Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => The Feeneyism Ghetto => Topic started by: Telesphorus on January 10, 2012, 08:07:54 PM
-
This is the sense in which it has always been understood by the Church, and the Council of Trent (Sess, IV, cap, vi) teaches that justification can not be obtained, since the promulgation of the Gospel, without the washing of regeneration or the desire thereof (in voto). In the seventh session, it declares (can. v) anathema upon anyone who says that baptism is not necessary for salvation. 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.
Baptism of Desire: recognized by the Council of Trent.
-
This is the sense in which it has always been understood by the Church, and the Council of Trent (Sess, IV, cap, vi) teaches that justification can not be obtained, since the promulgation of the Gospel, without the washing of regeneration or the desire thereof (in voto). In the seventh session, it declares (can. v) anathema upon anyone who says that baptism is not necessary for salvation. 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.
Baptism of Desire: recognized by the Council of Trent.
This is just another series of contradictions from you:
CONTRADICTION You say that EENS is not to be understood as it is clearly written dogmatically, NINE TIMES,
CONTRADICTION and you say that Canon V on the absolute necessity of WATER baptism is not to be understood as it is clearly written,
THEN
CONTRADICTION You say that Trent must be understood as it is not even written (if it was written you would not have to explain it, you would just post it , as it is written).
-------------------------
You seem to be implying that "In the seventh session, it declares (can. v) anathema upon anyone who says that baptism is not necessary for salvation, but that baptism of desire is "a form" of baptism. Your interpretation has never been declared by any theologian, for:
CONTRADICTION You are denying the dogma that Baptism of desire is not a sacrament, nor is it equivalent to the sacrament of baptism.
and moreover:
CONTRADICTION you are overlooking the fact that baptism of desire is never mentioned as an alternative in the decree of the sacrament of baptism
CONTRADICTION you are denying the fact that Trent says nothing about what happens to a person who is justified, but dies before he can receive baptism (BOD of the catechumen).
Council of Trent. Seventh Session. March, 1547. Decree on the Sacraments.
On Baptism
Canon 5. If any one saith, that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema.
CANON 2.-If any one saith, that true and natural water is not of necessity for baptism, and, on that account, wrests, to some sort of metaphor, those words of our Lord Jesus Christ; Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost; let him be anathema.
3) You write your interpretaion of "the Council of Trent (Sess, IV, cap, vi", but you have conveniently left out a very important part "as it is written":
Council of Trent, Sess. 6, Chap. 4 “In these words there is suggested a description of the justification of the impious, how there is a transition from that state in which a person is born as a child of the first Adam to the state of grace and of adoption as sons of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ our savior; indeed, this transition, once the gospel has been promulgated, cannot take place without the laver of regeneration or a desire for it, AS IT IS WRITTEN: Unless a man is born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God (John 3:5).
----------------------
Contradiction after contradiction, TRENT does not teach BOD of the catechumen!
-
BOD of the catechumen is never mentioned in the council of Trent, if you still believe that Trent taught BOD of the catechumen, here's more contractions that you will have to contend with:
Sess. 7, Can. 4 of Trent,
Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Session 7, Can. 4, On the Sacraments in General: “If anyone says that the sacraments of the new law are not necessary for salvation but are superfluous, and that people obtain the grace of justification from God without them or a desire for them, by faith alone, though all are not necessary for each individual: let him be anathema.”
Since this canon is anathematizing a false position on the necessity of the Sacraments in General for justification, what doesn’t hold true for all the sacraments on justification must therefore be qualified in the canon. It is a canon on the Sacraments in General. In other words, the Council of Trent couldn’t anathematize the statement: “If anyone says that one can obtain justification without the sacraments...” – since, in the case of one sacrament, the Sacrament of Penance, one can obtain justification by the desire for it. The Council of Trent explicitly defined this no fewer than three times.
Pope Julius III, Council of Trent, Sess. 14, Chap. 4, On 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.”
Therefore, since one can obtain justification without the Sacrament of Penance, in order to make room for this truth in its definition on the Sacraments in General and Justification, the Council had to add the clause “without them or the desire for them” to make its statement applicable to all the sacraments and their necessity or lack thereof for justification.
With this in mind, one can clearly see that this canon doesn’t assert or state anywhere that one can obtain justification or salvation without the Sacrament of Baptism; it is dealing with a different issue in a very specific context. Those who insist that this canon teaches baptism of desire or that one can be justified by the desire for baptism are simply wrong; they err in understanding the canon, while contradicting the clear definition of Trent on the necessity of the Sacrament of Baptism for salvation.
Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, Sess. 7, Can. 5 on the Sacrament of Baptism, ex cathedra: “If anyone says that baptism [the Sacrament] is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation (cf. Jn. 3:5): let him be anathema.”
To further prove this point, let’s look at two other dogmatic definitions (one from Trent and one from Vatican I) which deal with the sacraments in general and salvation. This comparison will corroborate the point above.
Pope Pius IV, “Iniunctum nobis,” The Council of Trent, Nov. 13, 1565, ex cathedra: “I also profess that there are truly and properly seven sacraments of the New Law instituted by Jesus Christ our Lord, and necessary for the salvation of mankind, although all are not necessary for each individual…”
Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, Sess. 2, Profession of Faith, ex cathedra: “I profess also that there are seven sacraments of the new law, truly and properly so called, instituted by our Lord Jesus Christ and necessary for salvation, though each person need not receive them all.”
Notice that the Councils of Trent and Vatican I infallibly define here that “the sacraments” as such (i.e., the sacramental system as a whole) are necessary for man’s salvation. Both definitions add the qualification that all 7 sacraments are not necessary for each individual. This is very interesting and it proves two points:
1) It proves that every man must receive at least one sacrament to be saved; otherwise, “the sacraments” as such (i.e. the sacramental system) couldn’t be said to be necessary for salvation. Hence, this definition shows that each man must at least receive the Sacrament of Baptism in order to be saved.
2) Notice that the Council of Trent and Vatican I made it a special point when defining this truth to emphasize that each person does not need to receive all of the sacraments to be saved! This proves that where exceptions or clarifications are necessary in defining truths, the Councils will include them! Thus, if some men could be saved without “the sacraments” by “baptism of desire,” then the Council could have and would have simply said that; but it didn’t.
Nothing about salvation being possible without the sacraments was taught in these dogmatic professions of Faith. Rather, the truth that the sacraments are necessary for salvation was defined, with the necessary and correct qualification that all 7 of the sacraments are not necessary for each person. The First Vatican Council defined this dogma in the very first statement on Faith at Vatican I.
Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, Sess. 2, Profession of Faith, ex cathedra: “I profess also that there are seven sacraments of the new law, truly and properly so called, instituted by our Lord Jesus Christ and necessary for salvation, though each person need not receive them all.”
No matter how hard one tries to avoid it, “baptism of desire” is incompatible with this truth.
Now, let’s compare these two definitions with Sess. 7, Can. 4 above. Here are all three:
Pope Pius IV, “Iniunctum nobis,” Nov. 13, 1565, ex cathedra: “I also profess that there are truly and properly seven sacraments of the New Law instituted by Jesus Christ our Lord, and necessary for the salvation of mankind, although all are not necessary for each individual…”
Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, Sess. 2, Profession of Faith, ex cathedra: “I profess also that there are seven sacraments of the new law, truly and properly so called, instituted by our Lord Jesus Christ and necessary for salvation, though each person need not receive them all.”
Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Session 7, Can. 4, On the Sacraments in General, ex cathedra: “If anyone says that the sacraments of the new law are not necessary for salvation but are superfluous, and that people obtain the grace of justification from God without them or a desire for them, by faith alone, though all are not necessary for each individual: let him be anathema.”
In comparing these definitions, one notices that Sess. 7, Can. 4 of Trent (the third one) is very similar to the first two dogmatic definitions. In fact, they are almost exactly the same, but with two glaring differences: in the first two dogmatic definitions there is no reference to “without them or the desire for them,” and there is no reference to the topic of justification. The first two definitions are simply dealing with the necessity of the sacraments for salvation, whereas the third (Sess. 7, Can. 4) is dealing with an additional topic: justification and faith alone, and it makes an additional statement about it.
It is obvious that the clause “without them or the desire for them” (not found in the first two definitions) has something to do with the additional subject that is addressed here (justification and faith alone), which is not addressed in the first two definitions. In fact, the clause “without them or the desire for them” comes directly after (directly before in the Latin) the reference to justification in Sess. 7, Can. 4! This serves to prove my point above, that the reference to “without them or the desire for them” in Sess. 7, Can. 4 is there to make room for the truth that justification can be obtained without the Sacrament of Penance by the desire for it, which Trent teaches multiple times. And that is why this clause “without them or the desire for them” is not mentioned in the first two dogmatic definitions dealing with the sacraments and their necessity for salvation! If baptism of desire were true, the clause “without them or the desire for them” would be included in the first two definitions quoted above, but it isn’t.
Sess. 7, Can. 4 is condemning the Protestant idea that one can be justified without the sacraments or even without the desire for them, by faith alone. Why didn’t it simply condemn the idea that one can be justified without the sacraments by faith alone? The answer is, as stated above, because a person can be justified without the sacrament of Penance by the desire for it! Therefore, Trent condemned the Protestant idea that one can be justified without the sacraments or without the desire for them by faith alone. But a person can never be saved without incorporation into the sacramental system through the reception of Baptism. That is why no qualification was made in this regard in any of these definitions. Considering these facts, one can see that this canon is not in any way teaching baptism of desire.
In fact, when looking at Sess. 7, Can. 4 again, we can see something very interesting. Notice that Sess. 7, Can. 4 condemns anyone who says that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation. It adds no qualification, except that all 7 are not necessary for each individual.
Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Session 7, Can. 4, On the Sacraments in General: “If anyone says that the sacraments of the new law are not necessary for salvation but are superfluous, and that people obtain the grace of justification from God without them or a desire for them, by faith alone, though all are not necessary for each individual: let him be anathema.”
After declaring that the sacraments are necessary for salvation (baptism of desire is not a sacrament), it adds at the end the qualification (as the other definitions did) that all 7 are not necessary for each individual! But it adds no qualification that salvation can be attained by the desire for the sacraments in general. Notice that it DOESN’T SAY:
“If anyone says that the sacraments of the new law or the desire for them are not necessary for salvation but are superfluous… let him be anathema.”
Not at all. All of this serves to prove again that the Council of Trent didn’t teach baptism of desire here.
Some may object that this seems rather complicated. It really isn’t complicated, and if it is complicated, it is complicated by the people who deny the simple truth that one must be baptized to be saved, and who tenaciously assert that it is not necessary for all to be born again of water and the Holy Ghost.
Those who misunderstand or stray from the straightforward and totally simple truth (defined in the Canons on the Sacrament of Baptism) are the ones who make it complicated. If people simply repeated and adhered to the truths defined in the Canons on the Sacrament of Baptism, it would be very simple.
The Council of Trent had every opportunity to declare: “If anyone shall say that there are not three ways of receiving the grace of the Sacrament of Baptism, by desire, by blood or by water, let him be anathema,” but it never did. Rather, it declared:
Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, Can. 2 on the Sacrament of Baptism, Sess. 7, 1547, ex cathedra: “If anyone shall say that real and natural water is not necessary for baptism, and on that account those words of Our Lord Jesus Christ: ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit’ [John 3:5], are distorted into some sort of metaphor: let him be anathema.”
Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, Can. 5 on the Sacrament of Baptism, Sess. 7, 1547, ex cathedra: “If anyone says that baptism [the sacrament] is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation (cf. Jn. 3:5): let him be anathema.”
-
Not all the theologians even agree with your false understanding of the Council of Trent.
Fr. Jean-Marc Rulleau: "The existence of baptism of desire is, then, a truth which, although it has not been defined as a dogma by the Church, is at least proximate to the faith."
Ludwig Ott: ""In case of emergency, baptism by water can be replaced by baptism of desire or baptism of blood." (Sent. fidei prox.)"
Fr. Jean-Marc Rulleau and Ludwig Ott both deny that BOD is De Fide. If BOD was taught by the Council of Trent, then it would be De Fide.
According to a traditionalist priest (who believes strongly in Baptism of Desire) and according to his studies, he found also that the following Post-Trent theologians did not teach that Baptism of Desire was De Fide:
Fr. Joseph Aertnys
Fr. Benedict Henry Merkelbach
Fr. Marin-Sola
Fr. Tanquerey
Fr. Clarence McAuliffe
Fr. Felix Cappello
Cardinal Robert Bellarmine
And about a dozen others.
About 7, including Liguori, believed it was De Fide. That's approximately 20 against it being De Fide, and only 7 who believed it was De Fide.
Original Post:
St. Alphonsus says it is de fide that there are those who have been saved by Baptism of Desire.
Bellarmine (who was also canonized and made a Doctor) said that Geocentrism was De Fide. The Holy Office believed it was De Fide. All the theologians up until Copernicus believed in it, especially the Scholastics. All the early fathers believed in Geocentrism as a matter of faith coming directly from the scriptures. Do you accept Geocentrism as being De Fide? I do. But do you? If not, why not? There's a much greater case for Geocentrism than there is for Baptism of Desire.
Since you put your faith in the theologians, how many theologians taught that the Council of Trent taught Baptism of Desire, and how many didn't believe that was the case? So far you brought forth one who said it was De Fide based on the Council of Trent.
Fr. Jean-Marc Rulleau: "The existence of baptism of desire is, then, a truth which, although it has not been defined as a dogma by the Church, is at least proximate to the faith."
Ludwig Ott: ""In case of emergency, baptism by water can be replaced by baptism of desire or baptism of blood." (Sent. fidei prox.)"
According to a traditionalist priest (who believes strongly in Baptism of Desire) and according to his studies, he found also that the following Post-Trent theologians did not teach that Baptism of Desire was De Fide:
Fr. Joseph Aertnys
Fr. Benedict Henry Merkelbach
Fr. Marin-Sola
Fr. Tanquerey
Fr. Clarence McAuliffe
Fr. Felix Cappello
Cardinal Robert Bellarmine
And about a dozen others.
About 7, including Liguori, believed in was De Fide. That's approximately 20 against it being De Fide, and 7 who believe it is De Fide.
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=17148&f=4&min=90&num=10
-
This is the sense in which it has always been understood by the Church, and the Council of Trent (Sess, IV, cap, vi) teaches that justification can not be obtained, since the promulgation of the Gospel, without the washing of regeneration or the desire thereof (in voto). In the seventh session, it declares (can. v) anathema upon anyone who says that baptism is not necessary for salvation. 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.
Baptism of Desire: recognized by the Council of Trent.
......And the road to hell IS NOT paved with good intentions.
-
Are all Feeneyites such emoting fannys?
heh...
Feeneyite... fanny.
-
Are all Feeneyites such emoting fannys?
heh...
Feeneyite... fanny.
By which words, a description of the Justification of the impious is indicated,-as being a translation, from that state wherein man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace, and of the adoption of the sons of God, through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Saviour. 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.
So, the translation from Original Sin to grace cannot happen without being washed via baptism with water, or the desire for baptism with water, and especially because Our Lord declared that unless we are baptized with water we cannot get to heaven. - - - - - And *that's* good enough for BOD supporters!
:scratchchin:
Actually, it's pretty amazing how anyone can get BOD out of that. BOD supporters that use Trent to back them up deserve a hand!
:applause:
-
'm still waiting for an infallible doctrinal definition of BoD.
:fryingpan:
-
I'm still waiting to know why Telesphorsus is in opposition to the majority of theologians, since according to him we have to follow their teachings.
-
I'm still waiting to know why Telesphorsus is in opposition to the majority of theologians, since according to him we have to follow their teachings.
You mean the ones who were denying the Immaculate Conception?
-
I'm still waiting to know why Telesphorsus is in opposition to the majority of theologians, since according to him we have to follow their teachings.
You mean the ones who were denying the Immaculate Conception?
The ones who didn't believe Trent taught Baptism of Desire:
Not all the theologians even agree with your false understanding of the Council of Trent.
Fr. Jean-Marc Rulleau: "The existence of baptism of desire is, then, a truth which, although it has not been defined as a dogma by the Church, is at least proximate to the faith."
Ludwig Ott: ""In case of emergency, baptism by water can be replaced by baptism of desire or baptism of blood." (Sent. fidei prox.)"
Fr. Jean-Marc Rulleau and Ludwig Ott both deny that BOD is De Fide. If BOD was taught by the Council of Trent, then it would be De Fide.
According to a traditionalist priest (who believes strongly in Baptism of Desire) and according to his studies, he found also that the following Post-Trent theologians did not teach that Baptism of Desire was De Fide:
Fr. Joseph Aertnys
Fr. Benedict Henry Merkelbach
Fr. Marin-Sola
Fr. Tanquerey
Fr. Clarence McAuliffe
Fr. Felix Cappello
Cardinal Robert Bellarmine
And about a dozen others.
About 7, including Liguori, believed it was De Fide. That's approximately 20 against it being De Fide, and only 7 who believed it was De Fide.
Original Post:
St. Alphonsus says it is de fide that there are those who have been saved by Baptism of Desire.
Bellarmine (who was also canonized and made a Doctor) said that Geocentrism was De Fide. The Holy Office believed it was De Fide. All the theologians up until Copernicus believed in it, especially the Scholastics. All the early fathers believed in Geocentrism as a matter of faith coming directly from the scriptures. Do you accept Geocentrism as being De Fide? I do. But do you? If not, why not? There's a much greater case for Geocentrism than there is for Baptism of Desire.
Since you put your faith in the theologians, how many theologians taught that the Council of Trent taught Baptism of Desire, and how many didn't believe that was the case? So far you brought forth one who said it was De Fide based on the Council of Trent.
Fr. Jean-Marc Rulleau: "The existence of baptism of desire is, then, a truth which, although it has not been defined as a dogma by the Church, is at least proximate to the faith."
Ludwig Ott: ""In case of emergency, baptism by water can be replaced by baptism of desire or baptism of blood." (Sent. fidei prox.)"
According to a traditionalist priest (who believes strongly in Baptism of Desire) and according to his studies, he found also that the following Post-Trent theologians did not teach that Baptism of Desire was De Fide:
Fr. Joseph Aertnys
Fr. Benedict Henry Merkelbach
Fr. Marin-Sola
Fr. Tanquerey
Fr. Clarence McAuliffe
Fr. Felix Cappello
Cardinal Robert Bellarmine
And about a dozen others.
About 7, including Liguori, believed in was De Fide. That's approximately 20 against it being De Fide, and 7 who believe it is De Fide.
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=17148&f=4&min=90&num=10
-
But how can you attack something that is deemed at the least "proximate to the Faith" by several theologians and de Fide by some others as if it were heretical? This is the real issue - even if it is not dogma, it is by no means heretical, and those who agree with Fr.Feeney sometimes seem to treat it as such.
Baptism of desire is not a sacrament, but it produces the fruits of the sacrament, which include the transition to new birth, as Trent says, and therefore necessarily incorporation into the Church. Just like with penance and perfect contrition, the virtue is not considered apart from the sacrament, but nonetheless immediately effects reconciliation.
It is not possible to argue that a man who thus receives the new birth and sanctifying grace still remains strictly outside the Church, for there is no such grace given outside her. He is mystically united to the soul of the Church, the Holy Spirit, and is consequently on the way to salvation.
Nor is it reasonable to say that a man who dies in the state of grace is lost, because this is impossible. He who dies in the state of grace is saved as surely as he who dies without it is lost.
What is legitimate to believe, although one cannot condemn the opposite opinion, is that to all wayfarers who do receive such saving grace during their lives, the visible ark of salvation will eventually, through the ways of Providence, make her way, so that they may visibly enter it.
Also, a just consideration will show that we can have, as we are taught, no "good hope" for the salvation of non-Catholics, even if they do receive grace, for as any Catholic can testify, there remain abundant opportunities in this fallen world to lose that grace, as Pope Pius XII also taught, there are superabundant helps that can be had only in the visible body. And is it seriously to be hoped that a man can truly love a God of whom He knows but little, or who is presented in such a false sense as in other religions? And if he does, then he will receive the good news that God sent His Son into the world to die for his sins, with gladness.
-
But how can you attack something that is deemed at the least "proximate to the Faith" by several theologians and de Fide by some others as if it were heretical?
Because it leads to this:
Who, then, can be saved? Catholics can be saved if they believe the Word of God as taught by the Church and if they obey the commandments. Other Christians can be saved if they submit their lives to Christ and join the community where they think he wills to be found. Jews can be saved if they look forward in hope to the Messiah and try to ascertain whether God's promise has been fulfilled. Adherents of other religions can be saved if, with the help of grace, they sincerely seek God and strive to do his will. Even atheists can be saved if they worship God under some other name and place their lives at the service of truth and justice. God's saving grace, channeled through Christ the one Mediator, leaves no one unassisted. But that same grace brings obligations to all who receive it. They must not receive the grace of God in vain. Much will be demanded of those to whom much is given.
Avery Cardinal Dulles, S.J.,
If the clear dogmas on EENS can be twisted to mean that one can be saved outside of the Body, then all dogmas are up for grabs. Hence where we are today. Vatican II did not fall from the sky, those "theologians" learned how to manipulte dogma long before.
-
But how can you attack something that is deemed at the least "proximate to the Faith" by several theologians and de Fide by some others as if it were heretical?
Because it leads to this:
Who, then, can be saved? Catholics can be saved if they believe the Word of God as taught by the Church and if they obey the commandments. Other Christians can be saved if they submit their lives to Christ and join the community where they think he wills to be found. Jews can be saved if they look forward in hope to the Messiah and try to ascertain whether God's promise has been fulfilled. Adherents of other religions can be saved if, with the help of grace, they sincerely seek God and strive to do his will. Even atheists can be saved if they worship God under some other name and place their lives at the service of truth and justice. God's saving grace, channeled through Christ the one Mediator, leaves no one unassisted. But that same grace brings obligations to all who receive it. They must not receive the grace of God in vain. Much will be demanded of those to whom much is given.
Avery Cardinal Dulles, S.J.,
If the clear dogmas on EENS can be twisted to mean that one can be saved outside of the Body, then all dogmas are up for grabs. Hence where we are today. Vatican II did not fall from the sky, those "theologians" learned how to manipulte dogma long before.
That's a slippery slope fallacy. Another ridiculous thing that's often claimed is that Vatican II is a result of accepting BoD. Lunacy.
There's no reasoning with such people. Nishant's post is pearls before swine.
-
But how can you attack something that is deemed at the least "proximate to the Faith" by several theologians and de Fide by some others as if it were heretical?
Because it leads to this:
Who, then, can be saved? Catholics can be saved if they believe the Word of God as taught by the Church and if they obey the commandments. Other Christians can be saved if they submit their lives to Christ and join the community where they think he wills to be found. Jews can be saved if they look forward in hope to the Messiah and try to ascertain whether God's promise has been fulfilled. Adherents of other religions can be saved if, with the help of grace, they sincerely seek God and strive to do his will. Even atheists can be saved if they worship God under some other name and place their lives at the service of truth and justice. God's saving grace, channeled through Christ the one Mediator, leaves no one unassisted. But that same grace brings obligations to all who receive it. They must not receive the grace of God in vain. Much will be demanded of those to whom much is given.
Avery Cardinal Dulles, S.J.,
If the clear dogmas on EENS can be twisted to mean that one can be saved outside of the Body, then all dogmas are up for grabs. Hence where we are today. Vatican II did not fall from the sky, those "theologians" learned how to manipulte dogma long before.
That's a slippery slope fallacy. Another ridiculous thing that's often claimed is that Vatican II is a result of accepting BoD. Lunacy.
There's no reasoning with such people. Nishant's post is pearls before swine.
Slippery slope fallacy, huh?
:laugh1:
Where'd you get that?
-
Slippery slope fallacy, huh?
:laugh1:
Where'd you get that?
Belief in BoD makes inevitable belief in universal salvation and indifferentism.
That's a ridiculous slippery slope fallacy.
It doesn't surprise me that you resort to mockery, seeing as your position is totally threadbare.
Father Feeney put his opinion above that of St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Alphonsus Liguori because he was a crank. And people who intentionally misread the Council of Trent to pretend it doesn't allow for Baptism of Desire are cranks.
End of discussion.
-
Slippery slope fallacy, huh?
:laugh1:
Where'd you get that?
If you believe in BoD then it's inevitable that people believe in universal salvation and indifferentism.
It doesn't surprise me that you resort to mockery, seeing as your position is totally threadbare.
Father Feeney put himself above St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Alphonsus Liguori because he was a crank. And people who intentionally misread the Council of Trent to pretend it doesn't allow for Baptism of Desire are cranks.
End of discussion.
You do exactly what you're accusing Father Feeney of doing all the time and you don't know what a slippery slope fallacy is.
-
You do exactly what you're accusing Father Feeney of doing all the time
Okay. Way to be light on the specifics.
and you don't know what a slippery slope fallacy is.
In the classical form, the arguer suggests that making a move in a particular direction ([that is accepting baptism of desire) starts something on a path down a "slippery slope". Having started down the metaphorical slope, it will continue to slide in the same direction (the arguer usually sees the direction as a negative direction, hence the "sliding downwards)"(Baptism of Desire inevitably leads to the position of Avery Dulles)
How so?
-
You do exactly what you're accusing Father Feeney of doing all the time
Okay. Way to be light on the specifics.
and you don't know what a slippery slope fallacy is.
In the classical form, the arguer suggests that making a move in a particular direction ([that is accepting baptism of desire) starts something on a path down a "slippery slope". Having started down the metaphorical slope, it will continue to slide in the same direction (the arguer usually sees the direction as a negative direction, hence the "sliding downwards)"(Baptism of Desire inevitably leads to the position of Avery Dulles)
How so?
Can "slippery slope" arguments be valid?
-
Can "slippery slope" arguments be valid?
It certainly isn't valid to say that accepting BoD leads to universal salvation.
-
Can "slippery slope" arguments be valid?
It certainly isn't valid to say that accepting BoD leads to universal salvation.
I don't think you really understand what "slippery slope" arguments are.
A slippery slope argument can not only be valid, but true as well if you can show the mechanism between the cause and the effect.
I suppose the mechanism in this case would be to refer to the work of Karl Rahner who did in fact use BoD to arrive at his thesis of the anonymous Christian.
In fact it was he who put the Guido Sarducci Letter http://www.romancatholicism.org/feeney-condemnations.htm#a2 in the Enchiridion in the first place, and when he wasn't hanging out at Luise Rinser's flat at six in the morning, or being the darling of the secular and Masonic press, he was destroying the Faith of generations of students at the University of Tubingen, but that's what you might call a digression.
The Salvetti letter contains some of the same ambiguity you'll find in the Second Vatican Council we all love so well...
Actually, I don't care whether or not you accept any of the arguments that are being offered to you. I'm pretty sure you're a lost cause, but hopefully, other people might benefit from these discussions and come around to seeing that Father Leonard Feeney was a lion beset by lesser men like Archbishop Cushing and yourself.
The thought of someone like you calling Father Feeney a hack kind of brings me to examine my own verbiage. Do you think that calling the American Chesterton a "hack" helps your cause?
-
And people who intentionally misread the Council of Trent to pretend it doesn't allow for Baptism of Desire are cranks.
End of discussion.
You just called the vast majority of the theologians including Bellarmine cranks.
I'm still waiting to know why Telesphorsus is in opposition to the majority of theologians, since according to him we have to follow their teachings.
The ones who didn't believe Trent taught Baptism of Desire:
Not all the theologians even agree with your false understanding of the Council of Trent.
Fr. Jean-Marc Rulleau: "The existence of baptism of desire is, then, a truth which, although it has not been defined as a dogma by the Church, is at least proximate to the faith."
