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

Author Topic: What exactly does implicit faith means?  (Read 5644 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Isaac Jogues

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 95
  • Reputation: +69/-0
  • Gender: Male
What exactly does implicit faith means?
« Reply #60 on: July 25, 2013, 01:37:48 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote
    Lover of Truth:

    There are 3 forms of the one baptism.  That is the infallible teaching of the magisterium.  It in no way contradicts no salvation outside the Church.


    There is only one Baptism and one form of it: The Sacrament of Baptism celebrated in Water.

    Pope Clement V, Council of Vienne, 1311-1312, ex cathedra:  “Besides, one baptism which regenerates all who are baptized in Christ must be faithfully confessed by all just as ‘one God and one faith’ [Eph. 4:5], which celebrated in water in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit we believe to be commonly the perfect remedy for salvation for adults as for children.”

    This ONE Baptism is celebrated in Water, not blood or desire only.



    Quote
    Lover of Truth:
    Does water cleans the soul of Original Sin or God?


    God does, through His sacrament celebrated with water.

    Quote
    Lover of Truth:
    Again those aware of the precept that one must be baptized with water in order to have Original Sin removed but refuse to do so are damned.  But even you admit that those who are inculpably ignorant are not condemned for ignorance (but you suggested that they all have some other mortal sin they are guilty of, are you back-tracking from that now?


    This is ridiculous. If this were true, it would be a disservice to tell people they have to be Baptized to be saved. If they heard this and then refused, they are damned. If you told them nothing, they can still be saved because they are not aware of it.

    Quote
    Lover of Truth:
    Does God condemn one not culpable of mortal sin for a sin they are not culpable of?  The answer is yes or no.


    If they are inside the Church (Baptized)- No, because what you are saying is not a sin at all. Someone not to blame for a sin they are not to be blamed for. Really?
    If they are outside the Church -Yes, because they are in original sin.
    Ecclesiasticus 5:8-9 "8 Delay not to be converted to the Lord, and defer it not from day to day.
    9 For his wrath shall come on a sudden, and in the time of vengeance he will destroy thee."

    Offline Lover of Truth

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 8700
    • Reputation: +1159/-864
    • Gender: Male
    What exactly does implicit faith means?
    « Reply #61 on: July 25, 2013, 01:39:16 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Jehanne
    We (I) only assert this:

    Quote
    The omnipotent One and Triune God is at least capable of bringing sacramental Baptism to each and every one of His Elect, if He wills to do so.


    Do the feeneyites insist that all who are not baptized with water cannot possibly be saved?
    "I receive Thee, redeeming Prince of my soul. Out of love for Thee have I studied, watched through many nights, and exerted myself: Thee did I preach and teach. I have never said aught against Thee. Nor do I persist stubbornly in my views. If I have ever expressed myself erroneously on this Sacrament, I submit to the judgement of the Holy Roman Church, in obedience of which I now part from this world." Saint Thomas Aquinas the greatest Doctor of the Church


    Offline Lover of Truth

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 8700
    • Reputation: +1159/-864
    • Gender: Male
    What exactly does implicit faith means?
    « Reply #62 on: July 25, 2013, 01:40:40 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Isaac Jogues
    Quote
    Lover of Truth:

    There are 3 forms of the one baptism.  That is the infallible teaching of the magisterium.  It in no way contradicts no salvation outside the Church.


    There is only one Baptism and one form of it: The Sacrament of Baptism celebrated in Water.

    Pope Clement V, Council of Vienne, 1311-1312, ex cathedra:  “Besides, one baptism which regenerates all who are baptized in Christ must be faithfully confessed by all just as ‘one God and one faith’ [Eph. 4:5], which celebrated in water in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit we believe to be commonly the perfect remedy for salvation for adults as for children.”

    This ONE Baptism is celebrated in Water, not blood or desire only.



    Quote
    Lover of Truth:
    Does water cleans the soul of Original Sin or God?


    God does, through His sacrament celebrated with water.

