Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => The Feeneyism Ghetto => Topic started by: CM on August 12, 2009, 03:38:25 PM
-
The Church Fathers had preached countless sermons to the faithful in the early years of Christianity, and sometimes proposed theories that a catechumen might be able to attain eternal life without actually having received baptism, or rather by being baptized spiritually after they had died, so long as their lack of baptism was not due to their own negligence in acquiring the sacrament. It is important to note, however, that even if all these Fathers at one point held to this belief, it was never taught so constantly and so uniformly as to constitute Divine revelation, and many of these Fathers also taught the opposite on several occasions - that unbaptized catechumens were on the road to hell, irrevocably, save for the sacrament of baptism. If baptism of desire or baptism of blood were Divinely revealed contents of the deposit of faith, then they would be heretics for ever teaching the absolute necessity of water baptism.
Now it happens that these theories, know today as baptism of desire and baptism of blood, are in fact not true. After the Patristic Era, the Church made a series of several dogmatic decrees, which eliminated any lawful belief in baptism of desire, or baptism of blood.
Let us see what the Solemn Magisterium has to say, starting with the most recent decrees.
Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council, Solemn Profession of Faith, AD 1870, ex cathedra: "I, Pius, bishop of the Catholic Church, with firm faith believe and profess [...] that there are seven sacraments of the new law, truly and properly so called, instituted by our lord Jesus Christ and necessary for salvation, though each person need not receive them all."
The pope, from the Chair of St. Peter, is professing and defining the religion that he is the head of, and anyone claiming the name Christian who rejects any part of his profession is a heretic.
Pope Pius IX professes that sacraments are required for salvation, though each person need not receive them ALL. So it clearly follows that at least one sacrament must be received.
Note that he did not say, "necessary for salvation, though each person need not ACTUALLY PHYSICALLY receive them," but this is the position that baptism of desire people argue. However baptism of desire is NOT a sacrament, nor is there any true and natural water involved.
Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Session VII, Canons on Baptism, Canon II, AD 1547, ex cathedra: "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."
So the sacrament of baptism is dogmatically defined as being the sacrament of water baptism. Not spiritual water, not heavenly water, but pure and natural water, and in this, the Council simply echoed a previously defined dogma.
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Session 8, AD 1439, ex cathedra: "Holy baptism holds the first place among all the sacraments, for it is the gate of the spiritual life; through it we become members of Christ and of the body of the church. Since death came into the world through one person, unless we are born again of water and the spirit, we cannot, as Truth says, enter the kingdom of heaven. The matter of this sacrament is true and natural water, either hot or cold. The form is: I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy Spirit."
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Session 8, AD 1439, ex cathedra:All these sacraments are made up of three elements: namely, things as the matter, words as the form, and the person of the minister who confers the sacrament with the intention of doing what the church does. If any of these is lacking, the sacrament is not effected."
Matter (water), form (the words) and minister (someone to speak the words and apply the water) must be present, or there is no sacrament effected.
Similarly, nobody who has not yet been baptized in water, can possibly attain sanctification, justification or salvation, even if they shed blood in the name of Christ:
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Session 11, AD 1442, ex cathedra: "It firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Catholic Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the church's sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia produce eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed his blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church."
Pope Clement V, Council of Vienne, AD 1311-1313, ex cathedra: "All are faithfully to profess that there is one baptism which regenerates all those baptized in Christ, just as there is one God and one faith'. We believe that when baptism is administered in water in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy Spirit, it is a perfect means of salvation for both adults and children."
So there is only ONE baptism, baptism in water, that regenerates ALL who are baptized in Christ. Baptism in water is a perfect means of salvation (in that it remits all guilt and temporal punishment due to sin, as opposed to penance, for example which is an imperfect means, remitting only the guilt, but not the punishment of the sins confessed).
Baptism of desire heretics try to argue that if baptism of desire really were heresy, then this means that the Church Fathers were heretics. This is not so at all, rather this simply manifests the nature of humanity, that we are capable of falling into errors, and that it is only God who can provide the light we need to see clearly, especially in matters relating to faith. And this light, He does indeed provide, in accordance with His promise to St. Peter and the Apostles.
St. Luke 22:31-32: "And the Lord said: Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren."
St. John 16:13: "But when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will teach you all truth. For he shall not speak of himself; but what things soever he shall hear, he shall speak; and the things that are to come, he shall shew you."
Acts of the Apostles 1:8: "But you shall receive the power of the Holy Ghost coming upon you, and you shall be witnesses unto me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and Samaria, and even to the uttermost part of the earth."
God provides this light by the ex cathedra decrees of the Holy See.
Without faith in Jesus Christ, nobody is saved, and no person who is yet unbaptized has this faith.
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Session 11, AD 1442, ex cathedra: "It firmly believes, professes and preaches that never was anyone, conceived by a man and a woman, liberated from the devil's dominion except by faith in our lord Jesus Christ"
Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Session VI, Decree on Justification, Chapter VII, AD 1547, ex cathedra: "This faith, catechumens beg of the Church - agreeably to a tradition of the apostles - previously to the sacrament of Baptism."
