Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => The Feeneyism Ghetto => Topic started by: LordPhan on December 21, 2011, 10:32:01 PM
-
66:
Whether three kinds of Baptism are fittingly described---viz. Baptism of Water, of Blood, and of the Spirit?
Objection 1: It seems that the three kinds of Baptism are not fittingly described as Baptism of Water, of Blood, and of the Spirit, i.e. of the Holy Ghost. Because the Apostle says (Eph. 4:5): "One Faith, one Baptism." Now there is but one Faith. Therefore there should not be three Baptisms.
Objection 2: Further, Baptism is a sacrament, as we have made clear above (Q[65], A[1]). Now none but Baptism of Water is a sacrament. Therefore we should not reckon two other Baptisms.
Objection 3: Further, Damascene (De Fide Orth. iv) distinguishes several other kinds of Baptism. Therefore we should admit more than three Baptisms.
On the contrary, on Heb. 6:2, "Of the doctrine of Baptisms," the gloss says: "He uses the plural, because there is Baptism of Water, of Repentance, and of Blood."
I answer that, As stated above (Q[62], A[5]), Baptism of Water has its efficacy from Christ's Passion, to which a man is conformed by Baptism, and also from the Holy Ghost, as first cause. Now although the effect depends on the first cause, the cause far surpasses the effect, nor does it depend on it. Consequently, a man may, without Baptism of Water, receive the sacramental effect from Christ's Passion, in so far as he is conformed to Christ by suffering for Him. Hence it is written (Apoc. 7:14): "These are they who are come out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes and have made them white in the blood of the Lamb." In like manner a man receives the effect of Baptism by the power of the Holy Ghost, not only without Baptism of Water, but also without Baptism of Blood: forasmuch as his heart is moved by the Holy Ghost to believe in and love God and to repent of his sins: wherefore this is also called Baptism of Repentance. Of this it is written (Is. 4:4): "If the Lord shall wash away the filth of the daughters of Zion, and shall wash away the blood of Jerusalem out of the midst thereof, by the spirit of judgment, and by the spirit of burning." Thus, therefore, each of these other Baptisms is called Baptism, forasmuch as it takes the place of Baptism. Wherefore Augustine says (De Unico Baptismo Parvulorum iv): "The Blessed Cyprian argues with considerable reason from the thief to whom, though not baptized, it was said: 'Today shalt thou be with Me in Paradise' that suffering can take the place of Baptism. Having weighed this in my mind again and again, I perceive that not only can suffering for the name of Christ supply for what was lacking in Baptism, but even faith and conversion of heart, if perchance on account of the stress of the times the celebration of the mystery of Baptism is not practicable."
Reply to Objection 1: The other two Baptisms are included in the Baptism of Water, which derives its efficacy, both from Christ's Passion and from the Holy Ghost. Consequently for this reason the unity of Baptism is not destroyed.
Reply to Objection 2: As stated above (Q[60], A[1]), a sacrament is a kind of sign. The other two, however, are like the Baptism of Water, not, indeed, in the nature of sign, but in the baptismal effect. Consequently they are not sacraments.
Reply to Objection 3: Damascene enumerates certain figurative Baptisms. For instance, "the Deluge" was a figure of our Baptism, in respect of the salvation of the faithful in the Church; since then "a few . . . souls were saved in the ark [Vulg.: 'by water']," according to 1 Pet. 3:20. He also mentions "the crossing of the Red Sea": which was a figure of our Baptism, in respect of our delivery from the bondage of sin; hence the Apostle says (1 Cor. 10:2) that "all . . . were baptized in the cloud and in the sea." And again he mentions "the various washings which were customary under the Old Law," which were figures of our Baptism, as to the cleansing from sins: also "the Baptism of John," which prepared the way for our Baptism.
Whether the Baptism of Blood is the most excellent of these?
Objection 1: It seems that the Baptism of Blood is not the most excellent of these three. For the Baptism of Water impresses a character; which the Baptism of Blood cannot do. Therefore the Baptism of Blood is not more excellent than the Baptism of Water.
Objection 2: Further, the Baptism of Blood is of no avail without the Baptism of the Spirit, which is by charity; for it is written (1 Cor. 13:3): "If I should deliver my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing." But the Baptism of the Spirit avails without the Baptism of Blood; for not only the martyrs are saved. Therefore the Baptism of Blood is not the most excellent.
Objection 3: Further, just as the Baptism of Water derives its efficacy from Christ's Passion, to which, as stated above (A[11]), the Baptism of Blood corresponds, so Christ's Passion derives its efficacy from the Holy Ghost, according to Heb. 9:14: "The Blood of Christ, Who by the Holy Ghost offered Himself unspotted unto God, shall cleanse our conscience from dead works," etc. Therefore the Baptism of the Spirit is more excellent than the Baptism of Blood. Therefore the Baptism of Blood is not the most excellent.
On the contrary, Augustine (Ad Fortunatum) speaking of the comparison between Baptisms says: "The newly baptized confesses his faith in the presence of the priest: the martyr in the presence of the persecutor. The former is sprinkled with water, after he has confessed; the latter with his blood. The former receives the Holy Ghost by the imposition of the bishop's hands; the latter is made the temple of the Holy Ghost."
I answer that, As stated above (A[11]), the shedding of blood for Christ's sake, and the inward operation of the Holy Ghost, are called baptisms, in so far as they produce the effect of the Baptism of Water. Now the Baptism of Water derives its efficacy from Christ's Passion and from the Holy Ghost, as already stated (A[11]). These two causes act in each of these three Baptisms; most excellently, however, in the Baptism of Blood. For Christ's Passion acts in the Baptism of Water by way of a figurative representation; in the Baptism of the Spirit or of Repentance, by way of desire. but in the Baptism of Blood, by way of imitating the (Divine) act. In like manner, too, the power of the Holy Ghost acts in the Baptism of Water through a certain hidden power. in the Baptism of Repentance by moving the heart; but in the Baptism of Blood by the highest degree of fervor of dilection and love, according to Jn. 15:13: "Greater love than this no man hath that a man lay down his life for his friends."
Reply to Objection 1: A character is both reality and a sacrament. And we do not say that the Baptism of Blood is more excellent, considering the nature of a sacrament; but considering the sacramental effect.
Reply to Objection 2: The shedding of blood is not in the nature of a Baptism if it be without charity. Hence it is clear that the Baptism of Blood includes the Baptism of the Spirit, but not conversely. And from this it is proved to be more perfect.
Reply to Objection 3: The Baptism owes its pre-eminence not only to Christ's Passion, but also to the Holy Ghost, as stated above.
68:
Whether a man can be saved without Baptism?
Objection 1: It seems that no man can be saved without Baptism. For our Lord said (Jn. 3:5): "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." But those alone are saved who enter God's kingdom. Therefore none can be saved without Baptism, by which a man is born again of water and the Holy Ghost.
Objection 2: Further, in the book De Eccl. Dogm. xli, it is written: "We believe that no catechumen, though he die in his good works, will have eternal life, except he suffer martyrdom, which contains all the sacramental virtue of Baptism." But if it were possible for anyone to be saved without Baptism, this would be the case specially with catechumens who are credited with good works, for they seem to have the "faith that worketh by charity" (Gal. 5:6). Therefore it seems that none can be saved without Baptism.
Objection 3: Further, as stated above (A[1]; Q[65], A[4]), the sacrament of Baptism is necessary for salvation. Now that is necessary "without which something cannot be" (Metaph. v). Therefore it seems that none can obtain salvation without Baptism.
On the contrary, Augustine says (Super Levit. lxxxiv) that "some have received the invisible sanctification without visible sacraments, and to their profit; but though it is possible to have the visible sanctification, consisting in a visible sacrament, without the invisible sanctification, it will be to no profit." Since, therefore, the sacrament of Baptism pertains to the visible sanctification, it seems that a man can obtain salvation without the sacrament of Baptism, by means of the invisible sanctification.
I answer that, The sacrament or Baptism may be wanting to someone in two ways. First, both in reality and in desire; as is the case with those who neither are baptized, nor wished to be baptized: which clearly indicates contempt of the sacrament, in regard to those who have the use of the free-will. Consequently those to whom Baptism is wanting thus, cannot obtain salvation: since neither sacramentally nor mentally are they incorporated in Christ, through Whom alone can salvation be obtained.
