Author Topic: Unam Sanctam  (Read 5107 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Lastdays

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 239
  • Reputation: +39/-54
  • Gender: Male
Re: Unam Sanctam
« Reply #15 on: March 20, 2017, 09:15:00 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!2
  • That there is a contradiction between sacramental baptism and a BOD is undeniable.

    There is no contradiction. There is only a contradiction if you ADD the word "ABSOLUTELY" to the word "necessary" when it comes to receiving water baptism without exception. The Church distinguishes, between absolute necessity, necessity of means and precept.
    Here would be two common examples:

    Catholic Church doctrine: If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism and thus twists into some metaphor the 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 heaven,” let him be anathema. [Canon 2 of the Canons on Baptism, 7th Session, Sacrament of Baptism.
    Feeneyite doctrine: If anyone says that true and natural water is not absolutely necessary for baptism and thus twists into some metaphor the 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 heaven,” let him be anathema. [Canon 2 of the Canons on Baptism, 7th Session, Sacrament of Baptism.

    Catholic Church doctrine: If any one saith, that baptism is free, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema.
    Feeneyite doctrine: If any one saith, that baptism is free, that is, not absolutely necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema.

    Quote
    Whatever Ott says, Trent teaches that in case of emergency, baptism must not be delayed, that anyone can baptize and must baptize immediately, that even a heretic can validly baptize.

    No contradiction here. According to certain Fenneyites there is no such thing as an emergency! If a Catholic does not baptize another in case of emergency, he was not deserving of it anyway (according to God). Why the does St. Pope Siricius say, in his Letter to Himerius, 385:
     
    "As we maintain that the observance of the holy Paschal time should in no way be relaxed, in the same way we desire that infants who, on account of their age, cannot yet speak, or those who, in any necessity, are in want of the water of holy baptism, be succored with all possible speed, for fear that, if those who leave this world should be deprived of the life of the Kingdom for having been refused the source of salvation which they desired, this may lead to the ruin of our souls.

    This may lead to the ruin of their souls?!? Why? The person wasn't deserving of water anyway according to you "if they were refused the source of salvation which they desired". The fact is the person was deserving of water and didn't get it due to there delay in administering the sacrament. God would have made sure they got there in time according to you. So, you say God is the one who provides the sacrament, yet St. Pope Siricius says God punishes those who do not administer it in time. This indeed is contradictory.


    Quote
    Why does Ott not echo Trent? Why do people accept Ott as if he is the Church while they completely ignore the infallible teachings of Trent, which certainly is the Church?  

    Ott is not the Church. Yet in this case he teaches what the Church does. Actually, it is you who ignore the infallible teachings of Trent.

    Council of Trent (16th century): Decree on Justification, Session VI, Chapter 4: "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."
     
     Session VII, Concerning the Sacraments in General, Canon 4 (Denz 847): "If anyone shall say that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation, but are superfluous, and that, although all are not necessary for every individual, without them or without the desire of them, through faith alone men obtain from God the grace of justification; let him be anathema.

    You are doing with Trent, what protestants do with Scripture. You are PROOF TEXTING the Council and IGNORING the teachings that do not fit with your own views. Catholics reconcile teachings, protestants proof text. Learn about the Church teachings of absolute necessity, necessity of means and necessity of precept any you won't be so confused.
     
     
    Quote
    Why do people think God will let a sincere catechumen die before He provides the water and the minister? There is no accident unforeseen to God and if it takes a miracle to get the catechumen baptized, so what? - what is a miracle to God? - nothing at all.

    First and foremost because the Church teaches that there can be unforeseen accidents. There would be no need for baptism of desire if there were no emergencies or unforeseen accidents.  A Sainted Pope also said that he could lose his soul if he does not administer the sacrament in time to "those in any necessity". As for certain miracles in which God provides water, I must say that Fenneyites accept these stories without question, but when the Church says a certain Catechumen who dies before they receive water "is a Saint", the Feeneyites get up in arms, how that tradition is untrue and they actually received water baptism before they died. You can't have it both ways. God may have provided the water miraculously in some cases, to show the importance of water baptism.  St. Pope Siricius does not say, however, that he shouldn't be concerned about an emergency, and God will miraculously provide water does he? No he says he could lose his soul. To say water is necessary and important is one thing. To say water is absolutely necessary is another.
     