St. Thomas Aquinas died after the Patristic Era and before the decrees of the Holy See, which rendered his erroneous doctrine heretical.
-
St. Thomas Aquinas died after the Patristic Era and before the decrees of the Holy See, which rendered his erroneous doctrine heretical.
And NOBODY noticed until now? Get real, CM.
-
St. Thomas Aquinas died after the Patristic Era and before the decrees of the Holy See, which rendered his erroneous doctrine heretical.
And NOBODY noticed until now? Get real, CM.
These are quick investigations on my part. Full investigations would likely take months, but I feel these at least scratch the surface.
I welcome amicable discussion.
Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council, Solemn Profession of Faith, AD 1870, ex cathedra: "I, Pius, bishop of the Catholic Church, with firm faith believe and profess [...] that there are seven sacraments of the new law, truly and properly so called, instituted by our lord Jesus Christ and necessary for salvation, though each person need not receive them all."
The pope, from the Chair of St. Peter, is professing and defining the religion that he is the head of, and anyone claiming the name Christian who rejects any part of his profession is a heretic.
Pope Pius IX professes that sacraments are required for salvation, though each person need not receive them ALL. So it clearly follows that at least one sacrament must be received.
Assumption on CM's part. If, for example, a table is set with 7 different meals, and I say 'I do not need to eat them all', does it follow that I absolutely, without a doubt, must eat one of the meals? No, It follows I may eat some, may eat all, or I may eat none. None of the possibilities are ruled out.
Now, the argument has been made that since the sacraments are necessary for salvation, we require at the least one. Fair enough. If I insert the requirement into my prior statement, stating that a meal is necessary for survival, again does it follow that not eating the meal will result in my death? No, the result of death will be whatever my body is not afforded by the meal, the nutrients.
The sacraments are required for salvation, not because of their form, but because of their fruit. None can enter heaven without the grace and remission of original sin afforded by baptism, and baptism by desire or blood would provide the sacramental effects of baptism in water. Pius is in no way made a liar, nor do we contradict the infallible words of the Holy Spirit.
Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Session VII, Canons on Baptism, Canon II, AD 1547, ex cathedra: "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."
So the sacrament of baptism is dogmatically defined as being the sacrament of water baptism. Not spiritual water, not heavenly water, but pure and natural water, and in this, the Council simply echoed a previously defined dogma.
Notice, with careful reading of all the Canons of Baptism, several are dealing specifically with the rite of baptism, as performed by the Church. For example,
Canon 11. If anyone says that baptism, truly and rightly administered, must be repeated in the one converted to repentance after having denied the faith of Christ among the infidels, let him be anathema.
I assert that this deals specifically with the rite of baptism as it is to be performed by the Church. No valid baptism performed by man can be done without water. This is consistent with the foreword, which declares "...in order to destroy the errors and extirpate the heresies that in our stormy times are directed against the most holy sacraments, some of which are a revival of heresies long ago condemned by our Fathers, while others are of recent origin...", as Baptism by Desire and Blood has never been condemned by the Fathers, and the heresy of John Calvin and Martin Luther that water was of no necessity to the sacramental rite, which was of recent origin.
-
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Session 8, AD 1439, ex cathedra: "Holy baptism holds the first place among all the sacraments, for it is the gate of the spiritual life; through it we become members of Christ and of the body of the church. Since death came into the world through one person, unless we are born again of water and the spirit, we cannot, as Truth says, enter the kingdom of heaven. The matter of this sacrament is true and natural water, either hot or cold. The form is: I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy Spirit."
Notice again that we are dealing with the rite of baptism as performed by the Church. Florence shows us this explicitly. "... The matter of this sacrament is true and natural water, either hot or cold. The form is: I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy Spirit...".
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Session 8, AD 1439, ex cathedra:All these sacraments are made up of three elements: namely, things as the matter, words as the form, and the person of the minister who confers the sacrament with the intention of doing what the church does. If any of these is lacking, the sacrament is not effected."
Matter (water), form (the words) and minister (someone to speak the words and apply the water) must be present, or there is no sacrament effected.
Notice, once again, Florence is dealing specifically with the rite of baptism as performed by the Church. CM's reasoning only follows if a sacrament must be supplied visibly, but as demonstrated above, Pius cannot be definitely said to have defined it as such.
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Session 11, AD 1442, ex cathedra: "It firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Catholic Church before the end of their lives;
True
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Session 11, AD 1442, ex cathedra:that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the church's sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia produce eternal rewards;
True
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Session 11, AD 1442, ex cathedra:and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed his blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church."
True. Pay close attention to the words used, specifically 'preserved', which, when understood properly, assumes that one has already entered into the Church. This fit's in perfectly with the tradition of the Church for those who leave the truth of Catholicism for something else.
-
Pope Clement V, Council of Vienne, AD 1311-1313, ex cathedra: "All are faithfully to profess that there is one baptism which regenerates all those baptized in Christ, just as there is one God and one faith'. We believe that when baptism is administered in water in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy Spirit, it is a perfect means of salvation for both adults and children."
