocent" form, leads to Pelagianism. And that is EXACTLY what we have today. Pelagius has prevailed in most of the modern world.
https://catholicism.org/pelagius-lives.html
-
Pelagians were making the same objection that Fr. Cekada did, to which St Jerome responds (the same way that we Feeneyites respond to Fr Cekada):
It is true that neither fertile Britain, nor the people of Scotland, nor any of the barbarian nations as far as the ocean knew anything about Moses and His prophets. Why was it necessary that He come at the end of those times when numerous multitudes of people had already perished? Writing to the Romans, the blessed Apostle cautiously airs this question but he cannot answer it and leaves it to God’s knowledge. So, you should also deign to accept that there may be no answer to what you ask. To God be the power and He does not need you as His advocate.
-
St. Jerome wrote this of the Pelagians in his day:
For while they make vain statements claiming one thing, it has been proved that they have quite another thing in their hearts.
So we have people who make empty (vain) statements saying that they believe in EENS, but it comes out that they really don't (in their hearts).
-
Unlike those two letters from the Innocents, this was was presented as authoritative papal teaching, addressed to the entire Church, finishing with the statement that what he decreed should be observed by all those who qui nolunt ab apostolicae petrae, super quam Christus universalem construxit Ecclesiam, soliditate divelli "who do not wish to be severed from the solidity of the Apostolic Rock upon which Christ founded the universal Church."
Then why did you say the following yesterday?
They [the Dimonds] are in fact not wrong in accusing MOST of them of heresy. Where they go wrong is in accusing people of heresy simply for believing in BoD even when they explain it in a Catholic sense.
Following Pope St. Siricius, BoD is heresy. Consequently those who believe, teach, or preach BoD are heretics, and the Dimonds are right (in accusing ... ).
-
Pelagians were making the same objection that Fr. Cekada did, to which St Jerome responds (the same way that we Feeneyites respond to Fr Cekada):
It is true that neither fertile Britain, nor the people of Scotland, nor any of the barbarian nations as far as the ocean knew anything about Moses and His prophets. Why was it necessary that He come at the end of those times when numerous multitudes of people had already perished? Writing to the Romans, the blessed Apostle cautiously airs this question but he cannot answer it and leaves it to God’s knowledge. So, you should also deign to accept that there may be no answer to what you ask. To God be the power and He does not need you as His advocate.
That's strong and authoritative: "He does not need you as His advocate." I like that.
Do you have a source for that quote?
-
Then why did you say the following yesterday?
Following Pope St. Siricius, BoD is heresy. Consequently those who believe, teach, or preach BoD are heretics, and the Dimonds are right (in accusing ... ).
Welcome back.
-
Then why did you say the following yesterday?
Following Pope St. Siricius, BoD is heresy. Consequently those who believe, teach, or preach BoD are heretics, and the Dimonds are right (in accusing ... ).
I don't believe that he was DEFINING directly that part of his sentence ... the same thing I said about Trent and BoD.
So, he's saying ---
"Baptize adults in danger of death ASAP ... since we'd risk our souls in that each one of them would be lost."
That part of the sentence is an explanation or reason, and the reasons don't have the same authority as the actual definition.
So, for instance, in the dogmatic definition of the Immaculate Conception, there's a difference in authority between the actual defined proposition, namely, that Our Lady was conceived in Original Sin, and the explanatory reasons for why it's true.
Same thing applies here, so that core of the statement is a command "baptize adults in danger of death ASAP" ... because ....
-
That's strong and authoritative: "He does not need you as His advocate." I like that.
Do you have a source for that quote?
Here's the footnote citation:
St. Jerome, Letter to Ctesiphontes, Migne, Patrologiae Latinae, 21, 1147-1161, translated from the Latin by Giovanni Ricciardi, 30 Days, February, 1991, English edition, San Francisco, pp. 50-51.
But I found the quote here:
https://catholicism.org/pelagius-lives.html
-
Here's the footnote citation:
St. Jerome, Letter to Ctesiphontes, Migne, Patrologiae Latinae, 21, 1147-1161, translated from the Latin by Giovanni Ricciardi, 30 Days, February, 1991, English edition, San Francisco, pp. 50-51.
But I found the quote here:
https://catholicism.org/pelagius-lives.html
Hey, if I win the Lottery, I could buy this entire set of Migne's work:
https://www.abebooks.com/Patrologiae-cursus-completus-Series-Latina-Latinae/22010874493/bd
for only about $20,000
It was so nice when I had access to the University library, which had all these. There's a total of 50,000 pages from the Latin Fathers ... and all the way through the 13th century, and these are large pages with small print.
-
This is not new but good to bring up again. MHFM published Pope St. Siricius Decree with a video and a very detailed breakdown/analysis over 7 years ago.
https://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/catholicchurch/latin-text-oldest-surviving-papal-decree-rejects-baptism-desire/#.YElUQ2hKhaQ
-
I vividly recall over 25 years ago debating Water Baptism vs. BOD with two priests in an SSPX chapel residency. The priests (one now in the FSSP and the other still SSPX yet very infamous now) vehemently defended BOD in ways that were unmistakably Pelagian.
It is quite shameful that Catholics know so little about the Celtic monk Morgan (Pelagius) and his doctrines. As a result, Pelagianism is amongst the most frequently encountered errors in the Church today, circulating even commonly in otherwise traditionalist quarters.
-
This is not new but good to bring up again. MHFM published Pope St. Siricius Decree with a video and a very detailed breakdown/analysis over 7 years ago.
https://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/catholicchurch/latin-text-oldest-surviving-papal-decree-rejects-baptism-desire/#.YElUQ2hKhaQ
Oh, I know it's not new. But I threw it out there to see if any proponents of BoD would dare to address this.
None did.
It was a bit of a trap. I was waiting for them to disparage the authority of this docuмent, and then turn it around on them and ask why the same couldn't be said of the infamous Pope Innocent II docuмent cited by St. Alphonsus. Well, actually, I knew they would not touch this with a 10-foot pole ... understanding as I do their mentality and their modus operandi.
Nothing but crickets here.
They won't actually answer any arguments from their opponents. They simply re-spam the same pro-BoD sources over and over again to pretend that only those sources exist.
This continues to demonstrate that they deliberately ignore any evidence contrary to their belief in BoD. I wish to show that their entire case is fabricated by filtering out information that is inconsistent with BoD.
-
(https://www.cathinfo.com/Themes/DeepBlue/images/useroff.gif) (https://www.cathinfo.com/pm/?sa=send;u=706) Ladislaus (https://www.cathinfo.com/profile/Ladislaus/) comment:
And the typical confirmation bias of those who promote BoD causes them to ignore this.
See, unlike the BoD zealouts, the "Feeneyites" acknowledge the existence of contrary indicators or contrary evidence. We admit that St. Thomas, St. Robert Bellarmine, et al. believed in BoD. There's no need to keep re-spamming these quotes over and over again. But, being objective, we ALSO see evidence AGAINST Baptism of Desire, including the 5 or 6 Church Fathers who categorically rejected it (Fathers whom the BoD zealots filter out of the equation).
So to look at the picture, some were in favor and some were against. This leaves the overall status of BoD as a controverted matter. I hold that this decree from Pope St. Siricius demolishes Baptism of Desire, as does the dogmatic definition that there's no salvation outside the "Church of the faithful."
Good points. I understand Pope St. Leo the Great's dogmatic letter to the Council of Chalcedon is also a good reference for the mind of the early Popes.
-
the proponents of BoD ignore this decree from Pope St. Siricius. Unlike those two letters from the Innocents, this was was presented as authoritative papal teaching, addressed to the entire Church, ..... In other words, of those desiring to receive it, every single one of them would lose their soul without the Sacrament of Baptism ("water pouring" of Baptism).
Thanks for the reminder. I hope you do not mind if I plagiarize your comments, because I just did.
-
Thanks for the reminder. I hope you do not mind if I plagiarize your comments, because I just did.
Of course not. Whatever it takes to defend EENS dogma, my friend.
-
We've heard a lot about Popes Innocent II and/or Innocent the II endorsing the notion of BoD, but the proponents of BoD ignore this decree from Pope St. Siricius. Unlike those two letters from the Innocents, this was was presented as authoritative papal teaching, addressed to the entire Church, finishing with the statement that what he decreed should be observed by all those who qui nolunt ab apostolicae petrae, super quam Christus universalem construxit Ecclesiam, soliditate divelli "who do not wish to be severed from the solidity of the Apostolic Rock upon which Christ founded the universal Church." This docuмent seems to meet all the notes of papal infallibility (unlike the other two, which were not addressed to the Universal Church and in which the Popes were clearly opining rather than authoritatively teaching).
