It [the sacrosanct Roman Church, established by the voice of Our Lord and Saviour] firmly believes, professes, and teaches that none of those who do not exist within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but Jєωs, heretics, and schismatics, can become partakers of eternal life; but that they are going into the everlasting fire which is prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they become associated with it (nisi . . . eidem fuerint agregati) before they die. And [it firmly believes, professes, and teaches] that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is of such value that the Church’s sacraments are profitable unto salvation, and that fastings, almsgivings, and the other duties of piety and exercises of the Christian militancy, bring forth eternal rewards only for those who remain within it [the unity of the ecclesiastical body]: and that, however great his almsgiving may be, and even though he might shed his blood for the name of Christ, no one can be saved unless he remains within the embrace and the unity of the Catholic Church. [Denz., 714.]
"WhyCathinfo is LoL's Blog"
Pope St. Siricius, Decree to Himerius, A.D. 385: "Therefore just as we say that the holy paschal observance is in no way to be diminished, we also say that to infants who will not yet be able to speak on account of their age or to those who in any necessity will need the holy stream of baptism, we wish succor to be brought with all celerity, lest it should tend to the perdition of our souls if the saving font be denied to those desiring it and every single one of them exiting this world lose both the Kingdom and life."
He's definitely trying to turn it into that, isn't he?yep, no joke. Thx. Maybe an equally "mature" counter-charge of closet ("Baptophobia/Feeneyphobia"?) is in order.
I like that: LoL
This is a KEY teaching that BoDers ignore and even twist into being a support for their position.
On Ecclesiastical Burial - (Canon 1239. 2)
"Catechumens who, through no fault of their own, die without Baptism, are to be treated as baptized."
The Sacred Canons by Rev. John A. Abbo. St.T.L., J.C.D., and Rev. Jerome D. Hannan, A.M., LL.B., S.T.D., J.C.D.
Commentary on the Code:
"The reason for this rule is that they are justly supposed to have met death united to Christ through Baptism of Desire."
applies only to the Latin Church and does not bind the Oriental, unless it treats of things that, by their nature, apply to the Oriental."
A pope speaks infallibly from the Chair of Peter when his teaching on faith or morals binds the entire Church, which the 1917 Code doesn’t:
Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, 1870, Session 4, Chap. 4: "...the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks Ex Cathedra [from the Chair of Peter], that is, when carrying out the duty of the pastor and teacher of all Christians in accord with his supreme apostolic authority he explains a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by the universal Church... operates with that infallibility..."
Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi (#66), June 29, 1943: "Certainly the loving Mother is spotless in the Sacraments, by which she gives birth to and nourishes her children; in the faith which she has always preserved inviolate; in her sacred laws imposed upon all; in the evangelical counsels which she recommends; in those heavenly gifts and extraordinary graces through which, with inexhaustible fecundity, she generates hosts of martyrs, virgins, and confessors."
This would mean that a disciplinary law is not a law of the "Catholic" (i.e. universal) Church unless it binds the universal Church. Regardless, the 1917 Code doesn’t enjoy infallibility. This is further proven by the following canons.
The 1917 Code teaches that heretics can be in good faith.
Canon 731.2, 1917 Code: "It is forbidden that the Sacraments of the Church be ministered to heretics and schismatics, even if they ask for them and are in good faith, unless beforehand, rejecting their errors, they are reconciled with the Church."
A heretic, by infallible definition, is of bad faith and brings down upon his head eternal punishment.
Pope St. Celestine I, Council of Ephesus, 431: "... all heretics corrupt the true expressions of the Holy Spirit with their own evil minds and they draw down on their own heads an inextinguishable flame."
Thus, the 1917 Code’s proposition in canon 737 that Baptism is necessary "at least in desire" for salvation is not binding on the universal Church or protected by infallibility. Regarding its law in canon 1239, that unbaptized catechumens can be given Christian burial, this contradicts the entire Tradition of the Catholic Church for 1900 years on whether unbaptized persons can be given Christian burial.
Since the time of Jesus Christ and throughout all of history, the Catholic Church universally refused ecclesiastical burial to catechumens who died without the Sacrament of Baptism, as The Catholic Encyclopedia admits:
The Catholic Encyclopedia, 'Baptism,' Volume 2, 1907: "A certain statement in the funeral oration of St. Ambrose over the Emperor Valentinian II has been brought forward as a proof that the Church offered sacrifices and prayers for catechumens who died before baptism. There is not a vestige of such a custom to be found anywhere... The practice of the Church is more correctly shown in the canon (xvii) of the Second Council of Braga (572 AD): 'Neither the commemoration of Sacrifice [oblationis] nor the service of chanting [psallendi] is to be employed for catechumens who have died without baptism.'"
This is the law of the Catholic Church since the beginning and throughout all of history. So, since this issue is tied to the Faith and not merely disciplinary, either the Catholic Church was wrong since the time of Christ for refusing ecclesiastical burial for catechumens who died without baptism or the 1917 Code is wrong for granting it to them. It is either one or the other, because the 1917 Code directly contradicts the Traditional and constant law of the Catholic Church for nineteen centuries on this point which is tied to the Faith. The answer is, obviously, that the 1917 Code is wrong and not infallible, and the Catholic Church’s law for all of history refusing ecclesiastical burial to catechumens is right. Also, it is interesting to note that the Latin version of the 1917 Code contains many footnotes to traditional popes, councils, etc. to show from where certain canons were derived. Canon 1239.2 on giving ecclesiastical burial to unbaptized catechumens has no footnote, not to any pope, previous law or council, simply because there is nothing in Tradition which supports it!!
The Catholic Encyclopedia (1907) quotes an interesting decree from Pope Innocent III wherein he commented on the traditional, universal and constant law of the Catholic Church from the beginning which refused ecclesiastical burial to all who died without the Sacrament of Baptism.
The Catholic Encyclopedia, "Baptism," Volume 2, 1907: "The reason of this regulation [forbidding ecclesiastical burial to all unbaptized persons] is given by Pope Innocent III (Decr., III, XXVIII, xii): 'It has been decreed by the sacred canons that we are to have no communion with those who are dead, if we have not communicated with them while alive.'"
Just for the record as i said earlier all today who believe in 'b.o.d' and 'b.o.b' believe non-Catholics can be saved. ALL non-Catholics go to Hell, this is Catholic Dogma, only baptized Catholics who die in a state of grace are saved.
There were so many miraculous baptisms throughout Church history and this alone obliterates 'b.o.d' and 'b.o.b'.
For example the North American martyrs [St.Isaac Jogues, St.John De Brebeuf etc...] when they were converting the pagans and the Iroquois showed up to slaughter them and their converts. The catechumens who were not baptized started begging for baptism. NOW WAIT A SEC. If these catechumens already knew the essential mysteries of the Catholic Faith, and were about to get slaughtered by the Iroquois, according to modernists they would have received 'b.o.b'. The saints rushed to baptize them, NOTHING WAS MENTIONED OF desire and blood. Read the lives of the NA martyrs there were countless miraculous baptisms. St.Joan of Arc brought back a dead infant from the dead to baptize it! This happened many times. The fact that saints brought people back from the dead obliterates desire and blood. Also in the early Church when the martyrs were waiting in prison to die for the faith, some of them were not baptized and water miraculously started coming out from the ground! Why would this happen if they were going to be martyred? BECAUSE WATER BAPTISM IS NECESSARY FOR SALVATION!
Catechism of the Council of Trent, On Baptism, Tan Books, p. 171: "Holy writers are unanimous in saying that after the Resurrection of our Lord, WHEN HE GAVE HIS APOSTLES THE COMMAND to go and teach all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, THE LAW OF BAPTISM became obligatory on all who were to be saved."
Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, Sess. 7, Can. 5 on the Sacrament of Baptism, Ex Cathedra: "If anyone says that baptism [the Sacrament] is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation (cf. Jn. 3:5): let him be anathema."
@JohnAnthonyMarieNotice how you completely ignore the infallible statements from Florence and Trent and go straight to fallible sources such as commentaries on canon law?You quoted the 1917 CCL.
Canon 1, 1917 Code of Canon Law: "Although in the Code of canon law the discipline of the Oriental Church is frequently referenced, nevertheless, thisCode: [Select]applies only to the Latin Church and does not bind the Oriental, unless it treats of things that, by their nature, apply to the Oriental."
A pope speaks infallibly from the Chair of Peter when his teaching on faith or morals binds the entire Church, which the 1917 Code doesn’t:
Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, 1870, Session 4, Chap. 4: "...the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks Ex Cathedra [from the Chair of Peter], that is, when carrying out the duty of the pastor and teacher of all Christians in accord with his supreme apostolic authority he explains a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by the universal Church... operates with that infallibility..."
Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi (#66), June 29, 1943: "Certainly the loving Mother is spotless in the Sacraments, by which she gives birth to and nourishes her children; in the faith which she has always preserved inviolate; in her sacred laws imposed upon all; in the evangelical counsels which she recommends; in those heavenly gifts and extraordinary graces through which, with inexhaustible fecundity, she generates hosts of martyrs, virgins, and confessors."
This would mean that a disciplinary law is not a law of the "Catholic" (i.e. universal) Church unless it binds the universal Church. Regardless, the 1917 Code doesn’t enjoy infallibility. This is further proven by the following canons.
The 1917 Code teaches that heretics can be in good faith.
Canon 731.2, 1917 Code: "It is forbidden that the Sacraments of the Church be ministered to heretics and schismatics, even if they ask for them and are in good faith, unless beforehand, rejecting their errors, they are reconciled with the Church."
A heretic, by infallible definition, is of bad faith and brings down upon his head eternal punishment.
Pope St. Celestine I, Council of Ephesus, 431: "... all heretics corrupt the true expressions of the Holy Spirit with their own evil minds and they draw down on their own heads an inextinguishable flame."
Thus, the 1917 Code’s proposition in canon 737 that Baptism is necessary "at least in desire" for salvation is not binding on the universal Church or protected by infallibility. Regarding its law in canon 1239, that unbaptized catechumens can be given Christian burial, this contradicts the entire Tradition of the Catholic Church for 1900 years on whether unbaptized persons can be given Christian burial.
Since the time of Jesus Christ and throughout all of history, the Catholic Church universally refused ecclesiastical burial to catechumens who died without the Sacrament of Baptism, as The Catholic Encyclopedia admits:
The Catholic Encyclopedia, 'Baptism,' Volume 2, 1907: "A certain statement in the funeral oration of St. Ambrose over the Emperor Valentinian II has been brought forward as a proof that the Church offered sacrifices and prayers for catechumens who died before baptism. There is not a vestige of such a custom to be found anywhere... The practice of the Church is more correctly shown in the canon (xvii) of the Second Council of Braga (572 AD): 'Neither the commemoration of Sacrifice [oblationis] nor the service of chanting [psallendi] is to be employed for catechumens who have died without baptism.'"
