Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => The Feeneyism Ghetto => Topic started by: Raoul76 on December 16, 2009, 03:57:00 PM
-
This carries on a conversation from another thread, where I was asked to start a new thread about the BC.
The heresy of the Baltimore Catechism is as follows:
"Q. 510. Is it ever possible for one to be saved who does not know the Catholic Church to be the true Church?
A. It is possible for one to be saved who does not know the Catholic Church to be the true Church, provided that person:
1. Has been validly baptized;
2. Firmly believes the religion he professes and practices to be the true religion, and
3. Dies without the guilt of mortal sin on his soul.
Someone who FIRMLY BELIEVES IN THE RELIGION HE PROFESSES THAT IS NOT CATHOLIC CAN BE SAVED, according to Cardinal Gibbons and Co. The writers of this catechism even try to make it seem like a virtue for someone to be loyal to their false religion. Then they throw in that he must be free of mortal sin to make it sound conservative, sort of like how some Catholics think NFP is conservative because it's not condoms or the Pill.
This is incoherent, scandalous and heretical. The reality is that no one can be saved in a false religion. Now, if a Protestant at the last movement of his life decides to join the Catholic Church, and then dies, he ( a ) Is no longer a Protestant, and no longer spiritually "in" that religion and ( b ) May be saved by perfect contrition, which wipes out the mortal sin. If he is part of a religion that doesn't baptize, like Buddhism, he would have a chance to be saved through baptism of desire rather than perfect contrition.
Q. 511. Why do we say it is only possible for a person to be saved who does not know the Catholic Church to be the true Church?
A. We say it is only possible for a person to be saved who does not know the Catholic Church to be the true Church, because the necessary conditions are not often found, especially that of dying in a state of grace without making use of the Sacrament of Penance.
The necessary conditions are not "often" found? Try NEVER found. Again, it sounds conservative but they slip in the poison.
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."
This could be refuted by a reductio ad absurdum. By this logic, everyone is a member of the Catholic Church without knowing it. The whole world is unconsciously Catholic. As we see in Vatican II, that is what they essentially teach.
The Baltimore Catechism being an AMERICANIST heretical catechism, was sort of the forerunner of Vatican II, the AMERICANIST new Church. America with its religious freedom is Mystery Babylon, or so I believe, and the VII Church is an Americanist counterfeit of the real Church.
But I believe that the heresy really began being taught from the "Throne of Peter" before VII by Pius XII, who was certainly one of the all-time great Anti-Christs because he seemed so holy -- indeed, I used to idolize him, and admired his policy in World War II. What you see in the Baltimore Catechism found muted and ambiguous expression in his "encyclical" Mystici Corporis Christi, which may have lost him the office. But that's for another thread...
-
Dig deeper - but leave Pius X out of it, unless you catch him publicly teaching heresy.
-
That's right the Baltimore Catechism is heretical on that point you quote. Well at least now they have versions online now. You can edit the bad parts out for your children, LOL.
-
I can see that the world has been set ablaze by my revelation.
CM, what you mean by "deeper" is really a distraction. You may have fallen for that Hegelian junk going on with Father Feeney, but I will not. THIS is the big deal that we have been hypnotized into ignoring. THIS is what everyone should be talking about.
Actually, this very heresy is what Father Feeney and his cohorts began to fight against, before being sidetracked. Here is an article from Time in 1949 showing what I mean --
"The Church's famed Baltimore Catechism* states explicitly that those who remain outside the Roman Catholic Church "through no grave fault of their own and do not know it is the true Church can be saved by making use of the graces which God gives them . . ." Each man, the Catholic Church holds, gets enough grace to achieve salvation. Only God knows how he uses it."
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,856253,00.html#ixzz0aayFcUSp
60 years ago people were complaining about this catechism, but I guess that's all water under the bridge, since the SSPX and all the American sedevacantists I know of teach what it says. The others use the Pius XII Catechism which teaches the same thing, but in a more slick way befitting its namesake.
How much more slowly can we move, people? DEMAND from your clergy that they stop teaching or even believing in this heresy. What kind of molasses-like apathy have I been put on Earth to witness?
