Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: Lover of Truth on October 15, 2012, 06:30:05 AM
-
http://www.traditio.com/tradlib/piusmodern.htm
Pius XII and Modernism
From Twentieth Century Harbingers (pages 1094-1099)
The Revolution Takes Hold Under Pius XII
Both advocates and critics of the Revolution of the Second Vatican Council agree that the role of Eugenio Maria Giuseppe Giovanni Cardinal Pacelli, who ascended the Chair of Peter on March 12, 1939, as Pope Pius XII was instrumental in securing the revolutionaries a foothold on the papacy. As Martinez solidly docuмents, and as inveterate collaborators of New-Church like Archbishop Annibale Bugnini, C.M., reaffirm, Pius XII opened the Church to "Progressivism" both politically and theologically.
Under his 19-year-pontificate, the foundation and stepping-stones for the futuristic Newchurch were laid. The following is a short list of decrees and movements initiated by Pope Pius XII that propelled Newchurch forward:
The Destruction of the Liturgy
As Archbishop Annibale Bugnini records in his opening chapter to The Reform of the Liturgy 1948-1975 on the well-springs of "liturgical reform," as early as 1942, less than three years into his pontificate, Pope Pius XII assigned a project for liturgical reform (liturgical codification) to Benedictine Father Pio Alfonzo, a liturgist who taught at the College of the Propaganda and advised the Sacred Congregation of Rites. Fr. Alfonzo's "General Norms," however, was not acted upon at that time.
It was not until four years later, on May 10, 1946, in an audience with Carlo Cardinal Salotti, Prefect for the Congregation of Rites, that Pius XII instructed Salotti to begin a study of the general reform of the liturgy.
On July 17, 1946, Pius XII determined that a Commission for General Liturgical Restoration be established to consider that nature and substance of a general reform of the liturgy and offer concrete proposals. On May 28, 1948, the pope selected the members of the Commission. Father (later Cardinal) Ferdinando Antonelli, OFM, was named General Director and Fr. (later Archbishop) Annibale Bugnini named Secretary. When the Commission was dissolved in 1960, to make room for the Pontifical Preparatory Commission on the Liturgy established in connection with the forthcoming Second Vatican Council, Bugnini was again appointed to serve as Secretary for the new assembly. After the opening of the Council in 1962 by Pope John XXIII, until its closing in 1964 under Pope Paul VI, Bugnini continued to function in the capacity of peritus (expert) to the Conciliar Commission on the Liturgy. From 1964 to 1969, Bugnini again served as Secretary to the Consilium for the Implementation of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy (Sacrosanctum Concilium) promulgated by Pope Paul VI on December 4, 1963.
These seemingly mundane facts are presented here so that there can be no question that Annibale Bugnini knew of what he spoke when he made the following confession:
In the twelve years of its existence (June 28, 1948 to July 8, 1960), the commission held eighty-two meetings and worked in absolute secrecy. So secret, in fact, was their work that the publication of the Ordo Sabbati Sancti instaurati at the beginning of March 1951 caught even officials of the Congregation of Rites by surprise. The commission enjoyed the full confidence of the Pope (i.e. Pius XII), who was kept abreast of its work by Monsignor Montini and even more, on a weekly basis, by Father Bea, confessor of Pius XII. The first fruit of the commission's work was the restoration of the Easter Vigil (1951). It was a signal that the liturgy was at last launched decisively on a pastoral course. The same reforming principles were applied in 1955 to the whole of Holy Week, and in 1960, with the Code of Rubrics, to the remainder of the liturgy.
The second force operative in ensuring the coming of liturgical reform found its mature expression at Assisi (1956). This International Conference Congress on Pastoral Liturgy, was, in God's plan, a dawn announcing a resplendent day that would have no decline. Who would have predicted that three years later the greatest ecclesial event of the century, Vatican Council II, would be announced? Pope Pius XII gave a fine address. In his introduction he made a historic remark: "The Liturgical movement is a sign of the providential dispositions of God for the present time [and] of the movement of the Holy Spirit in the Church."
It is clear today the reform was the fruit of a long period of maturation, a fruit produced by the thought and prayer of elite minds and then shared with even wider circles of the faithful.
In The Murky Waters of Vatican II, Catholic writer Atila Guimaraes cites the works of the frequently quoted Post-Conciliar writer Antonio Acerbi who confirms that long before the Second Vatican Council opened, a "synthetic school" existed that attempted to integrate two currents acting on the Church -- one "progressive" and the other "conservative." This "synthesis," Acerbi suggests, inspired Pope Pius XII's Encyclical (1943).
The draft of Mystici Corporis was actually prepared by Dutch Jesuit theologian Fr. Sebastian Trump. Its publication was a watershed event -- a major paradigm shift in redefining the juridical and societal role of the Catholic Church. Commenting on the revolutionary nature of Mystici Corporis, Father Avery Dulles, SJ, noted that an attempt to introduce the same concept of the Church as the Mystical Body of Christ was rejected in 1870 at the First Vatican Council as being "confusing, ambiguous, vague, inappropriate, and inappropriately biological."
In History of Vatican II-Announcing and Preparing Vatican Council II, editor Joseph A. Komonchak states that Pius XII led the Revolution under the banner of "reform."
Komonchak credits Pius XII's Encyclical on Biblical Studies Divino Afflante Spiritu (1943) that was prepared from a draft written by German Jesuit Augustin Bea, then Director of the Biblical Institute, with the freeing of Biblical scholars from former restrictions and opened up Biblical Studies to progressive thought.
"Less open, because it attacked the two fronts of spiritualism and juridical formalism" Mystici Corporis Christi, issued in that same year [1943], replaced a purely conceptual ecclesiology with an organic one, even while asserting that the Roman Church is coextensive with the Church of Christ," claims Komoncha. "The masterpiece of these reforms was the restoration of the feast of Easter to its ancient splendor by assigning the central role once again to the Vigil, the nocturnal service celebrated between Holy Saturday and Easter Sunday," he explained.
Archbishop Annibale Bugnini, a major architect of the Novus Ordo, confirmed that Pius XII's action was seen as a step "leading gradually to the new structuring of the liturgical year on its traditional foundations."
Other reforms instigated by Pius XII, said Komonchak, included the establishment of secular institutes such as Opus Dei, the restoration of the permanent diaconate as an "ecclesiastical office independent of the priesthood," and the internationalization of the Curia, more by the Consistory of 1946 than the Consistory of 1953.
Bugnini credited Pius XII with putting "the seal of his supreme authority" on the Liturgical Movement in his Encyclical Mediator Dei of November 11, 1947.
He also notes that in 1945, two years before the encyclical appeared, Pius XII commissioned a new Latin version of the Psalms under the Pontifical Biblical Institute.
"This work, which had been brought to completion by the tenacious determination of the rector, Father (later Cardinal) Augustin Bea, helped ripen in the pope's mind the idea of a reform of the entire liturgy; the new Psalter would be simply the first building block of the new edifice," claimed Bugnini.
In the United States, as early as 1940, the Benedictines at St. John's Abbey in Collegeville, Minn. were hosting "Liturgical Weeks." At such avant-garde gatherings, "NewMass" was said in the vernacular with the "presider" facing the people and concelebration the norm. Chewy bread replaced the host. Private devotions were discouraged.
From the beginning, ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ clergy and religious like Archbishop Rembert Weakland were greatly attracted to the concept of "liturgical reform" as a vehicle of doctrinal and moral change. Catholic historian, Joseph White was very perceptive when he noted that "Liturgical activists were concurrently social reformers."
The Undermining of Seminary Life
Before Pope Pius XII issued Menti Nostae On the Development of Holiness in Priestly Life on September 23, 1950, members of the Curia informed the pope that the wholesale changes embraced by the apostolic exhortation, especially those tied to the "updating" of seminary life, would adversely affect the priesthood.
The concerns of the Sacred Congregation of Seminaries and Universities centered on the predictable erosion of spirituality and seminary discipline likely to result from Menti Nostae's novel emphasis on new methods of training and courses of professional studies that mimicked secular education. Pius XII ignored the Curia's warning.
Under the guise of "seminary reform," all forms of discipline including prayer life and dress were relaxed to enable seminarians to break out of their "isolation" and fraternize with the "modern world." The decline in seminary discipline and morale was also mirrored in the general priesthood as the Holy See began to receive increased numbers of requests for laicization i.e., reduction to the lay state, by priests.
In the seminary classroom, especially in the United States, the mandatory use of Latin, the universal language of the Church, was already in precipitous decline by the early 1950s. Giuseppe Cardinal Pizzardo, the Prefect for the Congregation correctly claimed that without Latin the sources of the Catholic tradition would become inaccessible to upcoming seminarians and priests -- a thoroughly delicious thought to the architects of NewChurch. The replacement of Latin with the vernacular anticipated a number of other important "reforms" already on the drawing boards including the use of the vernacular in Sacred Liturgy and the internationalization of the Roman Curia.
Up until the start of the Second World War, the Italian-dominated Curia and College of Cardinals remained Catholic, that is, universal, competent, and faithful to Tradition. Like the Legislative branch of government, the Holy Office has offered a system of checks and balances in the governance of the Church and has served as a counter-weight to papal abuse of power especially when it threatened the Deposit of Faith.
No less an authority than Rev. Thomas J. Reese, SJ, the sympathetic chronicler of AmChurch, acknowledges that the internationalization or de-Romanization of the Curia began under Pius XII. In 1946, the pope raised the overall number of the Sacred College of Cardinals from 36 to 70 and in 1953 he added 24 more cardinals with an eye fixed on breaking the historic dominance by Italians in the Curia.
The Promotion of Episcopal Conferences
Closely connected to the de-Romanization of the Curia, was the expansion in scope and power, of Episcopal National Conferences under Pius XII.
While Cardinal and Secretary of State from 1930 to 1939, Eugenio Pacelli backed the creation of a centralized Church bureaucracy within each nation or groups of nations, a practice begun under Pope Benedict XV.
Today every nation has its "Bishops Club" such as the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops or a super-structured bureaucracy such as CELAM created in 1955 in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, that today represents some 22 Episcopates in Latin America and the Caribbean.
By the time Pius XII's successor, Pope John XXIII, gave formal approval to the structure of National Episcopal Conferences in Annuario Pontificio (1959), 40 such bureaucracies were already in place.
As noted in Chapter 11, there was justifiable concern among American bishops when the NCCB/USCC was created in 1966, that the new Episcopal bureaucracy would undermine the authority of the individual bishop and interfere with the age-old line of transmission that has existed between a bishop and the Holy See in the person of the pope.
The creation of NewChurch would have been very difficult, if not impossible, without the existence of these vast and universal bureaucratic structures. In the U.S., the ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ Collective personified by New Ways Ministry, could hardly have had its way with the Church had it not been for the cooperation and resources of the NCCB/USCC and its successor, the USCCB.
One could cite numerous other examples, including the ill-fated "updating" of religious orders, to docuмent the unhappy fact that the current Revolution sweeping the Roman Catholic Church today began, in earnest, at the top, with Pope Pius XII.
The completion of the Revolution would have to wait for Pope Paul VI with Pope John XXIII serving as the bridge between the two pontiffs.
-
This is very true.
I think the guardians of the deposit of faith must also become guardians of the gateway to the deposit of faith, i.e., pay closer attention to who people are and what motivates them.
Now, either Pius XII did none of this, or he was a willing participant.
It's all very unsettling to ponder.
-
This is very true.
I think the guardians of the deposit of faith must also become guardians of the gateway to the deposit of faith, i.e., pay closer attention to who people are and what motivates them.
Now, either Pius XII did none of this, or he was a willing participant.
It's all very unsettling to ponder.
Well put.
Truth is stranger than fiction. You can't make these things up. We are dealing with plans and plots originated in the depths of Hell.
-
This topic is just another cheap shot at Pius XII. As a layman I am not qualified to evaluate whatever changes were made to the liturgy but at least( unlike John 23 & Paul 6) Pacelli is a real Pope.
Like another recent post there is no mention in the above that Pius XII was at odds with Montini & had him farmed out to Milan w/o the purple.
-
This topic is just another cheap shot at Pius XII. As a layman I am not qualified to evaluate whatever changes were made to the liturgy but at least( unlike John 23 & Paul 6) Pacelli is a real Pope.
Like another recent post there is no mention in the above that Pius XII was at odds with Montini & had him farmed out to Milan w/o the purple.
You know something, this is the most awesome thing you have posted!
"As a layman I am not qualified to evaluate whatever changes were made to the liturgy" - that's for "Father Moderator" (Mr. Morrison) to confess in all humility.
The very idea that Pius XII could have abetted the modernists' subversive anti-Christian agenda is disgusting.
But the "TRADITIO effect" is too commonplace amongst traditionalists, particularly some sedevacantists.
NEWS FLASH: Traditio is not a reliable source of information, and anything on there that is true is information Morrison got from somewhere else without duly acknowledging or citing the source.
-
This topic is just another cheap shot at Pius XII. As a layman I am not qualified to evaluate whatever changes were made to the liturgy but at least( unlike John 23 & Paul 6) Pacelli is a real Pope.
Like another recent post there is no mention in the above that Pius XII was at odds with Montini & had him farmed out to Milan w/o the purple.
You know something, this is the most awesome thing you have posted!
"As a layman I am not qualified to evaluate whatever changes were made to the liturgy" - that's for "Father Moderator" (Mr. Morrison) to confess in all humility.
The very idea that Pius XII could have abetted the modernists' subversive anti-Christian agenda is disgusting.
But the "TRADITIO effect" is too commonplace amongst traditionalists, particularly some sedevacantists.
NEWS FLASH: Traditio is not a reliable source of information, and anything on there that is true is information Morrison got from somewhere else without duly acknowledging or citing the source.
I will say that the editor of traditio tends to exaggerate things. Things are bad enough, no need to make it seem worse than it is.
I also wish he would put down whether the Masses are SV or not. He acts as if this is irrelevant (I have corresponded with him). Though it may be licit to attend an una cuм Benedictio it would be nice to know of alternatives when you travel. Also he is clearly not SV though he respects the "opinion".
I have not gone to the site regularly in years. And it has been years since I looked at his daily commentary which used to be, years ago, the only thing I looked at on his site. He does have some good stuff there though, the Divine Office for instance.
A reminder, that I was just reminded about, the SVs that have to attend the "una cuм Benedictio" Mass, remember, according to Father Stepanich, you have expressly withhold consent to his name being in the canon:
To answer your questions briefly for now, let me just say that sedevacantist traditional Catholics can attend una cuм Benedicto Masses lawfully, provided that they expressly withhold approval of the Priest adding the name of No-Pope Benedict to the una cuм phrase in the Canon of the Mass. They may not merely disregard the naming of a false Pope, saying that’s the Priest’s problem, but must expressly disapprove of it, while approving only of the Priest offering the Sacrifice, the true Tridentine Latin Mass. …
I asked Mike Cain how one would "expressly" withhold consent [supposing what Father Stepanich says is accurate] and he said as follows (he does not believe we can attend but he allows people to disagree with him without punishing them):
By silently praying the following at the Diptychs of the Living in the Canon of the Mass in unison with the true priest celebrating holy Mass. If he isn't a true priest, you shouldn't be there. Period!
Here are the words used by the CMRI and sedevacantist priests:
"una cuм omnibus orthodoxis atque Catholicae, et Apostolicae Fidei cultoribus."
"unite and govern her throughout the world, together with all true believers and professors of the Catholic and Apostolic Faith."
And encouraging others to do likewise.
That would be "expressly withholding assent. Note, the true priests and bishops would be included as "all true believers and professors."
Gratefully that is what I was doing already.
Kind of off topic but there it is.
-
This topic is just another cheap shot at Pius XII. As a layman I am not qualified to evaluate whatever changes were made to the liturgy but at least( unlike John 23 & Paul 6) Pacelli is a real Pope.
Like another recent post there is no mention in the above that Pius XII was at odds with Montini & had him farmed out to Milan w/o the purple.
You know something, this is the most awesome thing you have posted!
"As a layman I am not qualified to evaluate whatever changes were made to the liturgy" - that's for "Father Moderator" (Mr. Morrison) to confess in all humility.
The very idea that Pius XII could have abetted the modernists' subversive anti-Christian agenda is disgusting.
But the "TRADITIO effect" is too commonplace amongst traditionalists, particularly some sedevacantists.
NEWS FLASH: Traditio is not a reliable source of information, and anything on there that is true is information Morrison got from somewhere else without duly acknowledging or citing the source.
Amen, Mr. Roscoe and Mr. Hobbles. Amen!
L. of T. needs to apologize for the public disrespect he unjustly presumes to write against our saintly Pope Pius XII the Great. A very few Popes have been public sinners (and but for the grace of God there go I) while a few have made serious political mistakes (again, surely no great surprise) but over-all our Roman Popes have been the greatest and most admirable group of men the world has ever known. Beyond compare! We should humbly read the essays of Fr. Joseph Clifford Fenton about Pope Pius XII and thank the Lord for having sent us so great a Bishop of Rome.
This Jansenist disrespect against our Holy Father is unconscionable.
-
Just to clarify - I did not "write" the post from:
From Twentieth Century Harbingers (pages 1094-1099)
Someone else did.
If anything posted is not true please provide docuмentation. I think it is fairly safe to say he was not one of our greatest Popes.
Bad things happened under him.
He can not be mentioned in the same breath as Pius V or Pius X. These were great Popes beyond dispute.
Alot went on when he was Pope that was not good and had many of high repute and good will scratching their heads. It is not like everything was perfect one day and there was a 360 degree turnaround when Roncalli claimed office.
Facts are stubborn things. Some don't want to accept them. Others can.
-
Specifically--- what 'bad things' things happened under him. Can U name some of the 'many of high repute' who were scratching their heads and why?
I realise that WWII happened while he was Pope. Are U blaming him for the war?
-
Just to clarify - I did not "write" the post from:
From Twentieth Century Harbingers (pages 1094-1099)
Someone else did.
If anything posted is not true please provide docuмentation. I think it is fairly safe to say he was not one of our greatest Popes.
Bad things happened under him.
He can not be mentioned in the same breath as Pius V or Pius X. These were great Popes beyond dispute.
Alot went on when he was Pope that was not good and had many of high repute and good will scratching their heads. It is not like everything was perfect one day and there was a 360 degree turnaround when Roncalli claimed office.
Facts are stubborn things. Some don't want to accept them. Others can.
Mr. L. of T.,
The Jansenist malice of your entries in this thread do not deserve any serious response. Even to honour them with an answer would be to sin against God and His holy religion. Truly there is nothing to be done here but for you to repent and beg forgiveness for your monstrous slanders against our Holy Mother the Church.
May the Good Lord in His patience have mercy on your soul.
:pray: :pray: :pray:
-
Specifically--- what 'bad things' things happened under him. Can U name some of the 'many of high repute' who were scratching their heads and why?
I realise that WWII happened while he was Pope. Are U blaming him for the war?
See the above quotes at the beggining of this thread for the answers. Father Stepanich is one and he says there were others.
I believe he protected Jews in WWII and that is obviously a good thing. All of us are mixed bags having some good and some evil about us for some it is 99/1 in one way or the other but none of us is perfect.
I don't think I need to win this dispute though. I'll take him over those who followed any day, not even close. But . . .
I'm sure he suffered alot and was probably of good will. No unCatholic agendas I hope. But so much will be revealed on the last day. Things we can not imagine. We have already learned so much about the conciliar "pope" that not long ago we never would have imagined.
I'm just concerned with the truth.
Now whether posting these facts serves a good purpose is another question.
He was a valid Pope.
1. Should we avoid any negative truth about him since he was Pope?
2. Or is it important to get to the root cause of all that has befallen us?
I'm sure legitimate arguments can be made for both sides.
I believe all the facts should be known so a future Pope won't make the same mistakes.
Our next Pope needs to be strong in every way, not just one who manages to avoid heresy. Maybe seeing all the details that opened the door to where we are will help.
Did you know that since Leo XII the only Pope not to have diplomatic experience was Piux X. He just told it like it was and did not pander to anyone. I'm sure he was hated, and that is a good sign. No honey or vinegar, just straight. That is how I like it and I believe we should desire the truth no matter how sad or uncomfortable it is so that we can avoid past mistakes.
That is my motivation. If anyone can docuмent that the original posting is false I'll gladly embrace it. I want his reputation to be clean. I don't want anything negative about him to be true. I certainly am not into knowingly falsely accusing anyone.
There are negative private things that should be kept private if they do not hurt anyone our put souls in peril. But when it comes to Popes I believe it is a different story. If we can't hold them accountable who can we hold accountable?
They have so many souls in their hands in a manner of speaking.
I am not looking to get anyone angry or scandalized when I post unpopular things. I know by posting contraversial things that I can learn. It gives people the opportunity to correct me with docuмentation if possible. It also gives them the opportunity to merit by defending him. I am glad to defend him as a valid Pope and as one who risked alot by housing the Jews. And he did many other good things. I would like to think I'd be willing to die for him were I alive when he was Pope, though I'm not sure I am man enough to do it.
I hope that clarifies. And I'll be glad to see the first posting proven wrong. I also welcome any charitable explanation as to why posting such a thing even if it is true does more harm than good or is evil in and of itself. I will carefully read anything on that topic.
I hope my motives were pure this time.
-
Specifically--- what 'bad things' things happened under him. Can U name some of the 'many of high repute' who were scratching their heads and why?
I realise that WWII happened while he was Pope. Are U blaming him for the war?
See the above quotes at the beggining of this thread for the answers. Father Stepanich is one and he says there were others.
I believe he protected Jews in WWII and that is obviously a good thing. All of us are mixed bags having some good and some evil about us for some it is 99/1 in one way or the other but none of us is perfect.
I don't think I need to win this dispute though. I'll take him over those who followed any day, not even close. But . . .
I'm sure he suffered alot and was probably of good will. No unCatholic agendas I hope. But so much will be revealed on the last day. Things we can not imagine. We have already learned so much about the conciliar "pope" that not long ago we never would have imagined.
I'm just concerned with the truth.
Now whether posting these facts serves a good purpose is another question.
He was a valid Pope.
1. Should we avoid any negative truth about him since he was Pope?
2. Or is it important to get to the root cause of all that has befallen us?
I'm sure legitimate arguments can be made for both sides.
I believe all the facts should be known so a future Pope won't make the same mistakes.
Our next Pope needs to be strong in every way, not just one who manages to avoid heresy. Maybe seeing all the details that opened the door to where we are will help.
Did you know that since Leo XII the only Pope not to have diplomatic experience was Piux X. He just told it like it was and did not pander to anyone. I'm sure he was hated, and that is a good sign. No honey or vinegar, just straight. That is how I like it and I believe we should desire the truth no matter how sad or uncomfortable it is so that we can avoid past mistakes.
That is my motivation. If anyone can docuмent that the original posting is false I'll gladly embrace it. I want his reputation to be clean. I don't want anything negative about him to be true. I certainly am not into knowingly falsely accusing anyone.
There are negative private things that should be kept private if they do not hurt anyone our put souls in peril. But when it comes to Popes I believe it is a different story. If we can't hold them accountable who can we hold accountable?
They have so many souls in their hands in a manner of speaking.
I am not looking to get anyone angry or scandalized when I post unpopular things. I know by posting contraversial things that I can learn. It gives people the opportunity to correct me with docuмentation if possible. It also gives them the opportunity to merit by defending him. I am glad to defend him as a valid Pope and as one who risked alot by housing the Jews. And he did many other good things. I would like to think I'd be willing to die for him were I alive when he was Pope, though I'm not sure I am man enough to do it.
I hope that clarifies. And I'll be glad to see the first posting proven wrong. I also welcome any charitable explanation as to why posting such a thing even if it is true does more harm than good or is evil in and of itself. I will carefully read anything on that topic.
I hope my motives were pure this time.
BF75 is probably right & I really should not answer your lunacy. However Fr Stepanich was a libeler of Fr Feeney & it is now evident he is a libeler of Pius XII whose Bull Humani Generis supported Fr Feeney.
-
Alot went on when he was Pope that was not good and had many of high repute and good will scratching their heads.
Facts are stubborn things. Some don't want to accept them. Others can.
So far only one person has been named that is allegedly 'of high repute & good will'.
MO is that he doesn't qualify.
Since there are allegedly 'many', possibly more names can be provided.
-
Mr. Roscoe,
It requires much humility and sincerity to appreciate the great achievements of Popes such as Benedict XV, Pius XI and Pius XII. Those who with false pride choose to twist the truth by slyly mixing good and evil together so as to make everything look bad and suspicious are only belittling great men to make themselves look bigger.
That L. of T. presumes to judge great Popes like Benedict XV, Pius XI and Pius XII is gravely delusional, to say the least. For any Catholic with some serious knowledge of history his gross distortions of fact are downright bizarre. To take such anti-Catholic diatribes seriously is to waste our precious time when we could be studying real Catholic history and religion instead. Jansenists have always engaged in this sort of dishonest fear-mongering, and these falsehoods are no different. They are in truth straight from out of the Protestant Reformation.
Better for us to buy snake oil from our friendly local carnival carny than pollute our minds by watching the slithering sleights of hand constantly performed by L. of T. Almost all of our Popes before V2 were holy men, and there's an end to it.
Most of the few exceptions were Anti-Popes, and (as Archbishop Lefebvre strongly suspected) probably still are. It seems only hard-hearted Jansenists like L. of T. really have much trouble telling the difference.
-
I have not seen LOT's post re: Ben XV(15?) but I suspect--- if for no other reason that his office was attained with the assistance of election fraud of some sort--- that he may be an anti-pope.
-
I posted an accurate history of Pius XII. I have asked to see docuмented proof to the contrary which certainly would be brought forth were there any.
Let us take a look at Catholic charity and humility in action:
It requires much humility and sincerity to appreciate the great achievements of Popes such as Benedict XV, Pius XI and Pius XII. Those who with false pride choose to twist the truth by slyly mixing good and evil together so as to make everything look bad and suspicious are only belittling great men to make themselves look bigger.
This suggests that I do not have humility or sincerity and that what I posted is all made up, but no proof to the contrary is shown. Further I'm accused of having "false pride" and that I "twist" the truth by "slyly" mixing good and evil together. And that I do this in order to make myself look bigger?
Coming up with all those false accusations is what is strange and bizare. I merely posted the facts. I did not invent anything. I have no interior motive but the truth. It is a sign of desparation to accuse people of all sorts of things when the facts can't be refuted. It is also a sign of intellectual dishonesty. It is like saying, I don't want to believe what he said is true so I will undermine him by calling him all sorts of names and acuse him of all sorts of things to undermine his credibility. It is a pre-school mentality that is not worthy of respect and is not the Catholic way to be
That L. of T. presumes to judge great Popes like Benedict XV, Pius XI and Pius XII is gravely delusional, to say the least.
I'm still waiting for docuмentation that is contrary to the facts posted above. Since when have I "judged" Benedict XV or Pius XI? You are correct though it is gravely delusional to accuse me of such.
For any Catholic with some serious knowledge of history his gross distortions of fact are downright bizarre.
You keep asserting that I'm the one who wrote the post when I did not. I have distorted nothing but posted something written by someone else. You play to people's emotions by using words like "bizarre" and "delusional" but never provide proof that is contrary to what is posted. It is sad that posters lack charity and intellectual honesty. It is sinful to undermine others merely because you disagree with them but can't prove them wrong. I have given him credit where it is due.
To take such anti-Catholic diatribes seriously is to waste our precious time when we could be studying real Catholic history and religion instead. Jansenists have always engaged in this sort of dishonest fear-mongering, and these falsehoods are no different.
More ipsi dixits. We just have to assume they are "anti-Catholic diatribes" but you bring no proof. Then another name "Jansenists". You are obviously desparate. It is like a little child who is told there is no Santa Claus. He repsonds by saying, "there is a Santa Claus, there is a Santa Claus, there is a Santa Claus you meanie. Your a meanie. There is a Santa Clause. Meanie.". I expect a little more from people that have reached the age of reason.
If you are not ready for the real world brother Francis go back into hiding and pray. Otherwise show me docuмentation that proves the posting wrong.
They are in truth straight from out of the Protestant Reformation.
Let's see all the emotional ploys you use to undermine me merely because you do not want to believe the facts are true:
1. I don't have humility
2. I don't have sincerity.
3. I have false pride.
4. I twist the truth.
5. I slyly mix truth and error together.
6. I belittle great men to make myself look bigger.
7. I come up with false accusations.
8. I'm gravely delusional "to say the least" mind you. One can only imagine what I am if you give the full story.
9. I have made gross distortions. (though again the posting is not my writing - just a little fact that you still seem to be unaware of).
10. I'm anti-Catholic.
11. I'm Jansenist.
12. I'm a dishonest fear-mongerer.
13. I'm the stuff of the protestant reformation.
But there is more.
Better for us to buy snake oil from our friendly local carnival carny than pollute our minds by watching the slithering sleights of hand constantly performed by L. of T. Almost all of our Popes before V2 were holy men, and there's an end to it.
"Slithering sleights of hand" "constantly performed" no less. You are on a roll now. Wow! Excellent proof against what is factually docuмented against Pius XII.
Most of the few exceptions were Anti-Popes, and (as Archbishop Lefebvre strongly suspected) probably still are. It seems only hard-hearted Jansenists like L. of T. really have much trouble telling the difference.
Now you want us to believe that the true bad popes were no Popes at all. So now we cannot believe that there is such thing as a bad pope or an imprudent Pope or an immoral Pope. And I'm the snake-oil sales man.
Go to confession Brother Francis. And learn intellectual honesty. Your response smells like a political smear campaign where facts are irrelevant and perception is all that matters.
Come back when you have docuмented proof to the contrary. But if you must have your Santa Claus keep him to yourself.
It is truly amazing that one can post something written by someone else and be accused of making it up, and with the intention of undermining great men just because I want to make myself bigger than them.
I never cease to be astounded by the lack of charity, intellectual dishonesty and down-right lies from people who pretend to be Catholic. I would never believe someone who claims to be a traditional Catholic would come up with such accusations against me in his wildest imagination, let alone try to pass it off, publically, for truth. But it seems the facts are irrelevant to you and it is all about perception. If you can make me the bad guy then whatever I say should not be believed. Illogic at its finest.
If you can't handle the truth go crawl back into your hole. It might be the best thing for you spiritually.
As I said, facts are stubborn things. Some people can accept them, others can't.
-
I posted an accurate history of Pius XII.
Wrong-- Your post was deceptive because it did not mention that Pius XII took action against Montini in the same way that Pius X took action against Della Chiesa.
-
I posted an accurate history of Pius XII.
Wrong-- Your post was deceptive because it did not mention that Pius XII took action against Montini in the same way that Pius X took action against Della Chiesa.
It as an accurate history of the negative stuff he did and allowed.
A full history would admit many positives I admit. Remember I want him to be perfect. I wish there was nothing negative about his pontificate and I would love to be proven wrong.
He also promoted Montini to a higher position for a cardinal while at the same time he "punished" him by not giving him the Cardinals hat.
There was good about Pius XII, you can compare him to those who claimed his chair after him to see that it could have been much worse. But his pontificate was not the greatest by any stretch. He isn't close to as bad as the worst Popes but he was not the greatest or close to the greatest of Popes either.
I mean no disrespect and intend to get no one angry when stating these facts.
Again I lay the challenge out to prove the original post incorrect in any way. I will happily concede. I'm not out to get him. I'm out for truth.
-
He also promoted Montini to a higher position for a cardinal
What exactly is this suppose to mean?
-
He also promoted Montini to a higher position for a cardinal
What exactly is this suppose to mean?
It is actually worse than I thought if the following description is correct:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Pius_XII
After his election, he made Luigi Maglione his successor as Cardinal Secretary of State. Cardinal Maglione, a seasoned Vatican diplomat, had reestablished diplomatic relations with Switzerland and was for many years nuncio in Paris. Yet, Maglione did not exercise the influence of his predecessor Pacelli, who as Pope continued his close relation with Monsignors Montini (later Pope Paul VI) and Domenico Tardini. After the death of Maglione in 1944, Pius left the position open and named Tardini head of its foreign section and Montini head of the internal section.[77] Tardini and Montini continued serving there until 1953, when Pius XII decided to appoint them cardinals,[78] an honor which both turned down.[79] They were then later appointed to be Pro-Secretary with the privilege to wear Episcopal Insignia.[80] Tardini continued to be a close co-worker of the Pope until the death of Pius XII, while Montini became archbishop of Milan, after the death of Alfredo Ildefonso Schuster.
Pius XII slowly eroded the Italian monopoly on the Roman Curia; he employed German and Dutch Jesuit advisors, Robert Leiber, Augustin Bea, and Sebastian Tromp. He also supported the elevation of Americans such as Cardinal Francis Spellman from a minor to a major role in the Church.[81][82] After World War II, Pius XII appointed more non-Italians than any Pope before him. American appointees included Joseph P. Hurley as regent of the nunciature in Belgrade, Gerald P. O'Hara as nuncio to Romania, and Monsignor Muench as nuncio to Germany. For the first time, numerous young Europeans, Asians and "Americans were trained in various congregations and secretariats within the Vatican for eventual service throughout the world."[83]
In his second consistory on 12 January 1953, it was expected that his closest co-workers, Msgrs. Domenico Tardini and Giovanni Montini would be elevated[86] and Pius XII informed the assembled cardinals that both of them were originally on the top of his list,[87] but they had turned down the offer, and were rewarded instead with other promotions.[88] [Tardini later thanked him for not appointing him. The Pope replied with a smile: Monsignore mio, you thank me, for not letting me do what I wanted to do" I replied, yes Holy Father, I thank you for everything you have done for me, but even more, what you have not done for me. The Pope smiled. In Domenico Cardinale Tardini, Pio XII, Tipografia Poliglotta Vaticana, 1960 157]The two consistories of 1946 and 1953 brought an end to over five hundred years of Italians constituting a majority of the College of Cardinals.[89]
In 1950, Pius XII promulgated Humani Generis which acknowledged that evolution might accurately describe the biological origins of human life, but at the same time criticized those who "imprudently and indiscreetly hold that evolution... explains the origin of all things". Catholics must believe that the human soul was created immediately by God. Since the soul is a spiritual substance it is not brought into being through transformation of matter, but directly by God, whence the special uniqueness of each person.."[116] Fifty years later, Pope John Paul II, stating that scientific evidence now seemed to favour the evolutionary theory, upheld the distinction of Pius XII regarding the human soul. "Even if the human body originates from pre-existent living matter, the spiritual soul is spontaneously created by God."[117]
But I do not really want to keep proving he was not the greatest. I would much rather someone show where some of the accusations are incorrect. There are some things that I wrongly assume are common knowledge that are not. I did not intend this to be a great surpise to anyone.
I was a little scandalized back when I learned these things I guess but I did not get mad at the people who shared this with me. I checked with myself to verify, asking others more knowledgable than I and checking the internet.
It really is not too much of a surprise when we consider what happened after his pontificate. I hope the man ends up in Heaven if he is not already there and would not be surprised if he does. I hope he is better than what has been presented.
People condemn him for not standing up more fimrly against the nαzι's but I believe he figured that if he did that would act even worse and that could very well could be true. Again he risked his life to protect the Jews. What's not to like about that. I'm just saying he wasn't perfect.
-
Again please don't kill the messenger. I am more than willing to accept proof to the contrary:
http://www.traditioninaction.org/Questions/B286_PiusXII.html
Perhaps this text taken from one of our answers to readers may help you to objectively understand the tendencies of Pius XII:
“Actually, it is not a secret to anyone that, in the last phase of his pontificate, Pius XII paid tribute to Progressivism. It is known that during his reign he vacillated between the anti-progressivist influence of Fr. Robert Leiber, SJ, his personal secretary, and the progressivist influence of Fr. Agostino Bea, SJ, his spiritual director. This fluctuation continued until around 1950 – Humani generis – when the anti-progressivist attitudes of Pius XII practically disappeared. With Pius XII’s approval, Fr. Bea became the main precursor of ecuмenism and one of the chief architects of Vatican II.” (see context here)
Under this influence of Card. Bea, many progressivist attitudes can be attributed to Pius XII in a variety of fields. They include:
•the start of Ostpolitik with Communism by means of Msgr. Giovanni Batista Montini in his contacts with either Italian communist Palmiro Togliatti or Stalin representatives;
•the lack of firmness in his condemnation of Darwin's theory of evolution in the Encyclical Humani generis;
•the opening of conjugal Morals to evolving “advances of science;”
•innumerable concessions in the application of the historic method to interpret Scripture and even Dogma;
•the first experiments in liturgical reform by Fr. Annibale Bugnini;
•the introduction of liberalization into the rules of Religious Orders by means of reforms conducted by Fr. Arcadio Larraona, etc.
