Hierarchy of truths

http://www.christendom-awake.org/pages/catechism/flawed-expectations/fe-home-page.htm

Hierarchy of truths, properly understood:

CHAPTER SEVEN

Properly understood, of course, the idea of a hierarchy of truths is a legitimate concept. Vatican II, in Unitatis Redintegratio, taught that "in Catholic doctrine there exists an order or 'hierarchy' of truths since they vary in relation to the foundation of the Christian faith."

Thus, a number of the contributors here, too, do not fail to seize upon the concept. In their minds, the phrase evidently means that some truths are "less true", or, at any rate, "less important", than others. Interpreted in this way, the idea is used as a means of setting aside—so that one can simply forget about—those traditional Catholic beliefs that today are thought to be inconvenient or even embarrassing. For if these doctrines can be considered "lower down" in the hierarchy of truths, then they need no longer be emphasized, and perhaps some of them are even entirely dispensable—so runs the revisionist line.

What the expression "hierarchy of truths" really means in authentic Church teaching, however, is that some truths are derived from other truths (or, as Archbishop Christoph Schönborn put it, some truths are central, others grouped around them). Unitatis Redintegratio (no. 11) itself specified that truths "vary in their relation to the foundation of Christian faith". But this does not mean that some truths are less true or less important than others. (MONSIGNOR MICHAEL J. WRENN and KENNETH D. WHITEHEAD, Flawed Expectations, The Reception of the Catechism of the Catholic Church)

Duckbill, that was primarily for you.

My point and Duckbill's point is not on a hierarchy of truths, but a hierarchy of authoritativeness of documents.

For example: An ex cathedra statement is higher than a random statement in an Ecumenical Council, which is higher than an encyclical, which is higher than a Catechism, which is higher then a private letter from one bishop to another, and so on.

If any interpretation needs to at any time be done less authoritative sources need to be interpreted in light of dogmatic statements. [i]

And may I add that any new enlightenment derived from a previously defined truth of the faith must necessarily be derived organically as following on from the previous and not standing in opposition to it.

For example: How can, "In certain cases water is not necessary to achieve the fruits of Baptism." follow on organically from the following dogmatic statement?

(Council of Trent, Session VII, "Canons on Baptism", Can. 2) "If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism and thus twists into some metaphor the words of Our Lord Jesus Christ: Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, let him be anathema."

One contradicts the other therefore, one is correct and the other incorrect. Which one should we accept as correct?

I think what should be accepted as correct is the ex cathedra, dogmatic proclamations and what is taught by the Catholic Church as divinely revealed in her Ordinary and Universal Magisterium.

Columba wrote:
(Council of Trent, Session VII, "Canons on Baptism", Can. 2) "If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism and thus twists into some metaphor the words of Our Lord Jesus Christ: Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, let him be anathema."

I know what you mean Columba. The baptism of desire/baptism of blood people love to try and explain away these clear and undeniable dogmas. I just do not understand why they do this. Maybe they just like to be stubborn.

RashaLampa wrote:My point and Duckbill's point is not on a hierarchy of truths, but a hierarchy of authoritativeness of documents.

For example: An ex cathedra statement is higher than a random statement in an Ecumenical Council, which is higher than an encyclical, which is higher than a Catechism, which is higher then a private letter from one bishop to another, and so on.

If any interpretation needs to at any time be done less authoritative sources need to be interpreted in light of dogmatic statements.

I see; so anything less than a defined dogma that is presented in whatever Magisterial mode of transmission chosen by the Pope can be categorized as “random statements” as if the subject matter of these discussions revolves around non-authoritative and totally subjective “random statements”, and not authentic expressions of Catholic doctrine.

Nice way to frame this debate.

And my point is that neither you nor Duckbill have the authority to arbitrarily determine that doctrines proposed by the ordinary Magisterium are "less authoritative" or even false because you have determined that there is an "authoritativeness of documents" that allows you to deny and reject certain doctrines which you say stand in opposition to a defined dogma. 

There is only ONE authority for the authentic interpretation of the word of God, and neither you nor Duckbill are included in that authority:

DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION ON DIVINE REVELATION, DEI VERBUM:

10. …But the task of authentically interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed on, has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church, whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ. This teaching office is not above the word of God, but serves it, teaching only what has been handed on, listening to it devoutly, guarding it scrupulously and explaining it faithfully in accord with a divine commission and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it draws from this one deposit of faith everything which it presents for belief as divinely revealed.

It is clear, therefore, that sacred tradition, Sacred Scripture and the teaching authority of the Church, in accord with God's most wise design, are so linked and joined together that one cannot stand without the others, and that all together and each in its own way under the action of the one Holy Spirit contribute effectively to the salvation of souls.

You say that what is presented in an Encyclical (or an Allocution) must be “interpreted” in the light of tradition, when we know what you are really suggesting is that Pope Pius XII’s Allocution to midwives, for example, must be “interpreted” to mean exactly the opposite of what it says.

Pope Pius XII, Allocution to midwives, October 29, 1951:

“Above all, the state of grace is absolutely necessary at the moment of death without it salvation and supernatural happiness—the beatific vision of God—are impossible. An act of love is sufficient for the adult to obtain sanctifying grace and to supply the lack of baptism; to the still unborn or newly born this way is not open.”

Are you and Duckbill not on record as saying that Pope Pius XII is wrong, that this teaching is false and that nothing can supply for the lack of sacramental baptism?

Are you not suggesting that the teaching of Pope Pius XII, and this same teaching that has been proposed consistently by the Church ever since the Council of Trent, is opposed to the dogma on water baptism, and must be “interpreted” as such?

By what authority do you accuse the Holy See of being stained with error (a proposition condemned by the Church)?

As far as the “authority” of this Allocution, Pope Pius XII in his Encyclical Letter Humani Generis puts the whole matter in perspective:

“[It] must [not] be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: "He who heareth you, heareth me" (Luke x,16); and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine.”

This is precisely the issue and this is precisely why you are wrong. It is true that what is proposed by the Magisterium as authentic expressions of truth are interpreted in light of tradition and dogmatic statements, but it is false to suggest that these same truths can be opposed to the very same dogmas from which they are derived, or to other defined or revealed dogmas.

It boils down to having to choose between your errant private interpretation of a dogma and the truth presented by the authentic ordinary Magisterium of the Church. If one chooses the former, then the entire tradition and Magisterial teachings on baptism of desire must be rejected as “random statements” having no authority whatsoever since they are opposed to the Church’s own dogmas.

The idea is simply ludicrous, not to mention heretical.

Another name for this is dissent; and it is the doctrine of non-servium. This post by columba serves as a perfect example:

And may I add that any new enlightenment derived from a previously defined truth of the faith must necessarily be derived organically as following on from the previous and not standing in opposition to it.

For example: How can, "In certain cases water is not necessary to achieve the fruits of Baptism." follow on organically from the following dogmatic statement?

(Council of Trent, Session VII, "Canons on Baptism", Can. 2) "If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism and thus twists into some metaphor the words of Our Lord Jesus Christ: Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, let him be anathema."

One contradicts the other therefore, one is correct and the other incorrect. Which one should we accept as correct?

Both are correct and there is no "contradiction" because attaining the fruits of baptism by “the laver of regeneration or the desire thereof” (Trent, Sess 6, Ch 4) has nothing to do with the condemned Protestant heresy which denies altogether that water is necessary for the efficacy of the sacrament. The Calvinists and Protestants deny that the Sacrament gives grace ex opere operator, that is, of the work itself, and this is the explicit heresy being condemned by Canon 2.

The Original and True Rheims New Testament of Anno Domini 1582, in its Annotation for John 3:5, says the following:

"THE GOSPEL OF SAINT JOHN
ANNOTATIONS
Chapter 3

     5. Born again of Water.] As no man can enter into this world nor have his life and being in the same, except he born of his carnal parents: no more can man enter into the life and state of grace which is in Christ, or attain to life everlasting, unless he be born and baptized of water and the Holy Ghost. Whereby we see first, this sacrament to be called our regeneration or second birth, in respect of our natural and carnal which was before. Secondly, that this sacrament consisteth of an external element of water, and internal virtue of the Holy Spirit: Wherein it excelleth John's baptism, which had the external element, but not the spiritual grace. Thirdly, that no man can enter into the Kingdom of God, nor into the fellowship of he Holy Church, without it.
     Whereby the Pelagians, and Calvinists be condemned, that promise life everlasting to young children that die without baptism, and all others that think only their faith to serve, or the external element of water superfluous or not necessary; our Saviour's words being plain and general. Though in this case, God which hath not bound His grace, in respect of his own freedom, to any Sacrament, may and doth accept them as baptized, which either are martyred before they could be baptized, or else depart this life with vow and desire to have the Sacrament, but some remediless necessity could not obtain it. Lastly, it is proved that this Sacrament giveth grace ex opere operator, that is, of the work itself (which all Protestants deny) because it so breedeth our spiritual life in God, as our carnal birth giveth the life of the world."

This Annotation was written just 19 years after the Council of Trent and just 16 years after the promulgation of the Catechism of Trent, the latter of which teaches:

“No one can doubt that the Sacraments are among the means of attaining righteousness and salvation … A Sacrament, he [St. Augustine] says, is a sign of a sacred thing; or, as it has been expressed in other words of the same import: A Sacrament is a visible sign of an invisible grace, instituted for our justification.”

"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."

What is it you do not understand?

The idea that the Church has “erred” these many centuries in the interpretation of her own dogmatic Canon 2 on baptism is not only absurd, it is pathetic to even make such an accusation with this “hierarchy of truths” model which is used to justify dissent and private interpretation.

Fatima for our times wrote:I think what should be accepted as correct is the ex cathedra, dogmatic proclamations and what is taught by the Catholic Church as divinely revealed in her Ordinary and Universal Magisterium.

Ah, and nothing else, least of all the authentic teachings of the Ordinary Magisterium which, allegedly, has this nasty habit of being in contradiction to her own dogmas of the faith.

Fatima for our times wrote:

Columba wrote:
(Council of Trent, Session VII, "Canons on Baptism", Can. 2) "If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism and thus twists into some metaphor the words of Our Lord Jesus Christ: Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, let him be anathema."

I know what you mean Columba. The baptism of desire/baptism of blood people love to try and explain away these clear and undeniable dogmas. I just do not understand why they do this. Maybe they just like to be stubborn.

On the contrary, we accept the dogmas of the Church precisely as the Church understands and presents them; unlike those who have the temerity to lecture the Church on the meaning of her own dogmas, thereby sweeping aside in one arrogant Protestant motion the entire body of teaching of the ordinary magisterium of the Church which has taught the same universal doctrine for centuries on end with not one voice of dissent on the accepted meaning of "the desire thereof". Well, that is until 1952 when Fr. Feeney would do a complete turnabout by "discovering" for the first time what the dogma on water baptism really means. 
 
Please, Fatima, go ahead and tell us that the Church is not only in error for presenting the following teachings, but by doing so she is so incompetent that she does not realize that these teachings are in "contradiction" to Canon 2 (on the necessity of clear and natural water for baptism) of the Council of Trent on Baptism.
 
Perhaps you can tell us if the following teachings (and the Church's consistent presentation and understanding of these same teachings) is what's known as "material heresy", or will you suggest that the Church indeed has no excuse for these manifest errors and is the apostate harlot we keep hearing about from others. I mean, think about it; what possible excuse could the Church have for so long and so flagrantly denying her own Canon 2 on the necessity of water for Baptism?
 
Good luck with that, but please do reply to the following teachings:

The Council of Trent: 
Session 6, Ch. 4: “And this translation [‘a translation … to the state of grace,’], 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.”

Session 7, Canon 4: “If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous; and that, without them, or without the desire thereof, men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification;-though all (the sacraments) are not indeed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema.”

Session 6, Chapter XVI: “… we must believe that nothing further is wanting to the justified, to prevent their being accounted to have, by those very works which have been done in God, fully satisfied the divine law according to the state of this life, and to have truly merited eternal life, to be obtained also in its (due) time, if so be, however, that they depart in grace…”

The Catechism of the Council of Trent, 1566:

“No one can doubt that the Sacraments are among the means of attaining righteousness and salvation … A Sacrament, he [St. Augustine] says, is a sign of a sacred thing; or, as it has been expressed in other words of the same import: A Sacrament is a visible sign of an invisible grace, instituted for our justification.”

"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."

The Douay Catechism of 1649
http://www.catecheticsonline.com/Catechetical_1649.php

The Douay Catechism of 1649
by Henry Tuberville, D.D.

