-
I have been asked to give a statement regarding the controversies that have plagued the forum recently regarding "baptism of desire" and find myself bound by conscience to do so. I am not addressing anyone in particular nor am I here to usurp the prerogatives of Holy Mother Church: to teach doctrine and to condemn error.
There are some points I must clarify before I continue:
1) Grace from the view point of dogmatic theology: These controversies ultimately hearken to the conflict amongst theologians regarding disputed matters pertinent to the mysteries of grace and predestination, which are amongst the most inscrutable and profound mysteries in the deposit of the faith. Errors regarding these mysteries have sprung forth the most wretched heresies, Calvin being the example that first comes to mind.
---> The question: How are grace and predestination being treated by those who have taken it upon themselves to interpret the teachings of the Church regarding these matters? How can such individuals understand these matters without the proper study of philosophy and theology under the tutelage of duly deputed teachers of the Catholic faith?
2) Grace from the view point of ascetic and mystical theology: The present day discussions regarding "baptism of desire" tend to ignore the synoptic view of the interior life from the first motions of actual grace to the full efflorescence of the life of grace in the soul which is the unitive way: the life of mystical contemplation and prayer.
---> The question: How does one outside the Church hope to achieve the plenitude of efflorescence of the interior life without the greats means of grace that Catholics have?
3) Grace from the view point of the actual predicament of Catholics in the present day: Present day clerics err in wasting too much time in useless discussion instead of emphasizing matters that are of great urgency, such as the super-nature of grace, the fewness of the elect, the great means of salvation and perfection, &c., with the pastoral zeal they have professed or should profess.
---> The question: How is it that so many Catholics have failed in attaining to the sanctity and prayer of a soul like the Little Flower, St. Teresa of Jesus, St. John of the Cross, St. Louis-Marie, &c., when they have everything in their disposal to achieve the mystical graces of union and contemplation and nothing to excuse tepidity and laxity? How could the clergy be better trained and disposed in spiritual direction in order to remedy this universal catastrophe? How could Catholics tread upon theological matters regarding the mysteries of grace and predestination when there is grave neglect and error (on the part of both laity and clergy) regarding the means of salvation and perfection in an epoch of the grossest materialism and error?
4) Finally, there is the matter of adherence to the magisterial authority of Holy Mother Church and of exercising intellectual decorum, modesty and humility before the authority of theologians who knew the Fathers better than we can hope to know and who (above all) exercised themselves in the interior life better than we do. As for me, it is not necessary for me to understand intellectually nor to find sentimentally agreeable what Holy Mother Church proposes for my belief in order for me to make the act of faith requisite for a Catholic because faith is a supernaturally infused virtue that is superior to the limitations of created intellect and extraneous sentimentality vitiated by original and actual sin. The very purpose of having Holy Mother Church as our guide is precisely to have her as a guide and not self.
However, it best to present what Rev. Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O. P., has written regarding this matter, and he presents these topics from the point of view that has been rarely considered. It may not seem to be pertinent to those who vouchsafe a mere glance at these pages, but it is profoundly relevant to the discussion regarding "baptism of desire."
From Our Savior and His Love for Us [Le Sauveur et son amour pour nous] (Trans. A. Bouchard; St. Louis, MO: B. Herder Book Co., 1951):
(http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d89/platonic123/Texts/MysticsOutsideChurch1_zps1955aaf6.jpg)
(http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d89/platonic123/Texts/MysticsOutsideChurch2_zps18d9066b.jpg)
(http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d89/platonic123/Texts/MysticsOutsideChurch3_zps70d7e063.jpg)
(http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d89/platonic123/Texts/MysticsOutsideChurch4_zps5e7d10fa.jpg)
(http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d89/platonic123/Texts/MysticsOutsideChurch5_zps7b9e05c8.jpg)
(http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d89/platonic123/Texts/MysticsOutsideChurch6_zpsf33a2e21.jpg)
(http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d89/platonic123/Texts/MysticsOutsideChurch7_zps118f4b84.jpg)
(http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d89/platonic123/Texts/MysticsOutsideChurch8_zpsb7c0626f.jpg)
(http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d89/platonic123/Texts/MysticsOutsideChurch9_zpsae291c08.jpg)
(http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d89/platonic123/Texts/MysticsOutsideChurch10_zpsd8a7a600.jpg)
(http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d89/platonic123/Texts/MysticsOutsideChurch11_zps33a77abf.jpg)
(http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d89/platonic123/Texts/MysticsOutsideChurch12_zps936024b5.jpg)
(http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d89/platonic123/Texts/MysticsOutsideChurch13_zps1123e131.jpg)
(http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d89/platonic123/Texts/MysticsOutsideChurch14_zpsf88ae105.jpg)
(http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d89/platonic123/Texts/MysticsOutsideChurch15_zpsd69a38f3.jpg)
(http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d89/platonic123/Texts/MysticsOutsideChurch16_zpsf307acda.jpg)
(http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d89/platonic123/Texts/MysticsOutsideChurch17_zps2ae3d93d.jpg)
(http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d89/platonic123/Texts/MysticsOutsideChurch18_zps1059181e.jpg)
(http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d89/platonic123/Texts/MysticsOutsideChurch19_zpsf28ca4fb.jpg)
(http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d89/platonic123/Texts/MysticsOutsideChurch20_zps0e7024e6.jpg)
(http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d89/platonic123/Texts/MysticsOutsideChurch21_zps12ae82dc.jpg)
(http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d89/platonic123/Texts/MysticsOutsideChurch22_zps8faee621.jpg)
(http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d89/platonic123/Texts/MysticsOutsideChurch23_zpsfae31bca.jpg)
(http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d89/platonic123/Texts/MysticsOutsideChurch24_zps3dd0963a.jpg)
(http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d89/platonic123/Texts/MysticsOutsideChurch25_zps3f5754db.jpg)
(http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d89/platonic123/Texts/MysticsOutsideChurch26_zps5ac7dcbd.jpg)
(http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d89/platonic123/Texts/MysticsOutsideChurch27_zpsd2a8ef6f.jpg)
(http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d89/platonic123/Texts/MysticsOutsideChurch28_zps4e6d7067.jpg)
(http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d89/platonic123/Texts/MysticsOutsideChurch29_zps4cf811c3.jpg)
(http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d89/platonic123/Texts/MysticsOutsideChurch30_zpsc993ff18.jpg)
-
Reminds me of a person who had to give a lecture on a subject, and he brought a tape recording and played that.
I doubt anyone will read all those pages you posted. I went half way and during that time I found him mentioning the "soul of the Church" theory which is obsolete theology, Pius XII having shut that door. This writing is about Mystics outside of the Church. There's a lot there for interpretation, he gives us a lot of both sides.
Cut to the chase.
-
A CI member expressed the natural frustration of someone who first comes into contact with the almost innumerable ramblings of like 10 threads started by Lover of Truth.
Therefore, I shall teach here the issue of Baptism of desire simply explained.
Below is my response to his comment in another thread.
And now I'm really out of these so-called discussions.
There is no need to "get out" these "so-called" discusions. It sounds like you are frustrated with all of the information coming at you. Are you not learning something that you didn't know before?
The problem is that you have to discern truth from obfuscations. You'll find that people who don't know the subject will keep harping on the same points, the little that they know and always stick to that, never learning anything new. This is a sign if ignorance. On the point of Baptism of desire, it is very simple:
Find a person who limits his belief in BOD to a catechumen or a martyr for the Faith, and you have someone with common sense. That person can have the confidence that he is supported by St. Thomas and many other Saints and Doctors after the time of St. Thomas. (I've only known one person who only restricted his belief in BOD to these examples. There should be many more out there, but there just isn't. I think it is because it BOD of the catechumen and BOB are like a harmless drug that leads to stronger drugs, belief in anything you desire.)
Find a person who believes in John 3:15 and the dogmas on EENS and baptism as they are written, literally that is, and you have a person with the support of the Fathers, doctors and saints that came before St. Thomas. And you can read the dogmas as they were intended to be read, as the final word.
Or you can go with the BOD Hypocrites (and believe that an unbaptized person can be saved even if they have no explicit desire to be a Catholic, or be martyred for the faith, nor belief in Christ and the Trinity) and thus go against ALL the Fathers, Doctors, Saints and the Athanasian Creed. In other words become a fool [/b].
-
Reminds me of a person who had to give a lecture on a subject, and he brought a tape recording and played that.
I cite authorities and not my own self as an authority.
You, however, remind me of a person who had to give a lecture on a subject, and he brought a tape recording of what he had said earlier and played that, which is substantiated by the post immediately preceding this one.
I doubt anyone will read all those pages you posted. I went half way and during that time I found him mentioning the "soul of the Church" theory which is obsolete theology, Pius XII having shut that door. This writing is about Mystics outside of the Church. There's a lot there for interpretation, he gives us a lot of both sides.
Well, those who are earnest in their endeavor to understand the matter will try to read the whole text before passing judgment. It is as I had written to the moderators before I posted this thread, that I would get " thumbs down for merely presenting the teachings of a great theologian by a bunch of a Feeneyites, who probably won't even read the whole text at all."
Cut to the chase.
Alright:
(http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d89/platonic123/Texts/ConsecrationtoHolyGhost_zpsb66dd6f1.jpg)
-
I read the whole thing. It was a difficult read IMO and I cannot see how it applies to a BOD . . . . . . .possibly because it was a difficult read.
You write Matthew to let him know in advance you will be getting down thumbed?
May I ask, why?
-
I read the whole thing. It was a difficult read IMO and I cannot see how it applies to a BOD . . . . . . .possibly because it was a difficult read.
You write Matthew to let him know in advance you will be getting down thumbed?
May I ask, why?
Yes, it is a difficult read, precisely because the matter is very difficult. It does apply to the BOD controversy if you read carefully. I had prefaced it with my own observations/notes in an endeavor to contextualize the text.
That was a tangential point, the message I had written to Matthew was about whether or not I would post the thread at all. I decided to do so, as is obvious.
More texts from Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange are forthcoming.
-
Hobbledehoy,
I will be forever grateful that your learning and commitment to sound Catholic teaching overwhelms mine. Many have been the times that I have found reason, balance, sense and maturity in the posts you have made, rife with quotations and selected texts from learned prelates. Thank you.
Honestly, however, I feel that issues like BOD/BOB/"Mystics" outside the Church are graduate-level physics being batted around by little children who still scribble with crayons.
I don't just mean people here on CI; I mean many, if not the majority, of the people these days that call themselves Catholic and even attempt to parse these ideas.
Really... I think one of your questions in the paragraphs preceding your scanned article was absolutely, perfectly pertinent and germane to this discussion. I think no one should be venturing beyond the scope of that question until practical, empirical evidence in our lives bears out a conformity with the answer to that question. Namely:
How is it that so many Catholics have failed in attaining to the sanctity and prayer of a soul like the Little Flower, St. Teresa of Jesus, St. John of the Cross, St. Louis-Marie, &c., when they have everything in their disposal to achieve the mystical graces of union and contemplation and nothing to excuse tepidity and laxity? How could the clergy be better trained and disposed in spiritual direction in order to remedy this universal catastrophe? How could Catholics tread upon theological matters regarding the mysteries of grace and predestination when there is grave neglect and error (on the part of both laity and clergy) regarding the means of salvation and perfection in an epoch of the grossest materialism and error?
And that, Deo volente, will be the last I ever contribute to these BOD/BOB/"soul of the Church" discussions.
Holy Doctors of the Church, pray for us.
Immaculate Heart of Mary, triumph soon!
Most Sacred Heart of Jesus, have mercy on us.
-
I would get " thumbs down for merely presenting the teachings of a great theologian by a bunch of a Feeneyites, who probably won't even read the whole text at all."
So much for being unbiased on the subject, one comment from me and you start insulting people with perjoratives.
Stubborn pretty much said what I observed in reading half.
No one on CI is going to read anything very long whether it is written by a you or I, so don't get to hung up on it. You make it a practice to post books, and no one ever told you before that they don't read it? What you think is interesting might not be to others. I've read Garrigou-Lagrange, and I find him to be a poor communicator. I think he appeals to people who are impressed with things they don't understand, people who think that they have discovered the "secrets of life" in his writings.
-
I read the whole thing. It was a difficult read IMO and I cannot see how it applies to a BOD . . . . . . .possibly because it was a difficult read.
You write Matthew to let him know in advance you will be getting down thumbed?
May I ask, why?
Yes, it is a difficult read, precisely because the matter is very difficult. It does apply to the BOD controversy if you read carefully. I had prefaced it with my own observations/notes in an endeavor to contextualize the text.
That was a tangential point, the message I had written to Matthew was about whether or not I would post the thread at all. I decided to do so, as is obvious.
More texts from Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange are forthcoming.
It is not difficult to read in the sense that you are saying it. It is difficult to read in the sense that it is ponderous, he is a poor communicator. Great writers, great communicators, make the complicated easy to understand for everyone, from the farmer to the professor, they communicate to everyone. Garrigou-Lagrange makes the easy to understand complicated. He is a drag to read. I'd rather go get a tooth filling.
It is like reading Rahner, the chocolate of priest. He appeals to those that are impressed by what they don't understand. This is a big failing in the clergy types.
-
Garrigou-Lagrange makes the easy to understand complicated. He is a drag to read. I'd rather go get a tooth filling.
Then provide somebody who isn't "a drag to read." You've provided nobody to date who EXPLAINS what you say you "understand."
-
Garrigou-Lagrange makes the easy to understand complicated. He is a drag to read. I'd rather go get a tooth filling.
Then provide somebody who isn't "a drag to read." You've provided nobody to date who EXPLAINS what you say you "understand."
What are you talking about? You are a believer in salvation for those that have no explicit desire to be Catholics, nor baptized, nor martyred, nor belief in the Trinity and the Incarnation? You have no support whatsoever in your belief from any Father, Doctor, Saint, and your belief is opposed the the Athanasian Creed.
I've posted the Fathers clearly explaining what I believe, John 3:15 as it is written. If you want to convert you don't have to follow me just follow this teaching and you'll be alright. But you won't, because you have lost your mind, you have succuмbed to BOD Hypocricy. Practically no one that smokes the weed of baptism of desire of the catechumen ever stops there, they always end up in the really bad drug of implicit faith in a God that rewards.:
The Explanation of the Baltimore Catechism Concerning the Salvation of Non-Catholics orginally published in 1891
by Rev. Thomas L. Kinkead
from Lesson 11: On the Church
* 121. Q. Are all bound to belong to the Church?
A. All are bound to belong to the Church, and he who knows the Church to be the true Church and remains out of it, cannot be saved.
Anyone who knows the Catholic religion to be the true religion and will not embrace it cannot enter into Heaven. If one not a Catholic doubts whether the church to which he belongs is the true Church, he must settle his doubt, seek the true Church, and enter it; for if he continues to live in doubt, he becomes like the one who knows the true Church and is deterred by worldly considerations from entering it.
In like manner one who, doubting, fears to examine the religion he professes lest he should discover its falsity and be convinced of the truth of the Catholic faith, cannot be saved.
Suppose, however, that there is a non-Catholic who firmly believes that the church to which he belongs is the true Church, and who has never—even in the past—had the slightest doubt of that fact—what will become of him?
If he was validly baptized and never committed a mortal sin, he will be saved; because, believing himself a member of the true Church, he was doing all he could to serve God according to his knowledge and the dictates of his conscience. But if ever he committed a mortal sin, his salvation would be very much more difficult. A mortal sin once committed remains on the soul till it is forgiven. Now, how could his mortal sin be forgiven? Not in the Sacrament of Penance, for the Protestant does not go to confession; and if he does, his minister—not being a true priest—has no power to forgive sins. Does he know that without confession it requires an act of perfect contrition to blot out mortal sin, and can he easily make such an act? What we call contrition is often only imperfect contrition—that is, sorrow for our sins because we fear their punishment in Hell or dread the loss of Heaven. If a Catholic—with all the instruction he has received about how to make an act of perfect contrition and all the practice he has had in making such acts—might find it difficult to make an act of perfect contrition after having committed a mortal sin, how much difficulty will not a Protestant have in making an act of perfect contrition, who does not know about this requirement and who has not been taught to make continued acts of perfect contrition all his life. It is to be feared either he would not know of this necessary means of regaining God’s friendship, or he would be unable to elicit the necessary act of perfect contrition, and thus the mortal sin would remain upon his soul and he would die an enemy of God.
If, then, we found a Protestant who never committed a mortal sin after Baptism, and who never had the slightest doubt about the truth of his religion, that person would be saved; because, being baptized, he is a member of the Church, and being free from mortal sin he is a friend of God and could not in justice be condemned to Hell. Such a person would attend Mass and receive the Sacraments if he knew the Catholic Church to be the only true Church.
I am giving you an example, however, that is rarely found, except in the case of infants or very small children baptized in Protestant sects. All infants rightly baptized by anyone are really children of the Church, no matter what religion their parents may profess. Indeed, all persons who are baptized are children of the Church; but those among them who deny its teaching, reject its Sacraments, and refuse to submit to its lawful pastors, are rebellious children known as heretics.
I said I gave you an example that can scarcely be found, namely, of a person not a Catholic, who really never doubted the truth of his religion, and who, moreover, never committed during his whole life a mortal sin. There are so few such persons that we can practically say for all those who are not visibly members of the Catholic Church, believing its doctrines, receiving its Sacraments, and being governed by its visible head, our Holy Father, the Pope, salvation is an extremely difficult matter.
I do not speak here of pagans who have never heard of Our Lord or His holy religion, but of those outside the Church who claim to be good Christians without being members of the Catholic Church.
from Lesson 14: On Baptism
154. Q. Is Baptism necessary to salvation?
A. Baptism is necessary to salvation, because without it we cannot enter into the kingdom of Heaven.
Those who through no fault of theirs die without Baptism, though they have never committed sin, cannot enter Heaven neither will they go to Hell. After the Last Judgment there will be no Purgatory. Where, then, will they go? God in His goodness will provide a place of rest for them, where they will not suffer and will be in a state of natural peace; but they will never see God or Heaven. God might have created us for a purely natural and material end, so that we would live forever upon the earth and be naturally happy with the good things God would give us. But then we would never have known of Heaven or God as we do now. Such happiness on earth would be nothing compared to the delights of Heaven and the presence of God; so that, now, since God has given us, through His holy revelations, a knowledge of Himself and Heaven, we would be miserable if left always upon the earth. Those, then, who die without Baptism do not know what they have lost, and are naturally happy; but we who know all they have lost for want of Baptism know how very unfortunate they are.
Think, then, what a terrible crime it is to willfully allow anyone to die without Baptism, or to deprive a little child of life before it can be baptized! Suppose all the members of a family but one little infant have been baptized; when the Day of Judgment comes, while all the other members of a family—father, mother, and children—may go into Heaven, that little one will have to remain out; that little brother or sister will be separated from its family forever, and never, never see God or Heaven. How heartless and cruel, then, must a person be who would deprive that little infant of happiness for all eternity—just that its mother or someone else might have a little less trouble or suffering here upon earth.
157. Q. How many kinds of Baptism are there?
A. There are three kinds of Baptism: Baptism of water, of desire, and of blood.
158. Q. What is Baptism of water?
A. Baptism of water is that which is given by pouring water on the head of the person to be baptized, and saying at the same time, “I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.”
159. Q. What is Baptism of desire?
A. Baptism of desire is an ardent wish to receive Baptism, and to do all that God has ordained for our salvation.
“Ardent wish” by one who has no opportunity of being baptized—for no one can baptize himself. He must be sorry for his sins and have the desire of receiving the Baptism of water as soon as he can; just as a person in mortal sin and without a priest to absolve him may, when in danger of death, save his soul from Hell by an act of perfect contrition and the firm resolution of going to confession as soon as possible....
160. Q. What is Baptism of blood?
A. Baptism of blood is the shedding of one’s blood for the faith of Christ.
Baptism of blood, called martyrdom, is received by those who were not baptized with water, but were put to death for their Catholic faith. This takes place even nowadays in pagan countries where the missionaries are trying to convert the poor natives. These pagans have to be instructed before they are baptized. They do everything required of them, let us suppose, and are waiting for the day of Baptism. Those who are being thus instructed are called Catechumens. Someday, while they are attending their instructions, the enemies of religion rush down upon them and put them to death. They do not resist, but willingly suffer death for the sake of the true religion. They are martyrs then and are baptized in their own blood; although, as we said above, blood would not do for an ordinary Baptism even when we could not get water; so that if a person drew blood from his own body and asked to be baptized with it, the Baptism would not be valid. Neither would they be martyrs if put to death not for religion or virtue but for some other reason—say political.
161. Q. Is Baptism of desire or blood sufficient to produce the effects of Baptism of water?
A. Baptism of desire or of blood is sufficient to produce the effects of the Baptism of water, if it is impossible to receive the Baptism of water.
-
So much for being unbiased on the subject, one comment from me and you start insulting people with perjoratives.
Pejoratives? Insulting? If you feel insulted by a simple observation (which has been verified time and time again) it is because the observation I had written struck a nerve somehow with you. That's your deal, not mine.
You make it a practice to post books, and no one ever told you before that they don't read it?
I know well how dispensable and irrelevant I am.
Regarding the rest of your remarks, how dare you insult the great Thomist, Rev. Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange!
Such audacity and arrogance is staggering indeed...
Please take the counsel you so graciously vouchsafed SJB and maintain decorum on this thread, or go start another...
-
Correction:
If you want to convert you don't have to follow me just follow this teaching below (the explanation of the Baltimore catechism)and you'll be alright.
Notice I don't push my belief on sensible people who follow St. Thomas. But you at present reject St. Thomas, the Fathers, saints, doctors and the Athanasian Creed in your belief. In other words, you reject all of tradition.
-
If the Church hadn't gone into Crisis in the 1960's, I'm sure Garrigou-Lagrange would be a Doctor of the Church by now, or at least used in every Catholic seminary.
He was certainly highly regarded by the old-guard SSPX.
-
It is not difficult to read in the sense that you are saying it. It is difficult to read in the sense that it is ponderous, he is a poor communicator. Great writers, great communicators, make the complicated easy to understand for everyone, from the farmer to the professor, they communicate to everyone. Garrigou-Lagrange makes the easy to understand complicated. He is a drag to read. I'd rather go get a tooth filling.
It is like reading Rahner, the chocolate of priest. He appeals to those that are impressed by what they don't understand. This is a big failing in the clergy types.
Wow, "like reading Rahner"!
I think reading the vitriol you endeavor to pass of as apologetics is like reading Rahner. This is exactly why I was compelled to renounce "Feeneyism" or whatever you would like to call it. It is the Jansenism of past ages brought back from the grave, and its fetid stench has many here on CathInfo quite nauseated now.
You and your cohorts whore the sacred texts of the Creeds, Canons, Fathers, Councils, &c., as a Protestant would whore the Holy Scriptures in an attempt to usurp the magisterial and juridical prerogatives of Holy Mother Church.
And to think you have the gall to derogate the greatest theologian of the 20th century...
-
So much for being unbiased on the subject, one comment from me and you start insulting people with perjoratives.
Pejoratives? Insulting? If you feel insulted by a simple observation (which has been verified time and time again) it is because the observation I had written struck a nerve somehow with you. That's your deal, not mine.
You make it a practice to post books, and no one ever told you before that they don't read it?
I know well how dispensable and irrelevant I am.
Regarding the rest of your remarks, how dare you insult the great Thomist, Rev. Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange!
Such audacity and arrogance is staggering indeed...
Please take the counsel you so graciously vouchsafed SJB and maintain decorum on this thread, or go start another...
The perjorative was your calling people Feeneyites.
Regarding Garrigou-Lagrange, in the country of blind men the one eyed man is a king. I stand by what I said he is not a good communicator.
-
The perjorative was your calling people Feeneyites.
I don't consider it a pejorative term, but a descriptive one. I know how inaccurate it is but there is no equivalent to use in order to get the point across as efficiently as using the outdated term "Feeneyite."
-
The perjorative was your calling people Feeneyites.
I don't consider it a pejorative term, but a descriptive one. I know how inaccurate it is but there is no equivalent to use in order to get the point across as efficiently as using the outdated term "Feeneyite."
It is a detracting perjorative, and a sign of ignorance on your part if you didn't know it. Fr. Feeney is a 20th century priest, the belief in John 3:5 as it is written, is from apostolic times, a revelation. The people who use the perjorative know very well why they use it, they are attempting to make what the Fathers unanimously taught appear to be the 1950's teaching of a nobody. Call me what I am, a person who believes John 3:5 and the dogmas on EENS and Baptism as they are written, literally.
(So as not to clog this posting with all of the quotes of Early Church
Fathers who believed in John 3:5 as it is written, I quote:)
Fr. William Jurgens: “If there were not a 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, it would be easy to say that Our Savior simply did not see fit to mention the obvious exceptions of invincible ignorance and physical impossibility. But the tradition in fact is there; and it is likely enough to be found so constant as to constitute revelation.”
St Augustine, 395: “… God does not forgive sins except to the baptized.”
St. Augustine, 412: “… the Punic Christians call Baptism itself nothing else but salvation… Whence does this derive, except from an ancient and, as I suppose, apostolic tradition, by which the Churches of Christ hold inherently that without Baptism and participation at the table of the Lord it is impossible for any man to attain either to the Kingdom of God or to salvation and life eternal? This is the witness of Scripture, too.”
St. Augustine, 391: “When we shall have come into His [God’s] sight, we shall behold the equity of God’s justice. Then no one will say:… ‘Why was this man led by God’s direction to be baptized, while that man, though he lived properly as a catechumen, was killed in a sudden disaster, and was not baptized?’ Look for rewards, and you will find nothing except punishments.”
St. Augustine: “However much progress the catechumen should make, he still carries the load of his iniquity: nor is it removed from him unless he comes to Baptism.”
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)
St. Ambrose, De mysteriis, 390-391 A.D.:
“You have read, therefore, that the three witnesses in Baptism are one: water, blood, and the spirit; and if you withdraw any one of these, the Sacrament of Baptism is not valid. For what is water without the cross of Christ? A common element without any sacramental effect. Nor on the other hand is there any mystery of regeneration without water: for ‘unless a man be born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.’ [John 3:5] Even a catechumen believes in the cross of the Lord Jesus, by which also he is signed; but, unless he be baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, he cannot receive the remission of sins nor be recipient of the gift of spiritual grace.”
St. Ambrose, The Duties of Clergy, 391 A.D.:
“The Church was redeemed at the price of Christ’s blood. Jew or Greek, it makes no difference; but if he has believed he must circuмcise himself from his sins so that he can be saved;...for no one ascends into the kingdom of heaven except through the Sacrament of Baptism.”
St. Ambrose, The Duties of Clergy, 391 A.D.:
“Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.’ No one excepted: not the infant, not the one prevented by some necessity.”
St. John Chrysostom, The Consolation of Death: “And well should the pagan lament, who not knowing God, dying goes straight to punishment. Well should the Jew mourn, who not believing in Christ, has assigned his soul to perdition.”
It should be noted that since the term “baptism of desire” was not in use at the time, one won’t find St. John Chrysostom or any other father explicitly rejecting that term. They reject baptism of desire when they reject the concept that unbaptized catechumens can be saved without Baptism, as St. John Chrysostom repeatedly does.
St. John Chrysostom, The Consolation of Death: “And plainly must we grieve for our own catechumens, should they, either through their own unbelief or through their own neglect, depart this life without the saving grace of baptism.”
St. John Chrysostom, Hom. in Io. 25, 3:
“For the Catechumen is a stranger to the Faithful… One has Christ for his King; the other sin and the devil; the food of one is Christ, of the other, that meat which decays and perishes… Since then we have nothing in common, in what, tell me, shall we hold communion?… Let us then give diligence that we may become citizens of the city above… for if it should come to pass (which God forbid!) that through the sudden arrival of death we depart hence uninitiated, though we have ten thousand virtues, our portion will be none other than hell, and the venomous worm, and fire unquenchable, and bonds indissoluble.”
