Author Topic: Salvation by Implict Faith in Christ (Read 2048 times)

bowler · « **Reply #15 on:** September 18, 2013, 06:32:28 PM »

Quote from: saintbosco13

Quote from: Jehanne
And, this is a huge, huge problem, when the Catholic Church has a string of Popes of questionable orthodoxy; how can the traditional Catholic faithful know what is and is not acceptable in terms of theological opinion? With respect to the Holy Office Letter, it was not one grand ex cathedra statement. Its sole appeal to infallibility would be the Ordinary Magisterium of the Church. But the sole condemnation in the Holy Office Letter was not Father Feeney's theology but the following:

Note that Father Feeney's theological views and opinions were never condemned; rather, his attacking of other diocesan publications (such as the Baltimore Catechism) is what earned him his condemnation. If he would have simply published his views at the level of theological opinion and tried to win the "hearts and minds" of churchmen and Pope Pius XII, there would have likely never been a "Holy Office Letter."

Finally, does the Holy Office Letter contain any theological opinion whatsoever? Or, is it all fides ecclesiastica teaching? In any case, the Letter does not discuss at all sacramental Baptism or explicit faith, the two "hot button" topics of our day and this board. Are there folks right now in Paradise who lack the character of Baptism since such became obligatory at Pentecost? The Holy Office Letter does not say.

Jehanne,

Pope Pius XII makes it very clear that we need not wait for solemn decrees, and that we must believe even the opinions of Popes on controversial matters. Catholics must therefore submit to the letter from the Holy Office in 1949.

Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis, 1950 (Denz. 2313):
"It is not to be thought that what is set down in Encyclical Letters does not demand assent in itself, because in this the popes do not exercise the supreme power of their magisterium. For these matters are taught by the ordinary magisterium, regarding which the following is pertinent: "He who heareth you, heareth me." [Luke 10:16]; and usually what is set forth and inculcated in the Encyclical Letters, already pertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their acts, after due consideration, express an opinion on a hitherto controversial matter, it is clear to all that this matter, according to the mind and will of the same Pontiffs, cannot any longer be considered a question of free discussion among the theologians."

Yet you and your sedevacantes comrades reject the Holy Week Mass changes of Pius XII.

2Vermont · « **Reply #16 on:** September 18, 2013, 06:42:34 PM »

Quote from: bowler

Yet you and your sedevacantes comrades reject the Holy Week Mass changes of Pius XII.

What are these?

bowler · « **Reply #17 on:** September 18, 2013, 07:20:16 PM »

Quote from: 2Vermont

Quote from: bowler
Yet you and your sedevacantes comrades reject the Holy Week Mass changes of Pius XII.

What are these?

The Holy Week masses were changed by Pius XII, if you look at a missal from before 1953 (or 1954?), the masses times and readings were totally changed or cut out. Before those changes you could use your missal from say 1945 in like 1700 and who knows how far back.

bowler · « **Reply #18 on:** September 18, 2013, 07:56:12 PM »

Quote from: bowler

Quote from: 2Vermont
Quote from: bowler
Yet you and your sedevacantes comrades reject the Holy Week Mass changes of Pius XII.

What are these?

The Holy Week masses were changed by Pius XII, if you look at a missal from before 1953 (or 1954?), the masses times and readings were totally changed or cut out. Before those changes you could use your missal from say 1945 in like 1700 and who knows how far back.

The sedevacantes reject the Holy week Mass changes of Pius XII. Had they done that when Pius XII was around they would have been excommunicated directly by the pope, in one second flat. Yet here they are bringing up the comparatively speaking, insignificant affair of Fr. Feeney.

This is just one of the almost innumerable inconsistencies of these people. They are not reasoning people. They talk about a catechumens baptism of desire, but they believe that no desire to be baptized is necessary, nor a desire to be a Catholic, nor knowledge of Christ and the Trinity. I tell you, by their deeds you shall know them.

I am closer to the saints that taught baptism of desire of the catechumen than they are. Anyone with eyes to see can see that.

saintbosco13 · « **Reply #19 on:** September 18, 2013, 08:03:13 PM »

Quote from: bowler

Quote from: saintbosco13
St. Augustine, Church Father and Doctor of the Church, clearly states that the Good thief was saved through baptism of desire. You need to stop making up your own Catholicism, Bowler:

St. Augustine also rejected baptism of desire in his later years, and you must believe he was wrong on that since you believe that even those who have no desire to be Catholics can be saved.

St. Augustine: “If you wish to be a Catholic, do not venture to believe, to say, or to teach that they whom the Lord has predestinated for baptism can be snatched away from his predestination, or die before that has been accomplished in them which the Almighty has predestined.’ There is in such a dogma more power than I can tell assigned to chances in opposition to the power of God, by the occurrence of which casualties that which He has predestinated is not permitted to come to pass. It is hardly necessary to spend time or earnest words in cautioning the man who takes up with this error against the absolute vortex of confusion into which it will absorb him, when I shall sufficiently meet the case if I briefly warn the prudent man who is ready to receive correction against the threatening mischief.” (On the Soul and Its Origin 3, 13)

Regarding my comment, just how many times do we need to post for you the Catechism of Trent's line on the subject? I don't know if you have a bad memory or you are a closet EENSer just setting me up to look good.