Here's the key section.
MY TRANSLATION:
"Not to derogate in any way from the respect owed to Easter [my comment: when Baptisms were normally done], so it is our will, in the case of infants who can not yet speak on account of their age, or in the case of those would have any kind of urgent need for the waters of Baptism, that they be given aid with all haste, lest it endanger our souls, were each an every one leaving this world to forfeit "both the kingdom and life" (very literal translation here) by denying the Saving Font to those desiring it."
Notice that he actually uses the term "desire" (vs. votum) here. His choice of terms is undoubtedly providential, since this teaching effectively shoots down Baptism of "Desire".
He's saying here that "each and every one" or "every single one" of those denied the Sacrament ("wave of Baptism", "water movement of Baptism", another water word like "laver" in Trent) would lose eternal life in the Kingdom while DESIRING to receive it.
In other words, of those desiring to receive it, every single one of them would lose their soul without the Sacrament of Baptism ("water pouring" of Baptism).
Crickets from XavierSem and those of the different flavors of salvation of the "nice" non-Catholics:
(https://assets.petco.com/petco/image/upload/f_auto,q_auto/2212357-center-1)
(https://assets.petco.com/petco/image/upload/f_auto,q_auto/2212357-center-1)
-
Thus far, RomanTheo (Father Kramer) was the only one to attempt a response, which was that the context of this is simply to command that infants and adults in danger of death be baptized right away, instead of waiting for Easter time.
I responded, sure, but he clearly states that each and every one of those who pass away without Baptism will perish ... even while desiring the Sacrament. So he didn't really address that part of the quote at all. This is a SUPPORTING REASON for his decree, so I agree that he's not directly defining it, but this still has a lot of weight, and it clearly indicates that the Pope did NOT believe in Baptism of Desire. Father Kramer said that they should be baptized because there's "no guarantee of salvation" by Baptism of Desire. But that's not WHAT THE POPE SAYS. He doesn't say there's "no guarantee" but, rather, that it doesn't happen at all.
See I think that Father Kramer was reading into this docuмent what his own believe is, that, yes we should baptized because there's no guarantee of their salvation by BoD. But that is simply not what the pope is saying.
Argue if you want that this isn't infallible, but then I would say the same a fortiori about the letters of Popes Innocent II and Innocent III. Unlike this decree, which was addressed to the Universal Church and having supreme authority, those were merely letters written to individual bishops in which the Popes were merely opining in favor of BoD. In other words, they had much less authority than this docuмent.
So they simply IGNORE this docuмent because nothing there's nothing they can say about it that would not backfire on them and their entire case in favor of BoD. In fact, any criticism they could make of this docuмent would totally gut their position that rejecting BoD is heretical or even an error. And they know it.
-
I responded, sure, but he clearly states that each and every one of those who pass away without Baptism will perish ... even while desiring the Sacrament.
I thought that most here at least believed that the Church taught BOD for catechumens. How would that be okay based on what this pope said?
-
XavierSem's response:
.
.
I will answer that, and it is easy to do so, but answer my question first, Last Tradhican. I addressed it to Ladislaus above and I'm asking you now.
Q. 1. "Let me ask those who may agree with the Dimonds on some matters one simple question: Let's say His Holiness Pope St. Pius was alive today. Let's also say you submitted a theological study, with some "Dubia" to him. H.H. reads it, then says, "No, my son, the Church truly teaches BOD. I did myself in my Catechism. And now, I as Vicar of Christ assure you of it"? Would you submit to his teaching? Or attack and condemn H.H. for it?"
As to Pope St. Siricius' decree, "Sicut sacram ergo paschalem reverentiam in nullo dicimus esse minuendam, ita infantibus qui necdum loqui poterunt per aetatem vel his, quibus in qualibet necessitate opus fuerit sacra unda baptismatis, omni volumus celeritate succurri, ne ad nostrarum perniciem tendat animarum, si negato desiderantibus fonte salutari exiens unusquisque de saeculo et regnum perdat et vitam." notice the Pontiff does not use the term "voto", which signifies a supernatural desire with contrition, but rather desiderantibus, which speaks of a mere natural desire. A mere natural desire, as everyone should know by now, as St. Thomas explains and even for that matter the Holy Office Letter mentions (when it says supernatural faith and supernatural charity are necessary for desire to be supernaturally efficacious) does not suffice to receive the Baptism of Desire. That should clear it up.
This is also a disciplinary decree, not a dogmatic definition. It also mentions infants. Even the New Catechism says every effort must be made to bring little children to Baptism, since only Baptism itself provides assurance that original sin is remitted and they go to heaven. Every effort must always be made to bring Baptism to adults, since adults also may not be able to attain contrition and thus have a purely natural desire for the Sacrament, which doesn't suffice.
This would satisfy most people, but I won't be surprised, Last Tradhican, if it doesn't satisfy you, and I subsequently hear "crickets" from you on this thread
Now, here's the Second Question, pertaining to BOD being de fide, because of the Pope and Bishops teaching it as divinely revealed in Church Catechisms.
Q.2. Church Catechisms approved by the Pope have not only taught BOD but presented it as divinely revealed. Now when something is taught by the Pope and the Bishops as divinely revealed, theologians say that is sufficient for the doctrine to be accepted as de fide. Do you want to see the quote of Fr. Tanqueray again saying this? I cited it in another thread and I believe even in this thread earlier. What some of you Dimond-disciples fail to understand is that the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit not only in the first millenium but in the second also The divine assistance of the Holy Spirit promised to the Successors of St. Peter was not promised only in the 4th century, when Pope St. Siricius lived, or for some arbitrary time limit like 1000 years only, to cease to exist in the second millenium, when the Popes taught BOD, and in the 19th or 20th century, when Pope Leo XIII or Pope St. Pius X, lived. The Church has deemed the doctrine of Baptism of Desire safe to teach Her Faithful.
Your argument is ultimately not with us, but with the Catholic Church and Her Supreme Pontiffs itself. You believe the Church erred and contradicted dogma.
If She actually did do that, that would make Her a false religion, just like the others. False religions are false because they contradict dogma, as they all do.
So why the exception for the Catholic Church? If supposedly She taught heresies as dogma, then She's false also. But rather Dimondism alone is false.
And it has never actually happened that the Church has contradicted Her own dogma. Struthio essentially claimed all Popes who taught BOD are heretics.
See the absurdity and stupidity of the anti-BOD position. It leads to the belief that Popes, Saints and Doctors are Heretics and denies Church Indefectibility.
-
What an idiot.
-
notice the Pontiff does not use the term "voto", which signifies a supernatural desire with contrition,
1. Oh, this is a new one on me. Trent never defines "voto", so you're making things up again. There is nowhere in Trent that says "voto" always includes "supernatural desire" with "contrition".
2. Where does Trent define "supernatural desire"? What does this even mean? You're making up things again.
3. Where does Trent talk about contrition in relation to voto?
4. Also, I like how you cleverly use the term "voto" after we repeatedly prove that there is a distinction between voto and desire. You're like a crafty politician who uses words and phrases that are popular, but you don't use them in the same way as the people.
.
.
but rather desiderantibus, which speaks of a mere natural desire.
.
Another lie from you. You've posted hundreds of quotes, which you claim are pro-BOD and they all use the word "desire" but when the pope uses the word, you say he's only speaking of natural desire. Trent is the ONLY source of pro-BOD which uses the term "voto" (which WE pointed out to you...you had never made this distinction before) and all other quotes/saints use "desire". But you dishonestly interpret Pope Siricius as meaning 'natural' desire, with no proof at all, except your personal agenda. Shame, shame, shame.
.
To define desidero - to desire or to want, to long, to wish for, to request, to require, to need
.
.
A mere natural desire, as everyone should know by now, as St. Thomas explains and even for that matter the Holy Office Letter mentions (when it says supernatural faith and supernatural charity are necessary for desire to be supernaturally efficacious) does not suffice to receive the Baptism of Desire. That should clear it up.
Here's where your theology is totally wrong. As 2Vermont points out, only a person who has been baptized and is in the state of grace can have supernatural faith/charity. It's impossible for a non-catholic to have "supernatural desire" because without supernatural grace, they can only desire God naturally. This is theology 101.
.
This is also a disciplinary decree, not a dogmatic definition.
B.S. Why? Because you say so? Just because it's not a dogmatic definition, doesn't mean it's only disciplinary. Something that is lower than a dogmatic decree (i.e. Trent commentary) is not simply disciplinary. It's not either-or. There's a wide swath of doctrinal levels of teaching below dogma.
.
