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

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

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

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

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

» Pope Benedict permitted Fr. Jean Marie Gleize to lead in doctrinal talks since he was a liberal ?
Mon Jun 26, 2017 8:59 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Padre Pio told Fr.Gabriel Amorth," It is Satan who has been introduced into the bosom of the Church and within a very short time will come to rule a false Church" -Bishop Richard Williamson
Sun Jun 25, 2017 9:14 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Mons. Brunero Gherardini misled the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary and many traditionalists
Sun Jun 25, 2017 7:18 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Official statement from SSPX awaited : Fr.Gleize and other theologians have got it wrong
Sat Jun 24, 2017 10:10 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Brother Andre Marie MICM too is teaching error : Bishop Sanborn cannot report at the Chancery office
Sat Jun 24, 2017 8:50 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Magsiterial Heresy ?
Sat Sep 26, 2015 8:36 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Magisterium should apologise to the SSPX for the excommunication of Archbishop Lefebvre
Sat Sep 26, 2015 8:34 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Brother Francis MICM made a mistake on Vatican Council II
Sat Sep 26, 2015 5:14 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Legion of Christ universities in Rome adapt to leftist laws
Fri May 22, 2015 7:53 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» CM, SSPX, MICM deny the Faith to please superiors
Thu May 21, 2015 4:44 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» SSPX and Church Militant are using the same liberal theology and are unaware of it
Wed May 20, 2015 9:54 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Michael Voris uses liberal theology and yet critcizes Michael Coren
Tue May 19, 2015 10:10 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Fr.John Zuhlsdorf condones Mass for suicide
Tue May 19, 2015 9:18 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Vatican Council II is traditional or liberal depending on how you interpret the Letter of the Holy Office
Mon May 18, 2015 5:57 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Church Militant unable to answer questions on extra ecclesiam nulla salus
Sun May 17, 2015 5:55 am by Lionel L. Andrades


Tower of David Ministry Back online.

Page 1 of 4 1, 2, 3, 4  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Tower of David Ministry Back online.

Post  Guest on Thu May 19, 2011 12:54 pm

http://www.oocities.org/adam_todm/todm.htm

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Tower of David Ministry Back online.

Post  MRyan on Fri May 20, 2011 7:08 pm

http://www.oocities.org/adam_todm/Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus.htm

"Dear Adam:

Thank you for the information, it was very helpful. I agree Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus (Outside the Church there is no salvation) is de fide and I believe it as I must. Please, however, answer the following Hypothetical situation.

A catechumen is driving to Church to be baptized but:
1) he is killed in a car accident in front of the Church before he receives Baptism by Water;
2) she is attacked by a bunch of Prots who demand she abjure the Faith and deny the Mass. She refuses and she is killed while saying a Rosary.

Will either or both go to Heaven(purgatory) or Hell?

For me this is the last piece of the controversy.
Please accept my thanks in advance in Christo et Maria,
SMC"
=======================
Adam Miller responds:

Dear SMC,
Thank you for your willingness to "dig deeper" into this matter.
[SNIP]

Part 3

So you ask:

"Will either or both go to Heaven(purgatory) or Hell?"

Neither could go to Heaven, since they were not baptized in water. This is de fide definita. Now, as Pope Benedict XII infallibly defined, "according to the common arrangement of God," they would both go immediately to Hell after their particular judgments. However, if (outside of the COMMON arrangement of God) both do not immediately go to their particular judgments, then no one knows where they go. God could raise them up from the dead and have them baptized, WHICH HAS IN FACT HAPPENED numerous times before. (This is why God allowed Pope Benedict to use the clause, "according to the COMMON arrangement of God.") But we are heretics if we say they go to Heaven. Fidelity to the Sacred Deposit of Faith demands of us that we "do not move beyond the boundaries which [our] fathers have set" (Proverbs 22:28).

[END]

Sigh
avatar
MRyan

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Tower of David Ministry Back online.

Post  tornpage on Sat May 21, 2011 12:26 am

Mike,

This is the same Mr. Miller who is so sharp on the NO according to some, yes? Hmmm.
avatar
tornpage

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Tower of David Ministry Back online.

Post  MRyan on Sat May 21, 2011 11:49 am

Tornpage,

Do I detect just a bit of rhetorical snarkiness with your “This is the same Mr. Miller who is so sharp on the NO according to some, yes?”, since I am the one who defended his book on the validity of the New Mass, while you found his arguments less than compelling? “Hmmm”.

Whatever your point is, it is duly noted.

Back to the subject at hand; I will not defend Miller’s extreme views on baptism of desire, but I appreciate his brutal honesty when he, as opposed to some of the hard-line but actually milquetoast Feeneyites, states quite unequivocally that, since the Church has, allegedly, dogmatically defined “de fide definite” that no one at all can be saved without water baptism, then one MUST conclude that anyone who holds, as the Church teaches, that the aforementioned faith and charity-filled catechumen and/or martyr can finally be saved without water baptism, is a “heretic” (let's focus on actual heresy and not "materiality").

So, what Br. Andre calls “orthodox”, Adam Miller calls “heretical”. Uh-oh, "Houston, we have a problem."

Gee, as the Feeneyite argument goes, thank goodness we’ve never had an authentic, living teaching office of the Church that actually taught and continues to teach baptism of blood/baptism of desire; so one is free to hold that anyone who believes what the Church teaches in the Catechism of Trent, in the CCC, in Canon Law, in Papal Allocutions and Letters, and in VCII on the same doctrine (you know the “heretical” or at least bogus “theological construction”) the Church has been teaching continuously since at least the Council of Trent, is either a “heretic”, or at least a “material heretic”, just like the “fallible” heretical Church”; or, to say it in more politically correct terms, the “fallible” and not-so “authentic magisterium”.

Come on Feeneyites, stand up and be counted. If it has in fact been divinely revealed and dogmatically defined “de fide definite” that no one at all can finally be saved without water baptism, then have the courage of your convictions and declare with Adam Miller that anyone who holds to the Church’s “fallible” teaching on baptism of blood and baptism of desire is a heretic; or at least espouses heresy.

Rasha, FYI, the “Tower of David” website comes with this disclaimer at the top: “This Page is an antiquarian - possibly outdated - usergenerated website brought to you by an archive. It was mirrored from Geocities in the end of october 2009. For any questions about this page contact the respective author. To report any mal content send URL to oocities[at]gmail[dot]com. For any questions concerning the archive visit our main page:OoCities.org.”

avatar
MRyan

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Tower of David Ministry Back online.

Post  Guest on Sat May 21, 2011 12:30 pm

MRyan wrote:Tornpage,
Come on Feeneyites, stand up and be counted. If it has in fact been divinely revealed and dogmatically defined “de fide definite” that no one at all can finally be saved without water baptism, then have the courage of your convictions and declare with Adam Miller that anyone who holds to the Church’s “fallible” teaching on baptism of blood and baptism of desire is a heretic; or at least espouses heresy.

I will leave that job to the Pope or to the next Ecumenical Council.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Tower of David Ministry Back online.

Post  columba on Sat May 21, 2011 6:36 pm

MRyan wrote:
Come on Feeneyites, stand up and be counted. If it has in fact been divinely revealed and dogmatically defined “de fide definite” that no one at all can finally be saved without water baptism, then have the courage of your convictions and declare with Adam Miller that anyone who holds to the Church’s “fallible” teaching on baptism of blood and baptism of desire is a heretic; or at least espouses heresy
.

Are those who believe that water Baptism is necessary for slavation heretics?
avatar
columba

Posts : 979
Reputation : 1068
Join date : 2010-12-18
Location : Ireland

Back to top Go down

Re: Tower of David Ministry Back online.

Post  tornpage on Sat May 21, 2011 6:51 pm

Mike,

Do I detect just a bit of rhetorical snarkiness with your “This is the same Mr. Miller who is so sharp on the NO according to some, yes?”, since I am the one who defended his book on the validity of the New Mass, while you found his arguments less than compelling? “Hmmm”.

Whatever your point is, it is duly noted.

I'm glad you noted the point, and overlooked the "snarkiness." Very Happy Which was, however, just some back flow from our discussion regarding the "brilliance" or whatever of Miller, and not directed at you.

I will not defend Miller’s extreme views on baptism of desire, but I appreciate his brutal honesty when he, as opposed to some of the hard-line but actually milquetoast Feeneyites, states quite unequivocally that, since the Church has, allegedly, dogmatically defined “de fide definite” that no one at all can be saved without water baptism, then one MUST conclude that anyone who holds, as the Church teaches, that the aforementioned faith and charity-filled catechumen and/or martyr can finally be saved without water baptism, is a “heretic” (let's focus on actual heresy and not "materiality").

Agreed. Miller knows how to extrapolate from principles, and knows their inevitable conclusions. And he is honest. His "then" follows his "ifs." I just question his "ifs."





avatar
tornpage

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Tower of David Ministry Back online.

Post  Jehanne on Sat May 21, 2011 7:44 pm

columba wrote:
MRyan wrote:
Come on Feeneyites, stand up and be counted. If it has in fact been divinely revealed and dogmatically defined “de fide definite” that no one at all can finally be saved without water baptism, then have the courage of your convictions and declare with Adam Miller that anyone who holds to the Church’s “fallible” teaching on baptism of blood and baptism of desire is a heretic; or at least espouses heresy
.

Are those who believe that water Baptism is necessary for slavation heretics?

We've been through this a "billion" times. The following two propositions can never be disproved, which I will use in the case of Osama Bin Laden:

1) As "anyone whatsoever" can validly baptize (Lateran IV, Canon 1), and as for an infant, a valid Baptism is always a fruitful one, we cannot say with absolutely certainty that Osama Bin Laden was not baptized at some point during his infancy. To say otherwise is to attempt to "prove a negative," that is, that something did not occur, which, of course, is impossible, at least in general.

