Latest topics
» Polish traditionalists handicapped : Archbishop Lefebvre made a mistake
Wed Nov 15, 2017 8:20 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Communities of Fr.Leonard Feeney in the USA when they interpret Vatican Council II with the irrational premise deny the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus
Wed Nov 15, 2017 5:18 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Bishop Robert J.McManus and Brother Thomas Augustine MICM,Superior,St.Benedict Center,Still River,MA, interpret Vatican Council II with the 'possibilites are exceptions' error
Mon Nov 06, 2017 8:47 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» SSPX must be aware of the deception of Abp.Guido Pozzo and confront it
Tue Oct 31, 2017 11:57 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Two popes must ask all Catholics to affirm Vatican Council II (premise-free) as they do
Mon Oct 30, 2017 5:16 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary Still River Ma., could lose canomical status because of Feeneyism
Sat Oct 28, 2017 5:54 am by Lionel L. Andrades

»  Traditionalists oppose Pope Francis on morals but give him a pass on salvation
Fri Oct 27, 2017 10:06 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Someone needs to help Cardinal Luiz Ladaria, Archbishop Pozzo and Archbishop Di Noia see how they use a false premise to interpret Vatican Council II
Tue Oct 24, 2017 2:53 pm by Lionel L. Andrades

» Robert Siscoe and John of St. Thomas Respond to Fr. Cekada
Mon Oct 23, 2017 9:25 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Still no denial from Abp.Guido Pozzo : SSPX must accept Vatican Council II with a false doctrine and the new theology based on an irrational premise Image result for Photo of Archbishop Guido Pozzo
Mon Oct 23, 2017 7:03 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Five Catholic academics accept the development of doctrine on salvation and Vatican Council II but reject it on morals and the death penalty
Sun Oct 22, 2017 5:32 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Dr.Robert Fastiggi wants Bishop Donald Sanborn and Chris Ferrara to affirm a magisterium in heresy and schism like him
Sun Oct 22, 2017 5:30 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» ]Christine Niles uses the false premise to interpret magisterial documents
Sat Oct 21, 2017 5:30 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» SSPX has a right to canonical status when they correct their doctrinal error in the 'chart'
Fri Oct 20, 2017 6:25 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» No one shows Massimo Faggioli his precise theological and philosophical mistake
Fri Oct 20, 2017 6:07 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Rethink "Feeneyism"?
Fri Aug 11, 2017 6:02 pm by tornpage

» Brother Andre Marie MICM, the Prior at the St. Benedict Center does not correct Frs.Brian Harrison and Cekada,Bishops Sanborn,Pirvanus,Kelly and Fellay
Wed Jun 28, 2017 4:24 pm by MRyan

» Revisiting Diocese/Parish Screening Policy
Wed Jun 28, 2017 4:03 pm by MRyan

» When sedes and trads can accept that Pius XII made a mistake then popes since John XXIII are no more in heresy
Wed Jun 28, 2017 3:08 pm by MRyan

» Doctrinal talks were conducted with Fr.Gleize on 'the other side'
Mon Jun 26, 2017 9:08 am by Lionel L. Andrades


BOD in the Magisterium

Page 2 of 2 Previous  1, 2

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: BOD in the Magisterium

Post  MRyan on Sun Jan 02, 2011 4:59 pm

tornpage wrote:

St. Thomas

First, a thing may be necessary so that without it the end cannot be attained; thus food is necessary for human life. And this is simple necessity of end.

Catechism of Trent

On adults, however, the Church has not been accustomed to confer the Sacrament of Baptism at once, but has ordained that it be deferred for a certain time. The delay is not attended with the same danger as in the case of infants, which we have already mentioned; should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness.

I'm sorry, Mike, but if the intention and determination to receive Baptism of catechumen who do not receive baptism because of some unforeseen accident "avail[s] them to grace and righteousness," then the end has been achieved without baptism, and the sacrament does not have a "simple necessity of end."

I hold that baptism is "not optional" or "free," and thus "necessary" in exactly the sense that Trent tells us it's necessary.