Regarding your last question, Pius XII promoted both Msgr. Montini (to the post of pro-Secretary of State and then Archbishop of Milan) and Bishop Roncalli )to be Nuncio in Paris, a Cardinal, and then Patriarch of Venice).
We don’t know of any unequivocal fact proving that either of the mentioned ecclesiastics belonged to Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ. We have general evidence that they promoted the same ideals of Masonry and prepared the Church to come increasingly closer to that enemy organization. But, so far, we lack serious evidence that they were formally initiated in any of the Masonic lodges.
We hope these answers may help you to see more clearly.
-
I am aware that Pius XII was being deceived by some people but Wikipedia is by no means a Catholic operation and I don't trust them to tell the truth. If U are a Catholic it might be a good idea to use Catholic sources.
-
I am aware that Pius XII was being deceived by some people but Wikipedia is by no means a Catholic operation and I don't trust them to tell the truth. If U are a Catholic it might be a good idea to use Catholic sources.
What about tradition in action above?
-
My knowledge of TIA at this moment is not complete. I will spend some time on the site but I have already noticed that they are 501c3
-
My knowledge of TIA at this moment is not complete. I will spend some time on the site but I have already noticed that they are 501c3
What does 501c3 mean?
-
TIA is non-profit? Is that good or bad?
-
My understanding is that a 501c3 designation means that they cannot say anything that upsets Caesar w/o losing their tax-exempt status.
-
There seems to be alot of good info on TIA. However I have noticed that the site defends the condemned K Templars.
-
The people that took over the Church at Vatican II did not land on Earth in 1960, like martians, or the invasion of the body snatchers.
Pius XII was by no means a staunch traditionalist. His reforms, omissions and failures paved the way for Vatican II. Just a few things that Pius XII did are:
- He promoted Annibale Bugnini, the author of the New Mass, and began the
liturgical reform with his allowance of reforms in the Holy Week Rites. A good
number of liturgical scholars think that the reforms of Holy Week were terrible.
One example is the allowance of distribution of Holy Communion on Good
Friday. The decree of the Holy Office under Pope Pius X On Frequent
Communion cites Pope Innocent XI who condemned such a practice.
- He promoted men like Giovanni Montini (later Paul VI) and Angelo Roncalli
(later John XXIII), without which promotions these men could never have had
the influence or caused the immeasurable destruction that they did.
- He said that theistic evolution could be taught in Catholic schools (Humani
Generis, 1950), which is nothing short of ludicrous – and arguably heretical.
- He taught that birth control could be used by couples by means of the rhythm
method (or Natural Family Planning), which is a frustration and a subordination
of the primary purpose of the marriage act – conception.
- He allowed the persecution and subsequent excommunication of Father Leonard
Feeney, whether through willful complicity or neglect, for doing what every
Catholic priest should do: preach the Gospel, defend the faith and adhere to
defined dogma.
- He never properly consecrated Russia to the Immaculate heart of Mary.
- During the entire WWII he never said one word about Communism, in fact, he had to convince Americans that communism was OK (he had to contradict Pius XI's encyclical of a few years before that condemned all particiation with communism as inherently evil) so they would provide aid to the USSR and fight against Germany.
There's much much more, for those who do not wish to have their head in the sand. You can read Mary Ball Martinez's book:
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41B1M-BVBUL._AA160_.jpg)
http://www.amazon.com/undermining-Catholic-Church-Mary-Martinez/dp/B0006EZHKS/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1350636780&sr=1-1&keywords=mary+ball+martinez
-
No mention in the above attack that Fr Feeney was NOT ex-communicated and that the Pope actually supported him in Humani Generis.
It is a lie to allege that the Pope supported Communism. He is forced into an alliance with Roosenveldt( & by implication Stalin) because of Hitler's persecution of the Church.
Because he was the Pope, Pius has every right to interpret Fatima as a consecration of the whole world to the Virgin rather that just Russia. My understanding is that the Apparition informed Sr Lucy that indeed the whole world will be under Communist occupation before the Apocalypse-- soon to come.
Montini was promoted in name only as he was denied the purple & farmed out to Milan.
Roncalli, Bugnini, Spellman & Bea were still deep cover marranos who were cleverly concealing their agenda. I don't blame the Pope for that.
I am not surprised that never-ending attacks on Pius XII are allowed in this Forum w/o response from admin-- never a word
I am going over to Ebay to see if any Def Tech SM65's are up for auction. Ciao
-
It is a lie to allege that the Pope supported Communism. He is forced into an alliance with Roosenveldt( & by implication Stalin) because of Hitler's persecution of the Church.
What persecution of the Church?
Very good point, Mr. PaxRomanum18.
Many Catholic institutions were shut down towards the end of WWII because of the effects of the Allied siege warfare against the entire European population. That wasn't "persecution of Catholics," but simply protecting the clergy during extremely dangerous wartime conditions. And the labour of clergy was then desperately needed to fend off famine and Bolshevik chaos for everyone. There was nothing anti-clerical about including clergy in the labour drafts that then included almost all able-bodied men. In fact, in general the Axis governments were consistently generous towards the established Catholic and Protestant Churches. That many monasteries were able to continue untouched right to the end of the war is the more amazing achievement.
The Neo-Liberal Marxist tyrannies of the present time are certainly persecuting Catholics with the greatest ruthlessness. Worrying about anti-Catholic persecutions generations ago that never occurred seems like a distraction from all-too-real contemporary catastrophes that ought to concern us to an incomparably greater degree.
On this thread Mr. bowler has made numerous false allegations against Pope Pius XII. To honor him with a response would be to descend into ugly invective over sacred things and lower the rightful dignity of the Papal office. More than enough to say that his scandalous allegations and those of Ms. Martinez are nothing more than a heap of Modernist rubbish.
Shame on those who presume to hurl deceitful falsehoods against the Immaculate Bride of Christ! Their slanderous slime can only fall on their own heads.
-
It is a lie to allege that the Pope supported Communism. He is forced into an alliance with Roosenveldt( & by implication Stalin) because of Hitler's persecution of the Church.
What persecution of the Church?
I would venture to say that most here in the Forum have heard the expression-- Hitler violated the Concordat before the ink was dry.
Vatican And The War--- Cianfarra
Popes In The Modern Word--- Sugrue
Vatican Listening Post--- Morgan
Pinay says that v2 anti- church progressives desired to lift the ex-communications proclaimed by Pius XII re: Communists.
There is another I will order soon
Vatican Diplomacy--- Gallagher
-
Thanks for provoking this research today. It has been ordered znd there is apparently mucho info in the book re: Fr Coughlin & Card Stepinac
-
:smoke-pot:
-
It is a lie to allege that the Pope supported Communism. He is forced into an alliance with Roosenveldt( & by implication Stalin) because of Hitler's persecution of the Church.
Stalin persecuted the Church way before Hitler ever did anything. The message of Fatima, which Pius XI knew when he wrote Divini Redemptoriss, his encyclical condeming communism as inherently evil, said Russia will spread her errors, not Germany. It is a fact that Pius XII had to mount quite a campaign in the USA to reverse the mindset of Catholics who were following the teaching of the Church from just a few years before. Everyone knew of the persecutions of Catholics in Russia.
No one is "alleging" that Pius XII supported communism, what I wrote is all true and can be researched rather easily. The pope never mentioned anything negative about the atrocities of the USSR in his radio addresses during the entire war. That's a ton of speeches and time. It is obvious that it was done on purpose. Place a flower in the canons of the Bolcheviks (Ostpolitik).
That is why Russia to this day has never been consecrated as our Lady requested. Man has a better plan, peace and love with the Bolcheviks. Pius XII was just ahead of his time.
-
On this thread Mr. bowler has made numerous false allegations against Pope Pius XII. To honor him with a response would be to descend into ugly invective over sacred things and lower the rightful dignity of the Papal office. More than enough to say that his scandalous allegations and those of Ms. Martinez are nothing more than a heap of Modernist rubbish.
Shame on those who presume to hurl deceitful falsehoods against the Immaculate Bride of Christ! Their slanderous slime can only fall on their own heads.
Pope Pius XII was not a spotless saint as you allude. The Immaculate Bride of Christ is the Holy Catholic Church, not a pope. The pope is not even a member of the Immaculate Bride when he has one mortal sin on his soul. If anyone with one mortal sin on their soul belonged to the Immacualte Bride, the Holy Catholic Church, the bride would not be immaculate nor the Church holy.
What i wrote can be verified, just do some reading. The message of Fatima, which Pius XI knew when he wrote Divini Redemptoriss, his encyclical condeming communism as inherently evil, said Russia will spread her errors, not Germany. It is a fact that Pius XII had to mount quite a campaign in the USA to reverse the mindset of Catholics who were following the teaching of the Church from just a few years before. Everyone knew of the persecutions of Catholics in Russia.
The pope never mentioned anything negative about the atrocities of the USSR in his radio addresses during the entire war. That's a ton of speeches and time. It is obvious that it was done on purpose. Place a flower in the canons of the Bolcheviks (Ostpolitik).
That is why Russia to this day has never been consecrated as our Lady requested. Man has a better plan, peace and love with the Bolcheviks. Pius XII was just ahead of his time.
Let's see you disprove anything that I wrote.
-
The pope never mentioned anything in his radio addresses during the entire war , about the USSR attrocities they were commiting in Poland in 1939 and on, and all during the war and after (against the Germans and everyone who was not a communist), even against their own Russian people!!!!. That's a ton of speeches and time. It is obvious that it was done on purpose. The pope said NOTHING.
-
The pope never mentioned anything in his radio addresses during the entire war , about the USSR attrocities they were commiting in Poland in 1939 and on, and all during the war and after (against the Germans and everyone who was not a communist), even against their own Russian people!!!!. That's a ton of speeches and time. It is obvious that it was done on purpose. The pope said NOTHING.
The Katyn Massacre, the rape and murder of 2 million Germans, the ethnic cleansing of 15 million Germans, the massacre of Russians under both Lenin and Stalin, etc.
Not to mention the British and American atrocities during the so-called "good War" including the handing back of the Cossacks and other Russian POWs, the firebombings of Dresden, Hamburg, and Tokyo, the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, 'Operation Vegetarian,' Eisenhower starving 1 million German POWs, etc.
As I mentioned before with the aspect of "total war" America and Britain could stand as equals alongside Tamerlane, Sennacherib, Genghis Khan, and the Red Army.
-
It is a lie to allege that the Pope supported Communism. He is forced into an alliance with Roosenveldt( & by implication Stalin) because of Hitler's persecution of the Church.
Stalin persecuted the Church way before Hitler ever did anything. The message of Fatima, which Pius XI knew when he wrote Divini Redemptoriss, his encyclical condeming communism as inherently evil, said Russia will spread her errors, not Germany. It is a fact that Pius XII had to mount quite a campaign in the USA to reverse the mindset of Catholics who were following the teaching of the Church from just a few years before. Everyone knew of the persecutions of Catholics in Russia.
No one is "alleging" that Pius XII supported communism, what I wrote is all true and can be researched rather easily. The pope never mentioned anything negative about the atrocities of the USSR in his radio addresses during the entire war. That's a ton of speeches and time. It is obvious that it was done on purpose. Place a flower in the canons of the Bolcheviks (Ostpolitik).
That is why Russia to this day has never been consecrated as our Lady requested. Man has a better plan, peace and love with the Bolcheviks. Pius XII was just ahead of his time.
The interpretation of Fatima by Pius XII is that the whole world is included in the consecration. Russia happens to be part of the whole world.
The Pope was very prudent in remaining silent on both nαzι & Communist atrocities. It takes yrs to sort out which of the allegations are true & which are not and who did what to who.
I will report on Gallagher's book when finished.
-
BTW--- as Pontiff of the Christian world, it is a given that the Pope condemns all crimes( including war crimes) that are committed every day on this planet. He wouldn't have much time to do anything else if he were so pre-occupied.
-
BTW--- as Pontiff of the Christian world, it is a given that the Pope condemns all crimes( including war crimes) that are committed every day on this planet. He wouldn't have much time to do anything else if he were so pre-occupied.
Maybe you think that about Pius XII because that's exactly what John XXIII, Paul VI, and JPII did (and now Benedict XVI). But that's not the way it was in past history. We are talking about Europe here, the heart of Catholicism. The solution of Pius XII and all the conciliar popes was the same, put flowers in the canons of the Bolsheviks.
-
Sorry but I am not buying it when it comes to Pius XII.
-
The below is corraborated by 3 sources and I barely tried looking. I'm not into proving how bad Pius XII was but was stating what I thought were somewhat well known facts (mainly that he was not the greatest Pope since sliced bread).
It is not anti-Catholic to say certain bad Popes were bad or that overall good Popes were not perfect and left knowlegeable Catholics scratching their heads. Read the history of the Church by Catholic writers and you will see.
I would not be all that surprised to see some in the NO to be brainwashed enough to believe the Pope can do no wrong. But in the traditional movement?
It is disheartening to see that some believe that the Church does not have a human element that lacks perfection. Will those who accuse objective observers on negative aspects of some Popes of being anti-Catholic do the same were we to say anything negative about a legitimate Catholic bishop? How about Priests? Is it impossible for any Catholic to ever do anything wrong?
Strange that I would even have to ask such a question on a traditional forum where the posters are thought to be generally knowledgeable.
I'm not sure how one goes from the mere stating of facts regarding negative aspects of certain popes to being an attack on holy mother Church herself. Very strange. At the very least I would hope a professed religious would know better.
I will be interested if anyone has any docuмentation against any of the below.
If Tradition in Action were afraid to post things the President would not like, their website would not be in existence. The human element of the Church does have spots and wrinkles.
But there is only one on this forum who seems to have this Alice and Wonderland type of mentality. And of course he is vocal about it. At least Roscoe seemed to think there could be something to these facts when he saw a traditional website posted these facts.
Hopefully others have learned if they did not know already that Popes sin, and popes can do imprudent things and Popes can be cowardly and Popes can make mistakes and not to acknowledge that would be anti-Catholic as those who have any idea about history would rightly laugh in our faces were we to suggest such a thing.
Some go so far as to assert that if they really did anything bad they were not Popes. Wow!
The below is not just about Communism.
Though our Lady was specific about consecrating Russia, by name, in union with all the Catholic bishops. We think we know better than God and we are living with the results. Why didn't we do the consecration the way our Lady asked? But this is nothing new, it started with Satan and with Adam and Eve:
Reputation: 92
(Likers: 33 / Critics: 17)
Group: Members
Posts: 1,437
Joined: Aug 21, 2009
1 1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Again please don't kill the messenger. I am more than willing to accept proof to the contrary:
http://www.traditioninaction.org/Questions/B286_PiusXII.html
Perhaps this text taken from one of our answers to readers may help you to objectively understand the tendencies of Pius XII:
“Actually, it is not a secret to anyone that, in the last phase of his pontificate, Pius XII paid tribute to Progressivism. It is known that during his reign he vacillated between the anti-progressivist influence of Fr. Robert Leiber, SJ, his personal secretary, and the progressivist influence of Fr. Agostino Bea, SJ, his spiritual director. This fluctuation continued until around 1950 – Humani generis – when the anti-progressivist attitudes of Pius XII practically disappeared. With Pius XII’s approval, Fr. Bea became the main precursor of ecuмenism and one of the chief architects of Vatican II.” (see context here)
Under this influence of Card. Bea, many progressivist attitudes can be attributed to Pius XII in a variety of fields. They include:
•the start of Ostpolitik with Communism by means of Msgr. Giovanni Batista Montini in his contacts with either Italian communist Palmiro Togliatti or Stalin representatives;
•the lack of firmness in his condemnation of Darwin's theory of evolution in the Encyclical Humani generis;
•the opening of conjugal Morals to evolving “advances of science;”
•innumerable concessions in the application of the historic method to interpret Scripture and even Dogma;
•the first experiments in liturgical reform by Fr. Annibale Bugnini;
•the introduction of liberalization into the rules of Religious Orders by means of reforms conducted by Fr. Arcadio Larraona, etc.
Regarding your last question, Pius XII promoted both Msgr. Montini (to the post of pro-Secretary of State and then Archbishop of Milan) and Bishop Roncalli )to be Nuncio in Paris, a Cardinal, and then Patriarch of Venice).
We don’t know of any unequivocal fact proving that either of the mentioned ecclesiastics belonged to Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ. We have general evidence that they promoted the same ideals of Masonry and prepared the Church to come increasingly closer to that enemy organization. But, so far, we lack serious evidence that they were formally initiated in any of the Masonic lodges.
We hope these answers may help you to see more clearly.
-
Reputation: 92
(Likers: 33 / Critics: 17)
Group: Members
Posts: 1,437
Joined: Aug 21, 2009
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Again please don't kill the messenger. I am more than willing to accept proof to the contrary:
Well, I gave you a few thumps-up, since I believe most replies were not very convincing, too.
The problem is, that these questions contain so many premises, that it is very difficult to comprehend Pius' XII. actions and to judge them accordingly. Apart from the question, whether it is our place to judge the reign of a Pontiff, since we are not even historians and can only put the reign of the last Piine Papacy in a limited context.
Just take the example of the liturgical reforms in the Breviary, Missal and Calender. Why were these bad? Why was a certain Bugnini "bad", especially in this time? Why were other reforms, such as those of St. Pius X., Urban VIII., St. Pius V. not bad, what makes a liturgy bad, yea, do we even know if the liturgy of Pius XII. is not a true restoration of a more ancient practice? And whom do we trust more, the Churches authorities, duly promulgated decrees, educated specialists or the private, unfootnoted monographs of some traditionalist author?
To answer this question, one pretty much has to be a liturgist. Unfortunately, the traditionalist movement has no trained liturgists amongst their ranks, according to my knowledge.
The dogmatic and disciplinary part is a little easier for us to comprehend, as we just have to look at the Churches decrees and approved theological manuals, which Hobbledehoy has done supremely fine over and over again ad nauseam.
As you can see, the subject at hand is extremely complex. Even more so if you consider that traditionalists, and sedevacantists in particular, hold to some of their opinions like dogma, becoming their very own magisterium.
Each and every subject has to be looked into separately and objectively in order to come to a conclusion, which in turn shines some light on Pius XII.
But, at least as far as I can tell, this has never been done by anybody in any systematic and academical way in regards of these accusations against Pius XII.
I have been a fervent critic of the reign of Papa Pacelli myself, especially in regards to his liturgical reforms and political interactions. But after a time I asked myself, why I can excuse Pius XII. with the common defectibility of fallen men, while accusing others of heresy who have done exactly the same thing in principle or species.
But that is just my opinion, of course...
-
Reputation: 92
(Likers: 33 / Critics: 17)
Group: Members
Posts: 1,437
Joined: Aug 21, 2009
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Again please don't kill the messenger. I am more than willing to accept proof to the contrary:
Well, I gave you a few thumps-up, since I believe most replies were not very convincing, too.
The problem is, that these questions contain so many premises, that it is very difficult to comprehend Pius' XII. actions and to judge them accordingly. Apart from the question, whether it is our place to judge the reign of a Pontiff, since we are not even historians and can only put the reign of the last Piine Papacy in a limited context.
Just take the example of the liturgical reforms in the Breviary, Missal and Calender. Why were these bad? Why was a certain Bugnini "bad", especially in this time? Why were other reforms, such as those of St. Pius X., Urban VIII., St. Pius V. not bad, what makes a liturgy bad, yea, do we even know if the liturgy of Pius XII. is not a true restoration of a more ancient practice? And whom do we trust more, the Churches authorities, duly promulgated decrees, educated specialists or the private, unfootnoted monographs of some traditionalist author?
To answer this question, one pretty much has to be a liturgist. Unfortunately, the traditionalist movement has no trained liturgists amongst their ranks, according to my knowledge.
The dogmatic and disciplinary part is a little easier for us to comprehend, as we just have to look at the Churches decrees and approved theological manuals, which Hobbledehoy has done supremely fine over and over again ad nauseam.
As you can see, the subject at hand is extremely complex. Even more so if you consider that traditionalists, and sedevacantists in particular, hold to some of their opinions like dogma, becoming their very own magisterium.
Each and every subject has to be looked into separately and objectively in order to come to a conclusion, which in turn shines some light on Pius XII.
But, at least as far as I can tell, this has never been done by anybody in any systematic and academical way in regards of these accusations against Pius XII.
I have been a fervent critic of the reign of Papa Pacelli myself, especially in regards to his liturgical reforms and political interactions. But after a time I asked myself, why I can excuse Pius XII. with the common defectibility of fallen men, while accusing others of heresy who have done exactly the same thing in principle or species.
But that is just my opinion, of course...
Thanks for the thumbs up and thoughtful response. When I say "thoughtful" I mean well thought out, but it was also thoughtful for you to respond.
Our conversation would have to be direct here. If I were to quibble with you, apart from taking too much time, I would be catering more to my ego than trying to do good. You seem to be a knowledgeable man and of good will and I tip my cap to you.
My thoughts that don't disagree with you would admit that we do not know his motives or intent. We do not know, for certain, if he was of good will or not. One would think he was.
Another thing we could agree on is that Pius XII was no Pius X. He was not as good of a Pope as Pius X and there are reasons for this.
It is interesting to note that of all the Popes since Leo XIII Pius X was the only one who was pastoral his whole life until being elected, the others were a part of the bureaucracy of the Church before being elected. Some even take this fact as a "cut down" "unwarrented" no less on the other Popes. Pius X was cut and dry. He told it like it was without playing the diplomat. I admire him for that.
I suppose you agree that a pope is infallible but that does not make him impeccable. This seems to be news to some though it shouldn't be.
See what you made me do. I catered to my ego anyway!
-
I tend to agree with Pyrrhos. What next, will someone say "The Revolution takes place under St.Pius X" because, I dunno, he began the liturgical reform, introduced more frequent and even recommended daily communion, lowered the age for the same, reformed the Roman breviary, and did a few other like things, which some people were uncomfortable with?
This would be an unstudied and emotional way of judging the reign of a Pontiff, (hardly out of place for the Traditio Fathers, have you seen the irritable tone in which they talk and write on their website for one thing, hardly the most edifying, at best) yet it is akin to what has been said by the numerous lay and clerical critics of Pope Pius XII, even those who, after being tossed about by every wind of doctrine themselves, have come to realize that, after all, the Pope was right on such matters as BOD and NFP.
Here (http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=5086), on the contrary, is the erudite and professional judgment of one of the most theologically astute minds of the 20th century, Msgr.Joseph Clifford Fenton, on Pope Pius XII, with a somewhat more detailed look at his writings and speeches.
Some brief excerpts.
In the brilliant prolixity of his writings and his allocutions, the late and beloved Sovereign Pontiff, Pope Pius XII, made important contributions to many areas within the field of Catholic doctrine.
As a result any full-scale study of the effects of Pius XII in the field of ecclesiology would have to be expressed in a rather formidable volume.
I can think of no more effective way of honoring his beloved memory in this issue of The American Ecclesiastical Review than that of bringing together his most striking teachings about the Church he loved so much and guided so well.
Mystici Corporis Christi
The Mystici Corporis Christi and the subsequent encyclical, the Humani generis, may well go down in history as the two most important doctrinal statements issued by Pope Pius XII during the course of his long and glorious reign as Christ's Vicar on earth.
...
Humani Generis
The most important individual contribution made to ecclesiology in the Humani generis has to do with the Church's magisterium. Specifically he taught about the authority of the encyclical letters and the other acts of the Sovereign Pontiff's ordinary magisterium.
"For these things are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is also true to say: "He who heareth you, heareth me" ...
...
Suprema Haec Sacra
A year before the appearance of the Humani generis, the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office sent to the Most Reverend Archbishop of Boston a letter containing explanations on the subject of the dogma that no one can be saved outside of the Catholic Church. This highly important docuмent was approved by Pope Pius XII.
The strictly doctrinal portion of the Suprema haec sacra ends with this essential teaching:
Again it brought out the Catholic teaching that, in cases where men are invincibly ignorant of the true Church, "God accepts also an implicit desire (votum), so called because it is included in that good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God."16
...
In 1956, Fr. Domenico Bertetto edited a volume entitled Il magistero Mariano di Pio XII.23 It is a work of 1015 pages, and it cites, in extenso, those sections of Pius XII's Acta which have to do with doctrine about or devotion to Our Lady. Up until the first months of 1956, there were 910 such pronouncements to be listed. Anyone who is familiar with the late Sovereign Pontiff's contributions to the theological tractatus de ecclesia Christi, even in a superficial way, knows very well that a work of this type (although not necessarily a work fully as bulky as Father Bertetto's volume), would be required to do full justice to what Pius XII taught about the kingdom of God on earth.
Those of us who have been privileged to teach the tractatus de ecclesia Christi throughout the entire pontificate of Pope Pius XII know from experience how brilliantly and effectively he contributed to the advance of clerical studies in this line. In his clear statement of Catholic doctrine, and in his forceful repudiation of extravagant teachings on this subject, he advanced the cause of God's revealed truth as few men have done before him.
-
Thanks for the posts supporting Pius XII--- a good Pope.
-
I tend to agree with Pyrrhos. What next, will someone say "The Revolution takes place under St.Pius X" because, I dunno, he began the liturgical reform, introduced more frequent and even recommended daily communion, lowered the age for the same, reformed the Roman breviary, and did a few other like things, which some people were uncomfortable with?
This would be an unstudied and emotional way of judging the reign of a Pontiff, (hardly out of place for the Traditio Fathers, have you seen the irritable tone in which they talk and write on their website for one thing, hardly the most edifying, at best) yet it is akin to what has been said by the numerous lay and clerical critics of Pope Pius XII, even those who, after being tossed about by every wind of doctrine themselves, have come to realize that, after all, the Pope was right on such matters as BOD and NFP.
Here (http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=5086), on the contrary, is the erudite and professional judgment of one of the most theologically astute minds of the 20th century, Msgr.Joseph Clifford Fenton, on Pope Pius XII, with a somewhat more detailed look at his writings and speeches.
Some brief excerpts.
In the brilliant prolixity of his writings and his allocutions, the late and beloved Sovereign Pontiff, Pope Pius XII, made important contributions to many areas within the field of Catholic doctrine.
As a result any full-scale study of the effects of Pius XII in the field of ecclesiology would have to be expressed in a rather formidable volume.
I can think of no more effective way of honoring his beloved memory in this issue of The American Ecclesiastical Review than that of bringing together his most striking teachings about the Church he loved so much and guided so well.
Mystici Corporis Christi
The Mystici Corporis Christi and the subsequent encyclical, the Humani generis, may well go down in history as the two most important doctrinal statements issued by Pope Pius XII during the course of his long and glorious reign as Christ's Vicar on earth.
...
Humani Generis
The most important individual contribution made to ecclesiology in the Humani generis has to do with the Church's magisterium. Specifically he taught about the authority of the encyclical letters and the other acts of the Sovereign Pontiff's ordinary magisterium.
"For these things are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is also true to say: "He who heareth you, heareth me" ...
...
Suprema Haec Sacra
A year before the appearance of the Humani generis, the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office sent to the Most Reverend Archbishop of Boston a letter containing explanations on the subject of the dogma that no one can be saved outside of the Catholic Church. This highly important docuмent was approved by Pope Pius XII.
The strictly doctrinal portion of the Suprema haec sacra ends with this essential teaching:
Again it brought out the Catholic teaching that, in cases where men are invincibly ignorant of the true Church, "God accepts also an implicit desire (votum), so called because it is included in that good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God."16
...
In 1956, Fr. Domenico Bertetto edited a volume entitled Il magistero Mariano di Pio XII.23 It is a work of 1015 pages, and it cites, in extenso, those sections of Pius XII's Acta which have to do with doctrine about or devotion to Our Lady. Up until the first months of 1956, there were 910 such pronouncements to be listed. Anyone who is familiar with the late Sovereign Pontiff's contributions to the theological tractatus de ecclesia Christi, even in a superficial way, knows very well that a work of this type (although not necessarily a work fully as bulky as Father Bertetto's volume), would be required to do full justice to what Pius XII taught about the kingdom of God on earth.
Those of us who have been privileged to teach the tractatus de ecclesia Christi throughout the entire pontificate of Pope Pius XII know from experience how brilliantly and effectively he contributed to the advance of clerical studies in this line. In his clear statement of Catholic doctrine, and in his forceful repudiation of extravagant teachings on this subject, he advanced the cause of God's revealed truth as few men have done before him.
Apples and oranges. But there is not point in trying to get one to understand. I do not believe insisting that he was a good Pope, or didn't do or allow anything questionable will hurt your soul. I just heard a 3 hour talk on Restoration Radio by Steven Heiner with Bishop Sanborn on Vatican 2 on how Pius XII promoted people after he know about them. What can be said about that. Nothing good that I know of. Is it better to pretend he didn't do what he did since he was a valid Pope. I don't think so because that would be dishonest. Is it better not to bring the topic up at all? That at least is more plausible and refrains from denying the facts.
Do you agree that it is possible for their to be a bad Pope or weak Pope? Or must they all be impeccable? If we say something about Honorius is it right to counter with "What next, are you going to say Pius V was bad?".
People have lost the ability to argue to the point. Are the accusations true or false? What next, are you going to accuse Pius X does not address the issue.
But perhaps the issue needn't be addressed. We have bigger fish to fry. I did not think this thread would end up going so long.
-
Thanks for the posts supporting Pius XII--- a good Pope.
A valid pope. With good about him. But not perfect. And perhaps, overall not a good pope. But with the past 50 years he is comparatively splendid.
Having been stuck in our situation for so long it is easy to look back at the last days of normalacy and canonize him for that reason alone.
Much like in this country when Catholics were persecuted. When they finally stopped persecuting us overtly we were glad to praise other religions as being more or less good being so relieved that we could be hired and live freely despite our religion. When things are terrible everything looks good by comparison. The heretical notion of religious liberty becomes very appealing when you are the one being persecuted. Vatican 2 was built on the American way. "Freedom for Catholics to practice their religion? Great! Hurray and all the heretics should have a right to spread their [errors] religion as well."
That is the reactionary mentality of those released from persecution.
It is also a reactionary mentality to believe the last unquestionable Pope was "great" in part, because their is no doubt that he was a valid Pope.
The fact that things were better under Pius XII than they have been the past 50 years, in and of itself, does not make him a great Pope.
Some may not be able to grasp the concept. Others may not want to. I believe most do understand the point. Defending it may be useless.
If given a choice between scandalizing someone or having him believe that Pius XII was unquestionably a great Pope I would chose the latter, all things being equal (i.e. if it did not involve dishonesty). Due scandal avoiding the issue entirely might be best. Being the last valid Pope means he was Pope during the worst possible time when there was a living Pope. He probably had it harder and had more to deal with than anyone else in recent history. Did he come out smelling like a rose? God knows. I would guess he came out okay over all but not perfect.
We should start a thread on what to do about our situation now. Firstly by all living moral and prayerful lives. The rest, sooner or later, will fall into place. God wins, and the people with Him based upon their faith and life win also. Let us hold fast to faith without compromise and see what happens.
-
Apples and oranges. But there is not point in trying to get one to understand. I do not believe insisting that he was a good Pope, or didn't do or allow anything questionable will hurt your soul. Do you agree that it is possible for their to be a bad Pope or weak Pope? Or must they all be impeccable?
John, I don't think you appreciate the theological precision and doctrinal exactitude that characterized Pope Pius XII's writings and speeches. I don't think Popes are impeccable, I just think your overall analysis of Pope Pius XII, as well as those of Fr.Cekada, Traditio etc about Pope Pius XII is entirely mistaken.
Again, it is one thing for learned historians, expert liturgists or approved theologians to take an objective look back at the past, but these individuals have simply not conducted the sort of detailed analysis and lack the theological competence of a Msgr.Fenton, who goes through every speech, every word, every writing, every Encyclical, every decision. It really is a no-contest if it's his word against theirs, but it isn't simply that, it's the word of a peer-reviewed Catholic publication with several excellent and traditional theologians as contributors against an anonymous internet piece which simply has not studied the matter in a comparable way.
You ask why it matters, it matters because these people use their criticism of Pope Pius XII to justify several matters without precedent, like their refusal of the things he bound as Roman Pontiff. Now that is dangerous ground to tread, and we are not talking anymore of merely a personal analysis but the actual refusal of reforms implemented by the Pope, as well as the doctrinal principles contained in landmark Encyclicals like Mediator Dei, all of which is closely related to this gross and unjust and inaccurate criticism of the person of Pope Pius XII.
God bless.
-
John, I don't think you appreciate the theological precision and doctrinal exactitude that characterized Pope Pius XII's writings and speeches. I don't think Popes are impeccable, I just think your overall analysis of Pope Pius XII, as well as those of Fr.Cekada, Traditio etc about Pope Pius XII is entirely mistaken.
The above list of those who acknowledge the facts about him are abbreviated. In addition to what Traditio shared and Father Cekeda's thoughts we have wikepedia which is objective and has the facts right. Check on any topic you know about and see if they correspond. We see this from one who was alive when Pius XII was, Father Martin Stepanich, who cannot be disagreed with lightly on the topic. We have Tradition in Action. We have what Bishop Sandborn said last night and the thoughts of Dolan and all those who have taken an unbiased look at the past and saw it for what it is. It is a lot of people you have to think are wrong. When you say they are wrong do you say all the facts they corroborate upon are wrong, such as promoting Montini, or do you deny that he did so? I haven't gone to any great lengths to figure this out, it really is commn knowledge among those with a sense of recent history.
Again, it is one thing for learned historians, expert liturgists or approved theologians to take an objective look back at the past, but these individuals have simply not conducted the sort of detailed analysis and lack the theological competence of a Msgr.Fenton, who goes through every speech, every word, every writing, every Encyclical, every decision. It really is a no-contest if it's his word against theirs, but it isn't simply that, it's the word of a peer-reviewed Catholic publication with several excellent and traditional theologians as contributors against an anonymous internet piece which simply has not studied the matter in a comparable way.
If Fenton came out and said Pius XII was a great pontiff and did nothing questionable I would take him at his word. But the facts are undeniable. I feel like a broken record here but regarding the allegations can you bring proof to the contrary?
You ask why it matters, it matters because these people use their criticism of Pope Pius XII to justify several matters without precedent, like their refusal of the things he bound as Roman Pontiff.
But there is precedent. I have shown it from traditional groups and clergy. They are not making the stuff up. Or do you think they are?
Now that is dangerous ground to tread, and we are not talking anymore of merely a personal analysis but the actual refusal of reforms implemented by the Pope, as well as the doctrinal principles contained in landmark Encyclicals like Mediator Dei, all of which is closely related to this gross and unjust and inaccurate criticism of the person of Pope Pius XII
.
I'm not talking about the actual refusal of reforms implemented by the Pope here. I have supplied facts about him which are not pleasant. I'll ask for the heck of it one more time. Regarding the allegations, do you have proof to the contrary? Here they are in case you have forgotten:
http://www.traditio.com/tradlib/piusmodern.htm
Pius XII and Modernism
From Twentieth Century Harbingers (pages 1094-1099)
The Revolution Takes Hold Under Pius XII
Both advocates and critics of the Revolution of the Second Vatican Council agree that the role of Eugenio Maria Giuseppe Giovanni Cardinal Pacelli, who ascended the Chair of Peter on March 12, 1939, as Pope Pius XII was instrumental in securing the revolutionaries a foothold on the papacy. As Martinez solidly docuмents, and as inveterate collaborators of New-Church like Archbishop Annibale Bugnini, C.M., reaffirm, Pius XII opened the Church to "Progressivism" both politically and theologically.
Under his 19-year-pontificate, the foundation and stepping-stones for the futuristic Newchurch were laid. The following is a short list of decrees and movements initiated by Pope Pius XII that propelled Newchurch forward:
The Destruction of the Liturgy
As Archbishop Annibale Bugnini records in his opening chapter to The Reform of the Liturgy 1948-1975 on the well-springs of "liturgical reform," as early as 1942, less than three years into his pontificate, Pope Pius XII assigned a project for liturgical reform (liturgical codification) to Benedictine Father Pio Alfonzo, a liturgist who taught at the College of the Propaganda and advised the Sacred Congregation of Rites. Fr. Alfonzo's "General Norms," however, was not acted upon at that time.
It was not until four years later, on May 10, 1946, in an audience with Carlo Cardinal Salotti, Prefect for the Congregation of Rites, that Pius XII instructed Salotti to begin a study of the general reform of the liturgy.