    Quote
    Lover of Truth:
    Again those aware of the precept that one must be baptized with water in order to have Original Sin removed but refuse to do so are damned.  But even you admit that those who are inculpably ignorant are not condemned for ignorance (but you suggested that they all have some other mortal sin they are guilty of, are you back-tracking from that now?


    This is ridiculous. If this were true, it would be a disservice to tell people they have to be Baptized to be saved. If they heard this and then refused, they are damned. If you told them nothing, they can still be saved because they are not aware of it.

    Quote
    Lover of Truth:
    Does God condemn one not culpable of mortal sin for a sin they are not culpable of?  The answer is yes or no.


    If they are inside the Church (Baptized)- No, because what you are saying is not a sin at all. Someone not to blame for a sin they are not to be blamed for. Really?
    If they are outside the Church -Yes, because they are in original sin.


    Substitutes for the sacrament

    The Fathers and theologians frequently divide baptism into three kinds: the baptism of water (aquæ or fluminis), the baptism of desire (flaminis), and the baptism of blood (sanguinis). However, only the first is a real sacrament. The latter two are denominated baptism only analogically, inasmuch as they supply the principal effect of baptism, namely, the grace which remits sins. It is the teaching of the Catholic Church that when the baptism of water becomes a physical or moral impossibility, eternal life may be obtained by the baptism of desire or the baptism of blood.
    The baptism of desire

    The baptism of desire (baptismus flaminis) is a perfect contrition of heart, and every act of perfect charity or pure love of God which contains, at least implicitly, a desire (votum) of baptism. The Latin word flamen is used because Flamen is a name for the Holy Ghost, Whose special office it is to move the heart to love God and to conceive penitence for sin. The "baptism of the Holy Ghost" is a term employed in the third century by the anonymous author of the book "De Rebaptismate". The efficacy of this baptism of desire to supply the place of the baptism of water, as to its principal effect, is proved from the words of Christ. After He had declared the necessity of baptism (John 3), He promised justifying grace for acts of charity or perfect contrition (John 14): "He that loveth Me, shall be loved of my Father: and I will love him and will manifest myself to him." And again: "If any one love me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him, and will make our abode with him." Since these texts declare that justifying grace is bestowed on account of acts of perfect charity or contrition, it is evident that these acts supply the place of baptism as to its principal effect, the remission of sins. This doctrine is set forth clearly by the Council of Trent. In the fourteenth session (cap. iv) the council teaches that contrition is sometimes perfected by charity, and reconciles man to God, before the Sacrament of Penance is received. In the fourth chapter of the sixth session, in speaking of the necessity of baptism, it says that men can not obtain original justice "except by the washing of regeneration or its desire" (voto). The same doctrine is taught by Pope Innocent III (cap. Debitum, iv, De Bapt.), and the contrary propositions are condemned by Popes Pius V and Gregory XII, in proscribing the 31st and 33rd propositions of Baius.

    We have already alluded to the funeral oration pronounced by St. Ambrose over the Emperor Valentinian II, a catechumen. The doctrine of the baptism of desire is here clearly set forth. St. Ambrose asks: "Did he not obtain the grace which he desired? Did he not obtain what he asked for? Certainly he obtained it because he asked for it." St. Augustine (On Baptism, Against the Donatists, IV.22) and St. Bernard (Ep. lxxvii, ad H. de S. Victore) likewise discourse in the same sense concerning the baptism of desire. If it be said that this doctrine contradicts the universal law of baptism made by Christ (John 3), the answer is that the lawgiver has made an exception (John 14) in favor of those who have the baptism of desire. Neither would it be a consequence of this doctrine that a person justified by the baptism of desire would thereby be dispensed from seeking after the baptism of water when the latter became a possibility. For, as has already been explained the baptismus flaminis contains the votum of receiving the baptismus aquæ. It is true that some of the Fathers of the Church arraign severely those who content themselves with the desire of receiving the sacrament of regeneration, but they are speaking of catechumens who of their own accord delay the reception of baptism from unpraiseworthy motives. Finally, it is to be noted that only adults are capable of receiving the baptism of desire.
    The baptism of blood