St. John Chrysostom, Homily III. On Phil. 1:1-20:
“Weep for the unbelievers; weep for those who differ in nowise from them, those who depart hence without the illumination, without the seal! They indeed deserve our wailing, they deserve our groans; they are outside the Palace, with the culprits, with the condemned: for, ‘Verily I say unto you, Except a man be born again of water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of Heaven.”
The “seal” is the fathers’ term for the mark of the Sacrament of Baptism. And here we see St. John affirming the apostolic truth held by all the fathers: that no one – including a catechumen – is saved without being born again of water and the Spirit in the Sacrament of Baptism.
St. John Chrysostom, Homily XXV: “Hear, ye as many as are unilluminated, shudder, groan, fearful is the threat, fearful is the sentence. ‘It is not possible,’ He [Christ] saith, ‘for one not born of water and the Spirit to enter into the Kingdom of heaven’; because he wears the raiment of death, of cursing, of perdition, he hath not yet received his Lord’s token, he is a stranger and an alien, he hath not the royal watchword. ‘Except,’ He saith, ‘a man be born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of heaven.”
St. John Chrysostom clearly rejected any possibility of salvation for one who has not received the Sacrament of Baptism. He affirmed the words of Christ in John 3:5 with an unequivocally literal understanding, which is the unanimous teaching of Tradition and the teaching of defined Catholic dogma.
-
I have been asked to give a statement regarding the controversies that have plagued the forum recently regarding "baptism of desire" and find myself bound by conscience to do so.
Do you believe that the sacrament of baptism, or martyrdom for the faith or explicit desire for the sacrament (and belief in the Incarnation and the Trinity) are required for salvation? Or do you reject that teaching and believe that that the unbaptized person can be saved even if they have no explicit desire to be a Catholic, or be martyred for the faith, nor belief in Christ and the Trinity?
Simple question.
-
And to think you have the gall to derogate the greatest theologian of the 20th century...
Most members of the United States National Academy of Sciences are atheist:
http://www.uncommondescent.com/religion/nas-at-85-atheists-lets-bump-it-up-to-100/
Does that mean that we should all be atheist, too?! What do the following words from the declaration of the Council of Florence mean? What, in your opinion, do the following words teach us:
It 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 which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the catholic church before the end of their lives; that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the church's sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia produce eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed his blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and the unity of the catholic church.
http://www.ewtn.com/library/councils/florence.htm
Again what, in your opinion, do those words teach us? Who, exactly, is outside the Catholic Church?
-
And to think you have the gall to derogate the greatest theologian of the 20th century...
Most members of the United States National Academy of Sciences are atheist:
http://www.uncommondescent.com/religion/nas-at-85-atheists-lets-bump-it-up-to-100/
Does that mean that we should all be atheist, too?!
Your analogy is not apt. We are not discussing the modern notion of "truth by acclamation" but rather of authority, for a Catholic is guided in matters regarding faith and morals by the authority of One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church that Our Lord has established. It is not for us to submit the teachings of the Catholic Church to our private interpretation.
This is the irony of the stance that is commonly known as "Feeneyite" - they profess zeal for the integrity of the deposit of the faith whilst degrading it by making it subject to their private opinions and prejudices; leaving the magisterial authority of the Church to be a mere meme whose value is to be subjectively and arbitrarily determined by random layfolk.
What do the following words from the declaration of the Council of Florence mean? What, in your opinion, do the following words teach us:
It 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 which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the catholic church before the end of their lives; that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the church's sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia produce eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed his blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and the unity of the catholic church.
http://www.ewtn.com/library/councils/florence.htm
Again what, in your opinion, do those words teach us? Who, exactly, is outside the Catholic Church?
My opinion means nothing: nothing. I am a mere man. I am a student still learning about the faith. All I can do is show my notes, which I have done in this and in other threads.
And so are you and bowler: mere men.
It is for Holy Mother Church to interpret the texts of the Councils, the Fathers, the sacred Canons, &c., by her duly sent Pastors and teachers.
The very first thing that St. Francis discussed in his apologetical pamphlets, published as The Catholic Controversy, was the notion of missio: of whom exactly has been sent by Our Lord to teach and rule the faithful and who therefore had the authority to preach. The Saint ardently condemned those foolish Catholics who lapsed from the faith by lending ear to the Protestant innovators of the time who were not sent by Holy Mother Church and who were thereby able to propagate their noxious errors and novelties.
I therefore chose to follow those theologians who are approved by Holy Mother Church and not some anonymous, untrained, self-appointed, self-commissioned layfolk who take the Denzinger and other theological texts and make of them what the Protestant heretics have done to the Sacred Scriptures.
And it is because I have neither authority nor competence that I cannot judge and condemn anyone as a formal heretic. I can only endeavor in correcting the errant (for example, those who elevate themselves as authorities to the detriment of the authority and memory of eminent theologians such as Rev. Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange) as much as I am able, to pray for them and try my best to profess and practice the Catholic faith.
-
I therefore chose to follow those theologians who are approved by Holy Mother Church and not some anonymous, untrained, self-appointed, self-commissioned layfolk who take the Denzinger and other theological texts and make of them what the Protestant heretics have done to the Sacred Scriptures.
And, I choose to follow the Doctors & Saints of the Catholic Church. (See below.)
P.S. The late Rev. Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange isn't even referenced at all in even the modernistic Catechism of the Catholic Church. Saint Thomas Aquinas, who taught the necessity of "explicit faith" explicitly, is directly quoted at least seven times and is referenced several dozen times.
P.P.S. One could say that these "infidel mystics" whom Rev. Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange talks about were sacramentally baptized in their infancies, and therefore, they are, in fact, Christian and not Islamic, Jєωιѕн, etc., and are receiving their mysticism from the graces of their infant Baptisms. It seems that Rev. Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange is sending paragraphs trying to explain would could, in fact, be explained in a short few sentences. But, make your own judgments.
P.P.P.S. I do not claim to be a theologian; Father Feeney was, however, a theologian, as he wrote on theology. I do not write theology.
-
I therefore chose to follow those theologians who are approved by Holy Mother Church and not some anonymous, untrained, self-appointed, self-commissioned layfolk who take the Denzinger and other theological texts and make of them what the Protestant heretics have done to the Sacred Scriptures.
You are doing nothing different than the rest of us who post here - why are you claiming to be doing anything different?
Even St. Thomas Aquinas teaches in one place that no one is saved without the sacrament - then in another place he teaches about a BOD - this fact has already been previously posted.
While it's true that we may not understand why he, and some of the other saints did that, to claim that it never happened because we are not "trained", or that "your theologian is better than my theologian" is ridiculous.
Our Lord spoke in parables and there is much Scripture hard to understand, but there is no reason in the world a theologian's writings should be so difficult to understand - unless he is writing specifically to other theologians - in which case you and the rest of us here, as untrained lay persons, are better off not using their teachings at all for any type of references.
Additionally, as regards your labeling of "feeneyites" - would you like to be labeled as a Conciliarist? A JP2ist? A PPVIist? A Cushingite? etc. ad nausem? - While you may not have everything in common with them, they ALL believe in a BOD just like you. Think about that is all I ask.
-
I therefore chose to follow those theologians who are approved by Holy Mother Church and not some anonymous, untrained, self-appointed, self-commissioned layfolk who take the Denzinger and other theological texts and make of them what the Protestant heretics have done to the Sacred Scriptures.
You are doing nothing different than the rest of us who post here - why are you claiming to be doing anything different?
Problem is that the text which he posted in his OP is too convoluted. Why not just say that these supposed "non-Catholic mystics" were sacramentally baptized at some time during their infancies; as such, their Baptism is the source of their mysticism??
-
I therefore choose to follow those theologians who are approved by Holy Mother Church and not some anonymous, untrained, self-appointed, self-commissioned layfolk who take the Denzinger and other theological texts and make of them what the Protestant heretics have done to the Sacred Scriptures.
You are doing nothing different than the rest of us who post here - why are you claiming to be doing anything different?
I am not claiming to be doing anything different. What you quoted above is what all Catholics are endeavoring to do in earnest.
Our Lord spoke in parables and there is much Scripture hard to understand, but there is no reason in the world a theologian's writings should be so difficult to understand - unless he is writing specifically to other theologians - in which case you and the rest of us here, as untrained lay persons, are better off not using their teachings at all for any type of references.
It is precisely the point of this thread: the entire discussion regarding "baptism of desire" is beyond the grasp of the average Catholic layman. If one finds the text I presented to be too "convoluted" or complex then one should not enter into such discussions.
Additionally, as regards your labeling of "feeneyites" - would you like to be labeled as a Conciliarist? A JP2ist? A PPVIist? A Cushingite? etc. ad nausem? - While you may not have everything in common with them, they ALL believe in a BOD just like you. Think about that is all I ask.
So what label should I use? Seriously, it seems this is a sensitive issue and I do not wish to offend anyone, so what nomenclature am I supposed to use?
Those Catholics who believe in what the theologians and the Popes say about "baptism of desire" have a lot in common with you: think about that, is all I ask.
-
I therefore chose to follow those theologians who are approved by Holy Mother Church ....
You are doing nothing different than the rest of us who post here - why are you claiming to be doing anything different?
The reason why he writes that is because I asked him this:
I have been asked to give a statement regarding the controversies that have plagued the forum recently regarding "baptism of desire" and find myself bound by conscience to do so.
Do you believe that the sacrament of baptism, or martyrdom for the faith or explicit desire for the sacrament (and belief in the Incarnation and the Trinity) are required for salvation? Or do you reject that teaching and believe that that the unbaptized person can be saved even if they have no explicit desire to be a Catholic, or be martyred for the faith, nor belief in Christ and the Trinity?
Simple question.
His answer is the stock beating around the bush answer that you get when you ask that question to the people who believe that an unbaptized person can be saved even if they have no explicit desire to be a Catholic, or be martyred for the faith, nor belief in Christ and the Trinity.
Dear Hobbledehoy,
Do you see what I wrote? No Father, Doctor, or Saint taught what you believe, and it is opposed to the Athanasian Creed. (Moreover, it is also opposed to the clear dogmas on EENS). So, how could it be "the teaching of
Holy Mother Church"?
-
I therefore chose to follow those theologians who are approved by Holy Mother Church ....
You are doing nothing different than the rest of us who post here - why are you claiming to be doing anything different?
The reason why he writes that is because I asked him this:
I have been asked to give a statement regarding the controversies that have plagued the forum recently regarding "baptism of desire" and find myself bound by conscience to do so.
Do you believe that the sacrament of baptism, or martyrdom for the faith or explicit desire for the sacrament (and belief in the Incarnation and the Trinity) are required for salvation? Or do you reject that teaching and believe that that the unbaptized person can be saved even if they have no explicit desire to be a Catholic, or be martyred for the faith, nor belief in Christ and the Trinity?
Simple question.
His answer is the stock beating around the bush answer that you get when you ask that question to the people who believe that an unbaptized person can be saved even if they have no explicit desire to be a Catholic, or be martyred for the faith, nor belief in Christ and the Trinity.
Dear Hobbledehoy,
Do you see what I wrote? No Father, Doctor, or Saint taught what you believe, and it is opposed to the Athanasian Creed. (Moreover, it is also opposed to the clear dogmas on EENS). So, how could it be "the teaching of
Holy Mother Church"?
No, bowler: I did not write anything in response or reaction to the question you posed. Now your rash judgment has compelled to do so now.
Yes, I read what you wrote (which you have quoted again), but I choose to ignore it because it would be a great disservice to you to feed your narcissistic personality disorder (or whatever mood or anxiety disorder or outright psychopathy) by submitting myself to your interrogations.
Who exactly are you to have such an air of authority to be interrogating Catholics? Who sent you? What office or jurisdiction do you claim to possess to enable you to police your peers around as if you are something greater than they?
-
The question I asked is simple and foundational, like asking a person why he believes what he believes. You should be able to answer that question if for anything for yourself. Like if I asked you what your purpose is, why are you on Earth?
-
The question I asked is simple and foundational, like asking a person why he believes what he believes. You should be able to answer that question if for anything for yourself. Like if I asked you what your purpose is, why are you on Earth?
Alright, now that cleared that up: I believe in whatsoever the Church teaches through her duly deputed and approved theologians. Since I'm a mere man, I follow such eminent luminaries as Rev. Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange.
Do I personally believe that the manner in which he explains the salvation of those who are "baptized by desire" happens? Yes, it is possible but not very probable nowadays. In fact, as someone else has stated, since most folks nowadays cannot even acknowledge natural law (let alone observe it) I do not think more than one out of a million people (maybe that's excessive but I dunno) are saved that way or at all, especially when Catholics seem to be too tepid or lax so that the crises currently afflicting the Holy Church and Christendom have come about and are only becoming worse.
My opinion is nothing, though, and it should have no bearing on the discussion of the matter itself.
-
Since I'm a mere man, I follow such eminent luminaries as Rev. Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange.
Do I personally believe that the manner in which he explains the salvation of those who are "baptized by desire" happens?
How does he explain "salvation of those who are baptized by desire"? Please provide quotes, or a page, not books.
If he is opposed to say St. Thomas and St. Alphonsus Ligouri, who do you follow then?
-
Since I'm a mere man, I follow such eminent luminaries as Rev. Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange.
Why not follow the Magisterium of the Catholic Church? Such as this:
“Where the necessity of salvation is concerned all the faithful of Christ must be subject to the Roman Pontiff, as we are taught by Holy Scripture, the testimony of the holy fathers, and by that constitution of our predecessor of happy memory, Boniface VIII, which begins Unam Sanctam.”
"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."
What is so "difficult" about the above text?!
Problem with following "eminent luminaries" is that they contradict each other; one "eminent luminary" says one thing and another "eminent luminary" says another. What then?! Why not follow the late Father Karl Rahner who is described as follows:
Karl Rahner, SJ (March 5, 1904 – March 30, 1984), was a German Jesuit priest and theologian who, alongside Henri de Lubac, Hans Urs von Balthasar, and Yves Congar, is considered one of the most influential Roman Catholic theologians of the 20th century. He was the brother of Hugo Rahner.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Rahner
Gee, why not just "get it over with" and embrace universal salvation?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_salvation#21st_century
Then, finally, all men can truly live as brothers!!!
-
It is precisely the point of this thread: the entire discussion regarding "baptism of desire" is beyond the grasp of the average Catholic layman. If one finds the text I presented to be too "convoluted" or complex then one should not enter into such discussions.
It is not beyond the grasp of anyone. Either one needs the sacrament or one does not need the sacrament.
The confusion and convolution come in when one tries to wrest the words of Our Lord as though He was speaking a parable as they add exceptions to ex cathedra teachings.
So what label should I use? Seriously, it seems this is a sensitive issue and I do not wish to offend anyone, so what nomenclature am I supposed to use?
Those Catholics who believe in what the theologians and the Popes say about "baptism of desire" have a lot in common with you: think about that, is all I ask.
I don't care what you call those of us who reject interpretations which contradict the literal teachings of the Church, but how would you like to be labeled a Conciliarist for believing in a BOD as the NOers do?
The theologians and popes and doctors who may have taught a BOD *before* Trent have an excuse - Rome had not yet spoken on the matter. *After* Trent, Roma locuta est, causa finita est - and if they were unclear about what Trent taught, they are in error no matter who they are or what their title is - such is the authority of the Council of Trent in perpetuity.
It is the same old argument - - -the new mass cannot be wrong because it comes from the Church . . . . . BOD cannot be wrong because saints taught it.
When does "Error is error no matter where it is found" apply?
Why is it that people think they are not understanding explicit teaching from the Council and Our Lord - but they think they understand as truth that which contradicts both the Council and the words of Our Lord?
-
How does he explain "salvation of those who are baptized by desire"? Please provide quotes, or a page, not books.
Scans are forthcoming. I appreciate your patience.
Since I'm a mere man, I follow such eminent luminaries as Rev. Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange.
Why not follow the Magisterium of the Catholic Church?
I do, it's just that I don't trust your interpretation of the texts you cite. You have no training, mission, office nor jurisdiction, so you cannot claim to authoritatively represent the teachings of the Church. This is especially so when you have clearly shown that you have taken it upon yourself to pick and choose and thus to re-define the magisterium of the Church. One of the most disturbing comments you posted was made on another thread:
If Pope Pius XII were, in fact, an anti-Pope, then that would, of course, nullify the 1949 Holy Office Letter. As others have already pointed out, Pope Pius XII, in many respects, set the foundation for Vatican II.
That would also nullify the dogmatic definition of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary. Furthermore, you have to fast from midnight from all solid and liquid nourishment in order to receive Holy Communion.
Gee, why not just "get it over with" and embrace universal salvation?
Furthermore, as substantiated by the above-cited remark, you also exhibit the proclivity to jump to conclusions, evade logic and give yourself over to juvenile exhilirations of rhetorical sentimentalism.
Why is it that people think they are not understanding explicit teaching from the Council and Our Lord - but they think they understand as truth that which contradicts both the Council and the words of Our Lord?
That is a question you should be asking yourself, together with those of like mind.
If I must choose between a bunch of layfolk who derogate the memory of Thomists or even go so far as to speculate that Pope Pius XII "lost" the Papacy and such theologians as Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange and Pope Pius IX, the choice is not really that difficult.
-
If I must choose between a bunch of layfolk who derogate the memory of Thomists or even go so far as to speculate that Pope Pius XII "lost" the Papacy and such theologians as Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange and Pope Pius IX, the choice is not really that difficult.
Are you a sede? If not, why not accept the teachings of the late Father Karl Rahner? He was a "luminary," wasn't he? A prominent figure at the Second Vatican Council? A theologian who was in good standing at that Council? Why not accept his teachings as authentically representing the Magisterium of the Catholic Church?
If Pope Pius XII were, in fact, an anti-Pope, then that would, of course, nullify the 1949 Holy Office Letter. As others have already pointed out, Pope Pius XII, in many respects, set the foundation for Vatican II.
That would also nullify the dogmatic definition of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary. Furthermore, you have to fast from midnight from all solid and liquid nourishment in order to receive Holy Communion.
I do not claim this (that Pope Pius XII was an anti-Pope), but some traditionalist Catholics do.
-
I don't care what you call those of us who reject interpretations (from real authorities) which contradict the literal teachings (stubborn and bowler's interpretations) of the Church
You reject ALL authorities that contradict your lonely "literal" interpretations.
-
I don't care what you call those of us who reject interpretations (from real authorities) which contradict the literal teachings (stubborn and bowler's interpretations) of the Church
You reject ALL authorities that contradict your lonely "literal" interpretations.
You got that right.
CANON V.-If any one saith, that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema.
Gal 1:8 - But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema.
Now you probably need a theologian to interpret the above Scripture for you, but I OTOH will take it upon myself and tell you that if St. Michael the Archangel himself were to come down from heaven and try to tell me that baptism was optional, or that the sacrament was not necessary unto salvation, and that a BOD really is a substitute for the sacrament and it saves souls just like the sacrament can, I would be obliged not to believe him because I understand why Trent taught us the infallible truth, literally.
Besides, why do you reject all the quotes that bowler has posted from dozens of saints and Fathers and popes explicitly teaching that without the sacrament, no one at all can be saved?
Oops, there goes another question that'll go unanswered.
-
The last time I read a modernist theologian (the kind demanded by SJB) he was stating in an approved book of moral theology that sodomy was okay as long as the act of sodomy ended in a natural manner. I don't remember the author or the title of the book but it was posted on cathinfo.
-
Those mystics outside the Church were not in God's grace and cannot be in Heaven.
You have to die a Catholic to get into Heaven. Any other belief is heresy.
:jumping2:
-
Hobbledehoy, I wanted to thank you for scanning and posting that excerpt from Garrigou-Lagrange. I took the opportunity to read through it during my lunch break at work. Although my thanks will sound a little odd considering that after reading that excerpt I am no closer to understanding the finer points of the dogma of Baptism of Desire then I was before.
However in reflecting on that passage I did come to an important conclusion for which I thank you. I now clearly understand how futile and potentially dangerous it is for a me as an uneducated layman to treat theology (or philosophy) as an interesting hobby. I see better now why these things are best left (like for example, the manufacture of explosives or nuclear power generation) to those professionals with the aptitude and education to tackle them. It is so very easy to find yourself out of your depth in these subjects. Consider how many heresies have been started by self-proclaimed theologians or philosophers or even clergymen. A certain Father Martin Luther jumps immediately to my mind...
I think from now on I will limit myself to reading those simple books either by the Saints or basic catechisms that by long use Holy Mother Church has found most edifying and recommends to us simple layfolk for our sanctification. I will leave reading about theology/philosophy (and especially BoD threads) alone. In fact, I think I may go so far as to pose a penance on myself if I find myself reading another BoD thread, flagellation perhaps.
Thanks again.
Luke
-
The last time I read a modernist theologian (the kind demanded by SJB) he was stating in an approved book of moral theology that sodomy was okay as long as the act of sodomy ended in a natural manner. I don't remember the author or the title of the book but it was posted on cathinfo.
You are a disgusting person.
Is St. Alphonsus a modernist theologian?
-
Hobbledehoy, I wanted to thank you for scanning and posting that excerpt from Garrigou-Lagrange. I took the opportunity to read through it during my lunch break at work. Although my thanks will sound a little odd considering that after reading that excerpt I am no closer to understanding the finer points of the dogma of Baptism of Desire then I was before.
However in reflecting on that passage I did come to an important conclusion for which I thank you. I now clearly understand how futile and potentially dangerous it is for a me as an uneducated layman to treat theology (or philosophy) as an interesting hobby. I see better now why these things are best left (like for example, the manufacture of explosives or nuclear power generation) to those professionals with the aptitude and education to tackle them. It is so very easy to find yourself out of your depth in these subjects. Consider how many heresies have been started by self-proclaimed theologians or philosophers or even clergymen. A certain Father Martin Luther jumps immediately to my mind...
I think from now on I will limit myself to reading those simple books either by the Saints or basic catechisms that by long use Holy Mother Church has found most edifying and recommends to us simple layfolk for our sanctification. I will leave reading about theology/philosophy (and especially BoD threads) alone. In fact, I think I may go so far as to pose a penance on myself if I find myself reading another BoD thread, flagellation perhaps.
Thanks again.
Luke
The anti-modernist theological manuals of the early 20th century EXPLAIN Catholic teaching. Something like Spirago-Clarke's The Catechism Explained is a further explanation of the basic catechism. You may have noticed that bowler and stubborn dismiss this type of source and provide none of their own. They speak of "modernist theologians" yet they are referring to approved catechisms and Doctors of the Church.
-
However in reflecting on that passage I did come to an important conclusion for which I thank you. I now clearly understand how futile and potentially dangerous it is for a me as an uneducated layman to treat theology (or philosophy) as an interesting hobby. I see better now why these things are best left (like for example, the manufacture of explosives or nuclear power generation) to those professionals with the aptitude and education to tackle them. It is so very easy to find yourself out of your depth in these subjects. Consider how many heresies have been started by self-proclaimed theologians or philosophers or even clergymen. A certain Father Martin Luther jumps immediately to my mind...
I think from now on I will limit myself to reading those simple books either by the Saints or basic catechisms that by long use Holy Mother Church has found most edifying and recommends to us simple layfolk for our sanctification. I will leave reading about theology/philosophy (and especially BoD threads) alone.
This precisely the reason why I posted this thread, for those servants of Jesus and Mary who need to be reminded that their focus should be the service of Jesus and Mary: the perfect renovation of their Baptismal vows and their cultivation and progress in holy grace by means of prayer, penance, self-abnegation, works of piety and mercy, &c. There is especially devotion and total consecration to Our Lord, Eternal Wisdom, through His Most Holy Mother, as taught by St. Louis-Marie, to enliven the resolve of all Catholics to live in more perfect conformity to the designs of Our Lord "cujus providentia in sui disposìtione non fallitur" ["whose providence faileth not in its designs"] (Collecta, Dom. vii. post Pent., Missale Romanum).
As I had written at the commencement of this post: How is it that so many Catholics have failed in attaining to the sanctity and prayer of a soul like the Little Flower, St. Teresa of Jesus, St. John of the Cross, St. Louis-Marie, &c., when they have everything in their disposal to achieve the mystical graces of union and contemplation and nothing to excuse tepidity and laxity? How could the clergy be better trained and disposed in spiritual direction in order to remedy this universal catastrophe? How could Catholics tread upon theological matters regarding the mysteries of grace and predestination when there is grave neglect and error (on the part of both laity and clergy) regarding the means of salvation and perfection in an epoch of the grossest materialism and error?
All one needs to do is make acts of faith, and be resolved to conform one's mind to the teaching's of the Church's sacred magisterium:
(http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d89/platonic123/Texts/ConsecrationtoHolyGhost_zpsb66dd6f1.jpg)
-
The anti-modernist theological manuals of the early 20th century EXPLAIN Catholic teaching. Something like Spirago-Clarke's The Catechism Explained is a further explanation of the basic catechism. You may have noticed that bowler and stubborn dismiss this type of source and provide none of their own. They speak of "modernist theologians" yet they are referring to approved catechisms and Doctors of the Church.
I'm still shocked that Catholics can have the audacity to derogate those theologians who understood and expounded upon the doctrines of the Angelic Doctor in such an excellent manner and, furthermore, to co-equal them unto modernists and liberals.
The real issue here is that some individuals have endeavored to undermine the teaching authority of the Church in the self-conceited capacity of self-appointed "theologians" - de-contextualizing Denzinger and other sources in an attempt to posit their private interpretations.
This is the real problem, the very heart of these individuals' errors: the refusal to conform to the teaching authority of the Church and to necessarily posit that the Church in her ordinary magisterium has failed or has succuмbed to heresy. The same thing has been proposed by the modernists who violate, distort and assault the act of faith and take it upon themselves to judge what is true or not in what the Church has taught.
All that suffices for interior souls is to accept with an act of faith what the Church has taught and to become themselves living sermons that defend the deposit of faith by the fruits of their faith and works; avoiding the spiritual perils concomitant with the habit of compulsively posting private opinions/distortions and elevate them as a sort of new "supra-magisterium."
-
The last time I read a modernist theologian (the kind demanded by SJB) he was stating in an approved book of moral theology that sodomy was okay as long as the act of sodomy ended in a natural manner. I don't remember the author or the title of the book but it was posted on cathinfo.
You are a disgusting person.
Is St. Alphonsus a modernist theologian?
Not at all. But he also said this:
Still we answer the Semipelagians, and say, that infidels who arrive at the use of reason, and are not converted to the Faith, cannot be excused, because though they do not receive sufficient proximate grace, still they are not deprived of remote grace, as a means of becoming converted. But what is this remote grace? St. Thomas explains it, when he says, that if anyone was brought up in the wilds, or even among brute beasts, and if he followed the law of natural reason, to desire what is good, and to avoid what is wicked, we should certainly believe either that God, by an internal inspiration, would reveal to him what he should believe, or would send someone to preach the Faith to him, as he sent Peter to Cornelius. Thus, then, according to the Angelic Doctor [St. Thomas], God, at least remotely, gives to infidels, who have the use of reason, sufficient grace to obtain salvation, and this grace consists in a certain instruction of the mind, and in a movement of the will, to observe the natural law; and if the infidel cooperates with this movement, observing the precepts of the law of nature, and abstaining from grievous sins, he will certainly receive, through the merits of Jesus Christ, the grace proximately sufficient to embrace the Faith, and save his soul. (St. Alphonsus, The History of Heresies, Refutation 6, #11, p. 457
The above quote should end any and all discussion that "baptism of desire" and/or "baptism of blood" could ever be applied to anyone but a Catholic catechumen.