Catechism of Trent

BAPTISM MADE OBLIGATORY AFTER CHRIST'S RESURRECTION

The second period to be distinguished, that is, the time when the law of Baptism was made, also admits of no doubt. Holy writers are unanimous in saying that after the Resurrection of our Lord, when He gave to His Apostles the command to go and teach all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, the law of Baptism became obligatory on all who were to be saved.

Bowler, you are drowning in self interpretation. What you state from Saint Augustine has nothing to do with rejection of baptism of desire. Your self interpretation has gotten you completely lost.

Regarding baptism being made obligatory after Christ's resurrection, as we've discussed previously, there is a difference between the institution of baptism, and it being made obligatory. Two completely different things that happen at different times. We can read in the article on Baptism below that the Sacrament was most certainly instituted before Christ's passion:

Catholic Encyclopedia, Baptism, Institution of the Sacrament: "All things considered, we can safely state, therefore, that Christ most probably instituted baptism before His Passion....In the second place, the Apostles received other sacraments from Christ, before His Passion, as the Holy Eucharist at the Last Supper, and Holy orders (Conc. Trid., Sess. XXVI, c. i). Now as baptism has always been held as the door of the Church and the necessary condition for the reception of any other sacrament, it follows that the Apostles must have received Christian baptism before the Last Supper. This argument is used by St. Augustine (Ep. clxiii, al. xliv) and certainly seems valid. To suppose that the first pastors of the Church received the other sacraments by dispensation, before they had received baptism, is an opinion with no foundation in Scripture or Tradition and devoid of verisimilitude. The Scriptures nowhere state that Christ Himself conferred baptism, but an ancient tradition (Niceph., Hist. eccl, II, iii; Clem. Alex. Strom., III) declares that He baptized the Apostle Peter only, and that the latter baptized Andrew, James, and John, and they the other Apostles."

saintbosco13 · « **Reply #20 on:** September 19, 2013, 09:23:58 AM »

Quote from: saintbosco13

Quote from: bowler
I don't understand what you are saying, relative to our times. From the time of Adam and Eve till the after Our Lords resurrection, everyone that was saved, including the Holy Innocents, and the Good Thief, were saved without baptism. From the time that of Christ's resurrection , the sacrament of baptism became mandatory for all who were to be saved.

St. Augustine, Church Father and Doctor of the Church, clearly states that the Good thief was saved through baptism of desire. You need to stop making up your own Catholicism, Bowler:

The Seven Books of Augustin, Bishop of Hippo, On Baptism, Against the Donatists, Book IV, Ch 22: "That the place of baptism is sometimes supplied by martyrdom is supported by an argument by no means trivial, which the blessed Cyprian adduces from the thief, to whom, though he was not baptized, it was yet said, "To-day shall thou be with me in Paradise." On considering which, again and again, I find that not only martyrdom for the sake of Christ may supply what was wanting of baptism, but also faith and conversion of heart, if recourse may not be had to the celebration of the mystery of baptism for want of time. For neither was that thief crucified for the name of Christ, but as the reward of his own deeds; nor did he suffer because he believed, but he believed while suffering. It was shown, therefore, in the case of that thief, how great is the power even without the visible sacrament of baptism, of what the apostle says, "With the heart man believeth unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation." But the want is supplied invisibly only when the administration of baptism is prevented, not by contempt for religion, but by the necessity of the moment."

Ch23: "But as in the thief, to whom the material administration of the sacrament was necessarily wanting, the salvation was complete, because it was spiritually present through his piety, so, when the sacrament itself is present, salvation is complete, if what the thief possessed be unavoidably wanting."

Ch24: "And as in the thief the gracious goodness of the Almighty supplied what had been wanting in the sacrament of baptism, because it had been missing not from pride or contempt, but from want of opportunity..."

Ch25: "By all these considerations it is proved that the sacrament of baptism is one thing, the conversion of the heart another; but that man's salvation is made complete through the two together. Nor are we to suppose that, if one of these be wanting, it necessarily follows that the other is wanting also; because the sacrament may exist in the infant without the conversion of the heart; and this was found to be possible without the sacrament in the case of the thief, God in either case filling up what was involuntarily wanting. But when either of these requisites is wanting intentionally, then the man is responsible for the omission. And baptism may exist when the conversion of the heart is wanting; but, with respect to such conversion, it may indeed be found when baptism has not been received, but never when it has been despised."

Note that St. Thomas Aquinas uses the same argument, referencing the quote from Saint Augustine above:

Whether three kinds of Baptism are fittingly described--viz. Baptism of Water, of Blood, and of the Spirit?
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 (Apoc. 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 (Is. 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."