    The baptism of blood (baptismus sanquinis) is the obtaining of the grace of justification by suffering martyrdom for the faith of Christ. The term "washing of blood" (lavacrum sanguinis) is used by Tertullian (On Baptism 16) to distinguish this species of regeneration from the "washing of water" (lavacrum aquæ). "We have a second washing", he says "which is one and the same [with the first], namely the washing of blood." St. Cyprian (Epistle 73) speaks of "the most glorious and greatest baptism of blood" (sanguinis baptismus). St. Augustine (City of God 13.7) says: "When any die for the confession of Christ without having received the washing of regeneration, it avails as much for the remission of their sins as if they had been washed in the sacred font of baptism."

    The Church grounds her belief in the efficacy of the baptism of blood on the fact that Christ makes a general statement of the saving power of martyrdom in the tenth chapter of St. Matthew: "Every one therefore that shall confess me before men, I will also confess him before my Father who is in heaven" (verse 32); and: "He that shall lose his life for me shall find it" (verse 39). It is pointed out that these texts are so broadly worded as to include even infants, especially the latter text. That the former text also applies to them, has been constantly maintained by the Fathers, who declare that if infants can not confess Christ with the mouth, they can by act. Tertullian (Against the Valentinians 2) speaks of the infants slaughtered by Herod as martyrs, and this has been the constant teaching of the Church.

    Another evidence of the mind of the Church as to the efficacy of the baptism of blood is found in the fact that she never prays for martyrs. Her opinion is well voiced by St. Augustine (Tractate 74 on the Gospel of John): "He does an injury to a martyr who prays for him." This shows that martyrdom is believed to remit all sin and all punishment due to sin. Later theologians commonly maintain that the baptism of blood justifies adult martyrs independently of an act of charity or perfect contrition, and, as it were, ex opere operato, though, of course, they must have attrition for past sins. The reason is that if perfect charity, or contrition, were required in martyrdom, the distinction between the baptism of blood and the baptism of desire would be a useless one. Moreover, as it must be conceded that infant martyrs are justified without an act of charity, of which they are incapable, there is no solid reason for denying the same privilege to adults. (Cf. Francisco Suárez, De Bapt., disp. xxxix.)
    "I receive Thee, redeeming Prince of my soul. Out of love for Thee have I studied, watched through many nights, and exerted myself: Thee did I preach and teach. I have never said aught against Thee. Nor do I persist stubbornly in my views. If I have ever expressed myself erroneously on this Sacrament, I submit to the judgement of the Holy Roman Church, in obedience of which I now part from this world." Saint Thomas Aquinas the greatest Doctor of the Church

    Offline Lover of Truth

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 8700
    • Reputation: +1159/-864
    • Gender: Male
    What exactly does implicit faith means?
    « Reply #63 on: July 25, 2013, 01:48:13 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

  • Do the feeneyites insist that all who are not baptized with water cannot possibly be saved?

    Why would the above question be disliked?
    "I receive Thee, redeeming Prince of my soul. Out of love for Thee have I studied, watched through many nights, and exerted myself: Thee did I preach and teach. I have never said aught against Thee. Nor do I persist stubbornly in my views. If I have ever expressed myself erroneously on this Sacrament, I submit to the judgement of the Holy Roman Church, in obedience of which I now part from this world." Saint Thomas Aquinas the greatest Doctor of the Church

    Offline Jehanne

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2561
    • Reputation: +459/-11
    • Gender: Male
    What exactly does implicit faith means?
    « Reply #64 on: July 25, 2013, 01:49:39 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Lover of Truth
    Quote from: Jehanne
    We (I) only assert this:

    Quote
    The omnipotent One and Triune God is at least capable of bringing sacramental Baptism to each and every one of His Elect, if He wills to do so.


    Do the feeneyites insist that all who are not baptized with water cannot possibly be saved?


    It's a non-sequitur, because we (I) assert, as a theological opinion, that anyone and everyone who is truly worthy of Baptism will not depart this life without it.