Secondly, the sacrament of Baptism may be wanting to anyone in reality but not in desire: for instance, when a man wishes to be baptized, but by some ill-chance he is forestalled by death before receiving Baptism. And such a man can obtain salvation without being actually baptized, on account of his desire for Baptism, which desire is the outcome of "faith that worketh by charity," whereby God, Whose power is not tied to visible sacraments, sanctifies man inwardly. Hence Ambrose says of Valentinian, who died while yet a catechumen: "I lost him whom I was to regenerate: but he did not lose the grace he prayed for."
Reply to Objection 1: As it is written (1 Kings 16:7), "man seeth those things that appear, but the Lord beholdeth the heart." Now a man who desires to be "born again of water and the Holy Ghost" by Baptism, is regenerated in heart though not in body. thus the Apostle says (Rom. 2:29) that "the circuмcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not of men but of God."
Reply to Objection 2: No man obtains eternal life unless he be free from all guilt and debt of punishment. Now this plenary absolution is given when a man receives Baptism, or suffers martyrdom: for which reason is it stated that martyrdom "contains all the sacramental virtue of Baptism," i.e. as to the full deliverance from guilt and punishment. Suppose, therefore, a catechumen to have the desire for Baptism (else he could not be said to die in his good works, which cannot be without "faith that worketh by charity"), such a one, were he to die, would not forthwith come to eternal life, but would suffer punishment for his past sins, "but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire" as is stated 1 Cor. 3:15.
Reply to Objection 3: The sacrament of Baptism is said to be necessary for salvation in so far as man cannot be saved without, at least, Baptism of desire; "which, with God, counts for the deed" (Augustine, Enarr. in Ps. 57).
Whether Baptism should be deferred?
Objection 1: It seems that Baptism should be deferred. For Pope Leo says (Epist. xvi): "Two seasons," i.e. Easter and Whitsuntide, "are fixed by the Roman Pontiff for the celebration of Baptism. Wherefore we admonish your Beatitude not to add any other days to this custom." Therefore it seems that Baptism should be conferred not at once, but delayed until the aforesaid seasons.
Objection 2: Further, we read in the decrees of the Council of Agde (Can. xxxiv): "If Jews whose bad faith often "returns to the vomit," wish to submit to the Law of the Catholic Church, let them for eight months enter the porch of the church with the catechumens; and if they are found to come in good faith then at last they may deserve the grace of Baptism." Therefore men should not be baptized at once, and Baptism should be deferred for a certain fixed time.
Objection 3: Further, as we read in Is. 27:9, "this is all the fruit, that the sin . . . should be taken away." Now sin seems to be taken away, or at any rate lessened, if Baptism be deferred. First, because those who sin after Baptism, sin more grievously, according to Heb. 10:29: "How much more, do you think, he deserveth worse punishments, who hath . . . esteemed the blood of the testament," i.e. Baptism, "unclean, by which he was sanctified?" Secondly, because Baptism takes away past, but not future, sins: wherefore the more it is deferred, the more sins it takes away. Therefore it seems that Baptism should be deferred for a long time.
On the contrary, It is written (Ecclus. 5:8): "Delay not to be converted to the Lord, and defer it not from day to day." But the perfect conversion to God is of those who are regenerated in Christ by Baptism. Therefore Baptism should not be deferred from day to day.
I answer that, In this matter we must make a distinction and see whether those who are to be baptized are children or adults. For if they be children, Baptism should not be deferred. First, because in them we do not look for better instruction or fuller conversion. Secondly, because of the danger of death, for no other remedy is available for them besides the sacrament of Baptism.
On the other hand, adults have a remedy in the mere desire for Baptism, as stated above (A[2]). And therefore Baptism should not be conferred on adults as soon as they are converted, but it should be deferred until some fixed time. First, as a safeguard to the Church, lest she be deceived through baptizing those who come to her under false pretenses, according to 1 Jn. 4:1: "Believe not every spirit, but try the spirits, if they be of God." And those who approach Baptism are put to this test, when their faith and morals are subjected to proof for a space of time. Secondly, this is needful as being useful for those who are baptized; for they require a certain space of time in order to be fully instructed in the faith, and to be drilled in those things that pertain to the Christian mode of life. Thirdly, a certain reverence for the sacrament demands a delay whereby men are admitted to Baptism at the principal festivities, viz. of Easter and Pentecost, the result being that they receive the sacrament with greater devotion.
There are, however, two reasons for forgoing this delay. First, when those who are to be baptized appear to be perfectly instructed in the faith and ready for Baptism; thus, Philip baptized the Eunuch at once (Acts 8); and Peter, Cornelius and those who were with him (Acts 10). Secondly, by reason of sickness or some kind of danger of death. Wherefore Pope Leo says (Epist. xvi): "Those who are threatened by death, sickness, siege, persecution, or shipwreck, should be baptized at any time." Yet if a man is forestalled by death, so as to have no time to receive the sacrament, while he awaits the season appointed by the Church, he is saved, yet "so as by fire," as stated above (A[2], ad 2). Nevertheless he sins if he defer being baptized beyond the time appointed by the Church, except this be for an unavoidable cause and with the permission of the authorities of the Church. But even this sin, with his other sins, can be washed away by his subsequent contrition, which takes the place of Baptism, as stated above (Q[66], A[11]).
Reply to Objection 1: This decree of Pope Leo, concerning the celebration of Baptism at two seasons, is to be understood "with the exception of the danger of death" (which is always to be feared in children) as stated above.
Reply to Objection 2: This decree concerning the Jews was for a safeguard to the Church, lest they corrupt the faith of simple people, if they be not fully converted. Nevertheless, as the same passage reads further on, "if within the appointed time they are threatened with danger of sickness, they should be baptized."
Reply to Objection 3: Baptism, by the grace which it bestows, removes not only past sins, but hinders the commission of future sins. Now this is the point to be considered---that men may not sin: it is a secondary consideration that their sins be less grievous, or that their sins be washed away, according to 1 John 2:1, 2: "My little children, these things I write to you, that you may not sin. But if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the just; and He is the propitiation for our sins."
66:
Whether water is the proper matter of Baptism?
Objection 1: It seems that water is not the proper matter of Baptism. For Baptism, according to Dionysius (Eccl. Hier. v) and Damascene (De Fide Orth. iv), has a power of enlightening. But enlightenment is a special characteristic of fire. Therefore Baptism should be conferred with fire rather than with water: and all the more since John the Baptist said when foretelling Christ's Baptism (Mat. 3:11): "He shall baptize you in the Holy Ghost and fire."
Objection 2: Further, the washing away of sins is signified in Baptism. But many other things besides water are employed in washing, such as wine, oil, and such like. Therefore Baptism can be conferred with these also; and consequently water is not the proper matter of Baptism.
Objection 3: Further, the sacraments of the Church flowed from the side of Christ hanging on the cross, as stated above (Q[62], A[5]). But not only water flowed therefrom, but also blood. Therefore it seems that Baptism can also be conferred with blood. And this seems to be more in keeping with the effect of Baptism, because it is written (Apoc. 1:5): "(Who) washed us from our sins in His own blood."
Objection 4: Further, as Augustine (cf. Master of the Sentences, iv, 3) and Bede (Exposit. in Luc. iii, 21) say, Christ, by "the touch of His most pure flesh, endowed the waters with a regenerating and cleansing virtue." But all waters are not connected with the waters of the Jordan which Christ touched with His flesh. Consequently it seems that Baptism cannot be conferred with any water; and therefore water, as such, is not the proper matter of Baptism.
Objection 5: Further, if water, as such, were the proper matter of Baptism, there would be no need to do anything to the water before using it for Baptism. But in solemn Baptism the water which is used for baptizing, is exorcized and blessed. Therefore it seems that water, as such, is not the proper matter of Baptism.
On the contrary, our Lord said (Jn. 3:5): "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."
I answer that, By Divine institution water is the proper matter of Baptism; and with reason. First, by reason of the very nature of Baptism, which is a regeneration unto spiritual life. And this answers to the nature of water in a special degree; wherefore seeds, from which all living things, viz. plants and animals are generated, are moist and akin to water. For this reason certain philosophers held that water is the first principle of all things.
Secondly, in regard to the effects of Baptism, to which the properties of water correspond. For by reason of its moistness it cleanses; and hence it fittingly signifies and causes the cleansing from sins. By reason of its coolness it tempers superfluous heat: wherefore it fittingly mitigates the concupiscence of the fomes. By reason of its transparency, it is susceptive of light; hence its adaptability to Baptism as the "sacrament of Faith."
Thirdly, because it is suitable for the signification of the mysteries of Christ, by which we are justified. For, as Chrysostom says (Hom. xxv in Joan.) on Jn. 3:5, "Unless a man be born again," etc., "When we dip our heads under the water as in a kind of tomb our old man is buried, and being submerged is hidden below, and thence he rises again renewed."