On July 17, 1946, Pius XII determined that a Commission for General Liturgical Restoration be established to consider that nature and substance of a general reform of the liturgy and offer concrete proposals. On May 28, 1948, the pope selected the members of the Commission. Father (later Cardinal) Ferdinando Antonelli, OFM, was named General Director and Fr. (later Archbishop) Annibale Bugnini named Secretary. When the Commission was dissolved in 1960, to make room for the Pontifical Preparatory Commission on the Liturgy established in connection with the forthcoming Second Vatican Council, Bugnini was again appointed to serve as Secretary for the new assembly. After the opening of the Council in 1962 by Pope John XXIII, until its closing in 1964 under Pope Paul VI, Bugnini continued to function in the capacity of peritus (expert) to the Conciliar Commission on the Liturgy. From 1964 to 1969, Bugnini again served as Secretary to the Consilium for the Implementation of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy (Sacrosanctum Concilium) promulgated by Pope Paul VI on December 4, 1963.
These seemingly mundane facts are presented here so that there can be no question that Annibale Bugnini knew of what he spoke when he made the following confession:
In the twelve years of its existence (June 28, 1948 to July 8, 1960), the commission held eighty-two meetings and worked in absolute secrecy. So secret, in fact, was their work that the publication of the Ordo Sabbati Sancti instaurati at the beginning of March 1951 caught even officials of the Congregation of Rites by surprise. The commission enjoyed the full confidence of the Pope (i.e. Pius XII), who was kept abreast of its work by Monsignor Montini and even more, on a weekly basis, by Father Bea, confessor of Pius XII. The first fruit of the commission's work was the restoration of the Easter Vigil (1951). It was a signal that the liturgy was at last launched decisively on a pastoral course. The same reforming principles were applied in 1955 to the whole of Holy Week, and in 1960, with the Code of Rubrics, to the remainder of the liturgy.
The second force operative in ensuring the coming of liturgical reform found its mature expression at Assisi (1956). This International Conference Congress on Pastoral Liturgy, was, in God's plan, a dawn announcing a resplendent day that would have no decline. Who would have predicted that three years later the greatest ecclesial event of the century, Vatican Council II, would be announced? Pope Pius XII gave a fine address. In his introduction he made a historic remark: "The Liturgical movement is a sign of the providential dispositions of God for the present time [and] of the movement of the Holy Spirit in the Church."
It is clear today the reform was the fruit of a long period of maturation, a fruit produced by the thought and prayer of elite minds and then shared with even wider circles of the faithful.
In The Murky Waters of Vatican II, Catholic writer Atila Guimaraes cites the works of the frequently quoted Post-Conciliar writer Antonio Acerbi who confirms that long before the Second Vatican Council opened, a "synthetic school" existed that attempted to integrate two currents acting on the Church -- one "progressive" and the other "conservative." This "synthesis," Acerbi suggests, inspired Pope Pius XII's Encyclical (1943).
The draft of Mystici Corporis was actually prepared by Dutch Jesuit theologian Fr. Sebastian Trump. Its publication was a watershed event -- a major paradigm shift in redefining the juridical and societal role of the Catholic Church. Commenting on the revolutionary nature of Mystici Corporis, Father Avery Dulles, SJ, noted that an attempt to introduce the same concept of the Church as the Mystical Body of Christ was rejected in 1870 at the First Vatican Council as being "confusing, ambiguous, vague, inappropriate, and inappropriately biological."
In History of Vatican II-Announcing and Preparing Vatican Council II, editor Joseph A. Komonchak states that Pius XII led the Revolution under the banner of "reform."
Komonchak credits Pius XII's Encyclical on Biblical Studies Divino Afflante Spiritu (1943) that was prepared from a draft written by German Jesuit Augustin Bea, then Director of the Biblical Institute, with the freeing of Biblical scholars from former restrictions and opened up Biblical Studies to progressive thought.
"Less open, because it attacked the two fronts of spiritualism and juridical formalism" Mystici Corporis Christi, issued in that same year [1943], replaced a purely conceptual ecclesiology with an organic one, even while asserting that the Roman Church is coextensive with the Church of Christ," claims Komoncha. "The masterpiece of these reforms was the restoration of the feast of Easter to its ancient splendor by assigning the central role once again to the Vigil, the nocturnal service celebrated between Holy Saturday and Easter Sunday," he explained.
Archbishop Annibale Bugnini, a major architect of the Novus Ordo, confirmed that Pius XII's action was seen as a step "leading gradually to the new structuring of the liturgical year on its traditional foundations."
Other reforms instigated by Pius XII, said Komonchak, included the establishment of secular institutes such as Opus Dei, the restoration of the permanent diaconate as an "ecclesiastical office independent of the priesthood," and the internationalization of the Curia, more by the Consistory of 1946 than the Consistory of 1953.
Bugnini credited Pius XII with putting "the seal of his supreme authority" on the Liturgical Movement in his Encyclical Mediator Dei of November 11, 1947.
He also notes that in 1945, two years before the encyclical appeared, Pius XII commissioned a new Latin version of the Psalms under the Pontifical Biblical Institute.
"This work, which had been brought to completion by the tenacious determination of the rector, Father (later Cardinal) Augustin Bea, helped ripen in the pope's mind the idea of a reform of the entire liturgy; the new Psalter would be simply the first building block of the new edifice," claimed Bugnini.
In the United States, as early as 1940, the Benedictines at St. John's Abbey in Collegeville, Minn. were hosting "Liturgical Weeks." At such avant-garde gatherings, "NewMass" was said in the vernacular with the "presider" facing the people and concelebration the norm. Chewy bread replaced the host. Private devotions were discouraged.
From the beginning, ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ clergy and religious like Archbishop Rembert Weakland were greatly attracted to the concept of "liturgical reform" as a vehicle of doctrinal and moral change. Catholic historian, Joseph White was very perceptive when he noted that "Liturgical activists were concurrently social reformers."
The Undermining of Seminary Life
Before Pope Pius XII issued Menti Nostae On the Development of Holiness in Priestly Life on September 23, 1950, members of the Curia informed the pope that the wholesale changes embraced by the apostolic exhortation, especially those tied to the "updating" of seminary life, would adversely affect the priesthood.
The concerns of the Sacred Congregation of Seminaries and Universities centered on the predictable erosion of spirituality and seminary discipline likely to result from Menti Nostae's novel emphasis on new methods of training and courses of professional studies that mimicked secular education. Pius XII ignored the Curia's warning.
Under the guise of "seminary reform," all forms of discipline including prayer life and dress were relaxed to enable seminarians to break out of their "isolation" and fraternize with the "modern world." The decline in seminary discipline and morale was also mirrored in the general priesthood as the Holy See began to receive increased numbers of requests for laicization i.e., reduction to the lay state, by priests.
In the seminary classroom, especially in the United States, the mandatory use of Latin, the universal language of the Church, was already in precipitous decline by the early 1950s. Giuseppe Cardinal Pizzardo, the Prefect for the Congregation correctly claimed that without Latin the sources of the Catholic tradition would become inaccessible to upcoming seminarians and priests -- a thoroughly delicious thought to the architects of NewChurch. The replacement of Latin with the vernacular anticipated a number of other important "reforms" already on the drawing boards including the use of the vernacular in Sacred Liturgy and the internationalization of the Roman Curia.
Up until the start of the Second World War, the Italian-dominated Curia and College of Cardinals remained Catholic, that is, universal, competent, and faithful to Tradition. Like the Legislative branch of government, the Holy Office has offered a system of checks and balances in the governance of the Church and has served as a counter-weight to papal abuse of power especially when it threatened the Deposit of Faith.
No less an authority than Rev. Thomas J. Reese, SJ, the sympathetic chronicler of AmChurch, acknowledges that the internationalization or de-Romanization of the Curia began under Pius XII. In 1946, the pope raised the overall number of the Sacred College of Cardinals from 36 to 70 and in 1953 he added 24 more cardinals with an eye fixed on breaking the historic dominance by Italians in the Curia.
The Promotion of Episcopal Conferences
Closely connected to the de-Romanization of the Curia, was the expansion in scope and power, of Episcopal National Conferences under Pius XII.
While Cardinal and Secretary of State from 1930 to 1939, Eugenio Pacelli backed the creation of a centralized Church bureaucracy within each nation or groups of nations, a practice begun under Pope Benedict XV.
Today every nation has its "Bishops Club" such as the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops or a super-structured bureaucracy such as CELAM created in 1955 in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, that today represents some 22 Episcopates in Latin America and the Caribbean.
By the time Pius XII's successor, Pope John XXIII, gave formal approval to the structure of National Episcopal Conferences in Annuario Pontificio (1959), 40 such bureaucracies were already in place.
As noted in Chapter 11, there was justifiable concern among American bishops when the NCCB/USCC was created in 1966, that the new Episcopal bureaucracy would undermine the authority of the individual bishop and interfere with the age-old line of transmission that has existed between a bishop and the Holy See in the person of the pope.
The creation of NewChurch would have been very difficult, if not impossible, without the existence of these vast and universal bureaucratic structures. In the U.S., the ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ Collective personified by New Ways Ministry, could hardly have had its way with the Church had it not been for the cooperation and resources of the NCCB/USCC and its successor, the USCCB.
One could cite numerous other examples, including the ill-fated "updating" of religious orders, to docuмent the unhappy fact that the current Revolution sweeping the Roman Catholic Church today began, in earnest, at the top, with Pope Pius XII.
The completion of the Revolution would have to wait for Pope Paul VI with Pope John XXIII serving as the bridge between the two pontiffs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Pius_XII
After his election, he made Luigi Maglione his successor as Cardinal Secretary of State. Cardinal Maglione, a seasoned Vatican diplomat, had reestablished diplomatic relations with Switzerland and was for many years nuncio in Paris. Yet, Maglione did not exercise the influence of his predecessor Pacelli, who as Pope continued his close relation with Monsignors Montini (later Pope Paul VI) and Domenico Tardini. After the death of Maglione in 1944, Pius left the position open and named Tardini head of its foreign section and Montini head of the internal section.[77] Tardini and Montini continued serving there until 1953, when Pius XII decided to appoint them cardinals,[78] an honor which both turned down.[79] They were then later appointed to be Pro-Secretary with the privilege to wear Episcopal Insignia.[80] Tardini continued to be a close co-worker of the Pope until the death of Pius XII, while Montini became archbishop of Milan, after the death of Alfredo Ildefonso Schuster.
Pius XII slowly eroded the Italian monopoly on the Roman Curia; he employed German and Dutch Jesuit advisors, Robert Leiber, Augustin Bea, and Sebastian Tromp. He also supported the elevation of Americans such as Cardinal Francis Spellman from a minor to a major role in the Church.[81][82] After World War II, Pius XII appointed more non-Italians than any Pope before him. American appointees included Joseph P. Hurley as regent of the nunciature in Belgrade, Gerald P. O'Hara as nuncio to Romania, and Monsignor Muench as nuncio to Germany. For the first time, numerous young Europeans, Asians and "Americans were trained in various congregations and secretariats within the Vatican for eventual service throughout the world."[83]
In his second consistory on 12 January 1953, it was expected that his closest co-workers, Msgrs. Domenico Tardini and Giovanni Montini would be elevated[86] and Pius XII informed the assembled cardinals that both of them were originally on the top of his list,[87] but they had turned down the offer, and were rewarded instead with other promotions.[88] [Tardini later thanked him for not appointing him. The Pope replied with a smile: Monsignore mio, you thank me, for not letting me do what I wanted to do" I replied, yes Holy Father, I thank you for everything you have done for me, but even more, what you have not done for me. The Pope smiled. In Domenico Cardinale Tardini, Pio XII, Tipografia Poliglotta Vaticana, 1960 157]The two consistories of 1946 and 1953 brought an end to over five hundred years of Italians constituting a majority of the College of Cardinals.[89]
In 1950, Pius XII promulgated Humani Generis which acknowledged that evolution might accurately describe the biological origins of human life, but at the same time criticized those who "imprudently and indiscreetly hold that evolution... explains the origin of all things". Catholics must believe that the human soul was created immediately by God. Since the soul is a spiritual substance it is not brought into being through transformation of matter, but directly by God, whence the special uniqueness of each person.."[116] Fifty years later, Pope John Paul II, stating that scientific evidence now seemed to favour the evolutionary theory, upheld the distinction of Pius XII regarding the human soul. "Even if the human body originates from pre-existent living matter, the spiritual soul is spontaneously created by God."[117]
But I do not really want to keep proving he was not the greatest. I would much rather someone show where some of the accusations are incorrect. There are some things that I wrongly assume are common knowledge that are not. I did not intend this to be a great surpise to anyone.
I was a little scandalized back when I learned these things I guess but I did not get mad at the people who shared this with me. I checked with myself to verify, asking others more knowledgable than I and checking the internet.
It really is not too much of a surprise when we consider what happened after his pontificate. I hope the man ends up in Heaven if he is not already there and would not be surprised if he does. I hope he is better than what has been presented.
People condemn him for not standing up more fimrly against the nαzι's but I believe he figured that if he did that would act even worse and that could very well could be true. Again he risked his life to protect the Jews. What's not to like about that. I'm just saying he wasn't perfect.
http://www.traditioninaction.org/Questions/B286_PiusXII.html
Perhaps this text taken from one of our answers to readers may help you to objectively understand the tendencies of Pius XII:
“Actually, it is not a secret to anyone that, in the last phase of his pontificate, Pius XII paid tribute to Progressivism. It is known that during his reign he vacillated between the anti-progressivist influence of Fr. Robert Leiber, SJ, his personal secretary, and the progressivist influence of Fr. Agostino Bea, SJ, his spiritual director. This fluctuation continued until around 1950 – Humani generis – when the anti-progressivist attitudes of Pius XII practically disappeared. With Pius XII’s approval, Fr. Bea became the main precursor of ecuмenism and one of the chief architects of Vatican II.” (see context here)
Under this influence of Card. Bea, many progressivist attitudes can be attributed to Pius XII in a variety of fields. They include:
•the start of Ostpolitik with Communism by means of Msgr. Giovanni Batista Montini in his contacts with either Italian communist Palmiro Togliatti or Stalin representatives;
•the lack of firmness in his condemnation of Darwin's theory of evolution in the Encyclical Humani generis;
•the opening of conjugal Morals to evolving “advances of science;”
•innumerable concessions in the application of the historic method to interpret Scripture and even Dogma;
•the first experiments in liturgical reform by Fr. Annibale Bugnini;
•the introduction of liberalization into the rules of Religious Orders by means of reforms conducted by Fr. Arcadio Larraona, etc.
Regarding your last question, Pius XII promoted both Msgr. Montini (to the post of pro-Secretary of State and then Archbishop of Milan) and Bishop Roncalli )to be Nuncio in Paris, a Cardinal, and then Patriarch of Venice).
We don’t know of any unequivocal fact proving that either of the mentioned ecclesiastics belonged to Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ. We have general evidence that they promoted the same ideals of Masonry and prepared the Church to come increasingly closer to that enemy organization. But, so far, we lack serious evidence that they were formally initiated in any of the Masonic lodges.
We hope these answers may help you to see more clearly.
Please show proof to the contrary of any of these allegations. I am more than glad to admit all these people are wrong if it can be proven that they are. The truth is all that matters when presenting historical facts. That is all I'm trying to get to the bottom of.
Tradition in Action and Father Stepanich do not take glee in pointing out negative realities, it is a matter of setting the record straight and avoiding the same mistakes. They would not assert such things were they not true. Or do you suggest that all who corroborate on the issue are making it up or are a part of a grand conspiracy plot? We cannot be influenced by "progressive" thinkers who have made their way up the ranks. "Don't toy with novelty" is sound theological advice to all even valid Popes.
If you really want the truth on this issue to be manifest, and you believe it has not been presented already, bring the proof, perhaps one accusation at a time if possible.
Otherwise it would seem that you merely would prefer not to believe the allegations without having facts to the contrary.
I'm willing to let the thread go. But I feel obliged to respond to those who seem to be of good will.
God bless.
God bless you as well.
-
I for one am not impressed with this continuing attack on Pius XII. Wikipedia, Stepanich & Cekada---- no thanks.
-
I for one am not impressed with this continuing attack on Pius XII. Wikipedia, Stepanich & Cekada---- no thanks.
No offense is intended.
There is alot of stuff on this site that I don't like. I avoid the threads entirely.
But at least you are not calling me a bunch of names. Catholics can agree to disagree. Much will be revealed in the end.
You are in my prayers. I'll say an Ave for you right now. Can you say one for me?
-
MO is that Nishant is correct & your attack on Pius XII is ENTIRELY MISTAKEN
I am however learning much about Fr Stepanich. Apparently he convinced himself that Fr Feeney was somehow condemned and this has been shown to be untrue. Not only is this untrue but it appears that Pius XII, in Humanum Generis, supported
Fr Feeney with respect to EENS.
MO then is that Stepanich is attacking EENS via Fr Feeney & the Pope. Apparently he has used some nit-picking re: BoD to do it rather than directly confronting the EENS dispute.
-
As far as Cekada is concerned, from what has been posted around here, he is some sort of pervert so I am not surprised to see this coming from him.
-
...
http://www.traditio.com/tradlib/piusmodern.htm
Pius XII and Modernism
From Twentieth Century Harbingers (pages 1094-1099)
The Revolution Takes Hold Under Pius XII
The Destruction of the Liturgy
long before the Second Vatican Council opened, a "synthetic school" existed that attempted to integrate two currents acting on the Church -- one "progressive" and the other "conservative." This "synthesis," Acerbi suggests, inspired Pope Pius XII's Encyclical (1943).
Commenting on the revolutionary nature of Mystici Corporis, Father Avery Dulles, SJ, noted that an attempt to introduce the same concept of the Church as the Mystical Body of Christ was rejected in 1870 at the First Vatican Council as being "confusing, ambiguous, vague, inappropriate, and inappropriately biological."
In History of Vatican II-Announcing and Preparing Vatican Council II, editor Joseph A. Komonchak states that Pius XII led the Revolution under the banner of "reform."
Komonchak credits Pius XII's Encyclical on Biblical Studies Divino Afflante Spiritu (1943) that was prepared from a draft written by German Jesuit Augustin Bea, then Director of the Biblical Institute, with the freeing of Biblical scholars from former restrictions and opened up Biblical Studies to progressive thought.
"Other reforms instigated by Pius XII, said Komonchak, included the establishment of secular institutes such as Opus Dei, the restoration of the permanent diaconate as an "ecclesiastical office independent of the priesthood," and the internationalization of the Curia, more by the Consistory of 1946 than the Consistory of 1953.
Bugnini credited Pius XII with putting "the seal of his supreme authority" on the Liturgical Movement in his Encyclical Mediator Dei of November 11, 1947.
He also notes that in 1945, two years before the encyclical appeared, Pius XII commissioned a new Latin version of the Psalms under the Pontifical Biblical Institute.
"This work, which had been brought to completion by the tenacious determination of the rector, Father (later Cardinal) Augustin Bea, helped ripen in the pope's mind the idea of a reform of the entire liturgy; the new Psalter would be simply the first building block of the new edifice," claimed Bugnini.
In the United States, as early as 1940, the Benedictines at St. John's Abbey in Collegeville, Minn. were hosting "Liturgical Weeks." At such avant-garde gatherings, "NewMass" was said in the vernacular with the "presider" facing the people and concelebration the norm. Chewy bread replaced the host. Private devotions were discouraged.
From the beginning, ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ clergy and religious like Archbishop Rembert Weakland were greatly attracted to the concept of "liturgical reform" as a vehicle of doctrinal and moral change. Catholic historian, Joseph White was very perceptive when he noted that "Liturgical activists were concurrently social reformers."
The Undermining of Seminary Life
The Promotion of Episcopal Conferences
Under this influence of Card. Bea, many progressivist attitudes can be attributed to Pius XII in a variety of fields. They include:
•the start of Ostpolitik with Communism by means of Msgr. Giovanni Batista Montini in his contacts with either Italian communist Palmiro Togliatti or Stalin representatives;
•the lack of firmness in his condemnation of Darwin's theory of evolution in the Encyclical Humani generis;
•the opening of conjugal Morals to evolving “advances of science;”
•innumerable concessions in the application of the historic method to interpret Scripture and even Dogma;
•the first experiments in liturgical reform by Fr. Annibale Bugnini;
•the introduction of liberalization into the rules of Religious Orders by means of reforms conducted by Fr. Arcadio Larraona, etc.
I just shortenend the evidenc submitted by Lover of Truth. I doubt that anyone writing against what he posted, even read the whole thing.
People, the alternative would be that Pius XII knew nothing of what was going on around him, and that Martians possessed all the progressivists shortly after Pius XII's death. Really, one has to have their heads in the sand to look the other way when all this evidence is put before them.
-
It is not the fault of Pius XII that the barque of St Peter is bashed with a tidal wave. He did the best he could & was a good Pope. :cheers:
-
Roscoe, while I happen to very much agree with your estimation of Pope Pius XII over John's, I disagree that Pope Pius XII agreed with Fr.Feeney on EENS. Msgr.Fenton writing in the American Ecclesiastical review in 1958 mentions Suprema Haec Sacra, its doctrinal content, and its approval by the Sovereign Pontiff Pope Pius XII.
Again it brought out the Catholic teaching that, in cases where men are invincibly ignorant of the true Church, "God accepts also an implicit desire (votum), so called because it is included in that good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God."16
If Fenton came out and said Pius XII was a great pontiff and did nothing questionable I would take him at his word.
But he did. He said all this and more. Msgr.Fenton: "Those of us who have been privileged to teach the tractatus de ecclesia Christi throughout the entire pontificate of Pope Pius XII know from experience how brilliantly and effectively he contributed to the advance of clerical studies in this line. In his clear statement of Catholic doctrine, and in his forceful repudiation of extravagant teachings on this subject, he advanced the cause of God's revealed truth as few men have done before him."
You really ought to "take him at his word", he does his homework, does Msgr.Fenton.
I'm not talking about the actual refusal of reforms implemented by the Pope here. I have supplied facts about him which are not pleasant.
But the two are inseparable, that is why the matter is serious. They ought to say first that they will not question any of the official acts of Pope Pius XII and promise obedience to his duly promulgated decrees and reforms as well as Encyclical teachings, then perhaps we can engage in their exercise, until then it really is pointless. It is in the attempted justification of their refusal that they bring up what they think to be indictments of Pope Pius XII's reign.
Anyway, for the sake of completion, I address your points briefly.
•the start of Ostpolitik with Communism by means of Msgr. Giovanni Batista Montini in his contacts with either Italian communist Palmiro Togliatti or Stalin representatives
You quoted an online source, I'll just do the same (http://www.robinsonlibrary.com/philosophy/denominations/catholic/history/pius12.htm).
"Pope Pius XII was an outspoken critic of Communism throughout his tenure. In July 1949, he formally excommunicated all members of the Communist party and anyone who aided or abetted it. He furthermore declared that it was not permissable for any Catholic to publish, distribute or read books, periodicals, paper or pamphlets preaching the doctrine of Communism, or to write in them, and that those who did so faced excommunication. In 1951 he addressed a letter to the archibishops, bishops, clergymen and laity of Czechoslovakia denouncing the Communist regime for its religious persecution and accused the government of carrying on a campaign based on falsehoods. On July 7, 1952, he addressed an apostolic letter to the people of Russia reviewing the history of the church in Russia over the previous 1,000 years and recalling instances when the Church had extended spiritual and material aid to Russians in times of famine."
•the lack of firmness in his condemnation of Darwin's theory of evolution in the Encyclical Humani generis;
You can see clearly that it is only granted as a reluctant concession as something to be tolerated for the present time, the Holy Father clearly says we are obliged to believe all men are descended from Adam and that the human soul was immediately created by God.
•the opening of conjugal Morals to evolving “advances of science;”
Is this supposed to be a criticism of Pope Pius XII's correct summation of the Catholic doctrine on Natural Family Planning? If so, Pope Pius XII was right and this author is wrong according to traditional Catholic doctrine. There are Holy Office docuмents from an earlier period that back this up in case you wish to deny it.
•innumerable concessions in the application of the historic method to interpret Scripture and even Dogma;
One or two specific examples, please?
•the first experiments in liturgical reform by Fr. Annibale Bugnini;
The reform of the Roman liturgy, not to mention of the Roman breviary, as well as some other noticeable changes, which was to be conducted in accordance with and conformity to Tradition, was happily begun in fact by Pope St.Pius X. When the Pope does something, even if it is only a prudential decision, there is a presumption in favor of his judgment, and at least a respectful silence is in order if you cannot bring yourself to fully agree, since the presumption is always in favor of the prudence of the superior, especially when that superior is the Roman Pontiff, and it would be at least rash to unduly disregard it rather than receive it with due reverence.
-
Roscoe, while I happen to very much agree with your estimation of Pope Pius XII over John's, I disagree that Pope Pius XII agreed with Fr.Feeney on EENS. Msgr.Fenton writing in the American Ecclesiastical review in 1958 mentions Suprema Haec Sacra, its doctrinal content, and its approval by the Sovereign Pontiff Pope Pius XII.
Again it brought out the Catholic teaching that, in cases where men are invincibly ignorant of the true Church, "God accepts also an implicit desire (votum), so called because it is included in that good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God."16
If Fenton came out and said Pius XII was a great pontiff and did nothing questionable I would take him at his word.
But he did. He said all this and more. Msgr.Fenton: "Those of us who have been privileged to teach the tractatus de ecclesia Christi throughout the entire pontificate of Pope Pius XII know from experience how brilliantly and effectively he contributed to the advance of clerical studies in this line. In his clear statement of Catholic doctrine, and in his forceful repudiation of extravagant teachings on this subject, he advanced the cause of God's revealed truth as few men have done before him."
You really ought to "take him at his word", he does his homework, does Msgr.Fenton.
I'm not talking about the actual refusal of reforms implemented by the Pope here. I have supplied facts about him which are not pleasant.
But the two are inseparable, that is why the matter is serious. They ought to say first that they will not question any of the official acts of Pope Pius XII and promise obedience to his duly promulgated decrees and reforms as well as Encyclical teachings, then perhaps we can engage in their exercise, until then it really is pointless. It is in the attempted justification of their refusal that they bring up what they think to be indictments of Pope Pius XII's reign.
Anyway, for the sake of completion, I address your points briefly.
•the start of Ostpolitik with Communism by means of Msgr. Giovanni Batista Montini in his contacts with either Italian communist Palmiro Togliatti or Stalin representatives
You quoted an online source, I'll just do the same (http://www.robinsonlibrary.com/philosophy/denominations/catholic/history/pius12.htm).
"Pope Pius XII was an outspoken critic of Communism throughout his tenure. In July 1949, he formally excommunicated all members of the Communist party and anyone who aided or abetted it. He furthermore declared that it was not permissable for any Catholic to publish, distribute or read books, periodicals, paper or pamphlets preaching the doctrine of Communism, or to write in them, and that those who did so faced excommunication. In 1951 he addressed a letter to the archibishops, bishops, clergymen and laity of Czechoslovakia denouncing the Communist regime for its religious persecution and accused the government of carrying on a campaign based on falsehoods. On July 7, 1952, he addressed an apostolic letter to the people of Russia reviewing the history of the church in Russia over the previous 1,000 years and recalling instances when the Church had extended spiritual and material aid to Russians in times of famine."
•the lack of firmness in his condemnation of Darwin's theory of evolution in the Encyclical Humani generis;
You can see clearly that it is only granted as a reluctant concession as something to be tolerated for the present time, the Holy Father clearly says we are obliged to believe all men are descended from Adam and that the human soul was immediately created by God.
•the opening of conjugal Morals to evolving “advances of science;”
Is this supposed to be a criticism of Pope Pius XII's correct summation of the Catholic doctrine on Natural Family Planning? If so, Pope Pius XII was right and this author is wrong according to traditional Catholic doctrine. There are Holy Office docuмents from an earlier period that back this up in case you wish to deny it.
•innumerable concessions in the application of the historic method to interpret Scripture and even Dogma;
One or two specific examples, please?
HIS ENCYCLICAL ON THE TOPIC
•the first experiments in liturgical reform by Fr. Annibale Bugnini;
The reform of the Roman liturgy, not to mention of the Roman breviary, as well as some other noticeable changes, which was to be conducted in accordance with and conformity to Tradition, was happily begun in fact by Pope St.Pius X. When the Pope does something, even if it is only a prudential decision, there is a presumption in favor of his judgment, and at least a respectful silence is in order if you cannot bring yourself to fully agree, since the presumption is always in favor of the prudence of the superior, especially when that superior is the Roman Pontiff, and it would be at least rash to unduly disregard it rather than receive it with due reverence.
IT WAS NOT "BEGUN" BY PIUS X BUT "FINISHED" BY HIM. HE ELIMINATED DUPLICITIES IN THE BRIEVARY AND DID NOT TOUCH THE MASS. NO POPE TOUCHED THE MASS SINCE PIUS V CODIFIED. IN FACT NO POPE TOUCHED THE MASS SINCE GREGORY THE GREAT. THEY ADDED FEAST DAYS IS ALL. PIUS XII GOT THE BALL ROLLING THAT LEAD TO WHERE WE ARE TODAY. YOU CAN DO WITH THAT WHAT YOU LIKE.
This is not a dispute that I need to "win". I'll let you have the last word Nishant. If you think Pius XII was a great Pope, fine. You are entitled to your thoughts. Father Fenten died in 1967 and we are still sorting the mess out 35 years later. I wonder what his private thoughts on the topic would be now.
-
Sigh. Yes, I agree, it's probably a good time to stop this discussion. My concern about your position is that it contains an error about the rights of the Pope in the area of liturgical discipline, hence my disagreement. I'll quote a few paragraphs without comment from Wikipedia.
The liturgical reforms of Pope Pius XII continued a process initiated by Pope Saint Pius X, who began the process of encouraging the faithful to a meaningful participation in the liturgy.
Through the Apostolic Constitution Divino afflatu, by which Pope Pius X promulgated his revision of the Roman Breviary, he abolished the Psalter established by his predecessor Pope Pius V and forbade its use,[1] declaring that those who were obliged to recite the Divine Office every day failed to fulfil this grave duty unless they used the new arrangement.
An article published on the September 2003 issue of The Angelus, associated with the Society of St. Pius X remarks: "The distribution of the psalms in St. Pius X's breviary was entirely new. It only partially took into account the ancient tradition of the Church, for example, abandoning the number of 12 psalms at Matins, a number consecrated by a tradition going back to the Desert Fathers and expressly codified in the Rule of St. Benedict.
Another point controversial at the time was the suppression of the immemorial and universally held usage of reciting psalms 148, 149, and 150 at the end of Lauds daily. This amounts to saying that the Breviary of Pius X did not have so much in common with that of his predecessor and that clerics were significantly unsettled in their habits!"
If you deny that the Church can loose what the Church has bound, that what she binds and loosens on earth is also by that very act bound and loosed in heaven, you deny the word of Christ. Your understanding of Pope St.Pius V's decrees for example was not Pope St.Pius X's understanding.
-
Sigh. Yes, I agree, it's probably a good time to stop this discussion. My concern about your position is that it contains an error about the rights of the Pope in the area of liturgical discipline, hence my disagreement. I'll quote a few paragraphs without comment from Wikipedia.
The liturgical reforms of Pope Pius XII continued a process initiated by Pope Saint Pius X, who began the process of encouraging the faithful to a meaningful participation in the liturgy.
Through the Apostolic Constitution Divino afflatu, by which Pope Pius X promulgated his revision of the Roman Breviary, he abolished the Psalter established by his predecessor Pope Pius V and forbade its use,[1] declaring that those who were obliged to recite the Divine Office every day failed to fulfil this grave duty unless they used the new arrangement.
An article published on the September 2003 issue of The Angelus, associated with the Society of St. Pius X remarks: "The distribution of the psalms in St. Pius X's breviary was entirely new. It only partially took into account the ancient tradition of the Church, for example, abandoning the number of 12 psalms at Matins, a number consecrated by a tradition going back to the Desert Fathers and expressly codified in the Rule of St. Benedict.
Another point controversial at the time was the suppression of the immemorial and universally held usage of reciting psalms 148, 149, and 150 at the end of Lauds daily. This amounts to saying that the Breviary of Pius X did not have so much in common with that of his predecessor and that clerics were significantly unsettled in their habits!"
If you deny that the Church can loose what the Church has bound, that what she binds and loosens on earth is also by that very act bound and loosed in heaven, you deny the word of Christ. Your understanding of Pope St.Pius V's decrees for example was not Pope St.Pius X's understanding.
We are talking past each other a bit and not understanding each other clearly.
I have not elaborated on "my understanding" of Pius V decrees. I have merely stated the Mass was not messed with before (since Gregory the Great) or after Pius V until Pius XII.
Wikepedia states the facts as reported by various sources and tries to be objective but they treat the conciliar Popes as Catholic and act as if what they bound on the Church is in fact something that can be bound on the Church. They are a reliable source for history but not for deciding what is Catholic and what is not.
I will state one more time:
I HAVE NOT CLAIMED PIUS XII DID ANYTHING THAT A VALID POPE CANNOT DO.
I have presented facts from knowledgeable and reliable good Catholics.
We are in confusing times. We are still trying to sort all the madness out after 50 years. Things were not perfect under Pius XII and Pius XII was not perfect. That is a fairly safe assessment. Some might not want to hear it or do not even believe it is true, but the assessment is fairly obvious on its face.
It is confusing to all objective observers, no matter how thye view the state of the Church today and what they believe the root cause of our condition is, that Benedict XV, Pius XI and Pius XII did not consecrate Russia in the way our lady asked that it be done. Again this is merely asserting an obvious fact, not starting a war against the Catholic Church.
I admire you Nischant, for standing up for what you believe is the truth. You are not afraid to take hits for taking an unpopular stance. Though the stance you take here may be the more popular one.
At least the discussion avoided all sorts of name calling or false accusations. Your suggestion that I deny the word of Christ was done charitably to make a point rather than an ad hominem attack which some use when they cannot disprove the assertions. I hope I have not acted uncharitably towards you in this exchange either.
The undermining of the Catholic Church was a long slow process that had accelerated by the end of Pope Pius XII pontificate. This is not the same as saying he caused it or willed it to happen. This does not deny that others may have caved worse under the same circuмstances or that he was courageous and bold at times or that he preserved the truth and avoided heresy. He promoted Montini after he knew what he was about and trusted his spiritual director Bea. Bugnini was a high ranking member under him. The Satanic/masonic plot was a title wave by that point. It was going strong at the time of Pius X but he did everything he could to stop it. He did not promote those suspected of modernism or trust them. He forced them underground for a time. The progressives are so nuanced and cater their words to their audience so it is difficult to know who to trust.
But saying Pius XII was no Pius V or Pius X does not seem to be a stretch.
I'll withdraw from the debate now and will really let you have the last word this time if you want it.
-
No, John. I don't need the last word. :) I also really think you are genuinely trying to do God's will in reading these articles, it is just that I believe they contain serious errors, which must always be reproved firmly but charitably. I hope I did not offend you, the reason for my disagreement with this methodology is that it keeps going further and further back, more and more suspicion is cast on the Popes of the past, and only confusion and uncertainty seems to result. Some cast doubt on the promulgation of liturgical reforms, others on the mitigation of the Eucharistic fast, still others on BoD, and yet others on NFP, this really does not help anyone in my opinion.
P.S. - Pope Pius XII raised St.Pius X to our altars. This champion against modernism is altogether beyond reproach we now know, yet some of his judgments were controversial in his day. That's why in a million cases, it's safer to go with the judgment of the Pontiff in 99.99% of the cases, only in one of a million at most will private individuals who express other opinions be right.
My prayers for you and your family. Let that, then, be the last word between us in this thread.
-
Roscoe, while I happen to very much agree with your estimation of Pope Pius XII over John's, I disagree that Pope Pius XII agreed with Fr.Feeney on EENS.
Fr Feeney & the St Benedict Center at the time believed that his May 1949 letter to the Pope is responded to in Humani Generis
.....' Some reduce to a meaningless formula the necessity of belonging to the True Church in order to gain salvation'. IOW---EENS
-
Well, it isn't a meaningless formula, but Pope Pius XII gave his express approval to the Holy Office explanation of the dogma, "However, this dogma must be understood in that sense in which the Church herself understands it. For, it was not to private judgments that Our Savior gave for explanation those things that are contained in the deposit of faith, but to the teaching authority of the Church.
However, this desire need not always be explicit, as it is in catechumens; but when a person is involved in invincible ignorance God accepts also an implicit desire, so called because it is included in that good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God.