This is the law of the Catholic Church since the beginning and throughout all of history. So, since this issue is tied to the Faith and not merely disciplinary, either the Catholic Church was wrong since the time of Christ for refusing ecclesiastical burial for catechumens who died without baptism or the 1917 Code is wrong for granting it to them. It is either one or the other, because the 1917 Code directly contradicts the Traditional and constant law of the Catholic Church for nineteen centuries on this point which is tied to the Faith. The answer is, obviously, that the 1917 Code is wrong and not infallible, and the Catholic Church’s law for all of history refusing ecclesiastical burial to catechumens is right. Also, it is interesting to note that the Latin version of the 1917 Code contains many footnotes to traditional popes, councils, etc. to show from where certain canons were derived. Canon 1239.2 on giving ecclesiastical burial to unbaptized catechumens has no footnote, not to any pope, previous law or council, simply because there is nothing in Tradition which supports it!!
The Catholic Encyclopedia (1907) quotes an interesting decree from Pope Innocent III wherein he commented on the traditional, universal and constant law of the Catholic Church from the beginning which refused ecclesiastical burial to all who died without the Sacrament of Baptism.
The Catholic Encyclopedia, "Baptism," Volume 2, 1907: "The reason of this regulation [forbidding ecclesiastical burial to all unbaptized persons] is given by Pope Innocent III (Decr., III, XXVIII, xii): 'It has been decreed by the sacred canons that we are to have no communion with those who are dead, if we have not communicated with them while alive.'"
Just for the record as i said earlier all today who believe in 'b.o.d' and 'b.o.b' believe non-Catholics can be saved. ALL non-Catholics go to Hell, this is Catholic Dogma, only baptized Catholics who die in a state of grace are saved.
There were so many miraculous baptisms throughout Church history and this alone obliterates 'b.o.d' and 'b.o.b'.
For example the North American martyrs [St.Isaac Jogues, St.John De Brebeuf etc...] when they were converting the pagans and the Iroquois showed up to slaughter them and their converts. The catechumens who were not baptized started begging for baptism. NOW WAIT A SEC. If these catechumens already knew the essential mysteries of the Catholic Faith, and were about to get slaughtered by the Iroquois, according to modernists they would have received 'b.o.b'. The saints rushed to baptize them, NOTHING WAS MENTIONED OF desire and blood. Read the lives of the NA martyrs there were countless miraculous baptisms. St.Joan of Arc brought back a dead infant from the dead to baptize it! This happened many times. The fact that saints brought people back from the dead obliterates desire and blood. Also in the early Church when the martyrs were waiting in prison to die for the faith, some of them were not baptized and water miraculously started coming out from the ground! Why would this happen if they were going to be martyred? BECAUSE WATER BAPTISM IS NECESSARY FOR SALVATION!
Catechism of the Council of Trent, On Baptism, Tan Books, p. 171: "Holy writers are unanimous in saying that after the Resurrection of our Lord, WHEN HE GAVE HIS APOSTLES THE COMMAND to go and teach all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, THE LAW OF BAPTISM became obligatory on all who were to be saved."
Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, Sess. 7, Can. 5 on the Sacrament of Baptism, Ex Cathedra: "If anyone says that baptism [the Sacrament] is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation (cf. Jn. 3:5): let him be anathema."
I'm not ignoring anything. I am merely showing where Baptism of Desire is observed by the Church.
Do you reject this canon?
I'm not ignoring anything. I am merely showing where Baptism of Desire is observed by the Church.By "observed" in "where Baptism of Desire is observed", I mean exactly what the Canon indicates, "Catechumens who, through no fault of their own, die without Baptism, are to be treated as baptized."
Do you reject this canon?
By "observed" in "where Baptism of Desire is observed", I mean exactly what the Canon indicates, "Catechumens who, through no fault of their own, die without Baptism, are to be treated as baptized."Non-responsive. Must be something in the air sir. If you don't understand a request for terms, with all due you've no business mucking about with canon law.
You are unable to defend your denial of an explicit Church reference to Baptism of Desire. I could not care any less about your advice.Super. Take care. Bye.
I choose to accept Canon Law as authentic Catholic teaching. This is where we disagree.(Oo0)
I choose to accept Canon Law as authentic Catholic teaching. This is where we disagree.You're in denial.
You're in denial.Would it do any good to show where canon<human law can, has, does and must change?
The 1917 CCL is NOT Catholic Teaching. You honestly reject what the Catholic Church actually teaches. Your authority is a commentary on Canon Law. :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm:
"Thus saith the Lord: Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the Lord."
Jeremiah 17:5
"David was right in saying that all people lie. Mankind’s life on earth is a struggle and like the mountain dew that soon is gone, like the flower of the field that quickly withers. We mortals are so blind that out of such a multitude of people only a small portion know the true God, primarily in this part of the world, Europe, the Spaniards being the most faithful. Among those raised in the church, few confess the faith and many of them are in sin, so nineteen out of twenty parts of mankind live in darkness and blindness." [Colahan, The Visions of Sor María de Agreda p.53]
Canon law may be divided into various branches, according to the points of view from which it is considered: (1) If we consider its sources, it comprises Divine law, including natural law, based on the nature of things and on the constitution given by Jesus Christ to His Church; and human or positive law, formulated by the legislator, in conformity with the Divine law. (2) If we consider the form in which it is found, we have the written law (jus scriptum) comprising the laws promulgated by the competent authorities, and the unwritten law (jus non scripture), or even customary law, resulting from practice and custom; the latter however became less important as the written law developed. (3) If we consider the subject matter of the law, we have the public law (jus publicuм) and private law (jus privatum). This division is explained in two different ways by the different schools of writers: for most of the adherents of the Roman school, e.g. Cavagnis (Instit. jur. publ. eccl., Rome, 1906, I, 8 ), public law is the law of the Church as a perfect society, and even as a perfect society such as it has been established by its Divine founder: private law would therefore embrace all the regulations of the ecclesiastical authorities concerning the internal organization of that society, the functions of its ministers, the rights and duties of its members. Thus understood, the public ecclesiastical law would be derived almost exclusively from Divine and natural law.The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume IX, pp. 56-66
The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume IX, pp. 56-66"SO WHAT!?/RELEVANVCE"
Nihil Obstat, October 1, 1910, Remy Lafort, Censor
Imprimatur. +John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York
I choose to accept Canon Law as authentic Catholic teaching. This is where we disagree.First off, it is a tragedy that the idiot who started and named this thread according the inordinate hate in his heart for the good Father Feeney, will one day stand before Almighty God to be judged according to God's revelations and God's own words in Scripture, not according to Fr Fenton's corrupted ideas. It's been a while since such a brainwashed NO infected and perverted poster as Lover of Liberalism has spammed the forums with 100% lies, and it looks as if there is no stopping him.
Father Feeney is simply a diversion that modernist heretics use because they can't address the Dogmatic facts.Feeney is the root of the Feeneyite heresy. Hardly a diversion.
"Baptism" of desire and blood are doctrines of man.
All the saints who taught it contradicted themselves. Some specifically believed in 'b.o.d' and others only believed in 'b.o.b'.
St.Cyprian also taught that heretics cannot validly baptize [he was wrong]
The Majority of the Church Fathers believed that the Blessed Virgin Mary was conceived with original sin[they were wrong]
St. Gregory nαzιenzen rejected 'b.o.d'.
St.Fulgentius only taught 'b.o.b'
Stop cherry picking from the Saints, that's condemned:
"When anyone finds a doctrine clearly established in Augustine, he can absolutely hold it and teach it, disregarding any bull of the pope." –Condemned by Pope Alexander VIII, Errors of the Jansenists, Dec. 7, 1690
The saints are NOT infallible, the Church is.
Also the saints who taught these erroneous doctrines ONLY applied them to unbaptized catechumens. Unlike today, where all the modernist heretics apply it to non-Catholics.
St. Augustine was one of the greatest theologians. He was not infallible. He wrote a book of Retractions. If you find a teaching in Augustine, you can’t just say, 'It’s in Augustine. I'm going to hold it no matter what', even if it doesn’t add up, even if it’s inconsistent with something of greater weight. No, you cannot just hold it. That’s a religion of man.
As Pope Benedict XIV declared in Apostolica (#6), June 26, 1749: "The Church’s judgment is preferable to that of a Doctor renowned for his holiness and teaching."
Here is a quote that modernists will never use:
Pope St. Siricius, Decree to Himerius, A.D. 385: "Therefore just as we say that the holy paschal observance is in no way to be diminished, we also say that to infants who will not yet be able to speak on account of their age or to those who in any necessity will need the holy stream of baptism, we wish succor to be brought with all celerity, lest it should tend to the perdition of our souls if the saving font be denied to those desiring it and every single one of them exiting this world lose both the Kingdom and life."
In his decree, Pope St. Siricius infallibly teaches that all those who desire water baptism, but die without receiving it, will not be saved. He thus directly denies the concept of 'baptism of desire'. The pope even speaks of people in danger and necessity who desire water baptism. He teaches that they cannot be saved without water baptism, which he identifies as the unique help of faith. He teaches that being baptized is their only hope of salvation. Pope St. Siricius' decree is infallible. His decree also demonstrates that the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium, in addition to the Solemn Magisterium, directly contradicts the idea of 'baptism of desire'.
The Catholic Church infallibly teaches that it’s absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff (Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam). It also infallibly teaches that the Church and the Roman Pontiff do not and cannot exercise jurisdiction over those who have not received the Sacrament of Baptism (see the Council of Trent. Sess. 14, Chap. 2).
Since it’s absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the jurisdiction of the Church and the Roman Pontiff, and a human creature cannot be subject to the Church and the Roman Pontiff without receiving the Sacrament of Baptism, it follows that every human creature must receive the Sacrament of Baptism to be saved. There is simply no way around this argument.
In the first dogmatic definition of Outside the Church There is No Salvation, Pope Innocent III at the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 infallibly defined that: "There is indeed one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which no one at all is saved.” The Church is dogmatically defined as the faithful, and any salvation outside of the faithful is emphatically excluded with the words nullus omnino (no one at all). Well, only the water baptized are part of the faithful. That’s clear from Church teaching, Tradition and liturgy. The unbaptized, including unbaptized catechumens, were explicitly excluded from the category of the faithful.
Consider, for example, the Mass of the Catechumens (the unbaptized) versus the Mass of the faithful (the baptized). Since only the water baptized are part of the faithful, as we learn from Church teaching, Tradition and liturgy, and it’s infallibly certain that there is no salvation whatsoever outside the faithful, as the Church has defined, it follows that there is absolutely no salvation for those not water baptized.
It’s interesting to note that God not only never allowed the Magisterium to teach baptism of desire or blood, even in the years leading to the fall of Rome and the Masonic synod [Vatican II], but the Magisterium in that post-Trent, post-Vatican I period officially taught the same doctrine. It repeated the true doctrine of the Church: that no one can be a member of the Church without the Sacrament of Baptism, and that no one can be saved without it.
Pope Julius III, Council of Trent, On the Sacraments of Baptism and Penance, Sess. 14, Chap. 2, Ex Cathedra: "... the Church exercises judgment on no one who has not previously entered it by the gate of baptism. For what have I to do with those who are without (1 Cor. 5:12), says the Apostle. It is otherwise with those of the household of the faith, whom Christ the Lord by the laver of baptism has once made ‘members of his own body’ (1 Cor. 12:13)."
