Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => The Feeneyism Ghetto => Topic started by: bowler on May 07, 2013, 02:23:52 PM
-
From Book: Is Feeneyism Catholic by Fr. Laisney SSPX
On page 47, Fr. Laisney quotes the dogmatic definition from the Council of
Florence:
“Regarding children, indeed, because of danger of death, which can
often take place, when no help can be brought to them by another remedy than through the sacrament of baptism, through which they are snatched from the domination of the Devil and adopted among the sons of God, it advises that Holy Baptism ought not be deferred for forty or eighty days, or any time according to the observance of certain people…”
A number of things are significant about Fr. Laisney’s treatment of this dogmatic definition. First is the fact that Fr. Laisney makes it a special point to note that Florence only mentioned children in this passage. He concludes that while there is no other remedy for children other than the Sacrament of Baptism, therefore there is another remedy for original sin for adults (baptism of desire). He tries to bolster this position by pointing
out that the above passage from Florence is a quotation from St. Thomas Aquinas, who (in the docuмent quoted) goes on to teach that there is another remedy for adults.
The problem for Fr. Laisney is that the Council of Florence did not incorporate St. Thomas’s paragraph on there being another remedy for adults (Summa Theologica, Pt. III, Q. 68, A. 3), but stopped the quotation from him after stating that there is no other remedy for infants.
This fact should make Fr. Laisney think. Why did the Holy Ghost only allow Pope Eugene IV and the Council of Florence to incorporate the passage from St. Thomas on infants, and not his teaching in the very next paragraph on baptism of desire? Why didn’t God allow the Council to simply continue with the quotation only one more short paragraph, which would have made it clear once and for all that baptism of desire is a teaching of the Church?
It’s obvious that the Holy Ghost wanted St. Thomas’s teaching on the Sacrament of Baptism being the only remedy for infants in the
Council, and that He did not want St. Thomas’s teaching that baptism of desire is another remedy for adults in the Council. This is why the one paragraph appears and the other does not.
So-called Baptism of desire in all of it's variants mentioned in the 1949 letter(explicit baptism of desire, implicit baptism of desire, Implicit faith for the invincible ignorant) has never once been defined in any dogmatic decree.
Curiously, whenever a dogmatic decree is coming close to even maybe mentioning it, it stops shy of ever saying that it is an alternative to the sacrament of baptism which " ‘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].
Pope Eugene IV, The Council of Florence, “Exultate Deo,” Nov.
22, 1439, ex cathedra: “Holy baptism, which is the gateway to
the spiritual life, holds the first place among all the
sacraments; through it we are made members of Christ and of
the body of the Church. And since death entered the universe
through the first man, ‘unless we are born again of water and
the Spirit, we cannot,’ as the Truth says, ‘enter into the
kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:5]. The matter of this sacrament is
real and natural water.”
Here's the only example at Trent that mentions this "desire", notice how it does not say that it is an alternative anywhere in in Trent, and indeed it contradicts the very thought in the same quote itself by saying “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]:
Council of Trent
Session VI (Jan. 13, 1547)
Decree on Justification
Chapter IV.
A description is introduced of the Justification of the impious, and of the Manner thereof under the law of grace.
By which words, a description of the Justification of the impious is indicated, as being a translation, from that state wherein man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace, and of the adoption of the sons of God, through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Saviour. And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.
From the Catholic Encyclopedia 1907 by William Fanning:
"The same doctrine (baptism of desire) is taught by Pope Innocent III (cap. Debitum, iv, De Bapt.), and the contrary propositions are condemned by Popes Pius V and Gregory XII, in proscribing the 31st and 33rd propositions of Baius.
Pope Innocent III (cap. Debitum, iv, De Bapt.), letter to the Bishop of Metz, Aug. 28, 1206:
“We respond that, since there should be a distinction between the one baptizing and the one baptized, as is clearly gathered from the words of the Lord, when he says to the Apostles: ‘Go, baptize all nations in the name etc.,” the Jew mentioned must be baptized again by another, that it may be shown that he who is baptized is one person, and he who baptizes another...If, however, such a one had died immediately, he would have rushed to his heavenly home without delay because of the faith of
the sacrament, although not because of the sacrament of faith.”
This obscure letter to a bishop has no magisterial authority whatsoever. If BOD was a doctrine, how come this is the only docuмent the author can come up with (one letter from 1206!)?
Indeed Pope Innocent III had every chance to infallible define any other exceptions to the constant tradition in the Fathers that the Gospel message of "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost he cannot enter into the kingdom of God" is to be taken absolutely. Yet he didn't mention any when he declared infallible:
Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, Constitution 1, 1215, ex cathedra:
“There is indeed one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which
nobody at all is saved, in which Jesus Christ is both priest and sacrifice.”
-
I think we know already that there are many decrees from councils that never mention BOD and always speak of the necessity of Baptism, just as we know that lots of people in the Church and even saints have believed in BOD and taught it, even in catechisms. There will always be a debate until a future pope, after the crisis is over, infallibly declares that BOD either does or does not exist.
-
I think we know already that there are many decrees from councils that never mention BOD and always speak of the necessity of Baptism, just as we know that lots of people in the Church and even saints have believed in BOD and taught it, even in catechisms. There will always be a debate until a future pope, after the crisis is over, infallibly declares that BOD either does or does not exist.
Very interesting that the whole matter could have been easily solved by simply continuing the quote from St. Thomas.
The problem for Fr. Laisney is that the Council of Florence did not incorporate St. Thomas’s paragraph on there being another remedy for adults (Summa Theologica, Pt. III, Q. 68, A. 3), but stopped the quotation from him after stating that there is no other remedy for infants.
This fact should make Fr. Laisney think. Why did the Holy Ghost only allow Pope Eugene IV and the Council of Florence to incorporate the passage from St. Thomas on infants, and not his teaching in the very next paragraph on baptism of desire? Why didn’t God allow the Council to simply continue with the quotation only one more short paragraph, which would have made it clear once and for all that baptism of desire is a teaching of the Church?
Oh, one more thing, to my knowledge there is no catechism in English before the 20th century that taught implicit faith. In fact I can't think of any catechism in English that taught that anyone but a catechumen could be saved by baptism of desire.
-
Oh, one more thing, to my knowledge there is no catechism in English before the 20th century that taught implicit faith. In fact I can't think of any catechism in English that taught that anyone but a catechumen could be saved by baptism of desire.
I don't like implicit faith because it contradicts the Athanasian Creed, doesn't it? I can understand those who know the faith having a BOD but I don't see how those who do not know the faith can be saved.
-
Oh, one more thing, to my knowledge there is no catechism in English before the 20th century that taught implicit faith. In fact I can't think of any catechism in English that taught that anyone but a catechumen could be saved by baptism of desire.
I don't like implicit faith because it contradicts the Athanasian Creed, doesn't it? I can understand those who know the faith having a BOD but I don't see how those who do not know the faith can be saved.
It contradicts the Athanasian creed, AND it was never was taught by any Father, Saint or council.
-
So the question becomes , Where does this leave the present traditional Bishops and Priests who teach this nonsense of bod, to the extent of refusing Communion for those who do not beleive. One is considered a Material Heretic, until such time as the facts are presented to them. If however after obstensisly still adhering to their error, they would be considered Formal Heretics, and outside the Church.
comments ....Please....
-
Just to let you know, bowler, solemn dogmatic docuмents are not strictly necessary in the Church, nor are catechisms claimed to contain ALL Church teaching. After Pentecost the faithful lived & died for generations without solemn papal dogmatic decrees, catechisms or even the codified New Testament Scriptures. Yet, during that time the faithful knew what to believe. That was the Ordinary & Universal Magisterium...which IS infallible and strictly necessary to the Church (the solemn is not). One big example is the early Creed which did not contain the filioque and later when the Church added it, the Greek Schismatics complained. It is the same issue with the truth of baptism of desire....invalid complaints and that it wasn't contained in some other docuмent. The Ordinary and Universal magiserium is not necessarily comprised of docuмents, but oral teachings handed down.
-
So the question becomes , Where does this leave the present traditional Bishops and Priests who teach this nonsense of bod, to the extent of refusing Communion for those who do not beleive. One is considered a Material Heretic, until such time as the facts are presented to them. If however after obstensisly still adhering to their error, they would be considered Formal Heretics, and outside the Church.
comments ....Please....
Good question. I have heard some extremely exaggerated cases of BOD from some awesome trad priests. Makes me scratch my head.
I have my own opinion about this question - basically since history shows that some saints seemed to have believed in it, sometimes I do not understand how one who preaches a bod could be considered a formal heretic, yet other times the explicit denial of the necessity of the sacrament would certainly make one a formal heretic - particularly those who have been confronted head on with the clear truth yet continue to reject it.
-
Just to let you know, bowler, solemn dogmatic docuмents are not strictly necessary in the Church, nor are catechisms claimed to contain ALL Church teaching. After Pentecost the faithful lived & died for generations without solemn papal dogmatic decrees, catechisms or even the codified New Testament Scriptures. Yet, during that time the faithful knew what to believe. That was the Ordinary & Universal Magisterium...which IS infallible and strictly necessary to the Church (the solemn is not). One big example is the early Creed which did not contain the filioque and later when the Church added it, the Greek Schismatics complained. It is the same issue with the truth of baptism of desire....invalid complaints and that it wasn't contained in some other docuмent. The Ordinary and Universal magiserium is not necessarily comprised of docuмents, but oral teachings handed down.
The thing is, theologians typically debate certain teachings, sometimes for centuries - once all the opposing arguments and debates have sufficiently exhausted themselves, *then* the pope or council steps into the picture and closes the matter for all time. Reference The Immaculate Conception.
This is what has already happened in the case of EENS. This is the reason the Dogma of Exclusive Salvation was defined in the first place and it's teaching has been constant since the time of the Apostles.
What so many people fail to believe is that prior to the mid 1940s, the entire Catholic world knew and believed of the necessity of the Sacrament for salvation without question - then one of the early modernist enemies of the faith, Cardinal Richard James Cushing launched a smear campaign against the Dogma which has proven itself to be so effective, that 70 years later his efforts are still bearing rotten fruit by the mega ton.
Cardinal Richard James Cushing made Fr. Feeney out to be the criminal to help smear the Dogma and turn nearly the entire Catholic theological world on it's ear.
To this day, we all know who Fr. Feeney is - "that heretic!", but why does the world know him as a heretic instead of a Priest who preached the truth? It was all due to the efforts of one Cardinal Richard James Cushing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Cushing).....................here is more evidence of how we know it was the Cardinal who was the perpetrator of the injustice against the good Fr. and against the defined dogma:
At Vatican Council 2, Cardinal Richard James Cushing played a vital role in drafting Nostra Aetate, the docuмent that officially absolved the Jews of deicide charge. His emotional comments during debates over the drafts were echoed in the final version:
1. We must cast the Declaration on the Jews in a much more positive form, one not so timid, but much more loving ... For the sake of our common heritage we, the children of Abraham according to the spirit, must foster a special reverence and love for the children of Abraham according to the flesh...............
Cardinal Cushing, as his vital role at V2 testifies, was a crook at least since he became Archbishop of Boston on September 25, 1944.... [and] would see the excommunication of Fr. Leonard Feeney for his stringent interpretation of the Catholic doctrine that there is no salvation outside the Church.
(NOTE: this is also a lie, he was excommunicated for disobedience, not for echoing defined dogma - no one can be rightfully excommunicated for that)
-
Just to let you know, bowler,
1) solemn dogmatic docuмents are not strictly necessary in the Church. ...After Pentecost the faithful lived & died for generations without solemn papal dogmatic decrees,...
2) Yet, during that time the faithful knew what to believe. That was the Ordinary & Universal Magisterium...which IS infallible and strictly necessary to the Church (the solemn is not).
Do you have an authoritative sources for this comments?
Can you give some examples of the Ordinary & Universal Magisterium's infallible decrees during the first 500 years, that were not infallible decided at a council or by the popes?
