-
*Note that I do not believe in the Cushingite heresy either. Both Feeneyism & Cushingism are heresies.
Baptism of Desire & Blood should be understood per the Church Fathers, Thomism, encyclicals, and Holy Councils.
The Feeneyite believes Baptism of Desire and Blood is heresy against the definitions of the Council of Trent. Therefore, the Feeneyite most hold to the following 21 absurdities:
1. The Catholic Church has been promulgating heresy by catechism for 464 years from the Catechism of the Council of Trent.
2. The Catholic Church has been promulgating heresy by Canon law for over 100 years.
3. The Catholic Church allows heresy to be taught throughout the whole Church for hundreds of years.
4. The Catholic Church is no different from Protestantism as far as having heresy.
5. Protestant and Eastern Orthodox religions are false religions because they teach heresy, but the Catholic Church remains the true religion when it teaches heresy by law and catechism.
6. Pope St. Pius V of the Council of Trent is also the pope to promulgate heresy against the same council.
7. All the popes and saints that taught Baptism of Desire and Blood after Trent were ignorant of the council’s dogma.
8. Pope Clement XIII didn’t know the Roman Catechism taught Baptism of Desire.
9. Pope Pius IX was ignorant of the council’s teaching.
10. Pope St. Pius X was ignorant of the council’s teaching.
11. Pope St. Pius X allowed a heretical catechism to be promulgated in Italy in his name.
12. Pope St. Pius X didn’t know baptism of desire was being promulgated in his name.
13. Pope Benedict XV was ignorant of the council’s teaching.
14. St. and Doctor of the Church Alphonsus Liguori didn’t understand the council’s teaching on Baptism and interpreted Trent to mean exactly opposite to its true meaning.
15. St. Charles Borromeo handpicked by the pope to explain Trent didn’t truly understand Trent.
16. St. and Doctor of the Church Robert Bellarmine didn’t understand the council’s teaching on Baptism.
17. All the popes and saints who teach Baptism of Desire and Blood reject Jesus’ true meaning in John 3:5.
18. The Old Testament made it safer and easier to get to heaven than the New Testament.
19. War broke out to prevent the First Vatican Council of defining the heresy of Baptism of Desire even though it is believed by the whole Church anyway.
20. Every layman that believes in Baptism of Desire and Blood is a heretic, but all the popes, saints, and doctors of the Church that do are not heretics. Only popes, saints, and doctors of the Church get to profess heresy without being actual heretics.
21. Defenders of Baptism of Desire and Blood using the teachings of popes, catechisms, canon law, saints, and doctors of the Church are bad-willed.
-
*Note that I do not believe in the Cushingite heresy either. Both Feeneyism & Cushingism are heresies.
So, what exactly do you believe? The baptism of desire of the catechumen of St. Thomas Aquinas or the baptism of desire of Abp. Lefebvre that saves the Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Jew, etc ?
-
The Feeneyite believes Baptism of Desire and Blood is heresy against the definitions of the Council of Trent. Therefore, the Feeneyite most hold to the following 21 absurdities:
This is a straw man, and you discredit your entire post. Feeneyites do NOT hold that BoB and BoD as held by the various Church Doctors is heretical. That is the Dimondite position. Please get your facts straight before pontificating like this.
-
This is a straw man, and you discredit your entire post. Feeneyites do NOT hold that BoB and BoD as held by the various Church Doctors is heretical. That is the Dimondite position. Please get your facts straight before pontificating like this.
Dimondism is Feeneyism. I've read Fr. Feeney's book Bread of Life and his position is no different than the Dimond Bros.
-
Baptism of Desire & Blood should be understood per ...
Are you Lover of Truth back again to repeat ad nauseum the same postings and learn nothing from making yourself sound like a trained parrot?
-
So, what exactly do you believe? The baptism of desire of the catechumen of St. Thomas Aquinas or the baptism of desire of Abp. Lefebvre that saves the Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Jew, etc ?
That Baptism of Desire/Blood only applies in the case of he who explicitly believes in the Catholic Faith like the Catechumen for example.
-
Are you Lover of Truth back again to repeat ad nauseum the same postings and learn nothing from being mad to look like a parrot?
No.
-
That Baptism of Desire/Blood only applies in the case of he who explicitly believes in the Catholic Faith like the Catechumen for example.
Then we have nothing to debate about. So why are you then insulting believers in the strict EENS as it is written, by calling them Feeneyites and heretics? No strict EENSer is going to debate with you about such an unlikely event as God bringing a catechumen to the faith (without me you can do nothing) just to take his life before His grace has completed the undertaking. I am an EENSer and I only write on the subject of the false baptism of desire which teaches that Muslim, Hindus, Buddhist, Jew etc. can be saved. PERIOD. I suggest you do the same.
Unless, you are prepared to call St. Amrose, St. John Chrysostom, St. Augustine heretics?
-
Unless, you are prepared to call St. Amrose, St. John Chrysostom, St. Augustine heretics?
St. Augustine, 391: “When we shall have come into His [God’s] sight, we shall behold the equity of God’s justice. Then no one will say:… ‘Why was this man led by God’s direction to be baptized, while that man, though he lived properly as a catechumen, was killed in a sudden disaster, and was not baptized?’ Look for rewards, and you will find nothing except punishments.”
St. Augustine: “However much progress the catechumen should make, he still carries the load of his iniquity: nor is it removed from him unless he comes to Baptism.”
St. Augustine: “If you wish to be a Catholic, do not venture to believe, to say, or to teach that ‘they whom the Lord has predestinated for baptism can be snatched away from his predestination, or die before that has been accomplished in them which the Almighty has predestined.’ There is in such a dogma more power than I can tell assigned to chances in opposition to the power of God, by the occurrence of which casualties that which He has predestinated is not permitted to come to pass. It is hardly necessary to spend time or earnest words in cautioning the man who takes up with this error against the absolute vortex of confusion into which it will absorb him, when I shall sufficiently meet the case if I briefly warn the prudent man who is ready to receive correction against the threatening mischief.” (On the Soul and Its Origin 3, 13)
St. Ambrose, De mysteriis, 390-391 A.D.:
“You have read, therefore, that the three witnesses in Baptism are one: water, blood, and the spirit; and if you withdraw any one of these, the Sacrament of Baptism is not valid. For what is water without the cross of Christ? A common element without any sacramental effect. Nor on the other hand is there any mystery of regeneration without water: for ‘unless a man be born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.’ [John 3:5] Even a catechumen believes in the cross of the Lord Jesus, by which also he is signed; but, unless he be baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, he cannot receive the remission of sins nor be recipient of the gift of spiritual grace.”
St. Ambrose, The Duties of Clergy, 391 A.D.:
“The Church was redeemed at the price of Christ’s blood. Jew or Greek, it makes no difference; but if he has believed he must circuмcise himself from his sins so that he can be saved;...for no one ascends into the kingdom of heaven except through the Sacrament of Baptism.”
St. Ambrose, The Duties of Clergy, 391 A.D.:
“Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.’ No one excepted: not the infant, not the one prevented by some necessity.”
-
St. Amrose, St. John Chrysostom, and St. Augustine are not heretics in any way, shape or form regardless of their personal belief on EENS.
What makes Feeneyites heretics however is their belief that the Church has definitely and magisterially taught explicit heresy via encyclicals, council, catechism and canon law. Moreover their belief that those who do not hold their interpretation of EENS are heretics and those who do not hold them to be heretics are also heretics makes the Feeneyites both schismatics and heretics.
-
St. Amrose, St. John Chrysostom, and St. Augustine are not heretics in any way, shape or form regardless of their personal belief on EENS.
What makes Feeneyites heretics however is their belief that the Church has definitely and magisterially taught explicit heresy via encyclicals, council, catechism and canon law. Moreover their belief that those who do not hold their interpretation of EENS are heretics and those who do not hold them to be heretics are also heretics makes the Feeneyites both schismatics and heretics.
Sounds like you are as much of a dogmatist as they are. Good luck with that!
-
Looky what we got here, another newbie know-it-all with 18 posts in his first 5 hours of membership.
-
Looky what we got here, another newbie know-it-all with 18 posts in his first 5 hours of membership.
Looky what we got here, another hypocritical condescending Ad hominem pompus elitist newbie that bases his/her misplaced pride on shallow hollowness.
-
Dimondism is Feeneyism. I've read Fr. Feeney's book Bread of Life and his position is no different than the Dimond Bros.
:facepalm:
You are entirely disqualified from weighing in on this issue.
Fr. Feeney did not believe in BoD/BoB as a matter of opinion and never denounced them as heretical. His issue was EENS. You can find the Dimondite criticisms of Feeneyism online with 5 minutes of searching.
-
Looky what we got here, another hypocritical condescending Ad hominem pompus elitist newbie that bases his/her misplaced pride on shallow hollowness.
What we have in clement21 and Papa Pius is the psychological defective formerly known as Croix.
-
St. Amrose, St. John Chrysostom, and St. Augustine are not heretics in any way, shape or form regardless of their personal belief on EENS.
What makes Feeneyites heretics however is their belief that the Church has definitely and magisterially taught explicit heresy via encyclicals, council, catechism and canon law. Moreover their belief that those who do not hold their interpretation of EENS are heretics and those who do not hold them to be heretics are also heretics makes the Feeneyites both schismatics and heretics.
You’ve been corrected on this slander against the Feeneyite position twice already.
-
Council of Trent:
"And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God."
-And-
"CANON IV.-If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous; and that, without them, or without the desire thereof, men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification;-though all (the sacraments) are not indeed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema."
If you agree with Trent, then you agree Trent's Canons are infallible. Using Trent for your answers, these will be your answers to the following questions:
Q) Are the sacraments necessary for salvation?
A) The sacraments are necessary for salvation.
Q) Can a man obtain justification without the sacraments?
A) No, man cannot achieve justification without the sacraments.
Q) Can a man obtain justification with a desire for the sacraments?
A) No, man cannot achieve justification without the desire for the sacraments.
Q) Where does Trent teach man can obtain salvation with a desire for the sacrament?
A) Trent does not teach man can obtain salvation with a desire for the sacrament.
In the above canons, The Church through Trent, teaches a) that the sacraments are necessary for salvation, and b) that justification is not achieved without either the sacrament or the desire for the sacrament.
All we can do, indeed, what we are in fact bound to do, is repeat Trent and say; the sacraments are necessary for salvation and that without the sacrament or the desire for the sacraments, man does not achieve justification. That's the way Trent left it, that's the way we must leave it.
If anyone has any explanation as to how the Church's "no justification without desire" was changed into "salvation through desire", I'm all ears.
-
You & I and Fr. Feeney and Fr. Wathen don't get to interpret Trent.
Pope Pius IV’s Bull Benedictus Deus (26 January 1564). The Bull, which confirms the decrees of the Council of Trent, imposes a latae sententiae (automatic) excommunication on anyone who, without the approval of the Holy See, presumes “to publish in any form any commentaries, glosses, annotations, scholia on, or any kind of interpretation whatsoever of the decrees of this council.”
I am not the one doing the interpreting here.
Trent clearly condemns with anathema whoever says the sacraments are not necessary for salvation - this is condemned in the quotes from Trent I posted, I did not interpret anything, I am repeating Trent.
Trent, in the quotes I posted, clearly condemns with anathema whoever says men obtain the grace of justification without the sacrament or without the desire thereof, I did not interpret anything, I am repeating Trent.
So Trent says without the desire, there is no justification. You say with the desire, there is salvation.
Again, I am not the one doing the interpreting here, you are - and doing a terrible job of it I might add.
Can we agree on this? If not, please point out exactly where I am [mis]interpreting Trent.
-
PiusV,
Fr Freeney was saying that the MODERNIST version of BOD was heretical, the same version you also agree isn’t catholic (ie Fr Feeney was fighting the pre-V2 Modernists in Boston, MA who were “teaching” that a non-catechumen, who doesn’t desire to enter the Church, can be saved).
.
The only thing Fr Feeney ever said about a catechumen who died before baptism is that he “didn’t know” where that soul went. And none of us does. We only hope.
-
PiusV,
Fr Freeney was saying that the MODERNIST version of BOD was heretical, the same version you also agree isn’t catholic (ie Fr Feeney was fighting the pre-V2 Modernists in Boston, MA who were “teaching” that a non-catechumen, who doesn’t desire to enter the Church, can be saved).
.
The only thing Fr Feeney ever said about a catechumen who died before baptism is that he “didn’t know” where that soul went. And none of us does. We only hope.
This has been explained to Papa here several times already, but he's of bad will and refuses to listen ... so he continues to slander Father Feeney. He's attacking the Dimondite position that BoD is heretical, to which I have repeatedly objected.
-
You are by logical necessity engaging in interpretation because there is a clear difference of opinion on how to understand these quotes from Trent.
Please point out where in my posts I even alluded to interpreting Trent other than pointing out that the Feeneyites reject the magisterial authority that interpreted Trent? Pure strawman.
No, we cannot agree on this because again you and I have no authority.
No, I quoted Trent word for word. Words have meaning. Trent's words mean what they say or they mean nothing at all.
Trent says that it is a condemned proposition to say that without the sacraments or without the desire for the sacraments that men obtain the grace of justification. Those are Trent's words, not mine.
Can men obtain justification without the sacraments? Without the desire for the sacraments? If you answer yes, then per Trent, you are anathema. Plain and simple - nothing complicated, nothing to interpret here.
If you answer no, you are simply wrong. Trent does not say "with" the desire, Trent says "without" the desire. IOW, Trent purposely offers no definite conclusion or answer in the matter.
Thank about it and get back with me.
-
That's exactly what Protestants say about the Bible. Words have meaning that can be understood by perspicuity. You are a layman as am I. Have some humility of heart to accept what the Church has taught otherwise you are no different than a garden variety protestant.
Again you are engaging in publishing an interpretation of Trent and thereby are excommunicated ipso facto. I highly recommend you stop for the benefit of your own spiritual well being.
No, protestants take their mindset to their Bible and they see in the various passages what they already believe, and what they do not believe, they do not see. This is what you are doing with Trent, I am trying to show you what Trent actually says - which according to you, is heresy because to you, it simply cannot mean exactly what it says.
Do not be confused, ambiguity and parable like communicating did not start until the decrees of the Second Vatican Council, prior to that the Church (at Trent) taught clearly, on purpose and always.
-
In your effort to deny infallible, apodictic Church teaching, you are beating the wind.
Faithful Catholics will always profess, with Trent, that which Trent condemns with anathema, namely, the three things below:
1) anyone that saith the sacraments are not necessary for salvation.
2) anyone that saith that without the sacraments men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification
3) anyone that saith that without the desire for the sacraments, men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification.
Per Trent, is it possible that men may obtain the grace of justification without the desire for the sacrament?
-
In your effort to retain your personal understanding of Trent, you have become no different than your brothers the Jansenists and Old Catholics.
Again I will not discuss Trent with you. I will only refer you to the Holy Church via the Papal Encyclicals, theologians, Doctors, and saints who have written on this issue post Trent.
Another BODer bites the dust, cannot even answer a simple question, even when given the infallible answers first. Weasels on the false claim of misinterpretation of clear, infallible teachings. You are the typical BODer. Sad actually.
-
Another Feeneyite leaves Catholicism to make his own sect via his understanding.
All hail His Holiness Pope Stubborn I.
It's ironic that you call yourself "Papa" because it is YOU who are adopting the schismatic attitude by declaring those who don't believe in Baptism of Desire to be heretics. We'd have several Church Fathers in that category of those who rejected Baptism of Desire.
So you did a nice weasel shift from
1) declaring those who consider BoD heretical to be schismatics/heretics
TO
2) declaring those who do not believe in BoD (as a personal position) to be schismatics/heretics
I didn't entirely disagree with #1, but argued that Feeneyites (vs. Dimondites) do not fall into that category.
Now you've moved on to #2. In point of fact, Papa, the Church has never condemned those who don't believe in BoD to be heretics. So you're arrogating unto yourself the Church's prerogative to declare people heretics. In other words, you're doing the same thing you accused those who fell under your condemnation of #1 to be doing.
So you shift and weasel around from one attack to another ... which I have always found to be prima facie evidence of being of bad will.
-
This guy is either Lover of Heresy or else that guy who runs the Baptism of Desire website.
-
This guy is either Lover of Heresy or else that guy who runs the Baptism of Desire website.
Another Ad hominem from Ladi. No surprise there. :clown:
-
Let me be absolutely clear so you are able to comprehend the argument:
Ridiculous. You weaseled and shifted from one position to another and now claim it's due to my inability to comprehend.
Evidently you fail to understand the difference, from the standpoint of English syntax, between claiming
1) that it's heretical to consider BoD to be heretical
2) that it's heretical to not believe in BoD
But neither logic nor the English language seems to be your strengths.
-
Ridiculous. You weaseled and shifted from one position to another and now claim it's due to my inability to comprehend.
Your slithering does you no good if all you can muster is an accusation without proof.
Perhaps a course in Logic 101 will do you some good, Ladi.
-
Your slithering does you no good if all you can muster is an accusation without proof.
Perhaps a course in Logic 101 will do you some good, Ladi.
Imbecile, the proof is in your first post.
-
Ridiculous. You weaseled and shifted from one position to another and now claim it's due to my inability to comprehend.
Evidently you fail to understand the difference, from the standpoint of English syntax, between claiming
1) that it's heretical to consider BoD to be heretical
2) that it's heretical to not believe in BoD
But neither logic nor the English language seems to be your strengths.
Both are heretical, you fool.
The only difference is that those hold held it before the Church ruled on it are NOT heretics.
-
Another Ad hominem from Ladi. No surprise there. :clown:
Deny, then, that you are the same person who either had the Lover of Truth account or the one who runs that Baptism of Desire website.
-
Imbecile, the proof is in your first post.
Point it out explicitly, buffoon.
-
Both are heretical, you fool.
The only difference is that those hold held it before the Church ruled on it are NOT heretics.
Then you should have managed to articulated that at the outset of this stupid thread. You started with one and then shifted to the other.
-
Deny, then, that you are the same person who either had the Lover of Truth account or the one who runs that Baptism of Desire website.
I completely deny both claims.
I am not "Lover of Truth" nor do I run any website whatsoever. I don't even have a social mєdια account. The only forums I frequent is this one and Suscipe Domine. I've been a lurker here for a while. I know all about Lover of Heresy, Poche, Croix, and the other psychologically unstable idiots you are accusing me of being.
-
Point it out explicitly, buffoon.
You're actually dumber than what I first gave you credit for:
The Feeneyite believes Baptism of Desire and Blood is heresy against the definitions of the Council of Trent. Therefore
-
You're actually dumber than what I first gave you credit for:
How is that inconsistent with what I have been saying?
Are you an idiot? Serious question.
-
Baptism of Desire is Catholic Doctrine. The necessity of the Catholic Faith for Salvation is also a certain Doctrine. Pope St. Pius X, following St. Alphonsus and the other Doctors, defines the doctrine of Baptism of Desire as an act of Perfect Love of God, or of Contrition, along with the Desire, explicit or implicit, of the Sacrament of Baptism. In another place, the same Holy Father teaches that all who are saved had embraced the Catholic Faith (which means explicitly at least the Holy Trinity and Incarnation) before death. It follows that all who receive the Baptism of Desire will be led by God to embrace the Catholic Faith, at least at the point of death. This is also taught by Fr. Michael Mueller in a 19th Century Catechism approved by Rome. There is a minority view which is permitted by the Magisterium of the Church that faith that God Exists and that He rewards is sufficient for salvation; but the Doctors commonly teach that explicit faith in Christ is a necessary means of salvation. This was the state of the question before Vatican II and it still is today.
-
Another Feeneyite leaves Catholicism to make his own sect via his understanding.
You are the one who says salvation can be obtained via desire for the sacrament - but I left Catholicism for saying, with Trent, that the sacraments are necessary for salvation and that without the desire for the sacraments there is no justification? :facepalm:
You have established that you will not answer simple questions because doing so would prove you either wrong or a liar, but please, do explain your above comment.
Please note, Trent does not even teach that the sacrament of baptism will save anyone, only that it is necessary for salvation. Did you know that? Well, you know that now.
-
Baptism of Desire is Catholic Doctrine.
No, it's not. If you say that, without the sacraments, or without the desire thereof, men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification, I will let you be anathema as Trent directs.
-
You are the one who says salvation can be obtained via desire for the sacrament - but I left Catholicism for saying, with Trent, that the sacraments are necessary for salvation and that without the desire for the sacrament there is no justification? :facepalm:
You have established that you will not answer simple questions because doing so would prove you either wrong or a liar, but please, do explain your above comment.
Please note, Trent does not even teach that the sacrament of baptism will save anyone, only that it is necessary for salvation. Did you know that? Well, you know that now.
You must be unable to understand English and/or have serious issues in reading comprehension.
You are interpreting Trent whether you want to admit to it or not. You thereby are automatically excommunicated and therefore a schismatic on top of being a heretic for rejecting BOD & BOB.
I will not discuss Trent with you as I said over and over again.
-
No, it's not. If you say that, without the sacraments, or without the desire thereof, men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification, I will let you be anathema as Trent directs.
Yes it is. And you are a schismatic heretic for rejecting it and interpreting Trent like your brothers in faithlessness the Dimond Bros.
-
Regarding desire mentioned in the Council of Trent, the book, Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent , is the actual Council of Trent - not a catechism based on it - but rather the actual written decrees, the actual record.
- Original text with English translation by Rev. H. J. Schroeder, O.P., from Refuge of Sinners Publishing
It explains that "baptism of desire" takes effect at the pouring of the water - at the sacrament itself.
Priest: "N., do you wish to be baptized?"
N.: "I do"
(or the Godparents for an infant)
- the catechumen has to indicate the will or wish to be baptized, then the sacrament's form and matter follow.
-
You must be unable to understand English and/or have serious issues in reading comprehension.
You are interpreting Trent whether you want to admit to it or not. You thereby are automatically excommunicated and therefore a schismatic on top of being a heretic for rejecting BOD & BOB.
I will not discuss Trent with you as I said over and over again.
You are discussing a BOD, whatever that is, not Trent anyway. BODers necessarily MUST reject Trent, you are no different because you are a BODer.
So why not simply give in and show us all your theological brilliance by actually answering the questions I asked.
-
Regarding desire mentioned in the Council of Trent, the book, Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent , is the actual Council of Trent - not a catechism based on it - but rather the actual written decrees, the actual record.
- Original text with English translation by Rev. H. J. Schroeder, O.P., from Refuge of Sinners Publishing
It explains that "baptism of desire" takes effect at the pouring of the water - at the sacrament itself.
Priest: "N., do you wish to be baptized?"
N.: "I do"
(or the Godparents for an infant)
- the catechumen has to indicate the will or wish to be baptized, then the sacrament's form and matter follow.
If there is such a thing as a BOD, this^^ is it.
-
You are discussing a BOD, whatever that is, not Trent anyway. BODers necessarily MUST reject Trent, you are no different because you are a BODer.
So why not simply give in and show us all your theological brilliance by actually answering the questions I asked.
My "theological brilliance" lies in being a son of the Church following the Holy Fathers, Doctors, and theologians. I am slave of the Church. Not my own opinions like you.
-
Baptism of Desire is Catholic Doctrine. The necessity of the Catholic Faith for Salvation is also a certain Doctrine.
Uhm, no, EENS is not merely "certain Doctrine" but is, rather, (thrice-)defined dogma. So is, BTW, the necessity of the Sacrament of Baptism for salvation. Any discussion of BoD must necessarily be articulated in a way that retains the Sacrament as the instrumental cause of justification. 90% of BoD theorists fail this test and in fact fall into heresy in their articulation of BoD. 90% of BoDers are Pelagians.
BoD on the other hand is no dogma. It's never been defined, and the proof for that is the half-dozen or so variants on it that you'll find among various BoD theorists. If the Church has defined that it must be believed, then WHAT must be believed about it? There's nothing more than a mere passing reference to it here or there in any Magisterial sources ... without any clear DEFINITION. You can't claim that something must be believed when it's unclear WHAT must be believed about it. Otherwise, to claim that someone believes in a BoD is just semantics and lip service.
So the heretical impetus is clearly on the BoD side, with 90% of it undermining Catholic dogma, while BoD itself is nothing more than unrevealed theological speculation.
-
My "theological brilliance" lies in being a son of the Church following the Holy Fathers, Doctors, and theologians. I am slave of the Church. Not my own opinions like you.
This is LoT speak for sure, elevating your own personal interpretation of Church teaching to being the same as the Church teaching itself.
-
I am slave of the Church.
You are not supposed to be a slave, but a son, and thus, an heir. A slave has no inheritance. (I know some speak of slavery to God, or slavery to the Blessed Virgin so I don't want to argue that point). But are you a slave to Pope Francis as a traditionalist who is not a sede?
-
This is LoT speak for sure, elevating your own personal interpretation of Church teaching to being the same as the Church teaching itself.
:facepalm:
You have proven your inability to think and respond rationally numerous times.
You're just being a troll at this point.
-
You are not supposed to be a slave, but a son, and thus, an heir. A slave has no inheritance. But are you a slave to Pope Francis as a traditionalist who is not a sede?
I am a slave and a son of the Church. It is possible to be both; one in spritual inheritance and one in mindset.
-
My "theological brilliance" lies in being a son of the Church following the Holy Fathers, Doctors, and theologians. I am slave of the Church. Not my own opinions like you.
Says you, and only you and you fool only yourself papa. C'mon now, let's talk about what Trent teaches about the sacrament of baptism.....
The Church condemns through Trent, whoever says the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation. Do you follow this or are you anathema?
The Church condemns through Trent, whoever says that without the sacraments, or without the desire thereof, men obtain of God the grace of justification. Do you follow this or are you anathema?
Oh my look at that, more questions!....no matter, you cannot give answer anyway, perhaps there's an *honest* BODer lurking out there who will give answer.
-
Says you, and only you and you fool only yourself papa. C'mon now, let's talk about what Trent teaches about the sacrament of baptism.....
The Church condemns through Trent, whoever says the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation. Do you follow this or are you anathema?
The Church condemns through Trent, whoever says that without the sacraments, or without the desire thereof, men obtain of God the grace of justification. Do you follow this or are you anathema?
Oh my look at that, more questions!....no matter, you cannot give answer anyway, perhaps there's an *honest* BODer lurking out there who will give answer.
Your user name suits you, Pope Stubborn I.
-
Quote Quote No, it's not.
It certainly is, Stubborn. St. Alphonsus said it was de fide. Numerous Popes said Catholics may safely repeat any doctrine St. Alphonsus taught in the Moral Theology work where he said this.
Quote If you say that, without the sacraments, or without the desire thereof, men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification, I will let you be anathema as Trent directs.
I believe and confess, as Trent teaches that, the Grace of Justification cannot be obtained through faith alone, without the Sacraments or without the desire of them. The Desire of both Baptism and Confession justifies.
Ladislaus, Baptism of Desire is clearly taught in so many Catechisms, including the Baltimore Catechism, to be Love of God and Perfect Contrition, plainly based on Sacred Scripture. Our Lord clearly told the penitent Magdalene, weeping tears of contrition at His feet, that her sins were forgiven. The Church teaches that Perfect Contrition, in which the Desire for the Sacraments is implicit, immєdιαtely justifies souls and places them in the State of Grace, and therefore within the Church, even today. Cornelius also received the Holy Spirit before Baptism of Water, as both St. Augustine and St. Thomas (and Fr. Haydock) say. St. Thomas already before Trent had said Baptism is necessary in fact or in desire, and that this is the true interpretation of the dogma that has always prevailed in the Church. Trent clearly used voto in the context of both Baptism and Confession, and spoke of Sacraments in the plural (Baptism and Confession) of which the desire thereof obtains the Grace of Justification. Finally, Canon Law repeated that Baptism is necessary in fact or in desire. Which interpretation, yours or mine, is faithful to the canon of St. Vincent of Lerins?
I will quote the Baltimore Catechism: "We know that Baptism of Desire will save us when it is impossible to receive Baptism of Water, from Holy Scripture, which teaches us that Love of God and Perfect Contrition secure the remission of sins" (from memory; I'll look up the source later on if you wish. You know as well as I do that it exists). Contrition is essentially supernatural, so your "Pelagian" objection is false. Are you accusing the Church of teaching Pelagianism, by the way? Even if you say you can disagree with the Magisterium where it is non-infallible, you must at a minimum do it respectfully to the Church, and ready to examine and revise your own view in light of Her clear Magisterial Teaching. Pope St. Pius X's Catechism also teaches the same, so this isn't a solitary thing.
Do you deny what the Church says that Holy Scripture teaches or do you affirm it?
-
It certainly is, Stubborn. St. Alphonsus said it was de fide. Numerous Popes said Catholics may safely repeat any doctrine St. Alphonsus taught in the Moral Theology work where he said this.
I do not believe you agree with St. Alphonsus.
Knowing that a BOD is not a sacrament, the great saint said:
"The heretics say that no sacrament is necessary, inasmuch as they hold that man is justified by faith alone, and that the sacraments only serve to excite and nourish this faith, which (as the heretics say) can be equally excited and nourished by preaching. But this is certainly false, and is condemned in the fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth canons: for as we know from the Scriptures, some of the sacraments are necessary (necessitate Medii) as a means without which salvation is impossible. Thus Baptism is necessary for all, Penance for them who have fallen into sin after Baptism, and the Eucharist is necessary for all at least in desire". -
From: (An Exposition and Defence of All the Points of Faith Discussed and Defined by the Sacred Council of Trent, Along With the Refutation of the Errors of the Pretended Reformers, Saint Alphonsus Liguori, Dublin, 1846.)
Am I right, do you disagree with him here?
I believe and confess, as Trent teaches that, the Grace of Justification cannot be obtained through faith alone, without the Sacraments or without the desire of them. The Desire of both Baptism and Confession justifies.
Sorry man, but this deserves a big :facepalm: How is it that BODers do not see that a BOD is justification by faith alone?
Trent says if anyone saith that men obtain justification without the desire for the sacrament, let him be anathema.
Trent NEVER says that *with* the desire, men obtain justification, only that without it there is no justification. Which means they purposely left the idea of justification via a desire up in the air. But they were quite clear on the necessity of the sacrament for salvation.
So BODers cannot say honestly, that Trent teaches such a thing as, "with a desire men are justified", and to say a BOD saves is a blatant misquote of Trent. BODers, if they are going to quote Trent, must do so honestly and can only say "without the desire, men are not justified" - which means what it says. What you said in bold is your own opinion shared by others, even other great saints - but that is *not* what the Church infallibly taught at Trent.
Which is to say the title of this thread should be changed to The Absurdity of the BODers
-
Which is to say the title of this thread should be changed to The Absurdity of the BODers
Well it seems that one of the Mods granted that.
Enjoy!
-
Well it seems that one of the Mods granted that.
Enjoy!
Anyone can change the "title"
Check it now.
Editing the "subject" field when you post doesn't change the actual title, but it changes what shows up in recent posts.
-
Anyone can change the "title"
Check it now.
Editing the "subject" field when you post doesn't change the actual title, but it changes what shows up in recent posts.
Very strange feature
-
Please provide me a single reference of Fr. Feeney where he restricts his calling of BOD as heresy to the Cushingite understanding of it.
It's common sense. Fr Feeney lived in Boston, MA. Cushing was bishop of Boston, MA. Fr Feeney's SBC is near Boston, MA. Fr Feeney was writing/preaching to those modernists "catholics" at Harvard U...which is near Boston, MA. The entirety of Fr Feeney's work, his entire fight centered around Boston, MA.
.
Those who think Fr Feeney was debating St Augustine, St Thomas, or whomever's BOD view just aren't putting Fr Feeney's books/comments in perspective. Typical of lazy people.
-
It's common sense. Fr Feeney lived in Boston, MA. Cushing was bishop of Boston, MA. Fr Feeney's SBC is near Boston, MA. Fr Feeney was writing/preaching to those modernists "catholics" at Harvard U...which is near Boston, MA. The entirety of Fr Feeney's work, his entire fight centered around Boston, MA.
.
Those who think Fr Feeney was debating St Augustine, St Thomas, or whomever's BOD view just aren't putting Fr Feeney's books/comments in perspective. Typical of lazy people.
Wow. So in other words, its what you deduced.
The man says he doesn't know what happens to Catechumens who die and you say that he wasn't debating a Thomistic BOD? :confused:
-
It certainly is, Stubborn. St. Alphonsus said it was de fide. Numerous Popes said Catholics may safely repeat any doctrine St. Alphonsus taught in the Moral Theology work where he said this.
Yes, I know he is safe to quote anything in his Moral Theology. That the sacrament is necessary for salvation is a dogma, it was defined at Trent and therefore belongs with Dogmatic Theology, not Moral Theology. Yet he got it absolutely correct in my previous post to you.
Again, Trent's "no justification without the desire" does not mean "justification with the desire". It simply doesn't. The way Trent infallibly puts it, one may or may not be justified via desire, they left it that way on purpose.
1) If you were asked, "can one be justified if they have a desire for the sacrament"? You must answer - "all I know for sure is that without the desire, they cannot be justified".
2) If one were to ask you "is anyone saved without the sacrament"? You must answer - "the sacraments are necessary for salvation".
You can never be wrong by repeating Trent, which is what 1 and 2 both do.
Aside from the canon saying it explicitly in the first part, the negative tenor of the second part of the canon teaches that the only sure way of obtaining justification is to receive the sacrament, which is also necessary for salvation. Without the sacrament, no one can attain salvation or justification. Without the desire for the sacrament, no one can be justified. Whatever anyone else teaches that differs from this, this is the teaching of Trent.
If you're understanding of Trent does not agree with this, then you are not understanding Trent's teaching.
-
Yes, I know he is safe to quote anything in his Moral Theology. That the sacrament is necessary for salvation is a dogma, it was defined at Trent and therefore belongs with Dogmatic Theology, not Moral Theology. Yet he got it absolutely correct in my previous post to you.
Again, Trent's "no justification without the desire" does not mean "justification with the desire". It simply doesn't. The way Trent infallibly puts it, one may or may not be justified via desire, they left it that way on purpose.
1) If you were asked, "can one be justified if they have a desire for the sacrament"? You must answer - "all I know for sure is that without the desire, they cannot be justified".
2) If one were to ask you "is anyone saved without the sacrament"? You must answer - "the sacraments are necessary for salvation".
You can never be wrong by repeating Trent, which is what 1 and 2 both do.
Aside from the canon saying it explicitly in the first part, the negative tenor of the second part of the canon teaches that the only sure way of obtaining justification is to receive the sacrament, which is also necessary for salvation. Without the sacrament, no one can attain salvation or justification. Without the desire for the sacrament, no one can be justified. Whatever anyone else teaches that differs from this, this is the teaching of Trent.
If you're understanding of Trent does not agree with this, then you are not understanding Trent's teaching.
A heretical, schismatic non-Catholic layman such as yourself has no say on interpreting a Holy Roman Catholic Church council such as Trent.
-
You have nothing, all you offer is repeated puerile criticisms. If you ever turn honest and choose to answer the questions you've ignored, then we might get some place - I won't hold my breath waiting for this to ever happen. So far, you've only proven you're not up to the clear challenge placed before you, this is typical of BODers. They always fail to meet the challenge because, like you, they choose to have nothing.
"A lot of crazy thinking is corrected by clear challenges! And I do not know any place where man goes wilder than when he starts to think incorrectly in religious territories." - Fr. Feeney
-
I am fairly certain Papa Pius V is NOT LoverofTruth nor the other. However, I do wonder whether he is some other former poster.
-
The man says he doesn't know what happens to Catechumens who die and you say that he wasn't debating a Thomistic BOD?
Trent never says a justified, unbaptized goes to heaven. St Thomas THEORIZES they would go to purgatory. But the Church has never said. If you say otherwise, you’re delusional.
-
Trent never says a justified, unbaptized goes to heaven. St Thomas THEORIZES they would go to purgatory. But the Church has never said. If you say otherwise, you’re delusional.
I wasn't talking about Trent.
St. Thomas says: 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 Corinthians 3:15.
After purgatory the catechumen goes to heaven eventually according to a Thomistic understanding.
As for some Church teachings on the matter:
In his decree about a Jew who, in danger of death, attempted to baptize himself, since those around his death bed refused to baptize him, Innocent III decrees:
We respond that, since there should be a distinction between the one baptizing and the one baptized, as is clearly gathered from the words of the Lord, when He says to the Apostles: "Go, baptize all nations in the name etc.," the Jew mentioned must be baptized again by another, that it may be shown that he who is baptized is one person, and he who baptizes another ... If, however, such a one had died immєdιαtely, he would have rushed to his heavenly home without delay because of the faith of the sacrament, although not because of the sacrament of faith (Dz. 413, emphasis added).
Pope Innocent II taught the same with regard to a priest, when after his death it was found that he had not been baptized. He writes:
Read (brother) in the eighth book of Augustine’s City of God where, among other things it is written, "Baptism is ministered invisibly to one whom not contempt of religion but death excludes." Read again the book also of the blessed Ambrose concerning the death of Valentinian where he says the same thing. Therefore, to questions concerning the dead, you should hold the opinions of the learned Fathers, and in your church you should join in prayers and you should have sacrifices offered to God for the priest mentioned (Innocent II, Letter Apostolicam Sedem, Dz. 388, emphasis added)
-
Pope Pius IX in the encyclical Quanto Conficiamur Moerore:
“There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments.”
-
1. These are OPINIONS, not Church teaching. St Thomas is a man, not the Church.
2. If you quote OPINIONS concerning Jews or the "invincibly ignorant" and mix-n-match this with OPINIONS like those concerning Valentinian's BOD, you contradict yourself. Since BOD can't apply to non-catechumens, (which you earlier agreed with), then you can't apply these OPINIONS to the discussion.
3. Valentinian's situation is the only one relevant to the discussion, because he was a catechumen, and even though SOME Church Fathers say he was saved, it is not an article of Faith, and anyone can question it, which is basically, Fr Feeney's outlook.
4. Fr Feeney questions BOD because of the slippery slope which leads to believing in salvation for the "invincible ignorant" or "pious jew"...and such a slippery slope of sentimentality over facts was proved by yourself, who only a few posts ago, claimed that BOD only applied to catechumens. If you can't see this danger, you need to ask God to show you.
-
1. These are OPINIONS, not Church teaching. St Thomas is a man, not the Church.
2. If you quote OPINIONS concerning Jҽωs or the "invincibly ignorant" and mix-n-match this with OPINIONS like those concerning Valentinian's BOD, you contradict yourself. Since BOD can't apply to non-catechumens, (which you earlier agreed with), then you can't apply these OPINIONS to the discussion.
3. Valentinian's situation is the only one relevant to the discussion, because he was a catechumen, and even though SOME Church Fathers say he was saved, it is not an article of Faith, and anyone can question it, which is basically, Fr Feeney's outlook.
4. Fr Feeney questions BOD because of the slippery slope which leads to believing in salvation for the "invincible ignorant" or "pious jew"...and such a slippery slope of sentimentality over facts was proved by yourself, who only a few posts ago, claimed that BOD only applied to catechumens. If you can't see this danger, you need to ask God to show you.
1. Authoritative papal teachings are not opinions. St Thomas' writings are not mere opinions. He is a doctor and saint of the Church.
2. No, I don't because they are two separate things. Invincible ignorance and BOD are not the same thing. However I quoted Blessed Pius IX on invincible ignorance to show just how out of touch with reality and the magisterium Feeneyites are.
3. The near unanimous opinions of the Church Fathers, doctors, saints, and theologians makes the teachings de fide and anyone rejecting them is in mortal sin if not heresy.
4. BOD is only for catechumens. Invincible ignorance is another thing altogether. There is no danger to the faith from the magistetium of the Church.
-
Fr Feeney never mentions St Thomas, nor invincible ignorance, nor Valentinian. You are putting words in his mouth, then objecting to his imagined words. You make no sense.
-
Fr Feeney never mentions St Thomas, nor invincible ignorance, nor Valentinian. You are putting words in his mouth, then objecting to his imagined words. You make no sense.
You are just ignorant of Fr. Feeney's teachings.
Baptism of water absolutely needed , p. 330 ("Reply to a Liberal", by Raymond Karam, published in , Spring, 1949-- according to page 274 of : "Father Feeney supervised and gave his final approval to 'Reply to a Liberal' by Raymond Karam. '": "The only remedy against original sin is baptism, and all those whom God predestined to salvation, He draws them to this remedy. All the children who die unbaptized and all the adults who die ignorant of baptism, or who, having been drawn to it by God's Providence, refuse it, are not predestinate, but will perish eternally".
-
Again, Fr. Feeney was an obstinate heretic who had Calvinistic leanings and was condemned along with his positions by the Church.
Anyone who follows him is condemned as well just as is the case with those who follow any other leader of heresy.
-
You are just ignorant of Fr. Feeney's teachings.
Baptism of water absolutely needed...
Same as Trent, who say if anyone says the sacraments are not necessary for salvation but superfluous, let him be anathema. You say the sacraments are superfluous and not necessary for salvation, so you are the one who is anathema.
You imply that you know the things Fr. Feeney taught, which means that there's one thing for certain, you cannot plead ignorance. Fr. Feeney taught the exact same things Trent taught.
-
Same as Trent, who say if anyone says the sacraments are not necessary for salvation but superfluous, let him be anathema. You say the sacraments are superfluous and not necessary for salvation, so you are the one who is anathema.
You imply that you know the things Fr. Feeney taught, which means that there's one thing for certain, you cannot plead ignorance. Fr. Feeney taught the exact same things Trent taught.
Fr. Feeney was a heretic and you are a heretic on top of being a schismatic buffoon who continously interprets Trent contrary to the Church.
-
Again, Fr. Feeney was an obstinate heretic who had Calvinistic leanings and was condemned along with his positions by the Church.
Really? Because he taught and defended the EENS dogma he's an obstinate heretic? You're simply another dishonest BODer who has nothing, so you shoot your spit wads at a deceased, courageous priest and theologian. At least being a legend in your own mind you certainly can't plead ignorance.
Always remember that it is a defined dogma at Trent that the sacrament is necessary for salvation and without the sacrament men cannot be justified, not only that, but men cannot even be justified without the desire for the sacrament. To say that without the sacrament or the desire for the sacrament that men can be justified by faith alone as you keep saying, is, you guessed it, condemned with anathema.
-
Fr Feeney never mentions St Thomas, nor invincible ignorance, nor Valentinian. You are putting words in his mouth, then objecting to his imagined words. You make no sense.
The poor guy is a worker of iniquity Pax.
-
Really? Because he taught and defended the EENS dogma he's an obstinate heretic? You're simply another dishonest BODer who has nothing, so you shoot your spit wads at a deceased, courageous priest and theologian. At least being a legend in your own mind you certainly can't plead ignorance.
Always remember that it is a defined dogma at Trent that the sacrament is necessary for salvation and without the sacrament men cannot be justified, not only that, but men cannot even be justified without the desire for the sacrament. To say that without the sacrament or the desire for the sacrament that men can be justified by faith alone as you keep saying, is, you guessed it, condemned with anathema.
Its like we are dancing in a circle here.
Fr. Feeney was neither courageous nor was he a theologian. Rather he was a product of his time and a heretic who was on the opposite end of the spectrum to the disgusting apostate Cushing who should have been excommunicated and condemned far more aggressively than Feeney. Feeney's heresy is far less pernicious than Cushing's.
Again for the millionth time, you don't get to interpret Trent.
-
Again, Fr. Feeney was an obstinate heretic who had Calvinistic leanings and was condemned along with his positions by the Church.
Can you explain more about how Fr. Feeney had Calvinistic leanings? I haven't head that before. I usually avoid discussions about Fr. Feeney, because I haven't studied much about him.
-
Its like we are dancing in a circle here.
Fr. Feeney was neither courageous nor was he a theologian. Rather he was a product of his time and a heretic who was on the opposite end of the spectrum to the disgusting apostate Cushing who should have been excommunicated and condemned far more aggressively than Feeney. Feeney's heresy is far less pernicious than Cushing's.
Again for the millionth time, you don't get to interpret Trent.
"One of the most outstanding prophets of our time." Hamish Fraser
"The greatest theologian we have in the United States, by far." Rev. John J. McEleny, S.J., (Father's Jesuit Provincial)
"The greatest theologian in the Catholic Church today." — John Cardinal Wright
Again for the millionth time, you are the one misinterpreting Trent - and we finally agree, you don't get to do that.
-
Feeney's heresy is far less pernicious than Cushing's.
OK, so what do you think is the position of truth?
-
Can you explain more about how Fr. Feeney had Calvinistic leanings? I haven't head that before. I usually avoid discussions about Fr. Feeney, because I haven't studied much about him.
You haven't heard this because Papa doesn't know what he's talking about. Father Feeney was no more Calvinist than St. Augustine was, with the latter rejecting Baptism of Desire in his later years due to his realization that it was implicitly Pelagian. His suggestion that the anti-BoD position (held by a number of Church Fathers) is Calvinist actually sheds some light on his psychology, why he's so obsessed with promoting Baptism of Desire.