    Quote
    I have never seen the necessity of being subject to the pope as any requirement in any definition of a BOD - this obligation never even receives an honorable mention in any definition of a BOD.

    I've also never seen anything said that the water baptized are all subject to the Roman Pontiff without question. You are confused because you misinterpret the word "subject". Fenneyites interpret it as "being one of the Roman Pontiff's "subjects" proper. Like a king's "subject". The dogma says, that one must subject himself to the Roman Pontiff. It is an act of the persons will. You say you have not seen that requirement, because heretics have perverted the true meaning of baptism of desire so as to say one can be saved in any faith whatsoever without even explicit belief in the Trinity and the Incarnation and a desire to be Roman Catholic. Of course one would not have to be subject to the Roman Pontiff if this were actually the case.
     

    Offline Lastdays

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 239
    • Reputation: +39/-54
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Unam Sanctam
    « Reply #16 on: March 20, 2017, 09:18:38 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • About the large font in the last post. I ran out of time and was automatically logged out. I had to copy my post and log back in. I pasted my post back in and previewed. The font did not look big in the preview.


    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 11645
    • Reputation: +6151/-875
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Unam Sanctam
    « Reply #17 on: March 20, 2017, 09:31:16 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Actually it is absolute. Dr Ludwig Ott in Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma says it is De Fide that all men without exception are obligated to receive water baptism.

    Now, people try to make exceptions to this dogma.
    Absolutey right.  There are NO EXCEPTIONS.  That's why, if I believed in BoD, I would state that those who are saved in this manner are not saved "without" the Sacrament of Baptism (as many BoDers heretically state) but, rather, they receive the Sacrament in voto.  After Trent, theologians who believed in BoD were very careful to put it precisely like this.  Anything else would be to undermine the dogma that the Sacrament is necessary for salvation.  Most modern BoDers make no attempt to uphold this dogma, reducing the Sacraments to an "ordinary means" for salvation and a "great help".  I've heard the clowns on Catholic Answers use those exact phrases.  This is heretical, and most modern Trad BoDers make the same error.
    So, again, if I believed in BoD, I would be very careful to say that such people receive the Sacrament in voto and never that they are saved without Baptism or by some "substitute" for Baptism or other such heretically-savoring nonsense.  People saved by BoD receive Baptism in voto, and Baptism remains the instrumental cause of justification even in the case of BoD ... thereby upholding the dogma that Baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation.  In addition, we make it clear that it is not the desire that justifies ex opere operantis but it's the Sacrament, operating THROUGH the desire, that justifies ... thereby excluding any hint of Pelagianism.

    I have offered this olive branch to many of the rabid BoDers, telling them that if they formulated their BoD position like this, I would drop any real opposition to them.

    In addition, one can find little or no support for BoD applying to anyone other than catechumens.  As Karl Rahner points out, catechumens were considered in some way to already be formally within the Church.  They could be identified as almost formally belonging to the visible society known as the Church.  They were allowed to be called Christian, participated in part of the Divine Liturgy, were made catechumens by a formal ceremony where they were signed with the sign of the cross.  Church Fathers were always speaking about catechumens, 1917 Code of Canon Law refers only to formal catechumens, St. Robert Bellarmine allowed for BoD for catechumens only because they were somehow partly in the Church (imperfect membership), etc.

    This crap where all manner of non-Catholics are actually within the Church is heretical.  Period.

    But this is the game that these BoDers play.  Quote St. Robert Bellarmine, quote a Church Father, quote Pope Innocent II/III, quote the 1917 Code of Canon Law ... all of them referring to catechumens who professed the Catholic faith (one of the requirements for membership of the visible society that is the Church).  Then use these vague extended notions of "implicit" BoD to get all kinds of non-Catholics in the Church under the same umbrella.  But then when you call them on it, they scurry back to these other BoD quotes (about catechumens) for cover. When the coast is clear, they come crawling back out promoting the salvation of non-Catholics.  So they play this bait-and-switch game ... wherein they pretend that quotes in favor of classical/Thomistic BoD somehow support their various heretical denials of EENS and the salvation of non-Catholics.

