Catholic Info

Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => The Feeneyism Ghetto => Topic started by: TKGS on July 14, 2018, 10:05:56 AM

Title: Traditional Groups the Reject BOD/BOB
Post by: TKGS on July 14, 2018, 10:05:56 AM
It was suggested on another topic that this discussion should be brought here.  I agree.

Can we list the traditional Groups that do not accept Baptism of Blood and Baptism of Desire?  Are there any independent traditional clergy that should be placed on this list?

Note:  I would like to limit this to living clergy and active groups only.  I think most of us are aware that Fr. Wathen would fit on this list.
Title: Re: Traditional Groups the Reject BOD/BOB
Post by: tdrev123 on July 14, 2018, 02:13:34 PM
1. For Gavin bitzer and fr John O’connor.  

2. Saint Benedict center in Richmond nh 

3. Bp Neal Webster his new priest 
Title: Re: Traditional Groups the Reject BOD/BOB
Post by: MarylandTrad on July 14, 2018, 07:44:48 PM

It was suggested on another topic that this discussion should be brought here.  I agree.

Can we list the traditional Groups that do not accept Baptism of Blood and Baptism of Desire?  Are there any independent traditional clergy that should be placed on this list?

Note:  I would like to limit this to living clergy and active groups only.  I think most of us are aware that Fr. Wathen would fit on this list.


TKGS, the question raised in your original post lacks wisdom. The mark of wisdom is to order and the question of which traditionalist associations adhere to the dogma Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus in the sense that it has been infallibly defined is surely much more worthy of being asked and answered than is the question you raised. The doctrine of BOD has evolved in the minds of countless Catholics, even amongst many traditionalists. Of the traditionalist associations who express a belief in BOD, some believe only catechumens who have an explicit faith in the mysteries of the Trinity and the Incarnation can be saved by BOD; others believe that Muslims, Jєωs, Hindus, etc. can be saved without ever converting to the Catholic faith by an implicit BOD. The former position is, practically speaking, closer to the doctrinal stance of those traditionalist groups who reject the “three baptisms” outright than it is to the novel doctrine of implicit BOD. The answer to your question is of course that relatively very few traditionalist associations reject BOD and BOD entirely. Most groups believe in BOD, but, and this is very important, the senses in which the different associations hold BOD vary drastically.

Fr. Karl Rahner wrote that the newfound hope for the salvation of non-Catholics is one of the most noteworthy results of Vatican II: “This optimism concerning salvation [of non-Catholics] appears to me one of the most noteworthy results of the Second Vatican Council. For when we consider the officially received theology concerning all these questions, which was more or less traditional right down to the Second Vatican Council, we can only wonder how few controversies arose during the Council with regard to these assertions of optimism concerning salvation, and wonder too at how little opposition the conservative wing of the Council brought to bear on this point, how all this took place without any setting of the stage or any great stir even though this doctrine marked a far more decisive phase in the development of the Church’s conscious awareness of her faith than, for instance, the doctrine of collegiality in the Church, the relationship between Scripture and tradition, the acceptance of the new exegesis, etc.” Belief in explicit BOD does not result in the possibility of optimism concerning the salvation of non-Catholics; belief in implicit BOD does.

Pope Paul VI famously said that Vatican II differed from other Ecuмenical Councils in that it was pastoral and refrained from making any dogmatic definitions that are of themselves infallible. In saying thus, Paul VI was acknowledging that dogmatic definitions have been made at other Councils that are of themselves infallible. It logically follows that the first thing any Catholic who is confused as to what he must believe about a particular doctrine should do is look to the dogmatic definitions that have been made at the Church's first twenty Ecuмenical Councils. Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus has been defined at at least two Ecuмenical Councils that were not merely pastoral:



Quote
“There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which no one at all is saved.” (Lateran VI, Pope Innocent III)


“The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jєωs and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.” (Council of Florence, Pope Eugene IV)


Now, if the question were asked which traditionalist associations accept and which reject the above quoted definitions of the Extra Ecclesiam dogma, we would be able to learn quite a lot because the above definitions are, unlike the vague, prolix, and ambiguous New Church teachings, clear, precise, and easy to understand. If a traditionalist association is said to accept those definitions then we can know that that association believes no non-Catholics can be saved unless they convert to the Church before they die. If a traditionalist association is said to reject those definitions then we know that they believe non-Catholics can be saved without converting to the Church. We cannot arrive at such answers by merely asking whether or not a particular association believes in or rejects BOD.

From what I have read and heard I am under the impression that the following traditionalist associations believe only in explicit BOD or reject the three baptisms outright: the Institute of Christ the King, the Institute of the Good Shepherd, the Fatima Center, Tradition in Action, all of the branches of the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary (Richmond NH, Still River MA, Vienna OH), various independent missions/chapels.

The following traditionalist associations believe in implicit BOD: SSPX, CMRI, SSPV, various independent missions/chapels.

(When talking about the priestly societies there are of course exceptions to the norm in both groups on both sides. There are some Institute priests who probably believe in implicit BOD and there are some SSPX priests who reject implicit BOD, but I am going off what I think the majority of priests in a particular society believe.)
Title: Re: Traditional Groups the Reject BOD/BOB
Post by: MarylandTrad on July 14, 2018, 07:53:59 PM
The definition of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus made at Lateran IV does, it should be said, exclude the possibility of souls being saved by even an explicit BOD. Lateran IV defines:


Quote
There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which no one at all is saved.

It is very, very significant that this definition refers to the Church as being composed “of the faithful.” In the Missal there is a distinction made between the “Mass of the Catechumens” and the “Mass of the Faithful.” Catechumens are those who are preparing to enter the Church through baptism. The “faithful” are those who have already entered. The definition says that no one at all can be saved who is not a member of the Church of the faithful.


Traditional Catholic prayer books do not include prayers with petitions for the repose of any souls other than the “faithful departed.” “May all the souls of the faithful departed through the mercy of God rest in peace...” It would be uncharitable for the Church not to pray for the repose of the souls of those who were not members of the “Church of the faithful” if such non-members could make it to Purgatory. The Council of Braga decided that “Neither commemoration nor chanting is to be employed for catechumens who have died without Baptism.” St. John Chrysostom wrote, “...For the Catechumen is a stranger to the Faithful. He has not the same Head, he has not the same Father, he has not the same City, nor Food, nor Raiment, nor Table, nor House, but all are different; all are on earth to the former, to the latter all are in heaven. 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; one has worms' work for his raiment, the other the Lord of angels; heaven is the city of one, earth of the other...If it should come to pass, (which God forbid!) that through the sudden arrival of death we depart hence uninitiated, though we have ten thousand virtues, our portion will be no other than hell, and the venomous worm, and fire unquenchable, and bonds indissoluble."

Sacred Scripture, the Nicene Creed, and the Council of Vienne all infallibly teach that there is only one baptism. The Council of Trent defines as divinely revealed dogmas: “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” (Session VII, On Baptism, Canon II). “If any one saith, that baptism is free, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema” (Session VII, On Baptism, Canon V). It is noteworthy that Trent refrained from defining the necessity of receiving the Eucharist for salvation in a like manner as it had done in regards to the necessity of Baptism. Reception of the Eucharist is necessary for salvation, but only by a necessity of precept. Baptism is necessary by a necessity of means. The necessity of Baptism for salvation has been defined as a Catholic dogma because Baptism is universally necessary for all men regardless of particular circuмstances. This is what is meant when something is said to be necessary by a necessity of means. The Eucharist has never been defined as being absolutely necessary for the salvation of every creature because its necessity is not universal but admits of exceptions based on circuмstance.


Title: Re: Traditional Groups the Reject BOD/BOB
Post by: TKGS on July 14, 2018, 08:49:35 PM
TKGS, the question raised in your original post lacks wisdom.
Since when is asking a question that one honestly does not know the answer a lack of wisdom?  

I didn't ask about whether BOD/BOB are Catholic doctrine.  I asked what traditional clergy or groups do not accept BOD/BOB.  tdrev123 provided one group (I should have remembered them) and two clergy that I know.  I don't know anything about Bishop Neal Webster nor his "new priest".  (Thanks tdrev123 for taking the question seriously.)