Ludwig Ott: ""In case of emergency, baptism by water can be replaced by baptism of desire or baptism of blood." (Sent. fidei prox.)"
Fr. Jean-Marc Rulleau and Ludwig Ott both deny that BOD is De Fide. If BOD was taught by the Council of Trent, then it would be De Fide.
According to a traditionalist priest (who believes strongly in Baptism of Desire) and according to his studies, he found also that the following Post-Trent theologians did not teach that Baptism of Desire was De Fide:
Fr. Joseph Aertnys
Fr. Benedict Henry Merkelbach
Fr. Marin-Sola
Fr. Tanquerey
Fr. Clarence McAuliffe
Fr. Felix Cappello
Cardinal Robert Bellarmine
And about a dozen others.
About 7, including Liguori, believed it was De Fide. That's approximately 20 against it being De Fide, and only 7 who believed it was De Fide.
Original Post:
St. Alphonsus says it is de fide that there are those who have been saved by Baptism of Desire.
Bellarmine (who was also canonized and made a Doctor) said that Geocentrism was De Fide. The Holy Office believed it was De Fide. All the theologians up until Copernicus believed in it, especially the Scholastics. All the early fathers believed in Geocentrism as a matter of faith coming directly from the scriptures. Do you accept Geocentrism as being De Fide? I do. But do you? If not, why not? There's a much greater case for Geocentrism than there is for Baptism of Desire.
Since you put your faith in the theologians, how many theologians taught that the Council of Trent taught Baptism of Desire, and how many didn't believe that was the case? So far you brought forth one who said it was De Fide based on the Council of Trent.
Fr. Jean-Marc Rulleau: "The existence of baptism of desire is, then, a truth which, although it has not been defined as a dogma by the Church, is at least proximate to the faith."
Ludwig Ott: ""In case of emergency, baptism by water can be replaced by baptism of desire or baptism of blood." (Sent. fidei prox.)"
According to a traditionalist priest (who believes strongly in Baptism of Desire) and according to his studies, he found also that the following Post-Trent theologians did not teach that Baptism of Desire was De Fide:
Fr. Joseph Aertnys
Fr. Benedict Henry Merkelbach
Fr. Marin-Sola
Fr. Tanquerey
Fr. Clarence McAuliffe
Fr. Felix Cappello
Cardinal Robert Bellarmine
And about a dozen others.
About 7, including Liguori, believed in was De Fide. That's approximately 20 against it being De Fide, and 7 who believe it is De Fide.
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=17148&f=4&min=90&num=10
None of those believed that Trent taught Baptism of Desire. And all of them affirmed our understanding of the Council of Trent -- that fact that they were inconsistent with themselves in other places is another issue.
-
I don't think you really understand what "slippery slope" arguments are.
I think you are deluding yourself about that, just as you are deluding yourself about the Council of Trent and what it says.
-
Do you think that calling the American Chesterton a "hack" helps your cause?
I think American trads put way too much stock in Chesterton and Father Feeney and way too little stock in St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Alphonsus Liguori.
-
Actually, the correct understanding of Trent can be easily deduced by its Catechism, which is an AUTHENTIC and Authoritative interpreter of this Council, which nobody here is.
First, the section:
CHAPTER IV.
"A description is introduced of the Justification of the impious, and of the Manner thereof under the law of grace.
By which words, a description of the Justification of the impious is indicated,-as being a translation, from that state wherein man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace, and of the adoption of the sons of God, through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Saviour. 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."
This is merely stating that the desire to receive baptism is a necessary disposition to receiving it. It is not directly related to baptism of desire.
Catechism of Trent, Section on Baptism:
Dispositions for Baptism
Intention
"The faithful are also to be instructed in the necessary dispositions for Baptism. In the first place they must desire and intend to receive it; for as in Baptism we all die to sin and resolve to live a new life, it is fit that it be administered to those only who receive it of their own free will and accord; it is to be forced upon none. Hence we learn from holy tradition that it has been the invariable practice to administer Baptism to no individual without previously asking him if he be willing to receive it. This disposition even infants are presumed to have, since the will of the Church, which promises for them, cannot be mistaken."
Faith
Besides a wish to be baptised, in order to obtain the grace of the Sacrament, faith is also necessary. Our Lord and Saviour has said: He that believes and is baptised shall be saved.
Clearly then one needs both the solemn intention to receive baptism in order to receive its grace, AND it needs to be coupled with faith in order to receive its grace.
SO it is not amazing that the council says what it does, it merely asserts the plain and the obvious: To be justified we need the grace of the sacrament. It (baptism) cannot be had without the necessary accompanying disposition: First, the desire to receive it, which implies faith.
If you read the council, it says that the justification cannot be effected WITHOUT baptism or the desire for it. They go together: Disposition and reception.
If a person is baptized without the will to receive baptism, the character on the soul is imprinted, but none of the graces take effect. Worse, if a person is baptized simply out of a desire to have fire insurance and without taking the sacrament seriously, it is a mortal sin of sacrilege. The waters that ought to save in this case actually condemn. If the person were to die after arising out of the baptismal font, blasphemously smug in having gotten his way, and he were killed on the spot, he would descend to Hell.
-
Can "slippery slope" arguments be valid?
It certainly isn't valid to say that accepting BoD leads to universal salvation.
Does hand communion lead to the denigration of faith in the Blessed Sacrament?
-
Augustinian, it is worth noting, that despite your penchant for theological notes, you have overlooked something:
A teaching DOES NOT have to be de fide for it to be a mortal sin to deny.
Sent. Fide Proxima:
(d) Theological Note: Proximate to faith.
Explanation: A doctrine all but unanimously held as revealed by God.
Example: Christ possessed the Beatific Vision throughout his life on earth.
Censure attached to contradictory proposition: Proximate to error.
Effects of denial: Mortal sin indirectly against faith.
http://www.the-pope.com/theolnotes.html
Better step carefully. I am not a fan of BOD. I admit it is plausible theoretically, but I have great difficulty with it.
However, we are also bound to follow the unanimous consent of the churches theologians, and I can name of 27 of them without batting an eyelash who definitely have taught BOD, and all before Vatican II.
I am very split on the BOD issue. I don't like it, I do not think it is de fide myself either, and it is a vague area.
BUT, we are also obliged to follow the unanimous consent of the churches theologians.
What do you do?
-
Augustinian, it is worth noting, that despite your penchant for theological notes, you have overlooked something:
A teaching DOES NOT have to be de fide for it to be a mortal sin to deny.
Sent. Fide Proxima:
(d) Theological Note: Proximate to faith.
Explanation: A doctrine all but unanimously held as revealed by God.
Example: Christ possessed the Beatific Vision throughout his life on earth.
Censure attached to contradictory proposition: Proximate to error.
Effects of denial: Mortal sin indirectly against faith.
http://www.the-pope.com/theolnotes.html
Better step carefully. I am not a fan of BOD. I admit it is plausible theoretically, but I have great difficulty with it.
However, we are also bound to follow the unanimous consent of the churches theologians, and I can name of 27 of them without batting an eyelash who definitely have taught BOD, and all before Vatican II.
I am very split on the BOD issue. I don't like it, I do not think it is de fide myself either, and it is a vague area.
BUT, we are also obliged to follow the unanimous consent of the churches theologians.
What do you do?
That's Ott's opinion as to its level. Ott is good, one of the greatest theologians of the Twentieth Century and certainly he's not part of the problem, inmho, but he's not infallible, and neither is the Trent Catechism.
-
Pope St. Leo the Great, dogmatic letter to Flavian, Council of Chalcedon, 451:
“Let him heed what the blessed apostle Peter preaches, that sanctification by the Spirit is effected by the sprinkling of Christ’s blood (1 Pet. 1:2); and let him not skip over the same apostle’s words, knowing that you have been redeemed from the empty way of life you inherited from your fathers, not with corruptible gold and silver but by the precious blood of Jesus Christ, as of a lamb without stain or spot (1 Pet. 1:18). Nor should he withstand the testimony of blessed John the apostle: and the blood of Jesus, the Son of God, purifies us from every sin (1 Jn. 1:7); and again, This is the victory which conquers the world, our faith. Who is there who conquers the world save one who believes that Jesus is the Son of God? It is He, Jesus Christ, who has come through water and blood, not in water only, but in water and blood. And because the Spirit is truth, it is the Spirit who testifies. For there are three who give testimony – Spirit and water and blood. And the three are one. (1 Jn. 5:4-8) IN OTHER WORDS, THE SPIRIT OF SANCTIFICATION AND THE BLOOD OF REDEMPTION AND THE WATER OF BAPTISM. THESE THREE ARE ONE AND REMAIN INDIVISIBLE. NONE OF THEM IS SEPARABLE FROM ITS LINK WITH THE OTHERS.”
Seems like it is dogmatically defined ex cathedra that Baptism, the Spirit and the Blood of Christ are inseparable. You cannot have sanctification and redemption in the blood without water.
Seems pretty clear, and it cannot be denied.
-
Augustinian, it is worth noting, that despite your penchant for theological notes, you have overlooked something:
A teaching DOES NOT have to be de fide for it to be a mortal sin to deny.
Sent. Fide Proxima:
(d) Theological Note: Proximate to faith.
Explanation: A doctrine all but unanimously held as revealed by God.
Example: Christ possessed the Beatific Vision throughout his life on earth.
Censure attached to contradictory proposition: Proximate to error.
Effects of denial: Mortal sin indirectly against faith.
http://www.the-pope.com/theolnotes.html
Better step carefully. I am not a fan of BOD. I admit it is plausible theoretically, but I have great difficulty with it.
However, we are also bound to follow the unanimous consent of the churches theologians, and I can name of 27 of them without batting an eyelash who definitely have taught BOD, and all before Vatican II.
I am very split on the BOD issue. I don't like it, I do not think it is de fide myself either, and it is a vague area.
BUT, we are also obliged to follow the unanimous consent of the churches theologians.
What do you do?
That table of theological notes comes from a random 50's priest. That doesn't make it the teaching of the Church. 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. The Council of Trent clearly doesn't teach BoD, and the majority of theologians (who I have no faith in, but Telesphorus does, so that's why I point it out) agree that Trent doesn't teach BoD, otherwise they would have said that it was a dogma.
We are not bound to follow the unanimous consent of theologians. The Church never taught that. The docuмent that comes closest to teaching this is the fallible letter Tuas libenter, which doesn't say what some people think it says. It says we must adhere to the teachings of the Church that are "proposed as divinely revealed and, as a result" are held by theologians to be De Fide. It doesn't say that we must adhere to the unanimous consent of theologians, or that if the theologians all hold something to be De Fide then it therefore is De Fide. The only unanimous teachings of theologians we are obliged to adhere to are the unanimous teachings of the early church fathers.
But even if we were obliged to believe in the unanimous teachings of all the theologians, then we still wouldn't have to believe in Baptism of Desire, since the theologians are far from unanimous. Being unanimous or nearly unanimous since the Scholastic era does not constitute unanimity for all times, but only one period of time. Only two or three church fathers believed in BoD. St. Gregory of nαzιenzen, St. Fulgence, and St. Cyril all denied it.
-
Good point...
The theologians are NOT unanimous...or we say that there are no pre-scholastic theologians...
:scratchchin:
How about the ordinary universal magisgterium? If all the bishops of the world are simultaneously teaching a doctrine as true, a doctrine the Pope is also teaching, then we must adhere to it as the universal ordinary magisterial teaching of the church.
What about that? :scratchchin:
How about this-
God's will cannot fail. -St. Augustine.
God wills the institution of the sacraments as necessary means of salvation. Obvious.
God wills Man to partake of them. Obvious.
God chooses some to be saved, but not all. Also obvious (COT, Session 6)
Therefore, since God's will cannot fail, he wills the sacraments, and he wills some to be saved, it would seem that all who are saved are to be saved through the sacraments.
For God's will cannot fail. Even in the face of human freedom, it does not fail, for the grace of God is like a victorious delight in the soul; He makes himself beautiful to us so that we will infallibly come to him. I do not say we cannot resist him, we can, we have the ability. But no one whom he has willed to save actually conquers his will; rather, they are willingly conquered by his love and grace.
Please toss stones gently...
-
Good point...
The theologians are NOT unanimous...or we say that there are no pre-scholastic theologians...
:scratchchin:
How about the ordinary universal magisgterium? If all the bishops of the world are simultaneously teaching a doctrine as true, a doctrine the Pope is also teaching, then we must adhere to it as the universal ordinary magisterial teaching of the church.
What about that? :scratchchin:
The Church never actually explicitly defined at the Vatican Council what the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium is. We can gather from the teachings of Trent and from the Vatican Council (and from the early ecuмenical councils) that we must adhere to the unanimous teachings of the early church fathers. In the words of Pope Leo XIII, when they are unanimous it is a sure sign that those teachings come from the Apostles (Providentissimus Deus). So that gives us an indicator as to what the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium probably is.
The Church never taught that the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium is "all the bishops of the world". That comes from Vatican II in Lumen Gentium.
Pope Pius XII did say (fallibly) in Humani Generis that the ordinary teachings of popes (such as encyclicals) constitutes the Ordinary Magisterium. But he was wrong. The Vatican Council said that the Ordinary Magisterium is infallible and on par with the Solemn Magisterium. But many popes have erred in their encyclicals (including the one he said this in), so those can't be part of the Magisterium.
Ironically (considering the issue at hand), Pope Pius XII also said in that same encyclical that not even theologians have the authority to interpret the deposit of faith.
How about this-
God's will cannot fail. -St. Augustine.
God wills the institution of the sacraments as necessary means of salvation. Obvious.
God wills Man to partake of them. Obvious.
God chooses some to be saved, but not all. Also obvious (COT, Session 6)
Therefore, since God's will cannot fail, he wills the sacraments, and he wills some to be saved, it would seem that all who are saved are to be saved through the sacraments.
For God's will cannot fail. Even in the face of human freedom, it does not fail, for the grace of God is like a victorious delight in the soul; He makes himself beautiful to us so that we will infallibly come to him. I do not say we cannot resist him, we can, we have the ability. But no one whom he has willed to save actually conquers his will; rather, they are willingly conquered by his love and grace.
Please toss stones gently...
I don't think I disagree, but it is getting late... :sleep:
-
I like this one:
I think this is my favorite.
"Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra:
“The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews [aut] or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only those who abide in it do the Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia productive of eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church."
-
My favorite too. It's certainly the clearest statement made any pope on EENS. The Holy Ghost first spoke those words through St. Fulgence before reiterating them at the Council of Florence:
St Fulgence: "Hold most firmly and never doubt that not only all pagans but also all Jews and all heretics and schismatics who finish this present life outside the Catholic Church will go into eternal fire which has been prepared for the Devil and his angels. Hold most firmly and never doubt that any heretic or schismatic whatsoever, baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, if he will not have been gathered to the Catholic Church, no matter how many alms he may have given, even if he shed his blood for the name of Christ, can never be saved." (From the treatise To Peter on the Faith)
-
Another Augustinian theologian gets it right! Who'd have thought, right?!
-
I expanded the quote.
P.S. I'll respond to your private message as soon as I'm able to.
-
One argument I greatly enjoy:
1. God does not command impossibilities. Infallible.
2. God has commanded all men to be baptized. Infallible truth and FACT.
3. Therefore it is possible for all men to be baptized.
In addition, Consider the FACT that God freely chooses some to be saved without condition.
WOuld he choose such to be saved OUTSIDE of the means he established? No, for he would contradict himself!
God wills some to be saved. But if he wills it, he cannot will to violate his own commandments. THerfore, he wills them to be saved according to his commands.
BOD calls into question whether or not GOd knows what he is doing. It introduces a hypothetical scenario where God isn't sure who is going to be saved or not, and so he has to have some contingency plan.
NO.
God has willed from all eternity whom he will save, and whom he will not save. Therefore, from all eternity the MEANS of their salvation have been set in place for the elect. For God will NOT contradict himself: The commandments are not impossible to keep, and e has commanded those who will be saved to be baptized.
-
Scripture is fun too, for those of us who still read it...lol.
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.”
-
On occassion those who support baptism of desire try to quote this section of Trent:
COT:
Session 6:
"For this is that crown of justice which the Apostle declared was, after his fight and course, laid up for him, to be rendered to him by the just judge, and not only to him, but also to all that love his coming. For, whereas Jesus Christ Himself continually infuses his virtue into the said justified,-as the head into the members, and the vine into the branches,-and this virtue always precedes and accompanies and follows their good works, which without it could not in any wise be pleasing and meritorious before God,-we must believe that nothing further is wanting to the justified, to prevent their being accounted to have, by those very works which have been done in God, fully satisfied the divine law according to the state of this life, and to have truly merited eternal life, to be obtained also in its (due) time, if so be, however, that they depart in grace: seeing that Christ, our Saviour, saith: If any one shall drink of the water that I will give him, he shall not thirst for ever; but it shall become in him a fountain of water springing up unto life everlasting."
They say that those who have kept the commandments are obviously here considered justified and to inherit eternal life.
However, they err; for they do not see that Christ made Baptism obligatory upon all, and is itself a divine command. Therefore, those who keep the commandments and are justified so doing are the baptized alone, and not any catechumen. For no catechumen has fulfilled the divine law, for they have not yet obeyed the law of baptism.
When Christ speaks of the divine water, he speaks of baptism. For it is a matter of dogmatic faith that the Sanctification of the Holy Spirit, the cleansing power of the blood of Christ, and the water of baptism are united and are indivisible. Whoever would separate the action of the spirit from the waters of baptism, therefore is a heretic. For it has been dogmatically proclaimed by Pope St. Leo in his dogmatic letter to Flavian:
"And because the Spirit is truth, it is the Spirit who testifies. For there are three who give testimony – Spirit and water and blood. And the three are one. (1 Jn. 5:4-8) IN OTHER WORDS, THE SPIRIT OF SANCTIFICATION AND THE BLOOD OF REDEMPTION AND THE WATER OF BAPTISM. THESE THREE ARE ONE AND REMAIN INDIVISIBLE. NONE OF THEM IS SEPARABLE FROM ITS LINK WITH THE OTHERS.”
-
It looks like this is starting to become the blind leading the blind here in this thread now?
From even a cursory look at the thread, that appears to be valid assessment.
-
It looks like this is starting to become the blind leading the blind here in this thread now?
From even a cursory look at the thread, that appears to be valid assessment.
I guess we must have missed all the dogmatic teachings you have to back up your heresies.
-
It looks like this is starting to become the blind leading the blind here in this thread now?
From even a cursory look at the thread, that appears to be valid assessment.
I guess we must have missed all the dogmatic teachings you have to back up your heresies.
Sadly, you are missing plenty.
I am calling you on this Aug. Quote me - show any heresies I have uttered.
-
How about demonstrating from the CONSTANT (That means from 33 ad onward) universal teaching of the church, BOD.
Which magisterial docuмents of the church teach BOD?
I take offense at your shallow statements. You can at least attempt to understand.
How about demonstrating some facts instead of limpid statements?
THe Extraordinary Magisterium cannot be contradicted or undermined by the ordinary magisterium.
-
How about demonstrating from the CONSTANT (That means from 33 ad onward) universal teaching of the church, BOD.
Which magisterial docuмents of the church teach BOD?
I take offense at your shallow statements. You can at least attempt to understand.
How about demonstrating some facts instead of limpid statements?
Now you are being dishonest.
You said I adhere to heresies.
I called you on it. -- Quote me - show any heresies I have uttered.
You then reply with this rubbish.
I understand very well. You have NO credibility. None at all.
Again -quote me - show any heresies I have uttered. Or withdraw your dishonest accusation.
-
Are you insane? I never said you adhered to heresy.
Although I might just call you rude.
:geezer:
-
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.
-
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.
-
Augustinian,
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.
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.
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.
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, 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
"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.
-
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.
-
Okay NIshant, your opinon where you state:
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.
-
Sadly, you are missing plenty.
I am calling you on this Aug. Quote me - show any heresies I have uttered.
Yes, I just read some of the following material excepted from their site which I DO NOT AGREE WITH:
Beware: Groups and Individuals who teach Heresy
The CMRI – a group which believes in salvation outside the Church
The Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) - a complete file
The SSPV – a group which believes in salvation outside the Church
Giardina, Fr. Leonard of Christ the King Abbey – believes in salvation outside the Church
McKenna, Bishop tells us that baptism of desire = Jews who reject Christ can be saved
McKenna, Bishop – An “Unanswered Letter” from him – Our Letter Debate on Baptism of Desire
Sanborn, Bishop – believes that pagans and idolaters can be saved
Vaillancourt, Fr. Kevin - believes in salvation outside the Church
Williamson, Bishop Richard of the SSPX: a complete schismatic and a wolf in sheep's clothing.
Those articles all point out the heresies of those groups and individuals. You said you disagree. You must then adhere to their same heresies, or at the very least don't believe their heresies are heresies.
In the semi-pelagian thread you also refused to condemn the Pelagian heresies.
If you hold to no heresies then tell everyone here that you condemn Pelagianism, implicit desire, implicit faith / invincible ignorance, and that you believe all pagans, Jews, Muslims, and other non-Catholics are lost. I don't think you'll be doing that though.
-
Sadly, you are missing plenty.
I am calling you on this Aug. Quote me - show any heresies I have uttered.
Yes, I just read some of the following material excepted from their site which I DO NOT AGREE WITH:
Beware: Groups and Individuals who teach Heresy
The CMRI – a group which believes in salvation outside the Church
The Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) - a complete file
The SSPV – a group which believes in salvation outside the Church
Giardina, Fr. Leonard of Christ the King Abbey – believes in salvation outside the Church
McKenna, Bishop tells us that baptism of desire = Jews who reject Christ can be saved
McKenna, Bishop – An “Unanswered Letter” from him – Our Letter Debate on Baptism of Desire
Sanborn, Bishop – believes that pagans and idolaters can be saved
Vaillancourt, Fr. Kevin - believes in salvation outside the Church
Williamson, Bishop Richard of the SSPX: a complete schismatic and a wolf in sheep's clothing.
Those articles all point out the heresies of those groups and individuals. You said you disagree. You must then adhere to their same heresies, or at the very least don't believe their heresies are heresies.
In the semi-pelagian thread you also refused to condemn the Pelagian heresies.
If you hold to no heresies then tell everyone here that you condemn Pelagianism, implicit desire, implicit faith / invincible ignorance, and that you believe all pagans, Jews, Muslims, and other non-Catholics are lost. I don't think you'll be doing that though.
:rolleyes:
You don't seem to comprehend that we Roman Catholics are not subject to you feeneyites! There is a principle involved here. - You have no authority to command us to recite anything.
I already told you I don’t adhere to any heresies. I am a Roman Catholic who, with integrity, recites approved creeds of the Church. You should not be so presumptuous and audacious to demand more than Holy Church herself does!
I will not recite any of the erroneous formulae that you have demanded I recite.
You have no authority to demand I recite any of your pathetic homespun formulae, even if you come up with one that is not erroneous.
You are a pitiable example of a feeneyite, puffed up with your own sense of self-importance. You have to get over your arrogance.
-
You are not subject to any lay person, true. But perhaps it would be wise to consider the words of scripture:
1Peter 3:15
"But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect"
Something to consider.
Is it wrong to ask a fellow Catholic to show his good faith by admitting his approval of the DOGMATIC FORMULAS of the church? I think not. Do not let pride dictate your actions, but show your good faith.
-
:rolleyes:
You don't seem to comprehend that we Roman Catholics are not subject to you feeneyites! There is a principle involved here. - You have no authority to command us to recite anything.
I already told you I don’t adhere to any heresies. I am a Roman Catholic who, with integrity, recites approved creeds of the Church. You should not be so presumptuous and audacious to demand more than Holy Church herself does!
I will not recite any of the erroneous formulae that you have demanded I recite.
You have no authority to demand I recite any of your pathetic homespun formulae, even if you come up with one that is not erroneous.
You are a pitiable example of a feeneyite, puffed up with your own sense of self-importance. You have to get over your arrogance.
Yeah, that's just what I thought.
The Church requires us to believe everything she teaches infallibly, not only those things explicitly contained in the creeds. That's why the creeds say "I profess all other doctrines she professes, and anathematize all other errors she anathematizes."
The "pathetic, homespun formulae" are the teachings of the Council of Carthage, the Council of Lyons, the Council of Florence, and the Council of Trent. You are a blasphemer to call their dogmatic teachings "pathetic".
You don't seem to comprehend that Catholics are obliged to clarify their beliefs if silence or evasion would constitute an implicit denial of the faith or give scandal to your neighbor.
1325 §1: "The faithful are bound to profess their faith openly whenever under the
circuмstances silence, evasion, or their manner of acting would otherwise
implicitly amount to a denial of the faith, or would involve contempt of religion,
an offense to God, or scandal to the neighbor."
-
You are not subject to any lay person, true. But perhaps it would be wise to consider the words of scripture:
1Peter 3:15
"But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect"
Something to consider.
Is it wrong to ask a fellow Catholic to show his good faith by admitting his approval of the DOGMATIC FORMULAS of the church? I think not. Do not let pride dictate your actions, but show your good faith.
Pride does not come into it. I am a staunch Catholic and have principles. I gave you an answer.
It is you feenyites/feeney-types/semi-feeneyites who are the ones that are (at least) in error.
I have shown good faith. I have also never lapsed into heresy, so there is no need for Aug or you to start composing your own homemade formulae of renunciation of errors, and then demand I recite them. lol. Also no need to pluck passages from the Bible that you think are applicable.
Stop taking your yourselves too seriously - you have a lot to learn!
-
So, proving to others that you do not hold to an heretical understanding of a dogma is not important to you?
Is that a Catholic attitude? What would Mary say?
-
1325 §1: "The faithful are bound to profess their faith openly whenever under the
circuмstances silence, evasion, or their manner of acting would otherwise
implicitly amount to a denial of the faith, or would involve contempt of religion,
an offense to God, or scandal to the neighbor."
-
:rolleyes:
You don't seem to comprehend that we Roman Catholics are not subject to you feeneyites! There is a principle involved here. - You have no authority to command us to recite anything.
I already told you I don’t adhere to any heresies. I am a Roman Catholic who, with integrity, recites approved creeds of the Church. You should not be so presumptuous and audacious to demand more than Holy Church herself does!
I will not recite any of the erroneous formulae that you have demanded I recite.
You have no authority to demand I recite any of your pathetic homespun formulae, even if you come up with one that is not erroneous.
You are a pitiable example of a feeneyite, puffed up with your own sense of self-importance. You have to get over your arrogance.
Yeah, that's just what I thought.
The Church requires us to believe everything she teaches infallibly, not only those things explicitly contained in the creeds. That's why the creeds say "I profess all other doctrines she professes, and anathematize all other errors she anathematizes."
The "pathetic, homespun formulae" are the teachings of the Council of Carthage, the Council of Lyons, the Council of Florence, and the Council of Trent. You are a blasphemer to call their dogmatic teachings "pathetic".
You don't seem to comprehend that Catholics are obliged to clarify their beliefs if silence or evasion would constitute an implicit denial of the faith or give scandal to your neighbor.
1325 §1: "The faithful are bound to profess their faith openly whenever under the
circuмstances silence, evasion, or their manner of acting would otherwise
implicitly amount to a denial of the faith, or would involve contempt of religion,
an offense to God, or scandal to the neighbor."
Yawn and :rolleyes:
I am not even going to dignify your bs with any more replies.
You feeney-whatevers are the ones who are in error.
-
The assertion of an opinion does not constitute a fact. If a person believes something he needs more than just his emotions to do the thinking for him. He needs his intellect and will to take over.