Fourthly, because by being so universal and abundant, it is a matter suitable to our need of this sacrament: for it can easily be obtained everywhere.
Reply to Objection 1: Fire enlightens actively. But he who is baptized does not become an enlightener, but is enlightened by faith, which "cometh by hearing" (Rom. 10:17). Consequently water is more suitable, than fire, for Baptism.
But when we find it said: "He shall baptize you in the Holy Ghost and fire," we may understand fire, as Jerome says (In Matth. ii), to mean the Holy Ghost, Who appeared above the disciples under the form of fiery tongues (Acts 2:3). Or we may understand it to mean tribulation, as Chrysostom says (Hom. iii in Matth.): because tribulation washes away sin, and tempers concupiscence. Or again, as Hilary says (Super Matth. ii) that "when we have been baptized in the Holy Ghost," we still have to be "perfected by the fire of the judgment."
Reply to Objection 2: Wine and oil are not so commonly used for washing, as water. Neither do they wash so efficiently: for whatever is washed with them, contracts a certain smell therefrom; which is not the case if water be used. Moreover, they are not so universal or so abundant as water.
Reply to Objection 3: Water flowed from Christ's side to wash us; blood, to redeem us. Wherefore blood belongs to the sacrament of the Eucharist, while water belongs to the sacrament of Baptism. Yet this latter sacrament derives its cleansing virtue from the power of Christ's blood.
Reply to Objection 4: Christ's power flowed into all waters, by reason of, not connection of place, but likeness of species, as Augustine says in a sermon on the Epiphany (Append. Serm. cxxxv): "The blessing that flowed from the Saviour's Baptism, like a mystic river, swelled the course of every stream, and filled the channels of every spring."
Reply to Objection 5: The blessing of the water is not essential to Baptism, but belongs to a certain solemnity, whereby the devotion of the faithful is aroused, and the cunning of the devil hindered from impeding the baptismal effect.
Whether plain water is necessary for Baptism?
Objection 1: It seems that plain water is not necessary for Baptism. For the water which we have is not plain water; as appears especially in sea-water, in which there is a considerable proportion of the earthly element, as the Philosopher shows (Meteor. ii). Yet this water may be used for Baptism. Therefore plain and pure water is not necessary for Baptism.
Objection 2: Further, in the solemn celebration of Baptism, chrism is poured into the water. But this seems to take away the purity and plainness of the water. Therefore pure and plain water is not necessary for Baptism.
Objection 3: Further, the water that flowed from the side of Christ hanging on the cross was a figure of Baptism, as stated above (A[3], ad 3). But that water, seemingly, was not pure, because the elements do not exist actually in a mixed body, such as Christ's. Therefore it seems that pure or plain water is not necessary for Baptism.
Objection 4: Further, lye does not seem to be pure water, for it has the properties of heating and drying, which are contrary to those of water. Nevertheless it seems that lye can be used for Baptism; for the water of the Baths can be so used, which has filtered through a sulphurous vein, just as lye percolates through ashes. Therefore it seems that plain water is not necessary for Baptism.
Objection 5: Further, rose-water is distilled from roses, just as chemical waters are distilled from certain bodies. But seemingly, such like waters may be used in Baptism; just as rain-water, which is distilled from vapors. Since, therefore, such waters are not pure and plain water, it seems that pure and plain water is not necessary for Baptism.
On the contrary, The proper matter of Baptism is water, as stated above (A[3]). But plain water alone has the nature of water. Therefore pure plain water is necessary for Baptism.
I answer that, Water may cease to be pure or plain water in two ways: first, by being mixed with another body; secondly, by alteration. And each of these may happen in a twofold manner; artificially and naturally. Now art fails in the operation of nature: because nature gives the substantial form, which art cannot give; for whatever form is given by art is accidental; except perchance when art applies a proper agent to its proper matter, as fire to a combustible; in which manner animals are produced from certain things by way of putrefaction.
Whatever artificial change, then, takes place in the water, whether by mixture or by alteration, the water's nature is not changed. Consequently such water can be used for Baptism: unless perhaps such a small quantity of water be mixed artificially with a body that the compound is something other than water; thus mud is earth rather than water, and diluted wine is wine rather than water.
But if the change be natural, sometimes it destroys the nature of the water; and this is when by a natural process water enters into the substance of a mixed body: thus water changed into the juice of the grape is wine, wherefore it has not the nature of water. Sometimes, however, there may be a natural change of the water, without destruction of species: and this, both by alteration, as we may see in the case of water heated by the sun; and by mixture, as when the water of a river has become muddy by being mixed with particles of earth.
We must therefore say that any water may be used for Baptism, no matter how much it may be changed, as long as the species of water is not destroyed; but if the species of water be destroyed, it cannot be used for Baptism.
Reply to Objection 1: The change in sea-water and in other waters which we have to hand, is not so great as to destroy the species of water. And therefore such waters may be used for Baptism.
Reply to Objection 2: Chrism does not destroy the nature of the water by being mixed with it: just as neither is water changed wherein meat and the like are boiled: except the substance boiled be so dissolved that the liquor be of a nature foreign to water; in this we may be guided by the specific gravity [spissitudine]. If, however, from the liquor thus thickened plain water be strained, it can be used for Baptism: just as water strained from mud, although mud cannot be used for baptizing.
Reply to Objection 3: The water which flowed from the side of Christ hanging on the cross, was not the phlegmatic humor, as some have supposed. For a liquid of this kind cannot be used for Baptism, as neither can the blood of an animal, or wine, or any liquid extracted from plants. It was pure water gushing forth miraculously like the blood from a dead body, to prove the reality of our Lord's body, and confute the error of the Manichees: water, which is one of the four elements, showing Christ's body to be composed of the four elements; blood, proving that it was composed of the four humors.
Reply to Objection 4: Baptism may be conferred with lye and the waters of Sulphur Baths: because such like waters are not incorporated, artificially or naturally, with certain mixed bodies, and suffer only a certain alteration by passing through certain bodies.
Reply to Objection 5: Rose-water is a liquid distilled from roses: consequently it cannot be used for Baptism. For the same reason chemical waters cannot be used, as neither can wine. Nor does the comparison hold with rain-water, which for the most part is formed by the condensing of vapors, themselves formed from water, and contains a minimum of the liquid matter from mixed bodies; which liquid matter by the force of nature, which is stronger than art, is transformed in this process of condensation into real water, a result which cannot be produced artificially. Consequently rain-water retains no properties of any mixed body; which cannot be said of rose-water or chemical waters.
-
Like I said on another thread:
If Catholics believed in everything that's taught in the Catechism of Trent about salvation, and what St. Thomas and St. Alphonsus believed, I would not post one word on the subject. The reason why I write, is because of a problem, "your group" believes that no desire to be baptized or a Catholic, is necessary for salvation. Your groups teachings are opposed to that catechism , and what St. Thomas and St. Alphonsus Ligouri taught.
I have never had any problem having a theological discussion on salvation with the true followers of that catechism, and of St. Thomas and St. Alphonsus Ligouri, it's just rare to ever find such a person in the USA.
My reason for writing is to bring out into the light the liberal false teachers of BOND (baptism of no desire to be Catholic) , "the group", the hypocrites and schizophrenics who only give lip service to "desire", the catechism, and of St. Thomas and St. Alphonsus Ligouri.
Dear LordPhan,
No offense intended, but are you a true follower of St. Thomas and St. Alphonsus Ligouri? Or are you a disciple of the liberal false teachers of BOND (baptism of no desire to be Catholic) , "the group", the hypocrites and schizophrenics who only give lip service to "desire", the catechism, and St. Thomas and St. Alphonsus Ligouri?
-
Nadie,
Instead of assuming that everybody who fails to fall before your quote-floods is wrong-headed, why don't you say what, if anything, you don't accept from St. Thomas?
-
I see that St.Thomas has made his point clear. Thanks for posting this LordPhan, it was very helpful.
-
Nadie,
Instead of assuming that everybody who fails to fall before your quote-floods is wrong-headed, why don't you say what, if anything, you don't accept from St. Thomas?
What I wrote is very clear, don't twist what I wrote. It is you who reject St. Thomas's clear opposition to your theories on invincible ignorance and implicit faith. He and St. Alphonsus Ligouri and all the theologians before them, rejected your liberal erroneous theory that invincible ignorance is salvific, and your so-called "implicit faith".
