Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => The Feeneyism Ghetto => Topic started by: bowler on September 25, 2013, 04:34:41 PM
-
Catholics typically learn from their catechisms and other approved sources. The catechism is an explanation of doctrine. What you are saying is ALL of the catechisms contain serious errors and even heresy.
Also, I've asked repeatedly here for a reference to a theologian who EXPLAINS the issue correctly. Unless one says ALL of the theologians are either wrong or silent on the issue (never commenting on this rather grave error), I don't see why some references are not forthcoming.
NOBODY ever noticed the contradiction. Impossible. There isn't any contradiction.
-
Catholics typically learn from their catechisms and other approved sources. The catechism is an explanation of doctrine. What you are saying is ALL of the catechisms contain serious errors and even heresy.
Also, I've asked repeatedly here for a reference to a theologian who EXPLAINS the issue correctly. Unless one says ALL of the theologians are either wrong or silent on the issue (never commenting on this rather grave error), I don't see why some references are not forthcoming.
NOBODY ever noticed the contradiction. Impossible. There isn't any contradiction.
So you don't sidetrack another person's thread with your question which is unrelated to the subject here is your question again and my response to get things going.
Catholics typically learn from their catechisms... The catechism is an explanation of doctrine. What you are saying is ALL of the catechisms contain serious errors and even heresy.
To be precise, catechisms are a relatively new teaching instrument, likely because few people could read. Catechisms in our language were virtually nonexistent till the later 1800's. No?
To be precise, specifically speaking of BOD of the catechumen, the quotes written in English speaking catechisms prior to the 20th century do not explain much, and actually raise more questions than they answer.
The Fathers of the Church unanimously believed John 3:15 as it is written - "Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God". I could post many quotes by the Fathers saying specifically that a catechumen can't be saved.
to be continued
-
CHAPTER III.
Persons to whom Ecclesiastical Burial must be Granted
or Denied.
1082. Unbaptized persons must not be buried from a church, with the exception of catechumens who die without having, through no fault of theirs, received Baptism, and are there fore to be counted among those baptized. All baptized persons are to receive ecclesiastical burial, unless they are explicitly deprived of it by law. (Canon 1239.)
-
Also, I've asked REPEATEDLY here for a reference to a theologian who EXPLAINS the issue correctly. Unless one says ALL of the theologians are either wrong or silent on the issue (not one EVER commenting on this rather grave error), I don't see why some references are not forthcoming.
-
Bowler doesn't like this question because it is very simple and cuts to the heart of the issue. He can't answer it because he has NO SOURCE for what he believes.
-
Bowler doesn't like this question because it is very simple and cuts to the heart of the issue. He can't answer it because he has NO SOURCE for what he believes.
This isn't true; he has the opinion of Saint Augustine, his student St. Prosper (see below), and even Peter Abelard, who expressed similar sentiments. Again, if you are stating that it is de fide that there are souls in Paradise who lack the character of sacramental Baptism, then you need to provide the reference from Denzinger's and not us; in other words, the burden of proof is on you. And, if you are not a sede, then you have an additional problem of explaining why the modern-day Catholic Church is ordaining "Feeneyite" priests who are public heretics and/or allowing the Sacraments to be administered and/or received by public heretics.
-
CHAPTER III.
Persons to whom Ecclesiastical Burial must be Granted
or Denied.
1082. Unbaptized persons must not be buried from a church, with the exception of catechumens who die without having, through no fault of theirs, received Baptism, and are there fore to be counted among those baptized. All baptized persons are to receive ecclesiastical burial, unless they are explicitly deprived of it by law. (Canon 1239.)
To be more precise than I was, speaking specifically about BOD of the catechumen, there are no explanations in any English speaking catechisms till the late 1800's. Someone quoted two years ago something from the Douay-Rheims (catechism?) which a CI poster recently quoted, and no one has ever mentioned it any other time. The other is the Catechism of Trents quote that does not explain much and is contradicted or tempered by the entire catechism of Trent. I don't know when it was translated into English, likely in the 20th century?
During practically the entire history of the Church it was forbidden for a catechumen to receive commemorations of the dead.
“A certain statement in the funeral oration of St. Ambrose over the Emperor Valentinian II has been brought forward as a proof that the Church offered sacrifices and prayers for catechumens who died before baptism. There is not a vestige of such a custom to be found anywhere… The practice of the Church is more correctly shown in the canon (xvii) of the Second Council of Braga (572 AD): ‘Neither the commemoration of Sacrifice [oblationis] nor the service of chanting [psallendi] is to be employed for catechumens who have died without baptism.’” (Catholic Encyclopedia 1907)
What we have in the above catechism from 1917 is a novelty never before practiced in Church history.
-
Also, I've asked REPEATEDLY here for a reference to a theologian who EXPLAINS the issue correctly. Unless one says ALL of the theologians are either wrong or silent on the issue (not one EVER commenting on this rather grave error), I don't see why some references are not forthcoming.
I've answered your question many times, do you reject my theologians? Who is more important a modern theologian or the Fathers of the Church.
Is it not the unanimous opinion of the Fathers that John 3:5 is to be understood literally? Notice I'm just talking about BOD of a catechumen, which is a person with an explicit desire to be baptized, who dies "by accident" before he can be baptized. That person for practically all of Church history could not receive any commemorations of the faithful.
Now, if the Fathers and all of the Church were wrong all those years and a catechumen could be saved, just how many people did that affect in the last 2000 years? I doubt but a few per year if that many. It is a harmless mistake. The same goes for those who today believe in BOD of the catechumen, if they are wrong and the Fathers were correct, their modern mistake is no big deal, again because it affects only a catechumen.
Here is the quote where I answered you before:
I have been consistently asking you (and others) to produce a source that EXPLAINS what you hold as the "true" Catholic teaching.
People like you, who live in glass houses, should not throw stones.
You "hold true" that someone who has no explicit desire to be Catholic can be saved. That is opposed to ALL the Fathers, Doctors, Saints and the Athanasian Creed. Yet that is what you choose to believe.
Here's the sources of what I hold true:
(So as not to clog this posting with all of the quotes of Early Church Fathers who believed in John 3:5 as it is written, I quote:)
Fr. William Jurgens: “If there were not a constant tradition in the Fathers that the Gospel message of ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost he cannot enter into the kingdom of God’ is to be taken absolutely, it would be easy to say that Our Savior simply did not see fit to mention the obvious exceptions of invincible ignorance and physical impossibility. But the tradition in fact is there; and it is likely enough to be found so constant as to constitute revelation.”
St Augustine, 395: “… God does not forgive sins except to the baptized.”
St. Augustine, 412: “… the Punic Christians call Baptism itself nothing else but salvation… Whence does this derive, except from an ancient and, as I suppose, apostolic tradition, by which the Churches of Christ hold inherently that without Baptism and participation at the table of the Lord it is impossible for any man to attain either to the Kingdom of God or to salvation and life eternal? This is the witness of Scripture, too.”
St. Augustine, 391: “When we shall have come into His [God’s] sight, we shall behold the equity of God’s justice. Then no one will say:… ‘Why was this man led by God’s direction to be baptized, while that man, though he lived properly as a catechumen, was killed in a sudden disaster, and was not baptized?’ Look for rewards, and you will find nothing except punishments.”
St. Augustine: “However much progress the catechumen should make, he still carries the load of his iniquity: nor is it removed from him unless he comes to Baptism.”
St. Augustine: “If you wish to be a Catholic, do not venture to believe, to say, or to teach that ‘ they whom the Lord has predestinated for baptism can be snatched away from his predestination, or die before that has been accomplished in them which the Almighty has predestined.’ There is in such a dogma more power than I can tell assigned to chances in opposition to the power of God, by the occurrence of which casualties that which He has predestinated is not permitted to come to pass. It is hardly necessary to spend time or earnest words in cautioning the man who takes up with this error against the absolute vortex of confusion into which it will absorb him, when I shall sufficiently meet the case if I briefly warn the prudent man who is ready to receive correction against the threatening mischief.” (On the Soul and Its Origin 3, 13)
St. Ambrose, De mysteriis, 390-391 A.D.:
“You have read, therefore, that the three witnesses in Baptism are one: water, blood, and the spirit; and if you withdraw any one of these, the Sacrament of Baptism is not valid. For what is water without the cross of Christ? A common element without any sacramental effect. Nor on the other hand is there any mystery of regeneration without water: for ‘unless a man be born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.’ [John 3:5] Even a catechumen believes in the cross of the Lord Jesus, by which also he is signed; but, unless he be baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, he cannot receive the remission of sins nor be recipient of the gift of spiritual grace.”
St. Ambrose, The Duties of Clergy, 391 A.D.:
“The Church was redeemed at the price of Christ’s blood. Jew or Greek, it makes no difference; but if he has believed he must circuмcise himself from his sins so that he can be saved;...for no one ascends into the kingdom of heaven except through the Sacrament of Baptism.”
St. Ambrose, The Duties of Clergy, 391 A.D.:
“Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.’ No one excepted: not the infant, not the one prevented by some necessity.”
St. John Chrysostom, The Consolation of Death: “And well should the pagan lament, who not knowing God, dying goes straight to punishment. Well should the Jew mourn, who not believing in Christ, has assigned his soul to perdition.”
It should be noted that since the term “baptism of desire” was not in use at the time, one won’t find St. John Chrysostom or any other father explicitly rejecting that term. They reject baptism of desire when they reject the concept that unbaptized catechumens can be saved without Baptism, as St. John Chrysostom repeatedly does.
St. John Chrysostom, The Consolation of Death: “And plainly must we grieve for our own catechumens, should they, either through their own unbelief or through their own neglect, depart this life without the saving grace of baptism.”
St. John Chrysostom, Hom. in Io. 25, 3:
“For the Catechumen is a stranger to the Faithful… One has Christ for his King; the other sin and the devil; the food of one is Christ, of the other, that meat which decays and perishes… Since then we have nothing in common, in what, tell me, shall we hold communion?… Let us then give diligence that we may become citizens of the city above… for if it should come to pass (which God forbid!) that through the sudden arrival of death we depart hence uninitiated, though we have ten thousand virtues, our portion will be none other than hell, and the venomous worm, and fire unquenchable, and bonds indissoluble.”
St. John Chrysostom, Homily III. On Phil. 1:1-20:
“Weep for the unbelievers; weep for those who differ in nowise from them, those who depart hence without the illumination, without the seal! They indeed deserve our wailing, they deserve our groans; they are outside the Palace, with the culprits, with the condemned: for, ‘Verily I say unto you, Except a man be born again of water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of Heaven.”
The “seal” is the fathers’ term for the mark of the Sacrament of Baptism. And here we see St. John affirming the apostolic truth held by all the fathers: that no one – including a catechumen – is saved without being born again of water and the Spirit in the Sacrament of Baptism.
St. John Chrysostom, Homily XXV: “Hear, ye as many as are unilluminated, shudder, groan, fearful is the threat, fearful is the sentence. ‘It is not possible,’ He [Christ] saith, ‘for one not born of water and the Spirit to enter into the Kingdom of heaven’; because he wears the raiment of death, of cursing, of perdition, he hath not yet received his Lord’s token, he is a stranger and an alien, he hath not the royal watchword. ‘Except,’ He saith, ‘a man be born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of heaven.”
St. John Chrysostom clearly rejected any possibility of salvation for one who has not received the Sacrament of Baptism. He affirmed the words of Christ in John 3:5 with an unequivocally literal understanding, which is the unanimous teaching of Tradition and the teaching of defined Catholic dogma.