2) If Osama Bin Laden was validly baptized during his infancy, then, at that point in his life, he was in a state of grace. It is certainly conceivable that the One and Triune God, who can raise people from the dead, could offer someone like Osama Bin Laden repentance at death, for the graces which he lost early on in his life. Since he physically died (unlike others who have had NDEs -- Near-death experiences), we cannot know with absolute certainty that he was not offered "salutary repentance" at the moment of his death. To claim otherwise is to "prove another negative," which, of course, would be impossible if such repentance did occur.

Just because the above two claims are possible does not mean that they are certain or make them so.
avatar
Jehanne

Posts : 926
Reputation : 1025
Join date : 2010-12-21
Age : 49
Location : Iowa

http://unamsanctamecclesiamcatholicam.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: Tower of David Ministry Back online.

Post  Roguejim on Sun May 22, 2011 12:29 am

columba wrote:
MRyan wrote:
Come on Feeneyites, stand up and be counted. If it has in fact been divinely revealed and dogmatically defined “de fide definite” that no one at all can finally be saved without water baptism, then have the courage of your convictions and declare with Adam Miller that anyone who holds to the Church’s “fallible” teaching on baptism of blood and baptism of desire is a heretic; or at least espouses heresy
.

Are those who believe that water Baptism is necessary for slavation heretics?

According to Adam Miller, no. It is the only orthodox position. Water baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation. There can be no opposing position that is orthodox.

According to Brother Andre Marie, it doesn't matter whether you believe it or not. No one is going to Hell for holding that position, or denying it. It doesn't matter.
avatar
Roguejim

Posts : 211
Reputation : 315
Join date : 2010-12-18
Location : southern Oregon

Back to top Go down

Re: Tower of David Ministry Back online.

Post  Guest on Sun May 22, 2011 12:58 am

I highly doubt Brother Andre said that and if he did I doubt he said it in those terms. If you are going to make claims you need to back them up. And please do not post any correspondence without permission. Thanks.

Would you say that before the Immaculate Conception was defined that it "didn't matter" what you believed on the issue?

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Tower of David Ministry Back online.

Post  MRyan on Sun May 22, 2011 8:58 am

columba wrote:
MRyan wrote:
Come on Feeneyites, stand up and be counted. If it has in fact been divinely revealed and dogmatically defined “de fide definite” that no one at all can finally be saved without water baptism, then have the courage of your convictions and declare with Adam Miller that anyone who holds to the Church’s “fallible” teaching on baptism of blood and baptism of desire is a heretic; or at least espouses heresy
.

Are those who believe that water Baptism is necessary for slavation heretics?

The Catholic Church teaches that water baptism is necessary for salvation. Does the Catholic Church teach heresy?

The Catholic Church also teaches that she "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." Is the Catholic Church heretical?

Why are you changing the subject and avoiding the question? If, as you have also argued, the proposition that no one at all can be saved without water baptism is a revealed "de fide definita" dogma of the faith, then the leadership and "official" position of the St. Benedict Center, NH, teaches heresy for saying that the teaching of the Church as it is presented in the CCC (above), and by St. Thomas Aquinas, is "orthodox".

You can't have it both ways. After all, you said that the no exceptions dogma on water Baptism has been solemnly "defined" by the Canons of Trent, just as the dogma on the Assumption of our Blessed Mother has been solemnly defined by Pope Pius XII in Munificentissimus Deus.

If that is the case, why do Feeneyites who hold this view have to "prove" it by way of syllogism, and not by the "once declared" words of the solemn definition themselves?

Why are the handful of extreme Feeneyites like yourself who erroneously "interpret" the Canons of Trent that declare that the sacrament of baptism is not "optional" and condemns those who would say 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" (John 3:5) when you are the only ones in the history of the Church to have ever "interpreted" the Canons of Trent in such a manner?

Rasha, your suggestion that the Church must one day settle this matter through a definitive act (Papal definition or solemn ecumenical Council) is a cop-out, and an excuse for ignoring what the Church actually teaches, for the only ones who believe such a "definition" is necessary are Feeneyites whose founders had no problem (other than the abuses) with the Church's authentic, living and ordinary teaching on baptism of blood and baptism of desire as it was always presented in the tradition of St. Aquinas until Fr. Feeney had his "eureka" moment in 1952.

In other words, the only thing that will settle this disagreement between Adam Miller and Br. Andre is an infallible definitive act or solemn definition. For everyone else, the Church's constant teaching, especially the Thomistic tradition as it is represented in the Catechisms and other official magisterial documents, is "authority" enough to know that the Church cannot teach error and heresy for centuries on end without defecting from the true faith.

avatar
MRyan

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Tower of David Ministry Back online.

Post  Jehanne on Sun May 22, 2011 10:05 am

MRyan wrote:Rasha, your suggestion that the Church must one day settle this matter through a definitive act (Papal definition or solemn ecumenical Council) is a cop-out, and an excuse for ignoring what the Church actually teaches, for the only ones who believe such a "definition" is necessary are Feeneyites whose founders had no problem (other than the abuses) with the Church's authentic, living and ordinary teaching on baptism of blood and baptism of desire as it was always presented in the tradition of St. Aquinas until Fr. Feeney had his "eureka" moment in 1952.

Saint Thomas also taught, "As God, in accordance with the perfection of the divine power, can do all things, and yet some things are not subject to His power, because they fall short of being possible; so, also, if we regard the immutability of the divine power, whatever God could do, He can do now. Some things, however, at one time were in the nature of possibility, whilst they were yet to be done, which now fall short of the nature of possibility, when they have been done. So is God said not to be able to do them, because they themselves cannot be done." (ST, Ia, q. 25, a. 4, ad 2)

Since, as we have seen, Sacramental Baptism in Water is the "perfect means of salvation for both adults and children," (Council of Vienne, Denzinger, #482) and since God is a Perfect Being, it stands to reason per Saint Thomas that everyone who goes to Heaven will have died with the blessings of that Sacrament, for, clearly, bringing Sacramental Baptism in Water to any individual is not something that "cannot be done." As for Saint Thomas' hypothetical teaching on Baptism of Desire & Blood, to say that just because something can happen does not mean that it does happen. As I said above, one can never "prove" that Baptism of Desire and/or Blood have ever happened in the history of the Church, and to say that either of those do occur (at least in the absence of Sacramental Baptism of Water) is not only to try and "prove a negative" but to also deny the Sovereignty and Perfection of the One and Triune God.

And, please don't quote me "the theologians." I will take one infallible definition over the interpretations/objections of all "the theologians." To say that one could be "baptized by desire" is to deny human free will, which makes the whole concept a manifest absurdity. It is to say that those who sincerely seek God are somehow incapable of finding Him or that He is capable of bringing His Grace but not His Light (which would, of course, include His Sacraments) to whomever who is earnestly seeking to know Him.
avatar
Jehanne

Posts : 926
Reputation : 1025
Join date : 2010-12-21
Age : 49
Location : Iowa

http://unamsanctamecclesiamcatholicam.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: Tower of David Ministry Back online.

Post  MRyan on Sun May 22, 2011 1:38 pm

Jehanne, you have this penchant for changing the subject and going off on your little irrelevant tangents. Rasha has also called you out for your constant “interpretations” of the “official” written positions of St. Benedict Center, and it is obvious that you take considerable license with your agenda-driven “null set” spinning.

But let me correct you once again when you say “that one could be baptized by desire is to deny human free will, which makes the whole concept a manifest absurdity.” What is “absurd” is your characterization of what baptism of desire actually is since to be regenerated as a son of God and heir to the kingdom by the “desire thereof” is to be regenerated and united to Christ through the essential fruit of baptism, sanctifying grace, which is a gift of God granted to those who respond to His call through an act of Faith and ardent charity.

In other words, it is indeed “manifestly absurd” to say that God cannot reach “those who sincerely seek Him”; just as it is absurd to say that God cannot bring the sacrament to those who have been predestined to receive it. But it is not “absurd” to say that God does not necessarily predestine every chosen soul to water baptism, or to say that God’s voice cannot always be clearly heard through the din of ignorance and cultural clutter. But we also know that those who persevere in seeking God with an up-right heart will be given the grace to finally find Him as God cuts through the clutter, even on their death-beds by the interior light of grace … and even without the sacrament if that is what has been preordained.

However, your error is to call it “manifestly absurd” that God may choose to sanctify a soul without benefit of the sacrament (as if He “cannot” bring the sacrament if it is His will to do so) when this same soul is given the gift of Faith by interior inspiration.

No one said that God “cannot” bring the sacrament of Baptism to those He so wills to bring it; but it is “manifestly absurd” to tell the Church that her long-held teaching that God is not necessarily bound by His sacraments to transmit the life-giving grace of the sacrament is “manifestly absurd”, and the height of rebellious arrogance.

Let me say it another way. If it is not "manifestly absurd" to say with St. Thomas Aquinas that God may choose to transmit the Faith via the direct conduit of interior inspiration, rather than by the ordinary means of "faith by hearing" (God having sent a preacher to reveal the truth), then why would it be "manifestly absurd" to also agree with St. Thomas and the Church when they teach that God may so choose to effect an interior regeneration by transmitting sanctifying grace directly, rather than by the ordinary means for transmitting the grace of initial justification via the sacrament of baptism?

Of course, you are the same person who at one time called St. Thomas' teaching on implicit desire "heresy", so who knows what your "opinion" is on faith via interior inspiration.