Pope Clement V, The Council of Vienne, 1311-1312: "Besides, only one baptism regenerating 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 the perfect remedy for salvation for both adults and children."
Pope Eugene IV, The Council of Florence, "Exultate Deo," Nov. 22, 1439: "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."
Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, canons on the Sacrament of Baptism, canon 5, Ex Cathedra: "If anyone says that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation (cf. Jn. 3:5): let him be anathema."
Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, canons on the Sacrament of Baptism, Session 7, canon 2, Ex Cathedra: "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’ [John 3:5], are distorted into some sort of metaphor: let him be anathema."
NOW
The quotes you provided from Trent which mentions 'desire' IS NOT REFERRING TO 'b.o.d', because if it was as you can tell from the above quote there would be a clear contradiction.
During the 16th century Catholics were 'baptizing' Jєωs by force! This is invalid. You cannot take a water bottle and chase non-Catholics if they don't want to be baptized!
The reason the word "desire" is mentioned in the context of Sess. 6, Chap. 4 is that this chapter of Trent’s decree deals with adult justification: iustificationis impii (the justification of the impious). “Impious” is a strong description that concerns those above the age of reason who are guilty of actual and mortal sin. In chapter 4 and the following chapters of the Decree on Justification, Trent is concerned with justification for those above the age of reason, as the context clearly shows. It was in Session 5 on Original Sin that Trent dealt with infants’ transition to justification. As is the case with adults, the only way for infants to be justified is through the Sacrament of Baptism. However, since adults and those above reason must also desire the sacrament in order to be justified by it, chapter 4 of Trent specified that justification cannot happen without a desire.
Catechism of the Council of Trent, On Baptism - Dispositions for Baptism, p. 180: "INTENTION ... In the first place they must desire and intend to receive it..."
There can be no denying by either side that a BOD/BOB contradicts both the explicit words of Our Lord and the teachings of Trent, whose decrees, UNLIKE V2, are crystal clear, mean what they say and cannot be interpreted to mean anything other than what they say.
If you choose to rely on canon law over Trent, then obviously you must also choose to accept the new canon law of "the anti-church" as LoL rightly calls it, which leads me to believe you were also born and raised in the anti-church and like LoL, for lack of sufficient purgation of it's disease, still carry it's infection within you.
I disagree completely with you that Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood contradicts our Lord, the Christ, Jesus, or the teachings of the Council of Trent.It is not false. You said you choose to accept Canon Law as authentic Catholic teaching. Trent specifically decrees the sacrament is necessary for salvation - a BOD is not a sacrament. So since you accept CL to support a BOD, you choose CL over Trent. It's not complicated.
Your second paragraph above is completely false. I did not place Canon Law over the Council of Trent, in my observation each is a complement of the other in the same manner that Scripture and Tradition are the two great pillars of Christianity.
It is not false. You said you choose to accept Canon Law as authentic Catholic teaching. Trent specifically decrees the sacrament is necessary for salvation - a BOD is not a sacrament. So since you accept CL to support a BOD, you choose CL over Trent. It's not complicated.Trent also teaches BOD. Feeneyites are great a pitting the Catholic Church against itself because they are not Catholics. They are Feeneyites and the feeneyite heresy trumps all.
And yes, a BOD contradicts the words of Our Lord, and the words of St. Paul, who said: "One Lord, one faith one baptism."
How many baptisms are there?
This is what crayola sola scriptura people do to "prove" from mutant scripture.:laugh2: :laugh1: Nice crayon reference.
Trent also teaches BOD. Feeneyites are great a pitting the Catholic Church against itself because they are not Catholics. They are Feeneyites and the feeneyite heresy trumps all.No, Trent binds us to believe under pain of mortal sin that the sacraments are necessary for salvation. A BOD, whatever it is, is not a sacrament.
No, Trent binds us to believe under pain of mortal sin that the sacraments are necessary for salvation. A BOD, whatever it is, is not a sacrament.Trent teaches BOD.
Trent also binds us to believe under pain of mortal sin that the sacrament of baptism is not optional, whatever a BOD is, it's not baptism.
:laugh2: :laugh1: Nice crayon reference.Thanks. Seems proper to the overall booger flicking tenor of diapered disputatio stinking up the ball pond here.
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."
Trent teaches BOD.No, it does not.
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."
Feeneyites a programmed not to believe what the Council of Trent teaches. That should give pause to any rational soul who considers feeneyism to be Catholic.We know for a fact Trent was not talking about "baptism" of desire because then the Catholic Church would have contradicted itself.
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 [if anyone shall say] 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."
The above decree is on justification, not salvation. In the decree below, the first part is on salvation, the second part is on justification. Notice that it condemns a BOD, which after all, is justification through faith alone.You act as if Trent contradicts itself when it does not.
Since the ignoramus who named this thread has never read, seen or heard of the bolded part of the canon before, who thinks he will retract his calumny now that it has been explained to him for the thousandth time?
The above decree is on justification, not salvation. In the decree below, the first part is on salvation, the second part is on justification. Notice that it condemns a BOD, which after all, is justification through faith alone.None who see that LoL is, like MANY, really a lover of attention, which is just another way of saying lover of self.
Since the ignoramus who named this thread has never read, seen or heard of the bolded part of the canon before, who thinks he will retract his calumny now that it has been explained to him for the thousandth time?
You act as if Trent contradicts itself when it does not.Thinks Trent contradicts itself yet says otherwise.
You act as if Trent contradicts itself when it does not.No, I would only think Trent contradicts itself if I believed in a BOD like you do. You think Trent contradicts itself because you keep pushing a BOD, as for me, I already accepted that Trent condemns a BOD, which is justification through faith alone.
"and [if anyone shall say] 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."
No, I would only think Trent contradicts itself if I believed in a BOD like you do. You think Trent contradicts itself because you keep pushing a BOD, as for me, I already accepted that Trent condemns a BOD, which is justification through faith alone."But it doesn't SAY BoD!!! Where's my wubby and juice box?"
So there you have it, as long as you can get yourself to admit that "a BOD is justification through faith alone", then you have Trent explicitly condemning a BOD below........
There it is - a BOD explicitly condemned by Trent.
There it is - a BOD explicitly condemned by Trent.
I agree that one must hold that the Sacrament of Baptism is absolutely necessary by necessity of means for salvation ... as the instrumental cause of justification. One COULD argue, however, that in BoD, Baptism remains the instrumental cause of justification, acting upon the individual through the votum. We cannot say that the desire justifies (that's both Pelagianism and a denial of the necessity of the Sacrament), but rather that the Sacrament justifies THROUGH the desire. In BoD, one is not saved WITHOUT the Sacrament, but, rather, one receives the Sacrament in voto. BoD is not a "substitute" for the Sacrament, and people do not get saved WITHOUT the Sacrament, but, rather, BoD is a different mode of receiving the Sacrament. Anything else is a heretical denial of Trent and also Pelagianism. Nor are there THREE Baptisms (that's a heretically-savoring rejection of the Creed), but rather three ways to receive the Sacrament of Baptism (in its effects).I completely and absolutely agree, yet Lover of Liberalism's heretical idea of a BOD that he keeps pushing and pushing like some kind of idiot, is justification through a faith alone and is explicitly condemned by Trent in Trent's 7th Session, Canon 4 which I posted. "If anyone shall say that through faith alone men obtain from God the grace of justification, let him be anathema".
But very few BoDers have this opinion. Most are Pelagians, deny Trent, and hold a heretical ecclesiology.
None who see that LoL is, like MANY, really a lover of attention, which is just another way of saying lover of self.Amazing theological prowess.
Amazing theological prowess.Lover of Troll, Aug 2017
I agree that one must hold that the Sacrament of Baptism is absolutely necessary by necessity of means for salvation ... as the instrumental cause of justification. One COULD argue, however, that in BoD, Baptism remains the instrumental cause of justification, acting upon the individual through the votum. We cannot say that the desire justifies (that's both Pelagianism and a denial of the necessity of the Sacrament), but rather that the Sacrament justifies THROUGH the desire. In BoD, one is not saved WITHOUT the Sacrament, but, rather, one receives the Sacrament in voto. BoD is not a "substitute" for the Sacrament, and people do not get saved WITHOUT the Sacrament, but, rather, BoD is a different mode of receiving the Sacrament. Anything else is a heretical denial of Trent and also Pelagianism. Nor are there THREE Baptisms (that's a heretically-savoring rejection of the Creed), but rather three ways to receive the Sacrament of Baptism (in its effects).With all due, says who? Where is this formless(?), immaterial(?), aministerial(?) distinction-sans-difference(?) unsacrament(?) taught(?)
But very few BoDers have this opinion. Most are Pelagians, deny Trent, and hold a heretical ecclesiology.
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."
Do you know how many times this has already been explained to you by dozens of different posters?You are either willfully blind or incredibly ignorant. Either way you need not post on the topic.
If you are going to continue saying Trent taught a BOD, then from now on, you can only use the below words from the canon to prove it.
"If anyone shall say that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation, but are superfluous,... let him be anathema."
You are either willfully blind or incredibly ignorant. Either way you need not post on the topic.As long as the lying title of this thread remains, I will keep posting on this topic to post the truth, now either YOU use the words from Trent's canon: "If anyone shall say that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation, but are superfluous,... let him be anathema." to prove a BOD or YOU stop posting on this topic - but first you MUST make a formal retraction from your heresies and your calumniating like an heretical fool.
Do you know what the word "or" means?Tacitly meaning that it ALWAYS has ONLY ONE meaning which, "SURPRISE" involves an error of bifurcation, equivocation AND its buddy, conflation.
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."
As long as the lying title of this thread remains, I will keep posting on this topic to post the truth, now either YOU use the words from Trent's canon: "If anyone shall say that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation, but are superfluous,... let him be anathema." to prove a BOD or YOU stop posting on this topic - but first you MUST make a formal retraction from your heresies and your calumniating like an heretical fool.You claim Alphonsus does not teach BOD when he teaches it is de fide.
Agreed?
You claim Alphonsus does not teach BOD when he teaches it is de fide.…aaaaaand again, see? Pathology< compulsion, worse than Heroine.
You claim Alphonsus does not teach BOD when he teaches it is de fide.You claim I lied by posting that St. Alphonsus taught that only heretics say that no sacrament is necessary and the whole idea is condemned by Trent when that's what he taught.
You claim I lied by posting that St. Alphonsus taught that only heretics say that no sacrament is necessary and the whole idea is condemned by Trent when that's what he taught.He teaches the sacraments are necessary and that BOD is de fide. You accept the one and reject the other. Will pretend to deny this now?
He teaches the sacraments are necessary and that BOD is de fide. You accept the one and reject the other. Will pretend to deny this now?He teaches the sacraments are necessary and that heretics say they aren't - which is what you say over and over and over. A BOD is not a sacrament it is therefore not able to save anyone.