We're not talking about baptism of desire or implicit faith here. We're talking about saying you can be saved in another religion. This is taught by Bishop McKenna, who says Jews can be saved without faith in Christ. Yet the sedevacantists are supposed to be our escape? They are the exact same heretics that were being protested against at Boston College in the 40's, for the love of Pete!
I have, or had, an 80-year old friend. We were discussing various matters, not in the intense way that I do here, but friendly-like. When I began saying that there was no way to be saved outside the Catholic Church, he said "Now hold on. What about someone who grows up in a Protestant family, their parents prejudice them against the Catholic religion, they can't be held responsible," and so on, showing that he has been trained Cardinal Gibbons-style, just like almost all Americans.
Luckily I was able to disabuse him of this error.
-
We're not talking about baptism of desire or implicit faith here. We're talking about saying you can be saved in another religion. This is taught by Bishop McKenna, who says Jews can be saved without faith in Christ. Yet the sedevacantists are supposed to be our escape? They are the exact same heretics that were being protested against at Boston College in the 40's, for the love of Pete!
What was being taught at BC in the 40's was that it was not necessary to be incorporated into the Church for salvation. They were denying outright the Dogma of EENS. "Invincible ignorance" was not even on the radar.
-
CM, what you mean by "deeper" is really a distraction.
No it isn't. It's the wide open doorway that made the Baltimore Catechism heresy possible, the heresy that was flying under the radar all this time.
You may have fallen for that Hegelian junk going on with Father Feeney, but I will not.
It has nothing to do with Father Feeney.
Here is what I've "fallen for" Mike:
9. Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, to the glory of God our savior, for the exaltation of the Catholic religion and for the salvation of the Christian people, with the approval of the Sacred Council, 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.
By the way, SJB has argued that the infallibility of the Pontiff was defined but not that of the Church. Hmmm... guess again SJB.
What does it say right up there?
that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals
Yet you say I have been refuted many times? Tell yourself another lie and it still won't be true.
-
By the way, SJB has argued that the infallibility of the Pontiff was defined but not that of the Church. Hmmm... guess again SJB.
What does it say right up there?
That was Cardinal Manning speaking, not me. Read it again, CM.
-
"This spirit began in Germany. It says: 'I believe everything which the Church has defined. I believe all dogmas; everything which has been defined by a General Council.' This sounds a large and generous profession of faith; but they forget that whatsoever was revealed on the Day of Pentecost to the Apostles, and by the Apostles preached to the nations of the world, and has descended in the full stream of universal belief and constant tradition, though it has never been defined, is still matter of Divine faith.
That's right. The basic Christian Creed, as I have been stating all along, is a matter of Divine faith and it was so long before the Council of Nicaea.
Thus there are truths of faith which have never been defined because they have never been contradicted. They are not defined because they have not been denied.
First of all, denied by whom? And this is really nothing more than a matter of opinion on his part, which he is really quite vague about it. Did he ever propose any CONCRETE examples of such doctrines?
The definition of the truth is the fortification of the Church against the assaults of unbelief. Some of the greatest truths of revelation are to this day undefined. The infallibility of the Church has never been defined. The infallibility of the Head of the Church was only defined the other day.
In his OPINION he separates the two, ignoring what the decree actually says.
But the infallibility of the Church, for which every Catholic would lay down his life, has never been defined until now; the infallibility of the Church is at this moment where the infallibility of the Pope was this time last year;
Actually, the Pontiff, in the above definition, refers to "that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals"
So evidently Manning was incorrect to say that the infallibility of the Church is yet undefined. That's not to say that there could not be a future definition which adds to our understand of the matter, so long as it firs with and does not contradict what has already been said.
an undefined point of Christian revelation, believed by the Christian world, but not yet put in the form of a definition. When, therefore, men said they would only believe dogmas, and definitions by General Councils, they implied, without knowing it, that they would not believe in the infallibility of the Church. (From, "Four Great Evils of the Day".)