-
Here is another example of where a council could have easily defined baptism of desire, but again, the Holy Ghost did not:
From "Is Feeneyism Catholic" by Fr. Laisney p. 77, he quotes St. Alphonsus Ligouri:
"baptism of desire is perfect conversion to God by contrition or love of God above all things accompanied by an explicit or implicit desire for true baptism of water, the place of which it takes as to the remission of guilt, but not as to the impression of the [baptismal] character or as to the removal of all debt of punishment. It is called "of wind" ["flaminis"] because it takes place by the impulse of the Holy Ghost who is called a wind ["flamen"]. Now it is "de fide" that men are also saved by Baptism of desire, by virtue of the Canon Apostolicam "de presbytero non baptizado" and of the Council of Trent"
This quote from Fr. Laisney's book ONCE AGAIN is not complete. Here is the full text of what St. Alphonsus said (I've blued the part that was left out by Fr. Laisney):
St. Alphonsus: “Baptism by fire, however, is the perfect conversion to God through contrition, or the love of God above all things, with the explicit desire, or implicit desire, for the true river of baptism. As the Council of Trent says (Sess. 14, Chap. 4), it takes the place of the latter with regard to the remission of the guilt, but does not imprint a character nor take away all the debt of punishment. It is called fire because it is made under the impulse of the Holy Spirit, who is given this name… Thus it is of faith (de fide) that men are saved even by the baptism of fire, according to c. Apostolicam, de pres. non bapt. and the Council of Trent, Sess. 6, Chap. 4, where it is said that no one can be saved without the laver of regeneration or the desire for it.”
The author, Fr. Francois Laisney, does not include St. Alphonsus’ erroneous reference to Sess. 14, Chap. 4 of Trent when Laisney quotes the passage from St. Alphonsus on baptism of desire! This is incredibly dishonest, of course, but Fr. Laisney of the SSPX omits it because he knows that St. Alphonsus was wrong in referencing Trent in that way; and, therefore, he knows that it pokes a big hole in his argument in favor of baptism of desire based on the obviously fallible St. Alphonsus.
There are errors in the very paragraph in which it is stated. To substantiate his position on baptism of desire, St. Alphonsus first makes reference to Sess. 14, Chap. 4 of the Council of Trent.
St. Alphonsus says:
“As the Council of Trent says (Sess. 14, Chap. 4), it takes the place of the latter with regard to the remission of the guilt, but does not imprint a character nor take away all the debt of punishment.”
This is completely wrong. Sess. 14, Chap. 4 of the Council of Trent does not say that baptism of desire “takes the place of the latter (i.e., baptism) with regard to the remission of the guilt,” as St. Alphonsus claims. Let’s look at the passage:
Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Sess. 14, Chap. 4, on the Sacrament of Penance: “The Council teaches, furthermore, that though it sometimes happens that this contrition is perfect because of charity and reconciles man to God, before this sacrament is actually received, this reconciliation must not be ascribed to the contrition itself without the desire of the sacrament which is included in it.”
The Council here defines that perfect contrition with the desire for the Sacrament of Penance can restore a man to the grace of God before the Sacrament is received. It says nothing of baptism! St. Alphonsus’ very premise – that baptism of desire is taught in Sess. 14, Chap. 4 – is erroneous. Trent says nothing of the sort. If the very premises upon which he argued baptism of desire were flawed and erroneous, how can one be bound to the conclusions that flow from such false premises?
Another related subject
Pope Julius III, Council of Trent, Sess. 14, Chap. 2, On Penance: “This sacrament of Penance, moreover, is necessary for the salvation of those who have fallen after baptism, as baptism itself is necessary for those not yet regenerated.”
Now, baptism of desire advocates will also quote Sess. 14, Chap. 2 of Trent to try to prove the point that people who have fallen into mortal sin can be justified and saved without the Sacrament of Penance by perfect contrition, and therefore people can be saved without the Sacrament of Baptism, since Trent says that the necessity of the Sacrament of Penance for those in mortal sin is the same as the necessity of Baptism. But this argument also falters because just two Chapters later the Council of Trent explicitly states that one can be justified without the Sacrament of Penance by perfect contrition plus the desire for it. One cannot take one chapter of Trent out of context.
Pope Julius III, Council of Trent, Sess. 14, Chap. 4, On Penance: “The Council teaches, furthermore, that though it sometimes happens that this contrition is perfect because of charity and reconciles man to God, before this sacrament is actually received, this reconciliation must not be ascribed to the contrition itself without the desire of the sacrament which is included in it.”
The Council of Trent clearly teaches three times that the grace of the Sacrament of Penance can be attained by the desire for the Sacrament of Penance (twice in Sess. 6, Chap. 14; and once in Sess. 14, Chap. 4), while it nowhere teaches the false doctrine of baptism of desire.
Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Sess. 6, Chap. 14 on Justification: “Hence it must be taught that the repentance of a Christian after his fall is very different from that at his baptism, and that it includes not only a cessation from sins… but also the sacramental confession of the same, at least in desire and to be made in its season, and sacerdotal absolution, as well as satisfaction by fasting, almsgiving, prayers, and other devout exercises of the spiritual life, not indeed for the eternal punishment, which is remitted together with the guilt either by the sacrament or the desire of the sacrament, but for the temporal punishment…”
The fact that Trent clearly teaches at least three times that the desire for the Sacrament of Penance is efficacious for Justification, while it nowhere teaches baptism of desire, should tell baptism of desire advocates something; namely, that baptism of desire is not true.
And this is why the statement by Trent in Sess. 14, Chap. 2 on the necessity of the Sacrament of Penance does not equate to Trent’s statements on the necessity of the Sacrament of Baptism for salvation, because the Council clearly clarifies its meaning on the necessity of the Sacrament of Penance just two Chapters later by defining that perfect contrition restores such a man to Justification without the Sacrament of Penance. While dogmatic canons stand alone, chapters must be taken in their complete context.
-
Just to let you know, bowler, solemn dogmatic docuмents are not strictly necessary in the Church, nor are catechisms claimed to contain ALL Church teaching. After Pentecost the faithful lived & died for generations without solemn papal dogmatic decrees, catechisms or even the codified New Testament Scriptures. Yet, during that time the faithful knew what to believe. That was the Ordinary & Universal Magisterium...which IS infallible and strictly necessary to the Church (the solemn is not). One big example is the early Creed which did not contain the filioque and later when the Church added it, the Greek Schismatics complained. It is the same issue with the truth of baptism of desire....invalid complaints and that it wasn't contained in some other docuмent. The Ordinary and Universal magiserium is not necessarily comprised of docuмents, but oral teachings handed down.
And the question is: Did the Ordinary & Universal Magisterium teach BOD?
-
Here is another example of where a council could have easily defined baptism of desire, but again, the Holy Ghost did not
Bowler, why insist the Church solemnly define baptism of desire? Throughout the 2000 years of the Catholic Church, General councils were only called 20 times to solemnly declare anything. That's only 20 times out of 2000 years - an extremely small number of times.
Here is a quick summary of the first 18 of those 20 General Councils covering the first 1500 years of the Catholic Church. Notice - the Church solemnly defined barely anything during these 15 centuries. Why? Looking below we can see the Church only typically defines doctrines where necessary to combat a particular problem. So to answer the question you started this discussion with, the Church has no need to define BOD, or anything for that matter, in dogmatic decrees because the majority of what Catholics believe comes from the ordinary magisterium. Baptism of desire and blood come from the ordinary magisterium, so that is all that Catholics need.
1. Nicaea I, 325, condemned heresy of Arius, defined the divinity of Christ, formulated Nicene Creed
2. Constantinople I , 381, condemned heresy of Macedonius, defined divinity of Holy Ghost, confirmed and extended Nicene Creed
3. Ephesus, 431, condemned heresy of Nestorius, Defined one person in Christ, defended divine maternity of BVM
4. Chalcedon, 451, condemned heresy of Eutyches, declared Christ had 2 natures.
5. Constantinople II, 553, condemned books of Theoclorus favoring Nestorian heresy
6. Constantinople III, 680, condemned heresy of Monothelites, defined 2 wills in Christ
7. Nicaea II, 787, condemned heresy of Iconoclasts
8. Constantinople IV, 870, condemned and deposed Photius, suppressed Greek Schism
9. Lateran I, 1123, regulated rights of Church and Emperors in election of Bishops and Abbots.
10. Lateran II, 1139, suppressed last remnants of schism of Anacletus II, reaffirmed principles of Gregorian reform, banished Arnold of Brescia from Italy, condemned the heresy of Peter of Bruys.
11. Lateran III, 1179, reformed ecclesiastical discipline, decreed papal elections by two thirds majority of Cardinals, confirmed Peace of Venice.
12. Lateran IV, 1215, condemned Albigenses, Joachim of Floria, and Almaric of Bena; prescribed annual confession and communion, promoted ecclesiastical discipline, ordered crusade for recovery of the Holy Land.
13. Lyons I, 1245, called in behalf of the Holy Land, and on account of the hostility of Emperor Frederick II toward Holy See.
14. Lyons II, 1274, promoted ecclesiastical discipline, to affect the union of the Greeks with the Latin church, to aid the Holy Land.
15. Vienne, 1311, condemned the views of Olivi and heresies of Fraticelli, Dulcanists, Beghards, Beguines. Suppressed the Knights Templar, sought aid for the Holy Land.
16. Constance, 1414, suppressed Western schism, ecclesiastical reform in "head and members", Wycliff and Hus condemned.
17. Florence, 1438, called to affect union of Greeks and other oriental sects with the Latin Church; reestablish peace among Christian princes.
18. Lateran V, 1512, defined relations of Pope to general councils, condemned certain errors regarding nature of the human soul, called for crusade against the Turks.
-
I think we know already that there are many decrees from councils that never mention BOD and always speak of the necessity of Baptism, just as we know that lots of people in the Church and even saints have believed in BOD and taught it, even in catechisms. There will always be a debate until a future pope, after the crisis is over, infallibly declares that BOD either does or does not exist.
Many doctrines have not been solemnly defined throughout the history of the Church, yet it would be considered heresy to deny them. Guardian Angels for instance - never solemnly defined - but you would be considered a heretic if you denied their existence because the Church has taught about them through the ordinary magisterium all along. People need to stop getting hung up on this imaginary need for things to be "defined".
-
I think we know already that there are many decrees from councils that never mention BOD and always speak of the necessity of Baptism, just as we know that lots of people in the Church and even saints have believed in BOD and taught it, even in catechisms. There will always be a debate until a future pope, after the crisis is over, infallibly declares that BOD either does or does not exist.
Many doctrines have not been solemnly defined throughout the history of the Church, yet it would be considered heresy to deny them. Guardian Angels for instance - never solemnly defined - but you would be considered a heretic if you denied their existence because the Church has taught about them through the ordinary magisterium all along. People need to stop getting hung up on this imaginary need for things to be "defined".
Whether people are "hung up" on this "imaginary" need for things to be defined or not, no one can contradict that which has been defined.
It is blasphemous to claim the Church wasted it's time defining dogma - as though the need for infallibility defining truth in certain matters specifically to correct error, proclaim clearly the truth and to help us get to heaven and avoid an eternity in hell, is only imaginary therefore we can easily ignore them for doctrines of men which oppose the defined dogma.
As Fr. Wathen said: "Most important of all is the consideration which we have dilated already: Holy Church enunciates the dogma Extra Ecciesiam expressly for the purpose of anathematizing just these kinds of expostulations and fictions. The views of those who hold this Liberal position are nothing but human reasonings; the Church would never make an ex cathedra definition of a truism."
All BOD is, is the explaining away of the dogma.
-
The danger of defining BOD is it risks obviating the need for Baptism and can tend towards the sin of presumption. There arguably is BOD, as there is arguably Absolution of Desire, Communion of Desire, and every other such Sacrament "of desire" that is required for salvation, in the sense that an individual who is isolated, and in need of a Sacrament, is afforded it by God in some way. However there is no guarantee of this for anyone, and we cannot presume it to be so, since we attest that outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation.
So I treat life as though BOD does not exist, but hope and pray for the sake of those souls missing out that it does exist. Knowing that God is just and merciful is at least reassuring.
-
Just to let you know, bowler,
1) solemn dogmatic docuмents are not strictly necessary in the Church. ...After Pentecost the faithful lived & died for generations without solemn papal dogmatic decrees,...
2) Yet, during that time the faithful knew what to believe. That was the Ordinary & Universal Magisterium...which IS infallible and strictly necessary to the Church (the solemn is not).
Do you have an authoritative sources for this comments?
Can you give some examples of the Ordinary & Universal Magisterium's infallible decrees during the first 500 years, that were not infallible decided at a council or by the popes?
Here are my sources:
A Catholic Dictionary (1931) writes in regard to the extraordinary magisterium:
"the authority is not distinct from the ordinary magisterium, but is merely a more solemn exercise of the same"
The Vatican Council of 1870:
"...all those things are to be believed with divine and Catholic faith which are contained in the Word of God, written or handed down, and which the Church, either by a solemn judgement or by her ordinary and universal magisterium, proposes for belief as having been divinely revealed."