Disciplinary decrees have to do with church law, legal questions, jurisdiction, rules of religious houses, etc. Pope Siricius' comments are related to doctrine, not discipline. They are not dogmatic but are part of the ordinary magisterium (i.e. like an encyclical). They are certainly of a higher authority than Trent commentary, because the former is from a pope, while commentary is from bishops/cardinals/theologians.
.
You really have no idea what you're talking about. Your lack of humility is proving your audacious stupidity.
-
This is also a disciplinary decree, not a dogmatic definition.
Xavier,
To further prove your illogical fantasies, let's show more of your theological contradictions:
.
1. You say that Trent commentary is infallible.
2. You say that catechisms are infallible.
3. You say that we must believe what St Alphonsus' says is infallible.
.
But a statement directly from a pope on baptism/salvation is not infallible? Are you kidding me?
.
You dishonestly try to dodge this contradiction by saying it's not a "dogmatic definition", which is true, but according to you, non-dogmatic definitions (see above) can also be infallible. Contradictions, confusion and lies from you...
-
Thus far, RomanTheo (Father Kramer) was the only one to attempt a response... See I think that Father Kramer was reading into this docuмent what his own believe is, that, yes we should baptized because there's no guarantee of their salvation by BoD.
I am not Fr. Kramer.
-
I am not Fr. Kramer.
That's good, because Fr. Kramer plays the bod air guitar.
-
Right, Pax, but not only that, but even if we grant the validity of his distinction, those with the votum are merely subset of those with a generic desire. You cannot have a votum for Baptism without also the natural "desire" for it. Oh, wait, check that, perhaps a Hindu in Tibet can somehow have this infused magical votum while never actually desiring Baptism. Of course, even that is based on their natural "desire" to do everything God wants. Yet the Pope says that EVERY SINGLE ONE of those is lost, including those among the "desirers" who happen also to have the "votum". Otherwise he would simply say "some" or "most" of them are lost.
Really the reason the Pope uses the Latin "desire" is because the term "votum" hadn't been introduced yet (this is an early docuмent). It does NOT mean "only natural desire" but is a broader term.
-
I am not Fr. Kramer.
Sorry. I thought you were. He was something else for a while, but then I could have sworn he switch to RomanTheo ... since he was proud of his theological degrees from Rome ... which, IMO, since Vatican II are not worth the paper they're printed on. I took a graduate-level theology course at The Catholic University of America on St. Thomas, and it was pathetic. I learned more about Thomistic philosophy and theology at STAS in the first two weeks than I did in that entire course, and that is no exaggeration. We spent the first month in that class quibbling over the definition of "supernatural," whereas at STAS it was simply defined and we moved on. Why the need to rediscover everything from scratch when we have intellectual giants before us on whose shoulders we can stand.
-
Hey, if I win the Lottery, I could buy this entire set of Migne's work:
https://www.abebooks.com/Patrologiae-cursus-completus-Series-Latina-Latinae/22010874493/bd
for only about $20,000
It was so nice when I had access to the University library, which had all these. There's a total of 50,000 pages from the Latin Fathers ... and all the way through the 13th century, and these are large pages with small print.
.
Here, I just saved you twenty grand!!! (https://www.docuмentacatholicaomnia.eu/1815-1875,_Migne,_Patrologia_Latina_01._Rerum_Conspectus_Pro_Tomis_Ordinatus,_MLT.html) :laugh1:
-
I would accept the following explanation:
"Well, the Pope is giving that as a supporting reason or explanation, and not intending to define that particular point. As such, it's not within the scope of infallibility."
I do not except the tortured imposition of this definition here with ZERO PROOF. Xavier just made it up to explain it away because he doesn't want it to be true.
It's very clear what the Pope believed.
But then neither Pope Innocent II nor Pope Innocent III was defining either, but merely opining in favor of BoD.
So one Pope did not believe in it, but those two did.
Same thing with the Canon Law question, where the 1917 Code permits burial for catechumens. At the same time, earlier Church discipline forbade the practice.
Same thing with the Fathers. One or perhaps two of them might have believed in BoD ... at least for a time. But 5 or 6 of them explicitly rejected it.
What picture emerges? That BoD is NOT revealed truth, but is in the category of theological speculation, and, as such, it is open to being questioned by Catholics.
But BoDers filter out, ignore, or explain away all of these data points that do not fit their narrative.
What I see is an early Augustine (before he had matured in the faith), saying "having gone back and forth about it, I find [in favor]" but then firmly rejecting it when he realized that it leads to Pelagianism. And I find an ambiguous statement from St. Ambrose that could be understood in one of three different ways ... together with a rejection of the idea that catechumens could be saved without Baptism somewhere elsewhere in his works. Then I see several other Fathers who rejected the idea explicitly. THAT is the Patristic picture, clear and objective, where you can't prove it one way or the other.
Then I see the early scholastics dealing with the question (no mention of it after St. Fulgentius, a disciple of St. Augustine who rejected BoD until Abelard and Hugh of St. Victor). Abelard rejected it but Hugh of St. Victor believed in it. Peter Lombard then sought the opinion of St. Benard for a tie-breaker. St. Bernard opined tentatively in favor, saying that he'd got with St. Ambrose and St. Augustine, "whether in truth or in error." Again, hardly authoritative. Then from Peter Lombard, it got to St. Thomas, and then with St. Thomas it went viral.
Popes Innocent II and Innocent III also opined in favor of it, based "on the authority of Augustine and Ambrose" (a false premise since St. Augustine actually rejected it fiercely and St. Ambrose may have only obliquely referred to the possibility rather than teach it with any authority). So now a tentative speculation from St. Augustine, which he later rejected, has "authority"? Note, they were not defining it based on their OWN papal or Magisterial authority.
Then Trent may or may not have mentioned the concept, but certainly never defined what must be believed about it. St. Robert Bellarmine clearly limited it to catechumens, teaching resolutely the VISIBILITY of the Church. Others had different ideas. There were about as many applications of "BoD" (a phrase that exists NOWHERE in Trent) as there were theologians. Some that it applies to only catechumens, others to anyone with believe in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation, some to the American Indians who never heard of the Gospel, and Hindus in Tibet. Trent did not teach that it must be believed in, only that one had to AT MINIMUM hold that the votum is required for justification ... to avoid the heresy that the Sacraments are not necessary for salvation. In other words, Trent did not close the debate but left it open ... just as later the Church left Molinism open. Allowing Molinists to hold and teach it is not the same as teaching Molinism or endorsing it. If one applies the Cekadist principles, and those of Xaiver, the Church teaches Molinism and Catholics must believe it. But they must also believe in the Thomist position ... at the same time, since the Church allowed that to be taught too. Absurd. Simply because the Church did not resolve a debate, that doesn't mean that one side or another isn't simply WRONG. [Molinism and BoD are in fact tied together, BTW].
So we see that BoD is nothing more than a debated theological speculation. ALL THE ROADS OF BOD trace squarely and clearly back to one idle speculation by St. Augustine that he later rejected. THIS is the matter for revealed truth? That makes a mockery of the Deposit of Revelation.
Meanwhile, we see the pernicious fruits of BoD everywhere. BoD applied to anyone beyond a Catechumen leads to "αnσnymσus Catholicism," the concept that the Church includes not only actual Catholics (and catechumens) but even heretics, schismatics, and infidels (despite the fact that the one dogmatic EENS definition clearly said they were outside the Church). So you have this Frankenchurch ecclesiology, the one that was the foundation of all of Vatican II, and we then see the fruits of Vatican II. BoD extended to anyone other than, perhaps, a catechumen leads demonstrably to religious indifferentism.
So the BoD zealots are aiding and abetting the universal destruction of the Catholic faith into religious indifferentism. Rather than fight the TRUE errors, those which result from extended BoD, they spend all their time attacking those who believe that God will in fact provide the Sacrament of Baptism to all of His elect. So few people believe in EENS anymore, and their venom is reserved for those few people who still believe these things. BoD zealots are an enemy of EENS dogma, whether or not they pay lip service to it.
-
.
Here, I just saved you twenty grand!!! (https://www.docuмentacatholicaomnia.eu/1815-1875,_Migne,_Patrologia_Latina_01._Rerum_Conspectus_Pro_Tomis_Ordinatus,_MLT.html) :laugh1:
Patrologia Latina digitized (fully searchable): mlat.uzh.ch (http://www.mlat.uzh.ch/MLS/xanfang.php?corpus=2&lang=0)
Patrologiae cursus completus. Series Latina / accurante J.-P. Migne. Parisiis.
tomus 1 (1844) - tomus 221 (1864), reprinted in the 1880s.
-
.
Here, I just saved you twenty grand!!! (https://www.docuмentacatholicaomnia.eu/1815-1875,_Migne,_Patrologia_Latina_01._Rerum_Conspectus_Pro_Tomis_Ordinatus,_MLT.html) :laugh1:
Wow, thanks. This looks complete. Last time I checked it, there was very little there yet.