-
Hobbledehoy,
It is a great consolation in our times to see Catholics write and think as you have expressed here and elsewhere. You will be in my prayers. Keep fighting the good fight!
-
Rev. Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange expounds upon the question regarding the possibility of salvation for heathen children in Grace: Commentary on the Summa Theologica of St. Thomas, Ia IIae, q. 109-14 (trans. The Dominican Nuns of Corpus Christi Monastery; St. Louis, MO: B. Herder Book Co., 1952). The tome was used in its original Latin text as a standard Seminary textbook in ages past.
What he discusses is pertinent to the matter in question in this thread (and the many other threads that treat upon these subjects).
(http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d89/platonic123/Texts%202/Implicitfaith1_zps9ab65407.jpg)
(http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d89/platonic123/Texts%202/Implicitfaith2_zps9805aa77.jpg)
(http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d89/platonic123/Texts%202/Implicitfaith3_zps847c09b9.jpg)
(http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d89/platonic123/Texts%202/Implicitfaith4_zpse11344de.jpg)
(http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d89/platonic123/Texts%202/Implicitfaith5_zps24f499ed.jpg)
-
The anti-modernist theological manuals of the early 20th century EXPLAIN Catholic teaching. Something like Spirago-Clarke's The Catechism Explained is a further explanation of the basic catechism. You may have noticed that bowler and stubborn dismiss this type of source and provide none of their own. They speak of "modernist theologians" yet they are referring to approved catechisms and Doctors of the Church.
You are referring to your belief that someone who has no desire to be a Catholic, nor belief in the Trinity and the Incarnation, can be saved. That teaching is opposed to ALL the Fathers, Doctors, Saints, and the Athanasian Creed. In other words it has no basis in the Fathers (and the dogmatic Creed), or St. Thomas and St. Alphonsus Ligouri. You are now asking us to give up all of those sources teachings, for a 20th century private catechism?
What planet are you from?
-
Rev. Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange expounds upon the question regarding the possibility of salvation for heathen children in Grace: Commentary on the Summa Theologica of St. Thomas, Ia IIae, q. 109-14 (trans. The Dominican Nuns of Corpus Christi Monastery; St. Louis, MO: B. Herder Book Co., 1952). The tome was used in its original Latin text as a standard Seminary textbook in ages past.
What he discusses is pertinent to the matter in question in this thread (and the many other threads that treat upon these subjects).
Is their a reason why you post JPEG pages instead of posting in a format that can be cut, copied and pasted on this form? I'm a slow typist and there's a lot there to comment on.
To put "all the ducks in a row", first you said that on the subject of BOD you follow the teaching of Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange (GL), I then asked you what GL teaches, and if you would follow him if he opposed say St. Thomas. You then sent me those 5 pages to show me what GL teaches that is your belief.
I read the 5 pages, it is about as it says "Justificatiobn of a pagan child who, when he arrives at the full use of reason, does what lies in his power, with the help of actual grace, to love God above all things".
That isn't really at all the subject we are discussing. Moreover, I don't think anyone here on CI that is in favor of BOD has the wherewithal to understand and discuss these 4 pages, except maybe Nishant. Therefore it is a waste of time to discuss all of the theological speculations that go into every turn in this writing. Therefore, to keep it simple I will just focus on the key point. (Unless you can scan those pages into a format that I can write my comments in to. )
St. Thomas and the Thomists taught that the supernatural truths of the faith which must be known for salvation are the belief in the Incarnation and the Holy Trinity. While GL is not even mentioning that objection, and moreover, is giving the impression throughout that the supernatural truths of the faith which are necessary for salvation "are at least that God is, and is a rewarder".
In that teaching, he is opposed by ALL the Fathers, Saints, Doctiors and the Athansaina Creed.
-
- SSPX Fr. Rulleau, Baptism of Desire, pp. 55-56
St. Thomas Aquinas, De Veritate, 14, A. II, ad 1: objection; “It is possible that someone may be brought up in the forest, or among wolves; such a man cannot explicitly know anything about the faith.
Reply; It is the characteristic of Divine Providence to provide every man with what is necessary for salvation…provided on his part there is no hindrance. In the case of a man who seeks good and shuns evil, by the leading of natural reason, God would either reveal to him through internal inspiration what had to be believed, or would send some preacher of the faith to him…”
- Fr. Rulleau, Baptism of Desire, pp. 56
St. Thomas, Summa Theologica: “After grace had been revealed, both the learned and simple folk are bound to explicit faith in the mysteries of Christ, chiefly as regards those which are observed throughout the Church, and publicly proclaimed, such as the articles which refer to the Incarnation, of which we have spoken above.”
Saint Thomas, Summa Theologica: “And consequently, when once grace had been revealed, all were bound to explicit faith in the mystery of the Trinity.”
In regard to the objection about one who had never heard of Christ, St. Thomas replies:
- Fr. Rulleau, Baptism of Desire, pp. 55
St. Thomas Aquinas, Sent. II, 28, Q. 1, A. 4, ad 4: “If a man, born among barbarian nations, does what he can, God himself will show him what is necessary for salvation, either by inspiration or by sending a teacher to him.”
- Fr. Rulleau, Baptism of Desire, pp. 55
St. Thomas Aquinas, Sent. III, 25, Q. 2, A. 2, solut. 2: “If a man should have no one to instruct him, God will show him, unless he culpably wishes to remain where he is.”
-
All cultures are under the dominion of the Devil until they are evangelized to the Holy Catholic Faith. All the people who die in cultures which have never been penetrated by the Gospel go to Hell because bad will and failure to cooperate with God’s grace is the reason He does not reveal the Gospel to them.
St. Augustine (+428): “… God foreknew that if they had lived and the gospel had been preached to them, they would have heard it without belief.”
And if somebody accepted the truth, if he were intellectually honest enough to say, “God, this piece of wood can’t be You, reveal Yourself to me,” then God would send an angel, if necessary, as He sent an angel to Cornelius in Acts chapter 10; and He would follow it up with a missionary who would bring the good news and the Sacrament of Baptism.
John 18:37: “For this was I born, and for this came I into the world, that I should give testimony to the truth: every one who is of the truth, heareth my voice.”
-
Hobbledehoy,
You really should accept all of Vatican II, because the late Rev. Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange's theology is the basis of it:
1260 "Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery."63 Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.
Ergo, everyone desires Baptism, at least implicitly. "No salvation outside the Church" becomes "No salvation outside the World." And, of course, if a pagan (or, Muslim, Jєωιѕн, etc.) child can respond to Baptismal grace, if only implicitly, why bother sharing the Gospel with him or his people? Why disturb his conscience if he is in a state of grace? It's little wonder why the modern Catholic Church evangelizes no one!
-
The heresy that non-Catholics can be saved by “invincible ignorance” has culminated in our situation today, in which almost 100% of people who claim to be “Catholics” (and even “traditional Catholics”) believe that Jews, Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus, Protestants, etc. can be saved. We can thank the heretical idea of salvation for the “invincibly ignorant” for this.
Invisible ignorance turns into a destructive heresy that annihilates the necessity of the Catholic Faith all over the world.
Why then would be any need at all to evangelize and convert all heretics, pagans, Jews, freemasons, etc. to the True Faith?
-
Hobbledehoy,
You really should accept all of Vatican II, because the late Rev. Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange's theology is the basis of it...
That is absolutely ridiculous. Reverend Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange was one of the foremost opponents of Neo-Modernism, even coining the term "nouvelle théologie," pejoratively, in a famous article attacking the chief neo-Modernist periti at the Robber Council many years before they were able to implement their wicked schemes. It is intolerable for you to speak this way of one of the most venerable and eminent theologians of the XXth century, one who was frequently cited by Archbishop Lefebvre and who was the foremost opponent of the Conciliar errors. Besides, you obviously have no idea what you are talking about and don't understand neo-Modernism. If you knew more about the theological foundations of the nouvelle théologie and about the theological project of Garrigou-Lagrange, you would quickly realise the utter absurdity of blaming him even in a small way for the Council.
-
Moreover, I don't think anyone here on CI that is in favor of BOD has the wherewithal to understand and discuss these 4 pages, except maybe Nishant.
I believe in Baptism of Desire because the Popes, Doctors, and theologians have spoken on the subject authoritatively. One Irish Jesuit who was excommunicated by Pius XII disputes what the consensus of theologians, the Holy Office, and the Popes have taught. I read the entire thing with interest and think that I understand it. Of course, it would help to read it again, and I probably should.
Therefore it is a waste of time to discuss all of the theological speculations that go into every turn in this writing.
So, basically what you are saying is that you are too lazy or inept to read one of the stronger arguments by an approved theologian against your position. You already know what you believe and you are not willing to be convinced by respected theologians of the Church to the contrary. Your private understanding as a layman is sufficient. It seems pretty clear that that is what you are in fact saying.
St. Thomas and the Thomists taught that the supernatural truths of the faith which must be known for salvation are the belief in the Incarnation and the Holy Trinity. While GL is not even mentioning that objection, and moreover, is giving the impression throughout that the supernatural truths of the faith which are necessary for salvation "are at least that God is, and is a rewarder".
How would you know if he mentions the "objection" or not, since you have yourself admitted that you did not read all of it or did not understand it and/or have a difficult time understanding Garrigou-Lagrange ? He does actually mention what you claim he doesn't; his own position on the matter is integrated into the rest of his system.
In that teaching, he is opposed by ALL the Fathers, Saints, Doctiors and the Athansaina Creed.
Except St Ambrose, St Bernard de Clairvaux, Pius IX, St Alphonsus, the Holy Office under Cardinal Ottaviani, Pius XII, etc.
-
The heresy that non-Catholics can be saved by “invincible ignorance” has culminated in our situation today, in which almost 100% of people who claim to be “Catholics” (and even “traditional Catholics”) believe that Jews, Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus, Protestants, etc. can be saved. We can thank the heretical idea of salvation for the “invincibly ignorant” for this.
Invisible ignorance turns into a destructive heresy that annihilates the necessity of the Catholic Faith all over the world.
Why then would be any need at all to evangelize and convert all heretics, pagans, Jews, freemasons, etc. to the True Faith?
Cantarella, I have liked your posts in the past and think you are a good contributor here. Therefore, let me say this : I, too, was once taken in by the propaganda of St Benedict Center. Don't believe it. You are not a trained theologian and perhaps don't understand the depth of what you are getting yourself involved in. The fact of the matter is that the position of the followers of Fr. Feeney is neither taught by the Church nor is it defensible by rigorous theological argumentation. Calling implicit Baptism of Desire a "heresy" is incredibly dangerous. Therefore, I earnestly implore you to back away from St Benedict Center and content yourself with trusting in the wisdom of the eminent theologians of the Church and of the papal teaching office.
-
Hobbledehoy,
You really should accept all of Vatican II, because the late Rev. Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange's theology is the basis of it...
That is absolutely ridiculous. Reverend Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange was one of the foremost opponents of Neo-Modernism, even coining the term "nouvelle théologie," pejoratively, in a famous article attacking the chief neo-Modernist periti at the Robber Council many years before they were able to implement their wicked schemes. It is intolerable for you to speak this way of one of the most venerable and eminent theologians of the XXth century, one who was frequently cited by Archbishop Lefebvre and who was the foremost opponent of the Conciliar errors. Besides, you obviously have no idea what you are talking about and don't understand neo-Modernism. If you knew more about the theological foundations of the nouvelle théologie and about the theological project of Garrigou-Lagrange, you would quickly realise the utter absurdity of blaming him even in a small way for the Council.
I don't see how you can say that Reverend Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange is to be praised and Father Kahner Rahner is to be despised. Both were prominent theologians who were both in good standing with Pope Pius XII. I don't see how Father Garrigou-Lagrange's theology of implicit faith is any different than Father Rahner's anonymous Christian. Pray tell, what is the difference?
-
Hobbledehoy,
You really should accept all of Vatican II, because the late Rev. Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange's theology is the basis of it.
Jehanne,
You should really accept Vatican I because apparently you think you know more than the teaching authority of the Church, and your distorted cognitive patterns (and those of others individuals who have taken it upon themselves to promulgate a new lay magisterium) have apparently entrapped you into some sort of ecclesiological solipsism.
Who exactly are you to have such an air of authority to be passing judgment on theologians such as Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange, who had the wisdom and sanctity to which none of us here at CathInfo could ever claim to have attained? Who sent you? What office or jurisdiction do you claim to possess to enable you to police your peers and evaluate on those who are your superiors in matters of faith and morals (in this case Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange as well as all approved and duly deputed teachers of the Catholic faith) as if you are something greater than they?
-
Hobbledehoy,
You really should accept all of Vatican II, because the late Rev. Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange's theology is the basis of it.
Jehanne,
You should really accept Vatican I because apparently you think you know more than the teaching authority of the Church, and your distorted cognitive patterns (and those of others individuals who have taken it upon themselves to promulgate a new lay magisterium) have apparently entrapped you into some sort of ecclesiological solipsism.
Who exactly are you to have such an air of authority to be passing judgment on theologians such as Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange, who had the wisdom and sanctity to which none of us here at CathInfo could ever claim to have attained? Who sent you? What office or jurisdiction do you claim to possess to enable you to police your peers and evaluate on those who are your superiors in matters of faith and morals (in this case Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange as well as all approved and duly deputed teachers of the Catholic faith) as if you are something greater than they?
Hobbles, you could say the same about all of us for rejecting Vatican II.
-
Hobbledehoy,
You really should accept all of Vatican II, because the late Rev. Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange's theology is the basis of it.
Jehanne,
You should really accept Vatican I because apparently you think you know more than the teaching authority of the Church, and your distorted cognitive patterns (and those of others individuals who have taken it upon themselves to promulgate a new lay magisterium) have apparently entrapped you into some sort of ecclesiological solipsism.
Who exactly are you to have such an air of authority to be passing judgment on theologians such as Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange, who had the wisdom and sanctity to which none of us here at CathInfo could ever claim to have attained? Who sent you? What office or jurisdiction do you claim to possess to enable you to police your peers and evaluate on those who are your superiors in matters of faith and morals (in this case Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange as well as all approved and duly deputed teachers of the Catholic faith) as if you are something greater than they?
Hobbles, you could say the same about all of us for rejecting Vatican II.
How so? I don't understand the necessity of bringing out this red-herring.
As bowler wrote somewhere else, it's rude to derail threads in this matter. Jehanne has nothing to offer but red-herrings, and you are his accomplice in this.
-
Hobbledehoy,
You really should accept all of Vatican II, because the late Rev. Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange's theology is the basis of it.
Jehanne,
You should really accept Vatican I because apparently you think you know more than the teaching authority of the Church, and your distorted cognitive patterns (and those of others individuals who have taken it upon themselves to promulgate a new lay magisterium) have apparently entrapped you into some sort of ecclesiological solipsism.
Who exactly are you to have such an air of authority to be passing judgment on theologians such as Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange, who had the wisdom and sanctity to which none of us here at CathInfo could ever claim to have attained? Who sent you? What office or jurisdiction do you claim to possess to enable you to police your peers and evaluate on those who are your superiors in matters of faith and morals (in this case Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange as well as all approved and duly deputed teachers of the Catholic faith) as if you are something greater than they?
Hobbles, you could say the same about all of us for rejecting Vatican II.
Many of the clergy who were sent by God through His Church led the way in rejecting Vatican II. Some bishops, and countless clergy around the world resisted Paul VI's new theology and Novus Ordo Missae.
There are stories of these courageous priests among many Catholics from various dioceses all around the world.
-
Moreover, I don't think anyone here on CI that is in favor of BOD has the wherewithal to understand and discuss these 4 pages, except maybe Nishant.
I believe in Baptism of Desire because the Popes, Doctors, and theologians have spoken on the subject authoritatively... (GL is talking about salvation for those that have no explicit desire to be Catholics, or belief in the Trinity and the Incarnation. That is opposed to ALL the Fathers, Doctors and Saints, and the Athanasian Creed. It is also opposed to St. Thomas and St. Alphonsus Ligouri. Do you understand the differences?)
Therefore it is a waste of time to discuss all of the theological speculations that go into every turn in this writing.
So, basically what you are saying is that you are too lazy or inept to read ... (If you would have quoted me, you would have caught your error. I specifically said that I read all five pages)
St. Thomas and the Thomists taught that the supernatural truths of the faith which must be known for salvation are the belief in the Incarnation and the Holy Trinity. While GL is not even mentioning that objection, and moreover, is giving the impression throughout that the supernatural truths of the faith which are necessary for salvation "are at least that God is, and is a rewarder".
How would you know if he mentions the "objection" or not, since you have yourself admitted that you did not read all of it or did not understand it and/or have a difficult time understanding Garrigou-Lagrange ? He does actually mention what you claim he doesn't; his own position on the matter is integrated into the rest of his system.(If you would have quoted me, you would have caught your error. I specifically said that I read all five pages. Moreover, I explained clearly what I decided to focus on, because I doubt there are any CI BODers that know what I am talking about, nor know what GL said. I know every word that GL says and understand every word, I just don't see the point of bringing up all the theoligical specualtions that he brings forward at every almost every turn. Suffice it to say that the one I brought up is the biggest, and no BODer but Nishant knows what I am talking about. That is likely why you went into an ad-hominem attack upon me and added two strawmen to boot. [/color][/b])
In that teaching, he is opposed by ALL the Fathers, Saints, Doctiors and the Athansaina Creed.
Except St Ambrose, St Bernard de Clairvaux, Pius IX, St Alphonsus, the Holy Office under Cardinal Ottaviani, Pius XII, etc. (I said it is opposed to ALL the Fathers, Saints, Doctors and the Athanasain Creed, and that includes of course St Ambrose, St Bernard de Clairvaux, St Alphonsus, (Pius IX, and the Holy Office letter and Ottaviani are saints or Doctors). if you understood the difference between the supernatural truths of the faith which must be known for salvation baptism, you would not have made your comment).
-
Hobbledehoy,
You really should accept all of Vatican II, because the late Rev. Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange's theology is the basis of it.
Jehanne,
You should really accept Vatican I because apparently you think you know more than the teaching authority of the Church, and your distorted cognitive patterns (and those of others individuals who have taken it upon themselves to promulgate a new lay magisterium) have apparently entrapped you into some sort of ecclesiological solipsism.
Who exactly are you to have such an air of authority to be passing judgment on theologians such as Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange, who had the wisdom and sanctity to which none of us here at CathInfo could ever claim to have attained? Who sent you? What office or jurisdiction do you claim to possess to enable you to police your peers and evaluate on those who are your superiors in matters of faith and morals (in this case Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange as well as all approved and duly deputed teachers of the Catholic faith) as if you are something greater than they?
You act like Father Garrigou-Lagrange was opposed to Father Feeney! They both lived during the same time period. Did Father Garrigou-Lagrange ever say anything negative at all about Father Feeney? If so, please provide the reference.
-
0
-
Correction:
(Pius IX, and Ottaviani are NOT Fathers, Saints or Doctors, and the Holy Office Letter is opposed to the Athanasian Creed).
-
You act like Father Garrigou-Lagrange was opposed to Father Feeney! They both lived during the same time period. Did Father Garrigou-Lagrange ever say anything negative at all about Father Feeney? If so, please provide the reference.
Stubborn implied that I should not be alluding to Rev. Fr. Feeney when he said that my use of the term "Feeneyites" was pejorative even though I intended it to be a descriptive term.
Anyways, I do not know if Rev. Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange wrote anything regarding Rev. Fr. Feeney. He was discussing matters pertaining to "baptism of desire" before the controversy arose in Boston. Rev. Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange was at Rome teaching at the Angelicuм (if memory serves right) when the so-called "Boston case" occurred. If he had said or written anything about the matter, I do not know. His student, Rev. Fr. Fenton may have consulted with the great Thomist about this.
-
Is their a reason why you post JPEG pages instead of posting in a format that can be cut, copied and pasted on this form? I'm a slow typist and there's a lot there to comment on.
Yes, there is a reason: I have a bad case of "textual scrupulosity." I scan and upload actual pages so that the forum members (and lurkers) may see for themselves the text and not a transcript that is susceptible to human error.
This is why I tend to avoid the methodology known as "copy 'n paste." Not that it's necessarily defective, but my "textual scrupulosity" forbids it.
To put "all the ducks in a row", first you said that on the subject of BOD you follow the teaching of Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange (GL), I then asked you what GL teaches, and if you would follow him if he opposed say St. Thomas. You then sent me those 5 pages to show me what GL teaches that is your belief.
That was the first text I found.
You asked for further docuмentation. I never said it would take one post to fulfill your request. I do not have a lot of time, and am presently scanning and uploading pages for Michaelmas Day (which, not surprisingly, is getting less attention than my scans here).
I appreciate your patience.
That isn't really at all the subject we are discussing. Moreover, I don't think anyone here on CI that is in favor of BOD has the wherewithal to understand and discuss these 4 pages, except maybe Nishant. Therefore it is a waste of time to discuss all of the theological speculations that go into every turn in this writing. Therefore, to keep it simple I will just focus on the key point. (Unless you can scan those pages into a format that I can write my comments in to. )
I believe it is pertinent because he discusses implicit faith.
Regarding Nishant, I agree that his intellectual prowess and devotion are greater than I could ever hope to approximate even if I lived for centuries as a hermit given to prayer and penance. God loves some more than others, and it is this principle of predilection that explains why some are more gifted than other and why some are given the graces necessary for salvation as opposed to others.
Finally, no: I do not know how to scan pages into a format that one may write comments therein. I am not as technically savvy as my nerdiness would have one believe.
As for the rest of your comments, you shall have to wait and see what Rev. Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange and others have written: I have scanned matter from other theologians.
Again, these are not my opinions but the teachings of trained and duly deputed theologians: my opinions are irrelevant.
-
Again, these are not my opinions but the teachings of trained and duly deputed theologians: my opinions are irrelevant.
Well, I'm glad that a couple of people on this forum believe this.
-
The heresy that non-Catholics can be saved by “invincible ignorance” has culminated in our situation today, in which almost 100% of people who claim to be “Catholics” (and even “traditional Catholics”) believe that Jews, Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus, Protestants, etc. can be saved. We can thank the heretical idea of salvation for the “invincibly ignorant” for this.
Invisible ignorance turns into a destructive heresy that annihilates the necessity of the Catholic Faith all over the world.
Why then would be any need at all to evangelize and convert all heretics, pagans, Jews, freemasons, etc. to the True Faith?
Cantarella, I have liked your posts in the past and think you are a good contributor here. Therefore, let me say this : I, too, was once taken in by the propaganda of St Benedict Center. Don't believe it. You are not a trained theologian and perhaps don't understand the depth of what you are getting yourself involved in. The fact of the matter is that the position of the followers of Fr. Feeney is neither taught by the Church nor is it defensible by rigorous theological argumentation. Calling implicit Baptism of Desire a "heresy" is incredibly dangerous. Therefore, I earnestly implore you to back away from St Benedict Center and content yourself with trusting in the wisdom of the eminent theologians of the Church and of the papal teaching office.
I am not a scholar nor a theologian and my reasoning is indeed very simple. I am not even able to quote saints, popes, Church fathers, and great thinkers, like you do. But these are my problems:
I can’t reconcile the words of Our Lord Jesus Christ in John 3:5 – Amen, amen I say unto thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God – with the concept of baptism of desire or of blood.
Is not the infallible teaching of the Church that these words are to be understood literally? This would exclude any possibility of salvation without being born again of water and the Holy Ghost. No matter how many quotes of saints, popes, and great thinkers I read, these cannot surpass the words of Our Lord, and therefore are not sufficient to change my view.
Why would Jesus bothered instituting the Sacrament of Baptism of Water if "Baptism of Desire" could substitute it? Christ did not give us vague and abstract notions of Baptism. His words and actions demonstrated how people need to be baptized.
As for the invisible ignorant, what would be the merit of striving day to day, to be a real Catholic, in God’s grace, to persevere in sanctifying grace, to receive our Sacraments, to enrich our understanding of the Faith, to do good words, to evangelize, to be conscious of our spiritual warfare, etc, etc. if anyone “ignorant” of our Faith can also be saved?
Again, why then would be any need at all to evangelize and convert all heretics, pagans, Jews, freemasons, etc. to the True Faith? Why then, to even, try?
As I said, God is omnipotent, not a hair moves in the universe without He willing it. Would not God, in His Infinite Omnipotence, will ensure that His elect WILL get baptized with water, just as Christ, Our Savior, instituted it?
Or that his elect come to the knowledge of the True faith and do not remain in state of ignorance?
"I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me" (Jn 14:6).
"He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters" (Mt 12:30).
The sacraments are the means through which Christ offers the grace necessary for salvation, and it is the Catholic Church that ministers those sacraments, so salvation can only come through the Church.
I recognize that I possess no authority in judging heresy. I am but a penitent sinner but I do believe the Holy Catholic Church is a VISIBLE Church and that only Catholics go to Heaven.
I humbly pray to the Holy Ghost for guidance.
-
Again, these are not my opinions but the teachings of trained and duly deputed theologians: my opinions are irrelevant.
Well, I'm glad that a couple of people on this forum believe this.
This problem is a symptom of the breakdown of authority. Catholics have forgotten how to learn their Faith. We learn first from catechisms, then we learn from our lawfully commissioned parish priests, then our diocesan bishops, then the pope.
The theologians are experts in theology who train in approved universities, obtain doctoral degrees, write a dissertation, defend it, and have their works scrutinized continuously by their peers, their religious superiors, diocesan censors, diocesan bishops, and the Holy Office.
-
Hobbledehoy,
You really should accept all of Vatican II, because the late Rev. Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange's theology is the basis of it.
Jehanne,
You should really accept Vatican I because apparently you think you know more than the teaching authority of the Church, and your distorted cognitive patterns (and those of others individuals who have taken it upon themselves to promulgate a new lay magisterium) have apparently entrapped you into some sort of ecclesiological solipsism.
Who exactly are you to have such an air of authority to be passing judgment on theologians such as Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange, who had the wisdom and sanctity to which none of us here at CathInfo could ever claim to have attained? Who sent you? What office or jurisdiction do you claim to possess to enable you to police your peers and evaluate on those who are your superiors in matters of faith and morals (in this case Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange as well as all approved and duly deputed teachers of the Catholic faith) as if you are something greater than they?
The modernist theologians who were pushing the envelope pre-Vatican II were silenced by Pope Pius XII. Lagrange was NOT one of them. The comparison is unjust at best, but I suspect it is made out of Jehanne's ignorance.
-
Again, these are not my opinions but the teachings of trained and duly deputed theologians: my opinions are irrelevant.
Well, I'm glad that a couple of people on this forum believe this.
This problem is a symptom of the breakdown of authority. Catholics have forgotten how to learn their Faith. We learn first from catechisms, then we learn from our lawfully commissioned parish priests, then our diocesan bishops, then the pope.
The theologians are experts in theology who train in approved universities, obtain doctoral degrees, write a dissertation, defend it, and have their works scrutinized continuously by their peers, their religious superiors, diocesan censors, diocesan bishops, and the Holy Office.
Yes, the "expert theologians", parish priests, bishops and popes are the ones responsible for the NO as well as *all* the errors and heresies which paved the way for V2 for many decades prior to V2.
Heresies have always started from clergy, not lay people. Look at what Fr. Luther accomplished. And a majority of church members and bishops did not believe that Jesus Christ was God (Arianism), and not only defected, but waged war against the minority who did (Arius, by the way, was a bishop).
After Trent came out and defined the necessity of the sacrament for salvation, there should not have been a book or a theologian or saint to ever teach such a thing as a BOD ever again. That they resurrected the error from teachings prior to Trent does not change the error into truth.
