Whether one or several 19th century catechisms do or do not teach BOD proves nothing. What matters is the teaching of the Church(as explained by the Popes) Here is a catechism by Fr. Michael Muller( 19th century) which teaches a form of BOD( following St. Thomas) I take this positionThank you. I have that. And Fr. Muller was persecuted for teaching it just as Fr Feeney was, so it shows the downward spiral took place long before Fr Feeney.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=2ahUKEwjop-O34MrnAhUblHIEHTqeDtYQFjAAegQIARAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fcatholicism.org%2Fquestions-answers-salvation-muller.html&usg=AOvVaw1--0vqt6ZCiVFsJoEnsP_K (https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=2ahUKEwjop-O34MrnAhUblHIEHTqeDtYQFjAAegQIARAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fcatholicism.org%2Fquestions-answers-salvation-muller.html&usg=AOvVaw1--0vqt6ZCiVFsJoEnsP_K)
Thank you. I have that. And Fr. Muller was persecuted for teaching it just as Fr Feeney was, so it shows the downward spiral took place long before Fr Feeney.Fr. Müller DID teach a form of BOD( albeit rigorous) He would not have agreed with Fr. Feeney
I agree about the popes. And not one of them as far as I can see taught BOD ex cathedra.
Fr. Müller DID teach a form of BOD( albeit rigorous) He would not have agreed with Fr. FeeneyI did not say otherwise. Nevertheless, he was chastised by his superiors when they caved under pressure. It demonstrates the step by step decline. A perfect example. Look at what Bishop Sanborn says about Fr. Muller with a book that has nothing to do with BOD. He doesn't even agree with you about this.
I did not say otherwise. Nevertheless, he was chastised by his superiors when they caved under pressure. It demonstrates the step by step decline. A perfect example. Look at what Bishop Sanborn says about Fr. Muller with a book that has nothing to do with BOD. He doesn't even agree with you about this.Yes I’ve seen that. I wonder which work of Fr. Muller’s Bp. Sanborn is referring to
https://www.truerestoration.org/press/the-sinners-return-to-god/ (https://www.truerestoration.org/press/the-sinners-return-to-god/)
Disclaimer
Father Muller, in another work, denied Baptism of Desire. To deny Baptism of Desire, however, is contrary to the teaching of the Council of Trent, Pope Pius IX, Pope Pius XII, as well as to the teaching of Saint Augustine, Saint Ambrose, Saint Thomas Aquinas, Saint Robert Bellarmine, all of them canonized Doctors of the Church, as well as to the teaching of all Catholic theologians, and to the common teaching of the Catholic Church as expressed in its catechisms. Nonetheless, there is no trace of this error in this work of Father Muller. Consequently I approve of this book, but at the same time I caution the reader against Father Muller’s error in another work. – Bishop Sanborn
Here's a 1752 Catechism:Your screen shot says something that makes no sense to me.
https://books.google.com/books?id=1-4CAAAAQAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false
It supports knowledge of the "rewarder God" as sufficient for salvation in some cases since it indicates knowledge of the Trinity and Incarnation only necessary "where ever the Gospel is sufficiently published according to the more probable opinion of Divines" (see attached).
It speaks of baptism of desire, on page 87, though it seems to limit it to catechumens.
Here's a 1752 Catechism:Here is the Douay Catechism (1649):
https://books.google.com/books?id=1-4CAAAAQAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false
It supports knowledge of the "rewarder God" as sufficient for salvation in some cases since it indicates knowledge of the Trinity and Incarnation only necessary "where ever the Gospel is sufficiently published according to the more probable opinion of Divines" (see attached).
It speaks of baptism of desire, on page 87, though it seems to limit it to catechumens.
Here is the Douay Catechism (1649):Yes
http://www.traditionalcatholic.net/Tradition/Information/The_Douay_Catechism/index.html (http://www.traditionalcatholic.net/Tradition/Information/The_Douay_Catechism/index.html)
Q. Can a man be saved without baptism?
A. He cannot, unless he have it either actual or in desire, with contrition, or to be baptized in his blood as the holy Innocents were, which suffered for Christ.
It is sometimes included, other times not. I don't think any conclusions can be made from those that do not. It would be another thing if every catechism did not mention it.
Feeneyism is a heresy. I will remind people of this on every single BOD thread posted in this forumWhat dogma did Fr. Feeney deny?
Feeneyism is a heresy. I will remind people of this on every single BOD thread posted in this forumBaptism of Desire which is De fide according to St. Alphonsus
Baptism of Desire which is De fide according to St. AlphonsusAnd according to Ott, it is not de fide.
And according to Ott, it is not de fide.However, Fr. Feeney did not deny BOD.
Q. Can a man be saved without baptism?
A. He cannot, unless he have it either actual or in desire, with contrition, or to be baptized in his blood as the holy Innocents were, which suffered for Christ.
This is what St Thomas thought too. As well as St Alphonsus. One could make the argument that this lines up with Trent.The above is my position as well as that of Hugon, Garrigou-Lagrange, etc. Which pre-V2 theologians taught salvation for all/world religions?
.
If all Catholics who preach BOD used the above definition, with ALL of its requirements, then the debate over BOD would be over. I have no problem with the above, nor would Fr Feeney, since it does not water-down EENS. Fr Feeney was fighting the pre-V2, salvation-for-all, one-world-religion, modernists; He was not fighting the above.
However, Fr. Feeney did not deny BOD.
The above is my position as well as that of Hugon, Garrigou-Lagrange, etc. Which pre-V2 theologians taught salvation for all/world religions?