I am sorry that you do not find it necessary to demonstrate your orthodoxy when it seems it might be questionable on several issues.
BUT, I have no right to make demands of you, acknowledged.
Very well. May God look and judge.
-
The assertion of an opinion does not constitute a fact. If a person believes something he needs more than just his emotions to do the thinking for him. He needs his intellect and will to take over.
I am sorry that you do not find it necessary to demonstrate your orthodoxy when it seems it might be questionable on several issues.
BUT, I have no right to make demands of you, acknowledged.
Very well. May God look and judge.
The point is that it only seems questionable to you dudes, due to errors you hold or rashness, or both.
You have tried to set yourselves up as the judges of when and why it is necessary.
You have no justification, or authority for your presumptious demands, pressings, requests.
Settle down.
-
Augustinian,
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.
Books by these men are not intrinsically authoritative, as you like to believe. Putting your faith in these men and their writings is the very reason people have embraced all sorts of heresies, departed from the faith, and why we now have widespread apostasy. The apostasy did not come from departing from 1950's theology manuals, or from the Baltimore catechism. It came from denying the dogmatic and infallible teachings of the popes and councils.
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.
Schism? I find it hard to believe that anyone can spend time on this website and still say something like that without lying to themselves.
The whole thing wasn't even about Baptism of Desire. It was about the Modernists (particularly his superior and the Jesuits at his university) who were flat out refusing even to give lip service to the slogan "Outside the Church There is No Salvation." Not only did they deny EENS, they denied even the slogan.
His superior, Richard Cushing - the man who instigated the "condemnation" of Fr. Feeney - and the man who detractors of Fr. Feeney like to take sides with:
- Was a Modernist.
- Believed in False Ecuмenism.
- Went along with Vatican II.
- Not only did went along with it - but enthusiastically helped in creating the docuмents.
- Was an Indifferentist.
- Had Jєωιѕн friends and family members, who he refused to believe could go to hell.
- Was B'nai B'rith Man of the Year in February 1956.
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.
The issue is the teachings of the Church against theirs. And I already showed you and everyone else (about five times now) that 20 theologians, including Bellarmine, contradict Alphonsus and those other few theologians who teach that Trent taugh BoD.
You will never find a Saint, especially a theologian, still less a Doctor, who holds a position the Church has already condemned.
Are you sure you want to stand by that statement?
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.
You're starting out with a false premise: that an erroneous beatification or canonization can never be come from a pope, and thus whatever a canonized saint teaches must be right, and the teachings of the infallible Councils must not say what they say.
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 was Thomas Aquinas. And he was quoting a treatise from the noted Semipelagian Gennadius, not St. Ambrose or St. Augustine. And interestingly enough, the quote from Gennadius rejected Baptism of Desire and said that even if a man dies in good works and unbaptized he cannot be saved - it gave martyrdom as the only exception to this. That would rule out 99% of potential people saved without baptism, including he common catechumen.
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.
There is no oversimplification. It's heretics who take the simple dogmas and twist them and complicate them into something contrary to justify their sentimental denial of it.
What if God wills to save Satan and bring him back to heaven? What if God wills to save an unrepentant adulterer since He's so merciful? Are you going to dare question that?
If a man is part of the elect, whether he be a man in modern Europe or some Zulu savage, then he will die within the bosom and unity of the Church.
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.
You need to have supernatural faith to be saved. The ignorant native has no supernatural faith, but only a natural faith (if even that). Faith comes by hearing. If an ignorant native has never heard of the faith, then he has no faith and cannot be saved.
The 'Soul of the Church' is the Holy Ghost, not some invisible church of unbelievers.
Pope Pius IX never taught invincible ignorance - that's a common misconception. In fact, there were a couple men in the 1800's (such as Fr. Mueller and O. Brownson) who pointed out that liberals were using Pius IX's docuмents out of context to justify their heresy of "salvation by invincible ignorance". And in fact they weren't Feeneyites -- it was people like you who were considered the liberals. They called you 'Latitudinarians'.
How many faiths are there in the Church? Is there one faith in the Church, or many faiths? To say that there are people with varying faiths in the Church is to deny the unity of faith that exists in the Church. You create a Church not of the faithful, but of heretics and unbelievers.
How many Lords are there? Can someone who rejects the Lord (such as Jews and Muslims) have the same Lord as Catholics?
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.
What is divine light other than the light of the Gospel?
Also, in that same speech (and several places elsewhere) Pope Pius IX explicitly states there is no salvation outside the one ark of salvation (which you quoted), and silences those who speculate on the salvation of non-Catholics.
"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.
It doesn't say they will be saved. That's heresy ('Latitudinarianism' according to those who opposed you liberals). It says that if ignorance of the true religion is invincible, they will not be guilty for their unbelief. It speaks of nothing of their salvation.
I'm not going to pretend (as others do) that Pope Pius IX statements are so outstandingly clear. The statement are fairly weak and could have (and should have) been more clear. But they're still not teaching what you and other liberals think they are.
-
The Popes have condemned BOD out of their own mouths:
Pope Gregory XVI in Mirari Vos says:
13. Now We consider another abundant source of the evils with which the Church is afflicted at present: indifferentism. This perverse opinion is spread on all sides by the fraud of the wicked who claim that it is possible to obtain the eternal salvation of the soul by the profession of any kind of religion, as long as morality is maintained. Surely, in so clear a matter, you will drive this deadly error far from the people committed to your care. With the admonition of the apostle that "there is one God, one faith, one baptism"[16] may those fear who contrive the notion that the safe harbor of salvation is open to persons of any religion whatever. They should consider the testimony of Christ Himself that "those who are not with Christ are against Him,"[17] and that they disperse unhappily who do not gather with Him. Therefore "without a doubt, they will perish forever, unless they hold the Catholic faith whole and inviolate."[18] Let them hear Jerome who, while the Church was torn into three parts by schism, tells us that whenever someone tried to persuade him to join his group he always exclaimed: "He who is for the See of Peter is for me."[19] A schismatic flatters himself falsely if he asserts that he, too, has been washed in the waters of regeneration. Indeed Augustine would reply to such a man: "The branch has the same form when it has been cut off from the vine; but of what profit for it is the form, if it does not live from the root?"[20]
14. This shameful font of indifferentism gives rise to that absurd and erroneous proposition which claims that liberty of conscience must be maintained for everyone. It spreads ruin in sacred and civil affairs, though some repeat over and over again with the greatest impudence that some advantage accrues to religion from it. "But the death of the soul is worse than freedom of error," as Augustine was wont to say.[21] When all restraints are removed by which men are kept on the narrow path of truth, their nature, which is already inclined to evil, propels them to ruin. Then truly "the bottomless pit"[22] is open from which John saw smoke ascending which obscured the sun, and out of which locusts flew forth to devastate the earth. Thence comes transformation of minds, corruption of youths, contempt of sacred things and holy laws -- in other words, a pestilence more deadly to the state than any other. Experience shows, even from earliest times, that cities renowned for wealth, dominion, and glory perished as a result of this single evil, namely immoderate freedom of opinion, license of free speech, and desire for novelty.
Notice the progression: The belief that persons of other religions can be saved through the moral observance of the natural law (Which is EXACTLY what the modern idea of BOD is) is erroneous because it gives rise to INDIFFERENTISM. THis is OBVIOUS if we consider the antics of JPII. We can see the principle in motion.
From indifferentism we arrive at liberty of conscience, another idea condemned by Gregory's successor Pius IX.
These things are obvious, and in SO CLEAR A MATTER they are to be rejected. I reject the notion that the observance of the natural law by a person of another religion could suffice for their salvation.
So does Rome!
-
Augustinian, part of my post was actually addressed to Gregory, but all right. And I do not condemn Fr.Feeney, but I think if he was treated unfairly by his superior, he should have gone to Rome on his own initiative. Why didn't he, even when summoned? I also think the letter from the Holy Office gives a fair exposition of all the issues involved. The desire may be implicit, but it must be enlightened by supernatural faith and animated by perfect charity.
The issue is the teachings of the Church against theirs.
That's your opinion, but it is far from clear. Let me straighten this out - are you saying merely, "Trent didn't make BOD dogmatic" or "BOD is actually heretical"?
I hold that BOD is de Fide, though I admit this is disputed. Still, nobody would rank it on the level of heresy or anything less than a plausible, and even favored, theological opinion.
Are you sure you want to stand by that statement?
If I'm wrong, I'd definitely like to know it. I can't help but think that would seriously undermine the basis for sedevacantism though.
That would rule out 99% of potential people saved without baptism, including he common catechumen.
What? Martyrs may be saved by the baptism of blood. Catechumens on the other may be saved by baptism of desire, and if this were not true, the Church would be extremely negligent, in delaying baptism for them, as the Catechism of Trent says, the danger is not present, since desire avails them to "grace and righteousness" and it cannot be denied that those who die in grace enter the Kingdom of God.
If a man is part of the elect, whether he be a man in modern Europe or some Zulu savage, then he will die within the bosom and unity of the Church.
Can men avail "grace and righteousness" outside the bosom and unity of the Church? Such persons belong to the soul of the Church, and are mystically united to Him by faith which works through love, as the Apostle says.
If an ignorant native has never heard of the faith, then he has no faith and cannot be saved.
God supernaturally leads the person to that knowledge of Him that salvation consists of, which, on the basis of St.John 17:3, I believe to include the truths that can only be known through divine revelation and that are expressed in the chief articles of the Creed, particularly the Trinity and Incarnation. This is divine light, which brings that person to grace.
I'm not going to pretend (as others do) that Pope Pius IX statements are so outstandingly clear.
Good, but they actually are clear, but they explain the position I hold, which is a far cry from Latitudinarism. I've also never said anyone is "saved by invincible ignorance" as you allege.
Gregory I, yeah, we will. I'll reply to your PM just after this.
Its not enough to believe a general opinion of a certain ERA, it has to be the CONSTANT and UNANIMOUS teaching of theologians.
Not really. Theologians are intermediaries between the Magisterium and the faithful, and they explain to us the mind of the Church. The docuмents of the Magisterium cannot be read in isolation, nor treated by private judgment, nor held up to one's own understanding of them as a benchmark. The unanimous teaching of theologians takes into account all the doctrines of the Saints and the decrees of the Councils.
BOD or whether Trent teaches it
As I understand it, that BOD is not heretical but is perfectly legitimate.
See, the WHOLE PROBLEM with BOD is that it implies that God needs to create a contingency plan.
This argument is open to several objections. First, would you maintain that perfect contrition was a "contingency plan" for Catholics in mortal sin? The fact is God doesn't need a human instrument, but we are bound to abide by those He has instituted. Thus, the penitent is bound to confess to the priest even if forgiven already. This is for moral certainty, which likewise can only be had on our part if said native was reconciled to the visible Church. Thus is explained the Pope's letter as well.
Not that I would in any way base the substance of my argument on it, but I remember reading an incident about this, involving St.Jean Marie Vianney, a dying Jewess, her son, a Catholic priest, and the Immaculate conception. It probably belongs on another thread, but it is worth the read here (http://papastronsay.blogspot.com/2011/10/text-of-letter-prophesied-to-father.html). This is only a possible illustration of why it is human folly to place a dogmatic limit of this sort on divine Providence.
-
So, what you're saying is that most of the Sedes who reject the person of the Pope on the basis of what Cardinal Cushing himself believed, are really engaging in special pleading when they insist that Father Leonard Feeney was condemned for heresy by a man who, according to their lights, would haven't had the authority to condemn Father Feeney in the first place owing to his public and obstinate [possibly formal] heresy?
-
Augustinian, part of my post was actually addressed to Gregory, but all right. And I do not condemn Fr.Feeney, but I think if he was treated unfairly by his superior, he should have gone to Rome on his own initiative. Why didn't he, even when summoned? I also think the letter from the Holy Office gives a fair exposition of all the issues involved. The desire may be implicit, but it must be enlightened by supernatural faith and animated by perfect charity.
He didn't go because he wasn't told what the charges against him were beforehand, which is stipulated in the canon law.
-
That's your opinion, but it is far from clear. Let me straighten this out - are you saying merely, "Trent didn't make BOD dogmatic" or "BOD is actually heretical"?
I'm saying the former, which is what this thread was about. Trent did not teach BoD.
If I'm wrong, I'd definitely like to know it. I can't help but think that would seriously undermine the basis for sedevacantism though.
It has nothing to do with Sedevacantism.
Thomas Aquinas defended the Aristotilean dotrine of an eternal world after the Fourth Council of Constantinople taught that God alone is eternal. He also contradicted the teaching of Pope St. Zosimus that the unbaptized are co-heirs with the devil, worthy of death, and cannot live in bliss.
That would rule out 99% of potential people saved without baptism, including he common catechumen.
What? Martyrs may be saved by the baptism of blood. Catechumens on the other may be saved by baptism of desire, and if this were not true, the Church would be extremely negligent, in delaying baptism for them, as the Catechism of Trent says, the danger is not present, since desire avails them to "grace and righteousness" and it cannot be denied that those who die in grace enter the Kingdom of God.
The quote you were referring to comes from the Summa. The Summa itself was quoting a Semipelagian writer named Gennadius. Gennadius taught that all people are lost without baptism, even if they die in good works, unless they are martyred. That means that according to him (who you were using to defend Baptism of Blood) people who die without baptism and are not martyrs are lost. That would mean that people who have "Baptism of Desire" absent of martyrdom are lost, which is (I would guess) 99% of catechumens.
Can men avail "grace and righteousness" outside the bosom and unity of the Church?
Absolutely not.
Such persons belong to the soul of the Church, and are mystically united to Him by faith which works through love, as the Apostle says.
No they don't. The Church never taught that. You're confusing the innovations of 17th century theologians with the teachings of the Church. The Council of Florence said the Church is an ecclesaastical body, and that if you do not persevere in the unity of that body, you are not fit to participate in salvation.
Good, but they actually are clear, but they explain the position I hold, which is a far cry from Latitudinarism. I've also never said anyone is "saved by invincible ignorance" as you allege.
If you reject invincible ignorance, then what are you arguing for?
Its not enough to believe a general opinion of a certain ERA, it has to be the CONSTANT and UNANIMOUS teaching of theologians.
Not really. Theologians are intermediaries between the Magisterium and the faithful, and they explain to us the mind of the Church. The docuмents of the Magisterium cannot be read in isolation, nor treated by private judgment, nor held up to one's own understanding of them as a benchmark. The unanimous teaching of theologians takes into account all the doctrines of the Saints and the decrees of the Councils.
Do you accept Vatican II?
Not that I would in any way base the substance of my argument on it, but I remember reading an incident about this, involving St.Jean Marie Vianney, a dying Jewess, her son, a Catholic priest, and the Immaculate conception. It probably belongs on another thread, but it is worth the read here (http://papastronsay.blogspot.com/2011/10/text-of-letter-prophesied-to-father.html). This is only a possible illustration of why it is human folly to place a dogmatic limit of this sort on divine Providence.
I've encountered this argument regarding St. John Vianney before. I have no less than four books about St. John Vianney, all written prior to the 20th century, one of which was even written by a family member of his. Not one of them mentions this Jewess story. It appears to me to be a later tale.
-
Nishant, there are several issues present here that are inconsistent with the teaching of the church. Allow me to elucidate:
BOB and BOD are not part of the universal and ordinary magisterium. Here is why: They were not taught or endorsed by the unanimous consent of the fathers before the scholastic era. The Ordinary and UNIVERSAL magisterium must have unbroken unanimous consensus all the way back to the apostles. That does not exist for BOB and BOD.
For example, the church fathers do NOT consider catechumens to be justified or part of the faithful in any way whatsoever.
I CAN give more, but for brevity let me quote two:
The greatest in the East, St. John Chrysostom, and the greatest in the west St. Augustine from his LATER period after he had repudiated his belief in BOD and BOB.
St. John Chrysostom (Hom. in Io. 25, 3), (4th Century):
“For the Catechumen is a stranger to the Faithful… One has Christ for his King; the other sin and the devil; the food of one is Christ, of the other, that meat which decays and perishes… Since then we have nothing in common, in what, tell me, shall we hold communion?… Let us then give diligence that we may become citizens of the city above… for if it should come to pass (which God forbid!) that through the sudden arrival of death we depart hence uninitiated [unbaptized], though we have ten thousand virtues, our portion will be none other than hell, and the venomous worm, and fire unquenchable, and bonds indissoluble.”
Again he says
St. John Chrysostom, The Consolation of Death: “And plainly must we grieve for our own catechumens, should they, either through their own unbelief or through their own neglect, depart this life without the saving grace of baptism.”
Now allow me to mention St. Augustine
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."
Here St. Augustine indicates that unbaptized Catechumens die and go to hell because of the impurity of their motive, "Looking for rewards."
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.”
Basically the east and the west take their leads from these two, So I will content myself with them.
NOW:
The Catechumen is not considered by the fathers to belong to the faithful. This is the unanimous consent of the fathers.
Take the words of St. Ambrose:
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.”
This belief was re-iterated by Pope St. Leo the Great in his DOGMATIC letter to flavian, the contents of which it is a mortal sin to deny and heresy:
" Nor should he withstand the testimony of blessed John the apostle: and the blood of Jesus, the Son of God, purifies us from every sin (1 Jn. 1:7); and again, This is the victory which conquers the world, our faith. Who is there who conquers the world save one who believes that Jesus is the Son of God? It is He, Jesus Christ, who has come through water and blood, not in water only, but in water and blood. And because the Spirit is truth, it is the Spirit who testifies. For there are three who give testimony – Spirit and water and blood. And the three are one. (1 Jn. 5:4-8) IN OTHER WORDS, THE SPIRIT OF SANCTIFICATION AND THE BLOOD OF REDEMPTION AND THE WATER OF BAPTISM. THESE THREE ARE ONE AND REMAIN INDIVISIBLE. NONE OF THEM IS SEPARABLE FROM ITS LINK WITH THE OTHERS.”
Therefore, we see that the CHURCH HERSELF by the INFALLIBLE DECLARATION OF THE POPE has determined that the Sanctifying power of the Holy Spirit, and the redemptive power of the blood of Christ CANNOT be separated from Water baptism at all.
For what is BOD but a participation in the Spirit and the Blood without water? But this is heretical in that it denies the dogmatic letter of Leo and the unanimous and ordinary magisterial teaching of the fathers, who teach that WATER baptism ALONE can justify a man.
Likewise, what else is BOB but a belief in the redemptive power of the blood and the washing of the Holy Spirit without water? Again, this notion is condemned.
Pope Eugene IV testifies:
Pope Eugene IV, “Cantate Domino,” Council of Florence, ex cathedra: “No one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has persevered within the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”
How can we be sure of this interpretation? Look at the Fathers: The Catechumens are not part of the faithful, and if anyone were going to be saved by BOB or BOD they would, but the universal consensus of the fathers is that they will NOT, for they are not part of the faithful. Martyrdom is ONLY of value for those who are already baptized. The AUTHENTIC view of BOB is that those who sin AFTER baptism can be restored by being "baptized"in their own blood.
This is also attested to by the Fathers:
St. John Damascene:
“These things were well understood by our holy and inspired fathers --- thus they strove, after Holy Baptism, to keep... spotless and undefiled. Whence some of them also thought fit to receive another Baptism: I mean that which is by blood and martyrdom.
Here he is indicating that the baptized sought ANOTHER baptism, of blood.
I could multiply examples, but here ya go.
-
NIshant, you said this:
Not really. Theologians are intermediaries between the Magisterium and the faithful, and they explain to us the mind of the Church. The docuмents of the Magisterium cannot be read in isolation, nor treated by private judgment, nor held up to one's own understanding of them as a benchmark. The unanimous teaching of theologians takes into account all the doctrines of the Saints and the decrees of the Councils.
I would like to offer a friendly correction from, of course, the council of Trent:
This is from session 23, chapter IV:
"These are the things which it hath seemed good to the sacred Synod to teach the faithful in Christ, in general terms, touching the sacrament of Order. But It hath resolved to condemn whatsoever things are contrary thereunto, in express and specific canons, in the manner following; in order that all men, with the help of Christ, using the rule of faith, may, in the midst of the darkness of so many errors, more easily be able to recognise and to hold Catholic truth."
Trent expected anyone to be able to read this council and apply the rule of faith with the help of the Holy Spirit, so that the truth may be more easily recognized.
If we reduce everything to "interpretations" where does it end?
Rather DOGMA is the final and solemn INTERPRETATION of a point of contention.
Remember, a magister is a TEACHER. The Magisterium is a TEACHING office. This implies two things:
1. There is something to teach.
2. There is someone to teach.
Which both imply:
1. The truth is teachable.
2. People can learn the truth.
Which means:
1. If people are teachable, they are to learn directly from the church.
2. Having learned, they are to apply what they have learned directly.
Theologians are an AID in this process. The Church teaches ALL MEN. It does not teach solely the theologians. Anyone of Good will can read what the church teaches and form a true understanding on those things which are dogmatically settled, a certain opinion on those things that are certain, and a reasonable opinion on that which is reasonable.
Remember, there must always be heresies and heretics, so that those who are approved my shine forth. There is no way to have a perfectly informed faithful as a whole. Yet individuals can be perfectly formed in the faith.
-
Beware: Groups and Individuals who teach Heresy
The CMRI – a group which believes in salvation outside the Church
The Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) - a complete file
The SSPV – a group which believes in salvation outside the Church
Giardina, Fr. Leonard of Christ the King Abbey – believes in salvation outside the Church
McKenna, Bishop tells us that baptism of desire = Jews who reject Christ can be saved
McKenna, Bishop – An “Unanswered Letter” from him – Our Letter Debate on Baptism of Desire
Sanborn, Bishop – believes that pagans and idolaters can be saved
Vaillancourt, Fr. Kevin - believes in salvation outside the Church
Williamson, Bishop Richard of the SSPX: a complete schismatic and a wolf in sheep's clothing.
If we rejected these prelates just because they are against us believers in EENS as it is written, it would be as big as mistake as they make by attacking us as lepers for teaching dogma as it is written, and not allowing us to receive communion like some of them do.
Notice that all these people above were educated in SSPX seminaries, the source of their "education" is the same. It is what was taught to them by their master, who believed in the salvation of Muslims, Jews, and all other religions.
I always thought it odd that traditionalists like the SSPX would be the ones writing all those books against "Feeneyism", when at the same time they complain about the manipulation of dogmas by the modernists. There is no clearer defined dogma than EENS, and yet the SSPX teaches that it does not mean what it clearly says, then turns around and complains when the progressivists do the same to all teachings. Go figure? More contradictions!
-
Beware: Groups and Individuals who teach Heresy
The CMRI – a group which believes in salvation outside the Church
The Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) - a complete file
The SSPV – a group which believes in salvation outside the Church
Giardina, Fr. Leonard of Christ the King Abbey – believes in salvation outside the Church
McKenna, Bishop tells us that baptism of desire = Jews who reject Christ can be saved
McKenna, Bishop – An “Unanswered Letter” from him – Our Letter Debate on Baptism of Desire
Sanborn, Bishop – believes that pagans and idolaters can be saved
Vaillancourt, Fr. Kevin - believes in salvation outside the Church
Williamson, Bishop Richard of the SSPX: a complete schismatic and a wolf in sheep's clothing.
If we rejected these prelates just because they are against us believers in EENS as it is written, it would be as big as mistake as they make by attacking us as lepers for teaching dogma as it is written, and not allowing us to receive communion like some of them do.
Notice that all these people above were educated in SSPX seminaries, the source of their "education" is the same. It is what was taught to them by their master, who believed in the salvation of Muslims, Jews, and all other religions.
I always thought it odd that traditionalists like the SSPX would be the ones writing all those books against "Feeneyism", when at the same time they complain about the manipulation of dogmas by the modernists. There is no clearer defined dogma than EENS, and yet the SSPX teaches that it does not mean what it clearly says, then turns around and complains when the progressivists do the same to all teachings. Go figure? More contradictions!
Note to CI members,
Nadifeeney, one of the bothersome F-Troopers currently pestering us, declares that "all these people above were educated in SSPX seminaries."
:rolleyes:
This is just another example of the poor quality of what we have been dealing with.
I am not going to bother wasting time trying to reason him anymore.
He and the other know-nothing F-Troopers are just wasting our time.
Notice to the Feeneyites/Semi-Feeneyites/Quasi-Feeneyites:
We traditional Roman Catholics who know our Faith will not fall into your errors!
Instead we will keep the Faith.
-
I would be interested in knowing what the primary error being made is.
Is it a failure to adhere to church dogma?
Is it a failure to adhere to the constant and universal teaching of the church?
Is it a failure to adhere to the unanimous consent of the Fathers?
Perhaps it is a failure to accept and follow the teaching of the ecuмenical councils.
No?
In what then does the error consist?
1. YOu know the dogmas. They are clear. Clearly, we follow them.
2. The constant and universal teaching of the church (I.e. ordinary magisterium) must be CONSTANT. It cannot belong to one era in history as BOD does. It only takes of seriously after the time of St. Bernard because people misunderstood St. Augustine who REJECTED the view. That is from the 12th century.
3. It is not due to a failure to understand the universal consensus of the Fathers: Their universal consensus was that Catechumens are damned no matter how much virtue they have. In all the hundreds of church fathers, only 2 appear to teach BOD, and only 8 teach something like BOB. Far from unanimous. And these who taught so contradicted themselves at different times.
4. None of the ecuмenical councils, including Trent, teach BOD. Trent teaches the necessity of the proper disposition that goes with baptism, WITHOUT WHICH none are saved.
So explain something:
In what does our error consist?
-
I would be interested in knowing what the primary error being made is.
Is it a failure to adhere to church dogma?
Is it a failure to adhere to the constant and universal teaching of the church?
Is it a failure to adhere to the unanimous consent of the Fathers?
Perhaps it is a failure to accept and follow the teaching of the ecuмenical councils.
No?
In what then does the error consist?
1. YOu know the dogmas. They are clear. Clearly, we follow them.
2. The constant and universal teaching of the church (I.e. ordinary magisterium) must be CONSTANT. It cannot belong to one era in history as BOD does. It only takes of seriously after the time of St. Bernard because people misunderstood St. Augustine who REJECTED the view. That is from the 12th century.
3. It is not due to a failure to understand the universal consensus of the Fathers: Their universal consensus was that Catechumens are damned no matter how much virtue they have. In all the hundreds of church fathers, only 2 appear to teach BOD, and only 8 teach something like BOB. Far from unanimous. And these who taught so contradicted themselves at different times.
4. None of the ecuмenical councils, including Trent, teach BOD. Trent teaches the necessity of the proper disposition that goes with baptism, WITHOUT WHICH none are saved.
So explain something:
In what does our error consist?
To whom exactly is this addressed?
To whom exactly does "we" and "our" refer?
I understand that you think you have it all down pat and are capable of teaching us. But you were arguing for BOD and BOB just a few short months ago. Maybe in another few weeks or months you will have another position on these issues.
-
I stated before that I was opposed to it. The only reason I believed it is that I was convinced by a false argument of Fr. Cekada.
He says we are bound to believe the unanimous teaching of theologians.
No. We are bound to believe the unanimous teaching of theologians that propose something as revealed by Catholic Faith.
The theologians before the 12th century did NOT teach Baptism of Desire.
So it originates from a particular era.
It is therefore NOT part of the constant and universal teaching of the Church.
consider St. Gregory nαzιanzen who mocks the idea:
St. Gregory obviously rejected the notion of baptism of desire.