When I win the lottery, I'll send you a check.
-
Patrologia Latina digitized (fully searchable): mlat.uzh.ch (http://www.mlat.uzh.ch/MLS/xanfang.php?corpus=2&lang=0)
Patrologiae cursus completus. Series Latina / accurante J.-P. Migne. Parisiis.
tomus 1 (1844) - tomus 221 (1864), reprinted in the 1880s.
.
Wow, kewl! If it's okay with you, I'm going to post this in the library section.
-
Wow, thanks. This looks complete. Last time I checked it, there was very little there yet.
When I win the lottery, I'll send you a check.
.
LOL thanks but this one's on the house!
-
Right, Pax, but not only that, but even if we grant the validity of his distinction, those with the votum are merely subset of those with a generic desire. You cannot have a votum for Baptism without also the natural "desire" for it.
Good point. If beef broth violates abstinence rules on Good Friday, then beef is surely forbidden too.
.
Oh, wait, check that, perhaps a Hindu in Tibet can somehow have this infused magical votum while never actually desiring Baptism.
Enter, stage left...invincible ignorance (!). Notice how this magical ignorance fills all the pot holes which "implied faith" leaves behind.
.
In the analogy of baseball, BOD'ers always "lead off" with the Trent/BOD quote. This gets one man on base because of an allowed "intentional walk" from the opposition. But the 2nd batter, theological consensus, always strikes out. In the process, the lead off batter steals 2nd place, because they usually get others to "give in" to the St Augustine/St Thomas allowance as "historical proof". Yet, batter #3, the catechisms, pope Innocent comments, and others also strike out, because they are merely opinions and contrary to St Augustine/St Thomas. So 2 out, and a runner on 2nd. The 4th batter, the clean-up hitter, is invincible ignorance, which (nonsensically) they conflate with BOD to give them (in their minds) a single, which drives in a score.
.
But invincible ignorance is not Traditional, not historical, and nowhere defined, at any council. Strike out.
-
I would accept the following explanation:
"Well, the Pope is giving that as a supporting reason or explanation, and not intending to define that particular point. As such, it's not within the scope of infallibility."
I do not except the tortured imposition of this definition here with ZERO PROOF. Xavier just made it up to explain it away because he doesn't want it to be true.
It's very clear what the Pope believed.
But then neither Pope Innocent II nor Pope Innocent III was defining either, but merely opining in favor of BoD.
So one Pope did not believe in it, but those two did.
Same thing with the Canon Law question, where the 1917 Code permits burial for catechumens. At the same time, earlier Church discipline forbade the practice.
Same thing with the Fathers. One or perhaps two of them might have believed in BoD ... at least for a time. But 5 or 6 of them explicitly rejected it.
What picture emerges? That BoD is NOT revealed truth, but is in the category of theological speculation, and, as such, it is open to being questioned by Catholics.
But BoDers filter out, ignore, or explain away all of these data points that do not fit their narrative.
What I see is an early Augustine (before he had matured in the faith), saying "having gone back and forth about it, I find [in favor]" but then firmly rejecting it when he realized that it leads to Pelagianism. And I find an ambiguous statement from St. Ambrose that could be understood in one of three different ways ... together with a rejection of the idea that catechumens could be saved without Baptism somewhere elsewhere in his works. Then I see several other Fathers who rejected the idea explicitly. THAT is the Patristic picture, clear and objective, where you can't prove it one way or the other.
Then I see the early scholastics dealing with the question (no mention of it after St. Fulgentius, a disciple of St. Augustine who rejected BoD until Abelard and Hugh of St. Victor). Abelard rejected it but Hugh of St. Victor believed in it. Peter Lombard then sought the opinion of St. Benard for a tie-breaker. St. Bernard opined tentatively in favor, saying that he'd got with St. Ambrose and St. Augustine, "whether in truth or in error." Again, hardly authoritative. Then from Peter Lombard, it got to St. Thomas, and then with St. Thomas it went viral.
Popes Innocent II and Innocent III also opined in favor of it, based "on the authority of Augustine and Ambrose" (a false premise since St. Augustine actually rejected it fiercely and St. Ambrose may have only obliquely referred to the possibility rather than teach it with any authority). So now a tentative speculation from St. Augustine, which he later rejected, has "authority"? Note, they were not defining it based on their OWN papal or Magisterial authority.
Then Trent may or may not have mentioned the concept, but certainly never defined what must be believed about it. St. Robert Bellarmine clearly limited it to catechumens, teaching resolutely the VISIBILITY of the Church. Others had different ideas. There were about as many applications of "BoD" (a phrase that exists NOWHERE in Trent) as there were theologians. Some that it applies to only catechumens, others to anyone with believe in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation, some to the American Indians who never heard of the Gospel, and Hindus in Tibet. Trent did not teach that it must be believed in, only that one had to AT MINIMUM hold that the votum is required for justification ... to avoid the heresy that the Sacraments are not necessary for salvation. In other words, Trent did not close the debate but left it open ... just as later the Church left Molinism open. Allowing Molinists to hold and teach it is not the same as teaching Molinism or endorsing it. If one applies the Cekadist principles, and those of Xaiver, the Church teaches Molinism and Catholics must believe it. But they must also believe in the Thomist position ... at the same time, since the Church allowed that to be taught too. Absurd. Simply because the Church did not resolve a debate, that doesn't mean that one side or another isn't simply WRONG. [Molinism and BoD are in fact tied together, BTW].
So we see that BoD is nothing more than a debated theological speculation. ALL THE ROADS OF BOD trace squarely and clearly back to one idle speculation by St. Augustine that he later rejected. THIS is the matter for revealed truth? That makes a mockery of the Deposit of Revelation.
Meanwhile, we see the pernicious fruits of BoD everywhere. BoD applied to anyone beyond a Catechumen leads to "αnσnymσus Catholicism," the concept that the Church includes not only actual Catholics (and catechumens) but even heretics, schismatics, and infidels (despite the fact that the one dogmatic EENS definition clearly said they were outside the Church). So you have this Frankenchurch ecclesiology, the one that was the foundation of all of Vatican II, and we then see the fruits of Vatican II. BoD extended to anyone other than, perhaps, a catechumen leads demonstrably to religious indifferentism.
So the BoD zealots are aiding and abetting the universal destruction of the Catholic faith into religious indifferentism. Rather than fight the TRUE errors, those which result from extended BoD, they spend all their time attacking those who believe that God will in fact provide the Sacrament of Baptism to all of His elect. So few people believe in EENS anymore, and their venom is reserved for those few people who still believe these things. BoD zealots are an enemy of EENS dogma, whether or not they pay lip service to it.
So has anyone seen my question earlier in this thread about applying Pope Siricius' comments to catechumens? It appears that he believes that catechumens would be lost as well. And yet I thought that most here, like the poster above, are willing to accept the version of BOD that allows for catechumens.
-
So has anyone seen my question earlier in this thread about applying Pope Siricius' comments to catechumens? It appears that he believes that catechumens would be lost as well. And yet I thought that most here, like the poster above, are willing to accept the version of BOD that allows for catechumens.
I also was waiting but I do not believe the catechumen is saved by his contrition / desire / whatever because dying without the sacrament means justification, if obtained at all, (which I do not believe it is) is useless.
-
So has anyone seen my question earlier in this thread about applying Pope Siricius' comments to catechumens? It appears that he believes that catechumens would be lost as well. And yet I thought that most here, like the poster above, are willing to accept the version of BOD that allows for catechumens.
Yes, the Pope obviously didn't believe in BoD for catechumens. In fact, I'm certain he has catechumens in mind as those desiring Baptism when he refers to Easter being the customary time for their Baptism.
I don't believe in BoD for catechumens either, as I believe that God will bring any who are properly disposed the Sacrament itself.
I'm just saying that a BoD for catechumens does not have the massive ecclesiological ramifications of extending it to all manner of heretic, schismatic, and infidel.
I'm just saying that I would not have anything more than a polite disagreement with someone who believed in BoD for catechumens, since that in itself does not absolutely wreck Catholic ecclesiology.
What I get riled up against is the proposition that those who have no connection to the Visible Church can be saved.
-
Pope Siricius' believed in BOD just as the Churches teaches it, without wiggle room.
I wouldn't count on all things HolyFamMon produces, they have the reputation of editing in and out, words they like or dislike often when it suits their agenda. Sometime just little words like "OR".
Pope Siricius knows that BOD doesn't even come into the conversation unless death came first BEFORE the proper administration of the Sacrament which the recipient was being prepared for.