Rather than offering absolutely nothing constructive to conversations, if you're asked a direct question on a forum and don't know an answer, please don't post and most certainly don't be unwise as you have been on this topic.
The last I heard, the St. Benedict Center had one or two priests.  Are people on this forum saying that there are, at most, only five or six traditional priests who do not teach BOD/BOB?  I find that difficult to believe.  Surely there are more.
Title: Re: Traditional Groups the Reject BOD/BOB
Post by: Ladislaus on July 15, 2018, 05:30:14 PM

Of the traditionalist associations who express a belief in BOD, some believe only catechumens who have an explicit faith in the mysteries of the Trinity and the Incarnation can be saved by BOD ...

I know of none.  Vast majority of Traditional groups believe in the extended BoD whereby all manner of infidel can be saved.  I would take this narrow BoD position; it's the position of St. Thomas and other Doctors.  But, unlike yourself, I know of none who restrict BoD in this way.  Those groups you listed do not restrict BoD so narrowly ... apart from the Feeneyite groups, who generally do not accept BoD at all.  Besides that, we're talking about groups that one could find a Mass center for, and not some loose association like "Tradition in Action".  ICK would be the only group that one MIGHT find a Mass to attend, but I have never heard that they hold this position on BoD.
Title: Re: Traditional Groups the Reject BOD/BOB
Post by: Ladislaus on July 15, 2018, 05:37:27 PM
I don't know anything about Bishop Neal Webster nor his "new priest".

I know Bishop Webster very well for years ... long before he became a priest.  He's a good man, but I'm afraid that his orders are tainted by the questionable Duarte Costa line.
Title: Re: Traditional Groups the Reject BOD/BOB
Post by: Pax Vobis on July 15, 2018, 06:25:52 PM
ICK is indult, founded in 1990 no doubt in response to the sspx.  There’s no way they don’t accept the Vatican’s anti-EENS V2 theology.    
Title: Re: Traditional Groups the Reject BOD/BOB
Post by: tdrev123 on July 15, 2018, 07:43:07 PM
ICK is indult, founded in 1990 no doubt in response to the sspx.  There’s no way they don’t accept the Vatican’s anti-EENS V2 theology.    
There is a sermon on sensus fidelium from an ick priest (or FSSP but I don’t think it was) and he denies invincible ignorance and implicit bod.  He said for feeney was closer to the truth then most traditional priests.  
Title: Re: Traditional Groups the Reject BOD/BOB
Post by: Pax Vobis on July 15, 2018, 09:41:22 PM
We're talking about the group, not a few individual priests.  SSPX is, as a group, supportive of BOD.  However, I've met some sspx priests who've told me they don't concern themselves with it, as they have more important things to do.  

The point is, all these groups have a "party line" they must somewhat adhere to, or at least they can't criticize the overall view.
Title: Re: Traditional Groups the Reject BOD/BOB
Post by: TKGS on July 16, 2018, 07:42:56 AM
We're talking about the group, not a few individual priests.  SSPX is, as a group, supportive of BOD.  However, I've met some sspx priests who've told me they don't concern themselves with it, as they have more important things to do.  

The point is, all these groups have a "party line" they must somewhat adhere to, or at least they can't criticize the overall view.
This is true of most groups.  Unless the issue is brought up by the laity, the issue is seldom addressed by most priests.
Title: Re: Traditional Groups the Reject BOD/BOB
Post by: JPaul on July 16, 2018, 09:59:11 AM
We're talking about the group, not a few individual priests.  SSPX is, as a group, supportive of BOD.  However, I've met some sspx priests who've told me they don't concern themselves with it, as they have more important things to do.  

The point is, all these groups have a "party line" they must somewhat adhere to, or at least they can't criticize the overall view.
The SSPX is a bit more than supportive, they say that it is an infallible doctrine. Most of their chapels will throw you out if they hear you talking about it. They routinely call you feeneyites, they have written books about it, and they twist the Church's teaching to bolster their position, and much worse than that. I cannot speak for their individual priests, but that is their policy and theology.  
A party line is one thing but, when the party line involves doubting or denying a fundamental pillar of the Catholic religion, it is dangerous.
Title: Re: Traditional Groups the Reject BOD/BOB
Post by: Pax Vobis on July 16, 2018, 10:08:02 AM
Agree.  And i've heard that the CMRI chapels in Minn are similar.  And, of course, the sede chapels in Ohio are pretty rabid too.
Title: Re: Traditional Groups the Reject BOD/BOB
Post by: Pax Vobis on July 16, 2018, 12:21:07 PM
I'll post an edit to my above comment.  I do not want to give the impression that all CMRI chapels ban people for BOD.  I've heard of a few cases in the MN area, but that's it.  I have friends from MN and it's been a battleground for decades between the different groups and the people - both sspx and cmri.  But, by and large, most of the turmoil has been from the sspx, because they've been there the longest.
Title: Re: Traditional Groups the Reject BOD/BOB
Post by: TKGS on July 16, 2018, 12:52:44 PM
I still find it difficult to believe that with all the lay Feeneyites on the forum, there are, at most, six Feeneyite clergy in the world.
Title: Re: Traditional Groups the Reject BOD/BOB
Post by: Pax Vobis on July 16, 2018, 01:30:20 PM
There are plenty of 'neutral' priests out there, (I know of some in the sspx).  I'd also propose that there are more laity feeneyites than clergy for the following reasons:

1.  The clergy can remain neutral and/or silently feeneyite and there's no danger to them getting kicked out of a chapel. 
2.  The clergy have 1,000 more important things to do than debate this topic.
3.  The laity have been forced to pick sides many times, both by family/friends who call them 'heretics' and by priests who threaten to withhold sacraments.
4.  Due to threats and actual banishment from chapels, the laity has been forced to educate themselves and fight back.
5.  I've only ever once been asked my stance on the topic by a priest, but i've been asked hundreds of times by laity.
6.  Due to family splits and chapel turmoil over the topic (I've heard of multiple families who didn't attend a wedding due to their son/daughter married a feeneyite), the laity has to study and know why they believe what they believe.
Title: Re: Traditional Groups the Reject BOD/BOB
Post by: Mithrandylan on July 16, 2018, 02:10:55 PM
I think it's like una cuм.
.
It's a fabricated controversy fueled by those with (mainly digital) microphones.  It's a "real" controversy, only because the laity have been manipulated by sensationalism and bold claims passed off as legitimate theology (MHFM & SGG/MHT/TRR).  If it wasn't for the Internet it wouldn't be nearly as big a deal as it's become.
Title: Re: Traditional Groups the Reject BOD/BOB
Post by: happenby on July 16, 2018, 03:52:19 PM
Fabricated controversy? Hardly. Bod remains not just a big deal, but a huge deal.  The division in Tradition over it is just one of the consequences.  Beyond this particular remark, responses may need to move.
Title: Re: Traditional Groups the Reject BOD/BOB
Post by: Mithrandylan on July 16, 2018, 04:04:21 PM
But it shouldn't.  A conservative description would be to say that from Trent to the 1940s at least it was plain to anyone that the Church taught baptism of desire.  To even get out of the door with that anti-BoD stuff you have to suppose (at best) that for five hundred years everyone taught and believed BoD until a Jesuit from Massachusetts sounded the alarm.  And then there was one other American priest who picked up on it.  That's it.  Feeneyism is a post 1940s, American thing.

