Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Author Topic: the desire thereof  (Read 12027 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Telesphorus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12713
  • Reputation: +27/-13
  • Gender: Male
the desire thereof
« on: January 10, 2012, 08:07:54 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote
    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.  

    Offline nadieimportante

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 771
    • Reputation: +496/-0
    • Gender: Male
    the desire thereof
    « Reply #1 on: January 11, 2012, 02:21:36 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Telesphorus
    Quote
    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!
    "Wrong is wrong even if everyone is doing it.
     Right is right even if no one is doing it." - Saint Augustine


    Offline nadieimportante

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 771
    • Reputation: +496/-0
    • Gender: Male
    the desire thereof
    « Reply #2 on: January 11, 2012, 02:34:40 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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.”


    "Wrong is wrong even if everyone is doing it.
     Right is right even if no one is doing it." - Saint Augustine

    Offline Augustinian

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 172
    • Reputation: +0/-0
    • Gender: Male
    the desire thereof
    « Reply #3 on: January 11, 2012, 07:36:21 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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:

    Quote from: Augustinian
    Quote from: Telesphorus

    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

    Offline Stubborn

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 14352
    • Reputation: +5854/-878
    • Gender: Male
    the desire thereof
    « Reply #4 on: January 11, 2012, 07:52:07 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Telesphorus
    Quote
    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.
    "But Peter and the apostles answering, said: We ought to obey God, rather than men." - Acts 5:29

    The Highest Principle in the Church: "We are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man" - Fr. Hesse


    Offline s2srea

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5106
    • Reputation: +3896/-48
    • Gender: Male
    the desire thereof
    « Reply #5 on: January 11, 2012, 08:14:17 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Are all Feeneyites such emoting fannys?

    heh...

    Feeneyite... fanny.

    Offline Stubborn

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 14352
    • Reputation: +5854/-878
    • Gender: Male
    the desire thereof
    « Reply #6 on: January 12, 2012, 05:35:39 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: s2srea
    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:


    "But Peter and the apostles answering, said: We ought to obey God, rather than men." - Acts 5:29

    The Highest Principle in the Church: "We are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man" - Fr. Hesse

    Offline Augstine Baker

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 985
    • Reputation: +274/-1
    • Gender: Male
      • h
    the desire thereof
    « Reply #7 on: January 12, 2012, 09:54:53 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 'm still waiting for an infallible doctrinal definition of BoD.

     :fryingpan:


    Offline Augustinian

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 172
    • Reputation: +0/-0
    • Gender: Male
    the desire thereof
    « Reply #8 on: January 12, 2012, 10:35:49 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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.

    Offline Augstine Baker

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 985
    • Reputation: +274/-1
    • Gender: Male
      • h
    the desire thereof
    « Reply #9 on: January 12, 2012, 10:39:19 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Augustinian
    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?

    Offline Augustinian

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 172
    • Reputation: +0/-0
    • Gender: Male
    the desire thereof
    « Reply #10 on: January 12, 2012, 11:01:36 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Augstine Baker
    Quote from: Augustinian
    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:

    Quote from: Augustinian
    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:

    Quote from: Augustinian
    Quote from: Telesphorus

    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


    Offline Nishant

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2126
    • Reputation: +0/-6
    • Gender: Male
    the desire thereof
    « Reply #11 on: January 12, 2012, 01:51:48 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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.



    "Never will anyone who says his Rosary every day become a formal heretic ... This is a statement I would sign in my blood." St. Montfort, Secret of the Rosary. I support the FSSP, the SSPX and other priests who work for the restoration of doctrinal orthodoxy and liturgical orthopraxis in the Church. I accept Vatican II if interpreted in the light of Tradition and canonisations as an infallible declaration that a person is in Heaven. Sedevacantism is schismatic and Ecclesiavacantism is heretical.

    Offline nadieimportante

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 771
    • Reputation: +496/-0
    • Gender: Male
    the desire thereof
    « Reply #12 on: January 12, 2012, 03:51:57 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote
    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:

    Quote
    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. Jєωs 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.
    "Wrong is wrong even if everyone is doing it.
     Right is right even if no one is doing it." - Saint Augustine

    Offline Telesphorus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 12713
    • Reputation: +27/-13
    • Gender: Male
    the desire thereof
    « Reply #13 on: January 12, 2012, 05:42:50 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: nadieimportante
    Quote
    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:

    Quote
    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. Jєωs 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.

    Offline Augstine Baker

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 985
    • Reputation: +274/-1
    • Gender: Male
      • h
    the desire thereof
    « Reply #14 on: January 12, 2012, 05:49:04 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Telesphorus
    Quote from: nadieimportante
    Quote
    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:

    Quote
    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. Jєωs 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?