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

« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 13

Author Topic: Traditional Groups the Reject BOD/BOB  (Read 11932 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline TKGS

Traditional Groups the Reject BOD/BOB
« 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.
Logged

Offline tdrev123

Re: Traditional Groups the Reject BOD/BOB
« Reply #1 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 
Logged

Offline MarylandTrad

Re: Traditional Groups the Reject BOD/BOB
« Reply #2 on: July 14, 2018, 07:44:48 PM »
Quote from: 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.


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, Jews, 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 Jews 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.)
Logged

Offline MarylandTrad

Re: Traditional Groups the Reject BOD/BOB
« Reply #3 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.


Logged

Offline TKGS

Re: Traditional Groups the Reject BOD/BOB
« Reply #4 on: July 14, 2018, 08:49:35 PM »
Quote from: MarylandTrad on July 14, 2018, 07:44:48 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.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 13
« previous next »