That takes a great deal of fabrication to sell as some universal problem responsible for everything we're dealing with today.  It's amazing that people buy it.
Title: Re: Traditional Groups the Reject BOD/BOB
Post by: Pax Vobis on July 16, 2018, 04:47:13 PM
The original Baltimore catechism of the 1800s has no mention of BOD or salvation for “sincere” non-Catholics.  Subsequent editions had “modernized” language inserted.  This is all novelty.  No one, from Trent til the French Revolution, 200 yrs, believed in ANY salvation outside the Church.  It wasn’t until Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ started gaining ground, and Protestants started multiplying in the mid 1800s that you had a shift in thinking.  
Title: Re: Traditional Groups the Reject BOD/BOB
Post by: Mithrandylan on July 16, 2018, 05:24:34 PM
Pax, St Thomas teaches BoD 300 years before Trent-- and hes the premiere theologian featured at Trent. Read Bellarmine. He says BoD is the what all the theologians teach-- and he's writing as a contemporary of Trent. Read S. Alphonsus, who says BoD is de fide because Trent teaches it. S. Alphonsus' bull of canonization says that his works can be read "without fear of even the slightest error." It was indeed plain to everyone until Feeney came along that BoD was Church teaching.
Title: Re: Traditional Groups the Reject BOD/BOB
Post by: Mithrandylan on July 16, 2018, 05:30:01 PM
And then there's pope St Pius V, of course, condemned the errors of Michael Du Bay, including the error that catechumens in perfect charity still need to have their sins remitted. For goodness' sakes the ink on Trent had barely dried when he condemned that error.

This isn't to get into an argument about the doctrine of the thing, only about the historiological issue at play. If you want to argue that BoD is wrong, you can't argue it's novelty. If it's an error, it's an error older than protestantism.
Title: Re: Traditional Groups the Reject BOD/BOB
Post by: MarylandTrad on July 16, 2018, 06:41:06 PM
There is a sermon on sensus fidelium from an ick priest (or FSSP but I don’t think it was) and he denies invincible ignorance and implicit bod.  He said for feeney was closer to the truth then most traditional priests.  

Here is the excellent sermon from YouTube. Pax Vobis should keep in mind: 1. This sermon doesn't get recorded without the priest's permission. 2. The sermon doesn't get sent to the Sensus Fidelium channel without the priest's permission. 3. A link to the Institute of Christ the King's website does not get included in the description of the video unless the priest is confident that his superior will not object to him having preached EENS in the sense that he did.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AxlfAcCEbok
Title: Re: Traditional Groups the Reject BOD/BOB
Post by: MarylandTrad on July 16, 2018, 07:55:01 PM
I still find it difficult to believe that with all the lay Feeneyites on the forum, there are, at most, six Feeneyite clergy in the world.


Referring to Catholics who believe EENS in the sense that it has been divinely revealed as “Feeneyites” involves a terribly deceitful abuse of language. The implication is that we believe what we do on the authority of a mere human (Fr. Feeney), when in truth there is no group of Catholics alive today who put more emphasis on the importance and necessity of believing dogma on the authority of God, who can neither deceive nor be deceived, revealing. The hypocritical irony here is that all of those who reject the Church's infallible definitions on the necessity of the Sacrament of Baptism and of Church membership for salvation do so by appealing to merely human authorities! “St. Thomas said this, St. Robert Bellarmine said that, etc.” It would be one thing if the “three baptisms” were taught universally (both in time and location) and were consequently part of the universal and ordinary magisterium. We know that they haven't been taught universally, however, by the testimony of SS. Gregory nαzιanzen, John Chrysostom, Ambrose, Augustine, Isaac Jogues, etc. and by the definitions of the solemn magisterium which plainly exclude the possibility of souls being saved who die outside of the Church of the faithful.


St. Paul wrote that “the sensual man perceiveth not these things that are of the Spirit of God...” (1Cor. 2:14) and the Douay footnote says that this statement applies not only to those who indulge their sense appetites as do gluttons, but also to those who “measureth divine mysteries by natural reason, sense, and human wisdom only. Now such a man has little or no notion of the things of God. Whereas the spiritual man is he who, in the mysteries of religion, takes not human sense for his guide: but submits his judgment to the decisions of the church, which he is commanded to hear and obey.” The saintly Isabella, Queen of Spain, once brought a moral question to her confessor and he began to quote certain of the Doctors and esteemed moralists of that day. "St. Augustine said...; St. Gregory said...; St. Thomas said..." The saintly queen interrupted him and said: "Father, I do not want to know what the Fathers said, good as they were; I want to know what the Church says.” Dogmatic definitions are “what the Church says” and that is why they must be believed with “divine and Catholic faith.” Faith rests on authority and if the authority a man rests his faith on is only human then his faith is necessarily merely human. Such a person's faith is neither divine nor Catholic.


The Church has been infiltrated by Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ over the last two centuries and as Br. Francis Maluf wisely remarked in one of his meditations on the secret society, “We are the Church militant. That means that a war is on. How can a man be a soldier of Jesus Christ if he knows neither the enemy nor the issue.” The 1789 French Declaration of the Rights of Man contains the following article: “No one may be disturbed for his opinions, even religious ones, provided that their manifestation does not trouble the public order established by the law.” Anyone who has spent even a minimal amount of time studying the French philosophes would know that when it came to religion, dogma is what they expressed a hatred for more than anything else. They hated the “bigotry” and “intolerance” that follows from Catholics believing with absolute certainty that the dogmas which the Church proposes as divinely revealed are infallibly true. One of their principal aims has been to attempt to reduce religion in the minds of men to a matter of mere opinion and all who reject dogma as the rule of faith necessarily aid them in their conspiracy. The Freemasons hate dogma in general but there is of course a particular dogma of the faith that bothers them more than all others: the dogma that Jean-Jacques Rousseau wrote the following about in The Social Contract, “But whoever dares to say: Outside the Church there is no salvation, ought to be driven from the State.”




Title: Re: Traditional Groups the Reject BOD/BOB
Post by: Pax Vobis on July 16, 2018, 08:21:09 PM

Quote
Pax, St Thomas teaches BoD 300 years before Trent
St Thomas' BOD is very strict and limited.  V2's BOD is general and an 'open invitation' to all.  St Thomas would say that FORMAL catechumens who were taking convert classes MIGHT be saved.  V2 (and sspx/cmri, etc) don't limit salvation to formal catechumens and apply BOD to (potentially) anyone.  You're comparing apples-oranges.
Title: Re: Traditional Groups the Reject BOD/BOB
Post by: Mithrandylan on July 16, 2018, 08:25:52 PM
Baptism of desire refers to salvific charity prior to having received baptism. That this is possible is taught universally. I'm not aware of a universal consensus regarding the "class of person" this applies to, since theologians don't talk in those terms. The class of person "eligible" is whomever fits the description. Catechumens are obvious.
Title: Re: Traditional Groups the Reject BOD/BOB
Post by: Pax Vobis on July 16, 2018, 08:26:13 PM
Quote
Here is the excellent sermon from YouTube. Pax Vobis should keep in mind: 1. This sermon doesn't get recorded without the priest's permission. 2. The sermon doesn't get sent to the Sensus Fidelium channel without the priest's permission. 3. A link to the Institute of Christ the King's website does not get included in the description of the video unless the priest is confident that his superior will not object to him having preached EENS in the sense that he did.
I admire many of the indult priests who have a lot of good things to say, but...an FSSP, ICK, indult priest who 'tells the truth' once and a while (or even regularly) isn't going to get in trouble UNLESS they start criticizing rome and calling them heretics (which they will NEVER do, by name or regularly).  Preaching the truth to the laity, while silently condoning/accepting your bosses who destroy truth is the definition of hypocrisy and compromise.  One of the 9 ways of being an accessory to sin is by silence.  Those in the indult have traded their sinful silence for a weekly mass.  Not a good long-term trade.