    Offline Lover of Truth

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 8700
    • Reputation: +1159/-864
    • Gender: Male
    What exactly does implicit faith means?
    « Reply #65 on: July 25, 2013, 01:50:03 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Lover of Truth

    Do the feeneyites insist that all who are not baptized with water cannot possibly be saved?

    Why would the above question be disliked?


    Is it because they do believe it but it is embarrassing for them to put it in those words?  Is this also why the do not answer the question if they would insist that a person who willingly allowed himself to be tortured to death for Christ before he had a chance to be baptized would burn forever.  Much easier to just thumb down than answer the question right.  I'm getting the picture now.
    "I receive Thee, redeeming Prince of my soul. Out of love for Thee have I studied, watched through many nights, and exerted myself: Thee did I preach and teach. I have never said aught against Thee. Nor do I persist stubbornly in my views. If I have ever expressed myself erroneously on this Sacrament, I submit to the judgement of the Holy Roman Church, in obedience of which I now part from this world." Saint Thomas Aquinas the greatest Doctor of the Church

    Offline Matto

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6882
    • Reputation: +3852/-406
    • Gender: Male
    • Love God and Play, Do Good Work and Pray
    What exactly does implicit faith means?
    « Reply #66 on: July 25, 2013, 01:50:48 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I am not a feeneyite but I believe that you must be baptized in water to be saved and that God has never failed and will never fail to bring baptism to one of his elect since baptism became necessary for salvation. But I think Jehanne is a true follower of Father Feeney so she could answer this question better.
    R.I.P.
    Please pray for the repose of my soul.

    Offline Lover of Truth

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 8700
    • Reputation: +1159/-864
    • Gender: Male
    What exactly does implicit faith means?
    « Reply #67 on: July 25, 2013, 02:00:28 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Matto
    I am not a feeneyite but I believe that you must be baptized in water to be saved and that God has never failed and will never fail to bring baptism to one of his elect since baptism became necessary for salvation. But I think Jehanne is a true follower of Father Feeney so she could answer this question better.


    Does that mean that Pius V, Gregory XII, Augustine, Ambrose, Thomas Aquinas and many other saints, Doctors and Theologians were duped?  It is a yes or no question.

    Substitutes for the sacrament

    The Fathers and theologians frequently divide baptism into three kinds: the baptism of water (aquæ or fluminis), the baptism of desire (flaminis), and the baptism of blood (sanguinis). However, only the first is a real sacrament. The latter two are denominated baptism only analogically, inasmuch as they supply the principal effect of baptism, namely, the grace which remits sins. It is the teaching of the Catholic Church that when the baptism of water becomes a physical or moral impossibility, eternal life may be obtained by the baptism of desire or the baptism of blood.

    The baptism of desire

    The baptism of desire (baptismus flaminis) is a perfect contrition of heart, and every act of perfect charity or pure love of God which contains, at least implicitly, a desire (votum) of baptism. The Latin word flamen is used because Flamen is a name for the Holy Ghost, Whose special office it is to move the heart to love God and to conceive penitence for sin. The "baptism of the Holy Ghost" is a term employed in the third century by the anonymous author of the book "De Rebaptismate". The efficacy of this baptism of desire to supply the place of the baptism of water, as to its principal effect, is proved from the words of Christ. After He had declared the necessity of baptism (John 3), He promised justifying grace for acts of charity or perfect contrition (John 14): "He that loveth Me, shall be loved of my Father: and I will love him and will manifest myself to him." And again: "If any one love me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him, and will make our abode with him." Since these texts declare that justifying grace is bestowed on account of acts of perfect charity or contrition, it is evident that these acts supply the place of baptism as to its principal effect, the remission of sins. This doctrine is set forth clearly by the Council of Trent. In the fourteenth session (cap. iv) the council teaches that contrition is sometimes perfected by charity, and reconciles man to God, before the Sacrament of Penance is received. In the fourth chapter of the sixth session, in speaking of the necessity of baptism, it says that men can not obtain original justice "except by the washing of regeneration or its desire" (voto). The same doctrine is taught by Pope Innocent III (cap. Debitum, iv, De Bapt.), and the contrary propositions are condemned by Popes Pius V and Gregory XII, in proscribing the 31st and 33rd propositions of Baius.