He teaches the sacraments are necessary and that heretics say they aren't - which is what you say over and over and over. A BOD is not a sacrament it is therefore not able to save anyone.Does Alphonsus teach BOD? Yes or no? It is a simple question with a simple answer. You show your dishonesty by avoiding the answer despite numerous clear opportunities to do so.
A BOD is salvation through faith (desire?) alone, which Trent condemns and St. Alphonsus teaches.
He teaches the sacraments are necessary and that BOD is de fide. You accept the one and reject the other. Will pretend to deny this now?BoD =/= sacrament = "Ass"
Does Alphonsus teach BOD? Yes or no? It is a simple question with a simple answer. You show your dishonesty by avoiding the answer despite numerous clear opportunities to do so.Does St. Alphonsus teach only heretics say the sacraments are not necessary? Yes or no? You show your dishonesty by continuing to claim he doesn't.
Does St. Alphonsus teach only heretics say the sacraments are not necessary? Yes or no? You show your dishonesty by continuing to claim he doesn't.Pls. rephrase to simplify/clarify. Too many needless double negatives.
Does St. Alphonsus teach only heretics say the sacraments are not necessary? Yes or no? You show your dishonesty by continuing to claim he doesn't.Still will not answer. You are not an intellectually honest individual.
Still will not answer. You are not an intellectually honest individual.More "… ass houses… " via LoL
More "… ass houses… " via LoLVarious types of things.
Still will not answer. You are not an intellectually honest individual.You still will not answer, why not? What are you afraid of.
You still will not answer, why not? What are you afraid of.Still not answering. I've learned not to hold my breath for you. You admit only that which does not contradict your heresy on the surface apart from any other teaching. Equally true teachings contrary to your interpretation you ignore, we suppose because you prefer your own belief system to that of the Catholic Church.
I know the great saint Alphonsus taught contrary to Trent, but unlike you, at least he corrected himself so he no longer contradicts Trent when he says only heretics say the sacraments are not necessary in as much as a BOD "justifies by faith alone", he echo's Trent explicit condemnation: "[If anyone shall say that] although all are not necessary for every individual, without the sacraments, or without the desire for the sacraments, through faith alone men obtain from God the grace of justification; let him be anathema."
The thing you cannot get through your brain is the fact that Trent condemns a BOD exactly where you say Trent defines a BOD.
If a BOD is not "justification through faith alone", then what is it?
Still not answering. I've learned not to hold my breath for you. You admit only that which does not contradict your heresy on the surface apart from any other teaching. Equally true teachings contrary to your interpretation you ignore, we suppose because you prefer your own belief system to that of the Catholic Church.Yet more sounds of breaking ass…
Still not answering. I've learned not to hold my breath for you. You admit only that which does not contradict your heresy on the surface apart from any other teaching. Equally true teachings contrary to your interpretation you ignore, we suppose because you prefer your own belief system to that of the Catholic Church.I answered the question, you don't like the truth, in fact, you're a hater of Catholic teaching, you fit right in with the liberal faced NO bishops who have done their part to destroy the faith.
I answered the question, you don't like the truth, in fact, you're a hater of Catholic teaching, you fit right in with the liberal faced NO bishops who have done their part to destroy the faith.In case you are not avoiding the issue because it proves you wrong I'll ask yet again.
Only the heretics say that no sacrament is necessary. - St. Alphonsus
A BOD is justification through faith alone, and was explicitly condemned at Trent. You love this truth if you are a lover of truth, but, as St. Alphonsus taught, you are a heretic for saying that no sacrament is necessary, hence you hate the above truth. You hate that feeneyites love, honor and defend the truth as taught by the Catholic Church.
I wholly side with St. Alphonsus here. You are a heretic for posting ad nausem that no sacrament is necessary - even slandering the sacrament as useless, nothing but "water and words". Heretic, that's what you are, and obstinate heretic.
In case you are not avoiding the issue because it proves you wrong I'll ask yet again.Didn't you read my answer?......
:ready-to-eat: :ready-to-eat: :ready-to-eat: :ready-to-eat: :ready-to-eat: :ready-to-eat: :ready-to-eat: :ready-to-eat: :ready-to-eat: :ready-to-eat: :ready-to-eat: :ready-to-eat: :ready-to-eat:
Did Saint Alphonsus teach BOD?
:ready-to-eat: :ready-to-eat: :ready-to-eat: :ready-to-eat: :ready-to-eat: :ready-to-eat: :ready-to-eat: :ready-to-eat: :ready-to-eat: :ready-to-eat: :ready-to-eat: :ready-to-eat:
The homily last night for the Feast of the Assumption had partly to do with Baptism of Desire. It was in relation to the salvation of souls. Father said that we must try to convert those family members and friends who are not Catholic, and we must pray for them, and pray for them still if they have died without converting.So, with all due miss/ma'am, and with no offense intended:
He said that God can work extra-sacramentally, though we cannot count on this of course. He then gave an example by telling a true story about a Carmelite friar. I think his name was Fr. Herman, but I'm not sure about that. Anyway, this man was Jєωιѕн, and had converted to the Catholic Faith. His Jєωιѕн mother disowned him because of his conversion, but he never stopped praying for her conversion, even after she died without converting.
Sometime after his mother's death, Father received a note from a nun who had had a mystical vision in which she saw that his mother, in being close to death and unconscious (I think she was in a coma, but don't rightly recall), she was given the grace by God to be shown who Jesus really was - the Messiah and son of God, and that the Catholic Church was the true church. She accepted this, and thus was saved. We don't know what graces God can work before a person dies.
Anyway, I thought this story to be appropriate to this thread.
So, with all due miss/ma'am, and with no offense intended:
1. You just asserted that a priest stated that (human x) DIED >WITHOUT CONVERTING<. Is this intended?
Didn't you read my answer?......Oh my gosh. You actually believe that. "He contradicted Trent" then "corrected himself". Again you are either ignorant or willfully blind.
I know the great saint Alphonsus taught contrary to Trent, but unlike you, at least he corrected himself so he no longer contradicts Trent when he says only heretics say the sacraments are not necessary in as much as a BOD "justifies by faith alone", he echo's Trent explicit condemnation: "[If anyone shall say that] although all are not necessary for every individual, without the sacraments, or without the desire for the sacraments, through faith alone men obtain from God the grace of justification; let him be anathema."
The thing you cannot get through your brain is the fact that Trent condemns a BOD exactly where you say Trent defines a BOD.
If a BOD is not "justification through faith alone", then what is it?
The homily last night for the Feast of the Assumption had partly to do with Baptism of Desire. It was in relation to the salvation of souls. Father said that we must try to convert those family members and friends who are not Catholic, and we must pray for them, and pray for them still if they have died without converting.I heard a variation of this sermon some years back from an SSPX priest (one of my favorite SSPX priests to this day), except his woman was an atheist her whole life and was in the hospital (where 1000 different chemicals - including tap and purified water - is readily available and people are all over the place who could have baptized her), but anyway, the story goes.....in her coma she was inspired by Our Blessed Mother, desired baptism before dying and was saved by the BOD.
He said that God can work extra-sacramentally, though we cannot count on this of course. He then gave an example by telling a true story about a Carmelite friar. I think his name was Fr. Herman, but I'm not sure about that. Anyway, this man was Jєωιѕн, and had converted to the Catholic Faith. His Jєωιѕн mother disowned him because of his conversion, but he never stopped praying for her conversion, even after she died without converting.
Sometime after his mother's death, Father received a note from a nun who had had a mystical vision in which she saw that his mother, in being close to death and unconscious (I think she was in a coma, but don't rightly recall), she was given the grace by God to be shown who Jesus really was - the Messiah and son of God, and that the Catholic Church was the true church. She accepted this, and thus was saved. We don't know what graces God can work before a person dies.
Anyway, I thought this story to be appropriate to this thread.
Oh my gosh. You actually believe that. "He contradicted Trent" then "corrected himself". Again you are either ignorant or willfully blind.The "or desire" he said was "de fide" was plainly wrong. That "or desire" is speaking about justification, not salvation - yet he said it was de fide that it meant salvation.
The homily last night for the Feast of the Assumption had partly to do with Baptism of Desire. It was in relation to the salvation of souls. Father said that we must try to convert those family members and friends who are not Catholic, and we must pray for them, and pray for them still if they have died without converting.There are like 3 stories like this that keep coming up and that is about it. If I read such a story I would think that the Jєω mother may have been secretly baptized as a child by her Christian nanny, it was common for Jєωs to use Christian nannies. On the other hand, if this Jєω was saved as a Jєω, I would have to turn all the dogmas of EENS upside down and of course conclude that anyone can be saved in any religion, Jєω, Mohamedan, Hindu.... Keep in mind that this is all based on private revelation on the part of a nun.
He said that God can work extra-sacramentally, though we cannot count on this of course. He then gave an example by telling a true story about a Carmelite friar. I think his name was Fr. Herman, but I'm not sure about that. Anyway, this man was Jєωιѕн, and had converted to the Catholic Faith. His Jєωιѕн mother disowned him because of his conversion, but he never stopped praying for her conversion, even after she died without converting.
Sometime after his mother's death, Father received a note from a nun who had had a mystical vision in which she saw that his mother, in being close to death and unconscious (I think she was in a coma, but don't rightly recall), she was given the grace by God to be shown who Jesus really was - the Messiah and son of God, and that the Catholic Church was the true church. She accepted this, and thus was saved. We don't know what graces God can work before a person dies.
Anyway, I thought this story to be appropriate to this thread.
I heard a variation of this sermon some years back from an SSPX priest (one of my favorite SSPX priests to this day), except his woman was an atheist her whole life and was in the hospital (where 1000 different chemicals - including tap and purified water - is readily available and people are all over the place who could have baptized her), but anyway, the story goes.....in her coma she was inspired by Our Blessed Mother, desired baptism before dying and was saved by the BOD.
If I recall correctly, he attributed her salvation to her straightening a stem of a flower by a statue of Our Lady one day when she was a little girl.
In his version, apparently there was no need for some mystic to testify of her good fortune, he stated it as if her salvation was a matter of certain fact.
There are like 3 stories like this that keep coming up and that is about it. If I read such a story I would think that the Jєω mother may have been secretly baptized as a child by her Christian nanny, it was common for Jєωs to use Christian nannies. On the other hand, if this Jєω was saved as a Jєω, I would have to turn all the dogmas of EENS upside down and of course conclude that anyone can be saved in any religion, Jєω, Mohamedan, Hindu.... Keep in mind that this is all based on private revelation on the part of a nun.
I really love the truth of this teaching from St. Alphonsus.I love it too!
"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)"
I love it too!Oh look, there's LoL being non-responsive again…
Well, yes, it is based on the revelation of a nun, which puts it in the realm of the subjective, and therefore not absolute, of course. But it does give an indication that she was saved - not by her religion, but because of God's grace, due to her son's fervent prayers for her. Cannot God be moved to tell the truth about Our Lord and His Church to an unbaptized person, due to fervent prayers for that person?Why did you chose to leave out the rest of what I wrote? It is the most important part. There are like three stories like yours in the history of the Church, that's it. It sounds like you are choosing teachers according to your own desires. The story you posted is teaching that people in all religions can be saved, is that what you believe?
