How does one explain the good Thief, Dismas, who was not, to my knowledge, baptized at any time?

That's been answered a thousand times.  Dismas died before Our Lord had made Baptism mandatory ... just as anyone else who died under the old dispensation.

Here, let me help you guys out ... and rescue you from your various heresies.

I will pretend for a moment that I am a believer in BoD.

In the case of BoD, people are not saved without the Sacrament of Baptism but in fact receive Baptism in voto.  It is not the natural virtue of their desire which is salvific ex opere operantis but the ex opere operato effect of the Sacrament operating through their desire for it.  Thus the Sacrament of Baptism remains the instrumental cause of justification as taught by Trent.  By virtue of their profession of the Catholic faith, they achieve an imperfect membership in the Church and are not joined to the Church merely invisibly ... as one could belong invisibly to a visible body.

I hereby uphold BoD without embracing Pelagianism, without rejecting the necessity of Baptism for salvation, without embracing Protestant and Vatican II ecclesiology whereby the body and the soul of the Church are not co-extensive (subsistence ecclesiology), and without promoting invisible church ecclesiology in any way.

Enjoy ... if you wish to avoid being heretics.

But, you know, this doesn't suffice for them; they'll never accept it.  Why?  Because this doesn't allow for those who do not embrace the Catholic faith to be saved.

Here, let me help you guys out ... and rescue you from your various heresies.

I will pretend for a moment that I am a believer in BoD.

In the case of BoD, people are not saved without the Sacrament of Baptism but in fact receive Baptism in voto.  It is not the natural virtue of their desire which is salvific ex opere operantis but the ex opere operato effect of the Sacrament operating through their desire for it.  Thus the Sacrament of Baptism remains the instrumental cause of justification as taught by Trent.  By virtue of their profession of the Catholic faith, they achieve an imperfect membership in the Church and are not joined to the Church merely invisibly ... as one could belong invisibly to a visible body.

I hereby uphold BoD without embracing Pelagianism, without rejecting the necessity of Baptism for salvation, without embracing Protestant and Vatican II ecclesiology whereby the body and the soul of the Church are not co-extensive (subsistence ecclesiology), and without promoting invisible church ecclesiology in any way.

Enjoy ... if you wish to avoid being heretics.

But, you know, this doesn't suffice for them; they'll never accept it.  Why?  Because this doesn't allow for those who do not embrace the Catholic faith to be saved.

So, Ladislaus, make a statement of your own conviction. . .

Do you accept, or condemn, the Church's official discipline positively allowing priests to privately say Mass for a person visibly known to have died professing visible membership in a non-Catholic sect, but where there was evidence of good faith in his errors?

Quote from: BumphreyHogart

Quote from: Ladislaus

Why is it that I, who do not believe in BoD, can come up with a Catholic formulation of BoD while the BoDers cannot, or, rather, refuse to?  I repeatedly told LoT how he could formulate a belief in BoD that was non-heretical, but in his arrogance he refused to assent to it.  I was trying to help him out.  Hey, LoT, if you want to believe in BoD, that's fine (St. Thomas and St. Alphonsus did), but you need to say it like this to avoid heresy.  They would in fact make their case more compelling.  But heavens no, perish the thought.  They persisted in their heretical formulae which are Pelagian and rejected Trent's dogmatic teaching regarding the necessity of the Sacraments for salvation.

This is a discussion forum, not a personal place to blog and insult others. Discussion requires some mature responses and rejoinders. You are big on Faith as being necessary for salvation (which you should) but apparently don't think much of charity being necessary for salvation, judging from your constant insults.

Now, I asked "What??" about what you said here, and you don't answer. What kind of nonsense are you trying to hand us here: " I, who do not believe in BoD, can come up with a Catholic formulation of BoD". That sounds like it comes from the mouth of a modernist.

If there is a Catholic formulation of BoD, then you should believe in BoD.

And, don't pretend, just say what you believe. Your previous message about pretending is worthless.

Please note the first part of canon 4, this is the part that apparently all BODers ignore, but it is this first part of the canon that infallibly decrees that the sacraments are necessary for salvation.

The BODer should never read the second part until they fully understand and accept the first part.
Here is the first part of the canon, by reading only the bolded words in sequence, you cannot help but submit to this infallible teaching, or commit mortal sin......

Council of Trent, Session 7, Canon 4:
If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous.....let him be anathema.

If all BODers followed my above exhortation, they now fully understand that Trent infallibly decrees the sacraments are necessary for salvation. Because this is dogma, all are bound to accept this teaching under pain of mortal sin.