This man clearly has some major ax to grid against Feeneyism other than simply being against it. Lover of Heresy was on the same crusade due to his having "almost been" converted to Feeneyism ... or something like that.
-
You haven't heard this because Papa doesn't know what he's talking about. Father Feeney was no more Calvinist than St. Augustine was, with the latter rejecting Baptism of Desire in his later years due to his realization that it was implicitly Pelagian. His suggestion that the anti-BoD position (held by a number of Church Fathers) is Calvinist actually sheds some light on his psychology, why he's so obsessed with promoting Baptism of Desire.
This man clearly has some major ax to grid against Feeneyism other than simply being against it. Lover of Heresy was on the same crusade due to his having "almost been" converted to Feeneyism ... or something like that.
Okay, thanks. I still hope that Papa will respond, so that he can say why he thinks that Fr. Feeney had Calvinistic leanings. Maybe it has something to do with Calvin's goofy views on predestination, but maybe it doesn't.
-
In point of fact, a majority of Feeneyites don't rule out BoD as a HYPOTHETICAL possibility, but hold that it simply doesn't happen because God cannot be thwarted by impossibility from bringing His elect to the Sacrament of Baptism.
St. Augustine:
Perish the thought that a person predestined to eternal life could be allowed to end this life without the sacrament of the mediator.
-
Okay, thanks. I still hope that Papa will respond, so that he can say why he thinks that Fr. Feeney had Calvinistic leanings. Maybe it has something to do with Calvin's goofy views on predestination, but maybe it doesn't.
My guess is that his notion is related to Calvinistic predesination. But St. Augustine's notion of predestination (alluded to in the previous citation I just made) has nothing to do with Calvinism, but, rather, anti-Pelagianism.
Here's an excellent, scholarly, and well-balanced discussion regarding the theological status of Baptism of Desire:
https://catholicism.org/baptism-of-desire-its-origin-and-abandonment-in-the-thought-of-saint-augustine.html
-
My guess is that his notion is related to Calvinistic predesination. But St. Augustine's notion of predestination (alluded to in the previous citation I just made) has nothing to do with Calvinism, but, rather, anti-Pelagianism.
Here's an excellent, scholarly, and well-balanced discussion regarding the theological status of Baptism of Desire:
https://catholicism.org/baptism-of-desire-its-origin-and-abandonment-in-the-thought-of-saint-augustine.html
Thanks. I'll read the link.
-
"One of the most outstanding prophets of our time." Hamish Fraser
"The greatest theologian we have in the United States, by far." Rev. John J. McEleny, S.J., (Father's Jesuit Provincial)
"The greatest theologian in the Catholic Church today." — John Cardinal Wright
Again for the millionth time, you are the one misinterpreting Trent - and we finally agree, you don't get to do that.
A criterion of Catholic theology is the science of faith. Theology strives to understand what the Church believes and why it believes.
Feeney did not hold to Church teaching therefore he was not a theologian in any real sense i.e no more a theologian than Pastor John Doe.
I haven't even talked about Trent other than saying I won't talk about it :laugh1:
-
Can you explain more about how Fr. Feeney had Calvinistic leanings? I haven't head that before. I usually avoid discussions about Fr. Feeney, because I haven't studied much about him.
https://stevensperay.wordpress.com/2018/04/26/how-feeneyism-is-like-calvinism/
-
OK, so what do you think is the position of truth?
The Church's position.
BOB is for the explicitly believing martyr who was not baptized by water and who shed his blood for Christ, BOD is for the catechumen who desires baptism but dies before receiving it.
-
You haven't heard this because Papa doesn't know what he's talking about. Father Feeney was no more Calvinist than St. Augustine was, with the latter rejecting Baptism of Desire in his later years due to his realization that it was implicitly Pelagian. His suggestion that the anti-BoD position (held by a number of Church Fathers) is Calvinist actually sheds some light on his psychology, why he's so obsessed with promoting Baptism of Desire.
This man clearly has some major ax to grid against Feeneyism other than simply being against it. Lover of Heresy was on the same crusade due to his having "almost been" converted to Feeneyism ... or something like that.
What a stupid response.
What is Calvinism but hyper-Augustinianism?
St. Augustine's theology is not infallible as clearly seen by the Church's condemnation of both Calvinism and Jansenism, both of which are deeply Augustinian, more than the Catholic Church I might add.
-
My guess is that his notion is related to Calvinistic predesination. But St. Augustine's notion of predestination (alluded to in the previous citation I just made) has nothing to do with Calvinism, but, rather, anti-Pelagianism.
Here's an excellent, scholarly, and well-balanced discussion regarding the theological status of Baptism of Desire:
https://catholicism.org/baptism-of-desire-its-origin-and-abandonment-in-the-thought-of-saint-augustine.html
The article was written by a Feeneyite organization, funny enough. Anyway its not a bad article. It is fair and well balanced, but again St. Augustine is not the Catholic Church.
If you want Augustinianism then become a Calvinist or an Old Roman Catholic (Jansenism).
-
A criterion of Catholic theology is the science of faith. Theology strives to understand what the Church believes and why it believes.
Feeney did not hold to Church teaching therefore he was not a theologian in any real sense i.e no more a theologian than Pastor John Doe.
I haven't even talked about Trent other than saying I won't talk about it :laugh1:
Fr. Feeney echoed Trent. You have no flaming clue what Church teaching even is. For those who want to know what Trent taught in this matter, read Trent, and read Bread of Life.
You do not talk about Trent because you do not know what Trent taught, because you reject what Trent taught while falsely accusing others of the same. Nothing new among BODers.
-
Fr. Feeney echoed Trent. You have no flaming clue what Church teaching even is. For those who want to know what Trent taught in this matter, read Bread of Life.
You do not talk about Trent because you do not know what Trent taught, because you reject what Trent taught while falsely accusing others of the same. Nothing new among BODers.
Fr. Feeney taught non-Catholic heresy. The Bread of Life needs to be burned alongside with Calvin's treatise on predestination in the same garbage bin.
I already shared the Bull on Trent.
You are an excommunicated schismatic heretic who is not even part of the Church much less to be able to talk about it.
-
LOL
Always remember this papi:
"There is no one about to die in the state of justification whom God cannot secure Baptism for, and indeed,
Baptism of Water. The schemes concerning salvation, I leave to the skeptics. The clear truths of salvation, I am
preaching to you". - Fr. Feeney, "The greatest theologian in the Catholic Church today." — John Cardinal Wright
-
LOL
Always remember this papi:
"There is no one about to die in the state of justification whom God cannot secure Baptism for, and indeed,
Baptism of Water. The schemes concerning salvation, I leave to the skeptics. The clear truths of salvation, I am
preaching to you". - Fr. Feeney, "The greatest theologian in the Catholic Church today." — John Cardinal Wright
You might as well quote Calvin, Stubby.
Feeney was a non-Catholic heretic.
-
Just always remember the quote. It helps BODers realize their iniquitous ways.
"There is no one about to die in the state of justification whom God cannot secure Baptism for, and indeed,
Baptism of Water..." - Fr. Feeney, "The greatest theologian in the Catholic Church today." — John Cardinal Wright
-
Just always remember the quote. It helps BODers realize their iniquitous ways.
"There is no one about to die in the state of justification whom God cannot secure Baptism for, and indeed,
Baptism of Water..." - Fr. Feeney, "The greatest theologian in the Catholic Church today." — John Cardinal Wright
Just always remember:
Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: "He who heareth you, heareth me"; and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official docuмents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians.
Pope Pius XII
-
The only way to be a Feeneyite is to believe in double predestination.
Enjoy your Calvinism and/or Jansenism Stubby, Ladi, and Paxy. Its been good talking to you boys!
-
It is so simple when you here the Voice of Christ say..
“Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” John 3:5
And from the Church in the Nicene Creed said by the priest at Mass:
“Confíteor unum baptísma in remissiónem peccatórum..”
“I confess one baptism for the forgiveness of sins..”
According to Christ and The Church, there is only One Baptism, (not three) and it is with water and The Holy Ghost
The idea there is accidental death of God’s Elect without the Sacraments is just plain silly.
God is, and always was, the Author of Life and Death, and it is He who grants the Sacrament of Baptism, to ALL of His Elect..
John 18:9
9 (https://biblehub.com/john/18-9.htm)That the word might be fulfilled which he said: Of them whom thou hast given me, I have not lost any one.
-
It is so simple when you here the Voice of Christ say..
“Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” John 3:5
And from the Church in the Nicene Creed said by the priest at Mass:
“Confíteor unum baptísma in remissiónem peccatórum..”
“I confess one baptism for the forgiveness of sins..”
According to Christ and The Church, there is only One Baptism, (not three) and it is with water and The Holy Ghost
The idea there is accidental death of God’s Elect without the Sacraments is just plain silly.
God is, and always was, the Author of Life and Death, and it is He who grants the Sacrament of Baptism, to ALL of His Elect..
John 18:9
9 (https://biblehub.com/john/18-9.htm)That the word might be fulfilled which he said: Of them whom thou hast given me, I have not lost any one.
Who interprets the Bible?
Carissima or the Catholic Church?
-
Just always remember:
Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority.
Pope Pius XII
Except for those encyclicals and teachings by Popes who I, Papa Pius V, as a non sedevacantist, accept as pope but disagree with. I do not consent to the teaching of those.
One problem with R&R is that it posits two kinds of Popes, the ones to be believed and the ones to be disbelieved. As a non-sede it is hard to argue honestly or consistently with those who treat all the popes the same and question all their teachings, or who put different Popes, such as Pius XII who you quote, into the category of popes to be disbelieved.
-
(Except for those encyclicals and teachings by Popes who I, Papa Pius V, as a non sedevacantist, accept as pope but disagree with. I do not consent to the teaching of those.)
Indeed. It is a contradiction I am attempting to resolve. I have no answer to this. I am undoubtedly guilty.
I might end up eventually adopting the Cassiciacuм thesis.
-
Indeed. It is a contradiction I am attempting to solve. I have no answer to this. I am undoubtedly guilty.
I might end up eventually adopting the Cassiciacuм thesis.
I honestly trouble with this also. I don't see the sede options as being better after knowing about the arguments for about twelve years, and I do not want to become a Russian Old Believer, so I stay with my SSPX chapel and pray the Rosary.
-
https://stevensperay.wordpress.com/2018/04/26/how-feeneyism-is-like-calvinism/
What utter nonsense. Are you Speray?
It basically promotes Pelagianism in order to declare Father Feeney's position "Calvinist".
(http://i.imgur.com/8PsTGAg.gif)
-
The article was written by a Feeneyite organization, funny enough. Anyway its not a bad article. It is fair and well balanced, but again St. Augustine is not the Catholic Church.
If you want Augustinianism then become a Calvinist or an Old Roman Catholic (Jansenism).
That's utterly idiotic. You're now equating anti-Pelagianism with Calvinism, effectively declaring St. Augustine to be objectively heretical. You might as well be promoting Pelagius, man.
We finally have someone coming out in the open admitting that it's Pelagianism that is behind BoD.
-
Fr. Feeney taught non-Catholic heresy. The Bread of Life needs to be burned alongside with Calvin's treatise on predestination in the same garbage bin.
I already shared the Bull on Trent.
You are an excommunicated schismatic heretic who is not even part of the Church much less to be able to talk about it.
Now you're even excommunicating people, Papa?
-
You might as well quote Calvin, Stubby.
Feeney was a non-Catholic heretic.
What's erroneous about that statement? Is God incapable of providing Sacramental Baptism to any of the elect?
I love how BoDers talk about how Feeneyites limit God to working in His Sacraments, and yet claim that God is somehow limited by impossibility, unfortunate and unforeseen accidents.
-
The only way to be a Feeneyite is to believe in double predestination.
Enjoy your Calvinism and/or Jansenism Stubby, Ladi, and Paxy. Its been good talking to you boys!
What is your ax to grid against Feeneyism? You clearly have some emotional/psychological problems with it. Did you have a relative of yours pass away while still a catechumen trying to enter the Church?
-
Except for those encyclicals and teachings by Popes who I, Papa Pius V, as a non sedevacantist, accept as pope but disagree with. I do not consent to the teaching of those.
One problem with R&R is that it posits two kinds of Popes, the ones to be believed and the ones to be disbelieved. As a non-sede it is hard to argue honestly or consistently with those who treat all the popes the same and question all their teachings, or who put different Popes, such as Pius XII who you quote, into the category of popes to be disbelieved.
Indeed, Papa's OP condemned Feeneyism for rejecting Church teaching, but he then thinks it's OK to .... REJECT (the last 60 years of) Church teaching.
-
I honestly trouble with this also. I don't see the sede options as being better after knowing about the arguments for about twelve years, and I do not want to become a Russian Old Believer, so I stay with my SSPX chapel and pray the Rosary.
It's not your job (or mine) to be a theologian and have an answer to this issue. So you do just fine staying where you're at and just worrying about your soul.
Beware the DANGER of the logical contradictions and traps here, and just ask God to keep you out of them. Leave the rest to Him.
-
Here is Speray's argument:
The Feeneyite says all of the invincibly ignorant are damned. If this is so, how is this different from Calvinism concerning Matt. 11:28 that God only provides the possibility to be saved to a certain number of people, which necessarily implies that God created part of mankind for hell?
Uhm, St. Thomas also teaches that the invincibly ignorant are damned. And he explains why it's not Calvinism [in principle, since Calvin lived later]. He states that this ignorance is in fact punishment for their other sins, and that, were there no such obstalces, God would enlighten them with the things necessary to know for salvation.
Trent dogmatically teaches that faith is necessary for salvation. It is in fact agreed by ALL Catholic theologians that explicit knowledge of at least some truths about God (I'll prescind from the debate about which ones) is necessary by necessity of means in order to have supernatural faith. Consequently, ignorance of these truths, whether vincible or invincible, renders a soul incapable of being saved. But this is not Calvinism for the reasons St. Thomas Aquinas adduces, namely, that the ignorance itself is in fact a punishment for other sins.
We'll notice again how the BoDers' zeal to promote BoD has NOTHING to do with rare case of a catechumen who dies before Baptism. It's all about getting the ignorant and non-Catholics into heaven. It's an assault on EENS. And the courageous Father Feeney called it out for what it is.
-
What utter nonsense. Are you Speray?
It basically promotes Pelagianism in order to declare Father Feeney's position "Calvinist".
(http://i.imgur.com/8PsTGAg.gif)
Its only Pelagianism or Semi-Pelagianist in the eyes of Calvinists and Jansenists; not Catholics.
-
That's utterly idiotic. You're now equating anti-Pelagianism with Calvinism, effectively declaring St. Augustine to be objectively heretical. You might as well be promoting Pelagius, man.
We finally have someone coming out in the open admitting that it's Pelagianism that is behind BoD.
St. Augustine's views are Calvinism and Jansenism. That is an objective reality. That doesn't mean St. Augustine was a heretic though as the Church hadn't pronounced anything definitely at his time. The same goes for St. Thomas and his denial of the immaculate conception.
-
St. Augustine's views are Calvinism and Jansenism. That is an objective reality.
Unbelievable.
-
Now you're even excommunicating people, Papa?
Pope Pius IV’s Bull Benedictus Deus (26 January 1564). The Bull, which confirms the decrees of the Council of Trent, imposes a latae sententiae (automatic) excommunication on anyone who, without the approval of the Holy See, presumes “to publish in any form any commentaries, glosses, annotations, scholia on, or any kind of interpretation whatsoever of the decrees of this council.”
There ya go, Ladi!
-
What is your ax to grid against Feeneyism? You clearly have some emotional/psychological problems with it. Did you have a relative of yours pass away while still a catechumen trying to enter the Church?
Something along those lines.
-
What's erroneous about that statement? Is God incapable of providing Sacramental Baptism to any of the elect?
I love how BoDers talk about how Feeneyites limit God to working in His Sacraments, and yet claim that God is somehow limited by impossibility, unfortunate and unforeseen accidents.
It presupposes double predestination. Actually it necessitates it.
-
Something along those lines.
Hey, at least you're honest. This is more than just an intellectual position for you.
-
Indeed, Papa's OP condemned Feeneyism for rejecting Church teaching, but he then thinks it's OK to .... REJECT (the last 60 years of) Church teaching.
I admit its a huge problem. I am seriously considering the Cassiciacuм thesis.
-
It presupposes double predestination. Actually it necessitates it.
It most certainly does not. Unless you have a different argument than Speray.
-
It's not your job (or mine) to be a theologian and have an answer to this issue. So you do just fine staying where you're at and just worrying about your soul.
Beware the DANGER of the logical contradictions and traps here, and just ask God to keep you out of them. Leave the rest to Him.
No, but it is our job to be consistent logically with ourselves and in the faith.
-
I admit its a huge problem. I am seriously considering the Cassiciacuм thesis.
Or look at Father Chazal's variant ... which he at one point called sede-impoundism.
-
Here is Speray's argument:
Uhm, St. Thomas also teaches that the invincibly ignorant are damned. And he explains why it's not Calvinism [in principle, since Calvin lived later]. He states that this ignorance is in fact punishment for their other sins, and that, were there no such obstalces, God would enlighten them with the things necessary to know for salvation.
Trent dogmatically teaches that faith is necessary for salvation. It is in fact agreed by ALL Catholic theologians that explicit knowledge of at least some truths about God (I'll prescind from the debate about which ones) is necessary by necessity of means in order to have supernatural faith. Consequently, ignorance of these truths, whether vincible or invincible, renders a soul incapable of being saved. But this is not Calvinism for the reasons St. Thomas Aquinas adduces, namely, that the ignorance itself is in fact a punishment for other sins.
We'll notice again how the BoDers' zeal to promote BoD has NOTHING to do with rare case of a catechumen who dies before Baptism. It's all about getting the ignorant and non-Catholics into heaven. It's an assault on EENS. And the courageous Father Feeney called it out for what it is.
Speray's argument is 100% on point.
Also Augustinianism is Calvinism and Jansenism. No doubt about that whatsoever. It is objectively verifiable.
-
No, but it is our job to be consistent logically with ourselves and in the faith.
To the best of our ability, yes. I admit that we have a vacuum of authority here and so laymen are stuck trying to resolve these issues on our own. Sure, we can look to priests, but they too are divided, so there's the question of having to decide which priests or groups of priests to hitch our wagons to.
-
It most certainly does not. Unless you have a different argument than Speray.
An excerpt from the book, "God Owes Us Nothing" by Dr. Kolakowski:
Jansenists hardly ever called themselves “Jansenists,” of course; the name was coined by their Jesuit enemies almost at the beginning of the controversy; it suggested a kind of a new sect set up by one recently deceased theologian. Jansenius’s followers called themselves disciples of Augustine, whose authority had been unshakable in Christianity. They insisted that they—and their master, Jansenius—had nothing new to say; they simply followed and repeated the most traditional teaching of the Church, which conformed to the Gospels and to the epistles of Saint Paul and was codified in Augustinian theology. The “Molinist” doctrine, on the other hand, was, they argued, a novelty in the Catholic Church, even though it brought back to life the most dangerous heresy of the Pelagians or semi-Pelagians (the so-called “Marsilians”).
The Jesuit writers were indeed in an awkward position when they were challenged by the authority of Augustine, and most of the time they preferred to avoid the issue. When pressed on this point, they either issued gratuitous denials or sometimes—not often—pointed out that the great saint, much as he deserved respect, was not infallible, after all, and his writings were not dogmatically binding; they also averred that their own theory of grace was perfectly in keeping with the teaching of Thomas Aquinas, whose authority they often invoked. They accused the Jansenists, however, of being tainted with the horrors of the Calvinist heresy. Good arguments may be advanced to show that both sides were right in their accusations. Jansenists were on firm ground in saying that they were faithful to the Augustinian teaching, and quite justified in scenting Pelagian errors in the Jesuit theology. The Jesuits were no less right in demonstrating the fundamental conformity of Jansenist tenets with Calvin’s theory of predestination. This amounts to saying that Calvin was, on this point, a good Augustinian and that, by condemning Jansenius, the Church was in effect condemning—without, of course, stating it explicitly—Augustine himself, its own greatest theological authority. The pronouncements and the anathemas of the Council of Trent left some ambiguities which both Jesuits and Jansenists could plausibly interpret in their favor; the successive condemnations of Baius, Jansenius, and Quesnel, however, sealed the fate of the Augustinian tradition on this crucial point in the Catholic world. This was a momentous event in the history of Christianity and thus in the European history of ideas, not a long-forgotten quarrel of hair-splitting medieval minds.
The Council of Trent did confirm the Augustinian teaching. Whatever God orders is feasible with his grace but this grace is not always there and not everybody gets it; otherwise we would not need to ask for help. And it is important to keep in mind that grace is refused not only to infidels and obdurate sinners but also to faithful and just people, who really do wish to abide by divine orders: they have will but not power. The paradigmatic example, both to Augustine and to Jansenius, is, of course, the denial of Peter, a supremely iustus vir who had the will to follow the commandments but was not provided with the divine aid to do it. One simple Augustinian sentence (among many) settles the matter: “I want you to will, but it is not enough that you will. You have to be aided so that you will fully accomplish what you will.”7 Even the Lord’s Prayer, “do not lead us into temptation,” implies that “it is not given to all not to be tempted above what they are capable of.”8 The self-conceited Pelagian contention that the will cannot be enslaved, and that we simply do not sin if we do not want to, is to be found among scholastics who fail to see that it is not enough to will, or to will not to, in order to overpower the temptation. “It is grace which causes that we not only will to do what is right but that we are able to do so.” Bad will can be converted into good will only by the power of grace. God demonstrated, through Peter’s example, that he punishes the pride of those who rely on their own powers. “And what is man without grace but what Peter was when he denied Christ?”9
Jansenius claims that Aquinas’s theology does not depart from Augustinian tenets on this point. Did not he say that man is in duty bound to perform acts he is incapable of performing without grace, which God does not always confer (a just punishment for previous crimes or at least for original sin)?10 Didn’t he say that the sinner is guilty even if he cannot escape sinning, not unlike a drunken killer who is not excused just because he committed the crime as a result of being drunk, since he was guilty of having got drunk in the first place?
According to Augustine, Jurieu, and Calvin, human creatures after the Fall can perform no morally good act (conform to divine law) unaided; for every such act they need the infusion of grace which is given to some and refused to others by the sheer wish of God, and not because some are more deserving of grace than others.
According to the semi-Pelagian teaching of the Jesuits, we do need divine grace to do good but “sufficient grace” is given to all, and it needs only our free will to make it efficient. Since this efficient grace is a constant condition of our life, we may say that moral perfection and our salvation depend on our effort and will. According to Aquinas, we have enough grace to perform some good acts by our free choice, but the free choice does not suffice to avoid all sins in all circuмstances.
One might argue that the Augustinians’ fears and worries were not well grounded, as Christianity has after all survived after adopting a semi-Pelagian doctrine of salvation; neither has it been transformed into a secular philosophy, despite the intense efforts of many Catholic theologians. The powerful image of Jesus Christ is still there: a good shepherd with wide-open arms. But it is not the Christianity that the Jansenists carried in their hearts. If they were here now they might say, with infinite sadness, that “the cross has been emptied.” As a result of the long anti-Jansenist campaign, Christianity did undergo a mutation in both theological and cultural terms, imperceptible at the time. This probably made the survival of the Church possible, but at a price which the seventeenth-century Augustinians would have found exorbitant.
-
Speray's argument is 100% on point.
Also Augustinianism is Calvinism and Jansenism. No doubt about that whatsoever. It is objectively verifiable.
No, it's not even close. Speray claims that it's Calvinistic to claim that the invincibly ignorant can't be saved. That's nonsense. St. Thomas explained why it's not the same as double predestination.
-
To the best of our ability, yes. I admit that we have a vacuum of authority here and so laymen are stuck trying to resolve these issues on our own. Sure, we can look to priests, but they too are divided, so there's the question of having to decide which priests or groups of priests to hitch our wagons to.
Well said. The issue at its root is one of authority whether regarding Feeneyism of theological disputation X.
-
An excerpt from the book, "God Owes Us Nothing" by Dr. Kolakowski:
One might argue that the Augustinians’ fears and worries were not well grounded, as Christianity has after all survived after adopting a semi-Pelagian doctrine of salvation; neither has it been transformed into a secular philosophy, despite the intense efforts of many Catholic theologians. The powerful image of Jesus Christ is still there: a good shepherd with wide-open arms. But it is not the Christianity that the Jansenists carried in their hearts. If they were here now they might say, with infinite sadness, that “the cross has been emptied.” As a result of the long anti-Jansenist campaign, Christianity did undergo a mutation in both theological and cultural terms, imperceptible at the time. This probably made the survival of the Church possible, but at a price which the seventeenth-century Augustinians would have found exorbitant.
Did he write this before or after Vatican II? We see the fruits of semi-Pelagianism in Vatican II, and it's only by the grace of God that the Church will be able to "survive" without becoming "transformed into a secular philosophy"?
-
No, it's not even close. Speray claims that it's Calvinistic to claim that the invincibly ignorant can't be saved. That's nonsense. St. Thomas explained why it's not the same as double predestination.
After Pius IX's encyclical on the issue; the matter is closed, Rome has spoken.
And after the Bull Unigenitus, Augustinianism is dead in the Catholic Church.
-
Well, at least you're over the target area, realizing that BoD is tied to semi-Pelagianism ... which is something I've argued for years.
-
Did he write this before or after Vatican II? We see the fruits of semi-Pelagianism in Vatican II, and it's only by the grace of God that the Church will be able to "survive" without becoming "transformed into a secular philosophy"?
The drafts go back to before Vatican II though the book was published after Vatican II.
-
Well, at least you're over the target area, realizing that BoD is tied to semi-Pelagianism ... which is something I've argued for years.
Its objective reality that I cannot deny. Feeneyism is more Augustinian whereas the Church's position the last 300 years is closer to semi-Pelagianism.
-
Its objective reality that I cannot deny. Feeneyism is more Augustinian whereas the Church's position the last 300 years is closer to semi-Pelagianism.
Well, I think that's the problem, the Church deliberately did NOT take a position ... in the dispute between the Molinists and the Thomists/Dominicans (who were more Augustinian). Semi-Pelagianism did win out over time, and I trace Vatican II and its errors to semi-Pelagian roots. To a large extent, the Church tried to stay out of it, but this was, in retrospect, a tragic mistake ... although one, of course, that was permitted by God for a reason.
-
Well, I think that's the problem, the Church deliberately did NOT take a position ... in the dispute between the Molinists and the Thomists/Dominicans (who were more Augustinian). Semi-Pelagianism did win out over time, and I trace Vatican II and its errors to semi-Pelagian roots. To a large extent, the Church tried to stay out of it, but this was, in retrospect, a tragic mistake ... although one, of course, that was permitted by God for a reason.
The Bull Unigenitus sealed the fate of Augustinianism permanently and cemented the Jesuit semi-Pelagian position as the official interpretation of the Church.
-
The Bull Unigenitus sealed the fate of Augustinianism permanently and cemented the Jesuit semi-Pelagian position as the official interpretation of the Church.
No, I disagree. While the Church condemned certain propositions of Jansen, it did not condemn Augustinianism per se. There were many Augustinians who did not fall under the Jansen condemnations because they maintained a distinction between sufficient and efficacious grace ... as did St. Augustine. It's that distinction which separates the two. Unigenitus condemned Jansenism, not Augustinianism (which was closely followed by the Thomists and Dominicans). In fact, the Church has promoted St. Thomas as THE common Doctor of the Church, and he was Augustinian. Your claim that the Church rejected Augustinianism is based on the false premise that it's the same as Jansenism.
And, then, of course, coming full circle in this thread, I dispute that rejecting Baptism of Desire has any implications with regard to that particular dispute. It's an entirely independent question. There's no in-depth analysis there of why the ignorant remain ignorant and are not saved, i.e. whether they rejected some graces or did not receive graces, etc. You're falsely conflating these two questions.
-
No, I disagree. While the Church condemned certain propositions of Jansen, it did not condemn Augustinianism per se. There were many Augustinians who did not fall under the Jansen condemnations because they maintained a distinction between sufficient and efficacious grace ... as did St. Augustine. It's that distinction which separates the two. Unigenitus condemned Jansenism, not Augustinianism (which was closely followed by the Thomists and Dominicans). In fact, the Church has promoted St. Thomas as THE common Doctor of the Church, and he was Augustinian. Your claim that the Church rejected Augustinianism is based on the false premise that it's the same as Jansenism.
And, then, of course, coming full circle in this thread, I dispute that rejecting Baptism of Desire has any implications with regard to that particular dispute. It's an entirely independent question. There's no in-depth analysis there of why the ignorant remain ignorant and are not saved, i.e. whether they rejected some graces or did not receive graces, etc. You're falsely conflating these two questions.
Interesting perspective, but there are undoubtedly Augustinian doctrines in Jansenism which was condemned by Unigenitus. While Augustinianism in its totality was not rejected by the Church there can be little doubt that the Jansenist affair severely limited the views and interpretations acceptable to hold within the Augustinian spectrum so to speak.
St. Thomas Aquinas was certainly Augustinian at core, but not to the extent of say the Jansenists or Calvinists who fully embraced Augustinianism in its totality.
The problem with not believing in BOD and BOB and invincible ignorance is that it necessitates double predestination. The barbaric African or the Japanese or the American Indians were all damned for hundreds of years for lack of missionaries. That is double predestination, no doubt.
-
The problem with not believing in BOD and BOB and invincible ignorance is that it necessitates double predestination.
Invincible Ignorance isn't an article of faith and just because a pope mentioned its possibility (as a philosophical theory), doesn't mean it actually exists in reality. In fact, Scripture condemns the idea in John1, where St John tells us that Christ "enlightens every man who comes into the world". Since we know that every person is born with the knowledge of the natural law, and of God, then this means that God does not create anyone invincibly ignorant. As St Paul tells us, God wills that all men are saved "and come to the knowledge of the Truth".
.
Since it is infallible that God wills all men to be saved, and it's infallible that Christ enlightens every person who is born, then it's infallible that there is no such thing as invincible ignorance. Everyone has at least the natural knowledge of sin and of God. This is sufficient, as grace builds on nature. If one is of good will, and follows his God-given conscience, God will lead him to Truth and Catholicism.
.
The barbaric African or the Japanese or the American Indians were all damned for hundreds of years for lack of missionaries. That is double predestination, no doubt.
You correctly use the term "barbaric" because these peoples were savage, war-loving, evil tribes whose cultures revolved around killing, power, and paganism. They did not follow the natural law, they worshipped satan (in his many forms) and most had some form of human/child sacrifice as part of their "religion".
.
The lack of missionaries weren't the problem; the lack of good will was. As an example, even the most anti-catholic historians agree that the vast majority of US indians rejected catholicism because they were not a peaceful people and only wanted to fight their neighboring tribes over the best hunting ground.
-
I usually avoid discussions about Fr. Feeney, because I haven't studied much about him.
To get to the marrow Meg, you can check out the book "The Loyoals and the Cabots" I attached a PDF if you want to check it out. Below is the opening paragraphs of the book's Introduction which imo, if you only want the jist of the book, pretty much says it all - it's basically the same tactics that are still used today by the Libs to squash the opposition.
In a nutshell, some Harvard Students who attended some of Fr. Feeney's talks, protested to the dean of Harvard that Harvard was teaching heresy against EENS. This is the snowball that was turned into a glacier, it is what started the whole smear campaign against the dogma and against Fr. Feeney.
"The Loyoals and the Cabots"
Introduction
This book is going to press one year after the people of the United States, and eventually the people of the
world were shocked by, a stubborn profession of faith made on the part of some Boston Catholics, who were
at once silenced and interdicted by the ecclesiastical and sacerdotal authorities in what has come to be known
far and wide as the “Boston Heresy Case.”
The strangest feature of this case is not, as might be commonly supposed, that some Boston Catholics were
holding heresy and were being rebuked by their legitimate superiors. It is, rather, that these same Catholics
were accusing their ecclesiastical superiors and academic mentors of teaching heresy, and as thanks for
having been so solicitous were immєdιαtely suppressed by these same authorities on the score of being
intolerant and bigoted. If history takes any note of this large incident (in what is often called the most
Catholic city in the United States) it may interest historians to note that those who were punished were never
accused of holding heresy, but only of being intolerant, unbroadminded and disobedient. It is also to be
noted that the same authorities have never gone to the slightest trouble to point out wherein the accusation
made against them by the “Boston group” is unfounded. In a heresy case usually a subject is being punished
by his superior for denying a doctrine of his church. In this heresy case a subject of the Church is being
punished by his superior for professing a defined doctrine.
-
Without getting bogged down in the intricate theology of grace, it should be obvious to every Catholic that God is Infinite Love, and that it was His love that moved him to create man to share in His happiness, and that He loves every soul that He has created with an infinite love and desires its happiness infinitely more than we desire it ourselves.
God created no one to damn them. Every soul that is damned, is damned through its own free choice. "Before man is good and evil, that which he chooses shall be given him". How many saints and spiritual writers tell us that it is precisely this that constitutes one of the principal torments of the damned, seeing how easily they might have saved their soul if only, if only, if only they had responded to God's graces, which they failed to do through their own fault.
It is equally obvious that many souls created by God have lived and died with no knowledge of or contact with His one true Church, with absolutely no possibility of being baptized and belonging to that Church. These souls, too, were created to share in the life of God and to be eternally happy with Him in Heaven. These souls too, will be saved or damned by the choice they freely make.
The conclusion is obvious: The Omnipotent, infinitely merciful and infinitely loving God, is not constrained by the ordinary means that He has established to save souls, namely by being made members of His Church through Baptism, worshipping Him in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, frequenting the Sacraments... They will surely be judged on how they have lived according to the natural law and how they have corresponded to the graces God has given them. Who knows if God will not give one or another their own particular revelation with the opportunity to choose for or against Him.
Surely, it is this common sense Catholicism that Fr Cekada was alluding to.
-
Woops! Meant to put this in the other thread!
-
Yes, Plenus Venter. I agree with you. God's Universal Salvific Will, revealed in Sacred Scripture in many places, is dogmatically certain: "Is it my will that a sinner should die, saith the Lord God, and not that he should be converted from his ways, and live?" (Ez 18:23)" "Even so it is not the will of your Father, who is in heaven, that one of these little ones should perish."(Mat 18:14). "The Lord delayeth not his promise, as some imagine, but dealeth patiently for your sake, not willing that any should perish, but that all should return to penance." (2 Pet 3:9), "Who will have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth." (1 Tim 2:4),
Calvinism/Jansenism are heretical because they deny this. St. Augustine and St. Thomas, as St. Alphonsus shows, and unanimously all the Fathers and Doctors, teach the doctrine of God's Universal Salvific Will, which also follows from the dogma that Jesus Christ Our Lord and Savior died for all. It cannot be reconciled with Calvinist heretical doctrines like limited atonement and double predestination. The Truth is that God loves us all and wants us to be converted to Him and be saved. This offends some who would like others to be lost. Hatred of neighbor and desire for others to be lost is a grave sin and never comes from true love of God or zeal for sous.
The below site contains numerous references to Baptism of Desire. I cite only the holy Doctors St. Alphonsus and St. Robert here.
http://baptismofdesire.com/
· St. Alphonsus Liguori, Doctor of the Church (18th century): Moral Theology, Book 6, Section II (About Baptism and Confirmation), Chapter 1 (On Baptism), page 310, no. 96: "Baptism of desire is perfect conversion to God by contrition or love of God above all things accompanied by an explicit or implicit desire for true baptism of water, the place of which it takes as to the remission of guilt, but not as to the impression of the [baptismal] character or as to the removal of all debt of punishment. It is called "of wind" ["flaminis"] because it takes place by the impulse of the Holy Ghost who is called a wind ["flamen"]. Now it is "de fide" that men are also saved by Baptism of desire, by virtue of the Canon Apostolicam, "de presbytero non baptizato" and of the Council of Trent, session 6, Chapter 4 where it is said that no one can be saved 'without the laver of regeneration or the desire for it.'" (Note: Unbelievers can see the original book in Latin here (http://baptismofdesire.com/alphonse_theologia_moralis_5.pdf). Turn to page 310 in the book (or page 157 of the PDF file).
Moral Theology, Bk. 6, nn. 95-97: "Baptism of blood is the shedding of one's blood, i.e. death, suffered for the faith or for some other Christian virtue. Now this Baptism is comparable to true baptism because, like true Baptism, it remits both guilt and punishment as it were ex opere operato… Hence martyrdom avails also for infants seeing that the Church venerates the Holy Innocents as true martyrs. That is why Suarez rightly teaches that the opposing view is at least temerarious."
On the Council of Trent, 1846, Pg. 128-129 (Duffy): "Who can deny that the act of perfect love of God, which is sufficient for justification, includes an implicit desire of Baptism, of Penance, and of the Eucharist. He who wishes the whole wishes the every part of that whole and all the means necessary for its attainment. In order to be justified without baptism, an infidel must love God above all things, and must have an universal will to observe all the divine precepts, among which the first is to receive baptism: and therefore in order to be justified it is necessary for him to have at least an implicit desire of that sacrament."
· St. Robert Bellarmine, Doctor of the Church (16th century): De Sacramento Baptismi, cap. 6: “...among the ancients this proposition was not so certain at first as later on: that perfect conversion and repentance is rightly called the Baptism of Desire and supplies for Baptism of water, at least in case of necessity”....."it is certainly to be believed that true conversion supplies for Baptism of water when it is not from contempt but through necessity that persons die without Baptism of water.”
De Controversiis, “De Baptismo,” Lib. I, Cap. VI: “But without doubt it must be believed that true conversion supplies for Baptism of water when one dies without Baptism of water not out of contempt but out of necessity... For it is expressly said in Ezechiel: If the wicked shall do penance from his sins, I will no more remember his iniquities...Thus also the Council of Trent, Session 6, Chapter 4, says that Baptism is necessary in fact or in desire (in re vel in voto)”.
-
I do not believe you agree with St. Alphonsus.
Knowing that a BOD is not a sacrament, the great saint said:
"The heretics say that no sacrament is necessary, inasmuch as they hold that man is justified by faith alone, and that the sacraments only serve to excite and nourish this faith, which (as the heretics say) can be equally excited and nourished by preaching. But this is certainly false, and is condemned in the fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth canons: for as we know from the Scriptures, some of the sacraments are necessary (necessitate Medii) as a means without which salvation is impossible. Thus Baptism is necessary for all, Penance for them who have fallen into sin after Baptism, and the Eucharist is necessary for all at least in desire". -
From: (An Exposition and Defence of All the Points of Faith Discussed and Defined by the Sacred Council of Trent, Along With the Refutation of the Errors of the Pretended Reformers, Saint Alphonsus Liguori, Dublin, 1846.)
Am I right, do you disagree with him here?
Sorry man, but this deserves a big :facepalm: How is it that BODers do not see that a BOD is justification by faith alone?
Trent says if anyone saith that men obtain justification without the desire for the sacrament, let him be anathema.
Trent NEVER says that *with* the desire, men obtain justification, only that without it there is no justification. Which means they purposely left the idea of justification via a desire up in the air. But they were quite clear on the necessity of the sacrament for salvation.
So BODers cannot say honestly, that Trent teaches such a thing as, "with a desire men are justified", and to say a BOD saves is a blatant misquote of Trent. BODers, if they are going to quote Trent, must do so honestly and can only say "without the desire, men are not justified" - which means what it says. What you said in bold is your own opinion shared by others, even other great saints - but that is *not* what the Church infallibly taught at Trent.
Which is to say the title of this thread should be changed to The Absurdity of the BODers
I agree entirely with St. Alphonsus. Let me ask you, if St. Alphonsus was alive, and you wrote to him, and he and the Popes who praised him (including Pope Benedict XIV, who once said "You have Bp. Liguori with you; why write to me; just ask him") corrected you, would you submit as a Catholic, or would you stubbornly resist him, which could come close to formal heresy?
St. Alphonsus teaches anyone who denies that Baptism of Desire justifies commits heresy. You can see that he did not interpret Trent like you do (and in Benedictus Deus the Pope forbad anyone to put their own unauthorized private interpretation spin on Trent without Papal approval, which St. Alphonsus had), and the reason is because there was no reason to include "and the desire thereof", using voto, the same word used for Perfect Contrition in reference to receiving the effect of the Sacrament of Penance in desire, if Baptism or its desire did not justify. It is said that no one can be justified without Baptism, or the desire thereof, so that it may be understood that Baptism is necessary for at least in voto, i.e. in desire and charity with contrition. This is confirmed in the Catechism.
·
Catechism of the Council of Trent (16th century): The Sacraments, Baptism: "...should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness."
To your questions, of course I don't disagree with St. Alphonsus. Protestants denied the necessity of the Sacraments because they denied that Baptism justified and thus was necessary for salvation. I condemn the Protestant idea and agree with St. Alphonsus.
Next, if you've read St. Thomas, you would know Baptism of Desire is not faith alone, which is dead, as St. James says (Jam 2:20), but precisely "faith that worketh by charity" (Gal 5:6), as St. Paul says, which immєdιαtely justifies, when it is joined to the desire of the Sacraments.
Here is St. Thomas: · St. Thomas Aquinas, Doctor of the Church (13th century): Summa Theologica, Whether there are two ways to be distinguished of eating Christ's body?
“Consequently, just as some are baptized with the Baptism of desire, through their desire of baptism, before being baptized in the Baptism of water; so likewise some eat this sacrament spiritually ere they receive it sacramentally.” ..
“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."
Here is Fr. Haydock, on Cornelius, who was Baptized by Desire before any external Sacrament: "Can any man forbid water? &c. or doubt that these, on whom the Holy Ghost hath descended, may be made members of the Christian Church, by baptism, as Christ ordained? (Witham) --- Such may be the grace of God occasionally towards men, and such their great charity and contrition, that they may have remission, justification, and sanctification, before the external sacraments of baptism, confirmation, and penance be received; as we see in this example: where, at Peter's preaching, they all received the Holy Ghost before any sacrament. But here we also learn one necessary lesson, that such, notwithstanding, must needs receive the sacraments appointed by Christ, which whosoever contemneth, can never be justified. (St. Augustine, sup. Levit. q. 84. T. 4.)"
Any other questions? God Bless.
-
I agree entirely with St. Alphonsus. Let me ask you, if St. Alphonsus was alive, and you wrote to him, and he and the Popes who praised him (including Pope Benedict XIV, who once said "You have Bp. Liguori with you; why write to me; just ask him") corrected you, would you submit as a Catholic, or would you stubbornly resist him, which could come close to formal heresy?
St. Alphonsus teaches anyone who denies that Baptism of Desire justifies commits heresy.
I would ask him to explain Canon IV, starting with the first sentence which condemns with anathema anyone who says that the sacraments are not necessary for salvation. By what you just posted, St. Alphonusus accuses Trent of heresy.
Catechism of the Council of Trent (16th century): The Sacraments, Baptism: "...should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness."
It says "unforeseen accident", not "unforeseen accidental death" or "accidental death".
Note that it says their desire to receive baptism "will avail" (not guarantee) them to "grace and righteousness" - not salvation. Grace and righteousness are those things only those who are living strive for and need, the dead no longer have need for or a chance to gain either, their time for that passed when they died. Remember, for your quote there is no danger of death, only an impediment to the reception of the sacrament. When there is a danger of death, the catechism teaches:
In Case Of Necessity Adults May Be Baptised At Once
Sometimes, however, when there exists a just and necessary cause, as in the case of imminent danger of death, Baptism is not to be deferred, particularly if the person to be baptised is well instructed in the mysteries of faith. This we find to have been done by Philip, and by the Prince of the Apostles, when without any delay, the one baptised the eunuch of Queen Candace; the other, Cornelius, as soon as they expressed a wish to embrace the faith.
But according to BODers, this teaching can be discarded, as it is altogether unnecessary thanks to a BOD.
In the end, BODers will ignore or make other wild claims regarding Trent's clear and infallible teaching, as if the saints' whose opinions differ from Trent, are the authority, or as if their opinions are additions to Trent - as if there is no contradiction whatsoever present between the two.
-
Rather he taught it with force in an encyclical.
No. It's not an article of Faith.
-
Blessed Pius IX didn't mention invincible ignorance as a theoretical possibility. Rather he taught it with force in an encyclical.
What you are arguing is not different from invincible ignorance. Follow natural law and you shall be saved =/= being a member of the Catholic Church.
Yes, Pope Pius IX is very clear. He first states: "Here, too, our beloved sons and venerable brothers, it is again necessary to mention and censure a very grave error entrapping some Catholics who believe that it is possible to arrive at eternal salvation although living in error and alienated from the true faith and Catholic unity. Such belief is certainly opposed to Catholic teaching".
Do not touch one single word of his next sentence until you firmly accept and understand what he first says above.
He then continues....
"There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion".
Note that the people he is talking about are not invincibly ignorant adults, or some native on a desert island. Rather, the people he refers to are normal, have intellect, knows how to think and are intelligent in things other than our holy religion but who now struggles with their invincible ignorance about our holy religion, which means the people he is talking about are sincerely trying to find out about our holy religion. He is not talking about those incapable of thinking, nor is he saying those invincibly ignorant of our holy religion can be saved invincibly ignorant of our holy religion.