As you said elsewhere, in the ordinary v. extraordinary means thread, "Pope Pius XII clearly does not believe that the Sacrament of Baptism is necessary as an intrinsic necessity of means for salvation (without which salvation cannot be)." Ok, and St. Thomas says that baptism is of a "simple necessity," such that "without it the end cannot be obtained." Hmmm. I agree with Pius XII, and say to call something that is not something without which salvation cannot be, while calling it at the same time something without which the end (salvation) cannot be obtained, is intellectually fractured and bent.

As the Catechism says:

1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation.60 He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them.61 Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament.

Of course, I affirm the same necessity.

I'll follow the bouncing ball as far as I have to. When it hits a wall, and I'm not required to go through it . . . I'm going around. See you on the other side.

tornpage
In other words, you mean the end has been achieved without the actual administration of the sacrament; but, in point of fact, the “necessity of end” has been achieved by baptism; a baptism of the Spirit (the desire for baptism) that fulfills the necessity of end - salvation. No one can be saved without baptism, but the sacrament, the divinely instituted instrumental means for transmitting grace and for regeneration, is not always “necessary” for the essential effects of baptism to be effected by the desire for baptism.

One cannot “dismiss” the words of St. Thomas Aquinas (“going around the bouncing ball”) on “absolute” and “simple” “necessity of end” by implying that he was inconsistent - or wrong. The sense of his words is easily gleaned (ha!) from the words themselves where he includes the sacrament of Penance (upon mortal sin) in his definition of simple and absolute necessity. Obviously, he can only be referring to an extrinsic necessity of means for the sacraments themselves, but an intrinsic necessity of means with respect to its fulfillment by the sacrament, “or the desire thereof”.

Within the context of "necessity of end", by "sacrament of baptism", St. Thomas simply means, "baptism" (as we shall see).

St. Thomas puts it like this:

Q. 68; Article 2. Whether a man can be saved without Baptism?

Objection 3. Further, as stated above (1; 65, 4), the sacrament of Baptism is necessary for salvation. Now that is necessary "without which something cannot be" (Metaph. v). Therefore it seems that none can obtain salvation without Baptism.

On the contrary, Augustine says (Super Levit. lxxxiv) that "some have received the invisible sanctification without visible sacraments, and to their profit; but though it is possible to have the visible sanctification, consisting in a visible sacrament, without the invisible sanctification, it will be to no profit." Since, therefore, the sacrament of Baptism pertains to the visible sanctification, it seems that a man can obtain salvation without the sacrament of Baptism, by means of the invisible sanctification.
What I objected to was your response to “Baptism can't be both necessary and unnecessary at the same time!” where you said:

It [baptism] is not necessary to the person who hasn't heard the gospel. Yet it is necessary for the person who has heard it, and done nothing to enter the Church.
Again, this is simply false, or at least entirely misleading and I haven’t seen where your subsequent qualifications takes the sting away from what these statements suggest.

Here is a restatement of St. Thomas’s (and the Church’s) doctrine, by the eminent scholar Fr. O’Kane (mid 19th century):

The word water in this text (John 3:5) has always been understood by the Fathers of the Church in the literal sense, and the Council of Trent has anathematized those who, with Calvin, distort its meaning by taking it metaphorically. There can be no doubt, therefore, that the meaning of Our Savior's words, "to be born again of water," is simply "to be regenerated by Baptism," and this is declared necessary to salvation. Moreover, the expression implies that it is necessary, not merely as a fulfillment of a precept is necessary because its voluntary omission would be a sin (necessitate precepti), but that it is absolutely necessary as a means positively conducing to salvation, so that without it salvation could not be attained, even though its omission were involuntary (necessitate media). This is shown by the universality of the form "Nisi quis" [unless everyone], by which it extends to all.” (Rubrics of the Roman Ritual, Dublin: Duffy & Co., 1922, p.60)

Fr. O’Kane then explains the doctrine precisely as St. Aquinas and the Church understands it by teaching that Baptism, for those “unable to receive it, may be supplied in two ways, according to the common doctrine of the Fathers”:


1. by an act of perfect charity which includes the desire of Baptism, and which is called Baptismus Flaminis;
2. by martyrdom, which is called Baptismus Sanguinis, and by which even infants, who are put to death for Christ, as were the Holy Innocents, may be saved.