St. Gregory Nanzianzus, Oration 40, 381:
"But then, you say, is not God merciful, and since He knows our thoughts and searches out our desires, will He not take the desire of Baptism instead of Baptism? You are speaking in riddles... And I look upon it as well from another point of view. If you judge the murderously disposed man by his will alone, apart from the act of murder, then you may reckon as baptized him who desired baptism apart from the reception of baptism. But if you cannot do the one how can you do the other? I cannot see it. Or, if you like, we will put it thus:— If desire in your opinion has equal power with actual baptism, then judge in the same way in regard to glory, and you may be content with longing for it, as if that were itself glory. And what harm is done you by your not attaining the actual glory, as long as you have the desire for it?"
We have already seen the damage this belief brings, and really, by their fruits you shall know them.
What is the spiritual FRUIT of belief in Baptism of desire? Indifference. False Ecuмenism. Denial of the Church's Dogmas. Denial of the Providence of God.
-
We traditional Roman Catholics who know our Faith
What faith? You have not stated what you believe, you are a fraud. Be honest and tell us like Avery Dulles did.
-
We traditional Roman Catholics who know our Faith
What faith? You have not stated what you believe, you are a fraud. Be honest and tell us like Avery Dulles did.
C'mon, Nadie. You asked in another thread what "brand" of BOD I believed in, and I gave a very detailed account. Stop pretending that a BOD view has never been completely done here. It may assuage your own conscience, but it cannot fool all of the readers here.
[/size]
Are you the same person as Roman Catholic?
-
We traditional Roman Catholics who know our Faith
What faith? You have not stated what you believe, you are a fraud. Be honest and tell us like Avery Dulles did.
C'mon, Nadie. You asked in another thread what "brand" of BOD I believed in, and I gave a very detailed account. Stop pretending that a BOD view has never been completely done here. It may assuage your own conscience, but it cannot fool all of the readers here.
[/size]
Are you the same person as Roman Catholic?
He makes a lot of the same typos. I think there's a conspiracy.
-
Augstine Baker,
So, what you're saying is that most of the Sedes who reject the person of the Pope on the basis of what Cardinal Cushing himself believed, are really engaging in special pleading when they insist that Father Leonard Feeney was condemned for heresy by a man who, according to their lights, would haven't had the authority to condemn Father Feeney in the first place owing to his public and obstinate [possibly formal] heresy?
Well, that's a good point, actually, but no I hadn't thought of it. See, my understanding of the mind of the Church is,
1. We can't hold that BOD is heretical.
2. We can't hold that those who die in grace are lost
But,
1. We can hold that all who are baptized by desire, and thus in grace, will eventually be reconciled to the visible Church.
And it was in this sense, I think, that Fr.Feeney was himself reconciled to the Church.
He didn't go because he wasn't told what the charges against him were beforehand
I'm aware of this, but frankly, if it was you, wouldn't you want to go to Rome on your own initiative and make your own case to the Pope?
Augustinian,
I'm saying the former, which is what this thread was about. Trent did not teach BoD.
Ok, then in this thread, we'll just focus on that. I'm going to argue for why I believe BOD is de Fide. So I'll skip over some of your responses that don't deal with that.
I trust you are familiar with the portion of the Catechism of Trent I quoted, which following St.Thomas, says expressly that the Church delays baptism of catechumens for instruction and the like since
"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."
Now I know that not all what a Catechism says is infallible. But, the Catechism appeals to the practice of the Church. And the practice of the Church, according to the divine Word, "Whatsoever you bind etc" is infallible. Therefore, BOD pertains to the Faith.
Absolutely not.
Then your contention is disproven.
1. Catechumens can avail grace and righteousness before death. (Trent)
2. Grace and righteousness cannot be had outside the Church (as you admit above)
3. Therefore, said catechumens are not outside the Church but united to her.
This syllogism is incontrovertible.
And it is this teaching of the Church which is explained by theologians, as their being united to her "soul". This is no more an "innovation" than the term transubstantiation is an innovation.
If you reject invincible ignorance, then what are you arguing for?
I said that they are not saved by invincible ignorance of God. They are saved by an internal enlightenment of Him, which includes knowledge of at least the Trinity and Incarnation, revealed by God Himself directly, without a missionary as an intermediary.
Gregory I,
Nishant, there are several issues present here that are inconsistent with the teaching of the church. Allow me to elucidate:
Please do.
BOB and BOD are not part of the universal and ordinary magisterium. Here is why
I am reminded of something Cardinal Manning said,
"No Catholic would first take what our objectors call history, fact, anquity, and the like, and from them deduce his faith....These things are not the basis of his faith, nor is the examination of them his method of thoelogical proof"
It was the charge of the Reformers that the Catholic doctrines were not primitive, and their pretension was to revert to antiquity. But the appeal to antiquity is both a treason and a heresy. It is a treason because it rejects the Divine voice of the Church at this hour, and a heresy because it denies that voice to be Divine...."
We do not know something by careful and studious examination of the docuмents of antiquity. We know it because the Church teaches it, for "Whoever hears you, hears Me". This is the proximate rule of Faith. We know it is present in Scripture and the Fathers because the Church tells us so. Any other rule of Faith is essentially rationalistic.
The Catechumen is not considered by the fathers to belong to the faithful.
St.Thomas, who was learned in the ancient Fathers, clearly disagreed with this claim. To my memory, he cited both St.Augustine and St.Ambrose. I think St.Augustine changed his views later though, I'll have to look that up and get back to you..
For what is BOD but a participation in the Spirit and the Blood without water? But this is heretical in that it denies the dogmatic letter of Leo and the unanimous and ordinary magisterial teaching of the fathers, who teach that WATER baptism ALONE can justify a man.
But this doesn't follow. The point of the letter is to lay out that water baptism has supernatural efficacy, and works ex opere operato, by the power of Christ's blood and the Holy Spirit. The letter explains why baptism is efficacious, and does not in any way rule out an extraordinary form of the sacrament which happens without the matter (i.e. water)
For one, the Blood of Christ is in a way present in all the sacraments. Take the most common, it is present by concomitance under the form of bread (which is the matter) in the Holy Eucharist, and inseparably with the body. But one can still receive Holy Communion in an extraordinary way through desire, a spiritual communion as it is called, and in this way, the statement "Except a man eat My flesh and drink My blood, he cannot have life in him" is fulfilled through desire, not under the species of the sacrament.
Theologians are an AID in this process. The Church teaches ALL MEN. It does not teach solely the theologians.
This would compromise the visibility of the Church and reduce what she teaches to being an inaccessible dead letter, not a clear living Voice.
Besides, note this - theologians are not an authority when a matter remains widely in dispute. They are an authority only if they are largely unanimous. If, for instance, all theologians agree that BOD is "proximate to the Faith" or higher, that would indeed be binding. And that does appear to be the case.
-
Are there no theologians before the scholastic era Nishant?
-
Hi Greg. I do not agree with you about the appeal to antiquity as a practical rule of Faith, however, it does not follow that I agree with you that these doctrines are not found in Scripture or the early Fathers. :)
First, a direct proof from Scripture. The example of Cornelius shows us this, after Pentecost (see Acts 10:44-47), the Holy Ghost was given to him and others before water Baptism. This must be accounted as a baptism of desire, not apart from the sacrament.
For the sake of completion, a few examples from the ancient Fathers I've found,
St.Augustine: "For whatever unbaptized persons die confessing Christ, this confession is of the same efficacy for the remission of sins as if they were washed in the sacred font of Baptism.
For He Who said, "Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God," made also an exception in their favor, in that other sentence where He no less absolutely said, "Whosever shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven"; and in another place, "Whosoever will lose his life for my sake, shall find it."
St.Cyprian: "Catechumens who were caught and killed confessing the Name before they were baptized in the Church... holding the integral Faith and truth of the Church... were not deprived of the sacrament of Baptism, being baptized by the most glorious and excellent Baptism, by which the Lord Himself said he had to be baptized.
That those who are baptized in their own blood and sanctified by their passion were glorified and received the Divine promise, is taught to us by the Lord Himself in the Gospel, when He promised to the thief who believed and confessed that he would be with Him in paradise."
St. Cyril of Jerusalem: "If anyone does not receive Baptism, he shall not be saved, except the martyrs, who even without the water shall receive the kingdom."
Keep in mind that at times the Fathers are upbraiding those who deliberately delay the sacrament through their own fault.
As for the age after the Scholastic era, which we shall not go to if you don't want, I count at least St.Thomas, St.Alphonsus, St.Bonaventure, Trent, Piux IX, and St.Pius X on the side of baptism of desire.
-
I trust you are familiar with the portion of the Catechism of Trent I quoted, which following St.Thomas, says expressly that the Church delays baptism of catechumens for instruction and the like since
"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."
That's actually a false translation, as Gregory pointed out elsewhere. Maybe he can quote it again for us.
Now I know that not all what a Catechism says is infallible. But, the Catechism appeals to the practice of the Church. And the practice of the Church, according to the divine Word, "Whatsoever you bind etc" is infallible. Therefore, BOD pertains to the Faith.
The practice of the Church in delaying baptism for catechumens contradicts the earliest practice of the Church, which was to baptize people immediately, so the current practice of the Church is not infallible. It is a discipline that can be changed, and has been changed in the past.
Also, just because the Church delays baptism currently does not mean that she holds that catechumens can be saved without it.
Pope St. Siricius, speaking of the delay of baptism, explained that it was so that they could be cleansed with exorcisms, etc.:
"On these days alone through the year is it proper for the complete rites of baptism to be bestowed on those coming to the faith, but only on those select people who applied forty or more days earlier, and were cleansed by exorcisms, daily prayers, and fasts, so that the precept of the Apostle is fulfilled that with old leaven having been driven out, new dough comes into being. But just as we say that sacred Paschal reverence in no way ought to be diminished, so we wish for the waters of sacred baptism to be of assistance with all speed to infants, who because of age are not yet able to speak, and to those for whom in any emergency it is needed, lest the destruction of our souls be at stake if, the salutary font being denied to those seeking it, someone departing from the world loses both the kingdom and life."
He speaks of both infants who should be baptized immediately, and any one else who is in danger of death.
Pope St. Gregory the Great said the same thing: "For, as in the case of those who live and have discretion the grace of the holy mystery should be seen to with great discernment, so to those who are in imminent danger of death it should be offered without any delay, lest, while time is being sought for administering the mystery of redemption, death should shortly intervene, and no way be found of redeeming the time that has been lost."
This is why the Church always taught that both infants and adults should be baptized immediately if danger of death is present, since as Popes St. Siricius said "the salutary font being denied to those seeking it, someone departing from the world loses both the kingdom and life".
Then your contention is disproven.
1. Catechumens can avail grace and righteousness before death. (Trent)
2. Grace and righteousness cannot be had outside the Church (as you admit above)
3. Therefore, said catechumens are not outside the Church but united to her.
That catechumens "can avail grace and righteousness before death" is not taught by the Council of Trent (which is protected by infallibility), but was taught by the Roman catechism, which you admit is not protected by infallibility.
And it is this teaching of the Church which is explained by theologians, as their being united to her "soul". This is no more an "innovation" than the term transubstantiation is an innovation.
Your "soul of the Church" belief has already been addressed. Pope Leo XIII taught in Divinum Illud, that the Holy Ghost is the Soul of the Church. He did not teach, as some theologians did, that the soul of the Church is an invisible church that the unbaptized belong to.
And as I already pointed out, the Council of Florence defined the Church as a body, and said that all must belong to that body in order to be saved. Where has the Church, ever, taught that the unbaptized can be saved by belonging to an invisible soul of the Church and not the body of the Church?
I said that they are not saved by invincible ignorance of God. They are saved by an internal enlightenment of Him, which includes knowledge of at least the Trinity and Incarnation, revealed by God Himself directly, without a missionary as an intermediary.
God Himself would enlighten one ignorant man, and reveal to him the Trinity and the Incarnation, but He would not have him baptized and make Him subject to the Roman Pontiff?
-
Hi Greg. I do not agree with you about the appeal to antiquity as a practical rule of Faith, however, it does not follow that I agree with you that these doctrines are not found in Scripture or the early Fathers. :)
First, a direct proof from Scripture. The example of Cornelius shows us this, after Pentecost (see Acts 10:44-47), the Holy Ghost was given to him and others before water Baptism. This must be accounted as a baptism of desire, not apart from the sacrament.
For the sake of completion, a few examples from the ancient Fathers I've found,
St.Augustine: "For whatever unbaptized persons die confessing Christ, this confession is of the same efficacy for the remission of sins as if they were washed in the sacred font of Baptism.
For He Who said, "Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God," made also an exception in their favor, in that other sentence where He no less absolutely said, "Whosever shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven"; and in another place, "Whosoever will lose his life for my sake, shall find it."
St.Cyprian: "Catechumens who were caught and killed confessing the Name before they were baptized in the Church... holding the integral Faith and truth of the Church... were not deprived of the sacrament of Baptism, being baptized by the most glorious and excellent Baptism, by which the Lord Himself said he had to be baptized.
That those who are baptized in their own blood and sanctified by their passion were glorified and received the Divine promise, is taught to us by the Lord Himself in the Gospel, when He promised to the thief who believed and confessed that he would be with Him in paradise."
St. Cyril of Jerusalem: "If anyone does not receive Baptism, he shall not be saved, except the martyrs, who even without the water shall receive the kingdom."
Keep in mind that at times the Fathers are upbraiding those who deliberately delay the sacrament through their own fault.
As for the age after the Scholastic era, which we shall not go to if you don't want, I count at least St.Thomas, St.Alphonsus, St.Bonaventure, Trent, Piux IX, and St.Pius X on the side of baptism of desire.
Hang on Nishant, I do NOT agree with those who appeal to antiquity solely to hold to new doctrines. But rather, the UNANIMOUS CONSENT of the Fathers is something the Church is BOUND to, as is the theologians. If some theologians misrepresent this and lie about it, or misunderstand the fathers, this is NOT the mind of the church.
By unanimous, I mean Moral unanimity, where the majority give their assent and the rest do not dissent, even some give no particular assent.
This is from the Novus Ordo Apologist Steve Ray:
"The Unanimous Consent of the Fathers (unanimem consensum Patrum) refers to the morally unanimous teaching of the Church Fathers on certain doctrines as revealed by God and interpretations of Scripture as received by the universal Church. The individual Fathers are not personally infallible, and a discrepancy by a few patristic witnesses does not harm the collective patristic testimony."
In addition to that remember the Vincentian canon: Everywhere, always by all.
COnsider also:
A fine definition of Unanimous Consent, based on the Church Counccils, is provided in the Maryknoll Catholic Dictionary,
“When the Fathers of the Church are morally unanimous in their teaching that a certain doctrine is a part of revelation, or is received by the universal Church, or that the opposite of a doctrine is heretical, then their united testimony is a certain criterion of divine tradition. As the Fathers are not personally infallible, the counter-testimony of one or two would not be destructive of the value of the collective testimony; so a moral unanimity only is required” (Wilkes-Barre, Penn.: Dimension Books, 1965), pg. 153.
The unanimous consent of the Fathers is the teaching that Water Baptism alone can Justify.
I demonstrated this.
Some go so far as to denounce BOD, I demonstrated this as well, with St. Gregory the Theologian (nαzιanzen)
In addition, some of the Scholastics like Peter Abelard said other pre-scholastics like St. Bernard of Clairvaux contradicted apostolic tradition by believing in Baptism of Desire.
Your use of Augustine is somewhat disingenuous, because he REJECTED this teaching.
He also said: " “That the place of Baptism is sometimes supplied by suffering is supported by a substantial argument which the same Blessed Cyprian draws…Considering this over and over again, I find that not only suffering for the name of Christ can supply for that which is lacking by way of Baptism, but even faith and conversion of heart, if… recourse cannot be had to the celebration of the Mystery of Baptism.”
He clearly was not settled on the issue. That is why he later said:
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.”
Again: 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.
To simply use something because Augustine used it is an error condemned by Pope Alexander VIII:
Errors of the Jansenists, #30: “When anyone finds a doctrine clearly established in Augustine, he can absolutely hold it and teach it, disregarding any bull of the pope.”- Condemned by Pope Alexander VIII.
So Augustine is awesome, and I love him, but we cannot use him to support a minority opinion that had no unanimous consent in the church. That is dishonest.
Regarding St. Cyprian, in the same letter where he asserts Baptism of BLOOD, not desire, which is another dishonest tactic people use, (not to say you are dishonest) he makes another doctrinal error. He asserts his error of heretical baptism being invalid, in the SAME docuмent.
St. Cyprian, To Jubaianus (254): “… in regard to what I might think in the matter of the baptism of heretics… This baptism we cannot reckon as valid…”
So he is out on two counts, doctrinal error in the same docuмent, and due to the fact that he is talking about BOB NOT BOD.
Also St. Cyril is out because he is talking about BOB not BOD.
So really, all you have is the appeal to Augustine.
But this appeal is itself faulty because Augustine himself corrects his view later in life!
He says that Catechumens cannot go to heaven when they die! Who else would desire baptism but they?
So BOD- 0
BOB- 2.
Regarding Cornelius, I would not call what he had BOD. There was no grace of the sacrament. It was a powerful actual grace that impelled him to seek out the truth. Hardly the indwelling of Sanctifying grace.
However, I agree with the IDEA you present, and that is what I hold to: Those whom God has elected from all eternity, he calls in accord with his commands. And they will infallibly come to him.
-
We traditional Roman Catholics who know our Faith
What faith? You have not stated what you believe, you are a fraud. Be honest and tell us like Avery Dulles did.
C'mon, Nadie. You asked in another thread what "brand" of BOD I believed in, and I gave a very detailed account. Stop pretending that a BOD view has never been completely done here. It may assuage your own conscience, but it cannot fool all of the readers here.
[/size]
Are you the same person as Roman Catholic?[/quote
No he is not. He is another traditional Catholic, who clearly knows the Faith well enough not to fall into the errors being pushed here by the militant but bumbling F-troopers.
Is Nadie channeling the Dimonds or Ibrayni, or of all them at different times in a confused mixture of error?
-
We traditional Roman Catholics who know our Faith
What faith? You have not stated what you believe, you are a fraud. Be honest and tell us like Avery Dulles did.
Nadie has a way of making me feel like :sleep:
Maybe, rather than ignoring his posts altogether; I will still glance at them when bedtime is approaching. :laugh2:
-
Beware: Groups and Individuals who teach Heresy
The CMRI – a group which believes in salvation outside the Church
The Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) - a complete file
The SSPV – a group which believes in salvation outside the Church
Giardina, Fr. Leonard of Christ the King Abbey – believes in salvation outside the Church
McKenna, Bishop tells us that baptism of desire = Jews who reject Christ can be saved
McKenna, Bishop – An “Unanswered Letter” from him – Our Letter Debate on Baptism of Desire
Sanborn, Bishop – believes that pagans and idolaters can be saved
Vaillancourt, Fr. Kevin - believes in salvation outside the Church
Williamson, Bishop Richard of the SSPX: a complete schismatic and a wolf in sheep's clothing.
If we rejected these prelates just because they are against us believers in EENS as it is written, it would be as big as mistake as they make by attacking us as lepers for teaching dogma as it is written, and not allowing us to receive communion like some of them do.
Notice that all these people above were educated in SSPX seminaries, the source of their "education" is the same. It is what was taught to them by their master, who believed in the salvation of Muslims, Jews, and all other religions.
I always thought it odd that traditionalists like the SSPX would be the ones writing all those books against "Feeneyism", when at the same time they complain about the manipulation of dogmas by the modernists. There is no clearer defined dogma than EENS, and yet the SSPX teaches that it does not mean what it clearly says, then turns around and complains when the progressivists do the same to all teachings. Go figure? More contradictions!
:laugh1:
That Nadie person is a joke.
The above post he made is too funny -- it might not be conducive to sleep to read it and belly laugh that much near bedtime.
:laugh1:
-
Does "Roman Catholic" ever address any argument?
-
Does "Roman Catholic" ever address any argument?
Can you think of any other objections to what you all have written?
-
Greg, before we go ahead, are you admitting the baptism of blood? Even that would disprove the basis of your contention, that God cannot or does not ever dispense with the matter of the sacrament to give His grace, as everyone grants He does for other ones, like the Eucharist, in spiritual communion.
Regarding desire, very briefly, I'll say this, your exegesis is flatly contradicted by both the plain text and the statements of St.Peter. Cornelius received the Holy Spirit before water baptism, and in like measure as He had descended on the baptized Apostles. This was justifying grace. This is baptism of desire proved from Sacred Scripture.
The Catholic Encyclopedia says this,
The baptism of desire (baptismus flaminis) is a perfect contrition of heart, and every act of perfect charity or pure love of God 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, Whose special office it is to move the heart to love God and to conceive penitence for sin. The "baptism of the Holy Ghost" 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 from the words of Christ.
After He had declared the necessity of baptism (John 3), He promised justifying grace for acts of charity or perfect contrition (John 14): "He that loveth Me, shall be loved of my Father: and I will love him and will manifest myself to him." And again: "If any one love me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him, and will make our abode with him."
Since these texts declare that justifying grace is bestowed on account of acts of perfect charity or contrition, it is evident that these acts supply the place of baptism as to its principal effect, the remission of sins. 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). The same doctrine is taught by Pope Innocent III (cap. Debitum, iv, De Bapt.), and the contrary propositions are condemned by Popes Pius V and Gregory XII, in proscribing the 31st and 33rd propositions of Baius.
We have already alluded to the funeral oration pronounced by St. Ambrose over the Emperor Valentinian II, a catechumen. The doctrine of the baptism of desire is here clearly set forth. St. Ambrose asks: "Did he not obtain the grace which he desired? Did he not obtain what he asked for? Certainly he obtained it because he asked for it." St. Augustine (On Baptism, Against the Donatists, IV.22) and St. Bernard (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 contradicts the universal law of baptism made by Christ (John 3), the answer is that the lawgiver has made an exception (John 14) in favor of those who have the baptism of desire. Neither would it be a consequence of this doctrine that a person justified by the baptism of desire would thereby be dispensed 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.
-
Greg, before we go ahead, are you admitting the baptism of blood? Even that would disprove the basis of your contention, that God cannot or does not ever dispense with the matter of the sacrament to give His grace, as everyone grants He does for other ones, like the Eucharist, in spiritual communion.
Regarding desire, very briefly, I'll say this, your exegesis is flatly contradicted by both the plain text and the statements of St.Peter. Cornelius received the Holy Spirit before water baptism, and in like measure as He had descended on the baptized Apostles. This was justifying grace. This is baptism of desire proved from Sacred Scripture.
The Catholic Encyclopedia says this,
The baptism of desire (baptismus flaminis) is a perfect contrition of heart, and every act of perfect charity or pure love of God 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, Whose special office it is to move the heart to love God and to conceive penitence for sin. The "baptism of the Holy Ghost" 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 from the words of Christ.
After He had declared the necessity of baptism (John 3), He promised justifying grace for acts of charity or perfect contrition (John 14): "He that loveth Me, shall be loved of my Father: and I will love him and will manifest myself to him." And again: "If any one love me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him, and will make our abode with him."
Since these texts declare that justifying grace is bestowed on account of acts of perfect charity or contrition, it is evident that these acts supply the place of baptism as to its principal effect, the remission of sins. 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). The same doctrine is taught by Pope Innocent III (cap. Debitum, iv, De Bapt.), and the contrary propositions are condemned by Popes Pius V and Gregory XII, in proscribing the 31st and 33rd propositions of Baius.
We have already alluded to the funeral oration pronounced by St. Ambrose over the Emperor Valentinian II, a catechumen. The doctrine of the baptism of desire is here clearly set forth. St. Ambrose asks: "Did he not obtain the grace which he desired? Did he not obtain what he asked for? Certainly he obtained it because he asked for it." St. Augustine (On Baptism, Against the Donatists, IV.22) and St. Bernard (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 contradicts the universal law of baptism made by Christ (John 3), the answer is that the lawgiver has made an exception (John 14) in favor of those who have the baptism of desire. Neither would it be a consequence of this doctrine that a person justified by the baptism of desire would thereby be dispensed 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.
No, I do not admit blood, because the consent of the fathers is not ruled by 2 or 3 in the minority. The phrase baptism of blood is used by other fathers to refer to those who have received water baptism, and THEN to have received martyrdom. THe reception of that martyrdom washes away any other sins they may have commited since baptism.
Besides ALL who taught BOB also taught that there is no salvation without water baptism. It's just their speculation and inconsistency.
Regarding Cornelius, Peter even says he received the Holy Ghost just as they did. But the descent of the Holy Spirit on Pentecost was not an act of the infusion of sanctifying grace, but a powerful actual grace that brought with it spiritual gifts and favors. It is language that is used in the reception of prophetic gifts.
But we see that even people who are unconverted Christ can posses this gift. For Caiaphas, the high priest, involuntarily prophesied regarding Christ, and the scriptures explicitly say that it was by the Holy Spirit. SO it is not incredible for someone to be filled ith the Holy Spirit yet be deprived of Sanctifying grace.
If you read the old testament, this happened to wicked king saul quite often.
The whole event, in context was to demonstrate that the gospel had come to the gentiles.
As for what Ambrose says, if you read carefully, the People were weeping because he did not receive the SACRAMENTS of baptism, plural, which in the early church was also chrismation and the eucharist. St. Ambrose goes on to say not to worry if the rites were no celebrated with great solemnity. I other words, it seems people were probably upset by the fact that Valentinian had been ONLY baptized, and that in an emergency format, without the other sacraments, as was the custom of the church to administer all at once. So, it proves nothing.
St. Ambrose, Funeral Oration of Valentinian, 4th century: “But I hear that you grieve because he did not receive the sacraments of baptism. Tell me: What else is in your power other than the desire, the request? But he even had this desire for a long time, that, when he should come to Italy, he would be initiated… Has he not, then, the grace which he desired; has he not the grace which he requested? And because he asked, he received, and therefore it is said: ‘By whatsoever death the just man shall be overtaken, his soul shall be at rest’ (Wis. 4:7)… Or if the fact disturbs you that the mysteries have not been solemnly celebrated, then you should realize that not even martyrs are crowned if they are catechumens, for they are not crowned if they are not initiated.”
SO in one stroke, st. Ambrose destroys BOB and BOD if considered in context.
-
Greg, regarding your exegesis,
Regarding Cornelius, Peter even says he received the Holy Ghost just as they did. But the descent of the Holy Spirit on Pentecost was not an act of the infusion of sanctifying grace
Exactly, and the Lord when foretelling the Comforter's advent said, "He is with you and shall be in you". If then Cornelius received the Holy Ghost in like measure as St.Peter, it follows necessarily that he received sanctifying grace. Your exegesis on gifts is thereby ruled out.
And, what of the words of Christ, which broadly indicate that justifying grace is given on account of love of Him?
No, I do not admit blood, because the consent of the fathers is not ruled by 2 or 3 in the minority.
I say the early Church ventured no official position on it at all. By the time of Trent, we know beyond reasonable doubt the question was settled and even Doctors of the Church have considered it de Fide. But more importantly to the point, it is you, not me, who insist it was settled in the early Church that baptism of desire was somehow against the Faith, so it is you who needs to prove the unanimity. I don't have to prove unanimity of the Fathers, since I don't insist they settled it.
Besides ALL who taught BOB also taught that there is no salvation without water baptism. It's just their speculation and inconsistency.
I think this implicitly questions both the Faith and the intellect of the early Fathers. It seems much more reasonable to say the question was by no means settled. Your interpretation of St.Ambrose' also seems to me to be a bit of a stretch, but anyway. What do you make of Christ's words on the Eucharist? "Except a man eat My flesh, he cannot have life in him". Do you think, interpreting this as you interpret the passage on baptism, that those, say, infants or others who are baptized but who don't receive the Eucharist are lost? Wouldn't that be an absurd interpretation?