Meanwhile there are hundreds of thousands of authenticated Catholic accounts of people barely hanging onto life for long periods of time (the Indians of the Americas) till a missionary wanders in to baptize them, then they died within minutes. You can read about it in Father De Smet's biography The life of Father De Smet, The Apostle of the Rockies and also in Isaac Jogues's biography Saint Among Savages: The Life of St. Isaac Jogues. There are also hundreds of accounts of people being brought back from the dead just to be baptized then they die right after the baptism. I place one such account below.
Read the entire post, Dizzy. She did convert.1. Non-responsive.
What's your obsession with this issue, LoT? It's at the point of being a mental problem. Aren't there bigger fish to fry than a handful of marginalized and ridiculed people who take the EENS dogma at face value?All he is doing is posting quotes about BOD of the catechumen and BOB, one at a time, none of which apply to what he believes and is trying to convert others to believe; that Jєωs, Mohamedans, Hindus, Buddhists etc can be saved. If he posted quotes that taught Jєωs, Mohamedans, Hindus, Buddhists etc can be saved, he would have nothing to post but the mental gymnastics of modern theologians.
Why did you chose to leave out the rest of what I wrote? It is the most important part. There are like three stories like yours in the history of the Church, that's it. It sounds like you are choosing teachers according to your own desires. The story you posted is teaching that people in all religions can be saved, is that what you believe?
The rest of what I wrote that you left out:
I'm quite familiar with the lives of the North American Martyrs. I recommend an excellent book about their lives, called, "Saints of the American Wilderness."If you believe that Jєωιѕн mother was saved as it is described, then why not a Mohamedan, Buddhist, Hindu, indeed any religion be saved the same way? There is in your quote not one indication that the Jєωess was a catechumen or had the explicit desire to be a Catholic in her last moments. Based on the story, I have to ask: then why not a Mohamedan, Buddhist, Hindu, indeed any religion be saved the same way?
I left it out because I wasn't interested in your extreme view. You are saying that those who believe in Bod believe that those in all religions can be saved, and that's not what I'm saying at all. You take an extreme and untruthful view of what I said, and then you expect that I am supposed accept and comment on what you are saying. Until you can, in a mature manner, truthfully comment on what I said, I will not respond further to you.
1. Non-responsive.
2. I did, perhaps you should. .^. the question/point. To spell it out , first of all your acct is contradictory, i.e. , and subject matter/content aside, NOT CATHOLIC.
I'm trying very hard to at least be civil, perhaps you would try to do likewise?
If you believe that Jєωιѕн mother was saved as it is described, then why not a Mohamedan, Buddhist, Hindu, indeed any religion be saved the same way?
You are saying that those who believe in Bod believe that those in all religions can be saved, and that's not what I'm saying at all.
I love it too!If a BOD is not "justification by faith alone", then what is it?
It had nothing to do with her religion.
If a BOD is not "justification by faith alone", then what is it?
It had nothing to do with her religion.This is what I asked:
If you believe that Jєωιѕн mother was saved as it is described, then why not a Mohamedan, Buddhist, Hindu, indeed any religion be saved the same way? There is in your quote not one indication that the Jєωess was a catechumen or had the explicit desire to be a Catholic in her last moments. Based on the story, I have to ask: then why not a Mohamedan, Buddhist, Hindu, indeed any religion be saved the same way?
Not necessarily, but that's where 99.9% of all BoDers end up. And if I dig deep enough, I'm guessing that your views along those lines will also become evident.
This is what I asked:
"It had nothing to do with her religion" is not an answer.
Heck, it's not even that. Infidels can benefit from BoD, according to these clowns. It's more justification by "sincerity" (aka good will) alone.I totally agree. I ask it that way because echoing Trent, St. Alphonsus condemns it that way.
I'm quite familiar with the lives of the North American Martyrs. I recommend an excellent book about their lives, called, "Saints of the American Wilderness."Double standards make for divided minds and tongues miss/ma'am.
I left it out because I wasn't interested in your extreme view. You are saying that those who believe in Bod believe that those in all religions can be saved, and that's not what I'm saying at all. You take an extreme and untruthful view of what I said, and then you expect that I am supposed accept and comment on what you are saying. Until you can, in a mature manner, truthfully comment on what I said, I will not respond further to you.
LoT has obvious mental problems. I'm going to start just ignoring every one of his pathetic troll threads. He can amuse himself with these. I suggest that others do the same.Character "problems" if he didnt have such a troubling vote ratio, not to mention lauds, I'd concur.
Dizzy, your mind is frequently in the gutter in many of your posts. I understand why you find it difficult to be civil, and that you are indeed trying to be so at this moment (but that will quickly change, of course).So much for that…
My post was responsive. You just chose not to pay attention to it.
If a BOD is not "justification by faith alone", then what is it?"Baptism of desire" which is really the baptism of the Holy Ghost, impossible apart from supernatural charity (thus faith alone up in smoke) and the other requisites including a supernatural faith based upon God revealing.
Then there is no further use in responding to you.Your non-answers are typical of people who believe that anyone of "good" will is saved even if they are Jєωs, Mohamedans, Hindus, Buddhist... etc. , they are afraid of sincerely revealing what they believe. We who believe that dogma is the final word on a subject that was previously in doubt, spill our every thought here, while those who believe that all people of "good" will are saved, never sincerely reveal their beliefs directly.
I'm don't know what you are hoping to "dig up."Will stated and if you happened to die while on your path to conversion, before being baptized, though that is where it ultimately led, and had supernatural faith and perfect charity or perfect contrition you would have been saved as God, never asking the impossible, would have taken the desire for the act.
Why would anyone be saved because of their false religion? They cannot be saved as such, but rather they can have a possibility in spite of their religious connection. Isn't that what Archbishop Lefebvre believed?
Why can God not grant grace of conversion, especially if that person has been prayed for by a faithful Catholic? How is it that non-Catholics come to convert to the True Faith, if not guided by Divine Providence? I myself am a convert. Little graces were thrown in my path, and I was given the strength to follow them. Not of my own volition, which is weak.
Saint Paul was a persecutor of Catholics. Yet God chose him to be an Apostle, despite his hatred of Catholics. Paul was not baptized when Our Lord spoke to him on the road to Damascus, though of course he was told by Our Lord where to go to be baptized.
All he is doing is posting quotes about BOD of the catechumen and BOB, one at a time, none of which apply to what he believes and is trying to convert others to believe; that Jєωs, Mohamedans, Hindus, Buddhists etc can be saved. If he posted quotes that taught Jєωs, Mohamedans, Hindus, Buddhists etc can be saved, he would have nothing to post but the mental gymnastics of modern theologians.Let me add, that he is posting quotes about BOD of the catechumen and BOB, one at a time, when he does not believe the quotes he is posting, for he believes that people can be saved who have no desire to die for the faith (BOB) or to be catechumen or to be a Catholic and even despise the Church.
These non-answers are typical of people who believe that anyone of "good" will is saved even if they are Jєωs, Mohamedans, Hindus, Buddhist... etc. , they are afraid of sincerely revealing what they believe. We who believe that dogma is the final word on a subject that was previously in doubt, spill our every thought here, while those who believe that all people of "good" will are saved, never sincerely reveal their beliefs directly.
A perfect example is LOT, he's posted more on this sub-forum ghetto than practically everyone else put together, and yet to this day no one knows precisely what he believes.
Let me add, that he is posting quotes about BOD of the catechumen and BOB, one at a time, when he does not believe the quotes he is posting, for he believes that people can be saved who have no desire to die for the faith (BOB) or to be catechumen or to be a Catholic and even despise the Church.You make things up as you go along. I'm not sure I've encountered an intellectually honest feeneyite on this forum.
Your non-answers are typical of people who believe that anyone of "good" will is saved even if they are Jєωs, Mohamedans, Hindus, Buddhist... etc. , they are afraid of sincerely revealing what they believe. We who believe that dogma is the final word on a subject that was previously in doubt, spill our every thought here, while those who believe that all people of "good" will are saved, never sincerely reveal their beliefs directly.… no one, and no 'else'.
A perfect example is LOT, he's posted more on this sub-forum ghetto than practically everyone else put together, and yet to this day no one knows precisely what he believes.
"… ghetto… " Very well put.
You make things up as you go along. I'm not sure I've encountered an intellectually honest feeneyite on this forum. Audacity, another hallmark of the heretic…
Why can God not grant grace of conversion, especially if that person has been prayed for by a faithful Catholic? How is it that non-Catholics come to convert to the True Faith, if not guided by Divine Providence? I myself am a convert. Little graces were thrown in my path, and I was given the strength to follow them. Not of my own volition, which is weak.The difference between those who convert and those who do not convert, is those who convert accept or corresponded with the graces God offers. Those who do not convert reject the graces God offers. Said properly, were God to see that the person would take the graces were they offered to him, they would be given.
Saint Paul was a persecutor of Catholics. Yet God chose him to be an Apostle, despite his hatred of Catholics. Paul was not baptized when Our Lord spoke to him on the road to Damascus, though of course he was told by Our Lord where to go to be baptized.
Will stated and if you happened to die while on your path to conversion, before being baptized, though that is where it ultimately led, and had supernatural faith and perfect charity or perfect contrition you would have been saved as God, never asking the impossible, would have taken the desire for the act.
Will stated and if you happened to die while on your path to conversion, before being baptized, though that is where it ultimately led, and had supernatural faith and perfect charity or perfect contrition you would have been saved as God, never asking the impossible, would have taken the desire for the act.You say this heresy as if it is a dogmatic fact.
Makes sense.No, no, no.
If Saint Paul had died before being baptized by Ananias, it doesn't make sense of course that he would have gone to Hell before he had a chance to be baptized, though those who are against Bod might claim that Saint Paul would have gone to Hell.
Makes sense."Sense". Omniscient, omnipotent being creates universe and all other creatures… can't arrange a bit of H2O.
If Saint Paul had died before being baptized by Ananias, it doesn't make sense of course that he would have gone to Hell before he had a chance to be baptized, though those who are against Bod might claim that Saint Paul would have gone to Hell.
1)Here he is saying that the conversion doesn't even need to take place yet to be saved: "if you happened to die while on your path to conversion...you would have been saved". Contra EENS!* 2)He is also teaching that supernatural faith, perfect charity and perfect contrition CAN be attained not only without Baptism but even without conversion, but merely on your path to conversion!!! This is contra Dogma!** 3) Then he teaches us that God can command something (Baptism) but then waive that command as it is impossible. Also contra Catholic Teaching that God does not command impossibilities.***
No Catholic saint, theologian, father etc... ever taught this.
* Florence Sess.8:"Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic faith..."
**Trent Sess.6 Ch.7: "This faith, Catechumen’s beg of the Church...previously to the sacrament of Baptism"
***Trent Sess.6 Ch.11:"For God does not command impossibilities..."
Makes sense.That is exactly right.
If Saint Paul had died before being baptized by Ananias, it doesn't make sense of course that he would have gone to Hell before he had a chance to be baptized, though those who are against Bod might claim that Saint Paul would have gone to Hell.