Concerning the people Pius IX was talking about, Our Lord said: "For every one that asketh, receiveth: and he that seeketh, findeth: and to him that knocketh, it shall be opened". These are those who are "struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion".
-
Pius IX. Singulari Quidem. AD 1856.
‘This hope of salvation is placed in the Catholic Church which, in preserving the true worship, is the solid home of this faith and the temple of God. Outside of the Church, nobody can hope for life or salvation unless he is excused through ignorance beyond his control.'
In the passage above Blessed Pius IX states in unambiguous terms that the possibility of salvation exists for those who die outside the church, not those who currently live outside the church. Otherwise he wouldn’t have concluded the above passage with the clause “…unless he is excused through ignorance beyond his control.” This clause is the key to understanding the meaning of Pius' words.
A person that is in "Ignorance beyond his control" is a person who is incapable of thinking, one who is born or by some misfortune became brain damaged - and the default position there is that he is damned - "unless he is excused" by God.
Whenever you think of the possibility of justification and salvation for the invincibly ignorant, do yourself a huge, giant favor and *never* use the term "invincibly ignorant", rather, hence forth *always* replace that term with: "those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion".
-
I’d venture guess that, after many years of debate on various topics, that most people born post WW2 are “invincibly ignorant”. The lack of reading comprehension alone proves this. PiusV is a perfect example of one who is unable to comprehend sentences with multiple phrases and long paragraphs. It must be fluoride water, too much aluminum, etc.
-
Its probably asbestos.
We live in the society where 10-20% can produce all the food and necessary services for survival. Most other jobs are a distribution and management. The rest is a consumer who lives off a printed money.
This perspective is mentally devastating.
-
Come on, Stubborn. I think you don't even believe that. You are not understanding the words based on their exterior meaning, but rather engaging in ideological interpretation a priori via your beliefs. Even if I were a non-Catholic who couldn't care less what EENS's interpretation is and I was reading Blessed Pius IX's words there is no way I would come to your conclusion.
Then, you must be a non-Catholic who couldn't care less about dogma.
I've known a few of who Pius IX speaks of, i.e. whose ignorance was beyond their control.
One was only 2 years old at the time, now I think he's in his mid 20s. As a baby he was in the hospital for some virus and received some overdose that ended up going to his brain, making the baby all but a vegetable, still is today. Another was my own father who died with alzheimers. These are only two examples of people I knew personally who were in ignorance beyond their control, hopefully you get the picture of what he meant by "ignorance beyond his control".
What the pope said was not a clause, there is no clause in dogma, nor is Pius IX implying any such thing. If an insane person dies outside of the Church, that person has no "hope for life or salvation unless he is excused through ignorance beyond his control."
Now you can hypothesize and theorize whatever far out scenarios you want to hallucinate about this, but whatever you come up with will never change or expose any clause in the thrice defined dogma. That's how dogma's work.
-
What a stupid response.
What is Calvinism but hyper-Augustinianism?
St. Augustine's theology is not infallible as clearly seen by the Church's condemnation of both Calvinism and Jansenism, both of which are deeply Augustinian, more than the Catholic Church I might add.
Oh my gosh this is stupid.... I'm a former Calvinist, and you don't know anything about Calvinism lol
Augustine was nowhere near Calvinist.
The most you could *maybe* accuse him of is holding to double predestination, which I'm definitely not sure of, which would be "proto-Jansenism" with the caveat that if he was corrected by the Church he'd submit.
But its nowhere near Calvinism which has a *ton* of other baggage associated with it. Denial of the sacraments, denial of the intercession of the saints, etc.
I wasn't gonna weigh in on the Feneey debate 'cause I'm not an expert on it (though I have commented before) but this was just too obvious a mistake and I had to comment.
-
I can't take you seriously. You have no idea what you're talking about.
Well, then it can only be as you say, you must be a non-Catholic who, like all non-Catholics, couldn't care less about dogma.
-
An excommunicated schimatic heretic such as yourself has no say on who is Catholic or not.
You don't follow Catholic dogma. You follow Stubborn's dogma.
It's well known that all Libs *always* falsely accuse others of the very thing they themselves are guilty of. The Libs do this to derail the subject and because they are dishonest.
-
St. Alphonsus Liguori and St. Thomas Aquinas and the near unanimity of theologians the past two hundred years is "Lib" while big boy here is the true interpreter of Trent :facepalm: :laugh2:
LOL, see what I mean! I am done with you, but feel free to keep searching for loopholes in dogma.
-
Pius, you derailed your own BOD thread long ago, when you irrelevantly introduced the topic of "invincible ignorance". You've smoked too much asbestos.
-
What an idiotic response.
I was not talking about the entire system of Calvinism, but specifically as it relates to predestination.
I've read many of Calvin's works including the Institutes of The Christian Religion and his two treatises on Divine Predestination, The Eternal Predestination of God' and 'The Secret Providence of God'
Scholars say "Calvinism" in two senses. One as the totality of Calvin's beliefs to which you most unkindly explained above and secondly, more specifically, as it relates to his beliefs in predestination.
See here: https://www.amazon.com/Calvins-Calvinism-Treatises-Predestination-Providence/dp/0916206327
Fair enough then I guess I just don't like that use of words.
While ultimately of course a *refusal* to submit to the Church is heresy and leads to damnation, someone who held to every Catholic doctrine *except for predestination* (where he agreed with Calvin) would still be a lot closer to the theology of Catholicism than of Calvin.
-
Father Feeney and Fr. Wathen were the best American Catholic teachers. They had more knowledge and wisdom than most theologians around the world.
-
Father Feeney and Fr. Wathen were the best American Catholic teachers. They had more knowledge and wisdom than most theologians around the world.
I agree. I think that one of the traits they shared that made them such, particularly when it comes to a BOD, was that their teachings were always inclusive of the Divine Providence, which when it comes to a BOD, there is no Divine Providence whatsoever in a BOD, as if by design.
-
To the best of our ability, yes. I admit that we have a vacuum of authority here and so laymen are stuck trying to resolve these issues on our own. Sure, we can look to priests, but they too are divided, so there's the question of having to decide which priests or groups of priests to hitch our wagons to.
Trouble is, they really aren't. Almost every clergyman alive, be he NO, SSPX, Sede, you name it, believes in a form of BoD more extreme than anyone would dare articulate on this forum.
-
Trouble is, they really aren't. Almost every clergyman alive, be he NO, SSPX, Sede, you name it, believes in a form of BoD more extreme than anyone would dare articulate on this forum.
Right, very few believe that one must be Catholic in order to be saved, thinking that Buddhists in Tibet and Muslims can be saved somehow (+Lefebvre and +Fellay even) ... so going well beyond the Thomistic understanding of BoD.
-
Right, very few believe that one must be Catholic in order to be saved, thinking that Buddhists in Tibet and Muslims can be saved somehow (+Lefebvre and +Fellay even) ... so going well beyond the Thomistic understanding of BoD.
What is the position of +Williamson on "Buddhists in Tibet and Muslims can be saved somehow" and fr. Feeney position?
-
What is the position of +Williamson on "Buddhists in Tibet and Muslims can be saved somehow" and fr. Feeney position?
I noticed in HE's set of lectures and sermons (30 years worth), when he speaks of Father Feeney, his usual eloquence starts to fade and he begins to mumble.
:laugh1:
-
At the end of every Tridentine Mass, BOD/BOB and Salvation outside the Catholic Church are destroyed by the Last Gospel of St. John.
(St. John 1.1-14)
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by Him: and without Him was made nothing that was made. In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. And the Light shineth in darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.
There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. This man came for a witness, to give testimony of the Light, that all men might believe through Him. He was not the Light, but was to give testimony of the Light. That was the true Light, which enlighteneth every man that cometh into this world. He was in the world, and the world was made by Him, and the world knew Him not.
He came unto His own, and His own received Him not. But as many as received Him, He gave them power to be made the sons of God, to them that believe in His name. Who are born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. (here all kneel)
AND THE WORD WAS MADE FLESH AND DWELT AMONG US,
and we saw His glory, the glory as it were of the Only Begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.”
Thanks be to God.
-
Right, very few believe that one must be Catholic in order to be saved, thinking that Buddhists in Tibet and Muslims can be saved somehow (+Lefebvre and +Fellay even) ... so going well beyond the Thomistic understanding of BoD.
This is why BOD and BOB are so dangerous to begin with. The floodgates have been opened to all sorts of errors and heresies regarding Sacramental Baptism, because some people insist on teaching that it is necessary to believe in an ‘invisible sacrament’, when Sacraments are meant to be outward signs of grace.
-
This is why BOD and BOB are so dangerous to begin with. The floodgates have been opened to all sorts of errors and heresies regarding Sacramental Baptism, because some people insist on teaching that it is necessary to believe in an ‘invisible sacrament’, when Sacraments are meant to be outward signs of grace.
Yes, it's incredibly dangerous. While BoD CAN be understood in such a way as not to undermine Traditional Catholic ecclesiology, understanding the Church as a Visible Society, and while maintaining the necessity of the Sacrament of Baptism, it is RARELY articulated in a manner that does not implicitly deny these dogmas. 90% of those who believe in BoD aren't interested in the rare case of a catechumen who dies before Baptism, but use it as a weapon to undermine EENS dogma.
-
Doing away with the necessity of baptism is bad, but doing away with the necessity of Christ is just too much:
"Whosoever denieth the Son, the same HATH NOT the Father . . ."
1 John 2:23
So much for the "other great Monotheistic religions."
-
90% of those who believe in BoD aren't interested in the rare case of a catechumen who dies before Baptism, but use it as a weapon to undermine EENS dogma.
But see those who are opening the door to the possibility of that One Catechumen supposedly dying without the Sacrament of Baptism (but still obtaining Salvation) this would then lead automatically to the idea that anyone could potentially skip past the Visible Sacrament, because there’s an invisible option available too.
It’s opening the door to these exceptions that is causing the problem in the first place. Like when the smoke of Satan entered into the Vatican.
As far as BOB is concerned, say in the case of St Emerentiana. We need to maintain the importance of Sacramental Baptism, so it would make more sense then to believe that Emerentiana did in fact receive Water Baptism at some point before her death, and not to assume she died without it.
Again, it’s all about maintaining the absolute necessity of Baptism by Water and The Holy Ghost, as Christ and The Church has always taught us.
-
As far as BOB is concerned, say in the case of St Emerentiana. We need to maintain the importance of Sacramental Baptism, so it would make more sense then to believe that Emerentiana did in fact receive Water Baptism at some point before her death, and not to assume she died without it.
Again, it’s all about maintaining the absolute necessity of Baptism by Water and The Holy Ghost, as Christ and The Church has always taught us.
Regarding St. Emerentiana (being "baptized of blood") and her canonization, she was canonized by her bishop (year unknown) BEFORE the end of the 11th century when the Church required that all beatification & canonization must have Holy See approval, and not be done solely by bishops.
-
Who is the author of life and death? To the believers in BOD & BOB of any kind, one comes to life by chance and dies by chance. To the believer in BOD & BOB, a person learns the faith and gets baptized by his own work. Therefore, to the believer in BOD & BOB, a person could go all the way to the baptismal font by his own volition, and if he was by chance killed, he would be saved by his desire.
I do not believe in BOD & BOB because I believe that God is the author of life and death, and no one is born at a time and the place where they are born by coincidence (for instance, in pre-Columbian Americas) and no one can even begin to seek the true faith without God's Grace, let alone go all the way up to the baptismal font. And God can allow a person to live 100 years if that is what is required for the baptism.
-
Who is the author of life and death? To the believers in BOD & BOB of any kind, one comes to life by chance and dies by chance. To the believer in BOD & BOB, a person learns the faith and gets baptized by his own work. Therefore, to the believer in BOD & BOB, a person could go all the way to the baptismal font by his own volition, and if he was by chance killed, he would be saved by his desire.
I do not believe in BOD & BOB because I believe that God is the author of life and death, and no one is born at a time and the place where they are born by coincidence (for instance, in pre-Columbian Americas) and no one can even begin to seek the true faith without God's Grace, let alone go all the way up to the baptismal font. And God can allow a person to live 100 years if that is what is required for the baptism.
I agree LT. I used to think maybe, possibly but very rarely a BOD could maybe apply to a catechumen, but no, it is as Fr. Feeney says: "There is no one about to die in the state of justification whom God cannot secure Baptism for, and indeed, Baptism of Water".
If a BOD were ever possible, then we must take God out of the whole formula and admit the person saved themself, and if anyone can save themself, then they should simply bypass the whole idea and ascend themself directly into heaven. In fact, they should have done that years ago - what stopped them?
On a side note, looks like papa is banned, at least some of his posts have disappeared.
-
God's Providence arranges all things to the good of His elect. To claim that He saves some people by BoD implies that He wills that some people should be saved without the Sacrament of Baptism. But God has revealed otherwise, so this theological speculation is on shaky ground at best.
-
But see those who are opening the door to the possibility of that One Catechumen supposedly dying without the Sacrament of Baptism (but still obtaining Salvation) this would then lead automatically to the idea that anyone could potentially skip past the Visible Sacrament, because there’s an invisible option available too.
Not necessarily. I think that this opinion that you articulated is the reason that the Dimond brothers have gone to the extreme of rejecting BoD as heretical. In point of fact, several canonized Doctors of the Church believed in BoD for those who had EXPLICIT Catholic faith, and some like St. Robert Bellarmine further restricted it to formal catechumens only. So it is not true that in their case they believed it could automatically apply to "anyone". Until some Jesuits started dabbling with ways to undermine EENS in the 16th century, the notion of BoD was almost universally understood to apply only to FORMAL CATECHUMENS. At worst, it applied to those who explicitly held the Catholic faith, and the only thing missing for them to be fully Catholic was the Sacrament itself, i.e. they had all the dispositions listed by Trent as required for justification through Baptism.
But with a couple layers of "implicit" this and "implicit" that, presto chango, and you have BoD basically applying to cannibalistic animists who practice human sacrifice in the jungle. I believe that St. Alphonsus fell a bit victim to the "implicit" garbage himself, giving it more credibility than it ever deserved.
But we have to be careful and not overreact, basically declaring these Doctors of the Church to be heretics, as the Dimonds basically do in so many words, and declaring even those who believe in BoD for catechumens only to be heretics. Since the Church has CLEARLY tolerated and at times perhaps even slightly favored the opinion, it would be schismatic to declare those who hold it to be outside the Church. Recall that there can be schism not only in refusing communion with the Pope, but also in refusing communion with others whom the Church considers Catholic. So the Dimonds make a grave error here, but most Feeneyites do not. So that is the grounds on which I objected to Papa Pius' OP.
Notice, I say that Church tolerated and may arguably have even slightly favored this opinion at times, but it has NEVER BEEN TAUGHT Magisterially. Nor CAN the Church define such a thing, because there's ZERO EVIDENCE that it was revealed. There are three ways in which something can be know as having been revealed.
1) explicitly in Sacred Scripture -- there's nothing there in Scripture (quite the contrary)
2) universally held as a matter of faith by the Fathers -- we had only one Father tentatively hold it, for a time, whereas 5 or 6 explicitly rejected it, and the rest are silent on the matter. So it fails this test. Note: some proponents of BoD (like Fr. Laisney and Fr. Pfeiffer) openly LIE and claim that BoD was held unanimously by the Church Fathers. Even Karl "αnσnymσus Christian" Rahner, who would have loved nothing more than to find evidence for BoD in the fathers, lamented that not only is there no "domatic consensus" in favor of BoD among the Church Fathers, but the evidence suggests that they rejected it entirely. For all his faults, Rahner at least tried to be intellectually honest, unlike many proponents of BoD.
3) it implicitly and necessarily derives from other revealed truths -- another fail for BoD, since no one has ever produced a syllogism that does this. 90% of the argument in its favor derive from the St. Robert Bellarmine "reasoning" of "it would seem too harsh" (a very mistaken theological pseudo-argument from St. Robert).
So St. Alphonsus made a very serious error in declaring BoD to be de fide.
For those who claim that the Church defined this at Trent, produce immєdιαtely from the Magisterium a theological definition of BoD. If we are required to believe something "of faith" then we must have been told by the Church WHAT we must believe about it. Otherwise, we're merely paying lip service to some vague concept of BoD, and BoD reduces to the proposition that "the Sacrament of Baptism if NOT necessary for salvation," ... and we know that to be heretical. At best, Trent mentioned it in passing, saying that the desire for Baptism was necessary in order to be justified by it. It never taught that the desire could be a SUBSTITUTE for receiving the Sacrament. BoDers pretend that this passing reference is tantamount to there being a Canon in Trent declaring: "If anyone does not believe that the desire for Baptism suffices for justification on its own without the actual reception of the Sacrament, let him be anathema." That's preposterous. But there IS a CANON that rejects the notion that the Sacrament can justify without the desire to receive it ... hmmm ... which is precisely all Trent is saying in this infamous passage. Yes, St. Alphonsus, who interpreted it otherwise, got this wrong. I have a great reverence for St. Alphonsus, but he was not God, and I have no problem calling him out for this mistake. In fact, being the great saint that he is, he is probably thanking me right now for doing so and helping to neutralize what he now knows to be an error. Theologians have gone through and found several DOZEN errors in the works of St. Thomas. These men, while great Doctors, were not God, and could make mistakes, and often disagreed fiercely with one another. BoDers pretend that by citing St. Thomas the case is magically closed ... but then they conveniently ignore St. Thomas when he teaches that explicit faith in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation are necessary for salvation.
At best, one could argue that BoD is OBJECTIVELY heretical, but never that those who hold it can be formal heretics. So, for instance, the opinion of St. Thomas regarding the Immaculate Conception was objectively heretical, but since it hadn't been defined yet by the Church he was clearly not a heretic for holding it. Similarly, even if you hold BoD to be heretical, since the Church has not defined it to be heretical, we can't declare those who believe in it to be outside the Church.
Now, much more clearly heretical is the notion of "implicit faith" being salvific. There's a huge amount of evidence that this was rejected universally by the Church for the first 1600 years. But even these I cannot hold to be formal heretics, since the Church ... tragically ... allowed this opinion to be taught for some time. That was a terrible mistake (along with the Church not weighing in against Molinism ... a related problem) ... but this was allowed by God as the root of this time of trial that we live in now. Vatican II could never have happened had the Church rejected implicit faith theory right out of the gate. Now, while I don't hold the proponents of this theory to be formal heretics, I do hold them to be objectively heretical and objectively harming and damaging the faith, and I will fight them tooth and nail until the Church condemns their errors once and for all.
Nevetheless, if I were a priest, for instance, I would not withhold the Sacraments from those who held this garbage, since it would not be my prerogative to do so. That power lies only with the Church.
-
Thanks, Ladislaus, for that excellent description of discerning if BoD was revealed. Also, for your "objective" heretic example. I come across more Traditional Catholics who support the "implicit" faith than supporting "explicit". I think this perverse idea lies at the heart of Vatican II.
Of course, I am always interested in a good argument and would love to see to a kind rebuttal from an "implict" BoD supporter.
-
God's Providence arranges all things to the good of His elect. To claim that He saves some people by BoD implies that He wills that some people should be saved without the Sacrament of Baptism. But God has revealed otherwise, so this theological speculation is on shaky ground at best.
There are 100's of examples of the unbaptized dead being brought back to life just to be baptized, then they immediately die again.
-
Baptism of Desire itself is God's Providence for His elect, just like Perfect Contrition, in which the desire for the Sacrament of Penance is implicit, is God's Providence for those to whom access to a Priest is morally or physically impossible at the moment. People want everything for themselves (e.g. forgiveness through contrition when a Priest is not available), yet stubbornly resist God's clearly revealed Will to save some souls by giving them the Sacramental Effect of both Baptism and Penance in voto only. God can do as He chooses, and is not bound to give His grace through the visible Sacraments only. The example of the Good Thief, the penitent Magdalene, Cornelius etc all confirm this. Baptism and Penance are both necessary in the same way: in fact or in desire. See Canon Law.
St. Bonaventure is another Doctor of the Church who taught Baptism of Desire, as is St. Bernard: In Sent. IV, d.4,P.2,a.I,q.I: “God obliges no one to do the impossible and therefore it must be admitted that the baptism of desire without the baptism of water is sufficient, provided the person in question has the will to receive the baptism of water, but is prevented from doing so before he dies."
Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself taught Baptism of Desire to St. Catherine of Sienna: Dialogue of St. Catherine: "I wished thee to see the secret of the Heart, showing it to thee open, so that you mightest see how much more I loved than I could show thee by finite pain. I poured from it Blood and Water, to show thee the baptism of water which is received in virtue of the Blood. I also showed the baptism of love in two ways, first in those who are baptized in their blood shed for Me which has virtue through My Blood, even if they have not been able to have Holy Baptism, and also those who are baptized in fire, not being able to have Holy Baptism, but desiring it with the affection of love. There is no baptism of desire without the Blood, because Blood is steeped in and kneaded with the fire of Divine charity, because through love was it shed.
Lastly, Baptism of Desire doesn't mean non-Catholics are saved; rather, it means those who are Justified by Baptism of Desire, and are foreknown by God to persevere in the State of Grace until death, will also be given the Grace to embrace the Catholic Faith before the end of their lives. Everyone in Heaven believed in and loves Jesus Christ and the Holy Trinity, venerates Mother Mary as Queen of Heaven etc. There are no non-Catholics in Heaven. Before departing this life, known to God alone sometimes, they must have explicitly believed at least in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation.
This is taught by Fr. Mueller in a Catechism approved by Rome: "Q. Is it then right for us to say that one who was not received into the Church before his death, is damned?
A. No.
Q. Why not?
A. Because we cannot know for certain what takes place between God and the soul at the awful moment of death.
Q. What do you mean by this?
A. I mean that God, in His infinite mercy, may enlighten, at the hour of death, one who is not yet a Catholic, so that he may see the truth of the Catholic faith, be truly sorry for his sins, and sincerely desire to die a good Catholic.
Q. What do we say of those who receive such an extraordinary grace, and die in this manner?
A. We say of them that they die united, at least, to the soul of the Catholic Church, and are saved."
The doctrine on the Soul of the Church is also taught by His Holiness Pope St. Pius X in his Catechism. Pope Pius XII also mentions it.
-
Ladislaus said:
“I think that this opinion that you articulated is the reason that the Dimond brothers have gone to the extreme of rejecting BoD as heretical.”
I definitely don’t agree with the Dimond bros or their anathemas and excommunications of Catholics. The Dimond’s have errors too. Which is why I stick with the simplicity of believing that ‘God’s Elect obtain Sacramental Baptism, which Christ taught us is through ‘water and The Holy Ghost.’
The issue here is that Catholics want to teach there are other ways. Once they do this, they open up doors to other possibilities that could be heretical and therefore mislead people. Of course with God anything is possible, but we are taking upon ourselves the risk of spreading heresy by teaching there are other avenues for obtaining Salvation. Yes, Doctors of the Church discussed these things but they are not unanimous. So we as Catholics, who are not theologians (i.e Fr Pfeiffer, Dimond bro’s, Lefebvre) should instead be teaching Salvation through Sacramental Baptism, and leave the individual Justification of Souls to God.
Something I use for teaching my children is the case of ‘Borneo Bob’. Indigenous people with supposedly no access to missionaries or Sacraments. If one must hope in God’s Providence for these poor souls, we should believe then that God could send someone to baptize those souls before they die, even if it be an Angel from Heaven (though with God, a missionary could get there just as easily)
This way then we continue to maintain the importance of; The Sacrament of Baptism is necessary for Salvation.
-
Baptism of Desire itself is God's Providence for His elect, just like Perfect Contrition, in which the desire for the Sacrament of Penance is implicit, is God's Providence for those to whom access to a Priest is morally or physically impossible at the moment.....
We can post reams of saints teaching otherwise than what the writer above posted, so, it boils down to what one believes and no amount of logic is going to convince him otherwise (or those like him).
The bottom line in my years of debating with Implicit Faith'ers (those who believe Muslim, Hindus, Buddhist, Jҽωs... indeed anyone in any religion, can be saved without explicit desire to be a Catholic) is that deep down they believe as I posted previously, and to which Ladislaus added:
Last Tradhican wrote - Who is the author of life and death? To the believers in BOD & BOB of any kind, one comes to life by chance and dies by chance. To the believer in BOD & BOB, a person learns the faith and gets baptized by his own work. Therefore, to the believer in BOD & BOB, a person could go all the way to the baptismal font by his own volition, and if he was by chance killed, he would be saved by his desire.
Ladislaus added - God's Providence arranges all things to the good of His elect. To claim that He saves some people by BoD implies that He wills that some people should be saved without the Sacrament of Baptism. But God has revealed otherwise, so this theological speculation is on shaky ground at best
I do not believe in BOD & BOB because I believe that God is the author of life and death, and no one is born at a time and the place where they are born by coincidence (for instance, in pre-Columbian Americas) and no one can even begin to seek the true faith without God's Grace, let alone go all the way up to the baptismal font. And God can allow a person to live 100 years if that is what is required for the baptism.
St. Augustine: “If you wish to be a Catholic, do not venture to believe, to say, or to teach that ‘they whom the Lord has predestinated for baptism can be snatched away from his predestination, or die before that has been accomplished in them which the Almighty has predestined.’ There is in such a dogma more power than I can tell assigned to chances in opposition to the power of God, by the occurrence of which casualties that which He has predestinated is not permitted to come to pass. It is hardly necessary to spend time or earnest words in cautioning the man who takes up with this error against the absolute vortex of confusion into which it will absorb him, when I shall sufficiently meet the case if I briefly warn the prudent man who is ready to receive correction against the threatening mischief.” (On the Soul and Its Origin 3, 13)
-
Baptism of Desire itself is God's Providence for His elect....
I wonder why you do not accept that if God can arrange for you to have been baptized, it is by the very same Providence He can arrange for anyone else who desires or is willing to be baptized. If one is going to do it, almighty God will give one the time to do it, and the water for doing it, and the minister for doing it - the same as He did for your baptism. There is nothing that is unforeseen to God, whether that be an accident or anything else.
Do you not accept that it is God Who Provided the sacrament to all people since the promulgation of the Gospel who've ever been baptized?
A BOD, as Trent says, is justification by faith alone, not Divine Providence, certainly not Divine Providence for His elect.
"There is no one about to die in the state of justification whom God cannot secure Baptism for, and indeed, Baptism of Water".
You will need to name only one instance or condition where God could not provide the sacrament to one who sincerely desires it before I would consider salvation via a BOD as being possible.
-
You need to be clear what you are arguing for first: This statement, by Fr. Feeney, ""There is no one about to die in the state of justification whom God cannot secure Baptism for, and indeed, Baptism of Water". is not the same as that of Fr. Wathen (who denies BOD even exists, calling it a "mythical non-Sacrament") or that of the Dimonds. I know Br. Andre Marie of St. Benedict's Centre, and I like him and respect his zeal to bring non-Catholics to the Faith and the Church. I don't consider St. Benedict's Centre's position to be heretical. I do believe, with St. Alphonsus, that denying BOD itself is at least a mortal sin, and likely heretical in itself, since the Church has clearly taught it. The Church has said Catholics can safely follow St. Alphonsus, ergo they can safely condemn BOD-deniers.
If you agree with St. Benedict's Centre, there would be no issue here. Do you? "Saint Augustine taught, as is clear from this article’s epigram, that the providence of God would see to it that a justified catechumen would be baptized before death. God alone, in any event, knows which of those, with a votum for baptism and perfect contrition, He has justified. The Church can only assume, as the arm of Christ, the Principal Agent in baptism, that all are in need of receiving the sacramentin order to not only have all sin forgiven and abolished, but to be a member of the Church, the Body of Christ. Anticipating the rejoinder that no one is lost who dies in the state of grace, let me just affirm that I agree. Not only that I agree, but that I submit to this truth as I would a dogma of Faith. The Church, however, allows the faithful the freedom to believe that the providence of God will see to it that every person dying in the state of grace will also be baptized. This preserves the literal sense of Christ’s teaching in John 3:5: “Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God” and His apostolic mandate to preach and baptize all nations in Mark 16: 15-16."
https://catholicism.org/baptism-of-desire-its-origin-and-abandonment-in-the-thought-of-saint-augustine.html
Someone who agrees with St. Benedict's Centre does not need to begin by arguing against all the Popes, Catechisms, Canon Law, Doctors etc.
Same question for Last Trad.
-
I wonder why you do not accept that if God can arrange for you to have been baptized, it is by the very same Providence He can arrange for anyone else who desires or is willing to be baptized. If one is going to do it, almighty God will give one the time (the era in which they are born, and the place. Example: France 1650) to do it, and the water for doing it, and the minister for doing it - the same as He did for your baptism. There is nothing that is unforeseen to God, whether that be an accident or anything else.
my addition in bold
-
You need to be clear what you are arguing for first: This statement, by Fr. Feeney, ""There is no one about to die in the state of justification whom God cannot secure Baptism for, and indeed, Baptism of Water". is not the same as that of Fr. Wathen (who denies BOD even exists, calling it a "mythical non-Sacrament") or that of the Dimonds. I know Br. Andre Marie of St. Benedict's Centre, and I like him and respect his zeal to bring non-Catholics to the Faith and the Church. I don't consider St. Benedict's Centre's position to be heretical. I do believe, with St. Alphonsus, that denying BOD itself is at least a mortal sin, and likely heretical in itself, since the Church has clearly taught it. The Church has said Catholics can safely follow St. Alphonsus, ergo they can safely condemn BOD-deniers.
If you agree with St. Benedict's Centre, there would be no issue here. Do you? "Saint Augustine taught, as is clear from this article’s epigram, that the providence of God would see to it that a justified catechumen would be baptized before death. God alone, in any event, knows which of those, with a votum for baptism and perfect contrition, He has justified. The Church can only assume, as the arm of Christ, the Principal Agent in baptism, that all are in need of receiving the sacramentin order to not only have all sin forgiven and abolished, but to be a member of the Church, the Body of Christ. Anticipating the rejoinder that no one is lost who dies in the state of grace, let me just affirm that I agree. Not only that I agree, but that I submit to this truth as I would a dogma of Faith. The Church, however, allows the faithful the freedom to believe that the providence of God will see to it that every person dying in the state of grace will also be baptized. This preserves the literal sense of Christ’s teaching in John 3:5: “Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God” and His apostolic mandate to preach and baptize all nations in Mark 16: 15-16."
https://catholicism.org/baptism-of-desire-its-origin-and-abandonment-in-the-thought-of-saint-augustine.html
Someone who agrees with St. Benedict's Centre does not need to begin by arguing against all the Popes, Catechisms, Canon Law, Doctors etc.
Same question for Last Trad.
All I asked for was one instance or condition where God could not provide the sacrament.
I agree with the Council of Trent, who teaches 1) the sacraments are necessary for salvation and 2) no desire for the sacrament = no justification. We all agree a BOD is not a sacrament, so immediately there's that.
How is it possible to take "no desire = no justification" to "desire = salvation"? Can you explain that?
-
You need to be clear what you are arguing for first: This statement, by Fr. Feeney, ""There is no one about to die in the state of justification whom God cannot secure Baptism for, and indeed, Baptism of Water". is not the same as that of Fr. Wathen (who denies BOD even exists, calling it a "mythical non-Sacrament") or that of the Dimonds. I know Br. Andre Marie of St. Benedict's Centre, and I like him and respect his zeal to bring non-Catholics to the Faith and the Church. I don't consider St. Benedict's Centre's position to be heretical. I do believe, with St. Alphonsus, that denying BOD itself is at least a mortal sin, and likely heretical in itself, since the Church has clearly taught it. The Church has said Catholics can safely follow St. Alphonsus, ergo they can safely condemn BOD-deniers.
If you agree with St. Benedict's Centre, there would be no issue here. Do you? "Saint Augustine taught, as is clear from this article’s epigram, that the providence of God would see to it that a justified catechumen would be baptized before death. God alone, in any event, knows which of those, with a votum for baptism and perfect contrition, He has justified. The Church can only assume, as the arm of Christ, the Principal Agent in baptism, that all are in need of receiving the sacramentin order to not only have all sin forgiven and abolished, but to be a member of the Church, the Body of Christ. Anticipating the rejoinder that no one is lost who dies in the state of grace, let me just affirm that I agree. Not only that I agree, but that I submit to this truth as I would a dogma of Faith. The Church, however, allows the faithful the freedom to believe that the providence of God will see to it that every person dying in the state of grace will also be baptized. This preserves the literal sense of Christ’s teaching in John 3:5: “Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God” and His apostolic mandate to preach and baptize all nations in Mark 16: 15-16."
https://catholicism.org/baptism-of-desire-its-origin-and-abandonment-in-the-thought-of-saint-augustine.html
Someone who agrees with St. Benedict's Centre does not need to begin by arguing against all the Popes, Catechisms, Canon Law, Doctors etc.
Same question for Last Trad.
Like I said at the very beginning of this thread reply #7 to the OP:
Papa Pius V wrote: That Baptism of Desire/Blood only applies in the case of he who explicitly believes in the Catholic Faith like the Catechumen for example.
Then we have nothing to debate about. So why are you then insulting believers in the strict EENS as it is written, by calling them Feeneyites and heretics? No strict EENSer is going to debate with you about such an unlikely event as God bringing a catechumen to the faith ("without me you can do nothing") just to take his life before His grace has completed the undertaking. I am an EENSer and I only write on the subject of the false baptism of desire which teaches that Muslim, Hindus, Buddhist, Jew etc. can be saved. PERIOD. I suggest you do the same.
Unless, you are prepared to call St. Amrose, St. John Chrysostom, St. Augustine heretics?
However, in your case I know for a fact that you believed in the false baptism of desire which teaches that Muslim, Hindus, Buddhist, Jew etc. can be saved. Which Papa Pius V to his credit completely and clearly denies in just one sentence.
-
St. Ambrose taught Valentian was saved by Baptism of Desire. St. Augustine taught Cornelius was justified by Baptism of Desire. Not sure about St. Chrysostom. Anyway, the Church settled the question in the Middle Ages only, through two Papal decrees. Can you explain why St. Alphonsus says it is now, after the Council of Trent, de fide that souls are saved by Baptism of Desire, and why the Church has said Catholics can safely follow St. Alphonsus. I could cite other Doctors like St. Bernard, St. Bonaventure, St. Thomas etc.
Stubborn, the Church has taught in many place, after the Council of Trent, the doctrine of Baptism of Desire, including Trent's Catechism. See: http://www.baptismofdesire.com/
"· Baltimore Catechism (19th and 20th centuries): Q. 653. Is Baptism of desire or of blood sufficient to produce the effects of Baptism of water? A. Baptism of desire or of blood is sufficient to produce the effects of the Baptism of water, if it is impossible to receive the Baptism of water.
Q. 512. How are such persons said to belong to the Church? A. Such persons are said to belong to the "soul of the church"; that is, they are really members of the Church without knowing it. Those who share in its Sacraments and worship are said to belong to the body or visible part of the Church.
[Note: The Baltimore Catechism was issued by the Third Council of Baltimore in 1884, and was approved by Pope Leo XIII in 1885 as the standard for Catholic schools in the United States, where it remained the standard for nearly a century. Even after extreme scrutiny and corrections after being published, the content on the threefold baptism has remained in the catechism to this day.]
· St. Pope Pius X (early 20th century): Catechism of Christian Doctrine (Catechism of St. Pius X):
The Creed, Ninth Article, The Church in Particular: 29 Q. But if a man through no fault of his own is outside the Church, can he be saved? A. If he is outside the Church through no fault of his, that is, if he is in good faith, and if he has received Baptism, or at least has the implicit desire of Baptism; and if, moreover, he sincerely seeks the truth and does God's will as best he can such a man is indeed separated from the body of the Church, but is united to the soul of the Church and consequently is on the way of salvation
Baptism, Necessity of Baptism and Obligations of the Baptized: 17 Q. Can the absence of Baptism be supplied in any other way? A. The absence of Baptism can be supplied by martyrdom, which is called Baptism of Blood, or by an act of perfect love of God, or of contrition, along with the desire, at least implicit, of Baptism, and this is called Baptism of Desire.
· Catholic Encyclopedia (~1913): Baptism: Substitutes for the Sacrament: “The Fathers and theologians frequently divide baptism into three kinds: the baptism of water (aquæ or fluminis), the baptism of desire (flaminis), and the baptism of blood (sanguinis). However, only the first is a real sacrament. The latter two are denominated baptism only analogically, inasmuch as they supply the principal effect of baptism, namely, the grace which remits sins. It is the teaching of the Catholic Church that when the baptism of water becomes a physical or moral impossibility, eternal life may be obtained by the baptism of desire or the baptism of blood.”
Baptism: The Baptism of Desire: “This doctrine is set forth clearly by the Council of Trent. In the fourteenth session (cap. iv) the council teaches that contrition is sometimes perfected by charity, and reconciles man to God, before the Sacrament of Penance is received. In the fourth chapter of the sixth session, in speaking of the necessity of baptism, it says that men can not obtain original justice "except by the washing of regeneration or its desire" (voto)."
If Trent did not intend to teach Baptism of Desire, it would not have used the word voto with respect to Baptism. But the Council did.
-
St. Ambrose taught Valentian was saved by Baptism of Desire. St. Augustine taught Cornelius was justified by Baptism of Desire. Not sure about St. Chrysostom. Anyway, the Church settled the question in the Middle Ages only, through two Papal decrees. Can you explain why St. Alphonsus says it is now, after the Council of Trent, de fide that souls are saved by Baptism of Desire, and why the Church has said Catholics can safely follow St. Alphonsus. I could cite other Doctors like St. Bernard, St. Bonaventure, St. Thomas etc.
Stubborn, the Church has taught in many place, after the Council of Trent, the doctrine of Baptism of Desire, including Trent's Catechism. See: http://www.baptismofdesire.com/ ...
If Trent did not intend to teach Baptism of Desire, it would not have used the word voto with respect to Baptism. But the Council did.
We all know saints and catechisms have taught one version or another of a BOD, The Church at Trent however says the sacraments are necessary for salvation. Trent infallibly said" no sacrament = no justification and no desire = no justification.
How is it possible to take "no desire = no justification" to "desire = salvation"? Can you explain that?
Why do you and all BODers disagree with the Church? What is it exactly that drives you to ignore Trent and place the saints and catechisms as having authority over Trent?
All I asked for was one instance or condition where God could not provide the sacrament.
-
The Church has condemned your false interpretation of Trent. The Church has authorized St. Alphonsus teaching that souls are saved by Baptism of Desire. The Church and Her Popes have said any Catholic may safely repeat St. Alphonsus' teaching. That's what I'm doing.
You are giving your own false interpretation, your personal "spin". Trent taught Baptism of Desire, Perfect Contrition and Spiritual Communion. It is a fact whether you accept it or not. If you won't hear it from the Church, you will hear it from God at the Judgment.
God can provide the Sacrament wherever and whenever He chooses. And He does. And He can also provide forgiveness through Perfect Contrition wherever and whenever He chooses. And He does. The Church has spoken. The case is closed. Baptism of Desire exists.
-
The Church has condemned your false interpretation of Trent.
Nonsense. Just because the Church authorized the teachings of St. Alphonsus doesn't mean that every teaching of his has Magisterial force. We have a fair number of theologians who disagree with a fair number of things taught by St. Alphonsus. Doctors disagreed with each other.
There are theology manuals used in seminaries after Trent which characterized BoD as a disputed question.
-
St. Ambrose taught Valentian was saved by Baptism of Desire. St. Augustine taught Cornelius was justified by Baptism of Desire.
Nope. St. Ambrose' oration is ambiguous; it COULD mean Baptism of Desire, or it could mean nothing at all, or it could be a reference to Baptism of Blood since Valentinian was killed by Arians for being anti-Arian. Elsewhere in his writing, St. Ambrose explicitly rejects the possibility of salvation for even devout catechumens who die before Baptism. St. Augustine early on believed in BoD but then fiercely rejected it after his maturation in the faith, and some of the strongest anti-BoD statements in existence come from non other than the post-Pelagian Augustine.
We have several Church Fathers who explicitly reject Baptism of Desire.
Unlike you, Rahner has the honesty to admit this.
BTW: AT BEST, St. Ambrose taught that Valentinian MIGHT HAVE BEEN "saved by Baptism of Desire". What, is he God that he knew for sure that Valentinian was saved?
-
Nonsense. Just because the Church authorized the teachings of St. Alphonsus doesn't mean that every teaching of his has Magisterial force. We have a fair number of theologians who disagree with a fair number of things taught by St. Alphonsus. Doctors disagreed with each other.
There are theology manuals used in seminaries after Trent which characterized BoD as a disputed question.
I still think Stubborn's mentality is super problematic though. It basically amounts to "All these saints were just dumb and didn't read Trent."
Its like Sola Scriptura with magisterial docuмents
-
I do believe, with St. Alphonsus, that denying BOD itself is at least a mortal sin, and likely heretical in itself, since the Church has clearly taught it.
You can believe that, but I and many others believe you're dead wrong. It's simply incorrect that the Church clearly taught it. It's clear that the Church has tolerated various flavors of it, but it's not been defined or explained or proposed for belief Magisterially. Finding a mere mention of it here or there is not the same as proposing it for belief. Various expository narrative portions of Councils don't intend to define every word. Again, Trent does nothing more than state that justification cannot happen without the desire for it.
-
Apologies if this topic has already been broached earlier in the thread, since I know you guys discussed double predestination, but in a quick glance I didn't find an answer to this in particular:
How does the death of an unbaptised infant not equate to double predestination? I saw it mentioned that the damnation of invincibly ignorant adults isn't double predestination because, through adhering to the natural law and corresponding to God's graces, they may be given a chance to convert. But an infant doesn't get that opportunity. I know they aren't sent to the Hell of the damned, but wouldn't such a child still have been predestined to not go to Heaven? I know Heaven is a reward and not a right, but it's still Biblical and Church teaching that God wills all men to be saved. So why would He bring into being a soul who had no opportunity to be? Even if an unbaptised infant is not damned, per se, they certainly aren't saved, nor had they any chance to be.
-
The Church has condemned your false interpretation of Trent.
The Church has condemned her own teaching is what you are saying.
CANON IV.-If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous;... let him be anathema.
I say Trent says that the sacraments are necessary unto salvation - PLEASE EXPLAIN HOW MY INTERPRETATION IS FALSE.
the canon continues:
and [if anyone saith] that, without them, or without the desire thereof, men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification;-though all (the sacraments) are not indeed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema.
I say Trent says without the sacrament there can be no justification and without the desire for the sacrament there can be no justification. Again - PLEASE EXPLAIN HOW MY INTERPRETATION IS FALSE.
If you cannot explain how my interpretation is false, stop making the false claim.
-
Apologies if this topic has already been broached earlier in the thread, since I know you guys discussed double predestination, but in a quick glance I didn't find an answer to this in particular:
How does the death of an unbaptised infant not equate to double predestination? I saw it mentioned that the damnation of invincibly ignorant adults isn't double predestination because, through adhering to the natural law and corresponding to God's graces, they may be given a chance to convert. But an infant doesn't get that opportunity. I know they aren't sent to the Hell of the damned, but wouldn't such a child still have been predestined to not go to Heaven? I know Heaven is a reward and not a right, but it's still Biblical and Church teaching that God wills all men to be saved. So why would He bring into being a soul who had no opportunity to be? Even if an unbaptised infant is not damned, per se, they certainly aren't saved, nor had they any chance to be.
It's key that they are not sent to Hell. Human beings not only have no right in justice to the Beatific Vision, but we even lack the natural capacity to enjoy it. It's a free gift of God. So there's no natural deprivation in Limbo, the same thing that accounts for their natural happiness. I believe that this is an act of God's Mercy and that all infants who die without Baptism were likely headed to Hell, and it was an act of God's Mercy to give them eternal natural happiness instead.
-
I still think Stubborn's mentality is super problematic though. It basically amounts to "All these saints were just dumb and didn't read Trent."
Its like Sola Scriptura with magisterial docuмents
You guys have a reading comprehension problem. Read my post above and explain where exactly I am misquoting Trent.
Before you go making false claims, you really should know what you are talking about first yourself.
-
It basically amounts to "All these saints were just dumb and didn't read Trent."
Emotion and sentimentality can cloud the reason. People, even Saints, can make "dumb" decisions that, from their point of view, seemed correct.
.
Most of those who promote the super-BOD doctrine, start off with the sentimental mindset, "How can we define BOD to save the most souls?" But that's just a humanized, over-exaggerated use of God's mercy. God always balances His mercy with His justice....and He did so looooong ago, before earth was ever created, as Scripture says, "Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you." God knows from all eternity the circuмstances of our birth, our personality/nature and our entire life beforehand. So He ordains His mercy + justice to correspond with the graces He knows we will accept. It's an absolute mystery which none of us can comprehend.
.
We aren't allowed to humanize salvation; all those who make it to heaven do so justly. All those who don't make heaven, also is a matter of justice.