There is no other means of supplying for the Baptism of water, or Baptismus Fluminis, which is always meant by the word Baptism, when used simply and without any adjunct, and which alone is a sacrament.
I hope we’re on the same page, Tornpage!
avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2276
Reputation : 2448
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: BOD in the Magisterium

Post  tornpage on Sun Jan 02, 2011 5:16 pm

Mike,

I don't think we disagree. The sacrament of baptism with water is not intrinsically necessary for salvation (I agree with Pius XII). Therefore, the sacrament of baptism with water does not possess a "simple necessity of end," since salvation can be achieved without it (see above), and "a simple necessity of end" is something without which the end cannot be achieved. This is common sense.

I said nothing that was false. The sacrament of baptism with water is not necessary to the salvation of someone who has never heard of baptism's necessity, i.e. who has not had the gospel preached to him. Again, it therefore does not possess a "simple necessity of end" as to that person, since the end, salvation, may be achieved without it.

Baptism by the Spirit and regeneration by the bonds of faith and charity is "a simple necessity of end," such that salvation cannot be reached without it.

I thought I was quite clear. I hope we agree.

tornpage
avatar
tornpage

Posts : 876
Reputation : 939
Join date : 2010-12-31

Back to top Go down

Re: BOD in the Magisterium

Post  Jehanne on Sun Jan 02, 2011 5:25 pm

tornpage wrote:Mike,

I don't think we disagree. The sacrament of baptism with water is not intrinsically necessary for salvation (I agree with Pius XII). Therefore, the sacrament of baptism with water does not possess a "simple necessity of end," since salvation can be achieved without it (see above), and "a simple necessity of end" is something without which the end cannot be achieved. This is common sense.

I said nothing that was false. The sacrament of baptism with water is not necessary to the salvation of someone who has never heard of baptism's necessity, i.e. who has not had the gospel preached to him. Again, it therefore does not possess a "simple necessity of end" as to that person, since the end, salvation, may be achieved without it.

Baptism by the Spirit and regeneration by the bonds of faith and charity is "a simple necessity of end," such that salvation cannot be reached without it.

I thought I was quite clear. I hope we agree.

tornpage

However, Saint Thomas taught this:

"Granted that everyone is bound to believe something explicitly, no untenable conclusion follows if someone is brought up in the forest or among wild beasts. For it pertains to Divine Providence to furnish everyone with what is necessary for salvation, provided that on his part there is no hindrance.

Thus, if someone so brought up followed the direction of natural reason in seeking good and avoiding evil, we must most certainly hold that God would either reveal to him through internal inspiration what had to be believed, or would send some preacher of the Faith to him as He sent Peter to Cornelius." (Saint Thomas, Disputed Questions on Truth)
avatar
Jehanne

Posts : 926
Reputation : 1025
Join date : 2010-12-21
Age : 50
Location : Iowa

http://unamsanctamecclesiamcatholicam.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: BOD in the Magisterium

Post  MRyan on Sun Jan 02, 2011 6:43 pm

tornpage wrote:Mike,

I don't think we disagree. The sacrament of baptism with water is not intrinsically necessary for salvation (I agree with Pius XII). Therefore, the sacrament of baptism with water does not possess a "simple necessity of end," since salvation can be achieved without it (see above), and "a simple necessity of end" is something without which the end cannot be achieved. This is common sense.
It would be common sense if you would only apply the same sense used by St. Thomas Aquinas. The sacrament of baptism remains a “simple necessity of end”. But I’ll leave it alone for now and get to the real problem …

tornpage wrote:I said nothing that was false. The sacrament of baptism with water is not necessary to the salvation of someone who has never heard of baptism's necessity, i.e. who has not had the gospel preached to him. Again, it therefore does not possess a "simple necessity of end" as to that person, since the end, salvation, may be achieved without it.
A thousand times … no; the part in bold is actually false (even heretical). The sacrament of baptism, by divine decree, is necessary to every man without exception, even if he has never heard of its requirement, or of the gospel.. Its necessity (for salvation) extends to all men without exception:

There can be no doubt, therefore, that the meaning of Our Savior's words, "to be born again of water," is simply "to be regenerated by Baptism," and this is declared necessary to salvation. Moreover, the expression implies that it is necessary, not merely as a fulfillment of a precept is necessary because its voluntary omission would be a sin (necessitate precepti), but that it is absolutely necessary as a means positively conducing to salvation, so that without it salvation could not be attained, even though its omission were involuntary (necessitate media). This is shown by the universality of the form "Nisi quis" [unless everyone], by which it extends to all.”
You seem to want to insist on reducing the absolute necessity of the sacrament to a necessity of precept with your misplaced “qualification” for “someone who has never heard of baptism's necessity, i.e. who has not had the gospel preached to him”.