If you haven’t caught on by now, the real objection and danger to the Feeneyite arguments is this propensity by a radical few to dogmatize their errant opinions and to tell other Catholics that they hold a “heretical” doctrine if they follow the Church’s teaching on baptism of blood and baptism of desire.

Also perverse is that errant opinion that holds that the justification defined by Trent by “the desire for it” is not a true and fulfilled justification; it does not make one a true (or fulfilled) son of God or heir to the kingdom and can save no one without the sacrament; not the catechumen and not the faith-filled martyr.

Imagine that, a defective form of unfulfilled sanctifying grace (since the promulgation of the Gospel no less) that can save absolutely no one. At least Br. Andre has the good sense to call this his private opinion (on equal footing with the Church's "private opinion" on baptism of blood and baptism of desire, of course!); but this opinion is in fact, your "null set" spin notwithstanding, the "official" position of the St. Benedict Center, NH.

Deal with it.




avatar
MRyan

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Tower of David Ministry Back online.

Post  MRyan on Sun May 22, 2011 2:35 pm

I said:

Rasha has also called you out for your constant “interpretations” of the “official” written positions of St. Benedict Center
Oops, actually, I just realized Rasha was talking to Roguejim, though the shoe certainly fits. My bad ... sorry.
avatar
MRyan

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Tower of David Ministry Back online.

Post  MRyan on Sun May 22, 2011 6:19 pm

RashaLampa wrote:
Would you say that before the Immaculate Conception was defined that it "didn't matter" what you believed on the issue?
Rasha,

I don't suppose you realize that this argument works entirely against the Feeneyite position and works instead in favor of having baptism of blood and baptism of desire being one day "defined" (if the Church ever thinks it is necessary) since it is a common and universally held belief ... a common belief that just happens to be taught by the Church ... and one she says she has always held.

To deny this is to deny reality.

avatar
MRyan

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Tower of David Ministry Back online.

Post  MRyan on Sun May 22, 2011 6:43 pm

Jehanne wrote:
And, please don't quote me "the theologians." I will take one infallible definition over the interpretations/objections of all "the theologians."

What sophistry. “Please don’t quote me the universal moral consensus of theologians; please don’t quote me the Catechism of Trent; please don’t quote me the CCC, please don’t quote me Canon Law, please don’t quote me Papal allocutions, and please don’t quote me instructions of the Holy Office. I will take MY interpretation of one infallible definition over the teachings of the entire Church and all of her saints and theologians, SO THERE!!!!”

Of course, Jehanne can’t tell us what is actually being defined in the “infallible definition” he purports to correctly interpret, but that has never stopped a bull-headed Feeneyite before, and that has never stopped him from proceeding with some irrelevant and flawed syllogisms, or with accusing St. Thomas Aquinas and the Holy Office of “heresy”.

Good on ‘ya, Jehanne, you are being true to form.
avatar
MRyan

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Tower of David Ministry Back online.

Post  Guest on Sun May 22, 2011 7:09 pm

MRyan wrote:Fr. Feeney had his "eureka" moment in 1952.

Don Scotus had a Eureka moment as well didn't he?

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Tower of David Ministry Back online.

Post  Guest on Sun May 22, 2011 7:14 pm

MRyan wrote:
RashaLampa wrote:
Would you say that before the Immaculate Conception was defined that it "didn't matter" what you believed on the issue?
Rasha,

I don't suppose you realize that this argument works entirely against the Feeneyite position and works instead in favor of having baptism of blood and baptism of desire being one day "defined" (if the Church ever thinks it is necessary) since it is a common and universally held belief ... a common belief that just happens to be taught by the Church ... and one she says she has always held.

To deny this is to deny reality.

Not really because ultimately baptism of desire and baptism of blood undermine the necessity of water baptism just like various explanations of how the Blessed Mother was "purified" from sin undermined the universal belief that she was free from sin from the very moment of her conception.

Although, as I have always said I am open to the possibility of baptism of blood and baptism of desire for catechumens if someone could show how that does not contradict what has been infallibly defined, but so far no one can do that.



Last edited by RashaLampa on Sun May 22, 2011 7:21 pm; edited 1 time in total

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Tower of David Ministry Back online.

Post  Jehanne on Sun May 22, 2011 7:17 pm

MRyan wrote:
Jehanne wrote:
And, please don't quote me "the theologians." I will take one infallible definition over the interpretations/objections of all "the theologians."

What sophistry. “Please don’t quote me the universal moral consensus of theologians; please don’t quote me the Catechism of Trent; please don’t quote me the CCC, please don’t quote me Canon Law, please don’t quote me Papal allocutions, and please don’t quote me instructions of the Holy Office. I will take MY interpretation of one infallible definition over the teachings of the entire Church and all of her saints and theologians, SO THERE!!!!”

Of course, Jehanne can’t tell us what is actually being defined in the “infallible definition” he purports to correctly interpret, but that has never stopped a bull-headed Feeneyite before, and that has never stopped him from proceeding with some irrelevant and flawed syllogisms, or with accusing St. Thomas Aquinas and the Holy Office of “heresy”.

Good on ‘ya, Jehanne, you are being true to form.

See this:

http://catholicism.org/baptism-of-desire-its-origin-and-abandonment-in-the-thought-of-saint-augustine.html

No theologian, catechism, Pope, canonist, etc. has ever claimed that Baptism of Desire and/or Blood has happened, only that such can happen. I do not believe such does happen, ever.
avatar
Jehanne

Posts : 926
Reputation : 1025
Join date : 2010-12-21
Age : 49
Location : Iowa

http://unamsanctamecclesiamcatholicam.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: Tower of David Ministry Back online.

Post  Guest on Sun May 22, 2011 7:20 pm

MRyan wrote: I will take MY interpretation of one infallible definition over the teachings of the entire Church and all of her saints and theologians, SO THERE!!!!”

The teaching of the entire Church is primarily expressed through it's dogmatic definitions.

That's your fundamental problem, dogmatic definitions are just that....DEFINITIONS. You can't interpret them they are simply accepted for what they are. Do you look up a word in the dictionary and then ask "How do you interpret that definition." The dogmatic definitions ARE the interpretation.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Tower of David Ministry Back online.

Post  columba on Sun May 22, 2011 7:20 pm

MRyan, my point is; that if salvation can be brought about by another means other than water Baptism then "water Baptism" is NOT necessary for salvation. Do you agree? So the dogma should read; "Water Baptism is NOT necessary for eternal salvation for all, but is necessary for most."

This (I think) is what Rasha means when he says the matter could be settled by a new dogmatic statement. If God can bring the fruits of water Baptism to bear on those who have desired it but not obtained it (due to no fault of their own, though how is anyone to know if they have no fault?) then why did Our Lord bother about Baptism in the first place when desire can suffice. even implicit desire?

When this can be explained without defying reason, then until such a time I refuse to believe that baptism of desire is an infallible dogma of the faith until it is declared so in plain understandable language.
Call me a heretic if you will but there is enough mist around the subject to permit much greater minds than mine to believe that baptism of desire is not "de fide."
avatar
columba

Posts : 979
Reputation : 1068
Join date : 2010-12-18
Location : Ireland

Back to top Go down

Re: Tower of David Ministry Back online.

Post  Jehanne on Sun May 22, 2011 7:33 pm

columba wrote:This (I think) is what Rasha means when he says the matter could be settled by a new dogmatic statement. If God can bring the fruits of water Baptism to bear on those who have desired it but not obtained it (due to no fault of their own, though how is anyone to know if they have no fault?) then why did Our Lord bother about Baptism in the first place when desire can suffice. even implicit desire?

The whole concept is self-contradictory, for if one desires Baptism, especially implicitly, how does one go about getting rid of his/her desire? In other words, how do those who who desire Baptism ever become apostates? Baptism of Desire denies human free will, which is why it is absurd, like the "Holy Office" letter's concept of "implicit" membership in the Catholic Church. (How do such "implicit" members ever become non-members???) If one truly desires Baptism, then the One and Triune God will certainly provide that Sacrament, and the burden of proof is on those who would claim otherwise.
avatar
Jehanne

Posts : 926
Reputation : 1025
Join date : 2010-12-21
Age : 49
Location : Iowa

http://unamsanctamecclesiamcatholicam.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: Tower of David Ministry Back online.

Post  MRyan on Sun May 22, 2011 8:02 pm

Rasha, Columba and Jehanne,

Good discussion points! I must run, but will return and respond when I can.

Thanks,

Mike
avatar
MRyan

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Tower of David Ministry Back online.

Post  Allie on Sun May 22, 2011 8:30 pm

Jehanne wrote:The whole concept is self-contradictory, for if one desires Baptism, especially implicitly, how does one go about getting rid of his/her desire? In other words, how do those who who desire Baptism ever become apostates? Baptism of Desire denies human free will

Could you expound on this a bit as I am not clear on what you are saying...particularly your logic behind Baptism of Desire denying "human free will".

Thank you in advance, God bless.
avatar
Allie

Posts : 100
Reputation : 116
Join date : 2010-12-20
Location : southern Ohio, USA

Back to top Go down

Re: Tower of David Ministry Back online.

Post  Jehanne on Sun May 22, 2011 8:45 pm

I have written extensively about this on my blog:

http://unamsanctamecclesiamcatholicam.blogspot.com/

In a nutshell, however, let's say you desire to be sacramentally Baptized in Water. How do you get rid of that desire, that is, how do you choose not to be baptized in Water, especially, if your desire for Baptism is only "implicit"? In claiming that people have "baptism of desire," the baptism of desire/baptism of blood advocates are denying human free will, by claiming that one's desire for Baptism or lack of takes place on an unconscious level, even completely unknown to the person in question. It's just a bunch of Freudian psychobabble.