Jesuit deLugo was cited by XavierSem. On a separate thread, Garrigou-Lagrange was cited as saying the exact same thing as deLugo. So either you're wrong about Garrigou-Lagrange, or else you entertain a strange distortion of what St. Thomas and St. Alphonsus taught.That thread about Garrigou-Lagrange quotes a passage where he is clearly speculating. Here is what Garrigou says in another placecwhen commenting on the Summa ( in Latin as im sure you can read it and I don’t have time translate at the moment)
Whether one or several 19th century catechisms do or do not teach BOD proves nothing. What matters is the teaching of the Church(as explained by the Popes) Here is a catechism by Fr. Michael Muller( 19th century) which teaches a form of BOD( following St. Thomas) I take this position
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=2ahUKEwjop-O34MrnAhUblHIEHTqeDtYQFjAAegQIARAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fcatholicism.org%2Fquestions-answers-salvation-muller.html&usg=AOvVaw1--0vqt6ZCiVFsJoEnsP_K (https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=2ahUKEwjop-O34MrnAhUblHIEHTqeDtYQFjAAegQIARAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fcatholicism.org%2Fquestions-answers-salvation-muller.html&usg=AOvVaw1--0vqt6ZCiVFsJoEnsP_K)
Any other loss can be made up for, but never that of prayer; if, on account of a delicate constitution, you cannot fast, you may give alms; have you no occasion to confess, you may obtain forgiveness of your sins by making an act of perfect contrition; nay, even the Sacrament of Baptism may be supplied by the real desire of it, and a perfect love of God, but no other means of salvation is left for him who does not love to practise prayer.
Q. Can the baptism of water never be supplied?https://archive.org/details/familiarexplana00mlgoog (https://archive.org/details/familiarexplana00mlgoog)
A. When it is impossible to have it, it may be supplied by the baptism of desire, or by the baptism of blood.
Q. What is the baptism of desire?
A. An earnest wish to receive baptism, or to do all that God requires of us for our salvation, together with a perfect contrition, or a perfect love of God.
Q. What is the baptism of blood?
A. Martyrdom for the sake of Christ.
https://archive.org/details/thechurchandhere00mulluoft (https://archive.org/details/thechurchandhere00mulluoft)19. Would it be right to say that one who was not received into the Church before his death is damned?No; because, in his last hour, such a one may receive the grace to die united to the Catholic Church.It is not our business to say whether this or that one who was not received into the Church before his death is damned. What we condemn is the Protestant and the heathen system of religion, because they are utterly false; but we do not condemn any person - God alone is the judge of all. It is quite certain, however, that, if any of those who are not received into the Church before their death, enter heaven, a lot which we earnestly desire and beg God to grant them, they can only do so after undergoing a radical and fundamental change before death launches them into eternity. This is quite certain, for the reason, among others, that they are not one; and nothing is more indisputably certain than this, that there can be no division in heaven: “God is not the God of dissension," says St. Paul, "but of peace." He has never suffered the least interruption of union, even in the Church Militant no earth; most assuredly he will not tolerate it in the Church Triumphant. God most certainly will remain what he is. Non-Catholics, therefore, in order to enter heaven, must cease to be what they are, and become something which now they are not.God, in his infinite mercy, may enlighten, at the hour of death, one who is not yet a Catholic, so that he may know and believe the necessary truths of salvation, be truly sorry for his sins, and die in such disposition of soul as is necessary to be saved. Such a one, by an extraordinary grace of God, ceases to be what he was; he dies united, at least, to the soul of the Church, as theologians call it.
Thus Jesus Christ has established the universal law that "whoever enters his Church by faith and baptism and lives up to her doctrine will be saved, and that whosoever wilfully rejects his Church will be condemned." Jesus Christ, therefore, has taught and solemnly declared that there is no salvation out of his (the Roman Catholic) Church."Hence the heathen cannot be saved as heathen, nor the Jew as Jew, nor the Protestant as Protestant. Every one, to be saved, must belong to the body or at least to the soul of the Church. By the body of the Church is meant the society of the Catholic Church, and to be a real member of this society is to belong to the body of the Church. By the soul of the Church is meant the firm and determined will of all good Catholics to believe and do all that God teaches them by his Church. Anyone, therefore, who, without his fault, is not a Catholic, but observes, in good faith, the law of God as far as he knows it, and is, at the same time, determined to believe and do whatever God may require of him, possesses the spirit of the good Catholic, and is therefore said to belong to the soul of the Church.If he is a heathen, this good will alone, however, is not sufficient for his salvation; he must know at least the four great truths that every one must know in order to be saved, viz.:(1.) That there is but one living God, who is the Creator of heaven and earth; (2.) that there are three Persons in God: the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost; that each of these Persons is God, and yet there is but one God; (3.) that the Son of God became man and died for our salvation; (4.) that God rewards in heaven those who keep his law, and punishes in hell those who transgress it grievously and die in their sins.On account of his good will, God, in his infinite mercy, will lead him to the knowledge of those truths either by natural or supernatural means."Many of the Gentiles,” says St. Dionysius, "have been converted to the Lord by the ministry of angels." Hence, if he believes those truths firmly and is quite willing to believe and do whatever else God has revealed for our salvation, he is disposed to receive sanctifying grace. For such a good will supposes implicit faith in all that Christ has taught. It supposes hope to obtain forgiveness through Christ’s merits, sorrow for sins, purpose of amendment of life and a resolution to keep the commandments; it supposes love of God; it supposes the implicit desire of baptism, and thus God does not fail to bestow sanctifying grace upon a soul thus disposed to receive it. Thus that soul truly belongs to the Catholic Church; but