So there is only ONE baptism, baptism in water, that regenerates ALL who are baptized in Christ. Baptism in water is a perfect means of salvation (in that it remits all guilt and temporal punishment due to sin, as opposed to penance, for example which is an imperfect means, remitting only the guilt, but not the punishment of the sins confessed).
The rite of baptism performed by the Church, in water, is the perfect means of salvation for both adults and children. Vienne did not say the only means. And if one raises issue with 'there is one baptism', we also understand 'there is one God' in a similar fashion.
Without faith in Jesus Christ, nobody is saved, and no person who is yet unbaptized has this faith.
With the exception of the Saint's who have been declared baptized in their blood. I should say though, CM believes these to be fallible declarations.
I find it curious no pope has corrected this error which has been leading us into such a grave heresy, for over 1500 years. Such negligence is not becoming of the Church.
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Session 11, AD 1442, ex cathedra: "It firmly believes, professes and preaches that never was anyone, conceived by a man and a woman, liberated from the devil's dominion except by faith in our lord Jesus Christ"
Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Session VI, Decree on Justification, Chapter VII, AD 1547, ex cathedra: "This faith, catechumens beg of the Church - agreeably to a tradition of the apostles - previously to the sacrament of Baptism."
What faith is the catechumen begging? We need to define faith here, or we risk a circular impossibility.
Faith is required, firstly, to desire baptism. No catechumen will come to baptism without first having faith in the sacrament and God. If he has not faith, he will have no desire, and thus, the sacrament itself is invalid. Baptism, in this sense, cannot provide that faith
The faith the catechumen begs of the Church is not the faith to believe, but the faith which contains the truth, the Catholic faith. They beg of the church to give to them this truth, and, as has been historically noted and agreeable to tradition of the church, a period of teaching and preparation precedes baptism. Additionally, this explains why the faith must be united with charity and hope. This faith, the Catholic faith, without hope and charity, will afford you nothing. Proclaiming to be Catholic without practicing Catholicism, in a sense.
-
The rite of baptism performed by the Church, in water, is the perfect means of salvation for both adults and children. Vienne did not say the only means.
The decree is clear: ALL who are baptized in Christ are baptized in natural water, according to the form of the Church. So you are saying that someone can be saved who is NOT baptized in Christ - not baptized according to the matter and form laid out in this decree.
The faith the catechumen begs of the Church is not the faith to believe, but the faith which contains the truth, the Catholic faith. They beg of the church to give to them this truth, and, as has been historically noted and agreeable to tradition of the church, a period of teaching and preparation precedes baptism. Additionally, this explains why the faith must be united with charity and hope. This faith, the Catholic faith, without hope and charity, will afford you nothing. Proclaiming to be Catholic without practicing Catholicism, in a sense.
One may believe by natural reason, but without supernatural faith there is NO divine charity, which alone can produce perfect contrition in a soul. The faith that catechumens beg of the Church is the faith that SAVES.
No other means of entering the Catholic Church has ever been declared by God than the sacrament of baptism. It is a dogma that all who die outside the Catholic Church go to hell (as Florence says). They must be baptized before the end of their lives.
No other means of cleansing original sin has ever been declared by God than the sacrament of baptism, and it is a dogma that all who die in original sin go to hell (as Florence says). They must be baptized before the end of their lives.
Florence, ex cathedra: ...But the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go down straightaway to hell...
St. Mark 16:16: "He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be condemned."
Notice, with careful reading of all the Canons of Baptism, several are dealing specifically with the rite of baptism, as performed by the Church... I assert that this deals specifically with the rite of baptism as it is to be performed by the Church.
VERY GOOD!!! I assert that you are RIGHT!!!
Now apply that to all the Canons!
Canon 2: "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."
Canon 5: "If any one saith, that baptism is free, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema."
The rite of the sacrament of baptism employed by the Church, according to the correct matter and form, IS NECESSARY FOR SALVATION!
True. Pay close attention to the words used, specifically 'preserved', which, when understood properly, assumes that one has already entered into the Church. This fit's in perfectly with the tradition of the Church for those who leave the truth of Catholicism for something else.
No, it's not preserve, it's persevere. And you cannot persevere in something if you never partake of it in the first place.
-
Canon 2: "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."
Canon 5: "If any one saith, that baptism is free, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema."
The rite of the sacrament of baptism employed by the Church, according to the correct matter and form, IS NECESSARY FOR SALVATION!
Trent was refuted the Protestant opinion on baptism, it wasn't denying the possibility of baptism of desire. On the contrary, it explicitly taught the possibility. You continue to do violence to the text. The irony here is that you've fallen into mortal sins against the faith and if you don't repent, you'll lose your salvation.
-
No other means of cleansing original sin has ever been declared by God than the sacrament of baptism, and it is a dogma that all who die in original sin go to hell (as Florence says).