-
"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."
Now I know that not all what a Catechism says is infallible. But, the Catechism appeals to the practice of the Church. And the practice of the Church, according to the divine Word, "Whatsoever you bind etc" is infallible. Therefore, BOD pertains to the Faith.
Dear Nishant,
My posting below was my answer to a similar objection as yours above:
It is a false and heretical error to hold that the Catechism of The Council of Trent is in error.
Strawman.
Your focusing on this point that "It is an error to hold that the Catechism of The Council of Trent is in error", is irrelevent, it's a total strawman.
One can't contradict clear dogmas and even in this case even contradict what the CCT itself says clearly, with one unclear line from the CCT. The way Catholics know thruth is by interpreting unclear quotes according to defined clear dogmas. If the dogmas failed to define, then they have failed in their intended purpose and are useless. We don't interpret infallible dogmas by fallible unclear interpretations. If we did, then all dogmas are useless.
THE CATECHISM OF THE COUNCIL OF TRENT
In the entire Catechism of the Council of Trent there is no mention at all of the so-called terms “three baptisms,” or “baptism of desire” or “baptism of blood,” nor is there any clear statement that one can be saved without the Sacrament of Baptism. What we find, rather, is only one unclear paragraph which says “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, with which the BODers try to re-interpretdogmas on EENS & baptism and even re-interpret all the clear teachings of the CCT itself!
Most importantly, the Catechism of Trent makes statement after statement clearly and unambiguously teaching that the Sacrament of Baptism is absolutely necessary for all for salvation with no exceptions, thereby repeatedly exluding any idea of salvation without water baptism.
Catechism of the Council of Trent, Comparisons among the Sacraments, p. 154: “Though all the Sacraments possess a divine and admirable efficacy, it is well worthy of special remark that all are not of equal necessity or of equal dignity, nor is the signification of all the same.
“Among them three are said to be necessary beyond the rest, although in all three this necessity is not of the same kind. The universal and absolute necessity of Baptism our Savior has declared in these words: Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God (Jn. 3:5).”
This means that the Sacrament of Baptism is absolutely and universally necessary for salvation with no exceptions! It excludes any idea of salvation without water baptism. It also means that John 3:5 is understood literally.
Catechism of the Council of Trent, On Baptism – Necessity of Baptism, pp. 176-177: “If the knowledge of what has been hitherto explained be, as it is, of highest importance to the faithful, it is no less important to them to learn that THE LAW OF BAPTISM, AS ESTABLISHED BY OUR LORD, EXTENDS TO ALL, so that unless they are regenerated to God through the grace of Baptism, be their parents Christians or infidels, they are born to eternal misery and destruction. Pastors, therefore, should often explain these words of the Gospel: Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God (Jn. 3:5).”
This clearly means that no one can be saved without the Sacrament of Baptism and that John 3:5 is literal with no exceptions!
Catechism of the Council of Trent, Definition of Baptism, p. 163: “Unless, says our Lord, a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God (Jn. 3:5); and, speaking of the Church, the Apostle says, cleansing it by the laver of water in the word of life (Eph. 5:26). Thus it follows that Baptism may be rightly and accurately defined: The Sacrament of regeneration by water in the word.”
The Catechism of Trent also teaches that if there is danger of death for an adult, Baptism must not be deferred.
Catechism of the Council of Trent, In Case of Necessity Adults May Be Baptized At Once, p. 180: “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 baptized is well instructed in the mysteries of faith.”
Catechism of the Council of Trent, Baptism made obligatory after Christ’s Resurrection, p. 171: “Holy writers are unanimous in saying that after the Resurrection of our Lord, when He gave His Apostles the command to go and teach all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, the law of Baptism became obligatory on all who were to be saved.”
Catechism of the Council of Trent, Matter of Baptism - Fitness, p. 165: “Upon this subject pastors can teach in the first place that water, which is always at hand and within the reach of all, was the fittest matter of a Sacrament which is necessary to all for salvation.”
Notice that the Catechism teaches that water is “within the reach of all,” a phrase which excludes the very notion of baptism of desire – that water is not within the reach of all. Also notice that the Catechism declares that the Sacrament is necessary for all for salvation! This excludes any notion of salvation without the Sacrament of Baptism. Thus, the Catechism of Trent teaches repeatedly and unambiguously that it is the teaching of Jesus Christ and the Catholic Church that the Sacrament of Baptism is necessary for all for salvation. All of this is clearly contrary to the theories of baptism of desire and baptism of blood.
Moreover, the Catechism also teaches that Christians are distinguished from non-Christians by the Sacrament of Baptism.
Catechism of the Council of Trent, On Baptism – Second Effect: Sacramental Character, p. 159: “In the character impressed by Baptism, both effects are exemplified. By it we are qualified to receive the other Sacraments, and the Christian is distinguished from those who do not profess the faith.”
Those who assert that the Sacrament of Baptism is not necessary for all for salvation (e.g., all those who believe in “baptism of desire”) contradict the very teaching of the Catechism of Trent.
Catechism of the Council of Trent, Matter of Baptism - Fitness, p. 165: “Upon this subject pastors can teach in the first place that water, which is always at hand and within the reach of all, was the fittest matter of a Sacrament which is necessary to all for salvation.”
-
Gregory, another reason I disagree with how you read Ambrose and Augustine is the Angelic Doctor, learned in the ancient Fathers himself, quotes them both matter of factly.
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."
Nadie, your reply is long, but all right, I disagree with you on how "Catholics know truth". I know you don't accept it, but the letter from the Holy Office explains my position as well,
"Now, among those things which the Church has always preached and will never cease to preach is contained also that infallible statement by which we are taught that there is no salvation outside the Church.
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."
The Church speaks not as from a dead letter but as from a living Voice. The Lord said, "Whoever hears you, hears Me". Dogmas must always be understood in accord with the mind of the Church. I do believe a mistaken understanding of the proximate rule of Faith is where this comes from, but still, coming to Trent,
The Sacrament of Baptism is absolutely necessary for all for salvation with no exceptions, thereby repeatedly exluding any idea of salvation without water baptism.
Your syllogism proceeds by way of equivocation, that is its fallacy. You say the sacrament is necessary for salvation, which is true if we make the proper distinctions. The question is, Is it the matter or the grace of the sacrament that avails justification? The outward sign or the inward grace? It is the latter. As St.Thomas says again, quoting St.Augustine,
"some have received the invisible sanctification without visible sacraments, and to their profit; but though it is possible to have the visible sanctification, consisting in a visible sacrament, without the invisible sanctification, it will be to no profit." Since, therefore, the sacrament of Baptism pertains to the visible sanctification, it seems that a man can obtain salvation without the sacrament of Baptism, by means of the invisible sanctification."
The other passages you cite deal respectively, with original sin extending even to the children of baptized parents (which all admit), that baptism must never be delayed when there is a danger of death (since we have no right to presume God will use extraordinary means when it is in our power to employ the ordinary ones), and once more, yes everybody admits baptism is necessary for all, for baptism alone confers justification.
Trying to dogmatize "within the reach of all" strikes me as almost like the fundamentalist exegeses we hear from Protestants. The Church was speaking on the fitness of the matter chosen, since water is ubiquitous and easily accessible, but was not constraining God or saying that God had constrained Himself to give His grace only through that matter He ordained. Finally, it is true that the character is received only in the sacrament itself, but again as Trent says, the transition can be effected through desire.
My argument from Trent, beside the *unclear* passage is simply this: The Council *clearly* teaches that the transition from death to new life "cannot happen without the sacraments or the desire for it"
If the Council intended to teach that the desire effects the transition, this statement is perfectly sensible and perceptible. If the Council intended not to, this statement is absolutely inexplicable and even grossly negligent and misleading.
It is also impossible to argue, as I said at the outset, that there is anything lacking in those in a state of grace. It may be believed that all who receive baptism of desire will eventually be reconciled to the visible Church before they die, and this is in my viewpoint a pious and probable opinion. It was also how Fr.Feeney was, I think, finally reconciled himself to the visible Church and thankfully so.
Your other argument about the "slippery slope" is an invalid one, and the opposite can always be argued as well, at least to show that it fails - for errors often come in pairs with deviation from orthodoxy to the left and the right, as it were. For example, those who were repulsed by the Nestorian division of Christ into two persons overreacted by refusing even to recognize the distinction of natures in His person, and became monophysites.
St.Thomas mentioned the Angel teaching the pagan about the Faith, that is a pious and probable opinion too. I hold the view of what I believe was Pope Pius IX's teaching, about the internal enlightenment given by God Himself of those necessary truths that are contained in the articles of the Creed, like at least the Trinity and Incarnation, since the knoweldge of Him is what in fact salvation consists of, according to the word of Our Lord, "This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom You have sent"
-
Nishant, do you know what is MORAL unanimity?
Suppose you have 100 church fathers. Pretend that is all there is. If say 30 of them Teach the ABSOLUTE NECESSITY of water baptism, the rest teach salvation by baptism generally, and one or 2 teach salvation by desire, then the MORALLY unanimous teaching is the absolute necessity of water baptism.
The reason for this is that a moral unanimity is not a positive numerical unanimity. As long as what is taught as revealed by God is not contradicted by the remaining fathers, they are assumed to be unanimous in their teaching.
Also, 3 or 4 or even 10 fathers who teach BOB or BOD do not enjoy unanimous consent, because their teaching contradicts what other fathers have unanimously taught as revealed by God.
Remember, the UNANIMOUS CONSENT of the fathers is part of the UNIVERSAL ORDINARY MAGISTERIUM of the church.
This CAN NEVER contradict the extraordinary magisterium, which are dogmatic pronouncements and decrees of the church.
If other saints or theologians teach APART from the unanimous consent of the fathers, they are erroneous.
That is the operating principle in this issue.
-
"The eminent Patristic Scholar Fr. William Jurgens, who has literally
read thousands of texts from the fathers, was forced to admit the following (even though
he believes in baptism of desire) in his three volume set on the fathers of the Church.
Fr. William Jurgens: “If there were not a constant tradition in
the Fathers that the Gospel message of ‘Unless a man be born
again of water and the Holy Ghost he cannot enter into the
kingdom of God’ is to be taken absolutely, it would be easy to
say that Our Savior simply did not see fit to mention the
obvious exceptions of invincible ignorance and physical
impossibility. But the tradition in fact is there; and it is likely
enough to be found so constant as to constitute revelation.”
-Outside the Church There is Absolutely no Salvation-
-
Has anyone ever changed a Feeneyite on a public forum? No? Then why do the poor denizens of CathInfo have to read the same thread over and over.
When these people are ready to humble themselves and accept the truth, it will happen, they know all our arguments, they spend their whole lives trying to find loopholes around them. Until then, all they're going to do is pore over obscure books trying to find quotes that somewhat fit their wacked theories. And the devil will provide them with those quotes. This dude above me is crowing becuse he found a quote -- which is probably out of context -- from a priest saying that at one time a literal interpretation of Christ's words about being born again of water and the Holy Ghost seemed to constitute revelation. Never mind that this priest probably didn't believe in a literal interpretation of those words, nor does any other theologian for the last three hundred years or more. Gregory has got his one little quote that appears to support him, dug out like a needle from a haystack.
It's not a matter of intelligence that's lacking, but of humility in some cases, of will in others. I would say most Feeneyism is a result of intellectual pride. The irony is that, for all their brainpower, they become trapped in the most limited and banal form of Catholicism, where their minds are trapped in this tiny little boxed-in corner and they completely miss the big picture. It is definitely modern Phariseeism. It couldn't be more obvious.
-
Gregory, there was no moral unanimity about baptism of blood. With baptism of blood, someone is not baptized by water, are they? So Father Jurgens is wrong, if he is really saying that a literal interpretation of John 3:15 seemed to constitute revelation. The fact that some of the Fathers accepted baptism of blood refutes that.
And if there can be baptism of blood, there can be baptism of desire, because baptism of blood is just one variety of baptism of desire.
-
Gregory I said:
Besides ALL who taught BOB also taught that there is no salvation without water baptism. It's just their speculation and inconsistency.
This is where the insanity of Feeneyism leads, now the Fathers are inconsistent yet morally unanimous where it serves Gregory I.
Maybe the Fathers really were against baptism of desire for the most part, for catechumens and so on. Not all of them. But anyway, by being FOR baptism of blood, they left the door open for baptism of desire. Because it's the same thing.
Maybe they didn't see it, it doesn't matter, in a way they were teaching it without realizing it, it hadn't crystallized yet, just like the Immaculate Conception was always there but didn't become crystallized until later.
You cannot claim a moral unanimity for the necessity of water, when not all the Fathers said water was necessary. If John 3:15 was to be taken literally, none of them would have taught baptism of blood.
-
First, I abhor the term Feeneyite. Fr. Feeney made several errors and was inconsistent on several points regarding justification.
Second of all, I am trying not to be overbearing. If you WANT a bombardment of quotes, the likes of which you have never seen, let me know.
Catechism of the Council of Trent, Baptism made obligatory after Christ’s
Resurrection, p. 171:
“Holy writers are unanimous in saying that after the
Resurrection of our Lord, when He gave His Apostles the command to go and
teach all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the
Holy Ghost, the law of Baptism became obligatory on all who were to be
saved.”
St. Ambrose: “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. Gregory nαzιanz, 381 AD: “Of those who fail to be baptized some are utterly
animal and bestial, according to whether they are foolish or wicked. This, I
think, they must add to their other sins, that they have no reverence for this gift,
but regard it as any other gift, to be accepted if given them, or neglected if not
given them. Others know and honor the gift; but they delay, some out of
carelessness, some because of insatiable desire. Still others are not able to receive
it, perhaps because of infancy, or some perfectly involuntary circuмstance
which prevents them from receiving the gift, even if they desire it…
“If you were able to judge a man who intends to commit murder, solely by his
intention and without any act of murder, then you could likewise reckon as
baptized one who desired Baptism, without having received Baptism. But, since
you cannot do the former, how can you do the latter? I cannot see it. If you
prefer, we will put it like this: if in your opinion desire has equal power with
actual Baptism, then make the same judgment in regard to glory. You will then
be satisfied to long for glory, as if that longing itself were glory. Do you suffer
any damage by not attaining the actual glory, as long as you have a desire for
it?”
Pope St. Siricius, Letter to Himerius, 385:
“As we maintain that the observance of the holy Paschal time
should in no way be relaxed, in the same way we desire that
infants who, on account of their age, cannot yet speak, or those
who, in any necessity, are in want of the water of holy baptism,
be succored with all possible speed, for fear that, if those who
leave this world should be deprived of the life of the
Kingdom for having been refused the source of salvation
which they desired, this may lead to the ruin of our souls. If
those threatened with shipwreck, or the attack of enemies, or
the uncertainties of a siege, or those put in a hopeless
condition due to some bodily sickness, ask for what in their
faith is their only help, let them receive at the very moment of
their request the reward of regeneration they beg for. Enough
of past mistakes! From now on, let all the priests observe the
aforesaid rule if they do not want to be separated from the
solid apostolic rock on which Christ has built his universal
Church.”233
Desire didn't suffice for this Pope.
I won't go on...
Unanimous consent is part of the ordinary and universal magisterium.
Raoul, there are no fathers who support your position. THe Fathers who say BOB or BOD ALSO tech the absolute necessity of water baptism. It is an inconsistency. PLus, consider this:
“The Fathers of the Church, therefore, taken as a whole, can
only be said to have verified definitively the official and
authentic teaching of the one true Church that it is absolutely
necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be
baptized in the water of the actual sacrament instituted by
Our Lord Jesus Christ. On the other hand, it is intellectually
dishonest to suggest otherwise. And to exalt the personal
theological opinions of a handful – even an impressive and
well‐known handful – to the rank of ecclesiastical Tradition
or even magisterial infallibility is not only an exercise in
sophomoric legerdemain [verbal sleight of hand], but also a
brand of facile short‐sightedness unconscionable in any
serious study of Patristic Theology."
-Michael Malone , THe ONly-Begotten
-
Gregory I said:
Second of all, I am trying not to be overbearing. If you WANT a bombardment of quotes, the likes of which you have never seen, let me know
.
Do you think I doubt it? Did you even read what I just said about how all you guys do is amass quotes the devil puts in your path to enforce your supposed logic? But you can't see the big picture, which is that no theologian of the last three hundred years teaches what you do. Probably of the last thousand years.
-
Ok, so what you are really saying is that the unanimous consent of the Fathers of the church is NOT part of the ordinary and universal magisterium, and that it has NO place in reining in theologians. Oh, and there are no theologians prior to the scholastic era.
UNIVERSAL consensus includes consensus in TIME from the days of the apostles.
Raoul, THINK about it: What is THE heresy of Vatican II? Ecuмenism, indifferentism. HOW did it come about?
...
...
...
Through a dilution on the teaching of THE Catholic Dogma, EENS.
And WHEN did it happen? Primarily in FORCE since the reformation!
This is EXACTLY what is condemned by Pope Gregory XVI in Mirari Vos:
Watch what happens here:
13. "Now We consider another abundant source of the evils with which the Church is afflicted at present: indifferentism. This perverse opinion is spread on all sides by the fraud of the wicked who claim that it is possible to obtain the eternal salvation of the soul by the profession of any kind of religion, as long as morality is maintained. Surely, in so clear a matter, you will drive this deadly error far from the people committed to your care. With the admonition of the apostle that "there is one God, one faith, one baptism"16 may those fear who contrive the notion that the safe harbor of salvation is open to persons of any religion whatever. They should consider the testimony of Christ Himself that "those who are not with Christ are against Him,"17 and that they disperse unhappily who do not gather with Him. Therefore "without a doubt, they will perish forever, unless they hold the Catholic faith whole and inviolate."18 Let them hear Jerome who, while the Church was torn into three parts by schism, tells us that whenever someone tried to persuade him to join his group he always exclaimed: "He who is for the See of Peter is for me."19 A schismatic flatters himself falsely if he asserts that he, too, has been washed in the waters of regeneration. Indeed Augustine would reply to such a man: "The branch has the same form when it has been cut off from the vine; but of what profit for it is the form, if it does not live from the root?"20
14. "This shameful font of indifferentism gives rise to that absurd and erroneous proposition which claims that liberty of conscience must be maintained for everyone. It spreads ruin in sacred and civil affairs, though some repeat over and over again with the greatest impudence that some advantage accrues to religion from it. "But the death of the soul is worse than freedom of error," as Augustine was wont to say.21 When all restraints are removed by which men are kept on the narrow path of truth, their nature, which is already inclined to evil, propels them to ruin. Then truly "the bottomless pit"22] is open from which John saw smoke ascending which obscured the sun, and out of which locusts flew forth to devastate the earth. Thence comes transformation of minds, corruption of youths, contempt of sacred things and holy laws--in other words, a pestilence more deadly to the state than any other. Experience shows, even from earliest times, that cities renowned for wealth, dominion, and glory perished as a result of this single evil, namely immoderate freedom of opinion, license of free speech, and desire for novelty.
Everything you claim to hate about Vatican II is SPRUNG from this spring of implicit BOD, Explicit BOD, BOB and such.
These teachings PRECEDE and give RISE to what the Pope condemns here, namely Implicit BOD.
You do not see that these doctrines are the seed from which vatican II was sprouted?
-
:applause:
Ok, so what you are really saying is that the unanimous consent of the Fathers of the church is NOT part of the ordinary and universal magisterium, and that it has NO place in reining in theologians. Oh, and there are no theologians prior to the scholastic era.
UNIVERSAL consensus includes consensus in TIME from the days of the apostles.
Raoul, THINK about it: What is THE heresy of Vatican II? Ecuмenism, indifferentism. HOW did it come about?
...
...
...
Through a dilution on the teaching of THE Catholic Dogma, EENS.
And WHEN did it happen? Primarily in FORCE since the reformation!
This is EXACTLY what is condemned by Pope Gregory XVI in Mirari Vos:
Watch what happens here:
13. "Now We consider another abundant source of the evils with which the Church is afflicted at present: indifferentism. This perverse opinion is spread on all sides by the fraud of the wicked who claim that it is possible to obtain the eternal salvation of the soul by the profession of any kind of religion, as long as morality is maintained. Surely, in so clear a matter, you will drive this deadly error far from the people committed to your care. With the admonition of the apostle that "there is one God, one faith, one baptism"16 may those fear who contrive the notion that the safe harbor of salvation is open to persons of any religion whatever. They should consider the testimony of Christ Himself that "those who are not with Christ are against Him,"17 and that they disperse unhappily who do not gather with Him. Therefore "without a doubt, they will perish forever, unless they hold the Catholic faith whole and inviolate."18 Let them hear Jerome who, while the Church was torn into three parts by schism, tells us that whenever someone tried to persuade him to join his group he always exclaimed: "He who is for the See of Peter is for me."19 A schismatic flatters himself falsely if he asserts that he, too, has been washed in the waters of regeneration. Indeed Augustine would reply to such a man: "The branch has the same form when it has been cut off from the vine; but of what profit for it is the form, if it does not live from the root?"20
14. "This shameful font of indifferentism gives rise to that absurd and erroneous proposition which claims that liberty of conscience must be maintained for everyone. It spreads ruin in sacred and civil affairs, though some repeat over and over again with the greatest impudence that some advantage accrues to religion from it. "But the death of the soul is worse than freedom of error," as Augustine was wont to say.21 When all restraints are removed by which men are kept on the narrow path of truth, their nature, which is already inclined to evil, propels them to ruin. Then truly "the bottomless pit"22] is open from which John saw smoke ascending which obscured the sun, and out of which locusts flew forth to devastate the earth. Thence comes transformation of minds, corruption of youths, contempt of sacred things and holy laws--in other words, a pestilence more deadly to the state than any other. Experience shows, even from earliest times, that cities renowned for wealth, dominion, and glory perished as a result of this single evil, namely immoderate freedom of opinion, license of free speech, and desire for novelty.
Everything you claim to hate about Vatican II is SPRUNG from this spring of implicit BOD, Explicit BOD, BOB and such.
These teachings PRECEDE and give RISE to what the Pope condemns here, namely Implicit BOD.
You do not see that these doctrines are the seed from which vatican II was sprouted?
:applause:
-
Ok, so what you are really saying is that the unanimous consent of the Fathers of the church is NOT part of the ordinary and universal magisterium, and that it has NO place in reining in theologians. Oh, and there are no theologians prior to the scholastic era.
[/b]
It's just like the Jesuit theologians in Pascal's letters:
Jesuit: "The Fathers were good enough for the morality of their own times; but they lived too far back for that of the present age, which is no longer regulated by them, but by modern casuists."
Fr. Cellot: "In questions of morals, the modern casuists are to be preferred to the ancient Fathers, [even] though those lived nearer to the apostles."
The Monk: "There is Diana, for instance, a most voluminous writer; he has prefixed to his works a list of authorities, which amount to two hundred and ninety-six, and the most ancient of them is about eighty six years old [i.e. none prior to the 16th century]."
Pascal: "It is easy to see that all are welcome that come your way, except the ancient Fathers...But I foresee three or four serious difficulties and powerful barriers which will oppose your career...They are the Holy Scriptures, the popes, and the councils..."
-
Gregory I said:
Second of all, I am trying not to be overbearing. If you WANT a bombardment of quotes, the likes of which you have never seen, let me know
.
Do you think I doubt it? Did you even read what I just said about how all you guys do is amass quotes the devil puts in your path to enforce your supposed logic? But you can't see the big picture, which is that no theologian of the last three hundred years teaches what you do. Probably of the last thousand years.
Do you believe that someone who has no explicit desire to be baptized, or explicit desire to be a Catholic, or knowledge of the Trinity and Incarnation, can be saved, by their invincible ignorance and "implicit faith"?
-
Gregory,
Also, 3 or 4 or even 10 fathers who teach BOB or BOD do not enjoy unanimous consent, because their teaching contradicts what other fathers have unanimously taught as revealed by God.
In order to even begin to make this case, you would have to provide Fathers who taught, "Baptism of desire is heretical" or the like. I've already shown that St.Thomas read both St.Augustine and St.Ambrose differently than you do, what is your response to that?
Likewise, on the texts from the other Fathers, you are talking about those who delay baptism through their own fault, which is sinful, and may indicate contempt of the sacrament. And, again, everyone who holds that God may use extraordinary means if He so wills agree with you that we have no right to presume God will use extraordinary means when it is in our power to use ordinary ones.
And like I said, we essentially disagree on what is the proximate rule of Faith, including what constitutes the ordinary and universal Magisterium of the Pope.
Pope Pius XII explained it well, 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
-
Gregory,
Do you believe that someone who has no explicit desire to be baptized, or explicit desire to be a Catholic, or knowledge of the Trinity and Incarnation, can be saved, by their invincible ignorance and "implicit faith"?
-
Gregory,
Do you believe that someone who has no explicit desire to be baptized, or explicit desire to be a Catholic, or knowledge of the Trinity and Incarnation, can be saved, by their invincible ignorance and "implicit faith"?
Well, I believe I answered that above.
I hold the view of what I believe was Pope Pius IX's teaching, about the internal enlightenment given by God Himself of those necessary truths that are contained in the articles of the Creed, like at least the Trinity and Incarnation, since the knoweldge of Him is what in fact salvation consists of, according to the word of Our Lord, "This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom You have sent"
-
In order to even begin to make this case, you would have to provide Fathers who taught, "Baptism of desire is heretical" or the like.
Not at all. You only have to show the unanimous consensus of those who either deny it outright, or assert the absolute necessity of baptism for any at all to be saved.
For example. You have Seen the quotes of St. Gregory the Theologian, so you know he plainly ridiculed the position. He in fact said you might as well just desire heaven and get there on the basis of your own desire.
There others I have shown you from St. Augustine who flatly denies salvation to catechumens.
As does St. Ambrose.
As does St. John Chrysostom
These are clearly against the effectiveness of any DESIRE a catechumen may have to receive the sacrament. Heck, to be a catechumen is effectively synonymous with desiring baptism.
So really, that is put to bed. There are many more, but I won't bore you.
Likewise, on the other Fathers, you are talking about those who delay baptism through their own fault, which is sinful, and may indicate contempt of the sacrament. And, again, we have no right to presume God will use extraordinary means when it is in our power to use ordinary ones.
Not at all! Many fathers taught that regardless of ones desire or negligence, if they don't get baptized, they won't be saved.
POPE ST. SIRICIUS (384‐398)
In his letter to the Bishop of Tarragona in the year 385, Pope St. Siricius also showshow the belief in the early Church rejected any concept of baptism of desire.
“As we maintain that the observance of the holy Paschal time
should in no way be relaxed, in the same way we desire that
infants who, on account of their age, cannot yet speak, or those
who, in any necessity, are in want of the water of holy baptism,
be succored with all possible speed, for fear that, if those who
leave this world should be deprived of the life of the
Kingdom for having been refused the source of salvation
which they desired, this may lead to the ruin of our souls. If
those threatened with shipwreck, or the attack of enemies, or
the uncertainties of a siege, or those put in a hopeless
condition due to some bodily sickness, ask for what in their
faith is their only help, let them receive at the very moment of
their request the reward of regeneration they beg for. Enough
of past mistakes! From now on, let all the priests observe the
aforesaid rule if they do not want to be separated from the
solid apostolic rock on which Christ has built his universal
Church.”
In other words: "When they want it, especially in hopeless and dangerous situations, don't waste time, baptize them!"
Why? " for fear that, if those who
leave this world should be deprived of the life of the
Kingdom for having been refused the source of salvation
which they desired, this may lead to the ruin of our souls."