Title: Re: Traditional Groups the Reject BOD/BOB
Post by: Pax Vobis on July 16, 2018, 08:29:38 PM

Quote
Why are you OK with BoD for catechumens?
I never said I was.  I just said that I can see the argument and I understand St Thomas' logic (which he never said was certain, just speculation).  A person who is formally taking classes and planning on getting baptized, 1) desires EXPLICITY the faith, 2) is TAKING ACTION to get the faith, and 3) has made a COMMITMENT to the Church.  All other scenarios of BOD fail all 3 of those tests.  It makes no sense, logically or theologically, that they could be saved.  
Title: Re: Traditional Groups the Reject BOD/BOB
Post by: Pax Vobis on July 16, 2018, 08:32:09 PM

Quote
I'm not aware of a universal consensus regarding the "class of person" this applies to, since theologians don't talk in those terms.
It's not a 'class of person' but the 'actions' of a person, that count.  And, yes, EXPLICIT desire is necessary, and is agreed upon by all those who speculate on BOD.
Title: Re: Traditional Groups the Reject BOD/BOB
Post by: Mithrandylan on July 16, 2018, 08:40:35 PM
It's not a 'class of person' but the 'actions' of a person, that count.  And, yes, EXPLICIT desire is necessary, and is agreed upon by all those who speculate on BOD.
.
Well, that's not true at all. Saint Alphonsus (just to take the most noteworthy example) said that it could be implicit. And then when he died, his canonization bull declared that his work could be read without fear of discovering even the smallest error. 
Title: Re: Traditional Groups the Reject BOD/BOB
Post by: Pax Vobis on July 16, 2018, 09:00:24 PM
St Alphonsus' theory is riddled with problems.  Read here:  https://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/catholicchurch/st-alphonsus-blatant-error-on-baptism-of-desire/#.W01MctVKiM8

St Alphonsus is not infallible.  Trent is.  Trent says the desire must be for baptism, to be justified, which means explicit desire.
Title: Re: Traditional Groups the Reject BOD/BOB
Post by: Mithrandylan on July 16, 2018, 09:03:13 PM
I never said I was.  I just said that I can see the argument and I understand St Thomas' logic (which he never said was certain, just speculation).  A person who is formally taking classes and planning on getting baptized, 1) desires EXPLICITY the faith, 2) is TAKING ACTION to get the faith, and 3) has made a COMMITMENT to the Church.  All other scenarios of BOD fail all 3 of those tests.  It makes no sense, logically or theologically, that they could be saved.  
.
With respect Pax, I don't think you understand St. Thomas's logic at all.  You want to read ST III, Q 62 & 65. 
.
Saint Thomas teaches that baptism of desire is possible because of the distinction in efficient causes of justification (principal and instrumental).  Metaphysically speaking (which is really what counts, after all), this distinction between efficient causes is the reason BoD is possible.  Now that very same logic is retained by Trent in describing the causes of justification, and it describes them just as St. Thomas did, and it does so right after saying that a desire for baptism may suffice to justify and after describing the sanctification process of a catechumen culminating in perfect charity before baptism.
.
If Trent, as many contend, actually condemns BoD, it couldn't have picked a more awful patron of the Council!  It couldn't have picked a worse explanation of justification's causes than the very explanation that makes BoD possible in the first place
.
As to the rest of what you said, I don't really know what to say except to read it over again and make sure that you've actually said what you want to.
Title: Re: Traditional Groups the Reject BOD/BOB
Post by: Mithrandylan on July 16, 2018, 09:05:51 PM
St Alphonsus' theory is riddled with problems.  Read here:  https://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/catholicchurch/st-alphonsus-blatant-error-on-baptism-of-desire/#.W01MctVKiM8

St Alphonsus is not infallible.  Trent is.  Trent says the desire must be for baptism, to be justified, which means explicit desire.
.
Saint Alphonsus is "riddled with problems."  Here!  Read some fake monks to get the "real scoop" on what the Church teaches.
.
I'm done.
.
I'll leave you with this:
.
"Although he wrote so vast a number of works, it has nevertheless been found, upon the strict examination which has been instituted in regard to them, that they may be read by the faithful without the least fear of finding the smallest error in them" (Pope Gregory XVI, Canonization Bull of St. Alphonsus, 1839).
Title: Re: Traditional Groups the Reject BOD/BOB
Post by: Pax Vobis on July 16, 2018, 09:09:43 PM

Quote
Read some fake monks to get the "real scoop" on what the Church teaches.
If you're scared to challenge your views, then you're not intellectually honest.  Who cares who made the argument?  Just because a person is wrong in one area doesn't mean they're wrong in all areas.  The diamond bros aren't the only ones who point out the flaws of St Alphonsus' views.

p.s. the church has NEVER SAID that all writings of a saint are infallible.  That's ridiculous.
Title: Re: Traditional Groups the Reject BOD/BOB
Post by: Stubborn on July 17, 2018, 06:11:42 AM
If you're scared to challenge your views, then you're not intellectually honest.  Who cares who made the argument?  Just because a person is wrong in one area doesn't mean they're wrong in all areas.  The diamond bros aren't the only ones who point out the flaws of St Alphonsus' views.

p.s. the church has NEVER SAID that all writings of a saint are infallible.  That's ridiculous.
This.

Whatever St. Thomas, the greatest theologian of all time taught, and whatever the other great saints taught, was over ruled by Trent, who, with the full authority of the Church's infallibility, explicitly decreed that 1) justification is attainable through the desire for the sacrament, 2) the sacrament is necessary for salvation, 3) what the matter of the sacrament of baptism is, 4) who may administer the sacrament, and 5) condemns those who say the sacrament is not necessary.

No matter what anyone wants to argue about the issue, even if the whole world wants to insist that salvation via a BOD is a doctrine of the Church, they have not only the above facts to contend with, they also must admit that the term a "baptism of desire" is not mentioned, defined nor is it found anywhere in any official Church docuмents.

Although over the last century or two the error of a BOD, like the error of the NO (Modernism) has been infiltrated into the seminaries, the catechisms and all the manifestations of the Church, the trad groups who promote it do so in error based on the above facts.
Title: Re: Traditional Groups the Reject BOD/BOB
Post by: Merry on July 17, 2018, 09:12:41 AM
Trying again -

 
EXTRA ECCLESIAM – Baptism of Water, Blood, Desire
 
Let's look briefly again at the 3 infallible definitions regarding No Salvation Outside the Church –
 
 #1There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved.”
 (Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215.)
 
 #2 “We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” (Pope Boniface VIII, the Bull Unam Sanctam, 1302.)
 
 #3 “The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jєωs and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.” (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441.)
 
 A few talking points follow in their regard –
 
 With dogma, one starts THERE, or WITH IT – and works out accordingly. Dogma is not the handmaid of theory, or some previously-argued theology or, as we see in our age, simply ignored or denigrated to liberal interpretation.
 
 The No Salvation doctrine never needed defining previous to the years seen above, as until then it was understood that the Church held and taught such accordingly. As princes and people began to question and lose respect for the papacy, and depreciate the Church, definitions were forthcoming from the Holy Ghost.
 
 And notice the rise in specificity with each.  They become increasingly more exacting – and not to be misunderstood.
 
 Also note the particular years in which these pronouncements were made. One wonders how St. Thomas (d. 1274), who held baptism of desire, would have thusly termed his works if he lived and studied after Definition 2 and 3 were made. Surely it is to be hoped – if not assumed - that he would have submitted as a Catholic and as a preacher and teacher, and dropped any “desire” notion he otherwise propounded. It is allowed to hope that, as there is a similar turmoil in our day on the issue of salvation, baptism – and even justification – that the Church in happier, future days, may define with further clarity on the issue.
 
 The original version of the Catechism of the Council of Trent - call it the Latin version - has NO MENTION of either “baptism of blood” or “baptism of desire”! These phrases did not appear in Trent catechism copies until the late 1800s.  
 
 Further, this Council defined: If anyone say that real and natural water is not necessary for baptism, and thus distort those words of our Lord Jesus Christ: “Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost (he cannot enter into the kingdom of God)” (Jn. 3:5), let him be anathema. 
(Session VII – Canon 2)  
 
 We are therefore obliged to believe this.

 
 As for the Catechism of St. Pius X, or the Baltimore Catechism for that matter - they do not have the same authority as definitions of the Church – or the Catechism which the defining Council of Trent promulgated (the original, untouched Catechism of the Council of Trent).
 
 We do not learn our theology directly from the Fathers or Doctors, any more than we learn our religion directly from the Bible. We learn our religion directly from the Church through her Magisterium which is guided and protected by the Holy Ghost. As Queen Isabella once said to her confessor as he attempted to answer a question she had presented to him: “Father, I do not want to know what the Fathers said, good as they were.  I want to know what the Church says.”


