CathInfo.com

Without a doubt, the Council of Florence gave its approval, at least implicitly, to the scholastics' teaching of Baptism of Desire:

On the contrary, this is "without a doubt," ONE OF the stupidest OPs I've ever seen.  

And there have been some pretty stupid ones.

Quote

"By these measures the synod intends to detract in nothing from the sayings and writings of the holy doctors who discourse on these matters. On the contrary, it accepts and embraces them according to their true understanding as commonly expounded and declared by these doctors and other catholic teachers in the theological schools."

The concepts of Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood were both taught, explicitly, by the two leading theological manuals of the time, Saint Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologica and Peter Lombard's The Four Books of Sentences.  Therefore, Florence's teachings, as they themselves declare, are to be understood in terms of what Saint Thomas and Master Lombard both taught.

Likewise, the Council of Orange in 529 AD declared:

Quote

According to the catholic faith we also believe that after grace has been received through baptism, all baptized persons have the ability and responsibility, if they desire to labor faithfully, to perform with the aid and cooperation of Christ what is of essential importance in regard to the salvation of their soul. We not only do not believe that any are foreordained to evil by the power of God, but even state with utter abhorrence that if there are those who want to believe so evil a thing, they are anathema. We also believe and confess to our benefit that in every good work it is not we who take the initiative and are then assisted through the mercy of God, but God himself first inspires in us both faith in him and love for him without any previous good works of our own that deserve reward, so that we may both faithfully seek the sacrament of baptism, and after baptism be able by his help to do what is pleasing to him. We must therefore most evidently believe that the praiseworthy faith of the thief whom the Lord called to his home in paradise, and of Cornelius the centurion, to whom the angel of the Lord was sent, and of Zacchaeus, who was worthy to receive the Lord himself, was not a natural endowment but a gift of God's kindness.

As the Council of Orange teaches, grace precedes sacramental Baptism.

You've never heard about actual grace, apparently.  Let me inform you:  everyone is the recipient of actual grace, but it's not sanctifying grace.  Actual grace doesn't save anyone from hell.  Actual grace doesn't remit original sin.  Actual grace cannot take the place of baptism.  Actual grace doesn't sanctify the soul.  Actual grace doesn't substitute for any of the 7 sacraments.  Actual grace only urges a non-Catholic to become Catholic, by believing the truth and seeking baptism, upon which time he may be saved, but if he believes not, he will be condemned, even if he DOES receive baptism with water and the Holy Ghost, because that isn't any guarantee of salvation.  

You sound just like a protestant, Jehanne.

Likewise, the Holy Office, on December 7, 1690, condemned the following propositions:

Quote

1292 2. Although there is such a thing as invincible ignorance of the law of nature, this, in the state of fallen nature, does not excuse from formal sin anyone acting out of ignorance.

1295 5. Pagans, Jews, heretics, and others of this kind do not receive in any way any influence from Jesus Christ, and so you will rightly infer from this that in them there is a bare and weak will without any sufficient grace.

1298 8. Of necessity, an infidel sins in every act.

1301 11. Everything which is not in accordance with supernatural Christian faith, which works through charity, is a sin.

1320 30. When anyone finds a doctrine clearly established in Augustine, he can absolutely hold and teach it, disregarding any bull of the pope.

Conclusion:  Sanctifying grace precedes sacramental Baptism.

You couldn't be more wrong.  Sanctifying grace does NOT precede Baptism.

Does it make you happy to know that some people could be going to hell because they listen to lies like yours?

Now, of course, your "logic" is that because Saint Thomas got some things wrong, then he must be wrong in every other teaching which he asserted, in which case, we, as Catholics, can know nothing, except, of course, what you tell us is the Truth.

Do you take pleasure in saying stupid things, Jehanne?  

You're making yourself look pretty ridiculous.


.

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: crossbro

St Thomas Aquinas believed ... that Our Blessed Mother was born with sin.

Not born, but conceived.  Your point is well taken, however; St. Thomas Aquinas was not infallible.

True, but Pope Pius XI had this to say...

http://www3.nd.edu/Departments/Maritain/etext/catsum.htm#brief


http://www3.nd.edu/Departments/Maritain/etext/catsum08.htm

Now, of course, your "logic" is that because Saint Thomas got some things wrong, then he must be wrong in every other teaching which he asserted, in which case, we, as Catholics, can know nothing, except, of course, what you tell us is the Truth.

That is not his "logic", it is your strawman. His logic is EXACTLY what you posted in your opening posting:

1320 30. When anyone finds a doctrine clearly established in Augustine, he can absolutely hold and teach it, disregarding any bull of the pope. CONDEMNED

And in this posting now, you sighted a Catechism of the Summa in English by whomever in 1921, it is not the Summa. Please quote the Summa when you wish to make a point.