Uh, for 4000+ years people WERE being justified (i.e. cleansed of original sin), no? :wink:
-
Since the promulgation of the Gospel.
-
Trent was refuting the Protestant opinion on baptism, it wasn't denying the possibility of baptism of desire. On the contrary, it explicitly taught the possibility...
Hey, don't confuse us with the facts, man!
-
Mr. Shea, denial of an infallible statement is heresy, and that's a fact.
-
Since the promulgation of the Gospel.
Je comprend, monsieur. However, you must at least admit that such cleansing IS possible, strictly speaking - i.e., God can obviously accomplish such - apart from the use of water, which He created out of nothing, and a certain formula that He instituted for His own purposes?
-
Sorry..."Je comprends..."
-
Mr. Shea, denial of an infallible statement is heresy, and that's a fact.
One which I do not dispute. Misunderstanding of an infallible statement may not be heresy, but it tends to lead to it as night follows day.
-
Since the promulgation of the Gospel.
Je comprend, monsieur. However, you must at least admit that such cleansing IS possible, strictly speaking - i.e., God can obviously accomplish such - apart from the use of water, which He created out of nothing, and a certain formula that He instituted for His own purposes?
As I have asserted before (on my blog, except it was about whether or not God could have created rational aliens on other planets), I fully admit that according to His Divinity, God can accomplish all things soever.
However, God, being Perfect Justice, will never do anything contrary to justice. In fact, He so binds Himself to justice that even in His own humanity, though He needed it not for Himself, He commanded that St. John the Baptist baptize Him nevertheless.
St. Matthew 3:13-15: "Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to the Jordan, unto John, to be baptized by him. But John stayed him, saying: I ought to be baptized by thee, and comest thou to me? And Jesus answering, said to him: Suffer it to be so now. For so it becometh us to fulfill all justice. Then he suffered him."
After Vienne, we cannot lawfully assert that a person may be saved who is not baptized in real natural water.
He also oathed himself to the statement he makes in St. John 3:5, and the Catholic Church has put this verse forth in several decrees touching on the necessity of baptism in water for salvation and membership in the Church.
Florence is particularly telling in this regard.
Uh, for 4000+ years people WERE being justified (i.e. cleansed of original sin), no? :wink:
Now that you mention it - if they were being cleansed of original sin, then why did Christ come? Why were they detained in the Limbo of the Fathers?
-
...by the way, Irish, do you speak French?
-
Now that you mention it - if they were being cleansed of original sin, then why did Christ come? Why were they detained in the Limbo of the Fathers?
You can't have it both ways, mate. If they died with original sin upon their souls, they could NOT be justified after death. See your citation from the Council of Florence. What do you even understand justification to mean pre-Gospel (or even post-Gospel)? St John the Baptist died before Our Lord. Did he die with original sin upon his soul? St Joseph? They were detained in Limbo because no one could enter Heaven until Christ paid the debt in actu, not just in potentia - and He, rightly, was to be the first to enter into His own kingdom. Btw, to be without original sin is NOT, strictly speaking, the same as being filled with divine grace.
That you think you may have made some kind of point with the above comment is rather telling.
-
...by the way, Irish, do you speak French?
I know a little.
-
...if they were being cleansed of original sin, then why did Christ come? Why were they detained in the Limbo of the Fathers?
You are, effectively, positing the idea of an OT BoD-style of justification that takes place AFTER DEATH. Isn't that ironic?
If NO ONE was being cleansed of original sin pre-Incarnation, ALL who lived and died before the Passion/Resurrection/preaching of the Gospel, etc, ARE IN HELL, no?
-
Umm, didn't everything change with Christ? So, that what happened before Christ no longer pertained as he instituted the sacraments. And, God would not punish persons like St. John for one, he was santified in the womb by Christ's passion and two Christ had not made the sacraments so they could not be baptised. Then, Christ begain the Church and the sacraments and one must be bapitzed.
-
The rite of baptism performed by the Church, in water, is the perfect means of salvation for both adults and children. Vienne did not say the only means.
The decree is clear: ALL who are baptized in Christ are baptized in natural water, according to the form of the Church. So you are saying that someone can be saved who is NOT baptized in Christ - not baptized according to the matter and form laid out in this decree.
I'm not sure what you call that kind of accusation, but I said no such thing and you took a meaning no one but yourself would pull from it.
Vienne first asserts..
All are faithfully to profess that there is one baptism which regenerates all those baptized in Christ, just as there is one God and one faith'.
I agree. The baptism is the baptism instituted by Christ. Baptism regenerates all baptized in Christ.
We believe that when baptism is administered in water in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy Spirit, it is a perfect means of salvation for both adults and children.
Again, I agree. baptism in water is the perfect means to effect the salvation of adults and children. Again I say that it is not the only way, and neither does Vienne.
One may believe by natural reason, but without supernatural faith there is NO divine charity, which alone can produce perfect contrition in a soul. The faith that catechumens beg of the Church is the faith that SAVES.
Could you provide me with an article which expounds your understanding of supernatural faith? All I can find are evangelical and protestant perspectives on such a word/term.