should such a person come to the knowledge of the other truths taught by the Church, and reject them, he would be lost.We read in the tenth chapter of the Acts of the apostles that "there was a certain man in Cesarea, a Roman centurion, named Cornelius, a religious man, who feared God with all his house, gave much alms to the people, and prayed to God always." This good, God-fearing centurion had lived with the Jews in Cesarea, and learned from them the explicit faith in the one true God, and in the Redeemer. He and his whole family observed the Law of God as far as they knew it; they prayed much and gave much alms. Hence they were pleasing to God, like Job, who lived before Christ, and, having explicit faith in the true God and in the Redeemer, and living up to the law of nature and charity, was justified by God. He belonged to the soul of the Church as long as he knew no more of the law of God. But, as the Christian law, at the time of Cornelius, was already promulgated in Jerusalem and became more and more known in the neighboring cities, Cornelius was also one of those who had heard of it, as appears from the 22d verse of the same chapter. From that time his ignorance of it ceased to be invincible. He was obliged in conscience to acquire the explicit faith in Christ’s doctrine, and had he not complied with this duty he would have lost the grace of God. But walking in sincerity of heart before the Lord, he was but too eager to learn all that God required him to believe and to do. He most earnestly and perseveringly prayed to the Lord, and gave much alms to obtain this great grace. The Lord heard his prayer, He sent an angel who said to him: “Cornelius, thy prayer is heard, and thy alms are remembered in the sight of God. Send, therefore to Joppe, and call hither Simon, who is surnamed Peter. He lodgeth in the house of Simon, a tanner, by the seaside. He shall tell thee what thou must do.”Now, when St. Peter came to the house of Cornelius and learned how good the Lord had been to him and to his family, and how eager they were to learn from him what they must do to be saved, he exclaimed in amazement: “In truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons; but in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh justice, is acceptable to him; "that is to say, now I see that God is willing to bestow sanctifying grace upon all who are ready to believe in Christ and his doctrine, no matter whether they are Jews or heathens. Thereupon Peter instructed Cornelius and his family in the principal points of Christian doctrine, and had them baptized. They were the first converts from heathenism to the Catholic Church.What we have just said of the heathen applies also to those Protestants who conscientiously observe the law of God as far as they know it and never had an opportunity to know better, but are resolved to believe and do all that Christ has revealed for our salvation. To reward their good will, God will lead them so as to become acquainted with the truth of the Catholic religion, as we see in the examples of so many converts from Protestantism to the Catholic Church.The Rev. J. C. Russel, a convert from the Methodist Episcopal Sect to the Catholic faith, wrote in his letter to Father Zorn that he has been impelled to sever the dearest ties and to give up a fortune, in order to appease the voice of his conscience, and be numbered with the people of God. (Fort Mill, York Co., S. C.)Those, then, who wilfully refuse to learn the true religion, or wilfully refuse to embrace it after they become acquainted with it, will be damned on account of their unwillingness to do God’s will on earth.As to those who die in invincible ignorance of the true religion, if they are damned, they are not damned on account of this ignorance of the truth, as such invincible ignorance is no sin, but they are damned, as St. Paul tells us, because they committed grievous sins against the voice of God speaking to them through their conscience, on account of which they made themselves unworthy of the light of faith.
https://books.google.com/books?id=KakKAQAAIAAJ (https://books.google.com/books?id=KakKAQAAIAAJ)8. Can the baptism of water be ever supplied?When a person cannot receive the baptism of water, it may be supplied by the baptism of desire, or by the baptism of blood.Almighty God is goodness itself. Hence he wishes that all men should be saved. But, in order to be saved, it is necessary to pass, by means of baptism, from the state of sin to the state of grace. Infants, therefore, who die unbaptized, can never enter the kingdom of heaven. The case of grown persons is somewhat different; for, when grown persons cannot be actually baptized before death, then the baptism of water may be supplied by what is called the baptism of desire.There is an infidel. He has become acquainted with the true faith. He most earnestly desires baptism. But he cannot have any one to baptize him before he dies. Now, is such a person lost because he dies without the baptism of water? No; in this case, the person is said to be baptized in desire.9. What is the baptism of desire?An earnest wish to receive baptism, or to do all that God requires of us for our salvation, together with a perfect contrition, or a perfect love of God.An ardent desire of baptism, accompanied with faith in Jesus Christ and true repentance, is, with God, like the baptism of water. In this case, the words of the Blessed Virgin are verified: “The Lord has filled the hungry with good things.” (Luke i, 35.) He bestows the good things of heaven upon those who die with the desire of baptism. We read of a very interesting instance, in confirmation of this truth, in the Annals of the Propagation of the Faith: It is related by M. Odin, missionary apostolic, and, subsequently, Archbishop of New Orleans, Louisiana: “At some distance from our establishment at Barrens,” he says, “in Missouri, United States of America, there was a district inhabited by Protestants or infidels, with the exception of three or four Catholic families. In 1834 we had the consolation of baptizing several persons there: thus it was that the Lord was pleased to reward the kindness with which one of the most respectable inhabitants gave us hospitality every time we journeyed that way. This worthy man, who was not a Catholic, had three little children, who received with eagerness the instructions we never failed to give them. The tallest of the sons, only eight years old, especially showed such a particular relish for the word of God, that he learned by heart the entire catechism. Evening and morning he addressed his little prayer to the good God; and if ever his little sister missed that holy exercise, he reproached her very seriously. Things