CHAP. XI. Of the Sacraments in general.   

Baptism Expounded.

    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.
    Q. How prove you that?
    A. Out of John iii. 5. "Unless a man be born again of water, and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum: “In the same way in man, nothing is more internal than heavenly grace which begets sanctity, but the ordinary and chief means of obtaining grace are external: that is to say, the sacraments which are administered by men specially chosen for that purpose, by means of certain ordinances.”
 
1917 Code of Canon Law: “Baptism, the door and foundation of the Sacraments, in fact or at least in desire necessary unto salvation for all, is not validly conferred except through the ablution of true and natural water with the prescribed form of words.” (Canon 737)

New Code of Canon Law: “Baptism, the gateway to the sacraments, is necessary for salvation, either by actual reception or at least by desire. By it people are freed from sins, are born again as children of God and, made like to Christ by an indelible character, are incorporated into the Church. It is validly conferred only by a washing in real water with the proper form of words.” (Can. 849)

Holy Office Letter of 1949 to Archbishop Cushing, approved by Pope Pius XII: “In His infinite mercy God has willed that the effects, necessary for one to be saved, of those helps to salvation which are directed toward man's final end, not by intrinsic necessity, but only by divine institution, can also be obtained in certain circumstances when those helps are used only in desire and longing. This we see clearly stated in the Sacred Council of Trent, both in reference to the sacrament of regeneration and in reference to the sacrament of penance (<Denzinger>, nn. 797, 807).”

Pope Pius XII, Allocution to midwives, October 29, 1951: “Above all, the state of grace is absolutely necessary at the moment of death without it salvation and supernatural happiness—the beatific vision of God—are impossible. An act of love is sufficient for the adult to obtain sanctifying grace and to supply the lack of baptism; to the still unborn or newly born this way is not open.”

The Catechism of The Catholic Church:

1258 The Church has always held the firm conviction that those who suffer death for the sake of the faith without having received Baptism are baptized by their death for and with Christ. This Baptism of blood, like the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament.

1259 For catechumens who die before their Baptism, their explicit desire to receive it, together with repentance for their sins, and charity, assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive through the sacrament.

So tell us Fatima, what are we to do with all of these "stubborn" Popes and a morally universal consensus of "stubborn" saints, theologians and Doctors who have believed and taught the same doctrine since at least the Council of Trent?

"Stubborn" ... indeed.

MRyan wrote:Pope Pius XII, Allocution to midwives, October 29, 1951:

“Above all, the state of grace is absolutely necessary at the moment of death without it salvation and supernatural happiness—the beatific vision of God—are impossible. An act of love is sufficient for the adult to obtain sanctifying grace and to supply the lack of baptism; to the still unborn or newly born this way is not open.”

No, this is a speech to Italian midwives,.... a speech to Italian midwives is not infallible . A pope is infallible only when speaking from the Chair of Peter or reiterating what the Church has always taught in her ordinary and universal Magisterium. Pius XII’s speech to midwives doesn’t bind Catholics. The fact that popes can make mistakes in their fallible capacity is proven throughout Church history. For example, Pope John IV wrongly attempted to defend the heretical words of Pope Honorius, which were condemned by the III Council of Constantinople.

There are many more instances in the Church's history where Popes have made mistakes.

I think I have a question or two germaine to the subject at hand.

How do the internet hack-theologians who reduce Church doctrine to some sort of "dogmatic minimalism", know with certainty that they themselves understand these dogmatic statements in the correct sense, i.e., in the plain sense of the words? And by what authority do they put the living Church on trial, the very Church who issued these dogmatic decrees in the first place? I ask these questions because I used to be one of these Feeneybots who glommed onto the opinions of such Catholic luminaries as Feeney, Miller, Potter, and Malone. There was a certain perverse elitism associated with being included in this miniscule faction who alone carry the banner of doctrinal orthodoxy in the face of Church confusion and error. I'm just glad that God graced His Church with these folks in 1952, and that now the Church, and I, can learn from them. Clearly, the gates of Hell have prevailed the last 50+ years if the Church cannot even understand Her own dogma of salvation.

Catholic_Truth wrote:

MRyan wrote:Pope Pius XII, Allocution to midwives, October 29, 1951:

“Above all, the state of grace is absolutely necessary at the moment of death without it salvation and supernatural happiness—the beatific vision of God—are impossible. An act of love is sufficient for the adult to obtain sanctifying grace and to supply the lack of baptism; to the still unborn or newly born this way is not open.”

No, this is a speech to Italian midwives,.... a speech to Italian midwives is not infallible . A pope is infallible only when speaking from the Chair of Peter or reiterating what the Church has always taught in her ordinary and universal Magisterium. Pius XII’s speech to midwives doesn’t bind Catholics. The fact that popes can make mistakes in their fallible capacity is proven throughout Church history. For example, Pope John IV wrongly attempted to defend the heretical words of Pope Honorius, which were condemned by the III Council of Constantinople.

There are many more instances in the Church's history where Popes have made mistakes.

You mean the Allocution to "Italian" midwives would have been infallible if Pope Pius XII had addressed "German", or even better, "American" midwives"?

C_T, you are the quintessential example of why some Catholics should not be allowed to read heretical or even "rad-Trad" websites. You've understood nothing presented here on the teachings of the Church; to include the authoritative, living, and permanent Magisterium, which also includes the divine authority of her Ordinary Magisterium, regardless of whether if it is "infallible" or not; and you are only proving your total lack of comprehension with every post.

Neither do you understand what the Church "has always taught"; and your comment about Pope John IV is just one more example of your delving into areas and making foolish statements about subjects you cannot possibly understand.

Whatever, its no use even responding to you.

MRyan wrote:C_T, you are the quintessential example of why some Catholics should not be allowed to read heretical or even "rad-Trad" websites. You've understood nothing presented here on the teachings of the Church; to include the authoritative, living, and permanent Magisterium, which also includes the divine authority of her Ordinary Magisterium, regardless of whether if it is "infallible" or not; and you are only proving your total lack of comprehension with every post.

Neither do you understand what the Church "has always taught"; and your comment about Pope John IV is just one more example of your delving into areas and making foolish statements about subjects you cannot possibly understand.

Whatever, its no use even responding to you.

MRyan, you obviously could not respond with any substance to refute what I said, so you employed using personal attacks. Therefore, I will let your last post stand as is, since it reveals to everyone reading this thread more about you than about me . As a Catholic, I will only respond to you by saying I forgive you for your insults and ad hominem attacks against me.

How do the internet hack-theologians who reduce Church doctrine to some sort of "dogmatic minimalism", know with certainty that they themselves understand these dogmatic statements in the correct sense, i.e., in the plain sense of the words?

How can I know with certainty that I am not dreaming right now? Are you into Descartes now or something?

And by what authority do they put the living Church on trial, the very Church who issued these dogmatic decrees in the first place?

#1 Please define "living Church" ?

#2 The Church approves 3 Feeneyite communities and approves the chapel of a fourth.

Are you saying the Church is wrong for doing so?

I ask these questions because I used to be one of these Feeneybots who glommed onto the opinions of such Catholic luminaries as Feeney, Miller, Potter, and Malone. There was a certain perverse elitism associated with being included in this miniscule faction who alone carry the banner of doctrinal orthodoxy in the face of Church confusion and error.

Hmm, now he is "Feeney" and not Fr. Feeney? I hope you are aware that even MRyan and Fr. Harrison's positions are minuscule in the Church. Or do you disagree with them as well?

I guess you will have to inform the CDF and the Diocese of Worcestor that you have everything figured out and that they are in error for approving the Feeenyite communities. Hmm, but wait a minute then you would be guilty of saying you know more than the "living Church" which you accuse "Feeneybots" of doing.

I'm just glad that God graced His Church with these folks in 1952, and that now the Church, and I, can learn from them. Clearly, the gates of Hell have prevailed the last 50+ years if the Church cannot even understand Her own dogma of salvation.

So are you saying that this issue is 100% clear post-Vatican II? Do you now agree with Fr. Barron on this issue?

What exactly is your position now? Fr. Feeney was never excommunicated for doctrine (everyone will admit that.) Even MRyan said "Fr. Feeney never taught anything heretical".

So tell me Jim, what do I have to believe to be saved? What is your point?

MRyan wrote: morally universal consensus of "stubborn" saints, theologians and Doctors

What is the difference now between "morally universal" and "universal."

Is "morally universal" kind of a way of saying "most" or does it mean "all"?

Additionally you still have not answered my question from a previous thread in which I asked you if you would admit that if a person could show at least one theologian or saint that did NOT believe baptism of desire then it by definition would not be "universal".

So does "universal" mean all?

How do the internet hack-theologians

Clearly, the gates of Hell have prevailed the last 50+ years if the Church cannot even understand Her own dogma of salvation.

If everything were so clear you wouldn't have been coming to an internet forum in the first place : neither to Pascendi, nor to Angelqueen, nor to CAF, nor to RashaLampa, nor to MRyan.

If you had questions about the Faith you would go to your local parish priest or your local bishop and content yourself with their answers to your questions.

Roguegim:
How do the internet hack-theologians who reduce Church doctrine to some sort of "dogmatic minimalism", know with certainty that they themselves understand these dogmatic statements in the correct sense, i.e., in the plain sense of the words? And by what authority do they put the living Church on trial, the very Church who issued these dogmatic decrees in the first place?

Good question, Jim.

I noticed it was not answered, but was deflected.

I've asked that question of Protestants over the years as well. How do you know you are interpreting Sacred Scripture correctly when you are interpreting it apart from who the one official Church of Christ is interpreting it? And by what authority do Protestants interpret?

Rasha,
If everything were so clear you wouldn't have been coming to an internet forum in the first place : neither to Pascendi, nor to Angelqueen, nor to CAF, nor to RashaLampa, nor to MRyan.

If you had questions about the Faith you would go to your local parish priest or your local bishop and content yourself with their answers to your questions.

Rasha,

Are you saying that the only reason a person would have for coming on these websites is to find answers to their questions if they are confused?

I never have done that and I would suggest that internet message board forums are not the best place to find answers to questions about the faith, especially if one is confused. One can learn some things, but if someone is confused or has questions, message boards are not the best place and can be filled with errors by people with no authority, no matter how well meaning.

Some of us have several other reasons for being on message boards. And what about those of us who write on Protestant ones? We certainly aren't there to learn about our faith, but to help Protestants see the light. Wanting to be around like minded and faithful Catholics and read about the faith doesn't mean that one is confused or has questions.

[quote="Elisa"]

Are you saying that the only reason a person would have for coming on these websites is to find answers to their questions if they are confused?

I am saying no such thing but I know that Roguejim had such questions (as did I) because I participated in Pascendi's forum.

[quote="Elisa"]

I've asked that question of Protestants over the years as well. How do you know you are interpreting Sacred Scripture correctly when you are interpreting it apart from who the one official Church of Christ is interpreting it? And by what authority do Protestants interpret?

Your comparison with Protestants does not fit here. Scripture CAN be interpreted. Dogmatic statements ARE the interpretation of scripture.

Then do we also need an interpretation of the interpretation? Then do we need an interpretation of that as well?

Scripture is the remote rule of faith, the proximate rule of faith are the Dogmas of the Church.

RashaLampa wrote:Scripture is the remote rule of faith, the proximate rule of faith are the Dogmas of the Church.

Rasha, you are absolutely correct. A Catholic does not need any present theologian, scholar, doctor, saint, priest, bishop, cardinal and/or Pope to interpret what has already been infallibly declared. Its an insult to the Holy Spirit to claim that God has settled a matter of faith in an infallible statement, but the infallible statement is somehow ambiguous and needs "fallible" men to interpret it so that Catholics can understand it. God is not incompetent.

For example, a traditional Catholic accepts this infallible statement as it is written, "Outside the Church there is no salvation". However, a liberal modernist so called "catholic" will listen to the interpretation of today's present Church theologians, Priests, Bishops etc. and come to the conclusion that "Outside the Church there is no salvation" actually means "Salvation spills over from the Church to those outside the Church".

Woo this is turning into a perfect storm!
Rasha and CT,
don't you mean Scripture and Tradition are our remote sources of the faith but definitions by the Magisterium, in her binding documents, are immediate (not proximate?) sources of the Faith.

Catholic_Truth wrote:

RashaLampa wrote:Scripture is the remote rule of faith, the proximate rule of faith are the Dogmas of the Church.