Can you, bowler, make a list of the teachings which WERE NOT solemnly taught yet which you are obliged to believe with the same divine and Catholic faith as those which WERE solemnly taught? If that is a serious obligation, you should have an answer for yourself on this question.
-
Just to let you know, bowler,
1) solemn dogmatic docuмents are not strictly necessary in the Church. ...After Pentecost the faithful lived & died for generations without solemn papal dogmatic decrees,...
2) Yet, during that time the faithful knew what to believe. That was the Ordinary & Universal Magisterium...which IS infallible and strictly necessary to the Church (the solemn is not).
Do you have an authoritative sources for this comments?
Can you give some examples of the Ordinary & Universal Magisterium's infallible decrees during the first 500 years, that were not infallible decided at a council or by the popes?
Here are my sources:
A Catholic Dictionary (1931) writes in regard to the extraordinary magisterium:
"the authority is not distinct from the ordinary magisterium, but is merely a more solemn exercise of the same"
The Vatican Council of 1870:
"...all those things are to be believed with divine and Catholic faith which are contained in the Word of God, written or handed down, and which the Church, either by a solemn judgement or by her ordinary and universal magisterium, proposes for belief as having been divinely revealed."
Can you, bowler, make a list of the teachings which WERE NOT solemnly taught yet which you are obliged to believe with the same divine and Catholic faith as those which WERE solemnly taught? If that is a serious obligation, you should have an answer for yourself on this question.
Your references do not answer my questions, and you even end up asking me a question.
-
Another example of Baptism of desire being left out of all dogmatic decrees is from the First Vatican Council. There was in the schematas the plan to define dogmatically baptism of desire, but Vatican II was interrupted by the anti-Church masonic government. What a coincidence?
I can't find my docuмentation on it in my archives. Does anyone have the authoritative information on this?
-
Just to let you know, bowler,
1) solemn dogmatic docuмents are not strictly necessary in the Church. ...After Pentecost the faithful lived & died for generations without solemn papal dogmatic decrees,...
2) Yet, during that time the faithful knew what to believe. That was the Ordinary & Universal Magisterium...which IS infallible and strictly necessary to the Church (the solemn is not).
Do you have an authoritative sources for this comments?
Can you give some examples of the Ordinary & Universal Magisterium's infallible decrees during the first 500 years, that were not infallible decided at a council or by the popes?
Here are my sources:
A Catholic Dictionary (1931) writes in regard to the extraordinary magisterium:
"the authority is not distinct from the ordinary magisterium, but is merely a more solemn exercise of the same"
The Vatican Council of 1870:
"...all those things are to be believed with divine and Catholic faith which are contained in the Word of God, written or handed down, and which the Church, either by a solemn judgement or by her ordinary and universal magisterium, proposes for belief as having been divinely revealed."
Can you, bowler, make a list of the teachings which WERE NOT solemnly taught yet which you are obliged to believe with the same divine and Catholic faith as those which WERE solemnly taught? If that is a serious obligation, you should have an answer for yourself on this question.
Your references do not answer my questions, and you even end up asking me a question.
You must know, bowler, that Our Lord in Scripture gave us example that it is legitimate to answer a question with a question.
You asked 2 questions of me,
1 - to prove what I was saying with authoritative sources, and this I did.
2 - to give examples of that truth.
If you agree with #1, then you realize that you, and every Catholic, MUST have the answer to your second question, that is why I asked you to give yourself the answer. If you refuse to answer it to yourself, it appears you would have some trouble with the truth in #1. This is really a crucial matter of religion.
-
Just to let you know, bowler,
1) solemn dogmatic docuмents are not strictly necessary in the Church. ...After Pentecost the faithful lived & died for generations without solemn papal dogmatic decrees,...
2) Yet, during that time the faithful knew what to believe. That was the Ordinary & Universal Magisterium...which IS infallible and strictly necessary to the Church (the solemn is not).
Do you have an authoritative sources for this comments?
Can you give some examples of the Ordinary & Universal Magisterium's infallible decrees during the first 500 years, that were not infallible decided at a council or by the popes?
Here are my sources:
A Catholic Dictionary (1931) writes in regard to the extraordinary magisterium:
"the authority is not distinct from the ordinary magisterium, but is merely a more solemn exercise of the same"
The Vatican Council of 1870:
"...all those things are to be believed with divine and Catholic faith which are contained in the Word of God, written or handed down, and which the Church, either by a solemn judgement or by her ordinary and universal magisterium, proposes for belief as having been divinely revealed."
Can you, bowler, make a list of the teachings which WERE NOT solemnly taught yet which you are obliged to believe with the same divine and Catholic faith as those which WERE solemnly taught? If that is a serious obligation, you should have an answer for yourself on this question.
Your references do not answer my questions, and you even end up asking me a question.
You must know, bowler, that Our Lord in Scripture gave us example that it is legitimate to answer a question with a question.
You asked 2 questions of me,
1 - to prove what I was saying with authoritative sources, and this I did.
2 - to give examples of that truth.
If you agree with #1, then you realize that you, and every Catholic, MUST have the answer to your second question, that is why I asked you to give yourself the answer. If you refuse to answer it to yourself, it appears you would have some trouble with the truth in #1. This is really a crucial matter of religion.
Who is Clancularius? I didn't ask you any question.
Knowing about the Ordinary & Universal Magisterium does not answer any questions. You would have to establish that a teaching was universal in time, which even explicit baptism of desire of the catechumen never was.
-
Knowing about the Ordinary & Universal Magisterium does not answer any questions. You would have to establish that a teaching was universal in time, which even explicit baptism of desire of the catechumen never was.
Baptism of desire doesn't only apply to catechumens, so you need not keep mentioning that. Catechumens are only mentioned in a small percentage of quotes, just to give an example, but they are not the only ones where baptism of desire can apply.
-
The danger of defining BOD is it risks obviating ( appear to render unnecessary) the need for Baptism and can tend towards the sin of presumption.
That's just your opinion.
Here's mine:
There is no "danger" in the truth of a dogmatic definition.
Due to the lack of a dogmatic definition, we ARE presently living the danger of non-Catholics obviating the need for Baptism and souls ARE thus able to presume on their salvation.
There arguably is BOD, as there is arguably Absolution of Desire, Communion of Desire, and every other such Sacrament "of desire" that is required for salvation, in the sense that an individual who is isolated, and in need of a Sacrament, is afforded it by God in some way.
Absolution of desire? I guess you mean a perfect act of contrition.
Communion of desire? I guess you mean a spiritual communion.
Other sacrament of desire? Holy Orders by desire? Matrimony by desire?
Anyhow, the point is like I said, the only real sacrament of desire from the list above is a perfect act of contrition, and it HAS been dogmatically defined at Trent. I have a posting on the subject on this thread.
However there is no guarantee of this for anyone, and we cannot presume it to be so, since we attest that outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation.
So I treat life as though BOD does not exist, but hope and pray for the sake of those souls missing out that it does exist. Knowing that God is just and merciful is at least reassuring.
Very good. Pius X instructed us to do just that:
The Sacred Congregation of the Propagation of the Faith, under Blessed Pius X, in 1907, in answer to a question as to whether Confucius could have been saved, wrote:
“It is not allowed to affirm that Confucius was saved. Christians, when interrogated, must answer that those who die as infidels are damned”.
-
Those who receive Baptism of Desire, however, do not die as infidels.
-
Knowing about the Ordinary & Universal Magisterium does not answer any questions. You would have to establish that a teaching was universal in time, which even explicit baptism of desire of the catechumen never was.
Baptism of desire doesn't only apply to catechumens, so you need not keep mentioning that. Catechumens are only mentioned in a small percentage of quotes, just to give an example, but they are not the only ones where baptism of desire can apply.
Read what I wrote "You would have to establish that a teaching was universal in time". If the Fathers did not teach it, then it is not universal. The Fathers did not Implicit baptism of desire, nor implicit faith, nor even explicit baptism of desire. The teaching is not universal. See CI thread "Fathers Rejected Even Explicit BOD of the Catechumen".
-
Many doctrines have not been solemnly defined throughout the history of the Church, yet it would be considered heresy to deny them. Guardian Angels for instance - never solemnly defined - but you would be considered a heretic if you denied their existence because the Church has taught about them through the ordinary magisterium all along. People need to stop getting hung up on this imaginary need for things to be "defined".
Whether people are "hung up" on this "imaginary" need for things to be defined or not, no one can contradict that which has been defined.
Agreed, no one can contradict what has been defined. If someone were to attempt to, a Council or papal encyclical would condemn them. Why has BOD/BOB never been condemned in any Council or encyclical seeing how it has been taught throughout the entire history of Church?
It is blasphemous to claim the Church wasted it's time defining dogma - as though the need for infallibility defining truth in certain matters specifically to correct error, proclaim clearly the truth and to help us get to heaven and avoid an eternity in hell, is only imaginary therefore we can easily ignore them for doctrines of men which oppose the defined dogma.
You completely lost me on this last paragraph. Maybe you can rephrase it.
All BOD is, is the explaining away of the dogma.
So I guess you are saying you consider BOD to be heresy?
-
Why has BOD/BOB never been condemned in any Council or encyclical seeing how it has been taught throughout the entire history of Church?
We are not discussing baptism of blood.
A Catholic does not determine truth by what has not been condemned, but by what has been infallible declared.
-
Knowing about the Ordinary & Universal Magisterium does not answer any questions. You would have to establish that a teaching was universal in time, which even explicit baptism of desire of the catechumen never was.
Baptism of desire doesn't only apply to catechumens, so you need not keep mentioning that. Catechumens are only mentioned in a small percentage of quotes, just to give an example, but they are not the only ones where baptism of desire can apply.
Read what I wrote "You would have to establish that a teaching was universal in time". If the Fathers did not teach it, then it is not universal. The Fathers did not Implicit baptism of desire, nor implicit faith, nor even explicit baptism of desire. The teaching is not universal. See CI thread "Fathers Rejected Even Explicit BOD of the Catechumen".
So you are trying to remove the Fathers from the equation so you can claim the teaching is not universal. So should we then conclude that all of the Popes, Doctors of the Church, Saints, Catechisms, Canon Law, and other trusted Church references that have openly taught BOD/BOB ever since the days of the Church Fathers, to all be teaching a new, fabricated doctrine?
-
So I guess you are saying you consider BOD to be heresy?
BOD? You continue to hide behind the use of the broad term "BOD"!
Yet, you believe in salvation by implicit faith in a god that rewards. That is, that a person can be saved who is NOT a catechumen, who does have explicit desire to be baptized, or implicit desire to be a Catholic, or a belief in the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation, or anything having to do with the Catholic Church!
In your belief in implicit faith, you are opposed by the real believers in the real baptism of desire, by the Fathers (who you quoted), the Athanasian Creed, St. Thomas Aquinas and the Thomists like St. Alphonsus Ligouri,. In other words you are opposed by all of the BOD sources.
Stop hiding behind them. You are just being a coward or a hypocrite. If you really believe what you believe, then start defending implicit faith on its own.
Based on the unanimous consent of the Fathers of the Church, the Saints, and the Athanasian Creed, and the dogmas on EENS, I would certainly be justified in calling all implicit faithers heretics, but what good would that do,I have no authority. Until a pope rules on the matter, all I can say is that based on the unanimous consent of the Fathers of the Church, the Saints, the Athanasian Creed, and the dogmas on EENS, all like you who believe in implicit faith are in error, you are teaching a novelty.
-
Correction:
Yet, you believe in salvation by implicit faith in a god that rewards. That is, that a person can be saved who is NOT a catechumen, who does NOT have explicit desire to be baptized, or implicit desire to be a Catholic, or a belief in the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation, or anything having to do with the Catholic Church!
-
Why has BOD/BOB never been condemned in any Council or encyclical seeing how it has been taught throughout the entire history of Church?
A Catholic does not determine truth by what has not been condemned, but by what has been infallible declared.
Absolutely false. At the start of the Catholic Church, it progressed over 3 centuries without any solemn teaching. In the year 319, before the First Council of Nicaea ever took place, St. Athanasius, St. Alexander, and an enormous list of clergy all signed a letter condemning Arius, stating that he was teaching at variance with Scripture and continuous Church teaching. How could they make such a declaration when nothing had been infallibly declared to that point in time? It is because they determined truth through the ordinary magisterium. Later in 325 Arius was solemnly condemned at the very First Council.
And my last post showing a list of the first 18 General councils shows that barely anything was infallibly declared during the first 1500 years of the Church. So your claim here that truth is determined by what is infallibly declared is absolute nonsense.