were at this point when the cholera broke out in the neighborhood. Then this good little boy said simply to his mother: ‘Mamma, the cholera is coming here: oh! how glad I should be if the priests from the seminary came to baptize me! That cruel disease will attack me, I am sure it will, and I shall die without baptism; then you will be sorry.' Alas! the poor child predicted truly: he was one of the first victims of the dreadful plague. During the short moments of his cruel sufferings he incessantly asked for baptism, and even with his last sigh he kept repeating: “Oh if any one would baptize me! My God! must I die without being baptized?' The mother, thinking that she could not herself administer that sacrament, although there was evident necessity, was in the greatest trouble; neither would the child consent to receive it from the hands of a Protestant minister. At last he died without having obtained his ardent wish. As soon as I heard of the cholera being in that part of the country, I hastened thither; but I only reached there some hours after the child's funeral. The family was plunged in the greatest affliction. I consoled them as much as I could, and especially in relation to the eternal destiny of their poor little one, by explaining to them what the Church teaches us on the baptism of desire. This consoling doctrine much assuaged their grief; after giving the other necessary instructions, I baptized the mother and the two young children, and, some days after, the father failed not to follow the example of his family.” (“Catholic Anecdotes,” p. 547.)Although it be true that the fathers of the Church have believed and taught that the baptism of desire may supply the baptism of water, yet this doctrine, as St. Augustine observes, should not make any one delay ordinary baptism when he is able to receive it; for, such a delay of baptism is always attended with great danger of salvation.10. What is the baptism of blood?Martyrdom for the sake of Christ.There is still another case in which a person may be justified and saved without having actually received the sacrament of baptism, viz.: the case of a person suffering martyrdom for the faith before he has been able to receive baptism. Martyrdom for the true faith has always been held by the Church to supply the sacrament of baptism. Hence, in the case of martyrdom, a person has always been said to be baptized in his own blood. Our divine Saviour assures us that “whosoever shall lose his life for his sake and the gospel, shall save it.” (Mark viii, 35.) He, therefore, who dies for Jesus Christ, and for the sake of his religion, obtains a full remission of all his sins, and is immediately after death admitted into heaven.St. Emerentiana, while preparing to receive baptism, went to pray at the tomb of St. Agnes. While praying there, she was stoned to death by the heathens. Her parents were greatly afflicted, and almost inconsolable, when they learned that their daughter had died without having received baptism. To console her parents, God permitted Emerentiana to appear to them in her heavenly glory, and to tell them not to be any longer afflicted on account of her salvation, “for,” said she, “I am in heaven with Jesus, my dear Saviour, whom I loved with my whole heart, when living on earth.” (Her Life, 23d Jan.)St. Genesius of Arles is also honored as a saint, because, for refusing to subscribe to a persecuting edict of Maximilian, he was put to death, though, at that time, he had not been baptized.
As baptism, then, is necessary to cleanse us from original sin, so, in like manner, is the Sacrament of Penance necessary to blot out the sins committed after baptism. As no one can enter the kingdom of heaven who has not received holy baptism either in reality or desire, so no one can be saved when he has lost his baptismal innocence, without the actual reception of the Sacrament of Penance, or, if that be impossible, at least the implicit desire of this sacrament, joined to perfect contrition.p.351:
Water is necessary for baptism; but, when water cannot be had, the want may be supplied by the baptism of desire, or by the baptism of blood; but, if contrition is wanting, its lack cannot he supplied by anything whatever. No contrition—no pardon!
Every other loss may be repaired, but the loss of prayer never. If, on the account of delicate constitution, we cannot fast, we may give alms; if we have no opportunity to confess our sins, we may obtain the forgiveness of them by an act of perfect contrition; nay, even baptism itself may sometimes be supplied by an earnest desire for this sacrament, accompanied by an ardent love of God. But as for him who neglects to practise prayer, there is no other means of salvation left.https://archive.org/details/GodTheTeacherOfMankindV9 (https://archive.org/details/GodTheTeacherOfMankindV9)
Here are some more teachings of Fr. Michael Muller on BOD.Yes, I take this position, and I don’t understand why Sanborn accuses Fr. Muller of denying BOD. He clearly does not deny itPrayer: The Key to Salvation – 1868 ADp.68
https://archive.org/details/prayerkeyofsalva00mlrich (https://archive.org/details/prayerkeyofsalva00mlrich)Familiar Explanation of Christian Doctrine – 1875 ADp.295https://archive.org/details/familiarexplana00mlgoog (https://archive.org/details/familiarexplana00mlgoog)God the Teacher of Mankind – 1880 AD
Vol.I: The Church and Her Enemies, p.285-286https://archive.org/details/thechurchandhere00mulluoft (https://archive.org/details/thechurchandhere00mulluoft)
Vol. V: Dignity, Authority, and Duties of Parents, Ecclesiastical and Civil Powers – Their Enemy, p.460-464
Vol.VI: Grace and the Sacraments, p.218-222:
https://books.google.com/books?id=KakKAQAAIAAJ (https://books.google.com/books?id=KakKAQAAIAAJ)
Vol.VIII: The Sacraments of The Holy Eucharist and Penance, p.336:
p.351:
https://books.google.com/books?id=hLwKAQAAIAAJ (https://books.google.com/books?id=hLwKAQAAIAAJ)
Vol.IX: Sacramentals, Prayer, Vices and Virtues; Christian Perfection, Etc., p.62:
https://archive.org/details/GodTheTeacherOfMankindV9 (https://archive.org/details/GodTheTeacherOfMankindV9)
Yes, I take this position, and I don’t understand why Sanborn accuses Fr. Muller of denying BOD. He clearly does not deny it
19. Would it be right to say that one who was not received into the Church before his death is damned?No; because, in his last hour, such a one may receive the grace to die united to the Catholic Church.It is not our business to say whether this or that one who was not received into the Church before his death is damned. What we condemn is the Protestant and the heathen system of religion, because they are utterly false; but we do not condemn any person - God alone is the judge of all.