Rasha, you are absolutely correct. A Catholic does not need any present theologian, scholar, doctor, saint, priest, bishop, cardinal and/or Pope to interpret what has already been infallibly declared. Its an insult to the Holy Spirit to claim that God has settled a matter of faith in an infallible statement, but the infallible statement is somehow ambiguous and needs "fallible" men to interpret it so that Catholics can understand it. God is not incompetent.

No, Rasha is not correct, he is only partially correct. It is from the very theology manuals you dismiss so cavalierly that we learn that the Rule for right believing is the Regula Fidei, or Rule of Faith, which is twofold: remote and proximate. The proximate rule for right believing is the Magisterium of the Church. The remote rule is the Deposit of the Faith, that is Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. The proximate rule of the magisterium is itself bound to uphold the remote rule, and can do no other, as VCI declared.

Your heresy is to accuse the Church of error and heresy for denying her own proximate rule of faith on the sacrament of baptism when she presents to the Faithful, through the supreme authority of a dogmatic Council, and more specifically through her authentic Ordinary Magisterium, the doctrine of baptism of blood/baptism of desire.

Yours is the heresy of Protestant private interpretation where you simply substitute dogmatic statements for Sacred Scripture and invoke some infallible competency in proclaiming that your "infallible" understanding is the only correct one. That you can actually state that you do not need the pope, through his authentic, living and permanent magisterium, to provide the correct interpretation to a defined dogma as the Church has always understood it, when it is opposed to your own understanding, is heresy, pure and simple.

The total incompetency of the Protestant styled dogmatic minimalists on this forum to properly "interpret" Trent's Canon 2, Session VII, On Baptism, as it was once declared and always understood by the Church, is case in point:

CANON II.-If any one saith, that true and natural water is not of necessity for baptism, and, on that account, wrests, to some sort of metaphor, those words of our Lord Jesus Christ; Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost; let him be anathema.

According to these dogmatic Fundamentalists, no sooner had the ink dried on Canon 2 that the Church and her theologians would suffer and continue to suffer right up to our present age the very anathema imposed by the Council for denying this Canon.

I have demonstrated why this sacred Canon is not at all opposed to the Church's doctrine on baptism of desire/baptism of blood by revealing the specific heresies of the Calvinists and Protestants that Trent was addressing.

I am still waiting for a response (there are those blasted crickets again) from those who so smugly accuse the Church of error and who so brazenly suggest that the Church is so incompetent in her authentic Ordinary Magisterial teachings that she does not realize that she condemns herself with the very same anathema she imposed at Trent with Canon 2 On Baptism.

Is this a Monty Python movie, or a Catholic forum?

Again, that you can accuse the teaching authority of the Church of being in error through her constant and persistent teachings that, allegedly, stand in direct and heretical "contradiction" to Canon 2 is all one needs to know about your (and others) competency in all such matters, and how little you understand about the "rule of faith".

Catholic_Truth wrote:
MRyan, you obviously could not respond with any substance to refute what I said, so you employed using personal attacks. Therefore, I will let your last post stand as is, since it reveals to everyone reading this thread more about you than about me . As a Catholic, I will only respond to you by saying I forgive you for your insults and ad hominem attacks against me.

Not at all, it is not that I cannot respond, its only that it will do no good. I have provided plenty of direct responses that you either ignored or simply dismissed, when it was obvious that your dismissal was due to a total lack of comprehension. As I said, you understand nothing of certain Catholic theological principles, and very little of the Magisterium, and have demonstrated that you simply cannot address these issues with anything resembling sound arguments. This is not a personal attack as you allege, but a simple dose of hard reality.

I tried to sum up the nature of this reality in my post previous to this one.

You may find it insulting that I simply throw my hands up in frustration at your comments, but beating my head against a wall is not one of my favorites pastimes.

The way I see it. The dogma of the Immaculate Conception and the dogma of the Asumption are never questioned beyond the words that were used to define them.
There is no need to interpret these as nothing in them requires any action from the believer other than the assent of faith.

When it comes to the dogma on Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus and the dogma on the necessity of Baptism, the definitions we are told require further clarification. Why should that be with both these dogmas? The answer imo is simple. Both these dogmas require an active response. I.E. One must become a member of the Catholic Church to be saved and in order to become a member one must be Baptised. Therefore an emotional dilemma ensues when one is aware that some family members or close friends are either unbaptised or Catholic only in name.

A road to salvation for such unbelievers in their current state of atheism, schism, heresy or apostasy is frantically sought as one does not like to imagine the consequences if they should not convert before death.
Rather than sound like a prat by telling them plainly that their souls are endanger of eternal damnation if they stay in their presnt state, we allow for various interpretations of the dogma that will somehow widen the narrow road without us having to introduce the embarrassing doctrine of hell.

This sentimental approach I see working in the CCC regarding Baptism and Salvation which somehow tries to counter the assertion of Our Lord, the apostles, the Doctors and Fathers that only the few are saved.

This new approach actually has the effect in practice of ensuring that the few that are saved become even fewer with the consolation for us being that "we" in our eagerness to embrace the new theology can absolve ourselves of the duty to draw souls to Christ (which obviously should mean, to His Church) and even go further and declare that all religions lead to salvation in their own way.

In the Acts of the Apostles this very question was asked by the people, "What must we do brothers to be saved?" Peter answered in one sentence. "You must believe and everyone of you must be baptised for the forgiveness of your sins."
But what is todays answer from the present day apostles?
You all know what it is.

In case anyone missed the warning by Pope Pius XI as quoted earlier in this thread I'll post it once more.

Pius XI wrote thus in Mortalium animos, of January 6, 1928, concerning interfaith encounters: "Such undertakings cannot, in any way, be approved by Catholics, since they are based on the erroneous opinion that all religions are more or less good and praiseworthy, in the sense that all equally, although in different ways, manifest and signify the natural and innate sentiment that carries us towards God and pushes us to recognize with respect His power. In truth, the partisans of this theory fall into a complete error, but what is more, in perverting the notion of the true religion, they repudiate it, and they fall step by step into naturalism and atheism."

baptism of desire we are told is restricted to catechumens but once the principle of the necessity of water baptism is compromised, the results are a foregone conclussion. It is now obvious to anyone who wishes to see, that all those other religions who are also on their way to salvation, must somehow receive baptism of desire to achieve this.
baptism of desire is a breach in the wall by which every heresy under the sun can gain access.

If believing this makes me an arrogant Trad then I accept the label and stay within the company of my primary school catachism teacher, my parents, grand parents and great grand parents. All of these believed in the absolute necessity of Baptism and the absolute necessity of being Catholic to be saved. If the new thinking is correct, then all these were wrong.

MRyan,
With all due respect, I think you might be setting up straw men in your arguments. The OP sets up that Feeneyites don't accept a hierarchy of truths, but the Feeneyites, from what I understand, are not debating that fact. They are saying there is a hierarchy of authority not truth. A Dogmatic definition is a higher authority than an explanation in an encyclical and the lower authority must be seen in light of the higher. Pius XII taught that what is unclear must be seen by what is clear and I think the Feeneyites are following this principle.

The second straw-man is saying they are Protestants by taking dogma as dogma. Columba well points out there is no debate on the Immaculate Conception--what did that definition mean?

My last problem with the MRyan, Jim, and Elisa is they are being unfair to say the Feeneyites are wrong because they are a minority because you alls position is too, if I understand it correctly, as I posted in the Fr. Barron video [link here]

Fr. Barron's position is the "official" stance of today's Church as I have witnessed from talking to my parish priest.
Plus by accepting the principle of the universal teaching of theologians as the prime criteria, seems to pose some problems, is the present Pope in heresy for rejecting Limbo? I mean Limbo seems pretty clear teaching of all theologians, until the 20th century, so is the CCC heretical for rejecting it?
Finally lets not forget, we is all here Catholics and better edumacated than most, and if we made up one parish it would be a pretty cool parish. Ok Dawgz

RashaLampa wrote:

MRyan wrote: morally universal consensus of "stubborn" saints, theologians and Doctors

What is the difference now between "morally universal" and "universal."

Is "morally universal" kind of a way of saying "most" or does it mean "all"?

Additionally you still have not answered my question from a previous thread in which I asked you if you would admit that if a person could show at least one theologian or saint that did NOT believe baptism of desire then it by definition would not be "universal".

So does "universal" mean all?

Universal does mean "all", but not necessarily professed by every man in every age or location; not, as we are talking about, if it pertains to a common non-revealed doctrine held of the Church. I don't remember your question, but I do remember that most of my responses are ignored. However, to answer your question, no, if one theologian or saint could be found who "rejected" baptism of desire/baptism of blood, this would not overturn the moral "universal" consensus of the teaching. "Moral" is just another way of saying the "common" consensus.

In fact, as theologians have taught, and Fr. Fenton wrote: "The unanimous teaching of the scholastic theologians has always been recognized as a norm of Catholic doctrine. It is unfortunate that today there should be some attempt to mislead people into imagining that it has ceased to be such a norm in the twentieth century." (The Teaching authority of The Theological Manuals)

Pope Pius IX confirmed this teaching in Tuas Libenter, when providing this reproof to those who rejected the common teachings of scholastic theology:

“Nor are we ignorant that in Germany there also prevailed a false opinion against the old school, and against the teaching of those supreme Doctors, whom the universal Church venerates because of their admirable wisdom and sanctity of life. But by this false opinion the authority of the Church itself is called into danger, especially since the Church, not only through so many continuous centuries has permitted that theological science be cultivated according to the method and the principles of these same Doctors, sanctioned by the common consent of all Catholic schools, but it [the Church] also very often extolled their theological doctrine with the highest praises, and strongly recommended it as a very strong buttress of faith and a formidable armory against its enemies.” Tuas libenter, 1863, DZ 1680.

Along the same lines, Fr. Adolphe Tanquerey taught the following:

The Ordinary and Universal Magisterium

A Manual of Dogmatic Theology, transl. by Rev. Msgr. John J. Byrnes, Desclee, New York, 1959, pp. 176-182.

3. The Agreement of the Fathers and of the Theologians

a. The Authority of the Fathers

b. Rules to be followed:

1) The morally unanimous agreement of the Fathers declaring that a doctrine is de fide is a certain argument of divine Tradition. Three conditions are necessary that an argument be considered certain: that it relate to a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals; that the testimony be free of doubt, that it be firm and that the Fathers declare positively that the doctrine is a doctrine of the Church; that the agreement of the Fathers be not mathematically but morally unanimous. For in this way the faith or belief of the universal Church can be certainly known. With these conditions posited, it can be said that the Fathers record the teaching of the universal Church. But the Church is infallible in teaching Christ’s doctrine.

Further, in order that an argument may be regarded as completely certain, the moral unanimity of the Fathers of one age is required and is sufficient. The Church at all times is indefectible and so in no age can it be guilty of error.

2) The testimony of one Father or of many Fathers in matters of faith and of morals is a probable argument, the force of which increases as the number and authority of the Fathers increase.

The Authority of Theologians

294 After the Patristic age Theologians arranged in logical order the doctrines contained in Scripture and in Tradition and they explained these doctrines with the help of philosophical reasoning. These theologians can be considered as witnesses to the faith or as private doctors. They should not be esteemed lightly no matter what the Protestants, Modernists or other adversaries alleged against them.

In regard to their authority the following rules should he admitted:

1. When theologians unanimously teach that something is not only true but also that it must be accepted in Catholic faith, such consensus on their part presents a certain argument;

2. If all proclaim some doctrine in regard to faith and morals as true or certain, it is rash to reject this doctrine;

3. If there is a division of opinion among the different schools, even if the theologians of one school hold their opinion as certain or as very close to faith, no obligation exists of accepting such an opinion.

All of the scholastic theologians held and still hold baptism of blood/baptism of desire as true or certain, and the Ordinary Magisterium has been teaching this same doctrine since the Council of Trent. Will all of this fall on deaf ears because the teaching is not "defined" as a revealed truth, even if it so closely related to the dogma of baptism that it cannot otherwise be false?

If history repeats itself, private interpretation will prevail and the authentic Ordinary Magisterium of "He who hears you, hears Me" will be sent packing, along with the universal moral consensus of the scholastic theologians (not to mention the common consensus of the medieval theologians).

Some things never change, but hope springs eternal.

MRyan, everything you said above would be fine if the Church hadn't condensed all of the scholastic theologians considerations into a simple dogmatic statemant.
The mechanisms by which the theologians form their views are complicated for sure (at least as far as the ordinary layman is concerned) but the Churches understanding of it can be stated in the most simple of terms.