There are many things, thankfully, that the fathers and theologians interpret for us that we would not otherwise understand, but when it comes to the mythical non-sacrament, a BOD, it is impossible to reconcile a BOD with the canons of Trent declaring the absolute necessity of the sacrament - even if an angel were to teach it.
-
The heresy that non-Catholics can be saved by “invincible ignorance” has culminated in our situation today, in which almost 100% of people who claim to be “Catholics” (and even “traditional Catholics”) believe that Jews, Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus, Protestants, etc. can be saved. We can thank the heretical idea of salvation for the “invincibly ignorant” for this.
Invisible ignorance turns into a destructive heresy that annihilates the necessity of the Catholic Faith all over the world.
Why then would be any need at all to evangelize and convert all heretics, pagans, Jews, freemasons, etc. to the True Faith?
Cantarella, I have liked your posts in the past and think you are a good contributor here. Therefore, let me say this : I, too, was once taken in by the propaganda of St Benedict Center. Don't believe it. You are not a trained theologian and perhaps don't understand the depth of what you are getting yourself involved in. The fact of the matter is that the position of the followers of Fr. Feeney is neither taught by the Church nor is it defensible by rigorous theological argumentation. Calling implicit Baptism of Desire a "heresy" is incredibly dangerous. Therefore, I earnestly implore you to back away from St Benedict Center and content yourself with trusting in the wisdom of the eminent theologians of the Church and of the papal teaching office.
I am not a scholar nor a theologian and my reasoning is indeed very simple. I am not even able to quote saints, popes, Church fathers, and great thinkers, like you do. But these are my problems:
I can’t reconcile the words of Our Lord Jesus Christ in John 3:5 – Amen, amen I say unto thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God – with the concept of baptism of desire or of blood.
Is not the infallible teaching of the Church that these words are to be understood literally? This would exclude any possibility of salvation without being born again of water and the Holy Ghost. No matter how many quotes of saints, popes, and great thinkers I read, these cannot surpass the words of Our Lord, and therefore are not sufficient to change my view.
Why would Jesus bothered instituting the Sacrament of Baptism of Water if "Baptism of Desire" could substitute it? Christ did not give us vague and abstract notions of Baptism. His words and actions demonstrated how people need to be baptized.
As for the invisible ignorant, what would be the merit of striving day to day, to be a real Catholic, in God’s grace, to persevere in sanctifying grace, to receive our Sacraments, to enrich our understanding of the Faith, to do good words, to evangelize, to be conscious of our spiritual warfare, etc, etc. if anyone “ignorant” of our Faith can also be saved?
Again, why then would be any need at all to evangelize and convert all heretics, pagans, Jews, freemasons, etc. to the True Faith? Why then, to even, try?
As I said, God is omnipotent, not a hair moves in the universe without He willing it. Would not God, in His Infinite Omnipotence, will ensure that His elect WILL get baptized with water, just as Christ, Our Savior, instituted it?
Or that his elect come to the knowledge of the True faith and do not remain in state of ignorance?
"I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me" (Jn 14:6).
"He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters" (Mt 12:30).
The sacraments are the means through which Christ offers the grace necessary for salvation, and it is the Catholic Church that ministers those sacraments, so salvation can only come through the Church.
I recognize that I possess no authority in judging heresy. I am but a penitent sinner but I do believe the Holy Catholic Church is a VISIBLE Church and that only Catholics go to Heaven.
I humbly pray to the Holy Ghost for guidance.
Consider the Sacrament of Confession "Whose sins you shall forgive will be forgiven", how do you reconcile that with those who die without needed Confession but are given the grace of a Perfect Act of Contrition moments before death because a priest was not available to them. Do you also doubt the grace of a Perfect Act of Contrition?
-
Again, these are not my opinions but the teachings of trained and duly deputed theologians: my opinions are irrelevant.
Well, I'm glad that a couple of people on this forum believe this.
This problem is a symptom of the breakdown of authority. Catholics have forgotten how to learn their Faith. We learn first from catechisms, then we learn from our lawfully commissioned parish priests, then our diocesan bishops, then the pope.
The theologians are experts in theology who train in approved universities, obtain doctoral degrees, write a dissertation, defend it, and have their works scrutinized continuously by their peers, their religious superiors, diocesan censors, diocesan bishops, and the Holy Office.
Yes, the "expert theologians", parish priests, bishops and popes are the ones responsible for the NO as well as *all* the errors and heresies which paved the way for V2 for many decades prior to V2.
Heresies have always started from clergy, not lay people. Look at what Fr. Luther accomplished. And a majority of church members and bishops did not believe that Jesus Christ was God (Arianism), and not only defected, but waged war against the minority who did (Arius, by the way, was a bishop).
After Trent came out and defined the necessity of the sacrament for salvation, there should not have been a book or a theologian or saint to ever teach such a thing as a BOD ever again. That they resurrected the error from teachings prior to Trent does not change the error into truth.
There are many things, thankfully, that the fathers and theologians interpret for us that we would not otherwise understand, but when it comes to the mythical non-sacrament, a BOD, it is impossible to reconcile a BOD with the canons of Trent declaring the absolute necessity of the sacrament - even if an angel were to teach it.
Wow! You need to stop and reflect. You are talking like a Protestant. Pray for the grace to trust the Church again, learn to be simple like a child again.
Baptism of Desire is de fide, to deny it is heresy. You are endangering your salvation. I hope that when a pope comes again, you will submit and learn from him.
-
Hobbledehoy,
You really should accept all of Vatican II, because the late Rev. Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange's theology is the basis of it.
Jehanne,
You should really accept Vatican I because apparently you think you know more than the teaching authority of the Church, and your distorted cognitive patterns (and those of others individuals who have taken it upon themselves to promulgate a new lay magisterium) have apparently entrapped you into some sort of ecclesiological solipsism.
Who exactly are you to have such an air of authority to be passing judgment on theologians such as Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange, who had the wisdom and sanctity to which none of us here at CathInfo could ever claim to have attained? Who sent you? What office or jurisdiction do you claim to possess to enable you to police your peers and evaluate on those who are your superiors in matters of faith and morals (in this case Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange as well as all approved and duly deputed teachers of the Catholic faith) as if you are something greater than they?
The modernist theologians who were pushing the envelope pre-Vatican II were silenced by Pope Pius XII. Lagrange was NOT one of them. The comparison is unjust at best, but I suspect it is made out of Jehanne's ignorance.
On 31 January 1957, Pope Pius XII wrote a Letter (Si cuм iis) to Rev. Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange on the occasion of the eightieth anniversary of his birth. The letter, the Latin text of which appeared in the Osservatore Romano (24 February 1957), reads in part:
"Joys and sorrows should be readily and easily shared with those united to Us by bonds of benevolence and charity, for so the Apostle has commanded. We have even more compelling reasons for expressing Our congratulations or condolences to those who render illustrious service to the Catholic faith by their knowledge and abilities, and are high in Our esteem. You, beloved son, have a place among such men" [emphasis mine].
Source: The Pope Speaks: Addresses and Publication of the Holy Father (Summer 1957) v. 4, no. 1, p. 92.
-
From the fifth edition of the Tractatus de Ecclesia Christi authored by the illustrious theologian Msgr. Van Noort, as translated and revised by Rev. Frs. John J. Castelot and William R. Murphy in the third volume Msgr. Van Noort's series of Dogmatic Theology, Christ's Church, Section II, chapter ii, article 2 (Westminster, MD: The Newman Press, 1957):
(http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d89/platonic123/Texts%202/VanNoortChurch1_zpse43b938d.jpg)
(http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d89/platonic123/Texts%202/VanNoortChurch2_zps715ee3ec.jpg)
(http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d89/platonic123/Texts%202/VanNoortChurch3_zps72a3e6eb.jpg)
(http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d89/platonic123/Texts%202/VanNoortChurch4_zpsd38e0399.jpg)
(http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d89/platonic123/Texts%202/VanNoortChurch5_zps171ec830.jpg)
(http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d89/platonic123/Texts%202/VanNoortChurch6_zps91506e9f.jpg)
(http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d89/platonic123/Texts%202/VanNoortChurch7_zps1736011d.jpg)
(http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d89/platonic123/Texts%202/VanNoortChurch8_zps023f18fc.jpg)
(http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d89/platonic123/Texts%202/VanNoortChurch9_zpsf8e3304e.jpg)
(http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d89/platonic123/Texts%202/VanNoortChurch10_zpsde397b02.jpg)
(http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d89/platonic123/Texts%202/VanNoortChurch11_zps92132266.jpg)
(http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d89/platonic123/Texts%202/VanNoortChurch12_zps31303500.jpg)
(http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d89/platonic123/Texts%202/VanNoortChurch13_zps14f41081.jpg)
(http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d89/platonic123/Texts%202/VanNoortChurch14_zpsb7bb5707.jpg)
(http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d89/platonic123/Texts%202/VanNoortChurch15_zpsbec8b429.jpg)
-
Consider the Sacrament of Confession "Whose sins you shall forgive will be forgiven", how do you reconcile that with those who die without needed Confession but are given the grace of a Perfect Act of Contrition moments before death because a priest was not available to them. Do you also doubt the grace of a Perfect Act of Contrition?
Those who die without needed confession? Whatever.
Do you not know that the Church teaches that for contrition have the same effect as the sacrament of Penance (not the sacrament of baptism), that the contrition must be so intense, so ardent, so vehement, as to bear a proportion to the magnitude of the crimes which it effaces?
From Trent's Catechism:
Contrition, it is true, blots out sin; but who does not know that to effect this it must be so intense, so ardent, so vehement, as to bear a proportion to the magnitude of the crimes which it effaces? This is a degree of contrition which few reach; and hence, in this way, very few indeed could hope to obtain the pardon of their sins. It, therefore, became necessary that the most merciful Lord should provide by some easier means for the common salvation of men; and this He has done in His admirable wisdom, by giving to His Church the keys of the kingdom of heaven.
According to the doctrine of the Catholic Church, a doctrine firmly to be believed and constantly professed by all, if the sinner have a sincere sorrow for his sins and a firm resolution of avoiding them in future, although he bring not with him that contrition which *may* be sufficient of itself to obtain pardon, all his sins are forgiven and remitted through the power of the keys, when he confesses them properly to the priest. Justly, then, do those most holy men, our Fathers, proclaim that by the keys of the Church the gate of heaven is thrown open, a truth which no one can doubt since the Council of Florence has decreed that the effect of Penance is absolution from sin.
-
Wow! You need to stop and reflect. You are talking like a Protestant. Pray for the grace to trust the Church again, learn to be simple like a child again.
Baptism of Desire is de fide, to deny it is heresy. You are endangering your salvation. I hope that when a pope comes again, you will submit and learn from him.
Myrna'M's scanned an old catechism snip on a BOD:
An adult who for some reason or other cannot be baptized, can never the less, by an act of perfect love of God or perfect contrition, gain sanctifying grace and save his soul.
You call this above snip de fide? Is that what you think? Is that what all BODers here think is de fide?
Go ahead and reconcile Trent's below Canon, which is certainly de fide, with a BOD - if you need an interpreter please say so:
CANON II.-If any one saith, that true and natural water is not of necessity for baptism, and, on that account, wrests, to some sort of metaphor, those words of our Lord Jesus Christ; Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost; let him be anathema.
CANON V.-If any one saith, that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema.
-
From Rev. Fr. Tanquerey's A Manual of Dogmatic Theology Part I, tract iii, chapter 3 (Vol. 1; trans. Rt. Rev. Msgr. John J. Byrnes; New York: Desclee Company, 1959):
(http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d89/platonic123/Texts%202/ExtraEcclesia1_zpsd3e04f94.jpg)
(http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d89/platonic123/Texts%202/ExtraEcclesia2_zpsf1193584.jpg)
(http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d89/platonic123/Texts%202/ExtraEcclesia3_zps813d598a.jpg)
-
From Rev. Fr. Tanquerey's A Manual of Dogmatic Theology Part II, tract xiii, chapter 5 (Vol. 2; trans. Rt. Rev. Msgr. John J. Byrnes; New York: Desclee Company, 1959):
(http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d89/platonic123/Texts%202/BaptismSupplied1_zpsec9df851.jpg)
(http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d89/platonic123/Texts%202/BaptismSupplied2_zps4451c68d.jpg)
(http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d89/platonic123/Texts%202/BaptismSupplied3_zpsb3fb4ea8.jpg)
-
(http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d89/platonic123/SsPeterandPaul_zps2be1e96c.jpg)
From The Pope Speaks: Addresses and Publications of the Holy Father (2nd Qtr. 1957) v. 1, no. 2, pp. 153-60, here are the reasons why I am compelled by the dictates of faith and right reason to follow those whom Holy Mother Church has canonically trained and duly deputed with the mission of preaching and teaching; rejecting the noxious errors and innovations of those who have neither training, mission, office or jurisdiction, and therefore cannot claim to authoritatively represent the teachings of the Church and can never bind the consciences of the faithful to their conceits.
(http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d89/platonic123/Texts%202/TeachingAuthority1_zps9d6ee1c0.jpg)
(http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d89/platonic123/Texts%202/TeachingAuthority2_zps0703bfea.jpg)
(http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d89/platonic123/Texts%202/TeachingAuthority3_zps0218fdb5.jpg)
(http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d89/platonic123/Texts%202/TeachingAuthority4_zps7d99b723.jpg)
(http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d89/platonic123/Texts%202/TeachingAuthority5_zps156ae0f0.jpg)
(http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d89/platonic123/Texts%202/TeachingAuthority6_zps27691516.jpg)
(http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d89/platonic123/Texts%202/TeachingAuthority7_zps5ae4ac42.jpg)
(http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d89/platonic123/Texts%202/TeachingAuthority8_zpsb8f1e2b7.jpg)
-
From Rev. Fr. Tanquerey's A Manual of Dogmatic Theology Part I, tract iii, chapter 3 (Vol. 1; trans. Rt. Rev. Msgr. John J. Byrnes; New York: Desclee Company, 1959):
(http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d89/platonic123/Texts%202/ExtraEcclesia1_zpsd3e04f94.jpg)
It starts out:
1) Outside the Church there is no salvation.
2) Logically it follows, Outside the Church there is no salvation.
3) The need to be a member of the Church is only hypothetical.
4) #242 explains the dogma by explaining it away - ignorance saves provided the person has perfect contrition (Trent's catechism teaches this is near impossible to achieve) and has faith (which faith?) and charity (charity to whom?)
It is right there, plainly stated. Ignorance of the true religion saves - which directly contradicts Pope Pius IX's Syllabus of Errors - #17 below.
I treid to explain it enough for you to see - but if you cannot see the obvious error, the typical modernist methodology of adulterating dogma hence the faith, then I do not know what to tell you.
For example, footnote #2 is a blatant misquote of Pope Pius IX. It should read:
Here, too, our beloved sons and venerable brothers, it is again necessary to mention and censure a very grave error entrapping some Catholics who believe that it is possible to arrive at eternal salvation although living in error and alienated from the true faith and Catholic unity. Such belief is certainly opposed to Catholic teaching.
It then continues:
There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance **about our most holy religion**. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments.
Also well known is the Catholic teaching that no one can be saved outside the Catholic Church. Eternal salvation cannot be obtained by those who oppose the authority and statements of the same Church and are stubbornly separated from the unity of the Church and also from the successor of Peter, the Roman Pontiff, to whom "the custody of the vineyard has been committed by the Savior.
To underscore this teaching, a reference is given to the Syllabus of Errors, issued by the same Pope, December 8, 1864. We quote the condemned propositions referred to: (Though expressed positively, the reader must keep in mind that each of these positions is anathematized.)
15. Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall come to consider as true.
16. Men can find the way of eternal salvation and reach eternal salvation in any form of religious worship.
17. Good hopes at least must be entertained of the eternal salvation of all those who in no way belong to the True Church of Christ.
18. Protestantlsm is nothing else than a different form of the same True Christian Religion and in it one can be pleasing to God as in the Catholic Church.
So what are you going to believe, Rev. Fr. Tanquerey's A Manual of Dogmatic Theology(?) or Pope Pius IX's clear teachings? One of them is wrong.
-
From the fifth edition of the Tractatus de Ecclesia Christi authored by the illustrious theologian Msgr. Van Noort, as translated and revised by Rev. Frs. John J. Castelot and William R. Murphy in the third volume Msgr. Van Noort's series of Dogmatic Theology, Christ's Church, Section II, chapter ii, article 2 (Westminster, MD: The Newman Press, 1957):
A 1957 theological manual? Anyhow, it is a mess of conjecture and speculation. I challenge some BODer to explain what it says. In the end all of you will end up believing "who knows who is lost outside of the Church?", which is what all of you really believe, because you do not understand anything this person is saying and that he is opposed in his speculation on Invincible ignorance by ALL the Fathers, Doctors, Saints, Athansian Creed, Ethe Dogmas on EENS and baptism, St. Thomas and St. Alphonsus Ligouri.
Here's just one line from this book versus Pius X.
From the bottom of page 265
finally, since no man can presume to set the boundaries of invincible ignorance…. No man can declare peremptorily that this or that person who died apparently outside of the Church is saved or damned.
The Sacred Congregation of the Propagation of the Faith, under St. 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”.
Athanasian Creed
1. Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic faith;
2. Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. 44. This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully he cannot be saved.
-
Wow! You need to stop and reflect. You are talking like a Protestant. Pray for the grace to trust the Church again, learn to be simple like a child again.
Baptism of Desire is de fide, to deny it is heresy. You are endangering your salvation. I hope that when a pope comes again, you will submit and learn from him.
Myrna'M's scanned an old catechism snip on a BOD:
An adult who for some reason or other cannot be baptized, can never the less, by an act of perfect love of God or perfect contrition, gain sanctifying grace and save his soul.
You call this above snip de fide? Is that what you think? Is that what all BODers here think is de fide?
Go ahead and reconcile Trent's below Canon, which is certainly de fide, with a BOD - if you need an interpreter please say so:
CANON II.-If any one saith, that true and natural water is not of necessity for baptism, and, on that account, wrests, to some sort of metaphor, those words of our Lord Jesus Christ; Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost; let him be anathema.
CANON V.-If any one saith, that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema.
Myrna, Hobbledehoy, SJB and others are witnessing to you on a matter of Faith by providing you with approved catholic sources. You ignore them at your peril.
Baptism of Desire was taught in Trent, it is de fide. To deny it is to profess heresy. Read St. Alphonsus on this: http://www.sedevacantist.com/baptism.html
-
Anyhow, it is a mess of conjecture and speculation.
Indeed, but I doubt we would agree whose mess it really is.
Please refer to my post from the Pope Speaks: Addresses and Publications of the Holy Father (2nd Qtr. 1954*) v. 1, no. 2, pp. 153-60.
-------------
* In the above-mentioned post I wrote the year as 1957, it should have been written 1954, as I did in this post. I apologize for that.
-
Wow! You need to stop and reflect. You are talking like a Protestant. Pray for the grace to trust the Church again, learn to be simple like a child again.
Baptism of Desire is de fide, to deny it is heresy. You are endangering your salvation. I hope that when a pope comes again, you will submit and learn from him.
Myrna'M's scanned an old catechism snip on a BOD:
An adult who for some reason or other cannot be baptized, can never the less, by an act of perfect love of God or perfect contrition, gain sanctifying grace and save his soul.
You call this above snip de fide? Is that what you think? Is that what all BODers here think is de fide?
Go ahead and reconcile Trent's below Canon, which is certainly de fide, with a BOD - if you need an interpreter please say so:
CANON II.-If any one saith, that true and natural water is not of necessity for baptism, and, on that account, wrests, to some sort of metaphor, those words of our Lord Jesus Christ; Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost; let him be anathema.
CANON V.-If any one saith, that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema.
Myrna, Hobbledehoy, SJB and others are witnessing to you on a matter of Faith by providing you with approved catholic sources. You ignore them at your peril.
Baptism of Desire was taught in Trent, it is de fide. To deny it is to profess heresy. Read St. Alphonsus on this: http://www.sedevacantist.com/baptism.html
You Ambrose, Myrna, Hobbledehoy, and SJB are ignorant as to what those manuals say. Those manuals in their NOVEL belief in salvation for the invincible ignorant by implicit faith in a God that rewards, is opposed to ALL the Fathers, Doctors, and Saints, including St. Thomas and St. Alphonsus Ligouri, and also the Athanasian Creed. However, none of you know enough to realize it. I doubt any of you even know what I am talking about. You should consult Nishant and he will explain it to you.
Here it is again in short:
Bowler said: St. Thomas and the Thomists taught that the supernatural truths of the faith which must be known for salvation are the belief in the Incarnation and the Holy Trinity. While these theological manuals from the 20th century are teaching that the supernatural truths of the faith which are necessary for salvation "are at least the belief that God is, and is a rewarder". That is, they teach that an unbaptized person can be saved although they have no explicit desire to be a Catholic, nor belief in the Incarnation and the Trinity.
In that teaching, those manuals are opposed by ALL the Fathers, Saints, Doctiors and the Athansaina Creed.
St. Thomas Aquinas, De Veritate, 14, A. 11, ad 1: Objection "It is possible that someone may be brought up in the forest, or among wolves; such a man cannot explicitly know anything about the faith. St. Thomas replies It is the characteristic of Divine Providence to provide every man with what is necessary for salvation... provided on his part there is no hindrance. In the case of a man who seeks good and shuns evil, by the leading of natural reason, God would either reveal to him through internal inspiration what had to be believed, or would send some preacher of the faith to him...”(Fr. Rulleau, Baptism of Desire pg 55-56)
St. Thomas Aquinas, Sent. 11, 28, Q. 1, A. 4, ad 4: "If a man born among barbarian nations, does what he can, God Himself will show him what is necessary for salvation, either by inspiration or sending a teacher to him."(Idem. pg 55)
St. Thomas Aquinas, Sent. 111, 25, Q. 2, A. 2, solute. 2: "If a man should have no one to instruct him, God will show him, unless he culpably wishes to remain where he is."(Idem pg 55)
St. Thomas, Summa Theologica: "After grace had been revealed both the learned and simple folk are bound to explicit faith in the mysteries of Christ chiefly as regards those which are observed throughout the Church, and publicly proclaimed, such as the articles which refer to the Incarnation, of which we have spoken above."(Pt.II-II, Q.2, A.7.)
Saint Thomas, Summa Theologica: "And consequently, when once grace had been revealed, all were bound to explicit faith in the mystery of the Trinity." (Pt.II-II, Q.2, A.8.)
-
Bowler wrote
You Ambrose, Myrna, Hobbledehoy, SJB are ignorant as to what those manuals say. Those manuals in their belief in salvation for the invincible ignorant by implicit faith in a God that rewards, is opposed to ALL tthe Fathers, Doctors, and Saints, including St. Thomas and St. alphonsus Ligouri, and also the Athanasian Creed. However, none of you know enough to realize it. I doubt any of you even know what I am talking about. Yiou should consult Nishant and he will explain it to you.
I am not ignorant on these manuals. I respect Nishant, he understands this issue very well.
The magisterium has never explicitly defined the exact minimum a man must have to make an act of Faith. That is a fact which you ignore. Some theologians extended this minimum to only an explicit belief in the one God who is a rewarded and punisher, accompanied by an implicit desire to accept the rest of the Faith.
St. Thomas taught that the minimum required also included a belief in the Trinity and the Incarnation.
The Holy See has allowed theologians to explain the minimum standard of Faith as I mentioned above. This toleration by the Holy See means that it is permitted to be discussed and published among theologians.
Explicit Baptism of Desire as taught by Trent is de fide, and any denial of that is heretical.
I hope this clarifies.
-
You Ambrose, Myrna, Hobbledehoy, SJB are ignorant as to what those manuals say. Those manuals in their belief in salvation for the invincible ignorant by implicit faith in a God that rewards, is opposed to ALL tthe Fathers, Doctors, and Saints, including St. Thomas and St. alphonsus Ligouri, and also the Athanasian Creed. However, none of you know enough to realize it. I doubt any of you even know what I am talking about. Yiou should consult Nishant and he will explain it to you.
You should assume less than you do. It makes discussing these matters with you very difficult. The point about St Thomas's position on supernatural truths having to be explicitly believed in order for one to obtain the graces of Baptism of Desire is well taken, but you also misunderstand Fr Garrigou-Lagrange's point, which takes this into account and simply holds otherwise. Implicit faith seems to be based on the the idea that the man of good will who is invincibly ignorant is moved to fulfill the natural law in charity towards his Creator by actual graces. Now, the natural law is not supernatural by definition, but the actual graces that prompt a man to fulfill God's law as revealed in the natural law (which is, note well, sustained and created by God's Reason as a theonomic principle that is appreciated by all and binds all) are supernatural. Thus, the position of implicit faith does still maintain that there is a cooperation with the supernatural and that there is no "earning of Heaven," in the Pelagian or semi-Pelagian sense. Cooperation with actual graces with perfect charity then leads, by necessity, to the reward of habitual grace, the possession of which is sufficient for salvation. Such men are united to the Church by charity. Therefore, God still saves them, they are saved through union with the Church, and there is no transgression against the dogmatic formula of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
This precise formulation of the Church's moral theology seems to have been developed against the Jansenists and others who denied the goodness of Creation and of man's ability to consider it fruitfully with his speculative intellect.
Now, the problem would seem to be that St Thomas and others hold that one must believe in the Trinity and the Incarnation, strictly supernatural truths that cannot be accessed by the application of reason to nature. This would seem to safeguard the gratuity of grace and the christocentric and ecclesial nature of eternal life, which otherwise would seem to be, as it were, subject to the natural deeds of men who have not been regenerated by the sacramental grace of baptism. The problem for your position is that implicit faith is taught by St Alphonsus and the Holy Office. I don't see how one can get around the Holy Office decree logically. There does not seem to be any room for one to deny implicit faith after that decree was published. In any case, that decree is building on the earlier moral theology that began with Suarez, de Lugo, St Alphonsus, and other Jesuit-affiliated or anti-Jansenist theologians and orders. The fact of the matter is that nature is created by God and is a means by which man can know that God exists and that He is a rewarder. At least Garrigou-Lagrange seems to teach that the fulfillment of the natural law (which is, in a certain sense, a divine law, as it was authored and is sustained by God) is prompted by actual graces and the inspirations of the Holy Ghost. You might dispute him on that point, but let it be known that there is a mountain of argument that can be unleashed against you and that you are straying from the mind of the Church as revealed by the Jansenist controversy and the decree of the Holy Office regarding the Boston controversy.
-
As for implicit faith as formulated by orthodox theologians being sentimental theology and Garrigou-Lagrange's position being similar to the system of the evil Karl Rahner, both of these statements are ridiculous. The probability of making a perfect act of charity in cooperation with actual graces and of not committing mortal sin in an infidel or heretical setting is incredibly low. It seems that Baptism of Desire must be at least as rare as Catholics being saved without confession on account of perfect acts of contrition, if not rarer.
The theology of Karl Rahner locates grace in nature itself; Rahner doubts the very possibility of a human nature without grace (natura pura). Man's nature, now endowed itself with grace (according to Rahner), makes it so that men are all related to God by a "supernatural existential," i.e., God revealing Himself in man's nature and experience. Nature itself is redeemed utterly in a sort of baptism and sanctification, it first having been depraved, apparently, by the Fall (as the Jansenists and Protestants hold). For Rahner, then, all people are saved, since grace is now part of the fabric of the "natural" universe. To suppose that the indefatigable opponent of this school of theology, Fr Garrigou-Lagrange, who maintained natura pura against its many attackers, would believe in something so absurd and detestable as the doctrine of universal salvation is to defame the man. Garrigou-Lagrange was one of the principal authors of Humani Generis, Pius XII's encyclical condemning the nouvelle théologie/neo-Modernism. He understood neo-Modernism and Jansenism far better than you do and was one of the great champions in the fight against them.