At the very least be honest enough to admit that you reject St. Thomas and St. Alphonsus on those teachings.
ST. ALPHONSUS LIGOURI REJECTED IMPLICIT FAITH
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.)
It’s interesting to consider that when the people who quote St. Alphonsus in favor of baptism of desire – and treat him as if he were infallible – are asked if they agree with his teaching here (that all who die as heretics, Jews, Muslims and pagans go to Hell), and they avoid the question like the plague. They avoid the question because, in this case, they do not share St. Alphonsus’ position. Rather, they believe that heretics, Jews, Muslims and pagans can be saved as heretics, Jews, Muslims and pagans.
One can see that, he condemned the modern day erroneous "teaching" which asserts that one can attain salvation in another religion or without faith in Christ and the Catholic Mysteries of Faith.
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.).”
Notice that St. Alphonsus is explicitly discussing the concept of invincible ignorance. He is explicitly addressing the question of whether souls who are “inculpably ignorant” of Our Lord and the Trinity can be saved, AND HE DENIES IT. He affirms that only those who believe in these absolutely necessary mysteries of Catholic Faith (the Trinity and Incarnation) can be saved. This is a very important quotation because the false teaching that souls can be saved in other religions is rampant in even Traditional circles, and is taught by the SSPX, SSPV, CMRI, etc. These groups teach that explicit belief in the Trinity and the Incarnation is not necessary as a means without which no adult can be saved.
Not one saint held the liberal false teaching of “invincible ignorance,” the idea that ignorant non-Catholics can be saved in false religions or without belief in the Trinity and the Incarnation. Here’s the quote from St. Alphonsus’ book, The History of Heresies.
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.”
As we see, St. Alphonsus is clearly making reference to the teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas below, in which he denies that any soul who is ignorant of the Gospel can be saved. Rather, if there is a person who is completely ignorant of the faith but who is of good will, God will make sure that he comes to a knowledge of the faith.
St. Thomas Aquinas, De Veritate, 14, A. 11, ad 1: Objection- “It is possible that someone may be brought up in the forest, or among wolves; such a man cannot explicitly know anything about the faith. St. Thomas replies- It is the characteristic of Divine Providence to provide every man with what is necessary for salvation… provided on his part there is no hindrance. In the case of a man who seeks good and shuns evil, by the leading of natural reason, God would either reveal to him through internal inspiration what had to be believed, or would send some preacher of the faith to him…”
St. Thomas Aquinas, Sent. II, 28, Q. 1, A. 4, ad 4: “If a man born among barbarian nations, does what he can, God Himself will show him what is necessary for salvation, either by inspiration or sending a teacher to him.”
St. Thomas Aquinas, Sent. III, 25, Q. 2, A. 2, solute. 2: “If a man should have no one to instruct him, God will show him, unless he culpably wishes to remain where he is.”
In the Summa Theologica, St. Thomas further taught the truth that all men above reason are bound to know the principal mysteries of Christ for salvation with no exceptions for ignorance.
St. Thomas, Summa Theologica: “After grace had been revealed, both the learned and simple folk are bound to explicit faith in the mysteries of Christ, chiefly as regards those which are observed throughout the Church, and publicly proclaimed, such as the articles which refer to the Incarnation, of which we have spoken above.”
Saint Thomas, Summa Theologica: “And consequently, when once grace had been revealed, all were bound to explicit faith in the mystery of the Trinity.”
Therefore, St. Alphonsus and St. Thomas, like all of the fathers of the Church, rejected the modern heresy of “invincible ignorance” saving those who die as non-Catholics. Their speculation on baptism of blood/desire only regarded those who believe in the Trinity and Incarnation (the most essential mysteries of Catholic faith). And this point really shows the dishonesty of modern liberals, who like to quote St. Alphonsus and St. Thomas Aquinas on baptism of desire to somehow justify their heretical idea that members of false religions can be saved by “Invincible ignorance and implicit faith.”
----------
More quotes:
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.)
-
Nadie,
Instead of assuming that everybody who fails to fall before your quote-floods is wrong-headed, why don't you say what, if anything, you don't accept from St. Thomas?
What I wrote is very clear, don't twist what I wrote. It is you who reject St. Thomas's clear opposition to your theories on invincible ignorance and implicit faith. He and St. Alphonsus Ligouri and all the theologians before them, rejected your liberal erroneous theory that invincible ignorance is salvific, and your so-called "implicit faith".
Well, they don't reject anything I believe, because I learned from them what I believe.
Invincible ignorance is not salvific. No approved theologian says that, and I have no idea why you think that they do say that. My best guess is you've never seen an approved theology book.
Implicit faith, as St. Thomas explains, is the faith we all have in those doctrines that the Church teaches but which we, in our ignorance, do not know about. There's a great deal of it about, and (I hope) especially in you, dear Nadie.
Implicit faith in the case of somebody in invincible ignorance of some of the things necessary for salvation (such as baptism itself) would be the perfect willingness to accept baptism if the ignorant person knew about it. Such an ignorant person, to be saved, must have supernatural faith in at least the existence of God and the fact that He rewards the good and punishes the wicked. The better theologians (St. Thomas and St. Alphonsus included) say that in addition to these truths, a man must believe explicitly in the Trinity, Incarnation, and Redemption. In any case whatever the actual objects of faith which are necessary for salvation, the remainder of the objects of faith are believed by such a person who has supernatural faith in an implicit manner.
This is not "liberal" or difficult to understand. It's simply the clear doctrine of the Church.
Btw, I was debating Michael Malone over a decade ago. He was absolutely hopeless, God love him, and may he rest in peace. We liked each other. I certainly preferred him, despite his complete incompetence on this question, to the liberals who make EENS an empty phrase. Throw his book out.
-
nadieimportante said:
Implicit faith was invented in the 1600's ... It's not Catholic, universal, it's only the theologians of the 20th century that made it the "standard'.
Gertrude responds: Transubstantiation was "invented" in the Middle Ages. Theology develops. The Holy Ghost, permanently united to the Church (He is the Soul of the Church) guides her and ensures that she never errs.
nadieimportante said: Transubstantiation was invented? what a lousy example. You might as well also tell me that the term Immaculate Conception was also invented. Both terms are just naming what was always believed.
Gertrude responds:Good, so your argument against "implicit faith" is demolished. It is what has always been believed.
nadieimportante said: Is that how you read your theology books, how you just misread my simple sentence? Let me spell it out for you:
Transubstantiation was invented? what a lousy example. You might as well also tell me that the term Immaculate Conception was also invented. Both Transubstantiation and Immaculate Conception are terms that just naming what was always believed. Implicit faith was truly invented in the 1600's it was not believed by any Fathers or St. Thomas or any other Saint. The implicit faith and invincible ignorance (they are tied together) theories opens the door to ecuмenism and false religious freedom, and the non-exclusivity of the Catholic Church for salvation. People who preach this theory have not a leg to stand on when opposing Vatican II on those subjects (oh, let me spell it out again for you, ecuмenism and false religious freedom, and the non-exclusivity of the Catholic Church for salvation EENS). Here's a good example:
This is just an excerpt from Bishop Fellay's latest letter #79, if people read the entire letter they wiill find that in practically every point in the letter touches on the same point I'm making here , that "The implicit faith and invincible ignorance (they are tied together) theories opens the door to ecuмenism and false religious freedom, and the non-exclusivity of the Catholic Church for salvation. People who preach this theory have not a leg to stand on when opposing Vatican II on those subjects"
Bishop Fellay #79: "Another consequence, which follows directly from what has just been said, can be seen in the practice of ecuмenism. On pretence of being able to be closer to our “separated brethren”, Catholics not longer proclaim these truths, which are nonetheless salvific, because they are difficult for them to hear. Catholics no longer even deliberately seek to convert them. Ecuмenism NO LONGER WANTS TO MAKE CONVERTS. This word has been banished; it is still tolerated, but in the name of religious liberty! Where, then, is the Church of Our Lord Jesus Christ? Where has the pride of Catholics gone? And their leaders are the ones who are making them faint-hearted! As everyone could observe recently in France, when they should have condemned some blasphemous dramas. If similar offenses had been committed against the Moslems, the country would have been set on fire and drenched in blood! The Christians today have become so soft that they allow anything to happen! People are attacking the honor, not of a worldly king, but of the King of kings, the Lord of Lords, our Savior from whom we have received everything!