I think I know what you are trying to say, but your unnecessary and confusing "qualification" reduces the sacrament to a necessity of precept; and I see no way around it. An "extrinsic" necessity of means does not mean that it is no longer a necessity of means when someone is ignorant of the Gospel or when it is impossible to receive "by some necessity". The necessity remains - always, until death.

Baptism by the Spirit and regeneration by the bonds of faith and charity is "a simple necessity of end," such that salvation cannot be reached without it.

Baptism by the Spirit and regeneration by the bonds of faith and charity are included in the Sacrament of Baptism's "simple necessity of end," such that salvation cannot be reached without it. One cannot remove the sacrament from its simple necessity of end, even if its actual application is an extrinsic necessity of means.

It's not just that no one can be saved without faith; but, no one can be saved without the "sacrament of faith" or, when the sacrament is not available, without "the faith of the sacrament"; and no one adult can be saved without a "desire" for the same "sacrament of Baptism".

I thought I was quite clear. I hope we agree.
I hope so too.

avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2276
Reputation : 2448
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: BOD in the Magisterium

Post  tornpage on Sun Jan 02, 2011 7:01 pm

Mike,

Baptism (if you include baptism of desire and baptism of blood in the word baptism, which are not sacraments) is absolutely necessary as a "simple necessity of end." Baptism with water, the sacrament, is not a "simple necessity of end," since salvation, the end, can be reached without it.

You need to redefine "simple necessity or end" if you want that to include baptism the sacrament, because if "simple necessity of end" means something can't be reached without it, baptism (the sacrament) is not "a simple necessity of end."

If you want to call baptism the sacrament an "extrinsic" necessity of means that is binding on all men, ok, sure. But it would be possible for some men to be saved without the sacrament, so baptism the sacrament, whatever you call it, is not a "simple necessity of means" as defined by St. Thomas, i.e. something without which the end (salvation) cannot be reached.

If this makes me a heretic - good grief! - I'm a heretic.

tornpage
avatar
tornpage

Posts : 876
Reputation : 939
Join date : 2010-12-31

Back to top Go down

Re: BOD in the Magisterium

Post  MRyan on Sun Jan 02, 2011 7:07 pm

Jehanne wrote:
Read this:

http://www.marycoredemptrix.com/laisneyism.html

When Father Feeney was reconciled to the Church, why was he not forced to recant his "errors"? Why are several groups of his followers, unlike the SSPX, enjoying regularized, canonical status within the Catholic Church?
That is true what you say about some groups, but the SBC (NH) does not enjoy regularized, canonical status, though that situation may soon change. Fr. Feeney was not forced to “recant” his errors because he was excommunicated for a disciplinary infraction (disobedience to his lawful superiors) and was not charged with heresy - because nothing he ever taught was heretical.

Baptism of Desire has never been formally defined, so no one who “rejects” it can be accused of heresy. In that sense, the SBC is free to hold its position. Whether they are correct in their “denial and rejection” of baptism of desire with respect to filial obedience to the authentic teachings of the Church - that’s another story - and I am simply rendering my opinion that “submission” can never entail an outright rejection of an authentic teaching, even if one may make a mental reservation while seeking a clarification (the more appropriate approach to the teaching authority of the Church).


Last edited by MRyan on Sun Jan 02, 2011 7:26 pm; edited 1 time in total
avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2276
Reputation : 2448
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: BOD in the Magisterium

Post  MRyan on Sun Jan 02, 2011 7:21 pm

Tornpage,

It took me several years to get my arms around “simple necessity of end”, and I am not going to hash this out with you on the forum - it will only serve as a distraction to the larger issue (though obviously related to it), which is this:

The sacrament of baptism with water is not necessary to the salvation of someone who has never heard of baptism's necessity, i.e. who has not had the gospel preached to him.
You have not answered my objections as to why this is patently false. If we should leave it there - that’s OK too. I said that on its face, the statement is heretical, and I stand by it. Please don’t infer anymore from my statement than that - I know you are not a “heretic”.