I know that you believe my position is the part in bold, but this is quite simply not so. I adhere to what the Vatican Council tells us about EXACTLY what doctrines are De Fide in Session 3, Chapter 3, #8:
Wherefore, by divine and Catholic faith all those things are to be believed which are contained in the word of God as found in Scripture and tradition, and which are proposed by the Church as matters to be believed as divinely revealed, whether by her solemn judgment or in her Ordinary and Universal Magisterium[/u].
At the end of the day, the only thing that Manning could really be saying is that the Church has never defined the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium, but that the assent of faith, which dogmatic definitions demand, is also due in the same manner to the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium nevertheless (once a doctrine can be positively identified as pertaining to the same).
If that was what he meant, then I agree with him 100%.
-
CM, please, as a favor, can we leave BoD for the other thread that now has thirteen or so pages? This one is about the Baltimore Catechism.
SJB, come right out and say it. You believe in what the Baltimore Catechism teaches, don't you? I notice you and some others here kind of creeping around it -- just put your money where your mouth is. It says a lot that you are so circuмspect and cautious with your words; it reminds me of CMRI.
Why are you bringing up "invincible ignorance"? Do you think a Protestant has invincible ignorance? Protestants are PROTESTING against the Catholic Church, hence the name "Protestant."
Just answer me this, SJB, with no mincing of words. Do you think that you can be saved in another religion through an "act of charity" or good will? Do you agree with what Abp. Lefebvre says here?
Against the Heresies, oh the irony! --
"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."
I'll be waiting... :farmer:
-
Very good OP, by the way. I think that you hit the nail right on the head, dead center.
-
I'll be waiting... :farmer:
Are you just a peasant farmer or are you threatening me with that pitchfork?
Something to ponder over the weekend; consider what the Baltimore Catechism actually is and all the variations of it. I do agree that the wording is unfortunate in some places and I'll tell you where and why. I'll address your questions after Christmas.
Btw, A Blessed and Merry Christmas to all!
-
Something to ponder over the weekend; consider what the Baltimore Catechism actually is and all the variations of it. I do agree that the wording is unfortunate in some places and I'll tell you where and why. I'll address your questions after Christmas.
Sounds to me like a precursor to some word mincing. Time will tell.
-
Recant what? And to whom do they recant? You?
Who says that the Pope isn't the Pope? YOU?! Who says heresy is heresy? YOU?!
And who understands those are private judgments? I do.
No, they don't recant to me. If they want salvation, they should recant, however, and on their own volition.
Recant what? What you think is heretical that nobody noticed at the time? An abjuration is required when one is involved with a false religion, a condemned sect. Condemned by the Church.
I'll get into what they should recant in the Baltimore Catechism thread. I don't want to further intrude on Eamon's stomping grounds.
Here we are. I've never heard of someone having to recant part of a catechism they did not write.
-
Each man, the Catholic Church holds, gets enough grace to achieve salvation.
Each man has sufficient grace to be saved. Do you deny this?
-
Recant what? What you think is heretical that nobody noticed at the time? An abjuration is required when one is involved with a false religion, a condemned sect. Condemned by the Church.
Correct. And it is required in other types of situations as well, such as when a person publicly professes a heretical opinion.
Galileo's opinion was held by many to be heretical, and he was ORDERED to abjure, just for one quick example.
-
CM, please, as a favor, can we leave BoD for the other thread that now has thirteen or so pages?
You are so willing to debate such things as NFP and sedevacantism, certainly you have the truth in those matters, and you never "back down from a fight" when those topics are brought up - because you know that whatever objection you run across is surmountable without having to resort any "fudging of the numbers" so to speak.
But when it comes to baptism of desire, or more specifically, the definition of infallibility from the 1870 Council of the Vatican, your sword of truth is dull.
You avoid important points continuously, and getting answers to questions from you is like pulling teeth.
Your conduct regarding baptism of desire and infallibility, specifically in your "debates" with me on these subjects, is throwing up red flags all over the place.
-
Recant what? What you think is heretical that nobody noticed at the time? An abjuration is required when one is involved with a false religion, a condemned sect. Condemned by the Church.
Correct. And it is required in other types of situations as well, such as when a person publicly professes a heretical opinion.
Galileo's opinion was held by many to be heretical, and he was ORDERED to abjure, just for one quick example.
Ordered to abjure by who?