Quite obviously we have at heart the salvation of all those souls that are so dear to the Heart of Our Lord and their return to the fold, since He redeemed them at the price of His life! But the current way of doing things no longer has anything in common with the concern for the unity of the Church in past centuries. The whole world is supposed to be good and, consequently, the prospect that some of them could be eternally damned causes the wise of this world to inveigh against the scandal. They preach that hell is empty, or nearly so. The teaching of the Church is entirely different…."END
nadieimportante said:
Theology develops in the same sense and the same judgement (read St. Vincent of Lerins that I posted, and Vatican I), like a mustard seed develops into a Mustard Tree. It does not change into something else. Your implicit faith being "the development" of EENS, which requires incorporation into the Body, is analogous to the mustard seed growing up to be a mango tree.
Gertrude wrote : Please don't use that mustard seed metaphor about the development of dogma. It's a misapplication of the metaphor about the Church by Our Lord. Stinking liberals love that misapplication. A tree contains a great deal of material not originally contained in the seed. Sacred doctrine contains no new material. It isn't the growth from a seed, but merely the explanation of what was there in its entirety in the beginning. I'm surprised to see you attacking liberals when you are clearly enamoured of a major LIBERAL idea yourself.
Nadie responds: the mustard seed, the oak seed they are metaphors that describe what I said St. Vincent of Lerins and Vatican II taught about the developement of doctrine in the same sense and the same judgement. Your "developement" has a missing link, more than that, since an ape and man appear similar, when your theory is like a squirrrel and man. It is part of the vortex of confusion described by St. Augustine. Your God is powerless to convert anyone, or get anyone to water to him and say 8 words.
nadieimportante said:
The implicit faith saved theory is a person who does not want to be a Catholic or baptized or anything else.
Gertrude responds:Find me an approved theologian who says that. No wonder you're confused, you don't even know what you're arguing against.
Nadie responds: You are in denial. You've been hoodwinked by your liberal theologians sophisms on "implicit".
Gertrude responds When called on your assertion, you dodge. No approved theologian states what you claim that they state. I repeat, no wonder you're confused, you don't even know what you're arguing against.
nadieimportante writes: I posted a ton of quotes from St. Alphonsus Ligouri what are you talking about? I'd like to see you post one Saint or Doctor or Father of the Church saying that a Moslem can be saved in their religion, by implicit faith or ignorance.
Implicit faith = a Muslim, Jew, pagan, animist, Mason, any non-Catholic, who is "sincere in his belief", can be saved in his religion, because by an unknown to him implicit faith, he is really a Catholic.
Example of explicit faith
"....God knows all men and He knows that amongst Protestants, Muslims, Buddhists and in the whole of humanity there are men of good will. They receive the grace of baptism without knowing it, but in an effective way. In this way they become part of the Church” (Abp Lefevbre)
From : Christ Among Us[/i], by Fr. Anthony Wilhelm. The major religious text for Catholic High School students and for adult education in America. First published in 1967 by Paulist Press, it has sold over 2,000,000 copies:
"There are other ways of being united to God besides baptism. Most of the human race has never heard of or cannot believe in Christ or baptism. As the world population increases, Christians become proportionately less. The Christian life begun by baptism is becoming more and more the privilege and responsibility of a few. Most of humanity is united with God in other ways. (op. cit., p. 199).
Many men come to God in this way through other, non-Christian religions ... So, too, one who cannot believe in a personal God, through no fault of his own, but is committed to following his conscience, receives God's grace presence God lives within many unbelievers, though they may oppose him or those who try to work for him. (p.200).
Theology has no complete answer as to how, or even whether anyone may be damned forever.(p. 289)
Now explain to us if my cut to the chase definition "The implicit faith saved theory is a person who does not want to be a Catholic or baptized or anything else Catholic.", is not spot on. Do any of these people want to be baptized, or Catholics? You are in denial, you are in the vortex of confusion:
“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)
-
You are in the vortex of confusion described by St. Augustine. Your God is powerless to move a person to convert to the true faith, His grace is powerless to move anyone to baptize the person during non-baptized person's entire life, His power in incapable of keeping the person alive for whatever time is necessary till God wills to give him the grace of conversion. Your God from the beginning of time was not thinking about this person which He created so dense and out of reach, that God can't use the ordinary means of salvation that Jesus Christ (God) taught us to use.
My God is the God described by St. John the Baptist who can turn stones into Catholics with His grace:
"And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham for our father. For I tell you that God is able of these stones to raise up children to Abraham." (Mat 3:9)
Pope Paul III (A.D. 1534-1549) Sublimus Deus (or Sublimus Dei), May 29, 1537:
"To all faithful Christians to whom this writing may come, health in Christ our Lord and the apostolic benediction.
The sublime God so loved the human race that He created man in such wise that he might participate, not only in the good that other creatures enjoy, but endowed him with capacity to attain to the inaccessible and invisible Supreme Good and behold it face to face; and since man, according to the testimony of the sacred scriptures, has been created to enjoy eternal life and happiness, which none may obtain save through faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, it is necessary that he should possess the nature and faculties enabling him to receive that faith; and that whoever is thus endowed should be capable of receiving that same faith. Nor is it credible that any one should possess so little understanding as to desire the faith and yet be destitute of the most necessary faculty to enable him to receive it. Hence Christ, who is the Truth itself, that has never failed and can never fail, said to the preachers of the faith whom He chose for that office "Go ye and teach all nations." He said "all," without exception, for all are capable of receiving the doctrines of the faith. [/b]
The enemy of the human race, who opposes all good deeds in order to bring men to destruction, beholding and envying this, invented a means never before heard of, by which he might hinder the preaching of God's word of Salvation to the people: he inspired his satellites who, to please him, have not hesitated to publish abroad that the Indians of the West and the South, and other people of whom We have recent knowledge should be treated as dumb brutes created for our service, pretending that they are incapable of receiving the Catholic Faith.
We, who, though unworthy, exercise on earth the power of our Lord and seek with all our might to bring those sheep of His flock who are outside into the fold committed to our charge, consider, however, that the Indians are truly men and that they are not only capable of understanding the Catholic Faith but, according to our information, they desire exceedingly to receive it. Desiring to provide ample remedy for these evils, We define and declare by these Our letters, or by any translation thereof signed by any notary public and sealed with the seal of any ecclesiastical dignitary, to which the same credit shall be given as to the originals, that, notwithstanding whatever may have been or may be said to the contrary, the said Indians and all other people who may later be discovered by Christians, are by no means to be deprived of their liberty or the possession of their property, even though they be outside the faith of Jesus Christ; and that they may and should, freely and legitimately, enjoy their liberty and the possession of their property; nor should they be in any way enslaved; should the contrary happen, it shall be null and have no effect.
-
God Wills their Ignorance - a Satirical Response
So it is the will of God that men of good will (who, btw, if they cooperate, are moved/assisted by prevenient/sufficient grace to come to the knowledge of the Truth, to desire baptism and to enter the only Ark of salvation);
it is the will of God that these ignorant men of good will remain in their false religion; it is the will of God that they remain ignorant of the Gospel, and it is the will of God that these ignorant men die in a state of sanctifying grace; a state of saving grace effected by an implicit faith, an implicit love of the true God, an implicit baptism of desire and an implicit mental incorporation. In this way they become “part of the Church” (would that be the implicit Church?)
How does that work again? Oh yeah, they belong to the “Soul of the Church”; in other words, the Holy Ghost cleanses the faithless and ignorant Muslim/Jew/Pantheist/Animist/Atheist/Pagan of his original sin solely on the merit of his “good will”.
He also infuses the ignorant faithless soul with the supernatural virtues of … wait, strike that; He infuses him with the implicit supernatural virtues of faith, hope and charity, and then takes up His substantial abode (as St. John Eudes said, in the flesh) within the ignorant faithless
Muslim/Jew/Pantheist/Animist/Atheist/Pagan who continues on his merry blissful ignorant way towards salvation, even when blaspheming the name of our Lord and even when persecuting Christians.
And this is the state of justification Trent defined as a re-birth into a new creature and a translation into a son of God and heir to the kingdom. Yes indeed.
You see, this is what our Lord “wills” for His ignorant faithless elect who are of such good will that they can’t seem to hear the voice of our Lord, let alone crawl out from under the weight of their false beliefs. All that “static”, you know?
-
Gosh, thanks for re-posting those quote-floods. I might have missed them the first time, so it was helpful to have them re-posted just in case I did. :)
-
Gertrude wrote: Invincible ignorance is not salvific. No approved theologian says that, and I have no idea why you think that they do say that.