-
Bowler wrote
You Ambrose, Myrna, Hobbledehoy, SJB are ignorant as to what those manuals say. Those manuals in their belief in salvation for the invincible ignorant by implicit faith in a God that rewards, is opposed to ALL tthe Fathers, Doctors, and Saints, including St. Thomas and St. alphonsus Ligouri, and also the Athanasian Creed. However, none of you know enough to realize it. I doubt any of you even know what I am talking about. Yiou should consult Nishant and he will explain it to you.
I am not ignorant on these manuals. I respect Nishant, he understands this issue very well.
The magisterium has never explicitly defined the exact minimum a man must have to make an act of Faith. That is a fact which you ignore. Some theologians extended this minimum to only an explicit belief in the one God who is a rewarded and punisher, accompanied by an implicit desire to accept the rest of the Faith.
St. Thomas taught that the minimum required also included a belief in the Trinity and the Incarnation.
The Holy See has allowed theologians to explain the minimum standard of Faith as I mentioned above. This toleration by the Holy See means that it is permitted to be discussed and published among theologians.
Explicit Baptism of Desire as taught by Trent is de fide, and any denial of that is heretical.
I hope this clarifies.
Here is your explicit teaching of Trent on the "Desire for Baptism":
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.
Catechism from Trent explains OR THE DESIRE THEREOF: (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/romancat.html)
Dispositions for baptism
Intention
The faithful are also to be instructed in the necessary dispositions for Baptism. In the first place they must desire and intend to receive it; for as in Baptism we all die to sin and resolve to live a new life, it is fit that it be administered to those only who receive it of their own free will and accord; it is to be forced upon none. Hence we learn from holy tradition that it has been the invariable practice to administer Baptism to no individual without previously asking him if he be willing to receive it. This disposition even infants are presumed to have, since the will of the Church, which promises for them, cannot be mistaken.
Can you see it now?
-
Intention
The faithful are also to be instructed in the necessary dispositions for Baptism. In the first place they must desire and intend to receive it; for as in Baptism we all die to sin and resolve to live a new life, it is fit that it be administered to those only who receive it of their own free will and accord; it is to be forced upon none. Hence we learn from holy tradition that it has been the invariable practice to administer Baptism to no individual without previously asking him if he be willing to receive it. This disposition even infants are presumed to have, since the will of the Church, which promises for them, cannot be mistaken.
Can you see it now?
This is neither definitive nor immediately pertinent. Saint Alphonsus says that the clause "or the desire thereof" refers to Baptism of Desire. You will forgive the rest of us if we admit the theological opinions of the Doctor of Moral Theology and other respected theologians their due weight.
-
The problem for your position is that implicit faith is taught by St Alphonsus and the Holy Office.
Saint Alphonsus did not teach implicit faith, as I have already posted:
Still we answer the Semipelagians, and say, that infidels who arrive at the use of reason, and are not converted to the Faith, cannot be excused, because though they do not receive sufficient proximate grace, still they are not deprived of remote grace, as a means of becoming converted. But what is this remote grace? St. Thomas explains it, when he says, that if anyone was brought up in the wilds, or even among brute beasts, and if he followed the law of natural reason, to desire what is good, and to avoid what is wicked, we should certainly believe either that God, by an internal inspiration, would reveal to him what he should believe, or would send someone to preach the Faith to him, as he sent Peter to Cornelius. Thus, then, according to the Angelic Doctor [St. Thomas], God, at least remotely, gives to infidels, who have the use of reason, sufficient grace to obtain salvation, and this grace consists in a certain instruction of the mind, and in a movement of the will, to observe the natural law; and if the infidel cooperates with this movement, observing the precepts of the law of nature, and abstaining from grievous sins, he will certainly receive, through the merits of Jesus Christ, the grace proximately sufficient to embrace the Faith, and save his soul. (St. Alphonsus, The History of Heresies, Refutation 6, #11, p. 457)
-
It's amazing that I could get a "thumbs down" simply from quoting a Doctor of the Church!
-
Bowler wrote
You Ambrose, Myrna, Hobbledehoy, SJB are ignorant as to what those manuals say. Those manuals in their belief in salvation for the invincible ignorant by implicit faith in a God that rewards, is opposed to ALL tthe Fathers, Doctors, and Saints, including St. Thomas and St. alphonsus Ligouri, and also the Athanasian Creed. However, none of you know enough to realize it. I doubt any of you even know what I am talking about. Yiou should consult Nishant and he will explain it to you.
I am not ignorant on these manuals. I respect Nishant, he understands this issue very well.
The magisterium has never explicitly defined the exact minimum a man must have to make an act of Faith. That is a fact which you ignore. Some theologians extended this minimum to only an explicit belief in the one God who is a rewarded and punisher, accompanied by an implicit desire to accept the rest of the Faith.
St. Thomas taught that the minimum required also included a belief in the Trinity and the Incarnation.
The Holy See has allowed theologians to explain the minimum standard of Faith as I mentioned above. This toleration by the Holy See means that it is permitted to be discussed and published among theologians.
I'm glad that you understand, now your belief that "only an explicit belief in the one God who is a rewarded and punisher" is opposed to ALL the Fathers, Doctors, Saints and the Athansian Creed. In other words you are opposed by ALL of tradition, you have not a leg to stand on.
-
Now, the problem would seem to be that St Thomas and others hold that one must believe in the Trinity and the Incarnation, ... The problem for your position is that implicit faith is taught by St Alphonsus and the Holy Office. I don't see how one can get around the Holy Office decree logically. There does not seem to be any room for one to deny implicit faith after that decree was published.
If you can prove that St. Alphonsus taught that one can be saved without explicit belief in the Trinity and the Incarnation, you would have one saint on your side, ONE. Except you can't, for he taught what he got from St. Thomas Aquinas.
That leaves you with only the 1949 letter with no AAS number, versus, St. Thomas and ALL the Fathers, Doctors, Saints, and the Athanasian Creed (which says that one must explicitly believe in the Trinity and the Incarnation to be saved)
-
Bowler wrote
You Ambrose, Myrna, Hobbledehoy, SJB are ignorant as to what those manuals say. Those manuals in their belief in salvation for the invincible ignorant by implicit faith in a God that rewards, is opposed to ALL tthe Fathers, Doctors, and Saints, including St. Thomas and St. alphonsus Ligouri, and also the Athanasian Creed. However, none of you know enough to realize it. I doubt any of you even know what I am talking about. Yiou should consult Nishant and he will explain it to you.
I am not ignorant on these manuals. I respect Nishant, he understands this issue very well.
The magisterium has never explicitly defined the exact minimum a man must have to make an act of Faith. That is a fact which you ignore. Some theologians extended this minimum to only an explicit belief in the one God who is a rewarded and punisher, accompanied by an implicit desire to accept the rest of the Faith.
St. Thomas taught that the minimum required also included a belief in the Trinity and the Incarnation.
The Holy See has allowed theologians to explain the minimum standard of Faith as I mentioned above. This toleration by the Holy See means that it is permitted to be discussed and published among theologians.
I'm glad that you understand. Now, do you also understand that your belief that all that is required for salvation is "only an explicit belief in the one God who is a rewarded and punisher", is opposed to ALL the Fathers, Doctors, Saints and the Athansian Creed? In other words you are opposed by ALL of tradition, you have not a leg to stand on.
-
The Holy Office Letter never discussed the issue of implicit faith in the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ or the Blessed Trinity, nor did it ever mention at all sacramental Baptism.
-
The Holy Office Letter never discussed the issue of implicit faith in the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ or the Blessed Trinity, nor did it ever mention at all sacramental Baptism.
It mentions the matter under dispute, which is Baptism of Desire and the claims of St. Benedict Center. Don't be difficult. Here is a pertinent excerpt :
"'However, it is not always necessary that this hope be explicit as in the case of catechumens. When one is in a state of invincible ignorance, God accepts an implicit desire, thus called because it is implicit in the soul's good disposition, whereby it desires to conform its will to the will of God.'
These things are clearly expressed in the dogmatic letter published by the Sovereign Pontiff Pius XII 29 June 1943 "on the mystical Body of Jesus Christ" (A.A.S., vol. XXXV, 1943, p. 193 and sq.). In this Letter, the Sovereign Pontiff clearly distinguishes between those who are presently incorporated into the Church as members and those who are united with her through desire only.
Speaking of the members who form here below the mystical Body, the same august Pontiff said: Only those are members of the Church who have received the Baptism of regeneration and profess the true faith and who are not, to their misfortune, separated from the Body as a whole or cut off from her through very grave faults by the legitimate authority.
Towards the end of the same Encyclical, he affectionately invites those who do not belong to the body of the Catholic Church to enter into her unity, and he mentions those who "by a certain desire and unconscious longing have a certain relationship with the Mystical Body of the Redeemer". He does not in any way exclude them from eternal salvation, but he goes on to affirm that they are in a state "in which they cannot be sure of their eternal salvation" and that "they still remain deprived of those many heavenly gifts and helps which can only be enjoyed in the Catholic Church".
With these words, the Pope condemns those who exclude from eternal salvation men who are united to the Church only through implicit desire as well as those who wrongly affirm that all men can be saved equally in all religions (cf. Pope Pius IX, Singulari quadam, Denz. 1641 and sq.; Pius XI, Quanto conficiamur moerore, Denz. 1677).
However, it should not be thought that any sort of desire to enter the Church is sufficient for salvation. The desire whereby a person adheres to the Church must be animated by perfect charity. Nor can such an implicit desire produce its effect if it is not animated by supernatural faith, for anyone who comes to God must believe that He exists and rewards those who seek Him. (Heb XI, 6). The Council of Trent declares (session VI. ch. VIII): Faith is the principle of man's salvation, the foundation and the root of all justification. Without it, it is impossible to please God and to be counted among his children. (Denz., 801)"
The Holy Office letter concludes :
"Those therefore who expose themselves to the grave danger of opposing the Church must seriously reflect that once "Rome has spoken", they cannot carry on regardless, even for reasons of good faith. Their bond with the Church and their duty of obedience are certainly stricter than for those who adhere to her "only through an unconscious desire". Let them understand, therefore, that they are children of the Church, affectionately sustained by her with the milk of doctrine and sacraments, and that, after having heard the voice of their Mother, they cannot then be excused of culpable ignorance. Let them understand that to them the following principle applies without restriction: Submission to the Catholic Church and to the Sovereign Pontiff is necessary for salvation."
-
It's amazing that I could get a "thumbs down" simply from quoting a Doctor of the Church!
I down-thumbed you for proof-texting with quotations from the Doctors of the Church rather than obeying the mind of the Church as taught by her lawfully deputed authorities. The schismatic Eastern Orthodox, Jansenists, and Protestants do the same thing. The Church teaches that it is not the proper disposition for the Catholic faithful to have in relation to ecclesiastical authority. You can understand how it would also destroy the entire Church if the Church could be said to have taught error or heresy in an official capacity, which is what your position implies. Either that or you have to pretend that the Popes did not teach it and/or that the Popes since Pius IX were Antipopes, despite the fact that the moral consensus of all approved Catholic theologians during the relevant time period is against you.
Anyway, here is what Saint Alphonsus, the Doctor of Moral Theology, teaches. Perhaps you did not catch this excerpt which was linked on this very thread by Ambrose :
Extract from St Alphonsus Liguori: Moral Theology, Bk. 6, nn. 95-7.
Concerning Baptism
Baptism, therefore, coming from a Greek word that means ablution or immersion in water, is distinguished into Baptism of water ["fluminis"], of desire ["flaminis" = wind] and of blood.
We shall speak below of Baptism of water, which was very probably instituted before the passion of Christ the Lord, when Christ was baptised by John. But 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 pres.bytero non baptizato" and of the Council of Trent, session 6, Chapter 4 where it is said that no one can be saved "without the laver of regeneration or the desire for it".
http://www.sedevacantist.com/baptism.html
-
Intention
The faithful are also to be instructed in the necessary dispositions for Baptism. In the first place they must desire and intend to receive it; for as in Baptism we all die to sin and resolve to live a new life, it is fit that it be administered to those only who receive it of their own free will and accord; it is to be forced upon none. Hence we learn from holy tradition that it has been the invariable practice to administer Baptism to no individual without previously asking him if he be willing to receive it. This disposition even infants are presumed to have, since the will of the Church, which promises for them, cannot be mistaken.
Can you see it now?
This is neither definitive nor immediately pertinent. Saint Alphonsus says that the clause "or the desire thereof" refers to Baptism of Desire. You will forgive the rest of us if we admit the theological opinions of the Doctor of Moral Theology and other respected theologians their due weight.
St. Alphonsus does not hold authority over the Council of Trent and why in heaven's name should anyone forgive the rest of you BODers for purposely rejecting explicit de fide teachings which have been posted right in front of your faces from the Council of Trent and the explicit explanation it's catechism teaches which only further clarifies the teaching as long as you keep rejecting the de fide teaching?
This, from V1 came after St. Alphonsus: Hence, too,that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by holy mother church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding.
So, as Trent teaches, why not stop wresting the words of Our Lord, and why not stop changing the meaning of the sacred dogmas under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding already?
-
St. Alphonsus does not hold authority over the Council of Trent...
Saint Alphonsus is interpreting Trent, as you well know, and the Holy Office makes explicit reference to the same Council in its official statement on the matter. The Council of Trent is not your friend here : "...or the desire thereof..."
...and why in heaven's name should anyone forgive the rest of you BODers for purposely rejecting explicit de fide teachings which have been posted right in front of your faces from the Council of Trent and the explicit explanation it's catechism teaches which only further clarifies the teaching as long as you keep rejecting the de fide teaching?
This, from V1 came after St. Alphonsus: Hence, too,that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by holy mother church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding.
So, as Trent teaches, why not stop wresting the words of Our Lord, and why not stop changing the meaning of the sacred dogmas under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding already?
Your entire post is logically fallacious, since you are begging the question. What is the meaning of the sacred dogma in question that is ever to be maintained as has once been declared by the Church and must not be abandoned in the name of a more profound understanding ? Is it the Feeneyite position, which is held by virtually nobody and certainly has not been held by any approved Catholic theologian in good standing, a position that is contrary to the explanations of the dogma provided by the Popes, or is it the teaching provided by the Holy Office and papal statements that enjoy the support of all of the approved theologians during the relevant time period ?
You assume that your interpretation is incorrect before the matter is even investigated and the proper authorities' interpretation duly consulted. There is no progress that can be made against such a posture. Heads you win, tails I lose. Why does the Church even have theologians and the Holy Office when we could all just ask you what the Church teaches and not waste so much time formulating and developing a systematic metaphysics, ethics, and cosmology to inform doctrinal articulation ? Apparently you know better than they do.
You say, "But it's a clear contradiction !" It isn't, because the necessity of belonging to the unity of the Church through belief and intention and the necessity of receiving the graces of Baptism are still unanimously held to be required by the authorities I have cited. Appeals to Cantate Domino and similar statements are therefore beside the point, hinging on a supposed conflict that simply is not there.
-
The Holy Office Letter never discussed the issue of implicit faith in the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ or the Blessed Trinity, nor did it ever mention at all sacramental Baptism.
It mentions the matter under dispute, which is Baptism of Desire and the claims of St. Benedict Center. Don't be difficult. Here is a pertinent excerpt :
"'However, it is not always necessary that this hope be explicit as in the case of catechumens. When one is in a state of invincible ignorance, God accepts an implicit desire, thus called because it is implicit in the soul's good disposition, whereby it desires to conform its will to the will of God.'
These things are clearly expressed in the dogmatic letter published by the Sovereign Pontiff Pius XII 29 June 1943 "on the mystical Body of Jesus Christ" (A.A.S., vol. XXXV, 1943, p. 193 and sq.). In this Letter, the Sovereign Pontiff clearly distinguishes between those who are presently incorporated into the Church as members and those who are united with her through desire only.
Speaking of the members who form here below the mystical Body, the same august Pontiff said: Only those are members of the Church who have received the Baptism of regeneration and profess the true faith and who are not, to their misfortune, separated from the Body as a whole or cut off from her through very grave faults by the legitimate authority.
Towards the end of the same Encyclical, he affectionately invites those who do not belong to the body of the Catholic Church to enter into her unity, and he mentions those who "by a certain desire and unconscious longing have a certain relationship with the Mystical Body of the Redeemer". He does not in any way exclude them from eternal salvation, but he goes on to affirm that they are in a state "in which they cannot be sure of their eternal salvation" and that "they still remain deprived of those many heavenly gifts and helps which can only be enjoyed in the Catholic Church".
With these words, the Pope condemns those who exclude from eternal salvation men who are united to the Church only through implicit desire as well as those who wrongly affirm that all men can be saved equally in all religions (cf. Pope Pius IX, Singulari quadam, Denz. 1641 and sq.; Pius XI, Quanto conficiamur moerore, Denz. 1677).
However, it should not be thought that any sort of desire to enter the Church is sufficient for salvation. The desire whereby a person adheres to the Church must be animated by perfect charity. Nor can such an implicit desire produce its effect if it is not animated by supernatural faith, for anyone who comes to God must believe that He exists and rewards those who seek Him. (Heb XI, 6). The Council of Trent declares (session VI. ch. VIII): Faith is the principle of man's salvation, the foundation and the root of all justification. Without it, it is impossible to please God and to be counted among his children. (Denz., 801)"
You should use better sources - looks like you've been using the NO sources for your quotes from "on the mystical Body of Jesus Christ" - that quote you posted is no where to be found in the encyclical - look for yourself:
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/docuмents/hf_p-xii_enc_29061943_mystici-corporis-christi_en.html
Same goes for you Denzinger references - those things are not found in the encyclicals.
And your quote from Trent is flawed as well - best not to use the newer versions out there. Should say: The Council of Trent declares (session VI. ch. VIII): Faith is the principle beginning of man's salvation
-
St. Alphonsus does not hold authority over the Council of Trent...
Saint Alphonsus is interpreting Trent, as you well know, and the Holy Office makes explicit reference to the same Council in its official statement on the matter. The Council of Trent is not your friend here : "...or the desire thereof..."
It is impossible to reconcile Trent's teachings with St. Alphonsus' if you read what Trent taught. It is only possible to reconcile the two teachings if you think you can understand St. Alphonsus but not Trent.
In either case, you are faced with the reality that Trent teaches we must take the words of Our Lord literally and we cannot wrest them into some metaphor. When this is done, there is no exception anywhere for anything other than the sacrament - it is the Sacrament that saves, not the desire for it.
Your entire post is logically fallacious, since you are begging the question. What is the meaning of the sacred dogma in question that is ever to be maintained as has once been declared by the Church and must not be abandoned in the name of a more profound understanding ? Is it the Feeneyite position, which is held by virtually nobody and certainly has not been held by any approved Catholic theologian in good standing, a position that is contrary to the explanations of the dogma provided by the Popes, or is it the teaching provided by the Holy Office and papal statements that enjoy the support of all of the approved theologians during the relevant time period ?
The meaning is "as defined", "as taught", and "to be taken literally" so as not to take clear teaching that says "the sacrament is not optional" - and interpret that into meaning the sacrament is optional under the guise of a more profound understanding.
It's a Cushingite error and a Conciliarist PPVI error to change the de fide teaching which states that the desire for the sacrament prior to it's reception is necessary for adults - into the desire for the sacrament replaces the sacrament.
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.
Catechism from Trent explains OR THE DESIRE THEREOF: (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/romancat.html)
Dispositions for baptism
Intention
The faithful are also to be instructed in the necessary dispositions for Baptism. In the first place they must desire and intend to receive it; for as in Baptism we all die to sin and resolve to live a new life, it is fit that it be administered to those only who receive it of their own free will and accord; it is to be forced upon none. Hence we learn from holy tradition that it has been the invariable practice to administer Baptism to no individual without previously asking him if he be willing to receive it. This disposition even infants are presumed to have, since the will of the Church, which promises for them, cannot be mistaken.
Necessity Of Confession [Doctrine on Perfect Contrition]
Contrition, it is true, blots out sin; but who does not know that to effect this it must be so intense, so ardent, so vehement, as to bear a proportion to the magnitude of the crimes which it effaces? This is a degree of contrition which few reach; and hence, in this way, very few indeed could hope to obtain the pardon of their sins. It, therefore, became necessary that the most merciful Lord should provide by some easier means for the common salvation of men; and this He has done in His admirable wisdom, by giving to His Church the keys of the kingdom of heaven.
According to the doctrine of the Catholic Church, a doctrine firmly to be believed and constantly professed by all, if the sinner have a sincere sorrow for his sins and a firm resolution of avoiding them in future, although he bring not with him that contrition which *may* be sufficient of itself to obtain pardon, all his sins are forgiven and remitted through the power of the keys, when he confesses them properly to the priest. Justly, then, do those most holy men, our Fathers, proclaim that by the keys of the Church the gate of heaven is thrown open, a truth which no one can doubt since the Council of Florence has decreed that the effect of Penance is absolution from sin.
HOW "OR THE DESIRE THEREOF" AS DECLARED AT THE COUNCIL OF TRENT AND EXPLAINED IN IT'S CATECHISM WAS ADULTERATED INTO AND PROMULGATED AS A "BAPTISM OF DESIRE"
NOTE: Notice how easily attainable and unquestionably reliable for everyone the catechisms after Trent make Perfect Contrition out to be.
Catechism of St Pius X (1908):
17 Q. Can the absence of Baptism be supplied in any other way?
A. The absence of Baptism can be supplied by martyrdom, which is called Baptism of Blood, or by an act of perfect love of God, or of contrition, along with the desire, at least implicit, of Baptism, and this is called Baptism of Desire.
Baltimore Catechism (19th and 20th centuries):
159. Q. What is Baptism of desire?
A. Baptism of desire is an ardent wish to receive Baptism, and to do all that God has ordained for out salvation.
"Ardent wish" by one who has no opportunity of being baptized-for no one can baptize himself. He must be sorry for his sins and have the desire of receiving the Baptism of water as soon as he can; just as a person in mortal sin and without a priest to absolve him may, when in danger of death, save his soul from Hell by an act of perfect contrition and the firm resolution of going to confession as soon as possible.
Q. 653. Is Baptism of desire or of blood sufficient to produce the effects of Baptism of water? A. Baptism of desire or of blood is sufficient to produce the effects of the Baptism of water, if it is impossible to receive the Baptism of water.
Myrna'M's book on a BOD
An adult who for some reason or other cannot be baptized, can never the less, by an act of perfect love of God or perfect contrition, gain sanctifying grace and save his soul.
CCC
1259 For catechumens who die before their Baptism, their explicit desire to receive it, together with repentance for their sins, and charity, assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive through the sacrament.
-
The heresy that non-Catholics can be saved by “invincible ignorance” has culminated in our situation today, in which almost 100% of people who claim to be “Catholics” (and even “traditional Catholics”) believe that Jews, Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus, Protestants, etc. can be saved. We can thank the heretical idea of salvation for the “invincibly ignorant” for this.
Invisible ignorance turns into a destructive heresy that annihilates the necessity of the Catholic Faith all over the world.
Why then would be any need at all to evangelize and convert all heretics, pagans, Jews, freemasons, etc. to the True Faith?
Cantarella, I have liked your posts in the past and think you are a good contributor here. Therefore, let me say this : I, too, was once taken in by the propaganda of St Benedict Center. Don't believe it. You are not a trained theologian and perhaps don't understand the depth of what you are getting yourself involved in. The fact of the matter is that the position of the followers of Fr. Feeney is neither taught by the Church nor is it defensible by rigorous theological argumentation. Calling implicit Baptism of Desire a "heresy" is incredibly dangerous. Therefore, I earnestly implore you to back away from St Benedict Center and content yourself with trusting in the wisdom of the eminent theologians of the Church and of the papal teaching office.
I am not a scholar nor a theologian and my reasoning is indeed very simple. I am not even able to quote saints, popes, Church fathers, and great thinkers, like you do. But these are my problems:
I can’t reconcile the words of Our Lord Jesus Christ in John 3:5 – Amen, amen I say unto thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God – with the concept of baptism of desire or of blood.
Is not the infallible teaching of the Church that these words are to be understood literally? This would exclude any possibility of salvation without being born again of water and the Holy Ghost. No matter how many quotes of saints, popes, and great thinkers I read, these cannot surpass the words of Our Lord, and therefore are not sufficient to change my view.
Why would Jesus bothered instituting the Sacrament of Baptism of Water if "Baptism of Desire" could substitute it? Christ did not give us vague and abstract notions of Baptism. His words and actions demonstrated how people need to be baptized.
As for the invisible ignorant, what would be the merit of striving day to day, to be a real Catholic, in God’s grace, to persevere in sanctifying grace, to receive our Sacraments, to enrich our understanding of the Faith, to do good words, to evangelize, to be conscious of our spiritual warfare, etc, etc. if anyone “ignorant” of our Faith can also be saved?
Again, why then would be any need at all to evangelize and convert all heretics, pagans, Jews, freemasons, etc. to the True Faith? Why then, to even, try?
As I said, God is omnipotent, not a hair moves in the universe without He willing it. Would not God, in His Infinite Omnipotence, will ensure that His elect WILL get baptized with water, just as Christ, Our Savior, instituted it?
Or that his elect come to the knowledge of the True faith and do not remain in state of ignorance?
"I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me" (Jn 14:6).
"He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters" (Mt 12:30).
The sacraments are the means through which Christ offers the grace necessary for salvation, and it is the Catholic Church that ministers those sacraments, so salvation can only come through the Church.
I recognize that I possess no authority in judging heresy. I am but a penitent sinner but I do believe the Holy Catholic Church is a VISIBLE Church and that only Catholics go to Heaven.
I humbly pray to the Holy Ghost for guidance.
Consider the Sacrament of Confession "Whose sins you shall forgive will be forgiven", how do you reconcile that with those who die without needed Confession but are given the grace of a Perfect Act of Contrition moments before death because a priest was not available to them. Do you also doubt the grace of a Perfect Act of Contrition?
I do not deny the grace of a Perfect Act of Contrition but the Sacrament of Penance and the Sacrament of Baptism are different. You technically can go to Heaven without having Confession, given that you are not in a state of mortal sin, but Baptism of Water is the initial requirement for the reception of all the other sacraments.
-
A person in the state of mortal sin can indeed make a perfect act of Contrition if he dies before receiving Confession. But Penance is not a sacrament of salvation. It is a sacrament of justification, or re-justification for the people who have been already baptized. Baptism, on the other hand, is the sacrament of justification first and then salvation, at the end of this earthly exile, if one perseveres in a state of sanctifying grace.
There is no comparison of both Sacraments for the purpose of this topic, Myrna.
-
The Holy Office letter concludes :
"Those therefore who expose themselves to the grave danger of opposing the Church must seriously reflect that once "Rome has spoken", they cannot carry on regardless, even for reasons of good faith. Their bond with the Church and their duty of obedience are certainly stricter than for those who adhere to her "only through an unconscious desire". Let them understand, therefore, that they are children of the Church, affectionately sustained by her with the milk of doctrine and sacraments, and that, after having heard the voice of their Mother, they cannot then be excused of culpable ignorance. Let them understand that to them the following principle applies without restriction: Submission to the Catholic Church and to the Sovereign Pontiff is necessary for salvation."
Of course, if you are a sede, then the Holy Office Letter is subject to your own private interpretation, because after Vatican II, "Feeneyite" groups were reconciled to Rome without being required to accept the Holy Office Letter:
I should also mention that when the Sisters of St. Anne were trying to get their status "regularized," they were asked through Bishop Harrington by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to "understand" the "Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston." My They Fought the Good Fight was still in manuscript at the time, but it had been read approvingly by both the bishop and the sisters. I suggested they use the following "understanding" of the "Letter" in my book:
http://www.marycoredemptrix.com/laisneyism.html
I disagree with you that the Holy Office Letter defined as being ex cathedra the following:
Individuals are in Paradise who ended this life without sacramental Baptism and/or explicit faith in the Incarnation and/or Blessed Trinity.