That thread about Garrigou-Lagrange quotes a passage where he is clearly speculating. Here is what Garrigou says in another placecwhen commenting on the Summa ( in Latin as im sure you can read it and I don’t have time translate at the moment)Great, instead of following the clear dogmas on EENS, now we are going to follow Garrigou LaGrange's unclear interpretation, interpreted by Banezian because he says Ladislaus understands it wrong, according to Banezian (and Banezian is going to write it in Latin, so nobody understands what he is saying ). Insanity!
“Hereticus pertinax est, quoad veritates supernaturales quas retinet, sicut philosophus scepticus, qui negat valorem ontologicuм principii contradictionis et proinde ipsius rationis, erga veritates naturales quas retinere vult ; non potest amplius eas retinere propter motivum necessarium, sed solum propter aliquod motivum contingens, fundans opinionem tantum.…
Objectio : Haereticus hunc articulum negat, non quia credit Deum fallibilem in revelando, sed quia non apprehendit hunc articulum ut revelatum. Alios autem articulos tenet, quia apprehendit illos ut revelatos. Unde non recedit ab auctoritate Dei revelantis, sed solum a propositione Ecclesiae, et alios articulos tenet fide infusa…
® : Haec omnia essent vera, si sola inspiratio privata vel examen privatum esset proxima regula fidei, sed Christus voluit et nobis revelavit Ecclesiam esse proximam fidei regulam ; et ideo ille qui hanc revelationem cognoscens, recedit pertinaciter ab Ecclesia, non solum recedit a conditione sine qua non fidei catholicae, sed recedit ab ipso motivo formali ipsius fidei infusae, etiam ut infusa est, et non solum ut catholica est.”
He is clear that the proximate rule of faith is the proposition of the Church and so a Protestant ( or any 9ther pertinacious heretic) who rejects that does not have the faith.( and it follows that they could not be saved) The case of people who have no opportunity of knowing the Faith is different( as Fr. Muller who I linked to before clearly points out)
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra: “The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire ..and that nobody can be saved, … even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Sess. 8, Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra: “Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic faith; unless each one preserves this whole and inviolate, he will without a doubt perish in eternity.– But the Catholic faith is this, that we worship one God in the Trinity, and the Trinity in unity... Therefore let him who wishes to be saved, think thus concerning the Trinity. “But it is necessary for eternal salvation that he faithfully believe also in the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ...the Son of God is God and man...– This is the Catholic faith; unless each one believes this faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.”
One of the quotes from mueller above says that at a minimum a soul could receive BOD by desiring to do whatever God commands for salvation. At present that’s my position too but the “strict EENS” camp would disagreeNot sure what the strict EENS camp is, but the literal EENS camp finds that one of the commands God gave for salvation says that unless a man is baptized by water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. Perhaps someone should find where and under what circuмstances that command gets rescinded. After all, that is what is really needed for salvation via a BOD.
Not sure what the strict EENS camp is, but the literal EENS campTouche, very good, duly noted "Literal EENSers".
Not sure what the strict EENS camp is, but the literal EENS camp finds that one of the commands God gave for salvation says that unless a man is baptized by water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. Perhaps someone should find where and under what circuмstances that command gets rescinded. After all, that is what is really needed for salvation via a BOD.Honestly, ladislaus is a bit more nuanced (which makes sense given his seminary history) but the rest of y’all kind of just apply prot interpretive principles to dogma which is why you end up asserting stuff like this lol
...the rest of y’all kind of just apply prot interpretive principles to dogma which is why you end up asserting stuff like this lolDogma is the final word, if it needs to be interpreted then it was useless. Who's interpretation then are we to believe without a doubt? You see, on this subject of EENS it is you who interprets according to your own desires, and thus you are a ship adrift with a dragging anchor or maybe no anchor at all.
Dogmas are the final word from the Holy Ghost, being ex cathedra definitions, they must be taken literally, unequivocally, and absolutely. Hence, to attempt to modify or qualify them in any way is to deny them. The doctrine says clearly that only Catholics go to Heaven; all others are lost, that is, they do not go to Heaven, but to Hell. All who are inclined to dispute this dogma should have the good sense to realize that if this is not what the words of the definitions mean, the Church would never have promulgated such a position. To give any other meaning to these words is to portray the Church as foolish and ridiculous. . Let the reader accept the reasonable fact that the Pontiffs who pronounced these decrees were perfectly literate and fully cognizant of what they were saying. If there were any need to soften or qualify their meanings, they were quite capable of doing so.
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra:
“The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire ..and that nobody can be saved, … even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”
Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, Constitution 1, 1215, ex cathedra: “There is indeed one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which nobody at all is saved, …
Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, Nov. 18, 1302, ex cathedra:“… this Church outside of which there is no salvation nor remission of sin… Furthermore, … every human creature that they by absolute necessity for salvation are entirely subject to the Roman Pontiff.”
Pope Clement V, Council of Vienne, Decree # 30, 1311-1312, ex cathedra:“… one universal Church, outside of which there is no salvation, for all of whom there is one Lord, one faith, and one baptism…”
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Sess. 8, Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra: “Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic faith; unless each one preserves this whole and inviolate, he will without a doubt perish in eternity.”