    We have already alluded to the funeral oration pronounced by St. Ambrose over the Emperor Valentinian II, a catechumen. The doctrine of the baptism of desire is here clearly set forth. St. Ambrose asks: "Did he not obtain the grace which he desired? Did he not obtain what he asked for? Certainly he obtained it because he asked for it." St. Augustine (On Baptism, Against the Donatists, IV.22) and St. Bernard (Ep. lxxvii, ad H. de S. Victore) likewise discourse in the same sense concerning the baptism of desire. If it be said that this doctrine contradicts the universal law of baptism made by Christ (John 3), the answer is that the lawgiver has made an exception (John 14) in favor of those who have the baptism of desire. Neither would it be a consequence of this doctrine that a person justified by the baptism of desire would thereby be dispensed from seeking after the baptism of water when the latter became a possibility. For, as has already been explained the baptismus flaminis contains the votum of receiving the baptismus aquæ. It is true that some of the Fathers of the Church arraign severely those who content themselves with the desire of receiving the sacrament of regeneration, but they are speaking of catechumens who of their own accord delay the reception of baptism from unpraiseworthy motives. Finally, it is to be noted that only adults are capable of receiving the baptism of desire.

    The baptism of blood

    The baptism of blood (baptismus sanquinis) is the obtaining of the grace of justification by suffering martyrdom for the faith of Christ. The term "washing of blood" (lavacrum sanguinis) is used by Tertullian (On Baptism 16) to distinguish this species of regeneration from the "washing of water" (lavacrum aquæ). "We have a second washing", he says "which is one and the same [with the first], namely the washing of blood." St. Cyprian (Epistle 73) speaks of "the most glorious and greatest baptism of blood" (sanguinis baptismus). St. Augustine (City of God 13.7) says: "When any die for the confession of Christ without having received the washing of regeneration, it avails as much for the remission of their sins as if they had been washed in the sacred font of baptism."

    The Church grounds her belief in the efficacy of the baptism of blood on the fact that Christ makes a general statement of the saving power of martyrdom in the tenth chapter of St. Matthew: "Every one therefore that shall confess me before men, I will also confess him before my Father who is in heaven" (verse 32); and: "He that shall lose his life for me shall find it" (verse 39). It is pointed out that these texts are so broadly worded as to include even infants, especially the latter text. That the former text also applies to them, has been constantly maintained by the Fathers, who declare that if infants can not confess Christ with the mouth, they can by act. Tertullian (Against the Valentinians 2) speaks of the infants slaughtered by Herod as martyrs, and this has been the constant teaching of the Church.

    Another evidence of the mind of the Church as to the efficacy of the baptism of blood is found in the fact that she never prays for martyrs. Her opinion is well voiced by St. Augustine (Tractate 74 on the Gospel of John): "He does an injury to a martyr who prays for him." This shows that martyrdom is believed to remit all sin and all punishment due to sin. Later theologians commonly maintain that the baptism of blood justifies adult martyrs independently of an act of charity or perfect contrition, and, as it were, ex opere operato, though, of course, they must have attrition for past sins. The reason is that if perfect charity, or contrition, were required in martyrdom, the distinction between the baptism of blood and the baptism of desire would be a useless one. Moreover, as it must be conceded that infant martyrs are justified without an act of charity, of which they are incapable, there is no solid reason for denying the same privilege to adults. (Cf. Francisco Suárez, De Bapt., disp. xxxix.)
    "I receive Thee, redeeming Prince of my soul. Out of love for Thee have I studied, watched through many nights, and exerted myself: Thee did I preach and teach. I have never said aught against Thee. Nor do I persist stubbornly in my views. If I have ever expressed myself erroneously on this Sacrament, I submit to the judgement of the Holy Roman Church, in obedience of which I now part from this world." Saint Thomas Aquinas the greatest Doctor of the Church


    Offline Matto

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6882
    • Reputation: +3852/-406
    • Gender: Male
    • Love God and Play, Do Good Work and Pray
    What exactly does implicit faith means?
    « Reply #68 on: July 25, 2013, 02:02:31 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Lover of Truth

    Does that mean that Pius V, Gregory XII, Augustine, Ambrose, Thomas Aquinas and many other saints, Doctors and Theologians were duped?  It is a yes or no question.


