Author Topic: The Revolution Takes Hold Under Pius XII (Read 16688 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.

Nishant · « **Reply #185 on:** November 10, 2012, 01:10:59 PM »

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.

bowler · « **Reply #186 on:** November 10, 2012, 04:56:48 PM »

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.

bowler · « **Reply #187 on:** November 10, 2012, 05:05:26 PM »

And with that, I say good-by. I have a family and duties.

SJB · « **Reply #188 on:** November 11, 2012, 08:14:34 AM »

Quote from: bowler

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.

Nishant · « **Reply #189 on:** November 11, 2012, 12:34:13 PM »

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.

roscoe · « **Reply #190 on:** November 11, 2012, 11:49:09 PM »

There is no such thing as a 'Feeneyite'.

bowler · « **Reply #191 on:** November 12, 2012, 11:57:09 AM »

Quote from: Nishant

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).

Quote

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 · « **Reply #192 on:** November 12, 2012, 04:51:46 PM »

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.

Quote from: St.Alphonsus

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.

bowler · « **Reply #193 on:** November 12, 2012, 07:24:24 PM »

Quote from: Nishant

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.

bowler · « **Reply #194 on:** November 12, 2012, 07:30:18 PM »

Quote from: Nishant

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.