Nadie responds: In your theory of how a Jew, Muslim, any non-Catholic, can be saved by their implicit faith in "a God that rewards" (do I have to spell everything out to you? You knew exactly what I was talking about.), the person can be saved if they are in invincible ignorance. Implicit faith and invincible ignorance go hand in hand in your liberal theory of salvation by implicit faith in a God that rewards. I cut to the chase, I don't beat around the bush and say sophism like " Invincible ignorance is not salvific. No approved theologian says that". Anyone can see that in your theory invisible ignorance pivotal to your salvation by an implicit faith in a God that rewards being salvific, for if the person is not invincible ignorant, they can't be saved by implicit faith. It ends up being salvific, though your liberal theologians know they can't say invincible ignorance is salvific, so, they do their dance around saying so.
Gertrude wrote:
Implicit faith, as St. Thomas explains, is the faith we all have in those doctrines that the Church teaches but which we, in our ignorance, do not know about
Nadie responds:That's implicit faith in the Catholic doctrines, for we can't know everything. I don't think you are as dumb as you write, I think that you are using sophism to fool people because you have a hole in your ship, so large that anyone can see it.
Your liberal theory of "Implicit faith in a God that rewards" does not require any knowledge whatsoever about Jesus Christ, His Church, baptism, nothing of Catholicism. Your theory says that if a person is invincible ignorant he can be saved by his implicit faith in a God that rewards, that's it! They can even be violently anti-Catholic.
Gertrude wrote
Implicit faith in the case of somebody in invincible ignorance of some of the things necessary for salvation (such as baptism itself) would be the perfect willingness to accept baptism if the ignorant person knew about it.
Nadie responds:
You don't write like someone who, as you claim, knows so much, or else you are using subterfuge. You are mixing two theories into one, which conveniently gives your false teaching of implicit faith in a God that rewards a illegitimate historical pedigree, which it does not posses in reality.
Here's the correction of your definition:
Implicit desire for baptism in the case of somebody ignorant of the need for baptism itself, would be the perfect willingness to accept baptism if the person knew about it, andrequires knowledge of at least the doctrines of the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation.
Your plugging in "would be the perfect willingness to accept baptism if the ignorant person knew about it", for the implicit faith of the invincible ignorant , is a ruse on your part, it only applies to implicit baptism of desire.
Gertrude wrote:
Such an ignorant person, to be saved, must have supernatural faith in at least the existence of God and the fact that He rewards the good and punishes the wicked. The better theologians (St. Thomas and St. Alphonsus included) say that in addition to these truths, a man must believe explicitly in the Trinity, Incarnation, and Redemption. In any case whatever the actual objects of faith which are necessary for salvation, the remainder of the objects of faith are believed by such a person who has supernatural faith in an implicit manner.
Nadie answers:
That's the second time you said it, so you'll have to show me where the Church teaches that a false religion is a "supernatural faith".
Gertrude wrote:The better theologians (St. Thomas and St. Alphonsus included) say that in addition to these truths, a man must believe explicitly in the Trinity, Incarnation, and Redemption. In any case whatever the actual objects of faith which are necessary for salvation, the remainder of the objects of faith are believed by such a person who has supernatural faith in an implicit manner. This is not "liberal" or difficult to understand. It's simply the clear doctrine of the Church.
Nadie answers: Your commnet that "The better theologians (St. Thomas and St. Alphonsus included[/u]) say" is a huge understatement, for there is no Father of the Church, no Doctor, no Saint, that taught that a non-Catholic can be saved by "his belief in existence of a God rewards the good and punishes the wicked". Moreover, there are no theologians that even taught or believed such a thing till it was invented. I asked you to post one saint that says that a Protestants, Jew, Muslim, can be saved, one quote.
Within your comment that "In any case whatever the actual objects of faith which are necessary for salvation", within there is EVERYTHING. For the "the actual object of the faith" IS EVERYHTING in this debate. Your theory's OBJECT is opposed to all of tradition. Yet you skirt right over it like it's nothing. There's your subterfuge again. That "object" IS the huge hole in your ship. It is not a doctrine , and no one has to believe it. As a matter of fact everyone with eyes to see will reject upon seeing it in the light.
-
Gertrude wrote: Invincible ignorance is not salvific. No approved theologian says that, and I have no idea why you think that they do say that.
Nadie responds: In your theory of how a Jew, Muslim, any non-Catholic, can be saved by their implicit faith in "a God that rewards" (do I have to spell everything out to you? You knew exactly what I was talking about.),
I knew that you were arguing against things that I don't hold, which is why I keep trying to get you to say what exactly in the APPROVED THEOLOGIANS you don't accept.
I don't believe a Jew or a Moslem can be saved in their religion. I have said several times, that one has to be within the Church at death to be saved. You're arguing against a straw man.
the person can be saved if they are in invincible ignorance.
Only of things not absolutely necessary for salvation. Implicit faith, I remind you, implies explicit faith. Supernatural faith. THE Faith. The question is which doctrines must explicitly be believed for salvation, but ALL APPROVED THEOLOGIANS AGREE THAT SOME OF THE OBJECTS OF FAITH MUST BE BELIEVED FOR SALVATION. The discussion permitted by the Church over which doctrines those are, is neither here nor there as far as the principle is concerned. I repeat, one must have the supernatural virtue of faith to be saved, which is the Catholic Faith, the one infused by God into the soul of the baptised, and into the soul of one who desires baptism at least implicitly but by divine providence is not baptised in fact before death. This supernatural virtue of faith is utterly incompatible with Islamism or Judaism, it needs hardly be said, but must be said to somebody with as ignorant an appreciation of sacred doctrine as you.
I cut to the chase, I don't beat around the bush and say sophisms
No, you don't cut to the chase, you carefully avoid engaging in a real debate and instead you try and shout down your opposition with large type and lengthy lists of quotes, arguing the whole time against straw man positions, and you keep avoiding the proof that I have given of your own liberalism regarding the development of dogma.
" Invincible ignorance is not salvific. No approved theologian says that". Anyone can see ... blah, blah, blah
You forget, you are claiming that one cannot follow the approved theologians because they say what you claim. But they don't say what you claim. Therefore your reason for not reading them and believing what they say evaporates. The only logical way to maintain your position is to quote an approved theologian who says what you accuse the approved theologians of saying. But you don't do it, no doubt because you cannot do it. The evidence doesn't exist.
Instead of providing the evidence, you assert "anybody can see" that what the approved theologians teach leads to the doctrine you (rightly) excoriate. But it doesn't lead there, and in fact I don't see how it leads there, and neither did Monsignor Fenton or any other approved theologian. You might as well argue that the doctrine of the veneration due to the Blessed Virgin leads to her being worshipped with the worship of "latria." It just doesn't. But that didn't stop the Protestants accusing us of that.
Nadie responds:That's implicit faith in the Catholic doctrines, for we can't know everything. I don't think you are as dumb as you write, I think that you are using sophism to fool people because you have a hole in your ship, so large that anyone can see it.
I hope you're not judged as you judge me.
-
Nadie responds: In your theory of how a Jew, Muslim, any non-Catholic, can be saved by their implicit faith in "a God that rewards" (do I have to spell everything out to you? You knew exactly what I was talking about.),
Gertrude answers: I knew that you were arguing against things that I don't hold, which is why I keep trying to get you to say what exactly in the APPROVED THEOLOGIANS you don't accept.
I don't believe a Jew or a Moslem can be saved in their religion. I have said several times, that one has to be within the Church at death to be saved. You're arguing against a straw man.
nadieimportante reponds: Strawman. I didn't say that you believed that a Jew or a Moslem can be saved in their religion. I know enough not to say that to a sophist like you. That's why I said: "In your theory of how a Jew, Muslim, any non-Catholic, can be saved by their implicit faith in "a God that rewards".
If I were to really say that you think that a Jew is saved in his religion, you would then wiggle out of that charge by explaning how the Jew is not really saved as a Jew, but the he is implicitly in the Church, or some other sophism. Your system is a crock of of lies, sophism, and subterfuge.
Anyone with eyes to see will see that you are saying that a Jew is saved right where he is. You can wiggle all you want.
gertrude wrote:
Implicit faith, I remind you, implies explicit faith. Supernatural faith.
nadie responds:
I asked you before and you didn't respond: "That's the second time you said it, so you'll have to show me where the Church teaches that a false religion is a "supernatural faith". A supernaturally infused faith."
-
Nadie,
How can anybody hope to argue effectively with you when you spout definite liberalism about the evolution of dogma, and won't retract it when proved wrong?