1)Here he is saying that the conversion doesn't even need to take place yet to be saved: "if you happened to die while on your path to conversion...you would have been saved". Contra EENS!* 2)He is also teaching that supernatural faith, perfect charity and perfect contrition CAN be attained not only without Baptism but even without conversion, but merely on your path to conversion!!! This is contra Dogma!** 3) Then he teaches us that God can command something (Baptism) but then waive that command as it is impossible. Also contra Catholic Teaching that God does not command impossibilities.***Point granted. I should have worded "before becoming an actual member". Though in a certain sense the conversion process starts when you gain the actual grace to consider the Catholic Faith and ends when you join the Catholic Church, the point when you can be saved is after you have obtained a supernatural faith while at the same time having the supernatural virtue of charity, any time from this point until becoming a baptized member of the Catholic Church one can be saved within the Church.
No Catholic saint, theologian, father etc... ever taught this.
* Florence Sess.8:"Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic faith..."
**Trent Sess.6 Ch.7: "This faith, Catechumen’s beg of the Church...previously to the sacrament of Baptism"
***Trent Sess.6 Ch.11:"For God does not command impossibilities..."
@JohnAnthonyMarieHe "admits" in regard to the character not in regards to the remission of guilt which is what is necessary for salvation. One with the character can be damned one in a state of sanctifying grace cannot.
I already answered your question and yes you are ignoring the infallible Teachings of the Church. I quoted Florence and Trent and you give me commentary on canons!
Do i reject that canon? Yes, there are other errors in that Code of Canon Law as well.
1. It's a Dogma ALL who die in mortal sin or original sin go to Hell.
2. Read what i wrote earlier, you have to make a decision, no way around this:
Thus, the 1917 Code’s proposition in canon 737 that Baptism is necessary "at least in desire" for salvation is not binding on the universal Church or protected by infallibility. Regarding its law in canon 1239, that unbaptized catechumens can be given Christian burial, this contradicts the entire Tradition of the Catholic Church for 1900 years on whether unbaptized persons can be given Christian burial.
Since the time of Jesus Christ and throughout all of history, the Catholic Church universally refused ecclesiastical burial to catechumens who died without the Sacrament of Baptism, as The Catholic Encyclopedia admits:
The Catholic Encyclopedia, 'Baptism,' Volume 2, 1907: "A certain statement in the funeral oration of St. Ambrose over the Emperor Valentinian II has been brought forward as a proof that the Church offered sacrifices and prayers for catechumens who died before baptism. There is not a vestige of such a custom to be found anywhere... The practice of the Church is more correctly shown in the canon (xvii) of the Second Council of Braga (572 AD): 'Neither the commemoration of Sacrifice [oblationis] nor the service of chanting [psallendi] is to be employed for catechumens who have died without baptism.'"
This is the law of the Catholic Church since the beginning and throughout all of history. So, since this issue is tied to the Faith and not merely disciplinary, either the Catholic Church was wrong since the time of Christ for refusing ecclesiastical burial for catechumens who died without baptism or the 1917 Code is wrong for granting it to them. It is either one or the other, because the 1917 Code directly contradicts the Traditional and constant law of the Catholic Church for nineteen centuries on this point which is tied to the Faith. The answer is, obviously, that the 1917 Code is wrong and not infallible, and the Catholic Church’s law for all of history refusing ecclesiastical burial to catechumens is right. Also, it is interesting to note that the Latin version of the 1917 Code contains many footnotes to traditional popes, councils, etc. to show from where certain canons were derived. Canon 1239.2 on giving ecclesiastical burial to unbaptized catechumens has no footnote, not to any pope, previous law or council, simply because there is nothing in Tradition which supports it!!
You are being totally dishonest like most modernist heretics. 'B.o.d' and 'b.o.b' is simply a doctrine of man. Are you aware St.Robert Bellarmine taught 'b.o.d' but said unbaptized catechumens are not part of the Church?
Are you aware St. Alphonsus admits that 'baptism of desire' does not take away the temporal punishment due to sin.This is a devastating problem for 'b.o.d' and its supporters.
ST. ALPHONSUS ADMITS THAT 'BAPTISM OF DESIRE' DOES NOT PROVIDE THE GRACE OF SPIRITUAL REBIRTH/BAPTISM, WHICH TRENT SAYS EVERYONE MUST HAVE TO BE JUSTIFIED.
St. Alphonsus: "Baptism of blowing is perfect conversion to God through contrition or through the love of God above all things, with the explicit desire, or implicit desire of the true river of baptism whose place it supplies (iuxta Trid. Sess. 14, c. 4) with respect to the remission of the guilt, but not with respect to the character to be imprinted, nor with respect to the full liability of the punishment to be removed: it is called of blowing because it is made through the impulse of the Holy Spirit, who is called a blowing." (St. Alphonsus, Moral Theology, Volume V, Book 6, n. 96)
St. Alphonsus says that 'b.o.d' does not remove the temporal punishment due to sin. According to his explanation, someone who dies with a 'b.o.d' may need to spend time in Purgatory. That’s actually a fatal problem for the 'theory' because the Church has dogmatically defined that the grace of baptism is not merely the remission of the guilt of sin, but also the remission of all temporal punishment due to sin.
Pope Eugene IV, The Council of Florence, "Exultate Deo," Nov. 22, 1439: "Holy baptism, which is the gateway to the spiritual life… The effect of this sacrament is the remission of every fault, original and actual, and also of every punishment which is owed for the fault itself. Therefore to the baptized no satisfaction is to be enjoined for past sins; but dying, before they commit any fault, they immediately attain the kingdom of heaven and the vision of God."
ALL THOSE BORN AGAIN HAVE EVERY PUNISHMENT DUE TO SIN REMITTED
Likewise, the Council of Trent’s Decree on Original Sin solemnly defined that all those who are ‘born again’ have all the guilt and every punishment due to sin removed. This grace of being 'born again' renders the recipients ‘immaculate’ and it leaves in them nothing that could retard their entrance into Heaven.
Council of Trent, Sess. 5, Original Sin, #5, Ex Cathedra: "If any one denies, that, by the grace of Our Lord Jesus Christ, which is conferred in baptism, the guilt of original sin is remitted; or even asserts that the whole of that which has the true and proper nature of sin is not taken away; but says that it is only erased, or not imputed; let him be anathema. FOR, IN THOSE WHO ARE BORN AGAIN, there is nothing that God hates; because, there is no condemnation to those who are truly buried together with Christ by baptism into death; who walk not according to the flesh, but, putting off the old man, and putting on the new who is created according to God, are made innocent, immaculate, pure, guiltless, and beloved of God, heirs indeed of God, but joint heirs with Christ; in such a manner that absolutely nothing may delay them from entry into heaven."
As we can see, it’s a Dogma that the grace of baptism/spiritual rebirth/being ‘born again’ provides not only justification and the remission of the guilt of sin, but also the remission of every punishment due to sin.
TO BE JUSTIFIED EVERYONE MUST BE ‘BORN AGAIN’ – A GRACE WHICH INCLUDES THE REMISSION OF EVERY TEMPORAL PUNISHMENT DUE TO SIN
Furthermore, it’s de fide definita that UNLESS YOU RECEIVE THE GRACE OF SPIRITUAL REBIRTH/BEING ‘BORN AGAIN’ YOU CAN NEVER BE JUSTIFIED!
Council of Trent, Sess. 6, Chap. 3: "But though He died for all, yet all do not receive the benefit of His death, but those only to whom the merit of His passion is communicated; because as truly as men would not be born unjust, if they were not born through propagation of the seed of Adam, since by that propagation they contract through him, when they are conceived, injustice as their own, SO UNLESS THEY WERE BORN AGAIN IN CHRIST THEY WOULD NEVER BE JUSTIFIED, since by that new birth through the merit of His passion the grace by which they become just is bestowed upon them."
Is this becoming clear?
I noticed you're defending invincible ignorance also, wow what a surprise! [sarcasm]
It's interesting how the modernists who defend the demonic doctrine of invincible ignorance are actually the most ignorant of Church Teaching and Scripture.
Pope Pius IX was simply wrong, people who accept 'b.o.d' and 'b.o.d' are some of the most selective people i have come across.
Quick destruction of invincible ignorance:
Pope St. Pius X, Acerbo Nimis (#2), April 15, 1905: "And so Our Predecessor, Benedict XIV, had just cause to write: 'We declare that a great number of those who are condemned to eternal punishment suffer that everlasting calamity because of ignorance of those mysteries of faith which must be known and believed in order to be numbered among the elect.'"
Pope Gregory XVI, Probe Nostis (#6), Sept. 18, 1840: "We are thankful for the success of apostolic missions in America, the Indies, and other faithless lands... They search out those who sit in darkness and the shadow of death to summon them to the light and life of the Catholic religion... At length they snatch them from the devil’s rule, by the bath of regeneration and promote them to the freedom of God’s adopted sons."
The great "Apostle of the Rocky Mountains," Fr. Pierre De Smet, who was the extraordinary missionary to the American Indians in the 19th century, was also convinced – with all the great Catholic missionaries before him – that all the Indians whom he did not reach would be eternally lost.
Fr. De Smet, S.J., Jan. 26, 1838: "New priests are to be added to the Potawatomi Mission, and my Superior, Father Verhaegen gives me hope that I will be sent. How happy I would be could I spend myself for the salvation of so many souls, who are lost because they have never known truth!" [Fr. E. Laveille, S.J., The Life of Fr. De Smet, p. 80]
St. Alphonsus: "See also the special love which God has shown you in bringing you into life in a Christian country, and in the bosom of the Catholic or true Church. How many are born among the pagans, among the Jєωs, among the Mohometans and heretics, and all are lost." [Sermons of St. Alphonsus Liguori, Tan Books, 1982, p. 219.]
MANY MANY other quotes can be provided. Here is God The Holy Ghost:
2 Corinthians 4:3-4 "And if our gospel be also hid, it is hid to them that are lost, In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of unbelievers, that the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should not shine unto them."
Psalms 78:6 "Pour out thy wrath upon the nations that have not known thee: and upon the kingdoms that have not called upon thy name."
1 Corinthians 6:9-10 "Know you not that the unjust shall not possess the kingdom of God? Do not err: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, Nor the effeminate, nor liers with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor railers, nor extortioners, shall possess the kingdom of God."
