Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: DeMaistre on June 06, 2009, 09:37:51 AM
-
Who believes in "Baptism of Desire" (and why)? (I do not)
-
From an other post by me:
It is impossible to be saved outside the Church, because the Church
is the rule or measure of faith, without which faith it is impossible to
attain heaven. Natural good will is not enough to be saved. Anyone who dies
with natural good will alone cannot be saved.
However, if God gives the grace to embrace the True Faith, and one
accepts -- that is, baptism of desire -- he is truly a member of the Church
by means of his desire of being united to the Church by sacramental Baptism,
were it in his power. He can thereby be saved inside the Church, even though
he cannot receive Sacramental baptism of water.
In Catholic moral theology, Baptism is necessary for salvation by
necessity of means. When a thing is necessary for the attainment of an end
because it contains in itself something requisite for this purpose, we say
that it is necessary by necessity of means. In such an event, if a person
does not employ the means, even though it involves no fault on his part, per
se he cannot attain the end.
When we say that per se it is impossible to attain an end without
something that is necessary by necessity of means, we imply that by God's
ordinance another means may supply in certain cases. Thus, baptism of desire
and baptism of blood can supply the chief effects of the baptism of water in
certain cases. In such an event, we say that the means in question is
necessary by relative necessity of means, as distinct from the case when
nothing will supply for the means (absolute necessity). A person is not
necessarily "outside" the Catholic Church merely because he is not an actual
member. But, in order to be saved, one must be united to the Catholic Church
at least by desire, either explicit or implicit. Through such a desire one
whose lack of actual membership in the Church is not due to any fault on his
own part can be "inside" the Church, and, if he joins to his desire an act of
faith and an act of divine charity, can be saved." (Francis J. Connell,
1958, 1964).
For the Fathers, St. Alphonsus Liguori (1696-1787) sums up the
Catholic understanding of this doctrine "extra ecclesiam nulla salus" by
saying (De Baptismo, cap. 1): "It is de fide [of the faith and required to
be believed by all Catholics] that there are some men saved also by the
baptism of the Spirit [i.e., of desire, by the grace of the Holy Spirit]. In
this he expresses the teaching of all the Fathers, Doctors, popes, and
theologians, including St. Cyprian, St. Ambrose, St. Augustine, St.
Fulgentius, St. Thomas Aquinas (Summa Theologiae, IIIa, Q. 68, A.2), St.
Peter Canisius, St. Alphonsus de Liguori, Pope Innocent II, Pope Innocent
III, and Pope St. Pius X. Specifically, the Council of Trent dogmatically recognized the
doctrine of Baptism of Desire when it defined:
Translatio ab eo statu, in quo homo nascitur filius primi Adae, in statum
gratiae ... post evangelium promulgatum sine lavacro regenerationis AUT EIUS
VOTO fieri not potest. [The translation from that state in which man is born
a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace ... cannot, since the
promulgation of the gospel, be effected except through the laver of
regeneration OR ITS DESIRE.] (Sessio Sexta de Iustificatione, Caput IV:
Insinuatur Descriptio Iustificationis Impii, et Modus Eius in Statu Gratiae)
St. Alphonsus Liguori in Book 6 of his Theologia Moralis, quotes this
passage and comments: "Therefore, it is de fide [dogmatic] that men are also
saved by Baptism of desire." This dogma was confirmed by the Council of
Trent in the following Canon:Si quis dixerit, sacramenta novae legis non esse ad salutem necessaria, sed
superflua, et sine eis AUT EORUM VOTO per solam fidem homines a Deo gratiam
iustificationis adispisci, licet omnia singulis necessaria not sint:
anathema sit. [If anyone says that the sacraments of the New Law are not
necessary for salvation, but are superfluous, and taht without them OR
WITHOUT THE DESIRE OF THEM men obtain from HGod through faith alone the grace
of justification, though all are not necessary for each one, let him be
anathema.] (Session Septima, Canones de Sacramentis in Genere, N. 4)
Moreover, here are some pertinent statements from the traditional
popes of the 19th and early 20th centuries concerning invincible ignorance of
the True Faith, that is, ignorance outside the moral responsibility of the
individual. Traditional theologians that expound this same teaching (before
Vatican II) include Abarzuza, Aertnys, Billot, Cappello, Coronata, Davis,
Herrmann, Herve, Hurter, Iorio, Lennerz, McAuliffe, Merkelbach, Noldin, Ott,
Pohl, Prummer, Regatillo, Sabetti, Sola, Tanquerey, Zalba, and Zubizarreta.