But it must not be thought that any kind of desire of entering the Church suffices that one may be saved. It is necessary that the desire by which one is related to the Church be animated by perfect charity. "
I think Fr.Feeney was a good man distraught, like many today, at those around him who were wholly unconcerned with acting for the salvation of non-Catholics by proclaiming the faith. But in the process of reacting to false understandings, again like many today, he went to the opposite extreme, and denied what great Doctors like St.Thomas and St.Alphonsus taught is doctrine and even dogma, Baptism of desire.
Rome's answer is doctrinally exact and demonstrable from the tradition of the Fathers, the writings of the Saints and the teachings of the Popes, not to mention the deposit of revelation itself. For in sacred Scripture are related examples of those baptized by blood and desire.
God bless.
-
even dogma, Baptism of desire.
This comment discredits everything you wrote.
If baptism of desire was a dogma, it would be the end of the debate right there.
-
The late Mary Ball Martinez was a Vatican journalist/insider. Her book The Undermining of the Catholic Church is back in print. It reveals that the notorious Freemason Cardinal Rampolla was the mentor for Pacelli and Montini, both from banking families connected to the Rothschilds. Note too that Pacelli's confrere "Fr. Bea" became Cdl. Bea, who with Fr. Malachi Martin was the chief collaborator with the ѕуηαgσgυє of Satan in giving us Nostra Aetate.
The satanic sewage runs deep and erupted in geysers during the "Renaissance" and the "aggiornamento."
-
This comment discredits everything you wrote.
Well, I'm afraid my statement above only relates a fact.
If baptism of desire was a dogma, it would be the end of the debate right there.
You'd think so, wouldn't you?
Yet, St.Alphonsus plainly says, "Now it is de fide that men are also saved by Baptism of desire ... " (Moral Theology, Bk. 6, nn. 95-7) that is to say, a dogma.
Suffice to say I do not think this will be the "end of the debate right there" with respect to what is called Feeneyism, though in truth there is no reason it should not be. Alphonsus Ligouri apart from being a theologian and Bishop par excellence is also a Saint and a Doctor of the Church eminent in learning and sanctity. And the fact is you won't find a single theologian or Doctor of the Church for the last several hundred years who significantly disagrees with this.
-
As has been recounted previously, the above post by the victicrat Doego is filled with deception-- Beware. Popes Leo, Pius & Card Del Val are constant in their affection for C Rampolla & they are most likely more accurate.
The Fraud of Mrs Martinez & her collaborators( Compton, Gibson, Vennari, Hiembichner etc) is obvious.
-
There is no evidence from any Church Authority that Fr Feeney was censored for anything.
-
There is no evidence from any Church Authority that Fr Feeney was censored for anything.
?
...Finally, it is in no wise to be tolerated that certain Catholics shall claim for themselves the right to publish a periodical, for the purpose of spreading theological doctrines, without the permission of competent Church authority, called the “<imprimatur,>“ which is prescribed by the sacred canons.
Therefore, let them who in grave peril are ranged against the Church seriously bear in mind that after “Rome has spoken” they cannot be excused even by reasons of good faith. Certainly, their bond and duty of obedience toward the Church is much graver than that of those who as yet are related to the Church “only by an unconscious desire.” Let them realize that they are children of the Church, lovingly nourished by her with the milk of doctrine and the sacraments, and hence, having heard the clear voice of their Mother, they cannot be excused from culpable ignorance, and therefore to them apply without any restriction that principle: submission to the Catholic Church and to the Sovereign Pontiff is required as necessary for salvation.
In sending this letter, I declare my profound esteem, and remain,
Your Excellency’s most devoted,
F. Cardinal Marchetti-Selvaggiani.
A. Ottaviani, Assessor.
Holy Office, 8 Aug., 1949.
THE PRIEST LEONARD FEENEY IS DECLARED EXCOMMUNICATED
Since the priest Leonard Feeney, a resident of Boston (Saint Benedict Center), who for a long time has been suspended a divinis for grave disobedience toward church authority, has not, despite repeated warnings and threats of incurring excommunication ipso facto, come to his senses, the Most Eminent and Reverend Fathers, charged with safeguarding matters of faith and morals, have, in a Plenary Session held on Wednesday 4 February 1953, declared him excommunicated with all the effects of the law.
On Thursday, 12 February 1953, our Most Holy Lord Pius XII, by Divine Providence Pope, approved and confirmed the decree of the Most Eminent Fathers, and ordered that it be made a matter of public law.
Given at Rome, at the headquarters of the Holy Office, 13 February 1953.
Marius Crovini, Notary
AAS (February 16, 1953) Vol. XXXXV, Page 100
http://www.romancatholicism.org/feeney-condemnations.htm
-
The above letter is a fraud as it was never published in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis.
-
This writer doesn't have too much that's helpful to add to this thread, but here are a few comments that might be constructive:
1) Concerning EENS and the "baptism of desire" we should note that salvation and membership in the Catholic Church are two distinct categories. No one can be a member of the Church except by water or blood baptism, but salvation is possible through miracles of Divine Intervention and that is all that "baptism of desire" actually amounts to. Jansenism constantly restricts God's Divine Freedom by telling God what He can and can not do according to the private judgement of Jansenists. Nevertheless God is free to perform miracles if He wishes to do so and the miracle of "baptism of desire" is simply another example of this Divine Liberty. God is mightier than the Jansenists.
Yet it is also true that God respects the dignity of the sacraments and therefore membership in the Catholic Church is not possible through baptism of desire alone. To become a member of our Church one must receive the baptism of water, or in the exceptional case of physical martyrdom, baptism of blood. Our God is a merciful God and therefore sometimes allows salvation to those who can not receive the baptism of water through His own miraculous intervention in the lives of sinful men. The above is the wise teaching of Father Fenton.
Therefore Father Feeney was right that there is absolutely no salvation outside the Church, but Father Fenton was also right that the Good God may save men by miracles as well as by the baptism of water. Both Fathers Feeney and Fenton were right in agreeing that membership in our Holy Church requires the baptism of water or blood. The miraculous desire that can under rare circuмstances bring salvation inside the Church can not under any circuмstances bring membership in the Roman Catholic Church. We should also be grateful that both Fathers Feeney and Fenton died fully reconciled in the same holy religion of Roman Catholicism.
2) This writer has extensive practical knowledge of the various Breviaries of Pope Pius X, the time before Pope Pius X and the Breviary of Pope Pius XII that was completed under his successor, John XXIII, the Roman Breviary of 1960. To sincere and impartial users of these three variations of our traditional Roman Breviary the logic of what Popes Pius X and XII were doing ought to be reasonably clear. The organization of Pope Pius X's Breviary is far more focused on the End Times and the truths of the Apocalypse. That Breviary of 1911 moves away from the more personal devotion of the earlier version and better reflects the meaning of the Prayers After Mass introduced by Pope Leo XIII, especially the Prayer to St. Michael. Catholics who had entered into the End Times had need of a Breviary that addressed those more challenging and epic times of the then-dawning 20th Century and the Breviary of 1911 met that need.
The Breviary of 1960, or Pope Pius XII's Breviary, achieves an even greater focus on the Apocalypse, but also meets another greatly beneficial need of our own times, namely, a Breviary that is truly practicable and usable by all educated and intelligent Catholics regardless of their state of life. Whereas in all previous Breviaries there are many fine points only understandable by professionals in monastic communities, the Breviary of 1960 has a clear and simple structure that is accessible to every truly literate Catholic. Hence the Roman Breviary of 1960 is the Prayer of the Church for the entire Roman Catholic Folk or Chosen People of God. It thereby emphasizes the truth that the Romans (the white Europeans and their associates) are the Mystical Body of Christ, the true Chosen People of Our Lord. This is the elementary dogma of the faith we are meant to learn every year during our "Second Easter," the Feast of Sts. Peter and Paul on June 29th, and the Roman Breviary of 1960 is well designed to assist us most mercifully in our humble duty to learn that dogmatic teaching of our Holy Mother Church. We can not overcome the End Times in which we live without this holy wisdom: Rome is the New Jerusalem! Our Western Roman Civilization is the Chosen People of God Almighty.
(Hence, the Deicide Jew is the opposite from that.)
The Breviary of 1960 also contains many invaluable aids to better understand the teaching of the Social Kingship of Christ. Such essential truths of our faith for these End Times are among the many superb qualities that shine forth from the magnificent Roman Breviary of 1960, the Breviary of Pope Pius XII. Similar excellent qualities are to be found in the Missal of 1962, the incomparably beautiful Missal of the same Holy Father. For example, the inclusion of the name of St. Joseph in the Canon emphasizes that Our Lord received His Roman citizenship from St. Joseph and that we are saved in our Romanity, free from the deicide stain of Jєωιѕнness, the demonic opposite of holy Romanity.
3) Once again this writer must emphasize that men like Archbishop Bugnini and Cardinal Bea were only soulless bureaucrats who followed their orders, good or bad. When they obeyed Pope Pius XII they did much good, and when they obeyed the (according to my completely fallible understanding) Marxist Anti-Pope Paul VI they then did much evil. But that should be ascribed to the nature of bureaucrats, not to any personal fault in Pope Pius XII. Bugnini and Bea were talented bureaucrats and Pope Pius made good use of them in his own time. The real villain was Montini, not relatively insignificant conformists like Bugnini and Bea.
To sum up, the great Popes being constantly pilloried here by L. of T. are innocent of his false charges. Men like L. of T. and Bishop Sanborn ceaselessly promote a Jansenist agenda that twists facts and distorts history in order to slander Holy Mother Church and mislead Catholics into following their own sickly heresies. Regardless of their good intentions, by spreading commonplace anti-Catholic falsehoods that they share with the apostate Novus Ordo they are acting the part of Bishop Bernard Fellay's "loyal opposition" or "Trojan Horse" among the faithful of Catholic Tradition.
We should recognize that the final beneficiary of such senseless divisions among Catholics can only be the Eternal Jew. Our Lord expects better of us than to credulously believe the shameful slanders that Jansenists on this thread are hurling against so many great Bishops of Rome, the Holy City of God on earth.
May they repent so that the Good Lord will forgive them.
-
I think that bf75 has much indeed that is helpful to this topic. :cheers:
-
Acta Apostolicae Sedis 1953:
http://www.vatican.va/archive/aas/docuмents/AAS%2045%20%5B1953%5D%20-%20ocr.pdf
Scroll to page 100
-
It is the 1949 docuмent that is in dispute--- not the 1953.
-
Acta Apostolicae Sedis 1953:
http://www.vatican.va/archive/aas/docuмents/AAS%2045%20%5B1953%5D%20-%20ocr.pdf
Scroll to page 100
It is the 1949 docuмent that is in dispute-- not the 1953.
-
Roscoe, Msgr.Fenton writing in the pages of the American Ecclesiastical Review tells us, about the 1949 Holy Office Letter,
A year before the appearance of the Humani generis, the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office sent to the Most Reverend Archbishop of Boston a letter containing explanations on the subject of the dogma that no one can be saved outside of the Catholic Church. This highly important docuмent was approved by Pope Pius XII.
The letter itself cites the plain teaching of the earlier Encyclical Mystici Corporis Christi. There is no doubt at all that this was the express mind and will of the Supreme Pontiff Pope Pius XII.
These things are clearly taught in that dogmatic letter which was issued by the Sovereign Pontiff, Pope Pius XII, on June 29, 1943, <On the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ> (AAS, Vol. 35, an. 1943, p. 193 ff.)
...
With these wise words he reproves both those who exclude from eternal salvation all united to the Church only by implicit desire, and those who falsely assert that men can be saved equally well in every religion (cf. Pope Pius IX, Allocution, <Singulari quadam>, in <Denzinger>, n. 1641 ff.; also Pope Pius IX in the encyclical letter, <Quanto conficiamur moerore>, in <Denzinger>, n. 1677).
Brother Francis, thank you for the contribution. However, Fr.Feeney's view was actually slightly mistaken. He believed, somewhat surprisingly, that baptism of desire sufficed for justification but not for salvation, appearing to deny the dogmatic truth that all who die in the state of grace are saved, that nothing is lacking in the justified for salvation, as was taught at Trent. The contrary proposition has been condemned even in former Councils.
"Q. Are the souls of those who die in the state of justification saved, if they have not received Baptism of Water?
A. No. They are not saved.
Q. Where do these souls go if they die in the state of justification but have not received Baptism of Water?
A. I do not know.
Q. Do they go to Hell?
A. No.
Q. Do they go to Heaven?
A. No.
Now, all this is clearly wrong, yet I believe he modified these views later, but that was under a Pope you don't recognize, Pope Paul VI.
I don't blame him for misunderstanding the doctrine here. Yet, it is difficult to understand why he mistrusted Rome and did not immediately answer his summons and go and make his case there to the authorities of the Church and be corrected by the Magisterium of the Church he professed to love, whose doctrines he wished to defend. He argued that there was no salvation outside visible communion in the Church, as if, known only to God, there could not be souls invisibly yet truly united to her in desire, yet he almost died outside that visible communion himself.
Anyway, the correct doctrine again is "Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member, but it is necessary that at least he be united to her by desire and longing"
-
As has been recounted previously, the above post by the victicrat Doego is filled with deception-- Beware. Popes Leo, Pius & Card Del Val are constant in their affection for C Rampolla & they are most likely more accurate.
The Fraud of Mrs Martinez & her collaborators( Compton, Gibson, Vennari, Hiembichner etc) is obvious.
If Rampolla was such a saintly prelate, why was his election so surprisingly vetoed?
Was he the Cdl. Siri of his day? Unjustly deprived of the papal office to which he was elected? And was Cdl. Sarto the Roncalli/Montini villain of his day? I think not.
Freemasonic Cdl. Rampolla's mentoring of Pacelli explains Pacelli's affinity for and acquiescence to Freemason Bugnini's liturgical assault. Freemasonic Cdl. Rampolla's mentoring of Sodomite Montini explains Montini's promulgation of Freemason Bugnini's liturgical assault.
Romanitá and the reality of political intrigues—yes, in the Vatican—is shown through history to be associated with false expression of "affections" and unholy alliances. Freemason Rampolla's influence and lineage perfectly explain the modernist devastation of the Church. Rosie's hagiography of a victimized saintly Rampolla makes no sense and explains nothing.
-
As has been recounted previously, the above post by the victicrat Doego is filled with deception-- Beware. Popes Leo, Pius & Card Del Val are constant in their affection for C Rampolla & they are most likely more accurate.
The Fraud of Mrs Martinez & her collaborators( Compton, Gibson, Vennari, Hiembichner etc) is obvious.
If Rampolla was such a saintly prelate, why was his election so surprisingly vetoed?
Was he the Cdl. Siri of his day? Unjustly deprived of the papal office to which he was elected? And was Cdl. Sarto the Roncalli/Montini villain of his day? I think not.
Freemasonic Cdl. Rampolla's mentoring of Pacelli explains Pacelli's affinity for and acquiescence to Freemason Bugnini's liturgical assault. Freemasonic Cdl. Rampolla's mentoring of Sodomite Montini explains Montini's promulgation of Freemason Bugnini's liturgical assault.
Romanitá and the reality of political intrigues—yes, in the Vatican—is shown through history to be associated with false expression of "affections" and unholy alliances. Freemason Rampolla's influence and lineage perfectly explain the modernist devastation of the Church. Rosie's hagiography of a victimized saintly Rampolla makes no sense and explains nothing.
Nice try but it is F Joseph who is the freemason. :baby:
-
Devastating. So convincing.
[snickering]
-
This comment discredits everything you wrote.
Well, I'm afraid my statement above only relates a fact.
If baptism of desire was a dogma, it would be the end of the debate right there.
You'd think so, wouldn't you?
Yet, St.Alphonsus plainly says, "Now it is de fide that men are also saved by Baptism of desire ... " (Moral Theology, Bk. 6, nn. 95-7) that is to say, a dogma.
Suffice to say I do not think this will be the "end of the debate right there" with respect to what is called Feeneyism, though in truth there is no reason it should not be. Alphonsus Ligouri apart from being a theologian and Bishop par excellence is also a Saint and a Doctor of the Church eminent in learning and sanctity. And the fact is you won't find a single theologian or Doctor of the Church for the last several hundred years who significantly disagrees with this.
A saint saying that something is dogma, does not make it dogma. That quote from St. Alphonsus is well known to everyone. Yet not one authoritative defender of baptism of desire today claims it to be dogma.
-
From something that i had copied in my archives from Angelqueen, about the "1949 letter":
Here is the correct understanding of the Catholic Dogma : EENS
LETTER OF THE SACRED CONGREGATION OF THE HOLY OFFICE
Archbishop Richard J. Cushing
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Given on August 8, 1949 explaining the true sense of Catholic doctrine that there is no salvation outside the Church.
This important Letter of the Holy Office is introduced by a letter of the Most Reverend Archbishop of Boston.
The Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office has examined again the problem of Father Leonard Feeney and St. Benedict Center. Having studied carefully the publications issued by the Center, and having considered all the circuмstances of this case, the Sacred Congregation has ordered me to publish, in its entirety, the letter which the same Congregation sent me on the 8th of August, 1949. The Supreme Pontiff, His Holiness, Pope Pius XII, has given full approval to this decision. In due obedience, therefore, we publish, in its entirety, the Latin text of the letter as received from the Holy Office with an English translation of the same approved by the Holy See.
Given at Boston, Mass., the 4th day of September, 1952.
Walter J. Furlong, Chancellor
Richard J. Cushing, Archbishop of Boston.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LETTER OF THE HOLY OFFICE
From the Headquarters of the Holy Office, Aug. 8, 1949.
Your Excellency:
This Supreme Sacred Congregation has followed very attentively the rise and the course of the grave controversy stirred up by certain associates of "St. Benedict Center" and "Boston College" in regard to the interpretation of that axiom: "Outside the Church there is no salvation."
After having examined all the docuмents that are necessary or useful in this matter, among them information from your Chancery, as well as appeals and reports in which the associates of "St. Benedict Center" explain their opinions and complaints, and also many other docuмents pertinent to the controversy, officially collected, the same Sacred Congregation is convinced that the unfortunate controversy arose from the fact that the axiom, "outside the Church there is no salvation," was not correctly understood and weighed, and that the same controversy was rendered more bitter by serious disturbance of discipline arising from the fact that some of the associates of the institutions mentioned above refused reverence and obedience to legitimate authorities.
Accordingly, the Most Eminent and Most Reverend Cardinals of this Supreme Congregation, in a plenary session held on Wednesday, July 27, 1949, decreed, and the august Pontiff in an audience on the following Thursday, July 28, 1949, deigned to give his approval, that the following explanations pertinent to the doctrine, and also that invitations and exhortations relevant to discipline be given:
We are bound by divine and Catholic faith to believe all those things which are contained in the word of God, whether it be Scripture or Tradition, and are proposed by the Church to be believed as divinely revealed, not only through solemn judgment but also through the ordinary and universal teaching office (<Denzinger>, n. 1792).
Now, among those things which the Church has always preached and will never cease to preach is contained also that infallible statement by which we are taught that there is no salvation outside the Church.
However, this dogma must be understood in that sense in which the Church herself understands it. For, it was not to private judgments that Our Savior gave for explanation those things that are contained in the deposit of faith, but to the teaching authority of the Church.
Now, in the first place, the Church teaches that in this matter there is question of a most strict command of Jesus Christ. For He explicitly enjoined on His apostles to teach all nations to observe all things whatsoever He Himself had commanded (Matt. 28: 19-20).
Now, among the commandments of Christ, that one holds not the least place by which we are commanded to be incorporated by baptism into the Mystical Body of Christ, which is the Church, and to remain united to Christ and to His Vicar, through whom He Himself in a visible manner governs the Church on earth.
Therefore, no one will be saved who, knowing the Church to have been divinely established by Christ, nevertheless refuses to submit to the Church or withholds obedience from the Roman Pontiff, the Vicar of Christ on earth.
Not only did the Savior command that all nations should enter the Church, but He also decreed the Church to be a means of salvation without which no one can enter the kingdom of eternal glory.
In His infinite mercy God has willed that the effects, necessary for one to be saved, of those helps to salvation which are directed toward man's final end, not by intrinsic necessity, but only by divine institution, can also be obtained in certain circuмstances when those helps are used only in desire and longing. This we see clearly stated in the Sacred Council of Trent, both in reference to the sacrament of regeneration and in reference to the sacrament of penance (<Denzinger>, nn. 797, 807).
The same in its own degree must be asserted of the Church, in as far as she is the general help to salvation. Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member, but it is necessary that at least he be united to her by desire and longing.
However, this desire need not always be explicit, as it is in catechumens; but when a person is involved in invincible ignorance God accepts also an implicit desire, so called because it is included in that good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God.
These things are clearly taught in that dogmatic letter which was issued by the Sovereign Pontiff, Pope Pius XII, on June 29, 1943, <On the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ> (AAS, Vol. 35, an. 1943, p. 193 ff.). For in this letter the Sovereign Pontiff clearly distinguishes between those who are actually incorporated into the Church as members, and those who are united to the Church only by desire.
Discussing the members of which the Mystical Body is-composed here on earth, the same august Pontiff says: "Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed."
Toward the end of this same encyclical letter, when most affectionately inviting to unity those who do not belong to the body of the Catholic Church, he mentions those who "are related to the Mystical Body of the Redeemer by a certain unconscious yearning and desire," and these he by no means excludes from eternal salvation, but on the other hand states that they are in a condition "in which they cannot be sure of their salvation" since "they still remain deprived of those many heavenly gifts and helps which can only be enjoyed in the Catholic Church" (AAS, 1. c., p. 243). With these wise words he reproves both those who exclude from eternal salvation all united to the Church only by implicit desire, and those who falsely assert that men can be saved equally well in every religion (cf. Pope Pius IX, Allocution, <Singulari quadam>, in <Denzinger>, n. 1641 ff.; also Pope Pius IX in the encyclical letter, <Quanto conficiamur moerore>, in <Denzinger>, n. 1677).
But it must not be thought that any kind of desire of entering the Church suffices that one may be saved. It is necessary that the desire by which one is related to the Church be animated by perfect charity. Nor can an implicit desire produce its effect, unless a person has supernatural faith: "For he who comes to God must believe that God exists and is a rewarder of those who seek Him" (Heb. 11:6). The Council of Trent declares (Session VI, chap. 8): "Faith is the beginning of man's salvation, the foundation and root of all justification, without which it is impossible to please God and attain to the fellowship of His children" (Denzinger, n. 801).
From what has been said it is evident that those things which are proposed in the periodical <From the Housetops>, fascicle 3, as the genuine teaching of the Catholic Church are far from being such and are very harmful both to those within the Church and those without.
From these declarations which pertain to doctrine, certain conclusions follow which regard discipline and conduct, and which cannot be unknown to those who vigorously defend the necessity by which all are bound' of belonging to the true Church and of submitting to the authority of the Roman Pontiff and of the Bishops "whom the Holy Ghost has placed . . . to rule the Church" (Acts 20:28).
Hence, one cannot understand how the St. Benedict Center can consistently claim to be a Catholic school and wish to be accounted such, and yet not conform to the prescriptions of canons 1381 and 1382 of the Code of Canon Law, and continue to exist as a source of discord and rebellion against ecclesiastical authority and as a source of the disturbance of many consciences.
Furthermore, it is beyond understanding how a member of a religious Institute, namely Father Feeney, presents himself as a "Defender of the Faith," and at the same time does not hesitate to attack the catechetical instruction proposed by lawful authorities, and has not even feared to incur grave sanctions threatened by the sacred canons because of his serious violations of his duties as a religious, a priest, and an ordinary member of the Church.
Finally, it is in no wise to be tolerated that certain Catholics shall claim for themselves the right to publish a periodical, for the purpose of spreading theological doctrines, without the permission of competent Church authority, called the "<imprimatur,>" which is prescribed by the sacred canons.
Therefore, let them who in grave peril are ranged against the Church seriously bear in mind that after "Rome has spoken" they cannot be excused even by reasons of good faith. Certainly, their bond and duty of obedience toward the Church is much graver than that of those who as yet are related to the Church "only by an unconscious desire." Let them realize that they are children of the Church, lovingly nourished by her with the milk of doctrine and the sacraments, and hence, having heard the clear voice of their Mother, they cannot be excused from culpable ignorance, and therefore to them apply without any restriction that principle: submission to the Catholic Church and to the Sovereign Pontiff is required as necessary for salvation.
In sending this letter, I declare my profound esteem, and remain,
Your Excellency's most devoted,
F. Cardinal Marchetti-Selvaggiani.
A. Ottaviani, Assessor.
Holy Office, 8 Aug., 1949.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Provided Courtesy of:
Eternal Word Television Network
5817 Old Leeds Road
Irondale, AL 35210
I took the liberty of asking Mr Downey's opinion on this subject and found the response very helpful. This is what he had to say:
JMJD+
This “letter of the Holy Office” is heretical. But before addressing that question, it should be remembered that this letter was never entered formally as an Acta Apostolicae Sedis and therefore it has no greater authority than a private letter from one bishop to another. The letter was included in the 1962 edition of Denzinger’s by its editor, Rev. Karl Rahner, the notorious modernist.
The letter was written to address Fr. Feeney’s defense of the dogma that there is “no salvation outside of the Catholic Church.” Fr. Feeney did not formulate his theological teaching on ‘baptism of desire’ until several years after this letter was written. So it is an error to say as some have said that this letter “condemns Fr. Feeney’s teaching on Baptism.”
The letter says that people can gain salvation by an “implicit” membership in the Catholic Church. The material cause of this “membership” is the “good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God.” This is a form a Pelagianism. The letter denies the defined dogmas of the Catholic Church that an explicit Faith is necessary salvation, that the sacrament of Baptism is necessary for salvation, and that being subject of the Roman Pontiff is necessary for salvation. No quote from Scripture, father, doctor, saint, council, papal docuмent or accepted tradition affirms this belief. Since supernatural Faith is believing ‘what God has revealed on the authority of God,’ ask for an explanation how there can be “supernatural faith” if someone does not know if God has revealed anything or what if anything God has revealed. The people who think this letter is orthodox should be asked to try their hand at writing a Credo of implicit Catholic Faith.
Even the SSPX does not defend this letter as being orthodox. Tthose traditional Catholics who believe in the theory of ‘Baptism of Desire’ as salvific believe, like St. Thomas, that it requires explicit Faith (i.e.: cannot be a heretic), subjection to the Roman Pontiff (i.e.: cannot be a schismatic), and an explicit vow to receive the sacrament of Baptism. The Council of Trent declares that when these are present they can produce a state of justification. ‘Baptism of Desire’ is basically an affirmation of ‘Salvation by Justification Alone.’ Whether or not this proposition is true is another question.
More seriously, the letter undermines all dogma by its modernist affirmation that, “dogma must be understood in that sense in which the Church herself understands it. For, it was not to private judgments that Our Savior gave for explanation those things that are contained in the deposit of faith, but to the teaching authority of the Church.” The truth of the matter is that the dogmatic formulation IS the “sense in which the Church herself understands” divinely revealed truth. It IS the Church giving “explanation (to) those things that are contained in the deposit of faith” It is the dogma itself that is infallible and dogma is not subject to theological refinement but itself is the formal object of Divine and Catholic Faith. To say, “dogma must be understood in that sense in which the Church herself understands it,” is to claim for the theologian an authority that belongs to the dogma itself. If you believe this modernist proposition, then you cannot really accept any dogmatic declaration as being a definitive expression of our faith for it will always be open to theological refinement.
The letter also contains a mistranslation of the encyclical, Mystici Corporis, by saying that non-Catholics "are related to the Mystical Body of the Redeemer by a certain unconscious yearning and desire," The words “related to” are a mistranslation of the Latin which should read “ordained toward.” As you can see this entirely changes the meaning of the text.
Sincerely in Christ,
DOWNEY
Specific references for these arguments are omitted since they were not found to be necessary but, if anyone has any questions, Mr Downey would be happy to answer them.
-
Some more from Angelqueen archives:
From DESIRE AND DECEPTION, by Thomas Hutchinson (1994) page 103
What was interesting in particular was that newspaper accounts insisted that disciplinary actions were taken against Fr. Feeney because of his doctrine, while the official communications all dealt with disobedience. Oh, what a kettle of fish!
But this changed on 3 September 1949, when The Pilot (newspaper of the Archdiocese of Boston) triumphantly carried the banner headline;
HOLY OFFICE CONDEMNS TEACHINGS AND ACTIONS OF ST. BENEDICT'S CENTER.
The article went on to explain that a letter from the Holy Office, signed by Cardinal Marchetti Selvaggiani had been written in response to the actions of Fr. Feeney and the Center students. The letter itself was not printed, only select excerpts, which said among other things that
- the disturbance was the result of the members of the group's refusal to “revere and obey duly constituted authority."
-Another quote indicated that while No Salvation Outside the Church is "an incontestable axiom," it must be "understood in the sense in which the Church herself understands it."
-In a third place, the letter was quoted as urging Center members to "return to Catholic unity."
This Holy Office letter has appeared in various editions of Denzinger since 1963, first appearing there under the editorship of Karl Rahner, S.J., at whom we shall gaze more carefully in a moment. But it never appeared in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis, the official Latin language registry of all the Holy See's official acts. Indeed, it did not see the light of day at all, until after the death of Marchetti-Selvaggiani , a few years later (Cardinal Marchetti-Selvaggiani died January 13, 1951; at that time (in 1952) it was finally published in the American Ecclesiastical Review.
When Karl Rahner decided to put it into Denzinger, he had to have it translated into Latin from English, whence it was retranslated for the English edition of Denzinger. To say that the authority of such a docuмent is more than a little suspect is perhaps the most charitable thing to be said for it. It has been maintained that the Pope himself carefully went over the wording of the letter; but the only evidence we have of this is that of Cardinal Wright. Given His Eminence's role in this matter, some may not feel called to value his testimony too highly.On 10 October 1949, Fr. Feeney was dismissed from the Jesuits for the "crime of serious and permanent disobedience..."
Less than a year later, Pius XII issued his encyclical Humani Generis on 21 August 1950. Therein the Pope condemned the teach Karl Rahner, Teilhard de Chardin, and their ilk without mentioning their names. As might be expected, this attempt was no more effective than Leo XIII's attack on the Americanists. But some encouragement was given the Center by this docuмent: "Some reduce to an empty formula the necessity of belonging to the True Church in order tp attain salvation" (Denzinger 2319)"
-
Roscoe, Msgr.Fenton writing in the pages of the American Ecclesiastical Review tells us, about the 1949 Holy Office Letter,
A year before the appearance of the Humani generis, the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office sent to the Most Reverend Archbishop of Boston a letter containing explanations on the subject of the dogma that no one can be saved outside of the Catholic Church. This highly important docuмent was approved by Pope Pius XII.
The letter itself cites the plain teaching of the earlier Encyclical Mystici Corporis Christi. There is no doubt at all that this was the express mind and will of the Supreme Pontiff Pope Pius XII.
These things are clearly taught in that dogmatic letter which was issued by the Sovereign Pontiff, Pope Pius XII, on June 29, 1943, <On the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ> (AAS, Vol. 35, an. 1943, p. 193 ff.)
...
With these wise words he reproves both those who exclude from eternal salvation all united to the Church only by implicit desire, and those who falsely assert that men can be saved equally well in every religion (cf. Pope Pius IX, Allocution, <Singulari quadam>, in <Denzinger>, n. 1641 ff.; also Pope Pius IX in the encyclical letter, <Quanto conficiamur moerore>, in <Denzinger>, n. 1677).
Brother Francis, thank you for the contribution. However, Fr.Feeney's view was actually slightly mistaken. He believed, somewhat surprisingly, that baptism of desire sufficed for justification but not for salvation, appearing to deny the dogmatic truth that all who die in the state of grace are saved, that nothing is lacking in the justified for salvation, as was taught at Trent. The contrary proposition has been condemned even in former Councils.
"Q. Are the souls of those who die in the state of justification saved, if they have not received Baptism of Water?
A. No. They are not saved.
Q. Where do these souls go if they die in the state of justification but have not received Baptism of Water?
A. I do not know.
Q. Do they go to Hell?
A. No.
Q. Do they go to Heaven?
A. No.
Now, all this is clearly wrong, yet I believe he modified these views later, but that was under a Pope you don't recognize, Pope Paul VI.
I don't blame him for misunderstanding the doctrine here. Yet, it is difficult to understand why he mistrusted Rome and did not immediately answer his summons and go and make his case there to the authorities of the Church and be corrected by the Magisterium of the Church he professed to love, whose doctrines he wished to defend. He argued that there was no salvation outside visible communion in the Church, as if, known only to God, there could not be souls invisibly yet truly united to her in desire, yet he almost died outside that visible communion himself.
Anyway, the correct doctrine again is "Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member, but it is necessary that at least he be united to her by desire and longing"
Nishant,
Your above comment indicates how complicated this topic must be. This writer can not pretend to be any kind of trained theologian! But there are a few key things to keep in mind: Cardinal Cushing was perhaps the most partial and seriously conniving prelate of his time in the entire Catholic hierarchy world-wide. That he had the ability and will to persecute Fr. Feeney should be reasonably clear. Cardinal Cushing was among the most powerful Church dignitaries of his day, knew Fr. Feeney's limitations and exploited them to the hilt for his own modernist agenda.
About the clearest way this writer knows to explain the "baptism of desire" conundrum is to say that in our Canon Law of 1917 (CIC 1183) catechumens are eligible for the formal Catholic funeral rites and burial in holy ground alongside other Catholics, whereas unbaptized infants are not. Surely Fr. Feeney did not disagree with or disobey this ecclesiastical law during his lifetime and therefore in practice conformed with Catholicism rather than with Jansenism. In any case the "desire and longing" to which you refer is identical with the catechumenate and has nothing to do with Anabaptist denials of the dogmatic truth of Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus.
In my opinion the reign of Paul VI was before the General Apostasy that we are now suffering through so that therefore Fr. Feeney was right to get along with the then existing Church authorities as best he could. His situation was then like during the reigns of several previous Anti-Popes when Catholics also went ahead as usual hoping for better times. Unfortunately soon after Fr. Feeney left us the successful reversal of Paul VI's reign was quickly undone by the martyrdom of Pope John Paul I at the hands of certain Secret Police organizations best left unnamed.
Fr. Feeney was excommunicated for disobedience, not for heresy, and he reconciled his status in the early 70s when his nemesis Cardinal Cushing could no longer interfere with the legal proceedings. But back during the reign of Pius XII when Cardinal Cushing controlled much of the Vatican's money and wealth we shouldn't be surprised that Fr. Feeney was wary of the powerful Cardinal's many friends in the Roman Curia. After all, he who pays the piper often calls the tune.
We should also remember (listen up, Mr. bowler and Mr. Diego!) that Fr. Feeney prominently displayed large portraits of Pope Pius XII in his residences and was never so foolish as to condemn or speak evil of any of the recent great Popes of our holy Church or their obedient servants. (To be charitable, Anti-Pope Paul VI was a circus freak, not a Pope.) That shows us that Fr. Feeney was proud of his own strength but was not a Jansenist heretic and never for even a single day.
There's a crucial message here for us to learn on this thread from the late great Fr. Leonard Feeney: Be as proud and strong as we are but avoid Jansenism no matter what.
-
Fr Feeney did not go to Rome because his summons gave no reason & was therefore illegal. :reporter:
-
Speaking of excommunications, and Jansenists, the following two propositions among many others,
91. The fear of an unjust excommunication should never hinder us from fulfilling our duty; never are we separated from the Church, even when by the wickedness of men we seem to be expelled from it, as long as we are attached to God, to Jesus Christ, and to the Church herself by charity.
92. To suffer in peace an excommunication and an unjust anathema rather than betray truth, is to imitate St. Paul; far be it from rebelling against authority or of destroying unity.
were condemned by the Church under Pope Clement XI as under "false, captious, evil-sounding, offensive to pious ears, scandalous, pernicious, rash etc". St.Thomas Aquinas says "the person excommunicated should humbly submit (which will be credited to him as a merit), and either seek absolution from the person who has excommunicated him, or appeal to a higher judge. If, however, he were to contemn the sentence, he would "ipso facto" sin mortally."
Brother Francis and Roscoe, I think Fr.Feeney was a good priest who made a slight mistake. From my non-sedevacantist perspective, better late than never he was reconciled to the Church. But I still think he should have immediately gone on his own initiative to Rome and made his case to the Holy Father or the Holy Office if he distrusted Archbishop Cushing. Why would he not do this, can you tell me?
A saint saying that something is dogma, does not make it dogma.
It does have great weight even by itself, St.Alphonsus was an illustrious Bishop, Saint, theologian and Doctor of the Church very learned in such matters, but he hardly stands alone.