If- as you maintain- the concenus of scholastic theologians on baptism of desire was practically universal, then the Church herself begs to differ and proclaims the opposite position when she defined the necessity of sacramental Baptism.

I know we are never going to agree on this.
My adherence to the dogma will always get in the way of me accepting your perceived developement of the same, and your adherence to the developement theory will always get in the way of you accepting the dogma as -what shall we say?-
Dogma!

columba wrote:MRyan, everything you said above would be fine if the Church hadn't condensed all of the scholastic theologians considerations into a simple dogmatic statemant.
The mechanisms by which the theologians form their views are complicated for sure (at least as far as the ordinary layman is concerned) but the Churches understanding of it can be stated in the most simple of terms.

If- as you maintain- the concenus of scholastic theologians on baptism of desire was practically universal, then the Church herself begs to differ and proclaims the opposite position when she defined the necessity of sacramental Baptism.

I know we are never going to agree on this.
My adherence to the dogma will always get in the way of me accepting your perceived developement of the same, and your adherence to the developement theory will always get in the way of you accepting the dogma as -what shall we say?-
Dogma!

And your argument falls apart the minute we examine the meaning of Trent's Canon 2 On Baptism. You actually would have us believe that the Church condemns herself with her own anathema by teaching Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood, which, you say, contradict a defined dogmatic Canon.

I say, with the Church, anathema sit to such a heretical proposition and understand the Canon precisely as the Church declared it and understands it as an anathema against the Protestant heresies on Baptism. That you cannot see or understand this vital distinction, because of your Protest Fundamentalist styled worldview, is your downfall. For some reason, you believe you are smarter than the Church and all of her saints and theologians.

You just keeping spouting the same “I hold to the dogma” while never once considering that you hold an errant interpretation of the dogma and that the authoritative, living and permanent Magisterium actually does know what she is talking about when she teaches through her Ordinary Magisterium on the doctrines of the ordinary and chief means of sanctification (Pope Leo XIII, etc.) and on baptism of blood and baptism of desire; which are so closely related to the dogma of baptism that they simply cannot in way way be opposed -- and in fact are integral to a correct understanding of the dogmas of salvation.

I notice that you simply cannot respond to my responses that contain actual magisterial teachings, and simply fall back on the stale mantra of private interpretation. It's the only think you have in your weak and porous arsenal.

I wish you had something better with which to justify your dissent; but it is not to be.

cowboy wrote:MRyan,
With all due respect, I think you might be setting up straw men in your arguments. The OP sets up that Feeneyites don't accept a hierarchy of truths, but the Feeneyites, from what I understand, are not debating that fact. They are saying there is a hierarchy of authority not truth. A Dogmatic definition is a higher authority than an explanation in an encyclical and the lower authority must be seen in light of the higher. Pius XII taught that what is unclear must be seen by what is clear and I think the Feeneyites are following this principle.

With all due respect, you are setting up a straw man to justify dissent from the Ordinary Magisterium of the Church with the suggestion that this same Magisterium can stand in open and continuous contradiction to her own supreme Magisterium, which is precisely the straw man and heresy I am knocking down.
 
If you can't respond to my responses, then don't present your opinion on what Jim or Elisa or anyone else have said. That is not my concern and they are more than capable of responding to your objections.
 
The fact that certain members of this forum do not understand the words of Trent's Canon 2 on Baptism as the Church understands it is not a straw man; it is a fact, and it is nothing less than smug Protestant private interpretation imposing itself over the Church's own. 
 

cowboy wrote: The second straw-man is saying they are Protestants by taking dogma as dogma. Columba well points out there is no debate on the Immaculate Conception--what did that definition mean?

Tell you what; I'll make this simple. Show me the ex cathedra "definition" that declares that no one can be saved without sacramental baptism. Show me the ex cathedra definition that says that the sacrament of baptism is the exclusive and only means of sanctification and salvation, and not the ordinary and chief means established by our Lord; as professed by Pope Leo XIII and other Pontiffs.
 
I'll be waiting.
 
Btw, let's take the Immaculate Conception as an example. If St. Thomas Aquinas and others errantly believed (as they did) that our Mother's flesh had to be stained with original sin prior to "ensoulment" and being made Immaculate, I would venture to say that by the 16th century there was a not a single theologian who still held to the understanding of St. Aquinas, even if "ensoulment" has never been "defined" as being instantaneous with conception. As such, the "moral consensus" would preclude anyone from denying this dogma as it was understood by the common consensus of her theologians (as Don Scotus understood it), even if it would not be defined for another three centuries. One could not be accused of "heresy" for denying the doctrine, but a severe censure and mortal sin would certainly be the justified penalties for opposing the Ordinary Magisterium and the moral common consensus of theologians.

Of course, a hard-core Feeneyite type would say that one remained free to "deny and reject" the "fallible non-defined" doctrine right up to the moment of its solemn definition.

cowboy wrote:My last problem with the MRyan, Jim, and Elisa is they are being unfair to say the Feeneyites are wrong because they are a minority because you alls position is too, if I understand it correctly, as I posted in the Fr. Barron video [link here]
Fr. Barron's position is the "official" stance of today's Church as I have witnessed from talking to my parish priest.

What does your opinion that Fr. Baron's stance represents the "official" stance of the Church have to do with any of this? It is not so much what Fr. Barron said, but what he did not say, and what he implied, that I find so objectionable; and so does the Church, if you bother to read what she actually teaches.

cowboy wrote:Plus by accepting the principle of the universal teaching of theologians as the prime criteria, seems to pose some problems, is the present Pope in heresy for rejecting Limbo? I mean Limbo seems pretty clear teaching of all theologians, until the 20th century, so is the CCC heretical for rejecting it?

 
Cowboy, do even read these posts? First of all, no one said that the universal teaching of theologians is the "prime criteria" for accepting baptism of desire; the teaching authority of the Church is the  "prime criteria".

And I don't remember where the present pope or the CCC "rejected Limbo". Where do you come up with this stuff?

MRyan wrote:
Tell you what; I'll make this simple. Show me the ex cathedra "definition" that declares that no one can be saved without sacramental baptism. Show me the ex cathedra definition that says that the sacrament of baptism is the exclusive and only means of sanctification and salvation, and not the ordinary and chief means established by our Lord; as professed by Pope Leo XIII and other Pontiffs.
 
I'll be waiting.

Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Session 6, Chap. 7 on Justification, ex cathedra: “… the instrumental cause [of Justification] is the Sacrament of Baptism, which is the ‘Sacrament of Faith,’ without faith no one is ever justified… This Faith , in accordance with Apostolic Tradition, catechumens beg of the Church before the Sacrament of Baptism, when they ask for ‘faith which bestows life eternal,’ (Rit. Rom., Ordo Baptismi).”

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra:
“nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed his blood in the name of Christ , unless he has persevered in the bosom and the unity of the catholic church."

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 .” DZ 696

Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, Nov. 18, 1302, ex cathedra:
“With Faith urging us we are forced to believe and to hold the one, holy, Catholic Church and that, apostolic, and we firmly believe and simply confess this Church outside of which there is no salvation NOR REMISSION OF SIN …”


Neither Baptism of Desire nor Baptism of Blood is considered to be the Sacrament of Baptism. The Church teaches that only WATER baptism is the Sacrament of baptism...
Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, Sess. 7, Can. 5 on the Sacrament of Baptism, ex cathedra: “If anyone says that baptism (the Sacrament) is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation (cf. Jn. 3:5): let him be anathema.”


Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, Can. 2 on the Sacrament of Baptism, Sess. 7, 1547, ex cathedra: “ 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’ [John 3:5], are distorted into some sort of metaphor : let him be anathema.”

Pope Clement V, Council of Vienne, 1311-1312, ex cathedra: “Besides, one baptism which regenerates all who are baptized in Christ must be faithfully confessed by all just as ‘one God and one faith’ [Eph. 4:5], which celebrated in WATER in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit we believe to be commonly the perfect remedy for salvation for adults as for children.”

Why can’t you just except the fact that YOUR interpretation of these dogmas is wrong (not the Church). You love to think you are right all the time, I understand that, but why don’t you just take a seat in this one. Your unravels on this issue have already been proven to be incorrect from previous threads on this forum. Btw that statement I left on my last thread for columba was not thrown at you by any means, but I can see why it would upset you, since you are one of those baptism of blood/baptism of desire people, unfortunately.

How many baptisms do you confess anyway Mryan? If you are a Catholic you would confess one baptism celebrated in water.

MRyan wrote:
The Council of Trent:
Session 6, Ch. 4: “And this translation [‘a translation … to the state of grace,’], 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.”

What’s your point? You have just contradicted yourself and proved my position to be correct by this very dogma of Trent. Maybe I am mistaken here, but does it not state above that “the promulgation of the Gospel, CANNOT BE EFFECTED, WITHOUT the lever 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.”

You just don’t get it, or maybe you are just being “stubborn” that in this passage, the Council of Trent teaches that John 3:5 is to be taken as it is written (Latin: sicut scriptum est), which hinders any contingency of salvation without being born again of water in the Sacrament of Baptism. There isn’t any way that baptism of desire can be true if John 3:5 is to be taken as it is written, as it states in John 3:5 that every man must be born again of water and the Spirit to be saved, which is what the postulate of baptism of desire prohibits. The theory of baptism of desire and an interpretation of John 3:5 as it is written are correlatively restricted (they cannot both be true at the same time).

If John 3:5 is to be taken AS IT IS WRITTEN, then we must understand the translation above which you bring forward from the Council of Trent as to mean: a person must have both intentions to be baptized. First to have the desire for the sacrament and then to receive it.

Here is another translation of this dogma:

Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Sess. 6, Chap. 4: “In these words there is suggested a description of the justification of the impious, how there is a transition from that state in which a person is born as a child of the first Adam to the state of grace and of adoption as sons of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ our savior; indeed, this transition, once the gospel has been promulgated, CANNOT TAKE PLACE WITHOUT the laver of regeneration or a desire for it, AS IT IS WRITTEN: Unless a man is born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God (John 3:5).”

Ah, why does Trent define that the desire for Baptism, along with Baptism, is essential for Justification? A further examination of the passage conveys that in this chapter Trent is defining what is necessary for the iustificationis impii – the justification of the impious (see citation above). The impii (“impious”) does not refer to infants – who are incapable of committing actual sins (Trent, Sess. V, Denz. 791). The word “impii” in Latin is genuinely an exceedingly potent word; it is too strong to portray an infant in original sin only. It is sometimes translated as “wicked” or “sinner.” Therefore, in this chapter, Trent is dealing with those above the age of reason who have committed actual sins, and for such persons the desire for baptism is necessary for Justification. In fact, the next few chapters of Trent on Justification (Chaps. 5-7) are all about adult Justification, further demonstrating that the Justification of adult sinners is the context, especially when the word impii is considered. That is why the chapter defines that Justification cannot take place without the water of baptism or the desire for it (both are imperative).

Catechism of the Council of Trent, On Baptism - Dispositions for Baptism, p. 180: “INTENTION - ... In the first place they must desire and intend to receive it…”

As for the rest of your argument, well, I think Catholic_Truth has already demonstrated that for me in a more straight forward way.

MRyan wrote:
So tell us Fatima, what are we to do with all of these "stubborn" Popes and a morally universal consensus of "stubborn" saints, theologians and Doctors who have believed and taught the same doctrine since at least the Council of Trent?

It is You that has twisted these teachings of the Popes, saints, theologians and Doctors to your own way of thinking.

1 Cor. 11:19: “For there must be also heresies: that they also, who are approved, may be manifest among you.”

After reading the undeniable, ex cathedra, dogmatic, Catholic facts that CT presented on his last thread, you will probably still try and find away to take a swipe at them. God allows heresies to arise in order to see who will believe the truth and who will not, to see who will look at the truth sincerely and who will pervert things to suit his own heretical desires.

Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, canons on the Sacrament of Baptism, Session 7, canon 2, ex cathedra: “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’ [John 3], are distorted into some sort of metaphor: let him be anathema.”

MRyan sadly you have placed yourself under the anathema of this Sacred Canon.

What astounds me most about these discussions is that MRyan has more patience for them than I do. LOL

Fatima,
I wonder if you realize that all the condescending things you’ve said to us here could be applied back to you. That he “loves to think he is right all the time” and he should “take a seat on this one.” That he has been “proven to be incorrect on previous threads,” when that is farthest from the truth. You also said that he “confesses more than one baptism,” when he has clearly said there is only one, in sacramental form or another form ordained by God.