    Catechumens are non-members or non-Catholics secundum quid only, but these BoDers want non-Catholics simpliciter in the Church.

    Offline Stubborn

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 7883
    • Reputation: +2892/-449
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Unam Sanctam
    « Reply #18 on: March 20, 2017, 02:21:33 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • There is no contradiction. There is only a contradiction if you ADD the word "ABSOLUTELY" to the word "necessary" when it comes to receiving water baptism without exception. The Church distinguishes, between absolute necessity, necessity of means and precept.
    Here would be two common examples:
    No, there IS a contradiction because Scripture and Trent both say there is only one baptism and that unless a man  is baptized, he cannot enter the kingdom of heaven. This is what the Church teaches. 

    If there is no contradiction, then you should be able to use John 3:5 to support a BOD, so have at it.





    Do not be afraid to abandon yourself unreservedly to His loving Providence, for a child cannot perish in the arms of a Father Who is omnipotent.

    St. Margaret Mary Alacoque

    Offline Lastdays

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 239
    • Reputation: +39/-54
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Unam Sanctam
    « Reply #19 on: March 20, 2017, 03:04:10 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • No, there IS a contradiction because Scripture and Trent both say there is only one baptism and that unless a man  is baptized, he cannot enter the kingdom of heaven. This is what the Church teaches.  

    If there is no contradiction, then you should be able to use John 3:5 to support a BOD, so have at it.
    Stubborn, do you believe in one God yet admit to three Persons? Why then can't you admit to one Baptism and three distinct modes of receiving it?  

    Did not Chirst say that He had a baptism to undergo (speaking of His death)? Was he about to receive water in this instance (according to you)? Proof texting Bible verses and Councils are exactly what PROTESTANTS do. You can't take one verse or sentence in a vacuum and make a doctrine out of it. Augustine says...

    City of God, Book XIII, Chapter 7: "Of the Death Which the Unbaptized Suffer for the Confession of Christ: For whatever unbaptized persons die confessing Christ, this confession is of the same efficacy for the remission of sins as if they were washed in the sacred font of baptism. For He who said, "Unless a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God," John 3:5 made also an exception in their favor, in that other sentence where He no less absolutely said, "Whosoever shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven;" Matthew 10:32 and in another place, "Whosoever will lose his life for my sake, shall find it." Matthew 16:25"


    Offline Stubborn

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 7883
    • Reputation: +2892/-449
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Unam Sanctam
    « Reply #20 on: March 20, 2017, 03:51:45 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Stubborn, do you believe in one God yet admit to three Persons? Why then can't you admit to one Baptism and three distinct modes of receiving it?  
    Lastdays, did you not understand what I asked?
    I will make another attempt -  please use John 3:5 which I posted below for your convenience, to support a BOD.


    Jesus answered and said to him: Amen, amen, I say to thee, unless a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

    Haydock Commentary:
    Ver. 5. Unless a man be born again of water, and the Holy Ghost. Though the word Holy be now wanting in all Greek copies, it is certainly the sense. The ancient Fathers, and particularly St. Augustine in divers places, from these words, prove the necessity of giving baptism to infants: and by Christ's adding water, is excluded a metaphorical baptism. See also Acts viii. 36. and x. 47. and Titus iii. 5. (Witham) --- Except a man be born again. That is, unless you are born again by a spiritual regeneration in God, all the knowledge which you learn from me, will not be spiritual but carnal. But I say to you, that neither you nor any other person, unless you be born again in God, can understand or conceive the glory which is in me. (St. Chrysostom)
    Do not be afraid to abandon yourself unreservedly to His loving Providence, for a child cannot perish in the arms of a Father Who is omnipotent.