-
CM, please, as a favor, can we leave BoD for the other thread that now has thirteen or so pages?
You are so willing to debate such things as NFP and sedevacantism, certainly you have the truth in those matters, and you never "back down from a fight" when those topics are brought up - because you know that whatever objection you run across is surmountable without having to resort any "fudging of the numbers" so to speak.
But when it comes to baptism of desire, or more specifically, the definition of infallibility from the 1870 Council of the Vatican, your sword of truth is dull.
You avoid important points continuously, and getting answers to questions from you is like pulling teeth.
Your conduct regarding baptism of desire and infallibility, specifically in your "debates" with me on these subjects, is throwing up red flags all over the place.
Does one who accepts the definition of Papal Infallibility of Vatican I need to abjure?
-
Ordered by who? Good question. I don't know off hand, and neither does it seem relevant. Galileo took an abjuration.
As for your second question, what on earth are you talking about?
-
CM said:
But when it comes to baptism of desire, or more specifically, the definition of infallibility from the 1870 Council of the Vatican, your sword of truth is dull.
I believe that papal decrees are infallible. I also disagree with you about what those papal decrees mean sometimes. We have been over this many times.
-
Ordered by who? Good question. I don't know off hand, and neither does it seem relevant. Galileo took an abjuration.
As for your second question, what on earth are you talking about?
Are you being evasive here? The question was a simple one.
-
Does one who accepts the definition of Papal Infallibility of Vatican I need to abjure?
This "simple question" is pretty bizarre SJB. Why would you imply that someone needs to abjure for believing in a dogma? You only need to abjure heresy.
So like I said: What on earth are you talking about?
-
CM said:
But when it comes to baptism of desire, or more specifically, the definition of infallibility from the 1870 Council of the Vatican, your sword of truth is dull.
I believe that papal decrees are infallible. I also disagree with you about what those papal decrees mean sometimes. We have been over this many times.
Yes, you have said as much as this many times, but I'm desirous of engagement on the specific points I post in the other thread.
-
Does one who accepts the definition of Papal Infallibility of Vatican I need to abjure?
This "simple question" is pretty bizarre SJB. Why would you imply that someone needs to abjure for believing in a dogma? You only need to abjure heresy.
So like I said: What on earth are you talking about?
The first question is just a simple question. Who can demand an abjuration of error?
The second question refers to the fact that you seem to question papal infallibility. Here:
But when it comes to baptism of desire, or more specifically, the definition of infallibility from the 1870 Council of the Vatican, your sword of truth is dull.
-
SJB said:
"Here we are. I've never heard of someone having to recant part of a catechism they did not write."
No, neither are they obligated to teach it if it teaches heresy. And if they are smart enough to figure out that Vatican II is heretical, how can they not see another variant of the same heresy in this catechism they all teach?
Straight down the line, they act as if our problems began in 1958, wearing these rose-colored glasses, painting this picture of never-never land: "Lines for confession around the block! Everyone had lollipops! Birds sang Gregorian chant!"
It's not very convincing, and neither is the blind patriotism of CMRI, which shows that they are not coming from a place of truth. Although it's not heresy to be patriotic, it is odd considering the result of the separation of Church and state should be evident to all by now, as should the fact that we are run by communists, including many Jews, who control all major political parties. This should be shouted from the rooftops -- CMRI buries it. That is what first put me on their scent.
As for the Church in the 40's and 50's, it was far from being ideal. It was plagued with a communist mentality, and with liberal ideas about salvation outside its gates. In this country, we have had the special "privilege" to have been taught a heretical definition of EENS before anyone else in the catechism of Cardinal Gibbons, since the 1880's.
I know it has taken root because an 80-year old man I was friendly with told me on the phone that he believed a Protestant can be saved if his parents are constantly influencing him against the Catholic Church. That's like saying that someone can be saved if he watches a lot of TV, because hey, it's not his fault the Jews are warping his brain! Luckily, if this friend of mine is dead -- he has stopped calling me after what I took to be his anger over my denial of Fatima -- I was at least able to correct him on this.