    As I mentioned in another thread, I am not qualified to argue in this matter. So I already stated my opinion on the matter and I will leave it at that. God bless you.
    R.I.P.
    Please pray for the repose of my soul.

    Offline Lover of Truth

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 8700
    • Reputation: +1159/-864
    • Gender: Male
    What exactly does implicit faith means?
    « Reply #69 on: July 25, 2013, 02:03:46 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Matto
    Quote from: Lover of Truth

    Does that mean that Pius V, Gregory XII, Augustine, Ambrose, Thomas Aquinas and many other saints, Doctors and Theologians were duped?  It is a yes or no question.


    As I mentioned in another thread, I am not qualified to argue in this matter. So I already stated my opinion on the matter and I will leave it at that. God bless you.


    That means you disagree with the above but won't elaborate.  If you truly believe you are not qualified you would admit that they could be right and that you could be wrong.  
    "I receive Thee, redeeming Prince of my soul. Out of love for Thee have I studied, watched through many nights, and exerted myself: Thee did I preach and teach. I have never said aught against Thee. Nor do I persist stubbornly in my views. If I have ever expressed myself erroneously on this Sacrament, I submit to the judgement of the Holy Roman Church, in obedience of which I now part from this world." Saint Thomas Aquinas the greatest Doctor of the Church

    Offline Matto

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6882
    • Reputation: +3852/-406
    • Gender: Male
    • Love God and Play, Do Good Work and Pray
    What exactly does implicit faith means?
    « Reply #70 on: July 25, 2013, 02:05:48 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Lover of Truth
    If you truly believe you are not qualified you would admit that they could be right and that you could be wrong.  

    I know that many saints also believed as I do. But I also know that yes I could be wrong.
    R.I.P.
    Please pray for the repose of my soul.


    Offline Lover of Truth

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 8700
    • Reputation: +1159/-864
    • Gender: Male
    What exactly does implicit faith means?
    « Reply #71 on: July 25, 2013, 02:14:03 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Matto
    Quote from: Lover of Truth
    If you truly believe you are not qualified you would admit that they could be right and that you could be wrong.  

    I know that many saints also believed as I do. But I also know that yes I could be wrong.


    That is a decent answer.  Especially the second sentence.  Many Saints, hopefully all agreed that there is no salvation outside the Church and that there is no exception to this dogma.  Hopefully most of them understood that water Baptism is necessary with a necessity of precept rather than intrinsic necessity.  

    These saints may appear, to you, to agree with you when they only agree about the Dogma and the fact that water Baptism is necessary by Divine precept.
    "I receive Thee, redeeming Prince of my soul. Out of love for Thee have I studied, watched through many nights, and exerted myself: Thee did I preach and teach. I have never said aught against Thee. Nor do I persist stubbornly in my views. If I have ever expressed myself erroneously on this Sacrament, I submit to the judgement of the Holy Roman Church, in obedience of which I now part from this world." Saint Thomas Aquinas the greatest Doctor of the Church

    Offline Lover of Truth

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 8700
    • Reputation: +1159/-864
    • Gender: Male
    What exactly does implicit faith means?
    « Reply #72 on: July 25, 2013, 02:32:17 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Eating fruit from a tree is not intrinsically evil.  If God tells you not to eat fruit from a tree, eating that fruit does become evil by Divine precept.  But one who is not culpably aware of that precept does not commit evil by eating fruit from that tree and cannot be damned for that reason.  