    St. Margaret Mary Alacoque

    Offline Lastdays

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 239
    • Reputation: +39/-54
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Unam Sanctam
    « Reply #21 on: March 20, 2017, 04:22:43 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Lastdays, did you not understand what I asked?
    I will make another attempt -  please use John 3:5 which I posted below for your convenience, to support a BOD.


    Jesus answered and said to him: Amen, amen, I say to thee, unless a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

    Haydock Commentary:
    Ver. 5. Unless a man be born again of water, and the Holy Ghost. Though the word Holy be now wanting in all Greek copies, it is certainly the sense. The ancient Fathers, and particularly St. Augustine in divers places, from these words, prove the necessity of giving baptism to infants: and by Christ's adding water, is excluded a metaphorical baptism. See also Acts viii. 36. and x. 47. and Titus iii. 5. (Witham) --- Except a man be born again. That is, unless you are born again by a spiritual regeneration in God, all the knowledge which you learn from me, will not be spiritual but carnal. But I say to you, that neither you nor any other person, unless you be born again in God, can understand or conceive the glory which is in me. (St. Chrysostom)
    Did you even read my reply? Did you read Augustine? Either you didn't read or you didn't understand, so let me say it again.

    The Catholic Church does not base it's doctrine regarding baptism of desire on John 3:5 alone. YOU DO. You are telling me to be a protestant, which I do not wish to be. I understood perfectly what you asked. As to your example...

    Haydock says metaphorical baptisms are excluded. This does not refute baptism of desire. I also believe that water means true and natural water. I just believe that one can desire that same water and achieve salvation provided he desires to be Catholic and explicitly believes in the Trinity and Incarnation. He must also make an act of perfect contrition. This is the teaching of the Church imho. Your example above also relates to infants. The Catholic teaching on Baptism of Desire does not apply to infants. Infants cannot be saved by desire of the sacrament (because they are not capable of properly desiring it). In fact your example actually proves baptism of desire. For Haydock does not say that John 3:5 proves the necessity of water to all men; rather, just to infants.  

    Offline Stubborn

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 7883
    • Reputation: +2892/-449
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Unam Sanctam
    « Reply #22 on: March 20, 2017, 06:06:35 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Did you even read my reply? Did you read Augustine? Either you didn't read or you didn't understand, so let me say it again.
    I read your reply, you make the words of our Lord say what they do not say anywhere and mean what they do not mean - all in an effort to support a BOD.

    Our Lord said "unless A MAN is born again of water...." yet you say the Haydock says He means infants. Where do you come up with this stuff?

    Epic fail. What else can possibly be said except Epic fail?

    And you choose to bring St. Augustine into this - well, here is St. Augustine's final word on the matter:
    From St. Augustine's book: "Retractions" - 400: Or how can they fail to be saved by water… the same unity of the ark saved them, in which no one has been saved except by water. For Cyprian himself says, The Lord is able of His mercy to grant pardon, and not to sever from the gifts of His Church those who, being in all simplicity admitted to the Church, have fallen asleep within her pale.‘ If not by water, how in the ark? If not in the ark, how in the Church? But if in the Church, certainly in the ark; and if in the ark, certainly by water. …nor can they be said to have been otherwise saved in the ark except by water.

    St. Augustine, 416: How many rascals are saved by being baptized on their deathbeds? And how many sincere catechumens die unbaptized, and are thus lost forever! ...When we shall have come into the sight of God, we shall behold the equity of His justice. At that time, no one will say: Why did He help this one and not that one? Why was this man led by God‘s direction to be baptized, while that man, though he lived properly as a catechumen, was killed in a sudden disaster and not baptized? Look for rewards, and you will find nothing but punishments! …For of what use would repentance be, even before Baptism, if Baptism did not follow? ...No matter what progress a catechumen may make, he still carries the burden of iniquity, and it is not taken away until he has been baptized.
    Do not be afraid to abandon yourself unreservedly to His loving Providence, for a child cannot perish in the arms of a Father Who is omnipotent.

    St. Margaret Mary Alacoque


    Offline Lastdays

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 239
    • Reputation: +39/-54
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Unam Sanctam
    « Reply #23 on: March 20, 2017, 06:28:39 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I read your reply, you make the words of our Lord say what they do not say anywhere and mean what they do not mean - all in an effort to support a BOD.