Desire wasn't on this Popes mind. Even in desperate circuмstances he taught no BOD.
And like I said, we essentially disagree on what is the proximate rule of Faith, including what constitutes the ordinary and universal Magisterium of the Pope.
No, I hold to the Church's teaching. The proximate rule of faith is found in the magisterial teaching of the church, in her docuмents. In the acts of the councils, and in the proclamations of popes Ex Cathedra, AND in those papal proclamations that declare a thing to be revealed by GOD. The magisterial docuмents are the proximate rule of faith.
Scripture and tradition are remote sources of faith.
However, you need to know what the church teaches on the unanimous consent of the Fathers:
Pope Pius IX, First Vatican Council, Sess. 3, Chap. 2 on Revelation, 1870:
“… We, renewing the same decree, declare this to be its intention: that, in matters
of faith and morals pertaining to the instruction of Christian Doctrine, that must
be considered as the true sense of Sacred Scripture which Holy Mother Church
has held and holds, whose office it is to judge concerning the true
understanding and interpretation of the Sacred Scriptures; and, for that reason,
no one is permitted to interpret Sacred Scripture itself contrary to this sense, or even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers.”
Now, consider what is taught Unanimously, as declared by the Catechism, which is a COMPENDIUM of the proximate sources of faith expounded:
Catechism of the Council of Trent, Baptism made obligatory after Christ’s
Resurrection, p. 171: “Holy writers are unanimous in saying that after the
Resurrection of our Lord, when He gave His Apostles the command to go and
teach all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, the law of Baptism became obligatory on all who were to be
saved.”
So all who are to be saved, are OBLIGED under the commandment of God to be baptized.
And guess what Trent taught?
That God does not command impossibilities. Therefore all who are to be saved are truly obliged to be baptized, and they infallibly WILL be baptized if they will be saved.
For God does not command impossibilities.
For this reason, it seems that BOD issues from a heart that has no faith in God and no confidence in his providence.
In closing, I offer a challenge:
Show me one encyclical where a Pope teaches that BOD is a TRUTH REVEALED BY GOD.
Not where he mentions it in passing;
Where he teaches that it is revealed as a truth. (FYI, it doesn't exist, just a heads up).
-
Gregory,
Do you believe that someone who has no explicit desire to be baptized, or explicit desire to be a Catholic, or knowledge of the Trinity and Incarnation, can be saved, by their invincible ignorance and "implicit faith"?
Well, I believe I answered that above.
I hold the view of what I believe was Pope Pius IX's teaching, about the internal enlightenment given by God Himself of those necessary truths that are contained in the articles of the Creed, like at least the Trinity and Incarnation, since the knoweldge of Him is what in fact salvation consists of, according to the word of Our Lord, "This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom You have sent"
You hold the view of what You believe was Pope Pius IX's teaching?
What "you believe was the view", can be wrong. Why don't you just post what he said directly?
By what you wrote you have not answerd my question.
-
Never before has so much wishful thinking and needless speculation mutated into a stealth heresy.
-
That confuses me. Against BOD? Or for it?
-
Never before has so much wishful thinking and needless speculation mutated into a stealth heresy.
They used to speculate a lot in the East:
Marcion
Montanus
Tatian
Origen
Sabellius
Paul of Samosata
Arius
Nestorius
Macedonius
Evagrius
Theodorus
Eutyches
Just some harmless speculation.
-
That confuses me. Against BOD? Or for it?
He's saying that the needless speculations of BoD believers has been mutilated into a heresy.
-
Nadie,
Why don't you just post what he said directly?
Actually, I've already done that, and in this thread no less.
By what you wrote you have not answerd my question.
Actually I did answer it exactly, since your question was about what I believed.
If you want me to prove that Pope Pius IX's authority should settle the question again, I will.
Gregory,
These are clearly against the effectiveness of any DESIRE a catechumen may have to receive the sacrament. Heck, to be a catechumen is effectively synonymous with desiring baptism.
Not quite. Only a desire that is "active in charity" or one joined to perfect contrition in other words, avails justifying grace. I've already shown plenty of Scriptural support for this. You also didn't answer me about the teachings quoted in the Catholic Encyclopedia, from Pope Innocent III and finally, about St.Thomas' use of St.Augustine and St.Ambrose. Clearly, he disagreed with you about what was the unanimous consent of the Fathers.
In other words: "When they want it, especially in hopeless and dangerous situations, don't waste time, baptize them!"
Of course, because to do otherwise suggests negligence on the part of the priest or bishop, which may indicate contempt of the sacrament, by who is supposed to do the baptizing here. St.Thomas treats this situation as well, saying in danger of death, anyone should be baptized. So again someone who believes in BOD can consistently hold this position as well.
Finally, like I said before, this is the practice of the Church, to delay baptism for a just period for catechesis and instruction, during which time some accident unknown to the Church can happen, and the practice of the Church in any age cannot be directly harmful to souls. Therefore this practice of the Church proves that BOD is de Fide.
The proximate rule of faith is found in the magisterial teaching of the church, in her docuмents
Completely untrue. You insist on reducing the Church to a dead letter. Christ did not say, "He who reads what you have written, reads what I have written" but most simply "He who hears you hears Me"
Therefore all who are to be saved are truly obliged to be baptized, and they infallibly WILL be baptized if they will be saved.
Yes, but not necessarily by water, nor by men, if God so wills.
For this reason, it seems that BOD issues from a heart that has no faith in God and no confidence in his providence.
On the contrary, as Thomas Kempis says, and as Pope Pius says, it should suffice for the faithful and humble soul not to inquire into the hidden ways of God, and to know as St.Thomas says, that God shows His power in that He is in no way bound to the visible sacraments, though He has bound us to them.
In closing, I offer a challenge:
Show me one encyclical where a Pope teaches that BOD is a TRUTH REVEALED BY GOD.
Both Pope Pius IX and Pope Pius XII satisfy this as regards ordinary teaching authority which comes from God. Pope Pius XII also once and for all settled the question when the Holy Office under him dealt with the dispute when it arose.
Again, only those who doubt what Christ said, briefly, "If anyone refuses to listen even to the Church, let him be like a heathen and tax collector", again emphasizing that when Christ teaches us through His Church will doubt that the question is closed for all time.
For you to argue otherwise is like Jansenists have argued, when they were condemned, and when the Pope insisted he had the authority to condemn them, they argued he did not.
-
Nishant2011, do you accept the teachings of Vatican II?
-
Augustinian, your question isn't relevant, but the answer is, I incline to the FSSP view.
-
Nadie,
Why don't you just post what he said directly?
Actually, I've already done that, and in this thread no less.
By what you wrote you have not answerd my question.
Actually I did answer it exactly, since your question was about what I believed.
If you want me to prove that Pope Pius IX's authority should settle the question again, I will.
Gregory,
These are clearly against the effectiveness of any DESIRE a catechumen may have to receive the sacrament. Heck, to be a catechumen is effectively synonymous with desiring baptism.
Not quite. Only a desire that is "active in charity" or one joined to perfect contrition in other words, avails justifying grace. I've already shown plenty of Scriptural support for this. You also didn't answer me about the teachings quoted in the Catholic Encyclopedia, from Pope Innocent III and finally, about St.Thomas' use of St.Augustine and St.Ambrose. Clearly, he disagreed with you about what was the unanimous consent of the Fathers.
He was wrong. Ambrose and Augustine both contradict St. Thomas's understanding in other works. Therefore, St. THomas's understanding, like St. Bernard's is based on an imperfect availability of the Fathers.
In other words: "When they want it, especially in hopeless and dangerous situations, don't waste time, baptize them!"
Of course, because to do otherwise suggests negligence on the part of the priest or bishop, which may indicate contempt of the sacrament, by who is supposed to do the baptizing here. St.Thomas treats this situation as well, saying in danger of death, anyone should be baptized. So again someone who believes in BOD can consistently hold this position as well.
No. The Point is that the Pope did not consider their desire to receive it as sufficient to justify them, regardless of their circuмstances.
Finally, like I said before, this is the practice of the Church, to delay baptism for a just period for catechesis and instruction, during which time some accident unknown to the Church can happen, and the practice of the Church in any age cannot be directly harmful to souls. Therefore this practice of the Church proves that BOD is de Fide.
NO, that is an illogical and irrational stretch. of course the church's universal practice is to catechize first. But you would have to be blind to seriously think that practice substantiates BOD. Much less makes it de fide!
The proximate rule of faith is found in the magisterial teaching of the church, in her docuмents
Completely untrue. You insist on reducing the Church to a dead letter. Christ did not say, "He who reads what you have written, reads what I have written" but most simply "He who hears you hears Me"
okay, then listen to Dr. Ludwig Van Ott. In Fundamentals of Catholic dogma.
A Science of Faith
"Theology is a science of faith. It is concerned with faith in the objective sense (fides quae creditur) that which is believed, and in the subjective sense (fides qua creditur) that by which we believe. Theology like faith accepts, as the sources of its knowledge, Holy Writ and Tradition (remote rule of faith) and also the doctrinal assertions of the Church (proximate rule of faith)."
Therefore all who are to be saved are truly obliged to be baptized, and they infallibly WILL be baptized if they will be saved.
Yes, but not necessarily by water, nor by men, if God so wills.
This is heresy. There is only ONE baptism, celebrated in water ALONE.
Pope Clement V, Council of Vienne, 1311‐1312, ex cathedra:
“Besides, one baptism which regenerates all who are baptized
in Christ must be faithfully confessed by all just as ‘one God
and one faith’ [Eph. 4:5], which celebrated in water in the
name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit we
believe to be commonly the perfect remedy for salvation for
adults as for children.”
Again, the Council of Trent has condemned those who make the words of our Lord into some sort of metaphor, which is what BOD'ers claim:
COT Session 7, On Baptism, Canon II:
CANON II.-If any one saith, that true and natural water is not of necessity for baptism, and, on that account, wrests, to some sort of metaphor, those words of our Lord Jesus Christ; Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost; let him be anathema.
In other words, you have no choice but to take it in a clear and literal fashion, and that it pertains to sacramental WATER baptism alone, which is the only kind of real baptism there is, DE FIDE.
For this reason, it seems that BOD issues from a heart that has no faith in God and no confidence in his providence.
On the contrary, as Thomas Kempis says, and as Pope Pius says, it should suffice for the faithful and humble soul not to inquire into the hidden ways of God, and to know as St.Thomas says, that God shows His power in that He is in no way bound to the visible sacraments, though He has bound us to them.
Exactly, like speculating about BOD.
In closing, I offer a challenge:
Show me one encyclical where a Pope teaches that BOD is a TRUTH REVEALED BY GOD.
Both Pope Pius IX and Pope Pius XII satisfy this as regards ordinary teaching authority which comes from God. Pope Pius XII also once and for all settled the question when the Holy Office under him dealt with the dispute when it arose.
I would like to see you quote it if you don't mind. I am looking for the idea that it is taught as something REVEALED BY GOD.
Again, only those who doubt what Christ said, briefly, "If anyone refuses to listen even to the Church, let him be like a heathen and tax collector", again emphasizing that when Christ teaches us through His Church will doubt that the question is closed for all time.
Undoubtedly. Yet only simpletons would think that the opinion of a few constitutes the teaching of the whole. THis confusion is what ensnares so many.
For you to argue otherwise is like Jansenists have argued, when they were condemned, and when the Pope insisted he had the authority to condemn them, they argued he did not.
False. The situation is not a parallel. Firstly, THERE WERE PAPAL DOcuмENTS CLEARLY CONDEMNING THE IDEAS. Secondly, they were Gallicans, I am an ultramontane. I take what the Popes teach in their ordinary magisterial capacity seriously, both for what that teaching is, AND what it is NOT.
There aren't any here that teach BOD is revealed by God. Nor are there any Fathers, nor are there theologians who UNANIMOUSLY teach such. Nor are there any popes.
-
Augustinian, your question isn't relevant, but the answer is, I incline to the FSSP view.
You mean you accept Vatican II?
Most Sedes reject everything about Vatican II, except for the religious indifferentism part, Dimond Sedes excluded.
To me it just looks like American consumerism and a trip to the Old Country Buffet.
Has anyone noticed that "Pope" Micheal seems like a very sincere evangelical pastor who's opened up a church in a strip mall? You might say that it's his accent, but no, I think it goes beyond that, I think he and a lot of traditionalists participate in an archetypal American approach to religion. They're sectarians.
-
Gregory,
Do you believe that someone who has no explicit desire to be baptized, or explicit desire to be a Catholic, or knowledge of the Trinity and Incarnation, can be saved, by their invincible ignorance and "implicit faith"?
Dear Nishant2011:
This is an important question, it's foundational to the discussion, why are you not just answering it? You don't actually expect me to do the work of searching everything, the Labyrinth that you've laid out here?
It's easier just to keep asking.
-
Augustinian, your question isn't relevant, but the answer is, I incline to the FSSP view.
It is relevant, since your 'Living Magisterium' teaches that Muslims worship the true God and that non-Catholics can receive Holy Communion.
Do you accept those teachings?
-
Augustinian, your question isn't relevant, but the answer is, I incline to the FSSP view.
You mean you accept Vatican II?
Most Sedes reject everything about Vatican II, except for the religious indifferentism part, Dimond Sedes excluded.
To me it just looks like American consumerism and a trip to the Old Country Buffet.
Has anyone noticed that "Pope" Micheal seems like a very sincere evangelical pastor who's opened up a church in a strip mall? You might say that it's his accent, but no, I think it goes beyond that, I think he and a lot of traditionalists participate in an archetypal American approach to religion. They're sectarians.
The Vatican II church is the most notoriously unique sectarian church in the world. Within it are many sects, including people who claim to believe the papacy, people who outright reject the papacy, people who believe in justification by faith alone, people who reject faith alone, people who reject the filioque and purgatory, people who embrace the filioque and purgatory, people who reject EENS, people who believe EENS is a dogma, people who are pro-abortion, people who are anti-abortion...
To me it just looks like indifferentist apostasy and a One World Church made up of various contradictory sects.
-
Augustinian, your question isn't relevant, but the answer is, I incline to the FSSP view.
You mean you accept Vatican II?
Most Sedes reject everything about Vatican II, except for the religious indifferentism part, Dimond Sedes excluded.
To me it just looks like American consumerism and a trip to the Old Country Buffet.
Has anyone noticed that "Pope" Micheal seems like a very sincere evangelical pastor who's opened up a church in a strip mall? You might say that it's his accent, but no, I think it goes beyond that, I think he and a lot of traditionalists participate in an archetypal American approach to religion. They're sectarians.
The Vatican II church is the most notoriously unique sectarian church in the world. Within it are many sects, including people who claim to believe the papacy, people who outright reject the papacy, people who believe in justification by faith alone, people who reject faith alone, people who reject the filioque and purgatory, people who embrace the filioque and purgatory, people who reject EENS, people who believe EENS is a dogma, people who are pro-abortion, people who are anti-abortion...
To me it just looks like indifferentist apostasy and a One World Church made up of various contradictory sects.
The gates of Hell have prevailed?
-
The gates of Hell have prevailed?
No, because Christ promised they wouldn't. A crisis does not mean the gates of hell have prevailed.
-
Augustinian, your question isn't relevant, but the answer is, I incline to the FSSP view.
You mean you accept Vatican II?
Most Sedes reject everything about Vatican II, except for the religious indifferentism part, Dimond Sedes excluded.
To me it just looks like American consumerism and a trip to the Old Country Buffet.
Has anyone noticed that "Pope" Micheal seems like a very sincere evangelical pastor who's opened up a church in a strip mall? You might say that it's his accent, but no, I think it goes beyond that, I think he and a lot of traditionalists participate in an archetypal American approach to religion. They're sectarians.
The Vatican II church is the most notoriously unique sectarian church in the world. Within it are many sects, including people who claim to believe the papacy, people who outright reject the papacy, people who believe in justification by faith alone, people who reject faith alone, people who reject the filioque and purgatory, people who embrace the filioque and purgatory, people who reject EENS, people who believe EENS is a dogma, people who are pro-abortion, people who are anti-abortion...
To me it just looks like indifferentist apostasy and a One World Church made up of various contradictory sects.
The gates of Hell have prevailed?
According to your position, they have.
-
The gates of Hell have prevailed?
Nope, they have only come spectacularly close to prevailing.
-
There were at least two Sainted Popes, I think it was Agatho and Gregory VII who said the Roman Church has never erred and will never err until the end of time, being secured by the divine promise.
Nadie, well I didn't lay out a 'labyrinth', I answered your question in four lines. Anyway, here it is again, the answer is no. I think knowledge of the Trinity and Incarnation at least is necessary for salvation.
Augstine, I agree with you. But especially if they are dogmatic sedes, and if they are right, one's very salvation would depend on choosing the right group, since each of them deny possibility of salvation to non-sedes and even other sedes, the Dimonds being typical of this.
Gregory, so let's see, St.Thomas was wrong, a peer reviewed publication like the Catholic Encyclopedia was wrong, and Catholic theologians from a 100 years ago were wrong about what St.Ambrose and St.Augustine taught, but you are right? C'mon. Valentian died a catechumen. Your interpretation is unsupportable.
I've already said God has bound us, that includes the Pope, to the sacraments. But He has not bound Himself to operate only through them.
Now, you tell me, do you believe at least in perfect contrition as an extraordinary means of the sacrament of penance?
It does make it de Fide, because the practice of the Church cannot be directly harmful to souls. But the practice of the Church would be directly harmful to souls if such souls are necessarily lost. Therefore, as Trent says, their desire avails them to grace and righteousness.
I know what Ott says, and I agree with him. I don't agree with you, because you make the Church again a remote rule, not a proximate one.
If it is heresy, then St.Thomas was a heretic. You can't hold a position and be unwilling to follow through on the implications of your position. St.Thomas was well aware of your positions and dismissed it effortlessly.
His reply to your objections.
As it is written (1 Samuel 16:7), "man seeth those things that appear, but the Lord beholdeth the heart." Now a man who desires to be "born again of water and the Holy Ghost" by Baptism, is regenerated in heart though not in body. thus the Apostle says (Romans 2:29) that "the circuмcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not of men but of God."
The sacrament of Baptism is said to be necessary for salvation in so far as man cannot be saved without, at least, Baptism of desire; "which, with God, counts for the deed" (Augustine, Enarr. in Ps. 57).
John 3:5 establishes that natural water is the matter for the sacrament, and the ordinary means of conferring justifying grace, and no man enters the kingdom without justification. I've already given you the other Scriptural passages that you haven't responded to, both for perfect contrition, and martyrdom, from the words of Christ themselves. Also, Cornelius was baptized by desire, receiving the Holy Ghost before baptism.
Well, the quote is this.
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.
There is a similar statement, even more clear, from Pope St.Pius X, champion against modernism.
As for "revealed by God", my analogy was well chosen. The Jansenists, including from a website you quoted on the other thread, argue exactly as you do.
1. Either the Pope's condemnation of their doctrine was erroneous.
2. Or it was heretical, because he disagreed with them, therefore he was not a Pope.
You think I'm exaggerating? Read this (http://www.romancatholicism.org/jansenism/papal-heresy-jansenists.htm).
Traditionalists generally admit the five most recent popes to have been heretics, whether they are sedevacantists or not.
Many Feeneyites admit a further three popes to have been heretical.
Jansenists, with just as much reason as the Traditionalists and the Feeneyites, admit a further four popes to have been heretical.
Excellent example of the dangers of unchecked sedevacantism, I think. If this is allowed to become a standard, not one condemnation the Church has ever issued will logically survive.
Pope Pius XII has already condemned once and for all the doctrine you hold. Why is the case not closed? It appears to me that your doctrine, objectively speaking, is in the same boat as Jansenism was, for as you tell me, "THERE WERE PAPAL DOcuмENTS CLEARLY CONDEMNING THE IDEAS", and Pope Pius XII gave his approval to the Holy Office's letter which quoted his teachings to make the same point.
-
Augustinian, your question isn't relevant, but the answer is, I incline to the FSSP view.
You mean you accept Vatican II?
Most Sedes reject everything about Vatican II, except for the religious indifferentism part, Dimond Sedes excluded.
To me it just looks like American consumerism and a trip to the Old Country Buffet.
Has anyone noticed that "Pope" Micheal seems like a very sincere evangelical pastor who's opened up a church in a strip mall? You might say that it's his accent, but no, I think it goes beyond that, I think he and a lot of traditionalists participate in an archetypal American approach to religion. They're sectarians.
The Vatican II church is the most notoriously unique sectarian church in the world. Within it are many sects, including people who claim to believe the papacy, people who outright reject the papacy, people who believe in justification by faith alone, people who reject faith alone, people who reject the filioque and purgatory, people who embrace the filioque and purgatory, people who reject EENS, people who believe EENS is a dogma, people who are pro-abortion, people who are anti-abortion...
To me it just looks like indifferentist apostasy and a One World Church made up of various contradictory sects.
The gates of Hell have prevailed?
According to your position, they have.
What position is that?
-
Dear Nishant 2011,
nadie asked: Do you believe that someone who has no explicit desire to be baptized, or explicit desire to be a Catholic, or knowledge of the Trinity and Incarnation, can be saved, by their invincible ignorance and "implicit faith"?
Nishant responded:
.. the answer is no. I think knowledge of the Trinity and Incarnation at least is necessary for salvation.
So, you believe that the only extraordinary means of salvation is explicit desire to be a Catholic, with at least knowledge of the Holy Trinity and the incarnation. Therefore, you don't accept the 1949 letter to Cushing, Protocol 122/49 ?
-
Nishant, you have to understand my point, I am not sure you do:
I am not a Jansenist.
I do not argue like one, for I accept the authority of the ordinary magisterial teaching of the church, and the Extraordinary magisterial teaching of the Church. I do not deny the last 5 popes have been heretics, but I do not claim others have been.
I do not claim any saints are formal heretics.
What you seem to have a problem with is clearly distinguishing between the teachings of theologians, and the magisterial teaching of the church.
The ordinary UNIVERSAL magisterium is exactly that: UNIVERSAL. It is not limited to time or place. The unanimous consent of the Fathers, the Unanimous teaching of the Bishops in union with Rome, and the Unanimous teaching of theologians that a truth is revealed by God all constitute part of the ordinary and UNIVERSAL magisterium.
However, BOD is not taught by the ordinary and UNIVERSAL magisterium, because it is not UNIVERSALLY taught.
This is an easily verifiable fact. There are saints who plainly taught against it, theologians who criticized saints for adhering to it, and the Unanimous consensus of the Fathers of the church is AGAINST it.
So, by DEFINITION it cannot be a part of the church's official teaching. That is the bottom line.
Also, you seem to be evading something I keep bringing up, namely the DOGMATIC letter of Pope St. Leo to Flavian.
Let me remind you what other Popes have said about that letter:
Pope St. Gelasius, Decretal, 495: “Also the epistle of blessed
Leo the Pope to Flavian… if anyone argues concerning the
text of this one even in regard to one iota, and does not receive
it in all respects reverently, let him be anathema.”
Now, Let's see what this says, in context.
"Let him heed what the blessed apostle Peter preaches, that sanctification by the Spirit is effected by the sprinkling of Christ's blood; and let him not skip over the same apostle's words, knowing that you have been redeemed from the empty way of life you inherited from your fathers, not with corruptible gold and silver but by the precious blood of Jesus Christ, as of a lamb without stain or spot. Nor should he withstand the testimony of blessed John the apostle: and the blood of Jesus, the Son of God, purifies us from every sin; and again, This is the victory which conquers the world, our faith. Who is there who conquers the world save one who believes that Jesus is the Son of God ? It is he, Jesus Christ who has come through water and blood, not in water only, but in water and blood. And because the Spirit is truth, it is the Spirit who testifies. For there are three who give testimony—Spirit and water and blood. And the three are one. In other words, the Spirit of sanctification and the blood of redemption and the water of baptism. These three are one and remain indivisible. None of them is separable from its link with the others. The reason is that it is by this faith that the catholic church lives and grows, by believing that neither the humanity is without true divinity nor the divinity without true humanity."
So Hang on, in this DOGMATIC LETTER, Pope St. Leo TEACHES that the Redemptive Power of Christ's blood, without which we cannot be saved, the sanctifying power of the spirit, which cleanses us, and the sacrament of water baptism: are one. And not only are they one, they are INDIVISIBLE. You cannot have the sanctification of the spirit without the water of baptism.
That should end it right there.
Also, the letter of excommunication for Fr. Feeney is only for his disobedience, it has nothing to do with doctrine.
The other letter you are referring to is a letter from one bishop to another, and was not even registered in the acts of the apostolic see. It is therefore not an official docuмent of the church's magisterium, because it is not an official "act" of the church.
-
Nadie, no, 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.
But the real difference between you and I seems to be that I believe that God will directly and internally enlighten such a man as Pope Pius IX described without need of a missionary or priest. This is " the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace".
Obviously, this is only possible practically in lands where the Gospel has never been preached and the Church never established.
To me the principle is very simple, we have no right to presume God will use extraordinary means when it is in our power to use ordinary means. If everyone believed and followed that, I don't think even Fr.Feeney would have had a problem. Do you disagree?
Gregory, yes we do disagree, but it's not quite like you make it out. Particularly on the ordinary and universal Magisterium of the Church. The real question is how do we know what belongs there?
We do not know what constitutes this, as Cardinal Manning said, by scrutinizing the docuмents of antiquity. Not at all. That is rationalistic, as he said.
What is your response to what I cited from Pope Pius XII about this? He lays down how we know it, namely that the Pope teaches it an Encyclical to the universal Church, as he said "For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: "He who heareth you, heareth me"
If a Pope a hundred years ago had laid down the teaching in his ordinary and universal Magisterium of say, the Assumption, it would be forbidden to claim that this doctrine was not found in the early Church or the Fathers and revelation.
This doesn't mean the doctrine can't be separately shown from the Fathers if necessary, just that it should not be necessary for Catholics. It's the same here.
As for the letter from Pope St.Leo, I already did reply. It's one thing to disagree, another to say I am "evading" your response.
"But this doesn't follow. The point of the letter is to lay out that water baptism has supernatural efficacy, and works ex opere operato, by the power of Christ's blood and the Holy Spirit. The letter explains why baptism is efficacious, and does not in any way rule out an extraordinary form of the sacrament which happens without the matter (i.e. water)
For one, the Blood of Christ is in a way present in all the sacraments. Take the most common, it is present by concomitance under the form of bread (which is the matter) in the Holy Eucharist, and inseparably with the body. But one can still receive Holy Communion in an extraordinary way through desire, a spiritual communion as it is called, and in this way, the statement "Except a man eat My flesh and drink My blood, he cannot have life in him" is fulfilled through desire, not under the species of the sacrament. "
Finally, regarding the letter, I don't need to redo what has already been done for me by the Jansenist website I mentioned (http://www.romancatholicism.org/feeney-condemnations.htm) for its own purposes, though.
Accordingly, the Most Eminent and Most Reverend Cardinals of this Supreme Congregation, in a plenary session held on Wednesday, July 27, 1949, decreed, and the august Pontiff in an audience on the following Thursday, July 28, 1949, deigned to give his approval, that the following explanations pertinent to the doctrine, and also that invitations and exhortations relevant to discipline be given
On Thursday, 12 February 1953, our Most Holy Lord Pius XII, by Divine Providence Pope, approved and confirmed the decree of the Most Eminent Fathers, and ordered that it be made a matter of public law.
-
Nadie, no, 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.
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.
But the real difference between you and I seems to be that I believe that God will directly and internally enlighten such a man as Pope Pius IX described without need of a missionary or priest. This is " the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace".