Pope Leo X, Fifth Lateran Council, Session 11, Dec. 19, 1516, ex cathedra: “For, regulars and seculars, prelates and subjects, exempt and non-exempt, belong to the one universal Church, outside of which no one at all is saved, and they all have one Lord and one faith.”
Pope Pius IV, Council of Trent, Iniunctum nobis, Nov. 13, 1565, ex cathedra: “This true Catholic faith, outside of which no one can be saved… I now profess and truly hold…”
Pope Benedict XIV, Nuper ad nos, March 16, 1743, Profession of Faith: “This faith of the Catholic Church, without which no one can be saved, and which of my own accord I now profess and truly hold…”
Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, Session 2, Profession of Faith, 1870, ex cathedra: “This true Catholic faith, outside of which none can be saved, which I now freely profess and truly hold…”
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.”
Council of Trent. Seventh Session. March, 1547. Decree on the Sacraments. On Baptism
Canon 2. If anyone shall say that real and natural water is not necessary for baptism, and on that account those words of our Lord Jesus Christ: "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God (John 3:5), are distorted into some metaphor: let him be anathema.
Canon 5. If any one saith, that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema
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 and profess the true faith.”
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 orders sets the priest apart from the rest of the faithful who have not received this consecration.”
Honestly, ladislaus is a bit more nuanced (which makes sense given his seminary history) but the rest of y’all kind of just apply prot interpretive principles to dogma which is why you end up asserting stuff like this lolHere's St. Frances Xavier who is "more nuanced (which makes sense given his seminary history)" teaching the same thing as the literal EENSers like Stubborn:
Here's St. Frances Xavier who is "more nuanced (which makes sense given his seminary history)" teaching the same thing as the literal EENSers like Stubborn:My point wasn't that strictest view = not nuanced per se. My critique was of the particular herneneutic being used.
St. Francis Xavier:
Letter from Japan, to the Society of Jesus in Europe, 1552
One of the things that most of all pains and torments these Japanese is, that we teach them that the prison of hell is irrevocably shut, so that there is no egress therefrom. For they grieve over the fate of their departed children, of their parents and relatives, and they often show their grief by their tears. So they ask us if there is any hope, any way to free them by prayer from that eternal misery, and I am obliged to answer that there is absolutely none. Their grief at this affects and torments them wonderfully; they almost pine away with sorrow. But there is this good thing about their trouble---it makes one hope that they will all be the more laborious for their own salvation, lest they like their forefathers, should be condemned to everlasting punishment. They often ask if God cannot take their fathers out of hell, and why their punishment must never have an end. We gave them a satisfactory answer, but they did not cease to grieve over the misfortune of their relatives; and I can hardly restrain my tears sometimes at seeing men so dear to my heart suffer such intense pain about a thing which is already done with and can never be undone.
From the Baltimore Catechism;Baltimore isn't absolutely infallible though, and the strictest EENS people would say that it is wrong in the light of Florence.
Q. 510. Is it ever possible for one to be saved who does not know the Catholic Church to be the true Church?
A. It is possible for one to be saved who does not know the Catholic Church to be the true Church, provided that person:
1.(1) Has been validly baptized;
2.(2) Firmly believes the religion he professes and practices to be the true religion, and
3.(3) Dies without the guilt of mortal sin on his soul.
Q. 511. Why do we say it is only possible for a person to be saved who does not know the CatholicChurch to be the true Church?
A. We say it is only possible for a person to be saved who does not know the Catholic Church to be the true Church, because the necessary conditions are not often found, especially that of dying in a state of grace without making use of the Sacrament of Penance.
Q. 512. How are such persons said to belong to the Church?
A. Such persons are said to belong to the "soul of the church"; that is, they are really members of the Church without knowing it. Those who share in its Sacraments and worship are said to belong to the body or visible part of the Church.
https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/resources/catechism/baltimore-catechism/lesson-11-on-the-church
Here's St. Frances Xavier who is "more nuanced (which makes sense given his seminary history)" teaching the same thing as the literal EENSers like Stubborn:Also broadly speaking I can reconcile this.
St. Francis Xavier:
Letter from Japan, to the Society of Jesus in Europe, 1552
One of the things that most of all pains and torments these Japanese is, that we teach them that the prison of hell is irrevocably shut, so that there is no egress therefrom. For they grieve over the fate of their departed children, of their parents and relatives, and they often show their grief by their tears. So they ask us if there is any hope, any way to free them by prayer from that eternal misery, and I am obliged to answer that there is absolutely none. Their grief at this affects and torments them wonderfully; they almost pine away with sorrow. But there is this good thing about their trouble---it makes one hope that they will all be the more laborious for their own salvation, lest they like their forefathers, should be condemned to everlasting punishment. They often ask if God cannot take their fathers out of hell, and why their punishment must never have an end. We gave them a satisfactory answer, but they did not cease to grieve over the misfortune of their relatives; and I can hardly restrain my tears sometimes at seeing men so dear to my heart suffer such intense pain about a thing which is already done with and can never be undone.
Honestly, ladislaus is a bit more nuanced (which makes sense given his seminary history) but the rest of y’all kind of just apply prot interpretive principles to dogma which is why you end up asserting stuff like this lolIt is funny how the literal meaning is *always* abandoned whenever that meaning is interpreted. What gets me, is the ones who abandon the meaning by interpreting it, believe the opposite, that the literal meaning is an interpretation.