I believe that the reason God has allowed America to be punished in this way is because we have blinded ourselves as to our betrayal of Christ and the Church, that instead of mourning our exile in this ʝʊdɛօ-Masonic Babylon, we celebrate it and demand the rest of the world follow our lead in following revolutionary, Masonic principles. That is what Cardinal Gibbons did, and his mentality infected many, many American Catholics, probably the vast majority of them. It infects the American sedes today. CMRI has a whole CD devoted to patriotic hymns, sung by the Singing Nuns:
(http://www.singingnuns.com/pictures/glory_brave_cd.jpg)
I'll bet you God HATES the hypocrisy of many American Catholics. But that's for another thread. I get very excited when bashing Mystery Babylon. When I look at that flag, it's like a bull seeing red. It just sends out waves of ominousness.
As for how the liberal sedevacantists are teaching this EENS heresy specifically, see the other 15-page thread about salvation outside the Church.
-
Anyone who is validly baptized (remission of Original Sin), and is free from mortal sin (only mortal sin can merit hell), is saved.
I have no idea what #2 was necessary in the Baltimore Catechism's answer, unless it was a poor way of saying that a baptized person (fully initiated into the Roman Catholic Church by virtue of their Baptism), who then knowingly and willfully separated themselves from the Faithful, could not be saved, as such an action would indeed comprise a mortal sin.
That all who die validly baptized and free from mortal sin will take their place among the Blessed is as certain a fact as anyone can ever possess.
-
Anyone who is validly baptized (remission of Original Sin), and is free from mortal sin (only mortal sin can merit hell), is saved.
A Protestant, on being baptized, does not become a member of the Catholic Church.
-
Anyone who is validly baptized (remission of Original Sin), and is free from mortal sin (only mortal sin can merit hell), is saved.
A Protestant, on being baptized, does not become a member of the Catholic Church.
If they are an infant, then they are fully Catholic.
-
Anyone who is validly baptized (remission of Original Sin), and is free from mortal sin (only mortal sin can merit hell), is saved.
A Protestant, on being baptized, does not become a member of the Catholic Church.
If they are an infant, then they are fully Catholic.
According to whom?
If that's the case it would seem Catholic states would be justified in taking the baptized children of Protestants away from their parents.
-
Anyone who is validly baptized (remission of Original Sin), and is free from mortal sin (only mortal sin can merit hell), is saved.
A Protestant, on being baptized, does not become a member of the Catholic Church.
If they are an infant, then they are fully Catholic.
According to whom?
If that's the case it would seem Catholic states would be justified in taking the baptized children of Protestants away from their parents.
That happened, with a Jєωιѕн couple under Pius IX.
-
:popcorn:
-
No, neither are they obligated to teach it if it teaches heresy. And if they are smart enough to figure out that Vatican II is heretical, how can they not see another variant of the same heresy in this catechism they all teach?
Mike, this is really weak. Saying the Baltimore Catechism (I'm looking at the 1941 edition for secondary school students) teaches what Vatican II teaches is ridiculous.
-
Anyone who is validly baptized (remission of Original Sin), and is free from mortal sin (only mortal sin can merit hell), is saved.
I have no idea what #2 was necessary in the Baltimore Catechism's answer, unless it was a poor way of saying that a baptized person (fully initiated into the Roman Catholic Church by virtue of their Baptism), who then knowingly and willfully separated themselves from the Faithful, could not be saved, as such an action would indeed comprise a mortal sin.
That all who die validly baptized and free from mortal sin will take their place among the Blessed is as certain a fact as anyone can ever possess.
Those separated from the Church are not free from mortal sin however. They are stained with the guilt of heresy, schism or apostasy.
-
Anyone who is validly baptized (remission of Original Sin), and is free from mortal sin (only mortal sin can merit hell), is saved.
I have no idea what #2 was necessary in the Baltimore Catechism's answer, unless it was a poor way of saying that a baptized person (fully initiated into the Roman Catholic Church by virtue of their Baptism), who then knowingly and willfully separated themselves from the Faithful, could not be saved, as such an action would indeed comprise a mortal sin.
That all who die validly baptized and free from mortal sin will take their place among the Blessed is as certain a fact as anyone can ever possess.