You will not find a single approved theologian of the last I think around 300 years who casts any sort of serious doubt on BoD or who treats it as a doctrine that can be denied without sin. It is not. Read the theologians and manualists, Tanqueray, Fenton, Scheeben, Van Noort, you'll see all of them treat of it matter of factly. Ludwig Ott classifies it as proximate to faith which means it would be a mortal sin to publicly deny.
The last serious theological controversy about this was when Peter Abelard denied it, and he was opposed by St.Bernard. St.Bonaventure, St.Thomas Aquinas, St.Robert Bellarmine and innumerable other Saints and Doctors have explained this doctrine and refuted objections against it.
Regarding the Holy Office letter,
Since supernatural Faith is believing ‘what God has revealed on the authority of God,’ ask for an explanation how there can be “supernatural faith” if someone does not know if God has revealed anything or what if anything God has revealed.
St.Thomas answers that God indeed reveals it Himself to such souls in good faith who by the leading of natural reason seek good and right and shun evil and wrong, but perhaps by a merely internal inspiration. This is also clearly the import of Pope Pius IX's Magisterial teaching on the subject,
"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."
-
"Brother Francis and Roscoe, I think Fr.Feeney was a good priest who made a slight mistake. From my non-sedevacantist perspective, better late than never he was reconciled to the Church. But I still think he should have immediately gone on his own initiative to Rome and made his case to the Holy Father or the Holy Office if he distrusted Archbishop Cushing. Why would he not do this, can you tell me?"
Mr. Nishant, Of course knowledge of why Fr. Feeney did what he did is beyond me, but perhaps it was that then Archbishop Cushing did have a strangle-hold on the finances of the Vatican while at the same time the American military had a strangle-hold on the military security of the Papacy. In particular, Cushing seems to have controlled the American Foundation money while Cardinal Spellman of New York seems to have controlled the American "Peter's Pence" money. Spellman was also the Military Chaplain of the American Armed Forces and Cushing seems to have had the ear of the more Masonic aspect of the American military establishment of those days. Therefore but a word from either of them and pretty literally anyone in Italy was, as is said, "toast." Anywhere the K.G.B. and Soviet Empire couldn't reach, the American Secret Police and Empire could. Sweet. (Any notion that the "American government wasn't like that" and there's a Bridge in Brooklyn you've got to buy right away.)
Hence Archbishop Cushing wanted, no, demanded Fr. Feeney's head and the Holy Office was quaking in their shoes with the gun sights and butts of the American Marines headed their way. Not to mention a million more Italians starving if Cushing had food aid denied to the poor rural areas and the Vatican facing immanent bankruptcy without the cornucopia of Foundation money controlled from Boston.
In short, the American Occupation of Italy was (and is) a classic revolutionary Reign of Terror in which those who get in the way don't breathe for very long. The methods are a little more subtle than those of the Soviets, but not much more actually. The American Occupation uses bribery more than the Soviets did, but the resort to violence and mass murder is much the same.
To be more precise: In Boston Fr. Feeney enjoyed the armed protection of the Irish majority of Boston, whereas in Rome Fr. Feeney would have very likely met a sudden end at the request of the not-so-tender-hearted Archbishop Cushing of the Masonic Lodges and ѕуηαgσgυєs of Boston and beyond. Literally in Boston Fr. Feeney often had to fight for his life against Jєωιѕн and Masonic Communist thugs (at the behest of the U.S. government & associates) with absolutely nothing but very forceful (i.e., violent) protection from many an Irish bouncer to save his skin.
Why wouldn't Fr. Feeney go to Rome? Because how could Fr. Feeney go to Rome and live to tell the tale? Fr. Feeney wasn't living in Disneyland but in the aftermath of the Second World War, a pretty brutal regime under which we Catholics continue to be crushed 24/7.
Those are a few of my speculations as to why Fr. Feeney didn't have much expectation of receiving justice in Rome or anywhere else. And Pope Pius XII was in the same fix. We all were, and still are.
-
bowler said:
A saint saying that something is dogma, does not make it dogma.
Nishant answered: It does have great weight even by itself, St.Alphonsus was an illustrious Bishop, Saint, theologian and Doctor of the Church very learned in such matters, but he hardly stands alone.
You will not find a single approved theologian of the last I think around 300 years who casts any sort of serious doubt on BoD or who treats it as a doctrine that can be denied without sin. It is not. Read the theologians and manualists, Tanqueray, Fenton, Scheeben, Van Noort, you'll see all of them treat of it matter of factly. Ludwig Ott classifies it as proximate to faith which means it would be a mortal sin to publicly deny.
The last serious theological controversy about this was when Peter Abelard denied it, and he was opposed by St.Bernard. St.Bonaventure, St.Thomas Aquinas, St.Robert Bellarmine and innumerable other Saints and Doctors have explained this doctrine and refuted objections against it.
At least you answered your own question, it is not a dogma,
"Ludwig Ott classifies it as proximate to faith. As far as if it is or isn't proximate to the faith, again that's a theological opinion, which again is not dogma.
More importantly, the only form of baptism of desire that can be called " proximate to faith" is the teaching of "St.Thomas Aquinas, St.Bernard. St.Bonaventure, St. Alphonsus Ligouri, St.Robert Bellarmine and other Saints and Doctors, WHICH IS the explicit desire of someone that wants to be a Catholic. All of those saints and doctors were opposed to the modern baptism of desire which IS THE PROBLEM, which teaches that people who have no desire to be Catholics, can be saved.
-
Nishant wrote:
Fr.Feeney said:
"Q. Are the souls of those who die in the state of justification saved, if they have not received Baptism of Water?
A. No. They are not saved.
Q. Where do these souls go if they die in the state of justification but have not received Baptism of Water?
A. I do not know.
Q. Do they go to Hell?
A. No.
Q. Do they go to Heaven?
A. No.
Now, all this is clearly wrong, yet I believe he modified these views later
Your quote from Fr. Feeney is cut off from the most important parts. You have thus created a strawman. His answers are very profound and no theologian can say that it is wrong or a heresy. Here is the whole quote:
Fr. Feeney wrote:
Q. Can anyone now be saved without Baptism of Water?
A. No one can be saved without Baptism of Water.
Q. Are the souls of those who die in the state of justification saved, if they have not received Baptism of Water?
A. No. They are not saved.
Q. Where do these souls go if they die in the state of justification but have not received Baptism of Water?
A. I do not know.
Q. Do they go to Hell?
A. No.
Q. Do they go to Heaven?
A. No.
Q. Are there any such souls?
A. I do not know! Neither do you!
Q. What are we to say to those who believe there are such souls?
A. We must say to them that they are making reason prevail over Faith, and the laws of probability over the Providence of God.
-------------------------------------
Dear Nishant,
The central issue is not this question of what happens to a catechumen who is justified before he receives baptism, but dies before he can be baptized. But that question is not even worth discussing, and never has been., since it affects numerically speaking, no one. I've never known anyone who had a relative who died as a catechumen, nor a martyr candidate for baptism of blood. All the discussion on a catechumen is just a smoke screen of the believers in the salvation of all non-Catholics who have no desire to be Catholics. and that’s the real central issue.
For the record, Fr. Feeney said that he does not know what happens to such a hypothetical catechumen, and that neither do you, that "they are making reason prevail over Faith, and the laws of probability over the Providence of God". He said the same as St. Augustine had concluded like 1500 years before.
-
From, The Value of Theological Notes and the Criteria for Discerning Them by Father Sixtus Cartechini S.J. (Rome, 1951) an explanation of the consequences of denying what is "proximate to faith".
(d) Theological Note: Proximate to faith.
Explanation: A doctrine all but unanimously held as revealed by God.
Example: Christ possessed the Beatific Vision throughout his life on earth.
Censure attached to contradictory proposition: Proximate to error.
Effects of denial: Mortal sin indirectly against faith.
It shall never be lawful to call into question what the Church has settled.
Look, Bowler, I know many of those who admire Fr.Feeney genuinely think they are helping the faith. I don't doubt their sincerity or their good will, only the seriousness of the error to which they adhere. It's sad, but it's what happens when one prefers one's own idea to an exact and precise explanation from the Holy Office. This is why I really don't think good can come by spreading more and more mistrust among Catholics about the Popes of the past, the basis on which we believe orthodox doctrines and traditional dogmas is undermined.
the modern baptism of desire which IS THE PROBLEM, which teaches that people who have no desire to be Catholics, can be saved
This is not what is taught either in Mystici Corporis Christi, the Holy Office Letter, or even earlier in Quanto Conficiamur Moerore by Pope Pius IX. Did you not see the part, that those invincibly ignorant of the divine Christian faith who are "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"? This is implicit baptism of desire, and such is taught by great Saints.
Now the actual doctrine is quite clearly, absolutely nothing like the caricature against which you are raging which was "people who have no desire to be Catholics, can be saved" which I agree with you is false.
You are confusing a modernist perversion of baptism of desire with what the actual traditional doctrine of baptism of desire, then throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
A. I do not know! Neither do you!
But there are numerous such souls, mentioned even in Holy Writ for one, and in this sense understood by the great patristic commentators and even in the sacred liturgical Tradition of the Church.
See, for example, St.Augustine and St.Cyprian on the Good Thief, St.Augustine and later St.Thomas on Cornelius with regard to baptism of desire and that the Holy Innocents were baptised by blood is well known. St.Ambrose relates an incident in his own time, I think it was the Emperor Valentian, the great Saint says he was baptized by desire before he died.
Again, I say, it is scarcely necessary for every lay Catholic to know all this or to arrive at the true doctrine after a detailed study by his own efforts as if we were Protestants. But what is necessary (especially, as the Holy Office Letter succinctly notes, for those who cannot claim ignorance of the need to submit to the Catholic Church for salvation) for him is to humbly submit to Popes, not exalt his own ideas over them, and to the dogmas and doctrines they declare by their God-given authority to belong to the deposit of faith.
God bless.
-
From, The Value of Theological Notes and the Criteria for Discerning Them by Father Sixtus Cartechini S.J. (Rome, 1951) an explanation of the consequences of denying what is "proximate to faith".
(d) Theological Note: Proximate to faith.
Explanation: A doctrine all but unanimously held as revealed by God.
Example: Christ possessed the Beatific Vision throughout his life on earth.
Censure attached to contradictory proposition: Proximate to error.
Effects of denial: Mortal sin indirectly against faith.
It shall never be lawful to call into question what the Church has settled.
It is only you in your little world that have decided that "it is settled". And exactly what is this "it", that is settled? What the theologians that you referenced are refering to is baptism of desire of those that explicitely want to be Catholic (baptism of desire of the catechumen). Those same theologians St. Thomas, St. Alphonsus Ligouri etc, the pilars of the theory were totally against your belief that those who have no explicit desire to be Catholic, can be saved. Therefore, you are quoting saints that oppose your real beliefs that you clearly express below.
ST. ALPHONSUS LIGOURI REJECTED IMPLICIT FAITH
St. Alphonsus: “See also the special love which God has shown you in bringing you into life in a Christian country, and in the bosom of the Catholic or true Church. How many are born among the pagans, among the Jews, among the Mohometans and heretics, and all are lost.” (Sermons of St. Alphonsus Liguori, Tan Books, 1982, p. 219)
St. Alphonsus: “If you are ignorant of the truths of the faith, you are obliged to learn them. Every Christian is bound to learn the Creed, the Our Father, and the Hail Mary under pain of mortal sin. Many have no idea of the Most Holy Trinity, the Incarnation, mortal sin, Judgment, Paradise, Hell, or Eternity; and this deplorable ignorance damns them.” (Michael Malone, The Apostolic Digest, p. 159.)
It’s interesting to consider that when the people who quote St. Alphonsus in favor of baptism of desire – and treat him as if he were infallible – are asked if they agree with his teaching here (that all who die as heretics, Jews, Muslims and pagans go to Hell), they avoid the question like the plague. They avoid the question because, in this case, they do not share St. Alphonsus’ position. Rather, they believe that heretics, Jews, Muslims and pagans can be saved as heretics, Jews, Muslims and pagans.
One can see that, he condemned the modern day erroneous "teaching" which asserts that one can attain salvation in another religion or without faith in Christ and the Catholic Mysteries of Faith.
St. Alphonsus, quoted in Fr. Michael Muller’s The Catholic Dogma: “‘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.’ (First Command. No. 8.).”
Notice that St. Alphonsus is explicitly discussing the concept of invincible ignorance. He is explicitly addressing the question of whether souls who are “inculpably ignorant” of Our Lord and the Trinity can be saved, AND HE DENIES IT. He affirms that only those who believe in these absolutely necessary mysteries of Catholic Faith (the Trinity and Incarnation) can be saved. This is a very important quotation because the false teaching that souls can be saved in other religions is rampant in even Traditional circles, and is taught by the SSPX, SSPV, CMRI, etc. These groups teach that explicit belief in the Trinity and the Incarnation is not necessary as a means without which no adult can be saved.
Not one saint held the liberal false teaching of “invincible ignorance,” the idea that ignorant non-Catholics can be saved in false religions or without belief in the Trinity and the Incarnation. Here’s the quote from St. Alphonsus’ book, The History of Heresies.
St. Alphonsus, The History of Heresies, Refutation 6, #11, p. 457: “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.”
As we see, St. Alphonsus is clearly making reference to the teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas below, in which he denies that any soul who is ignorant of the Gospel can be saved. Rather, if there is a person who is completely ignorant of the faith but who is of good will, God will make sure that he comes to a knowledge of the faith.
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…”
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 sending a teacher to him.”
St. Thomas Aquinas, Sent. III, 25, Q. 2, A. 2, solute. 2: “If a man should have no one to instruct him, God will show him, unless he culpably wishes to remain where he is.”
In the Summa Theologica, St. Thomas further taught the truth that all men above reason are bound to know the principal mysteries of Christ for salvation with no exceptions for ignorance.
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.”
Therefore, St. Alphonsus and St. Thomas, like all of the fathers of the Church, rejected the modern heresy of “invincible ignorance” saving those who die as non-Catholics. Their speculation on baptism of blood/desire only regarded those who believe in the Trinity and Incarnation (the most essential mysteries of Catholic faith). And this point really shows the dishonesty of modern liberals, who like to quote St. Alphonsus and St. Thomas Aquinas on baptism of desire to somehow justify their heretical idea that members of false religions can be saved by “Invincible ignorance and implicit faith.”
----------
More quotes:
St. Alphonsus: “See also the special love which God has shown you in bringing you into life in a Christian country, and in the bosom of the Catholic or true Church. How many are born among the pagans, among the Jews, among the Mohometans and heretics, and all are lost.”Sermons of St. Alphonsus Liguori, Tan Books, 1982, p. 219.)
In the great deluge in the days of Noah, all mankind perished, eight persons alone being saved in the Ark. In our days a deluge, not of water, but sins, continually inundates the earth, and out of this deluge very few escape. Scarcely anyone is saved. ( St. Alphonsus Liguori)
He who goes to Hell, goes of his own accord. Everyone who is damned, is damned because he wills his own damnation. (St. Alphonsus Liguori)
O ye atheists who do not believe in God, what fools you are! But if you do believe there is a God, you must also believe there is a true religion. And if not the Roman Catholic, which is it? Perhaps that of the pagans who admit many gods, thus they deny them all. Perhaps that of Mohammed, a religion invented by an impostor and framed for beasts rather than humans. Perhaps that of the Jews who had the true faith at one time but, because they rejected their redeemer, lost their faith, their country, their everything. Perhaps that of the heretics who, separating themselves from our Church, have confused all revealed dogmas in such a way that the belief of one heretic is contrary to that of his neighbor. O holy faith! Enlighten all those poor blind creatures who run to eternal perdition! (St. Alphonsus Liguori)
St. Alphonsus: “We must believe that the Roman Catholic Church is the only true Church; hence, they who are out of our Church, or if they are separated from it, cannot be saved.” (Saint Alphonsus Marie De Liguori, Instructions On The Commandments And Sacraments, G. P. Warren Co., 1846. Trans. Fr. P. M’Auley, Dublin, p. 57.)
4. St. Alphonsus: “How thankful we ought to be to Jesus Christ for the gift of faith! What would have become of us if we had been born in Asia, Africa, America, or in the midst of heretics and schismatics? He who does not believe is lost. This, then, was the first and greatest grace bestowed on us: our calling to the true faith. O Savior of the world, what would become of us if Thou hadst not enlightened us? We would have been like our fathers of old, who adored animals and blocks of stone and wood: and thus we would have all perished.” (Saint Alphonsus Maria De Liguori, Preparation for Death, unabridged version, p. 339.)
-
.
the modern baptism of desire which IS THE PROBLEM, which teaches that people who have no desire to be Catholics, can be saved
This is not what is taught either in Mystici Corporis Christi, the Holy Office Letter, or even earlier in Quanto Conficiamur Moerore by Pope Pius IX. Did you not see the part, that those invincibly ignorant of the divine Christian faith who are "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"? This is implicit baptism of desire, and such is taught by great Saints.
Now the actual doctrine is quite clearly, absolutely nothing like the caricature against which you are raging which was "people who have no desire to be Catholics, can be saved" which I agree with you is false.
You are confusing a modernist perversion of baptism of desire with what the actual traditional doctrine of baptism of desire, then throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
The teaching that "those invincibly ignorant of the divine Christian faith who are 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",
is opposed to what St. Thomas Aquinas taught. IT IS THE PROBLEM. Not one Father, doctor, saint, pope ever taught it, before it WAS INVENTED in the 1600's by the school of Salamanca. It was opposed by St. Alphonsus Ligouri, and all Thomists. It went nowhere till it was resuscitated in the late 1800's. IT IS THE PROBLEM, IT IS NOT PROXIMATE TO THE FAITH.
-
Scarcely any believers in baptism of desire ever answer the simple question whether they restrict "their belief" to the real theory of BOD, of the justified catechumen of the catechism of Trent, and of person explicitly desires to be a Catholic of St. Thomas, and St. Alphonsus Liguori.
I want all those who are on the fence with regard to this debate on BOD, to always stay on the alert that advocates of baptism of desire NEVER use precise terms like these when discussing BOD. In any discussion on BOD, one must apply the ruler/template of the real BOD, that of the justified catechumen, and the implicit desire for baptism in those explicitly desiring to be a Catholic.
Both of these theories require an outward manifestation of the desire to be a Catholic. Apply this gage every time BOD advocates give an example of their "version" of BOD.
Here's an example submitted by BOD advocate:
"those invincibly ignorant of the divine Christian faith who are 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"
Let's apply the test,
TEST #1 (the Catechism of Trent justified catechumen test) - Does it say anything about the person being a catechumen? NO!
TEST#2 (the St. Thomas desire test) - Does it say anything about the person objectively desiring to be a Catholic, and believing at a minimum about the Holy Trinity, and the Incarnation? NO!.
The answer is NO to both questions, the definition quoted above is opposed to all of the foundational sources used to defend baptism of desire.. Of course they can't come right out and say the heresy that ANYONE in ANY RELIGION can be saved by this description of theirs, so, they disguise their false "definition" in AMBIGUITY.
What we have here is simple choice between two opposing teachings, it's the modern resuscitated teaching of the 1600's school of Salamanca, versus St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Alphonsus Ligouri, and ALL the saints that wrote on the subject. Yet the average BOD advocate does not see the contradiction. They don't see it because they do not really know what they believe, or why. Except those few who limit their belief to the catechism of Trent teaching.
-
Ah, the Brothers Dimond material.
You really can't trust these men to do your thinking for you, much less base anything on on the venomous rambling of these polemicists.
I wish you'd open the pages and writings of some of the traditional theologians I mentioned. Unlike the Dimonds, you will see in them a serene love of orthodoxy begotten by personal sanctity.
Anyway, yes, it is the doctrine of St.Thomas and one of the quotes above, which the Dimonds fail to understand, proves it.
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…
Now, this former alternative is what I am talking about, what Pope Pius IX is talking about, and what Pope Pius XII is talking about.
This is why Pope Pius IX says "the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace" is necessary. This is why Pope Pius XII says, "a supernatural faith animated by perfect charity" is necessary.
First Point - Does God always need and use missionaries? God does not need anyone else to work through. It can be revealed to the soul by a mere internal inspiration, that is to say, the soul is transitioned into the state of justification by virtue of the habit of supernatural faith in the intellect which in this case is the knowledge of God infused into the soul without a missionary as an intermediary, and a will that is animated by perfect charity.
Second point - What must be explicitly believed? Man is said to believe the whole faith implicitly if he has the habit of supernatural faith and believes at least the primary portions of faith explicitly (even Catholics may not know some of the secondary points of faith, or may know them only imperfectly and some times incorrectly). Again, this is St.Thomas' statement, not my own.
Now, according to some theologians, it is sufficient for such a soul to believe explicitly "that God is, and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him" this is based on the statement of St.Paul the Apostle (for this same Apostle says that he that comes to God must possess these) provided he believes every other article implicitly (that is, has the habit of supernatural faith and is ready to believe them when they are made known to him). According to others, with whom I agree, and which is the more common opinion, faith in the Trinity and Incarnation is also necessary, which God will make known by Himself. Yet, in both cases, the desire for baptism need only be implicit to be efficacious.
Implicit desire for baptism is indeed at least proximate to the faith, you won't be able to find a single authority to the contrary.
That makes the public denial of it at least a mortal sin.
-
Even if one disregards everything I explained, the St. Thomas and St. Alphonsus Ligouri quotes that I posted can't be denied. Your explanations in your last post are puerile. It's your personal ideas versus St. Thomas & Alphonsus Ligouri.
You can't find any Father, doctor, saint teaching what you are now trying to defend, so you have to make it up as you go.
The teaching that :
"those invincibly ignorant of the divine Christian faith who are 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",
is opposed to what St. Thomas Aquinas taught. IT IS THE PROBLEM. Not one Father, doctor, saint, pope ever taught it, before it WAS INVENTED in the 1600's by the school of Salamanca. It was directly opposed by St. Alphonsus Ligouri, and all Thomists. It went nowhere till it was resuscitated in the late 1800's. IT IS THE PROBLEM, IT IS NOT PROXIMATE TO THE FAITH.
Now you are saying that St. Alphonsus Ligouri, and all Thomists of his time misinterpreted St. Thomas, that they missed something you discovered, that the 1600's school of Salamanca actually had the correct opinion? That makes sense, since you can't find anyone for almost 1900 years to support your novel idea.
You are throwing St. Thomas Aquinas and all of the pilars of support of
baptism of desire of the catechumen, under the bus.
-
Only the water baptized are members of the Church
BODers have yet another hurdle to jump, (or ignore, as they do all the clear dogmas), for only the water baptized are members of the Church, thus the recipients of BOD are not members and are not thus in the Church, they are outside of the Church where there is no salvation.
The Sacrament of Baptism is the only Way into the Church
The Catholic Church has always taught that receiving the Sacrament of Baptism is the only way into Christ’s Church, outside of which there is no salvation.
Pope Julius III, Council of Trent, On the Sacraments of Baptism and Penance, Sess.14, Chap. 2, ex cathedra: “But in fact this sacrament [Penance] is seen to differ in many respects from baptism. For, apart from the fact that the matter and form, by which the essence of a sacrament is constituted, are totally distinct, there is certainly no doubt that the minister of baptism need not be a judge, since the Church exercises judgment on no one who has not previously entered it by the gate of baptism. For what have I to do with those who are without (1 Cor. 5:12), says the Apostle. It is otherwise with those of the household of the faith, whom Christ the Lord by the laver of baptism has once made ‘members of his own body’(1 Cor. 12:13).”
This definition is particularly significant because it proves that only through water baptism is one incorporated into the Body of the Church. Body membership is necessary for salvation.
Pope Eugene IV, The Council of Florence, “Exultate Deo,” Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra: “Holy baptism, which is the gateway to the spiritual life, holds the first place among all the sacraments; through it we are made members of Christ and of the body of the Church. And since death entered the universe through the first man, ‘unless we are born again of water and the Spirit, we cannot,’ as the Truth says, ‘enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:5]. The matter of this sacrament is real and natural water.”
Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis (# 22), June 29, 1943: “Actually only those are to be numbered among the members of the Church who have received the laver of regeneration [water baptism] and profess the true faith.”
Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis (# 27), June 29, 1943: “He (Christ) also determined that through Baptism (cf. Jn. 3:5) those who should believe would be incorporated in the Body of the Church.”
Pope Pius XII, Mediator Dei (# 43), Nov. 20, 1947: “In the same way, actually that baptism is the distinctive mark of all Christians, and serves to differentiate them from those who have not been cleansed in this purifying stream and consequently are not members of Christ, the sacrament of holy orders sets the priest apart from the rest of the faithful who have not received this consecration.”
-
There are many many other hurdles that the anti-Thomist brand of BODer has to ignore in order to believe that:
"those invincibly ignorant of the divine Christian faith who are 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",
Nevertheless, the opposing of St. Alphonsus Ligouri and the Thomists, and all of the Fathers, Doctors and Saints should be enough. That hurdle can't be cleared by anyone who is really seeking truth. To those who wish to be confirmed in their own desires, no amount of proof will suffice.
Anyhow, on the hope that you Nishant, are seeking truth, I have posted for you a hurdle which you can't jump with your anti-Thomist brand of BOD.
(and I added the membership hurdle, just in case you just like to jump)
-
Leaving aside the fact that I answered all your questions, even those which you alleged "BoDers" never do, and that you answered almost none of mine, let us assume for a minute that you are right about St.Alphonsus and St.Thomas (you are not, as I will prove below). What, then? One can disregard a Magisterial docuмent on this pretext?
That's where this most deplorable attitude from which this criticism of Pope Pius XII and other Popes of the past stems ultimately leads to, you now distrust even Pope Pius IX, from nearly a 150 years ago, and what you are saying is an idea that overthrows the faith and has many times been condemned by the Magisterium. For example, the following proposition, "When anyone finds a doctrine clearly established in Augustine, he can absolutely hold and teach it, disregarding any bull of the pope." was condemned and it is analogous to what you are saying.
Secondly, St.Alphonsus did in fact teach implicit baptism of desire, so by your own standards, you should immediately recant your opinion, and adopt his teaching.
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”].
... Hence martyrdom avails also for infants seeing that the Church venerates the Holy Innocents as true martyrs. That is why Suarez rightly teaches that the opposing view is at least temerarious.
Thirdly, if you understood the nature of extraordinary means of a sacrament, you wouldn't make the repeated mistakes you do.
Answer me this, do you admit at least that perfect contrition is an extraordinary means of the sacrament of penance? Do you agree that those with perfect contrition receive the grace of that sacrament even before they go before the priest, that the matter of the sacrament is dispensed by the direct action of God? Supernatural contrition which is the sorrow for sin out of love of God for His own sake avails the state of justification by the action of God because it unites the human will to the divine will which is love. The answers to your question are entirely contained in your answer to this.
God bless.
-
Leaving aside the fact that I answered all your questions, even those which you alleged "BoDers" never do, and that you answered almost none of mine,
No one could have written more than I did. You just don't read, you are likely glossing over all the material in a hurry. Notice that I post the quotes of the saints, for I don't expect anyone to believe me but to see what the saints said clearly. If a quote from a saint is not clear, I don't post it.
You on the other hand are picking out a series of incongruent quotes, and putting them together and explaining what they then mean. You are inventing your own beliefs.
let us assume for a minute that you are right about St. Alphonsus and St. Thomas (you are not, as I will prove below). What, then? One can disregard a Magisterial docuмent on this pretext? ...you now distrust even Pope Pius IX, from nearly a 150 years ago, and what you are saying is an idea that overthrows the faith and has many times been condemned by the Magisterium.
There you go putting your own ideas, speculations as if you were saint, doctor, or pope. First, Pius IX's docuмent does not say what you conclude. Your take on it is exactly what the liberals taught, but it is a wrong interpretation. Besides, it is a fallible docuмent, a private letter, not universal encyclical. That fact that it is the only thing close to a "magisterial docuмent that the liberals can come up with, is the reason why they use it. The fact that you have to resort to use that docuмent just highlights the lack of evidence that you have. Therefore, you have
- A fallible docuмent, akin to a private letter to the cardinals
- a docuмent which is in no way is clear as to whether it is saying that someone can be saved if they die as non-Catholics.
- a letter that you are interpreting to mean what you want it to mean
All the while you are disregarding (rationalizing) nine clear dogmatic decrees that state one must be a baptized member of the Church, and under the jurisdiction of the pope, in order to be saved. And many other magisterial decrees which clearly confirm the same.
Secondly, St. Alphonsus did in fact teach implicit baptism of desire, so by your own standards, you should immediately recant your opinion, and adopt his teaching.
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”].
If I could get $1 for every time a BODer post that as "proof" that St. Alphonsus Ligouri believed in "implicit desire", I would be a millionaire. Suffice it to say, that posting that is akin to you saying that all of the Northern Army during the cινιℓ ωαr was ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ, since their song When Johnny Comes Marching Home, says that they'll all feel gαy.
The Implicit desire mentioned by St. Alphonsus Ligouri is different than how the liberal use it today, just like the word gαy. Read all of his quotes that posted. It is a fact that St. Alphonsus Ligouri and the Thomists opposed the novel invented teaching of the school of Salamanca, and they buried it. It was only resurrected by the liberals in the late 1800's. Do you think that St. Alphonsus was schizophrenic? Honestly, you take one word from one quote, misinterpret it, and make it a "pillar" of your idea. If St. Alphonsus believed what you believe, you would think that you'd be able to find him explaining it in all of his writings wouldn't you? Well, that is exactly what he is doing in all of the quotes that I posted, explaining the opposite of what you believe. Moreover, St. Thomas wrote the same, that's where the Thomists get their theology. I could also post many other saint teaching the same thing: That all non-Catholics are damned. Yet you can't post one that says otherwise. You are a rationalist, picking and choosing from a word here, and a word there, all of the while ignoring the elephant in the room.
Hence martyrdom avails also for infants seeing that the Church venerates the Holy Innocents as true martyrs.
The Holy Innocents were before the New Covenant, they along with all of the just from Adam and Eve to the Good Thief, all did not fall under the new law. Besides, are you going to compare baptism of blood (excruciating martyrdom for the faith) to a non-Catholic being saved despite the fact that he does not even want to be a Catholic, or be baptized, and even hates Christ (Jews, Mohamedans, Hindus, Buddhists)?
Answer me this, do you admit at least that perfect contrition is an extraordinary means of the sacrament of penance? Do you agree that those with perfect contrition receive the grace of that sacrament even before they go before the priest, that the matter of the sacrament is dispensed by the direct action of God?
I believe it because it is clearly defined three times in the Council of Trent. It is clear dogma. On the other hand, the council of Trent nowhere says the same about baptism of desire, or what happens to a person that is justified before he is baptized, but then dies. Again, you are picking at straws, and drawing conclusions from places that don't say what you have to "interpret" they say.
-
I have read the quotes, and I know what St.Thomas and St.Alphonsus taught and believed. Many of your quotes are lifted directly from a compilation of someone else's. You also seem to know it, as evinced by this statement of yours, "The Implicit desire mentioned by St. Alphonsus Ligouri is different than how the liberal use it today" but you don't want to believe even what he believed, either with regard to explicit baptism of desire or implicit baptism of desire because you think people will misuse it, which is quite absurd. Here is St.Thomas Aquinas as well,
As stated above (1, ad 2; 68, 2) man receives the forgiveness of sins before Baptism in so far as he has Baptism of desire, explicitly or implicitly; and yet when he actually receives Baptism, he receives a fuller remission, as to the remission of the entire punishment."
1. Do you now admit that both St.Thomas and St.Alphonsus clearly believed in baptism of implicit desire, even though, like I already said, the Catholic doctrine of baptism of desire is quite different from the modernist perversion of the same? If they did believe it, are you not bound to believe it yourself by your own arguments, since "That hurdle can't be cleared by anyone who is really seeking truth". Believe what they said, and you will do well. Fail to believe it, and you err.
Also, when St.Thomas said as we saw earlier that God may reveal Himself to such a soul by means of a merely internal inspiration, what did He mean? Do you agree with this at least?
2. No, I'm not giving you my own ideas, as you are doing. I am following approved and traditional theologians (all of them aware of the teachings of the Saints and the decrees of the Councils, more aware than any of us) of the Church, while you want to believe nobody was orthodox before you for at least a few hundred years.
Your concept of Magisterial authority is flawed, as seen by your oversimplification. Pope Pius XII explains, "Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: "He who heareth you, heareth me"; and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine.
The same was taught by Pope Pius IX at the First Vatican Council of the ordinary magisterium. If the Pope chooses one side (and yes, he clearly chose because he said those invincibly ignorant attain *eternal life* by an efficacious internal virtue, of divine light) authoritatively in a dispute, then theologians are bound to follow him, for they are servants of the Magisterium, not its masters.
3. Your questions can be answered with reference to perfect contrition and the sacrament of penance. If God can dispense the matter for the sacrament of penance, why can He not dispense the matter for the sacrament of baptism as well? If extraordinary means of the sacrament here do not contradict the necessity of the sacrament (for those who have fallen into mortal sin after baptism), why is it claimed they do in baptism?
To be saved it is necessary not only to be a member of the Church but to be a living member, not one dead in mortal sin. Now, Catholics in mortal sin are not living members of the Church. Can such Catholics be saved without the sacrament of penance, which in Trent is said to be necessary for their salvation? Without the grace of the sacrament of penance, no. Without the matter of the sacrament of penance, yes, if they have true contrition. Thus the grace which is necessary for salvation is given by the action of God without the matter, and the effects of the sacrament are produced in the soul to a lesser degree.
In contrition, both desire for the sacrament is implicit (so that one confesses at first opportunity in the future) and even our naming of specific sins (which we are bound to explicitly number in nature and kind in the confessional) is only implicit in that we just have a general sorrow for all sins together, so that even if a few specific sins are forgotten, provided we intended to confess them all and hide nothing, all of them together are forgiven.
All of this in perfect contrition is analogous to baptism of implicit desire.
Again, this explanation isn't mine. It is that of theologians and Saints.
-
Unfortunately this topic has degenerated into another waste of time discussion of BoD.
-
"The Implicit desire mentioned by St. Alphonsus Ligouri is different than how the liberal use it today" but you don't want to believe even what he believed, either with regard to explicit baptism of desire or implicit baptism of desire because you think people will misuse it, which is quite absurd. Here is St.Thomas Aquinas as well,
As stated above (1, ad 2; 68, 2) man receives the forgiveness of sins before Baptism in so far as he has Baptism of desire, explicitly or implicitly; and yet when he actually receives Baptism, he receives a fuller remission, as to the remission of the entire punishment."
1. Do you now admit that both St.Thomas and St.Alphonsus clearly believed in baptism of implicit desire,
Implicit desire is just a phrase. If you interpret the phrase incorrectly it is meaningless. Just like the word gαy use to mean happy, now it means a homnosɛҳuąƖ. Just having the word implicit desire does not say anything.
The Thomas Aquinas believed that a person could potentially be saved if they explicitely desired to be baptized, and believed in the Incarnation and the Hoy Trinity (as a minimum), but died before they could be baptized. The definition of implcit desire for St. Thomas was a person who wanted to basically be a Catholic, and believed in the Incarnation, and the Holy Trinity, but did not know that they needed to be baptized. That person would be saved by his implicit desire to be baptized. The person explicitly wanted to be a Catholic and knew the minimum. If the person knew that he needed to be baptized, he would have done it.
Your definition of implicit desire has no object to direct the implicit to. It is a person who does not desire to be a Catholic, or baptized, nor cares about nor believes in the Incarnation nor the Holy Trinity, nor is a catechumen, and even hates the Catholic Church, Jesus Christ, His Mother, and the Church. That person, a non-Catholic, is fully described in all of the quotes by saints as in every case being damned. I could post thousands of more such quotes, but, St. alphonsus's quotes should be enough for anyone with eyes to see.
Here's an example of your anti-Thomist, School of Salamnca inventer liberal version of implicit desire:
“Evidently, certain distinctions must be made. Souls can be saved in a religion other than the Catholic religion (Protestantism, Islam, Buddhism, etc.), but not by this religion. There may be souls who, not knowing Our Lord, have by the grace of the good Lord, good interior dispositions, who submit to God...But some of these persons make an act of love which implicitly is equivalent to baptism of desire. It is uniquely by this means that they are able to be saved.”
“We know that there are two other baptisms, that of desire and that of blood. These produce an invisible but real link with Christ but do not produce all of the effects which are received in the baptism of water… And the Church has always taught that you have people who will be in heaven, who are in the state of grace, who have been saved without knowing the Catholic Church. We know this. And yet, how is it possible if you cannot be saved outside the Church? It is absolutely true that they will be saved through the Catholic Church because they will be united to Christ, to the Mystical Body of Christ, which is the Catholic Church. It will, however, remain invisible, because this visible link is impossible for them. Consider a Hindu in Tibet who has no knowledge of the Catholic Church. He lives according to his conscience and to the laws which God has put into his heart. He can be in the state of grace, and if he dies in this state of grace, he will go to heaven.”