Now, here's some food for thought for you to think that maybe St. Thomas within himself had not even so "clearly established a doctrine"  :

 

Quote from: bowler

Quote from: Michael93

 it’s unfair to flat out say St. Thomas was wrong about the Immaculate Conception, and to use that as an excuse for rejecting what he says about BOD.

Here's some more that he said about BOD that you are likely unaware of (also keep in mind that St. Thomas died before any dogmatic decree on EENS was declared by a pope or council):



St. Thomas is not really a good witness for Baptism of Desire, anymore than St. Augustine and St. Ambrose, who both clearly spoke against it. All this below is contrary to what modern Thomists (whether of the “Neo” or “Transcendental” varieties) would hold. But judging by his rejection below of the only one of his works which such folk generally consult (The Summa), St. Thomas does not appear to be a Thomist in the Modern sense of the term.

"It does not suffice to believe. He who believes and is not yet baptized, but is only a Catechumen, has not yet fully acquired salvation." St. Thomas Aquinas (Catena Aurea commentary of St. Thomas)
---------------------------------------------------
St. Thomas “Against the Errors of the Greeks, 1263 A.D.
Part II, CHAPTER 38

That to be subject to the Roman Pontiff is necessary for salvation.
It is also shown that to be subject to the Roman Pontiff is necessary for salvation. For Cyril says in his Thesaurus: “Therefore, brethren, if you imitate Christ so as to hear his voice remaining in the Church of Peter and so as not be puffed up by the wind of pride, lest perhaps because of our quarrelling the wily serpent drive us from paradise as once he did Eve.”  And Maximus in the letter addressed to the Orientals says: “The Church united and established upon the rock of Peter’s confession we call according to the decree of the Savior the universal Church, wherein we must remain for the salvation of our souls and wherein loyal to his faith and confession we must obey him.”


(*Notice that St. Thomas wrote this forty years before it was declared infallible by:

Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, Nov. 18, 1302, ex cathedra:
“… this Church outside of which there is no salvation nor remission of sin… Furthermore, … every human creature that they by absolute necessity for salvation are entirely subject to the Roman Pontiff.” )

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Summa Part III, Qu. 65, art. 4:

Whether all the sacraments are necessary for salvation?

Objection 1: It seems that all the sacraments are necessary for salvation. For what is not necessary seems to be superfluous. But no sacrament is superfluous, because "God does nothing without a purpose" (De Coelo et Mundo i). Therefore all the sacraments are necessary for salvation.

Objection 2: Further, just as it is said of Baptism (Jn. 3:5): "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter in to the kingdom of God," so of the Eucharist is it said (Jn. 6:54): "Except you eat of the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink of His blood, you shall not have life in you." Therefore, just as Baptism is a necessary sacrament, so is the Eucharist.

Objection 3: Further, a man can be saved without the sacrament of Baptism, provided that some unavoidable obstacle, and not his contempt for religion, debar him from the sacrament, as we shall state further on (Q[68], A[2]). But contempt of religion in any sacrament is a hindrance to salvation. Therefore, in like manner, all the sacraments are necessary for salvation.
On the contrary, Children are saved by Baptism alone without the other sacraments.

I answer that, Necessity of end, of which we speak now, is twofold. First, a thing may be necessary so that without it the end cannot be attained; thus food is necessary for human life. And this is simple necessity of end. Secondly, a thing is said to be necessary, if, without it, the end cannot be attained so becomingly: thus a horse is necessary for a journey. But this is not simple necessity of end.
In the first way, three sacraments are necessary for salvation. Two of them are necessary to the individual; Baptism, simply and absolutely; Penance, in the case of mortal sin committed after Baptism; while the sacrament of order is necessary to the Church, since "where there is no governor the people shall fall" (Prov. 11:14).

But in the second way the other sacraments are necessary. For in a sense Confirmation perfects Baptism; Extreme Unction perfects Penance; while Matrimony, by multiplying them, preserves the numbers in the Church.

Reply to Objection 1: For a thing not to be superfluous it is enough if it be necessary either in the first or the second way. It is thus that the sacraments are necessary, as stated above.

Reply to Objection 2: These words of our Lord are to be understood of spiritual, and not of merely sacramental, eating, as Augustine explains (Tract. xxvi super Joan.).

Reply to Objection 3: Although contempt of any of the sacraments is a hindrance to salvation, yet it does not amount to contempt of the sacrament, if anyone does not trouble to receive a sacrament that is not necessary for salvation. Else those who do not receive orders, and those who do not contract Matrimony, would be guilty of contempt of those sacraments.