It's amazing that hardly any, if any, BODers/InIviners ever quote the entire paragraph of this FALLIBLE allocution to Cardinals. Here is the full text and the part they leave out in bold.Anything put in the Acta by a valid Pope must be accepted by a Catholic. Are you a Catholic?Pope Pius IX, Singulari Quadem: For, it must be held by faith that outside the Apostolic Roman Church, no one can be saved; that this is the only ark of salvation; that he who shall not have entered therein will perish in the flood; but, on the other hand, it is necessary to hold for certain that they who labor in ignorance of the true religion, if this ignorance is invincible, are not stained by any guilt in this matter in the eyes of God. Now, in truth, who would arrogate so much to himself as to mark the limits of such an ignorance, because of the nature and variety of peoples, regions, innate dispositions, and of so many other things? For, in truth, when released from these corporeal chains "we shall see God as He is" [1 John 3:2], we shall understand perfectly by how close and beautiful a bond divine mercy and justice are united; but, as long as we are on earth, weighed down by this mortal mass which blunts the soul, let us hold most firmly that, in accordance with Catholic teaching, there is "one God, one faith, one baptism" [Eph. 4:5]; it is unlawful to proceed further in inquiry.1. Pope Pius IX is saying that the invincible ignorance will not save a person but that God does not find fault in this matter of their ignorance. This is unlike those who are culpable for their ignorance, they are at fault. It does not mean those individuals will not be damned for their other sins since there is no remission of sins outside the Church.2. In the section they never quote he clearly implies that while here on Earth, we are to believe that Baptism is necessary and to seek other avenues for salvation is not allowed discussion. So the supporters of salvific ignorance are disobeying the Pope when they further this point.3. The Doctors they love to quote are completely and explicitly against this. St. Thomas Aquinas, Sent. III, 25, Q. 2, A. 2, solute. 2: “If a man should have no one to instruct him, God will show him, unless he culpably wishes to remain where he is.” St. Alphonsus Liguori, Sermons (c. +1760): “How many are born among the pagans, among the Jєωs, among the Mohometans and heretics, and all are lost.” (http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/catholic_church_salvation_faith_and_baptism.php#_edn292) (http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/catholic_church_salvation_faith_and_baptism.php#_edn291)
You're in denial.The Church is infallible in canon law as it pertains to doctrine. Of course disciplines can change:
The 1917 CCL is NOT Catholic Teaching. You honestly reject what the Catholic Church actually teaches. Your authority is a commentary on Canon Law. :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm:
"Thus saith the Lord: Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the Lord."
Jeremiah 17:5
"David was right in saying that all people lie. Mankind’s life on earth is a struggle and like the mountain dew that soon is gone, like the flower of the field that quickly withers. We mortals are so blind that out of such a multitude of people only a small portion know the true God, primarily in this part of the world, Europe, the Spaniards being the most faithful. Among those raised in the church, few confess the faith and many of them are in sin, so nineteen out of twenty parts of mankind live in darkness and blindness." [Colahan, The Visions of Sor María de Agreda p.53]
It's amazing that hardly any, if any, BODers/InIviners ever quote the entire paragraph of this FALLIBLE allocution to Cardinals. Here is the full text and the part they leave out in bold.http://www.catholicapologetics.info/thechurch/encyclicals/allocution.htmPope Pius IX, Singulari Quadem: For, it must be held by faith that outside the Apostolic Roman Church, no one can be saved; that this is the only ark of salvation; that he who shall not have entered therein will perish in the flood; but, on the other hand, it is necessary to hold for certain that they who labor in ignorance of the true religion, if this ignorance is invincible, are not stained by any guilt in this matter in the eyes of God. Now, in truth, who would arrogate so much to himself as to mark the limits of such an ignorance, because of the nature and variety of peoples, regions, innate dispositions, and of so many other things? For, in truth, when released from these corporeal chains "we shall see God as He is" [1 John 3:2], we shall understand perfectly by how close and beautiful a bond divine mercy and justice are united; but, as long as we are on earth, weighed down by this mortal mass which blunts the soul, let us hold most firmly that, in accordance with Catholic teaching, there is "one God, one faith, one baptism" [Eph. 4:5]; it is unlawful to proceed further in inquiry.1. Pope Pius IX is saying that the invincible ignorance will not save a person but that God does not find fault in this matter of their ignorance. This is unlike those who are culpable for their ignorance, they are at fault. It does not mean those individuals will not be damned for their other sins since there is no remission of sins outside the Church.2. In the section they never quote he clearly implies that while here on Earth, we are to believe that Baptism is necessary and to seek other avenues for salvation is not allowed discussion. So the supporters of salvific ignorance are disobeying the Pope when they further this point.3. The Doctors they love to quote are completely and explicitly against this. St. Thomas Aquinas, Sent. III, 25, Q. 2, A. 2, solute. 2: “If a man should have no one to instruct him, God will show him, unless he culpably wishes to remain where he is.” St. Alphonsus Liguori, Sermons (c. +1760): “How many are born among the pagans, among the Jєωs, among the Mohometans and heretics, and all are lost.” (http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/catholic_church_salvation_faith_and_baptism.php#_edn292) (http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/catholic_church_salvation_faith_and_baptism.php#_edn291)
I accept this teaching by Pope Pius IX. All those who die in "invincible ignorance" will not be judged in that matter. It does not mean they will not be judged according to their other sins which can not be remitted outside the Catholic Church, which the "invincibly ignorant" are NOT a part of.It is quite true that one not guilty in that matter could be quite guilty in another. That is a given. But you would have difficulty finding an authoritative teach that would claim such a one MUST be guilty in a another matter. But the Feeneyites cannot accept Catholic teaching, so they grovel and squirm, lie and deny. You seem a bit above that however. I do hope the Truth finds you.
But, nevertheless, we must likewise hold it as certain that those who labor in ignorance of the true religion, if that [ignorance] be invincible, will never be charged with any guilt on this account before the eyes of the Lord. Now, who is there who would arrogate to himself the power to indicate the extent of such [invincible] ignorance according to the nature and the variety of peoples, regions, talents, and so many other things? For really when, loosed from these bodily bonds, we see God as He is, we shall certainly understand with what intimate and beautiful a connection the divine mercy and justice are joined together. But, while we live on earth, weighed down by this mortal body that darkens the mind, let us hold most firmly, from Catholic doctrine, that there is one God, one faith, one baptism. It is wrong to push our inquiries further than this.
For the rest, as the cause of charity demands, let us pour forth continual prayers to God that all nations everywhere may be converted to Christ. And let us do all in our power to bring about the common salvation of men, for the hand of the Lord is not shortened and the gifts of heavenly grace will never be lacking to those who sincerely wish and pray to be comforted in this light. Truths of this kind must be deeply implanted in the minds of the faithful so that they may not be corrupted by the false doctrines that tend to encourage the religious indifference (doctrinis eo spectantibus, ut religionis foveant indifferentiam) which we see being spread abroad and strengthened to the ruination of souls. [Denz., 1646-48]
This, then, is the teaching which Pope Pius IX insisted that the Bishops of the Catholic Church should give to their people, in order to keep out of the minds of those people the false doctrines which could ruin their spiritual lives. The Singulari Quadam brings out the following teachings much more clearly and explicitly than previous ecclesiastical declarations on the necessity of the Church for salavation [sic] had done.
(1) It is a ruinous error to imagine that one can have grounds of hope that people now dead, and who had not entered into the Church in any way during the course of their lives, are saved.
(2) The dogma that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church is in no way opposed to the truth that God is all-merciful and all-just.
(3) The doctrine that no one is saved outside the Catholic Church is a truth revealed by God through Jesus Christ, and a truth which all men must believe with the assent of divine faith. It is a Catholic dogma.
(4) Invincible ignorance, of the true Church or of anything else, is not considered by God as a sin. The dogma that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church in no way implies that invincible ignorance is sinful.
(5) It is an impious and deadly error to hold that salvation may be attained in any religion.
(6) It is not within the field either of our competence or of our rights to search out the way in which God's mercy and His justice operate in any given case of a person ignorant of the true Church or of the true religion. We shall see how these divine attributes have operated in the light of the Beatific Vision itself.
(7) It is the business of the Church to work and to pray that all men will attain salvation in the Church.
[8] God is never outdone in generosity. The person who tries to come to Him will never be forsaken. As a matter of fact, the movement toward God, like all good things, originates from God Himself. Fenton
You are the one claiming the Pope is teaching "salvation outside the Church".You are the one that is lying.
I understood this to mean that you believe that the Pope is now saying there is salvation outside the Church. This is what you said.I am not saying that. This is the classic feeneyite defense mechanism when they cannot logically defend their heresy. False accusation. Ignorance by itself neither save or damns a man. Nor water by itself. But sanctifying grace. Do you dare to disagree?
If this is not what you meant it doesn't really matter. You are saying that invincible ignorance saves. The person doesn't know God, his laws or revelation, and has not been Sacramentally Baptized (which is where true justification begins) which couldn't be better definition for outside the Church.
So you don't deny that you were saying that the Pope is teaching that there is now salvation outside the Church?I do deny that. I accept EENS. It is indeed possible to be in a state of sanctifying grace apart from baptism when sacramental baptism is impossible. Supernatural Faith and perfect charity is given to us by God. He gives us the actual graces necessary to seek and find the truth. It is a process. Those who are not aware of the necessity of baptism, through no fault of their own, can obtain sanctifying grace before being baptized. This is the teaching of the Church.
You're saying that one can receive sanctifying grace without all those things that I mentioned. How could a man, ignorant of all things Catholic, receive sanctifying grace, or perfect contrition/charity? Those things are meaningless without Faith which is only bestowed upon Baptism.
St. Thomas says that such a person will be led to the Catholic faith if they are invincibly ignorant. You are saying a person can be saved without that faith. The Church has declared there is no Salvation outside of the Catholic Faithful. You make that a meaningless formula because the faithful are Baptized members of the Church.
I do deny that. I accept EENS. It is indeed possible to be in a state of sanctifying grace apart from baptism when sacramental baptism is impossible. Supernatural Faith and perfect charity is given to us by God. He gives us the actual graces necessary to seek and find the truth. It is a process. Those who are not aware of the necessity of baptism, through no fault of their own, can obtain sanctifying grace before being baptized. This is the teaching of the Church.
"… impossible…" Man, the faith is rolling off this one like the waves at Laguna at no tide…Impossible for the heretic who trusts himself more than legitimate Church authorities, the OUM and Trent.
Impossible for the heretic who trusts himself more than legitimate Church authorities, the OUM and Trent."Thtop hitteen yurthelf!" *thwack
"Thtop hitteen yurthelf!" *thwackOkay dokey.
Even the Church in the Roman Catechism merely said "if" a man were to die without baptism due to an unforeseen accident . . .
This is plain in both the first and the second parts of the teaching on this subject set forth in the Cantate Domino. The first part asserts that the various classes of individuals "outside" the Catholic Church not only cannot become partakers of eternal life, but also that "they are going into the everlasting fire which is prepared for the devil and his angels" unless they become united to the Church before they pass from this world. In this assertion, which, incidentally, has been designated as "rigorous" by opponents of the Church and by some badly instructed Catholics. Pope Eugenius IV merely took cognizance of the reality of Our Lord's work of redemption. Fenton
Stubborn,None of this contradicts the other teachings I have shown pertaining to BOD itself. Of course it is best to get baptized while there is still a chance.
Indeed I was interpreting what I take it to say.
The exact langauge is:
Stubborn,Yes, it says first: The delay is not attended with the same danger as in the case of infants, as I said, this is presicely because "there is no danger of death". So that's the first strike against using this to support a BOD.
Indeed I was interpreting what I take it to say.
The exact langauge is:
None of this contradicts the other teachings I have shown pertaining to BOD itself. Of course it is best to get baptized while there is still a chance.This.