-
Pius IX's docuмent detailed below, does not say what you conclude. Your take on it is exactly what the liberals taught, but it is a wrong interpretation.
- a docuмent which is in no way is clear as to whether it is saying that someone can be saved if they die as non-Catholics.
- a letter that you are interpreting to mean what you want it to mean
All the while you are disregarding (rationalizing) nine clear dogmatic decrees that state one must be a baptized member of the Church, and under the jurisdiction of the pope, in order to be saved. And many other magisterial decrees which clearly confirm the same.
url=http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9quanto.htm]QUANTO CONFICIAMUR MOERORE, 1863
Pope Pius IX -7. 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. 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.
Note well that Pius begins by stating that it is necessary to 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. There are two types of people living in error and alienated from the true faith and Catholic unity; those who deliberately live outside the one true Faith and those who live in ignorance of the true Faith. Does Pius teach that the later can be saved while remaining in this state? No, he does not, and it would be a very grave error to suggest that they can for such a belief is certainly opposed to Catholic teaching.
But what about those living in error in invincible ignorance who observe the natural Law and are open to the will of God? God will lead them through the virtue of supernatural divine light and grace to the true Faith and to eternal life; meaning He will lead them to the Church, outside of which there is neither salvation, sanctification nor the remission of sins.
To understand the teaching of Pope Pius IX in its fullness and integrity, let us consider the voice of Petrine tradition in the magisterial teaching of Pope Pius XI:
13. “You, Venerable Brethren, understand how much this question is in Our mind, and We desire that Our children should also know, not only those who belong to the Catholic community, but also those who are separated from Us: if these latter humbly beg light from heaven, there is no doubt but that they will recognize the one true Church of Jesus Christ and will, at last, enter it, being united with us in perfect charity. While awaiting this event, and as a pledge of Our paternal good will, We impart most lovingly to you, Venerable Brethren, and to your clergy and people, the apostolic benediction.” (Mortalium Animos, 1928)
Pius IX also declared to all the bishops of the world on December 9, 1854: "Endeavor as much as you can to drive from the mind of men that impious and equally fatal opinion that the way of eternal salvation can be found in any religion whatsoever" (Dz 1646).
Pope Gregory XVI, Summo Iugiter Studio, May 27, 1832:“Finally some of these misguided people attempt to persuade themselves and others that men are not saved only in the Catholic religion, but that even heretics may attain eternal life.”
Pope Pius XI (Mortalium Animos): "The Catholic Church alone is keeping the true worship. This is the font of truth, this is the house of faith, this is the temple of God; if any man enter not here, or if any man go forth from it, he is a stranger to the hope of life and salvation. ...Furthermore, in this one Church of Christ, no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors."
In his Allocution to the Cardinals, held Dec. 17, 1847, Pius IX said: "Let those, therefore, who wish to be saved, come to the pillar and the ground of faith, which is the Church; let them come to the true Church of Christ, which, in her bishops, and in the Roman Pontiff, the Chief Head of all, has the succession of apostolic Authority, which has never been interrupted, which has never counted anything of greater importance than to preach, and by all means to keep and defend the doctrine proclaimed by the Apostles at Christ's command ... We shall never at any time abstain from any cares or labors that, by the grace of Christ Himself, we may bring those who are ignorant, and who are going astray, to this only road of truth and salvation.”
Pius IX most clearly teaches in these words that the ignorant cannot be saved in their ignorance, but that in order to be saved they must come to the only road of truth and salvation, which is the Roman Catholic Church.
So what does Pius IX mean by these words: “…his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments.”
Pius IX is saying that if a one is invincibly ignorant of the true religion he may not be guilty of the sin of infidelity. He does not say they are not guilty of original sin or other serious sins. He only says (elsewhere) that, “in this matter” of unbelief in the true God and Church, due to invincible ignorance, they will not be “guilty of any fault in the sight of God.” This is what the Church has always taught, as confirmed by St. Thomas Aquinas:
“Infidels of this sort are not damned for the sin of infidelity, but are indeed damned for other sins which cannot be remitted without faith. Wherefore, the Lord says: “If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not have sin” (John 15:22); that is, as St. Augustine explains it, “they would not have the sin of not believing in Christ.” (Summa II-II, Q.10 art. 3.)
And though God does not punish those inculpably guilty of the sin of ignorance with eternal torments, neither will He reward those who remain in this state with the beatific vision. If such a soul could ever exist who is guilty of original sin only and remains in this state until death, and is not guilty of any other grave sins, (though there are sins which keep him in ignorance) his fate is not unlike that of the un-baptized infant: An eternity in hell but without the everlasting torments of fire.
Are there any souls for whom God has failed to “have come and spoken to them” in order to bring to them His divine light and grace if they are open (by grace) to His call? "My Word will not return to Me void, saith the Lord God" (Isaias 55:11). The only one who can make void the word of God is man himself. But those in invincible ignorance who follow the natural law and are ready to obey God, CAN, with the help of Divine light and grace, attain eternal life by uniting themselves with the Mystical Body. If they do not respond to that Divine light and grace they will suffer eternal shipwreck and be damned.
I repeat, nowhere does Pius IX state that the Invincibly Ignorant can be saved if they remain outside the Church.
“The Lord knoweth who are His; (2Timothy 2:19) ...as many as were ordained to life everlasting, believed. (Acts 13:48) The sheep hear His voice and follow him. And other sheep I have that are not of this fold: them also I must bring. And they shall hear my voice: And there shall be one fold and one shepherd.” (John. 10:4-5, 16)
Saint Alphonsus Maria Liguori and St. Irenaeus confirm these words of our Lord: "God 'will have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of truth' (II Timothy 2:4); therefore, God has bound Himself to provide for all the means necessary to reach that truth and that salvation on His terms" (The Great Means of Salvation, p.124). For, "God, Who has begun a good work in you, will perfect it unto the Day of Christ Jesus" (Philippians 1:6). Only the Almighty can begin this "good work" of conversion in the souls of His Elect, and He has guaranteed that "He will perfect it." This is God's word-for-word pledge to any member of humankind who co-operates with His grace. .
Pius IX was fully aware of the liberal interpretations to his encyclicals and was beside himself with anger and grief that anyone would render to his words a meaning at variance with what he and the Church constantly taught.
Pius IX had condemned such liberal interpretations repeatedly. In the Allocution to the Cardinals, held Dec. 17, 1847, he expresses his indignation against all those who had said that he had sanctioned such perverse errors. "In our times", says he, "many of the enemies of the Catholic Faith direct their efforts towards placing every monstrous opinion on the same level with the doctrine of Christ, or confounding it therewith; and so they try more and more to propagate that impious system of the indifference of religions. But quite recently -- we shudder to say it certain men have not hesitated to slander us by saying that we share in their folly, favor that most wicked system, and think so benevolently of every class of mankind as to suppose that not only the sons of the Church, but that the rest also, however alienated from Catholic unity they may remain, are alike in the way of salvation, and may arrive at everlasting life. We are at a loss, from horror, to find words to express our detestation of this new and atrocious injustice that is done to us."
“Pius IX uttered these solemn words against ‘certain men’, whom he calls the enemies of the Catholic Faith, -- he means liberal minded Catholics, priests and [theologians], as is evident from other Allocutions, in which he says that he has condemned not less than forty times their perverse opinions about religion.” (Father Michael Müller, C.Ss.R., Invincible or Inculpable Ignorance Neither Saves nor Damns a Person)
Furthrmore, in Qui Pluribus, Nov. 9, 1846, Pope Pius IX declared:
"Also perverse is that shocking theory that it makes no difference to which religion one belongs, a theory greatly at variance even with reason. By means of this theory, those crafty men remove all distinction between virtue and vice, truth and error, honorable and vile action. They pretend that men can gain eternal salvation by the practice of any religion, as if there could ever be any sharing between justice and iniquity, any collaboration between light and darkness, or any agreement between Christ and Belial."
And "Neither the true faith nor eternal salvation is to be found outside the Holy Catholic Church. Neither sanctity nor salvation can be found outside the Catholic Church. It is a SIN to believe that there is salvation outside the Catholic Church." (Ven. Pope Pius IX)
-
The Thomas Aquinas believed that a person could potentially be saved if they explicitely desired to be baptized, and believed in the Incarnation and the Hoy Trinity (as a minimum), but died before they could be baptized. The definition of implcit desire for St. Thomas was a person who wanted to basically be a Catholic, and believed in the Incarnation, and the Holy Trinity, but did not know that they needed to be baptized. That person would be saved by his implicit desire to be baptized. The person explicitly wanted to be a Catholic and knew the minimum. If the person knew that he needed to be baptized, he would have done it.
If you know St.Thomas, St.Alphonsus and others believed this, then why don't you do the same?
Yes, now let's take this slowly. Who do you think these same souls, who "explicitly wanted to be a Catholic and knew the minimum. If the person knew that he needed to be baptized, he would have done it" are? Would these not be the same souls St.Thomas speaks of whom He says God would reveal the truth to by a mere internal inspiration? Your problem is you want to know the hidden things of God, and by doing so, you bind God to the sacraments, though St.Thomas says, God shows His power in that it is not tied to the visible sacraments and so sanctifies men (possessing the habit of faith and the requisite disposition of the will) inwardly.
Would these not be souls in lands where the Gospel has never or scarcely been preached, where Christians are few, and where the Church has not been solidly established? Otherwise, this is key, why would they not know they needed to be baptized? Almost everybody who knows anything about Christianity knows Catholics are baptized and that if he wants to become one, he would also need to be, so why doesn't this soul baptized by implicit desire according to St.Thomas and others as you said know it? Answer this and you will have your answer.
If you accept these, I do not see why you do not accept what Pope Pius IX plainly says, because it is the same thing, and try to wrest it into meaning something else. You also admit the Doctors believed in implicit desire but you do not yourself believe it just because some people today have a wrong idea of what implicit desire means and meant to the Doctors. Believe as the Doctors believed and that will be sufficient, you will do well.
-
The Thomas Aquinas believed that a person could potentially be saved if they explicitely desired to be baptized, and believed in the Incarnation and the Hoy Trinity (as a minimum), but died before they could be baptized. The definition of implcit desire for St. Thomas was a person who wanted to basically be a Catholic, and believed in the Incarnation, and the Holy Trinity, but did not know that they needed to be baptized. That person would be saved by his implicit desire to be baptized. The person explicitly wanted to be a Catholic and knew the minimum. If the person knew that he needed to be baptized, he would have done it.
If you know St.Thomas, St.Alphonsus and others believed this, then why don't you do the same?
The "this" that Sts. Thomas & Alphonsus (and ALL of the saints)believed is that ALL who die as heretics, Jews, Muslims and pagans go to Hell. And that IS what I believe.
It is you who do not share Sts. Thomas & Alphonsus’ position. Rather, you believe that heretics, Jews, Muslims and pagans can be saved as heretics, Jews, Muslims and pagans. THAT IS THE PROBLEM.
Be honest with yourself and admit that you disagree with St. Thomas , St. Alphonsus, and ALL of the saints that taught that ALL who die as heretics, Jews, Muslims and pagans go to Hell. There is no point in discussing finer points when you won't even admit your errors in the big picture.
St. Alphonsus: “See also the special love which God has shown you in bringing you into life in a Christian country, and in the bosom of the Catholic or true Church. How many are born among the pagans, among the Jews, among the Mohometans and heretics, and all are lost.” (Sermons of St. Alphonsus Liguori, Tan Books, 1982, p. 219)
St. Alphonsus: “If you are ignorant of the truths of the faith, you are obliged to learn them. Every Christian is bound to learn the Creed, the Our Father, and the Hail Mary under pain of mortal sin. Many have no idea of the Most Holy Trinity, the Incarnation, mortal sin, Judgment, Paradise, Hell, or Eternity; and this deplorable ignorance damns them.” (Michael Malone, The Apostolic Digest, p. 159.)
St. Alphonsus, quoted in Fr. Michael Muller’s The Catholic Dogma: “‘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.’ (First Command. No. 8.).”
-
Sigh. Ok, with, your last post two things are clear, both that while I understand the position you hold (which could be unclear and in conflict with itself as when you first stated that Pope Pius IX's Encyclical was the problem, then later that it nonetheless said the same thing you are saying, as also when you said baptism of implicit desire, no matter how it was framed, could not possibly be a doctrine, then conceded both St.Thomas and St.Alphonsus believed it was, and also explained in depth in what sense they had believed it), you do not understand mine, which has from the start of this discussion been explicitly clear. And while I read your posts carefully and in their entirety to make sure of what exactly you are saying, you do not afford me the same courtesy.
Perhaps I should start taking a leaf from your book and make use of the font and size function more.
Now, according to some theologians, it is sufficient for such a soul to believe explicitly "that God is, and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him" this is based on the statement of St.Paul the Apostle (for this same Apostle says that he that comes to God must possess these) provided he believes every other article implicitly (that is, has the habit of supernatural faith and is ready to believe them when they are made known to him). According to others, with whom I agree, and which is the more common opinion, faith in the Trinity and Incarnation is also necessary, which God will make known by Himself. Yet, in both cases, the desire for baptism need only be implicit to be efficacious.
This is exactly what your own quote of Fr.Muller from St.Alphonsus earlier and in your post just above this, says. My position is the exact same as that of this great Doctor of the Church, so I know I am on rock-solid ground.
This knowledge, then, of Himself which is necessary for salvation is infused directly into the soul by the Triune God. The soul knows God truly and directly and His Triune nature as well as His Incarnation and loves Him with perfect charity in which is contained the resolve to do all that God requires. Should he, then, ever happen to come across the Church and baptised Christians, who tell Him that God requires those who love Him to be baptized, this soul who is already resolved absolutely to do all that God requires but hitherto did not know of this, would hasten to submit himself to the Church and be baptized.
These souls baptized by desire and hence joined to the Church are not to be ranked anymore among heretics, infidels or pagans because they have the virtue of supernatural faith in them just as we have. It is of souls baptized by desire that St.Peter says in sacred Scripture, they have received the Holy Ghost just as we Christians baptized in water have.
These souls are also mentioned in dogmatic decrees and misunderstood by those who do not read them with the mind of the Church and her Doctors. You don't understand that St.Fulgentius believed in extraordinary means of the sacrament. It is St.Fulgentius' statement, which Holy Mother Church would later adopt and make her own in a solemn pronouncement, that beautifully describes the truth that these souls also share in eternal life while all who die as Jews, pagans, heretics, schismatics, apostates and infidels, that is to say those who die without the infused virtue of supernatural faith (all the faithless) or have not persevered in supernatural charity (all schismatics and to a lesser degree Catholics in mortal sin), do not.
The Holy Roman Church 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.
It says specifically "joined to the Church" as Pope Pius XII would later say "united to the Church". So you are quite wrong to fail to recognize that those who by desire are joined to the Catholic Church before the end of their lives will attain eternal salvation as St.Fulgentius says. You would do well to heed the same Church outside of which you profess there is no salvation, lest you yourself fall away from Her, Her unity and Her bosom and Her strong foundations, by arguing against what She teaches and has always taught instead of humbly submitting to Her judgment.
“Do not allow yourselves to be deceived by the cunning statements of those who persistently claim to wish to be with the Church, to love the Church, to fight so that people do not leave Her… But judge them by their works. If they despise the shepherds of the Church and even the Pope, if they attempt all means of evading their authority in order to elude their directives and judgments… then about which Church do these men mean to speak? Certainly not about that established on the foundations of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus Himself as the cornerstone.” (Eph. 2:20)
Therefore, let them who in grave peril are ranged against the Church seriously bear in mind that after “Rome has spoken” they cannot be excused even by reasons of good faith. Certainly, their bond and duty of obedience toward the Church is much graver than that of those who as yet are related to the Church “only by an unconscious desire.”
Let them realize that they are children of the Church, lovingly nourished by her with the milk of doctrine and the sacraments, and hence, having heard the clear voice of their Mother, they cannot be excused from culpable ignorance, and therefore to them apply without any restriction that principle: submission to the Catholic Church and to the Sovereign Pontiff is required as necessary for salvation.
-
I find it hard to believe that you are ignorant, therefore, I have to assume that you are hiding something which is inconvenient to your theory. I asked you a simple question, anyone can see that. You have not answered it.
The "this" that Sts. Thomas & Alphonsus (and ALL of the saints)believed is that ALL who die as heretics, Jews, Muslims and pagans go to Hell. And that IS what I believe.
It is you who do not share Sts. Thomas & Alphonsus’ position. Rather, you believe that heretics, Jews, Muslims and pagans can be saved as heretics, Jews, Muslims and pagans. THAT IS THE PROBLEM.
Be honest with yourself and admit that you disagree with St. Thomas , St. Alphonsus, and ALL of the saints that taught that ALL who die as heretics, Jews, Muslims and pagans go to Hell. There is no point in discussing finer points when you won't even admit your errors in the big picture.
A) Here is a possible answer that a real Thomist would give: If an American Indian in 1300, had been infused by God with the knowledge of the mysteries of Holy Trinity, and the Incarnation, and by the grace of the God would accept the good interior dispositions, and submit to God, they could be saved.
B) Here is the what School of Salamanca invented in the 1600 would say, which of course ALL of the Saints oppose, which however, you believe, but won't admit:
“Evidently, certain distinctions must be made. Souls can be saved in a religion other than the Catholic religion (Protestantism, Islam, Buddhism, etc.), but not by this religion. There may be souls who, not knowing Our Lord (not knowing the Mysteries of the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation), have by the grace of the good Lord, good interior dispositions, who submit to God...But some of these persons make an act of love which implicitly is equivalent to baptism of desire. It is uniquely by this means that they are able to be saved.”
---------------------------
Which one do you believe? A simple question, A or B?
-
Hah. That's a laugh and a half. My friend, I don't doubt your good will, even though you doubt mine, you see I always make allowance for that though your position perhaps doesn't allow you to, but when you earlier, quoting the Dimonds I think it was, said people who believe incorrectly need to "avoid questions like the plague", I hope it wasn't true because it describes what you have done on this thread, both simple and not so simple (by simple I presume you mean in short posts, which I'm willing to stick to if that is what you want), whereas I've answered all your questions both simple and complicated, whether in long posts or in short.
I have answered just above (if you would read, you would know) the very question you have asked (for future reference, I won't bother with fonts, I had said, "According to others, with whom I agree, and which is the more common opinion, faith in the Trinity and Incarnation is also necessary, which God will make known by Himself. Yet, in both cases, the desire for baptism need only be implicit to be efficacious."), but nonetheless without further ado, my answer is A (edit:wanted nonetheless to highlight this just in case) .
It is the exact answer St.Alphonsus, St.Thomas and others would give. In ways known to Himself, and perhaps hidden from all men, God leads souls who are willing to seek and obey the truth to that faith and knowledge of His nature and deeds without which it is impossible to please Him.
-
It is the exact answer St.Alphonsus, St.Thomas and others would give. In ways known to Himself, and perhaps hidden from all men, God leads souls who are willing to seek and obey the truth to that faith and knowledge of His nature and deeds without which it is impossible to please Him.
If it was the exact answer they would give, you certainly could find them saying it. But you can't, so you had to make it up. Post what they clearly said, and let the people read it for themselves. What you posted could mean that any non-Catholic can be saved in their religion without belief in the Holy Trinity or the Incarnation. Indeed, you are putting it exactly the same way the liberals do. Only quote St. Thomas when you are usiong his teachings on this subject, or else you'll be misunderstood. The liberals are sophists, and so you have to be very precise, best to just quote St. Thomas directly.
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…”
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 sending a teacher to him.”
St. Thomas Aquinas, Sent. III, 25, Q. 2, A. 2, solute. 2: “If a man should have no one to instruct him, God will show him, unless he culpably wishes to remain where he is.”
St. 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.”
-
“Evidently, certain distinctions must be made. Souls can be saved in a religion other than the Catholic religion (Protestantism, Islam, Buddhism, etc.), but not by this religion. There may be souls who, not knowing Our Lord have by the grace of the good Lord, good interior dispositions, who submit to God...But some of these persons make an act of love which implicitly is equivalent to baptism of desire. It is uniquely by this means that they are able to be saved.”
This above quote was made by a traditionalist priest. The theory behind the thinking that brought this quote, was INVENTED in the 1600's by the school of Salamanca. It was opposed by St. Alphonsus Ligouri, and all Thomists. It went nowhere till it was resuscitated in the late 1800's. IT IS THE PROBLEM, that we face today, because even trads believe it.
There are few here that could even see the errors in this teaching, since everyone except the "Feeneyites", have been slow boiled for over 100 years to the point that they just conclude that "who knows who is lost? (except Hitler)"
What is wrong with this quote? Why is it a novelty? I doubt anyone can answer correctly, except the "Feeneyites". (PS - please no Feeneyites give the answer)
Besides, no one is reading this thread anyways.
-
Well, I haven't downthumbed any of your posts, so if it's any consolation to you, at least one other person is reading.
It doesn't matter to me except to say I think you are confused. Both St.Thomas and St.Alphonsus believed in implicit baptism of desire for those with explicit faith in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation.
The other position (that only explicit faith that "God is and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him" as it was sufficient for the just of the Old Testament who also were not saved without faith) is a less common theological opinion. St.Alphonsus himself says this in one of the quotes you provide, "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 ... but according to the more common and truer opinion, the explicit belief of these articles is necessary as a means") I follow the better authorities, theologians and Doctors myself, but the Church herself has not closed the question by deciding one way or the other.
So, in summary, the theological grade of certainty to be apportioned to each of the matters we have discussed is as follows - baptism of desire (implict and explicit) is at least proximate to the faith. That explicit faith in the Trinity and Incarnation is necessary for all those baptized by desire is the more common and truer opinion and my opinion as well. That explicit faith in God and His Providence is sufficient is the less common and more improbable opinion, which I think is held by the Bishop whom you quoted above.
-
Well, I haven't downthumbed any of your posts, so if it's any consolation to you, at least one other person is reading.
It doesn't matter to me except to say I think you are confused. Both St.Thomas and St.Alphonsus believed in implicit baptism of desire for those with explicit faith in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation.
The other position (that only explicit faith that "God is and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him" as it was sufficient for the just of the Old Testament who also were not saved without faith) is a less common theological opinion. St.Alphonsus himself says this in one of the quotes you provide, "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 ... but according to the more common and truer opinion, the explicit belief of these articles is necessary as a means") I follow the better authorities, theologians and Doctors myself, but the Church herself has not closed the question by deciding one way or the other.
So, in summary, the theological grade of certainty to be apportioned to each of the matters we have discussed is as follows - baptism of desire (implict and explicit) is at least proximate to the faith. That explicit faith in the Trinity and Incarnation is necessary for all those baptized by desire is the more common and truer opinion and my opinion as well. That explicit faith in God and His Providence is sufficient is the less common and more improbable opinion, which I think is held by the Bishop whom you quoted above.
A perfectly precise response in every word. That is the way one must respond when discussing this mattter. Now I know what you believe.
Therefore, now we can continue with the discussion, but, later when I have time.
By the way, for those with explicit faith in the Trinity and Incarnation, which of course is necessary for all those baptized by desire, but who only have implicit desire for baptism, because they do not know they have to be baptized:
How is it possible that God infused them internally (or sent them a preacher to teach them)with so much wisdom and knowldege (the Mysteries of the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation), and yet did not infuse them with something so simple as that they needed to have a few words said and water pouired on their heads to become members of the Body?
And how come on the other hand, we have thousands of recorded miracles even in our day, of God sending people back from the dead, just to be baptized?
-
It would be a good idea to start a thread from your last post, or mine that just followed. No point in talking to ourselves.
-
It would be a good idea to start a thread from your last post, or mine that just followed. No point in talking to ourselves.
Mr. bowler, please don't think that the two of you are only talking to yourselves. Some of us have just been hanging on to your every word with too much rapt attention to say anything!
:scratchchin: :reporter: :reading:
-
Ah, excellent. We can stick to somewhat shorter posts if you find that better. If you want to start another thread, you can do that. If you want to continue here, that is fine too.
How is it possible that God infused them internally (or sent them a preacher to teach them)with so much wisdom and knowldege (the Mysteries of the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation), and yet did not infuse them with something so simple as that they needed to have a few words said and water pouired on their heads to become members of the Body?
Well, concerning faith in the Trinity and Incarnation, nothing is difficult for God. Our Lord Jesus Christ would manifest Himself to such souls and they would place their faith in Him, thereby they would come to believe by His teaching also in the Father and the Holy Spirit.
I answer that, It is impossible to believe explicitly in the mystery of Christ, without faith in the Trinity, since the mystery of Christ includes that the Son of God took flesh; that He renewed the world through the grace of the Holy Ghost; and again, that He was conceived by the Holy Ghost.
Regarding the other question, why God does not just give them water baptism, St.Thomas gives two answers to this and like questions, with this penetrating insight.
"It belongs to the excellence of Christ's power, that He could bestow the sacramental effect without conferring the exterior sacrament.”
And, treating the same subject of baptism of desire says also,
God, Whose power is not tied to visible sacraments, sanctifies man inwardly
The answer according to learned and pious authorities seems to be that the good God is well pleased to manifest His power and excellence in this way.
For, although it has been His good pleasure to ordinarily work through what He has made, the elements of His creation (such as water), and to use poor human beings as His instruments and ministers, in giving the grace that He alone can give, yet in truth He has no absolute need of them and, being sovereign, does not stand in any dependence upon them.
So, provided there are souls with good dispositions of the intellect and will, moving them to the requisite explicit faith and perfect charity, God gives them the grace of baptism without the matter of the sacrament, just as He gives Catholics the grace of the sacrament of penance without the matter if they have perfect contrition.
-
How is it possible that God can infuse them internally with so much wisdom and knowldege (the Mysteries of the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation), and yet did not infuse them with the knowledge of something so simple as that they needed to be baptized? In other words, there should be no need for implicit desire for baptism, which only exists because of lack of knowledge.
If God saves people by baptism of desire, how come on the other hand, we have thousands of recorded miracles even in our day of God sending people back from the dead, just to be baptized?
-
Well, I think I answered that.
As for "How is it possible ... lack of knowledge."
1. God does not deem it necessary to perform the work of the sacrament through the ordinary means but is well pleased to manifest His power and excellence by sustaining these souls by His Providence in this extraordinary way, by giving the grace of the sacrament and dispensing with the matter. Would you disagree with God's decision, or what St.Thomas tells us God has wisely decided?
2. This is mostly the case in areas where there are still few or no Christians, where the Church and her priests have not been as yet solidly established. Should such souls baptized by desire happen to come across Christians, or priests, they would expressly desire baptism, as Cornelius did, even though he was in good faith and had received the Holy Spirit just as the Apostles had, even before water baptism.
With regard to "If God saves ... just to be baptized?"
1. Well, because these souls never had perfect charity. In the sacrament of baptism, as in the sacrament of penance, perfect contrition is not required (mere repentance suffices in water baptism and mere attrition suffices in confession) because of the work of the sacrament. Remember, for carnal men especially who are attached to the things of this world, it is almost impossible to love God above all things and for His own sake.
Even Catholics, children of the Church nourished by the milk of doctrine and the sacraments, who always have the Cross and the example of God's love before us to move us to love Him truly, who have the example of so many Saints, who from our youth have been taught to know and love Him, even Catholics sometimes struggle to attain perfect contrition.
How much worse the situation of those souls joined to the Church only by desire, besides no one can himself have any certainty he himself, let alone someone else, is perfectly contrite! That's why even Catholics who make such an act are required to present themselves for confession at first opportunity, and so it is for souls united to the Church by desire with respect to water baptism.
2. If you understand this correctly, you will understand why the very Saints who insisted dogmatically on the truth of baptism of desire were the very same Saints who were the first to support reaching the lost, and aiding the perishing in the missionary effort. If even Catholics fall into repeated mortal sin, how great is the danger, objectively considered, of these souls falling back into sin or falling away altogether from the state of grace they acquired through perfect contrition!
Again, the contrary question can be asked. There are sufficient accounts also of deathbed conversions, just like there are of souls being raised from the dead for water baptism (both of these are rare), where souls experience a conversion from a life of sin but die before receiving the sacraments. Learned Saints tell us these souls have not perished. Would you disagree with them?
God bless.
-
I don't think that you understood my question. Let me explain:
My question was, at the very end "there should be no need for implicit desire for baptism, which only exists because of lack of knowledge", when the person has received the knowledge of the Mysteries.
If it is true that at a minimum they must know of the Trinity and the Incarnation, then it makes no sense that God would infuse them with the wisdom of those difficult subjects, and not at the same time teach something as simple as baptism, then the person would have the real desire for baptism.
The theological construct of implicit baptism of desire, only makes sense if the knowledge of the Trinty and the Incarnation is not required, and thus explicit desire for baptism is also not required, and thus God does not infuse those Catholic teachings.
Nishant said God does not deem it necessary to perform the work of the sacrament through the ordinary means but is well pleased to manifest His power and excellence by sustaining these souls by His Providence in this extraordinary way, by giving the grace of the sacrament and dispensing with the matter.
I see God manifest his power when he brings back someone from the dead just to have them be baptize, then the person dies a few seconds after. That manifesting.
I don't see God manifesting his power in performing something that no one knows or sees, or can even be certain of. No one can say that someone was saved by baptism of desire, there is no way to know it, there is no manifestation. So you reasoning is irrational.
-
Bowler asked "If God saves people by baptism of desire, how come on the other hand, we have thousands of recorded miracles even in our day of God sending people back from the dead, just to be baptized?
?"
1. Well, because these souls never had perfect charity.
What souls didn't have perfect charity, the one brought back from the dead, or the saved by baptism of desire?
-
Nishant asked: the contrary question can be asked. There are sufficient accounts also of deathbed conversions, just like there are of souls being raised from the dead for water baptism (both of these are rare), where souls experience a conversion from a life of sin but die before receiving the sacraments. Learned Saints tell us these souls have not perished. Would you disagree with them?
Post the examples. Again, there is no way to know if there has ever been one person saved by baptism of desire. On the other hand there are 100's of examples of people being raised from the dead, just to be baptized.
There are millions of examples of people hanging on to life, and dying immediately after being baptized. The American Indian missionaries were thought by the Indians to be cursing the sick people to death, since it seemed like every sick that they baptized would die almost immediately.
-
Nishant: This ( baptism of desire) is mostly the case in areas where there are still few or no Christians, where the Church and her priests have not been as yet solidly established. Should such souls baptized by desire happen to come across Christians, or priests, they would expressly desire baptism, as Cornelius did, even though he was in good faith and had received the Holy Spirit just as the Apostles had, even before water baptism.
Cornelius was baptized. So was the Ethiopian eunuch to whom God sent Phillip flying through the air to baptize him. There are no examples of baptism of desire in scripture.
Which brings me to the subject of Predestination.
No one is born by chance where they are born. The pagan you describe that lives "in areas where there are still few or no Christians", was predestined by God to be exactly where he is. God has also predestined that person to live for a certain number of days, that person is not going to die "by accident" before God accomplishes the water baptism that he had predestined from before the beginning of time for any person He chose.
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)
-
My answer was that souls brought back from the dead needed to be brought back because they did not have perfect charity. Therefore, they needed to be brought back from the dead, and receive the sacrament itself (wherein perfect charity is not required, but mere repentance suffices, because of the work of the sacrament, just like attrition suffices in the sacrament of penance)
Well, your question, and the point you also should reflect on, really is about why God institutes extraordinary means of the sacraments in the first place. But even you admitted He has done so, (you called perfect contrition with respect to the sacrament of penance which is an extraordinary means of the same "a dogma defined three times in Trent")
1. So let me ask you, why did God do it this way in the first place? Why did Providence most wisely and justly decree that there would be an extraordinary means of the sacrament of penance, where souls known to Himself alone would be restored to grace even before their entrance into the confessional?
If you ponder this question carefully, you will have your answer. Your answer will probably be like the Doctors already gave which I related.
Note that nowhere have I said God could not have done otherwise, (that God could not have instituted only ordinary means of baptism and penance, never have I said this!) merely that we learn from pious and eminent authorities that He has in fact done instituted both ordinary and extraordinary means. So your predestination argument fails.
Of course God predestines the elect to salvation, but the same Providence who watches over us through visible sacraments watches over these souls by inward sanctification which is an extraordinary means of the same to souls with the right disposition of the intellect and will, moving them to explicit faith and perfect charity.
We have no right to demand God ought to reveal His hidden ways to us, and that is exactly what you are doing.
But the other key points to remember here are
a. God binds us to the sacraments, but He has not bound Himself.
b. We have no right to presume to be satisfied with extraordinary means when the ordinary means are in our power. (i.e. even those who have perfect contrition must confess at first opportunity, those who are baptized by desire must be baptized by water when they find a priest etc)
This is again from St.Thomas.
2. Cornelius received the Holy Ghost even before water baptism (which must therefore be accounted an extraordinary means of baptism), when St.Peter was preaching about the primary mysteries of faith, like the Trinity, Incarnation, Passion and Resurrection. St.Luke in Acts relates he received the Holy Ghost before water baptism, St.Peter even said "They have received the Holy Ghost just as we have"
Both St.Augustine and St.Thomas have said the same thing about Cornelius. There are other incidents in Scripture and Tradition of baptism of blood as well as desire.
There are other examples, but for what you asked, this will suffice. St.Ambrose, a pious and learned Saint, says the Emperor Valentian was baptized by desire. There is this (http://papastronsay.blogspot.in/2011/10/text-of-letter-prophesied-to-father.html) incident from the time of St.John Vianney, of a Jєωιѕн woman who, known to God alone at the time, and later revealed to a servant of His, experienced a rare and miraculous deathbed conversion to the Catholic faith of her priestly son who had prayed unceasingly for it. She was not saved as a Jew, but with explicit faith in the Incarnation and Holy Trinity and the desire for baptism, and the resolve to live as a Christian had she been returned to life, which Providence did not deem necessary.
-
Bowler asked "If God saves people by baptism of desire, how come on the other hand, we have thousands of recorded miracles even in our day of God sending people back from the dead, just to be baptized?
?"
1. Well, because these souls never had perfect charity.
What souls didn't have perfect charity, the one brought back from the dead, or the saved by baptism of desire?
Nishant reponded: My answer was that souls brought back from the dead needed to be brought back because they did not have perfect charity. Therefore, they needed to be brought back from the dead, and receive the sacrament itself (wherein perfect charity is not required, but mere repentance suffices, because of the work of the sacrament, just like attrition suffices in the sacrament of penance)
Both the person brought back from the dead, and the one saved by BOD, received the grace from God. No one has perfect charity, unless it was given to them. Faith is a gift from God, while this gift is given to some, to others it is not given. Yet, God can't get the person baptized?
Perfect charity of course is a superior gift, over imperfect charity. Therefore, according to your theory, and the theological construct of baptism of desire, this recipient of the superior gift of perfect charity, will go to purgatory, maybe even till the end of time. (the theory of BOD says that they don't go directly to heaven), while the person who was brought back from the dead, because he was not "immaculate", is baptized and goes straight to heaven.
The one with perfect charity goes to purgatory till the end of time, and the flawed one gets brought back from the dead to be baptized, and goes straight to heaven? That makes no sense.
-
Dear Nishant,
Please answer my postings as I do yours, one subject per posting. That way, we we can keep discussing that subject in future postings without creating a mess, and providing others with something easy to follow.
-
Nishant: This ( baptism of desire) is mostly the case in areas where there are still few or no Christians, where the Church and her priests have not been as yet solidly established. Should such souls baptized by desire happen to come across Christians, or priests, they would expressly desire baptism, as Cornelius did, even though he was in good faith and had received the Holy Spirit just as the Apostles had, even before water baptism.
Cornelius was baptized. So was the Ethiopian eunuch to whom God sent Phillip flying through the air to baptize him. There are no examples of baptism of desire in scripture.
Nishant responded: This is again from St.Thomas.
2. Cornelius received the Holy Ghost even before water baptism (which must therefore be accounted an extraordinary means of baptism), when St.Peter was preaching about the primary mysteries of faith, like the Trinity, Incarnation, Passion and Resurrection. St.Luke in Acts relates he received the Holy Ghost before water baptism, St.Peter even said "They have received the Holy Ghost just as we have"
Both St.Augustine and St.Thomas have said the same thing about Cornelius.