You are following St. Thomas on this point of "God will directly and internally enlighten such a man". However, Pope Pius IX did not teach your take on "divine light and grace". That part is just your personal interpretation.
Putting 2 + 2 together, you are saying that "God will directly and internally enlighten such a man", teaching him what needs to be believed as a minimum, which is the Holy Trinity, and the Incarnation.
Now I ask you, if God can "directly and internally enlighten such a man" to those two complicated beliefs, how come He can't just enlighten the person to simply get baptized? St. Thomas also taught in the same place as you get your "God will directly and internally enlighten such a man", that God would send an angel or a missionary, although anyone can baptize.
-
Nadie,
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 following St. Thomas on this point of "God will directly and internally enlighten such a man". However, Pope Pius IX did not teach your take on "divine light and grace". That part is just your personal interpretation.
Well, obviously, you have a different personal interpretation. But if Pope Pius IX had meant to say, the pagan would receive water baptism, he'd have said so.
But rather he said this. So what is the "efficacious virtue of divine light and grace" by virtue of which the zealous and upright pagan who observes natural law can obtain eternal life?
To me, the only answer is the direct illumination of faith given by God. I know you have a different answer, but there it is.
Remember, the Pope said this man was invincibly ignorant of "our most holy religion", which means in his case water baptism would have been a true physical or moral impossibility. It is only in such cases that this applies.
Now I ask you, if God can "directly and internally enlighten such a man" to those two complicated beliefs, how come He can't just enlighten the person to simply get baptized?
He may, but this is by no means dogmatically certain. As St.Thomas says, God has bound us to the sacraments, but He has not bound Himself.
The fate of the unevangelized is not a resolved question.
St. Thomas also taught in the same place as you get your "God will directly and internally enlighten such a man", that God would send an angel or a missionary, although anyone can baptize.
Even if God sent an Angel to a nation where the Church has never been and had some individuals baptized with water and this person died without your knowledge, or He illumined them directly by His own free action, how would you know the difference? He can do either, that is all I'm saying. I don't have a "good hope" for anyone whom I don't know to have died within the Catholic fold, as I am taught.
-
But if Pope Pius IX had meant to say, the pagan would receive water baptism, he'd have said so.
and if he would have wanted to say that the person would be saved, he would have said so, and how that would be accomplished. He did not say, AND that's why you can't use this unclear, fallible quote.
Remember, the Pope said this man was invincibly ignorant of "our most holy religion", which means in his case water baptism would have been a true physical or moral impossibility. It is only in such cases that this applies.
That's your own take again. Water baptism which anyone can do and takes like 10 seconds, is to God "a true physical or moral impossibility", but teaching the person the Holy Trinity, and the Incarnation is not? Your theory make no sense.
-
Nadie,
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.
-
Once again, the 1949 Letter was not an act of the apostolic see, it was not ever officially notarized and filed as such, and as such it has no authority.
The Excommunication is totally valid. However, it is for grave disobedience, not doctrine, so it proves nadda.
Gregory, yes we do disagree, but it's not quite like you make it out. Particularly on the ordinary and universal Magisterium of the Church. The real question is how do we know what belongs there?
Whatever the Church teaches belongs to the deposit of faith, and that is non-negotiable. In terms of the ordinary universal magisterium, we know this for sure:
1. The unanimous consent of the Fathers is non-negotiable; otherwise you would jettison the very notion of tradition. This is what Pope Pius IX professed was the Church of Rome's profession of Faith:
"Apostolic and ecclesiastical traditions and all other observances and constitutions of that same church I most firmly accept and embrace. Likewise I accept sacred scripture according to that sense which holy mother church held and holds,
since it is her right to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy scriptures; nor will I ever receive and interpret them except according to the unanimous consent of the fathers."
-Vatican I, Profession of Faith.
"Now since the decree on the interpretation of holy scripture, profitably made by the council of Trent, with the intention of constraining rash speculation, has been wrongly interpreted by some, we renew that decree and declare its meaning to be as follows: that in matters of faith and morals, belonging as they do to the establishing of christian doctrine, that meaning of holy scripture must be held to be the true one, which holy mother church held and holds, since it is her right to judge of the true meaning and interpretation of holy scripture. In consequence, it is not permissible for anyone to interpret holy scripture in a sense contrary to this, or indeed against the unanimous consent of the fathers."
-Vatican I, on Revelation.
Clearly, Holy Mother Church's Doctrinal formulations and interpretation of scripture is SHAPED by the UNANIMOUS CONSENT of the Fathers.
Clearly the Pope is bound to tradition as EXPLICATED by the unanimous consent of the Fathers. Therefore, the Universal and ordinary magisterium can never run counter to this.
2. The Popes teach clearly that we are to believe what is the UNIVERSAL consensus of theologians on REVEALED truth. In other words, All the theologians of the 19th century teaching BOD doesn't make it true. It must be the UNIVERSAL consensus; i.e. in time. AND it must be taught AS REVEALED BY GOD. Not just a common opinion.
3. The ordinary universal teaching of bishops in union with Rome. Again, Unanimity, universality and teaching to be REVEALED.
We do not know what constitutes this, as Cardinal Manning said, by scrutinizing the docuмents of antiquity. Not at all. That is rationalistic, as he said.
Debatable. As I have demonstrated, there are essential elements which must not be abandoned when formulating church teaching.
Cardinal Manning is at odds with the Vatican council then, which declares that the church is subject to the understanding of the unanimous consent of the Fathers. That is, TRADITION.
What is your response to what I cited from Pope Pius XII about this? He lays down how we know it, namely that the Pope teaches it an Encyclical to the universal Church, as he said "For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: "He who heareth you, heareth me"
My response is where is the Encyclical TEACHING BOD as a truth revealed by God? It would take more than just one, or else it could be construed as a theological novelty. And, as I said, the Letter of one Bishop to another can say whatever it wants, but UNTIL it is registered as an ACT of the apostolic see, it does not constitute such an act. This is the reason Fr. Feeney rejected it, because it is not official, and therefore not binding. This is completely providential, or the church would reject the first 1000 years of her tradition and the most illustrious of the Fathers.
If a Pope a hundred years ago had laid down the teaching in his ordinary and universal Magisterium of say, the Assumption, it would be forbidden to claim that this doctrine was not found in the early Church or the Fathers and revelation.
I agree. WHERE, Oh WHERE is BOD though??? It has no origin except in the minds of the few.
This doesn't mean the doctrine can't be separately shown from the Fathers if necessary, just that it should not be necessary for Catholics. It's the same here.
Well, any revealed doctrine would be revealed ONLY if it were a morally unanimous teaching of the Fathers. BOD is not. Remember, revelation is APOSTOLIC, so it would of necessity HAVE to have been passed down through the writings of the fathers.
OR you admit the church can invent novelties.
As for the letter from Pope St.Leo, I already did reply. It's one thing to disagree, another to say I am "evading" your response.
"But this doesn't follow. The point of the letter is to lay out that water baptism has supernatural efficacy, and works ex opere operato, by the power of Christ's blood and the Holy Spirit. The letter explains why baptism is efficacious, and does not in any way rule out an extraordinary form of the sacrament which happens without the matter (i.e. water)
For one, the Blood of Christ is in a way present in all the sacraments. Take the most common, it is present by concomitance under the form of bread (which is the matter) in the Holy Eucharist, and inseparably with the body. But one can still receive Holy Communion in an extraordinary way through desire, a spiritual communion as it is called, and in this way, the statement "Except a man eat My flesh and drink My blood, he cannot have life in him" is fulfilled through desire, not under the species of the sacrament. "
Where did you get this answer from? It is a clear denial of the teaching of a dogmatic letter:
THe redeeming blood of Christ, the sanctifying power of the spirit, and the water of baptism are inseperable, and INDIVISIBLE. That word INDIVISIBLE is key.
BOD DIVIDES water from the blood and the spirit. That's a fact.
Finally, regarding the letter, I don't need to redo what has already been done for me by the Jansenist website I mentioned for its own purposes, though.
Quote:
Accordingly, the Most Eminent and Most Reverend Cardinals of this Supreme Congregation, in a plenary session held on Wednesday, July 27, 1949, decreed, and the august Pontiff in an audience on the following Thursday, July 28, 1949, deigned to give his approval, that the following explanations pertinent to the doctrine, and also that invitations and exhortations relevant to discipline be given
On Thursday, 12 February 1953, our Most Holy Lord Pius XII, by Divine Providence Pope, approved and confirmed the decree of the Most Eminent Fathers, and ordered that it be made a matter of public law.
Already addressed.
-
Do people still take the letter the perfidious +Cushing finagled out of the Holy Office for the benefit of his Jєωιѕн paymasters, seriously?
Seriously?
-
Is Cushingism Catholic? I would say not.
-
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:
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.
Nadie,
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.
-
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
Nadie,
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.
-
Lol, this is amusing. I'm the rationalist here, because I believe what Popes Pius IX, X and XII plainly said.
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?...
Wow, you go against the 9 clear dogmas of EENS, the Canons of Trent and the defide teaching that water baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation, you go against them with a private catechism, and your interpretation of Cornelius (who did not die unbaptized!)!
The Pius X catechism could have been called the Rome Catechism, just like the Baltimore catechism could have been called the Leo XIIth catechism, since it had nothing to do with Pius X. Moreover, the line that you have not quoted, at least in the English version, contains a heresy. You are using "old evidence" that has been shown to be in error. No knowledgeable BODer quotes that catechism anymore.
No knowledgeable BODer says anymore that invincible ignorance is salvific anymore either, or theat the Fathers taught BOD unanimously. All of which is proof that the longer that this debate goes on the more the "evidence" of BOD is debunked. We have to keep repeating everything like daily, but, the truth is coming out, and convincing humble Catholics of good will of the truth. It takes longer for some than others of course, so who is to say who is "humble and of good will"? But you won't find any believers in EENS as it is written, becoming Implicit faith BODers.
-
We have to repeat it daily, hourly, by the minute sometimes.
-
We have to repeat it daily, hourly, by the minute sometimes.
And the winner is..........:
What about the Good Thief?
-
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?
-
I'm a rationalist for following the Doctors of the Church on a question the Popes have not settled?
Let me say, first, that your claim "you disagree with the letter on the most crucial point" is flatly untrue. How can I disagree when it did not specify anything either way?
Secondly, let me point out that my view is supported, because the letter speaks of "supernatural faith" which must include some of the mysteries known only through revelation above and beyond those things to which natural reason can attain, like the existence of God, as the first Vatican Council taught.
As for the "most crucial point" of the letter, that would be one of
1. Implicit and explicit desire for baptism supported
2. Saying that EENS must be understood in accord with the mind of the Church
You said,
Wow, you go against the 9 clear dogmas of EENS, the Canons of Trent
No, I understand them and hold them exactly as the saintly intellect of Alphonsus Liguouri read them and believed them, that both EENS and BOD are de Fide and must be held as such.
Even the persons quoted by Gregory and Augustinian including St.Robert make BOD at least mortally sinful to deny, objectively speaking.
"old evidence" that has been shown to be in error
Really? Humor me. I might have some "new evidence" for you.
As the website says, "It is incredible that some Feeneyites should claim that Pius was neither responsible for nor even conscious of the Catechism’s contents."
And goes on to quote the Catholic Encyclopedia (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05075b.htm),
The present pontiff [1909], Pius X, has prescribed a catechism for use in the Diocese of Rome and in its ecclesiastical province, and has expressed a desire that it should be adopted throughout Italy. It has been translated into English, French, Spanish, and German, and a movement has begun with a view to extending its use to other countries besides Italy, especially to Spain, where the conditions are similar. (See "Irish Eccl. Record", March, 1906, p. 221; "Amer. Eccl. Rev.", Nov., 1906.)
If so called "BODers" include St.Alphonsus and St.Thomas, then, sure count me in. You can't really "debunk" evidence of what Saints and Doctors have counted de Fide or at least proximate to the Faith.
Greg, I already answered you, and gave an example, you didn't respond to. What of the Immaculate Conception? Was it taught by the (in my opinion, mistaken) standard of "the unanimity REQUIRED to shape the ordinary and universal magisterium" that you personally "require"? Mistaken premises lead to mistaken conclusions.
The Fathers never settled the question. By the time of St.Alphonsus, we know beyond reasonable doubt it was settled. Pope Pius XII and his Encyclical and his express mind and will publicly revealed should close the question.
Do you deny that BOD ultimately leads to indifferentism
Just as much as you would deny the charge of the monophysites: that Catholic orthodoxy (including I think the letter you set forth from Pope St.Leo, answering which was its main purpose, not baptism) "ultimately leads to" Nestorianism.
Your position and indifferentism are deviations from Catholic orthodoxy to the left and the right, as it were, both opposite extremes which surprisingly often occur together as Monophysitism and Nestorianism did, and both in error in my opinion.
-
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.
-
Dear Nishant 2011,
You are denial.
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.
The entire New Testament if it's about one thing it's about that one must believe in Jesus Christ or they are lost. You rightly believe this in following St. Thomas's "minmum requirements" of belief in the Trinity & Incarnation. The 1949 letter teaches no such thing, thus anyone can be saved even if they are not baptized, nor want to tbe baptized, nor want to be Catholics, nor believe in Jesus Christ or the Trinity.
Nishant said the letter speaks of "supernatural faith" which must include some of the mysteries known only through revelation above and beyond those things to which natural reason can attain, like the existence of God
Vatican II rationalization. The fact remains that it is totally opposed to your belief in a minimum.
You believe St. Thomas's "minmum requirements" of belief in the Trinity & Incarnation
The Letter of the Holy teachesOffice (to Archbishop Richard J. Cushing
Given on August 8, 1949, Given at Boston, Mass., the 4th day of September, 1952) has no minimums, the fact is undeniable to anyone with eyes to see.
"Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member, but it is necessary that at least he be united to her by desire and longing.
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 called because it is included in that good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God.
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)."
Nowhere does it teach what you believe, St. Thomas's minimum requirement, nor your own rationalization above in the quote.
(P.S. - the letter clearly says that implicit desire ONLY applies to the invincible ignorant, which also contradicts St. Thomas's teachings.)
-
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.
-
The Pius X catechism in the line quoted by BODers, at least in the English version the BODers always present, contains a heresy.
Dear Nishant2011,
Why don't you quote the your line instead of repeating that you follow the catechism. I want to see what you have.
-
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":
"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. “
-
Who settled it and when?
That is all I want to know.
Not invalid "acts of the apostolic see" that cannot bind.
A letter from one bishop to another is not magisterial.
-
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.
-
Exactly, unless a catechumen is baptized, he has no charity.
I would like to know WHO settled the BOD issue, and WHEN.
For people to be claiming it's DOGMA or de fide or such, you HAVE to be able to point to either:
A. The Unanimous teaching of the Fathers of the Church and the universal teaching of theologians that such and such is REVEALED.
B. A solemn pronouncement either ex cathedra or from an ecuмenical council.
Where?
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.
St. Ambrose, 387 A.D.:
“… no one ascends into the kingdom of heaven except through the Sacrament
of Baptism.”
St. Ambrose, 387 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.”
Reconcile this.
-
But that was not Michael Bajus' point. It was what I said, and in that sense it was condemned, which means the negation of what he meant is true.
As to your question, Gregory, the likely answer is Trent.
You are wrong about St.Ambrose, and like St.Gregory you quoted earlier, if you'd read the whole quote, you'd see that for yourself.
"Unless a man be born again... No one is excepted, not
the infant, not the one prevented by some necessity. They may, however,
have an undisclosed exemption from punishments; but I do not know
whether they have the honor of the kingdom.
This is what I mean by not settled. It is somewhat similar with St.Gregory. Finally, like I said before, God has bound us to the sacraments.
-
Thanks anyway.
I think I will stick with St Alphonsus.
:facepalm:
-
Exactly, unless a catechumen is baptized, he has no charity.
I would like to know WHO settled the BOD issue, and WHEN.
For people to be claiming it's DOGMA or de fide or such, you HAVE to be able to point to either:
A. The Unanimous teaching of the Fathers of the Church and the universal teaching of theologians that such and such is REVEALED.
B. A solemn pronouncement either ex cathedra or from an ecuмenical council.
Where?
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.
St. Ambrose, 387 A.D.:
“… no one ascends into the kingdom of heaven except through the Sacrament
of Baptism.”
St. Ambrose, 387 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.”
Reconcile this.
Yes, eventually this Feenyite mindset must declare the Catechism of the Council of Trent to have taught doctrinal error (ie., in voto), at which point the Feenyite is transformed into his sedevacantist cousin (since a true pope could not have promulgated a harmful catechism), and finally conclude that we have not had a true pope since...?
Problem: Popes and catechisms don't cease to be true and legitimate just because YOU DON'T GET IT.
-
Thanks anyway.
I think I will stick with St Alphonsus.
:facepalm:
And I will stick with God.
We'll see who was right.
-
(since a true pope could not have promulgated a harmful catechism)
Do you accept the CCC then?
-
And Trent does NOT teach BOD just because that's what YOU read into it.
CANNOT be saved WITHOUT
A. Baptism, OR
b. It's desire.
You cannot be saved without the desire for baptism, because desire is a necessary pre-disposition. Se CCT to inform you.
-
Exactly, unless a catechumen is baptized, he has no charity.
I would like to know WHO settled the BOD issue, and WHEN.
For people to be claiming it's DOGMA or de fide or such, you HAVE to be able to point to either:
A. The Unanimous teaching of the Fathers of the Church and the universal teaching of theologians that such and such is REVEALED.
B. A solemn pronouncement either ex cathedra or from an ecuмenical council.
Where?
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.
St. Ambrose, 387 A.D.:
“… no one ascends into the kingdom of heaven except through the Sacrament
of Baptism.”
St. Ambrose, 387 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.”
Reconcile this.
Yes, eventually this Feenyite mindset must declare the Catechism of the Council of Trent to have taught doctrinal error (ie., in voto), ...
Even if one were to concede that the CCT teaches that one can be saved without being baptized, the CCT is only teaching explicit baptism of desire of the catechumen, which is not the problem today, as 99% BODers believe that a non-Catholic can be saved with no explicit desire to be a Catholic.
Read below:
It is a false and heretical error to hold that the Catechism of The Council of Trent is in error.
Strawman.
Your focusing on this point that "It is an error to hold that the Catechism of The Council of Trent is in error", is irrelevent, it's a total strawman.
One can't contradict clear dogmas and even in this case even contradict what the CCT itself says clearly, with one unclear line from the CCT. The way Catholics know thruth is by interpreting unclear quotes according to defined clear dogmas. If the dogmas failed to define, then they have failed in their intended purpose and are useless. We don't interpret infallible dogmas by fallible unclear interpretations. If we did, then all dogmas are useless.
THE CATECHISM OF THE COUNCIL OF TRENT
In the entire Catechism of the Council of Trent there is no mention at all of the so-called terms “three baptisms,” or “baptism of desire” or “baptism of blood,” nor is there any clear statement that one can be saved without the Sacrament of Baptism. What we find, rather, is only one unclear paragraph which says “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, with which the BODers try to re-interpretdogmas on EENS & baptism and even re-interpret all the clear teachings of the CCT itself!
Most importantly, the Catechism of Trent makes statement after statement clearly and unambiguously teaching that the Sacrament of Baptism is absolutely necessary for all for salvation with no exceptions, thereby repeatedly exluding any idea of salvation without water baptism.
Catechism of the Council of Trent, Comparisons among the Sacraments, p. 154: “Though all the Sacraments possess a divine and admirable efficacy, it is well worthy of special remark that all are not of equal necessity or of equal dignity, nor is the signification of all the same.
“Among them three are said to be necessary beyond the rest, although in all three this necessity is not of the same kind. The universal and absolute necessity of Baptism our Savior has declared in these words: Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God (Jn. 3:5).”
This means that the Sacrament of Baptism is absolutely and universally necessary for salvation with no exceptions! It excludes any idea of salvation without water baptism. It also means that John 3:5 is understood literally.
Catechism of the Council of Trent, On Baptism – Necessity of Baptism, pp. 176-177: “If the knowledge of what has been hitherto explained be, as it is, of highest importance to the faithful, it is no less important to them to learn that THE LAW OF BAPTISM, AS ESTABLISHED BY OUR LORD, EXTENDS TO ALL, so that unless they are regenerated to God through the grace of Baptism, be their parents Christians or infidels, they are born to eternal misery and destruction. Pastors, therefore, should often explain these words of the Gospel: Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God (Jn. 3:5).”
This clearly means that no one can be saved without the Sacrament of Baptism and that John 3:5 is literal with no exceptions!
Catechism of the Council of Trent, Definition of Baptism, p. 163: “Unless, says our Lord, a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God (Jn. 3:5); and, speaking of the Church, the Apostle says, cleansing it by the laver of water in the word of life (Eph. 5:26). Thus it follows that Baptism may be rightly and accurately defined: The Sacrament of regeneration by water in the word.”
The Catechism of Trent also teaches that if there is danger of death for an adult, Baptism must not be deferred.
Catechism of the Council of Trent, In Case of Necessity Adults May Be Baptized At Once, p. 180: “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 baptized is well instructed in the mysteries of faith.”
Catechism of the Council of Trent, Baptism made obligatory after Christ’s Resurrection, p. 171: “Holy writers are unanimous in saying that after the Resurrection of our Lord, when He gave His Apostles the command to go and teach all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, the law of Baptism became obligatory on all who were to be saved.”
Catechism of the Council of Trent, Matter of Baptism - Fitness, p. 165: “Upon this subject pastors can teach in the first place that water, which is always at hand and within the reach of all, was the fittest matter of a Sacrament which is necessary to all for salvation.”
Notice that the Catechism teaches that water is “within the reach of all,” a phrase which excludes the very notion of baptism of desire – that water is not within the reach of all. Also notice that the Catechism declares that the Sacrament is necessary for all for salvation! This excludes any notion of salvation without the Sacrament of Baptism. Thus, the Catechism of Trent teaches repeatedly and unambiguously that it is the teaching of Jesus Christ and the Catholic Church that the Sacrament of Baptism is necessary for all for salvation. All of this is clearly contrary to the theories of baptism of desire and baptism of blood.
Moreover, the Catechism also teaches that Christians are distinguished from non-Christians by the Sacrament of Baptism.
Catechism of the Council of Trent, On Baptism – Second Effect: Sacramental Character, p. 159: “In the character impressed by Baptism, both effects are exemplified. By it we are qualified to receive the other Sacraments, and the Christian is distinguished from those who do not profess the faith.”
Those who assert that the Sacrament of Baptism is not necessary for all for salvation (e.g., all those who believe in “baptism of desire”) contradict the very teaching of the Catechism of Trent.
Catechism of the Council of Trent, Matter of Baptism - Fitness, p. 165: “Upon this subject pastors can teach in the first place that water, which is always at hand and within the reach of all, was the fittest matter of a Sacrament which is necessary to all for salvation.”
-
Thanks anyway.
I think I will stick with St Alphonsus.
:facepalm:
Do you believe that someone who has no explicit desire to be baptized, or explicit desire to be a Catholic, or knowledge of the Trinity and Incarnation, can be saved by their invincible ignorance and "implicit faith" in a God that rewards?
-
Thanks anyway.
I think I will stick with St Alphonsus.
:facepalm:
Do you believe that someone who has no explicit desire to be baptized, or explicit desire to be a Catholic, or knowledge of the Trinity and Incarnation, can be saved by their invincible ignorance and "implicit faith" in a God that rewards?
Let me turn it around:
Do you believe it is possible for those who die justified to be damned?
-
Baptism alone justifies. desire merely predisposes us to justice, but we are not thereby justified.
-
Thanks anyway.
I think I will stick with St Alphonsus.
:facepalm:
Do you believe that someone who has no explicit desire to be baptized, or explicit desire to be a Catholic, or knowledge of the Trinity and Incarnation, can be saved by their invincible ignorance and "implicit faith" in a God that rewards?
Let me turn it around:
Do you believe it is possible for those who die justified to be damned?
I've never yet had one BODer answer my question directly the first time I asked, it's always like pulling teeth from them. The record still stands. I asked first. Just answer my simple question.
-
Thanks anyway.
I think I will stick with St Alphonsus.
:facepalm:
Do you believe that someone who has no explicit desire to be baptized, or explicit desire to be a Catholic, or knowledge of the Trinity and Incarnation, can be saved by their invincible ignorance and "implicit faith" in a God that rewards?
Let me turn it around:
Do you believe it is possible for those who die justified to be damned?
I've never yet had one BODer answer my question directly the first time I asked, it's always like pulling teeth from them. The record still stands. I asked first. Just answer my simple question.
Cut it out, Nadie. You know very well anyone who believes in implicit faith (such as Aquinas) has answered you directly. I really wonder whether you even understand the meaning of "implicit". Really.
So you are telling us that St. Thomas taught that: "someone who has no explicit desire to be baptized, or explicit desire to be a Catholic, or knowledge of the Trinity and Incarnation, can be saved by their invincible ignorance and "implicit faith" in a God that rewards"?
Why don't you quote him for us?
-
Baptism alone justifies. desire merely predisposes us to justice, but we are not thereby justified.
Precisely the error of Fr Feeney!
Perfect contrition justifies, and has nothing to do with water baptism.
Your slogan should not be EENS, but NSWWB (no salvation without water baptism).
You also seem to be out of step with your errant brethren Feenyites, who all admit that one can be justified without water baptism (they just deny, quite heretically against the canon of the council of Trent, that those justified without water baptism are saved).
You need to read up if you want to be a more effective heretic,
-
Thanks anyway.
I think I will stick with St Alphonsus.
:facepalm:
Do you believe that someone who has no explicit desire to be baptized, or explicit desire to be a Catholic, or knowledge of the Trinity and Incarnation, can be saved by their invincible ignorance and "implicit faith" in a God that rewards?
Let me turn it around:
Do you believe it is possible for those who die justified to be damned?
I've never yet had one BODer answer my question directly the first time I asked, it's always like pulling teeth from them. The record still stands. I asked first. Just answer my simple question.
In other words, you recognize you are trapped, but show your ill disposition by clinging to your position despite it.
-
Baptism alone justifies. desire merely predisposes us to justice, but we are not thereby justified.
Precisely the error of Fr Feeney!
Perfect contrition justifies, and has nothing to do with water baptism.
Your slogan should not be EENS, but NSWWB (no salvation without water baptism).
You also seem to be out of step with your errant brethren Feenyites, who all admit that one can be justified without water baptism (they just deny, quite heretically against the canon of the council of Trent, that those justified without water baptism are saved).
You need to read up if you want to be a more effective heretic,
no, I believe Fr. Feeney was in error on his understanding of justification. Obviously one cannot die justified and NOT go to heaven!
Your assertion about perfect contrition is only true for those who are already baptized, as all the fathers teach. You misinterpret Trent. As do all BOD'ers.
AS St. Augustine himself says;
"God remits sins only to the baptized."
-
Thanks anyway.
I think I will stick with St Alphonsus.
:facepalm:
Do you believe that someone who has no explicit desire to be baptized, or explicit desire to be a Catholic, or knowledge of the Trinity and Incarnation, can be saved by their invincible ignorance and "implicit faith" in a God that rewards?
Let me turn it around:
Do you believe it is possible for those who die justified to be damned?
I've never yet had one BODer answer my question directly the first time I asked, it's always like pulling teeth from them. The record still stands. I asked first. Just answer my simple question.
In other words, you recognize you are trapped, but show your ill disposition by clinging to your position despite it.
That's the second time you've avoided my question. Answer my question. You are falling right in line with all BODers, avoiding the revealing of your beliefes. State your position, come out into the light.