    Our Lord said "unless A MAN is born again of water...." yet you say the Haydock says He means infants. Where do you come up with this stuff?

    Epic fail. What else can possibly be said except Epic fail?
    What does the underlined sentence say in the commentary you provided (below) to support your erroneous position Stubborn? What does that big red word say Stubborn? Are you that blind?? Anyone can go back and read this. You posted...

    Quote
    Haydock Commentary:
    Ver. 5. Unless a man be born again of water, and the Holy Ghost. Though the word Holy be now wanting in all Greek copies, it is certainly the sense. The ancient Fathers, and particularly St. Augustine in divers places, from these words, prove the necessity of giving baptism to infants: and by Christ's adding water, is excluded a metaphorical baptism. See also Acts viii. 36. and x. 47. and Titus iii. 5. (Witham) --- Except a man be born again. That is, unless you are born again by a spiritual regeneration in God, all the knowledge which you learn from me, will not be spiritual but carnal. But I say to you, that neither you nor any other person, unless you be born again in God, can understand or conceive the glory which is in me. (St. Chrysostom)



    Quote
    And you choose to bring St. Augustine into this - well, here is St. Augustine's final word on the matter:
    From St. Augustine's book: "Retractions" - 400: Or how can they fail to be saved by water… the same unity of the ark saved them, in which no one has been saved except by water. For Cyprian himself says, The Lord is able of His mercy to grant pardon, and not to sever from the gifts of His Church those who, being in all simplicity admitted to the Church, have fallen asleep within her pale.‘ If not by water, how in the ark? If not in the ark, how in the Church? But if in the Church, certainly in the ark; and if in the ark, certainly by water. …nor can they be said to have been otherwise saved in the ark except by water.

    St. Augustine, 416: How many rascals are saved by being baptized on their deathbeds? And how many sincere catechumens die unbaptized, and are thus lost forever! ...When we shall have come into the sight of God, we shall behold the equity of His justice. At that time, no one will say: Why did He help this one and not that one? Why was this man led by God‘s direction to be baptized, while that man, though he lived properly as a catechumen, was killed in a sudden disaster and not baptized? Look for rewards, and you will find nothing but punishments! …For of what use would repentance be, even before Baptism, if Baptism did not follow? ...No matter what progress a catechumen may make, he still carries the burden of iniquity, and it is not taken away until he has been baptized.

    I chose to bring Augustine into this because he showed in the example I provided, how a Catholic interprets Scripture. He used multiple verses in that example Stubborn (not just John 3:5). I was telling you not to proof text like a protestant. I do not by any means believe any individual is infallible accept the Pope under certain circumstances. I don't believe Augustine's first, middle or final words are infallible. I believe in baptism of Blood, Water and Desire (One Baptism and three modes of reception) because it taught by the Church both in her universal ordinary and extraordinary magisterium (Trent). Both are infallible.

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 11645
    • Reputation: +6151/-875
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Unam Sanctam
    « Reply #24 on: March 20, 2017, 06:49:33 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Why then can't you admit to one Baptism and three distinct modes of receiving it?  
    When phrased like this, that there are different modes of receiving Baptism, it's within the realm of plausible Catholic speculation.  I don't believe in it because I find no evidence for it other than speculation.  More Church Fathers rejected it than accepted it, and I follow the thinking and reasoning of St. Augustine when he rejected BoD toward the end of his life.  There's simply no reason for it.  God can EASILY (as in it would be completely trivial for Him) arrange so that any of His elect can receive the Sacrament; He has no need for BoD or BoB.

    Indeed, however, it's not only the teaching of Trent but of all subsequent theologians that the Sacrament of Baptism is ABSOLUTELY necessary for salvation.  Post-Tridentine BoD theorists were careful to state that people would receive Baptism in voto and not that they were saved without it ... to avoid undermining Trent's teaching and also to avoid a slide into Pelagianism and Protestant invisible Church ecclesiology.

