Author Topic: The Revolution Takes Hold Under Pius XII (Read 16697 times)

Nishant · « **Reply #150 on:** November 05, 2012, 09:57:41 PM »

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.

bowler · « **Reply #151 on:** November 06, 2012, 11:48:59 AM »

Quote from: Quo Vadis Petre

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;

Quote

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 ?

bowler · « **Reply #152 on:** November 06, 2012, 12:16:04 PM »

Quote from: bowler

Quote
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.

Quote from: Nishant

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.

bowler · « **Reply #153 on:** November 06, 2012, 12:31:48 PM »

Quote from: bowler

(Perhaps you can tell me of another extraordinary means of a sacrament that has been defined dogmatically?)

Nishant · « **Reply #154 on:** November 06, 2012, 10:18:55 PM »

Well, you didn't exactly answer the question.

Quote from: Nishant

1. Why does God institute extraordinary means of the sacraments in the first place?

Quote from: Bowler
(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.

bowler · « **Reply #155 on:** November 07, 2012, 10:16:42 AM »

Quote from: Nishant

Well, you didn't exactly answer the question.

Quote from: Nishant
1. Why does God institute extraordinary means of the sacraments in the first place?

Quote from: Bowler
(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.

bowler · « **Reply #156 on:** November 07, 2012, 10:32:30 AM »

Quote from: bowler

Quote from: bowler
(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?

bowler · « **Reply #157 on:** November 07, 2012, 01:09:57 PM »

from:http://ridebit-coeli.blogspot.com/2012/10/can-unbaptised-babies-go-to-heaven.html

Quote

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 · « **Reply #158 on:** November 07, 2012, 01:37:48 PM »

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.

Quote

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.

Quote

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.

bowler · « **Reply #159 on:** November 07, 2012, 04:17:12 PM »

Quote from: bowler

from:http://ridebit-coeli.blogspot.com/2012/10/can-unbaptised-babies-go-to-heaven.html

Quote
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.

Quote

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?

bowler · « **Reply #160 on:** November 07, 2012, 04:20:32 PM »

Quote

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.

SJB · « **Reply #161 on:** November 07, 2012, 04:41:59 PM »

Quote from: bowler

Quote
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.

Quote from: Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis

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.

bowler · « **Reply #162 on:** November 07, 2012, 05:01:31 PM »

Quote from: Nishant

Quote
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.
Quote
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.

bowler · « **Reply #163 on:** November 07, 2012, 05:26:21 PM »

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)

Nishant · « **Reply #164 on:** November 07, 2012, 08:32:56 PM »

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?