Author Topic: The Revolution Takes Hold Under Pius XII (Read 17228 times)

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #180 on:** November 09, 2012, 01:25:20 PM »

Quote from: SJB

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.

bowler · « **Reply #181 on:** November 09, 2012, 07:51:34 PM »

Quote from: Nishant

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.

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #182 on:** November 09, 2012, 10:03:24 PM »

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.

Quote

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:

Quote

"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

Quote

“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

Quote

"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.

Nishant · « **Reply #183 on:** November 09, 2012, 11:54:22 PM »

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).

bowler · « **Reply #184 on:** November 10, 2012, 11:41:32 AM »

Quote from: bowler

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.”

Quote

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

Quote

"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.