Those separated from the Church are not free from mortal sin however. They are stained with the guilt of heresy, schism or apostasy.
Those TRULY separated. A truly material schismatic is not guilty before God of the sin of schism. A truly material heretic is not guilty before God of the sin of heresy. They are guilty of no mortal sin.
-
Anyone who is validly baptized (remission of Original Sin), and is free from mortal sin (only mortal sin can merit hell), is saved.
I have no idea what #2 was necessary in the Baltimore Catechism's answer, unless it was a poor way of saying that a baptized person (fully initiated into the Roman Catholic Church by virtue of their Baptism), who then knowingly and willfully separated themselves from the Faithful, could not be saved, as such an action would indeed comprise a mortal sin.
That all who die validly baptized and free from mortal sin will take their place among the Blessed is as certain a fact as anyone can ever possess.
Those separated from the Church are not free from mortal sin however. They are stained with the guilt of heresy, schism or apostasy.
In order for schism, or heresy, or apostasy, to be grievous sins which separate one from the Church, they must be formal.
Any Christian, at any given moment, is probably guilty of some material heresy, however obscure. But the good Christian, who has the fruits and gifts of the Holy Spirit, recants when corrected.
Others refuse to recant.
These fall into two categories:
1). Protestants, and,
2). Sedevacantists.
The Protestant refuses to recant because he thinks in his pride that he understands Scripture so well that no one can tell him different.
The Sedevacantist refuses to recant because he thinks in his pride that he understands the teachings of the Church so well that no one can tell him different.
But the good Christian wages war against his pride and humbles himself before those prelates whom God has appointed to rule over him.
-
The Sedevacantist refuses to recant...
Recant what?
-
The Sedevacantist refuses to recant...
Recant what?
His own heresy and schism.
-
Pax you are are not serious are you? And Pax's avatar is one of the Three Stooges (Jews by the way) looking like (making fun of) a rabbi or orthodox Jew. Kind of like the false pope named Benedict XVI... looks as though he is a "Traditional Pontiff is his dress but his words betray him.
-
Pax you are are not serious are you?
Gravely serious.
Sedes are outside the Church.
Just like Protestants.
And they got there the same way.
-
Pax you are are not serious are you? And Pax's avatar is one of the Three Stooges (Jews by the way) looking like (making fun of) a rabbi or orthodox Jew. Kind of like the false pope named Benedict XVI... looks as though he is a "Traditional Pontiff is his dress but his words betray him.
has he repented? dont know? likely not unless you are his confessor
-
Anyone who is validly baptized (remission of Original Sin), and is free from mortal sin (only mortal sin can merit hell), is saved.
A Protestant, on being baptized, does not become a member of the Catholic Church.
true, they do not, so why baptize them........does it do anything for them?
for record, do not accept Pax's baptism=salvation
-
Has who repented? Benedict? His posistion would demand a public proclamation that he held false positions. He has led so many souls to think that his heretical teachings are correct that if he did repent it would be his duty as Pope to correct his error so that others are not guilty of holding these false opinions. He proclaims his errors loudly enough he would have to proclaim the truth just as loudly.
-
Anyone who is validly baptized (remission of Original Sin), and is free from mortal sin (only mortal sin can merit hell), is saved.
A Protestant, on being baptized, does not become a member of the Catholic Church.
If they are an infant, then they are fully Catholic.
According to whom?
It's Catholic teaching. Baptism incorporates the Baptised into the Catholic Church, and no other.
-
Anyone who is validly baptized (remission of Original Sin), and is free from mortal sin (only mortal sin can merit hell), is saved.
A Protestant, on being baptized, does not become a member of the Catholic Church.
true, they do not, so why baptize them........does it do anything for them?
It imprints an indelible character on their soul. If the baptism is valid, that is.
If it isn't, then it does nothing.
-
Anyone who is validly baptized (remission of Original Sin), and is free from mortal sin (only mortal sin can merit hell), is saved.