-
BY the way, I challenge anyone to find a pre late 1800's catechism that taught salvation by desire for anyone but a catechumen.
Here is a catechism from 1890's, compare even this to the catechisms of the 20th century that start teaching easy salvation for any none Catholic:
The Explanation of the Baltimore Catechism Concerning the Salvation of Non-Catholics orginally published in 1891
by Rev. Thomas L. Kinkead
from Lesson 11: On the Church
* 121. Q. Are all bound to belong to the Church?
A. All are bound to belong to the Church, and he who knows the Church to be the true Church and remains out of it, cannot be saved.
Anyone who knows the Catholic religion to be the true religion and will not embrace it cannot enter into Heaven. If one not a Catholic doubts whether the church to which he belongs is the true Church, he must settle his doubt, seek the true Church, and enter it; for if he continues to live in doubt, he becomes like the one who knows the true Church and is deterred by worldly considerations from entering it.
In like manner one who, doubting, fears to examine the religion he professes lest he should discover its falsity and be convinced of the truth of the Catholic faith, cannot be saved.
Suppose, however, that there is a non-Catholic who firmly believes that the church to which he belongs is the true Church, and who has never—even in the past—had the slightest doubt of that fact—what will become of him?
If he was validly baptized and never committed a mortal sin, he will be saved; because, believing himself a member of the true Church, he was doing all he could to serve God according to his knowledge and the dictates of his conscience. But if ever he committed a mortal sin, his salvation would be very much more difficult. A mortal sin once committed remains on the soul till it is forgiven. Now, how could his mortal sin be forgiven? Not in the Sacrament of Penance, for the Protestant does not go to confession; and if he does, his minister—not being a true priest—has no power to forgive sins. Does he know that without confession it requires an act of perfect contrition to blot out mortal sin, and can he easily make such an act? What we call contrition is often only imperfect contrition—that is, sorrow for our sins because we fear their punishment in Hell or dread the loss of Heaven. If a Catholic—with all the instruction he has received about how to make an act of perfect contrition and all the practice he has had in making such acts—might find it difficult to make an act of perfect contrition after having committed a mortal sin, how much difficulty will not a Protestant have in making an act of perfect contrition, who does not know about this requirement and who has not been taught to make continued acts of perfect contrition all his life. It is to be feared either he would not know of this necessary means of regaining God’s friendship, or he would be unable to elicit the necessary act of perfect contrition, and thus the mortal sin would remain upon his soul and he would die an enemy of God.
If, then, we found a Protestant who never committed a mortal sin after Baptism, and who never had the slightest doubt about the truth of his religion, that person would be saved; because, being baptized, he is a member of the Church, and being free from mortal sin he is a friend of God and could not in justice be condemned to Hell. Such a person would attend Mass and receive the Sacraments if he knew the Catholic Church to be the only true Church.
I am giving you an example, however, that is rarely found, except in the case of infants or very small children baptized in Protestant sects. All infants rightly baptized by anyone are really children of the Church, no matter what religion their parents may profess. Indeed, all persons who are baptized are children of the Church; but those among them who deny its teaching, reject its Sacraments, and refuse to submit to its lawful pastors, are rebellious children known as heretics.
I said I gave you an example that can scarcely be found, namely, of a person not a Catholic, who really never doubted the truth of his religion, and who, moreover, never committed during his whole life a mortal sin. There are so few such persons that we can practically say for all those who are not visibly members of the Catholic Church, believing its doctrines, receiving its Sacraments, and being governed by its visible head, our Holy Father, the Pope, salvation is an extremely difficult matter.
I do not speak here of pagans who have never heard of Our Lord or His holy religion, but of those outside the Church who claim to be good Christians without being members of the Catholic Church.
from Lesson 14: On Baptism
154. Q. Is Baptism necessary to salvation?
A. Baptism is necessary to salvation, because without it we cannot enter into the kingdom of Heaven.
Those who through no fault of theirs die without Baptism, though they have never committed sin, cannot enter Heaven neither will they go to Hell. After the Last Judgment there will be no Purgatory. Where, then, will they go? God in His goodness will provide a place of rest for them, where they will not suffer and will be in a state of natural peace; but they will never see God or Heaven. God might have created us for a purely natural and material end, so that we would live forever upon the earth and be naturally happy with the good things God would give us. But then we would never have known of Heaven or God as we do now. Such happiness on earth would be nothing compared to the delights of Heaven and the presence of God; so that, now, since God has given us, through His holy revelations, a knowledge of Himself and Heaven, we would be miserable if left always upon the earth. Those, then, who die without Baptism do not know what they have lost, and are naturally happy; but we who know all they have lost for want of Baptism know how very unfortunate they are.
Think, then, what a terrible crime it is to willfully allow anyone to die without Baptism, or to deprive a little child of life before it can be baptized! Suppose all the members of a family but one little infant have been baptized; when the Day of Judgment comes, while all the other members of a family—father, mother, and children—may go into Heaven, that little one will have to remain out; that little brother or sister will be separated from its family forever, and never, never see God or Heaven. How heartless and cruel, then, must a person be who would deprive that little infant of happiness for all eternity—just that its mother or someone else might have a little less trouble or suffering here upon earth.
157. Q. How many kinds of Baptism are there?
A. There are three kinds of Baptism: Baptism of water, of desire, and of blood.
158. Q. What is Baptism of water?
A. Baptism of water is that which is given by pouring water on the head of the person to be baptized, and saying at the same time, “I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.”
159. Q. What is Baptism of desire?
A. Baptism of desire is an ardent wish to receive Baptism, and to do all that God has ordained for our salvation.
“Ardent wish” by one who has no opportunity of being baptized—for no one can baptize himself. He must be sorry for his sins and have the desire of receiving the Baptism of water as soon as he can; just as a person in mortal sin and without a priest to absolve him may, when in danger of death, save his soul from Hell by an act of perfect contrition and the firm resolution of going to confession as soon as possible....
160. Q. What is Baptism of blood?
A. Baptism of blood is the shedding of one’s blood for the faith of Christ.
Baptism of blood, called martyrdom, is received by those who were not baptized with water, but were put to death for their Catholic faith. This takes place even nowadays in pagan countries where the missionaries are trying to convert the poor natives. These pagans have to be instructed before they are baptized. They do everything required of them, let us suppose, and are waiting for the day of Baptism. Those who are being thus instructed are called Catechumens. Someday, while they are attending their instructions, the enemies of religion rush down upon them and put them to death. They do not resist, but willingly suffer death for the sake of the true religion. They are martyrs then and are baptized in their own blood; although, as we said above, blood would not do for an ordinary Baptism even when we could not get water; so that if a person drew blood from his own body and asked to be baptized with it, the Baptism would not be valid. Neither would they be martyrs if put to death not for religion or virtue but for some other reason—say political.
161. Q. Is Baptism of desire or blood sufficient to produce the effects of Baptism of water?
A. Baptism of desire or of blood is sufficient to produce the effects of the Baptism of water, if it is impossible to receive the Baptism of water.
----------------------------------
It does not leave much room for any adult to be saved but martyrdom for Christ, or to have never sinned mortally. This is why I say it is a harmless theory affecting practically no one.
How many believers in baptism of desire today, restrict it to this catechisms definition? I've only known one such person in my life.
-
Bowler said: BY the way, I challenge anyone to find a pre late 1800's catechism that taught salvation by desire for anyone but a catechumen.
I also challenge anyone to find a quote from a saint that says that a non-Catholic, like a Jew, Mohamedan, Hindu, Protestant etc can be saved by their desire. In other words, a saint quote that contradicts these quotes below.
Here are some more recent saint quotes on the subject:
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1552xavier4.html
From: Henry James Coleridge, ed., The Life and Letters of St. Francis Xavier, 2d Ed., 2 Vols., (London: Burns & Oates, 1890), Vol. II, pp. 331-350; reprinted in William H. McNeil and Mitsuko Iriye, eds., Modern Asia and Africa, Readings in World History Vol. 9, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1971), pp. 20-30.
St. Francis Xavier:
Letter from Japan, to the Society of Jesus in Europe, 1552
"One of the things that most of all pains and torments these Japanese is, that we teach them that the prison of hell is irrevocably shut, so that there is no egress therefrom. For they grieve over the fate of their departed children, of their parents and relatives, and they often show their grief by their tears. So they ask us if there is any hope, any way to free them by prayer from that eternal misery, and I am obliged to answer that there is absolutely none. Their grief at this affects and torments them wonderfully; they almost pine away with sorrow. But there is this good thing about their trouble---it makes one hope that they will all be the more laborious for their own salvation, lest they like their forefathers, should be condemned to everlasting punishment. They often ask if God cannot take their fathers out of hell, and why their punishment must never have an end. We gave them a satisfactory answer, but they did not cease to grieve over the misfortune of their relatives; and I can hardly restrain my tears sometimes at seeing men so dear to my heart suffer such intense pain about a thing which is already done with and can never be undone".
St. Alphonsus: “See also the special love which God has shown you in bringing you into life in a Christian country, and in the bosom of the Catholic or true Church. How many are born among the pagans, among the Jews, among the Mohometans and heretics, and all are lost.” (Sermons of St. Alphonsus Liguori, Tan Books, 1982, p. 219)
St. Alphonsus: “If you are ignorant of the truths of the faith, you are obliged to learn them. Every Christian is bound to learn the Creed, the Our Father, and the Hail Mary under pain of mortal sin. Many have no idea of the Most Holy Trinity, the Incarnation, mortal sin, Judgment, Paradise, Hell, or Eternity; and this deplorable ignorance damns them.” (Michael Malone, The Apostolic Digest, p. 159.)
St. Alphonsus, quoted in Fr. Michael Muller’s The Catholic Dogma: “‘Some theologians hold that the belief of the two other articles - the Incarnation of the Son of God, and the Trinity of Persons - is strictly commanded but not necessary, as a means without which salvation is impossible; so that a person inculpably ignorant of them may be saved. But according to the more common and truer opinion, the explicit belief of these articles is necessary as a means without which no adult can be saved.’ (First Command. No. 8.).”
St. Alphonsus, The History of Heresies, Refutation 6, #11, p. 457: “Still we answer the Semipelagians, and say, that infidels who arrive at the use of reason, and are not converted to the Faith, cannot be excused, because though they do not receive sufficient proximate grace, still they are not deprived of remote grace, as a means of becoming converted. But what is this remote grace? St. Thomas explains it, when he says, that if anyone was brought up in the wilds, or even among brute beasts, and if he followed the law of natural reason, to desire what is good, and to avoid what is wicked, we should certainly believe either that God, by an internal inspiration, would reveal to him what he should believe, or would send someone to preach the Faith to him, as he sent Peter to Cornelius. Thus, then, according to the Angelic Doctor [St. Thomas], God, at least remotely, gives to infidels, who have the use of reason, sufficient grace to obtain salvation, and this grace consists in a certain instruction of the mind, and in a movement of the will, to observe the natural law; and if the infidel cooperates with this movement, observing the precepts of the law of nature, and abstaining from grievous sins, he will certainly receive, through the merits of Jesus Christ, the grace proximately sufficient to embrace the Faith, and save his soul.”
St. Alphonsus: “See also the special love which God has shown you in bringing you into life in a Christian country, and in the bosom of the Catholic or true Church. How many are born among the pagans, among the Jews, among the Mohometans and heretics, and all are lost.”Sermons of St. Alphonsus Liguori, Tan Books, 1982, p. 219.)