Venerable Pope Pius IX
Singulari quadam
Allocution against the Errors of Rationalism and Indifferentism
December 9, 1854
It must, of course, be held as a matter of faith that outside the
apostolic Roman Church no one can be saved, that the Church is the only ark
of salvation, and that whoever does not enter it will perish in the flood.
On the other hand, it must likewise be held as certain that those who are
affected by ignorance of the true religion, if it is invincible ignorance,
are not subject to any guilt in this matter before the eyes of the Lord.
Now, then, who could presume in himself an ability to set the boundaries of
such ignorance, taking into consideration the natural differences of
peoples, lands, native talents, and so many other factors? Only when we have
been released from the bonds of this body and see God just as He is (1 John
3:2) shall we really understand how close and beautiful a bond joins divine
mercy with divine justice. But as long as we dwell on earth, encuмbered with
this soul-dulling, mortal body, let us tenaciously cling to the Catholic
doctrine that there is one God, one faith, one baptism (Eph. 4:5).
Venerable Pope Pius IX
Quanto conficiamur moerore
August 10, 1863
And here, beloved Sons and Venerable Brethren, it is necessary once
more to mention and censure the serious error into which some Catholics have
unfortunately fallen. For they are of the opinion that men who live in
errors, estranged from the true faith and from Catholic unity, can attain
eternal life. This is in direct opposition to Catholic teaching.
We all know that those who are afflicted with invincible ignorance
with regard to our holy religion, if they carefully keep the precepts of the
natural law that have been written by God in the hearts of all men, if they
are prepared to obey God, and if they lead a virtuous and dutiful life, can
attain eternal life by the power of divine light and grace. For God, Who
reads comprehensively in every detail the minds and souls, the thoughts and
habits of all men, will not permit, in accordance with His infinite goodness
and mercy, anyone who is not guilty of a voluntary fault to suffer eternal
torments (suppliciis).
However, also well-known is the Catholic dogma that no one can be
saved outside the Catholic Church, and that those who obstinately oppose the
authority and definitions of the church, and who stubbornly remain separated
form the unity of the Church and from the successor of Peter, the Roman
Pontiff (to whom the Savior has entrusted the care of His vineyard), cannot
attain salvation.
Pope St. Pius X
Catechism of Christian Doctrine, para. 132
A person outside the Church by his own fault, and who dies without
perfect contrition, will not be saved. But he who finds himself outside
without fault of his own, and who lives a good life, can be saved by the love
called charity, which unites unto God, and in a spiritual way also to the
Church, that is, to the soul of the Church.
Pope Pius XII
Encyclical Letter Mystici Corporis
June 29, 1943
From a heart overflowing with love, we ask each and every one of them
[non-Catholics] to correspond to the interior movements of grace, and to seek
to withdraw from that state in which they cannot be sure of their salvation.
For even though by an unconscious desire and longing they have a certain
relationship with the Mystical Body of the Redeemer, they still remain
deprived of those many heavenly gifts and helps which can be enjoyed only in
the Catholic Church. (Para. 103)
What practical conclusions do we draw from this doctrine? Fr. E.
Hugueney, O.P., in a 1933 article, "La opinion traditionnelle sur la nombre
des Elus" [The Traditional Opinion on the Number of the Elect], in La Revue
Thomiste [The Thomistic Review] wrote on the practical danger of remaining
outside the Church in this way:
"Of those who are members of the Church, the elect will greatly
outnumber the damned; and if we include as members of the Church all those
who are hers in spirit by baptism of desire, this immense number of elect
will be very great indeed. Yet, we must not forget that, outside the Church,
the chances of salvation are much less; this means that many pagans will
probably lose their souls, because they are almost defenseless against the
devils and their own passions."