That he “just doesn’t get it” and that he is “stubborn.” And then you quote 1 Corinthians implying he is a manifest heretic. That he doesn’t want to “look at truth sincerely” and that God Himself wants to show that Mike “will pervert things to suit his own heretical desires.” And I know you think that all applies to me and others here.

Wow – hope that all made you feel better and more secure in your beliefs to dismiss his lengthy posts so easily and turn a blind eye.

They were unnecessary to say. It might help your case more if you stick to facts (of which you show none) instead of insults and private interpretation.

Obviously Mike will do a better and more thorough job than I could in responding to you. But I wish to mention one glaring error in your private interpretation that even you should concede when you look at it again.

Fatima for our times:
If John 3:5 is to be taken AS IT IS WRITTEN, then we must understand the translation above which you bring forward from the Council of Trent as to mean: a person must have both intentions to be baptized. First to have the desire for the sacrament and then to receive it.

Trent and the other authoritative statements do not say baptism of water AND the desire thereof. It says baptism OR the desire thereof. It is not saying that first one needs the desire followed by the water. (although obviously an adult baptism must be sincere.) It is saying that at rare times that do not follow the norm, such as martyrdom or sudden death, the desire and intent for baptism alone can suffice. God may or may not baptize the person in another realm with or without His own holy water, but visibly here on earth, some may not receive the sacrament from a human hand.

Nice try though to dismiss the clear statement repeated by the Church in her authoritative teachings on baptism – “OR THE DESIRE THEREOF.” Don’t know how you will dismiss it now.

I will leave the “justification” thing to Mike. Again, Trent and the other formal teachings say OR, not AND.

This is what happens when a person with no authority interprets Sacred Tradition differently and apart from the way the Church interprets it. Mike has not interpreted it HIS way (as you said), but is following how the Church interprets Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture.

Just like Protestants try and interpret John 3:5 privately and differently from the Church and incorrectly, so as to mean that the water only means the fluid in a mother’s womb and it doesn’t mean water baptism is necessary. So too, you are interpreting John 3:5 privately and differently from the Church and incorrectly to mean that the sincere desire for that baptism along with charity and faith can not ever suffice, even in rare times ordained by God that do not follow the norm. When for centuries the Church has said in all her authoritative teachings that it can suffice.

Got to go. Will have to get back to Rasha on the other things another time. I worked yesterday instead if today because of the snow and ice and it’s doing nothing now.

Have a good day and God bless you all.
Love,
Elisa

Please see this thread:
https://catholicforum.forumotion.com/t220-everyone-please-read-related-to-the-rules#1412

Oh, and its already been shown numerous times in this Forum that you baptism of desire supporters are purposely mistranslating what Trent said in order to perpetuate the false teaching of baptism of desire, so I find it rather funny how you and Mryan continue to try to use Trent as evidence to support your false nonCatholic teachings. As for all the other quotes you baptism of desire supporters attempt to provide as evidence, ...well lets just say that a stack of "fallible" quotes piled as high as the moon is squashed by just ONE INFALLIBLE STATEMENT. We Feeneyites accept the unambiguous infallible teachings revealed to us by the Holy Spirit, while you baptism of desire defenders reject the infallible teachings of the Catholic Church as they were originally taught, and instead you attempt to redefine them in the name of a "DEEPER UNDERSTANDING" .

The Holy Council of Vatican I teaches that "the doctrine of Faith that God has revealed, was not proposed to the minds of men as a philosophical and scientific discovery to be perfected, but as the divine deposit, entrusted to the Spouse of Christ that she might faithfully keep it and infallibly define it . Consequently, the meaning of the sacred apostolic teachings which must always be preserved, is that which our Holy Mother the Church has determined. Never is it permissible to depart from this in the name of a "DEEPER UNDERSTANDING" (Dogmatic Constitution Dei Filius, Dz.1800).


I fear for your souls since you both continue to be obstinant in your rejection of already established infallible dogmatic teachings of the Church. I'll pray for you both to come back to the true traditional Holy Catholic Apostolic faith.

Fatima for our times wrote:Why can’t you just except the fact that YOUR interpretation of these dogmas is wrong (not the Church). You love to think you are right all the time, I understand that, but why don’t you just take a seat in this one. Your unravels on this issue have already been proven to be incorrect from previous threads on this forum. Btw that statement I left on my last thread for columba was not thrown at you by any means, but I can see why it would upset you, since you are one of those baptism of blood/baptism of desire people, unfortunately.

Fatima, you are spouting heterodoxy; but this does not surprise me since it is obvious that you recognize no authority but your own.

In fact, when you say that my interpretation is wrong, when I have cited nothing but word-for-word Magisterial teachings in support of “my interpretation”, and then tell me that these same word-for-word Magisterial teachings are not that of the Church, we know that you do not have the Truth in you.

Only someone immersed in non-Catholic thinking would accuse the Church of teaching heresy and then hide behind his private interpretations as if he actually knows what he is talking about. Why you wish to associate with a heretical sect of nutty Gnostics is beyond me.

God did not hand you the Deposit of Faith, or grant you the authority to “interpret” Scripture or the meaning of the Church’s “once declared’ dogmas in stated opposition to the Church’s own understanding “as it is written”.

St. Augustine, in response to the private authority of Manichaeus, wrote, “For my part, I should not believe the gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church.” And “For the names of the apostles, as there recorded, do not include the name of Manichaeus" [or Fatima of our times].

Fatima for our times wrote:How many baptisms do you confess anyway Mryan? If you are a Catholic you would confess one baptism celebrated in water.

I confess one baptism celebrated in water, which “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit we believe to be COMMONLY the perfect remedy for salvation for adults as for children.”

I also hold with Pope Leo XIII and the Church that “In the same way in man, nothing is more internal than heavenly grace which begets sanctity, but the ordinary and chief means of obtaining grace are external: that is to say, the sacraments which are administered by men specially chosen for that purpose, by means of certain ordinances.” (Satis Cognitum)

I also hold with the Church that “Baptism, the door and foundation of the Sacraments, in fact or at least in desire necessary unto salvation for all, is not validly conferred except through the ablution of true and natural water with the prescribed form of words.” (Canon 737, 1917 Code of Canon Law)

I also hold with the Church that “No one can doubt that the Sacraments are among the means of attaining righteousness and salvation” and “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." (Catechism of the Council of Trent)

In other words, I hold to all of the Church’s doctrines as she understands them and has always held them; unlike some people who believe they are smarter than the Church.

Fatima for our times wrote:

MRyan wrote:
The Council of Trent:

Session 6, Ch. 4: “And this translation [‘a translation … to the state of grace,’], 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.”

What’s your point? You have just contradicted yourself and proved my position to be correct by this very dogma of Trent. Maybe I am mistaken here, but does it not state above that “the promulgation of the Gospel, CANNOT BE EFFECTED, WITHOUT the lever 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.”

Maybe you are mistaken? You mean “maybe” your private “position” is wrong and the constant teaching of the Ordinary Magisterium, as well as the unanimous opinion of the Scholastic theologians, saints and Doctors just might be correct? Why would such a novel thought ever cross your mind when you seem to have been given the authority to interpret Scripture and the dogmas of the Church, especially when they stand in alleged opposition to the Church’s own "heretical" presentation and understanding?

Fatima for our times wrote:You just don’t get it, or maybe you are just being “stubborn” that in this passage, the Council of Trent teaches that John 3:5 is to be taken as it is written (Latin: sicut scriptum est), which hinders any contingency of salvation without being born again of water in the Sacrament of Baptism. There isn’t any way that baptism of desire can be true if John 3:5 is to be taken as it is written, as it states in John 3:5 that every man must be born again of water and the Spirit to be saved, which is what the postulate of baptism of desire prohibits. The theory of baptism of desire and an interpretation of John 3:5 as it is written are correlatively restricted (they cannot both be true at the same time).

If John 3:5 is to be taken AS IT IS WRITTEN, then we must understand the translation above which you bring forward from the Council of Trent as to mean: a person must have both intentions to be baptized. First to have the desire for the sacrament and then to receive it.

Wonderful, “There isn’t any way that baptism of desire can be true if John 3:5 is to be taken as it is written”; never mind what the Church teaches and never mind that your private interpretation is opposed to the unanimous interpretation of the approved Scholastics who understood a thing or two about medieval Latin and understood this passage in the exact same sense as the Church has always understood it.

So now you are an expert in medieval ecclesiastical Latin? You are amazing.

The fact of the matter is that the Church has never held “aut” in the inclusive “and” sense. In other words, “precise scholastic Latin from the twelfth century on certainly held a distinction between vel and aut, and therefore it is fatuous to hold that the Fathers of the Council of Trent wrote in such a careless style as to intend a conjunctive meaning of aut.” (J. Arnobius, professional medieval Latinist)

Said another way, "Baptismus, ianua sacramentorum, in re vel saltem in voto ad salutem necessarius." (can. 849); meaning: "Baptism, the gateway to the sacraments, is necessary for salvation, either by actual reception or at least by desire."

“Maybe” you are wrong; and the Church and her saints and theologians might be correct? Oh, perish such a heretical notion!

Fatima for our times wrote:Ah, why does Trent define that the desire for Baptism, along with Baptism, is essential for Justification?

Why? Simple; because no one (adults) can be justified without a positive consent (act) of the will. In other words, like the theological virtues of Faith and Charity, the vow/intention/desire for baptism is intrinsic to justification and no adult can be justified without it. What is so difficult about that?

Sacramental ablution, as the Church teaches, is the instrumental, ordinary, common and chief means of effecting this same translation or regeneration/re-birth into Christ; and, as the Church teaches, for the un-baptized Martyr, and when necessity prevents reception of the instrumental means of sanctification, “their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness."

And this is what you call “heresy” … “For there must be also heresies: that they also, who are approved, may be manifest among you.” Isn’t that correct?

Like I asked columba, is it lonely at the top? He said no, but it might be time to upgrade to a double-wide.

Fatima for our times wrote:As for the rest of your argument, well, I think Catholic_Truth has already demonstrated that for me in a more straight forward way.

C_T hasn’t demonstrated anything except that he is not of “the truth”; and has no respect for the divine Institution established by our Lord for the perennial and infallible presentation of that Truth. You, C_T and columba constantly and shamelessly accuse the Church of being under the very same condemnations the Church makes against those who would pervert her truths. For example, as VCI declared:

for those who have accepted the faith under the guidance of the Church can never have any just cause for changing this faith or for calling it into question.

And that is precisely what the three of you are guilty of, calling into question the faith of the Church by refusing her guidance and denying her authority over her own doctrines when they are opposed to your private interpretations.

VCI had all such “experts” (who are smarter than the Church) in mind when she declared:

8. With this impiety spreading in every direction, it has come about, alas, that many even among the children of the Catholic Church have strayed from the path of genuine piety, and as the truth was gradually diluted in them, their Catholic sensibility was weakened. Led away by diverse and strange teachings and confusing nature and grace, human knowledge and divine faith, they are found to distort the genuine sense of the dogmas which Holy mother Church holds and teaches, and to endanger the integrity and genuineness of the faith.

Oh no, you protest, you and your little cadre of "true believers" hold the genuine sense of the dogmas; and it is the fallible CHURCH, which has, ever since the close of Trent, been “Led away by diverse and strange teachings” and “confusing … human knowledge and divine faith, they [the authoritative, living and permanent Magisterium, with her her saints and theologians] are found to distort the genuine sense of the dogmas which Holy mother Church holds and teaches, and to endanger the integrity and genuineness of the faith.”

So, you would have us believe, it is the Church condemning the Church; or the "supreme Magisterium" condemning the constant teaching of the "ordinary Magisterium" and the common opinion of the saints and theologians, while you stand above the fray with the "true Church" and your little band of "true believers". I get it; and will have no part of it.

And this same Magisterium that presided over VCII, declared at VCI:

Thus she can never cease from witnessing to the truth of God which heals all and from declaring it, for she knows that these words were directed to her: My spirit which is upon you, and my words which I have put in your mouth, shall not depart out of your mouth from this time forth and for evermore.”

But, it only get better:

Fatima for our times wrote:

MRyan wrote:
So tell us Fatima, what are we to do with all of these "stubborn" Popes and a morally universal consensus of "stubborn" saints, theologians and Doctors who have believed and taught the same doctrine since at least the Council of Trent?

It is You that has twisted these teachings of the Popes, saints, theologians and Doctors to your own way of thinking.