We see that it is the first part of the canon decrees the necessity of the sacraments for salvation. Now the second part speaks of the necessity of the sacraments or the desire for the sacraments in order to enter the state of justification - not salvation:

Here is the second part:
and [if anyone saith] that, without them, or without the desire thereof, men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification;-though all (the sacraments) are not indeed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema.    

There is nothing complicated here at all. It cannot be explained in simpler terms.

Sure, while you just quit talking about Pius IX and his quote, you now jump over to say we ignore this?!

Baptism of desire (not merely desire for baptism) is PART of the Sacrament. That is what Catholic sources say. Do you condemn those sources that say that?

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: BumphreyHogart

Quote from: Ladislaus

Why is it that I, who do not believe in BoD, can come up with a Catholic formulation of BoD while the BoDers cannot, or, rather, refuse to?  I repeatedly told LoT how he could formulate a belief in BoD that was non-heretical, but in his arrogance he refused to assent to it.  I was trying to help him out.  Hey, LoT, if you want to believe in BoD, that's fine (St. Thomas and St. Alphonsus did), but you need to say it like this to avoid heresy.  They would in fact make their case more compelling.  But heavens no, perish the thought.  They persisted in their heretical formulae which are Pelagian and rejected Trent's dogmatic teaching regarding the necessity of the Sacraments for salvation.

This is a discussion forum, not a personal place to blog and insult others. Discussion requires some mature responses and rejoinders. You are big on Faith as being necessary for salvation (which you should) but apparently don't think much of charity being necessary for salvation, judging from your constant insults.

Now, I asked "What??" about what you said here, and you don't answer. What kind of nonsense are you trying to hand us here: " I, who do not believe in BoD, can come up with a Catholic formulation of BoD". That sounds like it comes from the mouth of a modernist.

If there is a Catholic formulation of BoD, then you should believe in BoD.

And, don't pretend, just say what you believe. Your previous message about pretending is worthless.

Please note the first part of canon 4, this is the part that apparently all BODers ignore, but it is this first part of the canon that infallibly decrees that the sacraments are necessary for salvation.

The BODer should never read the second part until they fully understand and accept the first part.
Here is the first part of the canon, by reading only the bolded words in sequence, you cannot help but submit to this infallible teaching, or commit mortal sin......

Council of Trent, Session 7, Canon 4:
If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous.....let him be anathema.

If all BODers followed my above exhortation, they now fully understand that Trent infallibly decrees the sacraments are necessary for salvation. Because this is dogma, all are bound to accept this teaching under pain of mortal sin.


We see that it is the first part of the canon decrees the necessity of the sacraments for salvation. Now the second part speaks of the necessity of the sacraments or the desire for the sacraments in order to enter the state of justification - not salvation:

Here is the second part:
and [if anyone saith] that, without them, or without the desire thereof, men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification;-though all (the sacraments) are not indeed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema.    

There is nothing complicated here at all. It cannot be explained in simpler terms.

Sure, while you just quit talking about Pius IX and his quote, you now jump over to say we ignore this?!

Baptism of desire (not merely desire for baptism) is PART of the Sacrament. That is what Catholic sources say. Do you condemn those sources that say that?

I quit talking about the Pius IX quote because in your zeal to reject what he said, you change it's meaning completely with your insisting that by him using the word "struggling" he really meant "suffering the condition of" - without any regard whatsoever to the fact that it makes no sense whatsoever, not even when taken completely out of context as you do by entirely ignoring the sentence before and after the quote.

I decided to stop arguing against such an obvious manifest corruption of doctrine as that because it is fruitless.

There is no sacrament of desire. Not for matrimony nor for baptism nor for extreme unction nor for any sacrament. We all know, even you know that a BOD is not a sacrament, so you now know for certain that to insist and continue to promote that some can attain salvation through a BOD, is to blatantly reject the infallible decree of Trent - and for whoever thought they could plead ignorance,  whoever reads the explanation above cannot plead ignorance any longer.

If you want to convince anyone here that invincible ignorance is some type of exception to the dogma, then you will need to use the dogma EENS itself, unadulterated in any way, to convince anyone here.  

FYI, this is a teaching of pope Pius IX, he taught explicitly elsewhere that in order to refute error, resorting to dogmatic decrees is absolute necessary to refute errors. So use the dogmatic decree itself to refute our errors. Just don't add any exceptions, it should be easy.

 

Baptism of Desire is not an exception to the dogma. It's an exception merely to visible incorporation in the Catholic Church.