    Willful murder of the innocent on the other hand is intrinsically evil.  It was always evil and was never not evil, even before God said it was evil.  It is evil in and of itself.  

    Circuмcision was never intrinsically necessary for salvation both before and after God commanded it but for a time it was necessary by Divine precept.
    When God created the human soul it was not intrinsically necessary for water to be poured on the head of its body and words to be simultaneously uttered for salvation to be possible.   It is impossible for this to be intrinsically necessary.  But when Jesus said we must be baptized it became necessary by Divine precept.  But one who is not culpable for not being aware of this precept cannot be damned for not knowing or not complying with what he cannot be reasonably expected to know.  This makes perfect sense and is why there is such thing of baptism of desire.  While it is not intrinsically necessary for one to be baptized with water in order to remove Original Sin it is intrinsically necessary for Original Sin to be removed in order for the obtainment of the Beatific Vision to be possible.  But if water baptism was the only possible way for the removal of Original Sin it would be possible for the just man to be damned through no fault of his own.  But God is perfectly just and perfectly merciful therefore the just man is never damned but can be saved through baptism of desire if he is inculpably aware of the Divine precept.  

    This is why all who elaborated on the matter, when not speaking in generalities or about those who left the Church, admit and teach that there is such thing of baptism of the Holy Ghost “desire” and baptism of blood.  This is why when the Dogma, no salvation outside the Church is taught it is insisted that one must be “joined” or “attached” “in some way” to the Church in order for salvation to be possible instead of saying “all non-members are damned”.

    Can you see the distinction?
    "I receive Thee, redeeming Prince of my soul. Out of love for Thee have I studied, watched through many nights, and exerted myself: Thee did I preach and teach. I have never said aught against Thee. Nor do I persist stubbornly in my views. If I have ever expressed myself erroneously on this Sacrament, I submit to the judgement of the Holy Roman Church, in obedience of which I now part from this world." Saint Thomas Aquinas the greatest Doctor of the Church

    Offline Jehanne

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2561
    • Reputation: +459/-11
    • Gender: Male
    What exactly does implicit faith means?
    « Reply #73 on: July 25, 2013, 03:53:40 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Lover of Truth
    Does that mean that Pius V, Gregory XII, Augustine, Ambrose, Thomas Aquinas and many other saints, Doctors and Theologians were duped?  It is a yes or no question.


    No, but don't put words in their mouth, either.  Did any of them ever teach that there were souls in Paradise who lack the character of sacramental Baptism?  Consider this "hypothetical" canon:

    Quote
    If anyone says that there are no souls in Paradise who lack the character of sacramental Baptism, let him be anathema.

    Offline Cathedra

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 497
    • Reputation: +0/-0
    • Gender: Male
    What exactly does implicit faith means?
    « Reply #74 on: July 25, 2013, 04:18:46 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Lover of Truth
    Why the Feeneyites prefer the innocent to be damned I have not yet figured out.  What is more troubling is that they insist on it with a vehemence.  


    I have wondered when they make this objection, viz., the "cruelty" objection.

    Well then for that matter, you have to accuse God Himself for making such "strict" laws and "strict" requirements in the first place.

    "Why did He create us if 99% of humanity would be damned? Why did he create us if the prospect of going to Hell would always be there?" etc. etc.

    It's not about "being cruel" to "poor innocent people" or anything like that. The fact is that this is what the Church has dogmatically defined and this is what the Holy Scriptures say.

    The problem is people going against what the Church defined in this matter and trying to make all kinds of exceptions and excuses so people can be saved without holding the Catholic Faith whole and undefiled and without even believing in Jesus.

    You might as well object why are there any requirements at all to begin with.

    You should make distinctions and not frase your posts like that, because no one is truly "innocent".

    "For all have sinned, and do need the glory of God."

    "What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath, fitted for destruction, that he might shew the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he hath prepared unto glory?"

    Also, why are "innocent" babies who die without baptism not allowed to go to Heaven then? Who's more blameless than a baby?