Notice, with careful reading of all the Canons of Baptism, several are dealing specifically with the rite of baptism, as performed by the Church... I assert that this deals specifically with the rite of baptism as it is to be performed by the Church.
VERY GOOD!!! I assert that you are RIGHT!!!
Now apply that to all the Canons!
Canon 2: "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."
Canon 5: "If any one saith, that baptism is free, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema."
The rite of the sacrament of baptism employed by the Church, according to the correct matter and form, IS NECESSARY FOR SALVATION!
Again, no. You are interpreting with your schismatic agenda. Refer to my explanation of Pius. The same logic applies here.
True. Pay close attention to the words used, specifically 'preserved', which, when understood properly, assumes that one has already entered into the Church. This fit's in perfectly with the tradition of the Church for those who leave the truth of Catholicism for something else.
No, it's not preserve, it's persevere. And you cannot persevere in something if you never partake of it in the first place.
So you agree with my point, despite my typo?
-
Beliefe in BOD is not new. It is ancient. It existed before eastern schism. I asked an orthodox bishop about it, he said that they believe in :
1-water baptism.
2-blood baptism for those who believe in Jesus, but are killed before they can have #1
3-baptism of desire:-blood baptism for those who believe in Jesus, but die before they can have #1
-
That you think you may have made some kind of point with the above comment is rather telling.
What? I was asking a question, not making a point. I did some reading about Old Testament justification, and couldn't find anywhere that a cause for was declared.
-
You can't have it both ways, mate. If they died with original sin upon their souls, they could NOT be justified after death. See your citation from the Council of Florence.
It says all those who die, not all those who died. Present tense, not past tense.
-
As Dawn said, the rules have changed with the advent of the Gospel. Getting into Old Testament justification is neither necessary (since it is no longer relevant) or prudent (since the answers are nowhere to be found).
The Catholic Church teaches that the legal prescriptions of the Mosaic Law are obsolete, but they were at one point adequate for salvation.
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Session 11, 1442: "It firmly believes, professes and teaches that the legal prescriptions of the Old Testament or the Mosaic Law, which are divided into ceremonies, holy sacrifices and sacraments, because they were instituted to signify something in the future, although they were adequate for the divine cult of that age, once our Lord Jesus Christ who was signified by them had come, came to an end and the sacraments of the New Testament had their beginning."
-
Umm, didn't everything change with Christ? So, that what happened before Christ no longer pertained as he instituted the sacraments.
Yes, but the same principles apply. In God, there is neither shadow of change nor alteration. He operates in the same way, always, despite the fact that he uses different instruments at different moments.
The point is: People WERE being justified outside of the sacramentally-prefiguring Mosaic prescriptions.
By calling it all "irrelevant" or "imprudent" is simply ducking the question. St John, for example, was certainly justified in his mother's womb, not through circuмcision (which was gfranted efficacy with a view to, and through, Christ's merits), although he would undoubtedly have been circuмcised when born.
-
I did some reading about Old Testament justification, and couldn't find anywhere that a cause for was declared.
It is not necessary to do extra reading to realize the cause for ANY justification, at ANY time post-Fall, is the merits of Christ Crucified. It is all just a question of how those merits are applied.
-
Umm, didn't everything change with Christ?
Actually, all was perfected. That which served as a prefiguration passed away when the reality arrived.
"I came not to destroy the Law, but to fulfill it."
-
Getting into Old Testament justification is neither necessary (since it is no longer relevant) or prudent (since the answers are nowhere to be found).
If you think it is remotely possible that ALL people were dying without being justified, but SOME were hanging out in Limbo in said state, and were subsequently justified post-mortem, "getting into OT justification" is rather necessary.
-
The Catholic Church teaches that the legal prescriptions of the Mosaic Law are obsolete...
Thanks for clarifying that one. :wink:
-
It says all those who die, not all those who died. Present tense, not past tense.
I understand the concept of verb tenses very well, CM. So, are you arguing that (sans infallible decree), pre-Gospel and/or pre-Florence people might have been able to die unjustified, yet receive justification post-mortem? Do we need an ex cathedra decree about it all to realize the truth of the matter? HeL-Lo-O!!!
-
What I am saying is what I have said.
Getting into Old Testament justification is neither necessary (since it is no longer relevant) or prudent (since the answers are nowhere to be found).
-
What I am saying is what I have said.
No offense, but you are clearly avoiding the subject because your understanding of the matter, and it importance, is non-existent.
Have you ever read How Christ Said the First Mass? It is NOT irrelevant or imprudent to study the ins and outs of the old dispensation. It is actually quite fascinating and fruitful. It is AMAZING how wonderfully ALL was prefigured in often sublime ways.
-
Alright, I have come to an understanding regarding Old Testament justification, thanks to St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas and the Catholic Encyclopedia.
As far as I understand it, circuмcision remitted original sin and actual sin, but not the punishment due to sin. This was performed ex opere operantis based on faith in Christ to come.