Now, if you wish to believe that, go right ahead. I don't. In fact, I think that the Holy Office Letter contained less authority than the Holy Office's condemnation of Galileo:
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1630galileo.asp
By your standards, it is de fide that Catholics are to believe that the Earth is immovable at the center of the Universe, because, as you say, "Rome has spoken."
Of course, at some time, we just have to "agree to disagree." Fortunately, as I have already pointed out, there are written agreements between "Feeneyites" and the SSPX allowing the former to receive the Sacraments at SSPX chapels, "not be called heretics," etc., so, clearly, not every traditional Catholic accepts your POV.
This is all I have to say about this matter. Without a valid Pope (or, so say the sedes), we are left with our own private judgments. I don't accept the idea of "implicit faith" for the same reason that I do not accept the idea of "division by zero"; neither concept makes sense to me. Such has nothing whatsoever to do with "good faith" and everything, for me, to do with rational and logical thought.
-
Bowler wrote
You Ambrose, Myrna, Hobbledehoy, SJB are ignorant as to what those manuals say. Those manuals in their belief in salvation for the invincible ignorant by implicit faith in a God that rewards, is opposed to ALL tthe Fathers, Doctors, and Saints, including St. Thomas and St. alphonsus Ligouri, and also the Athanasian Creed. However, none of you know enough to realize it. I doubt any of you even know what I am talking about. Yiou should consult Nishant and he will explain it to you.
I am not ignorant on these manuals. I respect Nishant, he understands this issue very well.
The magisterium has never explicitly defined the exact minimum a man must have to make an act of Faith. That is a fact which you ignore. Some theologians extended this minimum to only an explicit belief in the one God who is a rewarded and punisher, accompanied by an implicit desire to accept the rest of the Faith.
St. Thomas taught that the minimum required also included a belief in the Trinity and the Incarnation.
The Holy See has allowed theologians to explain the minimum standard of Faith as I mentioned above. This toleration by the Holy See means that it is permitted to be discussed and published among theologians.
I'm glad that you understand, now your belief that "only an explicit belief in the one God who is a rewarded and punisher" is opposed to ALL the Fathers, Doctors, Saints and the Athansian Creed. In other words you are opposed by ALL of tradition, you have not a leg to stand on.
Bowler,
A doctrine can develop, what it cannot do is contradict what the Church has taught. The Holy See has permitted theologians to explore and publish on the minimum requirements for the act of Faith.
I readily admit that many pre-Vatican II theologians held that the minimum standard only included the belief in the one God who rewards and punishes, along with an implicit acceptance of the rest of the Faith.
The Pope is Tradition, Bowler. He cannot be ignored in all of this. If the Pope allows theologians to explore an area that does not contradict previous teaching, then it remains open for theologians to debate until the Pope answers the question authoritatively.
But, what is certain is that Baptism of Desire is de fide. The Council of Trent taught it. I do also admit that Trent was clearly teaching explicit desire, as opposed to implicit desire.
Since the Council of of Trent, it is heresy to deny Baptism of Desire.
-
Bowler wrote
You Ambrose, Myrna, Hobbledehoy, SJB are ignorant as to what those manuals say. Those manuals in their belief in salvation for the invincible ignorant by implicit faith in a God that rewards, is opposed to ALL tthe Fathers, Doctors, and Saints, including St. Thomas and St. alphonsus Ligouri, and also the Athanasian Creed. However, none of you know enough to realize it. I doubt any of you even know what I am talking about. Yiou should consult Nishant and he will explain it to you.
I am not ignorant on these manuals. I respect Nishant, he understands this issue very well.
The magisterium has never explicitly defined the exact minimum a man must have to make an act of Faith. That is a fact which you ignore. Some theologians extended this minimum to only an explicit belief in the one God who is a rewarded and punisher, accompanied by an implicit desire to accept the rest of the Faith.
St. Thomas taught that the minimum required also included a belief in the Trinity and the Incarnation.
The Holy See has allowed theologians to explain the minimum standard of Faith as I mentioned above. This toleration by the Holy See means that it is permitted to be discussed and published among theologians.
I'm glad that you understand, now your belief that "only an explicit belief in the one God who is a rewarded and punisher" is opposed to ALL the Fathers, Doctors, Saints and the Athansian Creed. In other words you are opposed by ALL of tradition, you have not a leg to stand on.
Bowler,
A doctrine can develop, what it cannot do is contradict what the Church has taught. The Holy See has permitted theologians to explore and publish on the minimum requirements for the act of Faith.
I readily admit that many pre-Vatican II theologians held that the minimum standard only included the belief in the one God who rewards and punishes, along with an implicit acceptance of the rest of the Faith.
The Pope is Tradition, Bowler. He cannot be ignored in all of this. If the Pope allows theologians to explore an area that does not contradict previous teaching, then it remains open for theologians to debate until the Pope answers the question authoritatively.
But, what is certain is that Baptism of Desire is de fide. The Council of Trent taught it. I do also admit that Trent was clearly teaching explicit desire, as opposed to implicit desire.
Since the Council of of Trent, it is heresy to deny Baptism of Desire.
It is beyond belief that you could presume to call yourself a traditionalist. You are rejecting ALL the Fathers, Doctors, Saints and the Athansian Creed, in other words you are opposed by ALL of tradition. There is no difference between you and any Novus Ordo conservative. Are you a sedevacantes???
-
Anyway, here is what Saint Alphonsus, the Doctor of Moral Theology, teaches. Perhaps you did not catch this excerpt which was linked on this very thread by Ambrose :
Extract from St Alphonsus Liguori: Moral Theology, Bk. 6, nn. 95-7.
Concerning Baptism
Baptism, therefore, coming from a Greek word that means ablution or immersion in water, is distinguished into Baptism of water ["fluminis"], of desire ["flaminis" = wind] and of blood.
We shall speak below of Baptism of water, which was very probably instituted before the passion of Christ the Lord, when Christ was baptised by John. But 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 pres.bytero non baptizato" and of the Council of Trent, session 6, Chapter 4 where it is said that no one can be saved "without the laver of regeneration or the desire for it".
http://www.sedevacantist.com/baptism.html
Your quote by St. Alphonsus proves my point that you like all of the pro-BOD posters on CI (except Nishant) do not know enough about the subject to discuss it intelligently.
I repeat below what I told you before twice and you ignore, because you do not know the subject. St. Alphonsus taught that to be saved by explicit or implicit baptism of desire one must have explicit belief in the Trinity and the Incarnation, for he taught what he got from St. Thomas Aquinas.
Now, the problem would seem to be that St Thomas and others hold that one must believe in the Trinity and the Incarnation, ... The problem for your position is that implicit faith is taught by St Alphonsus and the Holy Office. I don't see how one can get around the Holy Office decree logically. There does not seem to be any room for one to deny implicit faith after that decree was published.
If you can prove that St. Alphonsus taught that one can be saved without explicit belief in the Trinity and the Incarnation, you would have one saint on your side, ONE. Except you can't, for he taught what he got from St. Thomas Aquinas.
That leaves you with only the 1949 letter with no AAS number, versus, St. Thomas and ALL the Fathers, Doctors, Saints, and the Athanasian Creed (which says that one must explicitly believe in the Trinity and the Incarnation to be saved)
-
Your quote by St. Alphonsus proves my point that you like all of the pro-BOD posters on CI (except Nishant) do not know enough about the subject to discuss it intelligently.
I repeat below what I told you before twice and you ignore, because you do not know the subject. St. Alphonsus taught that to be saved by explicit or implicit baptism of desire one must have explicit belief in the Trinity and the Incarnation, for he taught what he got from St. Thomas Aquinas.
I understand the distinction. There is the desire for the Sacrament of Baptism itself attended with the necessity of explicit belief in supernatural truths versus a certain vague desire to follow the will of God that is not necessarily attended by belief in supernatural truths but only requires belief in naturally accessible truths about God. Baptism of desire in the formulation of SS. Thomas and Alphonsus would come from the desire for the Sacrament proper, but explicit belief in the Incarnation and Trinity are still necessary for salvation.
I have dealt with this a bit already. Garrigou-Lagrange simply does not agree and seems to hold that the desire for the laver of regeneration is implicit in an implicit faith that is truly founded on the will cooperating with actual graces and inspirations in the fulfillment of the natural law. I can also see why Garrigou-Lagrange's reliance on the anthropological accounts of Louis Massignon and others would be seen as problematic, but I think the issue is more complicated than that. The objection to this theory seems to come from a misgiving about the thought of a man being saved in the new dispensation without explicit knowledge of and belief in Our Lord. The obvious counterpoint, however, is that supernatural element is still present in Garrigou-Lagrange's formulation, since grace is what prompts the cooperation in the first place. Furthermore, God is not bound to the New Testament and can justify souls that seek Him as He pleases. It was the Logos, after all, Who created and sustains the natural law in the first place, so there is a certain relation to Christ in that.
I certainly have been and am inclined towards the formulation of SS. Thomas and Alphonsus, but I limit my personal belief and speculation according to what has been established by the Church. If the Church sees the natural law and the means by which a man is prompted to obey it as being the work of God in such a way that a soul can obtain habitual grace by cooperating with God according to the best of her ability in her circuмstances (as per Garrigou-Lagrange's formulation), then that is how the Church sees it. And I want my understanding to conform to the mind of the Church. It's that simple.
-
Your quote by St. Alphonsus proves my point that you like all of the pro-BOD posters on CI (except Nishant) do not know enough about the subject to discuss it intelligently.
I repeat below what I told you before twice and you ignore, because you do not know the subject. St. Alphonsus taught that to be saved by explicit or implicit baptism of desire one must have explicit belief in the Trinity and the Incarnation, for he taught what he got from St. Thomas Aquinas.
I understand the distinction. There is the desire for the Sacrament of Baptism itself attended with the necessity of explicit belief in supernatural truths versus a certain vague desire to follow the will of God that is not necessarily attended by belief in supernatural truths but only requires belief in naturally accessible truths about God. Baptism of desire in the formulation of SS. Thomas and Alphonsus would come from the desire for the Sacrament proper, but explicit belief in the Incarnation and Trinity are still necessary for salvation.
I have dealt with this a bit already. Garrigou-Lagrange simply does not agree and seems to hold that the desire for the laver of regeneration is implicit in an implicit faith that is truly founded on the will cooperating with actual graces and inspirations in the fulfillment of the natural law. I can also see why Garrigou-Lagrange's reliance on the anthropological accounts of Louis Massignon and others would be seen as problematic, but I think the issue is more complicated than that. The objection to this theory seems to come from a misgiving about the thought of a man being saved in the new dispensation without explicit knowledge of and belief in Our Lord. The obvious counterpoint, however, is that supernatural element is still present in Garrigou-Lagrange's formulation, since grace is what prompts the cooperation in the first place. Furthermore, God is not bound to the New Testament and can justify souls that seek Him as He pleases. It was the Logos, after all, Who created and sustains the natural law in the first place, so there is a certain relation to Christ in that.
I certainly have been and am inclined towards the formulation of SS. Thomas and Alphonsus, but I limit my personal belief and speculation according to what has been established by the Church. If the Church sees the natural law and the means by which a man is prompted to obey it as being the work of God in such a way that a soul can obtain habitual grace by cooperating with God according to the best of her ability in her circuмstances (as per Garrigou-Lagrange's formulation), then that is how the Church sees it. And I want my understanding to conform to the mind of the Church. It's that simple.
Follow the boldened "map" above. What church are you talking about, since it is opposed to ALL of the Fathers, Saints, Doctors, the Athanasian Creed, the REVELATION of John 3:5, The Council of Trent, the Catechism of Trent, all dogmas on EENS and baptism, in other words it is opposed to ALL of tradition?
All that you are left with is a letter from 1949 with no AAS number, which was not published for the public till 1952 after its writer had died, versus EVERYTHING THAT IS THE CHURCH.
-
It is beyond belief that you could presume to call yourself a traditionalist. You are rejecting ALL the Fathers, Doctors, Saints and the Athansian Creed, in other words you are opposed by ALL of tradition. There is no difference between you and any Novus Ordo conservative. Are you a sedevacantes???
I never call myself a traditionalist, I call myself Catholic. State my exact words where I reject the Fathers, Doctors, Saints and the Athanasian Creed. I can save you the trouble, your accusation is baseless and unjust.
Your Feeney world is not the same as the Catholic world.
-
It is beyond belief that you could presume to call yourself a traditionalist. You are rejecting ALL the Fathers, Doctors, Saints and the Athansian Creed, in other words you are opposed by ALL of tradition. There is no difference between you and any Novus Ordo conservative. Are you a sedevacantes???
I never call myself a traditionalist, I call myself Catholic. State my exact words where I reject the Fathers, Doctors, Saints and the Athanasian Creed. I can save you the trouble, your accusation is baseless and unjust.
Your Feeney world is not the same as the Catholic world.
I'm sorry, if you do not understand the subject matter after all that I have posted and PereJoseph has responded to, I can't help you.
-
It is beyond belief that you could presume to call yourself a traditionalist. You are rejecting ALL the Fathers, Doctors, Saints and the Athansian Creed, in other words you are opposed by ALL of tradition. There is no difference between you and any Novus Ordo conservative. Are you a sedevacantes???
I never call myself a traditionalist, I call myself Catholic. State my exact words where I reject the Fathers, Doctors, Saints and the Athanasian Creed. I can save you the trouble, your accusation is baseless and unjust.
Your Feeney world is not the same as the Catholic world.
I'm sorry, if you do not understand the subject matter after all that I have posted and PereJoseph has responded to, I can't help you.
I understand it better than you think, but you are trapped in your own mind. You live in Feeneyite bubble. There is a Catholic Church outside that bubble.
-
A person responds from his knowledge base. Study the difference in your response and PereJoseph's. A good dog is never too old to learn new tricks.
-
Your quote by St. Alphonsus proves my point that you like all of the pro-BOD posters on CI (except Nishant) do not know enough about the subject to discuss it intelligently.
I repeat below what I told you before twice and you ignore, because you do not know the subject. St. Alphonsus taught that to be saved by explicit or implicit baptism of desire one must have explicit belief in the Trinity and the Incarnation, for he taught what he got from St. Thomas Aquinas.
I understand the distinction. There is the desire for the Sacrament of Baptism itself attended with the necessity of explicit belief in supernatural truths versus a certain vague desire to follow the will of God that is not necessarily attended by belief in supernatural truths but only requires belief in naturally accessible truths about God. Baptism of desire in the formulation of SS. Thomas and Alphonsus would come from the desire for the Sacrament proper, but explicit belief in the Incarnation and Trinity are still necessary for salvation.
I have dealt with this a bit already. Garrigou-Lagrange simply does not agree and seems to hold that the desire for the laver of regeneration is implicit in an implicit faith that is truly founded on the will cooperating with actual graces and inspirations in the fulfillment of the natural law. I can also see why Garrigou-Lagrange's reliance on the anthropological accounts of Louis Massignon and others would be seen as problematic, but I think the issue is more complicated than that. The objection to this theory seems to come from a misgiving about the thought of a man being saved in the new dispensation without explicit knowledge of and belief in Our Lord. The obvious counterpoint, however, is that supernatural element is still present in Garrigou-Lagrange's formulation, since grace is what prompts the cooperation in the first place. Furthermore, God is not bound to the New Testament and can justify souls that seek Him as He pleases. It was the Logos, after all, Who created and sustains the natural law in the first place, so there is a certain relation to Christ in that.
I certainly have been and am inclined towards the formulation of SS. Thomas and Alphonsus, but I limit my personal belief and speculation according to what has been established by the Church. If the Church sees the natural law and the means by which a man is prompted to obey it as being the work of God in such a way that a soul can obtain habitual grace by cooperating with God according to the best of her ability in her circuмstances (as per Garrigou-Lagrange's formulation), then that is how the Church sees it. And I want my understanding to conform to the mind of the Church. It's that simple.
Follow the boldened "map" above. What church are you talking about, since it is opposed to ALL of the Fathers, Saints, Doctors, the Athanasian Creed, the REVELATION of John 3:5, The Council of Trent, the Catechism of Trent, all dogmas on EENS and baptism, in other words it is opposed to ALL of tradition?
All that you are left with is a letter from 1949 with no AAS number, which was not published for the public till 1952 after its writer had died, versus EVERYTHING THAT IS THE CHURCH.
-
Bowler,
Do you ever weary of repeating and quoting yourself again and again? Are you aware of how damaging your constant parroting and histrionics are to whatever the ideology you endeavor to pass off and propagate as Catholic doctrine?
Do you ever tire of belittling others and holding up yourself as if you were an authoritative representative of the Fathers and Sacred Scripture, or a spiritual director of sorts to guide your peers to what you deem is "truth"? What mission, office or jurisdiction do you possess to enable you to behave this way?
Please be assured of my prayers.
-
Bowler,
Do you ever weary of repeating and quoting yourself again and again? Are you aware of how damaging your constant parroting and histrionics are to whatever the ideology you endeavor to pass off and propagate as Catholic doctrine?
Do you ever tire of belittling others and holding up yourself as if you were an authoritative representative of the Fathers and Sacred Scripture, or a spiritual director of sorts to guide your peers to what you deem is "truth"? What mission, office or jurisdiction do you possess to enable you to behave this way?
Please be assured of my prayers.
Well stated Hobbledehoy.
You had stayed out of the crisis deal for your own spiritual well-being I suppose. I'm glad you got dragged back in, for the sake of everyone else. You have been very charitable in your back and forths. I hope this thread does not harm you spiritually. I know I have to watch myself on these things. Thanks for your information here. It easy to become uncharitable on forums for any number of reasons such as misunderstandings, and the encountering of hard-headedness and intellectual dishonesty.
Your postings speak for themselves. The debate is over but the losers want to keep fighting.
-
Bowler,
Do you ever weary of repeating and quoting yourself again and again? Are you aware of how damaging your constant parroting and histrionics are to whatever the ideology you endeavor to pass off and propagate as Catholic doctrine?
Do you ever tire of belittling others and holding up yourself as if you were an authoritative representative of the Fathers and Sacred Scripture, or a spiritual director of sorts to guide your peers to what you deem is "truth"? What mission, office or jurisdiction do you possess to enable you to behave this way?
Please be assured of my prayers.
Ad-hominem attacks are a sign of frustration. If you have nothing to contribute, then just wait till you do.
-
Bowler,
Do you ever weary of repeating and quoting yourself again and again? Are you aware of how damaging your constant parroting and histrionics are to whatever the ideology you endeavor to pass off and propagate as Catholic doctrine?
Do you ever tire of belittling others and holding up yourself as if you were an authoritative representative of the Fathers and Sacred Scripture, or a spiritual director of sorts to guide your peers to what you deem is "truth"? What mission, office or jurisdiction do you possess to enable you to behave this way?
Please be assured of my prayers.
Well stated Hobbledehoy.
You had stayed out of the crisis deal for your own spiritual well-being I suppose. I'm glad you got dragged back in, for the sake of everyone else. You have been very charitable in your back and forths. I hope this thread does not harm you spiritually. I know I have to watch myself on these things. Thanks for your information here. It easy to become uncharitable on forums for any number of reasons such as misunderstandings, and the encountering of hard-headedness and intellectual dishonesty.
Your postings speak for themselves. The debate is over but the losers want to keep fighting.
The good thing is that I discovered PereJoseph, another BODer besides Nishant, that knows what he is talking about. That makes just two intelligent BODers on CI that can understand what I'm talking about and respond intelligently.
-
Ad-hominem attacks are a sign of frustration. If you have nothing to contribute, then just wait till you do.
Yes, I am indeed frustrated: frustrated that you keep exhibiting patterns of behavior that scandalize others and have brought nothing but discord to this forum.
The insolence, arrogance and smug self-assurance you have manifested in your recent exchanges with PereJoseph and Ambrose are just too much. You speak as if you have authority to say and act the way you do. The questions I posed to you were not mere ad hominem rhetorical devices: they are questions to which one would expect an answer, considering how sure you seem of yourself.
So tell us: what mission, office or jurisdiction do you possess or have been given to enable you to belittle others and holding up yourself as if you were an authoritative representative of the Fathers and Sacred Scripture, or a spiritual director of sorts to guide your peers to what you deem is "truth"? Who sent you to this forum so as to preach to us as if we were some sort of apostates or heretics?
-
Ad-hominem attacks are a sign of frustration. If you have nothing to contribute, then just wait till you do.
Yes, I am indeed frustrated: frustrated that you keep exhibiting patterns of behavior that scandalize others and have brought nothing but discord to this forum.
The insolence, arrogance and smug self-assurance you have manifested in your recent exchanges with PereJoseph and Ambrose are just too much. You speak as if you have authority to say and act the way you do. The questions I posed to you were not mere ad hominem rhetorical devices: they are questions to which one would expect an answer, considering how sure you seem of yourself.
So tell us: what mission, office or jurisdiction do you possess or have been given to enable you to belittle others and holding up yourself as if you were an authoritative representative of the Fathers and Sacred Scripture, or a spiritual director of sorts to guide your peers to what you deem is "truth"? Who sent you to this forum so as to preach to us as if we were some sort of apostates or heretics?
They are men and can defend themselves, I doubt they need your help. PereJoseph is doing fine, and Ambrose is out of his knowledge base, that's all, no big deal.
-
Your quote by St. Alphonsus proves my point that you like all of the pro-BOD posters on CI (except Nishant) do not know enough about the subject to discuss it intelligently.
I repeat below what I told you before twice and you ignore, because you do not know the subject. St. Alphonsus taught that to be saved by explicit or implicit baptism of desire one must have explicit belief in the Trinity and the Incarnation, for he taught what he got from St. Thomas Aquinas.
I understand the distinction. There is the desire for the Sacrament of Baptism itself attended with the necessity of explicit belief in supernatural truths versus a certain vague desire to follow the will of God that is not necessarily attended by belief in supernatural truths but only requires belief in naturally accessible truths about God. Baptism of desire in the formulation of SS. Thomas and Alphonsus would come from the desire for the Sacrament proper, but explicit belief in the Incarnation and Trinity are still necessary for salvation.
I have dealt with this a bit already. Garrigou-Lagrange simply does not agree and seems to hold that the desire for the laver of regeneration is implicit in an implicit faith that is truly founded on the will cooperating with actual graces and inspirations in the fulfillment of the natural law. I can also see why Garrigou-Lagrange's reliance on the anthropological accounts of Louis Massignon and others would be seen as problematic, but I think the issue is more complicated than that. The objection to this theory seems to come from a misgiving about the thought of a man being saved in the new dispensation without explicit knowledge of and belief in Our Lord. The obvious counterpoint, however, is that supernatural element is still present in Garrigou-Lagrange's formulation, since grace is what prompts the cooperation in the first place. Furthermore, God is not bound to the New Testament and can justify souls that seek Him as He pleases. It was the Logos, after all, Who created and sustains the natural law in the first place, so there is a certain relation to Christ in that.
I certainly have been and am inclined towards the formulation of SS. Thomas and Alphonsus, but I limit my personal belief and speculation according to what has been established by the Church. If the Church sees the natural law and the means by which a man is prompted to obey it as being the work of God in such a way that a soul can obtain habitual grace by cooperating with God according to the best of her ability in her circuмstances (as per Garrigou-Lagrange's formulation), then that is how the Church sees it. And I want my understanding to conform to the mind of the Church. It's that simple.
Follow the boldened "map" above, your points are accurate, however on the large print part you skid off the side of the runway of Catholic thinking. What church are you talking about, for the teaching of GL is not only opposed to St. Thomas and St. Alphonsus Ligouri as you noted, but it is also opposed to ALL of the Fathers, Saints, Doctors, the Athanasian Creed, the REVELATION of John 3:5, The Council of Trent, the Catechism of Trent, all dogmas on EENS and baptism, in other words it is opposed to ALL of tradition?
All that you are left with is a letter from 1949 with no AAS number, which was not published for the public till 1952 after its writer had died, versus EVERYTHING THAT IS THE CHURCH.
-
Follow the boldened "map" above. What church are you talking about, since it is opposed to ALL of the Fathers, Saints, Doctors, the Athanasian Creed, the REVELATION of John 3:5, The Council of Trent, the Catechism of Trent, all dogmas on EENS and baptism, in other words it is opposed to ALL of tradition?
All that you are left with is a letter from 1949 with no AAS number, which was not published for the public till 1952 after its writer had died, versus EVERYTHING THAT IS THE CHURCH.
Your turn to provide docuмentation: what are the sources for these assertions? What is your source regarding your claims about the decree of excommunication of Fr. Leonard Feeney promulgated by the Holy Office by authority of Pope Pius XII?
-
Follow the boldened "map" above. What church are you talking about, since it is opposed to ALL of the Fathers, Saints, Doctors, the Athanasian Creed, the REVELATION of John 3:5, The Council of Trent, the Catechism of Trent, all dogmas on EENS and baptism, in other words it is opposed to ALL of tradition?
All that you are left with is a letter from 1949 with no AAS number, which was not published for the public till 1952 after its writer had died, versus EVERYTHING THAT IS THE CHURCH.
Your turn to provide docuмentation: what are the sources for these assertions? What is your source regarding your claims about the decree of excommunication of Fr. Leonard Feeney promulgated by the Holy Office by authority of Pope Pius XII?
Your questions are irrelevant, they tell me that you do not have a clue what I'm talking about. Read what Perejoseph is saying and how I highlight it and respond. He knows what I'm talking about. You don't have a clue. I'm sorry, I can't teach you this if you don't understand what I already said. It is thoroughly explained, read it again, since you copied and pasted it before I had finished editing it.
-
Follow the boldened "map" above. What church are you talking about, since it is opposed to ALL of the Fathers, Saints, Doctors, the Athanasian Creed, the REVELATION of John 3:5, The Council of Trent, the Catechism of Trent, all dogmas on EENS and baptism, in other words it is opposed to ALL of tradition?
All that you are left with is a letter from 1949 with no AAS number, which was not published for the public till 1952 after its writer had died, versus EVERYTHING THAT IS THE CHURCH.
Your turn to provide docuмentation: what are the sources for these assertions? What is your source regarding your claims about the decree of excommunication of Fr. Leonard Feeney promulgated by the Holy Office by authority of Pope Pius XII?
Your questions are irrelevant, they tell me that you do not have a clue what I'm talking about. Read what Perejoseph is saying and how I highlight it and respond. He knows what I'm talking about. You don't have a clue. I'm sorry, I can't teach you this if you don't understand what I already said. It is thoroughly explained, read it again, since you copied and pasted it before I had finished editing it.
You know, "Ad-hominem attacks are a sign of frustration."
You copy 'n paste and repeat yourself so much, it is not hard to miss what you have been saying! However, you will have to answer my questions if you wish to be taken seriously.
-
You copy 'n paste and repeat yourself so much, it is not hard to miss what you have been saying! However, you will have to answer my questions if you wish to be taken seriously.
Writing 10 times over makes no difference, you do not understand the subject. It is all there for anyone that has the knowledge base to understand the subject.
Regarding your question about the 1949 letter, you can look that up online, it is basic stuff and we are way past that here. The letter is actually irrelevant, since GL's opinion is opposed to St. Thomas Aquinas and ALL the Fathers, Doctors, Saints, the Athanasian Creed.......
-
Writing 10 times over makes no difference, you do not understand the subject. It is all there for anyone that has the knowledge base to understand the subject.
Right Bowler, Garrigou-Lagrange is wrong, but you're fight. He just can't see it.............