In the great deluge in the days of Noah, all mankind perished, eight persons alone being saved in the Ark. In our days a deluge, not of water, but sins, continually inundates the earth, and out of this deluge very few escape. Scarcely anyone is saved. ( St. Alphonsus Liguori)
He who goes to Hell, goes of his own accord. Everyone who is damned, is damned because he wills his own damnation. (St. Alphonsus Liguori)
O ye atheists who do not believe in God, what fools you are! But if you do believe there is a God, you must also believe there is a true religion. And if not the Roman Catholic, which is it? Perhaps that of the pagans who admit many gods, thus they deny them all. Perhaps that of Mohammed, a religion invented by an impostor and framed for beasts rather than humans. Perhaps that of the Jews who had the true faith at one time but, because they rejected their redeemer, lost their faith, their country, their everything. Perhaps that of the heretics who, separating themselves from our Church, have confused all revealed dogmas in such a way that the belief of one heretic is contrary to that of his neighbor. O holy faith! Enlighten all those poor blind creatures who run to eternal perdition! (St. Alphonsus Liguori)
St. Alphonsus: “We must believe that the Roman Catholic Church is the only true Church; hence, they who are out of our Church, or if they are separated from it, cannot be saved.” (Saint Alphonsus Marie De Liguori, Instructions On The Commandments And Sacraments, G. P. Warren Co., 1846. Trans. Fr. P. M’Auley, Dublin, p. 57.)
4. St. Alphonsus: “How thankful we ought to be to Jesus Christ for the gift of faith! What would have become of us if we had been born in Asia, Africa, America, or in the midst of heretics and schismatics? He who does not believe is lost. This, then, was the first and greatest grace bestowed on us: our calling to the true faith. O Savior of the world, what would become of us if Thou hadst not enlightened us? We would have been like our fathers of old, who adored animals and blocks of stone and wood: and thus we would have all perished.” (Saint Alphonsus Maria De Liguori, Preparation for Death, unabridged version, p. 339.)
-
I already gave you one from 1649 (Douay), but you insist that the teaching was "really" meant for catechumens despite the fact that the catechism doesn't make a point of saying so.
And now I'm really out of these so-called discussions.
-
I already gave you one from 1649 (Douay), but you insist that the teaching was "really" meant for catechumens despite the fact that the catechism doesn't make a point of saying so.
And now I'm really out of these so-called discussions.
Yes, it was you, I said someone from CI brought it up. There is no need to "get out" these "so-called" discusions. It sounds like you are frustrated with something. Are you not learning something that you didn't know before?
The problem is that you have to discern truth from obfuscations. You'll find that people who don't know the subject will keep harping on the same points, the little that they know and always stick to that, never learning anything new. On the point of BOD it is very simple:
Find a person who limits his belief in BOD to a catechumen or a martyr for the Faith, and you have someone with common sense. That person can have the confidence that he is supported by St. Thomas and many other Saints and Doctors after the time of St. Thomas. (I've only known one person who only restricted his belief in BOD to these examples. There should be many more out there, but there just isn't. I think it is because it BOD is like a harmless drug that leads to stronger drugs)
Find a person who believes in John 3:15 and the dogmas on EENS and baptism as they are written, literally that is, and you have a person with the support of the Fathers, doctors and saints that came before St. Thomas. And you can read the dogmas as they were intended to be read, as the final word.
Or you can go with the BOD Hypocrites and go against all the Fathers, Doctors, saints and the Athanasian Creed. In other words become a fool.
-
Council of Trent, Session VI (Jan. 13, 1547)
Decree on Justification,
Chapter IV.
A description is introduced of the Justification of the impious, and of the Manner thereof under the law of grace.
By which words, a description of the Justification of the impious is indicated, as being a translation, from that state wherein man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace, and of the adoption of the sons of God, through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Saviour. And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.
Catechism from Trent explains OR THE DESIRE THEREOF: (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/romancat.html)
Dispositions for baptism
Intention
The faithful are also to be instructed in the necessary dispositions for Baptism. In the first place they must desire and intend to receive it; for as in Baptism we all die to sin and resolve to live a new life, it is fit that it be administered to those only who receive it of their own free will and accord; it is to be forced upon none. Hence we learn from holy tradition that it has been the invariable practice to administer Baptism to no individual without previously asking him if he be willing to receive it. This disposition even infants are presumed to have, since the will of the Church, which promises for them, cannot be mistaken.
Necessity Of Confession [Doctrine on Perfect Contrition]
Contrition, it is true, blots out sin; but who does not know that to effect this it must be so intense, so ardent, so vehement, as to bear a proportion to the magnitude of the crimes which it effaces? This is a degree of contrition which few reach; and hence, in this way, very few indeed could hope to obtain the pardon of their sins. It, therefore, became necessary that the most merciful Lord should provide by some easier means for the common salvation of men; and this He has done in His admirable wisdom, by giving to His Church the keys of the kingdom of heaven.
According to the doctrine of the Catholic Church, a doctrine firmly to be believed and constantly professed by all, if the sinner have a sincere sorrow for his sins and a firm resolution of avoiding them in future, although he bring not with him that contrition which *may* be sufficient of itself to obtain pardon, all his sins are forgiven and remitted through the power of the keys, when he confesses them properly to the priest. Justly, then, do those most holy men, our Fathers, proclaim that by the keys of the Church the gate of heaven is thrown open, a truth which no one can doubt since the Council of Florence has decreed that the effect of Penance is absolution from sin.
-
From bowler's only source:
Ordinarily They Are Not Baptised At Once
On adults, however, the Church has not been accustomed to confer the Sacrament of Baptism at once, but has ordained that it be deferred for a certain time. The delay is not attended with the same danger as in the case of infants, which we have already mentioned; should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness.
Nay, this delay seems to be attended with some advantages. And first, since the Church must take particular care that none approach this Sacrament through hypocrisy and dissimulation, the intentions of such as seek Baptism, are better examined and ascertained. Hence it is that we read in the decrees of ancient Councils that Jєωιѕн converts to the Catholic faith, before admission to Baptism, should spend some months in the ranks of the catechumens.
Furthermore, the candidate for Baptism is thus better instructed in the doctrine of the faith which he is to profess, and in the practices of the Christian life. Finally, when Baptism is administered to adults with solemn ceremonies on the appointed days of Easter and Pentecost only greater religious reverence is shown to the Sacrament.
-
How about the Commentary from the 1582 Rheims New Testament?
· Annotations for John Chapter 3: "Though in this case, God which hath not bound his grace, in respect of his own freedom, to any Sacrament, may and doth accept them as baptized, which either are martyred before they could be baptized, or else depart this life with vow and desire to have that Sacrament, but by some remedilesse necessity could not obtain it."
It can read online in a copy of its original form: on old paper with antiquated script and in antiquated English.
-
From bowler's only source:
Ordinarily They Are Not Baptised At Once
On adults, however, the Church has not been accustomed to confer the Sacrament of Baptism at once, but has ordained that it be deferred for a certain time. The delay is not attended with the same danger as in the case of infants, which we have already mentioned; should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness.
Nay, this delay seems to be attended with some advantages. And first, since the Church must take particular care that none approach this Sacrament through hypocrisy and dissimulation, the intentions of such as seek Baptism, are better examined and ascertained. Hence it is that we read in the decrees of ancient Councils that Jєωιѕн converts to the Catholic faith, before admission to Baptism, should spend some months in the ranks of the catechumens.
Furthermore, the candidate for Baptism is thus better instructed in the doctrine of the faith which he is to profess, and in the practices of the Christian life. Finally, when Baptism is administered to adults with solemn ceremonies on the appointed days of Easter and Pentecost only greater religious reverence is shown to the Sacrament.
Do you think that the part of the catechism teaching you bolded is supposed to teach a BOD?
If you read what is written, you will see that:
The catechism snip makes no mention of death *or* salvation.
The catechism does not reward salvation via a BOD.
The catechism does not even promise them grace and righteousness let alone salvation.
The "unforeseen accident" can easily be that the priest who was supposed to administer the sacrament that day was hit by a car.
When reading what is written, the catechism teaches that their contrition, and desire will *avail* them to *grace and righteousness* - IOW, it will put them "in the way" of grace - or to put it another way, before they can be baptized, the person *must* be in the way of grace via the proper intention - i.e. they must "desire" to be baptized prior to actually receiving the sacrament.
What you did, was take what the catechism teaches regarding the Desire for Baptism, and changed it into teaching a Baptism of Desire.
To avoid doing that from now on, read what is written as it is written.
-
Stubborn:
If you read what is written, you will see that:
The catechism snip makes no mention of death *or* salvation.
The catechism does not reward salvation via a BOD.
The catechism does not even promise them grace and righteousness let alone salvation.
I guess you missed this:
the Commentary from the 1582 Rheims New Testament?
· Annotations for John Chapter 3: "Though in this case, God which hath not bound his grace, in respect of his own freedom, to any Sacrament, may and doth accept them as baptized, which either are martyred before they could be baptized, or else depart this life with vow and desire to have that Sacrament, but by some remedilesse necessity could not obtain it."
It can read online in a copy of its original form: on old paper with antiquated script and in antiquated English.
-
Stubborn:
If you read what is written, you will see that:
The catechism snip makes no mention of death *or* salvation.
The catechism does not reward salvation via a BOD.
The catechism does not even promise them grace and righteousness let alone salvation.
I guess you missed this:
the Commentary from the 1582 Rheims New Testament?
· Annotations for John Chapter 3: "Though in this case, God which hath not bound his grace, in respect of his own freedom, to any Sacrament, may and doth accept them as baptized, which either are martyred before they could be baptized, or else depart this life with vow and desire to have that Sacrament, but by some remedilesse necessity could not obtain it."
It can read online in a copy of its original form: on old paper with antiquated script and in antiquated English.
I guess I did miss that.
Do you suppose that because that bible has that commentary that it means the catechism snip does not mean what it says?
-
If I understand your question correctly Stubborn, I would say that the Catechism of the Council of Trent means more than you understand it to mean. The Rheims commentary was also written right around the same time. Those Fathers were explaining the faith to counteract the errors of the Protestants. If you read that commentary you will see it explains and defends the faith against the heretics.
-
Stubborn:
If you read what is written, you will see that:
The catechism snip makes no mention of death *or* salvation.
The catechism does not reward salvation via a BOD.
The catechism does not even promise them grace and righteousness let alone salvation.
I guess you missed this:
the Commentary from the 1582 Rheims New Testament?
· Annotations for John Chapter 3: "Though in this case, God which hath not bound his grace, in respect of his own freedom, to any Sacrament, may and doth accept them as baptized, which either are martyred before they could be baptized, or else depart this life with vow and desire to have that Sacrament, but by some remedilesse necessity could not obtain it."
It can read online in a copy of its original form: on old paper with antiquated script and in antiquated English.
I guess I did miss that.
Do you suppose that because that bible has that commentary that it means the catechism snip does not mean what it says?
What is quite possible is that you misunderstand the Catechism. Do you deny the possibility that you may be trusting yourself to the point of denying what has been explained for hundreds and hundreds of years?
-
How about the Commentary from the 1582 Rheims New Testament?
· Annotations for John Chapter 3: "Though in this case, God which hath not bound his grace, in respect of his own freedom, to any Sacrament, may and doth accept them as baptized, which either are martyred before they could be baptized, or else depart this life with vow and desire to have that Sacrament, but by some remedilesse necessity could not obtain it."