A Protestant, on being baptized, does not become a member of the Catholic Church.
true, they do not, so why baptize them........does it do anything for them?
for record, do not accept Pax's baptism=salvation
Belloc is partly right. Baptism is not "Salvation". Baptism brings one into the Church in a pure state, and so if you die right then, you're saved, but "mortal sin" includes many behaviors and is a constant problem, and you are not saved if you die while in a state of mortal sin, which can include such apparently minor things as having missed Mass as well as such serious things as murder.
Confession/Reconciliation is the sacrament that all Catholics must frequently receive after Baptism in order to remain in a state of Grace and keep our Salvation.
-
Baptism and Explicit Faith are staring points and sustainers, but true, Sacrements are neded
-
Anyone who is validly baptized (remission of Original Sin), and is free from mortal sin (only mortal sin can merit hell), is saved.
A Protestant, on being baptized, does not become a member of the Catholic Church.
true, they do not, so why baptize them........does it do anything for them?
It imprints an indelible character on their soul. If the baptism is valid, that is.
If it isn't, then it does nothing.
Problem is that many will say what you said, but then state Protestants all go to Hell without exception, so it appears contradictory....
-
Problem is that many will say what you said, but then state Protestants all go to Hell without exception, so it appears contradictory....
Well, time usually elapses between baptism and death in which the baptised can espouse some heresies!
-
Anyone who is validly baptized (remission of Original Sin), and is free from mortal sin (only mortal sin can merit hell), is saved.
A Protestant, on being baptized, does not become a member of the Catholic Church.
You are right. But a baby, even if born to Protestant parents, is not automatically a Protestant. (Hint: it is not genetic.) Upon Baptism, the baby is made a member of the one holy Roman Catholic and apostolic Church.
Unless, of course, like some Evangelical Protestant, you wish to make the case that there is more than one Baptism.
Or perhaps, like a Donatist, you want to make the case that the baptisms of heretics are invalid.
Or maybe you want to proclaim the true Catholic teaching that all valid baptisms make one a member of the one holy Roman Catholic and apostolic Church, outside of which no one is saved, and the way to get outside is through voluntary leaving (like Sedevacantists) or being anathema (like all professing Protestants) or excommunication.
-
Upon Baptism, the baby is made a member of the one holy Roman Catholic and apostolic Church.
If he is truly a member, when does he lose his membership in the Church?
-
But those who through ignorance are baptized there (with heretics), judging the sect to be the Church of Christ, sin less than these (who know it to be heretical); nevertheless they are wounded by the sacrilege of schism, and therefore sin not light, because others sin more gravely.
-
Upon Baptism, the baby is made a member of the one holy Roman Catholic and apostolic Church.
If he is truly a member, when does he lose his membership in the Church?
When he starts accepting the errors of the denomination he is being raised in.
-
But those who through ignorance are baptized there (with heretics), judging the sect to be the Church of Christ, sin less than these (who know it to be heretical); nevertheless they are wounded by the sacrilege of schism, and therefore sin not light, because others sin more gravely.
Typical Protestant apologetic method: Taking quotes out of context and twisting them.
The Doctor of Grace is talking about adults.
Schism requires an act of the will.
Whenever any validly baptized Christian willfully separates himself from the legitimate subjects of the Pope (a.k.a. Sedevacantists) they commit an act of schism.
Look up the definition of schism if you do not believe me.
-
Upon Baptism, the baby is made a member of the one holy Roman Catholic and apostolic Church.
If he is truly a member, when does he lose his membership in the Church?
When he starts accepting the errors of the denomination he is being raised in.
At some age (14 I believe), the Church makes a legal presumption that they are guilty of heresy and or schism. This does not mean all protestants are guilty of the actual sin of heresy or schism. The crime is presumed, that does not they are guilty of any sin.
-
Please read:
The crime is presumed, that does not mean they are actually guilty of any sin.
-
Sems to make logical sense, in that most people beleive what they are raised to beleive and have been aught in moden culture not to question....The writer/convert Curry noted this, he never for yrs thought to question the propganda he was fed about Catholics and Catholic beleif, until he kept running into contradctions of his own beliefs, then started down the "Road to Rome" if you will....
but what happens if no one ever intervenes.Surely God calls all to the Church, but sometimes it seems silent,etc...
is there some hope of maybe a long Purgatory stay but not automatic damnation, at least for a minoirty, as a minority in general will be saved anyway...