Cornelius is not an example of baptism of desire, for he was baptized. You could say that Cornelius is an example of receiving justification a few minutes before baptism, but never that it's an example of baptism of desire, because they were baptized. Cornelius is actually an example that all who are predestined for baptism can't be snatched from God completing what he started, for Corneius was baptized.
The same goes for the the tactic of BODers of saying that Council of Trent teaches baptism of desire. It does no such thing. Again, it only talks at most about how a person can be justified (maybe one second before) before he is baptized. Trent says NOTHING about what happens if a person is pre-sanctified before baptism, and then dies, before he can be baptized. As if someone can be snatched from God!
Council of Trent, Session VI (Jan. 13, 1547)
Decree on Justification,
Chapter IV.
A description is introduced of the Justification of the impious, and of the Manner thereof under the law of grace.
By which words, a description of the Justification of the impious is indicated,-as being a translation, from that state wherein man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace, and of the adoption of the sons of God, through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Saviour. And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.
-
St.Ambrose, a pious and learned Saint, says the Emperor Valentian was baptized by desire.
He never said that Valentinian was baptized by desire.
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 Ghost, 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.”
-
Ok, bowler, if you want to go one at a time. Let me take the examples of Cornelius especially, to show firstly, from Scripture, that there are extraordinary means of baptism, secondly, from Tradition, that all who die in the state of justification and grace are saved.
Now, when you say, "Cornelius is not an example of baptism of desire, for he was baptized. You could say that Cornelius is an example of receiving justification a few minutes before baptism, but never that it's an example of baptism of desire, because they were baptized."
This is incorrect, for we are both agreed no one can receive justification wholly apart from baptism, therefore we must conclude by the witness of inspired Scripture that Cornelius received an extraordinary means of baptism. Now, this understanding is exactly the testimony of Tradition on Cornelius too. Therefore, this doctrine belongs to the deposit of faith, and must be accepted like any other.
"So also before Baptism Cornelius and others like him receive grace and virtues through their faith in Christ and their desire for Baptism, implicit or explicit: but afterwards when baptized, they receive a yet greater fulness of grace and virtues. Hence in Psalm 22:2, "He hath brought me up on the water of refreshment," a gloss says: "He has brought us up by an increase of virtue and good deeds in Baptism."
Likewise, what you say about Trent is also mistaken, because Trent says that in the justified nothing whatsoever is lacking unto salvation. All who die in the state of grace and justification are saved as surely as all who die in the state of mortal sin and death are lost in eternity.
On the contrary, Augustine says (Super Levit. lxxxiv) that "some have received the invisible sanctification without visible sacraments, and to their profit; but though it is possible to have the visible sanctification, consisting in a visible sacrament, without the invisible sanctification, it will be to no profit."
...
such a man can obtain salvation without being actually baptized, on account of his desire for Baptism, which desire is the outcome of "faith that worketh by charity," whereby God, Whose power is not tied to visible sacraments, sanctifies man inwardly. Hence Ambrose says of Valentinian, who died while yet a catechumen: "I lost him whom I was to regenerate: but he did not lose the grace he prayed for."
There are innumerable other witnesses to the same truth in the holy writers of the early patristic period as well as among the great scholastic theologians and medieval Doctors of the Church. I've already mentioned them, but again, St.Peter Canisius, St.Bernard, St.Bonaventure, St.Robert Bellarmine, St.Alphonsus, St.Thomas among others taught us that baptism of desire belongs to the deposit of revelation.
-
Now, when you say, "Cornelius is not an example of baptism of desire, for he was baptized. You could say that Cornelius is an example of receiving justification a few minutes before baptism, but never that it's an example of baptism of desire, because they were baptized."
This is incorrect, for we are both agreed no one can receive justification wholly apart from baptism, therefore we must conclude by the witness of inspired Scripture that Cornelius received an extraordinary means of baptism. Now, this understanding is exactly the testimony of Tradition on Cornelius too. Therefore, this doctrine belongs to the deposit of faith, and must be accepted like any other.
-
Now, when you say, "Cornelius is not an example of baptism of desire, for he was baptized. You could say that Cornelius is an example of receiving justification a few minutes before baptism, but never that it's an example of baptism of desire, because they were baptized."
This is incorrect, for we are both agreed no one can receive justification wholly apart from baptism, therefore we must conclude by the witness of inspired Scripture that Cornelius received an extraordinary means of baptism. Now, this understanding is exactly the testimony of Tradition on Cornelius too. Therefore, this doctrine belongs to the deposit of faith, and must be accepted like any other.
Baptism of desire is just a theological construct that answers a flawed question: "What happens to a person who is justified, but dies before he can be baptized".
St. Augustine said that “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. In other words, there has never been a justified person who dies before he can be baptized". God can complete what he started.
The BODer on the otherhand, says that such a person can exist. They thus take the laws of probability over the Providence of God, and then begin to speculate.
Thus, they do the same to scripture, they add what is not there.
They ask basically, what would have happened to Cornelius had he not been baptized? And they answer: Well, he was justified, so he would have been saved without baptism.
However, scripture does not say that Cornelius was not baptized.
They do the same with Trent, it teaches that a person can be justified by his desire to be baptized, so they ask "What happens to a person who is justified, but dies before he can be baptized". Trent says nothing about it. But they say, it's just like the teaching in Trent about a "perfect act of contrition". In other words, again, they again have to add something that is not there.
The Church infallible teaches that only the sacramentally baptized are members, and that all who die non-members, are outside of the Church, and lost. That “Actually only those are to be numbered among the members of the Church who have received the laver of regeneration and profess the true faith....that baptism is the distinctive mark of all
Christians, and serves to differentiate them from those who
have not been cleansed in this purifying stream and
consequently are not members of Christ”
The BODer has to again add to that dogma, a new category, a person that although not a member, is "united mysteriously by desire and longing".
All of that and much more additions, and speculations, almost limitless, just to answer a question which is flawed. AND all of the while NEVER anything said about BOD in any dogmatic decree in the history of the Church.
St. Augustine was right:
St. Augustine: "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"
-
St.Ambrose, a pious and learned Saint, says the Emperor Valentian was baptized by desire.
He never said that Valentinian was baptized by desire.
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 Ghost, 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.”
Nishant Responded: There are innumerable other witnesses to the same truth in the holy writers of the early patristic period
You only posted one, and I refuted it above. I've posted St. Augustine, St. Ambrose, and now St. John Chrysostom CLEARLY teaching against BOD of the catechumen:
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.”
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.”
-
I was under the impression that this thread was more generally on whether stating Pius XII was imperfect or may have done some questionable things was the same thing as attacking the Church. I have heard repeatedly in the affirmative from about 3 vocal posters but not much to the contrary. Has anyone have anything to say to the contrary.
The BOB/D debate, I think, belongs on a different thread. Pius XII is one of a countless number who taught BOB/D. He also taught no salvation outide the Church as did all the pre-v2 Catholics who taught BOB/D.
Can you all take your fight to another thread?
-
Wrong. Just like many Catholics with perfect contrition receive grace before the sacrament, but nonetheless also receive the sacrament, and therein gain an increase of grace, so it is with baptism of desire and water baptism. St.Thomas clearly says, "obtain salvation" if he dies in that state of grace even before water baptism.
You didn't answer my question on why God instituted extraordinary means of sacraments in the first place.
Certainly St.Augustine was right. And all the scholastic theologians and medieval Doctors tell us St.Augustine believed in baptism of desire. It is not until modern times, with Fr.Feeney and his followers, that that fact has been disputed.
I do not hesitate to put the Catholic catechumen, burning with divine love, before a baptized heretic... The centurion Cornelius, not yet baptized, was better than Simon, already baptized. For Cornelius, even before his baptism, was filled up with the Holy Spirit, while Simon, even after his baptism, was puffed up with an unclean spirit.
Evidently, to burn with divine love is perfect charity. So this is not only St.Thomas' clear statement, but St.Augustine's as well.
Those whom God has predestined cannot be snatched from his predestination, but God predestines through both ordinary and extraordinary means.
That you misunderstand Trent is clear from the Catechism, as well as the manifest intention of the fathers, as well as their approval of the Summa (which in that sacred Council was laid on the Altar next to the Holy Scriptures, so great was the reverence the holy fathers assembled there had for the work of the Angelic Doctor, who teaches that man can obtain salvation) and the doctrines contained in it.
"Should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness”
Unforeseen means "unforeseen by the Church" (for she delays baptism for the purpose of catechetical instruction), not unforeseen by God.
Baptism of desire is a Catholic doctrine, bowler. The Doctors who tell us so were not unenlightened or ignorant men, but were eminent in learning and sanctity. If they were deceived, the Catholic Church and her Saints have been misled for centuries and millenia. This is beyond absurd.
Take a leaf from the book of St.Benedict's centre. Instead of denying baptism of desire, do the Catholic thing, and following the theologians and other authorities, maintain the need for explicit faith even in those baptized by desire.
-
St. Augustine himself in many, many places affirms the universal Tradition of the Apostles that no one is saved without the Sacrament of Baptism; and, in fact, he denied the concept that a catechumen could be saved without the Sacrament of Baptism by his desire for it numerous times.
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: “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.”
Above we see St. Augustine completely rejecting the concept of baptism of desire. Nothing could be more clear! He says that God keeps sincere catechumens alive until their baptism, and that those who look for rewards in such unbaptized catechumens will find nothing but punishments! St. Augustine even makes it a special point to affirm that the Almighty doesn’t allow unbaptized catechumens to be killed except for a reason! Those who say that St. Augustine held to baptism of desire are, therefore, simply are not being complete with the facts. They must add the qualification that he many times rejected the idea and was on both sides of the issue. Thus, the only father that the baptism of desire advocates can clearly quote in favor of the concept (Augustine) actually denied the concept of baptism of desire many times.
All of this shows that baptism of desire is not the universal Tradition of the Apostles; rather, the exact opposite is the universal Tradition of the Apostles and Fathers – that no catechumen can be saved without water 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)
-
Nishant wrote: Those whom God has predestined cannot be snatched from his predestination, but God predestines through both ordinary and extraordinary means.
That would be the answer. Now, show me where the Church has taught that God predestines some to be saved by baptism of desire?
-
So you deny Catholic charity can be in a unbaptised person like Cornelius? Did not St. Augustine say this: "Even within the Catholic Church herself, we put the good catechumen ahead of the wicked baptized person"? He is only saying what his master, St. Ambrose, stated concerning the death of the Emperor Valentinian, who was assissinated on the way to baptism.
-
So you deny Catholic charity can be in a unbaptised person like Cornelius? Did not St. Augustine say this: "Even within the Catholic Church herself, we put the good catechumen ahead of the wicked baptized person"? He is only saying what his master, St. Ambrose, stated concerning the death of the Emperor Valentinian, who was assissinated on the way to baptism.
Both St. Augustine and St. Ambrose were against baptism of desire. I posted all the evidence.
Your quote from St. Augustine says nothing about the fate of a catechumen who dies unbaptized. St. Ambrose's eulogy for Valentinian does not teach baptism of desire, if you think that it does, then I would suggest that you read it all, and if you still believe the same, post the whole eulogy and show us where it clearly says it. Don't post a snippet.
The only lines from a Father who spoke clearly for baptism, are two early quotes from St. Augustine, an opinion that he later corrected. The BODers have no other quotes in favor of baptism of desire of the catechumen, in other words, they have no quotes. As far as baptism of desire of everyone else that they include today, not a word was written by the fathers in favor of theose theories.
-
You have not posted St. Ambrose's oration on the death of Emperor Valentinian, in which he states he still received the grace of baptism because of his intention to want to receive it. All you were posting is the reprobation by St. Augustine and St. Ambrose of catechumens deferring their baptism til death. And you are going against St. Thomas Aquinas, whose Summa Theologica has been approved by the Church, especially in the Council of Trent.
-
You have not posted St. Ambrose's oration on the death of Emperor Valentinian, in which he states he still received the grace of baptism because of his intention to want to receive it. All you were posting is the reprobation by St. Augustine and St. Ambrose of catechumens deferring their baptism til death. And you are going against St. Thomas Aquinas, whose Summa Theologica has been approved by the Church, especially in the Council of Trent.
Your posting crossed mine above. Read my posting.
You are in denial if you think that the quotes from St. Augustine, St. Ambrose, and St. John Chrysostom that I posted are "reprobation of catechumens deferring their baptism til death". Moreover, you have not one quote in favor of baptism of desire.
-
How about just using the Summa Theologica?
Article 2. Whether a man can be saved without Baptism?
Objection 1. It seems that no man can be saved without Baptism. For our Lord said (John 3:5): "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." But those alone are saved who enter God's kingdom. Therefore none can be saved without Baptism, by which a man is born again of water and the Holy Ghost.
Objection 2. Further, in the book De Eccl. Dogm. xli, it is written: "We believe that no catechumen, though he die in his good works, will have eternal life, except he suffer martyrdom, which contains all the sacramental virtue of Baptism." But if it were possible for anyone to be saved without Baptism, this would be the case specially with catechumens who are credited with good works, for they seem to have the "faith that worketh by charity" (Galatians 5:6). Therefore it seems that none can be saved without Baptism.
Objection 3. Further, as stated above (1; 65, 4), the sacrament of Baptism is necessary for salvation. Now that is necessary "without which something cannot be" (Metaph. v). Therefore it seems that none can obtain salvation without Baptism.
On the contrary, Augustine says (Super Levit. lxxxiv) that "some have received the invisible sanctification without visible sacraments, and to their profit; but though it is possible to have the visible sanctification, consisting in a visible sacrament, without the invisible sanctification, it will be to no profit." Since, therefore, the sacrament of Baptism pertains to the visible sanctification, it seems that a man can obtain salvation without the sacrament of Baptism, by means of the invisible sanctification.
I answer that, The sacrament or Baptism may be wanting to someone in two ways. First, both in reality and in desire; as is the case with those who neither are baptized, nor wished to be baptized: which clearly indicates contempt of the sacrament, in regard to those who have the use of the free-will. Consequently those to whom Baptism is wanting thus, cannot obtain salvation: since neither sacramentally nor mentally are they incorporated in Christ, through Whom alone can salvation be obtained.
Secondly, the sacrament of Baptism may be wanting to anyone in reality but not in desire: for instance, when a man wishes to be baptized, but by some ill-chance he is forestalled by death before receiving Baptism. And such a man can obtain salvation without being actually baptized, on account of his desire for Baptism, which desire is the outcome of "faith that worketh by charity," whereby God, Whose power is not tied to visible sacraments, sanctifies man inwardly. Hence Ambrose says of Valentinian, who died while yet a catechumen: "I lost him whom I was to regenerate: but he did not lose the grace he prayed for."
Reply to Objection 1. As it is written (1 Samuel 16:7), "man seeth those things that appear, but the Lord beholdeth the heart." Now a man who desires to be "born again of water and the Holy Ghost" by Baptism, is regenerated in heart though not in body. thus the Apostle says (Romans 2:29) that "the circuмcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not of men but of God."
Reply to Objection 2. No man obtains eternal life unless he be free from all guilt and debt of punishment. Now this plenary absolution is given when a man receives Baptism, or suffers martyrdom: for which reason is it stated that martyrdom "contains all the sacramental virtue of Baptism," i.e. as to the full deliverance from guilt and punishment. Suppose, therefore, a catechumen to have the desire for Baptism (else he could not be said to die in his good works, which cannot be without "faith that worketh by charity"), such a one, were he to die, would not forthwith come to eternal life, but would suffer punishment for his past sins, "but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire" as is stated 1 Corinthians 3:15.
Reply to Objection 3. The sacrament of Baptism is said to be necessary for salvation in so far as man cannot be saved without, at least, Baptism of desire; "which, with God, counts for the deed" (Augustine, Enarr. in Ps. 57).
-
Summa, III, q. 66
Article 11. Whether three kinds of Baptism are fittingly described--viz. Baptism of Water, of Blood, and of the Spirit?
Objection 1. It seems that the three kinds of Baptism are not fittingly described as Baptism of Water, of Blood, and of the Spirit, i.e. of the Holy Ghost. Because the Apostle says (Ephesians 4:5): "One Faith, one Baptism." Now there is but one Faith. Therefore there should not be three Baptisms.
Objection 2. Further, Baptism is a sacrament, as we have made clear above (Question 65, Article 1). Now none but Baptism of Water is a sacrament. Therefore we should not reckon two other Baptisms.
Objection 3. Further, Damascene (De Fide Orth. iv) distinguishes several other kinds of Baptism. Therefore we should admit more than three Baptisms.
On the contrary, on Hebrews 6:2, "Of the doctrine of Baptisms," the gloss says: "He uses the plural, because there is Baptism of Water, of Repentance, and of Blood."
I answer that, As stated above (Question 62, Article 5), Baptism of Water has its efficacy from Christ's Passion, to which a man is conformed by Baptism, and also from the Holy Ghost, as first cause. Now although the effect depends on the first cause, the cause far surpasses the effect, nor does it depend on it. Consequently, a man may, without Baptism of Water, receive the sacramental effect from Christ's Passion, in so far as he is conformed to Christ by suffering for Him. Hence it is written (Apocalypse 7:14): "These are they who are come out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes and have made them white in the blood of the Lamb." In like manner a man receives the effect of Baptism by the power of the Holy Ghost, not only without Baptism of Water, but also without Baptism of Blood: forasmuch as his heart is moved by the Holy Ghost to believe in and love God and to repent of his sins: wherefore this is also called Baptism of Repentance. Of this it is written (Isaiah 4:4): "If the Lord shall wash away the filth of the daughters of Zion, and shall wash away the blood of Jerusalem out of the midst thereof, by the spirit of judgment, and by the spirit of burning." Thus, therefore, each of these other Baptisms is called Baptism, forasmuch as it takes the place of Baptism. Wherefore Augustine says (De Unico Baptismo Parvulorum iv): "The Blessed Cyprian argues with considerable reason from the thief to whom, though not baptized, it was said: 'Today shalt thou be with Me in Paradise' that suffering can take the place of Baptism. Having weighed this in my mind again and again, I perceive that not only can suffering for the name of Christ supply for what was lacking in Baptism, but even faith and conversion of heart, if perchance on account of the stress of the times the celebration of the mystery of Baptism is not practicable."
Reply to Objection 1. The other two Baptisms are included in the Baptism of Water, which derives its efficacy, both from Christ's Passion and from the Holy Ghost. Consequently for this reason the unity of Baptism is not destroyed.
Reply to Objection 2. As stated above (Question 60, Article 1), a sacrament is a kind of sign. The other two, however, are like the Baptism of Water, not, indeed, in the nature of sign, but in the baptismal effect. Consequently they are not sacraments.
Reply to Objection 3. Damascene enumerates certain figurative Baptisms. For instance, "the Deluge" was a figure of our Baptism, in respect of the salvation of the faithful in the Church; since then "a few . . . souls were saved in the ark [Vulgate: 'by water'," according to 1 Peter 3:20. He also mentions "the crossing of the Red Sea": which was a figure of our Baptism, in respect of our delivery from the bondage of sin; hence the Apostle says (1 Corinthians 10:2) that "all . . . were baptized in the cloud and in the sea." And again he mentions "the various washings which were customary under the Old Law," which were figures of our Baptism, as to the cleansing from sins: also "the Baptism of John," which prepared the way for our Baptism.
-
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.”
What if the catechumen does not have unbelief or not deferring baptism, but dies without his own fault, like the Emperor Valentianian? Do you condemn him to Hell, unlike St. Ambrose?
-
So you deny Catholic charity can be in a unbaptised person like Cornelius?
Where did I say that? Nowhere.
I said that:
Cornelius is not an example of baptism of desire, for he was baptized. You could say that Cornelius is an example of receiving justification a few minutes before baptism, but never that it's an example of baptism of desire, because they were baptized. Cornelius is actually an example that all who are predestined for baptism can't be snatched from God completing what he started, for Corneius was baptized.
The same goes for the the tactic of BODers of saying that Council of Trent teaches baptism of desire. It does no such thing. Again, it only talks at most about how a person can be justified (maybe one second before) before he is baptized. Trent says NOTHING about what happens if a person is pre-sanctified before baptism, and then dies, before he can be baptized. As if someone can be snatched from God!
-
So you deny Catholic charity can be in a unbaptised person like Cornelius?
Where did I say that? Nowhere.
I said that:
Cornelius is not an example of baptism of desire, for he was baptized. You could say that Cornelius is an example of receiving justification a few minutes before baptism, but never that it's an example of baptism of desire, because they were baptized. Cornelius is actually an example that all who are predestined for baptism can't be snatched from God completing what he started, for Corneius was baptized.
The same goes for the the tactic of BODers of saying that Council of Trent teaches baptism of desire. It does no such thing. Again, it only talks at most about how a person can be justified (maybe one second before) before he is baptized. Trent says NOTHING about what happens if a person is pre-sanctified before baptism, and then dies, before he can be baptized. As if someone can be snatched from God!
I was talking about Cornelius before he was baptized. Do you deny he had Catholic charity before he was baptized? If you do, then I'd say you're dead wrong. And all those quotes you post don't even show a denial of BOD. And again, you go against the Council of Trent, who put the Summa Theologica on the altar next to the Bible.
-
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.”
What if the catechumen does not have unbelief or not deferring baptism, but dies without his own fault, like the Emperor Valentianian? Do you condemn him to Hell, unlike St. Ambrose?
For the third time:
Bowler wrote: St. Ambrose's eulogy for Valentinian does not teach baptism of desire, if you think that it does, then I would suggest that you read it all, and if you still believe the same opinion, post the whole eulogy and show us where it clearly says it. Don't post a snippet.
-
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.”
What if the catechumen does not have unbelief or not deferring baptism, but dies without his own fault, like the Emperor Valentianian? Do you condemn him to Hell, unlike St. Ambrose?
For the third time:
Bowler wrote: St. Ambrose's eulogy for Valentinian does not teach baptism of desire, if you think that it does, then I would suggest that you read it all, and if you still believe the same opinion, post the whole eulogy and show us where it clearly says it. Don't post a snippet.
Are you better than St. Thomas Aquinas? Every theologian before Fr. Feeney, including St. Alphonsus Liguori, never disputed BOD and never disputed that St. Ambrose believed that Valentinian received the grace of baptism.
-
So you deny Catholic charity can be in a unbaptised person like Cornelius?
Where did I say that? Nowhere.
I said that:
Cornelius is not an example of baptism of desire, for he was baptized. You could say that Cornelius is an example of receiving justification a few minutes before baptism, but never that it's an example of baptism of desire, because they were baptized. Cornelius is actually an example that all who are predestined for baptism can't be snatched from God completing what he started, for Corneius was baptized.
The same goes for the the tactic of BODers of saying that Council of Trent teaches baptism of desire. It does no such thing. Again, it only talks at most about how a person can be justified (maybe one second before) before he is baptized. Trent says NOTHING about what happens if a person is pre-sanctified before baptism, and then dies, before he can be baptized. As if someone can be snatched from God!
I was talking about Cornelius before he was baptized. Do you deny he had Catholic charity before he was baptized? If you do, then I'd say you're dead wrong. And all those quotes you post don't even show a denial of BOD. And again, you go against the Council of Trent, who put the Summa Theologica on the altar next to the Bible.
Apparently you have trouble with the English language, or you don't read what I write? I've boldened and enlarged my answer. Your expression "Catholoic charity", I understand to mean justification, which is the term used by Trent.
Here's another of my postings on the subject:
Now, when you say, "Cornelius is not an example of baptism of desire, for he was baptized. You could say that Cornelius is an example of receiving justification a few minutes before baptism, but never that it's an example of baptism of desire, because they were baptized."
This is incorrect, for we are both agreed no one can receive justification wholly apart from baptism, therefore we must conclude by the witness of inspired Scripture that Cornelius received an extraordinary means of baptism. Now, this understanding is exactly the testimony of Tradition on Cornelius too. Therefore, this doctrine belongs to the deposit of faith, and must be accepted like any other.
Baptism of desire is just a theological construct that answers a flawed question: "What happens to a person who is justified, but dies before he can be baptized".
St. Augustine said that “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. In other words, there has never been a justified person who dies before he can be baptized". God can complete what he started.
The BODer on the otherhand, says that such a person can exist. They thus take the laws of probability over the Providence of God, and then begin to speculate.
Thus, they do the same to scripture, they add what is not there.
They ask basically, what would have happened to Cornelius had he not been baptized? And they answer: Well, he was justified, so he would have been saved without baptism.
However, scripture does not say that Cornelius was not baptized.
They do the same with Trent, it teaches that a person can be justified by his desire to be baptized, so they ask "What happens to a person who is justified, but dies before he can be baptized". Trent says nothing about it. But they say, it's just like the teaching in Trent about a "perfect act of contrition". In other words, again, they again have to add something that is not there.
The Church infallible teaches that only the sacramentally baptized are members, and that all who die non-members, are outside of the Church, and lost. That “Actually only those are to be numbered among the members of the Church who have received the laver of regeneration and profess the true faith....that baptism is the distinctive mark of all
Christians, and serves to differentiate them from those who
have not been cleansed in this purifying stream and
consequently are not members of Christ”
The BODer has to again add to that dogma, a new category, a person that although not a member, is "united mysteriously by desire and longing".
All of that and much more additions, and speculations, almost limitless, just to answer a question which is flawed. AND all of the while NEVER anything said about BOD in any dogmatic decree in the history of the Church.
St. Augustine was right:
St. Augustine: "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"
-
And apparently, you and others who think like you think you know far more than St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Alphonsus Liguori, and others who treat of BOD in their dogmatic treatises or treatises written for use by priests. All of your examples don't deny BOD at all, as they were only meant for laypeople, not specifically dogmatic treatises. I stand with St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Bonaventure, Pope Innocents II and III, who both affirmed BOD.
-
And how about the 1917 Code of Canon Law:
Catechumens who through no fault of their own die without baptism are to be considered (in this connection) baptized.
-
Are you better than St. Thomas Aquinas? Every theologian before Fr. Feeney, including St. Alphonsus Liguori, never disputed BOD and never disputed that St. Ambrose believed that Valentinian received the grace of baptism.
On the other hand: The early Church Fathers were unanimously against the idea of BOD of the catechumen. AND the dogma of EENS is clear that the non-baptized are not members of the Body, they are outside of the Church, where there is no salvation. For the fourth time: Have you ever completely read St. Ambros eulogy for Valentinian? Then post it.
Before we continue, please advise me where you stand with regard to the question of whether explicit faith in the Trinity and Incarnation is necessary for salvation of all those baptized by desire, or whether explicit faith in God and His Providence is sufficient ?
-
I'm done here. All you keep on asking is already furnished by St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Alphonsus, Popes Innocent II and III; again, you haven't proven at all BOD was denied by the early Church Fathers. All the above people I posted interpreted St. Ambrose in favor of BOD. If that doesn't make you believe, what else can I say except nothing?
-
Bowler, you didn't answer the question.
1. Why does God institute extraordinary means of the sacraments in the first place? You've conceded he does so, and said perfect contrition with respect to the sacrament of penance "is a dogma". Reflect on His purpose and plan in instituting extraordinary means and you will have your answer.
Your question, "Now, show me where the Church has taught that God predestines some to be saved by baptism of desire" shows you don't understand that "God has bound us to the sacraments, but He Himself is not bound by the sacraments." This is from St.Thomas.
"God has bound us to the sacraments" - This part is denied by modernists and indifferentists, who don't want to preach the Gospel, evangelize, make converts or baptise.
"God Himself is not bound by the sacraments - This part is uncritically denied by followers of Fr.Feeney, who by introducing this error end up binding God to the sacraments, which is false and foolish, and questions His Providence in establishing extraordinary means.
You are not obliged to believe anyone has been saved by extraordinary means in any particular case, but you are obliged to believe God has instituted them, and so is not bound to the sacraments.
2. Do you concede that your claims about St.Augustine and St.Ambrose are relatively novel? The scholastics and Doctors of the Middle Ages certainly don't agree with you.
Both St.Augustine and St.Ambrose also reflect this principle. We are bound by what is visible, but God is not. Understand this properly, and you will stand firm on the narrow ground of Catholic orthodoxy and avoid deviations both to the right and to the left, neither deviation of which is any better than the other.
-
I'm done here. All you keep on asking is already furnished by St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Alphonsus, Popes Innocent II and III; again, you haven't proven at all BOD was denied by the early Church Fathers. All the above people I posted interpreted St. Ambrose in favor of BOD. If that doesn't make you believe, what else can I say except nothing?
I believe that you ran away because you did not want to answer my last question;
Before we continue, please advise me where you stand with regard to the question of whether explicit faith in the Trinity and Incarnation is necessary for salvation of all those baptized by desire, or whether explicit faith in God and His Providence is sufficient ?
-
Nishant wrote: Those whom God has predestined cannot be snatched from his predestination, but God predestines through both ordinary and extraordinary means.
That would be the answer. Now, show me where the Church has taught that God predestines some to be saved by baptism of desire?
Does God Predestine Some to be Saved by Baptism of Desire?
With all that you and I have written, and the other gentleman inquired about, I think we can leave all of that behind, because BOD to me boils down to just this predestination issue. So, we I will remain focused on this point from now on, if it's OK with you.
Bowler, you didn't answer the question.
1. Why does God institute extraordinary means of the sacraments in the first place? You've conceded he does so, and said perfect contrition with respect to the sacrament of penance "is a dogma". Reflect on His purpose and plan in instituting extraordinary means and you will have your answer.
(Perhaps you can tell me of another extraordinary means of a sacrament that has been defined dogmatically?) An extraordinary means of a sacrament that has been precisely defined dogmatically is the perfect contrition as a substitute for confession, under the conditions dogmatically detailed in Trent.
The Council of Trent clearly teaches three times that the grace of the Sacrament of Penance can be attained by the desire for the Sacrament of Penance (twice in Sess. 6, Chap. 14; and once in Sess. 14, Chap. 4), while it nowhere teaches baptism of desire. This is an important point. It demonstrates that, Trent clearly taught about the necessity of the Sacrament of Penance and what it did not teach about the Sacrament of Baptism and baptism of desire. If there was an extraordinary means of baptism, Trent would have stated it just like it did three times for penance.
Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Sess. 6, Chap. 14 on Justification: “Hence it must be taught that the repentance of a Christian after his fall is very different from that at his baptism, and that it includes not only a cessation from sins… but also the sacramental confession of the same, at least in desire and to be made in its season, and sacerdotal absolution, as well as satisfaction by fasting, almsgiving, prayers, and other devout exercises of the spiritual life, not indeed for the eternal punishment, which is remitted together with the guilt either by the sacrament or the desire of the sacrament, but for the temporal punishment…”
Pope Julius III, Council of Trent, Sess. 14, Chap. 4, On Penance: “The Council
teaches, furthermore, that though it sometimes happens that this contrition is perfect because of charity and reconciles man to God, before this sacrament is actually received, this reconciliation must not be ascribed to the contrition itself without the desire of the sacrament which is included in it.”
The fact that Trent clearly teaches at least three times that the desire for the Sacrament of Penance is efficacious for Justification, while it nowhere teaches baptism of desire, should tell baptism of desire advocates something; namely, that baptism of desire is not true.
Notice that his desire for confession must be explicit, a person must be willing to confess his sins to a Catholic priest. That's explicit! A Protestant, can't do a perfect act of contrition if he does not want to confess to a priest.
-
(Perhaps you can tell me of another extraordinary means of a sacrament that has been defined dogmatically?)
-
Well, you didn't exactly answer the question.
1. Why does God institute extraordinary means of the sacraments in the first place?
(Perhaps you can tell me of another extraordinary means of a sacrament that has been defined dogmatically?) An extraordinary means of a sacrament that has been precisely defined dogmatically is the perfect contrition as a substitute for confession
This is not an answer. Tell me, why did God establish perfect contrition as an extraordinary means for penance? What was the divine purpose and plan here, and wouldn't it be absurd to say that this contradicts either His Providence or predestination? If you reflect sufficiently on this question, you'll probably see the wisdom in St.Thomas' general answer.
We can stick to responses of a few paragraphs if you prefer. One request - when you copy and paste material, attribute your source, so I know what parts were written by you, and what parts by someone else. The Dimonds are wrong, in the above, we will get to that, and I will prove St.Alphonsus right about Trent in my next response, when he says Trent teaches the extraordinary means of baptism of desire too.
-
Well, you didn't exactly answer the question.
1. Why does God institute extraordinary means of the sacraments in the first place?
(Perhaps you can tell me of another extraordinary means of a sacrament that has been defined dogmatically?) An extraordinary means of a sacrament that has been precisely defined dogmatically is the perfect contrition as a substitute for confession
This is not an answer. Tell me, why did God establish perfect contrition as an extraordinary means for penance? What was the divine purpose and plan here, and wouldn't it be absurd to say that this contradicts either His Providence or predestination?
God established perfect contrition, and told us so infallible in great detail, therefore, it is not a theological construct like baptism of desire. Why did He establish it and tell us so infallible? So that we would know infallible that it is the truth.
Why would he establish a perfect act of contrition as an alternative to confession? Maybe because:
the "just man sins seven times a day", and would perpetually be outside of the Holy Catholic Church. The just man would practically be going to the back of the confesion line as soon as he came out of confession. No one would have the Holy Ghost in them.
Even the sacrament of penance before a priest, is a sacrament that is used by Catholics thousands of times in a lifetime. That is not the case with baptism, which is only done once.
-
(Perhaps you can tell me of another extraordinary means of a sacrament that has been defined dogmatically?)
Dear Nishant,
I can't think of any, can you?
-
from:http://ridebit-coeli.blogspot.com/2012/10/can-unbaptised-babies-go-to-heaven.html
In the last few decades, this common consensus-- that unbaptised babies do not go to Heaven-- has been mitigated greatly. Pope John Paul II taught that, while the Ordinary means of salvation is baptism, God is not bound by His sacraments to not use extraordinary means, according to His Mercy, to save. The Roman Curia published The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die Without Baptism, which articulates Pope John Paul's reasoning on the matter, a reasoning, it appears, that is accepted also by Pope Benedict XVI.
-
Traditional theologians, especially Thomistic theologians, bowler, know well and have written that infants are incapable of desire, which we are talking about here. However, the extraordinary means of baptism of blood for infants is proven definitively even from the liturgical Tradition of the early Church, and those matters contained in Tradition, just as those in Scripture, demand an assent of faith, as we are taught in the First Vatican Council, for the Holy Innocents are true martyrs.
Dimond is simply wrong about Trent. St.Alphonsus of course is right about it. Trent does teach baptism of desire as truly and as much as it teaches the necessity of baptism. At least I think you could admit the better authorities are on my side, but in any case, hold your horses, we'll come to all that.
Maybe because:
the "just man sins seven times a day", and would perpetually be outside of the Holy Catholic Church.
Well, that passage is talking about venial sins, which do not altogether destroy the light of grace in the Christian soul but only in a certain sense diminish its brightness. Even ordinary mortal sins of course do not put Catholics "outside the Holy Catholic Church", but okay, this is the sort of answer I was hoping for.
St.Thomas' answer is that God manifests His power, Providence and excellence by showing He has no absolute need of human beings or elements of His creation to give His grace.
Now, do you accept that
1. By believing in an extraordinary means of penance, you are not denying God's Providence or predestination? You accept that God could provide a priest for every Catholic, especially Catholics in peril of losing of their souls if He had so chosen, merely that He has not chosen it?
2. That the sacrament of penance being necessary for salvation for those Catholics who have fallen into mortal sin does not contradict perfect contrition being sufficient to recover grace even before the entrance into the confessional, because the desire for the sacrament is implicit in the act of perfect contrition, since it includes the resolve to do all that God requires?
3. That the need to confess all our sins explicitly in number and kind can be dispensed by God, with a mere implicit remorse for all our sins being sufficient provided we are ready to confess all our sins when we remember them and have the right disposition for Him to move the will to perfect contrition?
If you answer yes to all the above, then, can you not see the parallels with baptism of desire, and therefore that the arguments you have made do not hold? If no, or if you answer no to any of the above, we'll take it from there.
Even the sacrament of penance before a priest, is a sacrament that is used by Catholics thousands of times in a lifetime. That is not the case with baptism, which is only done once.
Which only proves that baptism is all the more universally necessary, and works against you, since it would stand to reason that if God provides extraordinary means for the sacrament that is less uniquely and universally necessary, He would do so for what is more.
Remember, your own argument works against you here if you claim God could not provide a priest to every Catholic in mortal sin. That would severely undercut your earlier argument about Providence and predestination. However, I have never claimed the similar thing about baptism.