To receive Baptism of Desire one has to have explicit faith in Jesus Christ and the Trinity which is a minimum to have Supernatural Faith - nobody can be saved without this faith, as the Athanasian Creed teaches. St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Alphonsus Liguori and other Saints who believed in BoD also taught necessity of explicit faith in Christ and the Trinity for salvation. None of them taught that BoD applies to people who are invincibly ignorant. Once again Cushingites hide behind BoD to promote salvation in false religions for people ignorant of Christ.

Quote from: saintbosco13

Quote from: Arvinger

Quote from: saintbosco13

they are all unanimous in stating that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church EXEMPTING those in invincible ignorance

This is probably the most heretical statement I ever read on any Traditional Catholic forum. Even LoT agreed that there are no exceptions to EENS dogma (although he redefined who can be in the Church). There are absolutely no exceptions to EENS, as infallible Church pronouncements declare:

"The Most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews, and heretics, and schismatics, can ever be partakers of eternal life, but that they are to go into the eternal fire "which was prepared for the devil, and his angels," (Cantate Domino, Council of Florence)

Which part of "none of those existing outside the Church can ever be partakers of the eternal life" do you not understand?

"Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic Faith. Which Faith except everyone do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly." (Athanasian Creed)

Which part of "whosoever" and "without doubt he shall perish everlastingly" do you not understand?

It is also impossible for anyone outside the Church to be saved because outside the Catholic Church there is no remission of sins, as Pope Boniface VIII infallibly declared:

"Urged by faith, we are obliged to believe and to maintain that the Church is one, holy, catholic, and also apostolic. We believe in her firmly and we confess with simplicity that outside of her there is neither salvation nor the remission of sins" (Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam)

Invincibly ignorant person cannot have his sins remitted because he is outside the Church.

Despite numerous opportunities you could not utter a single word so far about these dogmatic pronouncements, because you can't. All you can do is to ignore them and hold on to your twisted interpretation of Pius IX.

If this is what you believe, then explain the two quotes I previously posted from the Catholic Encyclopedia. Everyone has been conveniently avoiding this and it affects what you are saying here.

"If this is what I believe"? Are you joking? What I quoted are infallible Catholic docuмents the teaching of which must be believed by Divine and Catholic faith, while you refuse to address them in any way, since it directly contradicts and refutes your position.

The article from Catholic Encyclopedia contains blatant contradiction:

"The Church, likewise, in its zeal for purity of faith and teaching, has rigorously adhered to the example set by the Apostles and Early Fathers. This is manifest in its whole history, but especially in such champions of the faith as Athansius, in councils, condemnations of heresy, and its definitions of revealed truth. That orthodox faith is requisite for salvation is a defined doctrine of the Church. "Whosoever wishes to be saved", declares the Athanasian Creed, "must first of all hold integral and inviolate the Catholic faith, without which he shall surely be eternally lost". Numerous councils and papal decisions have reiterated this dogma (cf. Council of Florence, Denz., 714; Prof. of Faith of Pius IV, Denz., 1000; condemnation of Indifferentism and Latitudinarianism in the Syll. of Pius IX, Denz., 1715, 1718; Council of the Vatican, "De Fide". can. vi, Denz., 1815, condemnation of the Modernistic position regarding the nature and origin of dogma, Encyc. "Pascendi Dominici Gregis", 1907, Denz., 2079). While truth must be intolerant of error (II Cor., vi, 14, 15), the Church does not deny the possibility of salvation of those earnest and sincere persons outside her fold who live and die in invincible ignorance of the true faith (cf. Council of the Vatican, Sess. III, cp. iii, Denz.,1794; S Aug., Ep.xliii ad Galerium). (See CHURCH; FAITH; PROTESTANT CONFESSIONS OF FAITH; HERESY; INDIFFERENTISM.) "

First they quote the Athanasian Creed's teaching that everyone without the Catholic faith will be lost, then go on to say that some people can be saved without the Catholic faith.

You simply don't believe what the Athanasian Creed teaches about absolute necessity of faith in Christ and the Trinity for salvation, this is the problem.

By the way, it is interesting how you insist we must accept a quote from Catholic Encyclopedia, yet on the basis of your private judgment you reject the docuмents of an Ecuмenical Council.

Stop and think about it for a minute. When you have to claim the Church is contradicting herself in order to maintain your position, and when you continually take popular quotes from the magisterium and tell all of us the quotes have a different meaning than everyone else thinks to maintain your position, eventually it reaches the point of absurdity. If you have to keep doing this over and over to keep your position afloat, everyone knows exactly what that means, and that is you have a false position.