-
God can provide the Sacrament wherever and whenever He chooses. And He does. And He can also provide forgiveness through Perfect Contrition wherever and whenever He chooses. And He does. The Church has spoken. The case is closed. Baptism of Desire exists.
Unwittingly, the writer finally clearly reveals his real belief which is that "God can provide the Sacrament wherever and whenever He chooses. ..And He can also provide forgiveness through Perfect Contrition wherever and whenever He chooses", that the sacraments and the Church are not necessary. That is the foundational pillar of Implicit Faith'ers, but it is not taught by any saint or pope or council. That false "doctrine" is at the root of all the errors of Vatican II. That is how they rationalize their end run around all the saints, doctors, councils, popes, to teach that Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Jҽωs, indeed, that people in any religions can be saved.
-
God can provide the Sacrament wherever and whenever He chooses. ...Baptism of Desire exists.
Except BOD isn't a sacrament. Trent says water is necessary for the sacrament. Back to the "apparent" contradiction.
-
Emotion and sentimentality can cloud the reason. People, even Saints, can make "dumb" decisions that, from their point of view, seemed correct.
It's not even that Pax, they quote the saints ad nausem and NEVER quote Trent, then when Trent is quoted for the purpose of demonstrating what the Church actually teaches, all they say is it's being misinterpreted - without ever pointing out how or where the misinterpretation is, apparently because they do not know what Trent even does say, in this way they can just say it's misinterpreted and they can keep posting from catechisms and saints.
-
Apologies if this topic has already been broached earlier in the thread, since I know you guys discussed double predestination, but in a quick glance I didn't find an answer to this in particular:
How does the death of an unbaptised infant not equate to double predestination? I saw it mentioned that the damnation of invincibly ignorant adults isn't double predestination because, through adhering to the natural law and corresponding to God's graces, they may be given a chance to convert. But an infant doesn't get that opportunity. I know they aren't sent to the Hell of the damned, but wouldn't such a child still have been predestined to not go to Heaven? I know Heaven is a reward and not a right, but it's still Biblical and Church teaching that God wills all men to be saved. So why would He bring into being a soul who had no opportunity to be? Even if an unbaptised infant is not damned, per se, they certainly aren't saved, nor had they any chance to be.
Forlorn,
You raise a good question. The topic is very deep, but it has implications that run even deeper, and involve, e.g., predestination and ɛƖɛctıon - both Catholic doctrines that have largely been preempted, and often subtly (or not so subtly) perverted in the way of heretics, by non-Catholic Christians.
There are some good thread on another forum regarding this:
God's Permission Of Sin: Negative Or Conditioned Decree? (forumotion.com) (https://catholicforum.forumotion.com/t914-god-s-permission-of-sin-negative-or-conditioned-decree)
1 Timothy 2:4 (forumotion.com) (https://catholicforum.forumotion.com/t467-1-timothy-24)
DR
-
I still think Stubborn's mentality is super problematic though. It basically amounts to "All these saints were just dumb and didn't read Trent."
Its like Sola Scriptura with magisterial docuмents
Well, you'd be surprised how little time theologians actually spent on BoD. Very few even mention it, and those who do typically mention it in passing, simply repeating the notion that it exists. Things get perpetuated through repetition unless someone takes the time to "dig into" an issue and look at the source material. Very few theologians cared that much about this question to do original research, simply taking this conclusion for granted due to lack of time or interest to look into it. So, no, they weren't "dumb". They just didn't care that much about it by and large and didn't spent a lot of their time on it. Father Cekada did a survey of all the theologians' opinions on BoD and he could only find about 20 (if I recall) in total, and the vast majority of it simply mentioned it in passing in a single sentence.
In fact, from the about the 5th century, when St. Fulgentius explicitly rejected BoD, until St. Bernard, there isn't a single mention of it anywhere in extant Catholic writing. It resurfaced with the proto-scholastics, Abelard and Hugh of St. Victor, who were debating separate sides of the issue. Peter Lombard then wrote St. Bernard, asking for his opinion on the subject, and the latter TENTATIVELY went pro-BoD with the argument, "I'd rather be wrong with Augustine" than right on his own (a posture of humility). He was evidently not aware that St. Augustine had forcefully retracted the opinion. Had he known, he would have had to decide whether to be right with early Augustine or right with later Augustine. Peter Lombard than put that opinion into the Sentences, which became the first scholastic theological treatise. From there St. Thomas picked it up, and from him it spread ... due to his authority.
-
It's key that they are not sent to Hell. Human beings not only have no right in justice to the Beatific Vision, but we even lack the natural capacity to enjoy it. It's a free gift of God. So there's no natural deprivation in Limbo, the same thing that accounts for their natural happiness. I believe that this is an act of God's Mercy and that all infants who die without Baptism were likely headed to Hell, and it was an act of God's Mercy to give them eternal natural happiness instead.
I still don't see how one can say that God wishes for the salvation of all, as in 1 Timothy 2:4, if He creates souls who are predestined to not be saved. Those past the age of reason are granted or denied salvation by acts of their own free will, so we can easily say that God wished for their salvation, but that the damned amongst them rejected the offer. We can't say that for unbaptised infants. They are not saved because of circuмstances outside of their control. So we can't say that God wishes for their salvation but that they reject it. They don't get a chance to reject it at all.
It's all the more troubling when you think about miscarriage statistics. Something like 10-20% of all pregnancies are said to end in miscarriage, even in modern times, and actually this figure is too low because it generally only counts those which happen after a woman discovers she's pregnant. There are believed to be a great number of miscarriages that occur in the very early stages of pregnancy so, although I lack exact figures here, the number of souls who were never even born(and therefore could not have been baptised) could well rival those who were. That's not even getting into abortions or the historically gargantuan rates of infant mortality. All in all, there have probably been more souls who never reached the age of reason than those who did. That's not a small edge case; that's a rather large proportion of "all men" who never had a chance to attain salvation. How then can we say God wishes salvation for them all?
The argument about it being merciful I can't refute, but it doesn't really make sense to me. I see three main issues with it:
(1) Why does God not just automatically "sort" all souls the way he does for these infants? This is the weakest point, but I still feel it worth pointing out since it goes contrary to God's normal modus operandi.
(2) It would imply that declines in infant mortality rates, especially in heathen countries, correspond to a decrease in God's mercy. If infant mortality rates in a Muslim country drop from 30% to 5%, as they have in the last 150 years or so, the number of them being spared near certain damnation would go down 6x. 30% of the population being spared damnation to just 5%. Are we to believe God became less merciful?
(3) While the idea that their early death is merciful to them solves the issue of injustice when you compare them to people who lived and went on to be saved, it just switches the problem to be about the injustice to those who went on to be damned. Why does God spare some souls who he knows will go on to deserve damnation, but not others?
Forlorn,
You raise a good question. The topic is very deep, but it has implications that run even deeper, and involve, e.g., predestination and ɛƖɛctıon - both Catholic doctrines that have largely been preempted, and often subtly (or not so subtly) perverted in the way of heretics, by non-Catholic Christians.
There are some good thread on another forum regarding this:
God's Permission Of Sin: Negative Or Conditioned Decree? (forumotion.com) (https://catholicforum.forumotion.com/t914-god-s-permission-of-sin-negative-or-conditioned-decree)
1 Timothy 2:4 (forumotion.com) (https://catholicforum.forumotion.com/t467-1-timothy-24)
DR
I'm reading through that second thread at the moment(started with that one, dunno why) and it's a very interesting read. Thank you. I'll get back to you when I've finished it.
-
I still don't see how one can say that God wishes for the salvation of all, as in 1 Timothy 2:4, if He creates souls who are predestined to not be saved.
God willed their salvation, but He foresaw that they would not be saved, and therefore in His Mercy took them from this life into a state of eternal natural happiness. They were indeed "saved," ... saved from Hell.
God's will for all to be saved is not efficacious for all to be saved. God sometimes withholds graces from those He foresees will reject them and waste them, in His Mercy, since it would only increase their punishment.
-
I still think Stubborn's mentality is super problematic though. It basically amounts to "All these saints were just dumb and didn't read Trent."
Its like Sola Scriptura with magisterial docuмents
No, the saint may be simply mistaken but most probably the chronicler has something wrong or your will blocks your intellect and you can't see alternatives to your own narrative.
As an example during the funeral oration, St Ambrose assured the grieving crowd that Valentinian received what he asked for. This does allow for a BOD but can’t prove it because another possibility exists and is more likely. St Ambrose was privy to the circuмstances of Valentinian’s murder, knew the emperor was actually baptized before it happened but because it was a state secret, St Ambrose could not reveal he knew because he would then be forced to reveal the identity of the murderers and a cινιℓ ωαr could ensue. Also remarkable is that the faithful were mourning Valentinian because they thought he was not baptized and therefore lost. They would not believe this way if St Ambrose had previously taught them BOD.
Another example is the Venerable Bede and his relaying of the story of St. Albanus and his companion. As St. Albanus ascended the hill he stopped to pray and a spring of water was miraculously produced. Here Bede claims the purpose of the spring was refreshment but we see there is means (water and a minister), motive (St. Albanus is a Christian who knows baptism is a necessity for salvation), and opportunity (the soldiers allowed a stoppage in the process of execution). Means, motive, and opportunity is proof enough beyond a reasonable doubt for any prosecution. The same goes for the 40 martyrs on the frozen lake. The means (there is another person available to minister to the soldier and they are on a lake), motive (they are Christians who believe in the necessity of baptism), and opportunity (freezing to death takes time) are all supplied by Providence which is why St. Augustine says “Perish the thought that a person predestined to eternal life could be allowed to end this life without the sacrament of the mediator”. In sum, these stories are sometimes misunderstood by us or by their own authors, in which case proponents of BOB detract from the author’s reputation by continuing their error.
I hope this helps.
-
Cornelius was justified by Baptism of Desire. .
Concerning the baptism of Cornelius. Acts 10&11
Cornelius is as far removed from the Church as any non-Christian will ever be. He was separated geographically by a dangerous multiple day journey, he had no knowledge of the Catholic church or anyone who could lead him to the truth, and worse of all, St. Peter probably would not converse with him much less enter his home or initiate him into the church as St. Peter (and consequently the Church following Peter’s direction) would consider that “casting pearls before swine.” Cornelius was a religious man who had a fear of the Lord, which is the beginning of faith; he practiced natural virtue and was given grace from God including the gift of tongues as an external manifestation to Peter of God’s grace in Cornelius. Cornelius cooperated with the prevenient grace of God and moved his will to do what was necessary for his salvation. Miracles ensued which led to his evangelization and baptism. The obvious lesson from this story, believed by the early church, is that the Church is universal, but also learned here is that physical circuмstances cannot impede Divine Providence or interdict the necessity of the sacrament of baptism.
-
You know, as this topic never dies, and as it seems that the same people debate it, it's crazy that nothing ever gets resolved. I really wish we could setup a thread for an individual person (i.e. a pro-BOD person) and let him debate/converse/ask questions of all the "Feeneyites" on this site. If there was a way to do that, then truth might be gotten to and time saved. As it is, you have 5 conversations going on at once and no one is forced/reminded to stay on topic. It's total chaos and it just repeats ever 90 days or so.
.
If anyone wants to debate/converse one-on-one, send me a PM.
-
Also, where exactly does it say that Cornelius was justified before his Baptism?
-
You know, as this topic never dies, and as it seems that the same people debate it, it's crazy that nothing ever gets resolved. I really wish we could setup a thread for an individual person (i.e. a pro-BOD person) and let him debate/converse/ask questions of all the "Feeneyites" on this site. If there was a way to do that, then truth might be gotten to and time saved. As it is, you have 5 conversations going on at once and no one is forced/reminded to stay on topic. It's total chaos and it just repeats ever 90 days or so.
.
If anyone wants to debate/converse one-on-one, send me a PM.
I've suggested something similar before, that BoD should be broken down into smaller sub-topics and people need to stay on topic:
e.g., did the Church Fathers believe in BoD
Of course, the same thing happens with R&R vs. Sede debates.
-
You know, as this topic never dies, and as it seems that the same people debate it, it's crazy that nothing ever gets resolved. I really wish we could setup a thread for an individual person (i.e. a pro-BOD person) and let him debate/converse/ask questions of all the "Feeneyites" on this site. If there was a way to do that, then truth might be gotten to and time saved. As it is, you have 5 conversations going on at once and no one is forced/reminded to stay on topic. It's total chaos and it just repeats ever 90 days or so.
.
If anyone wants to debate/converse one-on-one, send me a PM.
A major problem is that the BODers do not answer questions, rather, they completely ignore direct challenges as they continue to quote the same saints and catechisms. If they did meet the challenges, answer questions and were honest, they could not remain BODers.
That is the key here I think Pax, they will only believe what they want to believe no matter what, why else do they ignore questions and run from any challenge? It is because they refuse to believe what they do not want to believe.
-
... they continue to quote the same saints and catechisms.
Indeed, I'm not sure why they repeatedly need to "prove" that St. Thomas, for instance, believed in BoD. We clearly grant this. So why do they insist on re-spamming the same quotes over and over again?
So, for instance, I pointed out that there was NO unanimous consensus of the Church Fathers on this issue, as MORE Fathers explicitly rejected BoD than who accepted it.
So Xavier chimes in, "St. Ambrose taught [BoD]". I disputed that, and my argument was simply ignored. Nevertheless, OK, even if I were to GRANT that St. Ambrose taught it, we still only have 1.5 Fathers who believed in it, with about 5 or 6 who explicitly rejected it, and the rest are silent.
Please either explain, based on that, how there's a dogmatic consensus of the Fathers in favor of this issue, or have the honesty -- as Rahner did -- to GRANT or CONCEDE that there's no dogmatic consensus of the Fathers on this issue. Instead we get the LIE repeated that the Church Fathers taught BoD (as a group).
But that honesty of Rahner is not to be found among most proponents of BoD and, as you pointed out, Stubborn, that's typically prima facie evidence that they have already made up their minds for emotional reasons and are not willing to look at the issue objectively.
-
Because of St Ambrose's ambiguity in this infamous quote, it forces us to look elsewhere in his writings for clarification.
St. Ambrose, De mysteriis, 390-391 A.D.:
“You have read, therefore, that the three witnesses in Baptism are one: water, blood, and the spirit; and if you withdraw any one of these, the Sacrament of Baptism is not valid. For what is water without the cross of Christ? A common element without any sacramental effect. Nor on the other hand is there any mystery of regeneration without water: for ‘unless a man be born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.’ [John 3:5] Even a catechumen believes in the cross of the Lord Jesus, by which also he is signed; but, unless he be baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, he cannot receive the remission of sins nor be recipient of the gift of spiritual grace.”
St. Ambrose, The Duties of Clergy, 391 A.D.:
“The Church was redeemed at the price of Christ’s blood. Jew or Greek, it makes no difference; but if he has believed he must circuмcise himself from his sins so that he can be saved;...for no one ascends into the kingdom of heaven except through the Sacrament of Baptism.”
St. Ambrose, The Duties of Clergy, 391 A.D.:
“Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.’ No one is excepted: not the infant, not the one prevented by some necessity.”
Unless one wants to make out one of the great doctors of the Church as some sort of schizophrenic, he cannot be pointed to as supporter of BOD.
-
Indeed, I'm not sure why they repeatedly need to "prove" that St. Thomas, for instance, believed in BoD. We clearly grant this. So why do they insist on re-spamming the same quotes over and over again?
They all do the same thing because they know nothing about the subject except that they can't accept that a "nice" non-Catholic will go to hell. (That does not apply to the rare case of the strict BODer who believes that a catechumen can be saved. However, that type never starts a thread on CI to argue about such a harmless belief).
-
I'm reading through that second thread at the moment(started with that one, dunno why) and it's a very interesting read. Thank you. I'll get back to you when I've finished it.
Actually, that's the proper order. I should have told you anyway to read the second thread first. You got it right.
-
Also, where exactly does it say that Cornelius was justified before his Baptism?
If you mean by "it" Scripture, a strong Scriptural argument could be made. But that is neither here nor there on a Trad Catholic forum where the Magisterium guides, or rather, governs.
-
Ladislaus, I asked you a question earlier in the thread. Can you please answer it: "Do you deny what the Church says that Holy Scripture teaches or do you affirm it?"
Here are the sources I cited:
Catechism of Pope St. Pius X: "Baptism, Necessity of Baptism and Obligations of the Baptized: 17 Q. Can the absence of Baptism be supplied in any other way? A. The absence of Baptism can be supplied by martyrdom, which is called Baptism of Blood, or by an act of perfect love of God, or of contrition, along with the desire, at least implicit, of Baptism, and this is called Baptism of Desire.
Baltimore Catechism, Approved by His Holiness Pope Leo XIII: Q. 654. How do we know that the baptism of desire or of blood will save us when it is impossible to receive the baptism of water?
A. We know that baptism of desire or of blood will save us when it is impossible to receive the baptism of water, from Holy Scripture, which teaches that love of God and perfect contrition can secure the remission of sins ; and also that Our Lord promises salvation to those who lay down their life for His sake or for His teaching.
See the sources: https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/catechism-of-st-pius-x-1286
And: http://www.baltimore-catechism.com/lesson14.htm
As for Cornelius, St. Augustine says: "For Cornelius, even before his baptism (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm), was filled with the Holy Spirit (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07409a.htm); Acts 10:44 (https://www.newadvent.org/bible/act010.htm#verse44) Simon, even after baptism (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm), was puffed up with an unclean spirit." https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/14084.htm
St. Thomas says: "So also before Baptism (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm) Cornelius and others like him receive grace (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06689a.htm) and virtues (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15472a.htm) through their faith (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05752c.htm) in Christ (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm) and their desire for Baptism (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm), implicit or explicit: but afterwards when baptized (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm), they receive a yet greater fulness of grace (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06689a.htm) and virtues (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15472a.htm)." See: https://www.newadvent.org/summa/4069.htm
I already cited Fr. Haydock where Church-approved sources have clearly taught these for centuries. You reject all these many sources.
I don't care what Rahner says. I care what real scholars like St. Robert Bellarmine say. St. Robert says the Baptism of Desire was not absolutely certain at first, but now is, having been settled by the Church. After Trent, he says it most certainly is to be believed.
Baptism of Blood was plainly taught by numerous Fathers. Baptism of Desire was disputed till the Middle Ages. You need to show some sources that it can still be licitly disputed today by Catholics. I contest that. The Popes and the Church have settled the question.
Please cite some of those manuals you claim referred to BOD as a disputed question after Trent. Until then, all Catholics can safely follow St. Alphonsus in teaching that Trent teaches that souls can be justified and saved by Baptism of Desire. Benedictus Deus forbids Catholics from issuing their own private unauthorized interpretations of the decrees of Trent, whereas St. Alphonsus' was authorized.
-
Ladislaus, I asked you a question earlier in the thread. Can you please answer it: "Do you deny what the Church says that Holy Scripture teaches or do you affirm it?"
Here are the sources I cited:
Catechism of Pope St. Pius X: "Baptism, Necessity of Baptism and Obligations of the Baptized: 17 Q. Can the absence of Baptism be supplied in any other way? A. The absence of Baptism can be supplied by martyrdom, which is called Baptism of Blood, or by an act of perfect love of God, or of contrition, along with the desire, at least implicit, of Baptism, and this is called Baptism of Desire.
Baltimore Catechism, Approved by His Holiness Pope Leo XIII: Q. 654. How do we know that the baptism of desire or of blood will save us when it is impossible to receive the baptism of water?
A. We know that baptism of desire or of blood will save us when it is impossible to receive the baptism of water, from Holy Scripture, which teaches that love of God and perfect contrition can secure the remission of sins ; and also that Our Lord promises salvation to those who lay down their life for His sake or for His teaching.
See the sources: https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/catechism-of-st-pius-x-1286
And: http://www.baltimore-catechism.com/lesson14.htm
As for Cornelius, St. Augustine says: "For Cornelius, even before his baptism (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm), was filled with the Holy Spirit (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07409a.htm); Acts 10:44 (https://www.newadvent.org/bible/act010.htm#verse44) Simon, even after baptism (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm), was puffed up with an unclean spirit." https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/14084.htm
St. Thomas says: "So also before Baptism (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm) Cornelius and others like him receive grace (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06689a.htm) and virtues (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15472a.htm) through their faith (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05752c.htm) in Christ (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm) and their desire for Baptism (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm), implicit or explicit: but afterwards when baptized (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm), they receive a yet greater fulness of grace (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06689a.htm) and virtues (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15472a.htm)." See: https://www.newadvent.org/summa/4069.htm
I already cited Fr. Haydock where Church-approved sources have clearly taught these for centuries. You reject all these many sources.
I don't care what Rahner says. I care what real scholars like St. Robert Bellarmine say. St. Robert says the Baptism of Desire was not absolutely certain at first, but now is, having been settled by the Church. After Trent, he says it most certainly is to be believed.
Baptism of Blood was plainly taught by numerous Fathers. Baptism of Desire was disputed till the Middle Ages. You need to show some sources that it can still be licitly disputed today by Catholics. I contest that. The Popes and the Church have settled the question.
Please cite some of those manuals you claim referred to BOD as a disputed question after Trent. Until then, all Catholics can safely follow St. Alphonsus in teaching that Trent teaches that souls can be justified and saved by Baptism of Desire. Benedictus Deus forbids Catholics from issuing their own private unauthorized interpretations of the decrees of Trent, whereas St. Alphonsus' was authorized.
You have an explanation to give. (https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/the-absurdities-of-the-feeneyite-heresy/msg732520/#msg732520)
-
Indeed, I'm not sure why they repeatedly need to "prove" that St. Thomas, for instance, believed in BoD. We clearly grant this. So why do they insist on re-spamming the same quotes over and over again?
As LT said, it seems obvious the reason is that "they know nothing about the subject except that they can't accept that a "nice" non-Catholic will go to hell".
It can only be for the above same reason that they constantly raise the authority of fallible saints and catechisms, over the infallible teaching of the Church. Seems they think that by constantly referencing the lesser authority as if they are the greatest authority, that they are able to get by and avoid the whole issue of their own personal belief, while striving to get others to do the same.
-
Ladislaus, I asked you a question earlier in the thread. Can you please answer it: "Do you deny what the Church says that Holy Scripture teaches or do you affirm it?"
Of course I deny it. I've denied it many times. What's your authority, the Baltimore catechism?
Now, answer my question. Do you hold that there's a dogmatic consensus of the Church Fathers in favor of BoD?
-
Now, answer my question. Do you hold that there's a dogmatic consensus of the Church Fathers in favor of BoD?
Readers will notice that Ladislaus answers all questions quickly and in short responses (as do all people that are not hiding something).
Good luck getting a direct answer from the "nice non-Catholics will saved" types. Getting a straight answer from them occupies having to bear with their never ending new threads and months, reams, of the same quotes over and over, till they finally just leave, only to come back a few months later and repeat the process. They never answer the truth, that they just believe that nice non-Catholics will be saved, somehow.
-
As for Cornelius, St. Augustine says: "For Cornelius, even before his baptism (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm), was filled with the Holy Spirit (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07409a.htm); Acts 10:44 (https://www.newadvent.org/bible/act010.htm#verse44) Simon, even after baptism (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm), was puffed up with an unclean spirit." https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/14084.htm
St. Augustine rejected Baptism of Desire before he died. And the activity of the Holy Spirit in Cornelius does not prove any kind of justification, much less does it prove that he would have been saved had he died before receiving the water of Baptism. As Trent teaches, it is the Holy Spirit who bestows all the actual graces leading up to justification in Baptism. So the presence of the Holy Spirit isn't probative of justification or sanctifying grace.
-
I don't see what's wrong with BoD as long as you admit that everyone who is saved has to have a water baptism.
A good catechumen or someone who's invincibly ignorant/has implicit desire will come to the faith before they die, period. Therefore, they will also receive a proper water baptism before they die- Trent makes this very clear- or will truly repent in their last moments if they already have that baptism. Only evil people will go to Hell. God provides every sufficient means for our salvation, but that doesn't mean we see all of the means given. An angel could, 100%, provide baptism for a good-willed person who is about to die having not gotten their baptism. Certainly this falls under theological opinion, though, as Baptism of Desire should. If a kind, hopeful, faithful catechumen dies before their scheduled baptism or a Hindu is dying yet would likely accept Christ wholeheartedly given the chance, then we don't know if he was saved, because an angel could have come and baptized them. God alone has that power. If they were truly sincere, then they were truly baptized with water and enlightened in the faith, and thus they were saved at death. It would be a mystery we couldn't understand fully, but certainly one that's possible.
If you make the distinction that the desire alone isn't what saves, but also the water baptism obtained by that desire, then BoD isn't wrong anymore. Moreover, anyone who refrains from converting someone who's genuinely interested in Catholicism out of a feeling that they would go to Hell would certainly be wrong. But to call people Feeneyites for saying you need water baptism to be saved is just silly.
-
... answers all questions quickly and in short responses (as do all people that are not hiding something).
You seem to be suggesting that taking more than a sentence or two to explain something indicates that explanation is wrong.
Why do you think that?
-
I don't see what's wrong with BoD as long as you admit that everyone who is saved has to have a water baptism.
A good catechumen or someone who's invincibly ignorant/has implicit desire will come to the faith before they die, period. Therefore, they will also receive a proper water baptism before they die- Trent makes this very clear- or will truly repent in their last moments if they already have that baptism. Only evil people will go to Hell. God provides every sufficient means for our salvation, but that doesn't mean we see all of the means given. An angel could, 100%, provide baptism for a good-willed person who is about to die having not gotten their baptism. Certainly this falls under theological opinion, though, as Baptism of Desire should. If a kind, hopeful, faithful catechumen dies before their scheduled baptism or a Hindu is dying yet would likely accept Christ wholeheartedly given the chance, then we don't know if he was saved, because an angel could have come and baptized them. God alone has that power. If they were truly sincere, then they were truly baptized with water and enlightened in the faith, and thus they were saved at death. It would be a mystery we couldn't understand fully, but certainly one that's possible.
If you make the distinction that the desire alone isn't what saves, but also the water baptism obtained by that desire, then BoD isn't wrong anymore. Moreover, anyone who refrains from converting someone who's genuinely interested in Catholicism out of a feeling that they would go to Hell would certainly be wrong. But to call people Feeneyites for saying you need water baptism to be saved is just silly.
This actually brings out a very important distinction. Even if people believe in a hypothetical Baptism of Desire, do we have any proof whatsoever that anyone has ever been saved without water Baptism and that God didn't miraculously provide water Baptism to all those who are claimed to have been saved by BoD? St. Thomas teaches that God would, if necessary, bring an angel to preach the faith to someone of good will. This same angel could also confer Baptism. I mean, if he's already there to enlighten that soul about the faith, why not just also take the next logical step and confer Baptism? Or come along to confer it on someone who already had the faith?
Now, there's an interesting point about Baptism of Blood. St. Cyprian taught that no one could be saved without the SACRAMENT of Baptism. But then he stated his belief in BoB. Was this a contradiction? No. Elsewhere he taught that in BoB, blood took the place of water for the matter of the Sacrament, while angels pronounced the words (of the form). In other words, he merely saw BoB as an extraordinary manner of conferring the SACRAMENT of Baptism, and he saw BoB as no "exception to the rule" as it were.
-
God can provide the Sacrament wherever and whenever He chooses.
Right, this is basic "God is omnipotent" 101 and "with God all things are possible." Since God CAN do either one with equal ease, why do you suppose that God would will that some of His elect NOT receive the Sacrament? Why would He withhold it from them? Didn't Our Lord teach that if you seek/ask/desire for something, that you would receive it? So if this desire were strong enough to be hypothetically efficacious for justification, then why would it not be strong enough to be efficacious for receiving the Sacrament, as per Our Lord's promise?
This is a positive step to acknowledge that God cannot be constrained by "impossibility" ... as most BoDers imply.
So God revealed that the Sacrament of Baptism is absolutely necessary by a necessity of means for salvation, and could easily provide it to anyone, but then decides to withhold it and then save someone without it when He could just as easily grant it? This just doesn't compute.
-
You seem to be suggesting that taking more than a sentence or two to explain something indicates that explanation is wrong.
I am saying that if the question is simple, the answer is simple and short. It takes months and having to tolerate reams of runarounds to get the "non-Catholics can be saved" believers to admit their true belief. Example - Simple question, are you an believer in salvation by implicit faith in a God that rewards, the belief that Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Jҽωs etc, can be saved without conversion? It is rare to have an implicit faith'er simply answer yes.
The more a person knows about a subject the more succinct he can state it. "I would have written a shorter letter, if I have had more time"(Mark Twain)
-
BoD is also implied Pelagianism, which St. Augustine realized after battling the Pelagians.
Is the desire itself salvific? Is it meritorious unto salvation? No; to say so would be Pelagian heresy. God gives salvation freely. So what exactly is the role of this desire vis-a-vis the reception of the Sacrament? In point of fact, it's nothing but a SIGN that the soul appears to be cooperating with the will of God. Presumably God will give the Sacrament if the soul perseveres in this cooperation. This implication that it would be unjust of God not to save someone who had the desire for Baptism, it implies that this desire is meritorious or efficacious in and of itself unto salvation. That's Pelagianism pure and simple. To imply that it would be unjust, or unmerciful, for God to withhold salvation from someone who appears to be so cooperating is to pretend that one can see into the internal forum. "Look at that devout catechumen, who wanted so much to be baptized, and yet was cut down before receiving the Sacrament." [how do you know the internal forum state of that person?] vs. "that scoundrel lived a sinful life but was baptized on his deathbed." This is the "thinking" (aka emoting) that led to people beginning to theorize about BoD during the time of St. Augustine, and he rejected this reasoning as leading to a "vortex of confusion" ... which is most certainly is because it's extrapolating from a presumed knowledge of the internal forum to theological speculation.
"What if there were such a devout soul, ...." Well, what if? We don't know that there EVER has been one whom God did not bring to the Sacrament.
BoD is a vortex of nonsense and confusion, which has never brought any good fruits, only bad ones. Our Lord taught that we would know things by their fruits, and the fruits of BoD theory are absolutely pernicious. There's no need for it, no proof that anyone was ever saved by it, leads very easily into the heresies of 1) Pelagianism, 2) denying the necessity of the Sacraments for salvation, 3) invisible Church ecclesiology, and 4) effective denial of EENS.
-
No, the saint may be simply mistaken but most probably the chronicler has something wrong or your will blocks your intellect and you can't see alternatives to your own narrative.
As an example during the funeral oration, St Ambrose assured the grieving crowd that Valentinian received what he asked for. This does allow for a BOD but can’t prove it because another possibility exists and is more likely. St Ambrose was privy to the circuмstances of Valentinian’s murder, knew the emperor was actually baptized before it happened but because it was a state secret, St Ambrose could not reveal he knew because he would then be forced to reveal the identity of the murderers and a cινιℓ ωαr could ensue. Also remarkable is that the faithful were mourning Valentinian because they thought he was not baptized and therefore lost. They would not believe this way if St Ambrose had previously taught them BOD.
Another example is the Venerable Bede and his relaying of the story of St. Albanus and his companion. As St. Albanus ascended the hill he stopped to pray and a spring of water was miraculously produced. Here Bede claims the purpose of the spring was refreshment but we see there is means (water and a minister), motive (St. Albanus is a Christian who knows baptism is a necessity for salvation), and opportunity (the soldiers allowed a stoppage in the process of execution). Means, motive, and opportunity is proof enough beyond a reasonable doubt for any prosecution. The same goes for the 40 martyrs on the frozen lake. The means (there is another person available to minister to the soldier and they are on a lake), motive (they are Christians who believe in the necessity of baptism), and opportunity (freezing to death takes time) are all supplied by Providence which is why St. Augustine says “Perish the thought that a person predestined to eternal life could be allowed to end this life without the sacrament of the mєdιαtor”. In sum, these stories are sometimes misunderstood by us or by their own authors, in which case proponents of BOB detract from the author’s reputation by continuing their error.
I hope this helps.
Well, the oration cold also be ambiguous in this sense, offering a consolation that everyone receives what he asks for, which simply implies that if Valentinian didn't receive Baptism, it was because he didn't ask for it (with the proper dispositions). Another answer is the Baptism of Blood answer. And you're right, i forgot this most obvious interpretation. Back then news didn't travel quickly ... before the days of the internet or even radio or newspapers. I'm sure the details surrounding his murder were fuzzy. Could it possibly have happened that one of his attendants conferred emergency Baptism on him as he lay dying? That detail would likely have come after the general news of his death.
This absolutely cannot be cited as any proof of BoD, and someone just posted the quotes from elsewhere in St. Ambrose where he appears to reject BoD.
-
No, it's quite clear that there was no unanimous consensus of the Church Fathers with regard to Baptism of Desire. More of them rejected it than supported it, and most didn't mention it at all.
So zero proof here that BoD has been revealed God.
St. Gregory nαzιanzen (aka Gregory the Theologian): REJECTED
St. Gregory of Nyssa: REJECTED
St. Fulgentius: REJECTED
St. Ambrose: ambiguous at best one time and in some places REJECTED
St. Augustine: tentatively theorized at first, then later REJECTED
Some Fathers who believed in BoB implicitly reject BoD in stating that absolutely the only way outside the normal Sacrament to be saved is martyrdom.
So we have the ambiguous statement of St. Ambrose (while elsewhere rejecting it) and the early immature theorizing of St. Augustine ("after having considered it over and over again, I find that ...") [note, not I teach this with the authority of the Apostles, but I FIND] which he later rejected, issuing the strongest anti-BoD statements on record anywhere. THAT is your "dogmatic consensus" of the Fathers.
-
I don't care what Rahner says. I care what real scholars like St. Robert Bellarmine say.
:laugh1:. St. Robert agrees with Rahner that the early Fathers had no consensus on BoD. All Rahner is saying is that by and large the Fathers rejected BoD. It's not a question of whether you "care". If he's wrong, then cite the Fathers who promoted BoD so as to refute his contention.
Ironically, Archbishop Lefebvre is a Rahnerian when it comes to soteriology. Rahner proposed αnσnymσus Christianity. He was actually attacked for this by the more rabid Modernist heretics, because Rahner continued to hold that those who were saved were saved BY MEANS of Jesus Christ even if they didn't know it. Well, shucks, that's EXACTLY the teaching of Archbishop Lefebvre. So maybe you SHOULD care about Rahner's soteriology.
-
Karl Rahner:
But, let us say, a Buddhist monk (or anyone else I might suppose) who, because he follows his conscience, attains salvation and lives in the grace of God; of him I must say that he is an αnσnymσus Christian; if not, I would have to presuppose that there is a genuine path to salvation that really attains that goal, but that simply has nothing to do with Jesus Christ. But I cannot do that. And so if I hold if everyone depends upon Jesus Christ for salvation, and if at the same time I hold that many live in the world who have not expressly recognized Jesus Christ, then there remains in my opinion nothing else but to take up this postulate of an αnσnymσus Christianity.
Archbishop Lefebvre:
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.
The error consists in thinking that they are saved by their religion. They are saved in their religion but not by it.
+Lefebvre even claims that these infidels become "PART" of the Church. That is a very grave error. What then separate his ecclesiology from that of Vatican II, both of whom believe in a Frankenchurch which includes not only Catholics but even heretics and infidels.
And this part here is downright scandalous:
Many times in Africa I heard one of our catechumens say to me, “Father, baptize me straightaway because if I die before you come again, I shall go to hell.” I told him “No, if you have no mortal sin on your conscience and if you desire baptism, then you already have the grace in you.”
So this man ardently desired Baptism, and +Lefebvre basically told him he didn't need it ... which could serve no other purpose than to, ironically, weaken and undermine his ardent desire for Baptism ... an irony famously pointed out by Fr. Feeney, that BoDers turn people's desire for Baptism into a desire for the desire of Baptism.
So the appropriate response would be either to train some people who remained there how to perform Baptism in the case of an emergency, reassure the souls that if he continued to ardently desire the Sacrament, God would not deny it to him (ask and you shall receive). Frankly, I would have immєdιαtely baptized the man, declaring "I have not found faith as strong as this in most of the Catholic Church." In fact, this man had more faith than most Catholics, and, sadly, even more than Archbishop Lefebvre himself on this particular point at least.
-
Oh, with regard to St. Ambrose, right before the oft-cited passage regarding Valentinian, St. Ambrose mentions that the people listening were deeply grieved by the fact that Valentinian died without Baptism. These people were catechized and taught by St. Ambrose. Where do we think they got this idea that death without the Sacrament was a horrible tragedy ... if not from St. Ambrose himself? Why would they be so upset at his death without Baptism, if they felt there was hope of salvation without it?
-
So the appropriate response would be either to train some people who remained there how to perform Baptism in the case of an emergency, reassure the souls that if he continued to ardently desire the Sacrament, God would not deny it to him (ask and you shall receive). Frankly, I would have immєdιαtely baptized the man, declaring "I have not found faith as strong as this in most of the Catholic Church." In fact, this man had more faith than most Catholics, and, sadly, even more than Archbishop Lefebvre himself on this particular point at least.
There is a book "Tales of Foreign Lands" by rev. Spillmann, SJ , in the story "Maron" written in 1907 (available via Angelus Press), where a young boy Ali lives along christians and slowly learns about the Faith. All the circuмstances are far from ideal, they constantly face death and prosecution. It it is a process, he professes the Faith first, a bit later actually refuses to be baptized and finally when he is ready he gets baptized. The author does not mention BoD or potential BoB, however the concept seems to be implied between the lines.
Also, it seems that the church never rushed the baptism itself, staying confident and full of hope that it is better to prepare catechumens than later deal with partially formed souls. There must be the reason for that, moreover no fear of missing the train to the Salvation.
I have heard somewhere, that it is better for a soul of a good-willed-person to die without a baptism then be baptized and waste its life. This is why the church insists on full Catholic upbringing and refuses to baptize children where there are no prospects of a catholic environment.
-
There is a book "Tales of Foreign Lands" by rev. Spillmann, SJ , in the story "Maron" written in 1907 (available via Angelus Press), where a young boy Ali lives along christians and slowly learns about the Faith. All the circuмstances are far from ideal, they constantly face death and prosecution. It it is a process, he professes the Faith first, a bit later actually refuses to be baptized and finally when he is ready he gets baptized. The author does not mention BoD or potential BoB, however the concept seems to be implied between the lines.
Also, it seems that the church never rushed the baptism itself, staying confident and full of hope that it is better to prepare catechumens than later deal with partially formed souls. There must be the reason for that, moreover no fear of missing the train to the Salvation.
I have heard somewhere, that it is better for a soul of a good-willed-person to die without a baptism then be baptized and waste its life. This is why the church insists on full Catholic upbringing and refuses to baptize children where there are no prospects of a catholic environment.
Oh, I get that the Church doesn't typically rush Baptism, per the reasons actually stated by the Catechism of the Council of Trent. But those are the reasons +Lefebvre should have given this anxious soul, that if you have the right dispositions, God will preserve you to Baptism. And then make sure people are trained in how to baptize in case the person does suddenly fall ill or has an accident or something. Instead, +Lefebvre basically tells him that he doesn't really need Baptism, that he's already in a state of grace (I'm not sure how he'd know that).
My comment about baptizing him right there was more tongue-in-cheek a reference to the fact that this man seems to have had a stronger faith than most Catholics during that era. That was a time of rampant universal denial regarding the necessity of Baptism for salvation, one with which +Lefebvre himself was, alas, infected. But because that junk had crept in BEFORE Vatican II, +Lefebvre didn't notice it as part of the problem, with an implicit 50s-ism, believing that all was good before Vatican II. As we saw with the saga of Father Feeney, all was not well.
-
In the Angelus Press book, "Preparation for Confirmation ", Part II, Section II, question 10.
10. Is Confirmation necessary for salvation?
Answer: Confirmation is not, unlike Baptism, ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY for salvation. But all Catholics ought to receive it if they have the opportunity, as it confers a sacrament.
Just can't make this stuff up......
-
In the Angelus Press book, "Preparation for Confirmation ", Part II, Section II, question 10.
10. Is Confirmation necessary for salvation?
Answer: Confirmation is not, unlike Baptism, ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY for salvation. But all Catholics ought to receive it if they have the opportunity, as it confers a sacrament.
Just can't make this stuff up......
Now that you pointed it out, the Angelus Press will have to put it under editorial review.
Revised Answer: Confirmation is not ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY for salvation, but either (wishing, bleeding or water) Baptisms are necessary for salvation.
-
Now that you pointed it out, the Angelus Press will have to put it under editorial review.
Revised Answer: Confirmation is not ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY for salvation, but either (wishing, bleeding or water) Baptisms are necessary for salvation.
Well, their Christian Warfare book has the Divine Mercy chaplet in it, so they have some work to do.
-
Well, their Christian Warfare book has the Divine Mercy chaplet in it, so they have some work to do.
Is it for real? What year/page it is on? I will check next time I am in the bookstore (I do not own that book).
-
Instead, +Lefebvre basically tells him that he doesn't really need Baptism, that he's already in a state of grace (I'm not sure how he'd know that).
May I ask for a source/reference?
-
Well, their Christian Warfare book has the Divine Mercy chaplet in it, so they have some work to do.
In essence, what's the difference between the "divine mercy" and the "Fatima prayer" ("...lead all souls to Heaven, especially those who have most need of your mercy."). The latter almost sounds like a forerunner to the former.
-
Is it for real? What year/page it is on? I will check next time I am in the bookstore (I do not own that book).
2009 pocket edition, page 122 I believe. Its in the section, ironically, of the Sacred Heart.
-
Well, you'd be surprised how little time theologians actually spent on BoD. Very few even mention it, and those who do typically mention it in passing, simply repeating the notion that it exists. Things get perpetuated through repetition unless someone takes the time to "dig into" an issue and look at the source material. Very few theologians cared that much about this question to do original research, simply taking this conclusion for granted due to lack of time or interest to look into it. So, no, they weren't "dumb". They just didn't care that much about it by and large and didn't spent a lot of their time on it. Father Cekada did a survey of all the theologians' opinions on BoD and he could only find about 20 (if I recall) in total, and the vast majority of it simply mentioned it in passing in a single sentence.
In fact, from the about the 5th century, when St. Fulgentius explicitly rejected BoD, until St. Bernard, there isn't a single mention of it anywhere in extant Catholic writing. It resurfaced with the proto-scholastics, Abelard and Hugh of St. Victor, who were debating separate sides of the issue. Peter Lombard then wrote St. Bernard, asking for his opinion on the subject, and the latter TENTATIVELY went pro-BoD with the argument, "I'd rather be wrong with Augustine" than right on his own (a posture of humility). He was evidently not aware that St. Augustine had forcefully retracted the opinion. Had he known, he would have had to decide whether to be right with early Augustine or right with later Augustine. Peter Lombard than put that opinion into the Sentences, which became the first scholastic theological treatise. From there St. Thomas picked it up, and from him it spread ... due to his authority.
To be clear I'm not throwing accusations of heresy around or anything, but that still seems pretty sketch. So the Church "just went with" this for eight centuries, basically. Like even if originally it was based on not knowing Augustine retracted, still seems strange that God would allow a lie to basically go unchallenged for that long.
It seems more likely that BOD *at least* for catechumens is at least a possibility, though I realize St Benedict Center currently takes a more moderate position of "in theory BOD is possible, but our personal opinion is that it doesn't actually happen" basically (that's a paraphrase)
-
Baltimore Catechism, Approved by His Holiness Pope Leo XIII: Q. 654. How do we know that the baptism of desire or of blood will save us when it is impossible to receive the baptism of water?
A. We know that baptism of desire or of blood will save us when it is impossible to receive the baptism of water, from Holy Scripture, which teaches that love of God and perfect contrition can secure the remission of sins ; and also that Our Lord promises salvation to those who lay down their life for His sake or for His teaching.
An honest question;
When would it ever be impossible for God to get the Sacrament of Baptism to a soul before they die?
And not just any Sacrament, but the one He requires for souls to be cleansed so they may enter into His Heavenly abode to be with Him forever?
Do some believe that God sits on His throne in Heaven letting everything on Earth happen on it’s own or by chance?
-
May I ask for a source/reference?
It was quoted above. Or do you mean that’s you want the source of the citation?
-
To be clear I'm not throwing accusations of heresy around or anything, but that still seems pretty sketch. So the Church "just went with" this for eight centuries, basically. Like even if originally it was based on not knowing Augustine retracted, still seems strange that God would allow a lie to basically go unchallenged for that long.
It seems more likely that BOD *at least* for catechumens is at least a possibility, though I realize St Benedict Center currently takes a more moderate position of "in theory BOD is possible, but our personal opinion is that it doesn't actually happen" basically (that's a paraphrase)
This false notion of some bizarre extended infallibility of the Church has really clouded and polluted this issue. For about the same period, about 700 years, all theologians also followed the Augustinian theory that unbaptized infants went to hell and suffered some pain there even if “mild”. Later the Church rejected this teaching and made the doctrine of Limbo her own. BTW, the first theologian to challenge this teaching was Abelard ... the same guy who was against Baptism of Desire. This notion that no theological errors can ever become widely adopted by Catholics is absurd. It was fabricated by Cekada and some of the dogmatic sedes (although the Dimonds have a balanced view). Now, either the Thomists or Molinists are wrong ... but the Church has allowed both positions to flourish, meaning that the Church has tolerated error. There are myriad examples of this throughout Church history. BoD will one day be recognized as one of these.