But you sure are slippery!
avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2276
Reputation : 2448
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: BOD in the Magisterium

Post  tornpage on Sun Jan 02, 2011 8:53 pm

MRyan,

I think I know what your problem is, and I certainly know what my problem is.

My problem is with the terminology, and the terminology ONLY. If the definition of a "simple necessity of means" is, that without which the end cannot be reached, water baptism is not a "simple necessity of means" regarding salvation, since the end, salvation, may be reached without water baptism. In that sense - as you recognized - and in that sense only was I saying that water baptism was not "necessary." I was saying that water baptism was not necessary in the same sense that you said Pius XII said it was not necessary:

"Pope Pius XII clearly does not believe that the Sacrament of Baptism is necessary as an intrinsic necessity of means for salvation (without which salvation cannot be).

Water baptism is an "extrinsic necessity of means" (your terminology) for all men, and binding on all men. You cannot "forgo" baptism with water. As I said elsewhere, and as Trent says, water baptism is not "optional" or "free." However, in some instances a man may not either hear the gospel or have an opportunity to receive baptism having heard the gospel, and such a one may be saved by baptism by desire (Baptism of the Spirit). This is not to say that baptism is not obligatory or necessary for all men, but only that some men are relieved of the necessity by circumstances.

Do you feel better?

tornpage



avatar
tornpage

Posts : 876
Reputation : 939
Join date : 2010-12-31

Back to top Go down

Re: BOD in the Magisterium

Post  Guest on Sun Jan 02, 2011 9:44 pm

MRyan wrote:
That is true what you say about some groups, but the SBC (NH) does not enjoy regularized, canonical status, though that situation may soon change.

The local bishop recently approved their chapel and assigned them a chaplain.

http://catholicism.org/very-good-news-a-new-priest-for-sbc.html


Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: BOD in the Magisterium

Post  Catholic_Truth on Sun Jan 02, 2011 11:59 pm

Aquinas never had authority to speak infallibly on any matter of the faith. Obviously you would not agree with Aquinas that the virgin Mary was not born of Immaculate Conception, right? Therefore though theologians, saints and doctors of the Church can be helpful as a sign of what the Church teaches as doctrine, it doesn't mean they are always correct. Especially since theologians, saints and doctors disagreed with each other over this topic? Popes and Councils settle such disputes by speaking infallibly on those matters of faith. I have provided in previous posts the infallible statements from Popes and Councils that only Water baptism is the Sacrament of baptism. Now show us all in this Forum the infallible statements from Popes and Councils that Baptism of Blood and Baptism of Desire are "parts" of the Sacrament of Baptism. You can't, because such statements simply do not exists. Why do you continue to place your trust in fallible sources, when the already established infallible teaching of the Church declares that one cannot receive sanctifying saving grace unless through the Sacrament of WATER baptism?

notice below the infallible teaching(protected by the Holy Spirit from error) which says that WATER baptism cannot be separated from the other 2 necessities by which we receive the Lord's gift of sanctifying "saving" grace........
I profess that in Sanctification by the Spirit (i.e., Justification from the state of original sin), the Spirit of Sanctification(Holy Spirit), the Blood of Redemption(Christ's sacrifice) and the Water of Baptism are one and remain indivisible; none of them is separable from its link with the others.(Pope St. Leo the Great, Dogmatic Letter to Flavian, Council of Chalcedon, 451).-14
avatar
Catholic_Truth

Posts : 116
Reputation : 149
Join date : 2010-12-19
Location : Louisiana

http://www.PaltalkExpress.com

Back to top Go down

Re: BOD in the Magisterium

Post  Jehanne on Mon Jan 03, 2011 6:44 am

More to the point, Saint Thomas would never have approved of extending baptism of desire to anyone and everyone, especially, to infants and children who die before the age of reason. For him, explicit faith in Jesus Christ was absolutely necessary for eternal life. I find it absolutely silly how some people quote him as if he was infallible in some matters (which, of course, he never claimed to be) while completely ignoring him on other things. Baptism of desire for catechumens, perhaps; everyone else, absolutely not. For Saint Thomas, we will all stand, as individuals, before the Judgment Seat of Christ, and original sin is sufficient to send anyone to Hell. The sole and only path, for Aquinas, is explicit faith in the One and Triune God and explicit faith in the Incarnation of Jesus Christ. Saint Thomas made that fact absolutely clear.