The Medievals understood correctly that desire equals one's own free will, that is, to truly desire Baptism one must have the vow to receive it. Of course, the immutable, omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent One and Triune God can take care of things from there. This is why the Roman Catechism stated:

Roman Catechism -- Ordinarily They Are Not Baptised At Once

"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.

Nay, this delay seems to be attended with some advantages. And first, since the Church must take particular care that none approach this Sacrament through hypocrisy and dissimulation..."

Since God has commanded every human being since the coming of His Son Jesus Christ to be sacramentally Baptized in water and since His commandments are not "impossible for us to fulfill," those who truly desire Baptism will find their way to that Sacrament, perhaps unknown to them in their infancy, as "anyone whatsoever" can validly baptize.
avatar
Jehanne

Posts : 926
Reputation : 1025
Join date : 2010-12-21
Age : 49
Location : Iowa

http://unamsanctamecclesiamcatholicam.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: Tower of David Ministry Back online.

Post  MRyan on Mon May 23, 2011 9:50 am

RashaLampa wrote:
MRyan wrote:Fr. Feeney had his "eureka" moment in 1952.

Don Scotus had a Eureka moment as well didn't he?
The difference being, of course, that the Church did not endorse St. Thomas Aquinas’ understanding of the Immaculate Conception in an ecumenical Council, or teach it quite explicitly in its official Roman Catechism(s), or teach it continuously in other official magisterial organs without a single dissenting voice since that same Council of Trent. Neither was this flawed view held by all the saints and theologians for over 400 years until a Don Scotus came along in the form of Fr. Feeney to “correct the record”.

In fact, since the Council of Trent (and well before) there were not two competing schools of thought on baptism of blood and baptism of desire, so where is there a record of “Feeneyites” voicing their objection to baptism of blood and baptism of desire? Seriously, produce the evidence for Feeneyism that existed between Trent and 1952 … good luck with that.

Keep in mind that even though the Immaculate Conception wasn’t solemnly defined until 1854, the saints and theologians became unified in their correct understanding long before then and I doubt there was a single scholar who held the Thomastic view even by the 16th century.

So, my assertion that the Immaculate Conception example does not support the Feeneyite position and in fact lends itself in many key respects to the development and correct understanding of baptism of blood and baptism of desire, stands vindicated.


avatar
MRyan

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Tower of David Ministry Back online.

Post  MRyan on Mon May 23, 2011 11:16 am

RashaLampa wrote:
MRyan wrote: I will take MY interpretation of one infallible definition over the teachings of the entire Church and all of her saints and theologians, SO THERE!!!!”

The teaching of the entire Church is primarily expressed through it's dogmatic definitions.
No, the teaching of the entire Church is primarily expressed through the official teaching authority of the Church.

RashaLampa wrote:That's your fundamental problem, dogmatic definitions are just that....DEFINITIONS. You can't interpret them they are simply accepted for what they are. Do you look up a word in the dictionary and then ask "How do you interpret that definition." The dogmatic definitions ARE the interpretation.
That is not “my fundamental problem”; for I have no problem whatsoever with how we are to understand the clear meaning of the words of dogmatic DEFINITIONS, precisely as the Church has defined them, and has always held them. Unlike Feeneyites; however, I do not make up my own understanding and impose it over the Church's understanding.

My problem is with certain Feeneyites who not only do not appear to even know what a dogmatic DEFINITION is, but have the audacity to tell us that the “once declared” meaning of the dogmatic DEFINITIONS in certain Canons of the Council of Trent, for example, is not the same meaning as the Church, her saints and her theologians have always understood them.

I’ve given this challenge to Columba, and now I give it to you: Please show us the dogmatic DEFINITION that solemnly DEFINED that neither the catechumen, nor the Faith (the true Faith) and charity-filled convert can be saved even if he shed his blood for Christ in martyrdom.

Simple request – let’s see the DEFINITION that positively excludes the salvation of the catechumen and the martyr without benefit of water baptism.

You are just repeating the stale Feeneyite and very much Protestant-like mantra that holds that the once-declared meaning of a dogma is the very same meaning that you give it, since its defined meaning is clearly understood by the words that convey that same meaning – never mind what the words actually say and never mind how the Church understands them and how she tells us she has always understood the dogma.

If the Church teaches that her understanding of the dogma on water baptism, for example, has NEVER excluded the possibility of salvation for those who are properly disposed, but are prevented from receiving the sacrament; you tell us that the Church must be in error, and has been in error since the Council of Trent; and Adam Miller tells us that such an error is actual heresy. After all, the Church’s teaching on baptism of blood/baptism of desire MUST be opposed to the DEFINED dogma of water Baptism if, as you say, the “once declared” meaning of the DEFINITION is “the interpretation” that you give it. Isn’t that right, Rasha?

The significant “disagreement” between Adam Miller and Br. Andre over whether the Church has solemnly “DEFINED” that no one at all can finally be saved without water Baptism, not even the catechumen or the martyr, only demonstrates how weak is your claim that my “fundamental problem” is that I do not understand that “dogmatic definitions are just that....DEFINITIONS. You can't interpret them they are simply accepted for what they are. Do you look up a word in the dictionary and then ask ‘How do you interpret that definition.’ The dogmatic definitions ARE the interpretation.”

Oh really? Then why does Br. Andre hold that baptism of desire and baptism of blood are “orthodox” doctrines, meaning, they CANNOT be opposed to the DEFINITIONS that YOU say must be interpreted “as they are”, meaning, as YOU understand them. It would seem that he has a "fundamental problem" in understanding that the "words" of the DEFINITION positively excludes baptism of blood and baptism of desire.

So do these DEFINITIONS positively exclude salvation without water baptism for the catechumen and the martyr ... or don’t they? Will you please make up your mind?

I wish Feeneyites would get their stories straight – or at least stand by what they propose; they are all over the map and don't even seem to know what a dogmatic DEFINITION actually "DEFINES".
avatar
MRyan

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Tower of David Ministry Back online.

Post  MRyan on Mon May 23, 2011 11:37 am

Oh, and Rasha, perhaps you can lend Br. Andre your dictionary so he can look up the words of the dogmatic DEFINITION on water Baptism so he does not have to ask "How do you interpret that definition"?, but tells us instead that the DEFINITION (the definition we are waiting to see) does not positively exclude the "orthodox" (and the Church's) teachings on baptism of blood and baptism of desire.

Wouldn't that help resolve Br. Andre's "fundamental problem"?
avatar
MRyan

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Tower of David Ministry Back online.

Post  Jehanne on Mon May 23, 2011 1:00 pm

If you are going to admit that whomever the One and Triune God predestines to receive Sacramental Baptism in Water will, in fact, receive that Sacrament, then I have no argument with you.
avatar
Jehanne

Posts : 926
Reputation : 1025
Join date : 2010-12-21
Age : 49
Location : Iowa

http://unamsanctamecclesiamcatholicam.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: Tower of David Ministry Back online.

Post  MRyan on Mon May 23, 2011 2:28 pm

RashaLampa wrote:
MRyan wrote:
RashaLampa wrote:
Would you say that before the Immaculate Conception was defined that it "didn't matter" what you believed on the issue?
Rasha,

I don't suppose you realize that this argument works entirely against the Feeneyite position and works instead in favor of having baptism of blood and baptism of desire being one day "defined" (if the Church ever thinks it is necessary) since it is a common and universally held belief ... a common belief that just happens to be taught by the Church ... and one she says she has always held.

To deny this is to deny reality.

Not really because ultimately baptism of desire and baptism of blood undermine the necessity of water baptism just like various explanations of how the Blessed Mother was "purified" from sin undermined the universal belief that she was free from sin from the very moment of her conception.
No¸ properly understood, they undermine no such thing. And, it is a study in contradiction to say “various explanations of how the Blessed Mother was ‘purified’ from sin undermined the universal belief that she was free from sin from the very moment of her conception.”

The various explanations did not undermine her Immaculate Conception, but only demonstrated a faulty understanding by some theologians of when conception begins, and a faulty understanding of the literal meaning of a passage in Scripture. In fact, St. Thomas’ belief that “all men have sinned” must also apply to the flesh of our Blessed Mother (before her “conception” and “quickening” by the Holy Spirit) only proves that a “literal” interpretation of Holy Scripture is not always the correct literal interpretation, and that its literal meaning is subject to interpretation by the Church, just as the literal meaning of dogmas are subject to this same supreme and God-given authority¸ which can never give a meaning other than its true and defined meaning as it was once declared.

RashaLampa wrote:Although, as I have always said I am open to the possibility of baptism of blood and baptism of desire for catechumens if someone could show how that does not contradict what has been infallibly defined, but so far no one can do that.
I can appreciate that, but you must know that when you say that "no one" can show you how baptism of blood and baptism of desire do not contradict what has been infallibly defined, what you are saying is that you do not trust what the Church has shown you, and has continued to show Catholics since the Council of Trent.

If the Church cannot "show you" that what she proposes is true, and that there is no contradiction (and cannot be any contradiction) with her own dogmas, then far be it from me to think that I can dissuade from thinking that the Church teaches a false doctrine (along with all of those popes, saints, doctors and theologians who fell into this same "error"). This is not a problem I can remedy.

It still amazes me that Feeneyites never seem to consider that the "problem" lies with them, and not with the Church or with the universal moral consensus of theologians.
avatar
MRyan

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Tower of David Ministry Back online.