-
Sems to make logical sense, in that most people beleive what they are raised to beleive and have been aught in moden culture not to question....The writer/convert Curry noted this, he never for yrs thought to question the propganda he was fed about Catholics and Catholic beleif, until he kept running into contradctions of his own beliefs, then started down the "Road to Rome" if you will....
but what happens if no one ever intervenes.Surely God calls all to the Church, but sometimes it seems silent,etc...
is there some hope of maybe a long Purgatory stay but not automatic damnation, at least for a minoirty, as a minority in general will be saved anyway...
Think of the Prodigal Son. The Father ran out to meet him while he was still a long ways off, but the fact of the matter is that he had repented and was on his way Home.
"Those who persevere to the end will be saved." Repentance, and setting out on that sojourn towards the one holy Roman Catholic and apostolic Church, is the beginning of that perseverance.
One cannot persevere in a false religion and expect salvation. For such a one we should not even have a faint hope.
-
Schism requires an act of the will.
St. Augustine clearly states that it may be done in ignorance. And Pius IX taught that only INVINCIBLE ignorance excuses one of the guilt of infidelity - and that it is unlawful to presume invincible ignorance.
-
Schism requires an act of the will.
St. Augustine clearly states that it may be done in ignorance.
Schism is a mortal sin against the Faith. One may mistakenly be in a material schism, but not guilty of the sin of schism, if invincibly ignorant.
And Pius IX taught that only INVINCIBLE ignorance excuses one of the guilt of infidelity - and that it is unlawful to presume invincible ignorance.
Nobody is presuming invincible ignorance. It can exist however, which is what you are effectively denying. Pope Pius IX said that we must not presume to know the limits of that type of ignorance nor must be question the necessity of the Church for salvation.
1647 For, it must be held by faith that outside the Apostolic Roman Church, no one can be saved; that this is the only ark of salvation; that he who shall not have entered therein will perish in the flood; but, on the other hand, it is necessary to hold for certain that they who labor in ignorance of the true religion, if this ignorance is invincible, are not stained by any guilt in this matter in the eyes of God. Now, in truth, who would arrogate so much to himself as to mark the limits of such an ignorance, because of the nature and variety of peoples, regions, innate dispositions, and of so many other things? For, in truth, when released from these corporeal chains "we shall see God as He is" [ 1 John 3:2], we shall understand perfectly by how close and beautiful a bond divine mercy and justice are united; but, as long as we are on earth, weighed down by this mortal mass which blunts the soul, let us hold most firmly that, in accordance with Catholic teaching, there is "one God, one faith, one baptism" [ Eph. 4:5 ]; it is unlawful to proceed further in inquiry.
CM, you are "proceeding further".
-
Schism requires an act of the will.
St. Augustine clearly states that it may be done in ignorance.
In which case, I would venture to say, it would not be a formal schism. Granted, the person is still in schism. I did not mean to imply otherwise. For someone in the Church, formal schism requires an act of the will.
-
Schism requires an act of the will.
St. Augustine clearly states that it may be done in ignorance.
In which case, I would venture to say, it would not be a formal schism. Granted, the person is still in schism. I did not mean to imply otherwise. For someone in the Church, formal schism requires an act of the will.
It is not the mortal sin of schism. The pertinacious will is required for the mortal sin of schism.
-
Then why does the Church require profession of faith? Because they were really, truly and formally outside the Church, the only possible subjective excuse being invincible ignorance.
-
PUBLIC APOLOGY
I am sure that somewhere on this site I called Cardinal Gibbons a heretic, but I'm not sure where... I retract that with the deepest apologies. Granted, he was publicly and vocally in error with his Americanist views. However, the Church never called him a heretic, though chastising his Americanist error.
I also no longer believe the Baltimore Catechism is heretical though there are some things that still sound a bit funny in there, it's the wording of it more than the actual ideas.
I am not sure why it is important to believe that the false religion you are in is the true religion; except that perhaps that is how the authors of the catechism defined invincible ignorance; being invincibly ignorant that false religions are false... Since there is no official definition of how far invincible ignorance extends, it is not heretical.