-
Knowing about the Ordinary & Universal Magisterium does not answer any questions. You would have to establish that a teaching was universal in time, which even explicit baptism of desire of the catechumen never was.
Baptism of desire doesn't only apply to catechumens, so you need not keep mentioning that. Catechumens are only mentioned in a small percentage of quotes, just to give an example, but they are not the only ones where baptism of desire can apply.
Read what I wrote "You would have to establish that a teaching was universal in time". If the Fathers did not teach it, then it is not universal. The Fathers did not Implicit baptism of desire, nor implicit faith, nor even explicit baptism of desire. The teaching is not universal. See CI thread "Fathers Rejected Even Explicit BOD of the Catechumen".
So you are trying to remove the Fathers from the equation so you can claim the teaching is not universal. So should we then conclude that all of the Popes, Doctors of the Church, Saints, Catechisms, Canon Law, and other trusted Church references that have openly taught BOD/BOB ever since the days of the Church Fathers, to all be teaching a new, fabricated doctrine?
This tread is about the question of Why has BOD ALWAYS been left out of Dogmatic Decrees. Take your "parrot" remarks which I have shown you to be false, back to the thread where you first made them and I answered ad-nauceum.
-
Why has BOD/BOB never been condemned in any Council or encyclical seeing how it has been taught throughout the entire history of Church?
A Catholic does not determine truth by what has not been condemned, but by what has been infallible declared.
Absolutely false. At the start of the Catholic Church, it progressed over 3 centuries without any solemn teaching. In the year 319, before the First Council of Nicaea ever took place, St. Athanasius, St. Alexander, and an enormous list of clergy all signed a letter condemning Arius, stating that he was teaching at variance with Scripture and continuous Church teaching. How could they make such a declaration when nothing had been infallibly declared to that point in time? It is because they determined truth through the ordinary magisterium. Later in 325 Arius was solemnly condemned at the very First Council.
And my last post showing a list of the first 18 General councils shows that barely anything was infallibly declared during the first 1500 years of the Church. So your claim here that truth is determined by what is infallibly declared is absolute nonsense.
You just made that up. Maybe you and Strewth alias Clancularius can double date:
Just to let you know, bowler,
1) solemn dogmatic docuмents are not strictly necessary in the Church. ...After Pentecost the faithful lived & died for generations without solemn papal dogmatic decrees,...
2) Yet, during that time the faithful knew what to believe. That was the Ordinary & Universal Magisterium...which IS infallible and strictly necessary to the Church (the solemn is not).
Do you have an authoritative sources for this comments?
Can you give some examples of the Ordinary & Universal Magisterium's infallible decrees during the first 500 years, that were not infallible decided at a council or by the popes?
-
So I guess you are saying you consider BOD to be heresy?
BOD? You continue to hide behind the use of the broad term "BOD"!
Yet, you believe in salvation by implicit faith in a god that rewards. That is, that a person can be saved who is NOT a catechumen, who does have explicit desire to be baptized, or implicit desire to be a Catholic, or a belief in the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation, or anything having to do with the Catholic Church!
In your belief in implicit faith, you are opposed by the real believers in the real baptism of desire, by the Fathers (who you quoted), the Athanasian Creed, St. Thomas Aquinas and the Thomists like St. Alphonsus Ligouri,. In other words you are opposed by all of the BOD sources.
Stop hiding behind them. You are just being a coward or a hypocrite. If you really believe what you believe, then start defending implicit faith on its own.
Based on the unanimous consent of the Fathers of the Church, the Saints, and the Athanasian Creed, and the dogmas on EENS, I would certainly be justified in calling all implicit faithers heretics, but what good would that do,I have no authority. Until a pope rules on the matter, all I can say is that based on the unanimous consent of the Fathers of the Church, the Saints, the Athanasian Creed, and the dogmas on EENS, all like you who believe in implicit faith are in error, you are teaching a novelty.
It's really interesting how only you have this extreme fascination and overemphasis on implicit versus explicit baptism of desire, when no one else in the history of the Church does.
Looking at all of the quotes from the Church Fathers, Popes, General Councils, Doctors of the Church, Saints, Catechisms, Canon Law, and other trusted Church references who teach baptism desire throughout the history of the Church, clearly none of them have any worries about this distinction you keep trying to make. St. Alphonsus mentions "explicit or implicit desire" both qualify. St. Pope Pius X mentions "at least implicit". None of the other sources mention any distinction. It is only you, Bowler, that is personally getting hung up on something that none of the other Church sources have.
-
You just made that up.
Please specify what you think I made up, and I will show support for what I said.
-
So I guess you are saying you consider BOD to be heresy?
BOD? You continue to hide behind the use of the broad term "BOD"!
Yet, you believe in salvation by implicit faith in a god that rewards. That is, that a person can be saved who is NOT a catechumen, who does have explicit desire to be baptized, or implicit desire to be a Catholic, or a belief in the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation, or anything having to do with the Catholic Church!
In your belief in implicit faith, you are opposed by the real believers in the real baptism of desire, by the Fathers (who you quoted), the Athanasian Creed, St. Thomas Aquinas and the Thomists like St. Alphonsus Ligouri,. In other words you are opposed by all of the BOD sources.
Stop hiding behind them. You are just being a coward or a hypocrite. If you really believe what you believe, then start defending implicit faith on its own.
Based on the unanimous consent of the Fathers of the Church, the Saints, and the Athanasian Creed, and the dogmas on EENS, I would certainly be justified in calling all implicit faithers heretics, but what good would that do,I have no authority. Until a pope rules on the matter, all I can say is that based on the unanimous consent of the Fathers of the Church, the Saints, the Athanasian Creed, and the dogmas on EENS, all like you who believe in implicit faith are in error, you are teaching a novelty.
It's really interesting how only you have this extreme fascination and overemphasis on implicit versus explicit baptism of desire, when no one else in the history of the Church does.
Looking at all of the quotes from the Church Fathers, Popes, General Councils, Doctors of the Church, Saints, Catechisms, Canon Law, and other trusted Church references who teach baptism desire throughout the history of the Church, clearly none of them have any worries about this distinction you keep trying to make. St. Alphonsus mentions "explicit or implicit desire" both qualify. St. Pope Pius X mentions "at least implicit". None of the other sources mention any distinction. It is only you, Bowler, that is personally getting hung up on something that none of the other Church sources have.
Just your opinion again. No one that knows the subject would make such puerile remark. Again, it has nothing to do with this thread, take it elsewhere.
-
The fact that Trent clearly defines at least three times that the desire for the Sacrament of Penance is efficacious for Justification, while it nowhere likewise defines baptism of desire, should tell baptism of desire advocates something; namely, that baptism of desire is not true.
Another example of Baptism of desire being left out of all dogmatic decrees is from the First Vatican Council. There was in the schematas the plan to define dogmatically baptism of desire, but Vatican II was interrupted by the anti-Church masonic government. What a coincidence?
I can't find my docuмentation on it in my archives. Does anyone have the authoritative information on this?
Meanwhile, all dogmatic decrees on EENS NEVER ONCE mention any exceptions (do I need to post all of them again?)
Let the reader accept the reasonable fact that the Pontiffs who pronounced these decrees were perfectly literate and fully cognizant of what they were saying. If there were any need to soften or qualify their meanings, they were quite capable of doing so. They were not regarded as heretics or fanatics at the time of their pronouncements, and have never been labelled such by the Church to this very day. It is an easy thing for the people of this "enlightened" age to fall into the modern delusion that the men of former times, especially those of the Middle Ages, were not as bright as we are, so that they sometimes said they knew not what.
-
The problem for Fr. Laisney is that the Council of Florence did not incorporate St. Thomas’s paragraph on there being another remedy for adults (Summa Theologica, Pt. III, Q. 68, A. 3), but stopped the quotation from him after stating that there is no other remedy for infants.
This fact should make Fr. Laisney think. Why did the Holy Ghost only allow Pope Eugene IV and the Council of Florence to incorporate the passage from St. Thomas on infants, and not his teaching in the very next paragraph on baptism of desire? Why didn’t God allow the Council to simply continue with the quotation only one more short paragraph, which would have made it clear once and for all that baptism of desire is a teaching of the Church?
It’s obvious that the Holy Ghost wanted St. Thomas’s teaching on the Sacrament of Baptism being the only remedy for infants in the
Council, and that He did not want St. Thomas’s teaching that baptism of desire is another remedy for adults in the Council. This is why the one paragraph appears and the other does not.
The fact that Trent clearly defines at least three times that the desire for the Sacrament of Penance is efficacious for Justification, while it nowhere likewise defines baptism of desire, should tell baptism of desire advocates something; namely, that baptism of desire is not true.
Another example of Baptism of desire being left out of all dogmatic decrees is from the First Vatican Council. There was in the schematas the plan to define dogmatically baptism of desire, but Vatican II was interrupted by the anti-Church masonic government. What a coincidence?
I can't find my docuмentation on it in my archives. Does anyone have the authoritative information on this?
Meanwhile, all dogmatic decrees on EENS NEVER ONCE mention any exceptions (do I need to post all of them again?)
Let the reader accept the reasonable fact that the Pontiffs who pronounced these decrees were perfectly literate and fully cognizant of what they were saying. If there were any need to soften or qualify their meanings, they were quite capable of doing so. They were not regarded as heretics or fanatics at the time of their pronouncements, and have never been labelled such by the Church to this very day. It is an easy thing for the people of this "enlightened" age to fall into the modern delusion that the men of former times, especially those of the Middle Ages, were not as bright as we are, so that they sometimes said they knew not what.
-
It seems to me that the reason no definition nor dogmatic pronouncement
has ever been made on so-called baptism of desire, nor can it ever be so
made, is because it is not the stuff of dogmatic definition.
It isn't the kind of thing that we should be worried about, really. Each one
of us is responsible for our own internal disposition, and we are not
responsible for the internal disposition of anyone else. So why go around
worrying about whether or not someone else desired baptism?
We could equally worry whether someone who really did receive baptism
of water and the Holy Ghost perhaps did not desire that! Now that would be
right on par with BOD. But why isn't that the topic of thousands of posts on
forums like this?
It's because modern Catholics are hung up on subjectivism, and BOD and
BOB are the crown jewels of subjectivism.
The dogma of perfect contrition already exists, and final perseverance,
likewise. So if BOB and BOD are either/or something OTHER than those,
then maybe they would be the stuff for consideration, but they're not.
It all comes down to perfect contrition and final perseverance, but since
those are uncomfortable topics for subjectivism-friendly discussion, they
don't make the cut.
-
Just to let you know, bowler,
1) solemn dogmatic docuмents are not strictly necessary in the Church. ...After Pentecost the faithful lived & died for generations without solemn papal dogmatic decrees,...
2) Yet, during that time the faithful knew what to believe. That was the Ordinary & Universal Magisterium...which IS infallible and strictly necessary to the Church (the solemn is not).
Do you have an authoritative sources for this comments?
Can you give some examples of the Ordinary & Universal Magisterium's infallible decrees during the first 500 years, that were not infallible decided at a council or by the popes?
Here are my sources:
A Catholic Dictionary (1931) writes in regard to the extraordinary magisterium:
"the authority is not distinct from the ordinary magisterium, but is merely a more solemn exercise of the same"
The Vatican Council of 1870:
"...all those things are to be believed with divine and Catholic faith which are contained in the Word of God, written or handed down, and which the Church, either by a solemn judgement or by her ordinary and universal magisterium, proposes for belief as having been divinely revealed."
Can you, bowler, make a list of the teachings which WERE NOT solemnly taught yet which you are obliged to believe with the same divine and Catholic faith as those which WERE solemnly taught? If that is a serious obligation, you should have an answer for yourself on this question.
Your references do not answer my questions, and you even end up asking me a question.
You must know, bowler, that Our Lord in Scripture gave us example that it is legitimate to answer a question with a question.
You asked 2 questions of me,
1 - to prove what I was saying with authoritative sources, and this I did.
2 - to give examples of that truth.
If you agree with #1, then you realize that you, and every Catholic, MUST have the answer to your second question, that is why I asked you to give yourself the answer. If you refuse to answer it to yourself, it appears you would have some trouble with the truth in #1. This is really a crucial matter of religion.
Who is Clancularius? I didn't ask you any question.
Knowing about the Ordinary & Universal Magisterium does not answer any questions. You would have to establish that a teaching was universal in time, which even explicit baptism of desire of the catechumen never was.
I was 'Strewth' until the owner of the forum fulfilled my request for a name-change.
You asked for sources for my statement because you had a problem with my statement. I proved what I said, and now you act as if you never had a problem with it!