-
from:http://ridebit-coeli.blogspot.com/2012/10/can-unbaptised-babies-go-to-heaven.html
In the last few decades, this common consensus-- that unbaptised babies do not go to Heaven-- has been mitigated greatly. Pope John Paul II taught that, while the Ordinary means of salvation is baptism, God is not bound by His sacraments to not use extraordinary means, according to His Mercy, to save. The Roman Curia published The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die Without Baptism, which articulates Pope John Paul's reasoning on the matter, a reasoning, it appears, that is accepted also by Pope Benedict XVI.
Nishant wrote:
Traditional theologians, especially Thomistic theologians, bowler, know well and have written that infants are incapable of desire, which we are talking about here. However, the extraordinary means of baptism of blood for infants is proven definitively even from the liturgical Tradition of the early Church, and those matters contained in Tradition, just as those in Scripture, demand an assent of faith, as we are taught in the First Vatican Council, for the Holy Innocents are true martyrs.
So, you agree with JPII that unbaptized infants can be saved?
-
Nishant wrote:Even ordinary mortal sins of course do not put Catholics "outside the Holy Catholic Church",
The Holy Catholic Church is spotless without blemish, it does not contain one member who has mortal sin, just like heaven, or else it would not be Holy. A Catholic in mortal sin is part of the Catholic Church, but he is outside of the Holy Catholic Church, till he confesses his sins, or does a perfect act of contrition.
-
Nishant wrote:Even ordinary mortal sins of course do not put Catholics "outside the Holy Catholic Church",
The Holy Catholic Church is spotless without blemish, it does not contain one member who has mortal sin, just like heaven, or else it would not be Holy. A Catholic in mortal sin is part of the Catholic Church, but he is outside of the Holy Catholic Church, till he confesses his sins, or does a perfect act of contrition.
You are quite mistaken, bowler.
22. Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed. "For in one spirit" says the Apostle, "were we all baptized into one Body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free." [17] As therefore in the true Christian community there is only one Body, one Spirit, one Lord, and one Baptism, so there can be only one faith. [18] And therefore if a man refuse to hear the Church let him be considered -- so the Lord commands -- as a heathen and a publican. [19] It follows that those are divided in faith or government cannot be living in the unity of such a Body, nor can they be living the life of its one Divine Spirit.
23. Nor must one imagine that the Body of the Church, just because it bears the name of Christ, is made up during the days of its earthly pilgrimage only of members conspicuous for their holiness, or that it consists only of those whom God has predestined to eternal happiness. it is owing to the Savior's infinite mercy that place is allowed in His Mystical Body here below for those whom, of old, He did not exclude from the banquet. [20] For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy. Men may lose charity and divine grace through sin, thus becoming incapable of supernatural merit, and yet not be deprived of all life if they hold fast to faith and Christian hope, and if, illumined from above, they are spurred on by the interior promptings of the Holy Spirit to salutary fear and are moved to prayer and penance for their sins.
-
Maybe because:
the "just man sins seven times a day", and would perpetually be outside of the Holy Catholic Church.
...Even ordinary mortal sins of course do not put Catholics "outside the Holy Catholic Church", but okay, this is the sort of answer I was hoping for. (WRONG- the Holy Catholic Church is without blemish, it contains no mortal sin. I posted more on this point separately)
St.Thomas' answer is that God manifests His power, Providence and excellence by showing He has no absolute need of human beings or elements of His creation to give His grace. (true, our salvation is solely based on His choosing us, and then giving us the grace. However, he has chosen to use human beings and elements. He has revealed them to us too. He could have married all of the people who today lived together, without them knowing it. Implicit marriage.))
Now, do you accept that
1. By believing in an extraordinary means of penance, you are not denying God's Providence or predestination? (No. God has revealed to us that there are two ways of having our sins forgiven in penance, you could say that there are two penances, both infallible revealed in detail. ) You accept that God could provide a priest for every Catholic, especially Catholics in peril of losing of their souls if He had so chosen, merely that He has not chosen it? (God does not need a priest to baptize someone, anyone can do it. God could have saved all of mankind by snapping his fingers, but that is not what he chose. Your argument is meaningless.))
2. That the sacrament of penance being necessary for salvation for those Catholics who have fallen into mortal sin does not contradict perfect contrition being sufficient to recover grace even before the entrance into the confessional, because the desire for the sacrament is implicit in the act of perfect contrition, since it includes the resolve to do all that God requires?(if a person is not willing to confess his sins to a priest, the act of contrition is useless. There is no implicit there, it it objective.)
3. That the need to confess all our sins explicitly in number and kind can be dispensed by God, with a mere implicit (it's not implicit, the person must will to confess before a priest) remorse for all our sins being sufficient provided we are ready to confess all our sins when we remember them and have the right disposition for Him to move the will to perfect contrition (This second type of penance has been revealed infallible by God, He has told us that this is the way He has chosen. The real extraordinary way would be if a person could do a perfect act of contrition while not desiring to confess the sins to a priest. For THAT would really be extraordinary like baptism of desire, never infallible defined. And indeed that teaching is taught today as the more common form of baptism of desire. )?
If you answer yes to all the above, then, can you not see the parallels with baptism of desire, and therefore that the arguments you have made do not hold? If no, or if you answer no to any of the above, we'll take it from there.
There are no paralels between baptism of desire and penance. The Church teaches that our sins can be forgiven either confessing our sins to a priest or by a perfect act of contrition, and spells out the details infallible. There are actually two types of penance, it is spelled out. There is no such infallible detailed revelation about an alternative to the sacrament of baptism, it is all theological speculation, they can't even say if ANYONE has ever been saved by it.
Even the sacrament of penance before a priest, is a sacrament that is used by Catholics thousands of times in a lifetime. That is not the case with baptism, which is only done once.
Which only proves that baptism is all the more universally necessary, and works against you, since it would stand to reason that if God provides extraordinary means for the sacrament that is less uniquely and universally necessary, He would do so for what is more. (not really, God only has to do baptism once in the entire life of a soul, and he does not need a priest for it..)
Remember, your own argument works against you here if you claim God could not provide a priest to every Catholic in mortal sin. (I never said such a ridiculous thing) That would severely undercut your earlier argument about Providence and predestination. However, I have never claimed the similar thing about baptism.
Bottom Line: You have not shown any authority teaching that that God predestines people to be saved by baptism of desire.
-
If God Predestined Some Persons to be Saved by Baptism of Desire, Then:
He also predestined that it would never be revealed infallible for 2000+ years.
He predestined that His dogmatic decrees on EENS should be meaningless, since the Church has infallible declared that only the water baptized are members of the Church (and all who die outside outside of the Church are damned). He predestined that His clear language really does not mean what he said like the 9 dogmas and creeds that say:
- 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
- nobody at all [/u]is saved
- outside of which there is no salvation nor remission of sin
-every human creature
-no one at all is saved
-no one can be saved
-none can be saved
In other words, not only did God predestine that he would not reveal infallible that some persons will be saved by baptism of desire, but He also predestined to teach us infallible something that says the complete opposite of baptism of desire. If we can't trust God's infallible revealed dogmas, who can we trust, certainly not theological speculations? If the clear language of those dogmas can be twisted to mean the opposite, then nothing is safe.
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)
-
No, I agree with St.Alphonsus (and Suarez, for that matter, and a host of other authorities) that the Holy Innocents were baptized by blood, not by desire, which cannot apply to infants. That the Holy Innocents, the infants killed by Herod in pursuing Christ, were true martyrs.
Do you even deny that they taught this?
-
bowler, the simple fact is that you contradict St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Alphonsus, etc., and contradicting the unanimous interpretation of St. Ambrose by other theologians in denying BOD.
-
Getting back on topic--- Acc to Gallagher in Vatican Secret Diplomacy, Card Pacelli's meeting with Roosenveldt in 1936 went like this.........
Roosenveldt tells Pacelli( pronounced PaCHelli--- not Paselli) that he is afraid the US will go 'Fascist'. The Cardinal then chides the Pres telling him that US is in much more danger of turning Communist. He was right of course.
Any idea( like that previously noted in this topic) that Pius XII was secretly soft on Communism is a joke.
-
bowler, the simple fact is that you contradict St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Alphonsus, etc., and contradicting the unanimous interpretation of St. Ambrose by other theologians in denying BOD.
I'm done here. All you keep on asking is already furnished by St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Alphonsus, Popes Innocent II and III; again, you haven't proven at all BOD was denied by the early Church Fathers. All the above people I posted interpreted St. Ambrose in favor of BOD. If that doesn't make you believe, what else can I say except nothing?
I believe that you ran away because you did not want to answer my last question;
Bowler asked: Before we continue, please advise me where you stand with regard to the question of whether explicit faith in the Trinity and Incarnation is necessary for salvation of all those baptized by desire, or whether explicit faith in God and His Providence is sufficient ?
-
No, I agree with St.Alphonsus (and Suarez, for that matter, and a host of other authorities) that the Holy Innocents were baptized by blood, not by desire, which cannot apply to infants. That the Holy Innocents, the infants killed by Herod in pursuing Christ, were true martyrs.
Do you even deny that they taught this?
How many times do EENSers have to tell you that the Holy Innocents died under the old covenant? The Holy Innocents did not have to be baptized to go to paradise with Adam and Eve and everyone that was there with them. You might as well say that John the Baptist was saved by baptism of blood.
-
More from Gallagher
pg 88.....'Astonishingly(? my note), Pacelli saw Hitler's nαzιsm as merely a political ruse. Aware that Hitler's earliest ostensible political alliance was with the socialist German Workers Party in 1919, he remained suspicious of Hitler a s politician of the left.
Acc to Pacelli, Hitler was not a true nαzι & would end up in the camp of the left wing nαzι extremists where he began his career. '
-
What the example of the Holy Innocents suffices to establish is that there are extraordinary means of baptism. They did die under the Old Covenant, but they died as true martyrs and therefore it is to be held that they were thereby united to His future passion in a baptism like His. This is the teaching of Tradition.
Baptism of blood is the shedding of one’s blood, i.e. death, suffered for the Faith or for some other Christian virtue. Now this baptism is comparable to true Baptism because, like true Baptism, it remits both guilt and punishment as it were ex opere operato. I say as it were because martyrdom does not act by as strict a causality [“non ita stricte”] as the sacraments, but by a certain privilege on account of its resemblance to the passion of Christ.
Hence martyrdom avails also for infants seeing that the Church venerates the Holy Innocents as true martyrs. That is why Suarez rightly teaches that the opposing view is at least temerarious.
Explanation of terms:
Theological Note: Certain.
Equivalent term: Common; theologically certain.
Explanation: A truth unanimously held by all schools of theologians which is derived from revealed truth, but by more than one step of reasoning.
Example: The true and strict causality of the sacraments.
Censure attached to contradictory proposition: Temerarious.
Effects of denial: Usually, mortal sin of temerity.
-
What the example of the Holy Innocents suffices to establish is that there are extraordinary means of baptism. ]
The Holy Innocents did not need the ordinary, nor the "extraordinary" means of baptism to be saved, why they would be used as examples of them, just shows why we follow dogma, and not individual opinions, like the erroneous opinion that started this thread, that baptism of desire is defide.
By the way, do you have an example of baptism of blood on infants since the new covenant? I never heard of one myself.
-
There are so many mistakes in what you post, I don't know where to start. So much of what you say has been said exactly in the past, and condemned by the Magisterium.
You cited a Fr.Cekada article in the past, here is one of his writings on this subject.
http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/BaptDes-Proofed.pdf
“But, since it is a matter of that subjection by which in conscience
all those Catholics are bound ... also to those forms of doctrine which are held by the common and constant consent of Catholics as theological truths and conclusions, so certain that opinions opposed to these same forms of doctrine, although they cannot be called heretical, nevertheless deserve some theological censure.” Tuas Libenter, Pope Pius IX
Your opinions would certainly merit many censures.
Theologians have “obscured” the more important truths of our faith. (Condemned by Pius VI.)
Catholics are obliged to believe only those matters infallibly proposed as dogmas. (Condemned by Pius IX.)
Encyclicals do not demand assent, because popes are not exercising their supreme power. (Condemned by Pius XII.)
You ought to have the attitude of a student, not of a teacher proposing to teach the world, including learned and eminent theologians of the past whose teaching has been approved by the Church.
-
You have a habit of constantly going outside of the subject to defend your ideas by threats of sin. But your theories of sin and disobedience are based on the your own erroneuos theological speculations.
Let me say it once more:
It is not a sin to believe "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 that which the Almighty has predestined."
It is not a sin to understand the nine dogmas on EENS exactly as they are clearly written. That all non-Catholics who die as non-members of the Church go to perdition.
It is not a sin to believe the dogma of the Church that only the sacramentally baptized are members of the body.
-
Two new items to the list of "additions to make scripture work" for baptism of desire, see in blue, the Holy Innocents and Good Thief:
Now, when you say, Bowler said; "Cornelius is not an example of baptism of desire, for he was baptized. You could say that Cornelius is an example of receiving justification a few minutes before baptism, but never that it's an example of baptism of desire, because they were baptized."
This is incorrect, for we are both agreed no one can receive justification wholly apart from baptism, therefore we must conclude by the witness of inspired Scripture that Cornelius received an extraordinary means of baptism. Now, this understanding is exactly the testimony of Tradition on Cornelius too. Therefore, this doctrine belongs to the deposit of faith, and must be accepted like any other.
Bowler answered;
Baptism of desire is just a theological construct that answers a flawed question: "What happens to a person who is justified, but dies before he can be baptized".
St. Augustine said that “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. In other words, there has never been a justified person who dies before he can be baptized". God can complete what he started.
The BODer on the otherhand, says that such a person can exist. They thus take the laws of probability over the Providence of God, and then begin to speculate.
Thus, they do the same to scripture, they add what is not there.
They ask basically, what would have happened to Cornelius had he not been baptized? And they answer: Well, he was justified, so he would have been saved without baptism.
However, scripture does not say that Cornelius was not baptized.
They say that the Holy Innocents are an example of baptism of blood of infants, therefore, all the aborted children today are saved by baptism of blood. However, the Holy Innocents died under the Old Covenant. They did not need to be baptized in any way water, desire or blood to go to paradise with Adam & Eve all the way to the Good Thief. They say never mind that.
They do the same with Trent, it teaches that a person can be justified by his desire to be baptized, so they ask "What happens to a person who is justified, but dies before he can be baptized". Trent says nothing about it. But they say, it's just like the teaching in Trent about a "perfect act of contrition". In other words, again, they again have to add something that is not there.
The Church infallible teaches that only the sacramentally baptized are members, and that all who die non-members, are outside of the Church, and lost. That “Actually only those are to be numbered among the members of the Church who have received the laver of regeneration and profess the true faith....that baptism is the distinctive mark of all
Christians, and serves to differentiate them from those who
have not been cleansed in this purifying stream and
consequently are not members of Christ”
The BODer has to again add to that dogma, a new category, a person that although not a member, is "united mysteriously by desire and longing".
All of that and much more additions, and speculations, almost limitless, just to answer a question which is flawed. AND all of the while NEVER anything said about BOD in any dogmatic decree in the history of the Church.
St. Augustine was right:
St. Augustine: "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"
-
This is a waste of time but I'll make a few points:
It is not a sin to understand the nine dogmas on EENS exactly as they are clearly written. That all non-Catholics who die as non-members of the Church go to perdition.
It is not a sin to believe the dogma of the Church that only the sacramentally baptized are members of the body.
The dogma is that outside the Church there is no salvation. This does not mention membership and that's not accidental. You have argued earlier that even members of the Church are outside Her, when they clearly are not. In the end, not all members are saved, and not all who are saved were members. However, all who are saved were within the Church.
You don't want to believe this in your current state, and I am certainly not capable of convincing you.
-
BIG CORRECTION:
You have a habit of constantly going outside of the subject to defend your ideas by threats of sin. But your theories of sin and disobedience are based on the your own erroneuos theological speculations.
Let me say it once more:
It is not a sin to believe "that they whom the Lord has predestinated for baptism can't be snatched away from his predestination, or die before that has been accomplished in them that which the Almighty has predestined."
It is not a sin to understand the nine dogmas on EENS exactly as they are clearly written. That all non-Catholics who die as non-members of the Church go to perdition.
It is not a sin to believe the dogma of the Church that only the sacramentally baptized are members of the body.
-
This is a waste of time but I'll make a few points:
It is not a sin to understand the nine dogmas on EENS exactly as they are clearly written. That all non-Catholics who die as non-members of the Church go to perdition.
It is not a sin to believe the dogma of the Church that only the sacramentally baptized are members of the body.
The dogma is that outside the Church there is no salvation. This does not mention membership and that's not accidental.
That's a new one on me, it's up to you to prove it.
You have argued earlier that even members of the Church are outside Her, when they clearly are not.
P.S.- I never said that "even members of the Church are outside Her'.
That's a total strawman, not worth answering. There's a whole thread on the subject to which you contributed. It is very clear what I wrote. I don't see anyone saying anything anymore after I posted my sources. Just because you never learned something, does not mean that it is wrong.
-
The dogma is outside the Church, there is no salvation. You need to show how actual membership is involved, and please show your sources. That is, an authority who explains the dogma the way you supposed learned it. I'm not interested in your doing your own theology.
-
Sigh. It's not I who condemned your opinion, it's the Church herself that did so long ago. Bowler, I'd appreciate a yes or no answer to these questions.
1. Do you know that the opinion that Catholics ought to believe only dogmas is condemned? Do you accept Tuas Libenter of Pope Pius IX, that Catholics are bound to believe not only the dogmas of the Church but also what are held by theologians to be certain conclusions derived from revealed truths? Do you agree that denying these latter would merit censures and have been proscribed by the Magisterium in the past?
Baptism of desire is just a theological construct that answers a flawed question: "What happens to a person who is justified, but dies before he can be baptized".
This is completely wrong.
2. Baptism of desire is merely an extraordinary means of baptism. It merely asserts that the effects of baptism, which is justification, can be received in extraordinary circuмstances without the matter and the form of the sacrament by the dispensation of God who has so instituted it.
I could take many examples, but I'll stick with Cornelius. You don't seem to understand the point about Cornelius at all. Consider this syllogism,
i. Justification cannot now take place without baptism (Trent)
ii. Cornelius received justification before water baptism (which you accept)
iii. Therefore, from i and ii, it follows that Cornelius received an extraordinary means of baptism.
Do you deny i or ii?
This suffices to disprove your claim that there are no extraordinary means of baptism.
St.Peter was preaching about the Holy Trinity and Incarnation. Cornelius did not desire baptism explicitly, but only implicitly, by implicit desire is meant that he had the right disposition of the will that was resolved to do all that God required and so God animated it with perfect charity.
And this the Prince of the Apostles himself bears witness to saying "They have received the Holy Ghost just as we have". Only after this were they baptized in water.
This is also the testimony of Tradition about Cornelius.
3. Lastly, only the following two points remain.
i. All who die in the state of mortal sin and death are lost in eternity, and equally certainly,
ii. All who die in the state of justification and grace are saved.
Do you actually deny one of these?
-
The dogma is outside the Church, there is no salvation. You need to show how actual membership is involved, and please show your sources. That is, an authority who explains the dogma the way you supposed learned it. I'm not interested in your doing your own theology.
One person who does not believe in BOB/D asked me to read this book. I asked him who the author was and what authority he had.
And he went into a big long speech as to how imprimater's do not mean anything and he does not need to be approved to be right and so forth. I thought my questions was rather simple. But evidently not. You are right to ask for sources and request that source be an authority as this is a topic that does not have to do with the current situation that has evolved over the past 50 years but has been the constant teaching of the Church and solemnly defined at least 3 times.
There is no doubt that there is no salvation outside the Church. But people's understanding of the dogma are doubtful.
-
Sigh. It's not I who condemned your opinion, it's the Church herself that did so long ago. Bowler, I'd appreciate a yes or no answer to these questions.
1. Do you know that the opinion that Catholics ought to believe only dogmas is condemned? Do you accept Tuas Libenter of Pope Pius IX, that Catholics are bound to believe not only the dogmas of the Church but also what are held by theologians to be certain conclusions derived from revealed truths? Do you agree that denying these latter would merit censures and have been proscribed by the Magisterium in the past?
Tuas Libenter, Fr. Cekada's "angle" to prove disbelief in baptism of desire is a sin. Only problem is that he diregards what Tuas Libenter says.
Pope Pius IX, Tuas Libenter, Letter to the Archbishop of Munich, Dec. 21, 1863
“For, even if it were a matter concerning that subjection which is to be
manifested by an act of divine faith, nevertheless, it would not have to be limited to those matters which have been defined by express decrees of ecuмenical Councils, or of the Roman Pontiffs and of this See, but would have to be extended also to those matters which are handed down as divinely revealed by the ordinary teaching power of the whole Church spread throughout the world, and therefore, by universal and constant [universali et constanti] consent are held by Catholic theologians to belong to faith.”
Even for baptism of desire of the catechumen the theologians were never in “universal and constant agreement”! In fact, it is just the opposite.
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.”
As you can see, exactly the opposite of baptism of desire is what is taught in universal and constant agreement! It is the universal and constant teaching of Catholic Fathers and theologians since the beginning that absolutely no one can be saved without water baptism.
-
The problem, bowler, is that one cannot say that if someone wanted to be baptized but died before that had the opportunity to be, that they would go to hell. A person who dies with the desire to be baptized dies as a member of the Chuch.
It is the universal and constant teaching of Catholic Fathers and theologians since the beginning that absolutely no one can be saved without water baptism.
That isn't exactly true, bowler. Read the following quotes:
"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, and of the Council of Trent" St. Alphonsus Ligouri's Moral Theology Manual (15th century), Bk. 6, no. 95., Concerning Baptism
“Those who have died without baptism are not to be given ecclesiastical burial. Catechumens who die without baptism through no fault of their own are to be counted among the baptized.” (Canon 1239) 1917 Code of Canon Law
"The Fathers and theologians frequently divide baptism into three kinds: the baptism of water (aquæ or fluminis), the baptism of desire (flaminis), and the baptism of blood (sanguinis). However, only the first is a real sacrament. The latter two are denominated baptism only analogically, inasmuch as they supply the principal effect of baptism, namely, the grace which remits sins. It is the teaching of the Catholic Church that when the baptism of water becomes a physical or moral impossibility, eternal life may be obtained by the baptism of desire or the baptism of blood". 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia, Baptism
So, when water baptism is not possible, one who desires to be baptized can be saved by baptism of desire.
-
Baptism is Trinitarian, it is at once one and three. This is even written in sacred Scripture, of the water, the blood and the spirit, that the three are one, which also applies to this.
If you read St.Catherine of Sienna, she explains this. St.John Vianney, as in the incident I related, believed in the same.
Bowler, theologians in the centuries after Trent have with moral unanimity declared that it must now after the Council be held by all Catholics for certain that baptism of desire pertains to the faith or is derived from revealed truths. So you are wrong.
And what you say about water baptism does not contradict this, read Dr.Ludwig Ott for one, he mentions both the necessity of baptism and the extraordinary means of the same.
Please answer my question 2 above with a yes or a no. I don't think you understand what extraordinary means even is, it just means the effects of baptism (which is justification) can be had apart from the sacrament in water under certain circuмstances (which even you concede happened to Cornelius).
-
Pope Pius IX, Tuas Libenter, Letter to the Archbishop of Munich, Dec. 21, 1863
“For, even if it were a matter concerning that subjection which is to be
manifested by an act of divine faith, nevertheless, it would not have to be limited to those matters which have been defined by express decrees of ecuмenical Councils, or of the Roman Pontiffs and of this See, but would have to be extended also to those matters which are handed down as divinely revealed by the ordinary teaching power of the whole Church spread throughout the world, and therefore, by universal and constant [universali et constanti] consent are held by Catholic theologians to belong to faith.”
Nishant wrote: theologians in the centuries after Trent have with moral unanimity declared that it must now after the Council be held by all Catholics for certain that baptism of desire pertains to the faith or is derived from revealed truths.
You are disregarding Tuas Libenter, the very source that you used for your speculation. You yourself say that "in the centuries after Trent theologians have with moral unanimity",
Which goes directly against Tuas Libenter, for being only from trent forward, makes the teaching not universal and constant [universali et constanti] held. You yourself confirmed what i wrote, that EVEN Baptism of desire of the catechumen is not held by universal and constant [universali et constanti] consent by Catholic theologians.
,
If what you said was true, then Vatican II is all valid in every dot and letter, since it is the moral unanimity declared by all of the theologiians of our times, now 50 years. Moreover, the Arian heresy would have also been the "moral unanimity" of its time.
-
No, you don't understand what you are saying at all. Also, you evaded the simple question that would have proved you wrong from what you had yourself said earlier.
Anyway, with regard to what you said, you yourself conceded that Trent teaches perfect contrition with respect to penance. Can you prove this from the deposit of revelation? From the Fathers? I doubt it.
But at least once Trent had affirmed it, it would henceforth be held unanimously by theologians that the Church had closed the question.
This is what St.Alphonsus and St.Robert Bellarmine, two illustrious Doctors, Saints and theologians par excellence, along with all other theologians, also say with respect to Baptism of desire, after Trent, at least, there is no more question. St.Alphonsus says it must be held as de fide on account of Trent, for the truth of baptism of desire is equally certain as the truth of the necessity of baptism.
Show me a single theologian, let alone, Saint or Doctor of the Church who has treated the matter as if it were open to dispute at least after Trent. It is not.
Remember the Church sometimes leaves some doctrines, when it is not yet evident that they belong to the deposit of faith, open for dispute, in order that a more coherent case may be eventually made for its dogmatic definition. This was so for example with the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, where Scotus' theological reflections were most useful, and with some specifics of Papal Infallibility.
Laymen, who belong only to the Church taught should only ever have the attitude of students learning with all humility and docility toward the teaching Church.
The teaching Church are assisted by theologians in communicating the teaching of the faith and the Church to us. So what the constant teaching of theologians tells us is what questions the Church has definitively settled.
It is now, at least after Trent as St.Alphonsus says, no more lawful now to call into question baptism of desire than it is to call into question any of the other doctrines of the faith or those mentioned above. Show me a single learned authority to the contrary.
-
You keep having to mix perfect contrition, a dogma which is precisely defined in Trent, and baptism of desire which has never been precisely defined in one place, even to this day it has not been precisely defined.
It is a mess of disconnected theories tied together as a doctrine by no one.
-
And with that, I say good-by. I have a family and duties.
-
You keep having to mix perfect contrition, a dogma which is precisely defined in Trent, and baptism of desire which has never been precisely defined in one place, even to this day it has not been precisely defined.
It is a mess of disconnected theories tied together as a doctrine by no one.
I believe Nishant was showing how your understanding of "universal and constant consent" is flawed, not attempting to make an absolute comparison between perfect contrition and BOD.
-
Right, what Pope Pius IX is telling us is, if theologians, especially theologians known to be solid, orthodox and traditional and approved as such by the Church for a long time, whose manuals and writings were long used in seminaries etc, are unanimously agreed a dogma or doctrine has been precisely defined as such, then we are bound to hold that that dogma or doctrine has been precisely defined as such. It's not as if we suddenly discovered a Council or a Papal docuмent they were not aware of, in fact they would know it, and a whole lot of other things, far better than we do.
Theologians lay out in specific and easily accessible detail for the Church taught the doctrine of the teaching Church adapting it for lay perusal, and it would be completely out of place for individual students to assert all their teachers had erred in classifying a dogma or a doctrine as such.
Anyway, Bowler, we'll leave it at that if you will. I understand most people hold the "Feeneyite" view because they see some people today have no interest at all in winning non-Catholics to the faith, though I think it is an over-reaction. Anyway, my prayers for you and your family. God bless and Mary keep you all.
-
There is no such thing as a 'Feeneyite'.
-
Right, what Pope Pius IX is telling us is, if theologians, especially theologians known to be solid, orthodox and traditional and approved as such by the Church for a long time, whose manuals and writings were long used in seminaries etc, are unanimously agreed a dogma or doctrine has been precisely defined as such, then we are bound to hold that that dogma or doctrine has been precisely defined as such.
That's your own take. I posted what Piux IX actually said, and he says "by universal and constant [universali et constanti] consent are held by Catholic theologians to belong to faith.” That is a defined term. What was taught for 400 years is not "universali et constanti". That the souls of dead unbaptized children suffer sense pain in limbo was the unanimous teaching of the theologinas for like at least 800 years, till a pope defined dogmatically that the to then "universali et constanti", was incorrect.
Besides, the theologians have not even defined in one place what baptism of desire is and who it may save, and where they go (purgatory, or heaven).
Pope Pius IX, Tuas Libenter, Letter to the Archbishop of Munich, Dec. 21, 1863
“For, even if it were a matter concerning that subjection which is to be
manifested by an act of divine faith, nevertheless, it would not have to be limited to those matters which have been defined by express decrees of ecuмenical Councils, or of the Roman Pontiffs and of this See, but would have to be extended also to those matters which are handed down as divinely revealed by the ordinary teaching power of the whole Church spread throughout the world, and therefore, by universal and constant [universali et constanti] consent are held by Catholic theologians to belong to faith.”
-
But theologians never held St.Augustine's view was of the faith or that the contrary opinion was worthy of censure, on the contrary it was freely discussed in the schools.
Theologians have held that BoD is a dogma or at least a Catholic doctrine that cannot be denied. Show me a single theologian of the last several hundred years who has held otherwise.
"Universal and constant consent" only applies after some point where all agree the Church has by then definitively settled the question.
It is not true that the precise specifics have not been laid out in great detail. St.Alphonsus, who himself mentions the opinion of various other theologians and shows this is the proper way to proceed explains the doctrine precisely.
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 character or as to the removal of all debt of punishment [Comment: Hence, Purgatory].
Baptism of blood is the shedding of one’s blood, i.e. death, suffered for the Faith or for some other Christian virtue. Now this baptism is comparable to true Baptism because, like true Baptism, it remits both guilt and punishment [Comment: Hence, Heaven] as it were ex opere operato. I say as it were because martyrdom does not act by as strict a causality as the sacraments, but by a certain privilege on account of its resemblance to the passion of Christ.
Of course, when both guilt and punishment are remitted, the person goes to heaven, whereas when guilt is remitted but punishment remains, the person will be purified in purgative fire before his entrance into heaven.
You will find a similar doctrine in all the theologians and manualists.
It is only today that anybody and everybody makes a pretense to teach his own private opinions as theology without any recourse at all to what Catholic authorities in the field have unanimously maintained. This is not how the Doctors themselves proceeded, this is not a legitimate way at all.
-
But theologians never held St.Augustine's view was of the faith or that the contrary opinion was worthy of censure, on the contrary it was freely discussed in the schools.
The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 9,
“Limbo,” p. 257: “After enjoying several
centuries of undisputed supremacy, St. Augustine’s teaching on original sin was first successfully challenged by St. Anselm, who maintained that it was not concupiscence, but the privation of original justice, that constituted the essence of inherited sin. On the special question, however, of the punishment of original sin after death, St. Anselm was at one with St. Augustine in holding that unbaptized infants share in the positive sufferings of the damned; and Abelard was the first to rebel against the severity of the Augustinian tradition on this point.”
The Catholic Encyclopedia is saying here that basically from the time of Augustine (4th century) to Abelard (12th century) it was the common and almost unanimous teaching of theologians that unbaptized infants suffer the fires of Hell after death, a position that was later condemned by Pope Pius VI. This proves that the “common” error of one period (or even for hundreds of years) is not the universal and constant teaching of the
Church from the beginning. Furthermore, the teaching that one can be saved “outside” the Church by “invincible ignorance” was also the common and almost unanimous teaching at the beginning of the 20th Century, thus proving again that the common teaching (or common error) at any particular time does not replace the universal and constant teaching of all Catholic theologians throughout history on the absolute necessity of water baptism for salvation.
-
Theologians have held that BoD is a dogma
You just went full cirlce back to what started this discussion. Only one theologian erroneously said it is defide. Everyone knows that BOD is not defide, a dogma. Your quote just shows that we can't rely on the word of one theologian.
-
Ah, I see you have actually not read Fr.Cekada's article then. There are several theologians who taught that BoD is a dogma, and Fr.Cekada names some of them. All others treat it as a Catholic doctrine or Catholic teaching.
Your example of Limbo is flawed, because though many had tended to favor St.Augustine's view, no theologian held the contrary opinion could not be maintained - that's why the matter was freely discussed in the schools.
But now all theologians have held that the contrary opinion is not lawful, at least after Trent. And this common and constant consent of theologians binds us. The matter is settled, not open to dispute.
If you don't like theologians, I gave the example of a Saintly priest earlier, here is a Saintly mystic, a very pious and humble soul, herself receiving a reflection on a text of a Saintly Apostle.
"I wished thee to see the secret of the Heart, showing it to thee open, so that you mightest see how much more I loved than I could show thee by finite pain. I poured from it Blood and Water, to show thee the baptism of water which is received in virtue of the Blood. I also showed the baptism of love in two ways, first in those who are baptized in their blood shed for Me which has virtue through My Blood, even if they have not been able to have Holy Baptism, and also those who are baptized in fire, not being able to have Holy Baptism, but desiring it with the affection of love. There is no baptism of desire without the Blood, because Blood is steeped in and kneaded with the fire of Divine charity, because through love was it shed."
Thus it is written in Sacred Scripture also, of the water, the blood and the spirit that flowed from the Sacred Heart - that the three are one, and so the threefold baptism is one, it is Trinitarian.
If you believe as St.Alphonsus did, you will find that the true doctrine never lessens, but rather increases the missionary zeal that should burn in all Catholics to save souls that are in danger of perishing. This was true of St.Alphonsus.
-
If God Predestined Some Persons to be Saved by Baptism of Desire, Then:
He also predestined that it would never be revealed infallible for 2000+ years.
He predestined that His dogmatic decrees on EENS should be meaningless, since the Church has infallible declared that only the water baptized are members of the Church (and all who die outside outside of the Church are damned). He predestined that His clear language really does not mean what he said like the 9 dogmas and creeds that say:
- 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
- nobody at all [/u]is saved
- outside of which there is no salvation nor remission of sin
-every human creature
-no one at all is saved
-no one can be saved
-none can be saved
In other words, not only did God predestine that he would not reveal infallible that some persons will be saved by baptism of desire, but He also predestined to teach us infallible something that says the complete opposite of baptism of desire. If we can't trust God's infallible revealed dogmas, who can we trust, certainly not theological speculations? If the clear language of those dogmas can be twisted to mean the opposite, then nothing is safe.
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. Alphonsus, quoted in Fr. Michael Muller’s The Catholic Dogma:
“‘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.’ (First Command. No. 8.).”
Notice that St. Alphonsus affirms that only those who believe in these absolutely necessary mysteries of Catholic Faith (the Trinity and Incarnation) can be saved.
That quote from Alphonsus Ligouri is from the early 1700's. The "more common and truer opinion" of the theologians for more than one century now, is that the explicit belief of these articles is not necessary as a means for salvation. In other words, no longer does a person need to desire explicitely to be baptized, or to be infused by God with the knowledge of the Trinity and the Incarnation (belief in Jesus Christ), nor do they need to know or want to know anything about being a Catholic. Now a person can be saved by "making an act of love which implicitly is equivalent to baptism of desire", as quoted from a traditionalist bishop.
Dear Nishant,
So much for the "more common and truer opinion" of the theologians. You can keep that theory of yours. I'll stick with dogma and the Providence of God.
God Bless,
-
Getting back on topic
I have promised a review of Gallagher's Vatican Secret Diplomacy and here it is.
The book is really a biography of Bp Joseph Hurley & his relationship with Pius XII. Hurley believes the nαzι's are the greatest threat to the world while Pius sees Communism as more dangerous. Hurley also believes that the Popes policy of neutrality is actually pro-nαzι. At this time of his life his mind is unfortunately infected with an Americanist philosophy as he rallies reluctant American Catholics to the policies of Roosenveldt. The chapter on Fr Coughlin is very interesting.
Later the bishop's experience in the Balkans produces an astounding reversal as he becomes the staunchest defender of Card Stepinac in his battle with the Commie Tito. This in spite of the Cardinals connection to the nαzι Ustasha.
Neither Hurley or the author ever seem to add up that the Pope was right all along.
The best part of the book was the bibliography where I discovered the following works.
Jesuits & The Third Riech by Vincent Lapomarda-- $165
The Coughlin- Fahey Connection by Mary C Athans
Spies In The Vatican by David Alvarez
Lonely Cold War of Pius XII by Peter Kent
Pius XII & The Second World War by Pierre Blet
Case of Card Stepinac by R Pattee
:reporter:
If one searches Amazon Books, reviews of the above books can be found.