As you may or may not know tornpage, Feeneyites pick and chose what they accept in catechisms.
They use it to defend one thing and then condemn it when it teaches another.
Yes, it says first: The delay is not attended with the same danger as in the case of infants, as I said, this is presicely because "there is no danger of death". So that's the first strike against using this to support a BOD.Distinctions are heresy...
Next it says: "should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness."
As I said: "it never mentions anything about dying at all, nor, in that particular teaching, does it even mention anything about salvation, or even damnation for that matter. Note that the catechism does not even say that their good intentions and repentance guarantees a state of "grace and righteousness", only that it avails them to it."
For that matter, the unforeseen accident could mean anything, even the priest getting a flat tire on the way to the Church. One thing WE KNOW that it does not mean, is the catechumen's accidental death - because "The delay is not attended with the same danger as in the case of infants, which we have already mentioned."
Distinctions are heresy...Distinctions clarify.
Just need to understand that the catechism never mentions anything about dying at all, nor, in that particular teaching, does it even mention anything about salvation, or even damnation for that matter. Note that the catechism does not even say that their good intentions and repentance guarantees a state of "grace and righteousness", only that it avails them to it.Why do you care what a catechism says when you just say they are "Not infallible" when they teach something you disagree with?
We know the catechism would never mean that an unforeseen accident means an accidental death - that would mean the catechism is preaching against the Divine Providence of God, as if the catechumen's death were unexpected or a surprise to God - which is entirely conciliar thinking, used in heretic's attempts to promote a BOD.
Distinctions clarify.So it would seem...
Just need to understand that the catechism never mentions anything about dying at all, nor, in that particular teaching, does it even mention anything about salvation, or even damnation for that matter. Note that the catechism does not even say that their good intentions and repentance guarantees a state of "grace and righteousness", only that it avails them to it.Logic? "Anathema Sit!"
We know the catechism would never mean that an unforeseen accident means an accidental death - that would mean the catechism is preaching against the Divine Providence of God, as if the catechumen's death were unexpected or a surprise to God - which is entirely conciliar thinking, used in heretic's attempts to promote a BOD.
Deceit. Which one of us ever said that Catechisms are not useful for understanding the faith?How is asking a question deceit? So they are useful unless YOU disagree with them on a particular point.
Why do you care what a catechism says when you just say they are "Not infallible" when they teach something you disagree with?The point, which went over your head as usual, is you cannot use this catechism to support a BOD in any way, shape or form. It teaches the truth when you read what is written.
The point, which went over your head as usual, is you cannot use this catechism to support a BOD in any way, shape or form. It teaches the truth when you read what is written.The point is, according to you.
They can be very "useful," like the Catechism of Trent here:How DARE you quote things v. LoL?! You even made it...not irrelevant?
The point is, according to you.:fryingpan:
The point, which went over your head as usual, is you cannot use this catechism to support a BOD in any way, shape or form. It teaches the truth when you read what is written.Things are over ones head much more frequently when ducking them.
How is asking a question deceit? So they are useful unless YOU disagree with them on a particular point.see, e.g., "Leading Question", or just catch a "Matlock" rerun.
Things are over ones head much more frequently when ducking them.Can't upthumb you any more but, EXACTLY!! x a million.
:fryingpan:Nope, point's still there. Maybe a cutoff saw will work better than just beating it out.
see, e.g., "Leading Question", or just catch a "Matlock" rerun.Nope. Can't deny you use them do defend what you prefer to believe and be-little them when they don't. Like a protestant with a bible. :cheers:
Nope. Can't deny you use them do defend what you prefer to believe and be-little them when they don't. Like a protestant with a bible. :cheers:"This is the weather the cuckoo likes, a gambling birdhouse velocity." :fryingpan:
"This is the weather the cuckoo likes, a gambling birdhouse velocity." :fryingpan:Can't deny the accusation. :cheers:
@Lover of Richard Cushing"...Pope Pius XII, Humani generis (# 21), Aug. 12, 1950: "This deposit of faith our Divine Redeemer has given for authentic interpretation not to each of the faithful, not even to theologians, but only to the Teaching Authority of the Church.'"
Like i said before "baptism" of desire/blood is a man made doctrine and was never taught by the Church. Some saints taught it and they all contradicted each other. Some specifically taught desire others blood.
Pope Pius XII, Humani generis (# 21), Aug. 12, 1950: "This deposit of faith our Divine Redeemer has given for authentic interpretation not to each of the faithful, not even to theologians, but only to the Teaching Authority of the Church.'"
But NONE of them taught it like the diabolical modernists preach it today, which according to them can be applied to ANYONE. Virtually all who believe in desire/blood also believe in invincible ignorance. Instead of actually trying to convert people to the one true Faith in this time of supreme darkness and promoting the flawless work of MHFM. These dunces are dedicated specifically to promote desire/blood and invincible ignorance.
Council of Trent obliterates desire simply by saying:
Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, Can. 2 on the Sacrament of Baptism, Sess. 7, 1547, Ex Cathedra: "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 Ghost' [John 3:5], are distorted into some sort of metaphor: let him be anathema."
Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, Can. 5 on the Sacrament of Baptism, Sess. 7, 1547, Ex Cathedra: "If anyone says that baptism [the sacrament] is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation (cf. Jn. 3:5): let him be anathema."
The passage that lovers of Cushing bring up where Trent mentions desire is simply referring to adult justification.
Catholics during these times were 'baptizing' Jєωs by force! Invalid.
That's why Trent mentions desire. Same reason that Florence mentions the words of consecration is because during the time of Florence some priests weren't saying the right words! St.Bernardino calling their Masses 'Masses of ignorance'.
Same way the lovers of Cushing twist Trent is the same way that the puffed up with diabolical pride schismatic Greeks twist Constantinople I and say that it never mentions the Filioque.
How can the Church anathematize someone for saying Baptism is optional, then go and 'teach' desire? This is why Lovers of Cushing ALWAYS contradict themselves. Here is a perfect example from Brother Peter's book:
Another example would be the famous book, The Catechism Explained, by Fr. Spirago and Fr. Clarke. Like Dr. Ott’s book, The Catechism Explained taught baptism of desire and that there is salvation “outside” the Church. Yet despite this fact, these "theologians" (Frs. Spirago and Clarke) were compelled to admit the following truth, which is confessed universally by all purported Catholic theologians.
Fr. Francis Spirago and Fr. Richard Clarke, The Catechism Explained, 1899, Baptism: "3. BAPTISM IS INDISPENSABLY NECESSARY TO SALVATION. Hence children who die unbaptized cannot enter heaven. Our Lord says: 'Unless a man be born again of water and of the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven' (John 3:5). He makes no exception, not even in the case of infants... Baptism is no less indispensable in the spiritual order than water in the natural order..."
This shows, again, how the universal teaching of theologians is that baptism of water is absolutely necessary for salvation, and that Our Lord’s words in John 3:5 have no exceptions. The fact that Frs. Spirago and Clarke proceed to contradict this statement and teach baptism of desire (and the heresy of salvation "outside" the Church) just shows their own inconsistency – and the inconsistency of all who favor baptism of desire.
Fr. Francis Spirago and Fr. Richard Clarke, The Catechism Explained, 1899, Baptism: "... for adults the simple desire is sufficient, if actual baptism is impossible."
How can water baptism be indispensably necessary for salvation (as they just told us), if the simple desire for it is sufficient in its place? That is a direct contradiction. And anyone who says that it is not simply denies the law of non-contradiction. One cannot say that:
Water Baptism is indispensably necessary for salvation
And at the same time....
Water Baptism is not indispensably necessary for salvation (desire can replace it)
These two statements are contradictory, but this is exactly what people were being taught all over the world in catechisms since the late 1800’s. They were being taught the truth (1st proposition), while simultaneously they were taught the opposite of that truth (2nd proposition). This shows that even in the time of growing apostasy, heresy and modernism that was the period from approximately 1850 to 1950, all theologians and catechisms still affirmed the universally taught truth on the absolute necessity of water baptism for salvation, even though they did not remain consistent with it.
The miraculous baptisms throughout history also annihilate desire/blood.
Michael Malone who was a member of the Harlot of Babylon [The modern day 'Church' in Rome and the prophesied end times counter-church] says:
"The Fathers of the Church, therefore, taken as a whole, can only be said to have verified definitively the official and authentic teaching of the one true Church that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be baptized in the water of the actual sacrament instituted by Our Lord Jesus Christ. On the other hand, it is intellectually dishonest to suggest otherwise. And to exalt the personal theological opinions of a handful – even an impressive and well-known handful – to the rank of ecclesiastical Tradition or even magisterial infallibility is not only an exercise in sophomoric legerdemain [verbal sleight of hand], but also a brand of facile short-sightedness unconscionable in any serious study of Patristic Theology." [Michael Malone, The Only-Begotten, p. 404.]
What Spirago and Clarke said regarding Baptism being impossible was condemned by Trent!
Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Session 6, Chap. 11 on Justification, Ex Cathedra: "... no one should make use of that rash statement forbidden under anathema by the Fathers, that the commandments of God are impossible to observe for a man who is justified. ‘FOR GOD DOES NOT COMMAND IMPOSSIBILITIES, but by commanding admonishes you both to do what you can do, and to pray for what you cannot do..."
Catechism of the Council of Trent, On Baptism, Tan Books, p. 171: "Holy writers are unanimous in saying that after the Resurrection of our Lord, when He gave to His Apostles the command to go and teach all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, the law of Baptism became obligatory on all who were to be saved."
As proven above, God commanded all men to be baptized. The supporters of the theory of baptism of desire argue that for some people the command to be baptized is impossible to fulfill.
True Catholics actually try to convert and baptize non-Catholics. Lovers of Cushing [SSPX, CMRI, SSPV etc] are hellbent on promoting desire/blood and invincible ignorance and trying to exalt fallible statements to the levels of the Magisterium and make exceptions to Dogmas!
“I have just about made up my mind to start a new book. I shall write on the notion of the Church. Nothing like this has appeared since the Council. Within the book I hope to have quite a bit to say about the Council. I must be very careful. If a sincere Catholic writes a book it’s either ignored or brutally attacked. I must make no mistakes. My main thesis will have to be that the Catholic theology on the Church has been improved but in no way changed by the Council.
I have just about made up my mind to start a new book. I shall write on the notion of the Church. Nothing like this has appeared since the Council. Within the book I hope to have quite a bit to say about the Council. I must be very careful. If a sincere Catholic writes a book it’s either ignored or brutally attacked. I must make no mistakes. My main thesis will have to be that the Catholic theology on the Church has been improved but in no way changed by the Council.
from Lover of Heresy's great Catholic "authority" on Catholic ecclesiology ...MGR. J. H. HERVE, Manuale Theologiae Dogmaticae (Vol. III: chap. IV), 1931
Fenton Diaries ( November 23, 1968 ):
from Lover of Heresy's great Catholic "authority" on Catholic ecclesiology ...Clarity check again. Irrespective of LoL's endorsement, is your contention with the word/s"
Fenton Diaries ( November 23, 1968 ):