Why don't you, bowler, tell all Catholics here how they can know for sure whether any teaching is one of those that has NOT been solemnly taught yet they are obliged to believe with the SAME divine and Catholic Faith as something taught solemnly? Give use your simple and practical advice how to do so. That is, how would an ordinary Catholic, say, living in A.D. 350 (with no solemn teaching to reference) know what they were obliged to believe?
-
You asked for sources for my statement because you had a problem with my statement. I proved what I said, and now you act as if you never had a problem with it!
You communicate with no common sense. I asked you for sources and you never gave any (read below), now you say that I "act as if you never had a problem with it". I don't have a clue where you conclude that I don't have a problem with "it", or what "it" is. If "it" is the ordinary and universal magisterium, everyone here knows what the ordinary and universal magisterium is, do you think that you discovered sliced bread? If you have a rough time communicating this simple thought, there is no point in continueing the conversation. I just don't have the time. Besides, the O&UM is irrelevant in this discussion, as we are discussing defined dogmas, that BOD has had plenty of time and opportunities to be defined dogmatically, and it never has. (On the other hand what I believe has been defined dogmatically in every point (do you want me to repeat all of the dogmas of EENS as it is written?).
Clancularius said:
1) solemn dogmatic docuмents are not strictly necessary in the Church. ...After Pentecost the faithful lived & died for generations without solemn papal dogmatic decrees,...
Bowler asked:Do you have an authoritative sources for this comments?
Can you give some examples of the Ordinary & Universal Magisterium's infallible decrees during the first 500 years, that were not infallible decided at a council or by the popes?
Clancarius answered:Here are my sources:
A Catholic Dictionary (1931) writes in regard to the extraordinary magisterium:
"the authority is not distinct from the ordinary magisterium, but is merely a more solemn exercise of the same"
The Vatican Council of 1870:
"...all those things are to be believed with divine and Catholic faith which are contained in the Word of God, written or handed down, and which the Church, either by a solemn judgement or by her ordinary and universal magisterium, proposes for belief as having been divinely revealed."
Can you, bowler, make a list of the teachings which WERE NOT solemnly taught yet which you are obliged to believe with the same divine and Catholic faith as those which WERE solemnly taught? If that is a serious obligation, you should have an answer for yourself on this question.
Here is the order of your comments, my questions, and yous reply. You have no common sense. You did not answer my the question you strictly gave definitions of the Ordinary Universal Magisterium. That does not answer my question.
1) You said :"solemn dogmatic docuмents are not strictly necessary in the Church". I asked you for an authoritative source that says that ":"solemn dogmatic docuмents are not strictly necessary in the Church". You gave none.
2) You said: "After Pentecost the faithful lived & died for generations without solemn papal dogmatic decrees". I asked you: Can you give some examples of the Ordinary & Universal Magisterium's infallible decrees during the first 500 years, that were not infallible decided at a council or by the popes? Again, you provided nothing, and even threw the job of answering back to me.
-
So, bowler, does your understanding of the Solemn magisterium & the Universal/Ordinary magisterium allow for the possibility that something can be solemnly taught one year, but that in a later year Rome can approve of teaching for universal distribution that is contrary to that previous solemn teaching....and for nobody in the whole Church to have noticed for hundreds of years thereafter?
-
So you are trying to remove the Fathers from the equation so you can claim the teaching is not universal. So should we then conclude that all of the Popes, Doctors of the Church, Saints, Catechisms, Canon Law, and other trusted Church references that have openly taught BOD/BOB ever since the days of the Church Fathers, to all be teaching a new, fabricated doctrine?
This tread is about the question of Why has BOD ALWAYS been left out of Dogmatic Decrees. Take your "parrot" remarks which I have shown you to be false, back to the thread where you first made them and I answered ad-nauceum.
I can't even count how many times you've dodged points presented to you in these discussions on the threefold baptism. You are constantly like a deer in the headlights. If you hold a true position, you should have no fear in answering simple questions like I've asked above, and several others previously asked. As you can imagine, doing this gives you no credibility.
-
I can't even count how many times you've dodged points presented to you in these discussions on the threefold baptism. You are constantly like a deer in the headlights. If you hold a true position, you should have no fear in answering simple questions like I've asked above, and several others previously asked. As you can imagine, doing this gives you no credibility.
SB13,
I can't count how many times you've refused to answer my questions, such as this one:
Why is His Excellency, Bishop Robert McManus, giving the Sacrament of Confirmation to Catholics who profess and promote the theology of Father Feeney and who even have his seminal book, the Bread of Life, for sale on their website?
-
I can't even count how many times you've dodged points presented to you in these discussions on the threefold baptism. You are constantly like a deer in the headlights. If you hold a true position, you should have no fear in answering simple questions like I've asked above, and several others previously asked. As you can imagine, doing this gives you no credibility.
SB13,
I can't count how many times you've refused to answer my questions, such as this one:
Why is His Excellency, Bishop Robert McManus, giving the Sacrament of Confirmation to Catholics who profess and promote the theology of Father Feeney and who even have his seminal book, the Bread of Life, for sale on their website?
You ask such bizarre questions that are way outside of what is being discussed. I have never heard of Bishop McManus, and had to look him up just now. Seeing that he was ordained with the new rite of ordination in 1978, I consider his Orders doubtful. Again, whole other topic.
-
I can't even count how many times you've dodged points presented to you in these discussions on the threefold baptism. You are constantly like a deer in the headlights. If you hold a true position, you should have no fear in answering simple questions like I've asked above, and several others previously asked. As you can imagine, doing this gives you no credibility.
Anyone with eyes to see can see that NOBODY in all of CI answers more questions about BOD than Bowler.
The plain truth is that you are not qualified to discuss the issue. This is why you don't see. You need to get whomever you go to for information, to come on here directly.
-
So, bowler, does your understanding of the Solemn magisterium & the Universal/Ordinary magisterium allow for the possibility that something can be solemnly taught one year, but that in a later year Rome can approve of teaching for universal distribution that is contrary to that previous solemn teaching....and for nobody in the whole Church to have noticed for hundreds of years thereafter?
Get to the point, the discussion is about:
1) The Sacrament of Baptism
2) Baptism by Blood (Martyrdom for the Catholic Faith)
3) Explicit Baptism of Desire of the catechumen.
4) Implicit Baptism of desire of those that want to be explicitely Catholic, and believe in the Trinity and the Incaranntion (Theory of St. Thomas)
5)For the invincible ignorant, Implicit faith in a God that rewards (For those who are invincible ignorant of the Catholic Church, even if they are surrounded by Catholics and evangelized for years)
6) Implicit Faith in a God that rewards (for those who practice another faith to the best of their ability, their other faith shows "Implict" faith in Christ.)
That's about it. Anyone can correct my descriptions since they are my own short and simple.
P.S- I don't believe any but #1. I am an Augustinian, I believe infallible dogmas as they are clearly written:
1) I am an Augustinian with regard to baptism of desire. Here is short is what I believe:
St. Augustine: “If you wish to be a Catholic, do not venture to believe, to say, or to teach that they whom the Lord has predestinated for baptism can be snatched away from his predestination, or die before that has been accomplished in them which the Almighty has predestined.’ There is in such a dogma more power than I can tell assigned to chances in opposition to the power of God, by the occurrence of which casualties that which He has predestinated is not permitted to come to pass. It is hardly necessary to spend time or earnest words in cautioning the man who takes up with this error against the absolute vortex of confusion into which it will absorb him, when I shall sufficiently meet the case if I briefly warn the prudent man who is ready to receive correction against the threatening mischief.” (On the Soul and Its Origin 3, 13)
Therefore, I believe in EENS as it is written. What St. Augustine taught is exactly inline with the dogmatic decrees on EENS. I don't need to add any "qualifiers" to what the popes and councils have defined dogmatically to this present day.
What is EENS as it is written?
EENS (Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus) translates to Outside of the Church there is no salvation. EENS as it is written means that we believe the dogmatic decrees on EENS exactly as the words say.
Excerpts of the Nine Dogmatic Decrees that all agree with St. Augustine
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra:
“The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire ..and that nobody can be saved, … even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ[/b], unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”
Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, Constitution 1, 1215, ex cathedra: “There is indeed one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which nobody at all is saved, …
Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, Nov. 18, 1302, ex cathedra:
“… this Church outside of which there is no salvation nor remission of sin… Furthermore, … every human creature that they by absolute necessity for salvation are entirely subject to the Roman Pontiff.”
Pope Clement V, Council of Vienne, Decree # 30, 1311-1312, ex cathedra:
“… one universal Church, outside of which there is no salvation, for all of whom there is one Lord, one faith, and one baptism…”
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Sess. 8, Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra:
“Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic faith; unless each one preserves this whole and inviolate, he will without a doubt perish in eternity.”
Pope Leo X, Fifth Lateran Council, Session 11, Dec. 19, 1516, ex cathedra:
“For, regulars and seculars, prelates and subjects, exempt and non-exempt, belong to the one universal Church, outside of which no one at all is saved, and they all have one Lord and one faith.”
Pope Pius IV, Council of Trent, Iniunctum nobis, Nov. 13, 1565, ex cathedra: “This true Catholic faith, outside of which no one can be saved… I now profess and truly hold…”
Pope Benedict XIV, Nuper ad nos, March 16, 1743, Profession of Faith: “This faith of the Catholic Church, without which no one can be saved, and which of my own accord I now profess and truly hold…”
Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, Session 2, Profession of Faith, 1870, ex cathedra: “This true Catholic faith, outside of which none can be saved, which I now freely profess and truly hold…”
Council of Trent. Seventh Session. March, 1547. Decree on the Sacraments.
On Baptism
Canon 2. If anyone shall say that real and natural water is not necessary for baptism, and on that account those words of our Lord Jesus Christ: "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God (John 3:5), are distorted into some metaphor: let him be anathema.
Canon 5. If any one saith, that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema
Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis (# 22), June 29, 1943: “Actually only those are to be numbered among the members of the Church who have received the laver of regeneration and profess the true faith.”
Pope Pius XII, Mediator Dei (# 43), Nov. 20, 1947: “In the same
way, actually that baptism is the distinctive mark of all
Christians, and serves to differentiate them from those who
have not been cleansed in this purifying stream and
consequently are not members of Christ, the sacrament of holy
orders sets the priest apart from the rest of the faithful who
have not received this consecration.”
What those dogmatic Decrees Mean
From: Who Shall Ascend, by Fr. Walthen
Being ex cathedra definitions, they must be taken literally, unequivocally, and absolutely. Hence, to attempt to modify or qualify them in any way is to deny them.
3. The doctrine says clearly that only Catholics go to Heaven; all others are lost, that is, they do not go to Heaven, but to Hell. All who are inclined to dispute this dogma should have the good sense to realize that if this is not what the words of the definitions mean, the Church would never have promulgated such a position. To give any other meaning to these words is to portray the Church as foolish and ridiculous.
4. The pronouncements indicate that, by divine decree, those only will be saved who are members of the Church when they die. This membership must be formal, real, explicit, and, in those of the (mental) age of reason, deliberate. There is no such thing as "potential" membership in the Church, or "implicit" membership, or "quasi-membership," or "invisible membership," or anything of the kind. Neither can those who are catechumens, that is, those who are preparing to enter the Church, be considered members.
12. Let the reader accept the reasonable fact that the Pontiffs who pronounced these decrees were perfectly literate and fully cognizant of what they were saying. If there were any need to soften or qualify their meanings, they were quite capable of doing so.[/size] They were not regarded as heretics or fanatics at the time of their pronouncements, and have never been labelled such by the Church to this very day. It is an easy thing for the people of this "enlightened" age to fall into the modern delusion that the men of former times, especially those of the Middle Ages, were not as bright as we are, so that they sometimes said they knew not what.
13. The dates of these definitions are extremely important. They mark the time when the Church terminated speculation and discussion among theologians on the subject of the conditions of salvation. All writings on this subject, therefore, which predate these definitions have value only in so far as they corroborate these definitions.
15. Almost everybody who writes or comments on this subject explains the doctrine by explaining it away. He begins by affirming the truth of the axiom, Extra Ecclesiam, etc., and ends by denying it while continuing to insist vigorously that he is not doing so. He seems to think it a clever thing to state the formula, then to weasel out of it. What he ought to do is one of two things: either admit that he does not believe this dogma (and also in the same breath, that he does not believe in the Dogma of the Church's lnfallibility); or he should allow for the possibility that there is something about the Catholic Doctrine of Salvation of which he is unaware, or which he refuses to accept, or has been misled into denying.