Title: Re: Traditional Groups the Reject BOD/BOB
Post by: MarylandTrad on July 17, 2018, 06:36:57 PM
Well, that's not true at all. Saint Alphonsus (just to take the most noteworthy example) said that it could be implicit. And then when he died, his canonization bull declared that his work could be read without fear of discovering even the smallest error.


St. Alphonsus expressed very clearly in several of his works that an explicit faith in the Trinity and Incarnation is necessary for salvation by a necessity of means. If he used the word “implicit” in reference to BOD, he must have meant that those who have an explicit faith in the Trinity and Incarnation can be justified by an implicit desire for Baptism prior to having received Baptism and prior even to having been told anything about the Sacrament. This is completely different from what the liberalizing “traditionalist” associations mean when they use the expression “implicit BOD”.

St. Alphonsus wrote the following in his History of Heresies and their Refutation:


Quote
Still we answer the Semipelagians, and say, that infidels who arrive at the use of reason, and are not converted to the Faith, cannot be excused, because though they do not receive sufficient proximate Grace, still they are not deprived of remote Grace, as a means of becoming converted. But what is this remote Grace? St. Thomas explains it, when he says, that if any one was brought up in the wilds, or even among brute beasts, and if he followed the law of natural reason, to desire what is good, and to avoid what is wicked, we should certainly believe either that God, by an internal inspiration, would reveal to him what he should believe, or would send some one to preach the Faith to him, as he sent Peter to Cornelius. Thus, then, according to the Angelic Doctor, God, at least remotely, gives to the infidels, who have the use of reason, sufficient Grace to obtain salvation, and this Grace consists in a certain instruction of the mind, and in a movement of the will, to observe the natural law; and if the infidel co-operates with this movement, observing the precepts of the law of nature, and abstaining from grievous sins, he will certainly receive, through the merits of Jesus Christ, the Grace proximately sufficient to embrace the Faith, and save his soul.

Under Pope Clement XI in 1703, when the missionary movement to “ignorant natives” was at its height, all missionaries were explicitly forbidden by the Holy Office to baptize a barbarian, even if he was dying, unless they elicited from him an explicit act of belief in Jesus Christ. Nor was it enough, declared the Holy Office, for this barbarian to know that God exists and is a remunerator. He must be told all the central mysteries of the Faith that derive from the Blessed Trinity and the Incarnation. The administration of the Sacrament of Baptism to a person who does not have an explicit faith in the Trinity would be invalid. Are you honestly willing to speculate that infidels can baptize themselves by “desire” knowing all the while that they cannot be validly baptized by water?
Title: Re: Traditional Groups the Reject BOD/BOB
Post by: Ladislaus on July 18, 2018, 08:45:09 AM

St. Alphonsus expressed very clearly in several of his works that an explicit faith in the Trinity and Incarnation is necessary for salvation by a necessity of means. If he used the word “implicit” in reference to BOD, he must have meant that those who have an explicit faith in the Trinity and Incarnation can be justified by an implicit desire for Baptism prior to having received Baptism and prior even to having been told anything about the Sacrament.

Correct.  St. Alphonsus is using the term implicit narrowly.

Explicit Desire for Baptism:  "I intend to be baptized." (note that votum is much more than a "desire" but is always loosely translated as such).
Implicit Desire for Baptism:  "I want to become a Catholic." (intention to be baptized implicit in the intention to become Catholic)

Now the modern heretics go, several steps removd, all the way down the line to ...
Implicit Desire:  "I want to be a good person and do what God wants."
Title: Re: Traditional Groups the Reject BOD/BOB
Post by: Ladislaus on July 18, 2018, 08:48:45 AM
.
Saint Alphonsus is "riddled with problems."  Here!  Read some fake monks to get the "real scoop" on what the Church teaches.
.
I'm done.
.
I'll leave you with this:
.
"Although he wrote so vast a number of works, it has nevertheless been found, upon the strict examination which has been instituted in regard to them, that they may be read by the faithful without the least fear of finding the smallest error in them" (Pope Gregory XVI, Canonization Bull of St. Alphonsus, 1839).

Actually study the problem instead of running away crying and pouting like a baby.

St. Alphonsus cited a letter from one of the Pope Innocents as proof that BoD was de fide ... misconstruing the authority of the letter.  In a very similar letter, another Pope states that someone who is saved by BoD enters heaven "without delay" after their death.  Yet St. Alphonsus speculated, contrary to this papal teaching, that those who are saved by BoD do NOT have all the temporal punishment due to sin remitted, and thus would tarry in Purgatory for some time.  So he contradicts papal teaching that, according to his own standards, would make his theory heretical.

St. Alphonsus was not infallible, period, regardless of the flowery language used by Pope Gregory XVI.  Quite a few theologians disagree with a number of his conclusions regarding moral theology.
Title: Re: Traditional Groups the Reject BOD/BOB
Post by: happenby on July 18, 2018, 09:10:23 AM
Is there no difference between these teachings? 


Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of desire of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.


Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
Title: Re: Traditional Groups the Reject BOD/BOB
Post by: JPaul on July 18, 2018, 10:00:32 AM
Quote
Now the modern heretics go, several steps removd, all the way down the line to ...
Implicit Desire:  "I want to be a good person and do what God wants."
This is what the "preservers" of tradition teach. This leaves most Traditional Catholics almost bereft of the True teaching of the Church. We should not judge a cleric by the lace and vestments her wears, but the soundness of the doctrine that he believes and teaches.
Title: Re: Traditional Groups the Reject BOD/BOB
Post by: JohnAnthonyMarie on July 23, 2018, 07:50:25 PM
The original Baltimore catechism of the 1800s has no mention of BOD or salvation for “sincere” non-Catholics. 

(http://TraditionalCatholic.net/sede_vacante/BoD/IMG_1386.jpg)
(http://TraditionalCatholic.net/sede_vacante/BoD/IMG_1387.jpg)
(http://TraditionalCatholic.net/sede_vacante/BoD/IMG_1389.jpg)
(http://TraditionalCatholic.net/sede_vacante/BoD/IMG_1390.jpg)
 
Title: Re: Traditional Groups the Reject BOD/BOB
Post by: Pax Vobis on July 23, 2018, 08:42:21 PM
That's has a copyright of 1921...and it's a commentary on the actual baltimore council.  First edition is from 1885.
Title: Re: Traditional Groups the Reject BOD/BOB
Post by: JohnAnthonyMarie on July 24, 2018, 01:30:29 AM
That's has a copyright of 1921...and it's a commentary on the actual baltimore council.  First edition is from 1885.
Yes; Do you have a link to the original version?
Title: Re: Traditional Groups the Reject BOD/BOB
Post by: JohnAnthonyMarie on July 24, 2018, 01:35:45 AM
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/14552/14552.txt

Baltimore Catechism No. 2

IMPRIMATUR

New York, April 6, 1885. John Cardinal McCloskey, Archbishop of New
York.

Baltimore, April 6, 1885. "The Catechism ordered by The Third Plenary
Council of Baltimore, having been diligently compared and examined, is
hereby approved."
+ James Gibbons, Archbishop of Baltimore, Apostolic Delegate.

157. Q. How many kinds of Baptism are there?
A. There are three kinds of Baptism: Baptism of water, of desire, and of
blood.
Title: Re: Traditional Groups the Reject BOD/BOB
Post by: JohnAnthonyMarie on July 24, 2018, 03:22:24 AM
(http://TraditionalCatholic.net/sede_vacante/BoD/IMG_1395.jpg)
(http://TraditionalCatholic.net/sede_vacante/BoD/IMG_1396.jpg)
(http://TraditionalCatholic.net/sede_vacante/BoD/IMG_1393.jpg)
(http://TraditionalCatholic.net/sede_vacante/BoD/IMG_1394.jpg)
Title: Re: Traditional Groups the Reject BOD/BOB
Post by: Recusant Sede on July 24, 2018, 05:59:53 AM
Actually study the problem instead of running away crying and pouting like a baby.