Also broadly speaking I can reconcile this.That's your individual interpretation mixing a bunch of teachers and coming up with an interpretation according to your own desires.
I believe it is theoretically possible (note: not certain) that *some individuals* who were in Japan prior to the missionaries coming desired "to do all that God commands for their salvation" and that God accepted this desire as sufficient faith/basis for BOD. If that was the case those souls would be illuminated to the truth of the Catholic faith *either* before or right after their deaths.
Also broadly speaking I can reconcile this.
I believe it is theoretically possible (note: not certain) that *some individuals* who were in Japan prior to the missionaries coming desired "to do all that God commands for their salvation" and that God accepted this desire as sufficient faith/basis for BOD. If that was the case those souls would be illuminated to the truth of the Catholic faith *either* before or right after their deaths.
And St. Francis Xavier may not have believed that, but IDK if that's what he's addressing here, as I'll explain.
However, assuming a given Japanese soul was *not* saved (and that *is* the presumption, their deaths having *appeared* to occur outside the Church), there is nothing that can be done for them, nothing that can change their fate.
My bigger issue is the argument. Like, I'm admittedly a new convert. And apparently I'm supposed to *absolutely* believe my own interpretation of Florence over what all the clergy say. Like that, by itself, is a huge stretch.This should give one pause. It's not just the writers of catechism. Garrigou-Lagrange, one of the top Thomists of the 20th century also said it's possible someone not visibly a member of the Church might be saved. (There were a few other Thomists of Garrigou-Lagrange's level, but he seems more well known in English.)
This should give one pause. It's not just the writers of catechism. Garrigou-Lagrange, one of the top Thomists of the 20th century also said it's possible someone not visibly a member of the Church might be saved. (There were a few other Thomists of Garrigou-Lagrange's level, but he seems more well known in English.)Honestly this is my overarching point. And that's why I make the point that I do. I am not aware of ANY living clergy who take the literal view, and I'm only aware of Fr. Wathen in the post crisis past.
Abp. Lefebvre said the same thing. He was also well trained in theology, and apparently did not have a problem with this. Yet the "literal" laypeople say he was fundamentally compromised and accepted a central modernist idea. Without him, the traditional movement in the Roman rite would be a handful of old priests and the Thuc-line clergy - and very few of them are "literal" either.
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.
http://www.multimedios.org/docs/d000436/p000001.html#0-p0.5.1.1 (http://www.multimedios.org/docs/d000436/p000001.html#0-p0.5.1.1)
CAP. IV. Se da idea de la justificación del pecador, y del modo con que se hace en la ley de gracia.
En las palabras mencionadas se insinúa la descripción de la justificación del pecador: de suerte que es tránsito del estado en que nace el hombre hijo del primer Adan, al estado de gracia y de adopción de los hijos de Dios por el segundo Adan Jesucristo nuestro Salvador. Esta traslación, o tránsito no se puede lograr, después de promulgado el Evangelio, sin el bautismo, o sin el deseo de él; según está escrito: No puede entrar en el reino de los cielos sino el que haya renacido del agua, y del Espíritu Santo.
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Sess. 8, Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra: “Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic faith; unless each one preserves this whole and inviolate, he will without a doubt perish in eternity.– But the Catholic faith is this, that we worship one God in the Trinity, and the Trinity in unity... Therefore let him who wishes to be saved, think thus concerning the Trinity. “But it is necessary for eternal salvation that he faithfully believe also in the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ...the Son of God is God and man...– This is the Catholic faith; unless each one believes this faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.”
This should give one pause. It's not just the writers of catechism. Garrigou-Lagrange, one of the top Thomists of the 20th century also said it's possible someone not visibly a member of the Church might be saved. (There were a few other Thomists of Garrigou-Lagrange's level, but he seems more well known in English.)Yes, the popular or well respected 19th and 20th century theologians liked to interpret dogma, as though they are parables, or like what was taught at V2 where nearly every thing they said is ambiguous. But prior to V2, the Church was not at all ambiguous in her dogmatic teachings - anymore than you would teach something that did not mean what you said. Would that be something you would do? - Honest question.
Abp. Lefebvre said the same thing. He was also well trained in theology, and apparently did not have a problem with this. Yet the "literal" laypeople say he was fundamentally compromised and accepted a central modernist idea. Without him, the traditional movement in the Roman rite would be a handful of old priests and the Thuc-line clergy - and very few of them are "literal" either.
Baltimore isn't absolutely infallible though, and the strictest EENS people would say that it is wrong in the light of Florence.Exactly, no one has to believe the catechism to get to heaven, while we 100% have to believe Florence.
My issue at the end of the day is that I can't believe that the writers of ...(fill in the blank) are all just idiots who can't read the plain words of Florence, yet that is the logical conclusion of the *way* guys like Stubborn and Last Tradhican (lol that name is fitting here :D ) argue for a strict view of EENS.Feeneyites don't see their opposition as "idiots" but as normal, human beings just like themselves, with a finite understanding of God's infinite wisdom, Divine Providence and His knowledge and capability to nudge/help all those who want to be saved. Let us not forget that God will not save anyone against their will, nor does He cast into Hell those who desire Him. But conversely, it is also true that there is only the straight, narrow path to God and broad is the way which leads to damnation. So how do we, as finite beings, explain the complexities of the mystery of salvation? It's impossible.