Some of the Cekadists here on CI have gone so far as to say that no book with an imprimatur can ever contain error, thereby equating some pamphlet written by Father Bob in Iowa with a solemn dogmatic teaching of a pope. Their reasoning is that it is not possible for the Church to officially tolerate error.
-
BTW, Cekadism is the reason dogmatic sedes also happen to be the most dogmatic anti-Feeneyites. Because Ludwig Ott had a couple lines in an imprimatured book about Baptism of Desire, that makes it a mortal sin to reject it ... effectively giving low-level theologians Magisterial authority. It’s preposterous. These same theologians ironically reject Cekadism. So they reject having this authority ... with their authority, causing Cekadism to implode with internal contradiction. I was told BTW that Fr. Cekada had poor grades at the seminary in dogmatic theology. I was told this by one of his former colleagues in the priesthood.
-
Of course I deny it. I've denied it many times. What's your authority, the Baltimore catechism?
Now, answer my question. Do you hold that there's a dogmatic consensus of the Church Fathers in favor of BoD?
Then you deny what the Church teaches. You hold that the Church teaches error, what you believe will one day be condemned heresy. That is impossible. My authorities are the Popes, the Catechisms, the Saints and Doctors like St. Alphonsus and St. Robert, plus finally the Manuals that unanimously say Trent taught BOD.
Next Question: Please show us the Manuals, after Trent, that you claim referred to BOD as a disputed question.
I hold that: Baptism of Desire derives from Baptism of Blood and Baptism of Blood is explicit in Patristic Tradition. Baptism of Desire was a disputed question for a time, but is clearly taught by at least 4 to 5 Church Fathers. It was settled by the Church in the Middle Ages.
It wasn't a mortal sin to question it before it was settled, as for e.g. with Purgatory etc. It would be a mortal sin to deny them today.
Let me cite 5 sources that teach Baptism of Blood or Baptism of Desire. Baptism of Desire was also called "Baptism by fire" at the time.
· St. Hippolytus of Rome (3rd century): Canons of Hypolytus, Can. XIX: Concerning Catechumens: "Catechumens, who by the unbelievers are arrested and killed by martyrdom, before they received baptism, are to be buried with the other martyrs, for they are baptized in their own blood."
· Constitutions of the Holy Apostles. Book V, Sec I, Concerning the Martyrs, para 6: (3rd-4th Century): (A compilation of writings from the Apostles and their immediate successors) "But let him who is vouchsafed the honour of martyrdom rejoice with joy in the Lord, as obtaining thereby so great a crown, and departing out of this life by his confession. Nay, though he be trot a catechumen, let him depart without trouble; for his suffering for Christ will be to him a more genuine baptism, because he does really die with Christ, but the rest only in a figure."
· St. John Chrystostome, Church Father and Doctor of the Church (4th Century): Panegyric on St. Lucianus, "Do not be surprised that I should equate martyrdom with baptism; for here too the spirit blows with much fruitfulness, and a marvellous and astonishing remission of sins and cleansing of the soul is effected; and just as those who are baptized by water, so, too, those who suffer martyrdom are cleansed with their own blood."
· St. Basil, Church Father and Doctor of the Church (4th Century): Treatise De Spiritu Sancto, Chapter XV: "And ere now there have been some who in their championship of true religion have undergone the death for Christ's sake, not in mere similitude, but in actual fact, and so have needed none of the outward signs of water for their salvation, because they were baptized in their own blood. Thus I write not to disparage the baptism by water, but to overthrow the arguments of those who exalt themselves against the Spirit; who confound things that are distinct from one another, and compare those which admit of no comparison."
· Eusebius of Caesarea, Church Father (4th Century): The Church History of Eusebius, Book VI, Chapter IV: "And of women, Herais died while yet a catechumen, receiving baptism by fire, as Origen himself somewhere says."
There are many more citations at the http://www.baptismofdesire.com/ link. And 21 here: https://cmri.org/articles-on-the-traditional-catholic-faith/baptism-of-blood-and-of-desire/ and here, including the Doctors, Manuals and Theologians.
By the way, St. Augustine did not deny Baptism of Desire, but held that those who receive Baptism of Desire will also receive Baptism of Water. This was explained in the SBC Article by SBC, which holds the same thing. Fr. Haydock etc clearly teach BOD.
-
There are a lot of questions asked in this thread that the BODers owe answers to - don't hold your breath anyone.
ByzCat3000 said: "So the Church "just went with" this for eight centuries, basically. Like even if originally it was based on not knowing Augustine retracted, still seems strange that God would allow a lie to basically go unchallenged for that long."
Please devote at least 3 to 4 minutes to learn this aspect of the workings of the Church, if you do this, you will receive a clear answer that should help you to understand why some issues go on so long.
In this interview (https://bittube.tv/post/1ce70218-a216-41c4-a04d-6b99fafce420) of Fr. Wathen by pre-sede Michael Dimond they discuss this exact situation. The whole video is well worth the time to watch, but they start on a BOD at about the 16 minute mark, but if you only listen from about the 26:50 mark for a few minutes, you will learn why the Church, in her wisdom, allowed it for 8 centuries.
-
An honest question;
When would it ever be impossible for God to get the Sacrament of Baptism to a soul before they die?
And not just any Sacrament, but the one He requires for souls to be cleansed so they may enter into His Heavenly abode to be with Him forever?
Do some believe that God sits on His throne in Heaven letting everything on Earth happen on it’s own or by chance?
Hi Carissima. No, it would not be impossible for God to do that, if He had so chosen. The question is, what has God chosen to do?
A reason that opinion is scarcely held anymore is because (1) St. Ambrose already said Valentian was in Heaven, saved by Baptism of Desire. and (2) Pope Innocent III said a person who was invalidly baptized is now in Heaven (St. Cyprian had also said those who came to the Church without Baptism are now in Heaven - he believed the Baptism of heretics was invalid, and was speaking of those received into the Church without rebaptism. St. Cyprian's answer to this case, "that the Lord is able to save them" shows He believed God would grant the the Grace of Baptism). So, it is considered unlikely that there is now no one in Heaven who did not receive Baptism of Desire only. St. Alphonsus expressly cites the second case as evidence that "it is de fide that souls are also saved by Baptism of Desire."
Can you explain how the Church could have authorized this to be taught by Her Doctors for centuries, if it is harmful to souls?
Now, if you hold, as it seems you do, that all who receive Baptism of Desire will also receive Baptism of Water, I would not call that heretical. It would be a theological speculation. I have read Feeneyites speculate that such would also receive Confirmation, Penance and the Eucharist - in both kinds! - because Our Lord said "Unless you eat My flesh and drink My Blood, you will not have life in you."
That could be considered unnecessary, as it seems to require God to work miracles, but would not be considered gravely erroneous. The Council of Trent teaches that those who die in Sanctifying Grace are certain of being saved, and nothing more is considered necessary for them to have fully satisfied the divine law than those works done in Grace, and that they are assured of being saved if they die in Grace. A person in Sanctifying Grace is a Child of God, a Heir to Heaven, is within the Church and on the Way to Salvation.
The manuals, the Doctors, the theologians, the Popes, Catechisms, etc, after Trent, so far as I have read, are unanimous in teaching all these three things, Baptism of Desire, Perfect Contrition as the voto of the Sacrament of Penance, and Spiritual Communion, as having been definitively and dogmatically settled by the Council of Trent. That would come under the Church's OUM, which is also Infallible.
God Bless.
-
Then you deny what the Church teaches.
No, what I deny is THAT the Church teaches BoD. St. Alphonsus and St. Robert are NOT the Church. Baltimore Catechism is NOT the Church. You had the Irish catechism before Vatican I rejecting papal infallibility. Common theological opinion is NOT Magisterial. You appear to hold the same Cekadist errors that I call out earlier. For 8 centuries, it was universally held that unbaptized infants went to hell and suffered some torments there. This was then overturned by the Church, who made the doctrine of Limbo Infantium her own. This mistaken teaching of St. Augustine was first challenged by Abelard, the same Abelard who also objected to Baptism of Desire.
-
The Church has condemned her own teaching is what you are saying.
Benedictus Deus condemns your interpretation, which you keep trying to pass off as the Church's Teaching:
" Furthermore, in order to avoid the perversion and confusion which might arise, if each one were permitted, as he might think fit, to publish his own commentaries and interpretations on the decrees of the council; We, by apostolic authority, forbid all persons, as well ecclesiastics, of what order, condition, and rank soever they may be, as laymen, with what honour and power soever invested; prelates to wit, under pain of being interdicted from entering the church, and all others, whosoever they be, under pain of excommunication incurred by the fact,[3] (https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Canons_and_Decrees_of_the_Council_of_Trent/Second_Part/Bull_of_our_most_Holy_Lord_Pius_Fourth#cite_note-3) that they presume, without our authority, to publish, in any form, any commentaries, glosses, annotations, scholia, or any kind of interpretation soever touching the decrees of the said council; or to settle anything in regard thereof, under any plea soever, even under pretext of greater corroboration of the decrees, or the execution thereof, or under any other colourable pretext soever. But if anything therein shall seem to any one to have been expressed and ordained obscurely, and it shall, on that account, appear to stand in need of an interpretation or decision, let him go up to the place which the Lord hath chosen;[4] (https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Canons_and_Decrees_of_the_Council_of_Trent/Second_Part/Bull_of_our_most_Holy_Lord_Pius_Fourth#cite_note-4) to wit, to the Apostolic See, the mistress of all the faithful, whose authority the holy synod also has so reverently acknowledged."
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Canons_and_Decrees_of_the_Council_of_Trent/Second_Part/Bull_of_our_most_Holy_Lord_Pius_Fourth
This is what all Catholics are authorized to safely repeat, as Cardinal St. Robert and Bishop St. Alphonsus were authorized to teach this by the Popes:
St. Alphonsus: Now it is "de fide" that men are also saved by Baptism of desire, by virtue of the Canon Apostolicam, "de presbytero non baptizato" and of the Council of Trent, session 6, Chapter 4 where it is said that no one can be saved 'without the laver of regeneration or the desire for it.'" (Note: Unbelievers can see the original book in Latin here (http://www.baptismofdesire.com/alphonse_theologia_moralis_5.pdf). Turn to page 310 in the book (or page 157 of the PDF file).
St. Robert: De Controversiis, “De Baptismo,” Lib. I, Cap. VI: “But without doubt it must be believed that true conversion supplies for Baptism of water when one dies without Baptism of water not out of contempt but out of necessity... For it is expressly said in Ezechiel: If the wicked shall do penance from his sins, I will no more remember his iniquities...Thus also the Council of Trent, Session 6, Chapter 4, says that Baptism is necessary in fact or in desire (in re vel in voto)”.
"
-
I hold that: Baptism of Desire derives from Baptism of Blood and Baptism of Blood is explicit in Patristic Tradition.
You hold incorrectly. Your "authority" on these issues, St. Alphonsus said they were completely distinct, with BoB functioning quasi-ex-operato. We have several Church Fathers who believed in BoB but at the same time rejected BoD.
So you can't hold that BoD is "Patristic Tradition" when more Fathers rejected it than accepted it, including a few who also held BoB.
So, another fail.
-
Benedictus Deus condemns your interpretation, which you keep trying to pass off as the Church's Teaching:
Only in your imagination. St. Alphonsus and St. Robert are not the Church.
There is NO Magisterial definition whatsoever of what BoD actually is, with as many flavors of it as there are proponents. St. Alphonsus contradicts Pope Innocent II. If something must be believed of faith, it's imperative that it be defined WHAT must be believed about it. What is it and what must be believed about it? Various (often contradictory) opinions do not suffice to render something "of faith". Even IF I were to grant, which I do not, that Trent was referring to Baptism of Desire, there's no indication that it was proposed for belief. Otherwise, there certainly would have been an anathema attached to it. Even if it mentioned it as a POSSIBILITY, it means nothing more that the Church kept open the POSSIBILITY, i.e allowed the opinion.
Desire for Baptism is mentioned in passing, in an expository section of Trent, and the only thing Trent says about it is that justification cannot happen without it.
-
Now, if you hold, as it seems you do, that all who receive Baptism of Desire will also receive Baptism of Water, I would not call that heretical. It would be a theological speculation. I have read Feeneyites speculate that such would also receive Confirmation, Penance and the Eucharist - in both kinds! - because Our Lord said "Unless you eat My flesh and drink My Blood, you will not have life in you."
I'm glad that you absolve those who believe this of heresy, Pope Xavier. As for the necessity of Holy Communion and Confirmation, theologians do not consider these absolutely necessary by necessity of means as Baptism is.
This was in fact the position of Father Feeney, and of St. Augustine, that God will not allow someone to persevere to the end in a state of justification without providing the Sacrament of Baptism to them. That is the essence of his distinction between justification and salvation, where salvation = justification + the distinct grace of final perseverance. And this definition of salvation is firmly entrenched in Catholic teaching.
-
St. Alphonsus: Now it is "de fide" that men are also saved by Baptism of desire, by virtue of the Canon Apostolicam, "de presbytero non baptizato" and of the Council of Trent, session 6, Chapter 4 where it is said that no one can be saved 'without the laver of regeneration or the desire for it.'" (Note: Unbelievers can see the original book in Latin here (http://www.baptismofdesire.com/alphonse_theologia_moralis_5.pdf). Turn to page 310 in the book (or page 157 of the PDF file).
St. Robert: De Controversiis, “De Baptismo,” Lib. I, Cap. VI: “But without doubt it must be believed that true conversion supplies for Baptism of water when one dies without Baptism of water not out of contempt but out of necessity... For it is expressly said in Ezechiel: If the wicked shall do penance from his sins, I will no more remember his iniquities...Thus also the Council of Trent, Session 6, Chapter 4, says that Baptism is necessary in fact or in desire (in re vel in voto)”.
"
Interestingly, St. Alphonsus cites the dubious (its attribution to the Pope is disputed) de presbytero non baptizato as having solemn Magisterial force, but then contradicts the same docuмent, which states that this priest went straight to heaven "without delay" ... in his own speculation that temporal punishment remains in the case of BoD. In a very similar letter (non-Magisterial), Pope Innocent III teaches the error that transubstantiation occurs even if the priest merely thinks the words of consecration ... an error for which he was rightly excoriated by St. Thomas.
St. Robert injects the term "in re" into Trent, which phrase appears nowhere. He doesn't take time to consider the language of "cannot happen without", which speaks to necessary cause but not sufficient cause.
They're both mistaken. And they are not God and they are not the Magisterium.
St. Robert, BTW, limits BoD to catechumens ... because he strongly (some argue to a fault) argue in favor of the Church as VISIBLE SOCIETY, along the same lines as Rahner indicated regarding the Fathers, that they considered catechumens to be joined to the Visible Church. Do you?
-
Benedictus Deus condemns your interpretation, which you keep trying to pass off as the Church's Teaching:
You spread enough manure to fertilize Nebraska.
I asked you to explain how "my interpretation" is false, not post Benedictus Deus which condemns your interpretation. REMEMBER, I am not interpreting Trent, I am reading what it says, you are the one misinterpreting Trent.
Now explain explain how my (https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/the-absurdities-of-the-feeneyite-heresy/msg732520/#msg732520) "interpretation" is false. Use your own words, and explain what the words Trent says means to you.
If you can''t do that, then get anyone of your BOD disciples to do it, otherwise, you are guilty of making false accusations.
-
St. Alphonsus and St. Robert Bellarmine wrote thousands of pages of material, often disagreeing with one another.
To imply that all Catholics have to agree with everything they wrote is absurd.
-
Byzcat said:
So the Church "just went with" this for eight centuries, basically. Like even if originally it was based on not knowing Augustine retracted, still seems strange that God would allow a lie to basically go unchallenged for that long.
Ladislaus said:
This notion that no theological errors can ever become widely adopted by Catholics is absurd.
Who says that BOD was unchallenged for 800 years? Who said it was "widely adopted"? Did 95% of catholics in this 800 period accept BOD? There's no evidence for this. It's only written about by THEOLOGIANS, which is their job, to discuss debated topics. The avg catholic wasn't writing books then, only the educated were doing this, which is why we only have theological opinions discussing it. Even if 100% of theologians agree with something, that still doesn't make it "widely adopted".
-
I hold that: Baptism of Desire derives from Baptism of Blood
:laugh1: Xavier quotes saints/doctors ad nauseam, then invents his own version.
.
No two pro-BOD people explain/understand it the same way. A logical proof that it's not true. A truth is widely understood and clearly articulated in the same way, by everyone.
-
:laugh1: Xavier quotes saints/doctors ad nauseam, then invents his own version.
That is the standard operating procedure of false BODers of which he is a perfect example. There is not one Father, Doctor, Saint, Pope, Council that taught what he believes, moreover the sources he quotes all oppose what he believes in his own words - "God can provide the Sacrament wherever and whenever He chooses. And He can also provide forgiveness through Perfect Contrition wherever and whenever He chooses", in other words, that the sacraments and the Church are not necessary (see his exact quote below).
I believe that type of person is feelings oriented, artsy type, that does not possess the ability to build a structure. Does not possess the ability to see the relationships among the modules of a system that give rise to a whole that cannot be understood by analyzing its constituent parts. To put it simply, if his teaching were a building you could see and touch, it would be magical windows floating in the air, with no foundations and no building.
I am always surprised that the Strict-EENSers lose their time debating the examples that people like Xavier bring forward, instead of just pointing out that the examples have NOTHING to do with what he believes. The discussion with him and I would have lasted not even one page and he would have gone away, like always. To each his own. (I do however, congratulate all the strict EENSers on their patience with Xavier and his types.)
Quote from: XavierSem on February 09, 2021, 11:01:09 AM (https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/the-absurdities-of-the-feeneyite-heresy/msg732509/#msg732509)
God can provide the Sacrament wherever and whenever He chooses. And He does. And He can also provide forgiveness through Perfect Contrition wherever and whenever He chooses. And He does. The Church has spoken. The case is closed. Baptism of Desire exists.
Last Tradhican responded - Unwittingly, the writer finally clearly reveals his real belief which is that "God can provide the Sacrament wherever and whenever He chooses. And He can also provide forgiveness through Perfect Contrition wherever and whenever He chooses", that the sacraments and the Church are not necessary. That is the foundational pillar of Implicit Faith'ers, but it is not taught by any saint or pope or council. That false "doctrine" is at the root of all the errors of Vatican II. That is how they rationalize their end run around all the saints, doctors, councils, popes, to teach that Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Jҽωs, indeed, that people in any religions can be saved.
-
Last Trad:
I believe that type of person is feelings oriented, artsy type, that does not possess the ability to build a structure. Does not possess the ability to see the relationships among the modules of a system that give rise to a whole that cannot be understood by analyzing its constituent parts.
Stubborn said:
Unwittingly, the writer finally clearly reveals his real belief which is that "God can provide the Sacrament wherever and whenever He chooses. And He can also provide forgiveness through Perfect Contrition wherever and whenever He chooses", that the sacraments and the Church are not necessary.
Exactly, Last Trad. XavierSem is a perfect example of a sentimental person who does not (and maybe cannot) see the bad consequences of his bad logic. As Stubborn points out, the end result of the argument is either:
1) the Church/sacraments aren't necessary (i.e. a catholic version of Martin Luther's "faith = salvation")...or
2) the Church/sacraments can be had by almost everyone internally/by desire, which makes the VISIBLE Church/sacraments/membership optional (i.e. the Modernist Rahner's αnσnymσus christian lie).
.
The end result is the same: a religious, universal brotherhood of "christian" people - a global, one-world religion. Which is what satan/modernists want, as a precursor to the anti-christ.
-
I'm supposed to debate four or five Dimondite dissenters who won't even clearly say whether they are Dimondites, or Feeneyites, or whether they agree with one of the Doctors St. Augustine, or St. Ambrose, or St. Thomas, or St. Alphonsus, St. Robert etc. I challenge any Dimondite/Feeneyite to (1) first of all explain what he believes and he is defending, Dimondism, or Fr. Feeney's opinion, or the qualified position of St. Benedict's Centre and (2) secondly, to engage in a one-on-one debate with me, on one particular topic.
I've clearly explained what I believe. Those Justified by Baptism of Desire, before they obtain the Grace of Final Perseverance, will be given the Grace to embrace the Catholic Faith, and so be saved as Christians, believing explicitly at least the Trinity and Incarnation.
Now, what do you believe, Last Tradhican? Are you a Dimondite or a Feeneyite? Do you agree with St. Benedicts' Centre?
Stubborn, you betray an unCatholic attitude. A Catholic always says: "This is what I think; nevertheless, if I'm mistaken and the Church corrects me, I retract my opinion and submit to the judgment of the Church". Benedictus Deus is certainly relevant to your attempted interpretations, even if you claim you are not interpreting Trent, just like Protestants claim they are only "allowing the Bible to speak for itself" when teaching some false Protestant idea. The Doctors give the Papally-authorized interpretation of Trent, and no one has shown even post-Tridentine source that denies Baptism of Desire, or even points to it as a disputed question.
I've already explained Trent: Trent uses Voto for Baptism, Penance and the Eucharist to show that the Effects of Three Sacraments can be received in desire. It expressly implies that the Desire of Two Sacraments obtains the Grace of Justification. Otherwise, there was no need to add that qualifier, "or the desire thereof", it would have simply said, "without Baptism of Water only". If someone says, I cannot quench my thirst without water, or at least some juice", a logical implication is that the juice would substitute for the water.
All the Doctors and Church authorities have interpreted Trent this way. I cannot help you if you think you know better than them all.
Ladislaus, can you answer my question to you: Show me even one manual, post-Trent, that refers to BoD as a disputed question?
Irish Catechism was not Papally-approved nor universal. The opinion that infants suffer in hell never received Papal endorsement.
Baptism of Desire is defined by St. Alphonsus, Pope Leo XIII and Pope St. Pius X. "An act of perfect love of God, or of contrition, along with the Desire, explicit or implicit, for Baptism of Water".
Pope Innocent III did not say the Priest went directly to Heaven - he in fact expressly said, "in your church you should join in prayers and you should have sacrifices offered to God for the priest mentioned". The same applies to the Emperor Valentian. St. Ambrose says he received God's Grace, and God's Spirit, and then proceeds to pray for him. He would not have prayed for him if he had just been Baptized, or even if he had received martyrdom. The early Church knew, as St. Augustine said, "He does an injury to a martyr who prays for him". So St. Ambrose praying for Valentian shows the Doctor knew the Emperor was in Purgatory. St. Ambrose isn't God, but God can and does enlighten His Popes and Saints about the departed.
What else? No, I didn't contradict St. Alphonsus. Baptism of Desire is an act of love of God, and in Martyrdom, Martyrdom itself is the act of love of God. That is why Martyrdom avails even for infants, as the Liturgical Tradition of the Holy Innocents infallibly proves.
Number your questions to me if you want further answers. Or start a new thread between the two of us alone for polite discussion.
God Bless.
-
I'm supposed to debate four or five Dimondite dissenters who won't even clearly say whether they are Dimondites, or Feeneyites, ....
The writer above has no common sense, no order, no structure, now he is just lashing out, going off on a tangent of calling people by "ites".
There is only one subject to discuss here, his belief which he has spelled out:
the writer finally clearly reveals his real belief which is that "God can provide the Sacrament wherever and whenever He chooses. And He can also provide forgiveness through Perfect Contrition wherever and whenever He chooses", that the sacraments and the Church are not necessary.
-
Quote from: XavierSem on February 09, 2021, 11:01:09 AM (https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/the-absurdities-of-the-feeneyite-heresy/msg732509/#msg732509)
God can provide the Sacrament wherever and whenever He chooses.
Ladislaus responded - Right, this is basic "God is omnipotent" 101 and "with God all things are possible." Since God CAN do either one with equal ease, why do you suppose that God would will that some of His elect NOT receive the Sacrament? Why would He withhold it from them? Didn't Our Lord teach that if you seek/ask/desire for something, that you would receive it? So if this desire were strong enough to be hypothetically efficacious for justification, then why would it not be strong enough to be efficacious for receiving the Sacrament, as per Our Lord's promise?
This is a positive step to acknowledge that God cannot be constrained by "impossibility" ... as most BoDers imply.
So God revealed that the Sacrament of Baptism is absolutely necessary by a necessity of means for salvation, and could easily provide it to anyone, but then decides to withhold it and then save someone without it when He could just as easily grant it? This just doesn't compute.
-
I'm supposed to debate four or five Dimondite dissenters who won't even clearly say whether they are Dimondites, or Feeneyites, or
Stubborn, you betray an unCatholic attitude. A Catholic always says: "This is what I think; nevertheless, if I'm mistaken and the Church corrects me....
No debate, you are supposed simply answer clear questions with clear answers. I did not ask what Catholics who do not understand a doctrine always say first.
The Church is not correcting me nor anyone who agrees with the Church's infallible definitions - you are not 1) answering my questions and 2) not making any sense.
CANON IV.-If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous;... let him be anathema.
I say Trent says that the sacraments are necessary unto salvation - PLEASE EXPLAIN HOW MY INTERPRETATION IS FALSE.
IN YOUR OWN WORDS, WHAT DO YOU THINK THESE WORDS OF TRENT ACTUALLY MEAN?
the canon continues:
and [if anyone saith] that, without them, or without the desire thereof, men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification;-though all (the sacraments) are not indeed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema.
I say Trent says without the sacrament there can be no justification and without the desire for the sacrament there can be no justification. Again - PLEASE EXPLAIN HOW MY INTERPRETATION IS FALSE.
IN YOUR OWN WORDS, WHAT DO YOU THINK THESE WORDS OF TRENT ACTUALLY MEAN?
If you do not have it in you to answer my clear questions, THEN SAY SO.
-
I've clearly explained what I believe. Those Justified by Baptism of Desire, before they obtain the Grace of Final Perseverance, will be given the Grace to embrace the Catholic Faith, and so be saved as Christians, believing explicitly at least the Trinity and Incarnation.
We ALL believe this. Only some of us believe that such an individual will also receive the Sacrament of Baptism.
Based on how you've articulated it here, I have no quarrel with you. You are perfectly free to believe in Baptism of Desire with the conditions laid out above. I just don't happen to believe in it, since I believe that God will also give those who persevere in the manner you describe the Sacrament of Baptism ... without fail.
Your quarrel with is me that you claim that I am obliged to believe that such a one will not necessarily receive the Sacrament, whereas I dispute that.
Now Trent taught justification by a "Confession of Desire", that's for sure, but I also hold that someone who sincerely desires Confession, that God will not let him be cut down without it. I believe 100% in Our Lord's promise of "Ask and you shall receive." ... as did St. Ambrose.
-
Xavier wrote - I've clearly explained what I believe. Those Justified by Baptism of Desire, before they obtain the Grace of Final Perseverance, will be given the Grace to embrace the Catholic Faith, and so be saved as Christians, believing explicitly at least the Trinity and Incarnation.
Responding to what the writer above wrote, is letting the writer off the hook. The above back pedaling has nothing to do with his teaching that he clearly stated below. The quote below has NOTHING to do with anything taught by the sources he sights for baptism of desire of the catechumen. It completely denies the theory of baptism of desire of the catechumen. That, like I've said many times, is the standard operating procedure of the False BODers. By their deeds you shall know them.
Xavier wrote: "God can provide the Sacrament wherever and whenever He chooses. And He can also provide forgiveness through Perfect Contrition wherever and whenever He chooses",
-
I've clearly explained what I believe. Those Justified by Baptism of Desire, before they obtain the Grace of Final Perseverance, will be given the Grace to embrace the Catholic Faith, and so be saved as Christians, believing explicitly at least the Trinity and Incarnation.
Even your above explanation is convoluted and out of order. It should read as below:
.
Those who 1) believing explicitly at least the Trinity and Incarnation, 2a) Justified by Baptism of Desire, 2b) will be given having been given the Grace to embrace the Catholic Faith, 4) before they obtain the Grace of Final Perseverance, and so be saved as Christians.
.
The problem with you, Xavier (and others), is you wrongly split 2a and 2b into 2 different acts, whereas they are the same act - the act of the human being accepting the Church, and the resulting grace given by God. A desire for baptism, is the same as embracing the Faith.
.
Why do you say that one "will be given" the grace to embrace the Faith, if BOD is already a desire/embracing of the Faith?
.
I'm not calling you a modernist...but this is how modernists such as Rahner explained that an unbaptized protestant (i.e. one who believes in the Incarnation/Trinity) could be saved through BOD, (while contradictorily) not knowing/rejecting parts of the Catholic Church. This is NOT possible; this is heresy!
.
A true desire for baptism = a desire to become 100% catholic. It is impossible to have a true desire for baptism without desiring to enter the one, holy, catholic, apostolic faith. If one has a desire to be baptized, they can only be justified IF...they desire to be baptized in the CATHOLIC Church.
.
A protestant who wants to be baptized in his protestant faith, is NOT justified by this desire. He will be justified if he actually gets a valid baptism, but as we all know, he then becomes a heretic/schismatic as soon as he falls into protestant error.
.
Justification does not come by desiring the SACRAMENT only, but by desiring MEMBERSHIP in the CHURCH (Trent goes on and on explaining this fact in section on justification). This would be an incomplete desire, because one is desiring the "fruits" of the sacrament (i.e. God's grace, heir to heaven), without accepting the "responsibilities" of membership in the church (i.e. protestants don't want to obey the pope or Church laws).
.
So again, your definition of BOD above is wrong, because you split apart the desire for the sacrament and embracing the Faith. For one to be justified by BOD, these 2 conditions are co-dependent and cannot be separated.
-
Xavier, this goes back to the changes made post-V2 to the baptism rite. The priest in the pre-V2 ritual asked the recipient: "What do you desire?". Answer: "The Faith".
.
The post-V2, modernist ritual: "What do you desire?" (false) Answer: "Baptism".
.
The faith is much, much more than baptism. If one does not have a desire for the 100% true Faith, to join the Catholic Church fully, then one does not have a true/correct desire for baptism (same applies for BOD). Trent is quite clear on this.
-
Xavier, this goes back to the changes made post-V2 to the baptism rite. The priest in the pre-V2 ritual asked the recipient: "What do you desire?". Answer: "The Faith".
.
The post-V2, modernist ritual: "What do you desire?" (false) Answer: "Baptism".
Does the SSPX use the post V2 answer ‘Baptism’ and not ‘The Faith’?
I’ve witnessed many Novus Ordo, and Latin rite Baptisms and I don’t remember ever hearing the answer ‘The Faith’. I could be mistaken though.
-
Would also like to point out that there is no such thing as a protestant (or jew, muslim, etc) receiving BOD. Only a catechumen can receive BOD...a very specific word. By definition, a protestant (or jew, muslim, etc) cannot be a catechumen because a catechumen means the person has already rejected their former protestant/jew/muslim/pagan life. A catechumen is a catholic-in-training.
.
It's contradictory to say that a protestant desires to enter the Catholic Faith, because if they desire the Faith, that means they've already rejected protestant errors. ...Just trying to keep terms straight in this complicated debate. #English words matter.
-
I'm reading through that second thread at the moment(started with that one, dunno why) and it's a very interesting read. Thank you. I'll get back to you when I've finished it.
Forlorn,
You're a genuine truth seeker, which is very special.
This is a very deep subject and I just want to give you a bit of advice going in (or in mєdια res as it may be): there are reasons and positions that are palpably deficient, and it is good to vet them and reject the false, even if a majority buys into them. That is all well and good and necessary for genuine truth seekers.
But when it comes to the answer(s), remember that the secret things belong to our God, and we have for us and our children the things which He chooses to reveal only. There is mystery here. That is not a cop out from genuine scrutiny and intellectual rigor, but a true counsel - there is mystery here put in by God for His reasons.
We can (and should) reject the false, easy answers, without perhaps (and necessarily) having the answer ourselves.
I think the best thing (as often) regarding the "will to save all men" has been said by St. Thomas, and I will post later.
God Bless,
DR
-
Forlorn,
You're a genuine truth seeker, which is very special.
This is a very deep subject and I just want to give you a bit of advice going in (or in mєdια res as it may be): there are reasons and positions that are palpably deficient, and it is good to vet them and reject the false, even if a majority buys into them. That is all well and good and necessary for genuine truth seekers.
But when it comes to the answer(s), remember that the secret things belong to our God, and we have for us and our children the things which He chooses to reveal only. There is mystery here. That is not a cop out from genuine scrutiny and intellectual rigor, but a true counsel - there is mystery here put in by God for His reasons.
We can (and should) reject the false, easy answers, without perhaps (and necessarily) having the answer ourselves.
I think the best thing (as often) regarding the "will to save all men" has been said by St. Thomas, and I will post later.
God Bless,
DR
Honestly, I couldn't really follow most of the second(the 2012 one) thread. The citations got incredibly long and I didn't understand a lot of the language, so I just found myself getting muddled and scrolling past. However, from the 1 Timothy 2:4 thread and what I grasped of that one, I thought Tornpage was the more convincing and I didn't think MRyan properly addressed his central point, that unbaptised infants are not given the necessary graces to be saved.
I'm still confused though. The Catholic Encyclopedia says that the proposition that anyone is predestined to be damned has been condemned. This would surely include Tornpage's resolution of the issue(that God wishes to save all men only in that He created the means by which all men can be saved, and doesn't wish for the salvation of every individual, and therefore not offering salvific grace to all of them). But I can't actually find any condemnation of such. Trent merely condemns the proposition that everyone who isn't predestined for salvation is damned, which would still allow for the unbaptised infant being offered no way to save itself.
I'm not sure about anything here, to be honest. What's your own resolution of the issue?
-
One of the areas of misunderstanding is the relative authority of various sources of theology. Until Vatican I there was some ambiguity about it. But Vatican I defined that the pope is infallible when teaching ex cathedra on matters of faith and morals.
we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable.
- From the Canons of the Vatican Council (1870)
That is known as the Solemn Magisterium. It is the highest possible authority. And the other source of infallible dogmas is the Universal Ordinary Magisterium which has not been solemnly defined but is universally believed to be all those doctrines which the pope together with the bishops teach as divinely revealed truths. The theologians (not even if they are unanimous throughout all of history) are not the magisterium. You can't multiply quotes from theologians and expect to discover magisterial doctrines. If the opposite were true (that theologians are the magisterium) then we traditionalists must all throw in the towel now and concede that the V2 new theology is obligatory on us. But we know it is not true. We know that St Thomas has something like 20 errors in his works. We know that St Alphonsus has errors in his works. Every single theologian who ever lived has errors in his works. And that includes Catechisms as well which are written by theologians and do not limit themselves strictly to doctrines taught by the Magisterium. St Thomas and the Catechism of the Council of Trent both taught that the human body is created days or weeks before the soul is created. But we now know that is false. So when a theologian or a group of theologians teach a doctrine which is in apparent conflict with a doctrine of the Magisterium, it is the theologians who must give way to the Magisterium either by interpreting the theologian in such a way so as to remove the apparent conflict or by rejecting the theologian's teaching if it cannot be reconciled with the Magisterium.
I don't know of any so-called Feeneyite/Dimondite who doesn't adhere strictly to Magisterial teaching. Which brings me to my next point.
Magisterial doctrines (dogmas) are not interpreted. Papa Pius V (PPV) and XavierSem (XS) already posted the Council of Trent's condemnation of interpretations of doctrine/dogmas. Here it is again:
Furthermore, in order to avoid the perversion and confusion which might arise, if each one were permitted, as he might think fit, to publish his own commentaries and interpretations on the decrees of the council; We, by apostolic authority, forbid all persons, as well ecclesiastics, of what order, condition, and rank soever they may be, as laymen, with what honour and power soever invested; prelates to wit, under pain of being interdicted from entering the church, and all others, whosoever they be, under pain of excommunication incurred by the fact,[3] that they presume, without our authority, to publish, in any form, any commentaries, glosses, annotations, scholia, or any kind of interpretation soever touching the decrees of the said council; or to settle anything in regard thereof, under any plea soever, even under pretext of greater corroboration of the decrees, or the execution thereof, or under any other colourable pretext soever. But if anything therein shall seem to any one to have been expressed and ordained obscurely, and it shall, on that account, appear to stand in need of an interpretation or decision, let him go up to the place which the Lord hath chosen;[4] to wit, to the Apostolic See, the mistress of all the faithful, whose authority the holy synod also has so reverently acknowledged.
Benedictus Deus https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Canons_and_Decrees_of_the_Council_of_Trent/Second_Part/Bull_of_our_most_Holy_Lord_Pius_Fourth
And Pope St Pius X also condemned interpretations of dogma.
The dogmas which the Church professes as revealed are not truths fallen from heaven, but they are a kind of interpretation of religious facts, which the human mind by a laborious effort prepared for itself.”- Condemned
- Pope St. Pius X, Lamentabile, The Errors of the Modernists, July 3, 1907, #22. (see Denzinger 2022)
The dogmas, the sacraments, the hierarchy, as far as pertains both to the notion and to the reality, are nothing but interpretations and the evolution of Christian intelligence, which have increased and perfected the little germ latent in the Gospel.”- Condemned
- Pope St. Pius X, Lamentabile, The Errors of the Modernists, July 3, 1907, #54. (see Denzinger 2054)
Likewise Pope Pius IX:
Hence, also, that understanding of its sacred dogmas must be perpetually retained, which Holy Mother Church has once declared; and there must never be a recession from that meaning under the specious name of a deeper understanding.
- Pope Pius IX, First Vatican Council, Sess. 3, Chap. 2 on Revelation, 1870, ex cathedra. (see Denzinger 1800)
When the Church says that we are bound to give our assent to dogmas of the Church, we are bound to the literal meaning of the dogma. That is the intended meaning. If we know the definition of the terms, we will understand the meaning of the dogma. If there is any distinction to be made on the terms, the Pope specifies them. We are not bound to the interpretations of theologians. We are bound to the literal words and meaning of the dogma as stated by the Pope.
So when I see PPV and XS saying that Stubborn and Ladislaus are interpreting the dogma wrong, I have to wonder at their blindness. I don't see Stubborn and Ladislaus interpreting these dogmas at all. They are giving assent to the literal meaning of them. We are all bound to do the same. Everyone understands correctly what EENS means. And that is precisely why theologians had to come up with interpretations in order to undermine it. I know PPV and XS are a rarity in that they believe one must have explicit faith in order to be saved in line with the infallible Athanasian Creed. I would guess that 95% of those who call themselves Catholic would say that EENS is false. Only traditionalists of one form or another would even bother to give assent to EENS. And I'm not including the 4.99% of those who call themselves Catholic who believe that invincible ignorance is compatible with EENS. So PPV and XS are among the .01% (I'm being generous) who believe that explicit faith is necessary for salvation. So the argument about BOD is only relevant among the .01% who don't reject the Church's constant ex cathedra teaching that the Catholic faith is necessary. But PPV and XS still fail because they reject the doctrine that the sacramental system as a whole is absolutely necessary as a necessity of means for salvation as defined by the Council of Trent. But no other sacrament can be received before baptism and therefore baptism is absolutely necessary as a necessity of means for salvation (as every theologian admits even if they go on to completely undermine that teaching by claiming exceptions).
The worst part of this entire debate is that the BOD advocates are implying that Our Lord is a deceiver.
Pope Eugene IV, The Council of Florence, “Exultate Deo,” Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra: “Holy baptism, which is the gateway to the spiritual life, holds the first place among all the sacraments; through it we are made members of Christ and of the body of the Church. And since death entered the universe through the first man, ‘unless we are born again of water and the Spirit, we cannot,’ as the Truth says, ‘enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:5]. The matter of this sacrament is real and natural water.”
When Our Lord said, ‘Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God’, he made no exceptions as he did concerning divorce (let's not get side-tracked by that debate, the point is that Our Lord will give us precise instructions). To say that His words contained a hidden exception for BOD implies that Our Lord deceived those to whom he was speaking at that time. How could they have known of a hidden exception? And apparently He also deceived half a dozen Fathers of the Church as well since they also believed there were absolutely no exceptions. And then you have the popes who also stated the same without specifying any exceptions (see above quote and others including Trent). So if there were hidden exceptions that only the theologians could tease out hundreds of years later, how are you not implying a deception by Our Lord? Both of you should take the St Benedict Center (NH) as a model. They, like Fr. Feeney are insisting on assent to the literal meaning of dogmas. In the case of EENS and the necessity of baptism, anything other than a literal meaning of the dogma results in the literal meaning being false. That makes the Magisterium the author of literally false doctrines. The Modernists would love that.
Finally, I have to say that I greatly admire MHFM (the Dimonds). I read their books and I watched most of their videos. They are consistent in their assent to all the Church's dogmas. They do not refrain from using theologians when those theologians are consistent with the Church's defined dogmas. Also, I don't think they are schismatic. They are simply strict about breaking communion with those who either are heretics themselves or who are in communion with heretics. I'm not sure it is necessary to break communion with non-heretics who are in communion with heretics but I don't think it is condemned or immoral to do so. John Daly wrote some articles about that. He thinks the Dimonds are wrong. But just because Hypatius was confirmed (by the pope) in his decision to break communion with Nestorius doesn't mean that he would have been condemned for breaking communion with Eulalius. He did not break communion with Eulalius (who was still in communion with the heretic Nestorius) but that does not imply that Hypatius was required to remain in communion with Eulalius. Eulalius remaining in communion with Nestorius was an error and a scandal which doesn't make Eulalius himself a heretic but non-heretics are sometimes excommunicated when their behavior could lead others into error. Also, MHFM condemns St Benedict Center specifically for their communion with the arch-heretic "popes" of the Novus Ordo sect. Even though MHFM thinks BOD is heretical, they don't put Fr Feeney and St Benedict Center in the same boat with Cushing. I think maybe because of the confusion concerning BOD, they would probably not break communion with a sede vacantist who believes that BOD/BOB only applies to catechumens. But I'm sure they would let him know in no uncertain terms that he is completely wrong and that BOD/BOB cannot be held at all.
https://romeward.com/articles/239752007/heresy-in-history
https://romeward.com/articles/239752903/an-extract-from-the-life-of-saint-hypatius
https://romeward.com/articles/239750407/the-dimond-brothers-and-favouring-heretics-a-letter
One thing I have not seen in this discussion so far is the necessity of the Character of the Sacrament of Baptism. Br Robert Mary's book, Fr Feeney and the Truth About Salvation, goes into detail about the importance of the Sacramental Character with which the soul is marked at Baptism. Fr Laisney gives no importance to it. But Br Robert Mary's explanation is beautiful. He points out that there is a tradition that Our Lady was baptized. She certainly had no need to be justified since she was already justified at conception. But the Character signifies incorporation into the body of Christ and therefore she was baptized specifically for that purpose.
The other point that struck me from Br Robert Mary's book was that Trent covered justification and salvation separately. When it was treating on justification it spoke of desire (voto; Session 6, Ch 4). Br Robert Mary and Fr Feeney believed that this did in fact mean that BOD was possible for purposes of justification. But when Trent treated on salvation, it said nothing of desire/voto. It specified that the Sacrament of Baptism was absolutely necessary as a necessity of means for a soul to achieve salvation. That's why Fr Feeney taught that BOD as defined by St Alphonsus was possible but that nevertheless in order to be saved one had to be baptized before death. But I agree with MHFM that Pope Leo's letter to Flavian (promulgated by Chalcedon, 451) rules out any separation of justification from the water of Baptism. However, does that mean that there is no separation in time? Or does it mean there is no separation in eternity? It seems like the baptism of Our Lady would mean that they could be separated in time which would mean that Fr Feeney's teaching is compatible with Pope Leo's too because Fr. Feeney believed that everyone who was justified would also be baptized (even if he didn't make that clear in Bread of Life).
-
We ALL believe this. Only some of us believe that such an individual will also receive the Sacrament of Baptism.
Based on how you've articulated it here, I have no quarrel with you. You are perfectly free to believe in Baptism of Desire with the conditions laid out above. I just don't happen to believe in it, since I believe that God will also give those who persevere in the manner you describe the Sacrament of Baptism ... without fail.
Your quarrel with is me that you claim that I am obliged to believe that such a one will not necessarily receive the Sacrament, whereas I dispute that.
Now Trent taught justification by a "Confession of Desire", that's for sure, but I also hold that someone who sincerely desires Confession, that God will not let him be cut down without it. I believe 100% in Our Lord's promise of "Ask and you shall receive." ... as did St. Ambrose.
So is your position that its theoretically impossible for someone to be saved by Catechumen BOD, or do you think that theoretically such a person could be saved but that in actuality God will not allow such a person to die without water baptism if they'd otherwise meet the theoretical conditions for BOD?
From what I understand, St Benedict Center holds the latter.
-
We ALL believe this. Only some of us believe that such an individual will also receive the Sacrament of Baptism.