St. Alphonsus cited a letter from one of the Pope Innocents as proof that BoD was de fide ... misconstruing the authority of the letter.  In a very similar letter, another Pope states that someone who is saved by BoD enters heaven "without delay" after their death.  Yet St. Alphonsus speculated, contrary to this papal teaching, that those who are saved by BoD do NOT have all the temporal punishment due to sin remitted, and thus would tarry in Purgatory for some time.  So he contradicts papal teaching that, according to his own standards, would make his theory heretical.

St. Alphonsus was not infallible, period, regardless of the flowery language used by Pope Gregory XVI.  Quite a few theologians disagree with a number of his conclusions regarding moral theology.
You do realize that Mithrandylan did not say that Saint Alphonsus was infallible, right?
Title: Re: Traditional Groups the Reject BOD/BOB
Post by: Ladislaus on July 24, 2018, 09:48:41 AM
You do realize that Mithrandylan did not say that Saint Alphonsus was infallible, right?

No, he simply cited a passage out of context from Gregory XVI implying precisely that.
Title: Re: Traditional Groups the Reject BOD/BOB
Post by: Mithrandylan on July 24, 2018, 09:57:24 AM
No, he simply cited a passage out of context from Gregory XVI implying precisely that.
.
You're the one quoting out of context.  I was directly responding to Pax Vobis's prima facie dismissal of St. Alphonsus and his elevation of fake monastics with a financial stake in baptism of desire as a better way to learn the truthThat was the source of my disinterest.  If you want to debate some point, you at least need to agree on the sort of evidence that would weigh in on the question. 
.
Title: Re: Traditional Groups the Reject BOD/BOB
Post by: Recusant Sede on July 24, 2018, 10:09:12 AM
No, he simply cited a passage out of context from Gregory XVI implying precisely that.
The Church gave us a Saint and Doctor to follow with complete safety. Sorry, but your opinion and the opinion of the D’s carry no weight.
Title: Re: Traditional Groups the Reject BOD/BOB
Post by: Ladislaus on July 24, 2018, 10:53:12 AM
The Church gave us a Saint and Doctor to follow with complete safety.

And I've never disputed your right to follow the teaching of a Doctor of the Church (except when something they held was countermanded by the Church) ... e.g. St. Thomas on the Immaculate Conception, etc.

But most of you do not follow him on all points but are in fact Pelagian heretics who deny EENS.  You don't really care about traditional BoD but about undermining EENS and Tridentine ecclesiology.
Title: Re: Traditional Groups the Reject BOD/BOB
Post by: Pax Vobis on July 24, 2018, 11:14:08 AM
Quote
I was directly responding to Pax Vobis's prima facie dismissal of St. Alphonsus and his elevation of fake monastics with a financial stake in baptism of desire as a better way to learn the truth.
And I was simply CORRECTING your view of St Alphonsus to the proper level - that he is a supreme saint which we should imitate in virtue, but not always theology.
Quote
The Church gave us a Saint and Doctor to follow with complete safety.
The Church teaches that only the pope is infallible, and only under certain circuмstances.  No Saint/Doctor is infallible.  That's absurd.
Title: Re: Traditional Groups the Reject BOD/BOB
Post by: Stubborn on July 24, 2018, 11:33:55 AM
The Church gave us a Saint and Doctor to follow with complete safety. Sorry, but your opinion and the opinion of the D’s carry no weight.
Can. 4:  Si quis dixerit sacramenta novae legis non esse ad salutem necessaria, sed superflua; et sine eis aut eorum voto per solam fidem homines a Deo gratiam justificationis adipisci, licet omnia singulis necessaria non siut, anathema sit."

The heretics say that no sacrament is necessary, inasmuch as they hold that man is justified by faith alone, and that the sacraments only serve to excite and nourish this faith, which (as they say) can be equally excited and nourished by preaching.  But this is certainly false, and is condemned in the fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth canons:  for as we know from the Scriptures, some of the sacraments are necessary (necessitate Medii) as a means without which salvation is impossible. Thus Baptism is necessary for all, Penance for them who have fallen into sin after Baptism, and the Eucharist is necessary for all at least in desire ( in voto). - Saint Alphonsus Liguori

From:  (An Exposition and Defence of All the Points of Faith Discussed and Defined by the Sacred Council of Trent, Along With the Refutation of the Errors of the Pretended Reformers, Dublin, 1846.)
Title: Re: Traditional Groups the Reject BOD/BOB
Post by: Neil Obstat on July 24, 2018, 10:28:24 PM
.
Here is an exchange found among the 138 Comments under a video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2bymrcN93M&app=desktop#fauxfullscreen) of +Williamson published in 2016. Jacob Snell offers as an answer a text he claims was part of the schema composed by ABL (which was later abandoned by the liberals in power at Vat.II) and replaced with the Vat.II docuмents we have today (the numbers 1-13 seem to be for footnotes which were not supplied):
.
Question:

PhilipHowardMedia   1 year ago
"Does that mean that no Protestant, no Muslim, no Buddhist or animist will be saved? No" How is that not heretical? Protestants, Muslims etc are saved? He then explains the dogma away.

Answer:

Jacob Snell  1 year ago
+PhilipHowardMedia He continues, "The error consists in thinking that they are saved by their religion. They are saved in their religion but not by it. There is no Buddhist church in heaven, no Protestant church. This is perhaps hard to accept, but it is the truth. I did not found the Church, but rather Our Lord the Son of God. As priests we must state the Truth." The Church has never believed that those that are not formal converts can be saved in a number known only to God. To believe that no Protestant, Jєω, Moslem, Buddhist, or Hindu can receive baptism of desire or of blood is to believe a heresy called Feeneyism, which was condemned by the Holy Office under Pius XII and John XXIII. 
.
Question:

PhilipHowardMedia  1 year ago (edited)
Jacob Snell But if they are saved by a mystery only known to God they would not be a Protestant, a Muslim etc etc and that is the problem here. Saved in their religion? Does that not mean they are outside the Church?
.
Answer:

Jacob Snell  1 year ago
They are saved by receiving the grace of baptism through an implicit desire without an explicit desire. The schema for Vatican II authored primarily by Archbishop Lefebvre and Cardinal Ottaviani had this to say:

"8. The Holy Synod teaches, as God's Holy Church has always taught, that the Church is necessary for salvation1
and that no one can be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded by God through Jesus Christ, nevertheless refuses to enter her or to persevere in her.2
Just as no one can be saved except by receiving baptism--by which anyone who does not pose some obstacle to incorporation3
becomes a member of the Church--or at least by desire for baptism,4
so also no one can attain salvation unless he is a member of the Church or at least is ordered towards the Church by desire. But for anyone to attain to salvation, it is not enough that he be really a member of the Church or be by desire ordered towards it; it is also required that he die in the state of grace, joined to God by faith, hope, and charity.5

"9. Although many real relations exist in the juridical6
and sacramental order, and indeed can exist in the mystical order,7
by which every baptized person is linked with the Church, still, according to the most ancient tradition, only they are called members of the Church in the true and proper sense in whom the Church, one and indivisible, indefectible and infallible, comes together in unity of faith, sacraments and government. They, therefore, are truly and properly to be said to be members of the Church who, washed in the bath of regeneration, professing the true Catholic faith, and acknowledging the authority of the Church,8
are joined in its visible structure9
to its Head, Christ, who rules it through his Vicar,10
and have not been cut off from the structure of the Mystical Body because of very serious offences.11
As for those ordered by desire towards the Church, these include not only catechumens,12
who, moved by the Spirit, consciously and explicitly desire to enter the Church, but also those who, even if not knowing that the Catholic Church is the true and sole Church of Christ, still, by God's grace, implicitly and unknowingly desire the equivalent,13
either because they sincerely will what Christ himself wills or because, though ignorant of Christ, they sincerely desire to fulfill the will of God their Creator. The gifts of heavenly grace will never be wanting to those who sincerely desire and ask to be renewed by the divine light."