How do I know that? Because he was a True Pope, the church has taught BOD for centuries which qualifies Baptism of desire worthy of belief. Pope Siricius knew that BOD is not equivalent to the Sacrament and no one should depend on it. His historical context.should be considered.
It would be interesting if someone would show words to deny BOD in Catholic [color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]Catechism books throughout past centuries. [/color]
-
Please stop while you’re behind, Myrna. I’d prefer not to pick sort that last nonsensical post of yours.
-
Xavier,
To further prove your illogical fantasies, let's show more of your theological contradictions:
.
1. You say that Trent commentary is infallible.
2. You say that catechisms are infallible.
3. You say that we must believe what St Alphonsus' says is infallible.
.
But a statement directly from a pope on baptism/salvation is not infallible? Are you kidding me?
.
You dishonestly try to dodge this contradiction by saying it's not a "dogmatic definition", which is true, but according to you, non-dogmatic definitions (see above) can also be infallible. Contradictions, confusion and lies from you...
To be fair to Xavier here, isn't this what R&R adherents do all of the time though?
-
Isn't this what R&R adherents do all of the time though?
Except that Xaiver isn't actually R&R. He doesn't think there's anything that wrong with V2 or the New Mass.
-
Except that Xaiver isn't actually R&R. He doesn't think there's anything that wrong with V2 or the New Mass.
Yes, that is true.
-
Yes, the Pope obviously didn't believe in BoD for catechumens. In fact, I'm certain he has catechumens in mind as those desiring Baptism when he refers to Easter being the customary time for their Baptism.
I don't believe in BoD for catechumens either, as I believe that God will bring any who are properly disposed the Sacrament itself.
I'm just saying that a BoD for catechumens does not have the massive ecclesiological ramifications of extending it to all manner of heretic, schismatic, and infidel.
I'm just saying that I would not have anything more than a polite disagreement with someone who believed in BoD for catechumens, since that in itself does not absolutely wreck Catholic ecclesiology.
What I get riled up against is the proposition that those who have no connection to the Visible Church can be saved.
So, doesn't that mean that he and St Robert Bellarmine (Doctor) are at odds? How is this squared?
-
So, doesn't that mean that he and St Robert Bellarmine (Doctor) are at odds? How is this squared?
Well, logically, one of them was wrong. As is clear from an objective look at the evidence, some were for the notion, some against. St. Augustine was both for AND against, having floated the idea when he was younger but then rejecting it later.
That's why I say that the status of BoD is that it's a controverted matter among Catholics. There's no indication whatsoever that it was revealed, and so it may never be resolved.
On another thread, however, I posted that, if I were pope, I would fall short of condemning BoD as heretical but would forbid all discussion of it, since it does no good but lots of harm. You see, if God does save by BoD, then not believing in it won't change that. In fact, ironically, if someone ardently believes in BoD, that could actually UNDERMINE their desire to be baptized, making them complacent that they can be saved without Baptism ... as Fr. Feeney famously pointed out. On the other hand, BoD very quickly leads to religious indifferentism and denial of EENS, and it is the root cause of all the Vatican II evils.
Here's my perspective. If I die and find out that God saved some people by BoD, then glory to God. But until then, the only thing I know for sure that He revealed to us is that the Sacrament in re is necessary for salvation, and BoD has a tendency to completely undermine that dogma.
-
To be fair to Xavier here, isn't this what R&R adherents do all of the time though?
No. As an example, Stubborn and I would say that none of the 4 examples are infallible. And we’d be right.
-
No. As an example, Stubborn and I would say that none of the 4 examples are infallible. And we’d be right.
But many R&Rs do decide whether what Francis says is infallible or not...just as Xavier did with Siricius.
-
But many R&Rs do decide whether what Francis says is infallible or not...just as Xavier did with Siricius.
By now we all should know the pope is only infallible when he defines a doctrine ex cathedra. So there really is nothing for R&R to decide as far as Francis' infallibility is concerned because he has never defined a doctrine ex cathedra.
It is worth reminding that a doctrine is a truth or belief that all of the faithful within the Church has believed always and everywhere. That is what a doctrine is.
A dogma is nothing more than a doctrine, defined ex cathedra. Any and all new doctrines, like all those of V2, will never be defined ex cathedra because they are new doctrines and were never believed by all the faithful all of the time.
This is the decree of V1, it states when the pope, and only the pope is infallible, only when he speaks ex cathedra, that is "when he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church" This is when doctrine becomes defined dogma, and this is the absolute extent of the popes' infallibility per V1.
Some theologians of the last few centuries opined V1's dogma on papal infallibility was greatly lacking, so they took it upon themselves to reward popes with additional infallibilities. Most of the faithful people accept these "add ons" or additional infallibilities as if they are de fide teachings of the Church, which helps explain why we are in this crisis. And those who believe them to be authentic teachings of the Church generally fall into one of three categories or some combination of them....1) Confused, 2) Novus Ordo 3) Sedevacantist.
-
Let's take the sede vs. R&R debate elsewhere please.
-
By now we all should know the pope is only infallible when he defines a doctrine ex cathedra. So there really is nothing for R&R to decide as far as Francis' infallibility is concerned because he has never defined a doctrine ex cathedra.
It is worth reminding that a doctrine is a truth or belief that all of the faithful within the Church has believed always and everywhere. That is what a doctrine is.
A dogma is nothing more than a doctrine, defined ex cathedra. Any and all new doctrines, like all those of V2, will never be defined ex cathedra because they are new doctrines and were never believed by all the faithful all of the time.
This is the decree of V1, it states when the pope, and only the pope is infallible, only when he speaks ex cathedra, that is "when he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church" This is when doctrine becomes defined dogma, and this is the absolute extent of the popes' infallibility per V1.
Some theologians of the last few centuries opined V1's dogma on papal infallibility was greatly lacking, so they took it upon themselves to reward popes with additional infallibilities. Most of the faithful people accept these "add ons" or additional infallibilities as if they are de fide teachings of the Church, which helps explain why we are in this crisis. And those who believe them to be authentic teachings of the Church generally fall into one of three categories or some combination of them....1) Confused, 2) Novus Ordo 3) Sedevacantist.
Look Stubborn, I'm not getting into a R&R vs Sede argument with you.
My only point is that Xavier uses the "not infallible" card to explain any potential papal error on faith and morals. Just because something is "not infallible" doesn't mean it gets a pass...which is what Xavier was trying to do here with Pope Siricius' comments.
Of course, I don't agree that it's clear that Pope Siricius made an error.
-
Let's take the sede vs. R&R debate elsewhere please.
No thanks.
-
So has anyone seen my question earlier in this thread about applying Pope Siricius' comments to catechumens? It appears that he believes that catechumens would be lost as well. And yet I thought that most here, like the poster above, are willing to accept the version of BOD that allows for catechumens.
The good Pope St. Siriciius in his letter to Himerius is saying, if you are ready to be Baptised, don't delay DON'T DEPEND ON BOD The pope feared Christianity at that time was being outlawed and anyone refusing to worship Roman Gods would be killed.
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! 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.”
-
It is worth reminding that a doctrine is a truth or belief that all of the faithful within the Church has believed always and everywhere. That is what a doctrine is.
Yes Stubborn and Baptism of Desire and OR Blood is just that! From the beginning of the birth of the Church it was taught in every catechism book that mentions it.
Can you show us one catechism book that denies BOD/BOB?
-
Look Stubborn, I'm not getting into a R&R vs Sede argument with you.
My only point is that Xavier uses the "not infallible" card to explain any potential papal error on faith and morals. Just because something is "not infallible" doesn't mean it gets a pass...which is what Xavier was trying to do here with Pope Siricius' comments.
Of course, I don't agree that it's clear that Pope Siricius made an error.
The point being what the good pope taught as regards the sacrament is/was already believed by all of the faithful since the time of the Apostles. That truth is a doctrine of the Church, it was defined infallibly at Trent - which means it is a defined dogma. So while the pope was not defining this doctrine ex cathedra, he was speaking, literally, the Gospel the truth.
Since that truth is a truth he cannot wholly accept because it conflicts with a BOD, he superfluously plays the "not infallible" card.
-
Yes Stubborn and Baptism of Desire and OR Blood is just that! From the beginning of the birth of the Church it was taught in every catechism book that mentions it.
Can you show us one catechism book that denies BOD/BOB?
I do not disagree it's taught in text books (catechisms), but in the Church's very early infancy, St. Paul said there is only one baptism, the text books say there are three.
Why on earth do you believe catechisms (text books), when you know that St. Paul said in no uncertain terms that there is only one baptism? Knowing that Christ said no sacrament, no salvation? Knowing that Trent said no one can even be justified without the sacrament or the desire thereof? These are the authority we are bound to, the catechisms are text books written by fallible men and do contain errors, a BOD/BOB is one of those errors.