-
I can't even count how many times you've dodged points presented to you in these discussions on the threefold baptism. You are constantly like a deer in the headlights. If you hold a true position, you should have no fear in answering simple questions like I've asked above, and several others previously asked. As you can imagine, doing this gives you no credibility.
Anyone with eyes to see can see that NOBODY in all of CI answers more questions about BOD than Bowler.
The plain truth is that you are not qualified to discuss the issue. This is why you don't see. You need to get whomever you go to for information, to come on here directly.
I am here. I do not need to go get anyone.
Since you say you answer more questions than anyone, may I ask you one now?
-
I can't even count how many times you've dodged points presented to you in these discussions on the threefold baptism. You are constantly like a deer in the headlights. If you hold a true position, you should have no fear in answering simple questions like I've asked above, and several others previously asked. As you can imagine, doing this gives you no credibility.
Anyone with eyes to see can see that NOBODY in all of CI answers more questions about BOD than Bowler.
The plain truth is that you are not qualified to discuss the issue. This is why you don't see. You need to get whomever you go to for information, to come on here directly.
I am here. I do not need to go get anyone.
Since you say you answer more questions than anyone, may I ask you one now?
You are not qualified to ask questions. I was more than patient with you. There is no point in continuing to answer your objections as they have been answered enough by me and others. If you don't want to see them, it matters little to me. Everyone else can read my answers.
-
Now that I have seen you profess your Faith on the subject, bowler, we can see what you profess. I believe all those Church citations myself.
The problem is, bowler, you and I apparently differ in our understanding of the same subject. Profession is one thing, and understanding another. I am asking this question to try to pinpoint the misunderstanding between us. If one thinks he understands what he professes, he should also be confident to apply what he believes. So, I ask,....
....does your own understanding of the Solemn magisterium & the Universal/Ordinary magisterium allow for the possibility that something can be solemnly taught one year, but that in a later year Rome can approve of teaching for universal distribution that is contrary to that previous solemn teaching....and for nobody in the whole Church to have noticed for hundreds of years thereafter?
-
I can't even count how many times you've dodged points presented to you in these discussions on the threefold baptism. You are constantly like a deer in the headlights. If you hold a true position, you should have no fear in answering simple questions like I've asked above, and several others previously asked. As you can imagine, doing this gives you no credibility.
Anyone with eyes to see can see that NOBODY in all of CI answers more questions about BOD than Bowler.
The plain truth is that you are not qualified to discuss the issue. This is why you don't see. You need to get whomever you go to for information, to come on here directly.
I am here. I do not need to go get anyone.
Since you say you answer more questions than anyone, may I ask you one now?
You are not qualified to ask questions. I was more than patient with you. There is no point in continuing to answer your objections as they have been answered enough by me and others. If you don't want to see them, it matters little to me. Everyone else can read my answers.
Interesting. First you say NOBODY answers more questions than you, and now you refuse altogether. I will ask you my question anyway, and maybe others can bail you out.
You stated that Catholics only determine what truth is based on dogmatic decrees (which is why you started this discussion). My questions are:
If dogmatic decrees are essential for Catholics to know what truth is, why didn't the Church immediately hold a General Council right after the Church was established, and fully define everything for all future Catholics? Instead, the Catholic Church waited over 3 centuries to hold its first General Council (where little was defined), and didn't make any sort of solemn declaration on Baptism until the 14th through 16th centuries.
That leads to a second question which is, why did the Catholic Church leave the first 13 generations of Catholics without any solemn decree on baptism, if, as you say, that is mandatory for Catholics to know what truth is?
-
Now that I have seen you profess your Faith on the subject, bowler, we can see what you profess. I believe all those Church citations myself.
The problem is, bowler, you and I apparently differ in our understanding of the same subject. Profession is one thing, and understanding another. I am asking this question to try to pinpoint the misunderstanding between us. If one thinks he understands what he professes, he should also be confident to apply what he believes. So, I ask,....
....does your own understanding of the Solemn magisterium & the Universal/Ordinary magisterium allow for the possibility that something can be solemnly taught one year, but that in a later year Rome can approve of teaching for universal distribution that is contrary to that previous solemn teaching....and for nobody in the whole Church to have noticed for hundreds of years thereafter?
For the second time, get to the point.
-
You stated that Catholics only determine what truth is based on dogmatic decrees (which is why you started this discussion). My questions are:
If dogmatic decrees are essential for Catholics to know what truth is,
That is precisely why I don't bother answering you. Your mind is not wired right. What you wrote above is a strawman.
How many times do I need to tell you to post my quotes, instead of MAKING UP what you wanted me to say!
-
The problem for Fr. Laisney is that the Council of Florence did not incorporate St. Thomas’s paragraph on there being another remedy for adults (Summa Theologica, Pt. III, Q. 68, A. 3), but stopped the quotation from him after stating that there is no other remedy for infants.
This fact should make Fr. Laisney think. Why did the Holy Ghost only allow Pope Eugene IV and the Council of Florence to incorporate the passage from St. Thomas on infants, and not his teaching in the very next paragraph on baptism of desire? Why didn’t God allow the Council to simply continue with the quotation only one more short paragraph, which would have made it clear once and for all that baptism of desire is a teaching of the Church?
It’s obvious that the Holy Ghost wanted St. Thomas’s teaching on the Sacrament of Baptism being the only remedy for infants in the
Council, and that He did not want St. Thomas’s teaching that baptism of desire is another remedy for adults in the Council. This is why the one paragraph appears and the other does not.
The fact that Trent clearly defines at least three times that the desire for the Sacrament of Penance is efficacious for Justification, while it nowhere likewise defines baptism of desire, should tell baptism of desire advocates something; namely, that baptism of desire is not true.
Another example of Baptism of desire being left out of all dogmatic decrees is from the First Vatican Council. There was in the schematas the plan to define dogmatically baptism of desire, but Vatican II was interrupted by the anti-Church masonic government. What a coincidence?
I can't find my docuмentation on it in my archives. Does anyone have the authoritative information on this?
Meanwhile, all dogmatic decrees on EENS NEVER ONCE mention any exceptions (do I need to post all of them again?)
Let the reader accept the reasonable fact that the Pontiffs who pronounced these decrees were perfectly literate and fully cognizant of what they were saying. If there were any need to soften or qualify their meanings, they were quite capable of doing so. They were not regarded as heretics or fanatics at the time of their pronouncements, and have never been labelled such by the Church to this very day. It is an easy thing for the people of this "enlightened" age to fall into the modern delusion that the men of former times, especially those of the Middle Ages, were not as bright as we are, so that they sometimes said they knew not what.
-
You stated that Catholics only determine what truth is based on dogmatic decrees (which is why you started this discussion). My questions are:
If dogmatic decrees are essential for Catholics to know what truth is,
That is precisely why I don't bother answering you. Your mind is not wired right. What you wrote above is a strawman.
How many times do I need to tell you to post my quotes, instead of MAKING UP what you wanted me to say!
Earlier in this discussion, you stated:
"A Catholic does not determine truth by what has not been condemned, but by what has been infallible [sic] declared."
So my question in response is, if dogmatic decrees are essential for Catholics to know what truth is, why was very little infallibly declared by the Church before the Council of Trent? See my previous list of the first 18 Councils and what they defined.
For example, we don't see any solemn declarations on Baptism until the 14th through 16th centuries. Why did the Catholic Church leave the first 13 generations of Catholics without any solemn definitions on baptism, if, as you say, infallible declarations are mandatory for Catholics to know what truth is?
-
You stated that Catholics only determine what truth is based on dogmatic decrees (which is why you started this discussion). My questions are:
If dogmatic decrees are essential for Catholics to know what truth is,
That is precisely why I don't bother answering you. Your mind is not wired right. What you wrote above is a strawman.
How many times do I need to tell you to post my quotes, instead of MAKING UP what you wanted me to say!
Earlier in this discussion, you stated:
"A Catholic does not determine truth by what has not been condemned, but by what has been infallible [sic] declared."
So my question in response is, if dogmatic decrees are essential for Catholics to know what truth is, why was very little infallibly declared by the Church before the Council of Trent? See my previous list of the first 18 Councils and what they defined.
For example, we don't see any solemn declarations on Baptism until the 14th through 16th centuries. Why did the Catholic Church leave the first 13 generations of Catholics without any solemn definitions on baptism, if, as you say, infallible declarations are mandatory for Catholics to know what truth is?
Where (and/or when) did the Catholic Church ever teach that there were souls in Paradise, since the promulgation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, who had ended this life without sacramental Baptism?
-
You stated that Catholics only determine what truth is based on dogmatic decrees (which is why you started this discussion). My questions are:
If dogmatic decrees are essential for Catholics to know what truth is,
That is precisely why I don't bother answering you. Your mind is not wired right. What you wrote above is a strawman.
How many times do I need to tell you to post my quotes, instead of MAKING UP what you wanted me to say!
Earlier in this discussion, you stated:
"A Catholic does not determine truth by what has not been condemned, but by what has been infallible [sic] declared."
So my question in response is, if dogmatic decrees are essential for Catholics to know what truth is, why was very little infallibly declared by the Church before the Council of Trent? See my previous list of the first 18 Councils and what they defined.
For example, we don't see any solemn declarations on Baptism until the 14th through 16th centuries. Why did the Catholic Church leave the first 13 generations of Catholics without any solemn definitions on baptism, if, as you say, infallible declarations are mandatory for Catholics to know what truth is?
Where (and/or when) did the Catholic Church ever teach that there were souls in Paradise, since the promulgation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, who had ended this life without sacramental Baptism?
We already reviewed the full list of teachings from the Church on baptism of desire and baptism of blood when we discussed them in the discussion titled, "Baptismofdesire.com". The quotes are all listed on the homepage there. My point above is that they need not be solemn decrees.
-
We already reviewed the full list of teachings from the Church on baptism of desire and baptism of blood when we discussed them in the discussion titled, "Baptismofdesire.com". The quotes are all listed on the homepage there. My point above is that they need not be solemn decrees.
You mean your "list" where every Father that you quoted, and St. Bernanrd, and Innocent II where shown to be errors, misrepresentions, and non-magisterial opinions like 10 times and you just go along repeating the same mantra?
See CI Thread under Church in Crisis entitled Fathers Rejected Even Explicit BOD of the Catechumen .
-
We already reviewed the full list of teachings from the Church on baptism of desire and baptism of blood when we discussed them in the discussion titled, "Baptismofdesire.com". The quotes are all listed on the homepage there. My point above is that they need not be solemn decrees.
That is a very fine webpage on the subject, may I mirror it from TraditionalCatholic.net ?
-
We already reviewed the full list of teachings from the Church on baptism of desire and baptism of blood when we discussed them in the discussion titled, "Baptismofdesire.com". The quotes are all listed on the homepage there. My point above is that they need not be solemn decrees.
SB13,
Are you a sede? If so, your religion is one without an authority. "He who hears you, hears me" (CCC, #87) does not have any meaning in your religion. As for your "not so fine" website, are you going to admit to your viewers that you are a sede? State that fact, explicitly, on your webpage that you are a sede and that you reject the validity and authority of the Church's Magisterium.
-
Are you a sede? If so, your religion is one without an authority. "He who hears you, hears me" (CCC, #87) does not have any meaning in your religion.
That's rather ridiculous. Sedevacantism is Traditional Catholicism, not a separate religion. Sedes acknowledge Our Lord Jesus Christ as their authority.
Also, the CCC is a joke.
-
We already reviewed the full list of teachings from the Church on baptism of desire and baptism of blood when we discussed them in the discussion titled, "Baptismofdesire.com". The quotes are all listed on the homepage there. My point above is that they need not be solemn decrees.
SB13,
Are you a sede? If so, your religion is one without an authority. "He who hears you, hears me" (CCC, #87) does not have any meaning in your religion. As for your "not so fine" website, are you going to admit to your viewers that you are a sede? State that fact, explicitly, on your webpage that you are a sede and that you reject the validity and authority of the Church's Magisterium.
a little off topic but since you bring up sedes, what do you think about these quotes from Lefebvre?
Archbishop Lefebvre, Aug. 4, 1976: “The Council [Vatican II] turned its back on Tradition and broke with the Church of the past. It is a schismatic council… If we are certain that the Faith taught by the Church for twenty centuries can contain no error, we are much less certain that the pope is truly pope. Heresy, schism, excommunication ipso facto, or invalid election are all causes that can possibly mean the pope was never pope, or is no longer pope… Because ultimately, since the beginning of Paul VI’s pontificate, the conscience and faith of all Catholics have been faced with a serious problem. How is it that the pope, the true successor of Peter, who is assured of the help of the Holy Ghost, can officiate at the destruction of the Church – the most radical, rapid, and widespread in her history – something that no heresiarch has ever managed to achieve?”[11]
Archbishop Lefebvre, Sermon, Aug. 29, 1976: “The new rite of Mass is an illegitimate rite, the sacraments are illegitimate sacraments, the priests who come from the seminaries are illegitimate priests…”[12]
Archbishop Lefebvre, Meeting with Paul VI, Sept. 11, 1976: “[The docuмent of Vatican II on religious liberty] contains passages that are word for word contrary to what was taught by Gregory XVI, and Pius IX.”[13]
Archbishop Lefebvre, Sermon, Feb. 22, 1979: “Insofar as it is opposed to Tradition, we reject the Council [Vatican II].”[14]
Archbishop Lefebvre, Sermon, Easter, 1986: “This is the situation in which we find ourselves. I have not created it. I would die to make it go away! We are faced with a serious dilemma which, I believe, has never existed in the Church: the one seated on the chair of Peter takes part in the worship of false gods. What conclusions will we have to draw, perhaps in a few months’ time, faced with these repeated acts of taking part in the worship of false religions, I do not know. But I do wonder. It is possible that we might be forced to believe that the pope is not the pope. Because it seems to me initially – I do not yet want to say it solemnly and publicly – that it is impossible for a pope to be publicly and formally heretical.”[15]
Archbishop Lefebvre, Sermon, Aug. 27, 1986: “He who now sits upon the Throne of Peter mocks publicly the first article of the Creed and the first Commandment of the Decalogue [The Ten Commandments]. The scandal given to Catholics cannot be measured. The Church is shaken to its very foundations.”[16]
Archbishop Lefebvre, Sermon, Oct. 28, 1986: “John Paul II has encouraged false religions to pray to their false gods: it is an unprecedented and intolerable humiliation to those who remain Catholic…”[17]
Archbishop Lefebvre, Meeting with “Cardinal” Ratzinger, July 14, 1987: “If there is a schism, it is because of what the Vatican did at Assisi… being excommunicated by a liberal, ecuмenical, and revolutionary Church is a matter of indifference to us.”[18]
Archbishop Lefebvre, Meeting with “Cardinal” Ratzinger, July 14, 1987: “Rome has lost the Faith. Rome is in apostasy.”[19]
Archbishop Lefebvre, Aug. 29, 1987: “The See of Peter and the posts of authority in Rome being occupied by anti-Christs, the destruction of the Kingdom of our Lord is being rapidly carried out… This is what has brought down upon our heads persecution by the Rome of the anti-Christs.”[20]
Archbishop Lefebvre, Declaration given to the Press before 1988 Episcopal Consecrations: “The Church holds all communion with false religions and heresy… in horror... To safeguard the Catholic priesthood which perpetuates the Church and not an adulterous Church, there must be Catholic bishops.”[21]
Archbishop Lefebvre, Speaking of the leaders of the Vatican II sect: “We cannot work together with these enemies of our Lord’s reign.”[22]
Archbishop Lefebvre, Speaking of the leaders of the Vatican II sect: “We cannot follow these people. They’re in apostasy, they do not believe in the divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ who must reign. What is the use in waiting? Let’s do the consecration!”[23]
-
We already reviewed the full list of teachings from the Church on baptism of desire and baptism of blood when we discussed them in the discussion titled, "Baptismofdesire.com". The quotes are all listed on the homepage there. My point above is that they need not be solemn decrees.
You mean your "list" where every Father that you quoted, and St. Bernanrd, and Innocent II where shown to be errors, misrepresentions, and non-magisterial opinions like 10 times and you just go along repeating the same mantra?
See CI Thread under Church in Crisis entitled Fathers Rejected Even Explicit BOD of the Catechumen .
Yes Bowler, we have already seen you condemn all of the Church Fathers, Popes, General Councils, Doctors of the Church, Saints, Catechisms, Canon Law, and other trusted Church references as quoted on baptismofdesire.com. As if you know better than all of them.
Again, if any of those sources were presenting erroneous opinions, we would see objections from others in the Church after them. You've been asked several times for even a single example of this, but you have never replied.
-
We already reviewed the full list of teachings from the Church on baptism of desire and baptism of blood when we discussed them in the discussion titled, "Baptismofdesire.com". The quotes are all listed on the homepage there. My point above is that they need not be solemn decrees.
That is a very fine webpage on the subject, may I mirror it from TraditionalCatholic.net ?
By all means...
-
You stated that Catholics only determine what truth is based on dogmatic decrees (which is why you started this discussion). My questions are:
If dogmatic decrees are essential for Catholics to know what truth is,
That is precisely why I don't bother answering you. Your mind is not wired right. What you wrote above is a strawman.
How many times do I need to tell you to post my quotes, instead of MAKING UP what you wanted me to say!
Earlier in this discussion, you stated:
"A Catholic does not determine truth by what has not been condemned, but by what has been infallible [sic] declared."
So my question in response is, if dogmatic decrees are essential for Catholics to know what truth is, why was very little infallibly declared by the Church before the Council of Trent? See my previous list of the first 18 Councils and what they defined.
For example, we don't see any solemn declarations on Baptism until the 14th through 16th centuries. Why did the Catholic Church leave the first 13 generations of Catholics without any solemn definitions on baptism, if, as you say, infallible declarations are mandatory for Catholics to know what truth is?
Bowler, I have quoted you word for word as you requested. Waiting for your answer...
-
Are you a sede? If so, your religion is one without an authority. "He who hears you, hears me" (CCC, #87) does not have any meaning in your religion.
That's rather ridiculous. Sedevacantism is Traditional Catholicism, not a separate religion. Sedes acknowledge Our Lord Jesus Christ as their authority.
Also, the CCC is a joke.
SB13 thinks that he can quote Magisterial texts supporting BoD as somehow abrogating the final opinion of Saint Augustine, which is what Father Feeney advocated. But, SB13, cannot state publicly the Magisterial teachings refuting sedevacantism:
Pius, bishop, servant of the servants of God, with the approval of the sacred council, for an everlasting record.
The Eternal Shepherd and Guardian of our souls {I Pet. 2:25}, in order to render the saving work of redemption lasting, decided to establish His holy Church that in it, as in the house of the living God, all the faithful might be held together by the bond of one faith and one love. For this reason, before He was glorified, He prayed to the Father not for the Apostles only, but for those also who would believe in him on their testimony, that all might be one as the Son and the Father are one {John 17:20}. Therefore, just as He sent the Apostles, whom He had chosen for Himself out of the world, as He Himself was sent by the Father {John 20:21}, so also He wished shepherds and teachers to be in His Church until the consummation of the world {Matt. 28:20}. Indeed, He placed St. Peter at the head of the other apostles that the episcopate might be one and undivided, and that the whole multitude of believers might be preserved in unity of faith and communion by means of a well-organized priesthood. He made Peter a perpetual principle of this two-fold unity and a visible foundation, that on his strength an everlasting temple might be erected and on the firmness of his faith a Church might arise whose pinnacle was to reach into heaven. But the gates of hell, with a hatred that grows greater each day, are rising up everywhere against its divinely established foundation with the intention of overthrowing the Church, if this were possible. We, therefore, judge it necessary for the protection, the safety, and the increase of the Catholic flock to pronounce with the approval of the sacred council the true doctrine concerning the establishment, the perpetuity, and the nature of the apostolic primacy. In this primacy, all the efficacy and all the strength of the Church are placed. (Pastor Aeternus, 1)
Therefore, if anyone says that the blessed Apostle Peter was not constituted by Christ the Lord as the Prince of all the Apostles and the visible head of the whole Church militant, or that he received immediately and directly from Jesus Christ our Lord only a primacy of honor and not a true and proper primacy of jurisdiction: let him be anathema. (Pastor Aeternus, 1)
That which our Lord Jesus Christ, the prince of shepherds and great shepherd of the sheep, established in the Blessed Apostle Peter, for the continual salvation and permanent benefit of the Church, must of necessity remain for ever, by Christ's authority, in the church which, founded as it is upon a rock, will stand firm until the end of time {See Mt 7, 25; Lk 6, 48}. (Pastor Aeternus, 2)
For no one can be in doubt, indeed it was known in every age that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, the pillar of faith and the foundation of the catholic church, received the keys of the kingdom from our lord Jesus Christ, the saviour and redeemer of the human race, and that to this day and for ever he lives and presides and exercises judgment in his successors the bishops of the holy Roman see, which he founded and consecrated with his blood {From the speech of Philip, the Roman legate, at the 3rd session of the council of Ephesus (D no. 112)}. (Pastor Aeternus, 2)
Therefore whoever succeeds to the chair of Peter obtains by the institution of Christ himself, the primacy of Peter over the whole church. So what the truth has ordained stands firm, and blessed Peter perseveres in the rock-like strength he was granted, and does not abandon that guidance of the church which he once received {Leo 1, Serm. (Sermons), 3 (elsewhere 2), ch. 3 (PL 54, 146)}. (Pastor Aeternus, 2)
For this reason it has always been necessary for every church--that is to say the faithful throughout the world--to be in agreement with the Roman church because of its more effective leadership. In consequence of being joined, as members to head, with that see, from which the rights of sacred communion flow to all, they will grow together into the structure of a single body {Irenaeus, Adv. haeres. (Against Heresies) 1113 (PG 7, 849), Council of Aquilea (381), to be found among: Ambrose, Epistolae (Letters), 11 (PL 16, 946)}. (Pastor Aeternus, 2)
Therefore, if anyone says that it is not by the institution of Christ the Lord himself (that is to say, by divine law) that Blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole Church; or that the Roman pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy: let him be anathema. (Pastor Aeternus, 2)
-
We already reviewed the full list of teachings from the Church on baptism of desire and baptism of blood when we discussed them in the discussion titled, "Baptismofdesire.com". The quotes are all listed on the homepage there. My point above is that they need not be solemn decrees.
You mean your "list" where every Father that you quoted, and St. Bernanrd, and Innocent II where shown to be errors, misrepresentions, and non-magisterial opinions like 10 times and you just go along repeating the same mantra?
See CI Thread under Church in Crisis entitled Fathers Rejected Even Explicit BOD of the Catechumen .
Yes Bowler, we have already seen you condemn all of the Church Fathers, Popes, General Councils, Doctors of the Church, Saints, Catechisms, Canon Law, and other trusted Church references as quoted on baptismofdesire.com. As if you know better than all of them.
Again, if any of those sources were presenting erroneous opinions, we would see objections from others in the Church after them. You've been asked several times for even a single example of this, but you have never replied.
There you go again with your lies.
-
You stated that Catholics only determine what truth is based on dogmatic decrees (which is why you started this discussion). My questions are:
If dogmatic decrees are essential for Catholics to know what truth is,
That is precisely why I don't bother answering you. Your mind is not wired right. What you wrote above is a strawman.
How many times do I need to tell you to post my quotes, instead of MAKING UP what you wanted me to say!
Earlier in this discussion, you stated:
"A Catholic does not determine truth by what has not been condemned, but by what has been infallible [sic] declared."
So my question in response is, if dogmatic decrees are essential for Catholics to know what truth is, why was very little infallibly declared by the Church before the Council of Trent? See my previous list of the first 18 Councils and what they defined.
For example, we don't see any solemn declarations on Baptism until the 14th through 16th centuries. Why did the Catholic Church leave the first 13 generations of Catholics without any solemn definitions on baptism, if, as you say, infallible declarations are mandatory for Catholics to know what truth is?
Bowler, I have quoted you word for word as you requested. Waiting for your answer...
I don't see the quote from me where I requested this.
-
You stated that Catholics only determine what truth is based on dogmatic decrees (which is why you started this discussion). My questions are:
If dogmatic decrees are essential for Catholics to know what truth is,
That is precisely why I don't bother answering you. Your mind is not wired right. What you wrote above is a strawman.
How many times do I need to tell you to post my quotes, instead of MAKING UP what you wanted me to say!
Earlier in this discussion, you stated:
"A Catholic does not determine truth by what has not been condemned, but by what has been infallible [sic] declared."
So my question in response is, if dogmatic decrees are essential for Catholics to know what truth is, why was very little infallibly declared by the Church before the Council of Trent? See my previous list of the first 18 Councils and what they defined.
For example, we don't see any solemn declarations on Baptism until the 14th through 16th centuries. Why did the Catholic Church leave the first 13 generations of Catholics without any solemn definitions on baptism, if, as you say, infallible declarations are mandatory for Catholics to know what truth is?