Based on how you've articulated it here, I have no quarrel with you. You are perfectly free to believe in Baptism of Desire with the conditions laid out above. I just don't happen to believe in it, since I believe that God will also give those who persevere in the manner you describe the Sacrament of Baptism ... without fail.
Your quarrel with is me that you claim that I am obliged to believe that such a one will not necessarily receive the Sacrament, whereas I dispute that.
Now Trent taught justification by a "Confession of Desire", that's for sure, but I also hold that someone who sincerely desires Confession, that God will not let him be cut down without it. I believe 100% in Our Lord's promise of "Ask and you shall receive." ... as did St. Ambrose.
Great, Ladislaus. So do you agree with this, for instance, from SBC: "Saint Augustine taught, as is clear from this article’s epigram, that the providence of God would see to it that a justified catechumen would be baptized before death. God alone, in any event, knows which of those, with a votum for baptism and perfect contrition, He has justified. The Church can only assume, as the arm of Christ, the Principal Agent in baptism, that all are in need of receiving the sacramentin order to not only have all sin forgiven and abolished, but to be a member of the Church, the Body of Christ. Anticipating the rejoinder that no one is lost who dies in the state of grace, let me just affirm that I agree. Not only that I agree, but that I submit to this truth as I would a dogma of Faith. The Church, however, allows the faithful the freedom to believe that the providence of God will see to it that every person dying in the state of grace will also be baptized. This preserves the literal sense of Christ’s teaching in John 3:5: “Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God” and His apostolic mandate to preach and baptize all nations in Mark 16: 15-16."
https://catholicism.org/baptism-of-desire-its-origin-and-abandonment-in-the-thought-of-saint-augustine.html
St. Benedict's Centre does not see their position as contrary to Vatican II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Indeed, Fr. Feeney was reconciled to Rome under Pope Paul VI. Fr. Feeney professed the Athanasian Creed upon his reconciliation.
The later Doctors do not teach it, and even seem to rule it out, but St. Augustine did apparently teach it: God can miraculously supply someone to baptize a dying catechumen, or someone who converted to the Catholic Faith at the last minute, and He can also miraculously supply a Priest to absolve a dying penitent. But I hold those two doctrines, which SBC itself confesses, are quite certain: (1) Baptism of Desire certainly confers at least justification, and thus brings a soul within (the Soul of) the Church. (2) A person dying in the State of Grace, in the New Covenant, will certainly be saved, as Trent itself says in quoting the Word of the Lord. Someone who believes and confesses both those two doctrines, is allowed, I admit, by the Church, to hold to this theological speculation.
As a final aside, I'm surprised you would say the Baltimore Catechism or the Catechism of St. Pius X is not "the Church". That seems like an almost R&R approach to the issue, except applying R&R to earlier Popes. If that's the case, why not say the same thing about the New Catechism, for e.g. when it also teaches BOD, that it also "did not come from the Church" even if Pope John Paul II was Pope? Just curious. That's all. But no problem otherwise. We agree on this subject in the manner we discussed above. Now, to get to the others in my next post.
God Bless.
-
The writer above has no common sense, no order, no structure, now he is just lashing out, going off on a tangent of calling people by "ites".
I asked you a question, why do you studiously avoid answering it? But let me rephrase it: "Do you deny Baptism of Desire even Justifies, as e.g. the Dimonds, Fr. Wathen etc do? Or do you merely hold, with Fr. Feeney later in life, St. Benedict's Centre, etc, that "there is no one about to die in a state of justification for whom cannot supply Baptism, and indeed Baptism of Water"? The first or the second?
There's no need for you to be offended. I'm a Thomist and not offended to be called one because I follow St. Thomas. If you consider Fr. Feeney to be this great Saint, or if you consider the Dimonds as your heroes, you shouldn't be ashamed to be called after them. Otherwise, after one of the Doctors you agree with. I gave you those options above.
As to your quoting Ladislaus' response, I already discussed it with him, but I will just say here, it's equally and infinitely easy for God, to give also Baptism, Confirmation, and the Eucharist - in both kinds - to any person miraculously. I've heard followers of Fr. Feeney insist that because Jesus Christ said "Unless you eat My Flesh and drink My Blood, you will not have life in you", all the elect must, before death, receive Communion in both kinds. That too is "equally easy" for God to do if He wishes it.
I believe exactly what St. Alphonsus believed, and what Pope St. Pius X taught, and St. Thomas Aquinas too for that matter. And I can prove it by citations of all of them. Thomists generally, both on Predestination and on this issue, also highly revere St. Augustine's perspective. It's for that reason also that I'm open to miraculous Baptism for all those justified and within the Church by Baptism of Desire. But I find no Doctor in the last millenium to have held that opinion.
At least not so far as I'm aware of. If you can cite any, you may convince me otherwise. If not, I stand with those Doctors whom the Popes and the Church have highly praised and already authorized as qualified interpreters of Trent that BOD can justify and even save.
-
No debate, you are supposed simply answer clear questions with clear answers. I did not ask what Catholics who do not understand a doctrine always say first.
The Church is not correcting me nor anyone who agrees with the Church's infallible definitions - you are not 1) answering my questions and 2) not making any sense.
CANON IV.-If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous;... let him be anathema.
I say Trent says that the sacraments are necessary unto salvation - PLEASE EXPLAIN HOW MY INTERPRETATION IS FALSE.
IN YOUR OWN WORDS, WHAT DO YOU THINK THESE WORDS OF TRENT ACTUALLY MEAN?
the canon continues:
and [if anyone saith] that, without them, or without the desire thereof, men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification;-though all (the sacraments) are not indeed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema.
I say Trent says without the sacrament there can be no justification and without the desire for the sacrament there can be no justification. Again - PLEASE EXPLAIN HOW MY INTERPRETATION IS FALSE.
IN YOUR OWN WORDS, WHAT DO YOU THINK THESE WORDS OF TRENT ACTUALLY MEAN?
If you do not have it in you to answer my clear questions, THEN SAY SO.
I already answered it. You are unable to comprehend an answer, and then insist I must answer you again and again. Go back and read.
Let me answer you again: To the first bolded, yes. Trent teaches that the Sacraments of the New Law are necessary for salvation, though all indeed are not necessary for each individual. Yes. And then in the second bolded, which is part of the same canon, it explains what it means by this necessity, that "without them, or without the desire thereof [literally: aut eurom voto, without the desire of them]", men cannot obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification. Now, first of all, I already explained with a citation from St. Thomas, that BOD is not the Protestant error of faith alone, but the outcome of "faith that works by charity", which St. Paul praised as justifying, and about which St. Thomas cites St. Ambrose as proof that "faith that works by charity" justifies and even saves.
So BOD is not faith alone. It is faith that works by charity. Next, Trent explains that the Sacraments are necessary in such a way that, without them, or without the desire of them, the Grace of Justification cannot be obtained. Now, I gave you an example for this: If I say that my thirst cannot be quenched without water, or at least without some juice, then a logical inference is that the juice can substitute for the water. And this is how the authorized and qualified Doctors, unlike you, a layman not authorized by the Church, interpret Trent: The Desire can sometimes supply for the Water. And note that the desire of them is in the Plural. That means that there are Two Sacraments at least for which the Desire of the Sacraments obtains Justification. Those can only be Baptism and Penance.
The Church had already clearly explained in its section on Penance that the Desire for Penance, when contrition is perfect by charity, reconciles man to God even before the Sacrament is received. Voto is a very specific term that does not refer to a mere natural desire, but to a supernatural desire animated by charity and contrition. Trent would never have used voto with respect to Baptism, Penance and Holy Communion, unless it meant to teach and dogmatize, Baptism of Desire, Perfect Contrition, and Spiritual Communion respectively.
You can fight against this Truth as hard as you want. It won't change them one iota. Nor need anyone who loves God truly and thus desires to keep His Commandments, as the Lord said in the Gospel, fear that the preaching of Perfect Contrition, and Spiritual Communion, to take the other two relatively non-controversial examples, will decrease the desire or reverence for the Sacraments of Penance and the Eucharist. The reverse is true, someone who regularly strives, for e.g. by looking at a crucifix, to obtain perfect contrition and true sorrow for his sins when a Priest is inaccessible, will be the first in line for Confession as soon as he gets a Priest.
Similarly, someone who often makes Acts of Spiritual Communion, when unable to go to Mass, will be the first to go to Holy Mass, as soon as he gets opportunity. This is why the Council itself, and Doctors and Theologians qualified to explain, say that the Desire for the Sacrament is implicit in the act of perfect love of God or of contrition by which the sinner is immєdιαtely reconciled to God.
Finally, Trent's Catechism clearly says, for adults, Desire and Intention to receive Baptism, when an unforeseen accident occurs, avails to Grace and Justice. Trent says the danger present for infants, of being eternally lost, is not present. From this, the Doctors and Theologians, for nearly 5 centuries, rightly understood that BOD can justify and even save. I know you'll say "nothing is unforeseen to God", but the Catechism is talking about what is unforeseen to man. The Catechism is not talking about miraculous water Baptism.
If you want to interpret the Catechism that way, you would be contradicting it where it said the same danger is not present to infants.
I don't know if these detailed and patient explanations will have any impact on your already-made-up mind. But I post them anyway, for those who read, and lest you keep thinking your questions could not be answered. Anyway, the Doctors have already answered it.
God Bless.
-
(1) Baptism of Desire certainly confers at least justification, and thus brings a soul within (the Soul of) the Church. (2) A person dying in the State of Grace, in the New Covenant, will certainly be saved, as Trent itself says in quoting the Word of the Lord. Someone who believes and confesses both those two doctrines, is allowed, I admit, by the Church, to hold to this theological speculation.
I don't accept the phrase "Baptism of Desire". I would reject not only the phrase here, but even the English translation of "Desire" as both defective and misleading, and the Catholic Encyclopedia agrees. I believe that justification can happen before the Sacrament of Baptism, as did Father Feeney, by not by the votum (for lack of a good translation) ALONE, but with all the other dispositions required for Baptism as taught by Trent. Catholic Encyclopedia says that votum includes these dispositions, but I disagree, holding that votum is only one piece that's required. As I've pointed out, the "cannot without" expression in Trent clearly indicates necessary cause, but not sufficient cause. In think CE does this because of the bias that something called "Baptism of Desire" exists as an all-encompassing sufficient cause of justification. I don't believe that this phrase Baptism of Desire exists anywhere in any authoritative sources. I think there's a Baptism "flaminis" mentioned, which I hold to be the same a pre-Baptismal justification, and probably a better phrase, referring to the justification entered into through the activity of the Holy Spirit leading up to Baptism. As a side note, I also strenuously object to the phrase "Three Baptisms" ... contradicting the dogmatic creed where we profess belief in ONE Baptism.
Yet I do not believe that justification alone suffices for the Beatific Vision, that the Sacramental character is required. And I do not believe that God would allow someone in a state of justification to die without the Sacrament. So the question of someone dying in a state of justification doesn't exist as a real possibility. As I mentioned earlier, it's no difficulty for God to bring the Sacrament to someone who perseveres in a state of justification until death. Why wouldn't He? Didn't Our Lord promise, "ask and you shall receive"? If someone desired (i.e. sought or asked for) Baptism, then why wouldn't God provide it?
If one FORCED me to address the hypothetical, asking what would happen to such a person, were it possible to die in a state of pre-Baptismal justification, I would answer as Father Feeney did, "I don't know." I do however have a speculation. WERE such a thing possible, I would hold that such a one would enter Limbo (or some part of Limbo). But I don't believe God ever allows this, so as a practical matter, there are none but those who died unbaptizd before reaching the age of reason in Limbo. We had the justified saints of the Old Testament who too could not enter heaven, because they too were missing something, that same something that is missing without the character of Baptism, namely, the supernatural faculty to see God as He is (something beyond our nature).
-
I don't accept the phrase "Baptism of Desire". I would reject not only the phrase here, but even the English translation of "Desire" as both defective and misleading, and the Catholic Encyclopedia agrees
Can you cite it? Here it is. https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm
I find the CE's explanation, authorized by Rome a 100 years ago, beautiful and perfect in explaining Baptism of Desire. I believe it was published in English as well, so the translation issue also shouldn't be a problem.
"Substitutes for the sacrament
The Fathers (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06001a.htm) and theologians (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14580a.htm) frequently divide baptism into three kinds: the baptism of water (aquæ or fluminis), the baptism of desire (flaminis), and the baptism of blood (sanguinis). However, only the first is a real sacrament (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13295a.htm). The latter two are denominated baptism only analogically, inasmuch as they supply the principal effect of baptism, namely, the grace (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06689a.htm) which remits sins (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm). It is the teaching (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05075b.htm) of the Catholic (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03449a.htm) Church (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm) that when the baptism of water becomes a physical or moral impossibility, eternal (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05551b.htm) life (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09238c.htm) may be obtained by the baptism of desire or the baptism of blood.
The baptism of desire
The baptism of desire (baptismus flaminis) is a perfect contrition (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04337a.htm) of heart, and every act of perfect charity or pure love (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09397a.htm) of God (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm) which contains, at least implicitly, a desire (votum) of baptism. The Latin word flamen is used because Flamen is a name for the Holy Ghost (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07409a.htm), Whose special office it is to move the heart to love (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09397a.htm) God (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm) and to conceive penitence for sin (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm). The "baptism of the Holy Ghost (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07409a.htm)" is a term employed in the third century by the anonymous author of the book "De Rebaptismate". The efficacy of this baptism of desire to supply the place of the baptism of water, as to its principal effect, is proved (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12454c.htm) from the words of Christ (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm).
After He had declared the necessity (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10733a.htm) of baptism (John 3 (https://www.newadvent.org/bible/joh003.htm)), He promised (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12453a.htm) justifying grace (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06701a.htm) for acts of charity or perfect contrition (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04337a.htm) (John 14 (https://www.newadvent.org/bible/joh014.htm)): "He that loveth (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09397a.htm) Me, shall be loved (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09397a.htm) of my Father: and I will love (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09397a.htm) him and will manifest myself to him." And again: "If any one love (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09397a.htm) me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09397a.htm) him, and we will come to him, and will make our abode with him." Since these texts declare that justifying grace (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06701a.htm) is bestowed on account of acts of perfect charity or contrition (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04337a.htm), it is evident that these acts supply the place of baptism as to its principal effect, the remission of sins (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm).
This doctrine (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05075b.htm) is set forth clearly by the Council of Trent (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15030c.htm). In the fourteenth session (cap. iv) the council teaches that contrition (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04337a.htm) is sometimes perfected by charity, and reconciles man (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09580c.htm) to God (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm), before the Sacrament of Penance (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11618c.htm) is received. In the fourth chapter of the sixth session, in speaking of the necessity (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10733a.htm) of baptism, it says that men (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09580c.htm) can not obtain original justice "except by the washing of regeneration (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12714a.htm) or its desire" (voto). The same doctrine (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05075b.htm) is taught by Pope Innocent III (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08013a.htm) (cap. Debitum, iv, De Bapt.), and the contrary propositions are condemned by Popes (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm) Pius V (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12130a.htm) and Gregory XII (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07001a.htm), in proscribing the 31st and 33rd propositions of Baius (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02209c.htm).
We have already alluded to the funeral oration pronounced by St. Ambrose (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01383c.htm) over the Emperor Valentinian II (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15255a.htm), a catechumen (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03430b.htm). The doctrine (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05075b.htm) of the baptism of desire is here clearly set forth. St. Ambrose (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01383c.htm) asks: "Did he not obtain the grace (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06689a.htm) which he desired? Did he not obtain what he asked for? Certainly he obtained it because he asked for it." St. Augustine (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02084a.htm) (On Baptism, Against the Donatists, IV.22 (https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/14084.htm)) and St. Bernard (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02498d.htm) (Ep. lxxvii, ad H. de S. Victore) likewise discourse in the same sense concerning the baptism of desire. If it be said that this doctrine (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05075b.htm) contradicts the universal law (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09053a.htm) of baptism made by Christ (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm) (John 3 (https://www.newadvent.org/bible/joh003.htm)), the answer is that the lawgiver has made an exception (John 14 (https://www.newadvent.org/bible/joh014.htm)) in favor of those who have the baptism of desire. Neither would it be a consequence of this doctrine (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05075b.htm) that a person (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11726a.htm) justified (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08573a.htm) by the baptism of desire would thereby be dispensed (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05041a.htm) from seeking after the baptism of water when the latter became a possibility. For, as has already been explained the baptismus flaminis contains the votum of receiving the baptismus aquæ. It is true (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15073a.htm) that some of the Fathers of the Church (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06001a.htm) arraign severely those who content themselves with the desire of receiving the sacrament (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13295a.htm) of regeneration (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12714a.htm), but they are speaking of catechumens (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03430b.htm) who of their own accord delay the reception of baptism from unpraiseworthy motives. Finally, it is to be noted that only adults are capable of receiving the baptism of desire."
As I've pointed out, the "cannot without" expression in Trent clearly indicates necessary cause, but not sufficient cause.
What about the example I gave to Stubborn? "Next, Trent explains that the Sacraments are necessary in such a way that, without them, or without the desire of them, the Grace of Justification cannot be obtained. Now, I gave you an example for this: If I say that my thirst cannot be quenched without water, or at least without some juice, then a logical inference is that the juice can substitute for the water. And this is how the authorized and qualified Doctors, unlike you, a layman not authorized by the Church, interpret Trent: The Desire can sometimes supply for the Water. And note that the desire of them is in the Plural. That means that there are Two Sacraments at least for which the Desire of the Sacraments obtains Justification. Those can only be Baptism and Penance."
As I mentioned earlier, it's no difficulty for God to bring the Sacrament to someone who perseveres in a state of justification until death. Why wouldn't He?
I don't know. Many reasons. Maybe because He wants the soul to suffer in Purgatory for a while? I certainly agree He will grant such a soul all the graces necessary for its salvation, according to His Divine Promise. But those could be Justification+Perseverance only.
God Bless.
-
I already answered it. You are unable to comprehend an answer, and then insist I must answer you again and again. Go back and read.
Let me answer you again: To the first bolded, yes. Trent teaches that the Sacraments of the New Law are necessary for salvation, though all indeed are not necessary for each individual.
There is the sacramental requirement you know of, this requirement is that in order to receive any of the other sacraments, the sacrament of Baptism must be received first.
So if you say that the sacrament of baptism is not necessary for salvation, you are saying none of them are necessary because without baptism, none of the other sacraments can be received - which reduces the first part of the canon to an altogether meaningless group of words.
OTOH, if you agree with that Trent says the sacraments are necessary unto salvation, then you *must* agree the sacrament of baptism is necessary unto salvation, because it is the one and only sacrament required before any and all of the other sacraments can be received.
Yes. And then in the second bolded, which is part of the same canon, it explains what it means by this necessity...,
It is not explaining what it means by this necessity. The first part talks about salvation, the second part is talking about justification. Both parts are self explanatory, by design.
...that "without them, or without the desire thereof, men cannot obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification.
"Without them" = without the sacraments. Here Trent condemns saying that without the sacraments men obtain justification.
Think about this for a moment... no sacrament = no justification. If no sacrament = no justification, then no sacrament = no salvation whether one has the desire for it or not.
"Or without the desire thereof" = or without the desire for the sacraments. Here Trent condemns saying that without the desire for the sacraments men obtain, through faith alone, justification.
Regardless of what the greatest theologians, particularly the greatest of them all imo, St. Thomas Aquinas said, the Church through Trent infallibly said IN NO UNCERTAIN TERMS,
1) The sacraments are necessary unto salvation - you said you agreed this is what Trent said.
2) Without the sacrament there is no justification and
3) Without the desire for the sacraments there is no justification - here Trent is condemning justification through faith alone.
You do not accept Trent meant what they said as regards 2 and 3 and falsely accuse me of interpreting what is clearly taught "because nobody else interprets it that way" - well, we are bound to believe that it means exactly what it says, because *that* is also an infallible truth, defined at V1, this decree reads:
"Hence, too,that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by holy mother church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding".
Thank you for answering my questions.
-
It was just called to my attention that MHFM has a relatively recent video on this topic:
https://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/catholicchurch/council-of-trent-did-not-teach-baptism-of-desire/ (https://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/catholicchurch/council-of-trent-did-not-teach-baptism-of-desire/)
I recommend their videos. You might want to watch it a couple of times because Br Peter moves rapidly through a lot of material. And actually it is a perfect video for this thread because it is specifically targeted to many of the points that have been brought up in this thread without getting into the issues concerning the necessity of professing the Catholic faith. We all agree here (even PPV and XS) that explicit Catholic faith is necessary (and must be professed according to the Athanasian Creed) for salvation. But the above video goes into detail on why we must believe that Trent did NOT teach BOD and why BOD is not consistent with Church doctrine.
-
Xavier, what are your thoughts on this?
In the Angelus Press book, "Preparation for Confirmation ", Part II, Section II, question 10.
10. Is Confirmation necessary for salvation?
Answer: Confirmation is not, unlike Baptism, ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY for salvation. But all Catholics ought to receive it if they have the opportunity, as it confers a sacrament.
What does "Absolutely" mean?
-
Honestly, I couldn't really follow most of the second(the 2012 one) thread. The citations got incredibly long and I didn't understand a lot of the language, so I just found myself getting muddled and scrolling past. However, from the 1 Timothy 2:4 thread and what I grasped of that one, I thought Tornpage was the more convincing and I didn't think MRyan properly addressed his central point, that unbaptised infants are not given the necessary graces to be saved.
I'm still confused though. The Catholic Encyclopedia says that the proposition that anyone is predestined to be damned has been condemned. This would surely include Tornpage's resolution of the issue(that God wishes to save all men only in that He created the means by which all men can be saved, and doesn't wish for the salvation of every individual, and therefore not offering salvific grace to all of them). But I can't actually find any condemnation of such. Trent merely condemns the proposition that everyone who isn't predestined for salvation is damned, which would still allow for the unbaptised infant being offered no way to save itself.
I'm not sure about anything here, to be honest. What's your own resolution of the issue?
God willing, I'll start a new thread on God's salvific will in relation to the question of unbaptized infants who die in infancy in the near future so that this one is not derailed by our discussion. I'll start with St. Thomas in the Summa Theologica, First Part, Question 19, Article 6 and then look at St. Alphonsus's treatment of the issue.
-
Xavier, here's the citation from Catholic Encyclopedia about votum.
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm
We have rendered votum by "desire" for want of a better word. The council does not mean by votum a simple desire of receiving baptism or even a resolution to do so. It means by votum an act of perfect charity or contrition, including, at least implicitly, the will to do all things necessary for salvation and thus especially to receive baptism.
-
Below is a synopsis of my responses to Xavier on this thread, it is no different than what I wrote to Lover of Truth another false BODer that plagued CI for a few years. I would not have wasted my time to post this synopsis, were it not useful for me to use in the future against any other false BODer. They are all the same.
Xavier wrote: God can provide the Sacrament wherever and whenever He chooses. And He does. And He can also provide forgiveness through Perfect Contrition wherever and whenever He chooses. And He does. The Church has spoken. The case is closed. Baptism of Desire exists.
Last Tradhican responded - Unwittingly, the writer finally clearly reveals his real belief which is that "God can provide the Sacrament wherever and whenever He chooses. And He can also provide forgiveness through Perfect Contrition wherever and whenever He chooses", that the sacraments and the Church are not necessary. That is the foundational pillar of Implicit Faith'ers, however, it is not taught by any saint or pope or council. That false "doctrine" is at the root of all the errors of Vatican II. That is how they rationalize their end run around all the saints, doctors, councils, popes, to teach that Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Jҽωs, indeed, that people in any religions can be saved.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Xavier wrote - I've clearly explained what I believe. Those Justified by Baptism of Desire, before they obtain the Grace of Final Perseverance, will be given the Grace to embrace the Catholic Faith, and so be saved as Christians, believing explicitly at least the Trinity and Incarnation.
Responding to what the writer above wrote, is letting the writer off the hook. The above back pedaling has nothing to do with his teaching that he clearly stated below. The quote below has NOTHING to do with anything taught by the sources he sights for baptism of desire of the catechumen. It completely denies the theory of baptism of desire of the catechumen. That is the standard operating procedure of the False BODers.
There is only one subject to discuss here, his real belief which he has spelled out:
"God can provide the Sacrament wherever and whenever He chooses. And He can also provide forgiveness through Perfect Contrition wherever and whenever He chooses", that the sacraments and the Church are not necessary.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Xavier quotes saints/doctors ad nauseam, then invents his own version.
That is the standard operating procedure of false BODers of which he is a perfect example. There is not one Father, Doctor, Saint, Pope, Council that taught what he believes, moreover the sources he quotes all oppose what he believes in his own words - "God can provide the Sacrament wherever and whenever He chooses. And He can also provide forgiveness through Perfect Contrition wherever and whenever He chooses", in other words, that the sacraments and the Church are not necessary
I believe that type of person is a feelings oriented sentimentalist, that lacks the ability to build a structure, and see the relationships among the modules of a system that give rise to a whole. To put it simply, if his teaching were a building you could see and touch, it would be magical windows floating in the air, with no foundations and no building. Why should anyone discuss the minutest components (ex. bathroom faucets) that go into the construction 40 story office building with a person who imagines windows that float in the air and calls them a building? No, the only thing we need to know is what he believes, which he has spelled out.
I just keep it short and simple (KISS) with people like that and not delve any deeper into their fantasies.
- I do not believe in baptism of desire of the catechumen, but if that is what someone chooses to believe, I have no debate with them, it is a harmless teaching.
- I completely reject the teaching that a non-Catholic can be saved in any way whatsoever, unless they explicitly desire to be a Catholic. The theory is called salvation by implicit faith in a god that rewards, it is not called baptism of desire, it is not called implicit baptism of desire. It is not taught by one Father, Saint, Doctor, Council, or Pope.
(KISS) Xavier is hiding behind baptism of desire of the catechumen, to teach what he really belies, which is that non-Catholics can be saved without desiring to be baptized, without desiring to be Catholics, and even while despising the Church (Jews, Muslims).
-
Xavier doesn't understand the subject enough to converse about it, which is why his posts are filled with quotes. He should be ignored.
-
Xavier doesn't understand the subject enough to converse about it, which is why his posts are filled with quotes. He should be ignored.
I think like LT basically said, Xavier's rejection of the Church's infallible teachings on the matter is the same as all BODers and can be traced directly to; "the ramifications of these teachings are simply too severe to accept", aka +Fr. Cekada's reasoning.
-
Xavier doesn't understand the subject enough to converse about it, which is why his posts are filled with quotes. He should be ignored.
Are you offended that I appeared to ignore you in my earlier response, Pax? It wasn't intentional, I had already quoted and responded to three posts, so I decided not to quote a fourth. As I said, I am one person arguing with four or five different people who all want answers to their own question, so you have to be a little patient.
Now, regarding what you claim about me, it is a complete non sequitur. It would be like saying "St. Paul is always quoting the Old Testament Scriptures, therefore he doesn't understand the Old Testament". Non Sequitur. I quote the Popes, Saints, Catechisms, Councils, Doctors, Code of Canon Law etc to show that I have not invented my own doctrine, as the BOD-denying Dimonds indisputably have, but that I follow the Doctors in every way. Prove me wrong if I don't.
I already gave many Scriptural Examples, with Authorized Commentary, that Baptism of Desire, which is faith working by charity, immediately remits sins. Here is another, Fr. Haydock on Luk 7:47
Ver. 47. Many sins are forgiven her, because she hath loved much. In the Scripture, an effect sometimes seems attributed to one only cause, when there are divers other concurring dispositions; the sins of this woman, in this verse, are said to be forgiven, because she loved much; but (v. 50,) Christ tells her, thy faith hath saved thee. In a true conversion are joined faith, hope, love, sorrow, and other pious dispositions. Wi. and on ver 50
"Therefore she was justified not so much through her faith, as her charity: still she had faith, or she would not have come to Jesus, to be delivered from her sins. It was therefore her faith, working by charity, that justified her: and this is the doctrine of the Catholic Church." See: https://www.ecatholic2000.com/haydock/ntcomment55.shtml
Here is St. Alphonsus saying what I said earlier. First, those who who make an act of love of God or Contrition, in which the desire for the Sacrament of Baptism is implicit, are immediately justified and enter the State of Grace. Next, if these persevere in the State of Grace, they will receive the whole Faith also later, and be saved as Catholics or Christians.
St. Alphonsus: On the Council of Trent, 1846, Pg. 128-129 (Duffy): "Who can deny that the act of perfect love of God, which is sufficient for justification, includes an implicit desire of Baptism, of Penance, and of the Eucharist. He who wishes the whole wishes the every part of that whole and all the means necessary for its attainment. In order to be justified without baptism, an infidel must love God above all things, and must have an universal will to observe all the divine precepts, among which the first is to receive baptism: and therefore in order to be justified it is necessary for him to have at least an implicit desire of that sacrament." http://www.baptismofdesire.com/
Also St. Alphonsus: 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.” (The History of Heresies, Refutation 6, #11) https://exlaodicea.wordpress.com/2017/01/23/st-alphonsus-liguori-on-st-thomas-on-the-necessity-of-explicit-faith-in-the-trinity-and-the-redeemer/
There is a clear dogmatic Tradition in favor of Baptism of Desire. The Catholic Encyclopedia's explanation of it should be enough. Pope St. Pius V himself, in the Roman Catechism, and in two other places, clearly teaches charity remits sins, in condeming Michael Baius.
Baptism of Desire is not a natural desire to receive Baptism. Baptism of Desire is a supernatural desire animated by love of God or contrition. This is explained also in the Holy Office letter on the Fr. Feeney, which was praised by Msgr. Fenton, with whom I agree: "However, this dogma must be understood in that sense in which the Church herself understands it. For, it was not to private judgments that Our Savior gave for explanation those things that are contained in the deposit of faith, but to the teaching authority of the Church...
...no one will be saved who, knowing the Church to have been divinely established by Christ, nevertheless refuses to submit to the Church or withholds obedience from the Roman Pontiff, the Vicar of Christ on earth...
In His infinite mercy God has willed that the effects, necessary for one to be saved, of those helps to salvation which are directed toward man's final end, not by intrinsic necessity, but only by divine institution, can also be obtained in certain circuмstances when those helps are used only in desire and longing. This we see clearly stated in the Sacred Council of Trent, both in reference to the sacrament of regeneration and in reference to the sacrament of penance (<Denzinger>, nn. 797, 807) ...
But it must not be thought that any kind of desire of entering the Church suffices that one may be saved. It is necessary that the desire by which one is related to the Church be animated by perfect charity. Nor can an implicit desire produce its effect, unless a person has supernatural faith: "For he who comes to God must believe that God exists and is a rewarder of those who seek Him" (Heb. 11:6). The Council of Trent declares (Session VI, chap. 8): "Faith is the beginning of man's salvation, the foundation and root of all justification, without which it is impossible to please God and attain to the fellowship of His children" (Denzinger, n. 801) https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/letter-to-the-archbishop-of-boston-2076
Msgr. Fenton comments: "Now most theologians teach that the minimum explicit content of supernatural and salvific faith includes, not only the truths of God’s existence and of His action as the Rewarder of good and the Punisher of evil, but also the mysteries of the Blessed Trinity and the Incarnation. It must be noted at this point that there is no hint of any intention on the part of the Holy Office, in citing this text from the Epistle to the Hebrews, to teach that explicit belief in the mysteries of the Blessed Trinity and of the Incarnation is not required for the attainment of salvation. In the context of the letter, the Sacred Congregation quotes this verse precisely as a proof of its declaration that an implicit desire of the Church cannot produce its effect “unless a person has supernatural faith.”
This is the same doctrine of St. Athanasius (in the Athanasian Creed), St. Alphonsus, Fr. Mueller in a Catechism approved by Rome and is what I believe also. All who were saved believed in Our Lord Jesus Christ explicitly before their death, i.e. the Trinity and Incarnation.
-
Ledeg, to what you asked on "absolutely necessary", here is the Catechism of St. Pius X. The Pope first says that Baptism is necessary,
16 Q. Is Baptism necessary to salvation?
A. Baptism is absolutely necessary to salvation, for our Lord has expressly said: "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God."
And then immєdιαtely in answering the next question, the same Saintly Pontiff explains that BOD/B can supply its absence.
17 Q. Can the absence of Baptism be supplied in any other way?
A. The absence of Baptism can be supplied by martyrdom, which is called Baptism of Blood, or by an act of perfect love of God, or of contrition, along with the desire, at least implicit, of Baptism, and this is called Baptism of Desire.
Do you believe His Holiness Pope St. Pius X is contradicting himself from one question to the next? Or is teaching heresy here?
"God can provide the Sacrament wherever and whenever He chooses. And He can also provide forgiveness through Perfect Contrition wherever and whenever He chooses", that the sacraments and the Church are not necessary.
I stand by what I wrote in the bolded. The non-bolded is your own non sequitur. Baptism is so necessary for salvation that no one can obtain salvation without at least receiving Baptism in voto. The same for belonging to the Church. He must belong to the Church in voto in order to be saved.
I proved what I wrote from St. Alphonsus and St. Pius X. By an act of perfect love of God or contrition, a person can be justified. If he perseveres, he will receive the whole Faith and be saved.
No one will be saved without explicit faith in Christ, i.e. in the Trinity and Incarnation. Your other claim that you impute to me is thus also a strawman. I don't believe Muslims will be saved as Muslims.
Lad, quoting the CE: "The council does not mean by votum a simple desire of receiving baptism or even a resolution to do so. It means by votum an act of perfect charity or contrition, including, at least implicitly, the will to do all things necessary for salvation and thus especially to receive baptism."
Perfect? Whats the problem here?
Thank you for answering my questions.
You're welcome. Now, can you answer my example: "Now, I gave you an example for this: If I say that my thirst cannot be quenched without water, or at least without some juice, then a logical inference is that the juice can substitute for the water. And this is how the authorized and qualified Doctors, unlike you, a layman not authorized by the Church, interpret Trent: The Desire can sometimes supply for the Water. And note that the desire of them is in the Plural. That means that there are Two Sacraments at least for which the Desire of the Sacraments obtains Justification. Those can only be Baptism and Penance.
The Church had already clearly explained in its section on Penance that the Desire for Penance, when contrition is perfect by charity, reconciles man to God even before the Sacrament is received. Voto is a very specific term that does not refer to a mere natural desire, but to a supernatural desire animated by charity and contrition. Trent would never have used voto with respect to Baptism, Penance and Holy Communion, unless it meant to teach and dogmatize, Baptism of Desire, Perfect Contrition, and Spiritual Communion respectively." How do you answer the example of water and juice?
Here is Canon Law: "Canon Law (1917): Canon 737: “Baptism, the door and foundation of the Sacraments, in fact or at least in desire necessary unto salvation for all ..."
The Church's defined dogmas are infallible in that sense in which She has Herself always understood them? Which interpretation does Canon Law back up? Yours or mine?
Vatican I also rejects that "a sense may be assigned to the dogmas propounded by the Church which is different from that which the Church has understood and understands"
In which sense has the Church understood Her own dogma? In the sense that Baptism is necessary in fact or in desire. The Church would never have said this if BOD didn't exist.
BOD's existence is dogmatically certain. The same and equally certain as Perfect Contrition and Spiritual Communion, as per Trent.
-
"God can provide the Sacrament wherever and whenever He chooses. And He can also provide forgiveness through Perfect Contrition wherever and whenever He chooses", that the sacraments and the Church are not necessary.
Xavier responded:
I stand by what I wrote in the bolded. The non-bolded is your own non sequitur. Baptism is so necessary for salvation that no one can obtain salvation without at least receiving Baptism in voto. The same for belonging to the Church. He must belong to the Church in voto in order to be saved. I proved what I wrote from St. Alphonsus and St. Pius X. By an act of perfect love of God or contrition, a person can be justified. If he perseveres, he will receive the whole Faith and be saved.No one will be saved without explicit faith in Christ, i.e. in the Trinity and Incarnation. Your other claim that you impute to me is thus also a strawman. I don't believe Muslims will be saved as Muslim
What I added is what the writer above believes deep down, but he is scared to admit it now because he will lose many people. Baptism of desire is not a sacrament. Implicit Faith is not a sacrament. He is teaching that people can be saved without the sacrament of baptism. His original response above was in the context and in replying to our objections to baptism of desire, he was basically responding that God can do anything, even provide the "baptism" of desire, and now he again makes another unwitting admittance, by calling baptism of desire a sacrament. He keeps sinking himself deeper into the mud.
Simple Question: Does the writer absolutely reject the teaching of salvation by Implicit Faith, the teaching that non-Catholics can be saved by their belief in a God that rewards? Yes or no?
-
You're welcome. Now, can you answer my example: "Now, I gave you an example for this: If I say that my thirst cannot be quenched without water, or at least without some juice, then a logical inference is that the juice can substitute for the water.
No argument from me here. Yet, if you have no water, juice or any other substitute for the water, then you will never have anything to drink and your thirst simply will never get quenched.
And this is how the authorized and qualified Doctors, unlike you, a layman not authorized by the Church, interpret Trent: The Desire can sometimes supply for the Water. And note that the desire of them is in the Plural. That means that there are Two Sacraments at least for which the Desire of the Sacraments obtains Justification. Those can only be Baptism and Penance.
The First Vatican Council condemns anyone from interpreting dogma, and they decree that dogmas always mean exactly what they say and always will: "Hence, too,that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by holy mother church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding".
So now I have shown you what Trent actually said, given you infallible proof from V1 that Trent means exactly what they said, and that interpreting dogma is forbidden.
No matter who says it, it is simply wrong to say Trent taught a BOD when Trent clearly condemns with anathema anyone that says without the sacraments or without the desire for the sacraments, men obtain, through faith alone, the grace of justification. It is impossible, literally impossible to get any version of a BOD out of Trent.
-
What I added is what the writer above believes deep down, but he is scared to admit it now because he will lose many people. Baptism of desire is not a sacrament. Implicit Faith is not a sacrament. He is teaching that people can be saved without the sacrament of baptism. His original response above was in the context and in replying to our objections to baptism of desire, he was basically responding that God can do anything, even provide the "baptism" of desire, and now he again makes another unwitting admittance, by calling baptism of desire a sacrament. He keeps sinking himself deeper into the mud.
Simple Question: Does the writer absolutely reject the teaching of salvation by Implicit Faith, the teaching that non-Catholics can be saved by their belief in a God that rewards? Yes or no?
You evidently lack reading comprehension, yet imagine yourself to have mind-reading capabilities.
I have explained clearly what I believe. Your denial that BOD justifies places you in objective heresy.
I have cited authorities for what I believe word-for-word. Your argument is not with me but with them.
I answered your question above, yet your selective reading tendency did not allow you to see it.
Here it is in bold, so that even you do not miss it this time. I stand with St. Athanasius, St. Thomas and St. Alphonsus.
"No one will be saved without explicit faith in Christ, i.e. in the Trinity and Incarnation."
Now, go back and answer the authorities I cited. Nor did I say Baptism of Desire is a Sacrament.
First Authority: "St. Alphonsus: On the Council of Trent, 1846, Pg. 128-129 (Duffy): "Who can deny that the act of perfect love of God, which is sufficient for justification, includes an implicit desire of Baptism, of Penance, and of the Eucharist. He who wishes the whole wishes the every part of that whole and all the means necessary for its attainment. In order to be justified without baptism, an infidel must love God above all things, and must have an universal will to observe all the divine precepts, among which the first is to receive baptism: and therefore in order to be justified it is necessary for him to have at least an implicit desire of that sacrament." http://www.baptismofdesire.com/ (http://www.baptismofdesire.com/)
Second Authority: Also St. Alphonsus: 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.” (The History of Heresies, Refutation 6, #11) https://exlaodicea.wordpress.com/2017/01/23/st-alphonsus-liguori-on-st-thomas-on-the-necessity-of-explicit-faith-in-the-trinity-and-the-redeemer/ (https://exlaodicea.wordpress.com/2017/01/23/st-alphonsus-liguori-on-st-thomas-on-the-necessity-of-explicit-faith-in-the-trinity-and-the-redeemer/)
Third Authority: H.H Pope St. Pius X: "17 Q. Can the absence of Baptism be supplied in any other way?
A. The absence of Baptism can be supplied by martyrdom, which is called Baptism of Blood, or by an act of perfect love of God, or of contrition, along with the desire, at least implicit, of Baptism, and this is called Baptism of Desire."
What the Popes have said of St. Alphonsus and Moral Theology (where the Doctor teaches BOD is de fide after Trent) in particular:
"(Unique position) “In 1831, Pope Gregory XVI had «decreed it safe to follow St. Alphonsus’ opinion, even if you do not know the reason behind it – a badge of honour Rome has given no other saint.»” (Joseph Maier C.SS.R. in ‘The Priest’, Vol. 19, Sept., 1963).” (Source: Thirty-Three Doctors of the Church, Rengers C. O.F.M. Cap., Washington, 1993, p. 623)"
From: https://www.goodcatholicbooks.org/alphonsus/alphonsus-facts.html
-
You evidently lack reading comprehension, yet imagine yourself to have mind-reading capabilities.
I have explained clearly what I believe. Your denial that BOD justifies places you in objective heresy.
I have cited authorities for what I believe word-for-word. Your argument is not with me but with them.
I answered your question above, yet your selective reading tendency did not allow you to see it.
Here it is in bold, so that even you do not miss it this time. I stand with St. Athanasius, St. Thomas and St. Alphonsus.
"No one will be saved without explicit faith in Christ, i.e. in the Trinity and Incarnation."
Now, go back and answer the authorities I cited. Nor did I say Baptism of Desire is a Sacrament.
First Authority: "St. Alphonsus: On the Council of Trent, 1846, Pg. 128-129 (Duffy): "Who can deny that the act of perfect love of God, which is sufficient for justification, includes an implicit desire of Baptism, of Penance, and of the Eucharist. He who wishes the whole wishes the every part of that whole and all the means necessary for its attainment. In order to be justified without baptism, an infidel must love God above all things, and must have an universal will to observe all the divine precepts, among which the first is to receive baptism: and therefore in order to be justified it is necessary for him to have at least an implicit desire of that sacrament." http://www.baptismofdesire.com/ (http://www.baptismofdesire.com/)
Second Authority: Also St. Alphonsus: 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.” (The History of Heresies, Refutation 6, #11) https://exlaodicea.wordpress.com/2017/01/23/st-alphonsus-liguori-on-st-thomas-on-the-necessity-of-explicit-faith-in-the-trinity-and-the-redeemer/ (https://exlaodicea.wordpress.com/2017/01/23/st-alphonsus-liguori-on-st-thomas-on-the-necessity-of-explicit-faith-in-the-trinity-and-the-redeemer/)
Third Authority: H.H Pope St. Pius X: "17 Q. Can the absence of Baptism be supplied in any other way?
A. The absence of Baptism can be supplied by martyrdom, which is called Baptism of Blood, or by an act of perfect love of God, or of contrition, along with the desire, at least implicit, of Baptism, and this is called Baptism of Desire."
What the Popes have said of St. Alphonsus and Moral Theology (where the Doctor teaches BOD is de fide after Trent) in particular:
"(Unique position) “In 1831, Pope Gregory XVI had «decreed it safe to follow St. Alphonsus’ opinion, even if you do not know the reason behind it – a badge of honour Rome has given no other saint.»” (Joseph Maier C.SS.R. in ‘The Priest’, Vol. 19, Sept., 1963).” (Source: Thirty-Three Doctors of the Church, Rengers C. O.F.M. Cap., Washington, 1993, p. 623)"
From: https://www.goodcatholicbooks.org/alphonsus/alphonsus-facts.html
Leo XIII said the same thing about St Thomas's Summa despite it teaching against the Immaculate Conception. Not sure how this helps you to turn around and call people like Stubborn and Lad heretics.
How about you answer my question about the Angelus Press book of the SSPX? What does ABSOLUTELY mean?
-
I stand with St. Athanasius, St. Thomas and St. Alphonsus.
"No one will be saved without explicit faith in Christ, i.e. in the Trinity and Incarnation."
In that belief, the writer above stands with all the Fathers, Doctors and Saints (and also stands with all who do not believe in baptism of desire of the catechumen, or implicit baptism of desire, or implicit faith)
Now would the writer also answer my simple question from before:
Simple Question: Does the writer absolutely reject the teaching of salvation by Implicit Faith, the teaching that non-Catholics can be saved by their belief in a god that rewards? Yes or no?
-
Ledeg, to what you asked on "absolutely necessary", here is the Catechism of St. Pius X. The Pope first says that Baptism is necessary,
16 Q. Is Baptism necessary to salvation?
A. Baptism is absolutely necessary to salvation, for our Lord has expressly said: "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God."
And then immєdιαtely in answering the next question, the same Saintly Pontiff explains that BOD/B can supply its absence.
17 Q. Can the absence of Baptism be supplied in any other way?
A. The absence of Baptism can be supplied by martyrdom, which is called Baptism of Blood, or by an act of perfect love of God, or of contrition, along with the desire, at least implicit, of Baptism, and this is called Baptism of Desire.