If this can be shown to be wrong I will, of course, amend my position. If it is right, however, it in no way exonerates your heresy.
-
If it is right, however, it in no way exonerates your heresy.
Your graciousness overwhelms me, CM. :wink:
All the same, I am glad to see that you eventually decided to "waste your time" doing a little more study on the matter, 'irrelevant and imprudent' though it seemed at first sight.
There is much we think is one way that, upon investigation, turns out to be very different from our initial impression/idea. The older we get, the more clearly we see this fact of life.
-
The older we get, the more clearly we see this fact of life.
Tell that to my mother who is in the Novus Ordo.
-
Tell that to my mother who is in the Novus Ordo.
So is mine. Still, I bet she knows quite a bit about life that you do not and has valuable advice from which you can profit if you listen.
-
You don't know her. I should have never brought her up. She has no wisdom let's leave it at that.
-
She has no wisdom...
You should not have said such, leaving it all behind with the statement that you should not have mentioned her in the first place. She is your MOM, man!
-
And my grandmother is Anglican. Should I say that she has wisdom just because she's my grandmother?
Non-Catholics do not have anything but vain worldly 'wisdom', which leads straight to hell. The only true wisdom comes from God, and only this can illuminate them and get them off the broad and slippery downhill slope.
-
I love them both and I want them to be saved, but if they go to hell, there will be nothing in them left to love. Only eternal hatred of God.
-
I say this in all kindness, but...
You have some issues, seeing things through an entirely-too-dark lens.
-
Non-Catholics do not have anything but vain worldly 'wisdom', which leads straight to hell.
So, you believe your mother, grandmother, et alii, have NOTHING of worth to share with you? No non-Catholic can give you any practical advice of any value about anything?
Get out of the house, man. Go watch a movie that makes you cry because you laugh so hard, take a walk in the woods, go to dinner or coffee with a woman who makes your heart miss a beat, SOMETHING!!
-
Gladius, you seem to be of the opinion that this world is not our enemy.
-
So, you believe your mother, grandmother, et alii, have NOTHING of worth to share with you?
They pose a danger to my soul. Scripture exhorts us to avoid the, Tradition exhorts us to avoid them, the Lord Jesus Christ exhorts us to shake the dust from our feet for a testimony to them.
No non-Catholic can give you any practical advice of any value about anything?
Vain worldly wisdom. Did you miss that? They cannot offer valuable spiritual wisdom, since they are spiritual poison until they repent and convert, and ultimately the only thing of any real practical value is spiritual wisdom.
"Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this world? Hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?"
-
Gladius, you seem to be of the opinion that this world is not our enemy.
If that is how you read my words, I cannot help you.
I said that people learn, as the years go by, that their initial perspectives are incorrect or, at the least, often incomplete [which is a perfectly TRUE and utterly INNOCUOUS statement]. You, Capitaine de Spaire, morphed that simple, innocent and true comment into a diatribe, however short and mild, against your mother and grandmother, as well as any natural wisdom whatsoever.
-
Get out of the house, man. Go watch a movie that makes you cry because you laugh so hard, take a walk in the woods, go to dinner or coffee with a woman who makes your heart miss a beat, SOMETHING!!
What kind of advice is this? Worldly advice. And why? Because I hold the salvation dogma, and refuse communion with heretics and apostates?
-
Hey I don't know what kind of impression you get from me.
When I go to work, I have a good time. I joke and laugh with the people I work with (maybe a bit too much, I don't know), but they all know that I won't 'hang out' with them outside of work, they know that I believe they're on the road to hell, until they convert. They also know that they are more than welcome to my time, if they want to learn the Catholic Faith.
But they are all evil enemies of God. It's only just to recognize this.
-
But they are all evil enemies of God. It's only just to recognize this.
But you are NOT being unjust when you throw your own mother under the bus, saying, effectively, she knows NADA that can help you in ANY way?
Again, you have issues - rather serious ones. Somewhat happily, anyone who reads this thread can see that as plainly as they see the light of the sun. I pray that one day you will see it, too.
-
Don't you understand? The words of the Gospel are clear. There are those who are with Christ and those who are against Him. My mother is against Him. She is a heretic, who needs to convert before death, or she will go to hell. As such I cannot associate with her. To do so would be to tacitly consent to her false religion.
I was raised to be an apostate by apostate parents.
What would you have me do? Say that she can give me advice because she's a couple decades older than me?
Advice about what Gladius?
I fully acknowledge that she could teach me how to sew. She taught me how to eat healthy. I'm grateful for those things, sure. But these are of no value for salvation, which is the chief interest of any wise person.
She also taught me that there is a God, but she directed me to the wrong one, a false 'jesus christ'. She is still worshiping her false god. She is spiritually poisoned and I REFUSE to expose myself to this.
Again, you have issues - rather serious ones. Somewhat happily, anyone who reads this thread can see that as plainly as they see the light of the sun.