Orthodoxy[/url]]The madman's explanation of a thing is always complete, and often in a
purely rational sense satisfactory. Or, to speak more strictly, the
insane explanation, if not conclusive, is at least unanswerable; this
may be observed specially in the two or three commonest kinds of
madness. If a man says (for instance) that men have a conspiracy against
him, you cannot dispute it except by saying that all the men deny that
they are conspirators; which is exactly what conspirators would do. His
explanation covers the facts as much as yours. Or if a man says that he
is the rightful King of England, it is no complete answer to say that
the existing authorities call him mad; for if he were King of England
that might be the wisest thing for the existing authorities to do. Or if
a man says that he is Jesus Christ, it is no answer to tell him that the
world denies his divinity; for the world denied Christ's.
Nevertheless he is wrong. But if we attempt to trace his error in exact
terms, we shall not find it quite so easy as we had supposed. Perhaps
the nearest we can get to expressing it is to say this: that his mind
moves in a perfect but narrow circle. A small circle is quite as
infinite as a large circle; but, though it is quite as infinite, it is
not so large. In the same way the insane explanation is quite as
complete as the sane one, but it is not so large. A bullet is quite as
round as the world, but it is not the world. There is such a thing as a
narrow universality; there is such a thing as a small and cramped
eternity; you may see it in many modern religions. Now, speaking quite
externally and empirically, we may say that the strongest and most
unmistakable _mark_ of madness is this combination between a logical
completeness and a spiritual contraction. The lunatic's theory explains
a large number of things, but it does not explain them in a large way.
-
All that you are left with is a letter from 1949 with no AAS number, which was not published for the public till 1952 after its writer had died [...]
The letter is indeed relevant, since you and others bring it up so many times.
You have copied 'n pasted this numerous times, and a distortion told often enough will be believed by those who do not have access to the facts.
The Protocol letter sent by the Holy Office to Archbp. Cushing is that to which you are referring. It never was published in the Acta because it was merely a protocol letter. Not everything that emanates from the Roman Congregations makes it into the Acta, especially when it is a directive addressed to a specific individual or group and it does not affect the Universal Church, especially when there are pastoral concerns to be considered.
When Fr. Feeney refused to obey the authority of the the local Ordinary and that of the Holy See, the Holy Office was compelled to promulgate the decree of his excommunication on 13 February 1953, having presented it to Pope Pius XII the day before. The Decree is in the Acta Apostolicæ Sedis, vol. lxv. (1953), p. 100. The Decree specifically states that it was on account of his grave refusal to obey ecclesiastical authority ("propter graviter denegatam oboedientiam Auctoritati Ecclesiasticæ").
The way this has been presented by revisionist historicists who super-idealize Fr. Feeney seems to confuse the protocol letter with the decree of excommunication and thus paving a way to make a case that Fr. Feeney was illegitimately excommunicated or some other outrageous claim made in a desperate attempt to rewrite history.
And it is "propter graviter denegatam oboedientiam Auctoritati Ecclesiasticæ" that you and other individuals have usurped the teaching authority of the Church and have debased yourself into trolls, ceaselessly parroting the same propaganda and novels. This is the ultimate problem with people such as you.
-
Right Bowler, Garrigou-Lagrange is wrong, but you're fight. He just can't see it.............
*right
:facepalm:
-
Writing 10 times over makes no difference, you do not understand the subject. It is all there for anyone that has the knowledge base to understand the subject.
Right Bowler, Garrigou-Lagrange is wrong, but you're fight. He just can't see it.............
Obviously you do not have a clue or you stepped in without reading anything.
-
All that you are left with is a letter from 1949 with no AAS number, which was not published for the public till 1952 after its writer had died [...]
The letter is indeed relevant, since you and others bring it up so many times.
No it has no relevence, it is only you trying to discuss something simple that you can talk about.
-
All that you are left with is a letter from 1949 with no AAS number, which was not published for the public till 1952 after its writer had died [...]
The letter is indeed relevant, since you and others bring it up so many times.
No it has no relevence, it is only you trying to discuss something simple that you can talk about.
No, it has relevance, it is only you trying to avoid discussing something simple that you can't really face.
-
A person responds from his knowledge base. Study the difference in your response and PereJoseph's. A good dog is never too old to learn new tricks.
I am treating you with the same courtesy or lack of that you give me and others. If you want a real discussion, stop acting like a fool.
-
A person responds from his knowledge base. Study the difference in your response and PereJoseph's. A good dog is never too old to learn new tricks.
I am treating you with the same courtesy or lack of that you give me and others. If you want a real discussion, stop acting like a fool.
I said nothing about you being discourteous. You respond from your knowledge base, with what you know, you are frustrated because you don't know the subject so you resort to name calling. If you had something to contribute you would have said it, as PereJoseph did.
-
All that you are left with is a letter from 1949 with no AAS number, which was not published for the public till 1952 after its writer had died [...]
The letter is indeed relevant, since you and others bring it up so many times.
No it has no relevence, it is only you trying to discuss something simple that you can talk about.
No, it has relevance, it is only you trying to avoid discussing something simple that you can't really face.
If you have something to contribute, bring it forward, get it over with already.
-
Who Can Be Saved? by Avery Cardinal Dulles
Who, then, can be saved? Catholics can be saved if they believe the Word of God as taught by the Church and if they obey the commandments. Other Christians can be saved if they submit their lives to Christ and join the community where they think he wills to be found. Jews can be saved if they look forward in hope to the Messiah and try to ascertain whether God's promise has been fulfilled. Adherents of other religions can be saved if, with the help of grace, they sincerely seek God and strive to do his will. Even atheists can be saved if they worship God under some other name and place their lives at the service of truth and justice. God's saving grace, channeled through Christ the one Mediator, leaves no one unassisted. But that same grace brings obligations to all who receive it. They must not receive the grace of God in vain. Much will be demanded of those to whom much is given.
http://www.firstthings.com/article/2008/02/001-who-can-be-saved-8
Contrast this with what Pope Pius IX taught:
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 from the unity of the Church and from the successor of Peter, the Roman Pontiff (to whom the Saviour has entrusted the care of His vineyard), cannot attain salvation. (Quanto conficiamur, 7-8)
Evidentially, Cardinal Dulles believed that the omnipotent Triune God was unwilling or unable to lead those who sincerely seek Him to the One True Faith.
-
Why are you quoting Dulles?
Here, from your favorite source:
Dulles was born in Auburn, New York, the son of John Foster Dulles, the future U.S. Secretary of State (for whom Washington Dulles International Airport is named), and Janet Pomeroy Dulles. His uncle was Director of Central Intelligence Allen Welsh Dulles. Both his great-grandfather John W. Foster and great-uncle Robert Lansing also served as U.S. Secretary of State. His paternal grandfather, Allen Macy Dulles, was a member of the faculty of Auburn Theological Seminary and published in the field of ecclesiology, to which the Catholic Dulles would likewise devote scholarly attention.
He received his primary school education in New York City at the St. Bernard's School and attended secondary schools in Switzerland and The Choate School (now Choate Rosemary Hall) in Wallingford, Connecticut.
Dulles was raised a Presbyteeeeeeerian but had become an agnostic by the time he began college at Harvard in 1936.[2] His religious doubts were diminished during a personally profound moment when he stepped out into a rainy day and saw a tree beginning to flower along the Charles River; after that moment he never again "doubted the existence of an all-good and omnipotent God."[3] He noted how his theism turned toward conversion to Catholicism: "The more I examined, the more I was impressed with the consistency and sublimity of Catholic doctrine."[3] He converted to Catholicism in the fall of 1940.[2][4]
After graduating from Harvard College in 1940, Dulles spent a year and a half in Harvard Law School, where he founded the "St. Benedict Center". (This later became well-known due to the controversial Jesuit priest, Leonard Feeney, S.J.) During World War II, he served in the United States Navy, reaching the rank of Lieutenant. For his liaison work with the French Navy, Dulles was awarded the French Croix de guerre.
-
A person responds from his knowledge base. Study the difference in your response and PereJoseph's. A good dog is never too old to learn new tricks.
I am treating you with the same courtesy or lack of that you give me and others. If you want a real discussion, stop acting like a fool.
I said nothing about you being discourteous. You respond from your knowledge base, with what you know, you are frustrated because you don't know the subject so you resort to name calling. If you had something to contribute you would have said it, as PereJoseph did.
There is no name calling, I do not know you, maybe you do not act this way elsewhere, but on here, you are all over the map.
Since you hold Nishant and PereJoseph in so high of a regard, why do you fail to learn anything from them? Why do you look to the boys in upstate New York as teachers? What credentials do they have to teach on a matters of Faith?
I am not a theologian, I am a layman just like you, Bowler. The difference between us is that I learn my Faith from those authorized to teach me. Myrna, SJB and others keep giving you sources approved by the Church, and you keep ignoring them. I could do the same, but why waste my time?
If you want to learn about this subject in depth, you should be reading Msgr. Fenton. His writings can be found all over the web, but most are on the Bellarmine Forum library. He was a real theologian, who had the training, expertise, and approval from the Church to explain matters of theology.
-
Since you hold Nishant and PereJoseph in so high of a regard, why do you fail to learn anything from them? Why do you look to the boys in upstate New York as teachers? What credentials do they have to teach on a matters of Faith? (It's not that I hold Nishant and PereJoseph in high regard and I don't the others. What I said was that they understood what I'm talking about. That is all. And by the way, PereJoseph was in the same boat as you till he answered something on this thread, and it let me know that he knew what I was talking about.)
I am not a theologian, I am a layman just like you, Bowler. The difference between us is that I learn my Faith from those authorized to teach me. Myrna, SJB and others keep giving you sources approved by the Church, and you keep ignoring them. I could do the same, but why waste my time?( I am giving all sources from the Church, I am telling you that any BODer that believes that a person can be saved who has no explicit belief in the Trinity and the Incarnation, is opposed to St. Thomas Aquinas teaching on BOD, and also opposed to St. Alphonsus Ligouri and ALL the Fathers, Saints , Doctors, and the Athanasian Creed. This is what you do not understand and I've written it 100 times. Your belief in the 1949 letter with no AAS number is opposed to St. Thomas Aquinas teaching along with the teachings of St. Alphonsus Ligouri and ALL the Fathers, Saints , and doctors, and the Athanasian Creed. For it teaches that someone can be saved without explicit belief in the Trinity and the Incarnation.)
If you want to learn about this subject in depth, you should be reading Msgr. Fenton. His writings can be found all over the web, but most are on the Bellarmine Forum library. He was a real theologian, who had the training, expertise, and approval from the Church to explain matters of theology.(Why should I read a theologian from the 1950's when I have St. Thomas Aquinas, and ALL the Fathers, Saints and Dcotors to read, all my sources? )
Read my responses above in red.
I also started another thread entitled "BODers & Ecuмenism & Holy Week Mass Changes of Pius XII", maybe you will start to understand where I am coming from in that one.
God Bless,
-
Since you hold Nishant and PereJoseph in so high of a regard, why do you fail to learn anything from them? Why do you look to the boys in upstate New York as teachers? What credentials do they have to teach on a matters of Faith? (It's not that I hold Nishant and PereJoseph in high regard and I don't the others. What I said was that they understood what I'm talking about. That is all. And by the way, PereJoseph was in the same boat as you till he answered something on this thread, and it let me know that he knew what I was talking about.)
I am not a theologian, I am a layman just like you, Bowler. The difference between us is that I learn my Faith from those authorized to teach me. Myrna, SJB and others keep giving you sources approved by the Church, and you keep ignoring them. I could do the same, but why waste my time?( I am giving all sources from the Church, I am telling you that any BODer that believes that a person can be saved who has no explicit belief in the Trinity and the Incarnation, is opposed to St. Thomas Aquinas teaching on BOD, and also opposed to St. Alphonsus Ligouri and ALL the Fathers, Saints , Doctors, and the Athanasian Creed. This is what you do not understand and I've written it 100 times. Your belief in the 1949 letter with no AAS number is opposed to St. Thomas Aquinas teaching along with the teachings of St. Alphonsus Ligouri and ALL the Fathers, Saints , and doctors, and the Athanasian Creed. For it teaches that someone can be saved without explicit belief in the Trinity and the Incarnation.)
If you want to learn about this subject in depth, you should be reading Msgr. Fenton. His writings can be found all over the web, but most are on the Bellarmine Forum library. He was a real theologian, who had the training, expertise, and approval from the Church to explain matters of theology.(Why should I read a theologian from the 1950's when I have St. Thomas Aquinas, and ALL the Fathers, Saints and Dcotors to read, all my sources? )
Read my responses above in red.
I also started another thread entitled "BODers & Ecuмenism & Holy Week Mass Changes of Pius XII", maybe you will start to understand where I am coming from in that one.
God Bless,
I have quite often stated my beliefs in this area of "minimum belief" and you have consistently misstated them. What part of the following do you NOT understand?
The four articles is the more common teaching and preferred, yet holding to the two items is not condemned.
-
I have quite often stated my beliefs in this area of "minimum belief" and you have consistently misstated them. What part of the following do you NOT understand?
The four articles is the more common teaching and preferred, yet holding to the two items is not condemned.
from the other thread:
You may hold that explicit belief in the four articles mentioned is required, but holding only to the two isn't condemned.
Do you admit to the bolded part, bowler?
You should re-state your question writing out what the four articles are to you. I don't presume anything anymore with BODers. (besides the other BODers don't know what you are talking about altogether, so you should explain yourself completely for them)
-
I have quite often stated my beliefs in this area of "minimum belief" and you have consistently misstated them. What part of the following do you NOT understand?
The four articles is the more common teaching and preferred, yet holding to the two items is not condemned.
from the other thread:
You may hold that explicit belief in the four articles mentioned is required, but holding only to the two isn't condemned.
Do you admit to the bolded part, bowler?
You should re-state your question writing out what the four articles are to you. I don't presume anything anymore with BODers. (besides the other BODers don't know what you are talking about altogether, so you should explain yourself completely for them)
One would think that after you've been arguing this subject for years, you'd know what you're arguing about. I guess not.
The nature of the act of faith made by a person who is invincibly ignorant of the divine authority of the Catholic Church is this: There is only one virtue of faith: supernaturally firm belief in all that God has revealed. But, while a Catholic knows what God has revealed, at least in outline, one who is invincibly ignorant of the Church does not. In this case, his faith must contain the disposition to believe whatever God has revealed, as soon as he shall become aware of it, and must be explicit as to the four essential articles of faith:
(i) the existence of a single God,
(ii) that God will reward the just and punish the wicked
(iii) the triune nature of God and
(iv) the Incarnation of God the Son for man's salvation.
A minority of more recent theologians hold that only the first two articles suffice and this view is not condemned, though the contrary doctrine is preferred.
-
The nature of the act of faith made by a person who is invincibly ignorant of the divine authority of the Catholic Church is this: There is only one virtue of faith: supernaturally firm belief in all that God has revealed. But, while a Catholic knows what God has revealed, at least in outline, one who is invincibly ignorant of the Church does not. In this case, his faith must contain the disposition to believe whatever God has revealed, as soon as he shall become aware of it, and must be explicit as to the four essential articles of faith:
(i) the existence of a single God,
(ii) that God will reward the just and punish the wicked
(iii) the triune nature of God and
(iv) the Incarnation of God the Son for man's salvation.
A minority of more recent theologians hold that only the first two articles suffice and this view is not condemned, though the contrary doctrine is preferred.
You may hold that explicit belief in the four articles mentioned is required, but holding only to the two isn't condemned.
Do you admit to the bolded part, bowler?
Your point is that your belief in the first two articles as sufficient for salvation has not been condemned, so shut up Bowler.
My point is that that belief of yours is opposed to St. Thomas Aquinas teaching on BOD, and also opposed to St. Alphonsus Ligouri and ALL the Fathers, Saints , Doctors, and the Athanasian Creed, the Council of Trent, the catechism of Trent, all the dogmas on EENS and baptism, and all the catechism till the 20th century. In other words it is not supported by anything. You are throwing out ALL the sources of tradition and replacing it with some novel method of finding truth "Well it is not condemned by the Church" (or maybe the 1949 letter with no AAS number or references to any
Fathers, Saints , Doctors, Creeds, councils)
"Well, it is not condemned by the Church", does not exist in the Church's methodology of finding truth. Here is St. Vincent of Lerins , Father of the Church. ( I don't see your method mentioned):
ST. VINCENT OF LERINS [ A. D. 434 ] <p>
[Author - Vincent shows himself also as a man of such remarkable perception that there is a certain timelessness to his writing. What he has to say of preserving the faith and of keeping to the rule of faith fits any period and all times, and might have been written yesterday.
Vincent develops the notion that our faith is based on the authority of divine Law, which must be understood and interpreted in the light of the Tradition of the Church. And this Tradition, if it need be discovered, is quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus crediturn est: what has been believed in the Church everywhere, always, and by all. Vincent’s doctrinal principle does not exclude progress and development; but it does exclude change. For Vincent, progress is a developmental growth of doctrine in its own sphere; change, however, implies a transformation into something different.
ST. VINCENT OF LERINS says: <p>
With great zeal and closest attention, therefore, I frequently inquired of many men, eminent for their holiness and doctrine, how I might, in a concise and, so to speak, general and ordinary way, distinguish the truth of the Catholic faith from the falsehood of heretical depravity. I received almost always the same answer from all of them, that if I or anyone else wanted to expose the frauds and escape the snares of the heretics who rise up, and to remain intact and sound in a sound faith, it would be necessary, with the help of the Lord, to fortify that faith in a twofold manner: first, of course, by the authority of the divine law; and then, by the Tradition of the Catholic Church. [Here, perhaps, someone may ask: “If the canon of the Scriptures be perfect, and in itself more than suffices for everything, why is it necessary that the authority of ecclesiastical interpretation be joined to it?” Because, quite plainly, Sacred Scripture, by reason of its own depth, is not accepted by everyone as having one and the same meaning. The same passage is interpreted in one way by some, in another by others, so that it can almost appear as if there are as many opinions as there are men. Novatian explains a passage in one way, Sabellius in another, Donatus in another; Anus, Eunomius, Macedonius in another; Photinus, Apollinaris, Priscillian in another; Jovinian, Pelagius, Caelestius in another; and afterwards in still another, Nestorius. And thus, because of so many distortions of such various errors, it is highly necessary that the line of prophetic and apostolic interpretation be directed in accord with the norm of the ecclesiastical and Catholic meaning. In the Catholic Church herself every care must be taken that we may hold fast to that which has been believed everywhere, always, and by all. For this is then truly and properly Catholic. That is what the force and meaning of the name itself declares, a name that embraces all almost universally. This general rule will be correctly applied if we pursue universality, antiquity, and agreement. And we follow universality in this way, if we confess this one faith to be true, which is confessed by the whole Church throughout the whole world; antiquity, however, if we in no way depart from those interpretations which, it is clear our holy predecessors and fathers solemnized; and likewise agreement, if, in this very antiquity, we adopt the definitions and theses of all or certainly of almost all priests and teachers.
To announce, therefore, to Catholic Christians something other than that which they have received has never been permitted, is nowhere permitted, and never will be permitted. And to anathematize those who announce anything other than that which has been received once and for all has never been unnecessary, is nowhere unnecessary and never will be unnecessary.
He is a true and genuine Catholic who loves the truth of God, the Church, and the Body of Christ; who puts nothing else before divine religion and the Catholic Faith, neither the authority nor the love nor the genius nor the eloquence nor the philosophy of any man whatsoever, but, despising all that and being fixed, stable, and persevering in his faith, is determined in himself to hold and believe that only which he knows the Catholic Church has held universally and from ancient times.
"Guard" he says, "what has been committed." What does it mean, "what has been committed”? It is what has been faithfully entrusted to you, not what has been discovered by you; what you have received, not what you have thought up; a matter not of ingenuity, but of doctrine; not of private acquisition, but of public Tradition; a matter brought to you, not put forth by you, in which you must be not the author but the guardian, not the founder but the sharer, not the leader, but the follower. "Guard," he says, "what has been committed. "Keep the talent of the Catholic Faith inviolate and unimpaired. What has been faithfully entrusted, let it remain in your possession, let it be handed on by you. You have received gold, so give gold. For my part I do not want you to substitute one thing for mother; I do not want you impudently to put lead in place of gold, or, fraudulently brass. I do not want the appearance of gold, but the real thing. O Timothy, O priest. O interpreter, O teacher, if a divine gift has made you suitable in genius, in experience, in doctrine to be the Beseleel of the spiritual tabernacle, cut out the precious gems of divine dogma, shape them faithfully, ornament them wisely, add splendor, grace and beauty to them! By your expounding it, may that now be understood more clearly which formerly was believed even in its obscurity. May posterity, by means of you, rejoice in understanding what in times past was venerated without understanding, Nevertheless, teach the same that you have learned, so that if you say something anew, it is not something new that you say.
But perhaps someone is saying: "Will there, then, be no progress of religion in the Church of Christ?" Certainly there is, and the greatest. For who is there so envious toward men and so exceedingly hateful toward God, that he would try to prohibit progress? But it is truly progress and not a change of faith. What is meant by progress is that something is brought to an advancement within itself, by change, something is transformed from one thing into another. It is necessary, therefore, that understanding, knowledge, and wisdom grow and advance strongly and mightily as much in individuals as in the group, as much in one man as in the whole Church, and this gradually according to age and the times; and this must take place precisely within its own kind, that is, in the same teaching, in the same meaning, and in the same opinion. The progress of religion in souls is like the growth of bodies, which, in the course of years, evolve and develop, but still remain what they were. . . . For example: Our fathers of old sowed the seeds of the wheat of faith in this field which is the Church. Certainly it would be unjust and incongruous if we, their descendents, were to gather, instead of the genuine truth of wheat, the noxious error of weeds. On the contrary, it is right and logically proper that there be no discrepancy between what is first and what is last and that we reap, in the increment of wheat from the wheat of instruction, the fruit also of dogma. And thus, although in the course of time something evolved from those first seeds and has now expanded under careful cultivation, nothing of the characteristics of the seeds is changed. Granted that appearance, beauty, and distinction has been added, still, the same nature of each kind remains. May it never happen that the rose garden of the Catholic sense be turned into thistles and thorns. May it never happen, I say, that darnel and monk's hood suddenly spring up in the spiritual paradise of shoots of cinnamon and balsam.
We must most studiously investigate and follow this ancient agreement of the holy fathers, not in all the lesser questions of the divine Law, but certainly and especially in the rule of faith. . . . But only those opinions of the fathers are to he brought forward which were expressed by those who lived, taught, and persevered wisely and constantly in the holy Catholic faith and communion, and who merited either to die faithfully in Christ or to be killed gloriously for Christ. Those men, moreover, are to be believed, in accord with the rule that only that is to be held as undoubted, certain, and valid, which either all or most of them have confirmed by receiving, holding, and handing on in one and the same sense, manifestly, frequently, and persistently, as if by a council of teachers in mutual agreement. But whatever was thought outside of or even against the opinion of all, although it be by a holy and learned man, or although by a confessor and martyr, must be removed from the authority of the common and public and general opinion, as being among his personal and peculiar and private views. In this way we shall not, as is the sacrilegious custom of heretics and schismatics, reject the ancient truth of universal dogma, to pursue, with great danger to our eternal salvation, the novel error of one man.<p>
1. This is the famous line: In ipsa item catholica ecclesia magnopere curandum est, ut id teneamus, quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est.
-
Now, compare St. Vincent of Lerins with your source of truth: "Well it has not been condemned"). Your method in comparison to St. Vincent is the equivalent of St. Vincent versus JPII:
Ecclesia Dei by JPII
The root of this schismatic act can be discerned in an incomplete and contradictory notion of Tradition. Incomplete, because it does not take sufficiently into account the living character of Tradition, which, as the Second Vatican Council clearly taught, "comes from the apostles and progresses in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit. There is a growth in insight into the realities and words that are being passed on. This comes about in various ways. It comes through the contemplation and study of believers who ponder these things in their hearts. It comes from the intimate sense of spiritual realities which they experience. And it comes from the preaching of those who have received, along with their right of succession in the episcopate, the sure charism of truth"
-
My point is that that belief of yours is opposed to St. Thomas Aquinas teaching on BOD, and also opposed to St. Alphonsus Ligouri and ALL the Fathers, Saints , Doctors, and the Athanasian Creed, the Council of Trent, the catechism of Trent, all the dogmas on EENS and baptism, and all the catechism till the 20th century.
I don't believe that and if you weren't so bent on arguing you may have seen that.
The Church has not and did not condemn the more lax view, that's just a fact, not my opinion.
In this case, his faith must contain the disposition to believe whatever God has revealed, as soon as he shall become aware of it, and must be explicit as to the four essential articles of faith:
(i) the existence of a single God,
(ii) that God will reward the just and punish the wicked
(iii) the triune nature of God and
(iv) the Incarnation of God the Son for man's salvation.
This seems rather clear, doesn't it?
The point is that YOU can't condemn others for holding the lax view until the Church decides, if it ever does decide.
-
My point is that that belief of yours is opposed to St. Thomas Aquinas teaching on BOD, and also opposed to St. Alphonsus Ligouri and ALL the Fathers, Saints , Doctors, and the Athanasian Creed, the Council of Trent, the catechism of Trent, all the dogmas on EENS and baptism, and all the catechism till the 20th century.
I don't believe that and if you weren't so bent on arguing you may have seen that.
The Church has not and did not condemn the more lax view, that's just a fact, not my opinion.
In this case, his faith must contain the disposition to believe whatever God has revealed, as soon as he shall become aware of it, and must be explicit as to the four essential articles of faith:
(i) the existence of a single God,
(ii) that God will reward the just and punish the wicked
(iii) the triune nature of God and
(iv) the Incarnation of God the Son for man's salvation.
This seems rather clear, doesn't it?
The point is that YOU can't condemn others for holding the lax view until the Church decides, if it ever does decide.
Your point that I put "that belief of yours", is irrelevant to EVERYTHING I wrote. You are rejecting ALL of tradition for your new source of truth "Well, the Church has not condemned it".
Your belief system is no different that JPII's in Ecclesia Dei.
Ecclesia Dei by JPII
The root of this schismatic act can be discerned in an incomplete and contradictory notion of Tradition. Incomplete, because it does not take sufficiently into account the living character of Tradition, which, as the Second Vatican Council clearly taught, "comes from the apostles and progresses in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit. There is a growth in insight into the realities and words that are being passed on. This comes about in various ways. It comes through the contemplation and study of believers who ponder these things in their hearts. It comes from the intimate sense of spiritual realities which they experience. And it comes from the preaching of those who have received, along with their right of succession in the episcopate, the sure charism of truth"
-
My point is that that belief of yours is opposed to St. Thomas Aquinas teaching on BOD, and also opposed to St. Alphonsus Ligouri and ALL the Fathers, Saints , Doctors, and the Athanasian Creed, the Council of Trent, the catechism of Trent, all the dogmas on EENS and baptism, and all the catechism till the 20th century.
I don't believe that and if you weren't so bent on arguing you may have seen that.
The Church has not and did not condemn the more lax view, that's just a fact, not my opinion.
In this case, his faith must contain the disposition to believe whatever God has revealed, as soon as he shall become aware of it, and must be explicit as to the four essential articles of faith:
(i) the existence of a single God,
(ii) that God will reward the just and punish the wicked
(iii) the triune nature of God and
(iv) the Incarnation of God the Son for man's salvation.
This seems rather clear, doesn't it?
The point is that YOU can't condemn others for holding the lax view until the Church decides, if it ever does decide.
Your point that I put "that belief of yours", is irrelevant to EVERYTHING I wrote. You are rejecting ALL of tradition for your new source of truth "Well, the Church has not condemned it".
Your belief system is no different that JPII's in Ecclesia Dei.