Keeping along the lines of Saint Thomas, simply citing a consensus among theologians is not sufficient to say that a particular doctrine is dogmatic. Theologians do not constitute their own "Magisterium," although, they like to think that they do. Prior to Saint Thomas, the "common opinion" among the Church's theologians was that infants who had died without Baptism suffer the pains of Hell. Saint Thomas introduced a rather novel idea, the idea of Limbo. It caught on, but was never defined. The view of Saint Augustine, widely held during the first millennium of Catholicism, is still completely viable, just not widely held, even among traditional Catholic theologians.
avatar
Jehanne

Posts : 926
Reputation : 1025
Join date : 2010-12-21
Age : 50
Location : Iowa

http://unamsanctamecclesiamcatholicam.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: BOD in the Magisterium

Post  MRyan on Mon Jan 03, 2011 4:32 pm

Jehanne wrote:More to the point, Saint Thomas would never have approved of extending baptism of desire to anyone and everyone, especially, to infants and children who die before the age of reason.

More to the point, why is this even a part of the discussion? Why are you building a strawman - so you can knock it down? Do you feel better? Did anyone here “extend baptism of desire to anyone and everyone, especially, to infants and children who die before the age of reason”?

No, so stop with the theatrics of straw.

Jehanne wrote:For him, explicit faith in Jesus Christ was absolutely necessary for eternal life. I find it absolutely silly how some people quote him as if he was infallible in some matters (which, of course, he never claimed to be) while completely ignoring him on other things.
First you reference St. Aquinas and his "absolute" statements on the "absolute" necessity of 'explicit faith' "as if he was infallible in some matters", and accuse others of being "silly" for, allegedly, doing the same with baptism of blood/baptism of desire. Silly man, please show us where St. Thomas Aquinas said that 'explicit faith" in Jesus Christ was "absolutely necessary for eternal life". What he did say was that "after the Incarnation all men if they wish to be saved...are bound to explicit faith in the mysteries of Christ."

And did you know that where St. Thomas did use the word "absolute", he used it in the context of the sacrament of baptism; it being a simple and "absolute" necessity of means for salvation?

But its true, he taught that all men are bound to “explicit faith”, even if that faith is supplied by internal inspiration (just like all men are bound to baptism, even if "by desire"); meaning, not necessarily by way of a preacher, not necessarily by an angel, but even secretly and directly by God -- Who may enlighten an ignorant soul with the divine light of grace and truth, and unite/incorporate and regenerate that soul without necessarily providing the sacrament of baptism.

The Church does not teach anything different. So go ahead and pick and choose your Thomistic doctrines, and reject the one on baptism of desire which happens to enjoy, since at least the Council of Trent, a universal moral consensus; and has been taught consistently by the Church ever since by way of official and authentic documents, Catechisms, etc.

Its funny how your selective “rejection” works when you tell us what St. Aquinas believed “absolutely”, especially after St. Thomas places these "absolutes" into context.

Jehanne wrote: Baptism of desire for catechumens, perhaps; everyone else, absolutely not.
So when did the ignorant savage in the woods become a “catechumen”? Was there an RCIA class St. Thomas failed to mention that requires formal enrollment before God can send an angel, or inspire the savage directly?

St. Thomas Aquinas:

It falls to Divine Providence to provide all men with the means necessary for salvation, so long as they do not place obstacles in the way. In effect, if someone raised in the wilds or among savage animals is led by natural reason to follow the appetite for good and to flee evil, it should be considered most certain that God will reveal to him by internal inspiration the things necessary to believe, or that He would command some preacher of the Faith to go to him, as he sent St. Peter to Cornelius (Act 10) (De veritate, q. 14, a. 11, ad 1).
But here you are, Jehanne, telling us what St. Thomas Aquinas "absolutely" did not teach when it is obvious that you don’t have a clue.