To Fr. Hugueney's statement, I would add that it is a very difficult
thing to elicit perfect contrition in oneself. With the graces of the
Sacrament of Penance, Catholics may receive absolution with only imperfect
contrition. With the great assistance that Holy Mother Church offers to her
practicing Catholic children, salvation is made so much easier for them than
for those who must struggle outside her, even if they can in truth rely on a
conscience that is truly and totally in invincible ignorance.
http://en.allexperts.com/q/Catholics-955/Salvation-5.htm
-
It is here:
http://www.cathinfo.com/index.php?a=topic&t=7189
My question is: if believeing in BOD is a heresy and against EENS, then why the church canonized people who believed in it?
-
I just wanted to say that believeing in BOD will not send us to hell, will it?
And what do you say about those converts in my country who were killed/died before getting baptized?
And why fr. Feeneyite was condemned?
And eastern orthodoxs too believe in BOD. It must be more ancient than eastern schism. While feeeneyites reject it as modernism!
-
What is to explain? Read C G Clark, Gary Potter and then visit MHFM website and the pieces will fall into place. Also the Point archives are avail on line.
-
Who believes in "Baptism of Desire" (and why)? (I do not)
You don't hold the doctrine of the Church or rather the liberal abuse of the same?
-
On the contrary, please show me where it is rejected. And taken singly, yes, they are fallible, but taken in concert, along with the acts of the magisterium, we are faced with a very certain doctrine. You can't pretend that it doesn't exist. You simply have to correctly understand it. You also have to understand that it is a controverted question as to whether implicit versus explicit faith suffices as fulfilling a condition for salvation. You are not allowed to make a controverted opinion into dogma, nor censure its opposite as heretical. By all means attack liberalism and modernism which distort this teaching, along with others, but don't simply reject the doctrine itself as it is an implicit concession to their error and is very temerious on your part.
-
I know that Saints are fallible. But they are in heaven. and they couldnot reach there if they were heretics. So they were not heretics. They believed in BOD.
Two logical conclusions:
A saint is in heaven.
A heretic cannot be in heaven.
So a saint is not a heretic.
A saint believed in BOD.
A saint is not a heretic.
So a believer in BOD is not a heretic.
-
I just hope in salvation.
BOD will work only at the moment of death.( will work for the lack of sacrament of baptism) sentece correct?
-
Fr Feeney was not condemmed. He has made a remark rolling his eyes a BoD however I do not believe he ever stated that there is no such thing. MHFM is NEO- Feeneyite and have taken his ideas to far.
Please explain.
Sorry- I misunderstood your question. I am not a theologian and as such not all that familiar with their doctrinal heresies but it seems the BoD thing is one. I think Fr Feeney.s attitude would be that one SHOULD BY NO MEANS COUNT ON BoD.
As a historian, the problem I have with MHFM( and I know this has been brought up repeatedly but I have been asked) is that they participate with Hoffman's friend C Hiembichner, J Vennari, 'Terminiello', Piers Compton, I believe Mrs Martinez and others in spreading the malicious pack of lies that the great Cardinal Rampolla( Sec of State to Pope Leo XIII) was somehow a 'secret occult mason in the OTO' as a henchman of no less than the admitted evilist man in history-- Alaistair Crowley( the Beast 666).
As Card Rampolla was very close to Popes Leo XIII, Pius X, and Card Merry Del Val, this is nothing but an attack on their characters as well as Rampolla. The allegation is a complete joke and I hope no one is dumb enough to believe it
At one time I placed a call to MHFM and spoke to one of the Bros and he became most agitated when I attempted to give him another opinion on the suject. I hope this explanation helps.
-
I had not read the response of soJ b4 my post. My answer to the above is I do not know?
-
I just said that they became most agitated.
-
Sorry. I didn't understand. you are for it or against it?
-
Sorry. I didn't understand. you are for it or against it?
The Feeneyite position seems quite indefensible.
http://www.sspx.org/miscellaneous/fr_feeney_catholic_doctrine.htm
-
Thanks alot!
-
Again I am not a theologian but If I remember G Potter's book After Boston Heresy, Fr Feeney was NOT Ex-communicated. So who is correct here. Has anyone else read Potter's book?