God is just and does not condemn those who through no fault of their own do not know Christ or his Church. 
Title: Re: Traditional Groups the Reject BOD/BOB
Post by: Cantarella on July 24, 2018, 11:03:49 PM
Quote
To believe that no Protestant, Jєω, Moslem, Buddhist, or Hindu can receive baptism of desire or of blood is to believe a heresy called Feeneyism, which was condemned by the Holy Office under Pius XII and John XXIII. 
.


(http://traditionalcatholic.net/sede_vacante/BoD/IMG_1393.jpg)


None of this Catholic sources where speculative Baptism of Desire may appear are referring to Protestants, Jєωs, Moslems, Buddhist, or Hindus. All of them without exception are simply referring to the dying unfortunate catechumen (which already possesses the Faith of Christ and His Church; but dies desiring the water Baptism)

And Baptism of Blood is a completely different issue, which is basically martyrdom for the Faith of Christ and His Church.

Title: Re: Traditional Groups the Reject BOD/BOB
Post by: Neil Obstat on July 25, 2018, 12:17:08 AM

The Church has been infiltrated by Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ over the last two centuries and as Br. Francis Maluf wisely remarked in one of his meditations on the secret society, “We are the Church militant. That means that a war is on. How can a man be a soldier of Jesus Christ if he knows neither the enemy nor the issue.”

The 1789 French Declaration of the Rights of Man contains the following article: “No one may be disturbed for his opinions, even religious ones, provided that their manifestation does not trouble the public order established by the law.” Anyone who has spent even a minimal amount of time studying the French philosophes would know that when it came to religion, dogma is what they expressed a hatred for more than anything else. They hated the “bigotry” and “intolerance” that follows from Catholics believing with absolute certainty that the dogmas which the Church proposes as divinely revealed are infallibly true.

One of their principal aims has been to attempt to reduce religion in the minds of men to a matter of mere opinion. All who reject dogma as the rule of faith necessarily aid them in their conspiracy. The Freemasons hate dogma in general but there is, of course, a particular dogma of the faith that bothers them more than all the others: the dogma about which Jean-Jacques Rousseau wrote the following in The Social Contract, “But whoever dares to say: Outside the Church there is no salvation, ought to be driven from the State.”

.
Whenever the Freemasons conduct a ritual where they ridicule a Catholic pope, there is one Pope in particular they use, as if by default. And it seems their reason is not so much the person of this pope as it is what this particular Pope represents. For he is the one whose name (Pope Boniface VIII in Bull Unam Sanctam, 1302) is attached to the second of the 3 ex cathedra dogmatic definitions of EENS. 

Namely
“We declare, say, define, and pronounce 
that it is absolutely necessary 
for the salvation of every human creature 
to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”
.
.
Sedevacantists likewise find this fact rather inconvenient.
Title: Re: Traditional Groups the Reject BOD/BOB
Post by: Neil Obstat on July 25, 2018, 12:22:45 AM

(http://traditionalcatholic.net/sede_vacante/BoD/IMG_1393.jpg)


None of [these] Catholic sources where speculative Baptism of Desire may appear are referring to Protestants, Jєωs, Moslems, Buddhist, or Hindus. All of them without exception are simply referring to the dying unfortunate catechumen (which already possesses the Faith of Christ and His Church; but dies desiring the water Baptism)

And Baptism of Blood is a completely different issue, which is basically martyrdom for the Faith of Christ and His Church.
.
I have yet to see any convincing explanation that shows how anyone who dies as a Protestant, Jєω, Moslem, Buddhist, Hindu or whatever, can die subject to the Roman Pontiff.
Title: Re: Traditional Groups the Reject BOD/BOB
Post by: Cantarella on July 25, 2018, 12:52:54 AM
“We declare, say, define, and pronounce
that it is absolutely necessary
for the salvation of every human creature
to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”



In his work Contra Errores Graecorum (Against the Greeks), the Angelic Doctor has an exclusive chapter on this very point:

St Thomas said in Chapter 38:

Quote
Quod subesse Romano pontifici sit de necessitate salutisCHAPTER 38
That to be subject to the Roman Pontiff is necessary for salvation.
Ostenditur etiam quod subesse Romano pontifici sit de necessitate salutis. Dicit enim Cyrillus in libro thesaurorum: itaque, fratres mei, sic Christum imitamur, ut ipsius oves vocem eius audiamus, manentes in Ecclesia Petri, et non inflemur vento superbiae, ne forte tortuosus serpens propter nostram contentionem nos eiiciat, ut Evam olim de Paradiso. Et Maximus in epistola Orientalibus directa dicit: coadunatam et fundatam super petram confessionis Petri dicimus universalem Ecclesiam secundum definitionem salvatoris, in qua necessario salutis animarum nostrum est manere, et ei est obedire, suam servantes fidem et confessionem.It is also shown that to be subject to the Roman Pontiff is necessary for salvation. For Cyril says in his Thesaurus: “Therefore, brethren, if you imitate Christ so as to hear his voice remaining in the Church of Peter and so as not be puffed up by the wind of pride, lest perhaps because of our quarrelling the wily serpent drive us from paradise as once he did Eve.” (https://dhspriory.org/thomas/footnoteicon.gif) And Maximus in the letter addressed to the Orientals says: “The Church united and established upon the rock of Peter’s confession we call according to the decree of the Savior the universal Church, wherein we must remain for the salvation of our souls and wherein loyal to his faith and confession we must obey him.” (https://dhspriory.org/thomas/footnoteicon.gif)

Title: Re: Traditional Groups the Reject BOD/BOB
Post by: Neil Obstat on July 25, 2018, 01:12:31 AM
.
Cantarella, you're referring to things written by saints in previous centuries.

The dogma to which I refer was given ex cathedra definition in A.D. 1302, while St. Thomas had died a quarter century before that. 
.
If he had lived after 1302, who knows what he would have written? Certainly he would have subjected himself and everything he wrote to the authority of the Pope. He also denied the Immaculate Conception, but that would not be defined until 1854, 6 centuries later. 
.
St. Thomas Aquinas had a vision in which he was so terrified of what he had written in his Summa Theologiae, that when he awoke he commanded his servant to burn his books in the fireplace. His servant, however, disobeyed, and therefore we have the Summa today.
.
So even the Angelic Doctor recognized his personal fallibility, and was willing to give up all his years of laborious study and authorship for the sake of doctrinal purity. 
Title: Re: Traditional Groups the Reject BOD/BOB
Post by: Neil Obstat on July 25, 2018, 01:12:57 AM
Correct.  St. Alphonsus is using the term implicit narrowly.

Explicit Desire for Baptism:  "I intend to be baptized." (note that votum is much more than a "desire" but is always loosely translated as such).
Implicit Desire for Baptism:  "I want to become a Catholic." (intention to be baptized implicit in the intention to become Catholic)

Now the modern heretics go, several steps removed, all the way down the line to ...
Implicit Desire:  "I want to be a good person and do what God wants."
.
It seems to be a bit deeper than this. Modernists today go all the way down to ...
Implicit Desire: "I have a vague longing for something good, and have an ambiguous hankering to do what some higher power, or the Great Architect of the Universe, would have me do, that is, if she exists."
.
In a YouTube video conference +W testifies that when ABL first arrived at a remote village in Africa, where the Catholic Faith had never been preached, he did not find the 6th and 9th Commandments to be prominent sins. Rather, he said, the most rampant problem was the sin of hate. He said that nearly everyone in the village confessed having a practically uncontrollable and abiding hatred for something or someone else in the village.
.
He (+W in the video) didn't take it to its logical conclusion, but I don't mind doing that. I ask:
How can anyone, who has habitually practiced abiding hate for his neighbor while living in a culture where this hatred is the norm not the exception, and has never heard of the Catholic Faith, die while making a perfect act of contrition, which requires the virtue of perfect charity?
.
Baptism of desire presumes perfect charity, thereby perfect contrition, whereby justification without water baptism.
Title: Re: Traditional Groups the Reject BOD/BOB
Post by: Cantarella on July 25, 2018, 11:31:59 AM
.
Cantarella, you're referring to things written by saints in previous centuries.