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 11645
    • Reputation: +6151/-875
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Unam Sanctam
    « Reply #25 on: March 20, 2017, 06:51:09 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I believe in baptism of Blood, Water and Desire (One Baptism and three modes of reception) because it taught by the Church both in her universal ordinary and extraordinary magisterium (Trent).
    No, no it's not.  That's where you're mistaken.


    Offline BumphreyHogart

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 689
    • Reputation: +217/-643
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Unam Sanctam
    « Reply #26 on: March 20, 2017, 06:54:08 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Laszlo, when canon law imposes upon the clergy to say Mass for the soul a catechumen, that not the opinion of the Church, that a solid belief officially recognized. But you wish to choose the opinions previous that were not even magisterial.
    "there can be no holiness where there is disagreement with the pope" - Pope St. Pius X

    Today, only Catholics holding the sedevacantist position are free from the anguish entailed by this truth.

    Offline Gregory I

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1544
    • Reputation: +657/-102
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Unam Sanctam
    « Reply #27 on: March 20, 2017, 07:03:48 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • No, no it's not.  That's where you're mistaken.
    Correct. The scholastics teach one sacrament of baptism which justifies and gives sacramental graces.
    Now theoretically BoD and BoB do not replace the sacrament of baptism, but they convey justification.
    But even here this is murky, because what they convey is not the grace of baptism and all it's effects, but sanctifying grace and some of the effects.
    For example, even though a person hypothetically dying in a state of BoD and BoB is justified, they do not possess the baptismal character which is an accidental quality of the soul fitting it to be receptive of those things that pertain to divine worship.
    It is generally conceded a person dying by BoB goes straight to heaven (Though some fathers deny this) and yet those who die in BoD do not, they would go to purgatory to expiate the temporal punishment due to sin, according to both  St. Thomas and St. Alphonsus.
    This is interesting because there seems to be a screw loose here- BoD is supposed to convey the grace of baptism, but it does not remit the temporal punishment due to sin. This makes it similar in its effect to the sacrament of penance, which also does not remit the penalty due to sin, but only the guilt of sin.
    Interestingly enough though, the sacrament of penance is not opened to the unbaptized. So there seems to be a disconnect between what God is willing to accomplish in the body of the Church Militant regarding one who is unbaptized, and what God is willing to do in relation to the Church triumphant in regard to the unbaptized.
    Since the mystical body of Christ is one, and all three "Churches" interpentrate one another, in the practical order would you not expect God to act in a unified and non-contradictory fashion regarding who can pass from one sphere of the Church to the next?
    'Take care not to resemble the multitude whose knowledge of God's will only condemns them to more severe punishment.'

    -St. John of Avila

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 11645
    • Reputation: +6151/-875
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Unam Sanctam
    « Reply #28 on: March 20, 2017, 07:08:15 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Laszlo, when canon law imposes upon the clergy to say Mass for the soul a catechumen, that not the opinion of the Church, that a solid belief officially recognized. But you wish to choose the opinions previous that were not even magisterial.
    Nado, Church Law USED to have the opposite practice.

    Nado, what part of "Catechumen" don't you understand?  You pretend that this gives support to your evil notion that non-Catholics (those who do not profess the Catholic faith) can be saved.

    Nado, your feeble mind fails to comprehend that a Funeral Mass does not mean that someone has been saved but only that it's POSSIBLE they were saved ... which simply means that this leaves the question open ... which it is, since the Church has not formally condemned the possibility of BoD.

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 11645
    • Reputation: +6151/-875
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Unam Sanctam
    « Reply #29 on: March 20, 2017, 07:11:29 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Another interesting point is that if, as the BoDers claim, Trent teaches BoD, then there's actually no such thing as BoB (as distinct from BoD).  BoB reduces to BoD.  So all this talk of BoB by various theologians of being somehow different, of having a quasi-ex-opere-operato effect so that it would be effective even for infants ... it all goes by the wayside.  In fact, however, Trent is teaching that BOTH the Sacrament and the votum are necessary for salvation (cf. the canons which condemn the denial of each of these).

     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16