Post  MRyan on Mon May 23, 2011 3:12 pm

Jehanne wrote:
See this:

http://catholicism.org/baptism-of-desire-its-origin-and-abandonment-in-the-thought-of-saint-augustine.html

I’ve read it. It is very good in many respects, even if I disagree with many of his arguments. But it still represents a minority opinion on the alleged turnabout of St. Augustine on baptism of desire.

And, as already demonstrated, the alleged “contrary opinion” (to baptism of desire) of Saint Gregory Nazianzen does not hold up under careful scrutiny. I could go on; but all of that aside, Brian Kelly is right to ask “Who are the Hosts of Doctors Before Aquinas Who Taught Baptism of Desire?”, when he really should also be asking “Who are the Hosts of Doctors and theologians since Aquinas Who Taught Baptism of Desire?” But that question is never asked because it is devastating to his argument, even if it is not the subject of his paper.

And he might as well have asked, “Who are the Hosts of Doctors Before Aquinas Who Taught the dogma of Papal Primacy and the Assumption of our Blessed Mother”?

The lack of a universal explicit assertion of a doctrine in the writings of the early Church Fathers is not its negation. Some doctrines solidify over time as their theological foundations are developed further. Brian Kelly admits that the doctrine of baptism of blood has a very strong early tradition, so Feeneyites are left again with the species notion that baptism of blood is traditional, but baptism of desire is not. Both are based, when all is said on done, on the theological precept that the bonds of faith and charity unite one to Christ.

In fact, Brian Kelly, in response to Fr. Laisney's assertion “that baptism of blood is the most perfect form of baptism of desire. Therefore, if Saint Benedict Center admits unanimity among those fathers and doctors who have spoken about baptism of blood, then, implicitly, St. Benedict Center is admitting that there is, for unbaptized martyrs, a perfect baptism of desire.”, said, “This is certainly a valid point.

For those Feeneyites who believe that the dogmatic DEFINITIONS positively exclude salvation via baptism of blood and baptism of desire, how can this be a “valid point”? Again, to Columba and Rasha, how can it be “valid” to suggest that the dogmatic DEFINITIONS allow for the possibility of salvation through baptism of blood and baptism of desire?

Don’t these “sentimental” Feeneyites have dictionaries so they can understand the meaning of the words of the DEFINITIONS?

I am in complete agreement with Brian (well, with a couple of minor caveats) when he says in closing:

Saint Augustine taught, as is clear from this article’s epigram, that the providence of God would see to it that a justified catechumen would be baptized before death [if he was predestined to Baptism – yes]. God alone, in any event, knows which of those, with a votum for baptism and perfect contrition, He has justified. The Church can only assume, as the arm of Christ, the Principal Agent in baptism, that all are in need of receiving the sacrament in order to not only have all sin forgiven and abolished, but to be a member of the Church, the Body of Christ [of course, but this “need” is not the same as intrinsic necessity]. Anticipating the rejoinder that no one is lost who dies in the state of grace, let me just affirm that I agree. Not only that I agree, but that I submit to this truth as I would a dogma of Faith. The Church, however, allows the faithful the freedom to believe that the providence of God will see to it that every person dying in the state of grace will also be baptized. This preserves the literal sense of Christ’s teaching in John 3:5: “Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God” and His apostolic mandate to preach and baptize all nations in Mark 16: 15-16.

Indeed, the Church allows for this very thing (I hold the same belief), without suggesting that we are free to “reject” her authentic and ordinary teachings on baptism of blood and baptism of desire, and so long as we do not impose our own interpretation of John 3:5 over that of the Church, who alone is authorized to “interpret” Scripture.

Brian ignores the controversial "official" position of the St. Benedict Center on a defective form of justification (that type of justifying sanctifying grace that cannot truly or fully justify anyone without water baptism), and well he should. He focuses more on the providence of God and the necessity of formal Church membership, and that's fine.

However, my main disagreement with Kelly is where he said:

Baptism of desire was not “held from the first centuries by all the Fathers,” nor is it the teaching of “the Magisterium of the Church.
No problem with the first part, but baptism of desire most certainly is a teaching of the Magisterium, or there is no such thing as a Magisterium. Those who believe that the Magisterium is exercised only when it defines, or infallibly teaches or settles a matter of revealed truth through the Extraordinary or the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium, simply do NOT know what they are talking about and do not know what the Magisterium is, and have no business telling Catholics that the authentic and ordinary teachings of the Church, even if they are not “infallible”, are not the teachings of the Magisterium.

Feeneyites are not alone in making this error … we see it from radtrads all the time. “He who hears you, hears Me”, and to the divinely conferred authority to “confirm” his brethren in the faith, only applies, according to the Feeneyite doctrine, when the Vicar of Christ speaks “ex cathedra” or through a definitive act of the universal and ordinary magisterium. There is a whole host of magisterial teaching on the types and levels of magisterial teachings that Feeneyites seem to be blissfully unaware.

It would seem that all "non-defined" teachings of the “Magisterium”, even those taught by the Church for centuries on end, are up for grabs and subject to how well they conform to one’s personal interpretations of Scripture and Tradition; not to mention the personal interpretation of the “words” of a solemn definition (grab your dictionary, its easy).

Jehanne wrote:
No theologian, catechism, Pope, canonist, etc. has ever claimed that Baptism of Desire and/or Blood has happened, only that such can happen. I do not believe such does happen, ever.
As I have said time and again, your personal beliefs are irrelevant (as are mine). You know that the Church’s teaching on baptism of blood and baptism of desire is perfectly orthodox, so all this talk about whether it ever happens or not is irrelevant. If the Church teaches that one can be saved by the fruits of baptism of desire and baptism of blood, as you know she does, then stop your jabbering, for you have yet to address the specific arguments introduced in my initial reply to this thread, or the specific Feeneyite errors I have brought to your attention.

In fact, your assertion that “No theologian, catechism, Pope, canonist, etc. has ever claimed that Baptism of Desire and/or Blood has happened, only that such can happen” is not entirely accurate when we consider that the Church’s own Acts of the Martyrs form a part of her Liturgical disciplines and prayers; and thus, they form a part of Catholic belief that cannot be opposed to her own dogmas.

Not only has the Church “allowed” for the belief that certain venerated martyrs have been slain without benefit of water baptism, her own official Liturgical works give testimony to this belief, even if these traditions do not rise to the level of infallible certitude.

Try again.


Last edited by MRyan on Mon May 23, 2011 3:19 pm; edited 1 time in total
avatar
MRyan

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Tower of David Ministry Back online.

Post  Jehanne on Mon May 23, 2011 3:18 pm

Okay, I assert that Baptism of Desire and/or Blood are doctrines, perhaps even dogmas, of the Catholic Faith but that they constitute null sets, that is, that they never happen. In other words, everyone whom the One and Triune God predestines to everlasting life is also predestined to receive Sacramental Baptism in Water.

The teachings of Father Feeney and Saint Thomas are thus fully harmonized.
avatar
Jehanne

Posts : 926
Reputation : 1025
Join date : 2010-12-21
Age : 49
Location : Iowa

http://unamsanctamecclesiamcatholicam.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: Tower of David Ministry Back online.

Post  MRyan on Mon May 23, 2011 3:42 pm

Jehanne wrote: everyone whom the One and Triune God predestines to everlasting life is also predestined to receive Sacramental Baptism in Water.

The teachings of Father Feeney and Saint Thomas are thus fully harmonized.
That is one of the silliest things you have ever said.

St. Aquinas did NOT teach that everyone who is predestined to eternal life is predestined to water baptism, but that everyone who is predestined to eternal life is predestined to the sacrament, or at least to the essential fruit of the sacrament.

The respective doctrines of Fr. Feeney and St. Thomas Aquinas on baptism of desire are clearly opposed - and everyone knows it. This awful spinning in an attempt to force a reconciliation at the expense of the truth must end.

avatar
MRyan

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Tower of David Ministry Back online.

Post  Jehanne on Mon May 23, 2011 3:52 pm

MRyan wrote:In fact, Brian Kelly, in response to Fr. Laisney's assertion “that baptism of blood is the most perfect form of baptism of desire. Therefore, if Saint Benedict Center admits unanimity among those fathers and doctors who have spoken about baptism of blood, then, implicitly, St. Benedict Center is admitting that there is, for unbaptized martyrs, a perfect baptism of desire.”, said, “This is certainly a valid point.

Sacramental Baptism in Water is also the "perfect remedy of salvation." (Council of Vienne, Denzinger, #482)

MRyan wrote:Brian ignores the controversial "official" position of the St. Benedict Center on a defective form of justification (that type of justifying sanctifying grace that cannot truly or fully justify anyone without water baptism), and well he should. He focuses more on the providence of God and the necessity of formal Church membership, and that's fine.

Saint Thomas taught along the same lines:

"As stated above (1, ad 2; 68, 2) man receives the forgiveness of sins before Baptism in so far as he has Baptism of desire, explicitly or implicitly; and yet when he actually receives Baptism, he receives a fuller remission, as to the remission of the entire punishment. So also before Baptism Cornelius and others like him receive grace and virtues through their faith in Christ and their desire for Baptism, implicit or explicit: but afterwards when baptized, they receive a yet greater fulness of grace and virtues. Hence in Psalm 22:2, 'He hath brought me up on the water of refreshment,' a gloss says: 'He has brought us up by an increase of virtue and good deeds in Baptism.'" (ST, III, 69, 4)

So, in Thomas' view, the actual Baptism is important.

MRyan wrote:Not only has the Church “allowed” for the belief that certain venerated martyrs have been slain without benefit of water baptism, her own official Liturgical works give testimony to this belief, even if these traditions do not rise to the level of infallible certitude.