Anybody who reads this thread can see that I love my parents enough to admonish them for being heretics, and to abstain from communion with them. If I were to pretend nothing was wrong, I would be a scandal to them, leading them to think that I don't really believe they are on the road to hell. THAT would be unjust, and a mortal sin of omission.
Because they are heretics, I cannot have dinner with them, I cannot be buddy buddy with them, all I can do is wait for them to call me up and say "David we want to talk about the Catholic Faith, we want to convert,"
I have tried more times than I probably should to get them to listen to reason, but they are the most obstinate people I know. When they are faced with questions they cannot answer, they revert to emotion and rationality flies out the window. It makes no more sense for me to keep trying to convert them, and it would be utterly foolish to pretend that nothing is wrong.
Don't you know Gladius, that Scripture warns us to be vigilant against the enemies of God?
The only interaction any person should have with heretics and apostates, pagans or Jews is the bare minimum that is necessary to get through each day, until they show signs of good will and a desire to convert.
This is the Catholic position.
2 St. John 1:9-10: "Whosoever revolteth, and continueth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that continueth in the doctrine, the same hath both the Father and the Son. If any man come to you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into the house nor say to him, God speed you."
1 Corinthians 5:11 "But now I have written to you, not to keep company, if any man that is named a brother, be a fornicator, or covetous, or a server of idols, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner: with such a one, not so much as to eat."
St. Matthew 10:34-37 "Do not think that I came to send peace upon earth: I came not to send peace, but the sword. For I came to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's enemies shall be they of his own household. He that loveth father or mother more than me, is not worthy of me; and he that loveth son or daughter more than me, is not worthy of me."
St. Mark 6:11: "And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you; going forth from thence, shake off the dust from your feet for a testimony to them. "
Titus 3:10-11: "A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, avoid: Knowing that he, that is such an one, is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned by his own judgment."
St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Communication with Excommunicated Persons:
"On the contrary, It is written (1 Corinthians 5:11): "With such an one not so much as to eat."
I answer that, Excommunication is twofold: there is minor excommunication, which deprives a man merely of a share in the sacraments, but not of the communion of the faithful. Wherefore it is lawful to communicate with a person lying under an excommunication of this kind, but not to give him the sacraments. The other is major excommunication which deprives a man of the sacraments of the Church and of the communion of the faithful. Wherefore it is not lawful to communicate with one who lies under such an excommunication. But, since the Church resorts to excommunication to repair and not to destroy, exception is made from this general law, in certain matters wherein communication is lawful, viz. in those which concern salvation, for one is allowed to speak of such matters with an excommunicated person;[ie; try to convert them] and one may even speak of other matters so as to put him at his ease and to make the words of salvation more acceptable. Moreover exception is made in favor of certain people whose business it is to be in attendance on the excommunicated person, viz. his wife, child, slave, vassal or subordinate. This, however, is to be understood of children who have not attained their majority, else they are forbidden to communicate with their father: and as to the others, the exception applies to them if they have entered his service before his excommunication, but not if they did so afterwards."
-
I was raised to be an apostate by apostate parents.
Now all I can do is show them the proper example, by exhorting them to convert out of their apostasy like I have, but they are too stuck in the mire of the world to do it.
-
Anybody who reads this thread can see that I love my parents enough to admonish them for being heretics, and to abstain from communion with them...
"...I answer that, Excommunication is twofold: there is minor excommunication...[and]...major excommunication..."
Do you understand what it means to actually be excommunicated, as in BY DECREE, etc? This is what St Thomas is speaking about in the quote you provided. You are mixing it all up, throwing away any opportunity to be of any truly good example to your parents (or anyone else).
You call people heretics left and right, yet you know NOTHING of their interior disposition. In days so wild as these, material heretics abound. To presume that ALL are also formal, as you clearly do, is so contrary to charity, and even common sense, I say again: You view things through a far too dark lens.
-
She taught me how to eat healthy. I'm grateful...sure. But these are of no value for salvation, which is the chief interest of any wise person.
Well, gratitude is GOOD, even when it pertains to merely natural matters. Btw, grace BUILDS UPON nature; it does not DESTROY it.
Eating in a healthy way can be more connected to salvation than you might think, as the operations of the soul depend upon the body in one manner or another, although it is certainly not everything.
The subjection of body to spirit is not about destroying nature. It is about curbing unruly passions so as bring the body into a proper subjection to the soul. Oddly enough, those infected with Calvinist/Manichean/Jansenist mentality always get it wrong, seeking to destroy the very nature they NEED in order to be super-naturalized in any way.
-
Do you understand what it means to actually be excommunicated, as in BY DECREE, etc?
Get real. You're basically saying, then, that nobody is ever subject to latae sententiae, automatic excommunication, or you're saying that we cannot know for certainty that a person has been subject to it, or that even if we can know, we are not bound to treat them this way (by admonition and avoidance).
A person claiming to be Catholic, and believing the Athanasian Creed, goes to an 'Eastern Orthodox' service with a friend once every two months. Is the person excommunicated, Gladius?