I'm actually not even *that* perturbed by the idea that they might be *right* (though I'm nearly certain Trent is teaching BOD as a possibility *at least* for the catechumen) as to the final conclusion.Trent never taught that an unbaptized, justified person goes to heaven. Trent only said that an unbaptized person who (fulfilling the proper requirements) desires baptism could attain the state of grace. Fr Feeney was just pointing out a theological problem that the Church has yet to clarify. Many of those who came after Trent, as is human nature, interpret Trent in a liberal way, so that BOD "can save", because they *want* to believe that there is the possibility of salvation for their friends or family members. But, technically, Trent did not say that they could be saved, only justified. Fr Feeney never said that BOD was wrong, only that it's not certain.
My bigger issue is the argument. Like, I'm admittedly a new convert. And apparently I'm supposed to *absolutely* believe my own interpretation of Florence over what all the clergy say. Like that, by itself, is a huge stretch.Since BOD has never been taught doctrinally or "de fide", then it must be proved to be an "apostolic teaching" (i.e. from Tradition, or "what has always been taught"). Since the idea has been debated ever since the times of St Augustine, and since it is still debated today, then it is certain, beyond a doubt, that BOD is not unanimously held. So it's not a doctrine, it's not part of Tradition and it's CERTAINLY not proven from Scripture. So, when you speak of the opinions of "all the clergy" that is incorrect. "Most" is not the same as "all". And a theological opinion is not binding if it is only held by "most".
But, technically, Trent did not say that they could be saved, only justified.What are you implying here? That some may die "justified" and not be "saved"?
What are you implying here? That some may die "justified" and not be "saved"?It's not an implication, it's a factual question that remains unanswered by the Church. Even St Thomas could not explain how his BOD theory worked. At one point he said that even BOD would not imprint the baptismal mark, so such persons would have to go to purgatory, since their temporal remission of punishment due to sins was not washed away. Others have said that such persons would go straight to heaven, ignoring such "details". I hold that a justified but unbaptized person (i.e. like an unbaptized baby) would go to the highest place in hell, (i.e. Limbo) and would thereby be rewarded for their desire with a place of natural happiness, since they are innocent but not members of the Church. But they would not merit heaven since they didn't receive the sacrament. I could be totally wrong; just my opinion. But Trent does not clarify any of this.
It's not an implication, it's a factual question that remains unanswered by the Church. Even St Thomas could not explain how his BOD theory worked. At one point he said that even BOD would not imprint the baptismal mark, so such persons would have to go to purgatory, since their temporal remission of punishment due to sins was not washed away. Others have said that such persons would go straight to heaven, ignoring such "details". I hold that a justified but unbaptized person (i.e. like an unbaptized baby) would go to the highest place in hell, (i.e. Limbo) and would thereby be rewarded for their desire with a place of natural happiness, since they are innocent but not members of the Church. But they would not merit heaven since they didn't receive the sacrament. I could be totally wrong; just my opinion. But Trent does not clarify any of this.
I would be much more satisfied with BoD theory if it held that those who died in a state of justification were granted the character of Baptism by God in an extraordinary manner than that they could experience the Beatific Vision without it. And, since all these aspects of BoD are pure speculation, what would stop me from speculating that God does exactly that?The traditional belief has always been that St. John the Baptist was born without Original Sin, yet we know he had to wait with the other OT saints, even he did not go to heaven when he died.
My point wasn't that strictest view = not nuanced per se. My critique was of the particular herneneutic being used.Actually, dogmas are defined in order to avoid hermeneutics. Not every communication needs to be interpreted. If we are going to avoid an infinite regress, we have to admit that some statements are understandable as-is, without any further interpretation. That's what dogmas are. Everyone understands EENS the same way. That's why some people feel a need to further interpret it. Because they don't like the message.
I hold that a justified but unbaptized person (i.e. like an unbaptized baby) would go to the highest place in hell, (i.e. Limbo) and would thereby be rewarded for their desire with a place of natural happiness, since they are innocent but not members of the Church. But they would not merit heaven since they didn't receive the sacrament. I could be totally wrong; just my opinion. But Trent does not clarify any of this.How would an unbaptized baby be justified? Traditional BOD is only for those with the use of reason.
Actually, dogmas are defined in order to avoid hermeneutics. Not every communication needs to be interpreted. If we are going to avoid an infinite regress, we have to admit that some statements are understandable as-is, without any further interpretation. That's what dogmas are. Everyone understands EENS the same way. That's why some people feel a need to further interpret it. Because they don't like the message.So every single trad priest just doesn't like the obvious truth. Got it.
How would an unbaptized baby be justified? Traditional BOD is only for those with the use of reason. But justification excludes mortal sin.An unbaptized baby is justified in the sense that they are free from PERSONAL mortal sin, though still stained with Original Sin. A person who dies after desiring Baptism, but before receiving the remission of Original Sin through the sacrament, is in the same condition...in theory. Trent does not tell us what happens to a justified, but unbaptized person. Nowhere in Church history are we told what we have to believe on this, so the speculation continues. This is all Fr Feeney was pointing out, and he was doing so because many liberal catholics of the 40s/50s were preaching a "de fide" salvation-for-all-sincerely-good-people. This culminated in the heresies of V2.
An unbaptized baby is justified in the sense that they are free from PERSONAL mortal sin, though still stained with Original Sin. A person who dies after desiring Baptism, but before receiving the remission of Original Sin through the sacrament, is in the same condition...in theory.No, there is a huge difference between an unbaptized baby and an adult justified though BOD. The adult is justified, and has sanctifying grace. The state of sanctifying grace is uncertain (contra certain Protestant beliefs) but if it is granted that some adult died justified via BOD, then we should expect eternal reward for that adult.