This is, of course, to "prove a negative," which is absurd. I am sure that they knew that.
avatar
Jehanne

Posts : 926
Reputation : 1025
Join date : 2010-12-21
Age : 49
Location : Iowa

http://unamsanctamecclesiamcatholicam.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: Tower of David Ministry Back online.

Post  Jehanne on Mon May 23, 2011 3:55 pm

MRyan wrote:
Jehanne wrote: everyone whom the One and Triune God predestines to everlasting life is also predestined to receive Sacramental Baptism in Water.

The teachings of Father Feeney and Saint Thomas are thus fully harmonized.
That is one of the silliest things you have ever said.

St. Aquinas did NOT teach that everyone who is predestined to eternal life is predestined to water baptism, but that everyone who is predestined to eternal life is predestined to the sacrament, or at least to the essential fruit of the sacrament.

The respective doctrines of Fr. Feeney and St. Thomas Aquinas on baptism of desire are clearly opposed - and everyone knows it. This awful spinning in an attempt to force a reconciliation at the expense of the truth must end.


Indirectly, he did:

"As God, in accordance with the perfection of the divine power, can do all things, and yet some things are not subject to His power, because they fall short of being possible; so, also, if we regard the immutability of the divine power, whatever God could do, He can do now. Some things, however, at one time were in the nature of possibility, whilst they were yet to be done, which now fall short of the nature of possibility, when they have been done. So is God said not to be able to do them, because they themselves cannot be done." (ST, Ia, q. 25, a. 4, ad 2)
avatar
Jehanne

Posts : 926
Reputation : 1025
Join date : 2010-12-21
Age : 49
Location : Iowa

http://unamsanctamecclesiamcatholicam.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: Tower of David Ministry Back online.

Post  MRyan on Mon May 23, 2011 5:00 pm

columba wrote:MRyan, my point is; that if salvation can be brought about by another means other than water Baptism then "water Baptism" is NOT necessary for salvation. Do you agree? So the dogma should read; "Water Baptism is NOT necessary for eternal salvation for all, but is necessary for most."
I understand; but no, I do not agree. In fact, I would appreciate it if you would cite the dogmatic DEFINITION you are re-wording so that we can know what it actually says before an attempt is made at a revision. (Such power is intoxicating).

I do not agree, because the Church teaches that the sacrament of baptism is necessary to all men for salvation. She does not say to “most men”, but she clearly means to say it is necessary to all men without exception¸ and not just as a necessity of precept, but as a necessity of means.

So to say that Baptism is necessary only to “most men” is heresy if it said to suggest that the divine precept to be baptized in water is “optional”. However, to suggest that not all men who are saved must necessarily receive the actual sacrament when it is not humanly possible to receive it is does not alleviate the divinely imposed obligation imposed on all men to receive it; it says only that the sacraments were made for man, and not for God, Who is not bound to the sacraments to effect the same end, as the Church also teaches.

In other words, Columba, the catechumen or martyr who happens to be saved by virtue of the bonds of faith and charity, without actual sacramental ablution, is still obliged by divine and ecclesiastical precept to receive the sacrament he so ardently desires until his last dying breadth. Never do we assume while a person is still alive that the obligation has been lifted. But “absolute necessity” refers to the fruit of the sacrament, and not necessary to the necessity of matter, form and intention, which, as being absolutely necessary to a sacrament's validity, the sacraments themselves are institutional “helps” and instruments of conveyance that are necessary as extrinsic necessity of means; whereas sanctifying grace (the fruit of the sacrament), faith and charity are always intrinsic to eternal salvation (without which, salvation cannot be).

As confusing as these critical distinctions are made out to be, St. Thomas Aquinas and the Holy Office explained these distinctions quite clearly, even if it falls on the deaf ears of those who believe the Church is so incompetent she doesn’t understand the meaning of her own dogmas.

There is no contradiction.

I’ll pick up on the rest another time … I’m running out of steam ... and have other things to attend to. Thanks for your patience.

Say, have we been over this before?
Rolling Eyes
avatar
MRyan

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Tower of David Ministry Back online.

Post  tornpage on Mon May 23, 2011 5:27 pm

I by no means want to deflect the discussion, but I do want to make a point that, I don't know, may be helpful by analogy or something.

I can sympathize with the Feeneyites to this extent: I maintain that explicit faith in Christ is necessary for salvation, and that one must abjure any beliefs that deny Catholic dogma (the True Faith) to be saved. Thus, I accept the possibility (and pray that it happens) that "good" Jews, Prots, Hindus etc. die in the arms of Our Lord, i.e., have deathbed conversions where they accept and embrace Christ as Savior, and, if not explicitly renouncing any heresies they once held, implicitly and in a real sense abjuring them: sin doesn't enter heaven, and neither does falsity. Why Our Lord would wait until just prior to death to do this is beyond me and none of my business, but I can think of good reasons: the "good" Jew or pagan could be a very positive influence in their "faith community" (gulp) and could spread some light and justice there, which they would not be able to if they were not a fellow Jew, etc.

Anyway, all who seek the truth find the TRUTH (according to Our Lord, so it's true in itself). I do not understand, then, how God, who would only save those who seek Him and His truth, would save them without making them aware of His Incarnation and work of their redemption, or while dying without (at least implicitly) abjuring beliefs that denied either His Incarnation, Redemptive Passion, etc. I suppose this is like the Feeneyite not understanding how God, who could do all things and for whom all is possible, would not bring all of His elect to Him through the sacrament of baptism.

So I sympathize with the Feeneyites. But, and this is the crucial point, my belief, i.e. that all of the elect will have explicit faith in Christ before their death and abjure any heresies which deny any point of the Catholic faith, does not contradict the Magisterium's teachings in either her extraordinary or ordinary and universal expressions - to my knowledge. The CCC's statement about those who don't "don't know Christ," that they can also be saved, is troubling to me, and is the only instance I know of where any official statement of the Magisterium seems to contradict my belief. And I only say, "seems." A case can be made that is doesn't. But that CCC passage, and the "ecumenical" statements of the VII popes in certain encyclicals and elsehwere - along with the creation of a new institution with a new Mass, a new rite of ordination, new code of canon law, etc. (as Archbishop Lefebvre said) - is why the spirit of the sedevacantists is always whispering in my ears.

Anyway - and this is crucial, the Magisterial support of baptism of desire and baptism of blood is extensive, spans powerfully over many centuries, and is held by the Church's greatest doctors and saints, etc. baptism of desire and baptism of blood is unquestionably taught by the Church.

So . . . I don't know how helpful this has been, other than for me getting some things off my chest and exercising (or trying to) some evil spirits.

I do understand the Feeneyite position, having not only held it, but also by holding a position (in the necessity of explicit faith in Christ and the Catholic faith) that has me constantly being cornered by the modernists who dominate the hierarchy, even if they can't accuse me of heresy or schism. At least for now, and pray God forever.

Carry on, guys. Good discussion.

tornpage
avatar
tornpage

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Tower of David Ministry Back online.

Post  columba on Mon May 23, 2011 7:05 pm

I tend to be of the same mind as you Tornpage in much of what you said above.
I must say, the following quote fom Pope Pius VI kinda scares me in consideration of the langusge being used to convey doctrine in the present day Church.


Pope Pius VI, Apostolic Constitution "Auctorem Fidei" (1794)

"[The Ancient Doctors] knew the capacity of innovators in the art of deception. In order not to shock the ears of Catholics, they sought to hide the subtleties of their tortuous maneuvers by the use of seemingly innocuous words such as would allow them to insinuate error into souls in the most gentle manner. Once the truth had been compromised, they could, by means of slight changes or additions in phraseology, distort the confession of the faith which is necessary for our salvation, and lead the faithful by subtle errors to their eternal damnation. This manner of dissimulating and lying is vicious, regardless of the circumstances under which it is used. For very good reasons it can never be tolerated in a synod of which the principal glory consists above all in teaching the truth with clarity and excluding all danger of error.

"Morever, if all this is sinful, it cannot be excused in the way that one sees it being done, under the erroneous pretext that the seemingly shocking affirmations in one place are further developed along orthodox lines in other places, and even in yet other places corrected; as if allowing for the possibility of either affirming or denying the statement, or of leaving it up the personal inclinations of the individual – such has always been the fraudulent and daring method used by innovators to establish error. It allows for both the possibility of promoting error and of excusing it.

"It is as if the innovators pretended that they always intended to present the alternative passages, especially to those of simple faith who eventually come to know only some part of the conclusions of such discussions which are published in the common language for everyone's use. Or again, as if the same faithful had the ability on examining such documents to judge such matters for themselves without getting confused and avoiding all risk of error. It is a most reprehensible technique for the insinuation of doctrinal errors and one condemned long ago by our predecessor Saint Celestine who found it used in the writings of Nestorius, Bishop of Constantinople, and which he exposed in order to condemn it with the greatest possible severity. Once these texts were examined carefully, the impostor was exposed and confounded, for he expressed himself in a plethora of words, mixing true things with others that were obscure; mixing at times one with the other in such a way that he was also able to confess those things which were denied while at the same time possessing a basis for denying those very sentences which he confessed.

"In order to expose such snares, something which becomes necessary with a certain frequency in every century, no other method is required than the following: Whenever it becomes necessary to expose statements which disguise some suspected error or danger under the veil of ambiguity, one must denounce the perverse meaning under which the error opposed to Catholic truth is camouflaged."


MRyan said:
Say, have we been over this before?
Rolling Eyes

Yes I think we have discussed these things somewhere and reached an impasse, but hope springs eternal. Laughing
avatar
columba

Posts : 979
Reputation : 1068
Join date : 2010-12-18
Location : Ireland

Back to top Go down

Re: Tower of David Ministry Back online.