Why or why not? And are we allowed to pray and worship with the person while we know he is resolved to continue going to the 'Orthodox' service with his friend?
grace BUILDS UPON nature; it does not DESTROY it
I never stated contrary to this, don't try to twist my words.
-
A person claiming to be Catholic, and believing the Athanasian Creed
Or do you think this is a contradiction?
-
grace BUILDS UPON nature; it does not DESTROY it
I never stated contrary to this, don't try to twist my words.
I never said you DID state it, CM (talk about "twisting" words). However, you entire attitude clearly shows you see things too darkly.
You called the advice to take a walk in the woods - something St Bernard, and all of humanity besides, took as quite good for the soul - "worldly", as if I told you to go to a strip bar.
You NEED decent, wholesome recreation - a lot of it. You need the light of life and love to shine upon your darkness (which you, mistakenly, take for light).
-
Why do you think it "worldly" to go outside, or walk in the woods, or take innocent pleasure in a funny movie, or enjoy, in a wholesome manner, the company of a beautiful woman?
Are these things the same as time spent in mental prayer, the use of the discipline, etc? No, but the bow and string cannot always be stretched. Eventually they will break.
-
You NEED decent, wholesome recreation - a lot of it. You need the light of life and love to shine upon your darkness (which you, mistakenly, take for light).
Sir, you are making assumptions. I have wholesome recreation thank you. It seems you think I see things too darkly because I realize that all who die as non-Catholics WILL go to hell, and I live my life accordingly.
I guess you don't realize that the only Catholics I know are many miles away from me, so you didn't realize that I have no women whose company I can enjoy. As for movies I do not know of any that I can watch without sin. If you do, then please be my guest and suggest.
-
...I realize that all who die as non-Catholics WILL go to hell...
Gee, so do I! :cheers:
Did you, or did you not, call my advice "worldly"? Have you not, in effect, clearly retreated from that statement? If so, why? If so, why not speak plainly about the fact that you did so?
There are actually quite a few good films that are both hilarious and decent, just as there are plenty of films that are full of action (or other themes) that are decent. Yes, there are MORE that are trash, but that is another matter.
-
It seems you think I see things too darkly because I realize that all who die as non-Catholics WILL go to hell, and I live my life accordingly.
I think you see things too darkly because it is obvious that you do so. You called advice to walk in the woods, do something that makes you laugh (a move was just ONE possible suggestion), or have an innocent dinner with a woman, worldly.
St Philip Neri would probably scandalize you to no end if you met him.
-
Pleasre read "a movie", not a "move". :cowboy:
-
I guess you don't realize that the only Catholics I know are many miles away from me, so you didn't realize that I have no women whose company I can enjoy. As for movies I do not know of any that I can watch without sin. If you do, then please be my guest and suggest.
I didn't retreat from the statement, I thought the the above quote explained it. If you realized that I know no women with whom I can commune in social matters, then you would likely not have offered this advice.
And movies. I can only think of worldly when I think of movies. Although lately I'm afraid I've been spending too much time watching animal docuмentaries on YouTube (they nearly always end up using the EVO!@^#%$ word, at which point I either mute it or turn it off in disgust).
These are the reasons I said worldly. So we had a miscommunication, perhaps.
My recreation is quite enjoyable, as a matter of fact. Today for example, I Got the jump rope out for the first time in about 5 months, hit a new PR in two lifts (dumbbell clean and jerk, kettlebell snatch), and I *almost almost beat a tough level in Neverball.
As for grace building on nature, yes I agree. I used to get drunk and smoke pot, but now I eat healthy and exercise. I started that some years ago, and I believe that (once I got away from my often vain reasons for doing so initially, and desired to and did become more humble and modest as time went on) this disposed me for grace, which I was more likely to accept since I had forsaken many of my past sins.
Man, it's hard being alone up here you know. My parents won't even talk to me. I love them so much but they can't face the tough questions. They want to be right so badly, that they completely avoid the discussion.
You know their arguments against sede vacante have come straight from This Rock's 'White smoke valid pope'? O what a world! The article even says a heretic can be pope!
-
Saying "There are no women close enough with whom I could dine" is a totally different thing than saying "Dining with a woman is worldly" (especially as you were clearly using the term in a negative, pejorative sense).
Saying that "taking a walk in the woods" is worldly is obviously a bit over the top.
Yes, we had a "failure to communicate", which is not surprising, but you still ignore that you DID call innocent pleasures "worldly". That said, I shall not mention it again.
That YOU cannot think of anything but "worldly" when you think of movies is fair enough. Just pay attention to the fact that it is YOUR VIEW that you are sharing. As there is nothing intrinsically worldly or evil about film, it is fair to say your view of things might be a little dark. You cannot just ignore the fact that the animal films mention evolution?
Believe me, I know things are hard at this time, perhaps especially so in your situation. Why else would you spend so much time on the net every day? I just do so during quiet hours at work. My present job has more quiet time than most, thus I am here so often.
Hang in there, mate. This mess is going to be resolved sooner than many think. 2012, anyone? :wink:
-
Hang in there
I'm trying.