Lol, this is amusing. I'm the rationalist here, because I believe what Popes Pius IX, X and XII plainly said.  :rolleyes:

Let me answer, Nadie, why I accept and what is the significance of the 1949 letter. "However, this desire need not always be explicit, as it is in catechumens; but when a person is involved in invincible ignorance God accepts also an implicit desire"

So it establishes *clearly* both implicit and explicit desire for baptism, which you deny. So you can't accept it and I do.

Now, I already agreed with you that it doesn't specify what at a minimum must be believed explicitly but nonetheless it says, "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"

So I am being consistent in saying that supernatural faith is necessary.

Finally, I have some questions to you,

1. What of Pope St.Pius X's Catechism? Is that not acceptable?
2. What of Cornelius in Scripture, who received the Holy Ghost before water baptism?

And Gregory, about the validity of the letter, let me quote the earlier website,

"It is untenable that some Feeneyites should claim that the Letter misrepresents Pius’ encyclical [Mystici Corporis] when he gave his approval to the interpretation and to the order that it be made public."

So this is not a question of merely the Holy Office's authority. It is a question of a Papal Encyclical where the express mind and will of the Supreme Pontiff is clearly manifested and made public.

Your other objection fails and here's why - explain to me how this is different from the schismatic Greeks claiming (falsely, but with the same approach of antiquity you use), that Our Lady's Immaculate Conception and lifelong sinlessness does not belong to the deposit of Faith? Again, this was not settled in the early Church, and that's what you don't understand, but witnesses to the truth of her Immaculate sinlessness are not lacking nonetheless. It is the same here.

Do you believe in spiritual communion? If you do, are you separating the body and blood of Our Lord? Are you denying John 6?

Finally, Pope Pius IX in Singulari Quadem said that it is necessary to "hold for certain" what he said about invincible ignorance. Therefore, it follows that BOD is de Fide. In other words, that it is as much dogmatically true as EENS, as St.Alphonsus and other Doctors have held as well.

Nishant said: Lol, this is amusing. I'm the rationalist here, because I believe what Popes Pius IX, X and XII plainly said

Strawman. You are a rationlist for saying:

Nishant2011 said:
I accept the letter. The letter lays down that not any kind of desire is sufficient but only one that is enlightened by faith and animated by charity.

It doesn't specify in what such faith consists of at a minimum, and there I follow the Doctors, St.Thomas, St.Alphonsus, and in my understanding, John 17:3. That is, true knowledge of God, the Trinity and Incarnation, in short.

To which I answered previously:

Nadie said: You are quoting the letter as a defense of your beliefs in your debate with Gregory I, but you disagree with the letter on the most crucial point. This is called rationalizing

and

Quote from: Nishant2011

Nadie,

Quote

You are quoting the letter as a defense of your beliefs in your debate with Gregory I, but you disagree with the letter on the most crucial point. This is called rationalizing.

I agree with the letter on every single point. No one is saved without a faith that is animated by charity.

You are a rationalist, either you believe (as you stated) that the person must at a minimum believe in the Trinity & Incarnation, or you believe the 1949 letter which sets no such 'minimum requirements". Make up your mind.

We have to repeat it daily, hourly, by the minute sometimes.

Quote from: Augstine Baker

We have to repeat it daily, hourly, by the minute sometimes.

And the winner is..........:

What about the Good Thief?

NOPE! The good thief died under the old covenant and before the advent of Pentecost, before the church was officially born. He doesn't count, as our Lord did not yet mandate baptism, and he died as a Jew, presumably, contrite and united by his circuмcision to the covenant of his Father Abraham.

Nishant, it is NOT that the fathers did not settle the question in their own age (Though that is debatable, given that the Dogmatic letter of Leo to Flavian explicitly eliminates the conditions under which BOD could occur) It is simply that it is not taught with the unanimity REQUIRED to shape the ordinary and universal magisterium in that direction.

BOD will never be more than at BEST a theological opinion, at WORST a heresy. Why? The Fathers do not consent. It is not that they did not settle it, it is that it is virtually absent from their understanding of the sacraments. 2 or 3 don't cut it.

Do you deny that BOD ultimately leads to indifferentism and liberty of conscience Nishant?

Quote from: nadieimportante

Quote from: Augstine Baker

We have to repeat it daily, hourly, by the minute sometimes.

And the winner is..........:

What about the Good Thief?

NOPE! The good thief died under the old covenant and before the advent of Pentecost, before the church was officially born. He doesn't count, as our Lord did not yet mandate baptism, and he died as a Jew, presumably, contrite and united by his circuмcision to the covenant of his Father Abraham.

I was making a joke, about the worst BODer defense, the one most often quoted in defense of BOD. How many times, practically per day do we have to answer that one? That's why it the winner.

A lot of people can't be bothered to look.  The same people who quote it with glee and are critics of the ambiguities of Vatican II are the same people who fail to see that the same ambiguity is lovingly enshrined in that Letter to the Holy Office.

Nishant 2011 said : You can't really "debunk" evidence of what Saints and Doctors have counted de Fide

If you can show me any Saint or Doctor, other than St. Alphonsus Ligouri, who taught that it was defide, I'd really appreciate it. See below.

St. Alphonsus Ligouri's Moral Theology Manual, Bk. 6, no. 95., "Concerning Baptism":

Quote

"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 presbitero non baptizato" and of the Council of Trent"

Can you Gregory, Baker and Augustian recommend this to other Catholics as being safe and in accord with Catholic Dogma? Or do you consider it calling into doubt previously solemnly defined dogma?

Four Errors of St. Alphonsus:

First off, he is stating an error, for everyone acknowledges that even baptism of desire of the catechumen is not defide. So this entire quote is wrong. The fact that defenders of BOD keep bringing it up, highlights the reality of what little evidense they have. They are highlighting an error by St. A.L.

Secondly, they always cutout the most  importantpart that says (Sess.
14, Chap. 4), from the entire quote, here is the complete version:

St. Alphonsus: “Baptism by fire, however, is the perfect conversion to God
through contrition, or the love of God above all things, with the explicit desire, or
implicit desire, for the true river of baptism. As the Council of Trent says (Sess. 14, Chap. 4), it takes the place of the latter with regard to the remission of the guilt, but does not imprint a character nor take away all the debt of punishment. It is called fire because it is made under the impulse of the Holy Spirit, who is given this name… T us it is of faith (de fide) that men are saved even by the baptism of fire, according to Canon Apostolicam, “de presbitero non baptizato”. and the Council of Trent, Sess. 6, Chap. 4, where it is said that no one can be saved without the laver of regeneration or the desire for it.”


2nd Error  
The passage Sess. 6, Chap. 4 of Trent which St. Alphonsus thought taught baptism of desire is from the session on Justification. It makes no mention whatsoever of what happens to a man who dies in that state of justification,  therefore, it does not teach baptism of desire, and moreover,  affirms: as it is written, unless a man is born again of water and the Holy Ghost he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.

3rd Error
To substantiate his position on baptism of desire, St. Alphonsus first makes reference to Sess. 14, Chap. 4 of the Council of Trent. He says:

“As the Council of Trent says (Sess. 14, Chap. 4), it takes the place of the latter
with regard to the remission of the guilt, but does not imprint a character nor
take away all the debt of punishment.”

This is completely wrong. Sess. 14, Chap. 4 of the Council of Trent does not say that baptism of desire “takes the place of the latter (i.e., baptism) with regard to the remission of the guilt,” as St. Alphonsus claims. Let’s look at the passage:

Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Sess. 14, Chap. 4, on the Sacrament of Penance:
“The Council teaches, furthermore, that though it sometimes happens that this
contrition is perfect because of charity and reconciles man to God, before this
sacrament is actually received, this reconciliation must not be ascribed to the
contrition itself without the desire of the sacrament which is included in it.”

The Council here defines that perfect contrition with the desire for the Sacrament of Penance can restore a man to the grace of God before the sacrament is received. It says nothing of Baptism! St. Alphonsus’s very premise – that baptism of desire is taught in Sess. 14, Chap. 4 – is erroneous. Trent says nothing of the sort. If the very premises upon which he argued baptism of desire were flawed and erroneous, how can one be
bound to the conclusions that flow from such false premises?

In fact, the SSPX's  Fr. Francois Laisney, does not include St. Alphonsus’s erroneous reference to Sess. 14, Chap. 4 of Trent when Laisney quotes in his book, the passage from St. Alphonsus on baptism of desire! This is incredibly dishonest, of course, but Fr. Laisney of the SSPX omits it because he knows
that St. Alphonsus was wrong in referencing Trent in that way; and, therefore, he knows that it pokes a big hole in his argument in favor of baptism of desire based on the obviously fallible St. Alphonsus.

4th Error
Incredible enough, the other source which St. Alphonsus quotes to substantiate his position that baptism of desire is de fide, is a fallible letter of suspect authenticity! He says:

“Thus it is of faith (de fide) that men are saved even by the baptism of fire, according to Canon Apostolicam, "de presbitero non baptizato" … where it is said that no one can be saved without the laver of regeneration or the desire for it.”


This “Canon Apostolicam, "de presbitero non baptizato is another common source repeatedly referenced by BODers, despite the fact that it has been shown over and over and over again, that it is a docuмent of suspect authenticity.


BODer OBJECTION: Pope Innocent II in Canon Apostolicam, "de presbitero non baptizato" ( the unbaptized priest) taught that a priest could be saved without the Sacrament of Baptism by his desire for it and his confession of the true faith (Denzinger 388):

“To your inquiry we respond thus: We assert without hesitation (on the
authority of the holy fathers Augustine and Ambrose) that the priest whom you
indicated (in your letter) had died without the water of baptism, because he
persevered in the faith of holy mother Church and in the confession of the name
of Christ, was freed from original sin and attained the joy of the heavenly
fatherland. 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 in the book 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
(Apostolicam Sedem).”

ANSWER: First of all, there is no such thing as a priest who has not been baptized. The Church teaches that one who has not been baptized cannot receive the priesthood validly. This problem alone demonstrates that the above statement is ludicrous. Secondly, the date of this docuмent is unknown, the author is unknown – it is by no means clear that it was Innocent II (1130-11430 – and the person to whom it is addressed is unknown! Could such a docuмent ever prove anything? No. It remains a mystery why a docuмent of such doubtful authenticity found its way into Denzinger, a handbook of dogmatic statements. This is probably because Denzinger was edited by Karl Rahner, a notorious heretic, whose heretical bias caused him to present this clearly
non‐magisterial statement as Magisterial, for he is a believer in baptism of desire.

To illustrate the lack of magisterial authority of the previous letter allegedly from Pope Innocent II, I will quote from Thomas Hutchinson’s book, Desire and Deception (pp. 31& 32):
“We speak of the letter Apostolicam Sedem, written at the behest of Pope
Innocent II, at an unknown date to an unnamed bishop of
Cremona. The latter had written an inquiry to the Pope regarding the case of a
priest who apparently had died without being baptized. Of course, it has been
defined that, in such a case, he was no priest, since the sacrament of orders may
only be conferred validly upon the baptized.

Text of letter omitted because it has been listed already

“Now, there are more than a few problems connected with this letter. Firstly,
it depends entirely on the witness of Saints Ambrose and Augustine for its
conclusion. Its premises are false, as the Fathers in question did not actually hold
the opinions herein imputed to them. (author: as noted a mere sentimental
speculative utterance does not prove they hold to this as official teaching)…
“Lastly, there is even a question of who wrote this letter. Many authorities
ascribe it to Innocent III (1198-1216). This question is mentioned in Denzinger.
The letter is certainly not in keeping with the totality of his declarations either.
In any case, a gap of 55 years separated the two pontificates. So a private letter
of uncertain date, authorship, and destination, based upon false premises and
contradicting innumerable indisputably valid and solemn docuмents, is
pretended to carry the weight of the Magisterium on its shoulders. Were any
other doctrine concerned, this missive (letter) would not even be given any
consideration. “

All right. :rolleyes:

The 1949 letter teaches no such thing ... Vatican II rationalization

It is no rationalization, it is the standard theological exposition of "supernatural faith." Supernatural faith must include knowledge of some mystery not directly attainable by natural reason.

St.Thomas says, "Since man's nature is dependent on a higher nature, natural knowledge does not suffice for its perfection, and some supernatural knowledge is necessary, as stated above."

Tell me how you define "supernatural faith"?

but when a person is involved in invincible ignorance God accepts also an implicit desire ... the letter clearly says that implicit desire ONLY applies to the invincible ignorant, which also contradicts St. Thomas's teachings

I asked you another question. Can God operate through extraordinary means to bring such a pagan to salvation? Either through an Angel or an internal enlightenment?

And most importantly, how would you know if God or an Angel had revealed to him the truth and he had been baptized in secret or not? The fact is, you cannot know either way, this knowledge God does not see fit to reveal to you. That is why it is unwise to inquire into it as you wish to do.

My answer remains what it was, souls invincibly ignorant of the Christian religion and the Catholic Church - such a person, if he is internally illumined, will be at least baptized by desire. And that will be sufficient.

Catechism of St.Pius X:

27 Q. Can one be saved outside the Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church?
A. No, no one can be saved outside the Catholic, Apostolic Roman Church, just as no one could be saved from the flood outside the Ark of Noah, which was a figure of the Church.

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

Well, for one thing we had Peter Abelard on one side and St.Bernard of Clairvaux, Hugh of Saint Victor who directly opposed him on this point not to mention finding unanimity among Saint Thomas, Saint Bonaventure, St.Robert Bellarmine, St.Alphonsus on the other. Now, why would anyone follow the former who was directly opposed on this point over the cuмulative weight of the latter?

St.Alphonsus did not err, I'm sorry.

1. No, everyone does not acknowledge that even BOD of the catechumen is not de Fide. But consider this, even if it is merely "theologically certain" or "Catholic doctrine", denying BOD still involves a mortal sin against faith and incurs the censures "theological error" or "error in Catholic doctrine" as Fr.Cekada says.

2. No. Completely false. You are firstly confusing two different things. Even if the fate of "who dies in that state of justification" is not clarified, it does not, does not, follow that Trent did not teach baptism of desire.

Baptism of desire merely means that such individuals can obtain the state of justification through desire. This is a logical fallacy on your part.

Second, Trent does in fact address this question specifically because it teaches that nothing whatsoever is lacking in the justified unto salvation, if they depart in grace.
 
So you are wrong on both points, and the authority of St.Alphonsus stands.

As for Scripture, St.Luke should settle it. He relates to us a historical incident of Cornelius that demonstrates that the Holy Ghost can be received by the believing soul before water baptism. You call this "my interpretation" but the fact is this is again all that BOD requires.

The problem seems to be that you think if we believe this, then we wouldn't proclaim to people to receive water baptism. But that is plainly false. As St.Luke did and St.Peter did, so did the great Saints I've mentioned above and so can we do without holding to your position.

3. St.Alphonsus here argues by analogy from penance and more generally from the nature of perfect contrition. It is the repeated promise of Christ, and even the plain words of the Apostle (1 Jn 4:7) that faith working through love of Him brings justifying grace.

St.Alphonsus is not oblivious to the fact that it was said about penance. But he is pointing out what is the effect of charity. And in either case, it brings about the infusion of grace and the remission of sins.

In saying that charity does not always take away punishment, he is not quoting the Council, but relating what St.Thomas and others including maybe St.Augustine had already said.

4. This is irrelevant to me, since I did not quote this docuмent. If I were to appeal to a Papal docuмent, I would perhaps quote Pope St.Pius V's condemnation of Baius, which teaching now asserts that charity does not exist in catechumens without remission of sins.