Post  pascendi on Mon May 23, 2011 9:03 pm

At this point, I'd just ask any and every opponent if I was required by the Church to believe that Baptism is sometimes not necessary for salvation, in order to hold and keep my faith... and while the opponent begins to squirm desperately trying to avoid the obvious logical chokehold, kind of just walk away and call it a day and not care much... you know, go do something more productive or something more fun. Because the truth is this: no one at all will ever be refuted for holding that Baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation. I've always held that, and have not once been refuted.

The Church has never required anyone to believe that Baptism is sometimes not necessary for salvation. How horribly absurd.

pascendi

Posts : 96
Reputation : 102
Join date : 2011-05-19
Location : Forum Founder

Back to top Go down

Re: Tower of David Ministry Back online.

Post  MRyan on Tue May 24, 2011 10:28 am

columba wrote:
I tend to be of the same mind as you Tornpage in much of what you said above.

I must say, the following quote from Pope Pius VI kinda scares me in consideration of the language being used to convey doctrine in the present day Church.

Pope Pius VI, Apostolic Constitution "Auctorem Fidei" (1794)

"[The Ancient Doctors] knew the capacity of innovators in the art of deception. In order not to shock the ears of Catholics, they sought to hide the subtleties of their tortuous maneuvers by the use of seemingly innocuous words such as would allow them to insinuate error into souls in the most gentle manner.

"In order to expose such snares, something which becomes necessary with a certain frequency in every century, no other method is required than the following: Whenever it becomes necessary to expose statements which disguise some suspected error or danger under the veil of ambiguity, one must denounce the perverse meaning under which the error opposed to Catholic truth is camouflaged."
Columba, these passages from "Auctorem Fidei" must be read with extreme caution so as to avoid jumping to any rash conclusions where one can easily end up making false and even heretical accusations against “the present day Church.” There is a significant difference between introducing or practicing innovation, and doing so for the purpose of deception in order to “insinuate error into souls in the most gentle manner.”

Let me remind you once again of the danger I am talking about by citing the condemned “Errors of the Synod of Pistoia”, from the same Apostolic Constitution "Auctorem Fidei":

“[A. Errors about the Church 3] Obscuring of Truths in the Church [From the Decree de Grat., sec. I]

1. The proposition, which asserts "that in these later times there has been spread a general obscuring of the more important truths pertaining to religion, which are the basis of faith and of the moral teachings of Jesus Christ,"heretical.”

Why is this proposition “heretical”? Because it accuses the Church itself of obscuring the truths of divine revelation, the very basis of our faith. It is heretical because it denies that “whoever succeeds to the chair of Peter obtains by the institution of Christ himself, the primacy of Peter over the whole Church. So what the truth has ordained stands firm, and blessed Peter perseveres in the rock-like strength he was granted, and does not abandon that guidance of the Church which he once received.” (VCI, First dogmatic constitution on the Church of Christ)

That ambiguity and innovation can be justly criticized since they tend to obscure the truth does NOT mean that the Church (through Peter) has abandoned that guidance that assures that the basis and important truths of our faith stands firm. For example, VCII did not abandon the faith, it did not change any revealed truths, and it did not practice the art of deception. Neither did it deceive “in order to insinuate error into the souls”. If anyone believes this, they should just announce that the See is vacant and go on their merry sede way.

Let me be more specific by citing what I wrote in a previous thread:

For example, with respect to the Second Vatican Council's Declaration on Religious Liberty Dignitatis Humanae, there is no doubt that his document has been difficult to reconcile with previous teaching. But, does that mean that it is opposed to Tradition and to the teachings of previous declarations of the Magisterium?

Having said that [citation deleted], Kwasniewski also says:

When all is said and done, Dignitatis Humanae remains a problematic document if only because its own scope and method are left unclear to the reader and, as a result, its interpretation has been terribly, but predictably, vexed. It has given rise to acrimonious debate, intense partisanship, and even to real or emergent schism: leaders of the Society of Saint Pius X have pointed above all to Dignitatis Humanae as undeniable proof of the doctrinal discontinuity that justifies skepticism about the Second Vatican Council. [Dignitatis Humanae, The Interpretive Principles, by Peter A. Kwasniewski]
In other words, Columba, can it by justly asserted that the Council’s Declaration Dignitatis Humanae is not the work of the true Church, but the work of “innovators in the art of deception” who “In order not to shock the ears of Catholics, they sought to hide the subtleties of their tortuous maneuvers by the use of seemingly innocuous words such as would allow them to insinuate error into souls in the most gentle manner."?

Can such an accusation be made without accusing the Holy See itself, the very Rock-like strength and foundational faith of Peter, of abandoning the Faith? I hope you are not tempted to join that particular bandwagon, for what they propose is heresy.

And don’t worry, that “whispering” in the ears of Tornpage is indeed the “spirit of the sedevacantists”, or, said another way, the whispering of the devil who whispers to all of us; but Tornpage will in the end pay him no mind ... the devil will take a beating by his guardian angel ... who will put a cork in it (one tough hombre).


avatar
MRyan

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Tower of David Ministry Back online.

Post  Roguejim on Tue May 24, 2011 2:42 pm

pascendi wrote:At this point, I'd just ask any and every opponent if I was required by the Church to believe that Baptism is sometimes not necessary for salvation, in order to hold and keep my faith... and while the opponent begins to squirm desperately trying to avoid the obvious logical chokehold, kind of just walk away and call it a day and not care much... you know, go do something more productive or something more fun. Because the truth is this: no one at all will ever be refuted for holding that Baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation. I've always held that, and have not once been refuted.

The Church has never required anyone to believe that Baptism is sometimes not necessary for salvation. How horribly absurd.

A strawman cannot apply a chokehold unless he is a professional wrestler, in which case the chokehold is just for show. Lucha libre!
avatar
Roguejim

Posts : 211
Reputation : 315
Join date : 2010-12-18
Location : southern Oregon

Back to top Go down

Re: Tower of David Ministry Back online.

Post  MRyan on Tue May 24, 2011 5:02 pm

Jehanne wrote:
columba wrote:This (I think) is what Rasha means when he says the matter could be settled by a new dogmatic statement. If God can bring the fruits of water Baptism to bear on those who have desired it but not obtained it (due to no fault of their own, though how is anyone to know if they have no fault?) then why did Our Lord bother about Baptism in the first place when desire can suffice. even implicit desire?

The whole concept is self-contradictory, for if one desires Baptism, especially implicitly, how does one go about getting rid of his/her desire? In other words, how do those who who desire Baptism ever become apostates? Baptism of Desire denies human free will, which is why it is absurd, like the "Holy Office" letter's concept of "implicit" membership in the Catholic Church. (How do such "implicit" members ever become non-members???) If one truly desires Baptism, then the One and Triune God will certainly provide that Sacrament, and the burden of proof is on those who would claim otherwise.
One does not “get rid” of his/her desire, one’s desire is fulfilled either by way of sacramental ablution, or by death and the gift of sanctification/regeneration that is received prior to it, if ablution was humanly impossible ... and the person was properly disposed (intention, faith and charity/contrition).

Your whole line of questioning is fallacious since you intentionally conflate the necessary distinctions between that essential unity wrought by the bonds of faith and charity, and formal membership wrought by virtue of Baptism.

The “Holy Office Letter” does not speak of an “implicit membership”, but of an implicit desire to be united to the Church that must be accompanied by a proper intention and an explicit supernatural faith and perfect charity, or there can be no sanctifying bond of unity or “virtual incorporation” (as St. Thomas Aquinas calls it) with Christ or His Mystical Body.

You do not understand the theological distinctions, you do understand the Holy Office Letter, and you can’t even cite the same Letter without distorting what it actually said, but you have no problem accusing the Holy Office of “heresy”.

If one truly desires Baptism, “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 Catechism of Trent).

The “burden of proof” is on those who claim that the Church has been in error since St. Thomas Aquinas confirmed that God is NOT bound by His sacraments and the Church taught (since at least the Council of Trent) that God will provide the fruit of the sacrament to those “who die before their Baptism”, as the CCC teaches, because “their explicit desire to receive it [catechumens], together with repentance for their sins, and charity, assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive through the sacrament.”

The “burden of proof” is on you to explain to Catholics why they should leave the sure and true safe harbor of over 400 years of consistent magisterial teaching for some layman’s “interpretation” of the “Truth” that did not make an appearance until 1952 in the backwaters of Boston.

Good luck with that.
avatar
MRyan

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Tower of David Ministry Back online.

Post  MRyan on Tue May 24, 2011 6:14 pm

Jehanne wrote:
MRyan wrote:In fact, Brian Kelly, in response to Fr. Laisney's assertion “that baptism of blood is the most perfect form of baptism of desire. Therefore, if Saint Benedict Center admits unanimity among those fathers and doctors who have spoken about baptism of blood, then, implicitly, St. Benedict Center is admitting that there is, for unbaptized martyrs, a perfect baptism of desire.”, said, “This is certainly a valid point.

Sacramental Baptism in Water is also the "perfect remedy of salvation." (Council of Vienne, Denzinger, #482)
Ummm ... OK, but is there a point? If so, what is it?

Baptism of blood is the perfect form of baptism of desire, while Baptism is the perfect remedy for salvation. Why is it the “perfect remedy”? Because fallen man requires a perfect remedy that can overcome his concupiscence and an often less than ardent faith and charity, and/or a less than perfect contrition (attrition). It is a perfect remedy because it is a perfect gift from God for the mass of humanity that cannot rise, or be trusted to rise, to that “perfect charity” God desires before he joins Himself to, and abides within, His chosen souls.