1 Cor. 11:19: “For there must be also heresies: that they also, who are approved, may be manifest among you.”

That really says it all. You have nothing with which to answer the Magisterial teachings of the Church, cited here over and over again; so you pretend that either they do no exist, or they actually represent the “heresies” (since they “oppose” the Church’s own dogmas) that “must be” so that the “true believers” among you will know that your little Remnant is where the “true Church” can be found; as it cannot be found in that heretical Church in Rome which has been “manifesting” these “heresies” since the Council of Trent.

Sure. You make a very convincing argument. Not.

Fatima for our times wrote:After reading the undeniable, ex cathedra, dogmatic, Catholic facts that CT presented on his last thread, you will probably still try and find away to take a swipe at them. God allows heresies to arise in order to see who will believe the truth and who will not, to see who will look at the truth sincerely and who will pervert things to suit his own heretical desires.

Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, canons on the Sacrament of Baptism, Session 7, canon 2, ex cathedra: “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’ [John 3], are distorted into some sort of metaphor: let him be anathema.”

MRyan sadly you have placed yourself under the anathema of this Sacred Canon.

I don’t have to take a “swipe” at them, for not one of these dogmatic declarations cited by C_T or you “declares that the sacrament of baptism is the exclusive and only means of sanctification and salvation, and not the ordinary and chief means established by our Lord; as professed by Pope Leo XIII and other Pontiffs.”

Now, either St. Leo XIII, Pope Pius XII, etc, etc, etc, are guilty of “manifesting” heresies, or you, C-T and columba are the ones perverting the Truth.

The answer is clear, and incontrovertible. We still have a living Church possessing the same full and supreme Primacy over the Church’s doctrines, laws and disciplines as was bestowed directly upon the person of Peter and has been exercising that same authority ever since. And, contrary to the perverted belief of some, this authority and divine assistance does not reside in the confused minds of fallible men who dare to accuse the See of Peter of being stained with error and with manifesting heresies.

As the Church declared, Anathema sit to such heretical nonsense!

anathema ate my homework

Catholic_Truth wrote:
Oh, and its already been shown numerous times in this Forum that you baptism of desire supporters are purposely mistranslating what Trent said in order to perpetuate the false teaching of baptism of desire, so I find it rather funny how you and Mryan continue to try to use Trent as evidence to support your false nonCatholic teachings.

Words cannot adequately convey the spectacle of a layman who doesn't understand a lick of Latin or the common understanding of the Church and her saints and theologians -- who so arrogantly believes that the Church has “mistranslated” her own dogmatic teaching and has been teaching "heresy" for all of these centuries because she is not as smart as you know who.

Catholic_Truth wrote:
As for all the other quotes you baptism of desire supporters attempt to provide as evidence, ...well lets just say that a stack of "fallible" quotes piled as high as the moon is squashed by just ONE INFALLIBLE STATEMENT.

And to think those “attempted” quotes which represent the constant, authentic and Ordinary teaching of the Magisterium are nothing more than throw-away heresies which are “squashed” by C-T's errant understanding of just ONE INFALLIBLE STATEMENT.

One cannot make this stuff up.

Catholic_Truth wrote:
We Feeneyites accept the unambiguous infallible teachings revealed to us by the Holy Spirit, while you baptism of desire defenders reject the infallible teachings of the Catholic Church as they were originally taught, and instead you attempt to redefine them in the name of a "DEEPER UNDERSTANDING" .

Yes, C_T actually said:

We Feeneyites accept the unambiguous infallible teachings revealed to us by the Holy Spirit.

Just like “Protestants accept the unambiguous infallible teachings of Scripture revealed to us by the Holy Spirit.”

Yep, that's sums up your position perfectly.

Catholic_Truth wrote: The Holy Council of Vatican I teaches that "the doctrine of Faith that God has revealed, was not proposed to the minds of men as a philosophical and scientific discovery to be perfected, but as the divine deposit, entrusted to the Spouse of Christ that she might faithfully keep it and infallibly define it . Consequently, the meaning of the sacred apostolic teachings which must always be preserved, is that which our Holy Mother the Church has determined. Never is it permissible to depart from this in the name of a "DEEPER UNDERSTANDING" (Dogmatic Constitution Dei Filius, Dz.1800).

Then why have you departed from the meaning of apostolic teaching which Holy Mother the Church has determined? You are accusing the authentic, living and permanent Magisterium of the Church of defecting from the Faith by not faithfully keeping the same meaning of a dogma as she defined it. And this “defection” has been going on since the close of Trent. Just one more of those “amazing” heresies of the “apostate” Church!

You are accusing the Ordinary Magisterium of the Church (He who hears you, hears Me) of heresy.

As such, you are spreading heresy. In the same way that you arrogantly boast that the infallible teachings have been “revealed to us by the Holy Spirit”, you have taken VCI completely out of context and given it a heterodox meaning of your own twisted creation. If you had actually read and attempted to understand the dogmatic Dogmatic Constitutions on the Catholic Faith and on the Church, you would know that you are spewing utter nonsense.

VCI:

Everybody knows that those heresies, condemned by the fathers of Trent, which rejected the divine magisterium of the Church and allowed religious questions to be a matter for the judgment of each individual, have gradually collapsed into a multiplicity of sects, either at variance or in agreement with one another; and by this means a good many people have had all faith in Christ destroyed.

Which sect do you belong to, again?

VCI:

And so we, following in the footsteps of our predecessors, in accordance with our supreme apostolic office, have never left off teaching and defending Catholic truth and condemning erroneous doctrines.

This is the teaching of the Catholic truth, and no one can depart from it without endangering his faith and salvation.

For the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles.

For the doctrine of the faith which God has revealed is put forward not as some philosophical discovery capable of being perfected by human intelligence, but as a divine deposit committed to the spouse of Christ to be faithfully protected and infallibly promulgated.

Hence, too, that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by Holy mother Church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding.

May understanding, knowledge and wisdom increase as ages and centuries roll along, and greatly and vigorously flourish, in each and all, in the individual and the whole Church: but this only in its own proper kind, that is to say, in the same doctrine, the same sense, and the same understanding

The Church does not condemn the idea of coming to a deeper understanding of her doctrines; in fact, she is quite specific in declaring that there will be in an increase in understanding, knowledge and wisdom as the “centuries roll along”, but always "in its own proper kind, that is to say, in the same doctrine, the same sense, and the same understanding."

It is not the Magisterium of the Church that can “abandon” the true sense of her own doctrines, but only those who kick aside the “divine magisterium of the Church and allow religious questions to be a matter for the judgment of each individual”.

Pay attention, VCI is talking to you, and not to herself.

Catholic_Truth wrote: I fear for your souls since you both continue to be obstinant in your rejection of already established infallible dogmatic teachings of the Church. I'll pray for you both to come back to the true traditional Holy Catholic Apostolic faith.

Oh please, this is too much. All I can say is, get the double-wide; the trailer might be getting a bit crowded.

Elisa,

Elisa wrote:
I wonder if you realize that all the condescending things you’ve said to us here could be applied back to you. That he “loves to think he is right all the time” and he should “take a seat on this one.”

Maybe you are right Elisa. I think all of us would like to think we are correct in how we understand Church teaching, going by how we are supposed to understand it, by how the Church understands it, which is how we are supposed to understand it. But some of us here don’t seem to understand it that way. As far as “take a seat in this one” goes, I think I’ll stay and defend this dogma of the faith and see if i can help some people out

Elisa wrote:
You also said that he “confesses more than one baptism,”

I’m sorry Alisa, but I never said that. I asked him:

Fatima wrote:
How many baptisms do you confess anyway Mryan? If you are a Catholic you would confess one baptism celebrated in water.

Elisa wrote:
Wow – hope that all made you feel better and more secure in your beliefs to dismiss his lengthy posts so easily and turn a blind eye.

I wouldn’t like to think that you hoped that my last thread made me feel ‘better” and more “secure” in my beliefs if you think that I am in error. Show some charity Elisa. I hope the opposite for you and others.

Elisa wrote:
They were unnecessary to say. It might help your case more if you stick to facts (of which you show none) instead of insults and private interpretation.

And what, the sly remarks from the other guy are necessary. He’s always throwing cheap shots, he is always putting out sarcasm in his replays and I can see that a certain person is starting to do the same. Okay, i suppose a bit of humor isn't all that bad.

Every thing that I have stated is fact, and nothing less, clear cut ex cathedra dogmas that you and your friend reject. Such as:

Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, canons on the Sacrament of Baptism, Session 7, canon 2, ex cathedra: “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’ [John 3], are distorted into some sort of metaphor: let him be anathema.”

If I have insulted you in any way I apologize Elisa, I did not set out to do that to any one. Well, maybe I did a little, which I am sorry for now and since I have offended at least one person with my remarks I will try and keep my cool so long as every one plays fair. But I must stand up for the truth.

Elisa wrote:
Trent and the other authoritative statements do not say baptism of water AND the desire thereof. It says baptism OR the desire thereof. It is not saying that first one needs the desire followed by the water. (although obviously an adult baptism must be sincere.)

The word “or” in Latin translates to “aut” and “aut” can also translate in English to mean “and.” In Fact the Latin word aut was also used in a similar way in other passages in the Council of Trent and other Councils. In the famous Bull Cantate Domino from the Council of Florence, we find the Latin word aut (“or”) used in a context which definitely renders it meaning “and.”

Elisa wrote:
Nice try though to dismiss the clear statement repeated by the Church in her authoritative teachings on baptism – “OR THE DESIRE THEREOF.” Don’t know how you will dismiss it now.

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 [aut] or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only those who abide in it do the Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia productive of eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”

We see here the Council of Florence using the word “or” (aut) to have a signification that is equal to “and.” The Council proclaims that not only pagans, but also Jews or (aut) heretics and schismatics cannot be saved. Does this indicate that either Jews or heretics will be saved? Not at all. It plainly means that none of the Jews and none of the heretics can be saved. Thus, this is an illustration of a context in which the Latin word aut (or) does have a meaning that is clearly “and.”

Correlatively, in the preamble to the decree on Justification, the Council of Trent unbending outlaws anyone to “believe, preach or teach” (credere, praedicare aut docere) other than as it is established and proclaimed in the decree on Justification.

Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Sess. 6, Introduction: “… strictly forbidding that anyone henceforth may presume to believe, preach or teach, otherwise than is defined and declared by this present decree.”

Do you say that “or” (aut) in the previous tour means that one is only hostile to preach opposite to the Council’s decree on Justification, but one is allowed to teach contrary to it? No, obviously “or” (aut) means that both preaching and teaching are forbidden, it is the same in Session 6, chapter 4; “or” means that justification cannot take place without both water and desire. Another example of the use of aut to mean “and” (or “both”) in Trent is found in Sess. 21, Chap. 2, the decree on Communion under both species (Denz. 931).

Pope Pius IV, Council of Trent, Sess. 21, Chap. 2: “Therefore holy mother Church… has decreed that it be considered as a law, which may not be repudiated or be changed at will without the authority of the Church.”

Does aut in this declaration mean that the Council’s decree may not be repudiated, but it may be changed? It does not, undoubtedly it means that both repudiation and a change are forbidden. This is another example of how the Latin word aut can be used in contexts which render its meaning “and” or “both.” And these examples, when one considers the wording of the passage, falsify the claim of baptism of desire adherents: that the meaning of aut in Chapter 4, Session 6 is one which serves baptism of desire.

Elisa wrote:
I will leave the “justification” thing to Mike.

Why direct threads at me then? Are you unable to respond? Why not just leave the “justification thing” up to yourself?

I will leave you with these teachings to contemplate on:

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.”

This means that Our Lord Jesus Christ’s assertion that no man can be saved without being born again of water and the Holy Ghost is a verbatim dogma of the Catholic Faith. It absolutely means what it says. It is to be taken literally.

Pope St. Zosimus, The Council of Carthage XVI, on Original Sin and Grace: “For when the Lord says: ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he shall not enter into the kingdom of God’ [John 3:5], what Catholic will doubt that he will be a partner of the devil who has not deserved to be a coheir of Christ. For he who lacks the right part will without doubt run into the left.”

Pope Gregory IX, Cum, sicut ex, July 8, 1241, to Sigurd of Nidaros: “Since as we have learned from your report, it sometimes happens because of scarcity of water, that infants of your lands are baptized in beer, we reply to you in the tenor of those present that, since according to evangelical doctrine it is necessary ‘to be reborn from water and the Holy Spirit’ (Jn. 3:5) they are not to be considered rightly baptized who are baptized in beer.”