-
I do not disagree it's taught in text books (catechisms), but in the Church's very early infancy, St. Paul said there is only one baptism, the text books say there are three.
Why on earth do you believe catechisms (text books), when you know that St. Paul said in no uncertain terms that there is only one baptism?
St. Thomas, Summa:
Article 11. Whether three kinds of Baptism are fittingly described—viz. Baptism of Water, of Blood, and of the Spirit?
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.
Objection 2. Further, Baptism is a sacrament, as we have made clear above (III:65:1). Now none but Baptism of Water is a sacrament. Therefore we should not reckon two other Baptisms.
Objection 3. Further, Damascene (De Fide Orth. iv) distinguishes several other kinds of Baptism. Therefore we should admit more than three Baptisms.
On the contrary, on Hebrews 6:2, "Of the doctrine of Baptisms," the gloss says: "He uses the plural, because there is Baptism of Water, of Repentance, and of Blood."
I answer that, As stated above (III:62:5), 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."
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.
Reply to Objection 2. As stated above (III:60:1), 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.
Reply to Objection 3. Damascene enumerates certain figurative Baptisms. For instance, "the Deluge" was a figure of our Baptism, in respect of the salvation of the faithful in the Church; since then "a few . . . souls were saved in the ark [Vulgate: 'by water'," according to 1 Peter 3:20. He also mentions "the crossing of the Red Sea": which was a figure of our Baptism, in respect of our delivery from the bondage of sin; hence the Apostle says (1 Corinthians 10:2) that "all . . . were baptized in the cloud and in the sea." And again he mentions "the various washings which were customary under the Old Law," which were figures of our Baptism, as to the cleansing from sins: also "the Baptism of John," which prepared the way for our Baptism.
-
St. Thomas, Summa:
Article 11. Whether three kinds of Baptism are fittingly described—viz. Baptism of Water, of Blood, and of the Spirit?
......
St. Thomas Aquinas and all the church Fathers were not alive when all the dogmas on EENS were pronounced. The BODers will say that St. Thomas is greater than St. Augustine, St. Ambrose, St. John Chrysostom, all of which contradict St. Thomas on the possible salvationj of a catechumen who dies "by accident". Then when a strict EENSer brings up the point that St. Thomas was opposed to the idea of salvation for non-Catholics, Muslim, Jҽωs, Hindus etc, the BODers throw St. Thomas under the bus and start quoting any nobody they can find.
It is always the same material copy and pasted over and over by BODers that have never talked to anyone but another BODer. All the dogmas, the hurdles, that they have to clear, are endless, but they are too hard headed to see the truth. They can't even clear the first hurdles of the catechumen, who does not belong to the Church, and can't get to heaven without the baptismal indelible character, but that does not stop them from believing that a Jew who has no desire to be a Catholic or baptized can be saved.
-
St. Thomas Aquinas and all the church Fathers were not alive when all the dogmas on EENS were pronounced. The BODers will say that St. Thomas is greater than St. Augustine, St. Ambrose, St. John Chrysostom, all of which contradict St. Thomas on the possible salvationj of a catechumen who dies "by accident".
St. Ambrose: “But I hear that you grieve because he did not receive the sacrament of baptism. Tell me: What else is in your power other than the desire, the request? But he even had this desire for a long time, that, when he should come into Italy, he would be initiated, and recently he signified a desire to be baptized by me, and for this reason above all others he thought that I ought to be summoned. Has he not, then, the grace which he desired; has he not the grace which he requested? And because he asked, he received, and therefore is it said: 'By whatsover death the just man shall be overtaken, his soul shall be at rest.’ (Wisdom 4:7).”
St. Augustine: "Of the Death Which the Unbaptized Suffer for the Confession of Christ: For whatever unbaptized persons die confessing Christ, this confession is of the same efficacy for the remission of sins as if they were washed in the sacred font of baptism. For He who said, 'Unless a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God,'(John 3:5) made also an exception in their favor, in that other sentence where He no less absolutely said, 'Whosoever shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven' (Matthew 10:32) and in another place, 'Whosoever will lose his life for my sake, shall find it.' Matthew 16:25)." (City of God, I, XIII).
St. Augustine: “I find that not only martyrdom for the sake of Christ may supply for what is wanting in baptism, but also faith and conversion of heart, if recourse may not be had to the celebration of the mystery for want of time. … But the want is supplied invisibly only when the administration of baptism is prevented, not by contempt for religion, but by the necessity of the moment. (On Baptism, Against the Donatists, IV)
Bellarmine: “But without doubt it must be believed that true conversion supplies for Baptism of water when one dies without Baptism of water, not out of contempt, but out of necessity. For it is expressly said in Ezechiel: ‘If the wicked shall do penance from his sins, I will no more remember his iniquities.’ The same is taught by St. Ambrose, in the speech following the death of Valentinian: ‘I lost him whom I was to regenerate: but he did not lose the grace for which he prayed.’ St Augustine teaches the same in his book On Baptism (IV, XXII). … Thus also the Council of Trent, Session 6, Chapter 4, says that Baptism is necessary in fact or in desire." (Bellarmine, De Controversiis, “De Baptismo,” I, VI).
Canon 737, 1917 Code: “Baptism, the door and foundation of the Sacraments, in fact or at least in desire necessary unto salvation for all, is not validly conferred except through the ablution of true and natural water with the prescribed form of words.”
Canon 1239, 1917 Code: “Those who have died without baptism are not to be given ecclesiastical burial. Catechumens who die without baptism through no fault of their own are to be counted among the baptized.”
-
Sigh. Another BoD spammer where we have to refute every single quote for the 50th time.
St. Thomas was simply wrong. St. Ambrose’s statement is ambiguous and his quote can be understood three different ways, and elsewhere he rejects the possibility of even virtuous catechumens who die without Baptism. Code of Canon Law is merely saying that Catechumens can receive burial ... which I have proven before and will demonstrate again.
-
St. Thomas, Summa:
Article 11. Whether three kinds of Baptism are fittingly described—viz. Baptism of Water, of Blood, and of the Spirit?
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.
Objection 2. Further, Baptism is a sacrament, as we have made clear above (III:65:1). Now none but Baptism of Water is a sacrament. Therefore we should not reckon two other Baptisms.
Objection 3. Further, Damascene (De Fide Orth. iv) distinguishes several other kinds of Baptism. Therefore we should admit more than three Baptisms.
On the contrary, on Hebrews 6:2, "Of the doctrine of Baptisms," the gloss says: "He uses the plural, because there is Baptism of Water, of Repentance, and of Blood."
I answer that, As stated above (III:62:5), 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."
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.
Reply to Objection 2. As stated above (III:60:1), 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.
Reply to Objection 3. Damascene enumerates certain figurative Baptisms. For instance, "the Deluge" was a figure of our Baptism, in respect of the salvation of the faithful in the Church; since then "a few . . . souls were saved in the ark [Vulgate: 'by water'," according to 1 Peter 3:20. He also mentions "the crossing of the Red Sea": which was a figure of our Baptism, in respect of our delivery from the bondage of sin; hence the Apostle says (1 Corinthians 10:2) that "all . . . were baptized in the cloud and in the sea." And again he mentions "the various washings which were customary under the Old Law," which were figures of our Baptism, as to the cleansing from sins: also "the Baptism of John," which prepared the way for our Baptism.
St. Thomas himself expressed he was unsure his opinion was the correct opinion and that he might in fact be wrong....
"I receive Thee, redeeming Prince of my soul. Out of love for Thee have I studied, watched through many nights, and exerted myself: Thee did I preach and teach. I have never said aught against Thee. Nor do I persist stubbornly in my views. If I have ever expressed myself erroneously on this Sacrament, I submit to the judgement of the Holy Roman Church, in obedience of which I now part from this world." - Saint Thomas Aquinas the greatest Doctor of the Church
-
St. Ambrose: “But I hear that you grieve because he did not receive the sacrament of baptism. T....
What flavor of BOD are you promoting here? Define your BOD in the fewest words possible (it) . Be the first BODer to ever do it on CI or anywhere else I've been to in 25+ years.
-
Complaining about the multiplicity of copy and paste to prove the Church teaches BOD/BOB is because it IS WHAT IT IS. The deniers of said teachings have NOTHING to copy paste their erroneous position with.
Stubborn for examples murmurs about the readings in the Catholic books illustrating the truth of the doctrine forgetting they are stamped with the Nihil Obstat - Imprimatur
Speaking now of Baptism of Desire as taught by the Church NOT all the other nonsense that some here try to add such as claiming we believe in BOD takes the place of water Baptism IF the recipient continues to live, which is not true. BOD only applies through the Mercy of God when perfect love for God is within the soul at the moment of its last breath. AND ONLY God and He alone determines that.