Do you believe His Holiness Pope St. Pius X is contradicting himself from one question to the next? Or is teaching heresy here?
Ledeg, I answered your question in reply#284. Did you miss it? By way of further explanation, Baptism is said to be absolutely necessary because Baptism confers justification, and justification is absolutely necessary for salvation. Confirmation does not confer justification and thus is not absolutely necessary for salvation. But it confers many essential grace of the Holy Spirit and should be received when opportunity comes. That's what the SSPX source you cite means. The same SSPX site teaches both BOD and BOB.
St. Thomas also says the sacrament of Baptism is necessary for salvation, and in responding to this very objection says that this means, "Reply to Objection 3. The sacrament of Baptism (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm) is said to be necessary (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10733a.htm) for salvation (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13407a.htm) in so far as man (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09580c.htm) can not be saved without, at least, Baptism (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm) of desire; "which, with God (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm), counts for the deed (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01115a.htm)" (Augustine, Enarr. in Ps. 57). [Article 2: https://www.newadvent.org/summa/4068.htm]
Dr. Ott also teaches that Baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation. And elsewhere that this can be supplied by BOD/BOB.
BTW: The source I cited said Rome has given this same endorsement to no one else. What words of Pope Leo XIII are you thinking of?
P.S: I did not call anyone a heretic. Let's try to have charity for one another as we discuss. I did say the opposite opinion to what St. Alphonsus says is de fide is objective heresy, though. Per the Popes, I can safely hold to such an opinion, even without reasons.
In that belief, the writer above stands with all the Fathers, Doctors and Saints (and also stands with all who do not believe in baptism of desire of the catechumen, or implicit baptism of desire, or implicit faith)
Thank you for recognizing that. I also agree with what you underlined. I said earlier I respect St. Benedict's Centre.
Do you? I know and like Br. Andre Marie in particular, respecting his zeal to bring non-Catholics to the Faith.
They don't deny Baptism of Desire. They hold all who receive Baptism of Desire will also receive Baptism.
They also confess all who die in the State of Grace will be saved. Why do you not hold this more reasonable position also? I have no objection to that position and believe it is an acceptable Catholic position.
Someone who holds that does not need to begin by attacking Catechisms, Popes, and Doctors.
I reject Dimondism though (the opinion that Baptism of Desire does not exist, contradicted by St. Peter himself in Acts, see below). Dimond is only one step away from Ibranyi who called St. Alphonsus "a salvation heretic".
Simple Question:
Does the writer absolutely reject the teaching of salvation by Implicit Faith, the teaching that non-Catholics can be saved by their belief in a god that rewards? Yes or no?
Yes, I reject it. I confess the Athanasian Creed, in the sense St. Athanasius, St. Thomas, St. Alphonsus etc did.
Now, can you answer my question: Have you read Fr. Haydock's commentary on Acts 10?
St. Augustine, St. Thomas and Fr. Haydock say that Cornelius received Baptism of Desire.
St. Peter and St. Luke in the passage in Acts themselves clearly express the same.
I cited the sources earlier in this thread and can cite them again if necessary.
I assume you're familiar with them. If not, I'll cite them again later. God Bless.
-
Simple Question: Does the writer absolutely reject the teaching of salvation by Implicit Faith, the teaching that non-Catholics can be saved by their belief in a god that rewards? Yes or no?
Xavier answered: Yes, I reject it. I confess the Athanasian Creed, in the sense St. Athanasius, St. Thomas, St. Alphonsus etc did.
Then do you reject these examples of salvation by implicit faith, the teaching that non-Catholics can be saved by their belief in a god that rewards?:
From the book Against the Heresies, by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre:
1. Page 216: “Evidently, certain distinctions must be made. Souls can be saved in a religion other than the Catholic religion (Protestantism, Islam, Buddhism, etc.), but not by this religion. There may be souls who, not knowing Our Lord, have by the grace of the good Lord, good interior dispositions, who submit to God...But some of these persons make an act of love which implicitly is equivalent to baptism of desire. It is uniquely by this means that they are able to be saved.”
2.Page 217: “One cannot say, then, that no one is saved in these religions…”
Pages 217-218: “This is then what Pius IX said and what he condemned. It is necessary to understand the formulation that was so often employed by the Fathers of the Church: ‘Outside the Church there is no salvation.’ When we say that, it is incorrectly believed that we think that all the Protestants, all the Moslems, all the Buddhists, all those who do not publicly belong to the Catholic Church go to hell. Now, I repeat, it is possible for someone to be saved in these religions, but they are saved by the Church, and so the formulation is true: Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus. This must be preached.”
Bishop Bernard Fellay, Conference in Denver, Co., Feb. 18, 2006: “We know that there are two other baptisms, that of desire and that of blood. These produce an invisible but real link with Christ but do not produce all of the effects which are received in the baptism of water… And the Church has always taught that you have people who will be in heaven, who are in the state of grace, who have been saved without knowing the Catholic Church. We know this. And yet, how is it possible if you cannot be saved outside the Church? It is absolutely true that they will be saved through the Catholic Church because they will be united to Christ, to the Mystical Body of Christ, which is the Catholic Church. It will, however, remain invisible, because this visible link is impossible for them. Consider a Hindu in Tibet who has no knowledge of the Catholic Church. He lives according to his conscience and to the laws which God has put into his heart. He can be in the state of grace, and if he dies in this state of grace, he will go to heaven.” (The Angelus, “A Talk Heard Round the World,” April, 2006, p. 5.)
-
Pope Leo XIII, Depuis le jour (#’s 22-23), Sept. 8, 1899: “Is it necessary to add that the book par excellence in which students may with most profit study scholastic theology is the Summa Theologiae of St. Thomas Aquinas? It is our wish, therefore, that professors be sure to explain to all their pupils its method, as well as the principal articles relating to Catholic faith."
This was after the IC was made offical dogma.
As a reminder:
St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae Pt. III, Q. 27, A. 2, Reply to Objection 2: “If the soul of the Blessed Virgin had never incurred the stain of original sin, this would be derogatory to the dignity of Christ, by reason of His being the universal Savior of all.”
And
“Shortly before his death, viz., in June, 1914, Pope Pius X issued a docuмent imposing the obligation of using the Summa of St. Thomas as the text-book in all higher schools in Italy and the adjacent islands which enjoyed the privilege of conferring academic degrees in theology.” (Daniel Joseph Kennedy, the Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas, II. Specimen Pages from the Summa, pp. 3-4.)
And yet they knew St Thomas taught against the IC and these statements were made after it was made dogma. Did they not know of the error? Of course not. They were speaking in general terms, just like the quote you made of St Alphonsus. Otherwise it makes individual doctors appear to posses the charism of infallibility, which is of course not true.
-
It was just called to my attention that MHFM has a relatively recent video on this topic:
https://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/catholicchurch/council-of-trent-did-not-teach-baptism-of-desire/ (https://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/catholicchurch/council-of-trent-did-not-teach-baptism-of-desire/)
I recommend their videos. You might want to watch it a couple of times because Br Peter moves rapidly through a lot of material. And actually it is a perfect video for this thread because it is specifically targeted to many of the points that have been brought up in this thread without getting into the issues concerning the necessity of professing the Catholic faith. We all agree here (even PPV and XS) that explicit Catholic faith is necessary (and must be professed according to the Athanasian Creed) for salvation. But the above video goes into detail on why we must believe that Trent did NOT teach BOD and why BOD is not consistent with Church doctrine.
Peter Dimond makes a powerful argument on the reading of the disputed passage from Trent. But this is not the issue for me.
The issue, as often, comes down to authority. Has the Church - in catechisms, through approved teachings of its saints, doctors and theologians, in various non-infallible utterances - committed itself to the position that a desire for baptism without the actual receipt of the sacrament can be sufficient to open heaven to a "saint"?
The dynamics here - though that will be denied - are similar to those at play regarding the Protestant conception of Sola Scriptura and who ultimately has the authority to say what Scripture means. No Prot recognizes ANYONE - no preacher, no pastor, no association or conference of pastors - as having the authority to determinatively resolved a dispute over a passage of Scripture. Each "saint" is subject to his lights and the guiding Spirit. The interpretive guides - pastors, the "Church" - are fallible, and their expressions regarding the infallible (Scripture) can be rejected if the Spirit and your judgment tell you it is fallacious or, worse, anti-Gospel (Galatians 1). Yet the interpretive guides are nonetheless recognized as lawful and even God ordained authorities, albeit thus constrained.
It seems to me that the same dynamic is going on here. The legitimate authority - popes, bishops, priests, Catholic theologians teaching and training those who will become the legitimate authority - can be rejected as interpreter when it speaks about the infallible authority, broadened for the Catholic to include de fide, infallible Magisterial statements as well as Scripture. The "Feeneyite" interpreting the broadened infallible authority is free to reject the otherwise legitimate authority when he reasons (with the Spirit's assistance?) that it is simply in error on a question, such as BOD.
The legitimate authority - the hierarchy of the Church - is only recognized as binding when it exercises that authority in a certain way, and yet, even "then," it may not be so - witness Vatican II and the problem of that ecuмenical council's rejected teachings, teaching ratified by a pope. Thus I think even Xavier's (and the SSPX and similar Trads) proper argument comes back to haunt him too - to the extent he rejects ecuмenically approved papal teachings (if he does, as many Trads do); he is danger of being , and he is in danger of being hoisted by his own petard. His argument points a dagger at what I see as the issue of authority - for you, me, the Feeneyite, and I think himself included.
Mind you, I say all of this while extremely sympathetic to the Feeneyite (e.g, Peter Dimond's in the video) position, and believing it to be, on its merits, quite persuasive. The problem I have with it is that is seems to support the Protestant position in that it bottoms the ultimate authority on the individual "saint," the believer guided by the Spirit, albeit the Catholic "saint" grants the Church a broader role in that he allows that it can create a greater body of things that bind (namely, extra-Scriptural, infallible, Magisterial statements) - of course only as interpreted by the Catholic "saint."
Sorry . . . I know I tend to throws flies in the ointment - I wish actually it were simply that. It appears to me that there are flies in the ointment, and you can't talk about the ointment apart from the flies, which again appear to be a part of it (well, at least I can't).
I think one side (the Protestant) has rejected the legitimate authority of the Church, the lawful Catholic pastors of Christ's Church, while the other side (many of our popes, bishops, theologians, etc., and us too in what we have accorded them) have thought a bit too much regarding the bounds of their legitimate authority while sitting in "Moses's seat" in the New Covenant Israel (cf. Matthew 23:2).
-
It seems to me that the same dynamic is going on here. The legitimate authority - popes, bishops, priests, Catholic theologians teaching and training those who will become the legitimate authority - can be rejected as interpreter when it speaks about the infallible authority, broadened for the Catholic to include de fide, infallible Magisterial statements as well as Scripture.
There has been no infallible statement on the specific question of salvific BOD (a question that has been debated since St Augustine's time in the 300s). (Arguably, but still not de fide) Trent says that a catechumen can be justified if they vow to be baptized. But 1) This is not an infallible statement, but part of the commentary on justification, 2) Trent does not say (either infallibly or in the commentary) that this justification is adequate for salvation, because 3) Trent infallibly says later that "true and natural water" is necessary for baptism, which is necessary for salvation.
.
Summary:
1. Infallible - The sacrament of Baptism is necessary for salvation.
2. Infallible - True and natural water is necessary for the sacrament of Baptism.
3. Commentary - a catholic-in-training (i.e. catechumen) can possibly be justified if he sincerely vows to receive the sacrament.
4. Not addressed - Trent does not discuss whether a justified, upbaptized person can enter heaven.
5. Theological fact - Justification is not the same as salvation. Justification does not impart the baptismal character.
.
Points #1 and 2 above are infallible and have been thrice repeated by councils and 100s of times repeated by Saints and other holy persons. But points #3-5 are not "authoritative" teachings at all. They are OPINIONS.
.
The main logical flaw of BOD'ers is the assumption that a justified person gets to heaven. The Church has never said this, in any official capacity. No one has to believe this, even if St Augustine flip-flopped on the issue and St Thomas opined that they could be saved but would still have to go to purgatory (because they never received the sacrament) and St Bellarmine said that the idea that a justified but unbaptized person not getting to heaven was doctrinally logical, but "seems harsh".
.
Major - The sacrament of Baptism is necessary for salvation.
Minor - True and natural water is necessary for the sacrament of Baptism.
Conclusion - True and natural water is necessary for salvation.
.
Major - All catholics who die justified/in the state of grace, attain salvation.
Minor - A catholic-in-training catechumen can obtain justification if he sincerely vows to receive baptism.
Conclusion - A justified catechumen is not a catholic, therefore as Fr Feeney rightly said, "I don't know" what happens to one if he dies before receiving the sacrament. The Church has not told us clearly.
-
.
Major - All catholics who die justified/in the state of grace, attain salvation.
Minor - A catholic-in-training catechumen can obtain justification if he sincerely vows to receive baptism.
Conclusion - A justified catechumen is not a catholic, therefore as Fr Feeney rightly said, "I don't know" what happens to one if he dies before receiving the sacrament. The Church has not told us clearly.
See, this is the thing that needs clarification imo.
"...and [if anyone saith] that, without them, or without the desire thereof, men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification;-though all (the sacraments) are not indeed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema".
Per Trent above, men cannot be justified without the sacraments, and per Trent above, men cannot be justified without the desire for the sacraments.
If no sacrament = no justification, then no sacrament = no salvation whether one has the desire for it or not. Or what am I missing here?
How does a catechumen receive justification at all?
-
The main logical flaw of BOD'ers is the assumption that a justified person gets to heaven.
The BODer justifies a person, then kills him before God completes His work, then asks what happens to the person? Total insanity.
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)
-
Per Trent above, men cannot be justified without the sacraments, and per Trent above, men cannot be justified without the desire for the sacraments.
If no sacrament = no justification, then no sacrament = no salvation whether one has the desire for it or not. Or what am I missing here?
How does a catechumen receive justification at all?
I think it's been pointed out before that, looking at Trent in the context of history, Trent was fighting the errors of Protestantism. One of the errors was the belief that you could forcefully baptize an unwilling person, and that the baptism would be valid. Thus, Trent was teaching that 1) you can't be justified without the sacraments, 2) you can't be justified forcefully against your will (i.e. you have desire the sacrament).
.
I don't know if this is a straight rejection of BOD, as its supporters will say 1) they desire justification and 2) their justification happened DUE TO the sacrament.
-
I will come back to Archbishop +Lefebvre and Bishop +Fellay in a minute. Answer my question to you about Cornelius first, Last Trad.
St. Peter in Acts declared both that Our Lord Jesus is the Only Name by which we are saved, and that the Cornelius received BOD.
St. Augustine and St. Thomas both teach that Cornelius was justified by Baptism of Desire. Trent says those who die justified are saved.
I already said I don't consider St. Benedict's Centre's position to be heretical, but an acceptable Catholic position. Dimonds' is heretical.
Here is Fr. Haydock, Acts 10: "Can any man forbid water? &c. or doubt that these, on whom the Holy Ghost hath descended, may be made members of the Christian Church, by baptism, as Christ ordained? (Witham) --- Such may be the grace of God occasionally towards men, and such their great charity and contrition, that they may have remission, justification, and sanctification, before the external sacraments of baptism, confirmation, and penance be received; as we see in this example: where, at Peter's preaching, they all received the Holy Ghost before any sacrament. But here we also learn one necessary lesson, that such, notwithstanding, must needs receive the sacraments appointed by Christ, which whosoever contemneth, can never be justified. (St. Augustine, sup. Levit. q. 84. T. 4.)"
Stubborn, you've cited Fr. Haydock at times. Do you deny this? This is why Trent is careful to add "or the desire thereof" in that passage.
You are not even summarizing Trent correctly. It is not AND but OR. Your own response to my question shows the inference of the Doctors is correct.
I said "without water, or at least some juice" my thirst cannot be quenched, and thus I cannot live. From this, you correctly deduced that juice can substitute for water.
Apply the same here. WATER=BAPTISM. "JUICE"=DESIRE. Hence Pope St. Pius X correctly teaches that the absence of Baptism can be supplied by the Baptism of Desire.
Trent did not say "WITHOUT BAPTISM AND WITHOUT ITS DESIRE" as the Dimonds absurdly and heretically teach, to their own perdition, and those who follow them.
Trent taught, without Baptism or without its Desire, there is no return to original justice. That means (1) without Baptism, there is no justification, OR without at least (2) Baptism of Desire, there is no justification.
Thus the Canon of Trent is correctly in reiterated in Canon Law "Baptism, in fact or at least in desire necessary for salvation unto all". Baptism, or its desire, is necessary for justification, and justification for salvation.
Vatican I condemned your idea that the Church can misunderstand Her own dogmas for 500 years before folks like the Dimonds come along and correct Her. The Church's traditional understanding of Dogma is Infallible.
Trent also teaches elsewhere that the justified are withing the Church and children of God. Quoting the Word of Christ, Trent dogmatically affirmed that those who die justified will certainly be saved, in due time.
See: http://archives.sspx.org/miscellaneous/feeneyism/three_errors_of_feeneyites.htm by Rev. Fr. Francois Laisney.
"When the Council of Trent is read carefully, we see that the Council teaches that:
...it is necessary to believe that the justified have everything necessary for them to be regarded as having completely satisfied the divine law for this life by their works, at least those which they have performed in God. And they may be regarded as having likewise truly merited the eternal life they will certainly attain in due time (if they but die in the state of grace) (see Apoc. 14:13; 606, can. 32), because Christ our Savior says: "He who drinks of the water that I will give him shall never thirst, but it will become in him a fountain of water, springing up into life everlasting" (see Jn. 4:13 ff.)[8] [Session VI, Chap. 16; Dz 809]."
What else? Oh yes.
Ledeg, what you quoted says the Summa can be read with much spiritual profit. What I quoted says that St. Alphonsus' teaching in Moral Theology can be safely repeated by anyone, even those who don't know the reason. Beside, Pope St. Pius X and Pope Leo XIII, in their Catechisms, approved and made their known the doctrine of St. Alphonsus on Baptism of Desire. The Church has spoken on it.
I think that is all. God Bless.
-
I think it's been pointed out before that, looking at Trent in the context of history, Trent was fighting the errors of Protestantism. One of the errors was the belief that you could forcefully baptize an unwilling person, and that the baptism would be valid. Thus, Trent was teaching that 1) you can't be justified without the sacraments, 2) you can't be justified forcefully against your will (i.e. you have desire the sacrament).
.
I don't know if this is a straight rejection of BOD, as its supporters will say 1) they desire justification and 2) their justification happened DUE TO the sacrament.
Yes, "justification (and salvation) through faith alone" is the prot doctrine that Trent - and us non-BODers, are fighting.
A BOD transforms Trent's "no justification without the desire", all the way to "salvation with the desire". Nowhere does Trent teach men obtain justification with a desire, only that without it, there is no justification.
The question remains:
If no sacrament = no justification, then no sacrament = no salvation whether one has the desire for it or not. Or what am I missing here? Where does Trent say the desire for the sacrament grants justification, when they do not even say that about the sacrament.
How does a catechumen receive justification at all?
-
Rereading Fr. Laisney's excellent article, it makes brilliant points, and is worth citing here, especially this part:
"In other words, salvation, which is at the end of the Christian life on earth, only requires perseverance in the state of grace received at justification, which is at the beginning of the Christian life on earth. Baptism is the sacrament of justification, the sacrament of the beginning of the Christian life. If one has received sanctifying grace, which is the reality of the sacrament - res sacramenti - of baptism, he only needs to persevere in that grace to be saved. Perseverance in grace requires obedience to the Commandments of God, including the commandment to receive the sacrament of baptism. Thus there remains for him the obligation to receive baptism of water. But, this is no longer absolutely necessary (by necessity of means), since he has already received by grace the ultimate fruit of that means. It still remains necessary in virtue of our Lord’s precept to be baptized by water. When and if circuмstances independent of our will prevent us from fulfilling such a precept, the principle taught by St. Cyprian, St. Ambrose, St. Augustine, and others is to be applied: "God takes the will as the fact."[9] This means that God accepts the intention to receive the sacrament of baptism as equivalent to the actual reception of the sacrament.
It is false to pretend that Canon 4 of Session VII (TCT 668) of the Council of Trent (quoted above) on the "Sacraments in General" deals with justification as opposed to salvation. Desire is explicitly mentioned in this canon, for when it uses the expression "aut eorum voto," it admits that the grace of justification can be obtained by desire of the sacraments. It is also false to say that Canon 5 on the Sacrament of Baptism from Session VII of the Council of Trent deals with salvation as opposed to justification. Indeed Canon 4 (of Session VII) deals explicitly with the necessity of sacraments "for salvation." In that context, the expression "grace of justification" appears manifestly as being precisely the only essential requisite for salvation, as is taught explicitly in Session VI, Chapter 16. That which is said of the sacraments in general applies to each sacrament in particular, without having to be repeated each time. Simplistic reasoning which disregards the explicit teaching of the Church on baptism of desire only arrives at false conclusions.
That it is not necessary to repeat the clause "re aut voto" is so much the more true since baptism of desire is an exception, a special case, not the normal one. One need not mention exceptions each time one speaks of a law. For instance, there are many definitions of the Church on original sin that do not mention the Immaculate Conception. This does not invalidate the Immaculate Conception! For instance Pope St. Zosimus wrote: "nullus omnino —absolutely nobody" (Dz 109a) was exempt of the guilt of original sin. Such a "definition" must be understood as the Church understands it, that is, in this particular case, not including the Blessed Virgin Mary. In the same way, it is sufficient that baptism of desire be explicitly taught by the Church, by the Council of Trent, in some place, but it is not necessary to expect it on every page of her teaching. Silence on an exception is not a negation of it. This principle is important to remember so as not to be deceived by a frequent technique of the Feeneyites. They accuмulate quotes on the general necessity of baptism as if these quotes were against baptism of desire. The very persons they quote hold explicitly the common teaching on baptism of desire! These quotes affirming the general necessity of baptism do not refer exclusively to baptism by water, nor do they exclude baptism of blood and/or of desire. They are to be understood "in the same sense and in the same words" as the Catholic Church has always understood them, which means to include baptism of blood and/or of desire along with that of water." ...
-
I will come back to Archbishop +Lefebvre and Bishop +Fellay in a minute. Answer my question to you about Cornelius first, Last Trad.
St. Peter in Acts declared both that Our Lord Jesus is the Only Name by which we are saved, and that the Cornelius received BOD.
St. Augustine and St. Thomas both teach that Cornelius was justified by Baptism of Desire. Trent says those who die justified are saved.
I already said I don't consider St. Benedict's Centre's position to be heretical, but an acceptable Catholic position. Dimonds' is heretical.
Here is Fr. Haydock, Acts 10: "Can any man forbid water? &c. or doubt that these, on whom the Holy Ghost hath descended, may be made members of the Christian Church, by baptism, as Christ ordained? (Witham) --- Such may be the grace of God occasionally towards men, and such their great charity and contrition, that they may have remission, justification, and sanctification, before the external sacraments of baptism, confirmation, and penance be received; as we see in this example: where, at Peter's preaching, they all received the Holy Ghost before any sacrament. But here we also learn one necessary lesson, that such, notwithstanding, must needs receive the sacraments appointed by Christ, which whosoever contemneth, can never be justified. (St. Augustine, sup. Levit. q. 84. T. 4.)"
I do not keep up with the opinions on every minute detail about BOD from groups like SBC, the Dimond's, or any other "groups" and persons. People's opinions are not so important to me. What is important is to pinpoint the big picture of what they believe. All I want to know is what you believe. I asked you a simple question and you answered it. Now I gave you examples of what you said that you reject (salvation by implicit faith) and all I need to know is just if you reject them too.
-
Xavier is an example of the "vortex of confusion" that St Augustine warned about. Try to have a conversation strictly on Trent, St Augustine, St Thomas, and St Alphonsus and Xavier proceeds to muddy the waters by then quoting a non-council, non-saint, non-doctor...Fr Laisney. :facepalm:
.
If a person can't stay on topic, it's a sign of a confused mind.
-
Rereading Fr. Laisney's excellent article, it makes brilliant points, and is worth citing here, especially this part:
"In other words, salvation, which is at the end of the Christian life on earth, only requires perseverance in the state of grace received at justification, which is at the beginning of the Christian life on earth. Baptism is the sacrament of justification, the sacrament of the beginning of the Christian life. If one has received sanctifying grace, which is the reality of the sacrament - res sacramenti - of baptism, he only needs to persevere in that grace to be saved. Perseverance in grace requires obedience to the Commandments of God, including the commandment to receive the sacrament of baptism. Thus there remains for him the obligation to receive baptism of water. But, this is no longer absolutely necessary (by necessity of means), since he has already received by grace the ultimate fruit of that means. It still remains necessary in virtue of our Lord’s precept to be baptized by water. When and if circuмstances independent of our will prevent us from fulfilling such a precept, the principle taught by St. Cyprian, St. Ambrose, St. Augustine, and others is to be applied: "God takes the will as the fact."[9] This means that God accepts the intention to receive the sacrament of baptism as equivalent to the actual reception of the sacrament.
It is false to pretend that Canon 4 of Session VII (TCT 668) of the Council of Trent (quoted above) on the "Sacraments in General" deals with justification as opposed to salvation. Desire is explicitly mentioned in this canon, for when it uses the expression "aut eorum voto," it admits that the grace of justification can be obtained by desire of the sacraments. It is also false to say that Canon 5 on the Sacrament of Baptism from Session VII of the Council of Trent deals with salvation as opposed to justification. Indeed Canon 4 (of Session VII) deals explicitly with the necessity of sacraments "for salvation." In that context, the expression "grace of justification" appears manifestly as being precisely the only essential requisite for salvation, as is taught explicitly in Session VI, Chapter 16. That which is said of the sacraments in general applies to each sacrament in particular, without having to be repeated each time. Simplistic reasoning which disregards the explicit teaching of the Church on baptism of desire only arrives at false conclusions.
That it is not necessary to repeat the clause "re aut voto" is so much the more true since baptism of desire is an exception, a special case, not the normal one. One need not mention exceptions each time one speaks of a law. For instance, there are many definitions of the Church on original sin that do not mention the Immaculate Conception. This does not invalidate the Immaculate Conception! For instance Pope St. Zosimus wrote: "nullus omnino —absolutely nobody" (Dz 109a) was exempt of the guilt of original sin. Such a "definition" must be understood as the Church understands it, that is, in this particular case, not including the Blessed Virgin Mary. In the same way, it is sufficient that baptism of desire be explicitly taught by the Church, by the Council of Trent, in some place, but it is not necessary to expect it on every page of her teaching. Silence on an exception is not a negation of it. This principle is important to remember so as not to be deceived by a frequent technique of the Feeneyites. They accuмulate quotes on the general necessity of baptism as if these quotes were against baptism of desire. The very persons they quote hold explicitly the common teaching on baptism of desire! These quotes affirming the general necessity of baptism do not refer exclusively to baptism by water, nor do they exclude baptism of blood and/or of desire. They are to be understood "in the same sense and in the same words" as the Catholic Church has always understood them, which means to include baptism of blood and/or of desire along with that of water." ...
If any more context was needed as to what the Council of Trent was talking about and meant when using “aut eius voto,” the passage, as the council prepared it, reads:
"quae translatio post evangelium promulgatum lavacro regenerationis, aut eius voto efficitur, sicut scriptum est: Nisi quis renatus etc"
That is, "this translation, since the promulgation of the gospel, is effected by the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof...".
See under "Loca Aptata in Decreto De Justificatione Juxta Censuras ex Supracriptis Approbatas a deputatis” (Passages Prepared for the Decree of Justification According to the Judgments from the Aforementioned Esteemed Deputies), p.245-246 of Acta Authentica SS. Oecuмenici Concilii Tridentini, Tomus I: www.google.com/books/edition/Acta_genuina_Ss_oecuмenici_Concilii_Trid/LQ9jAAAAcAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1 (http://www.google.com/books/edition/Acta_genuina_Ss_oecuмenici_Concilii_Trid/LQ9jAAAAcAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1)
-
If any more context was needed as to what the Council of Trent was talking about and meant when using “aut eius voto,” the passage, as the council prepared it, reads:
"quae translatio post evangelium promulgatum lavacro regenerationis, aut eius voto efficitur, sicut scriptum est: Nisi quis renatus etc"
That is, "this translation, since the promulgation of the gospel, is effected by the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof...".
See under "Loca Aptata in Decreto De Justificatione Juxta Censuras ex Supracriptis Approbatas a deputatis” (Passages Prepared for the Decree of Justification According to the Judgments from the Aforementioned Esteemed Deputies), p.245-246 of Acta Authentica SS. Oecuмenici Concilii Tridentini, Tomus I: www.google.com/books/edition/Acta_genuina_Ss_oecuмenici_Concilii_Trid/LQ9jAAAAcAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1 (http://www.google.com/books/edition/Acta_genuina_Ss_oecuмenici_Concilii_Trid/LQ9jAAAAcAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1)
Well that's a fresh one, I've never seen that translation before.
So it's:
"this translation, since the promulgation of the gospel, is effected by the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof...".
Versus
"this translation, since the promulgation of the gospel, cannot be effected without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof...".
-
The first is the passage in the preparatory draft, and the second is the passage in the final draft. The Acta Authentica SS. Oecuмenici Concilii Tridentini in the link above contains the preparatory and final drafts.
Latin
Preparatory: "...quae translatio post evangelium promulgatum lavacro regenerationis, aut eius voto efficitur..."
Final: "...Quae quidem translatio post evangelium promulgatum, sine lavacro regenerationis, aut eius voto fieri non potest...""
English
Preparatory: "...this translation, since the promulgation of the gospel, is effected by the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof..."
Final: "...This translation, since the promulgation of the gospel, cannot be effected without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof..."
-
The first is the passage in the preparatory draft, and the second is the passage in the final draft. The Acta Authentica SS. Oecuмenici Concilii Tridentini in the link above contains the preparatory and final drafts.
Latin
Preparatory: "...quae translatio post evangelium promulgatum lavacro regenerationis, aut eius voto efficitur..."
Final: "...Quae quidem translatio post evangelium promulgatum, sine lavacro regenerationis, aut eius voto fieri non potest...""
English
Preparatory: "...this translation, since the promulgation of the gospel, is effected by the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof..."
Final: "...This translation, since the promulgation of the gospel, cannot be effected without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof..."
While this does help add context to what they may have meant, it's important to remember that preparatory drafts aren't infallible. It could just be that the sentence was reworded but they still meant what they had written in the draft, or perhaps they changed it explicitly to change the meaning, or even that Providence ensured that they rendered it differently.
-
The first is the passage in the preparatory draft, and the second is the passage in the final draft. The Acta Authentica SS. Oecuмenici Concilii Tridentini in the link above contains the preparatory and final drafts.
Latin
Preparatory: "...quae translatio post evangelium promulgatum lavacro regenerationis, aut eius voto efficitur..."
Final: "...Quae quidem translatio post evangelium promulgatum, sine lavacro regenerationis, aut eius voto fieri non potest...""
English
Preparatory: "...this translation, since the promulgation of the gospel, is effected by the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof..."
Final: "...This translation, since the promulgation of the gospel, cannot be effected without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof..."
So the first draft said justification is effected by the sacrament or the desire thereof, whereas the final draft, which is the dogma itself, says justification cannot be effected without the sacrament......or the desire thereof.
This only means justification cannot be obtained without the sacrament, nor can justification be obtained without the desire for the sacrament. I've been trying to tell you that the whole time.
-
Doesn't Trent, Session VI, Chapter IV include infants among those for whom regeneration via baptism is necessary? The prior Session talked about original sin and specifically mentioned infants and their need for being reborn in Christ as well as adults. And indeed within Session VI there is discussion of the condemnation in Adam being passed on to men by merely being born.
How then can the "or the desire of" refer to a necessary disposition for baptism which must be conjoined with the water of the sacrament when some of those of whom it is speaking do not require that desire or disposition, and therefore the linkage of desire to the water is not necessary for them?
-
Xavier answered: Yes, I reject it. I confess the Athanasian Creed, in the sense St. Athanasius, St. Thomas, St. Alphonsus etc did.
Last Tradhican asked: ....People's opinions are not so important to me. What is important is to pinpoint the big picture of what they believe. All I want to know is what you believe. I asked you a simple question above and you answered it above. Then I gave you examples of what you said that you reject (salvation by implicit faith) and all I need to know is just if you reject them too. But I never received a response:
Do you reject these examples of salvation by implicit faith, the teaching that non-Catholics can be saved by their belief in a god that rewards?:
From the book Against the Heresies, by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre:
1. Page 216: “Evidently, certain distinctions must be made. Souls can be saved in a religion other than the Catholic religion (Protestantism, Islam, Buddhism, etc.), but not by this religion. There may be souls who, not knowing Our Lord, have by the grace of the good Lord, good interior dispositions, who submit to God...But some of these persons make an act of love which implicitly is equivalent to baptism of desire. It is uniquely by this means that they are able to be saved.”
2.Page 217: “One cannot say, then, that no one is saved in these religions…”
Pages 217-218: “This is then what Pius IX said and what he condemned. It is necessary to understand the formulation that was so often employed by the Fathers of the Church: ‘Outside the Church there is no salvation.’ When we say that, it is incorrectly believed that we think that all the Protestants, all the Moslems, all the Buddhists, all those who do not publicly belong to the Catholic Church go to hell. Now, I repeat, it is possible for someone to be saved in these religions, but they are saved by the Church, and so the formulation is true: Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus. This must be preached.”
Bishop Bernard Fellay, Conference in Denver, Co., Feb. 18, 2006: “We know that there are two other baptisms, that of desire and that of blood. These produce an invisible but real link with Christ but do not produce all of the effects which are received in the baptism of water… And the Church has always taught that you have people who will be in heaven, who are in the state of grace, who have been saved without knowing the Catholic Church. We know this. And yet, how is it possible if you cannot be saved outside the Church? It is absolutely true that they will be saved through the Catholic Church because they will be united to Christ, to the Mystical Body of Christ, which is the Catholic Church. It will, however, remain invisible, because this visible link is impossible for them. Consider a Hindu in Tibet who has no knowledge of the Catholic Church. He lives according to his conscience and to the laws which God has put into his heart. He can be in the state of grace, and if he dies in this state of grace, he will go to heaven.” (The Angelus, “A Talk Heard Round the World,” April, 2006, p. 5.)
?
-
The first is the passage in the preparatory draft, and the second is the passage in the final draft. The Acta Authentica SS. Oecuмenici Concilii Tridentini in the link above contains the preparatory and final drafts.
Latin
Preparatory: "...quae translatio post evangelium promulgatum lavacro regenerationis, aut eius voto efficitur..."
Final: "...Quae quidem translatio post evangelium promulgatum, sine lavacro regenerationis, aut eius voto fieri non potest...""
English
Preparatory: "...this translation, since the promulgation of the gospel, is effected by the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof..."
Final: "...This translation, since the promulgation of the gospel, cannot be effected without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof..."
This change in indicative of a specific theological point being made. For some reason the original formulation was considered unsatisfactory. Here, the change turns an expression which indicates sufficient cause into one that indicates necessary (but not sufficient) cause. In a different text, the original stated that perfect contrition alone sufficed to restore a soul to justification, but the Pope directly intervened and ordered that it be added that the will/intention to go to Confession must also be there. This demonstrates that the "cannot ... without" phraseology was very deliberately and meant to communicate something specific.
-
Last Tradhican, you did not answer my question either: you said you denied Baptism of Desire, even of the catechumen, the idea of the Dimonds. I showed you five sources, (1) St. Luke, (2) St. Peter, (3) St. Augustine, (4) St. Thomas (5) Fr. Haydock that said plainly that Cornelius received the Holy Spirit, Baptism of Desire, before his Water Baptism. How do you explain this? I can also show St. Alphonsus, and St. Robert, beside other Theologians, who teach the same. The plain sense of Scripture itself indicates it, and it is very clear.
I post only Fr. Haydock again below: "Such may be the grace of God occasionally towards men, and such their great charity and contrition, that they may have remission, justification, and sanctification, before the external sacraments of baptism, confirmation, and penance be received; as we see in this example: where, at Peter's preaching, they all received the Holy Ghost before any sacrament" https://www.ecatholic2000.com/haydock/ntcomment105.shtml
Do you deny Acts 10:47? Or do you interpret it contrary to the authorized official interpretation of the Catholic Church?
To your question, what I agree with is the below declaration by Bp. Athanasius and Cardinal Burke, which the SSPX has endorsed, and which I've promoted many times, including on CI: "“After the institution of the New and Everlasting Covenant in Jesus Christ, no one may be saved by obedience to the law of Moses alone without faith in Christ as true God and the only Savior of humankind” (Rom 3:28; Gal 2:16)." https://fsspx.news/en/news-events/news/two-cardinals-and-three-bishops-remember-catholic-doctrine-48875
Dimond-disciples and Fr. Feeney followers have confused the issue by focusing on Baptism of Desire, which all the manuals teach. Those same manuals, including St. Alphonsus' Moral Theology, teach that the REAL QUESTION is "EXPLICIT vs IMPLICIT FAITH". I am with St. Alphonsus, Fr. Mueller, Msgr. Fenton etc in believing explicit faith is a necessary means for salvation in the NT. Even Fr. Laisney in the article I cited earlier said, "We can concede that if a point of doctrine is not yet defined, one may be excused in case of ignorance or may be allowed to discuss some precision within the doctrine. In the case of baptism of desire, for instance, we are allowed to discuss how explicit the Catholic Faith must be in one for baptism of desire. But one is not allowed to simply deny baptism of desire and reject the doctrine itself. Rigorism always tends to destroy the truth."
Since all Catholics can safely follow St. Alphonsus, per the Popes, they can hold what he taught both on BOD and on Explicit Faith.
No, Pax Vobis, it's not me who is in the vortex of confusion. You reject the clear declaration of Trent, as explained by a Priest who is competent in Latin and quotes the Council to prove his point. Why do you appeal to Doctors, when you're going to reject them anyway?
Here is St. Alphonsus, a Doctor like you asked: "Now it is "de fide" that men are also saved by Baptism of desire, by virtue of the Canon Apostolicam, "de presbytero non baptizato" and of the Council of Trent, session 6, Chapter 4 where it is said that no one can be saved 'without the laver of regeneration or the desire for it.'" Other readers will notice how the Doctor practically equates justification and salvation, knowing well, as Fr. Laisney said, and as Trent had taught, that nothing more is required for salvation after justification than perseverance. St. Benedict's Centre concedes someone who now dies in grace will certainly be saved and the opposite is heretical. Do you agree with St. Alphonsus?
Yes, it is interesting to see that, Joe Cupertino. Thanks for posting. I would say the first indicates Baptism or its Desire Justifies, whereas the second indicates that Baptism, or its desire, since the promulgation of the Gospel, is the only means of Justification. A subtle difference, but an important one nonetheless. Still, even the original draft would have been prepared by competent and orthodox Catholic Bishops among the Tridentine Fathers.
Now, let's look at where we are. Trent says: "Without Baptism, or Without its Desire", there is no Justification. It can also be stated as
Trent: "Baptism, OR ITS DESIRE, is necessary for justification/salvation" [since justification is necessary for salvation].
Thus, Canon Law summarizes the Tridentine dogma in this way:
Canon Law: "Baptism, in fact or at least in desire necessary unto all for salvation".
Dimond: "Baptism, BUT NOT ITS DESIRE, is necessary for both justification and salvation"
SBC: "Baptism, OR ITS DESIRE, is necessary for justification. Baptism is necessary for salvation".
St. Robert: "The Council of Trent declared Baptism is necessary in fact or in desire".
St. Alphonsus: "It is de fide that souls are saved by Baptism of Desire ... in virtue of the Council of Trent ... where it is said no one can be saved "without the laver of regeneration or the desire for it"
Pope St. Pius X: "Baptism is absolutely necessary to salvation ... the absence of Baptism can be supplied by ... Baptism of Desire."
Pope St. Pius V also implied Baptism of Desire, in two dogmatic infallible condemnations. If you reject them, you may as well hold to Calvinism or Jansenism, like the Jansenist Michael Baius whom Pope St. Pius V infallibly condemned.
Catholic Encyclopedia: "The same doctrine (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05075b.htm) is taught by Pope Innocent III (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08013a.htm) (cap. Debitum, iv, De Bapt.), and the contrary propositions are condemned by Popes (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm) Pius V (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12130a.htm) and Gregory XII (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07001a.htm), in proscribing the 31st and 33rd propositions of Baius (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02209c.htm)."
Pope St. Pius V condemned: "Charity can be in both Catechumens and Penitents without the Remission of sins"
Therefore, the dogmatic Truth: "Charity in both Catechumens and Penitents obtains the Remission of sins"
Pope St. Pius V condemned: "That Charity which is the fullness of the law is not always connected with the Remission of sins"
Therefore, the dogmatic Truth: "That Charity which is the fullness of the law IS always connected with the Remission of sins."
Charity or Contrition, in which the desire for the Sacrament is implicit, obtains the remission of sins both before and after Baptism.
-
Peter Dimond makes a powerful argument on the reading of the disputed passage from Trent. But this is not the issue for me.
The issue, as often, comes down to authority. Has the Church - in catechisms, through approved teachings of its saints, doctors and theologians, in various non-infallible utterances - committed itself to the position that a desire for baptism without the actual receipt of the sacrament can be sufficient to open heaven to a "saint"?
....
The legitimate authority - the hierarchy of the Church - is only recognized as binding when it exercises that authority in a certain way, and yet, even "then," it may not be so - witness Vatican II and the problem of that ecuмenical council's rejected teachings, teaching ratified by a pope. Thus I think even Xavier's (and the SSPX and similar Trads) proper argument comes back to haunt him too - to the extent he rejects ecuмenically approved papal teachings (if he does, as many Trads do); he is danger of being , and he is in danger of being hoisted by his own petard. His argument points a dagger at what I see as the issue of authority - for you, me, the Feeneyite, and I think himself included.
Mind you, I say all of this while extremely sympathetic to the Feeneyite (e.g, Peter Dimond's in the video) position, and believing it to be, on its merits, quite persuasive. The problem I have with it is that is seems to support the Protestant position in that it bottoms the ultimate authority on the individual "saint," the believer guided by the Spirit, albeit the Catholic "saint" grants the Church a broader role in that he allows that it can create a greater body of things that bind (namely, extra-Scriptural, infallible, Magisterial statements) - of course only as interpreted by the Catholic "saint."
Br Peter Dimond isn't rejecting Church authority. If you follow MHFM's material you will see that they organize their position according to a hierarchy of Church authority. So that the highest authority is Sacred Scripture, Tradition and ex cathedra pronouncements from the popes as well as universal ordinary magisterium doctrines (dogmas) which are approved by the popes with the bishops by their constant teaching. But MHFM does not reject the teaching of fathers, doctors and theologians when those doctrines are consistent with the highest authority. I would say that their approach is the same approach that Catholic theologians have always used with the exception that after Vatican I, the authority of the popes teaching ex cathedra is much more clear and compelling. We could never use St Augustine or St Thomas to contradict a dogma promulgated by a pope regardless of how much we esteem the teaching of those doctors. Also, we can't use St Augustine or St Thomas as a lens through which to interpret the dogmas of the popes. We are bound by the literal meaning of the dogma, not by interpretations of it. Sometimes the terms of the pronouncement need to be explained to the unlearned but once the terms are known, the dogma itself should be clear. That's the whole point of defining dogmas in the first place. Sacred Scripture was authored by God Himself, and He spoke often in parables that need to be explained. He gave us the pope to explain how we should understand Sacred Scripture (His Word). Dogma is the pope's explanation. We don't need to interpret it. We can't interpret it. We are bound by the literal meaning.
Also, accepting the Conciliar hierarchy as the legitimate hierarchy of the Catholic Church is a total fail. You will never understand the doctrines of the Church as long as you accept the leaders of a heretical, schismatic sect as the true hierarchy of the Catholic Church.
-
I already said I don't consider St. Benedict's Centre's position to be heretical, but an acceptable Catholic position. Dimonds' is heretical.
In charity, you have to identify the dogma (as well as where that dogma was defined) which you believe has been denied. There is not even a consensus on the theological note to be given BOD so I think you are falsely overstating your case. St Alphonsus was never the pope and was never infallible. His statement that BOD is de fide is wrong. Ott admits that BOD is NOT de fide. At best, Trent referred to BOD in Session 6, Ch 4. But Trent never defined BOD. So therefore, there has never been a formal definition of BOD and that means BOD is certainly not de fide. But in fact, there is good reason to believe that Trent was not even referring to BOD in S 6, C 4. See the MHFM video referenced above.
-
Trent did not say "WITHOUT BAPTISM AND WITHOUT ITS DESIRE" as the Dimonds absurdly and heretically teach, to their own perdition, and those who follow them.