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Session 11, Feb. 4, 1442, ex cathedra: “Regarding children, indeed, because of danger of death, which can often take place, when no help can be brought to them by another remedy than through the sacrament of baptism, through which they are snatched from the domination of the Devil [original sin] and adopted among the sons of God, it advises that holy baptism ought not be deferred for forty or eighty days, or any time according to the observance of certain people…”

Pope St. Celestine I, Council of Ephesus, 431: “Having read these holy phrases and finding ourselves in agreement (for ‘there is one Lord, one faith, one baptism’ [Eph. 4:5], we have given glory to God who is the savior of all…”

Pope St. Leo IX, Congratulamur Vehementer, April 13, 1053: “I believe that the one true Church is holy, Catholic and apostolic, in which is given one baptism and the true remission of all sins.”

Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, Nov. 18, 1302, ex cathedra: “One is my dove, my perfect one… which represents the one mystical body whose head is Christ, of Christ indeed, as God. And in this, ‘one Lord, one faith, one baptism’ (Eph. 4:5).”

Pope Clement V, Council of Vienne, 1311, 1312, ex cathedra: “Besides, one baptism which regenerates all who are baptized in Christ must be faithfully confessed by all just as ‘one God and one faith’ [Eph. 4:5], which celebrated in water in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit we believe to be commonly the perfect remedy for salvation for adults as for children.”

Putting every thing else aside, I know you mean well Elisa and I think every one here does. I think we all try to live up to our Catholic faith as best as we can and I think most of us here, if not all of us, are in search of the truth and want to defend the truth, going by the treads that are presented on this forum.

God bless you

Fatima for our times wrote:
I will leave you with these teachings to contemplate on:

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]. The matter of this sacrament is real and natural water.”

This means that Our Lord Jesus Christ’s assertion that no man can be saved without being born again of water and the Holy Ghost is a verbatim dogma of the Catholic Faith. It absolutely means what it says. It is to be taken literally.

And it is taken literally, as the Church understands it; for she is the only approved divine Institution for interpreting Scripture and her own dogmatic teaching.

The Church also takes quite literally her own words in Trent Session VI, Chapters 4 and 16, as well as Session Seven, Canon 4, all of which infallibly attest to the doctrine that one may be justified “by the desire thereof” and saved in that same state of grace “should”, as Trent's own Roman Catechism corroborates, “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.”

The Church and her saints and theologians have taught this same infallible understanding of justification and Baptism ever since, and it is simply remarkable that you can challenge this universal consensus and the Magisterium of the Church with your Gnostic “literal” pontifications as if the Church has entrusted you with the safekeeping of the deposit of Faith and with faithfully handing down the Church's dogmas.

I realize that you recognize neither the authority nor the infallibility of the Ordinary Magisterium, unless you have personally blessed her authentic teachings with your personal stamp of approval; but I am curious, since you seem to want to demonstrate your proficiency at medieval ecclesiastical Latin, if you can provide for us your credentials with respect to your academic training in this discipline.

I know of a professional medieval Latinist who scoffs at your amateurish “interpretations” of medieval and ecclesiastical Latin grammar as it relates to the correct understanding and rules governing “vel” and “aut”.

If you cannot provide your academic credentials, perhaps you can have a professional medieval Latinist corroborate your interpretations which are opposed to the Church's own understanding of her own dogmatic decrees.

If you are going to propose as fact a theory for the correct understanding of a particular rule of grammar in medieval ecclesiastical Latin, especially when your theory stands in stark contradiction to the Church's and her theologians own understanding (who were fluent in medieval Latin), I believe it is only right that you provide either your own academic credentials, or some form of professional corroboration, don't you think?

I'll leave with you some more meaningless fallible Magisterial citations, this time from Pope Pius XII, Humani generis, Aug. 12, 1950:

20. Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: "He who heareth you, heareth me"; and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine...

21. It is also true that theologians must always return to the sources of divine revelation: for it belongs to them to point out how the doctrine of the living Teaching Authority is to be found either explicitly or implicitly in the Scriptures and in Tradition. Besides, each source of divinely revealed doctrine contains so many rich treasures of truth, that they can really never be exhausted. Hence it is that theology through the study of its sacred sources remains ever fresh; on the other hand, speculation which neglects a deeper search into the deposit of faith, proves sterile, as we know from experience. But for this reason even positive theology cannot be on a par with merely historical science. For, together with the sources of positive theology God has given to His Church a living Teaching Authority to elucidate and explain what is contained in the deposit of faith only obscurely and implicitly. This deposit of faith our Divine Redeemer has given for authentic interpretation not to each of the faithful, not even to theologians, but only to the Teaching Authority of the Church.”

So I will ask again: Where do you derive your authority to provide for the authentic interpretation of the deposit of faith and to reject the Church's own interpretation she provides through her authentic, living and permanent Magisterium?

C_T,

If I am believing heresy by believing in Baptism of Blood and Baptism of Desire, to the point that I am no longer Catholic and you fear for my soul, you need to prove that. You still need to explain the following (as I previously asked you to on the other thread.)

If the Church didn’t teach Baptism of Blood and thought (either correctly or erroneously) some martyrs were never given water baptism, why would the Church never once pray for any of them and make a point that it would be wrong to pray for them?

If these people were secretly baptized on earth with actual visible water by a human being, IT WOULDN’T MATTER to our point that the Church always taught that they were saved without visible water baptism and that they were saved by Baptism of Blood.

Because the Church has never prayed for martyrs. Any martyr, including those she thought (either correctly or erroneously) never received earthly visible water baptism. Including those Saints that the Church names with histories as never being baptized with water. In none of it’s liturgies or prayers ever. So if the Church has never prayed for any martyrs, she would be callous and negligent if she did not believe they were all saved.

I'll continue with Fatima

Fatima,

Ok, so (as MRyan has already noted) the Church has been mistranslating her own documents in her teachings for 500 years. It all rests on one single word – “aut.” And not only did the Church translate this word incorrectly for all those years, the problem started immediately with the Catechism of Trent which says, “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.” And all the Catechisms and Papal statements since Trent have all followed suit – incorrectly?

What a colossal mistake by the Church. And not a single theologian or Church authority noticed or correctly it in 5 centuries. Didn’t they have any Latin experts in Rome or anywhere around the globe to correct this mistranslation of the word “aut?”

I notice that it’s mistranslated in Spanish as well: “sin el bautismo, o sin el deseo de él;” It uses “o” instead of “y.” So the whole Spanish speaking world has also been taught error for centuries from the Church herself. You’d think that since Spanish developed from Latin several centuries beforehand, that they would have translated it correctly.

Does any of this sound credible to people here? It’s like we are in Oz or Wonderland or Never neverland.

I’ll tell you what it sounds like to me. It sounds like the same tactics used by Protestants. When they don’t like what Scripture says in order to argue their point with Catholics, they say that the translation is wrong. That the passage in the Bible should really say something else. Like in Matthew 16 when Jesus calls Peter the “rock.” While most modern Protestant scholars will agree that the translation should be “rock,” many Protestants still insist, as they have for several centuries now, that the Greek words “Petros/petra” should be translated as meaning St. Peter is a “small stone” compared to faith in Jesus being the “rock.” So Simon was never called a rock/Peter. He was called “small stone.” I actually heard a woman say the passage meant that “Peter was a chip off the old block.”

So it all boils down to the wrong translation of one word by the Catholic Church. Just like this all boils down to the wrong translation of one word by the Catholic Church.

But God does not require us to to be Greek and Latin experts to understand His teachings. God hasn’t set up some sort of gnostic hide and seek to find His truth. From the beginning, He set up a single authority to which all the faithful can easily look for His truth. God does not place obstacles in the way of His faithful whom He loves and wants them to be confident in His truth.

Irenaeus in 189AD – Against Heresies:

"But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition."

I don’t know why you quoted those 3 examples of “aut.” One was correctly translated by the Church as “and,” not “or.” The other 2 definitely mean “or.” I think you have it backwards in your mind. If they said “and,” then it would qualify and reduce the scope of the prohibition, not the other way around.

You quoted Cantate Domino as translating “aut” as “or” but meaning “and.” The English text of Cantate Domino actually uses “and.” The Church has always translated the “aut” in that sentence as “and,” never “or.” I don’t know why you quoted it as saying “or.”

Usually “aut” means “or” unless it is clear from the sentence that it should be “and.” The Church translates the “aut” in that sentence as “and,” because the rest of the sentence clearly means it to be “and.” Because the sentence says “all those” and “not only.”

I go with how the Church has decided to translate her proclamations. Because I am not a Latin expert and I trust the Church. So there is no dispute on this translation of this sentence from Cantate Domino.

Your problem is not the Church’s translation of Cantate Domino, but the Church’s translation of Trent’s “or the desire thereof.” In your mind, because of your private interpretation, you see the sentence inferring “and.” But the Church doesn’t see it your way in her translation.

Not to mention that even in the Latin there are commas before and after the phrase
“, or the desire thereof,” which sets that phrase apart from what preceded it. Something not typical in a sentence that would be “and the desire thereof.” No need for commas with an “and.”

Your other 2 examples of “aut” are translated “or” and should say and it mean “or,” does not infer “and.”

These are negatives. They are prohibitions against doing these things.

Forbidding anyone “to believe, preach OR teach.”
Forbidding them “to believe.” Forbidding them “to preach.” Forbidding them to teach.”

If it said or meant “to believe, preach AND teach,” then it would mean that someone couldn’t all at once believe, preach AND teach contrary to the Church, but they could separately believe contrary to the Church, as long as they didn’t preach contrary. Or they could teach contrary to the Church, as long as they didn’t believe contrary. And so on.

The Church means you couldn’t do any of those 3 things ever. So it says and means “or.”

The law “may not be repudiated or be changed.”
The law “may not be repudiated.” The law “may not be changed.”

If it said or meant “may not be repudiated AND changed,” then it would mean that someone couldn’t all at once repudiate the law and change it, but they could separately repudiate the law, as long as they didn’t change it. Or they could change it, as long as they didn’t repudiate it.

The Church means you couldn’t do either of those 2 things ever. So it says and means “or.”

The Church says at Trent and clearly throughout all her formal teachings since, “without the lavar of regeneration, (comma) OR the desire thereof, (comma)”

This is a positive statement, not a negative one. The others are examples of things you are NOT do. The Trent statement in question is about something we are supposed to do.

So we are to be baptized with water, (comma) OR we are to have a sincere desire/will/vow to be baptized, a real intent to carry out a water sacramental baptism.

Obviously both forms of the one Catholic baptism must be sincere and have faith, charity and repentance, a true conversion, metanoia.

Hope this helps.
God bless you all.
Love,
Elisa

Elisa wrote:
Because the Church has never prayed for martyrs. Any martyr, including those she thought (either correctly or erroneously) never received earthly visible water baptism. Including those Saints that the Church names with histories as never being baptized with water. In none of it’s liturgies or prayers ever. So if the Church has never prayed for any martyrs, she would be callous and negligent if she did not believe they were all saved.

Elisa may I respond to this point.
The Church does not pray for the unbaptised (even if they should shed their blood for the name of Christ) because as we already know from Church infallible teaching they cannot obtain salvation.
The Church does not pray for baptised martyrs because (as we already know) the Church presuposes their immediate entrance into heaven. Therefore there is no need for petitioning Gods mercy either way.

columba wrote:

Elisa wrote:
Because the Church has never prayed for martyrs. Any martyr, including those she thought (either correctly or erroneously) never received earthly visible water baptism. Including those Saints that the Church names with histories as never being baptized with water. In none of it’s liturgies or prayers ever. So if the Church has never prayed for any martyrs, she would be callous and negligent if she did not believe they were all saved.

Elisa may I respond to this point.
The Church does not pray for the unbaptised (even if they should shed their blood for the name of Christ) because as we already know from Church infallible teaching they cannot obtain salvation.
The Church does not pray for baptised martyrs because (as we already know) the Church presuposes their immediate entrance into heaven. Therefore there is no need for petitioning Gods mercy either way.

Eisa, you must be shaking your head in utter bewilderment at such a deliberate obfuscation of the truth of what you said.

When the Church canonizes a martyr whose water baptism is on record as never being realized; as reflected in the Roman Martryrology (a record approved by the Church, even if she cannot attest to the historical accuracy of every detailed act), the Church only recognizes them as martyrs, according to columba, because they were baptized in sacramental water as well as in the suffering of martyrdom.

Of course, the Church just “assumes” this without having any obligation to “correct” the record or to correct the universal heterodox belief of the faithful the Church is actively complicit in perpetuating.