If it bothers to see the copy & paste here over and over, then either stop exaggerating the doctrine and accept it!
You are calling the kettle black when it is said, we who believe in BOD get our thoughts from other BODers. We get our insight from reading the teachings, it is you who gather together and copy false words from each other, since you have no proof.
I have no idea where you all come up with the idea that since we believe in BOD, we also must believe in those outside the CHURCH are saved.
Better be careful since it seems you want to take God's place by continuing to say who is saved, and who is not saved. Denying the Mercy of God may come back to you when you need it.
My last remark will now be twisted by some here, saying that because I even hinted "who is saved/who is not saved" therefore I deny EENS; twisting words as the method of operation is from those DimondBros; Your Master of information!
Sure God could keep people alive until they receive water Baptism, but He lets persecution, murder, accidents happen because of an example to us, to increase our faith in His Mercy and the mystery of Our Faith.
-
Complaining about the multiplicity of copy and paste to prove the Church teaches BOD/BOB is because it IS WHAT IT IS. The deniers of said teachings have NOTHING to copy paste their erroneous position with.
What flavor of BOD are you promoting here? Define your BOD in the fewest words possible (it) . Be the first BODer to ever do it on CI or anywhere else I've been to in 25+ years.
-
What flavor of BOD are you promoting here? Define your BOD in the fewest words possible (it) . Be the first BODer to ever do it on CI or anywhere else I've been to in 25+ years.
BOD IS DEFINED as the Mercy of God to those who have not yet been blessed with THE SACRAMENT, through no fault of their own. God allowed them to be taken from this world knowing they would, because of their perfect love and desire to be united to the Mystical Body of Christ, WILL BE. Amen
-
St. Thomas himself expressed he was unsure his opinion was the correct opinion and that he might in fact be wrong....
"I receive Thee, redeeming Prince of my soul. Out of love for Thee have I studied, watched through many nights, and exerted myself: Thee did I preach and teach. I have never said aught against Thee. Nor do I persist stubbornly in my views. If I have ever expressed myself erroneously on this Sacrament, I submit to the judgement of the Holy Roman Church, in obedience of which I now part from this world." - Saint Thomas Aquinas the greatest Doctor of the Church
The Sacrament St. Thomas was referring to is the Eucharist, not baptism.
-
BOD IS DEFINED as the Mercy of God to those who have not yet been blessed with THE SACRAMENT, through no fault of their own. God allowed them to be taken from this world knowing they would, because of their perfect love and desire to be united to the Mystical Body of Christ, WILL BE. Amen
I asked you what YOU believe and that is what you wrote, for that I commend you, however, your adding "BOD IS DEFINED", is nothing but a gratuitous remark, for what you wrote is just what you believe.
In short, you are an implicit faith'er, you believe that Jҽωs, Muslims, Hindus Buddhists etc., indeed people in any religion, can be saved, even if they do not believe in the Holy Trinity, the Incarnation, nor want to be baptized, nor want nothing to do with the Catholic Church and her sacraments.
No Father, Doctor, saint taught what you believe, as a matter of fact, they all unanimously reject your belief.
-
The Sacrament St. Thomas was referring to is the Eucharist, not baptism.
What flavor of BOD are you promoting here? Define your BOD in the fewest words possible (it) . Be the first BODer to ever do it on CI or anywhere else I've been to in 25+ years.
-
Canon 737, 1917 Code: “Baptism, the door and foundation of the Sacraments, in fact or at least in desire necessary unto salvation for all, is not validly conferred except through the ablution of true and natural water with the prescribed form of words.”
Canon 1239, 1917 Code: “Those who have died without baptism are not to be given ecclesiastical burial. Catechumens who die without baptism through no fault of their own are to be counted among the baptized.”
As I've said before, the Church has left open and allowed the opinion that BoD is possible for Catechumens. You'll note that 1239 addresses only Catechumens (just like your earlier quote from Pius XII).
You left out the first part of Canon 1239, as most BoDers do. That first part says that only the baptized may receive Christian burial. This next sections you cite here says, in the context of allowing Christian burial, Catechumens are to be counted among the baptized. In other words, all this is saying is that Catechumens may receive Christian burial. Catechumens are not IN FACT baptized, as every acknowledges, but they are to be considered baptized for the purposes of the rule that only the baptized may receive Christian burial.
Prior Church discipline was to refuse Catechumens Christian burial. Christian burial is no guarantee of salvation.
Do you believe in BoD for Catechumens only? If so, then I'm not interested in debating that subject.
-
The Sacrament St. Thomas was referring to is the Eucharist, not baptism.
What did he teach that was controversial about the Eucharist that did not also apply to a BOD? He admitted he could be wrong, no such admission is offered by the Church pertaining to defined dogmas.
Why insist on posting the contradictory-to-dogma opinions of the lesser authority of St. Thomas and other great saints?
Do you believe them to have authority over defined dogma?
-
Complaining about the multiplicity of copy and paste to prove the Church teaches BOD/BOB is because it IS WHAT IT IS. The deniers of said teachings have NOTHING to copy paste their erroneous position with.
Stubborn for examples murmurs about the readings in the Catholic books illustrating the truth of the doctrine forgetting they are stamped with the Nihil Obstat - Imprimatur
So what! There are a million books full of heresy stamped with the Nihil Obstat - Imprimatur. Why not quote only defined dogma? Because it has no stamp of Nihil Obstat - Imprimatur? :facepalm:
-
St. Ambrose: “But I hear that you grieve because he did not receive the sacrament of baptism. Tell me: What else is in your power other than the desire, the request? But he even had this desire for a long time, that, when he should come into Italy, he would be initiated, and recently he signified a desire to be baptized by me, and for this reason above all others he thought that I ought to be summoned. Has he not, then, the grace which he desired; has he not the grace which he requested? And because he asked, he received, and therefore is it said: 'By whatsover death the just man shall be overtaken, his soul shall be at rest.’ (Wisdom 4:7).”
As addressed, oh, about 50 times now, this is totally ambiguous. But let's go through it again.
This could just as easily be a reference to a Baptism of Blood, since Valentinian was murdered precisely because he had rejected Arianism.
Also, it could reflect a possible hope that someone near Valentinian baptized him as he lay dying. Back before the days of the internet, the details were probably sketchy in terms of what actually transpired.
Finally, it could just be a generic statement that he received what he sought, implying that if he didn't receive it, it was because he didn't REALLY seek it.
Elsewhere, St. Ambrose rejected the notion of the possibility of salvation for even virtuous Catechumens if they do not receive the Sacrament.
Finally, when St. Augustine was speculating about BoD, he cited no authorities, other than St. Cyprian's belief in BoB ... and then extended it. If St. Ambrose had believed in it, surely Augustine would have cited it.
In terms of Baptism of Blood, there's evidence that the (handful of) Fathers who believed in it considered it to actually be the Sacrament of Baptism administered in an alternate mode, with the blood being the matter, and the angels pronouncing the words. St. Cyprian called BoB a Sacrament. There's an ecclesiastical manual that for the longest time had been attributed to St. Augustine, and was certainly written by someone in his circle, which says that the only alternative to the Sacrament is in fact BoB, since "all the sacred elements" (aka matter and form) were present. St. Cyprian described martyrdom as having the martyr washed in his own blood while the angels pronounced the words.
-
What did he teach that was controversial about the Eucharist that did not also apply to a BOD? He admitted he could be wrong, no such admission is offered by the Church pertaining to defined dogmas.
Why insist on posting the contradictory-to-dogma opinions of the lesser authority of St. Thomas and other great saints?
Do you believe them to have authority over defined dogma?
None of the quotes I posted are contrary to any dogma. What they are contrary to, is your erroneous private interpretation of dogma.
-
As addressed, oh, about 50 times now,
Don't waste your time with this RomanTheo, for what is the point of debating about St. Thomas's teachings with someone who rejects St. Thomas and all the saints by believing the Muslims, Jҽωs, Hindus etc. can be saved? They quote St. Thomas, while at the same time throwing him under the bus.
-
St. Augustine: "Of the Death Which the Unbaptized Suffer for the Confession of Christ: For whatever unbaptized persons die confessing Christ, this confession is of the same efficacy for the remission of sins as if they were washed in the sacred font of baptism. For He who said, 'Unless a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God,'(John 3:5) made also an exception in their favor, in that other sentence where He no less absolutely said, 'Whosoever shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven' (Matthew 10:32) and in another place, 'Whosoever will lose his life for my sake, shall find it.' Matthew 16:25)." (City of God, I, XIII).