Jehanne wrote:For Saint Thomas, we will all stand, as individuals, before the Judgment Seat of Christ, and original sin is sufficient to send anyone to Hell.
Thanks for the Catechism lesson.

Jehanne wrote:Keeping along the lines of Saint Thomas, simply citing a consensus among theologians is not sufficient to say that a particular doctrine is dogmatic.
This is the point where I throw up my hands and ask if I am speaking to a wall. Who said that baptism of blood/baptism of desire is “DOGMATIC?!

Or is this one of your simple rules of faith? If its not “dogmatic”, its up for grabs - and you will not submit to the teaching authority of the Church when she presents a “non-dogmatic” teaching that has a direct bearing on how the Church understands her own dogma of Baptism; an understanding ("baptism, or the desire thereof") she declared she “has always held”; when you say no, it is in fact a false doctrine that is opposed this very same dogma. See, the Church can be "silly" on such matters of faith and salvation, and, contrary to her silly claims to authority and truth, she has never really “held” this doctrine.

Is that about right?

Jehanne wrote:Theologians do not constitute their own "Magisterium," although, they like to think that they do.
Actually, you will not find a single theologian who subscribes to such a ridiculous theory. Theologians have no authority to determine if a given doctrine is “de fide” or even “authentic”, there task is to demonstrate, manifest or give witness to the fact that a particular doctrine falls into a certain class of teaching (theological notes).

To the argument that individual theologians are not infallible and many (if not all) have erred; this is true, but it cannot be said that as a whole they ever unanimously taught or defended an erroneous doctrine, such as your accusation against baptism of blood/baptism of desire.

But I would say that our Roman Pontiffs “constitute" a '‘Magisterium’ of their own, and this is what one of them (Pope Pius IX) had to say about subjection to the “theological truths and conclusions ... held by the common and constant consent of Catholics”:

But, since it is a matter of that subjection by which in conscience all those Catholics are bound who work in the speculative sciences, in order that they may bring new advantage to the Church by their writings, on that account, then, the men of that same convention should realize that it is not sufficient for learned Catholics to accept and revere the aforesaid dogmas of the Church, but that it is also necessary to subject themselves to the decisions pertaining to doctrine which are issued by the Pontifical Congregations, and also to those forms of doctrine which are held by the common and constant consent of Catholics as theological truths and conclusions, so certain that opinions opposed to these same forms of doctrine, although they cannot be called heretical, nevertheless deserve some theological censure.” (Tuas Libenter, {1863}, DZ 1684).
It matters not that the Church’s theologians who taught in the era between Trent and now (and even before Trent) are not consistent with their respective theological notes they assigned to baptism of blood and baptism of desire, what matters is that every single one of them who commented on these doctrines held them as “theological truths and conclusions”, and thus, as authentic doctrines of the Church.

Their moral consensus is universal, meaning that if even if there was a voice of dissent, which you will not find, it cannot detract from the moral unanimity of the whole. When we add to this the “common consent” of the Church through her Catechisms (to include local), Canon law, Allocutions, Ecumenical Councils, the Holy Office, etc., etc.; to pretend that these doctrines do not enjoy the common consent of the Church and the faithful is to engage in willful blindness.

Jehanne wrote:Prior to Saint Thomas, the "common opinion" among the Church's theologians was that infants who had died without Baptism suffer the pains of Hell. Saint Thomas introduced a rather novel idea, the idea of Limbo. It caught on, but was never defined. The view of Saint Augustine, widely held during the first millennium of Catholicism, is still completely viable, just not widely held, even among traditional Catholic theologians.

This is just another strawman, and a weak one at that. There was nothing “novel” about the “idea of Limbo”. The “Limbo of the children” is similar to what is commonly known as the “Limbo of the Fathers”. So the idea of “Limbo” certainly existed (as a place on the “edge”), even if one was a temporary place, with the other being permanent. It only gave a more concrete form to that place in hell reserved for the non-baptized souls who are not guilty of any personal sin.

The only “debate” of any significance between Sts. Augustine and Aquinas pertained to the degree of “sense” suffering these souls experienced. If you read Augustine, you’ll see that he did not know, but that he believed that the sense suffering (a positive torment) would be of the mildest form possible. This is not too far removed from the teaching of Aquinas, who believed that they experience no physical sense suffering at all, but perhaps only some sense of loss, even as they enjoy a state of “natural happiness”.