You will notice those defending baptism of desire and invincible ignorance NEVER accuse the Church of contradicting herself, nor do we EVER apply our own meaning to Church quotes that are different than the generally understood meaning. We don't ever have these constant excuses on our consciences. Just READ the English - the Church words things very clearly for the faithful so there are not all of these hidden meanings that you think exist.You guys are living a lie with all these excuses.

How about the other quote from St. Augustine that you didn't comment on that says someone living in a false religion is not necessarily considered a heretic. Will you also make an excuse for this, that it is a contradiction or that it has some special meaning that no one has thought of? You guys are just painting yourselves in the corner with all these continuous excuses. No one is falling for it.

When you have to claim the Church is contradicting herself in order to maintain your position,

I don't claim that - the Catholic Encyclopedia is not part of the Magisterium of the Catholic Church and it was written in a period when modernism was already flourishing.

and when you continually take popular quotes from the magisterium and tell all of us the quotes have a different meaning than everyone else thinks to maintain your position,

Everyone else = two heretics who come here explicitly to deny EENS. The meaning of the dogmatic teaching of the Church on EENS is very simple, which is who you never deal wit ht he quotes fro mthe Athanasian Creed and Cantate Domino. They are too explicit for you to twist.

"The Most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews, and heretics, and schismatics, can ever be partakers of eternal life, but that they are to go into the eternal fire "which was prepared for the devil, and his angels," (Mt. 25:41)"

The Council teaches infallibly that all who die as pagans go to hell. You reject that claiming that some pagans can be saved in invincible ignorance.

"Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic Faith. Which Faith except everyone do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly."

Tha Athanasian Creed teaches that all who do not hold the Catholic faith will not be saved. You reject that by claiming that some people without the Catholic faith can be saved.

If you have to keep doing this over and over to keep your position afloat, everyone knows exactly what that means, and that is you have a false position.

I just quote infallible teaching of the Church which you reject.

You will notice those defending baptism of desire and invincible ignorance NEVER accuse the Church of contradicting herself, nor do we EVER apply our own meaning to Church quotes that are different than the generally understood meaning.

Nor do I - the Church has always consistently taught that those who die without the Catholic faith cannot be saved. No exception was ever made for invincible ignorance of anything else.

We don't ever have these constant excuses on our consciences. Just READ the English - the Church words things very clearly for the faithful so there are not all of these hidden meanings that you think exist.You guys are living a lie with all these excuses.

This is beyond ridiculous. Yes, I read the English and I agree that the dogmatic teaching of the Church is very clear. Here it is:

"The Most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews, and heretics, and schismatics, can ever be partakers of eternal life, but that they are to go into the eternal fire "which was prepared for the devil, and his angels," (Mt. 25:41)" (Council of Florence, Cantate Domino)

No pagans can be saved - plain and simple. You reject this.

"Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic Faith. Which Faith except everyone do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly." (Athanasian Creed)

No one without the Catholic faith can be saved - plain and simple. You reject this.

You have to twist these quotes (which you can't do, which is why you avoid them) to arrive to your heretical position.

How about the other quote from St. Augustine that you didn't comment on that says someone living in a false religion is not necessarily considered a heretic. Will you also make an excuse for this, that it is a contradiction or that it has some special meaning that no one has thought of? You guys are just painting yourselves in the corner with all these continuous excuses. No one is falling for it.

Of course, someone who is in false religion might not even be aware of the Catholic Church and thus he is not denying her teaching and is not a heretic. But he is still a pagan, and all who die as pagans go to hell (as Cantate Domino infallibly teaches). St. Augustine never taught that people can be saved in false religions - yet another case of your heretical distortion of truth.

As already mentioned, how does someone have explicit faith in Jesus and the Trinity if they are invincibly ignorant of them? The Church teaches they are not held to be at fault for such ignorance if it is invincible.

But they are held accountable for their other sins and original sin which cannot be remitted without the sacrament of baptism. Thus, if they die in invincible ignorance they cannot be saved.

Explicit faith in Jesus and the Trinity is a requirement for those who have explicit desire for baptism,

No, it is a requirement for everyone, as the Athanasian Creed teaches. Whoever dies without holding the Catholic faith will not be saved.

This is what Pope Pius IX, Pope St. Pius X, and Pope Pius XII clearly teach.

They never taught such a thing.

 Everyone else has no problem understanding the English as it is written.

Except for you, since for some reason you cannot understand Cantate Domino's teaching that everyone who die as pagans go to hell, without any exception for invincible ignorance, and Athanasian Creed's teaching that explicit faith in the Incarnation and the Trinity is absolutely necessary for salvation (again, no exception for invincible ignorance).