This duality of opposing Magisteriums is the Church's little secret where "truth" is shared only with the Gnostic Pharisees, like columba, the Church's self-anointed arbiter of tradition who has been tasked exclusively with “authentically interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed on” (DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION ON DIVINE REVELATION, DEI VERBUM).

And only when the authentic, living and permanent Magisterium agrees with his “interpretations” of her own dogmas will he only begrudgingly (and with conditions) concede that this authority belongs “exclusively ["not on my watch!"] to the living teaching office of the Church,” of which he casts the deciding “vote” for truth or heterodoxy of her own Ordinary Magisterial teaching.

Just ask him.

you must be shaking your head in utter bewilderment at such a deliberate obfuscation of the truth of what you said

That's putting it mildly.

Thanks for the help. I need it. Thanks for all your posts. I'm beginning to wonder if it's worth continuing.

Columba,

You did not address my question, but answered something I never asked. I know perfectly well why the Church doesn’t pray for those she believes to be saints. Because they are not in Purgatory.

I also know that while we never pray for people in Hell, the Church has never said who they are and never formally named a single person who is in Hell, so the Church has always prayed for the souls of dead people until they are declared official Saints. Even if someone is unbaptized and not a martyr, one can still pray for their soul, that God gave them the grace for true explicit faith in their last moments and that He supplied baptism to them in some way unknown and invisible to us and that perhaps they are in Purgatory by the great mercy and love of our most powerful God.

But you have still not addressed my initial question. The Church believes these canonized Saints were never baptized but they are Saints. Whether the Church is correct or incorrect because of some secret baptism is BESIDES THE POINT that the Church has always taught that baptism of blood without a water baptism can lead to salvation.

The mind of the Church believes they were not baptized. Not that maybe they were.

The Church doesn’t confer CONDITIONAL Sainthood on people, CONTINGENT on something. Well, the martyr might be a Saint if he was baptized and we didn’t know about it. If he wasn’t baptized (and we think he wasn’t) then his formal canonization is null and void. So any prayers anyone has been directing to that Saint all these years fell on deaf ears. The guy is rotting in Hell, even though he had explicit faith in Christ and in His Catholic Church and had repentance and charity and explicitly desired/intended/willed/VOWED sacramental baptism. Oops. He really wasn’t one of the elect after all.

Disregard that previous infallible canonization of Sainthood. It was merely CONTINGENT AND CONDITIONAL on some secret baptism the Church never thought happened

You have distorted what the Church has taught about these martyrs. It’s one thing to believe that maybe they were secretly baptized and another thing to say that the Church never taught they could be saved even without that secret visible water baptism.

God bless all here. Have a good day. I think I need a break from this.
Love,
Elisa

Ok Elisa, you obviously acknowledge that if those martyrs were saved they had to have received a baptism of desire. The problem with this is the exact same problem we encounter when no record or witness of sacramental baptism is available. We have to presume that an invisible baptism of desire took place known only to God.
I have the very same argument as you for maintaining that a sacramental Baptism took place unknown to the Church but to God alone and the appointed chosen minister.

If the Church has deemed these martyrs blessed, then I have no problem accepting that because if they have gone to heaven they have, by a miraculous intervention of God, received sacramental baptism known only to God, themselves and the minister.

The Church has never declared that these did not receieve such. She merely declared that there were no witnesses testimony to this as would also be the case in baptism of desire.

columba wrote:Ok Elisa, you obviously acknowledge that if those martyrs were saved they had to have received a baptism of desire. The problem with this is the exact same problem we encounter when no record or witness of sacramental baptism is available. We have to presume that an invisible baptism of desire took place known only to God.

Actually; no, and why do you distort the facts and conflate baptism of blood with baptism of desire precisely where the Church marks the difference? Not only do we NOT have to presume that Baptism of Desire took place, we KNOW that baptism of blood took place by the very visible fact of martyrdom, which is even more efficacious that baptism in water.

We do not have to “presume”, we KNOW that Baptism in Blood is sufficient for salvation even when the historical record, a record approved by the Church, indicates that the martyr had not been baptized in water. One can speculate to their heart's content that these same martyrs received water baptism, but the official record suggests otherwise, and the Church approves this same record and the common belief of the faithful.

She also teaches baptism of desire and baptism of blood through her authentic, living and permanent Magisterium – a known FACT that you continue to deny.

columba wrote:I have the very same argument as you for maintaining that a sacramental Baptism took place unknown to the Church but to God alone and the appointed chosen minister.

That you can believe whatever you want does not make it the same argument for the simple reason that your belief cannot change the truth of the Church's teaching on baptism of blood or the fact that the Church approves the Acts of the Martyrs and the belief that certain martyrs died without water baptism.

columba wrote:If the Church has deemed these martyrs blessed, then I have no problem accepting that because if they have gone to heaven they have, by a miraculous intervention of God, received sacramental baptism known only to God, themselves and the minister.

That's nice, but irrelevant.

columba wrote:The Church has never declared that these did not receieve such. She merely declared that there were no witnesses testimony to this as would also be the case in baptism of desire.

Nice try, but if you are going to be consistent with your position which holds that the absolute intrinsic necessity of water baptism is a dogma of the Church; meaning, it is a dogma of the faith that even if one were to shed his blood for Christ before he could be baptized in water and “abide” in the Church, salvation is impossible; then the Church is not “merely” declaring that a particular martyr's baptism is unrecorded; by approving the record of a martyr's unrecorded baptism and holding it as an acceptable belief, the Church is guilty of perpetuating heresy.

You can't have it both ways. If your so-called literal (and errant) interpretation of a once declared dogma is correct, then the Church is guilty of heresy for officially perpetuating a heretical belief, and for perpetuating that belief through her own magisterial teaching in age after age since at least since the Council of Trent.

What is this double-faced Janus of a Church that you belong to, anyway?

MRyan wrote:
Actually; no, and why do you distort the facts and conflate baptism of blood with baptism of desire precisely where the Church marks the difference? Not only do we NOT have to presume that Baptism of Desire took place, we KNOW that baptism of blood took place by the very visible fact of martyrdom, which is even more efficacious that baptism in water.

I don't know where you got the idea that baptism of blood is more efficacious than baptism of water. Post baptismal martyrdom would obviously gain one a greater reward in heaven but martyrdom without sacramental baptism would not be true martyrdom at all.
Any human act detatched from supernatural grace and not in union with Christ is of no benefit and merits no reward.
As the only way one can be united with Christ is through sacramental baptism (and the Church knows of no other means) then your martyrs would obviously have received water baptism before or at the point of death otherwise they can't be properly called martyrs of the Church.

Until the Church revises the Creed and replaces "I believe in one Baptism for the forgiveness of sins" to "I believe in three Baptisms for the forgiveness of sins," then I will feel free to hold to the one.

We do not have to “presume”, we KNOW that Baptism in Blood is sufficient for salvation even when the historical record, a record approved by the Church, indicates that the martyr had not been baptized in water. One can speculate to their heart's content that these same martyrs received water baptism, but the official record suggests otherwise, and the Church approves this same record and the common belief of the faithful.

She also teaches baptism of desire and baptism of blood through her authentic, living and permanent Magisterium – a known FACT that you continue to deny.

See the previous paragraph.

Outa time. have to dash. be back later.

columba wrote:
I don't know where you got the idea that baptism of blood is more efficacious than baptism of water. Post baptismal martyrdom would obviously gain one a greater reward in heaven but martyrdom without sacramental baptism would not be true martyrdom at all.

So says the authority of one; but that is NOT what the Church teaches (not that you would notice, or anything). I “got the idea” from reading the saints, doctors and theologians. The suffering in Martyrdom is more efficacious than water baptism because of the greater increase in sanctifying grace.

That you do not believe that a martyr can be sanctified and saved without ablution in water baptism is irrelevant; the Church teaches that martyrdom satisfies the divine precept, and the Church cannot contradict herself on such an important matter of faith and salvation, contrary to your spurious allegations to the contrary.

columba wrote:Any human act detatched from supernatural grace and not in union with Christ is of no benefit and merits no reward.

There is no one more “attached” to supernatural grace and unity with our Lord than the martyr (baptized or not) who confesses His name and suffers/dies for love of Him.

columba wrote:As the only way one can be united with Christ is through sacramental baptism (and the Church knows of no other means) then your martyrs would obviously have received water baptism before or at the point of death otherwise they can't be properly called martyrs of the Church.

That is NOT what the Church teaches. She teaches that she “does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude” while also teaching “God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.”

In other words, no where does she teach that “the only way one can be united with Christ is through sacramental baptism”, and in fact dogmatically declared that one may be united to Christ in justification by the desire for baptism.

But here you are once again playing loose with the truth and distorting the Church's own teaching to your own purpose.

The Church also teaches:

1258 The Church has always held the firm conviction that those who suffer death for the sake of the faith without having received Baptism are baptized by their death for and with Christ. This Baptism of blood, like the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament.

1259 For catechumens who die before their Baptism, their explicit desire to receive it, together with repentance for their sins, and charity, assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive through the sacrament.

The Church cannot assure the salvation of anyone who has not received baptism, but she can assure us that under certain conditions their salvation is assured. Do you recognize the distinction? That's a rhetorical question, of course you don't.

columba wrote:Until the Church revises the Creed and replaces "I believe in one Baptism for the forgiveness of sins" to "I believe in three Baptisms for the forgiveness of sins," then I will feel free to hold to the one.

She does not have to “revise” anything because the other two “baptisms” are not baptisms in the proper sense of the word and sacrament; they are analogous to baptism only in that they produce the same essential fruits of baptism. In other words, they are included in our profession of faith in One Baptism and to hold to all that the Church teaches, and not just your errant interpretations of defined dogmas.

If I asked you to tell us what Catholics are required to believe with respect to the natures and the wills of Christ, as the Church understands them; I bet you couldn't do it without brushing up on these critical points of doctrine, the misunderstanding of which has been the cause of many heresies; with the fullness of these truths being only implicit in the Creed – our profession of Faith.

It was “private interpretation” of the Creed and articles of belief "as it is written" and "once declared" that caused such turmoil over the centuries, and we can see that some things never change.

And, once again, you simply twist and distort the true doctrine of baptism.

1258 The Church has always held the firm conviction that those who suffer death for the sake of the faith without having received Baptism are baptized by their death for and with Christ. This Baptism of blood, like the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament.

I know you keep saying that the Church cannot contradict herself but if you read the preceding paragraph 1257 (quoted below) this sure seems like a contradiction to me.
This contradiction no doubt will be corrected in the third edition.

1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation. He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them. 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. The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are "reborn of water and the Spirit." God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.

By adding at the end, "God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments." is the get-out-clause that softens the contradiction but in fact everyone already knows that God is not bound by His sacraments but He HAS in fact bound US to the sacrament of baptism as the rest of that paragraph declares.

1259 For catechumens who die before their Baptism, their explicit desire to receive it, together with repentance for their sins, and charity, assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive through the sacrament.

It may assure the catechumens and the authors of the CCC but it didn't assure the following Saints and Doctors.

How many sincere catechumens die unbaptized and are thus lost forever?
When we come into the sight of God, none will say, "Why was this man led by God's direction to be baptized, while that man, although he lived properly as a catechumen, was killed in a sudden disaster and not baptized?" Look for rewards, and you will find nothing but punishments! Of what use would repentance be if Baptism did not follow? No matter what progress a catechumen may make, he still carries the burden of iniquity, and it is not taken away until he has been baptized.
(from Augustine the Bishop, by Fr Van Der Meer, p 150)

"It is obvious that we must grieve for catechumens should they depart this life without the saving grace of Baptism."
(St John Crysostom)

"You are outside Paradise, O catechumen! You share the exile of Adam."
(St Gregory of Nyssa)

"One is the Baptism which the Church administers, of water and the Holy Ghost, with which catechumens need to be baptized. Nor does the mystery of regeneration exist at all without water. Now, even the catechumen believes, but, unless he be baptized, he cannot receive the remission of his sins, nor the gift of spiritual grace."
(St Ambrose)

"If you were able to judge a man who intends to commit murder, soley by his intention and without any act of murder, then you could likewise reckon as baptized one who desired baptism, without having received Baptism. But, since you cannot do the former, how can you do the latter? Put it this way: if desire has equal power with actual Baptism, you would then be satisfied to desire Glory, as though that longing itself were Glory."
(St Gregory Nazienzen)

These guys of course don't know the mind of the Church as proposed by the CCC, but they sure seem to know about logic.