Ecclesia Dei by JPII
The root of this schismatic act can be discerned in an incomplete and contradictory notion of Tradition. Incomplete, because it does not take sufficiently into account the living character of Tradition, which, as the Second Vatican Council clearly taught, "comes from the apostles and progresses in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit. There is a growth in insight into the realities and words that are being passed on. This comes about in various ways. It comes through the contemplation and study of believers who ponder these things in their hearts. It comes from the intimate sense of spiritual realities which they experience. And it comes from the preaching of those who have received, along with their right of succession in the episcopate, the sure charism of truth"
Now you're just being ridiculous, bowler. I haven't rejected anything, just stated a fact. Maybe you need to get out of the bowling alley more often.
-
Now you're just being ridiculous, bowler. I haven't rejected anything, just stated a fact. Maybe you need to get out of the bowling alley more often.
Of course you reject EVERYTHING, what is left when you reject St. Thomas Aquinas teaching on BOD, and also St. Alphonsus Ligouri and ALL the Fathers, Saints , Doctors, and the Athanasian Creed, the Council of Trent, the catechism of Trent, all the dogmas on EENS and baptism, and all the catechism till the 20th century, AND thus St. Vincent of Lerins?
You are in total denial or you've lost your Catholic sense like JPII. You have not a leg to stand on!
-
Now you're just being ridiculous, bowler. I haven't rejected anything, just stated a fact. Maybe you need to get out of the bowling alley more often.
Of course you reject EVERYTHING, what is left when you reject St. Thomas Aquinas teaching on BOD, and also St. Alphonsus Ligouri and ALL the Fathers, Saints , Doctors, and the Athanasian Creed, the Council of Trent, the catechism of Trent, all the dogmas on EENS and baptism, and all the catechism till the 20th century, AND thus St. Vincent of Lerins?
You are in total denial or you've lost your Catholic sense like JPII. You have not a leg to stand on!
The truth is that you don't really know what you believe as it's still being developed in your mind.
-
Now you're just being ridiculous, bowler. I haven't rejected anything, just stated a fact. Maybe you need to get out of the bowling alley more often.
Of course you reject EVERYTHING, what is left when you reject St. Thomas Aquinas teaching on BOD, and also St. Alphonsus Ligouri and ALL the Fathers, Saints , Doctors, and the Athanasian Creed, the Council of Trent, the catechism of Trent, all the dogmas on EENS and baptism, and all the catechism till the 20th century, AND thus St. Vincent of Lerins?
You are in total denial or you've lost your Catholic sense like JPII. You have not a leg to stand on!
The truth is that you don't really know what you believe as it's still being developed in your mind.
Not even you believe that.
-
From the fifth edition of the Tractatus de fide divina authored by the illustrious theologian Msgr. Van Noort, as translated and revised by Rev. Frs. John J. Castelot and William R. Murphy in the third volume Msgr. Van Noort's series of Dogmatic Theology, The Sources of Revelation and Divine Faith (Westminster, MD: The Newman Press, 1961), here is the sixth article of the first Chapter of aforementioned treatise on Divine Faith, "The Object of Divine Faith," which deals with theological censures.
This information is imperative for the student of sacred doctrine to have in mind as he endeavors to examine with desired prudence the proposals and statements that have been proposed unto the faithful by various individuals or entities amidst the exceeding great obfuscation of our days wherein heretics and liberals have sought with audacious and impious pretension to promulgate a nova œconomia that is diametrically contrary and mutually exclusive to the magisterium of Holy Mother Church.
(http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d89/platonic123/Texts%202/TheologicalCensures1_zps97d78772.jpg)
(http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d89/platonic123/Texts%202/TheologicalCensures2_zps9e3c8abe.jpg)
(http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d89/platonic123/Texts%202/TheologicalCensures3_zps993277c6.jpg)
(http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d89/platonic123/Texts%202/TheologicalCensures4_zps6f090817.jpg)
(http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d89/platonic123/Texts%202/TheologicalCensures5_zps162bcfbd.jpg)
(http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d89/platonic123/Texts%202/TheologicalCensures6_zpsddfc63c2.jpg)
(http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d89/platonic123/Texts%202/TheologicalCensures7_zps6a0a88b0.jpg)
(http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d89/platonic123/Texts%202/TheologicalCensures8_zps0fdb44e8.jpg)
(http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d89/platonic123/Texts%202/TheologicalCensures9_zps2d476eaa.jpg)
(http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d89/platonic123/Texts%202/TheologicalCensures10_zpsabdd8623.jpg)
-
Now you're just being ridiculous, bowler. I haven't rejected anything, just stated a fact. Maybe you need to get out of the bowling alley more often.
Of course you reject EVERYTHING, what is left when you reject St. Thomas Aquinas teaching on BOD, and also St. Alphonsus Ligouri and ALL the Fathers, Saints , Doctors, and the Athanasian Creed, the Council of Trent, the catechism of Trent, all the dogmas on EENS and baptism, and all the catechism till the 20th century, AND thus St. Vincent of Lerins?
You are in total denial or you've lost your Catholic sense like JPII. You have not a leg to stand on!
The truth is that you don't really know what you believe as it's still being developed in your mind.
Not even you believe that.
Yes, I do believe you are a confused individual. Now, do you believe a person with explicit desire to be baptized can be saved if he dies prior to his sacramental baptism?
It's a simple question. I'm NOT asking you if this has or will ever happen (that's another issue), but if it happened.
-
Now you're just being ridiculous, bowler. I haven't rejected anything, just stated a fact. Maybe you need to get out of the bowling alley more often.
Of course you reject EVERYTHING, what is left when you reject St. Thomas Aquinas teaching on BOD, and also St. Alphonsus Ligouri and ALL the Fathers, Saints , Doctors, and the Athanasian Creed, the Council of Trent, the catechism of Trent, all the dogmas on EENS and baptism, and all the catechism till the 20th century, AND thus St. Vincent of Lerins?
You are in total denial or you've lost your Catholic sense like JPII. You have not a leg to stand on!
The truth is that you don't really know what you believe as it's still being developed in your mind.
Not even you believe that.
Yes, I do believe you are a confused individual. Now, do you believe a person with explicit desire to be baptized can be saved if he dies prior to his sacramental baptism?
It's a simple question. I'm NOT asking you if this has or will ever happen (that's another issue), but if it happened.
The one that is confused is yourself if you don't know what I believe after all these years of my writing. Luckily, I don't just write for the person that I respond to. Read my signature at the bottom of my every posting. What else do I need to do for you to know what I believe?
Your problem is that you are totally baffled by my telling you the reality, that St. Thomas, St. Alphonsus Ligouri, AND all of the Saints, Doctors, the Athanasian Creed, John 3:15, EENS & all the dogmas on baptism, Trent, the catechism of Trent, and all the catechism before the 20th century, are ALL opposed to your belief in the salvation of someone can that has no explicit desire to be a Catholic nor belief in the Trinity and the Incarnation. You no longer know what is up and what is down now that I showed you that there is only a hair of difference between St. Thomas and St. Augustine, while there is a bottomless pit between your belief and St. Thomas's. You are in the Vortex of Confusion.
-
From the fifth edition of the Tractatus de fide divina authored by the illustrious theologian Msgr. Van Noort, ....
After reading everything you posted, I challenge you to write what you believe. And don't tell me again that what you believe is as nothing. What you posted from late 19th and 20th century theologians texts is not definitive and raises more questions than it answers, at every turn firther speculations are brought in. It is a house of cards. You do not have a clue the conflicts at every speculation in your CHOSEN belief system.
I challenge you to write what you believe, in another new thread and I'll show you where you conflict with what the Church has always taught (Fathers, Doctors, Saints, Councils, dogmatic decrees, etc)
Don't do it here on this thread, or everything will be lost hear, it is long enough already.
God Bless,
-
Yes, I do believe you are a confused individual. Now, do you believe a person with explicit desire to be baptized can be saved if he dies prior to his sacramental baptism?
It's a simple question. I'm NOT asking you if this has or will ever happen (that's another issue), but if it happened.
... your belief in the salvation of someone can that has no explicit desire to be a Catholic nor belief in the Trinity and the Incarnation.
Not only did you not answer, you again misstated my beliefs.
The subject in question believes explicitly in the four items but has not yet been baptized.
-
Yes, I do believe you are a confused individual. Now, do you believe a person with explicit desire to be baptized can be saved if he dies prior to his sacramental baptism?
It's a simple question. I'm NOT asking you if this has or will ever happen (that's another issue), but if it happened.
... your belief in the salvation of someone can that has no explicit desire to be a Catholic nor belief in the Trinity and the Incarnation.
Not only did you not answer, you again misstated my beliefs.
The subject in question believes explicitly in the four items but has not yet been baptized.
You have always been confused with my most basic writings on BOD, what is there to expect? Of course anything I write will be misunderstood by you, I told you from the beginning that you would never understand the subject.
Leave the discussion to Nishant and PereJoseph and any other BODer that knows the subject that comes in the future. Tell your pastor to come on here, or Fr. Cekada, whomever, I welcome their learned opinions.
All of them do not have a leg (a Father of the Church, Doctor, Saint, the Council of Trent, catechism of Trent, any catechism prior to the 20th century, a Creed, dogmas, councils) to stand on if they believe in the salvation of those that have no explicit desire to be Catholics, nor belief in the Trinity and the Incarnation.
-
Well, wow. Thanks Hobbledehoy for the excellent scans.
I've avoided posting in this thread so far, but anyway. Bowler, I agree with you as you know, on the necessity of explicit faith in Christ for salvation. That position cannot be condemned, and it is still the majority opinion, not only among Doctors and Saints, where it is practically unanimous, but even among theologians, even after the Holy Office Letter, as of around 1950. More on this in a moment, but, I do not think you do yourself or the position any favors by being insulting, condescending or rude toward Ambrose, SJB, Hobbledehoy and others, all of whom are excellent and intelligent posters in their own right. You are arguing from a position of strength, so why do you want to be mean and uncharitable? I think you are used to arguing from a position of weakness, as I do not know what else to make of you needlessly insulting those who hold the opposite view.
Don't get me wrong, you post much useful material, you make good points, but, if I may say so without you taking it in the wrong way, you argue too unreasonably for anyone to take your arguments seriously, which is unfortunate, because they have merit.
Actually, PereJoseph, the view of St. Thomas and St. Alphonsus, also that of St. Robert, St. Bernard and other Doctors, that explicit faith in Christ is necessary for salvation by a necessity of means, was not condemned by the Holy Office Letter.
Both St. Thomas and St. Alphonsus taught implicit desire for baptism, but not implicit faith in Christ. The Holy Office Letter, on the question of implicit faith, declared nothing. Msgr. Fenton helpfully notes,
...
Now most theologians teach that the minimum explicit content of supernatural and salvific faith includes, not only the truths of God’s existence and of His action as the Rewarder of good and the Punisher of evil, but also the mysteries of the Blessed Trinity and the Incarnation. It must be noted at this point that there is no hint of any intention on the part of the Holy Office, in citing this text from the Epistle to the Hebrews, to teach that explicit belief in the mysteries of the Blessed Trinity and of the Incarnation is not required for the attainment of salvation. In the context of the letter, the Sacred Congregation quotes this verse precisely as a proof of its declaration that an implicit desire of the Church cannot produce its effect “unless a person has supernatural faith.”
The Athanasian Creed also does have weight, but some think it declares a mere necessity of precept, not one of means when it declares faith in the Trinity and Incarnation necessary for salvation. St. Alphonsus considers the question,
“2. Is it required by a necessity of means or of precept to believe explicitly in the mysteries of the Holy Trinity and Incarnation after the promulgation of the gospel?
The first opinion and more common and held as more probable teaches belief is by necessity of means; Sanch. in Dec. lib. 2. c. 2. n. 8. Valent. 2. 2. d. 1. qu. 2. p. 4. Molina 1. part. qu. 1. a. 1 d. 2. Cont. Tourn. de praeceptis Decal. cap. 1. art. 1. §. 2. concl. 1. Juven. t. 6. diss. 4. a. 3. Antoine de virt. theol. cap. 1. qu. 2. Wigandt tr. 7. ex. 2. de fide n. 22. Concina t. 1. diss. 1. de fide cap. 8. n. 7. cuм Ledesma, Serra, Prado, etc. Also Salm. tr. 21. c. 2. punct. 2. n. 15. Cuniliat. tr. 4. de 1. Dec. praec. c. 1. §. 2. et Ronc. tr. 6. c. 2. But the last three say that in rare cases it may happen that one can be justified by implicit faith only…
But the second opinion that is also sufficiently probable says by necessity of precept all must explicitly believe in the mysteries. However, for necessity of means it is sufficient to implicitly believe in the mysteries.
So Dominicus Soto (in 4. sentent. t. 1. d. 5. qu. un. art. 2. concl. 2.) where he says: Even though the precept of explicit faith (in the Trinity and Incarnation) absolutely obliges the whole world, yet there also are many who are invincibly ignorant [of the mysteries] from which the obligation excuses.
Franciscus Sylvius (t. 3. in 2. 2. qu. 2. art. 7. and 8. concl. 6.) writes: After the promulgation of the gospel explicit faith in the Incarnation is necessary for all for salvation by a necessity of precept, and also (that it is probable) a necessity of means…
Card. Gotti (Theol. t. 2. tr. 9. qu. 2. d. 4. §. 1. n. 2.) says: In my judgment the opinion which denies that explicit faith in Christ and in the Trinity is so necessary that no one can be justified without it is very probable. And he adds that Scotus holds this opinion…
Elbel. (t. 1. conferent. 1. n. 17.) writes today that this opinion is held by notables. DD. Castropal. part. 2. tr. 4. d. 1. p. 9. Viva in Prop. 64 damn. ab Innocent. XI. n. 10, Sporer. tr. 11. cap. 11. sect. 11. §. 4. n. 9. Laym. lib. 2. tr. 1. cap. 8. n. 5. who teach this is not less probable than the first, with Richard. Medin. Vega, Sa, and Turriano. Card. de Lugo, de fide d. 12. n. 91. calls the first speculatively probable, but defends this second view at length and in absolute terms as more probable, with Javell, Zumel, and Suarez d. 12. sect. 4. n. 10. the writings of Lugo likewise seem to be the opinion of St. Thomas 3. part. qu. 69. a. 4. ad 2. where the Doctor says: Before Baptism Cornelius and others like him receive grace and virtues through their faith in Christ and their desire for Baptism, implicit or explicit.
Wherefore, argues Lugo, just as Cornelius freely obtained grace by implicit faith, so even one can obtain the same in a place where the gospel is not perfectly promulgated. He will be able in such a place to obtain the same who is invincibly ignorant of the mysteries in a place where the gospel has not been sufficiently promulgated. They say it is repugnant to the divine goodness and providence to damn invincibly ignorant adults who live uprightly in accordance with the light of nature whereas Acts 10:35 says, ‘But in every nation he that feareth him and worketh justice is acceptable to him.’ They respond that even though all the Scriptures and Holy Fathers’ testimonies oppose this opinion, their opinion is more easily explained by necessity of precept, or because ordinarily almost none are saved without explicit faith in the mysteries, because after the promulgation of the gospel almost no one labors out of invincible ignorance. Or that, says Lugo, they can be explained by implicit faith or explained by desire…”
So in following the history of this disagreement among the teachers of the faith in the Church, one can see for oneself, I think, that explicit faith is the better supported teaching. Therefore, we who are students learning the faith ought to incline to holding it ourself, since the authority of Doctors is preferable by far to those who are not.
In case someone doesn't want to read all that, the gist of it is summarized thus,
‘Some theologians hold that the belief of the two other articles - the Incarnation of the Son of God, and the Trinity of Persons - is strictly commanded but not necessary, as a means without which salvation is impossible; so that a person inculpably ignorant of them may be saved. But according to the more common and truer opinion, the explicit belief of these articles is necessary as a means without which no adult can be saved.’
It is true many excellent and reputed teachers, like Fr. Garrigou Lagrange, Tanqueray, Scheeben, are either equivocal in not taking a position on explicit and implicit faith in Christ or favor the latter, but all of them clearly express that as an opinion and are well aware the contrary is taught and held in the Church as well.
John of St. Thomas is aligned with us in supporting the following proposition as probable. The medial necessity we have analyzed as binding per se may not always be verified. It is probable that exception may occur in territories where the Gospel has not been sufficiently preached. This, however, is per accidens. It’s ‘an exception that proves the rule.’ For this reason the rule is couched in a manner that provides for it, through the modifying phrase: ‘After the sufficient promulgation of the Gospel.’ ... An infidel swelling among Mohammedans, for instance, and habitually doing what his conscience judges to be right, may have no better help than an interior inspiration to keep good. He may have no knowledge whatever of revelation strictly so called, nor of an immediate intervention bordering on the miraculous. He simply follows along that traces of a lost revelation that still survive, and trusts in a God ‘who is, and who rewards.’ Implicitly the infidel would be making room for faith in Christ ...
We may join with the Salmanticenses (De Fide, n. 79) and Suarez in maintaining that ‘it is possible for a catechumen to have had nothing proposed to him for belief but God, the supernatural author and end of man. No explicit knowledge of Christ the Lord has reached his ears. Nevertheless, the catechumen conceives a definite faith in God as his supernatural author and supernatural end, not believing explicitly in Christ of whom he has never heard. For the fact that his new faith is firm in God as supernatural beginning and end, he is capable of loving God through charity, and therefore may be justified. Therefore, under the New Law, it is only per accidens, that is, a pure contingency, that an individual adult may attain to justification without having explicit faith in Christ.’
So Fr. Garrigou Lagrange points out he holds Suarez' opinion, which was the minority even in its day.
It is better, then, to respond with the distinction between necessity in re and in voto; thus, no one can be saved who does not enter this church of Christ either in reality or at least in wish and desire. That is how Bellarmine responds. Now it is obvious that no one is actually in this church without being baptized, and yet he can be saved, because just as the desire of baptism can suffice, so also the desire of entering the church. Now we are saying the same thing with regard to anyone who has faith in God, and sincere repentance for sin, but who is not baptized, whether he has arrived at explicit or only implicit faith in Christ. For, with implicit faith in Christ he can have an implicit desire for baptism…”
St. Robert, like St. Bernard and the other great medieval scholastics and Doctors in the ages of the faith all spoke of the necessity of explicit faith in Christ, even along with implicit desire for baptism.
Coming back to explicit faith, if I remember correctly, this is how Cornelius Lapide also exegetes Heb 11:6, not as being faith by itself, but as being a good disposition in response to which God enlightens the sincerely seeking soul about Christ with the light of faith. That was how most theologians read Pius IX as well, some supernatural revelation happening at least by an internal illumination. Note well that Fr. Michael Mueller, full at once of both evangelistic zeal and holy obedience, as every true missionary of Christ must be, never published an article or other piece of literature without receiving the express approval of two of his Redemptorist superiors, so that all that he wrote is fully in accord with the teaching of the Church in his day. Msgr. Fenton was cited earlier saying the same thing about explicit faith in the Trinity and Incarnation. So this is unbroken Tradition right from the Fathers and Doctors to the present day, leaving aside the Council and its aftermath for now.
So, Ambrose is right in saying the Church has never defined dogmatically what must be explicitly believed, but the more common opinion among the Saints, Doctors and other authorities of great weight is that explicit belief in Our Lord Jesus Christ is required, which the Holy Office Letter did not in any way contradict, but simply sidestepped without pronouncing anything on. So, PereJoseph, I agree with you very much we must always seek to conform with and submit our intellect and will to Holy Mother Church, but clearly, then, such conformity with and submission to the mind of the Church therefore does not and cannot require us to abandon this and arguably rather in fact requires us to hold the same.
-
Thank you for your correction, Nishant. I was ignorant of the relevant details of the dispute and was quite sad when I came across Garrigou-Lagrange's opinion, believing it to have been supported by letter of the Holy Office. It was certainly difficult for me to stomach the thought that the School of Salamanca's opinion prevailed over that of St. Thomas and the majority of Doctors and Fathers. Thus, I am very happy that you have now informed me of the Church's mind on the matter. Your words here are a balm for my soul, and they providentially came at the perfect moment. Praise be to God ! What's even better, your post came on the feast of St. Francis, who has always interceded for me effectively and better than I expected. Praise be to St. Francis, the Seraphic Patriarch ! God bless you, and may you have a happy Feast of St. Francis and First Friday (belatedly, since I believe it must now be Saturday where you are, in which case have a blessed First Saturday as well).
-
I've avoided posting in this thread so far, but anyway. Bowler, I agree with you as you know, on the necessity of explicit faith in Christ for salvation. That position cannot be condemned, and it is still the majority opinion, not only among Doctors and Saints, where it is practically unanimous, but even among theologians, even after the Holy Office Letter, as of around 1950.
Why is it that I have repeatedly stated this very thing yet bowler continues to say I don't hold the common opinion, which is explicit faith in the four items vs the two. What is NOT condemned is either position, and certainly not the former!
What bowler seems to not believe, is what St Alphonsus teaches in areas where he disagrees. As a matter of fact, I think you'd be hard pressed to fiend bowler submitting himself to anything he didn't "figure out" for himself.
Bowler has the mind of a liberal Catholic at best.
-
Yes, I do believe you are a confused individual. Now, do you believe a person with explicit desire to be baptized can be saved if he dies prior to his sacramental baptism?
It's a simple question. I'm NOT asking you if this has or will ever happen (that's another issue), but if it happened.
... your belief in the salvation of someone can that has no explicit desire to be a Catholic nor belief in the Trinity and the Incarnation.
Not only did you not answer, you again misstated my beliefs.
The subject in question believes explicitly in the four items but has not yet been baptized.
You have always been confused with my most basic writings on BOD, what is there to expect? Of course anything I write will be misunderstood by you, I told you from the beginning that you would never understand the subject.
Leave the discussion to Nishant and PereJoseph and any other BODer that knows the subject that comes in the future. Tell your pastor to come on here, or Fr. Cekada, whomever, I welcome their learned opinions.
All of them do not have a leg (a Father of the Church, Doctor, Saint, the Council of Trent, catechism of Trent, any catechism prior to the 20th century, a Creed, dogmas, councils) to stand on if they believe in the salvation of those that have no explicit desire to be Catholics, nor belief in the Trinity and the Incarnation.
It's obvious you keep shifting the argument away from the question I asked you. This has nothing to do with implicit desire for baptism nor implicit faith.
Nishant, I can't believe you don't see this as well.
-
Nishant wrote:
So, Ambrose is right in saying the Church has never defined dogmatically what must be explicitly believed, but the more common opinion among the Saints, Doctors and other authorities of great weight is that explicit belief in Our Lord Jesus Christ is required, which the Holy Office Letter did not in any way contradict, but simply sidestepped without pronouncing anything on. So, PereJoseph, I agree with you very much we must always seek to conform with and submit our intellect and will to Holy Mother Church, but clearly, then, such conformity with and submission to the mind of the Church therefore does not and cannot require us to abandon this and arguably rather in fact requires us to hold the same.
Nishant,
Yes, I am saying that the Church has permitted theologians to explain the minimum of required Faith to be belief in the one God, who is a rewarder of good and a punisher of evil.
For myself, I am a Thomist, and would believe that the minimum must also include belief in the Trinity and the incarnation. The other position is permitted by the Holy See and those who hold it are free to do so.
But, as SJB has also noticed, this is not the point of contention with Bowler. Ask Bowler if he believes that a person who has the Faith, is seeking baptism, and is in the state of grace, and dies prior to the sacrament, is then saved. That is where the real disagreement is, he has the mistaken belief that Trent teaches water only and no Baptism of Desire, when in reality Trent teach the necessity of sacramental baptism or the desire for it.
St. Alphonsus explained that this teaching of the Church on Baptism of Desire is de fide and cited the Council of Trent as his source. Instead of accepting this truth, Bowler uses nonsense arguments and insults against me.
I wish you well if you this keep this going with him, because I will no longer discuss it with him by his request.
-
Therefore, we who are students learning the faith ought to incline to holding it ourself, since the authority of Doctors is preferable by far to those who are not
.
Why then, do you quote John of St. Thomas with respect to the pope-heretic issue?
-
I've avoided posting in this thread so far, but anyway. Bowler, I agree with you as you know, on the necessity of explicit faith in Christ for salvation. That position cannot be condemned, and it is still the majority opinion, not only among Doctors and Saints, where it is practically unanimous, but even among theologians, even after the Holy Office Letter, as of around 1950.
Why is it that I have repeatedly stated this very thing yet bowler continues to say I don't hold the common opinion, which is explicit faith in the four items vs the two. What is NOT condemned is either position, and certainly not the former!.
My question has always been the same, do you restrict your belief to that of St. Thomas of Aquinas? Not once have you said that you do. It was that simple to answer, yet not once did you say, yes.
You still do not say it.
-
Nishant wrote:
So, Ambrose is right in saying the Church has never defined dogmatically what must be explicitly believed, but the more common opinion among the Saints, Doctors and other authorities of great weight is that explicit belief in Our Lord Jesus Christ is required, which the Holy Office Letter did not in any way contradict, but simply sidestepped without pronouncing anything on. So, PereJoseph, I agree with you very much we must always seek to conform with and submit our intellect and will to Holy Mother Church, but clearly, then, such conformity with and submission to the mind of the Church therefore does not and cannot require us to abandon this and arguably rather in fact requires us to hold the same.
Nishant,
Yes, I am saying that the Church has permitted theologians to explain the minimum of required Faith to be belief in the one God, who is a rewarder of good and a punisher of evil.
For myself, I am a Thomist, and would believe that the minimum must also include belief in the Trinity and the incarnation. The other position is permitted by the Holy See and those who hold it are free to do so.
Did I ever call anyone a heretic for belieiving what "Church has permitted theologians to explain the minimum of required Faith to be belief in the one God, who is a rewarder of good and a punisher of evil"? No.
However, you overstep your bounds when you declare a heretic anyone who does not believe in BOD. It makes you out to be a know-nothing hothead.
-
I read the whole thing. It was a difficult read IMO and I cannot see how it applies to a BOD . . . . . . .possibly because it was a difficult read.
You write Matthew to let him know in advance you will be getting down thumbed?
May I ask, why?
Yes, it is a difficult read, precisely because the matter is very difficult. It does apply to the BOD controversy if you read carefully. I had prefaced it with my own observations/notes in an endeavor to contextualize the text.
That was a tangential point, the message I had written to Matthew was about whether or not I would post the thread at all. I decided to do so, as is obvious.
More texts from Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange are forthcoming.
It is not difficult to read in the sense that you are saying it. It is difficult to read in the sense that it is ponderous, he is a poor communicator. Great writers, great communicators, make the complicated easy to understand for everyone, from the farmer to the professor, they communicate to everyone. Garrigou-Lagrange makes the easy to understand complicated. He is a drag to read. I'd rather go get a tooth filling.
It is like reading Rahner, the chocolate of priest. He appeals to those that are impressed by what they don't understand. This is a big failing in the clergy types.
I am pretty sure that Stubborn did not seriously mean to somehow compare the great Fr. Lagrange with the heretical Rahner. Put this as one of those comments that we can slip under the rug, given that I have never heard Stubborn say something so crazy.
-
I've avoided posting in this thread so far, but anyway. Bowler, I agree with you as you know, on the necessity of explicit faith in Christ for salvation. That position cannot be condemned, and it is still the majority opinion, not only among Doctors and Saints, where it is practically unanimous, but even among theologians, even after the Holy Office Letter, as of around 1950.
Why is it that I have repeatedly stated this very thing yet bowler continues to say I don't hold the common opinion, which is explicit faith in the four items vs the two. What is NOT condemned is either position, and certainly not the former!.
My question has always been the same, do you restrict your belief to that of St. Thomas of Aquinas? Not once have you said that you do. It was that simple to answer, yet not once did you say, yes.
You still do not say it.
I said it many times and in many places. Even back in the days when certain "feeneyites" we're calling St. Thomas a heretic!