It can read online in a copy of its original form: on old paper with antiquated script and in antiquated English.
Find a person who limits his belief in BOD to a catechumen or a martyr for the Faith, and you have someone with common sense. That person can have the confidence that he is supported by St. Thomas and many other Saints and Doctors after the time of St. Thomas. (I've only known one person who only restricted his belief in BOD to these examples. There should be many more out there, but there just isn't. I think it is because it BOD is like a harmless drug that leads to stronger drugs)
Find a person who believes in John 3:15 and the dogmas on EENS and baptism as they are written, literally that is, and you have a person with the support of the Fathers, doctors and saints that came before St. Thomas. And you can read the dogmas as they were intended to be read, as the final word.
Or you can go with the BOD Hypocrites (and believe that any unbaptized person can be saved even if they have no explicit desire to be a Catholic, or be martyred for the faith, nor belief in Christ and the Trinity) and thus go against ALL the Fathers, Doctors, Saints and the Athanasian Creed. In other words become a fool
Thanks for the quote. It is talking about martyrdom for the faith and explicit desire for the sacrament of baptism. Do you believe that martyrdom for the faith and explicit desire for the sacrament are required for salvation? Or do you reject that teaching and believe that believe that any unbaptized person can be saved even if they have no explicit desire to be a Catholic, or be martyred for the faith, nor belief in Christ and the Trinity?
-
Thanks for the quote. It is talking about martyrdom for the faith and explicit desire for the sacrament of baptism. Do you believe that martyrdom for the faith and explicit desire for the sacrament are required for salvation? Or do you reject that teaching and believe that believe that any unbaptized person can be saved even if they have no explicit desire to be a Catholic, or be martyred for the faith, nor belief in Christ and the Trinity?
The quote (and others provided) destroys your "understanding" of Trent.
-
Bowler,
I believe what the Church teaches. Here is an excerpt from an important Catholic textbook. It seems to explain how far the Church will go on those particular subjects:
on martyrdom:
"The theological concept of martyrdom (greek{m'artus}, a
witness) includes three separate and distinct elements, viz.:
(1) Violent death or extremely cruel treatment which would naturally
cause death, irrespective of whether the victim actually dies or is
saved by a miracle, as was St. John the Evangelist when he escaped
unharmed from the cauldron of boiling oil into which he had been thrown
by order of the Emperor Domitian. (2) The endurance of death or violence
for the sake of Christ, i.e. for the Catholic faith or for the
practice of any supernatural virtue. Hence the so-called ``martyrs'' of
revolution or heresy are not martyrs in the theological sense of the
term. (3) Patient suffering, endured voluntarily and without resistance.
This excludes soldiers who fall in battle, even though they fight in
defence of the faith.[39]"
- see below for the whole text plus footnotes
On implicit or explicit desire: see most of what is found below. The footnotes are quite important.
(This book can also be found online)
______________________________________________________________________________
chapter from Pohle/Preuss, The Sacraments, Vol. I:
CHAPTER II
THE NECESSITY OF BAPTISM
Baptism is necessary for salvation, but, under certain conditions, the
place of Baptism by water (baptismus fluminis) may be supplied by
Baptism of desire (baptismus flaminis) or by Baptism of blood
(baptismus sanguinis). We shall explain the Catholic teaching on
this point in three theses.
Thesis I: Baptism is necessary for salvation.
This proposition embodies an article of faith.
Proof. We have, in a previous treatise,[1] distinguised between two
kinds of necessity: necessity of means (necessitas medii) and
necessity of precept (necessitas praecepti).
Since Baptism is necessary for infants no less than for adults,
it follows that all men need it as a means of salvation (necessitas
medii), and that for adults it is also of precept (necessitas
praecepti). However, since the Baptism of water may sometimes be
supplied by the Baptism of desire or the Baptism of blood, Baptism of
water is not absolutely necessary as a means of salvation but merely in
a hypothetical way. That Baptism is necessary for salvation is an
expressly defined dogma, for the Council of Trent declares: ``If any one
saith that Baptism is free, that is, not necessary unto salvation, let
him be anathema.''[2]
a) This can be conclusively proved from Holy Scripture. Our Lord's
command: ``Teach ye all nations, baptizing them,''[3] plainly imposes on
all men the duty to receive Baptism, as is evidenced by a parallel
passage in St. Mark: ``Go ye into the whole world, and preach the Gospel
to every creature; he that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved:
but he that believeth not shall be condemned.''[4] Here we have Christ's
plain and express declaration that while unbelief is sufficient to incur
damnation, faith does not ensure salvation unless it is accompanied by
Baptism.
That Baptism is necessary as a means of salvation (necessitate
medii) follows from John III, 5: ``Unless a man be born again[5] of
water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven.''
Spiritual regeneration is more than a mere keeping of the Commandments;
it involves a complete transformation of the soul. As no one can come
into this world without being born, so no one can enter Heaven unless he
is supernaturally reborn. Hence Baptism is, ordinarily, a necessary
means of salvation.[6]
b) This teaching is upheld by Tradition.
The African bishops assembled at the Council of Carthage (416),
in a letter to Innocent I, complain of the cruelty of the Pelagians, who
condemn their children to eternal death by refusing them Baptism.[7]
Tertullian writes: ``The precept is laid down that without Baptism
salvation is attainable by none, chiefly on the ground of that
declaration of the Lord, who says: Unless a man be born of water, he
hath not eternal life.''[8]
St. Basil, at a somewhat later date, says: ``If you have not passed
through the water, you will not be freed from the cruel tyranny of the
devil.''[9]
This belief of the primitive Church was embodied, as it were, in the
catechumenate, an institution which lasted well into the Middle Ages.
``Catechumeni''[10] was a name applied to adults who were under
instruction with a view to receiving Baptism. Until recently they were
believed to have been divided into three classes, viz.:
audientes (greek{>akro'wmenoi}; genuflectentes
(greek{g'onu kl'inontes}); and competentes
(greek{futiz'omenoi}). This theory was based upon a misunderstood canon
of a council of Neocaesarea (between 314 and 325). Other theologians
thought that there were two classes, catechumeni and
competentes or electi. But this distinction is equally
untenable, because St. Cyril of Jerusalem and other Fathers number the
competentes, or candidates for Baptism, among the faithful
(fideles, greek{pisto'i}). To the late Professor Funk belongs
the credit of having shown that the catechumens were all in one
class.[11] But even though we now discard the three (or two) stages of
preparation, this does not alter the fact that the ecclesiastical
authorities were at great pains properly to instruct converts, so as to
make them well-informed and loyal Catholics. The catechumens had to pass
seven consecutive examinations (septem scrutinia) before they
were admitted to Baptism. Besides, for a whole week after Baptism they
wore white garments, which they put off on Low Sunday (Dominica in
albis, scil. deponendis). Had not the Church been so firmly convinced
of the importance and necessity of Baptism, she would certainly not have
surrounded this Sacrament with so many imposing ceremonies nor spent so
much time and labor in preparing candidates for its reception. The very
existence of the catechumenate in the primitive Church proves that
Baptism was always regarded as a matter of spiritual life and
death.[12]
c) It is a moot question among theologians at what time Baptism became a
necessary means of salvation.
Even if it were true, as some older writers hold, that express
belief in the Messias and the Trinity was a necessary condition of
salvation already in the Old Testament, Baptism certainly was not,
either as a means or in consequence of a positive precept.[13] For those
living under the New Law the necessity of Baptism, according to the
Tridentine Council,[14] began with ``the promulgation of the Gospel.''
When was the Gospel promulgated? Was it promulgated for all nations on
the day of our Lord's Ascension, or did its precepts go into effect only
when they were actually preached to each? Were we to adopt the latter
assumption, we should have to admit that the necessity of Baptism, and
consequently the duty of receiving the Sacrament, was limited both with
regard to time and place, e.g. that the law did not go into
effect in Palestine until the Gospel had been sufficiently promulgated
throughout that country, which required some thirty years or more. To be
entirely consistent we should have to admit further that Baptism did not
become necessary for salvation in the farther parts of the Roman Empire
until about the close of the third century, in the Western hemisphere
until the sixteenth century, in Central Africa or the Congo Free State
until the beginning of the twentieth. This would practically mean that
millions of pagans after the time of Christ were in precisely the same
position as the entire human race before the atonement, and that their
children could be saved by a mere ``Sacrament of nature.''[15] Though
this way of reasoning appears quite legitimate in the light of the
Tridentine declaration, it is open to serious theological objections. In
the first place, we must not arbitrarily limit the validity of our
Saviour's baptismal mandate. Secondly, we cannot assume that for more
than a thousand years the children of pagan nations were better off in
the matter of salvation than innumerable infants of Christian parentage,
who were unable to avail themselves of the ``Sacrament of nature.''
Third, the assumption under review practically renders illusory the
necessity of Baptism through a period extending over many centuries. To
obviate these difficulties we prefer the more probable opinion that the
law making Baptism necessary for salvation was promulgated on Ascension
day or, if you will, on Pentecost, simultaneously for the whole world,
and at once became binding upon all nations.[16]
Thesis II: In adults the place of Baptism by water can be supplied in
case of urgent necessity by the so-called Baptism of desire.
This proposition may be qualified as ``doctrina catholica.''
Proof. The Baptism of desire (baptismus flaminis) differs from the
Baptism of water (baptismus fluminis) in the same way in which
spiritual differs from actual Communion. If the desire for Baptism is
accompanied by perfect contrition, we have the so-called boptismus
flaminis, which forthwith justifies the sinner, provided, of course,
that the desire is a true votum sacramenti, i.e., that it
implies a firm resolve to receive the Sacrament as soon as opportunity
offers.
The Tridentine Council pronounces anathema against those who assert
``that the Sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation,
but superfluous, and that without them, or without the desire thereof,
men obtain of God through faith alone the grace of justification.''[17]
At a later date the Holy See formally condemned a proposition
extracted from the writings of Bajus, which says that ``Perfect and
sincere charity can exist both in catechumens and in penitents without
the remission of sins.''[18] Hence the Church teaches that perfect
charity does remit sin, even in catechumens or in penitents, i.e.
before the reception of the Sacrament, yet not without the Sacrament, as
we have seen in Thesis I. Nothing remains, therefore, but to say that
the remission of sins through perfect charity is due to the fact that
such charity implies the desire of the Sacrament. Indeed the only
Sacraments here concerned are Baptism and Penance. The Council of Trent
[19] explains that primal justification (from original sin) is
impossible without the laver of regeneration or the desire thereof, and
[20] that forgiveness of personal sin must not be expected from perfect
charity without at least the desire of the Sacrament of Penance.
a) That perfect contrition effects immediate justification is apparent
from the case of David,[21] that of Zachaeus,[22] and our Lord's own
words to one of the robbers crucified with Him on Calvary: ``This day
thou shalt be with me in paradise.''[23]
The Prophet Ezechiel assured the Old Testament Jews in the name
of Jehovah: ``If the wicked do penance for all his sins, ... he shall
live, and shall not die.''[24] In the New Testament our Lord Himself
says of the penitent Magdalen: ``Many sins are forgiven her, because she
hath loved much.''[25] Since, however, God has ordained Baptism as a
necessary means of salvation,[26] perfect contrition, in order to obtain
forgiveness of sins, must include the desire of the Sacrament. Cfr. John
XIV, 23: ``If any one love me, he will keep my word, and my Father will
love him, and we will come to him, and will make our abode with
him.''[27]
b) According to primitive Tradition, the Baptism of desire, when based
on charity, effects justification, though not without some ideal
relation to the Baptism of water.
The anonymous author of the treatise De Rebaptismate,
which was composed about 256 against the practice championed by St.
Cyprian,[28] calls attention to the fact that the centurion Cornelius
and his family were justified without the Sacrament,[29] and adds: ``No
doubt men can be baptized without water, in the Holy Ghost, as you
observe that these were baptized, before they were baptized with water,
... since they received the grace of the New Covenant before the bath,
which they reached later.''[30]
The most striking Patristic pronouncement on the subject is found in St.
Ambrose's sermon on the death of the Emperor Valentinian II, who had
died as a catechumen. ``I hear you express grief,'' he says, ``because
he [Valentinian] did not receive the Sacrament of Baptism. Tell me, what
else is there in us except the will and petition? But he had long
desired to be initiated before he came to Italy, and expressed his
intention to be baptized by me as soon as possible, and it was for this
reason, more than for any other, that he hastened to me. Has he not,
therefore, the grace which he desired? Has he not received that for
which he asked? Surely, he received [it] because he asked [for
it].''[31]
St. Augustine repeatedly speaks of the power inherent in the desire for
Baptism. ``I do not hesitate,'' he says in his treatise De
Baptisma against the Donatists, ``to place the Catholic catechumen,
who is burning with the love of God, before the baptized heretic.... The
centurion Cornelius, before Baptism, was better than Simon [Magus], who
had been baptized. For Cornelius, even before Baptism, was filled with
the Holy Ghost, while Simon, after Baptism, was puffed up with an
unclean spirit.''[32] A seemingly contradictory passage occurs in the
same author's Homilies on the Gospel of St. John. ``No matter what
progress a catechumen may make,'' it reads, ``he still carries the
burden of iniquity, which is not taken away until he has been
baptized.''[33] The two Augustinian passages quoted can, however, be
easily reconciled. The command to receive the Baptism of water exists
also for the catechumens and ceases to be binding only when there is an
impossibility. ``I find,'' says the same author, ``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 can not be had to
the celebration of the mystery of Baptism for want of time.''[34] St.
Bernard invokes the authority of SS. Ambrose and Augustine in support of
his teaching that a man may be saved by the Baptism of desire if death
or some other insuperable obstacle prevents him from receiving the
Baptism of water.[35] The Popes decided many practical cases of
conscience by this rule. Thus Innocent III unhesitatingly declared that
a certain deceased priest, who had never been baptized, had undoubtedly
obtained forgiveness of original sin and reached Heaven, and that the
sacrifice of the Mass might be offered up for the repose of his
soul.[36]
The question whether the votum baptismi accompanying perfect
contrition must be explicit, is to be decided in the same way as the
parallel problem whether pagans, in order to be justified, must have an
express belief in the Trinity and the Incarnation, or whether an
implicit belief in these mysteries is sufficient.[37] The more common
opinion holds that the votum implicitum is all that is required.
This ``implicit desire'' may be defined as ``a state of mind in which a
man would ardently long for Baptism if he knew that it is necessary for
salvation.''[38]
Thesis III: Martyrdom (baptismus sanguinis) can also supply the place
of Baptism.
Though the Church has never formally pronounced on the subject, the
teaching of Scripture and Tradition is sufficiently clear to enable us
to regard this thesis as ``doctrina certa.''
Proof. The Baptism of blood, or martyrdom, is the patient endurance of
death, or of extreme violence apt to cause death, for the sake of Jesus
Christ.
The theological concept of martyrdom (greek{m'artus}, a
witness) includes three separate and distinct elements, viz.:
(1) Violent death or extremely cruel treatment which would naturally
cause death, irrespective of whether the victim actually dies or is
saved by a miracle, as was St. John the Evangelist when he escaped
unharmed from the cauldron of boiling oil into which he had been thrown
by order of the Emperor Domitian. (2) The endurance of death or violence
for the sake of Christ, i.e. for the Catholic faith or for the
practice of any supernatural virtue. Hence the so-called ``martyrs'' of
revolution or heresy are not martyrs in the theological sense of the
term. (3) Patient suffering, endured voluntarily and without resistance.
This excludes soldiers who fall in battle, even though they fight in
defence of the faith.[39]
Since martyrdom effects justification in infants as well as adults, its
efficacy must be conceived after the manner of an opus operatum,
and in adults presupposes a moral preparation or disposition, consisting
mainly of faith accompanied by imperfect contrition.[40] It does not,
however, require perfect contrition, else there would be no essential
distinction between Baptism of blood and Baptism of desire.[41]
a) The supernatural efficacy of martyrdom may be deduced from our Lord's
declaration in the Gospel of St. Matthew: ``Every one that shall confess
me before men, I will also confess him before my Father who is in
Heaven,''[42] and: ``He that findeth his life, shall lose it; and he
that shall lose his life for me, shall find it.''[43] If a man gives up
his life for Jesus, he will surely be rewarded. ``Greater love than this
no man hath, that a man lay down his life for his friends.''[44]
Consequently, martyrdom must be regarded as equivalent to Baptism for
the unbaptized, and as a means of justification for the baptized.
b) The ancient Church explicitly interpreted Christ's teaching in this
sense, as is evident from the honors she paid to the martyrs.
Tertullian says: ``We have, indeed, likewise a second font,
itself one [with the former], of blood to wit.... This is the Baptism
which both stands in lieu of the fontal bathing when that has not been
received, and restores it when lost.''[45] St. Cyprian declares that the
catechumens who suffer martyrdom for Christ's sake, go to Heaven. ``Let
them know ... that the catechumens are not deprived of Baptism, since
they are baptized with the most glorious and supreme Baptism of
blood.''[46] St. Augustine expresses himself in a similar manner: ``To
all those who die confessing Christ, even though they have not received
the laver of regeneration, [martyrdom] will prove as effective for the
remission of sins as if they were washed in the baptismal font.''[47]
The Greek Church held the same belief. St. Cyril of Jerusalem writes:
``If a man does not receive Baptism, he hath not salvation, the martyrs
alone excepted, who attain to Heaven without water.''[48] And St.
Chrysostom: ``As those baptized in water, so also those who suffer
martyrdom, are washed clean, [the latter] in their own blood.''[49]
The primitive Church venerated in a special manner all those who
suffered martyrdom for the faith, the unbaptized as well as the
baptized. Among the earliest martyrs to whom public honors were paid,
are St. Emerentiana, a foster-sister of St. Agnes, and the Holy
Innocents, of whom St. Cyprian, following St. Irenaeus,[50] says that
though they were too young to fight for Christ, they were old enough to
gain the crown of martyrdom.[51]
c) The Baptism of blood is more perfect than the Baptism of desire, and,
in a certain sense, even excels Baptism by water.
$alpha$) It is more perfect than the Baptism of desire, both
in essence and effect, because it justifies infants as well as adults
quasi ex opere operato, whereas the Baptism of desire is
efficacious ex opera operantis, and in adults only. Martyrdom,
however, is not a Sacrament because it is no ecclesiastical rite and has
not been instituted as an ordinary means of grace. It is superior to the
Baptism of desire in this respect, that, like ordinary Baptism, it not
only forgives sins and sanctifies the sinner, but remits all temporal
punishments. St. Augustine says: ``It would be an affront to pray for a
martyr; we should [rather] commend ourselves to his prayers.''[52] Hence
the famous dictum of Pope Innocent III: ``He who prays for a martyr
insults him.''[53] St. Thomas teaches: ``Suffering endured for Christ's
sake ... cleanses [the soul] of all guilt, both venial and mortal,
unless the will be found actually attached to sin.''[54]
$beta$) Martyrdom is inferior to Baptism in so far as it is not a
Sacrament, and consequently neither imprints a character nor confers the
right of receiving the other Sacraments. It excels Baptism in that it
not only remits all sins, together with the temporal punishments due to
them, but likewise confers the so-called aureole.[55] It is superior to
Baptism also in this that it more perfectly represents the passion and
death of Christ. Cfr. Mark X, 38: ``Can you drink of the chalice that I
drink of, or be baptized with the baptism wherewith I am
baptized?''----``Let him who is deemed worthy of martyrdom,'' say the
Apostolic Constitutions,[56] ``rejoice in the Lord for obtaining such a
great crown.... Though he be a catechumen, let him depart without
sadness; for the suffering he endures for Christ will be to him more
effective than Baptism.''[57] St. Bonaventure explains this as follows:
``The reason why [martyrdom] has greater efficacy is that in the Baptism
of blood there is an ampler and a fuller imitation and profession of the
Passion of Christ than in the Baptism of water.... In the Baptism of
water death is signified; in the Baptism of blood it is incurred.[58]
[1] Pohle-Preuss, Grace, Actual and Habitual, pp. 281 sqq.
[2] Sess. VII, De Bapt., can. 5: ``Si quis dixerit, baptismum
liberum esse, hoc est non necessarium ad salutem, anathema sit.
(Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 861)
[3] Matth. XXVIII, 19.
[4] Mark XVI, 15 sq.
[5] greek{>e`an tis gennhq~|h}.
[6] V. Theses II and III, infra.
[7] ``Parvulos etiam baptizandos negant ac sic eos mortifera ista
doctrina in aeternum necant.''
[8] De Bapt., c. 12: ``[1]Praescrebitur nemini sine baptismo
competere salutem et ex illa maxime pronuntiatione Domini, qui ait: Nisi
natus quis ex aquq fuerit, non habet vitam aeternam.[/i]''
[9] Hom. in Bapt., n. 2.---Cfr. A. Seitz, Die
Heilsnotwendigkeit der Kirche nach der altchristlichen Literatur biz zur
Zeit des hl. Augustinus, pp. 280 sqq., Freiburg 1903. On Infant
Baptism, v. infra, Ch. IV, Sect. 2, pp. 268 sqq.
[10] greek{Kathco'umenoi}, from greek{kathce~in}, to instruct orally.
On the catechumenate see T. B. Scannell, s.v. ``Catechumen,'' in
Vol. III of the Catholic Encyclopedia.
[11]F. X. Funk, Kirchengeschichtliche Abhandlungen und
Untersuchungen, Vol. I, pp. 209 sqq., Paderborn 1897.
[12] Cfr. J. Mayer, Geschichte des Katechumenates und der Katechese
in den ersten sechs Jahrhunderten, Kempten 1868; P. Gobel,
Geschichte der Katechese im Abendlande vom Verfalle des
Katechumenates bis zum Ende des Mittelalters, Kempten 1880; T. B.
Scarmell in the Catholic Encyclopedia, l.c.
[13] On the justification of adults and children under the Old Testament
and among the pre·Christian Gentiles, v. supra, p. 19 sqq.
[14] Sess. VI, cap. 4: ``... quae quidem translatio [i.e.
iustificatio] post Evangelium promulgatum sine lavacro
regenerationis aut eius votu fieri non potest.''
(Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 796).
[15] V. supra, p. 18 sqq.
[16] Cfr. Bellarmine, De Bapt., 5; Billuart, De Bapt.,
dissert. 1, art. 2, S{} 2. H. Hurter holds a different opinion
(Compendium Theol. Dogmat., Vol. III, 12th ed., n. 317, Innsbruck
1909).
[17] Sess. VII, De Sacram., can. 4: ``Si quis dixerit,
sacramenta Novae Legis non esse ad salutem necessaria, sed superflua, et
sine eis aut eorum veto per solam fidem homines a Deo gratiam
justificationis adipisci, ... anathema sit.'' (Denzinger-Bannwart,
n. 847).
[18] Prop. 31: ``Caritas perfecta et sincera ... tam in catechumenis
quam in poenitentibus potest esse sine remissione peccatarum.''
(Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 1031).
[19] Sess. VI, cap. 4. (Note 14, p. 242, supra).
[20] Sess. XIV, cap. 4. Cfr. the dogmatic treatise on the Sacrament of
Penance.
[21] Cfr. Ps. 50.
[22] Cfr. Luke XIX, 9.
[23] Luke XXIII, 43.
[24] Ez. XVIII, 21: ``Si autem impius egerit poenitentiam ab omnibbus
peccatis suis, ... vit^a vivet non morietur.''
[25] Luc. VII, 47: ``Remittuntur peccata multa, qoaniam dilexit
multum.''
[26] V. supra, Thesis I.
[27] Other Scriptural texts in our treatise on the Sacrament of Penance.
[28] This treatise was perhaps written by Bishop Ursinus (cfr. Gennad.,
De Vir. Illustr., c. 27).
[29] Acts X. 44 sqq.
[30] ``Atque hoc non erit dubium, in Spiritu Sancto homines posse
sine aqua baptizari, sicut animadvertis baptizatos hos, prius aqu^a
baptizareutur, ... quandoquidem sine lavacro, quod postea adepti sunt,
gratiam repromissionis acceperint.'' (Migne, P. L., III,
1889).
[31] De Obitu Valent., n. 51 sq.: ``Audio vos dolere quod non
acceperit sacramenta baptismatis Dicite mihi, quid aliud in nobis est
nisi voluntas, nisi petitio? Atqui etiam dudum hoc voti habuit, ut et
antequam in Italiam venisset initiaretur, et proxime baptizari se a me
velle significavit, et ideo prae ceteris causis me accerseudum putavit.
Non habet ergo gratiam quam desideravit? Non habet quam poposcit? Certe
quia poposcit, accepit.''
[32] De Bapt. c. Donat., IV, 21: ``Nec ergo dubito,
catechumenum catholicuм divin^a caritate flagrantem haeretico baptizato
anteponere.... Melior est enim centurio Cornelius nondum baptizatus
Simone [Muga] baptizato; iste enim et ante baptismum S.
Spiriiu impletus est, ille et post baptismum immundo spiritu impletus
est.'' (Migne, P. L., XLIII, 171).
[33] Tract. in Ioa., 13, n. 7: ``Quantumcunque catechumenus
proficiat, adhuc sarcinam iniquitatis portat; non ill^a dimittitur,
nisi quum venerit ad baptismum.''
[34] De Bapt. c. Donat., IV, 22: ``Invenio, non tantum
passionem pro Christo id quod ex baptismo deerat posse supplere, sed
etiam fidem conversionemque cordis, si forte ad celebrandum mysterium in
angustiis temporum succurri non potest.''
[35] Ep. 77 ad Hug. Vict., n. 8: ``Ab his duabus columnis
difficile avellor; cuм his, inquam, aut errare aut sapere me fateor,
credens et ipse sol^a fide [i.e. format^a][/i] posse
hominem salvari cuм desiderio percipiendi sacramentum, si tamen pio
implendi desiderio mors anticipans seu alia quaecuмque vis invincibilis
obviaverit.'' (Migne, Patr. Lat., CLXXXII, 1036).
[36] 3 Decret., tit. 13, c. 2: ``Presbyterum quem sine unda
baptismatis diem clausisse significasti, quia in sanctae matrix
ecclesiae fide et Christi nominis confessione perseveraverit, ab
originali peccata solutum et coelestis patriae gaudium esse adeptum
asserimus incunctanter.''
[37] On this question cfr. Pohle-Preuss, Grace, Actual and
Habitual, pp. 182 sqq.
[38] Oswald, Die Lehre von den hl. Sakramenten der kath. Kirche,
Vol. I, 5th ed., p. 211. Cfr. A. Seitz, Die Heilsnotwendigkeit der
Kirche nach der altchristlichen Literatur bis Zeit des hl.
Augustinus, pp. 290 sqq., Freiburg 1903.
[39] Cfr. Benedict XIV, De Serv. Dei Beatif., III, 11.
[40] Cfr. Conc. Trid., Sess. XIV, cap. 7 (Denzinger-Bannwart, n.
897).
[41] V. supra, Thesis II.
[42] Matth. X, 32.
[43] Matth. X, 39. Cfr. Matth. XVI, 25; Luke IX, 24; XVII, 33.
[44] John XV, 13.
[45] De Bapt., c. 16: ``Est quidem nobis etiam secundum
lavacrum, unum et ipsum, sanguinis scil.... Hic est baptismus, qui
lavacrum et non acceptum repraesentat et perditum reddit.''
[46] Ep. 73 ad Iubaian., n. 21, ed. Hartel, II, 735: ``Sciant
... catechumenos ... non privari baptismi sacramento, utppte qui
baptizentur gloriosissimo et maximo sanguinis baptismo.''
[47] De Civ. Dei, XIII, 7: ``Quicuмque etiam non recepta
regenerationis lavacro pro Christi confessione moriuntur, tantum eis
valet ad dimittenda peccata, quantum si abluerentur fonte
baptismatis.''
[48] Catech., 3, n. 10 (Migne, P. G., XXXIII, 439).
[49] Hom. in Martyr. Lucian., n. 2 (Migne, P. G., L. 522).
Other apposite texts in Seitz, Die Heilsnotwendigkeit der Kirche,
pp. 287 sqq.
[50] Adv. Haeres., III, 16, 4. On the veneration of the martyrs
in the early Church cfr. Pohle-Preuss, Mariology, pp. 144 sqq.,
150.
[51] Ep. 56 ad Thibarit.: ``Aetas necdum habilis ad pugnam
idonea exstitit ad coronam.''
[52] Serm., 159, c. I: ``Iniuria est pro martyre orare, cuius
nos debemus oratianibus commendari.''
[53] ``Iniuriam facit martyri, qui orat pro eo.'' Cap. ``cuм
Marthae,'' De Celebr. Missae.
[54] Summa Theol., 3a, qu. 87, art. 1, ad 2: ``Passio pro
Christo suscepta ... purgat ab omni culpa et veniali et mortali, nisi
actualiter voluntatem peccato invenerit inhaerentem.''
[55] See Eschatology. On the three-fold aureola (martyrum,
virginum, doctorum) v. St. Thomas, Summa
Theol., 3a, qu. 96.
[56] Probably composed in the beginning of the fourth century.
[57] Const. Apost., V, 6: ``Qui martyrio dignus est habitus,
laetiti^a in Domino efferatur, quod tantam coronam nactus fuerit....
Quamvis catechumenus sit, sine tristitia excedat: passio enim pro
Christo perlata erit ei sincerior baptismus.''
[58] Comment. in Sent., IV, dist. 4, p. 2, art. 1, qu. 2, ad 2:
``Ratio autem quare efficaciam habet maiorem est, quoniam in baptismo
sanguinis amplior et plenior est imitatio et professio passionis Christi
quam in baptismo aquae.... In baptismo aquae mors significatur, hic
autem suscipitur.'' For a fuller treatment of this topic cfr. Gihr,
Die hl. Sakramente der kath. Kirche, Vol. I, 2nd ed., pp. 271
sqq.
-
Momento,
I read some of what you posted, I will print it and read the rest tonight. You have not answered my question. That is the third time I've asked you.
Thanks for the quote. It is talking about martyrdom for the faith and explicit desire for the sacrament of baptism. Do you believe that martyrdom for the faith and explicit desire for the sacrament are required for salvation? Or do you reject that teaching and believe that believe that any unbaptized person can be saved even if they have no explicit desire to be a Catholic, or be martyred for the faith, nor belief in Christ and the Trinity?
-
Stubborn:
If you read what is written, you will see that:
The catechism snip makes no mention of death *or* salvation.
The catechism does not reward salvation via a BOD.
The catechism does not even promise them grace and righteousness let alone salvation.
I guess you missed this:
the Commentary from the 1582 Rheims New Testament?
· Annotations for John Chapter 3: "Though in this case, God which hath not bound his grace, in respect of his own freedom, to any Sacrament, may and doth accept them as baptized, which either are martyred before they could be baptized, or else depart this life with vow and desire to have that Sacrament, but by some remedilesse necessity could not obtain it."
It can read online in a copy of its original form: on old paper with antiquated script and in antiquated English.
I guess I did miss that.
Do you suppose that because that bible has that commentary that it means the catechism snip does not mean what it says?
What is quite possible is that you misunderstand the Catechism. Do you deny the possibility that you may be trusting yourself to the point of denying what has been explained for hundreds and hundreds of years?
SJB,
Are you still a believer in salvation for those that have no explicit desire to be Catholics, nor baptized, nor martyred, nor belief in the Trinity and the Incarnation? If so, why are you even talking about Trent anything?
People like Stubborn who understand John 3:5 as it is written, have more affinity with whatever interpretation you want to make of Trent than you have with your belief. You reject Trent altogether. But you don't see that do you?
-
Thanks for the quote. It is talking about martyrdom for the faith and explicit desire for the sacrament of baptism. Do you believe that martyrdom for the faith and explicit desire for the sacrament are required for salvation? Or do you reject that teaching and believe that believe that any unbaptized person can be saved even if they have no explicit desire to be a Catholic, or be martyred for the faith, nor belief in Christ and the Trinity?
The quote (and others provided) destroys your "understanding" of Trent.
Hardly.
· Annotations for John Chapter 3: "Though in this case, God which hath not bound his grace, in respect of his own freedom, to any Sacrament, may and doth accept them as baptized, which either are martyred before they could be baptized, or else depart this life with vow and desire to have that Sacrament, but by some remedilesse necessity could not obtain it."
The Catechism lists two exceptions and only two exceptions, which I agree with 100%:
1) Martyrdom. If someone is a true matyr for Jesus Christ, then, yes, that person would go straight to Paradise even without sacramental Baptism.
2) The vow for Baptism. If someone has a true and sincere vow to be Baptized, then, yes, that individual, if they died before being Baptized, would go to Heaven, eventually. Remember, Saint Thomas taught that such souls, unlike Category #1, would still have to suffer in Purgatory for the expiation of their sins.
Nothing which the above catechism states abrogates at all the final opinion which Saint Augustine held to with respect to Baptism of Desire. Besides, even if we were to accept that there are souls in Paradise who lack the character of sacramental Baptism, you can't point to a single reference which states how many such souls there are? For instance, how many true martyrs have there been in the history of the Catholic Church would have even been remotely alleged to have died without sacramental Baptism? Probably less than a dozen. So, even if Baptism of Desire is possible without sacramental Baptism and apart from it, there is no scholastic theologian who held to such being at all common, and as Bowler has pointed out ad nauseam, no scholastic theologian ever applied such to Jews, pagans, and infidels. Even Dante only placed two non-baptized individuals in Purgatory and another two in Paradise, and one of those, per the Golden Legend (the Roman Emperor Trajan) was piously believed to have been raised from the dead find hundred years or so after his death to have received Christian baptism!
Even if Father Feeney was "wrong," he was still right, because there are hardly any groups, even within the traditional Catholic movement, who try as diligently as do the followers of Father Feeney to convert non-Catholics to the One True Faith. In fact, Archbishop Lefebvre is on record as saying that a "sincere Buddhist" could be saved, implicitly, by being to the Catholic Church, which the scholastics would have regarded as being pure heresy.
-
If I understand your question correctly Stubborn, I would say that the Catechism of the Council of Trent means more than you understand it to mean. The Rheims commentary was also written right around the same time. Those Fathers were explaining the faith to counteract the errors of the Protestants. If you read that commentary you will see it explains and defends the faith against the heretics.
That does not answer my question.
The commentary you reference was written some 20 years after the close of the Council which infallibly taught us:
CANON II.-If any one saith, that true and natural water is not of necessity for baptism, and, on that account, wrests, to some sort of metaphor, those words of our Lord Jesus Christ; Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost; let him be anathema.
And then says:
CANON V.-If any one saith, that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema.
The catechism echoes the teachings with clearly taught explanations.
Now, one would expect the commentary to agree with the teaching of Trent, but for whoever will admit it, we can see that either the commentary is right or the Council's infallible teaching and Trent's catechism explaining it is right. They simply cannot both be right.
Per Canon II, unless we understand the words of Our Lord literally, we "wrest to some sort of metaphor" the words of Our Lord. A BOD "wrests the words of Our Lord" and is therefore is "some sort of metaphor". The sacrament is either optional or the sacrament is necessary unto salvation - there is no other option in between.
So which teaching do you reject as error, Trent's or the commentary?
What is quite possible is that you misunderstand the Catechism. Do you deny the possibility that you may be trusting yourself to the point of denying what has been explained for hundreds and hundreds of years?
That does not answer the question either.
You plainly were attempting to make the catechism teach something it does not teach, and even after it was pointed out to you the plain fact that the catechism in no way is teaching what you wanted it to teach, you and Memento and presumably all other BODers still reject what it actually teaches, presumably in favor of teachings that Trent was correcting - not that I think you will actually answer but I'll ask any way - why?
-
One could use simple syllogisms from the canons of Trent to demonstrate the absolute necessity of sacramental Baptism:
On the Necessity of Sacramental Baptism in Water by the Command of the One and Triune God.
1) Major Premise -- The One and Triune God commands every human being, without exception, to be Baptized in Water:
Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Session 6, Chapter 4, ex cathedra: "In these words there is suggested a description of the justification of the impious, how there is a transition from that state in which a person is born as a child of the first Adam to the state of grace and of adoption as sons of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ our savior; indeed, this transition, once the gospel has been promulgated, cannot take place without the laver of regeneration or a desire for it, as it is written: Unless a man is born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God (John 3:5)."
2) Minor Premise -- The Commandments of God are not impossible for us to fulfill:
Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Session 6, Chapter 11 on Justification, ex cathedra: "...no one should make use of that rash statement forbidden under anathema by the Fathers, that the commandments of God are impossible to observe for a man who is justified. 'For God does not command impossibilities,' but by commanding admonishes you both to do what you can do, and to pray for what you cannot do."
Alternate Minor Premise -- God is certainly capable of bringing about the fulfillment of His commands:
Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, Session 3, Chapter 1, On God the creator of all things, ex cathedra: "Everything that God has brought into being he protects and governs by his providence, which reaches from one end of the earth to the other and orders all things well. All things are open and laid bare before His eyes, even those which will be brought about by the free activity of creatures."
3) Conclusion:
"There is no one about to die in the state of justification whom God cannot secure baptism for, and indeed, Baptism of Water. The schemes concerning salvation, I leave to the sceptics. The clear truths of salvation, I am preaching to you." (Father Feeney, Bread of Life, pg. 56)
If the major and minor premises of the above syllogism are true, then the conclusion must follow.
-
Stubborn:
If you read what is written, you will see that:
The catechism snip makes no mention of death *or* salvation.
The catechism does not reward salvation via a BOD.
The catechism does not even promise them grace and righteousness let alone salvation.
I guess you missed this:
the Commentary from the 1582 Rheims New Testament?
· Annotations for John Chapter 3: "Though in this case, God which hath not bound his grace, in respect of his own freedom, to any Sacrament, may and doth accept them as baptized, which either are martyred before they could be baptized, or else depart this life with vow and desire to have that Sacrament, but by some remedilesse necessity could not obtain it."
It can read online in a copy of its original form: on old paper with antiquated script and in antiquated English.
I guess I did miss that.
Do you suppose that because that bible has that commentary that it means the catechism snip does not mean what it says?
What is quite possible is that you misunderstand the Catechism. Do you deny the possibility that you may be trusting yourself to the point of denying what has been explained for hundreds and hundreds of years?
SJB,
Are you still a believer in salvation for those that have no explicit desire to be Catholics, nor baptized, nor martyred, nor belief in the Trinity and the Incarnation? If so, why are you even talking about Trent anything?
People like Stubborn who understand John 3:5 as it is written, have more affinity with whatever interpretation you want to make of Trent than you have with your belief. You reject Trent altogether. But you don't see that do you?
You're obviously not paying attention.
-
If I understand your question correctly Stubborn, I would say that the Catechism of the Council of Trent means more than you understand it to mean. The Rheims commentary was also written right around the same time. Those Fathers were explaining the faith to counteract the errors of the Protestants. If you read that commentary you will see it explains and defends the faith against the heretics.
That does not answer my question.
The commentary you reference was written some 20 years after the close of the Council which infallibly taught us:
CANON II.-If any one saith, that true and natural water is not of necessity for baptism, and, on that account, wrests, to some sort of metaphor, those words of our Lord Jesus Christ; Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost; let him be anathema.
And then says:
CANON V.-If any one saith, that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema.
The catechism echoes the teachings with clearly taught explanations.
Now, one would expect the commentary to agree with the teaching of Trent, but for whoever will admit it, we can see that either the commentary is right or the Council's infallible teaching and Trent's catechism explaining it is right. They simply cannot both be right.
Per Canon II, unless we understand the words of Our Lord literally, we "wrest to some sort of metaphor" the words of Our Lord. A BOD "wrests the words of Our Lord" and is therefore is "some sort of metaphor". The sacrament is either optional or the sacrament is necessary unto salvation - there is no other option in between.
So which teaching do you reject as error, Trent's or the commentary?
What is quite possible is that you misunderstand the Catechism. Do you deny the possibility that you may be trusting yourself to the point of denying what has been explained for hundreds and hundreds of years?
That does not answer the question either.
You plainly were attempting to make the catechism teach something it does not teach, and even after it was pointed out to you the plain fact that the catechism in no way is teaching what you wanted it to teach, you and Memento and presumably all other BODers still reject what it actually teaches, presumably in favor of teachings that Trent was correcting - not that I think you will actually answer but I'll ask any way - why?
The point is that you can't find any authority who EXPLAINS what you claim to "understand." It is always YOUR explanation that is presented as evidence.
-
The point is that you can't find any authority who EXPLAINS what you claim to "understand." It is always YOUR explanation that is presented as evidence.
It does not matter; if the major and minor premises of the syllogism (there are others, of course) which I present above are true, then the conclusion must follow. Ergo, sacramental Baptism is not an impossibility for those who are truly justified.
-
I also posted the text from Pohle-Preuss with the footnotes attached. There is a reference to an
Apostolic Constitution. Also, St. Alphonsus makes reference to an Apostolic Canon. You could look these things up and see how far back the Church taught these things. I am not making it up or relying on my own personal intrepretation.
One of those two mentioned was found by a friend:
CONSTITUTIONS OF THE HOLY APOSTLES. BOOK V, SEC.I. CONCERNING THE MARTYRS, PAR. 6:
THAT A BELIEVER OUGHT NEITHER RASHLY TO RUN INTO DANGER THROUGH SECURITY, NOR TO BE OVER-TIMOROUS THROUGH PUSILLANIMITY, BUT TO FLY AWAY FOR FEAR; YET THAT IF HE DOES FALL INTO THE ENEMY'S HAND, TO STRIVE EARNESTLY, UPON ACCOUNT OF THE CROWN THAT IS LAID UP FOR HIM.
"But let him who is vouchsafed the honour of martyrdom rejoice with joy in the Lord, as obtaining thereby so great a crown, and departing out of this life by his confession. Nay, though he be trot a catechumen, let him depart without trouble; for his suffering for Christ will be to him a more genuine baptism, because he does really die with Christ, but the rest only in a figure."
As I said, St. Alphonsus makes his judgment on an Apostolic Canon and on Trent. I am going to take his word, as he is a Doctor of the Church, that he knows and understands the source material.
In the meantime, it behooves me to try to be holy, learn the faith and evangelize it as I know that Baptism is the necessary means of salvation.
-
Momento,
I read some of what you posted, I will print it and read the rest tonight. You have not answered my question. That is the third time I've asked you.
Thanks for the quote. It is talking about martyrdom for the faith and explicit desire for the sacrament of baptism. Do you believe that martyrdom for the faith and explicit desire for the sacrament are required for salvation? Or do you reject that teaching and believe that believe that any unbaptized person can be saved even if they have no explicit desire to be a Catholic, or be martyred for the faith, nor belief in Christ and the Trinity?
For the fourth time Momento please answer my simple question
-
If I understand your question correctly Stubborn, I would say that the Catechism of the Council of Trent means more than you understand it to mean. The Rheims commentary was also written right around the same time. Those Fathers were explaining the faith to counteract the errors of the Protestants. If you read that commentary you will see it explains and defends the faith against the heretics.
That does not answer my question.
The commentary you reference was written some 20 years after the close of the Council which infallibly taught us:
CANON II.-If any one saith, that true and natural water is not of necessity for baptism, and, on that account, wrests, to some sort of metaphor, those words of our Lord Jesus Christ; Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost; let him be anathema.
And then says:
CANON V.-If any one saith, that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema.
The catechism echoes the teachings with clearly taught explanations.
Now, one would expect the commentary to agree with the teaching of Trent, but for whoever will admit it, we can see that either the commentary is right or the Council's infallible teaching and Trent's catechism explaining it is right. They simply cannot both be right.
Per Canon II, unless we understand the words of Our Lord literally, we "wrest to some sort of metaphor" the words of Our Lord. A BOD "wrests the words of Our Lord" and is therefore is "some sort of metaphor". The sacrament is either optional or the sacrament is necessary unto salvation - there is no other option in between.
So which teaching do you reject as error, Trent's or the commentary?
What is quite possible is that you misunderstand the Catechism. Do you deny the possibility that you may be trusting yourself to the point of denying what has been explained for hundreds and hundreds of years?
That does not answer the question either.
You plainly were attempting to make the catechism teach something it does not teach, and even after it was pointed out to you the plain fact that the catechism in no way is teaching what you wanted it to teach, you and Memento and presumably all other BODers still reject what it actually teaches, presumably in favor of teachings that Trent was correcting - not that I think you will actually answer but I'll ask any way - why?
The point is that you can't find any authority who EXPLAINS what you claim to "understand." It is always YOUR explanation that is presented as evidence.
Still does not answer the question - and BTW, Trent is the authority.
-
I did tell you sir that I believe what the Church teaches. It is not so simple as you would like to paint it and that is why I quoted the theologians Joseph Pohle and Arthur Preuss who wrote a 12 volume textbook on Moral theology. If you read their text on explicit and implicit desire you will see that what it said. I will not reject the Church's teaching - I do not have the right . The footnotes give clear references to doctrines of the Fathers and other theologians of the Church.