Bowler, I have quoted you word for word as you requested. Waiting for your answer...
I don't see the quote from me where I requested this.
No worries bowler, it's obvious why you wouldn't want to answer that question.
-
SB13 thinks that he can quote Magisterial texts supporting BoD as somehow abrogating the final opinion of Saint Augustine, which is what Father Feeney advocated. But, SB13, cannot state publicly the Magisterial teachings refuting sedevacantism:
Another really random question Jehanne! This discussion is about BoD, not sedevacantism. If you want to discuss that, you should start another discussion. I will be happy to reply.
-
Yes Bowler, we have already seen you condemn all of the Church Fathers, Popes, General Councils, Doctors of the Church, Saints, Catechisms, Canon Law, and other trusted Church references as quoted on baptismofdesire.com. As if you know better than all of them.
Again, if any of those sources were presenting erroneous opinions, we would see objections from others in the Church after them. You've been asked several times for even a single example of this, but you have never replied.
There you go again with your lies, subterfuge, and invented personal system of finding Catholic truth.
1)saintbosco13 said: "we have already seen you condemn all of the Church Fathers".
That's a blatant lie! I posted the clear quotes by St. John Chrysosotom, St. Ambrose, St. Augustine that the catechumen that dies unbaptized will not be saved. Nowhere did I condemn any Father.
Ironically, it is actually you who condemn ALL of the Church Fathers, the Athanasian Creed, St. Thomas Aquinas, the Council of Trent, the Catechism of Trent (and much more) since you believe that a person with no desire to be baptized, martyred, or a Catholic, can be saved.
2)saintbosco13 said:"we have already seen you condemn all Popes".
You only posted a letter from Innocent III which I showed to be just his private opinion:
This obscure letter to a bishop has no magisterial authority whatsoever. If BOD was a doctrine, how come this is the only docuмent the author can come up with (one letter from 1206!)?
Indeed Pope Innocent III had every chance to infallible define any other exceptions to the constant tradition in the Fathers that the Gospel message of "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost he cannot enter into the kingdom of God" is to be taken absolutely. Yet he didn't mention any when he declared infallible:
Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, Constitution 1, 1215, ex cathedra:
“There is indeed one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which
nobody at all is saved, in which Jesus Christ is both priest and sacrifice.”
It is actually you saintbosco13 who condemn all of the popes who made the clear dogmatic decrees that I follow exactly as they are clearly written:
Bowler said:
1) I am an Augustinian with regard to baptism of desire. Here is short is what I believe:
St. Augustine: “If you wish to be a Catholic, do not venture to believe, to say, or to teach that they whom the Lord has predestinated for baptism can be snatched away from his predestination, or die before that has been accomplished in them which the Almighty has predestined.’ There is in such a dogma more power than I can tell assigned to chances in opposition to the power of God, by the occurrence of which casualties that which He has predestinated is not permitted to come to pass. It is hardly necessary to spend time or earnest words in cautioning the man who takes up with this error against the absolute vortex of confusion into which it will absorb him, when I shall sufficiently meet the case if I briefly warn the prudent man who is ready to receive correction against the threatening mischief.” (On the Soul and Its Origin 3, 13)
Therefore, I believe in EENS as it is written. What St. Augustine taught is exactly inline with the dogmatic decrees on EENS. I don't need to add any "qualifiers" to what the popes and councils have defined dogmatically to this present day.
What is EENS as it is written?
EENS (Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus) translates to Outside of the Church there is no salvation. EENS as it is written means that we believe the dogmatic decrees on EENS exactly as the words say.
Excerpts of the Nine Dogmatic Decrees that all agree with St. Augustine
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra:
“The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire ..and that nobody can be saved, … even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ[/b], unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”
Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, Constitution 1, 1215, ex cathedra: “There is indeed one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which nobody at all is saved, …
Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, Nov. 18, 1302, ex cathedra:
“… this Church outside of which there is no salvation nor remission of sin… Furthermore, … every human creature that they by absolute necessity for salvation are entirely subject to the Roman Pontiff.”
Pope Clement V, Council of Vienne, Decree # 30, 1311-1312, ex cathedra:
“… one universal Church, outside of which there is no salvation, for all of whom there is one Lord, one faith, and one baptism…”
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Sess. 8, Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra:
“Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic faith; unless each one preserves this whole and inviolate, he will without a doubt perish in eternity.”
Pope Leo X, Fifth Lateran Council, Session 11, Dec. 19, 1516, ex cathedra:
“For, regulars and seculars, prelates and subjects, exempt and non-exempt, belong to the one universal Church, outside of which no one at all is saved, and they all have one Lord and one faith.”
Pope Pius IV, Council of Trent, Iniunctum nobis, Nov. 13, 1565, ex cathedra: “This true Catholic faith, outside of which no one can be saved… I now profess and truly hold…”
Pope Benedict XIV, Nuper ad nos, March 16, 1743, Profession of Faith: “This faith of the Catholic Church, without which no one can be saved, and which of my own accord I now profess and truly hold…”
Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, Session 2, Profession of Faith, 1870, ex cathedra: “This true Catholic faith, outside of which none can be saved, which I now freely profess and truly hold…”
Council of Trent. Seventh Session. March, 1547. Decree on the Sacraments.
On Baptism
Canon 2. If anyone shall say that real and natural water is not necessary for baptism, and on that account those words of our Lord Jesus Christ: "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God (John 3:5), are distorted into some metaphor: let him be anathema.
Canon 5. If any one saith, that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema
Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis (# 22), June 29, 1943: “Actually only those are to be numbered among the members of the Church who have received the laver of regeneration and profess the true faith.”
Pope Pius XII, Mediator Dei (# 43), Nov. 20, 1947: “In the same
way, actually that baptism is the distinctive mark of all
Christians, and serves to differentiate them from those who
have not been cleansed in this purifying stream and
consequently are not members of Christ, the sacrament of holy
orders sets the priest apart from the rest of the faithful who
have not received this consecration.”
What those dogmatic Decrees Mean
From: Who Shall Ascend, by Fr. Walthen
Being ex cathedra definitions, they must be taken literally, unequivocally, and absolutely. Hence, to attempt to modify or qualify them in any way is to deny them.
3. The doctrine says clearly that only Catholics go to Heaven; all others are lost, that is, they do not go to Heaven, but to Hell. All who are inclined to dispute this dogma should have the good sense to realize that if this is not what the words of the definitions mean, the Church would never have promulgated such a position. To give any other meaning to these words is to portray the Church as foolish and ridiculous.
4. The pronouncements indicate that, by divine decree, those only will be saved who are members of the Church when they die. This membership must be formal, real, explicit, and, in those of the (mental) age of reason, deliberate. There is no such thing as "potential" membership in the Church, or "implicit" membership, or "quasi-membership," or "invisible membership," or anything of the kind. Neither can those who are catechumens, that is, those who are preparing to enter the Church, be considered members.
12. Let the reader accept the reasonable fact that the Pontiffs who pronounced these decrees were perfectly literate and fully cognizant of what they were saying. If there were any need to soften or qualify their meanings, they were quite capable of doing so. They were not regarded as heretics or fanatics at the time of their pronouncements, and have never been labeled such by the Church to this very day. It is an easy thing for the people of this "enlightened" age to fall into the modern delusion that the men of former times, especially those of the Middle Ages, were not as bright as we are, so that they sometimes said they knew not what.
13. The dates of these definitions are extremely important. They mark the time when the Church terminated speculation and discussion among theologians on the subject of the conditions of salvation. All writings on this subject, therefore, which predate these definitions have value only in so far as they corroborate these definitions.
While we are at it, here is an additional list of decrees from popes that you condemn in your believing that a person with no desire to be baptized, martyred, or a Catholic, can be saved:
More Popes on Outside the Church There is No Salvation. Notice the years and years of popes that I quote, and NEVER one mentions exceptions that save. Every quote says unequivocally that no one is saved:
The teaching of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium consists of those doctrines which Popes, by their common and universal teaching, propose to be believed as divinely revealed. The teaching of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium can never contradict the teaching of the Chair of Peter (the dogmatic definitions), of course, since both are infallible. Thus, the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium does not actually have to be considered at all in regard to Outside the Church There is No Salvation, because this dogma has been defined from the Chair of Peter and nothing in the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium can possibly contradict the Chair of Peter. So beware of those people who try to find ways to deny the Church’s dogmatic teaching on Outside the Church There is No Salvation by calling statements which contradict this dogma, part of the “Ordinary and Universal Magisterium,” when they can't be.
The following quotations from many Popes are reaffirmations of the dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation. These teachings of the Popes are part of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium – and are therefore infallible – since they reiterate the teaching of the Chair of St. Peter on the Catholic dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation.
Pope St. Gregory the Great, quoted in Summo Iugiter Studio, 590-604:
“The holy universal Church teaches that it is not possible to worship God truly except in her and asserts that all who are outside of her will not be saved.”
Pope Innocent III, Eius exemplo, Dec. 18, 1208:
“By the heart we believe and by the mouth we confess the one Church, not of heretics, but the Holy Roman, Catholic, and Apostolic Church outside of which we believe that no one is saved.”
Pope Clement VI, Super quibusdam, Sept. 20, 1351:
“In the second place, we ask whether you and the Armenians obedient to you believe that no man of the wayfarers outside the faith of this Church, and outside the obedience to the Pope of Rome, can finally be saved.”
Pope Leo XII, Ubi Primum (# 14), May 5, 1824:
“It is impossible for the most true God, who is Truth itself, the best, the wisest Provider, and the Rewarder of good men, to approve all sects who profess false teachings which are often inconsistent with one another and contradictory, and to confer eternal rewards on their members… by divine faith we hold one Lord, one faith, one baptism… This is why we profess that there is no salvation outside the Church.”
Pope Leo XII, Quod hoc ineunte (# 8), May 24, 1824: “We address all of you who are still removed from the true Church and the road to salvation. In this universal rejoicing, one thing is lacking: that having been called by the inspiration of the Heavenly Spirit and having broken every decisive snare, you might sincerely agree with the mother Church, outside of whose teachings there is no salvation.”
Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos (# 13), Aug. 15, 1832: “With the admonition of the apostle, that ‘there is one God, one faith, one baptism’ (Eph. 4:5), may those fear who contrive the notion that the safe harbor of salvation is open to persons of any religion whatever. They should consider the testimony of Christ Himself that ‘those who are not with Christ are against Him,’ (Lk. 11:23) and that they disperse unhappily who do not gather with Him. Therefore, ‘without a doubt, they will perish forever, unless they hold the Catholic faith whole and inviolate (Athanasian Creed).”
Pope Gregory XVI, Summo Iugiter Studio (# 2), May 27, 1832:
“Finally some of these misguided people attempt to persuade themselves and others that men are not saved only in the Catholic religion, but that even heretics may attain eternal life.”
Pope Pius IX, Ubi primum (# 10), June 17, 1847: “For ‘there is one universal Church outside of which no one at all is saved; it contains regular and secular prelates along with those under their jurisdiction, who all profess one Lord, one faith and one baptism.”
Pope Pius IX, Nostis et Nobiscuм (# 10), Dec. 8, 1849: “In particular, ensure that the faithful are deeply and thoroughly convinced of the truth of the doctrine that the Catholic faith is necessary for attaining salvation. (This doctrine, received from Christ and emphasized by the Fathers and Councils, is also contained in the formulae of the profession of faith used by Latin, Greek and Oriental Catholics).”
Pope Pius IX, Syllabus of Modern Errors, Dec. 8, 1864 - Proposition 16: “Man may, in the observance of any religion whatever, find the way of eternal salvation, and arrive at eternal salvation.” – Condemned
Pope Leo XIII, Tametsi futura prospicientibus (# 7), Nov. 1, 1900: “Christ is man’s ‘Way’; the Church also is his ‘Way’… Hence all who would find salvation apart from the Church, are led astray and strive in vain.”
Pope St. Pius X, Iucunda sane (# 9), March 12, 1904: “Yet at the same time We cannot but remind all, great and small, as Pope St. Gregory did, of the absolute necessity of having recourse to this Church in order to have eternal salvation…”
Pope St. Pius X, Editae saepe (# 29), May 26, 1910: “The Church alone possesses together with her magisterium the power of governing and sanctifying human society. Through her ministers and servants (each in his own station and office), she confers on mankind suitable and necessary means of salvation.”
Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos (# 11), Jan. 6, 1928: “The Catholic Church is alone in keeping the true worship. This is the fount of truth, this is the house of faith, this is the temple of God: if any man enter not here, or if any man go forth from it, he is a stranger to the hope of life and salvation.”