Why worry about a BoD controversy that has almost no relavence today when MK Ultra is a vastly more serious problem that Catholics have been ignorant of for far to long.
http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/illuminati_formula_mind_control.htm
Talk about a serious problem......
-
Acc to G Potter, it is a myth that Fr Feeney was ex-communicated. If Pius XII did not ex-communicate Fr Feeney then that is good enough for me.
-
You are of the opinion which I do not share-- that Pius XII was an anti-pope. Acc to Potter's excellent book, it is a myth that Fr Feeney was ex-communicated. That is good enough for me.
-
As for Boniface, he was protecting the sodomite Templars( same same v2 ʝʊdɛօ-masonic cult) and giving special privlidges to judaics over Catholics. This in addition to the openly blasphemous chair he occupied. An anti-pope for sure.
-
ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity is against Catholic doctrine and Boniface was protecting Templars who went against the doctrine. In addition to what has been mentioned b4, more poss evidence of the the anti-pope is the very suspicious abdication of St Celestine.
-
Ther were numerous accusations of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity and pedophilia againt Boniface himself as well.
-
ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity is against Catholic doctrine and Boniface was protecting Templars who went against the doctrine. In addition to what has been mentioned b4, more poss evidence of the the anti-pope is the very suspicious abdication of St Celestine.
You make a laughing stock of Catholics in your ignorance. Stop judging and learn some THEOLOGY for crying out loud. You can't even distinguish between something that is supernatural revelation that is strictly de fide and that which is of the natural order of reason and morality.
I can't continue, there is too much stupidity packed into this post.
-
ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity is heretical amongst other things. If you aid and abet heresy you are just as guilty as the heretic and we all know that. Even if Boniface wasn't a homo homself( like the notorious Spellman) he was covering for it and making a mockery of Holy Church by giving special privlidges to judaics over Christians and openly displaying blasphemous K Templar images. In addition, his very election is highly questionable as the abdication of St Celestine is most likely fraudulent.
Unam Sanctam-- big deal. The policy of submitting to the Pope had already been around for 1200 yrs and there is nothing new or original in the Bull.
-
Caminus-- are you one of those who thinks the Templars innocent?
-
I believe there is an Biblical phrase that begins... by their fruits.....
The ACTIONS of Boniface show he was protecting Homos. End of story. This is in additon to giving special privlidges to judaics over Christians and the openly blasphemous symbol displayed on his 'throne'.
-
We really need some fresh blood in here.
Anything having to do with the Templars is an OPINION. Some say the evidence about their devil-worship was doctored, and that Boniface worked with Phillip the Fair to steal their wealth. I'm sure we'd be better off now if Templars controlled the world's wealth instead of the Jews.
It is interesting that Boniface and Phillip both died horribly within a year after persecuting the Templars.
-
St. Celestine had to be DRAGGED out of his cave, he had no wish to be made Pope. His abdication is not even remotely suspicious. They say Boniface shut him up in some tiny little cell but it sounds to me like that's what the ascetic Celestine wanted.
Or maybe Boniface killed him. But as Catholic Martyr said, the immorality of a Pope does not make him a heretic. Pope Vigilius before becoming Pope was said to be involved in a murder... Of a Pope! He defended the Monophysites against the Catholics. THen hen he became Pope, he reversed himself completely. The Holy Spirit guided him and he went to war with the Monophysites. The same process happened with Pius IX who was quite liberal before becoming Pope, and then changed, the great responsibility of the Office impressing truth on his soul.
-
Who believes in "Baptism of Desire" (and why)? (I do not)
St. Thomas Aquinas does. Why? Go read his own words on the matter.
St. Alphonsus Liguori does, too. Again, read his own words.
-
I just wanted to say that believeing in BOD will not send us to hell, will it?
Yes it will. It is heresy against divinely revealed, infallibly defined dogma.
spouse,
Do not listen to this man. He knows not whereof he speaks.
-
CM,
Are Sts Thomas and Alphonsus actually in hell? They TAUGHT BoD.
-
CM,
Do you offer the hogwash about a water-bearing angel when people bring up the Good Thief? St. Emerantiana? Et alii?