The Catechism Explained by Spirago and Clark does not even use the words universal, explicit or implicit faith on the page which one is directed to from the index. If they are not going to touch those words but give a broader explanation, I will not touch those words either. God has not given me the grace to fully understand it. I do understand this regarding explicit desire or implicit desire - if a soul chooses not to follow his heart -the natural law that is imprinted there -and does not ask about God then that soul has cut himself off from the truth and can advance no further. No, he would not be saved.
Here is a simple explanation written for a simple one like me:
"From the Catechism of the Council of Trent
Necessity of Baptism
If the knowledge of what has been hitherto explained be, as it is, of highest importance to the faithful, it is no less important to them to learn that the law of Baptism, as established by our Lord, extends to all, so that unless they are regenerated to God through the grace of Baptism, be their parents Christians or infidels, they are born to eternal misery and destruction. Pastors, therefore, should often explain these words of the Gospel: Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."
Of course, this does not includes the teachings on desire and blood which as the Church definitely teaches, the catechumen, instructed in the faith and desiring the sacrament, if they should die before they receive the sacrament, avail to the grace it would have brought them. It seems that I must say this because if I omit this minor point again, you might think that I have not included it.
But as I stated earlier on, the Church defines it further in more depth in her manuals written by theologians for those learned scholars and grace filled souls who can understand the mysteries of the faith more deeply. I submit to those teachings and hope I will understand the full import of the nuances someday. If I make it to heaven, I will.
With that said , the catechisms are written to teach the faith in a simplified concise manner for laymen. The Catechism of the Council of Trent was written for priests and therefore gives more advanced explanations. The commentary in the Rheims New Testament, written by priests who translated the Latin Vulgate Bible, explains the faith to laypeople. Clerics could read Latin and did not need the English translation. So that commentary was written by expert Latinists who knew the faith much better than you (unless you are a saint, of course) or I and who also new the doctrines and dogma especially as were taught at the Council of Trent. Maybe you would like to take up their commentary with them? I certainly will not argue with it.
The Deposit of Faith is much greater than the sum total of Dogmatic pronouncements by the popes. Our submission to what the combined Solemn and Ordinary Magisterium teaches is the crux of the matter.
-
I did tell you sir that I believe what the Church teaches. It is not so simple as you would like to paint it and that is why I quoted the theologians Joseph Pohle and Arthur Preuss who wrote a 12 volume textbook on Moral theology. If you read their text on explicit and implicit desire you will see that what it said. I will not reject the Church's teaching - I do not have the right . The footnotes give clear references to doctrines of the Fathers and other theologians of the Church.
The Catechism Explained by Spirago and Clark does not even use the words universal, explicit or implicit faith on the page which one is directed to from the index. If they are not going to touch those words but give a broader explanation, I will not touch those words either. God has not given me the grace to fully understand it. I do understand this regarding explicit desire or implicit desire - if a soul chooses not to follow his heart -the natural law that is imprinted there -and does not ask about God then that soul has cut himself off from the truth and can advance no further. No, he would not be saved.
Here is a simple explanation written for a simple one like me:
"From the Catechism of the Council of Trent
Necessity of Baptism
If the knowledge of what has been hitherto explained be, as it is, of highest importance to the faithful, it is no less important to them to learn that the law of Baptism, as established by our Lord, extends to all, so that unless they are regenerated to God through the grace of Baptism, be their parents Christians or infidels, they are born to eternal misery and destruction. Pastors, therefore, should often explain these words of the Gospel: Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."
Suffice to quote Vatican 1 here:
Hence, too,that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by holy mother church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding.
It is one thing to explain the canons and dogmas, it is another thing entirely to change them under the guise of explaining them.
Of course, this does not includes the teachings on desire and blood which as the Church definitely teaches, the catechumen, instructed in the faith and desiring the sacrament, if they should die before they receive the sacrament, avail to the grace it would have brought them. It seems that I must say this because if I omit this minor point again, you might think that I have not included it.
But as I stated earlier on, the Church defines it further in more depth in her manuals written by theologians for those learned scholars and grace filled souls who can understand the mysteries of the faith more deeply. I submit to those teachings and hope I will understand the full import of the nuances someday. If I make it to heaven, I will.
With that said , the catechisms are written to teach the faith in a simplified concise manner for laymen. The Catechism of the Council of Trent was written for priests and therefore gives more advanced explanations. The commentary in the Rheims New Testament, written by priests who translated the Latin Vulgate Bible, explains the faith to laypeople. Clerics could read Latin and did not need the English translation. So that commentary was written by expert Latinists who knew the faith much better than you (unless you are a saint, of course) or I and who also new the doctrines and dogma especially as were taught at the Council of Trent. Maybe you would like to take up their commentary with them? I certainly will not argue with it.
The Deposit of Faith is much greater than the sum total of Dogmatic pronouncements by the popes. Our submission to what the combined Solemn and Ordinary Magisterium teaches is the crux of the matter.
Again, I agree with what you are saying, but when teachings contradict dogma, the teachings must be seen for what they are - error.
And I would like a direct yes or no answer please - Do you suppose that because that bible has that commentary that it means the catechism snip does not mean what it says?
And, a "Trent's" or "the commentary" answer to this.........So which teaching do you reject as error, Trent's or the commentary?
-
The Commentary explains Trent. How could either of them possibly be wrong?
The Catechism means what it says and NO, the Commentary does not make void its meaning.
Please sir, read the Apostolic Constitution that I posted earlier. That too is part of the Deposit of the Faith.
Thank you for this exchange. I bid you adieu!
-
Momento,
I read some of what you posted, I will print it and read the rest tonight. You have not answered my question. That is the third time I've asked you.
Thanks for the quote. It is talking about martyrdom for the faith and explicit desire for the sacrament of baptism. Do you believe that martyrdom for the faith and explicit desire for the sacrament are required for salvation? Or do you reject that teaching and believe that any unbaptized person can be saved even if they have no explicit desire to be a Catholic, or be martyred for the faith, nor belief in Christ and the Trinity?
Dear Momento,
For the 5th time please answer my question above. It's less work than all of the postings you've made.
-
The Commentary explains Trent. How could either of them possibly be wrong?
Trent says the sacrament is necessary for salvation, not an option and that the desire for the sacrament is necessary prior to the reception of the sacrament.
The commentary says the desire for the sacrament suffices for salvation - how does this explain Trent?
For real, you see no difference in teachings?
Please sir, read the Apostolic Constitution that I posted earlier. That too is part of the Deposit of the Faith.
No, this constitution is not a part of the deposit of faith - I don't know exactly what it is but that's not important. The reason we can say with confidence that it is not a part of the deposit of faith is because it teaches a BOB, which is contrary to the teaching of Trent - which is a part of the deposit of faith.
-
Still does not answer the question - and BTW, Trent is the authority.
No, YOU are the authority. You have not show us one single source that EXPLAINS what you say Trent says. You didn't learn this, you made it up.
-
Still does not answer the question - and BTW, Trent is the authority.
No, YOU are the authority. You have not show us one single source that EXPLAINS what you say Trent says. You didn't learn this, you made it up.
No, Trent is the authority. Not you, not me, not Fr. Feeney or Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange. The obvious fact is that you do not like what Trent teaches, I merely repeat or echo what Trent teaches and it's apparent that this makes you angry.
-
SJB likes to pretend that neither he nor anyone else can read and that we need approved (modernist) theologians to read for us.
-
SJB likes to pretend that neither he nor anyone else can read and that we need approved (modernist) theologians to read for us.
Similar to a Protestant and scripture.
-
We have two sources, The infallible dogmas and the opinion of theologians. They are clearly contradictory. To say otherwise is to lie. I say we should follow the infallible dogmas and you say we should follow the fallible theologians.
-
Still does not answer the question - and BTW, Trent is the authority.
No, YOU are the authority. You have not show us one single source that EXPLAINS what you say Trent says. You didn't learn this, you made it up.
No, Trent is the authority. Not you, not me, not Fr. Feeney or Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange. The obvious fact is that you do not like what Trent teaches, I merely repeat or echo what Trent teaches and it's apparent that this makes you angry.
I feel sorry for you. Matthew should have banned you long ago, but either he has some sympathy for your position or he believes you simply discredit your position the longer he lets you post.
-
We have two sources, The infallible dogmas and the opinion of theologians. They are clearly contradictory. To say otherwise is to lie, like LOT lied when he said he did not think baptism is optional. I say we should follow the infallible dogmas and you say we should follow the fallible theologians.
Baptism isn't optional, but you can't seem to fathom what that statement actually means. The condemnation of the statement that "baptism IS optional" cannot be extrapolated into other meanings.
-
SJB likes to pretend that neither he nor anyone else can read and that we need approved (modernist) theologians to read for us.
Not when it comes to Vatican II though. Then he says all the approved theologians were wrong.
-
SJB likes to pretend that neither he nor anyone else can read and that we need approved (modernist) theologians to read for us.
Not when it comes to Vatican II though. Then he says all the approved theologians were wrong.
So for you, Alcuin! Vatican II isn't a break with tradition? It isn't a unique event?
-
SJB likes to pretend that neither he nor anyone else can read and that we need approved (modernist) theologians to read for us.
Not when it comes to Vatican II though. Then he says all the approved theologians were wrong.
So for you, Alcuin! Vatican II isn't a break with tradition? It isn't a unique event?
This thread isn't about me.
-
We have two sources, The infallible dogmas and the opinion of theologians. They are clearly contradictory. To say otherwise is to lie, like LOT lied when he said he did not think baptism is optional. I say we should follow the infallible dogmas and you say we should follow the fallible theologians.
Baptism isn't optional, but you can't seem to fathom what that statement actually means. The condemnation of the statement that "baptism IS optional" cannot be extrapolated into other meanings.
The elephant in your room is that you believe that a person can be saved even if he has no explicit desire to be a Catholic, nor belief in the Trinity and the Incarnation.
You are opposed to ALL the Fathers, Doctors, Saints, the Athanasian Creed, St. Thomas and the Thomists, John 3:5 and the dogmas on EENS and baptism as they are written.
-
SJB likes to pretend that neither he nor anyone else can read and that we need approved (modernist) theologians to read for us.
Not when it comes to Vatican II though. Then he says all the approved theologians were wrong.
So for you, Alcuin! Vatican II isn't a break with tradition? It isn't a unique event?
How so? Look in the traditional Denzinger's sometime and see who the editor was. (Answer: Father Karl Rahner). Rahner was in good standing with Pope Pius XII, wasn't he? Maybe a few censures, but those got cleaned-up. Point is that when Pope Pius XII died, Rahner was an approved theologian within the Catholic Church. Why not accept him as such?
-
SJB likes to pretend that neither he nor anyone else can read and that we need approved (modernist) theologians to read for us.
Not when it comes to Vatican II though. Then he says all the approved theologians were wrong.
So for you, Alcuin! Vatican II isn't a break with tradition? It isn't a unique event?
How so? Look in the traditional Denzinger's sometime and see who the editor was. (Answer: Father Karl Rahner). Rahner was in good standing with Pope Pius XII, wasn't he? Maybe a few censures, but those got cleaned-up. Point is that when Pope Pius XII died, Rahner was an approved theologian within the Catholic Church. Why not accept him as such?
Yes, he was. Now you know that after Vatican II he was aware of the teaching of the Church, yet embraced the unorthodox positions for which he and others were silenced. It just proves he was pertinacious in his open heresy after Vatican II.