St. Augustine: “I find that not only martyrdom for the sake of Christ may supply for what is wanting in baptism, but also faith and conversion of heart, if recourse may not be had to the celebration of the mystery for want of time. … But the want is supplied invisibly only when the administration of baptism is prevented, not by contempt for religion, but by the necessity of the moment. (On Baptism, Against the Donatists, IV)
First quote is a reference to Baptism of Blood, which we have discussed before. Not only that, but it's inaccurate in that it's merely about the "confession" and makes no mention of martyrdom itself. Someone can die confessing the faith without actually being martyred. St. Alphonsus later claimed that BoB worked quasi-ex-opere-operato, whereas here there's no mention of that mechanism but, rather, an ex opere operantis phenomenon.
For the second quote, I love how you snip out the first part, where he says, "Going back and forth on this, I find that ..." It's left out because it demonstrates that this is speculation on his part rather than some kind of authoritative teaching.
Overall, I love how you guys selectively quote the ambiguous oration by St. Ambrose and the early speculation of St. Augustine, but then CONSTANTLY and DELIBERATELY LEAVE OUT all the other Patristic quotes about BoD, in particular, from the FIVE OR SIX Church Fathers who EXPLICITLY REJECTED the notion.
You pretend that they don't exist and simply filter them out of the equation, and that shows extreme intellectual dishonesty. You try to demonstrate the unanimous consensus of the Fathers simply by ignoring the ones who rejected it.
Not only that, but you refuse to cite later (post-Pelagian-controversy) St. Augustine, where he completely rejects BoD and made some of the strongest anti-BoD statements in existence.
This puts your dishonesty on display for all to see.
-
Don't waste your time with this RomanTheo, for what is the point of debating about St. Thomas's teachings with someone who rejects St. Thomas and all the saints by believing the Muslims, Jҽωs, Hindus etc. can be saved? They quote St. Thomas, while at the same time throwing him under the bus.
I'm not interested in RomanTheo. I'm only responding to expose his falsehoods to other people who might read this thread.
I think I'm going to compile a list of the anti-BoD references from the Church Fathers and popes, write these up, and then be ready to spam them right back at the BoD spammers. They respam the same 3 or 4 quotes every single time and ignore any of the CONTRARY evidence, exposing their intellectual dishonesty. It's sad when a Karl Rahner has more integrity than these Traditional Catholics.
-
(RomanTheo) Do you believe in BoD for Catechumens only? If so, then I'm not interested in debating that subject.
Good luck with getting a straight answer to your question from this RomanTheo. He is likely another spammer sitting one seat over from XavierSem.
Here is my 4th try:
What flavor of BOD are you promoting here? Define your BOD in the fewest words possible (it) . Be the first BODer to ever do it on CI or anywhere else I've been to in 25+ years.
-
None of the quotes I posted are contrary to any dogma. What they are contrary to, is your erroneous private interpretation of dogma.
Same tired old false accusation, I am simply reading and understanding what it says, not interpreting anything - and since they do not contradict dogma, then post dogma.
-
St. Ambrose: “But I hear that you grieve because he did not receive the sacrament of baptism.....
"The reason these faithful were grieved was because they believed that "unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost he cannot enter the Kingdom of God."
Perhaps too, they had been Instructed by Ambrose himself, who said: 'One is the Baptism which the Church administers: the Baptism of water and the Holy Ghost, with which catechumens need to be baptized . . . Nor does the mystery of regeneration exist at all without water: 'For unless a man be born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom.' Now, even the catechumen believes in the cross of the Lord Jesus, with which he also signs himself; but, unless he be baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, he cannot receive remission of his sins nor the gift of spiritual grace." (De Mysterlls,-THE DIVINE OFFICE)". - From Who Shall Ascend?
-
Good luck with getting a straight answer to your question from this RomanTheo. He is likely another spammer sitting one seat over from XavierSem.
Here is my 4th try:
What flavor of BOD are you promoting here? Define your BOD in the fewest words possible (it) . Be the first BODer to ever do it on CI or anywhere else I've been to in 25+ years.
None of the BODers answer clear questions, with clear answers, never have.
-
Good luck with getting a straight answer to your question from this RomanTheo. He is likely another spammer sitting one seat over from XavierSem.
Here is my 4th try:
What flavor of BOD are you promoting here? Define your BOD in the fewest words possible (it) . Be the first BODer to ever do it on CI or anywhere else I've been to in 25+ years.
A supernatural act of faith, combined with an act of perfect charity and the desire to receive baptism. This disposes the soul to receive an infusion of sanctifying grace from Christ, which makes him an adopted child of God and heir of heaven. If he dies in this state he is saved, even if he lacks the baptismal character.
-
Same tired old false accusation, I am simply reading and understanding what it says, not interpreting anything.
"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." (Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam).
If you accept that as it is written, how can a person be saved if they die during an interregnum?
-
What flavor of BOD are you promoting here? Define your BOD in the fewest words possible (it) . Be the first BODer to ever do it on CI or anywhere else I've been to in 25+ years.
A supernatural act of faith, combined with an act of perfect charity and the desire to receive baptism. This disposes the soul to receive an infusion of sanctifying grace from Christ, which makes him an adopted child of God and heir of heaven. If he dies in this state he is saved, even if he lacks the baptismal character.
You deny clear dogmas, to teach that they do not mean what they say, and you expect me to believe your ambiguous sophism? This is typical of you vipers, fake Thomists. No truth comes from you.
Answer two simple questions:
Why are you killing this person before God completes what is TOTALLY His doing?
What exactly is this "desire to receive baptism", is it the explicit desire to be a baptized Catholic, the baptism of desire of the catechumen of St. Thomas? Or is it the implicit faith of a Muslim, Hindu, Jew?
-
"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." (Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam).
If you accept that as it is written, how can a person be saved if they die during an interregnum?
"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".
How can a BOD cannot save anyone when even justification cannot take place without the sacrament, or the desire thereof? - how can a BOD save anyone when it cannot even justify anyone?
2 more questions for you to ignore - or to post volumes from fallible saints and fathers against this infallible decree.
-
I asked you what YOU believe and that is what you wrote, for that I commend you, however, your adding "BOD IS DEFINED", is nothing but a gratuitous remark, for what you wrote is just what you believe.
In short, you are an implicit faith'er, you believe that Jҽωs, Muslims, Hindus Buddhists etc., indeed people in any religion, can be saved, even if they do not believe in the Holy Trinity, the Incarnation, nor want to be baptized, nor want nothing to do with the Catholic Church and her sacraments.
No Father, Doctor, saint taught what you believe, as a matter of fact, they all unanimously reject your belief.
Where anywhere on the Internet have I posted that! You either have me mixed up with another or you are drunk!
Talk about mixing up, your problem is you mix up Catholic doctrine with indifferentism and No Salvation Outside the Church as if they are one!
This mixing only adds to the confusion, and The Church like Christ is not CONFUSION. The DEVIL is confusing!
I suggest you STUDY up
Are you even Traditional Catholic?
-
"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".
How can a BOD cannot save anyone when even justification cannot take place without the sacrament, or the desire thereof? - how can a BOD save anyone when it cannot even justify anyone?
2 more questions for you to ignore - or to post volumes from fallible saints and fathers against this infallible decree.
You didn't answer the question I asked. Let's give it another try:
"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." (Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam).
If you accept that dogma as it is written, and (supposedly) without interpreting it, as you claimed, how can a person be saved if they die during an interregnum?
-
If you accept that dogma as it is written, and (supposedly) without interpreting it, as you claimed, how can a person be saved if they die during an interregnum?
Trick question, but i'll answer. If the person was subject to the Pontiff that had JUST died, then they fulfilled the law. That is the spirit of the law.
.
The letter of the law is that the Camerlengo of the Vatican (and 2-3 other cardinals) assume the powers of the Roman Pontiff. So, if one is subject to these individuals, they legally fulfill the requirement as well.
-
There are two requirements for subjection to the Holy Father:
1) material: Baptism. Trent teaches that only the baptized are subject to the Holy Father.
2) formal: intent to be subject to the Holy Father (which is why schismatics are excluded, per Bellarmine).
Neither of these ceases in a sedevacante period, nor did they cease during the Great Western Schisms for those who happened to pick the wrong pope.
There's no requirement that there be an actual body in the See of Peter.
This is actually a serious reason why that EENS definition militates AGANST BoD, namely, Trent's clear teaching that only the Baptized are subject to the Holy Father and his jurisdiction, to the exclusion of catechumens.
Just as with the Sacrament of Baptism, infants aren't required to have the formal intent to be subject, since they are incapable of forming it, but are subject merely by virtue of their Baptism. And that is why baptized schismatics who die before the age of reason are considered to have died as Catholics.