That's a mischaracterization of the MHFM position. The Latin text is, "sine lavacro regenerationis aut eius voto". This is correctly translated as "without the laver of regeneration or a desire for it". The Latin preposition sine takes the ablative case and both lavacro and voto are in the ablative case. Logically sine acts as a negation of the clause. In mathematical logic (which reflects the same principles as philosophical logic), it would be NOT (laver OR desire). But the logical NOT has the commutative property and the statement can be rewritten as NOT laver AND NOT desire. When you commute the NOT, the logical OR must be converted to logical AND in order to preserve the meaning of the statement. For a thorough treatment of the entire S.6,C.4 case, see https://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/catholic_church_salvation_faith_and_baptism.php#Sess6chap4 (https://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/catholic_church_salvation_faith_and_baptism.php#Sess6chap4)
Vatican I condemned your idea that the Church can misunderstand Her own dogmas for 500 years before folks like the Dimonds come along and correct Her. The Church's traditional understanding of Dogma is Infallible.
The Church has not misunderstood the dogma at any time. Theologians have been in error concerning BOD, but theologians are not the Church. Where Peter is, there is the Church. And Peter (the popes), have never defined nor taught BOD in a binding manner. On the other hand, the popes HAVE bound us to believe that there is no salvation outside the Church, that the Sacraments are absolutely necessary for salvation, that the Sacrament of Baptism in particular is absolutely necessary as a necessity of means for salvation, that justification is not possible without the Sacrament of Baptism after the creation of the Church, that explicit faith in the Holy Trinity, the incarnation and the necessity of incorporation into the Church is absolutely necessary for salvation. All these things have been effectively denied by some theologians at one time or another. The theologians must give way to the popes.
-
Rereading Fr. Laisney's excellent article, it makes brilliant points...
Fr Laisney's book was completely refuted by Br Robert Mary of the NH MICM group. See https://loretopubs.org/father-feeney-and-the-truth-about-salvation.html (https://loretopubs.org/father-feeney-and-the-truth-about-salvation.html)
Fr Laisney was also refuted by MHFM in Br Peter Dimond's book. See https://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/catholicchurch/outside-the-church-there-is-no-salvation/ (https://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/catholicchurch/outside-the-church-there-is-no-salvation/?utm_source=WPc&utm_medium=panel-btn&utm_campaign=Theme2020)
-
In charity, you have to identify the dogma (as well as where that dogma was defined) which you believe has been denied. There is not even a consensus on the theological note to be given BOD so I think you are falsely overstating your case. St Alphonsus was never the pope and was never infallible. His statement that BOD is de fide is wrong. Ott admits that BOD is NOT de fide. At best, Trent referred to BOD in Session 6, Ch 4. But Trent never defined BOD. So therefore, there has never been a formal definition of BOD and that means BOD is certainly not de fide. But in fact, there is good reason to believe that Trent was not even referring to BOD in S 6, C 4. See the MHFM video referenced above.
Hi Clemens Maria. Can you give the citation from Dr. Ott?
Ok, let me ask you: if someone denied Perfect Contrition, the Voto of the Sacrament of Penance, obtained the Grace of Justification when it had been lost, how would you classify that error? Some would classify it as heretical, others as proximate to heresy. I usually say BOD is "Catholic Doctrine", following the CE, but it cannot be denied St. Alphonsus considered its denial heretical, or that the Popes said Catholics can safely follow St. Alphonsus. St. Alphonsus is not infallible, but his teaching on BOD is authorized by Popes.
Here is Trent on Perfect Contrition with reference to the Sacrament of Penance: "The Synod teaches moreover, that, although it sometimes happen that this contrition is perfect through charity, and reconciles man with God before this sacrament be actually received, the said reconciliation, nevertheless, is not to be ascribed to that contrition, independently of the desire of the sacrament which is included therein." http://www.thecounciloftrent.com/ch14.htm
The Council of Trent is here explaining what it means by the Voto of the Sacraments. Not a natural desire but a supernatural desire perfected by charity, i.e. love of God or contrition, in which the Desire for the Sacraments is at least implicit. Thus, St. Alphonsus defined BOD as "Baptism of Desire is love of God or contrition along with explicit or implicit desire for true Baptism of Water". The same definition is found in the Baltimore Catechism and that of Pope St. Pius X.
You said, where Peter is, there is the Church. Well, Peter has spoken. Hasn't he?
Trent also implies the Desire of Two Sacraments can obtain Justification in the way it just described. In such a way that the reconciliation is not to be ascribed to that contrition, independently of the desire for the Sacrament therein. It said "without them, or without the desire thereof" (aut eorum voto), men cannot obtain Grace of Justification.
I don't know/am not sure, if the Catechism of St. Pius X makes BOD de fide. I would say it at least makes BOD Catholic Doctrine, if it wasn't already so, and thus an objective mortal sin to deny. The condemnation of St. Pius V also needs to be taken into account. The Catholic Encyclopedia, and many other Theologians, pointed out it dogmatically taught BOD. Did no one notice, for 400 years, that all these many approved and Imprimatured Catholic sources were in complete error?
I'll post what the Council of Trent taught about Spiritual Communion later. There too, if I recall, it explained the voto was the outcome of "faith that works by charity", which is the same as Contrition/Supernatural Desire.
Pope Bl. Pius IX said this in Tuas Libenter about what Theologians hold: "While, in truth, We laud these men with due praise because they professed the truth which necessarily arises from their obligation to the Catholic faith, We wish to persuade Ourselves that they did not wish to confine the obligation, by which Catholic teachers and writers are absolutely bound, only to those decrees which are set forth by the infallible judgment of the Church as dogmas of faith to be believed by all [see n. 1722]. And We persuade Ourselves, also, that they did not wish to declare that that perfect adhesion to revealed truths, which they recognized as absolutely necessary to attain true progress in the sciences and to refute errors, could be obtained if faith and obedience were given only to the dogmas expressly defined by the Church.
For, even if it were a matter concerning that subjection which is to be manifested by an act of divine faith, nevertheless, it would not have to be limited to those matters which have been defined by express decrees of the ecuмenical Councils, or of the Roman Pontiffs and of this See, but would have to be extended also to those matters which are handed down as divinely revealed by the ordinary teaching power of the whole Church spread throughout the world, and therefore, by universal and common consent are held by Catholic theologians to belong to faith." http://www.clerus.org/bibliaclerusonline/en/dxm.htm
Baltimore Catechism says the Church has the conviction that Baptism of Desire or of Blood will save us, because Holy Scripture teaches Perfect Contrition can secure the remission of sins; and Our Lord promised salvation to those who lay down their life for Him or His Teaching. These Catechisms were universally taught. Do they not come under the OUM? Do they not propose what they teach as divinely revealed (the teaching of Holy Scripture)? Do not all Catholic Theologians, after Trent, hold that BOD belongs to the Faith, and is at least a mortal sin to deny, objectively speaking? Can you show me any who don't? I may change my opinion if you can.
God Bless. Edit: to give another example that just occurred to me, St. Athanasius is not infallible. But the Athanasian Creed is certainly dogmatic, since Popes have approved St. Athanasius' teaching on the subject, as the true summary of Nicaea-Constantinople etc. It is similar for St. Alphonsus' on Trent teaching BOD.
And I already answered Last Tradhican's question umpteen number of times. I can't help him if he doesn't want to read. I believe and teach what St. Alphonsus believed and taught, no one is saved without explicit faith in Jesus Christ.
-
Previously on at least two occasions, I made it clear to the Xaviersem my simple objective,
Quote
Last Tradhican asked: ....People's opinions are not so important to me. What is important is to pinpoint the big picture of what they believe. All I want to know is what you believe.
In order to pinpoint what he believes I gave him clear examples of the theory of implicit faith and asked him if he rejects them. That's simple enough to answer, but thus far he refuses a direct answer.
To those that think his recent response above (quoted below) indicates that he rejects the theories spelled out in the examples, I beg to differ. For the theory of salvation by implicit faith spelled out complete, teaches that by faith in a god that rewards, the believer implicitly believes in Jesus Christ and the Holy Trinity. Therefore, the quote he posted below can be teaching salvation by implicit faith. I will correct it to show how the modernists sophists twist language in their minds to work their way around dogmas and teach their errors, while appearing to be totally orthodox. Until Xaviersem answers that he rejects the examples of salvation by implicit faith that I posted, we have no clue what he believes.
Quote
Xaviersem wrote: To your question, what I agree with is the below declaration by Bp. Athanasius and Cardinal Burke, which the SSPX has endorsed, and which I've promoted many times, including on CI: "“After the institution of the New and Everlasting Covenant in Jesus Christ, no one may be saved by obedience to the law of Moses alone without at least Implicit faith in Christ as true God and the only Savior of humankind” (Rom 3:28; Gal 2:16)."
-
Doesn't Trent, Session VI, Chapter IV include infants among those for whom regeneration via baptism is necessary? The prior Session talked about original sin and specifically mentioned infants and their need for being reborn in Christ as well as adults. And indeed within Session VI there is discussion of the condemnation in Adam being passed on to men by merely being born.
How then can the "or the desire of" refer to a necessary disposition for baptism which must be conjoined with the water of the sacrament when some of those of whom it is speaking do not require that desire or disposition, and therefore the linkage of desire to the water is not necessary for them?
The MHFM video https://endtimes.video/council-of-trent-no-baptism-of-desire/ (https://endtimes.video/council-of-trent-no-baptism-of-desire/) specifically addresses this matter by focusing on what impius means in Latin. You can skip to the 4:54 mark to see the discussion of the meaning of impious/impius. But it is a good idea to watch the entire video. It is only 1/2 hour long.
To summarize, impius is defined as "denotes an impious or wicked person, someone guilty of actual sin, a person above the age of reason". Impious can not be used in regard to infants who lack the use of reason. St Robert Bellarmine made this distinction as well. He refers to the infants as "puerorum" and to adults as "impiorum". The use of the word impious cannot include those who lack the use of reason by definition.
-
I found the citation in Dr. Ott, who classifies it as proximate to faith, and therefore its denial as proximate to heresy. Still a mortal sin.
From an Old CI post by RomanTheo: Another brilliant explanation by Dr. Ludwig Ott, with ample proofs from Scripture and Tradition.
AND FOR MR. LAST TRADHICAN - NO ONE, I REPEAT NO ONE, is saved without EXPLICIT FAITH in JESUS CHRIST in the NT. Period.
"Baptism has two effects: 1) it washes away original sin (and infuses faith, hope and charity into the soul), and 2) it imprints upon the soul an indelible character. The character is necessary to receive the other sacraments - which means the character (not sanctifying grace) is "strictly necessary as the gateway to the other sacraments".
Nothing in the citation you quote from Ott implicitly refutes the Church's doctrine concerning baptism of desire. Dr. Ott himself explicitly teaches this doctrine on pages 356-358 of the book you quoted. As you will see in the following quotation, Ott, like every other theologian prior to Vatican II, interprets the Council of Trent as teaching baptism of desire.
Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Ludwig Van Ott, p-356-357: "2. Substitutes for Sacramental Baptism: In case of emergency Baptism by water can be replaced by Baptism of desire or Baptism by blood. (Sent. fidei prox.)
"a) Baptism of desire (Baptismus flaminis sive Spiritus Sancti) Baptism of desire is the explicit or implicit desire for sacramental baptism (votum baptismi) associated with perfect contrition (contrition based on charity).
"The Council of Trent teaches that justification from original sin is not possible " without the washing unto regeneration or the desire for the same."
"According to the teaching of Holy Writ, perfect love possesses justifying power. Luke 7, 47: "Many sins are forgiven her because she hath loved much." John 14, 21: " He that loveth me shall be loved of my Father: l and I will love him and will manifest myself to him." Luke 23, 43 • " This, day thou shalt be with me in Paradise."
"The chief witnesses from Tradition are St. Ambrose and St. Augustine. In the funeral oration on the Emperor Valentine II, who died without Baptism, St. Ambrose says: " Should he not acquire the grace for which he longed? Certainly: As he desired it, he has attained it . . . His pious desire has absolved him " (De obitu Valent. 51, 53). St. Augustine declared: "I find that not only suffering for the sake of Christ can replace that which is lacking in Baptism, but also faith and conversion of the heart (fidem conversionemque cordis), if perhaps the shortness of the time does not permit the celebration of the mystery , of Baptism " (De bapt. IV 22, 29). In the period of early Scholasticism St. ! Bernard of Clairvaux (Ep. 77 c. 2 n. 6-9), Hugo of St. Victor (De sacr. 116, 7) and the Summa Sententiarum (V 5) defended the possibility of Baptism of desire against Peter Abelard. Cf. S. th. III 68, 2.
"Baptism of desire works ex opere operantis. It bestows Sanctifying Grace, which remits original sin, all actual sins, and the eternal punishments for sin. Venial sins and temporal punishments for sin are remitted according to the intensity of the subjective disposition. The baptismal character is not imprinted nor is it the gateway to the other sacraments."
He continues by explaining the Church's teaching concerning the baptism of blood:
Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Ludwig Van Ott, p. 357: b) Baptism of blood (baptismus sanguinis) Baptism of blood signifies martyrdom of an unbaptised person, that is, the patient bearing of a violent death or of an assault which of its nature leads to death, by reason of one's confession of the Christian faith, or one's practice of Christian virtue.
"Jesus Himself attests the justifying power of martyrdom. Mt. to, 32: "Every one therefore that shall confess me before men, I will also confess him before my Father who is in Heaven." Mt. 10 39 (16, 25): " He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that shall lose his life for me shall find it." John 11 12, 25: " He that hateth his life in this world keepeth it unto life eternal."
"From the beginning the Fathers regarded martyrdom as a substitute for Baptism. Tertullian calls it "blood Baptism" (lavacrum sanguinis) and ascribes to it the effect of "taking the place of the baptismal bath if it was not received, and restoring that which was lost" (De bapt. I6). According to St. Cyprian, the catechumens who suffer martyrdom receive "
the glorious and most sublime blood-Baptism" (Ep. 73, 22). Cf. Augustine, De civ. Dei XIII 7.
"As, according to the testimony of Tradition and of the Church Liturgy (cf. Feast of the Innocents), young children can also receive blood-Baptism, blood-Baptism operates not merely ex opere operantis as does Baptism of desire, but since it is an objective confession of Faith it operates also quasi ex opere operato. It confers the grace of justification, and when proper dispositions are present, also the remission of all venial sins and temporal punishments. St. Augustine says: " It is an affront to a martyr to pray for him; we should rather recommend ourselves to his prayers "(Sermo 159 I.) Baptism by blood does not confer the baptismal character. Cf. S. th. III 66, 11 and 12."
This is the Church's teaching concerning baptism of desire and blood. It can be found expressed in similar terms in any pre-Vatican II theological manual and in the old catechisms. Those who depart from Tradition by rejecting BOD are no better than Modernists."
-
The modernists sophists twist language in their minds to work their way around dogmas and teach their errors, while appearing to be totally orthodox.Until Xaviersem answers that he rejects the examples of salvation by implicit faith that I posted, we have no clue what he believes. So what is the point of debating about the harmless baptism of desire of the catechumen with someone who believes that non-Catholics can be saved by their implicit belief in Jesus Christ which is implicit in their belief in a god that rewards?
-
AND FOR MR. LAST TRADHICAN - NO ONE, I REPEAT NO ONE, is saved without EXPLICIT FAITH in JESUS CHRIST in the NT. Period.
Why does the writer copy and paste reams of material but yet does not answer yes or no to my simple question: "Do you reject these examples of salvation by implicit faith?"
A simple yes or no will suffice. Yes, I reject them. No, I do not reject them. Which is it?
-
Xavier, of his own volition, posted this:
English
Preparatory: "...this translation, since the promulgation of the gospel, is effected by the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof..."
Final: "...This translation, since the promulgation of the gospel, cannot be effected without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof..."
How is it possible that he still does not get it?
-
All the copy and paste material from Xaviersem has been answered years ago ad-nauseum, it is old material. Been there seen that and answered it more than enough times. Today, I only look at the big picture, what does the person believe? I have spelled out what I believe, and I do not care if someone else wants to believe otherwise, at least after I have explained my position simply. Why do people like XavierSem and Lover of Truth (his predecessor, who wrote 10x what Xaviersem has and was totally refuted in every detail) feel obligated to create hundreds of threads about the ways that non-Catholics can be saved? After many years at this I have concluded that they feel rebuked in their real belief that anyone can be saved by God in the last seconds when He appears to them. I have never seen a strict Thomist post about his harmless belief that a catechumen can be saved by BOD. It is always the false BODers, fake Thomists, that start and proliferate these never ending threads.
-
Last Tradhican doesn't get it. God has seen fit to save souls this way, so it obviously is important to Him. We should pray and work for souls to be converted and saved, and know that God may do that, even in the last moments, in ways unknown to us. St. Augustine, whom Last Trad loves to quote, himself taught "Baptism is administered invisibly to one whom not contempt of religion but death excludes". Both sides claim this for themselves, but it is clear God can work in ways invisible to us. We cannot presume on it, but we can and even must pray and hope for it, as St. John Vianney, St. Padre Pio etc said we should as mentioned on the other thread. These were great and heroic Saints who spent their whole lifetime in prayer and sacrifice for souls, and I will take their word over yours any day of the week and twice on Sundays. Baptism of Desire can save souls, and all who were saved embraced the Faith before their death.
I am not going to repeat myself a 101st time for someone who doesn't want to hear. I believe exactly what St. Alphonsus believed.
-
Hi Clemens Maria. Can you give the citation from Dr. Ott?
Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Dr Ludwig Ott, Section 2, I, 4, p. 356:
1. Necessity of [the Sacrament of] Baptism for Salvation
Baptism by water (Baptismus fluminis) is, since the promulgation of the Gospel, necessary for all men without exception, for salvation. (De fide.)
2. Substitutes for Sacramental Baptism
In case of emergency Baptism by water can be replaced by Baptism of desire or Baptism of blood. (Sent. fidei prox.)
He also admits that in the explanation of #1 above that it is a necessity of means. But in #2 he goes on to directly deny what he has just stated in #1. But at least he is on record as saying that #1 is De fide whereas #2 is not!
Here is Trent on Perfect Contrition with reference to the Sacrament of Penance: "The Synod teaches moreover, that, although it sometimes happen that this contrition is perfect through charity, and reconciles man with God before this sacrament be actually received, the said reconciliation, nevertheless, is not to be ascribed to that contrition, independently of the desire of the sacrament which is included therein." http://www.thecounciloftrent.com/ch14.htm
The Council of Trent is here explaining what it means by the Voto of the Sacraments. Not a natural desire but a supernatural desire perfected by charity, i.e. love of God or contrition, in which the Desire for the Sacraments is at least implicit. Thus, St. Alphonsus defined BOD as "Baptism of Desire is love of God or contrition along with explicit or implicit desire for true Baptism of Water". The same definition is found in the Baltimore Catechism and that of Pope St. Pius X.
No, S. 14, C. 4 is specifically about the Sacrament of Penance. The sacraments in general are discussed in S. 7, C. 4. Let the pope do the generalizations. We just need to accept what he has taught.
One of the many weaknesses of the BOD argument is that by definition it is not a sacrament and it does not confer the sacramental character nor remit the temporal punishment due to sins. Fr Laisney seems to think that the baptismal character is of little or no importance. But in actuality it signifies our incorporation into the Mystical Body of Christ, the Catholic Church. There is no other means by which men can become members of the Church. And that a man could somehow be in the Church without being a member of the Church has been refuted by the popes. The Church is a visible institution and any idea that someone who hasn't visibly received the Sacrament of Faith (Baptism) can be an invisible member of the Church is completely off-base and false. The Anonymous Christian theory is condemned. The invisible Church is condemned.
Another serious weakness of BOD is that it smells of Pelagianism. When St Augustine wrote against the Pelagians he ended up denying the possibility of BOD (years after he had entertained the possibility of it). But the Sacrament of Baptism cannot be validly conferred on oneself so that really kills Pelagianism at its root. Can we say the same about BOD? Is it really God's grace or is it man using his own natural lights to compel God to save him? If you add invincible ignorance to the mix (which practically everyone who believes in BOD does), you can see that it is actually man who saves himself by his own natural powers.
I don't know/am not sure, if the Catechism of St. Pius X makes BOD de fide. I would say it at least makes BOD Catholic Doctrine, if it wasn't already so, and thus an objective mortal sin to deny. The condemnation of St. Pius V also needs to be taken into account. The Catholic Encyclopedia, and many other Theologians, pointed out it dogmatically taught BOD. Did no one notice, for 400 years, that all these many approved and Imprimatured Catholic sources were in complete error?
No, a catechism cannot define dogma. A catechism presupposes the existence of dogma. It is designed to explain dogmas such that simple laymen can understand them. It is not an exercise of ex cathedra apostolic authority. Even the Roman Catechism has a couple of errors/imprecisions in it (things that have no direct relation with the BOD controversy).
Baltimore Catechism says the Church has the conviction that Baptism of Desire or of Blood will save us, because Holy Scripture teaches Perfect Contrition can secure the remission of sins; and Our Lord promised salvation to those who lay down their life for Him or His Teaching. These Catechisms were universally taught. Do they not come under the OUM? Do they not propose what they teach as divinely revealed (the teaching of Holy Scripture)? Do not all Catholic Theologians, after Trent, hold that BOD belongs to the Faith, and is at least a mortal sin to deny, objectively speaking? Can you show me any who don't? I may change my opinion if you can.
God Bless. Edit: to give another example that just occurred to me, St. Athanasius is not infallible. But the Athanasian Creed is certainly dogmatic, since Popes have approved St. Athanasius' teaching on the subject, as the true summary of Nicaea-Constantinople etc. It is similar for St. Alphonsus' on Trent teaching BOD.
The UOM/OUM isn't as well-defined as the pope's infallibility. But at a minimum it consists in those doctrines which the popes along with the ordinaries have taught consistently from the beginning as having an apostolic origin (i.e. divinely revealed). I can't imagine anything falling into that category which does not have a basis in Sacred Scripture. And I see no scriptural basis for BOD. When I read explanations of BOD in manuals, I see no references to Sacred Scripture. St Augustine, when he taught BOD, provided no reference to Sacred Scripture. Neither did St Thomas when he took up St Augustine's early thought on the topic. There is no number of theologians which when added up can make a dogma. If the doctrine in question has no scriptural basis, no solemn definition and no consistent claim to an apostolic origin, I have to conclude that it is not a Church tradition but a tradition of man.
-
I can't imagine anything falling into that category which does not have a basis in Sacred Scripture. And I see no scriptural basis for BOD. When I read explanations of BOD in manuals, I see no references to Sacred Scripture.
Let me just quickly reply to this part for now. I will get back to the rest later. No Scriptural basis for BOD? Both Dr. Ott and the CE mentioned it. I mentioned it myself from Fr. Haydock's commentary saying Cornelius received the Holy Spirit before Baptism, Acts 10:47, St. Mary Magdalene was justified and had her sin forgiven while weeping at the Feet of Christ, Luk 7:47 Our Lord's Word on those who love Him, how He and His Father will come and dwell in them, Jn 14:21, Our Lord's Word to the Good Thief, Luk 23:43 etc.
Dr. Ott: "According to the teaching of Holy Writ, perfect love possesses justifying power. Luke 7, 47: "Many sins are forgiven her because she hath loved much." John 14, 21: " He that loveth me shall be loved of my Father: l and I will love him and will manifest myself to him." Luke 23, 43 • " This, day thou shalt be with me in Paradise."
CE: "He promised (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12453a.htm) justifying grace (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06701a.htm) for acts of charity or perfect contrition (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04337a.htm) (John 14 (https://www.newadvent.org/bible/joh014.htm)): "He that loveth (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09397a.htm) Me, shall be loved (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09397a.htm) of my Father: and I will love (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09397a.htm) him and will manifest myself to him." And again: "If any one love (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09397a.htm) me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09397a.htm) him, and we will come to him, and will make our abode with him." Since these texts declare that justifying grace (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06701a.htm) is bestowed on account of acts of perfect charity or contrition (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04337a.htm), it is evident that these acts supply the place of baptism as to its principal effect, the remission of sins (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm)." From: https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm
-
Last Tradhican doesn't get it. God has seen fit to save souls this way, so it obviously is important to Him. We should pray and work for souls to be converted and saved, and know that God may do that, even in the last moments, in ways unknown to us. St. Augustine, whom Last Trad loves to quote, himself taught "Baptism is administered invisibly to one whom not contempt of religion but death excludes". Both sides claim this for themselves, but it is clear God can work in ways invisible to us. We cannot presume on it, but we can and even must pray and hope for it, as St. John Vianney, St. Padre Pio etc said we should as mentioned on the other thread. These were great and heroic Saints who spent their whole lifetime in prayer and sacrifice for souls, and I will take their word over yours any day of the week and twice on Sundays. Baptism of Desire can save souls, and all who were saved embraced the Faith before their death.
I am not going to repeat myself a 101st time for someone who doesn't want to hear. I believe exactly what St. Alphonsus believed.
Still he does not answer my simple question. He is a fraud.
-
Let me just quickly reply to this part for now. I will get back to the rest later. No Scriptural basis for BOD? Both Dr. Ott and the CE mentioned it. I mentioned it myself from Fr. Haydock's commentary saying Cornelius received the Holy Spirit before Baptism, Acts 10:47, St. Mary Magdalene was justified and had her sin forgiven while weeping at the Feet of Christ, Luk 7:47 Our Lord's Word on those who love Him, how He and His Father will come and dwell in them, Jn 14:21, Our Lord's Word to the Good Thief, Luk 23:43 etc.
Dr. Ott: "According to the teaching of Holy Writ, perfect love possesses justifying power. Luke 7, 47: "Many sins are forgiven her because she hath loved much." John 14, 21: " He that loveth me shall be loved of my Father: l and I will love him and will manifest myself to him." Luke 23, 43 • " This, day thou shalt be with me in Paradise."
CE: "He promised (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12453a.htm) justifying grace (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06701a.htm) for acts of charity or perfect contrition (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04337a.htm) (John 14 (https://www.newadvent.org/bible/joh014.htm)): "He that loveth (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09397a.htm) Me, shall be loved (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09397a.htm) of my Father: and I will love (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09397a.htm) him and will manifest myself to him." And again: "If any one love (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09397a.htm) me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09397a.htm) him, and we will come to him, and will make our abode with him." Since these texts declare that justifying grace (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06701a.htm) is bestowed on account of acts of perfect charity or contrition (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04337a.htm), it is evident that these acts supply the place of baptism as to its principal effect, the remission of sins (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm)." From: https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm
re: Cornelius - He was baptised. Why is the Sacrament of Baptism necessary for those who have supposedly had their sins remitted? Because BOD by definition does not remit temporal punishment, does not confer the sacramental character, does not incorporate one into the Mystical Body of Christ, the Church. But we know also from the teaching of the popes that justification, since the promulgation of the Gospel (the founding of the Church) cannot be had without the Sacrament of Baptism.
re: St Mary Magdalene, the Good Thief, the Holy Innocents - all prior to the promulgation of the Gospel. Not relevant. There is a tradition of the Church that even Our Lady was baptised. But certainly St Mary Magdalene was baptised as were all the Apostles and disciples who lived before the founding of the Church and continued to live after the founding. But if it is possible to be saved by BOD, wouldn't that extend to all Protestants, schismatics, and traditionalist "heretics" who disagree with your interpretation of dogmas which, by the way, no one is permitted to interpret? I assent to the literal meaning of all the dogmas of the Church. Can you say the same?
-
Quote from: XavierSem on Today at 01:00:50 PM (https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/st-john-vianney-fr-herman-cohen's-mother-was-saved-by-baptism-of-desire!/msg733927/#msg733927)
I confess those who die as infidels are lost. I believe those who die with the Catholic Faith, having received Baptism of Desire or of Perfect Contrition, will be saved.
Translation to the truth:
I XavierSem confess that those who die as infidels are lost, however, no one but God knows who the infidels are and who did not die with the Catholic Faith, not having received Baptism of Desire or Perfect Contrition in the last seconds when God appeared to them. Baptism of desire can save people in all religions who "only appear" to have died as non-Catholics.
-
re: Cornelius - He was baptised. Why is the Sacrament of Baptism necessary for those who have supposedly had their sins remitted? Because BOD by definition does not remit temporal punishment, does not confer the sacramental character, does not incorporate one into the Mystical Body of Christ, the Church. But we know also from the teaching of the popes that justification, since the promulgation of the Gospel (the founding of the Church) cannot be had without the Sacrament of Baptism.
Yes, on this points the Dimonds made a spectacular argument by way of syllogism from Church teaching. Initial justification is defined as a rebirth, and that rebirth is defined as remitting ALL stain of sin including temporal punishment. So an initial justification without the remission of all temporal punishment, i.e. St. Alphonsus' theory, is condemned from Church teaching.
-
re: St Mary Magdalene, the Good Thief, the Holy Innocents - all prior to the promulgation of the Gospel. Not relevant.
You can enlighten them all you want about this point, but they simply ignore it and keep respamming these same irrelevant examples over and over again. It's because they're not honest. They've made up their minds what they want to believe and apply their filters of confirmation bias to the evidence.
-
To summarize, impius is defined as "denotes an impious or wicked person, someone guilty of actual sin, a person above the age of reason". Impious can not be used in regard to infants who lack the use of reason. St Robert Bellarmine made this distinction as well. He refers to the infants as "puerorum" and to adults as "impiorum". The use of the word impious cannot include those who lack the use of reason by definition.
Clemens Maria,
Thank you for the specific reference to the video, which I had only watched some of, and agree that it is a well done.
But as to the argument about the "impious," I find the Dimond argument unconvincing. Session VI, Chapter 4 follows the description in Chapter 3 of men being "born unrighteous" and needing rebirth in Christ for justification, and that this rebirth involves a "translation" from the spiritual darkness incurred from Adam into the Kingdom of Light won by Christ.
Then Chapter 4 says that this "translation" cannot be accomplished without baptism "or the desire thereof." I see the context as manifestly including all men, since the injustice of all men by mere propagation after Adam's sin is the context. Of course, Session V on original sin spent some time talking about infants and their need of cleansing and expiation through remission of sin in Christ by virtue, again, of their merely being born as children of Adam. I think the context clearly includes children as the "impious" of Session VI, Chapter 4.
In Chapter 5, a distinction is introduced "for adults" or "in adults." They are of course a subset of the "impious" that require personal faith and preparation, etc.
If in fact children are "unrighteous" and have contracted "injustice as their own" (Session VI, Chapter III) through Adam it is not a stretch to call them "impious," especially in context.
The reference to Bellarmine is clever but strained and far from convincing (for me). If in fact "impious" cannot be used of "unrighteous" (etc.) children then I would think one could easily find a theological dictionary, commentary on Trent, or some other authority that indicates that - without having to resort to this reaching into a Bellarmine quote that does not prove the case.
By way of example, if I were to say, "the men were killed, but the children were sold into slavery" I am indeed distinguishing between the men and the children by using the word "men" to describe adult males but I am not saying thereby that children are not "men" in another sense (and of the class "men"): children are a distinct subset of men, and adults and children are distinguished subsets of men which, as Session VI goes on to indicate, requires different preparation and action for regeneration in adults (e.g. preparation and faith etc.), but both adults and children are "men" who are born unrighteous and in need of regeneration and translation into the kingdom of God in Christ, i.e. all likewise "impious" in the context of Trent.
-
Let me just quickly reply to this part for now. I will get back to the rest later. No Scriptural basis for BOD? Both Dr. Ott and the CE mentioned it. I mentioned it myself from Fr. Haydock's commentary saying Cornelius received the Holy Spirit before Baptism, Acts 10:47, St. Mary Magdalene was justified and had her sin forgiven while weeping at the Feet of Christ, Luk 7:47 Our Lord's Word on those who love Him, how He and His Father will come and dwell in them, Jn 14:21, Our Lord's Word to the Good Thief, Luk 23:43 etc.
Dr. Ott: "According to the teaching of Holy Writ, perfect love possesses justifying power. Luke 7, 47: "Many sins are forgiven her because she hath loved much." John 14, 21: " He that loveth me shall be loved of my Father: l and I will love him and will manifest myself to him." Luke 23, 43 • " This, day thou shalt be with me in Paradise."
CE: "He promised (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12453a.htm) justifying grace (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06701a.htm) for acts of charity or perfect contrition (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04337a.htm) (John 14 (https://www.newadvent.org/bible/joh014.htm)): "He that loveth (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09397a.htm) Me, shall be loved (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09397a.htm) of my Father: and I will love (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09397a.htm) him and will manifest myself to him." And again: "If any one love (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09397a.htm) me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09397a.htm) him, and we will come to him, and will make our abode with him." Since these texts declare that justifying grace (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06701a.htm) is bestowed on account of acts of perfect charity or contrition (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04337a.htm), it is evident that these acts supply the place of baptism as to its principal effect, the remission of sins (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm)." From: https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm
But Mary Magdalene was Baptized :confused:
-
But as to the argument about the "impious," I find the Dimond argument unconvincing. Session VI, Chapter 4 follows the description in Chapter 3 of men being "born unrighteous" and needing rebirth in Christ for justification, and that this rebirth involves a "translation" from the spiritual darkness incurred from Adam into the Kingdom of Light won by Christ.
Then Chapter 4 says that this "translation" cannot be accomplished without baptism "or the desire thereof." I see the context as manifestly including all men, since the injustice of all men by mere propagation after Adam's sin is the context. Of course, Session V on original sin spent some time talking about infants and their need of cleansing and expiation through remission of sin in Christ by virtue, again, of their merely being born as children of Adam. I think the context clearly includes children as the "impious" of Session VI, Chapter 4.
You didn't provide a summary question, so I am left to suppose...
.
But a few distinctions...infants cannot desire baptism while adults of the age-of-reason can, so this would be the distinction that +Bellarmine sights.
-
re: Cornelius - He was baptised. Why is the Sacrament of Baptism necessary for those who have supposedly had their sins remitted?
St. Thomas says it is necessary both for the complete abolition of all temporal punishment, and St. Robert for full incorporation into the Body of the Church. Both St. Thomas and St. Robert say Cornelius was within the Church, and would have been saved if he had died. But the obligation to receive the Sacrament of Baptism remains, and BOD does not confer the Sacramental Character, otherwise Baptism would not have been conferred on Cornelius, since the character cannot be impressed twice. Cornelius is a post-Resurrection example of justification by BOD. It shows the Church's teaching on BOD is accurate and is found in Scripture itself.
Because BOD by definition does not remit temporal punishment, does not confer the sacramental character, does not incorporate one into the Mystical Body of Christ, the Church. But we know also from the teaching of the popes that justification, since the promulgation of the Gospel (the founding of the Church) cannot be had without the Sacrament of Baptism.
Justification cannot be had, since the promulgation of the Gospel, "without the laver of regeneration, or without the desire thereof".
re: St Mary Magdalene, the Good Thief, the Holy Innocents - all prior to the promulgation of the Gospel. Not relevant.
Why not? Where is the positive proof that BOD, if it justified prior to the promulgation of the Gospel, as you admit, ceased to justify after that? Even John 3 was prior to the promulgation of the Gospel, yet those who deny BOD claim it supports their view. John 14 was years after John 3, yet Our Lord there taught that those who love Him truly will receive the remission of our sins. There is no Scriptural basis for thinking that Love of God and Perfect Contrition ceased to justify after Christ's Resurrection.
Burden of proof is on those who claim BOD ceased to apply after the Resurrection to show it. And I gave one post-Resurrection example.
There is a tradition of the Church that even Our Lady was baptised. But certainly St Mary Magdalene was baptised as were all the Apostles and disciples who lived before the founding of the Church and continued to live after the founding.
I agree Our Lady was baptized, though obviously She was sanctified right from Her Immaculate Conception. Ven. Mary of Agreda speaks of the great devotion with which She used to receive the Holy Eucharist, which She received after being baptized.
The issue is not that St. Mary Magdalene was not baptized. The issue is that she received the remission of sins immediately as a reward for her perfect love of God and contrition, as Christ said. Fr. Haydock and all the Catholic Commentaries teach this.
But if it is possible to be saved by BOD, wouldn't that extend to all Protestants, schismatics, and traditionalist "heretics"
Protestants are already Baptized, so BOD would not apply to them. It is possible to belong to the Soul of the Church if, for e.g. one is unjustly excommunicated. St. Robert says this, and says such a person belongs to the Soul of the Church inwardly, but not the Body.
who disagree with your interpretation of dogmas which, by the way, no one is permitted to interpret? I assent to the literal meaning of all the dogmas of the Church. Can you say the same?
If Trent had meant to say "Unlike Confession and the Eucharist, there is no voto for Baptism", it could have easily done so, and I would assent to it. What Trent did say is that we cannot be saved without Baptism or its desire. I assent to what Trent literally taught.
As I mentioned, Pope Bl. Pius IX told us we are bound to what Catholic Theologians hold to belong to the Faith. I do not believe there is a contradiction between what Trent taught and what the Doctors and Theologians teach. Baptism is necessary in re or in voto.
That is the Tridentine dogma, repeated in Canon Law, all Catechisms, all the Doctors and Saints post-Trent, all the Theology Manuals etc.
God Bless.
-
This is what XavierSem believes and to which he mixes a personal picadillo of quotes, a house of cards, none of which by themselves even teach what he believes. My paraphrasing:
I XavierSem confess that those who die as infidels are lost, however, no one but God knows who the infidels are and who did not die with the Catholic Faith, not having received Baptism of Desire or Perfect Contrition in the last seconds when God appeared to them. Baptism of desire can save people in all religions who "only appear" to have died as non-Catholics, but whem God reveals Himself to them, they can convert and be saved without baptism.
He expects people to believe his Frankenstein personal false BOD, meanwhile he rejects clear dogmas, saying they do not mean what they say. He rejects the language of clear dogmas and expects people to follow his foreign "language", his personal "dogmas".
Basically XavierSem is a fool with a keyboard.
-
I agree Our Lady was baptized, though obviously She was sanctified right from Her Immaculate Conception. Ven. Mary of Agreda speaks of the great devotion with which She used to receive the Holy Eucharist,
My impression is that most BOD/BOB advocates won’t admit this.
This fact has been purposefully suppressed in Church literature.
I’ll bet is you ran a poll, 90% of Catholics don’t know this.
The “Immaculate Conception” was Baptized.
Then, the“Gateway Sacrament” is exceedingly important.
-
Clemens Maria,
Thank you for the specific reference to the video, which I had only watched some of, and agree that it is a well done.
But as to the argument about the "impious," I find the Dimond argument unconvincing. Session VI, Chapter 4 follows the description in Chapter 3 of men being "born unrighteous" and needing rebirth in Christ for justification, and that this rebirth involves a "translation" from the spiritual darkness incurred from Adam into the Kingdom of Light won by Christ.
Then Chapter 4 says that this "translation" cannot be accomplished without baptism "or the desire thereof." I see the context as manifestly including all men, since the injustice of all men by mere propagation after Adam's sin is the context. Of course, Session V on original sin spent some time talking about infants and their need of cleansing and expiation through remission of sin in Christ by virtue, again, of their merely being born as children of Adam. I think the context clearly includes children as the "impious" of Session VI, Chapter 4.
In Chapter 5, a distinction is introduced "for adults" or "in adults." They are of course a subset of the "impious" that require personal faith and preparation, etc.
If in fact children are "unrighteous" and have contracted "injustice as their own" (Session VI, Chapter III) through Adam it is not a stretch to call them "impious," especially in context.
The reference to Bellarmine is clever but strained and far from convincing (for me). If in fact "impious" cannot be used of "unrighteous" (etc.) children then I would think one could easily find a theological dictionary, commentary on Trent, or some other authority that indicates that - without having to resort to this reaching into a Bellarmine quote that does not prove the case.
By way of example, if I were to say, "the men were killed, but the children were sold into slavery" I am indeed distinguishing between the men and the children by using the word "men" to describe adult males but I am not saying thereby that children are not "men" in another sense (and of the class "men"): children are a distinct subset of men, and adults and children are distinguished subsets of men which, as Session VI goes on to indicate, requires different preparation and action for regeneration in adults (e.g. preparation and faith etc.), but both adults and children are "men" who are born unrighteous and in need of regeneration and translation into the kingdom of God in Christ, i.e. all likewise "impious" in the context of Trent.
I believe the use of the word "impius/impious" signals a change of context. The Pope could have used other words to show he was referring to unjustified men in general. The word impius has a precise theological meaning.
-
re: St Mary Magdalene, the Good Thief, the Holy Innocents - all prior to the promulgation of the Gospel. Not relevant.
Why not? Where is the positive proof that BOD, if it justified prior to the promulgation of the Gospel, as you admit, ceased to justify after that? Even John 3 was prior to the promulgation of the Gospel, yet those who deny BOD claim it supports their view. John 14 was years after John 3, yet Our Lord there taught that those who love Him truly will receive the remission of our sins. There is no Scriptural basis for thinking that Love of God and Perfect Contrition ceased to justify after Christ's Resurrection.
Because Our Lord told us so. "Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." (John 3:5)
This quote from the Gospel of John is used by all theologians and popes as the basis for the dogma that the Sacrament of Baptism is absolutely necessary as a necessity of means for the salvation of each individual man. And even Dr Ott admits that this is De fide. After the promulgation of the Gospel anyone who has not entered into the Ark of Salvation shall not be saved. And the only way to enter the Ark is to be incorporated into the Mystical Body of Christ. And the only way to be incorporated into the Mystical Body of Christ is to receive the Sacrament of Baptism which alone imprints the sacramental character upon the soul.
I understand there is a difference between what Fr Feeney taught and what MHFM is teaching. Fr Feeney believed that one could be justified by BOD but nevertheless it would be necessary to receive the Sacrament of Baptism in order to be saved. He believed everyone who received BOD would subsequently be given the grace to receive the Sacrament as well. MHFM cites the teaching of Pope Leo the Great (Letter to Flavian subsequently solemnly promulgated in the docuмents of Chalcedon in 451 AD), that teaches that justification cannot be separated from the water of baptism. I agree with MHFM's analysis. However, I don't see that Fr Feeney's position is heretical since Pope Leo did not rule out a separation in time. e.g. Our Lady's baptism was after her justification in time (ignoring the fact that the only examples of this are people who were justified under the Old Testament and baptised under the New Testament). But Fr Feeney believed that justification and baptism would not be separated in eternity. It doesn't seem fitting to suppose that it would be necessary or desirable to justify someone if they were already guaranteed to be justified by the Sacrament at some future date (with the exception of those who were justified under the OT).
Burden of proof is on those who claim BOD ceased to apply after the Resurrection to show it. And I gave one post-Resurrection example.
The example you gave is false. See
Cornelius, The Gift Of Languages & The Necessity Of Baptism (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztqdmCIGSDY&feature=emb_title)
If Trent had meant to say "Unlike Confession and the Eucharist, there is no voto for Baptism", it could have easily done so, and I would assent to it. What Trent did say is that we cannot be saved without Baptism or its desire. I assent to what Trent literally taught.
Well, actually, that is precisely what Trent said. Trent made explicit exceptions for the necessity of the sacraments of Penance and Holy Communion. It did not make an explicit exception for Baptism. If there was a specific exception for Baptism it would have been clearly stated. The word voto cannot be interpreted to pack the entire BOD theory into it. At least not without doing violence to the principle of non-contradiction.
As I mentioned, Pope Bl. Pius IX told us we are bound to what Catholic Theologians hold to belong to the Faith. I do not believe there is a contradiction between what Trent taught and what the Doctors and Theologians teach. Baptism is necessary in re or in voto.
There is a contradiction and because of it we must take the ex cathedra pronouncements of the popes as the higher authority.
-
I come to the end of a relatively short journey with XavierSem wherein I purposely refrained from debating the slightest details with him him, just probing to learn the big picture of his endless copy and pasting of haphazardly arranged misquotes, what others call spam. I did this because language, words, have no fixed meaning with people like him, for every word that comes out of their mouth means other than what the world understands it to mean. I speak both English and Spanish fluently, everyone has a native language, German, Italian, Hungarian, Polish..... The language of the Satan is lies. People like XavierSem are incapable of communicating in truth, because their language has no fixed meaning. Their language is like rat poison. Did you know that rat poison is 99% nutritious food? Nevertheless, the 1% will kill you just the same. One can't remove the 1% out of the nutritious food because it is interspersed in every molecule of the nutritious food. It is the same with people like XavierSem, their language is rat poison, their every word is poisoned by not having a fixed meaning, their every word does not mean what one thinks it does. So how do you talk or debate with such a person? You can't. There is no way. This is why it took so long for him to answer my simple question, which he still really has not answered, I had to answer it for him.
Modernism is the synthesis of all heresies, the cesspool of all heresies, it is of the Father of Lies, and double speak is in it's every molecule. The very air of all the heresies of the "spirit" of Vatican, is double speak, words that do not mean what they have always meant, nothing is fixed, everything is floating in the air. The camouflage of those possessed by double speak is false humility, an appeal to peoples sentiments. One will see XavierSem appeal to people's sentiments whenever he is cornered to reveal what he really means. It is the same cloak worn by John Paul II and Benedict X16, both examples of double speak, false humility, and rat poison.