The Church has never “defined” the degree of suffering (material or otherwise) these souls experience, though the more common opinion is that of Aquinas and a state of natural happiness. And while she has never defined “Limbo”, the “common consensus” of the Church confirms that eternal Limbo exists.

To compare these differences reflected in the “common opinion” on Limbo to an alleged lack of universal common consent about baptism of desire is -- “silly”.

To MarianLibrain’s question - there is your answer - Limbo. It is a “theological construction” that has never been “defined”, but, as an authentic doctrine, it enjoys the universal consensus of the Church. Like with baptism of blood/baptism of desire, there may be legitimate differences in opinion as to application and scope, but there is no debate as to whether both of these represent “forms of doctrines which are held by the common and constant consent of Catholics as theological truths and conclusions.”


avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2276
Reputation : 2448
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: BOD in the Magisterium

Post  Jehanne on Mon Jan 03, 2011 4:44 pm

First of all, I have never denied Baptism of Desire and/or Baptism of Blood, so please stop painting me with that brush. I think that both are a possibility; on the other hand, I think that Father Feeney's views are a possibility, also; that is, that the One and Triune God, in His sovereignty over His creation will not allow someone to depart this life without sacramental Baptism who truly has the vow to receive it. If all we are arguing about here is the fate of catechumens who die without Baptism, then I think that there is nothing to argue about.
avatar
Jehanne

Posts : 926
Reputation : 1025
Join date : 2010-12-21
Age : 50
Location : Iowa

http://unamsanctamecclesiamcatholicam.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: BOD in the Magisterium

Post  MRyan on Mon Jan 03, 2011 5:35 pm

Jehanne wrote: The CCC is authoritative … Traditional Catholics should reject the CCC because it contains, at a minimum, theological errors, perhaps even formal heresies. Applying baptism of desire to those who do not have an explicit vow to receive it is a formal heresy. The Council of Florence forever nipped in the bud that one.
You blow so much smoke it’s hard to tell what you’re smoking.

Jehanne wrote:If you accept Popes JP II and Benedict as being, unquestionably, valid, reigning Popes, then, yes, should accept their teachings.
But, since you don’t even know if we have a valid pope, you get to sit on the fence and give us your “opinions” on what other Catholic need to accept. This is rich. Someone should knock you off that foolish fence.

Your credibility is zero.


avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2276
Reputation : 2448
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: BOD in the Magisterium

Post  Jehanne on Mon Jan 03, 2011 5:38 pm

MRyan wrote:
Jehanne wrote: The CCC is authoritative … Traditional Catholics should reject the CCC because it contains, at a minimum, theological errors, perhaps even formal heresies. Applying baptism of desire to those who do not have an explicit vow to receive it is a formal heresy. The Council of Florence forever nipped in the bud that one.
You blow so much smoke it’s hard to tell what you’re smoking.

Jehanne wrote:If you accept Popes JP II and Benedict as being, unquestionably, valid, reigning Popes, then, yes, should accept their teachings.
But, since you don’t even know if we have a valid pope, you get to sit on the fence and give us your “opinions” on what other Catholic need to accept. This is rich. Someone should knock you off that foolish fence.

Your credibility is zero.



I do not care what you think, and why should I? If you think that JP II and Benedict have not advanced or at least tolerated heretical ideas, then I cannot help but wonder what you've been "smoking." In any case, it does not matter to me, really, it does not.
avatar
Jehanne

Posts : 926
Reputation : 1025
Join date : 2010-12-21
Age : 50
Location : Iowa

http://unamsanctamecclesiamcatholicam.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: BOD in the Magisterium

Post  Forum Janitor on Tue Jan 04, 2011 12:20 am

I am locking this thread as well until further notice. MRyan and Jehanne I think you guys need to take a breather. Maybe visit the water cooler section and watch some of Duckbill's videos and then return here.

Your back and forth comments are getting to be a bit much.
avatar
Forum Janitor
Admin

Posts : 235
Reputation : 565
Join date : 2010-12-18
Location : Forum Janitor

http://catholicforum.forumotion.com

Back to top Go down

Re: BOD in the Magisterium

Post  Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 2 of 2 Previous  1, 2

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum