Author Topic: the desire thereof (Read 22937 times)

Roman Catholic · « **Reply #45 on:** January 14, 2012, 02:33:25 AM »

I apologise. No I am not insane, although you guys could drive someone to it!

I confused you with the other one of you guys who said:

I guess we must have missed all the dogmatic teachings you have to back up your heresies.

Gregory I · « **Reply #46 on:** January 14, 2012, 02:39:23 AM »

Lol. Ok.

I will take criticism if you can bring any to what I said. Let's talk about it. BUt, you can drop it if you want.

I sympathize with Augustinian, the other "one." I do not agree with everything he says though.

And Vice versa.

Nishant · « **Reply #47 on:** January 14, 2012, 03:03:07 AM »

Augustinian,

Quote

That table of theological notes comes from a random 50's priest. That doesn't make it the teaching of the Church.

It comes from a theology manual. That gives it more weight than either one of our opinions here.

Quote

Besides, the issue here isn't whether it's a regular mortal sin to deny Baptism of Desire (and of course it's far from a sin), it's whether or not the Council of Trent taught Baptism of Desire, making BoD heretical to deny.

Besides, even if it were up to three or four grades lower than "Sent.fidei prox", it would still be mortally sinful to deny. In Fr.Feeney's case, it went to the level of the sin of schism.

Quote

Being unanimous or nearly unanimous since

The issue again is that it is your word against theirs. Which has more weight? All the Councils you cite were known to them as well.

Gregory, I'm rather confused as to what your opinion is. It seemed to have started out in support of Baptism of Desire, and then evolved to a complete relapse into Fr.Feeney's doctrine.

As for Pope St.Gregory, if he did make it dogmatic, then St.Alphonsus was a heretic. The same for Florence. You will never find a Saint, especially a theologian, still less a Doctor, who holds a position the Church has already condemned.

In fact, isn't that the basis for sedevacantism? Using sedevacantist logic, if the Church had already condemned it, then Alphonsus wasn't a Saint, and therefore the Church that beatified him wasn't the Catholic Church. Absurd, right? But there you have it.

What then was he talking about? Firstly, that baptism contains the merits of Christ's blood which washes away our sins, and in which the Spirit of God is bestowed upon the faithful soul.

As to martyrdom, you have it backward. As a Latin Father, I think it may have been Saint Augustine or Ambrose said, "Martyrdom has all the sacramental virtue of baptism". That is the basis of baptism by blood. So there is no separation, and martyrdom also possesses the fruits of the sacrament.

Your interpretation of Trent is also mistaken. In the justified, nothing at all is lacking unto eternal life and it is heresy to say otherwise. Again, the analogy is perfect contrition and penance. True contrition, though immediately efficacious, includes the resolve to go to confession as soon as this is possible. Obviously, it doesn't apply if approach to the sacrament is physically or morally impossible.

Your syllogism is an unfortunate oversimplification. What if God wills to save men in a land where the Gospel has never been preached and the Church never established through an interior enlightenment of Himself? Would anyone dare say He was bound in any way to reveal His hidden ways to man? No, He is not and it is unlawful for us to inquire into the knowledge of those things the good God wishes to keep to Himself.

Consider the case of a native American during the Middle Ages who was open to grace, sought the truth and observed the natural law. As a matter of fact, such a person would have died not outside the Church but rather in the friendship of God, and united to the soul of the Church, if he fulfilled the conditions Bl.Pope Pius IX laid out one and a half centuries ago.

Quote

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.

Thomas Kempis rightly says,

Quote

My child, beware of discussing high matters and God's hidden judgments ... Such things often breed strife and useless contentions. They nourish pride and vainglory, whence arise envy and quarrels ... A desire to know and pry into such matters brings forth no fruit.

and

Quote

"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, will not be held guilty of this 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.

Gregory I · « **Reply #48 on:** January 14, 2012, 10:33:43 AM »

Nishant, BOD is admittedly a position I have vaccilated on.

THe reason I seem to have changed my mind is that the only thing convincing me it was legitimate was logically destroyed. I read an article saying we need to believe the common consent of theologians. It then lists 27 theologians who taught BOD. Well, hang on a second! Its not enough to believe a general opinion of a certain ERA, it has to be the CONSTANT and UNANIMOUS teaching of theologians.

Nishant, I hope I can have a good conversation about this with you, and I would really like for you to respond to my other thread when you have the time.

FIRSTLY, what are we arguing here? BOD or whether Trent teaches it?

Trent does not teach it for reasons already given. It teaches the necessity of a proper disposition and baptism itself WITHOUT which one cannot be saved.

Secondly, it is not the error of feeneyism I believe. I believe Fr. Feeney taught much good, but I think he got it wrong in his understanding of Justification. No one can say that a person who dies justified will not go to heaven. Yet, this is what he taught.

I believe in the dogmas of the church AS THEY ARE STATED. No one can be justified apart from water baptism. I believe this is absolute, and that The Fathers of the Church unanimously held this position, The Ecuмenical councils teach it, as well as the Popes in their private magisterium.

Baptism of Desire did not become a serious notion until after the protestant reformation.

IN fact, I have discovered that the Part of the Catechism of Trent which implies BOD is badly translated:

LATIN from the 1669 Roman Catechism (note that this is not the Original text, but the oldest I have been able to find - scans viewable at the bottom of this post):

"...qui rationis usu praediti sint, Baptismi suscipiendi propositum, atque consilium, & male actae vitae poenitentia satis futura sit ad gratiam, & iustitiam, si repentinus aliquis casus impediat, quominus salutari aqua ablui possint."

"The original Latin can easily be and should be translated (in order to preserve the coherence of dogma) to say that if some impediment, obstruction, snare or difficulty (impediat) should be imposed, which holds (possint) a person back from receiving the sacrament then the intention and determination to receive the sacrament and their repentance of sins will avail them to grace and righteousness or justice. This does not explicitly teach baptism of desire, but is perfectly in line with the Catholic position, which states that God will get the sacrament to those whom He deems truly worthy. It teaches that the impediment may be somehow overcome. The subsequent English translation, however, takes the liberty to change the words into something that they never explicitly said."

COMMON ENGLISH TRANSLATION: "...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."

Note the addition of the word "impossible". This is a gratuitous and heretical choice on behalf of the translator, and is not a translation at all, but a paraphrasing which changes the sense of the text.

SO even the Catechism of Trent does not necessarily teach BOD as others insist it does. It teaches that if a person is impeded from receiving the sacrament, we must believe that their intention and disposition will avail them to grace and righteousness. The proper understanding of HOW THAT WORKS is laid out by the angelic doctor when he says that those who are sincere in their desire will basically receive what they ask for.

See, the WHOLE PROBLEM with BOD is that it implies that God needs to create a contingency plan.

False.

GOD has willed before the foundation of the world whom he will save. He has unconditionally chosen to elect some to righteousness. Would God will the salvation of the elect from all eternity in such a way that he OPPOSES his own decrees?!

Never! There is no contradiction in God, and his commandments are absolute. He knows how to bring the sacrament to those who are desirous of it:

FOR GOD DOES NOT COMMAND IMPOSSIBILITY.

Gregory I · « **Reply #49 on:** January 14, 2012, 10:41:56 AM »

Okay NIshant, your opinon where you state:

Quote

Consider the case of a native American during the Middle Ages who was open to grace, sought the truth and observed the natural law. As a matter of fact, such a person would have died not outside the Church but rather in the friendship of God, and united to the soul of the Church, if he fulfilled the conditions Bl.Pope Pius IX laid out one and a half centuries ago.

Is DIRECTLY contradicted by Pope Leo XIII.

Pope Leo XIII, Quarto Abeunte Saeculo #1 (+1902):

“By his (Christopher Columbus’) toil another world emerged from the unsearched bosom of the ocean: hundreds of thousands of mortals have, from a state of blindness been raised to the common level of the human race, reclaimed from savagery to gentleness and humanity; and, greatest of all, by the acquisition of those blessings of which Jesus Christ is the author, they have been recalled from destruction to eternal life.”

Remember, GOd is not blind. If any do not have the gospel, it is due to the hardness of their hearts and their bad will.

What do the scriptures say?

2 Corinthians 4:3: “And if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost, in whom the god of this world [Satan] hath blinded the minds of unbelievers, that the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should not shine unto them.”

That is the biblical notion of invincible ignorance: God, in his sovereignty has hid the gospel from those who are of bad will. They would never convert anyway, so they don't get the gospel.

Put another way: GOD does not want to save those who never hear the gospel.

I agree with Thomas a Kempis, except that we CAN know the dogmatic teaching of the church and the CONSTANT and universal teaching of her magisterium, which are in perfect harmony and DO NOT contradict one another.