(P.S- you didn't invent sliced bread)
-
Nishant posted:
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
This translation is heretical. You'll have to do more research if you want to find what the Catechism of Pius X really said in Italian (it was not published in Latin), it's your evidence so, it's up to you to do the research. By the way, the original would not be called The Catechism of St.Pius X, since he was not a Saint at the time.
Q. 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.”
Here the Catechism attributed to Pope St. Pius X reaffirms the defined dogma. But it proceeds to deny this dogma just two questions later!
The Catechism of Pope St. Pius X, The Apostles’ Creed, “The Church in Particular,”
Q. 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 as 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.”
Here we see this fallible Catechism word for word denying the dogma Outside the
Church There is No Salvation! It teaches that there can be salvation “outside” the
Church, which directly denies the truth it taught in Question 27. This statement is so heretical, in fact, that it would be repudiated even by most of the crafty progressivists of our day, who know that they cannot say that people are saved “outside,” so they argue that non‐Catholics are not “outside” but are “inside” somehow. So even those crafty progressivists who reject the true meaning of Outside the Church There is No Salvation would have to admit that the above statement is heretical!
Further, notice that the English "translation" of the catechism attributed to St. Pius X teaches the heresy that persons can be united to the “Soul” of the Church, but not the Body. As shown in my thread on the contradictions of BODers, the Catholic Church is a Mystical Body. Those who are not part of the Body are no part at all. This is no theologian has ever said that persons who are justified without baptism are part of the Mystical Body, but they argue that non‐Catholics are are “inside” somehow.
Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos (# 10), Jan. 6, 1928: “For since
the mystical body of Christ, in the same manner as His physical
body, is one, compacted and fitly joined together, it were
foolish and out of place to say that the mystical body is made
up of members which are disunited and scattered abroad:
whosoever therefore is not united with the body is no
member of it, neither is he in communion with Christ its
head.”
You are like 0 for 4 on your evidence for BOD.
-
Nishant2011- 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?
You are like a radio disc jockey playing the same songs every hour. You are not learning anything, you just stick to your few "BOD cliches", and repeat them over and over. This question you've asked before and here I'll answer again:
Only God grace can convert someone, it is the difficult part. Getting someone to baptize another is simple. Yet in your mind God can send an angel or enlighten a person internally to teach him the Trinity and the Incarnation (extremey complex teachings), but this same God can't teach the person that he needs to be baptized, nor keep him alive till He enlightens someone to pour water on the person's head?
In your mind, God created and placed a person in a place where He could not later reach him with water, or reach him with a person to teach him the faith, so, as a last minute solution, He sends an angel or enlightens him internally, BUT can't get anyone to baptize him because time He ran out, or He just can't do it.
You are in a Vortex of confusion:
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 [/u]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)
In my world, "they whom the Lord has predestinated for baptism can't be snatched away from His predestination, or die before that has been accomplished in them which the Almighty has predestined".
God predestines those that are to be saved and placedthem in the way of His ordinary salvation from the beginning of time, and if He so chooses to save someone by an extraordinary means like sending an angel, He can do it, within the laws He has established. AND of course internally enlighten them (that's what His grace does, which St. John the Baptist said "can change these very stones into sons of Abraham"). God can get baptism to all of His elect without having to have an "alternative plan".
If what you believe were true, then your God is disordered, for He would have preordained thousands of people to be returned to life to be baptized, for no reason, and others preordained to be saved unbaptized, and his dogmas to not mean what they clearly say. You are in the Vortex of confusion.
-
Nadie wrote: So you are telling us that St. Thomas taught that: "someone who has no explicit desire to be baptized, or explicit desire to be a Catholic, or knowledge of the Trinity and Incarnation, can be saved by their invincible ignorance and "implicit faith" in a God that rewards"?
Why don't you quote him for us?
Cupetino responds: I don't think you know what the word "implicit" means. It keeps showing by the way you carry on and acting as if you didn't hear the answers before.
Nadie answers: You made the comment that St. Thomas taught that "someone who has no explicit desire to be baptized, or explicit desire to be a Catholic, or knowledge of the Trinity and Incarnation, can be saved by their invincible ignorance and "implicit faith" in a God that rewards". I asked you to post his quote where he taught it. Even if I didn't know what implicit faith is, your response is irrelevant, since I'm asking you to provide me with the information from St. Thomas. He has the credentials to teach. So, post it, or take up your argument with Nishant2011, who disagrees with you, for he says that St. Thomas opposed the theory that "someone who has no explicit desire to be baptized, or explicit desire to be a Catholic, or knowledge of the Trinity and Incarnation, can be saved by their invincible ignorance and "implicit faith" in a God that rewards"?
You have your choice, either post where St. Thomas taught "that "someone who has no explicit desire to be baptized, or explicit desire to be a Catholic, or knowledge of the Trinity and Incarnation, can be saved by their invincible ignorance and "implicit faith" in a God that rewards"
or
Take up your debate with Nishant2011 (who, as opposed to you, at least knows his St. Thomas in this case).
-
You are not learning anything, you just stick to your few "BOD cliches", and repeat them over and over.
Heh. Charming as ever, aren't you? You must think I enjoy repeating myself, but I wouldn't have to, if you'd have answered the first time. And no, again you did not.
My question was, what practical difference does it make to you? How do you practically know the difference between someone who is baptized in water secretly in a distant land and someone who merely receives an internal illumination? It makes no practical difference.
BUT can't get anyone to baptize him because time He ran out, or He just can't do
Not at all. The Holy Ghost can baptize the man by bringing him to the right dispositions of belief, but without the need for any human instruments.
When you teach the contrary dogmatically, you make it out that God is bound to the sacraments. And that is erroneous and possibly heretical, as St.Thomas says.
You may believe that God will always bring those baptized by desire to water, but you cannot believe either that those who die justified are lost or that God is bound to the sacraments.
While I have no objection to discussing my difference of opinion with Cupertino if he wants it, maybe you should take your own advice, Nadie, and you and Gregory should sort out the issue of justification first. He says, "Obviously one cannot die justified and NOT go to heaven!" Do you agree? You have maintained since the first post that "Trent says nothing about what happens to a person who is justified, but dies before he can receive baptism"
Because of his understanding, Gregory is forced to do violence to the text of St.Luke that talks about Cornelius. I take it as it is written. When St.Peter discoursed on the Trinity, the Incarnation and even the Passion and Resurrection, the Holy Ghost fell on his listeners in like measure as He had fallen on the Apostles. This is baptism of desire in the deposit of revelation.
So, come on guys, which is it?
-
Your mangling of Scripture regarding Cornelius falls under the condemnation of Peter.
Do you believe Caiaphas the Christ-killing Pharisee was justified when the Holy Ghost descended upon him in John?
-
Nashant2011:
My question was, what practical difference does it make to you? How do you practically know the difference between someone who is baptized in water secretly in a distant land and someone who merely receives an internal illumination? It makes no practical difference.
Nadie responds:
It makes a huge theological difference, for one is 100% in line with EENS and Trents teaching on the absolute need of water baptism for salvation. The other BOD, contradicts EENS in that the person is not part of the Mystical Body, and contradicts Trent (and the universal magisterium) on the absolute need of water baptism for salvation. BOD opens the door to all manner of rationalization, and speculation, and ends in "no practical difference" between it and outside the Church there is salvation.
Nadie wrote:
BUT can't get anyone to baptize him because time He ran out, or He just can't do
Nashant answered: Not at all. The Holy Ghost can baptize the man by bringing him to the right dispositions of belief, but without the need for any human instruments. When you teach the contrary dogmatically, you make it out that God is bound to the sacraments. And that is erroneous and possibly heretical, as St.Thomas says.
Nadie responds: You hang your whole sytem on this "God is not bound to the sacraments"? Yet it is you who bounds God to do the difficult "send a preacher or an angel, or enlighten a person internally, all to teach him the Trinity and the Incarnation (extremey complex teachings), but then you restrict God from teaching by the same means to the person that he needs to be baptized, nor keep him alive till He enlightens someone to pour water on the person's head?
And yet you say that I bound God? You go against God's predestination and providence, and the clear teachings of EENS, with your erroneous application of
"God is not bound to the sacraments".
In your mind, God created and placed a person in a place where He could not later reach him with water, or reach him with a person to teach him the faith, so, as a last minute solution, He sends an angel or enlightens him internally, BUT can't get anyone to baptize him because time He ran out, or He just can't do it.
You are in a Vortex of confusion, read carefully:
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[/b], 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)
In my world, "they whom the Lord has predestinated for baptism can't be snatched away from His predestination, or die before that has been accomplished in them which the Almighty has predestined".
God predestines those that are to be saved and placed them in the way of His ordinary salvation from the beginning of time, and if He so chooses to save someone by an extraordinary means like sending an angel, He can do it, within the laws He has established. AND of course internally enlighten them (that's what His grace does, which St. John the Baptist said "can change these very stones into sons of Abraham"). God can get baptism to all of His elect without having to have an "alternative plan".
If what you believe were true, then your God is disordered, for He would have preordained thousands of people to be returned to life to be baptized, for no reason, and others preordained to be saved unbaptized, while He wasted His baptism on millions who died in mortal sin, and his dogmas do not mean what they clearly say. You are in the Vortex of confusion.
Nishant2011 said You may believe that God will always bring those baptized by desire to water,
Nadie answers: I do.
Nishant2011 said but you cannot believe either that those who die justified are lost
Nadie answers: I never said that. If you asked me: "What happens to a catechumen who is justified before he receives the sacrament of baptism, but dies before he can get baptized?"
I would tell you that, that is the ridiculous question, for whomever God has predestinated for baptism can't be snatched away from his predestination. You are splitting two things that go together, like splitting the body and the soul., and then asking the ridiculous question. The end result of your ridiculous question we see today, in all manner of rationalization, and speculation, that has ended in "no practical difference" between it and outside the Church there is salvation.
-
Nishant2011 said:
you and Gregory should sort out the issue of justification first. He says, "Obviously one cannot die justified and NOT go to heaven!" Do you agree? You have maintained since the first post that "Trent says nothing about what happens to a person who is justified, but dies before he can receive baptism"
There is nothing to sort out, Gregory does not ask the ridiculous question:
"What happens to a catechumen who is justified before he receives the sacrament of baptism, but dies before he can get baptized?"
Gregory believes that Trent says you must have both desire and the sacrament. I don't necessarily disagree with him, but , I don't go that route with BODers because even if it says that desire justifies, what BODers claim, it does not ask, nor answer, nor mention, the ridiculous question.
You see, I answer all questions, without fear, because this is not about winning a debate, it's about finding truth.
-
You are not learning anything, you just stick to your few "BOD cliches", and repeat them over and over.
Heh. Charming as ever, aren't you? You must think I enjoy repeating myself, but I wouldn't have to, if you'd have answered the first time. And no, again you did not.
My question was, what practical difference does it make to you? How do you practically know the difference between someone who is baptized in water secretly in a distant land and someone who merely receives an internal illumination? It makes no practical difference.
BUT can't get anyone to baptize him because time He ran out, or He just can't do
Not at all. The Holy Ghost can baptize the man by bringing him to the right dispositions of belief, but without the need for any human instruments.
When you teach the contrary dogmatically, you make it out that God is bound to the sacraments. And that is erroneous and possibly heretical, as St.Thomas says.
You may believe that God will always bring those baptized by desire to water, but you cannot believe either that those who die justified are lost or that God is bound to the sacraments.
While I have no objection to discussing my difference of opinion with Cupertino if he wants it, maybe you should take your own advice, Nadie, and you and Gregory should sort out the issue of justification first. He says, "Obviously one cannot die justified and NOT go to heaven!" Do you agree? You have maintained since the first post that "Trent says nothing about what happens to a person who is justified, but dies before he can receive baptism"
Because of his understanding, Gregory is forced to do violence to the text of St.Luke that talks about Cornelius. I take it as it is written. When St.Peter discoursed on the Trinity, the Incarnation and even the Passion and Resurrection, the Holy Ghost fell on his listeners in like measure as He had fallen on the Apostles. This is baptism of desire in the deposit of revelation.
So, come on guys, which is it?
Lol. Nishant, it is not doing violence to ANYTHING to acknowledge an ACTUAL grace, no matter how tremendous. Heck, I was told this by NOVUS ORDO traditionalist priests. Cornelius experienced an actual grace of the Holy Spirit. There was NOTHING to indicate that this was an occasion of either spiritual regeneration or an infusion of SANCTIFYING grace.
It's not gymnastics. ESPECIALLY not if Novus Ordites are teaching it...
The text does NOT claim what you want it to claim, i.e. that This occasion provided Cornelius with Formal Justification and Spiritual Regeneration. It was merely a sign of God's election and predestination.
-
Your mangling of Scripture regarding Cornelius falls under the condemnation of Peter.
Do you believe Caiaphas the Christ-killing Pharisee was justified when the Holy Ghost descended upon him in John?
How about Balaam'a ass talking?
[21] Balaam arose in the morning, and saddling his ass went with them. [22] And God was angry. And an angel of the Lord stood in the way against Balaam, who sat on the ass, and had two servants with him. [Numbers 22:22] [Latin] [23] The ass seeing the angel standing in the way, with a drawn sword, turned herself out of the way, and went into the field. And when Balaam beat her, and had a mind to bring her again to the way, [24] The angel stood in a narrow place between two walls, wherewith the vineyards were enclosed. [25] And the ass seeing him, thrust herself close to the wall, and bruised the foot of the rider. But he beat her again:
[26] And nevertheless the angel going on to a narrow place, where there was no way to turn aside either to the right hand or to the left, stood to meet him. [27] And when the ass saw the angel standing, she fell under the feet of the rider: who being angry beat her sides more vehemently with a staff. [28] And the Lord opened the mouth of the ass, and she said: What have I done to thee? Why strikest thou me, lo, now this third time? [29] Balaam answered: Because thou hast deserved it, and hast served me ill: I would I had a sword that I might kill thee. [30] The ass said: Am not I thy beast, on which thou hast been always accustomed to ride until this present day? tell me if I ever did the like thing to thee. But he said: Never.
[28] Opened the mouth: The angel moved the tongue of the ass, to utter these speeches, to rebuke, by the mouth of a brute beast, the brutal fury and folly of Balaam.
[31] Forthwith the Lord opened the eyes of Balaam, and he saw the angel standing in the way with a drawn sword, and he worshipped him falling flat on the ground. [32] And the angel said to him: Why beatest thou thy ass these three times? I am come to withstand thee, because thy way is perverse, and contrary to me: [33] And unless the ass had turned out of the way, giving place to me who stood against thee, I had slain thee, and she should have lived. [34] Balaam said: I have sinned, not knowing that thou didst stand against me: and now if it displease thee that I go, I will return. [35] The angel said: Go with these men, and see thou speak no other thing than what I shall command thee. He went therefore with the princes.
-
You are not learning anything, you just stick to your few "BOD cliches", and repeat them over and over.
Heh. Charming as ever, aren't you? You must think I enjoy repeating myself, but I wouldn't have to, if you'd have answered the first time. And no, again you did not.
My question was, what practical difference does it make to you? How do you practically know the difference between someone who is baptized in water secretly in a distant land and someone who merely receives an internal illumination? It makes no practical difference.
BUT can't get anyone to baptize him because time He ran out, or He just can't do
Not at all. The Holy Ghost can baptize the man by bringing him to the right dispositions of belief, but without the need for any human instruments.
When you teach the contrary dogmatically, you make it out that God is bound to the sacraments. And that is erroneous and possibly heretical, as St.Thomas says.
You may believe that God will always bring those baptized by desire to water, but you cannot believe either that those who die justified are lost or that God is bound to the sacraments.
While I have no objection to discussing my difference of opinion with Cupertino if he wants it, maybe you should take your own advice, Nadie, and you and Gregory should sort out the issue of justification first. He says, "Obviously one cannot die justified and NOT go to heaven!" Do you agree? You have maintained since the first post that "Trent says nothing about what happens to a person who is justified, but dies before he can receive baptism"
Because of his understanding, Gregory is forced to do violence to the text of St.Luke that talks about Cornelius. I take it as it is written. When St.Peter discoursed on the Trinity, the Incarnation and even the Passion and Resurrection, the Holy Ghost fell on his listeners in like measure as He had fallen on the Apostles. This is baptism of desire in the deposit of revelation.
So, come on guys, which is it?
Lol. Nishant, it is not doing violence to ANYTHING to acknowledge an ACTUAL grace, no matter how tremendous. Heck, I was told this by NOVUS ORDO traditionalist priests. Cornelius experienced an actual grace of the Holy Spirit. There was NOTHING to indicate that this was an occasion of either spiritual regeneration or an infusion of SANCTIFYING grace.
It's not gymnastics. ESPECIALLY not if Novus Ordites are teaching it...
The text does NOT claim what you want it to claim, i.e. that This occasion provided Cornelius with Formal Justification and Spiritual Regeneration. It was merely a sign of God's election and predestination.
I'd like to understand justification and Grace better than I do. I think this is an excellent illustration for that.
-
The passage from St.Luke I'm afraid does indeed prove the point. Here's why. St.Peter, the first Pope, confirms this when he says "They have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?" and "And God, who knows the hearts, gave testimony, giving unto them the Holy Ghost, as well as to us" But what is your position other than the claim that those who desire baptism cannot receive the Holy Ghost just as baptized Christians can, even before the administering of the sacrament?
In very simple terms, it shows St.Peter believed in baptism of desire. The parallels with Balaam fail for this reason. And I don't agree that it was merely a Holy Ghost. St.Peter was comparing Cornelius to himself and other baptized Christians.
Nadie,
It makes a huge theological difference
I meant between the view of Doctors like St.Thomas and St.Alponsus (which you admit is not your view) and your own view. It makes no practical difference in distant lands where none of us know what happens anyway.
As for both "bound to the sacraments" and "meaningless question" and even anecdotal incidents, I've already shown you that St.Thomas quotes St.Ambrose and says Valentian died a catechumen but with the grace of the sacrament. So it is not meaningless and this is an incident of the kind you cite when the contrary is shown, and where God shows He is not bound to the sacraments, not in my understanding only, but in that of the Angelic Doctor as well. St.Thomas teaches this is a demonstration of His power as well, so your other objection is answered.
Finally, I've already mentioned this to be the view of even Hugh of St.Victor, St.Bernard, St.Robert Bellarmine. Gregory tells me it was St.Catherine of Sienna's view. Why would you side with Peter Abelard's view who was directly opposed on this over theirs, I wonder?
-
The passage from St.Luke I'm afraid does indeed prove the point. Here's why. St.Peter, the first Pope, confirms this when he says "They have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?" and "And God, who knows the hearts, gave testimony, giving unto them the Holy Ghost, as well as to us" But what is your position other than the claim that those who desire baptism cannot receive the Holy Ghost just as baptized Christians can, even before the administering of the sacrament?
In very simple terms, it shows St.Peter believed in baptism of desire. St.Peter was comparing Cornelius to himself and other baptized Christians.
If EENSers used this type of "evidence", they'd be laughed out of the place.
Whether Cornelius was or was not justified before he was baptized is not "revealed" by this "sign". But, most importantly, Cornelius was baptized, he did not die justified and unbaptized as BOD is defined. This just shows the lack of real evidence that BODers have, that they have to stoop to using personal scripture interpretation, and a long stretch of a personal scripture interpretation at that.
-
I've already shown you that St.Thomas quotes St.Ambrose and says Valentian died a catechumen but with the grace of the sacrament.
We can read the eulogy for Valentinian ourselves today, and analize it ourselves, and it is by no means clear. Secondly, we have St. Ambrose's clear teaching s against BOD, in fact, he is the biggest opponent of BOD. Anyone that quotes St. Ambrose as a proponent of BOD, does not have all the docuмentation we have available today.
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.”
-
It makes a huge theological difference
I meant between the view of Doctors like St.Thomas and St.Alponsus (which you admit is not your view) and your own view. It makes no practical difference in distant lands where none of us know what happens anyway.
You say there is no difference between the person being baptized in water somehow, and baptism of desire, since in both cases "none of us know what happens anyway". I ask you of what importance is the point you are trying to make "none of us know what happens anyway"?
The important point is that:
It makes a huge theological difference, for one is 100% in line with EENS and Trents teaching on the absolute need of water baptism for salvation. The other BOD, contradicts EENS in that the person is not part of the Mystical Body, and contradicts Trent (and the universal magisterium) on the absolute need of water baptism for salvation. BOD opens the door to all manner of rationalization, and speculation, and ends in "no practical difference" between it and outside the Church there is salvation.
In your mind, God created and placed a person in a place where He could not later reach him with water, or reach him with a person to teach him the faith, so, as a last minute solution, He sends an angel or enlightens him internally, BUT can't get anyone to baptize him because time He ran out, or He just can't do it.
If what you believe were true, then your God is disordered, for He would have preordained thousands of people to be returned to life to be baptized, for no reason, and others preordained to be saved unbaptized, while He wasted His baptism on millions who died in mortal sin, and his dogmas do not mean what they clearly say. You are in the Vortex of confusion.
-
God shows He is not bound to the sacraments, not in my understanding only, but in that of the Angelic Doctor as well. St.Thomas teaches this is a demonstration of His power as well, so your other objection is answered.
I repeat, You hang your whole sytem on this "God is not bound to the sacraments"? Yet it is you who bounds God to do the difficult "send a preacher or an angel, or enlighten a person internally, all to teach him the Trinity and the Incarnation (extremey complex teachings), but then you restrict God from teaching by the same means to the person that he needs to be baptized, nor keep him alive till He enlightens someone to pour water on the person's head?
And yet you say that I bound God? You go against God's predestination and providence, and the clear teachings of EENS, with your erroneous application of "God is not bound to the sacraments".
In your mind, God created and placed a person in a place where He could not later reach him with water, or reach him with a person to teach him the faith, so, as a last minute solution, He sends a preacher, or an angel or enlightens him internally, BUT can't get anyone to baptize him because time He ran out, or He just can't do it.
You are in a Vortex of confusion, read carefully:
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)
In my world, "they whom the Lord has predestinated for baptism can't be snatched away from His predestination, or die before that has been accomplished in them which the Almighty has predestined".
God predestines those that are to be saved and placed them in the way of His ordinary salvation from the beginning of time, and if He so chooses to save someone by an extraordinary means like sending an angel, He can do it, within the laws He has established. AND of course internally enlighten them (that's what His grace does, which St. John the Baptist said "can change these very stones into sons of Abraham"). God can get baptism to all of His elect without having to have an "alternative plan".
If what you believe were true, then your God is disordered, for He would have preordained thousands of people to be returned to life to be baptized, for no reason, and others preordained to be saved unbaptized, while He wasted His baptism on millions who died in mortal sin, and his dogmas do not mean what they clearly say. You are in the Vortex of confusion.
-
I've already shown you that St.Thomas quotes St.Ambrose and says Valentian died a catechumen but with the grace of the sacrament.
You should read the eulogy for yourself. Here is what the BODers always quote from the eulogy:
"But I hear that you grieve because he did not receive the sacrament of Baptism. Tell me now, what else is in us, if not will, if not desire? He, in very truth had this wish that, before he came to Italy, he should be initiated into the Church, and he indicated that he wanted to be baptized by me very soon, and that is why he thought I had to be called before everything else. Did he not obtain the grace which he desired? Did he not obtain what he asked for? Certainly, because he asked for it, he obtained it. "But the just man, if he be prevented by death, shall be in rest" (Wisd. 4:7).... (De Obitu Valentiniani, 51-53).
Out of the hundreds of fathers of the Church, the only other one (besides two quotes from St. Augustine that the baptism of desire advocates even try to quote is St. Ambrose. They think that in his funeral speech for his friend the Emperor Valentinian he taught that the emperor (who was only a catechumen) was saved by his desire for baptism. But St. Ambrose’s funeral speech for Valentinian is extremely ambiguous and could be interpreted in a variety of ways. It is thus gratuitous for them to assert that it clearly teaches the idea of “baptism of desire.”
Here's the part that the BODers always leave out when they quote the eulogy:
"Or if the fact disturbs you that the mysteries have not been solemnly
celebrated, then you should realize that not even martyrs are crowned if they are catechumens, for they are not crowned if they are not initiated. But if they are washed in their own blood, his piety and desire have washed him, also."
Observe that St. Ambrose clearly says that “martyrs are not crowned (that is, not saved) if they are catechumens,” a statement which directly denies the idea of baptism of blood and is perfectly consistent with his other statements on the issue, which I quote below. St. Ambrose then emphasizes the same point, by stating again that catechumens “are not crowned if they are not initiated.” “Initiation” is a term for baptism. Thus, St. Ambrose is repeating the apostolic truth that catechumens who shed their blood for Christ cannot be saved if they are not baptized. He then proceeds to say that if they are washed in their own blood, his (Valentinian’s) piety and desire have washed him also, which seems to directly contradict what he just said and seems to teach baptism of desire and blood, although it is not clear, since he did not say that Valentinian was saved without baptism. But if that is what St. Ambrose means, then his funeral speech is nonsensical, since he just clearly denied two times that martyrs can be crowned if they are catechumens. And this is the oldest “text” quoted in favor of the idea of baptism of desire!
It is, first of all, contradictory; secondly, it is ambiguous; and thirdly, if interpreted to mean that a catechumen is saved without water baptism, is opposed to every other statement St. Ambrose formally made on the issue.
But perhaps there is another explanation. St. Ambrose states that the faithful were grieving because Valentinian did not receive the sacraments of baptism. Why did he use the term “sacraments” instead of “sacrament”? Was he lamenting the fact that Valentinian was not able to receive Confirmation and the Eucharist, which were commonly administered together with Baptism in the early Church? This would correspond to his statement about the crowd being disturbed because the mysteries were not “solemnly” celebrated, in other words, with all of the formal ceremonies which precede the solemn celebration of Baptism.
Exactly what St. Ambrose meant in this speech, we may never know in this world, but we are permitted to assume that it was not his intention to contradict in an emotionally charged eulogy what he had written with much thought and precision in De Mysteriis and elsewhere.
Again, here is what St. Ambrose wrote with much thought and precision, which eliminates the very concept of baptism of desire and affirms the universal Tradition of all the fathers that no one (including catechumens) is saved without water baptism.
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.”
And with that we come to the extent of the fathers’ teaching on the so‐called “baptism of desire”! That’s right, one or at the most two fathers out of hundreds. St. Augustine who later changed his postion, and this Valentinian eulogy.
-
Nadie, I have an interesting question:
It is without doubt the unanimous consent of the Fathers that Sacramental water baptism is obligatory upon all and without exception.
However, is it not also the unanimous consent of the Fathers at LEAST that a man may be saved apart from the sacramental waters of baptism?
In other words, is there a UNANIMOUS DENIAL of the possibility of salvation apart from water baptism?
Is there not a Unanimous ASSENT that he who dies in faith is justified?
What do you feel is the NUMBER ONE objection to Baptism of Desire?
I have said in the past that the unanimous consent of the fathers prevents it.
I have been wrong I think.
The Fathers are unanimous on many things, INCLUDING salvation apart from the waters of baptism. Desire or blood is irrelevant, the CONCEPT of being saved apart from the waters is unanimously affirmed in the fathers.
Challenge me. Let's sharpen each others wits.
Let's not make it TOO long though.
My mind is still in your land, but something shifted.
I can almost GUARANTEE that your notion of baptism is flawed somewhere.
Let's start there:
What is the Relationship, in baptism, between The Waters of Baptism, the Redeeming Blood of Christ, and the Sanctifying action of the Holy Spirit?
In addition, why is baptism effective?
Next, list your Primary objections against BOD and BOB.
Let's see if we can't hash this out. Keep it semi brief though.