Further, you won't say what it is in the works of the approved theologians that you object to. I say, it's because you've never opened a theology book in your life. Instead, you trawled the net and got rubbish like Michael Malone's second and third-hand quotes book, and Fr. Wathen's post-Vatican II work, and Fr. Feeney's confusions.
Now prove me wrong by quoting an approved pre-V2 theologian saying something to which you object.
You accuse me of sophism. We all judge by our own standards. Is sophism a concept you find particularly familiar, Nadie?
nadieimportante reponds: Strawman. I didn't say that you believed that a Jew or a Moslem can be saved in their religion. I know enough not to say that to a sophist like you. That's why I said: "In your theory of how a Jew, Muslim, any non-Catholic, can be saved by their implicit faith in "a God that rewards".
Rubbish. The doctrine of the Catholic Church is that for a man to be saved he must have the faith. The Catholic Faith. I know that this is difficult for you to comprehend, because you haven't troubled yourself to find out what the Church teaches by going to the sources she recommends, but that's the reality.
A Moslem who dies without external evidence of conversion might still have converted in his heart. I presume you accept that much. Fr. Feeney certainly did. If such a man cooperates with the graces he receives, he will make an act of faith in God. Not the Moslem unitarian god, the true God. By definition, he is making an act of supernatural faith in God, because he's cooperating with grace. If he makes an act of faith in the unitarian god of Islam, he isn't cooperating with grace, he doesn't have supernatural faith, and he doesn't desire to enter the Church and be saved. Comprende?
Now, as to how much data God provides about the objects of Faith prior to death, that's His providential decision. St. Thomas's opinion is that in the case of a man raised in the woods, God would send an angel or a preacher, because SOME of the objects of faith must absolutely be believed explicitly for salvation. But whether it's an angel or a preacher, or a dream (such as was given to St. Joseph telling him not to put Our Lady away), or some internal enlightenment, some of the objects of faith must be communicated so that the act of faith is truly an act of supernatural faith, Catholic faith.
All of the approved theologians are clear on this requirement. The fact that you don't know about it only proves that you've never seen a theology book. You reject them without even seeing them, because you have your own home-baked theological method.
Anyone with eyes to see will see that you are saying that a Jew is saved right where he is. You can wiggle all you want.
Yeah, anybody can see things that aren't there. Actually, you're the only one seeing things that aren't there. Look to yourself.
I asked you before and you didn't respond: "That's the second time you said it, so you'll have to show me where the Church teaches that a false religion is a "supernatural faith". A supernaturally infused faith."
The Church doesn't teach that a false religion is a supernatural faith. Not that that is a cogent sentence, but in any case if I don't deny your nonsensical statements you'll confuse the whole thing again with accusations of sophism etc.
-
Total Strawman, I've posted dogmas coming out of my ears, but you refuse to look a clear dogmas, YOU ONLY GO BY YOUR THEOLOGIANS BECAUSE ALL OF DOGMA IS AGAINST WHAT YOU TEACH.
After Christmas we'll continue on this subject of Implicit faith in a God that rewards, for it is at the foundation of the ecuмnemism movement and Assisi and practically all of what comes out of Vatican II. It is so full of holes that there is no way anyone could defend it without having to violate the law of non-contradiction at every turn.
Merry 12 days of Christmas and God Bless
-
nadie, thank you for your posts.
-
Cupertino wrote: I must repeat, however, that Nadie has gratuitously denied the concept of "implicit faith", yet elsewhere here on Cathinfo I recently mentioned how newly baptized infants believe nothing explicitly, yet possess the divine virtue of Faith, which proves the existence of implicit Faith.
Comments like this are why you won't get a response from me. I don't take you seriously, PERIOD. You know nothing.
If you knew anything, you would say what the object of this "implicit" faith is. Then we could know what you are talking about. Don't expect any responses from me, you have proven yourself to be incompetent, stiff necked, and worse of all you take things personally, a combination that makes it is a waste of time to answer you, for no one can learn anything from my responding to you.
yet elsewhere here on Cathinfo I recently mentioned how newly baptized infants believe nothing explicitly, yet possess the divine virtue of Faith, which proves the existence of implicit Faith.
This is idiotic. Basically you are saying that you proved all my sources wrong ( the councils, popes, Fathers, Doctors, etc) by posting your own personal opinion.
Your idea that infants possess implicit faith in a God that rewards, is idiotic. Infants possess nothing but original sin, and are given a exorcism when they are baptized. If infants possessed an implicit faith in a God that rewards, then the aborted would all be saved by invincible ignorance, since they would possess the "tag team" for salvation without baptism".
-
Actually, this conversation is entirely misdirected.
The issue is not whether a rigorist interpretation of scripture is possible, nor whether certain saints and theologians held a rigorist position regarding baptism.
The CENTRAL issue in the Feeneyite discussion is this doctrine, which is UNIQUE to Fr. Feeney alone: The assertion that those who do NOT have the baptismal character WILL NOT persevere in any grace they may receive through their solemn vow to receive baptism.
The Feeneyite does not deny a person may be justified by a desire to receive baptism. He plainly asserts a person may receive grace. What he denies, is that this person can persevere in this grace, and that the sacramental CHARACTER of baptism is an absolute and irreformable necessity for salvation:
But the church has never taught that. The Feeneyite CANNOT demonstrate from either the Fathers or the Church's teaching the ABSOLUTE and UNMITIGATING necessity of the baptismal character for salvation. In other words, he denies that Baptism by water can be supplied.
In addition, NO one except Fr. Feeney has ever taught at any time that a person who dies in a state of grace without the sacramental character of baptism will NOT go to heaven. This is EXACTLY what he taught. He taught a person may be justified (sanctifying grace alone justifies) without baptism, and yet die unbaptized and not go to heaven.
NO one has ever taught that EVER. No Feeneyite can prove it, and none can show any who have taught it. The most they can show are the strong words of rigorists, of which I am one, but these are not Feeneyites.
Show me ANYone other than Fr. Feeney who taught the doctrines particular to Fr. Feeney.
-
Cupertino, Nadie is correct in this respect:
Infants have no implicit faith. Neither does their parents faith suffice for them. Neither does the Churches Faith suffice for the infant. Rather, the CHURCH supplies the infant with the proper disposition to receive baptism. In baptism, the gift of Faith is infused into the infant, so that the infant, after baptism, is truly said to have the gift of faith. I suppose you could say in a sense that the church's faith suffices as a necessary disposition, but it is not salvific in any way.
If an infant died on the way to the baptismal font, the infant would not go to heaven, because the infant does not have any of the necessary internal predispositions (Faith, Hope and Charity), neither has the infant lived a Christian life, nor has the infant ever manifested any personal will or desire to receive Christ in any way, or to even serve him.
On the contrary, the infant is consumed with original sin, which is a loss of the original holiness and justice of Adam, the Guilt of which is in each Child AS THEIR OWN from the instant of their conception. Council of Trent, Session 6. In addition, unbaptized children are enemies of God and abide under his wrath and are incapable of being pleasing to him; they are slaves of sin, death and the devil. They do not serve God. Council of Trent Session 5.
Therefore, infants possess nothing in themselves that would merit eternal life, either explicitly or implicitly; rather, they only merit eternal damnation because of their guilt in Adam.
-
But the church has never taught that. The Feeneyite CANNOT demonstrate from either the Fathers or the Church's teaching the ABSOLUTE and UNMITIGATING necessity of the baptismal character for salvation. In other words, he denies that Baptism by water can be supplied.
The Church, echoing the words of Our Lord, does teach the absolute and unmitigated necessity for salvation. Nadie and everyone under the sun has already posted those teachings a million times - so no need to repeat these teachings again here.
The Church also teaches the desire for baptism, along with perfect contrition and a firm purpose to amend their lives can suffice for grace and righteousness.
The Church never has taught authoritatively anywhere that grace and righteousness WITHOUT the Sacrament suffices for salvation. Feel free to knock yourself out looking for it - I've never found it.
Additionally, no where does the Church teach authoritatively that one can and WILL REMAIN in the state of grace and righteousness with or without baptism till they die. That is the reason why the Church DOES TEACH that we need to pray for the grace of a happy death and for the grace of final perseverance - or do not expect it.
In addition, NO one except Fr. Feeney has ever taught at any time that a person who dies in a state of grace without the sacramental character of baptism will NOT go to heaven. This is EXACTLY what he taught. He taught a person may be justified (sanctifying grace alone justifies) without baptism, and yet die unbaptized and not go to heaven.
This is true. The Church has never taught authoritatively that one who dies unbaptized goes to heaven either.