The dogma to which I refer was given ex cathedra definition in A.D. 1302, while St. Thomas had died a quarter century before that.
.
If he had lived after 1302, who knows what he would have written? Certainly he would have subjected himself and everything he wrote to the authority of the Pope. He also denied the Immaculate Conception, but that would not be defined until 1854, 6 centuries later.
.
St. Thomas Aquinas had a vision in which he was so terrified of what he had written in his Summa Theologiae, that when he awoke he commanded his servant to burn his books in the fireplace. His servant, however, disobeyed, and therefore we have the Summa today.
.
So even the Angelic Doctor recognized his personal fallibility, and was willing to give up all his years of laborious study and authorship for the sake of doctrinal purity.

That just means that the teaching existed previously, even before the dogmatic definition. Otherwise St. Thomas would not have written a chapter about it. The ex-cathedra Papal definition confirms that St. Thomas was correct on this point (subjection to the Pope of Rome necessary for salvation).

And the fact that he is writing against the Greeks (who undoubtedly have the Faith in Christ -at least the minimum truths necessary for salvation- and also, valid sacraments) means something.
Title: Re: Traditional Groups the Reject BOD/BOB
Post by: Ladislaus on July 25, 2018, 11:53:28 AM
.
I have yet to see any convincing explanation that shows how anyone who dies as a Protestant, Jєω, Moslem, Buddhist, Hindu or whatever, can die subject to the Roman Pontiff.

Of course not.  They would use the broad definition of "implicit".

By trying to be a good person and wanting to follow the will of God, they implicitly want to do anything that God would hypothetical command and therefore would be subject to the Roman Pontiff if they were to become enlightened that God wills this.
Title: Re: Traditional Groups the Reject BOD/BOB
Post by: Last Tradhican on July 25, 2018, 12:51:40 PM
from: https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/dogmatic-decrees-we-will-interpret-them-to-our-desires/

Here are excerpts from some dogmas on EENS and how they are responded to (in red) by those who teach that Jєωs, Mohamedans, Hindus, Buddhists, indeed person in all false religions, can be saved by their belief in a god the rewards. Enjoy.


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 Jєωs or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire ..and that nobody can be saved, … even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ[/b], unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.” (pagans and Jєωs can be saved by their belief in a god that rewards, thus they are in the Church. They can’t be saved even if they shed their blood for Christ, but they can be saved by a belief in a god that rewards.)



Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, Constitution 1, 1215, ex cathedra: “There is indeed one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which nobody at all is saved, …(Persons in all false religions can be part of the faithful by their belief in a God that rewards)

Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, Nov. 18, 1302, ex cathedra:
“… this Church outside of which there is no salvation nor remission of sin… Furthermore, … every human creature that they by absolute necessity for salvation are entirely subject to the Roman Pontiff.” (Persons in all false religions by their belief in a God that rewards are inside the Church, so they can have remission of sin. They do not have to be subject to the Roman Pontiff because they do not even know that they have to be baptized Catholics, why further complicate things for them with submission to the pope?)

Pope Clement V, Council of Vienne, Decree # 30, 1311-1312, ex cathedra:
“… one universal Church, outside of which there is no salvation, for all of whom there is one Lord, one faith, and one baptism…” (one lord, one faith by their belief in a God that rewards, and one invisible baptism by, you guessed it,  their belief in a god that rewards)

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Sess. 8, Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra:
“Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic faith; unless each one preserves this whole and inviolate, he will without a doubt perish in eternity.” ( the Catholic faith is belief in a God that rewards)

Pope Leo X, Fifth Lateran Council, Session 11, Dec. 19, 1516, ex cathedra:
“For, regulars and seculars, prelates and subjects, exempt and non-exempt, belong to the one universal Church, outside of which no one at all is saved, and they all have one Lord and one faith.” ( Just pick a few from the above excuses, from here on it’s a cake walk, just create your own burger with the above ingredients. You’ll be an expert at it in no time.)

Pope Pius IV, Council of Trent, Iniunctum nobis, Nov. 13, 1565, ex cathedra: “This true Catholic faith, outside of which no one can be saved… I now profess and truly hold…”

Pope Benedict XIV, Nuper ad nos, March 16, 1743, Profession of Faith: “This faith of the Catholic Church, without which no one can be saved, and which of my own accord I now profess and truly hold…”

Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, Session 2, Profession of Faith, 1870, ex cathedra: “This true Catholic faith, outside of which none can be saved, which I now freely profess and truly hold…”

Council of Trent, Session VI  (Jan. 13, 1547)
Decree on Justification,
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 (John 3:5). (this means you do not need to be baptized or have a desire to be baptized. You can be baptized invisible by desire or no desire, you can call no desire implicit desire, you can also receive water baptism with no desire, no, wait a minute that does not go in both directions, it only works for desire or if you have no desire at all. Come to think of it, just forget about all of it, persons in false religions can be justified by their belief in a god that rewards.)

Chapter VII.

What the justification of the impious is, and what are the causes thereof.

This disposition, or preparation, is followed by Justification itself, which is not remission of sins merely, but also the sanctification and renewal of the inward man, through the voluntary reception of the grace, and of the gifts, whereby man of unjust becomes just, and of an enemy a friend, that so he may be an heir according to hope of life everlasting.

Of this Justification the causes are these: the final cause indeed is the glory of God and of Jesus Christ, and life everlasting; while the efficient cause is a merciful God who washes and sanctifies gratuitously, signing, and anointing with the holy Spirit of promise, who is the pledge of our inheritance; but the meritorious cause is His most beloved only-begotten, our Lord Jesus Christ, who, when we were enemies, for the exceeding charity wherewith he loved us, merited Justification for us by His most holy Passion on the wood of the cross, and made satisfaction for us unto God the Father; the instrumental cause is the sacrament of baptism, which is the sacrament of faith, without which no man was ever justified;(except all persons in false religions, they can be justified by their belief in a god that rewards)



Pope Eugene IV, The Council of Florence, “Exultate Deo,” Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra:  “Holy baptism, which is the gateway to the spiritual life, holds the first place among all the sacraments; through it we are made members of Christ and of the body of the Church.  And since death entered the universe through the first man, ‘unless we are born again of water and the Spirit, we cannot,’ as the Truth says, ‘enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:5].  The matter of this sacrament is real and natural water.” (Just ignore that language, all persons in false religions can be justified by their belief in a god that rewards)



Council of Trent. Seventh Session. March, 1547. Decree on the Sacraments.
On Baptism

Canon 2. 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, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God (John 3:5), are distorted into some metaphor: let him be anathema.( any persons in false religions can be invisible baptized and justified by their belief in a god that rewards)


Canon 5. If any one saith, that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema (the pope is also speaking here of the invisible baptism of persons in false religions that are baptized and justified by their belief in a god that rewards)


Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis (# 22), June 29, 1943: “Actually only those are to be numbered among the members of the Church who have received the laver of regeneration and profess the true faith.”( the laver of regeneration can be had invisible and the true faith is  belief in a god that rewards)

Pope Pius XII, Mediator Dei (# 43), Nov. 20, 1947: “In the same
way, actually that baptism is the distinctive mark of all
Christians, and serves to differentiate them from those who
have not been cleansed in this purifying stream and
consequently are not members of Christ

orders sets the priest apart from the rest of the faithful who
have not received this consecration.” ( person who believe in a god that rewards do not need the mark, but they are in the Church. Somehow)


(Oh, I forgot, no one mentions it anymore, it is now out of fashion, so I did not include it above, invincible ignorance. If you are old fashioned, just throw in a few invinble ignorants up there with the rest of the ingredients)[/size][/size][/color]


(https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/dogmatic-decrees-we-will-interpret-them-to-our-desires/?action=reporttm;msg=561687)


Title: Re: Traditional Groups the Reject BOD/BOB
Post by: Last Tradhican on July 25, 2018, 12:53:56 PM
It is all quite comical when a few of  the dogmas they ignore are lined up with their thinking.
Title: Re: Traditional Groups the Reject BOD/BOB
Post by: Last Tradhican on July 25, 2018, 01:01:22 PM
deleted