NO one has ever taught that EVER. No Feeneyite can prove it, and none can show any who have taught it. The most they can show are the strong words of rigorists, of which I am one, but these are not Feeneyites.
Show me ANYone other than Fr. Feeney who taught the doctrines particular to Fr. Feeney.
I agreed with you Gregory, the Church has never taught authoritatively that one who dies unbaptized positively goes to heaven - not ever.
Aside from all that, if BOD means a person who sincerely desires baptism actually is assured of receiving it before he dies, then, I am a firm believer in BOD.
Please watch about the first minute and a half to see what I consider the premo example of a BOD. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6LHWyaeEHY This video perfectly exemplifies God's Mercy being personally fulfilled.
-
Gregory I wrote: rigorist... Feeneyite
Narrow minded bigotry.
Only Americans call my beliefs "Feeneyism". Where I come from, we are taught that ALL non-Catholics go to hell (EENS just as it is written, what could be clearer?). Anyone taught by Spaniard priests prior to the 1960's was taught the same, and the majority of Catholics in the world are Spanish (or Portuguese)speaking.
American Catholic bishops and "periti" brought us Vatican II (along with the Germanics), and all the rest of the garbage we have today. In South America all non-Catholic religions, by law, were not allowed to proselytize, or have any signs on their meeting places. In the USA, all Catholics have always been subdued by the Protestants, and had to lay low, and thus the clergy foisted upon the laity all this theological speculation, excuses for how non-Catholics are not all lost to hell. That's an American problem. Fr. Feeney would have had nothing to teach us in South America.
Call me a mad rigorist Spaniard if you wish, but learn something new about the world, and get off this never been out of the country "Feeneyite" labeling of anyone who for believes the clear dogmas as they are clearly written.
Actually, this conversation is entirely misdirected. The issue is not whether a rigorist interpretation of scripture is possible, nor whether certain saints and theologians held a rigorist position regarding baptism.
The absolute necessity of belief in Jesus Christ for salvation, and the necessity of baptism is what the New Testament is ALL about (Same goes for the Fathers of the Church). Saying it is a "rigorist' position is living in denial. What is not found in the New Testament, except by a contortionized mental gymnastics and defying the law of non-contradiction at every turn, is salvation by implicit faith in a God that rewards.
The CENTRAL issue in the Feeneyite discussion is this doctrine, which is UNIQUE to Fr. Feeney alone: The assertion that those who do NOT have the baptismal character WILL NOT persevere in any grace they may receive through their solemn vow to receive baptism. The Feeneyite does not deny a person may be justified by a desire to receive baptism. He plainly asserts a person may receive grace. What he denies, is that this person can persevere in this grace, and that the sacramental CHARACTER of baptism is an absolute and irreformable necessity for salvation:
This is the central issue with regard to the question of what happens to a catechumen who is justified before he receives baptism, but dies before he can be baptized. But that question is not even worth discussing, and never has been., since it affects numerically speaking, no one. I've never known anyone who had a relative who died as a catechumen, nor a martyr candidate for baptism of blood. All the discussion on a catechumen is just a smoke screen of the believers in the salvation of all non-Catholics who don't desire to be Catholics. and that’s the real central issue.
For the record, Fr. Feeney said that he does not know what happens to such a catechumen, and that neither do you. He basically said the same as St. Augustine concluded:
Fr. Feeney wrote:
Q. Can anyone now be saved without Baptism of Water?
A. No one can be saved without Baptism of Water.
Q. Are the souls of those who die in the state of justification saved, if they have not received Baptism of Water?
A. No. They are not saved.
Q. Where do these souls go if they die in the state of justification but have not received Baptism of Water?
A. I do not know.
Q. Do they go to Hell?
A. No.
Q. Do they go to Heaven?
A. No.
Q. Are there any such souls?
A. I do not know! Neither do you!
Q. What are we to say to those who believe there are such souls?
A. We must say to them that they are making reason prevail over Faith, and the laws of probability over the Providence of God.
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)
-
All the discussion on a catechumen is just a smoke screen of the believers in the salvation of all non-Catholics who don't desire to be Catholics, the believers in implicit faith in a God that rewards. AND That’s the real central issue.and thus the focus of my discussion when I get back from a Latin American style Christmas (like till February 1st!), will be the REAL CENTRAL ISSUE!
-
There is some inaccuracy here. Please refer to my previous message in this thread. A baptized child of 3, for example, may accidentally have wrong concepts of the Trinity, and may even still believe that God is one person. This means that the divine virtue of Faith is not strictly incompatible with accidentally believing explicitly erroneous concepts.
St. Alphonsus said it is a probable enough opinion that explicit belief in the Trinity and Incarnation is not a necessity of means, but merely a necessity of precept.
Well, he wouldn't have said "probable enough". Please quote him. "Probable" is a technical term in theology.
A 3 y/o hasn't the use of reason. We're talking about those with the use of reason.
-
Gertrude -- admonish your brother once or twice, as St. Paul said, and then move on.
Catholicism has reached a sad pass if all that drives the chat boards is the same interminable argument.
-
Notes on the rubrics of the Roman ritual: regarding the sacraments in general, ...
By Rev. James O'Kane, Senior Dean, St. Patrick's College, Maynooth (1886):
431. II. He must believe in the doctrines of the Trinity and of the Incarnation. An explicit belief in these articles is held by many theologians to be, since the promulgation of the Gospel, equally necessary with the preceding. This opinion seems the more probable to St. Liguori, but he admits, as probable enough, the opinion of others who maintain that the explicit belief of these articles is not necessary, necessitate medii, but only necessitate praecepti.
Well I can't speak for O'Kane, but I think that's using the term as a moralist would use it, to highlight that the opinion has enough theological probability to make it morally defensible to hold and even teach it. You would do better to get a theology manual if you want to study these things.
In itself the term "probable" means something radically different from the use of it in English. It doesn't mean "likely to be true" as it does in English. It refers to two distinct factors, extrinsic and intrinsic, either of which contribute to the "weight" of an opinion. The intrinsic factors are the proofs of the doctrine - i.e. whether it is taught by authority (i.e. the popes, the councils, or the bishops generally), and/or whether it is derived from authoritative teaching by one or more steps of reasoning (the fewer the more secure the conclusion). The extrinsic factors are the reputation or weight of the doctors who maintain the opinion. For example, something held by three Doctors of the Church and opposed only by a number of ordinary doctors (i.e. theologians), would be considered to have great extrinsic probability.
So you would not normally see a phrase like "probable enough" as a reference to truth or error, rather it could only be a way of describing the moral status of a doctrine, as I've already explained.
Returning to St. Alphonsus, I'd like to see what he actually says. If I recall, he holds that the opinion of St. Thomas is true and the more probable, and the opposite opinion has little probability intrinsically, but because of the number of theologians who maintain it, must be granted a certain extrinsic probability. In practice this means we cannot condemn those who hold or teach it, and this is because the Church does not condemn them. It does not mean that the doctrine is likely to be true. It has no bearing on that question, directly. St. Alphonsus doesn't think it likely to be true, he thinks it's an error, it's wrong.
And, about the 3-year old. I certainly am aware of the use of reason (which is roughly considered to be by the age of 7, and perhaps a little earlier for girls). This has nothing to do with the principle. If the divine virtue of faith can exist in a state of ignorance, it proves it exists in a state of ignorance.
Well the divine virtue of faith can indeed exist concomitantly with grave error, because of ignorance. But that's not the same thing as the claim you are making. Somebody without the use of reason cannot profess the faith at all, and profession of faith is required by those with the use of reason for salvation. It is this factor that we are discussing.
The answer to Nadie on implicit faith is that implicit faith implies explicit faith, and explicit faith is Catholic Faith, by definition. In other words, there is no problem with admitting the concept of implicit faith in the question of salvation, because it does not suggest, indeed it cannot by the very nature of the concept, exclude the requirement for explicit faith.
Nadie doesn't follow this reasoning because he thinks like a journalist, not a theologian. He is worried where things "lead" instead of whether they are true. There's nothing can be done with somebody that disastrously wrong in his very thinking machinery.
-
Gregory I wrote:
In addition, NO one except Fr. Feeney has ever taught at any time that a person who dies in a state of grace without the sacramental character of baptism will NOT go to heaven. This is EXACTLY what he taught. He taught a person may be justified (sanctifying grace alone justifies) without baptism, and yet die unbaptized and not go to heaven.
Actually, this isn't true. Father Feeney never said he knew where such a person went or even whether such a person exists. What is clear is that water Baptism and the Catholic Faith are necessary for salvation.