But there is a critical connection between the “perfect form” of baptism of desire, “perfect charity” and the “perfect remedy” of Baptism, and it is this: Each results in the perfect merits and fruit of the ONE Baptism and of the Redemption applied in the perfect form of sanctifying grace (God's created creature), which regenerates and translates every soul so sanctified (since the promulgation of the Gospel) as a son of God and heir to the Kingdom.

Obviously, baptism of desire is a “less than perfect” remedy from the standpoint of the fuller remission of sins that result from baptism of blood and Baptism, but it is still the “perfect remedy” for the particular soul who is prevented from receiving Baptism, or is not given the grace of martyrdom; for he still receives the essential fruit of the “perfect remedy”; without which, the life of grace and salvation “cannot be”.

So, in Thomas' view, the actual Baptism is important.

Of course it is. And what would make you think otherwise?


avatar
MRyan

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Tower of David Ministry Back online.

Post  pascendi on Tue May 24, 2011 7:38 pm

Roguejim wrote:
pascendi wrote:At this point, I'd just ask any and every opponent if I was required by the Church to believe that Baptism is sometimes not necessary for salvation, in order to hold and keep my faith... and while the opponent begins to squirm desperately trying to avoid the obvious logical chokehold, kind of just walk away and call it a day and not care much... you know, go do something more productive or something more fun. Because the truth is this: no one at all will ever be refuted for holding that Baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation. I've always held that, and have not once been refuted.

The Church has never required anyone to believe that Baptism is sometimes not necessary for salvation. How horribly absurd.

A strawman cannot apply a chokehold unless he is a professional wrestler, in which case the chokehold is just for show. Lucha libre!

You're being far too deep for me. I don't understand your point. Did I do a strawman?

pascendi

Posts : 96
Reputation : 102
Join date : 2011-05-19
Location : Forum Founder

Back to top Go down

Re: Tower of David Ministry Back online.

Post  Jehanne on Tue May 24, 2011 9:27 pm

MRyan wrote:One does not “get rid” of his/her desire, one’s desire is fulfilled either by way of sacramental ablution, or by death and the gift of sanctification/regeneration that is received prior to it, if ablution was humanly impossible ... and the person was properly disposed (intention, faith and charity/contrition).

So, you admit that individuals who have "baptism of desire" have lost their free will with respect to getting Baptized? If not, explain how one who has "baptism of desire" would choose not to be baptized?
avatar
Jehanne

Posts : 926
Reputation : 1025
Join date : 2010-12-21
Age : 49
Location : Iowa

http://unamsanctamecclesiamcatholicam.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: Tower of David Ministry Back online.

Post  MRyan on Tue May 24, 2011 11:21 pm

Jehanne wrote:
MRyan wrote:One does not “get rid” of his/her desire, one’s desire is fulfilled either by way of sacramental ablution, or by death and the gift of sanctification/regeneration that is received prior to it, if ablution was humanly impossible ... and the person was properly disposed (intention, faith and charity/contrition).

So, you admit that individuals who have "baptism of desire" have lost their free will with respect to getting Baptized? If not, explain how one who has "baptism of desire" would choose not to be baptized?
What? I admit to no such thing, especially something as ludicrous as that. How in the world can someone who (hypothetically) has “baptism of desire” choose NOT to be baptized when the very definition of “baptism of desire” necessary includes the vow/intention/desire to be Baptized?

Your question is a complete contradiction. It is no different from asking how a Baptized penitent who has fallen and been restored to grace by a perfect charity/contrition can choose NOT to seek absolution from a priest. If he never intended (a matter of the WILL) to seek absolution as the Church commands, he could never have been restored to a state of grace to begin with - as he did not possess the proper dispositions.

Capice?

The sacraments of Baptism and Penance (for those who have fallen after Baptism) are alike with respect to necessity:

“And this sacrament of Penance is, for those who have fallen after baptism, necessary unto salvation; as baptism itself is for those who have not as yet been regenerated.” (CT, Session XIV, Ch. II).

In both cases, the sacrament is necessary for salvation, at least in desire, as the Church teaches.

There can be no baptism of desire without the proper intention of the will, which remains free to reject the grace of conversion and NOT to seek Baptism, or to seek Baptism with the wrong (false) intention.

Honestly, Jehanne, I don’t know where you come up with this stuff. You’re bouncing all over the place.
avatar
MRyan

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Tower of David Ministry Back online.

Post  Roguejim on Wed May 25, 2011 5:37 am

pascendi wrote:
Roguejim wrote:
pascendi wrote:At this point, I'd just ask any and every opponent if I was required by the Church to believe that Baptism is sometimes not necessary for salvation, in order to hold and keep my faith... and while the opponent begins to squirm desperately trying to avoid the obvious logical chokehold, kind of just walk away and call it a day and not care much... you know, go do something more productive or something more fun. Because the truth is this: no one at all will ever be refuted for holding that Baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation. I've always held that, and have not once been refuted.

The Church has never required anyone to believe that Baptism is sometimes not necessary for salvation. How horribly absurd.

A strawman cannot apply a chokehold unless he is a professional wrestler, in which case the chokehold is just for show. Lucha libre!

You're being far too deep for me. I don't understand your point. Did I do a strawman?

Allow me to ask one of my blindingly simple questions.

If baptism of desire is an authentic teaching of the Church binding on the intellect and will of all Catholics, i.e., it is NOT merely a theological construct open to denial, then, does baptism of desire negate the "absolute necessity" of water Baptism? (I'm attempting to peel back the mask from your straw man hereby referred to as "El Mano".)
avatar
Roguejim

Posts : 211
Reputation : 315
Join date : 2010-12-18
Location : southern Oregon

Back to top Go down

Re: Tower of David Ministry Back online.

Post  Jehanne on Wed May 25, 2011 8:09 am

MRyan wrote:
Jehanne wrote:
MRyan wrote:One does not “get rid” of his/her desire, one’s desire is fulfilled either by way of sacramental ablution, or by death and the gift of sanctification/regeneration that is received prior to it, if ablution was humanly impossible ... and the person was properly disposed (intention, faith and charity/contrition).

So, you admit that individuals who have "baptism of desire" have lost their free will with respect to getting Baptized? If not, explain how one who has "baptism of desire" would choose not to be baptized?
What? I admit to no such thing, especially something as ludicrous as that. How in the world can someone who (hypothetically) has “baptism of desire” choose NOT to be baptized when the very definition of “baptism of desire” necessary includes the vow/intention/desire to be Baptized?

Your question is a complete contradiction. It is no different from asking how a Baptized penitent who has fallen and been restored to grace by a perfect charity/contrition can choose NOT to seek absolution from a priest. If he never intended (a matter of the WILL) to seek absolution as the Church commands, he could never have been restored to a state of grace to begin with - as he did not possess the proper dispositions.

Capice?

The sacraments of Baptism and Penance (for those who have fallen after Baptism) are alike with respect to necessity:

“And this sacrament of Penance is, for those who have fallen after baptism, necessary unto salvation; as baptism itself is for those who have not as yet been regenerated.” (CT, Session XIV, Ch. II).

In both cases, the sacrament is necessary for salvation, at least in desire, as the Church teaches.

There can be no baptism of desire without the proper intention of the will, which remains free to reject the grace of conversion and NOT to seek Baptism, or to seek Baptism with the wrong (false) intention.

Honestly, Jehanne, I don’t know where you come up with this stuff. You’re bouncing all over the place.

So, you're saying that someone, say, a young woman, could not fall in love with a man, get engaged, send out wedding invitations, and then perhaps a few months later, change her mind, cancel the wedding, and then a few years later fall in love with a different man?

Let's say that someone has the vow to be baptized and has "set a date" with the Church. Is that person capable of changing his/her mind after that point, yet before he/she is baptized? And, if he/she would choose not to be baptized, would you assert that person still has a "desire" to be baptized?
avatar
Jehanne

Posts : 926
Reputation : 1025
Join date : 2010-12-21
Age : 49
Location : Iowa

http://unamsanctamecclesiamcatholicam.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: Tower of David Ministry Back online.

Post  Allie on Wed May 25, 2011 9:27 am

Jehanne wrote:
MRyan wrote:
Jehanne wrote:
MRyan wrote:One does not “get rid” of his/her desire, one’s desire is fulfilled either by way of sacramental ablution, or by death and the gift of sanctification/regeneration that is received prior to it, if ablution was humanly impossible ... and the person was properly disposed (intention, faith and charity/contrition).

So, you admit that individuals who have "baptism of desire" have lost their free will with respect to getting Baptized? If not, explain how one who has "baptism of desire" would choose not to be baptized?
What? I admit to no such thing, especially something as ludicrous as that. How in the world can someone who (hypothetically) has “baptism of desire” choose NOT to be baptized when the very definition of “baptism of desire” necessary includes the vow/intention/desire to be Baptized?

Your question is a complete contradiction. It is no different from asking how a Baptized penitent who has fallen and been restored to grace by a perfect charity/contrition can choose NOT to seek absolution from a priest. If he never intended (a matter of the WILL) to seek absolution as the Church commands, he could never have been restored to a state of grace to begin with - as he did not possess the proper dispositions.

Capice?

The sacraments of Baptism and Penance (for those who have fallen after Baptism) are alike with respect to necessity:

“And this sacrament of Penance is, for those who have fallen after baptism, necessary unto salvation; as baptism itself is for those who have not as yet been regenerated.” (CT, Session XIV, Ch. II).

In both cases, the sacrament is necessary for salvation, at least in desire, as the Church teaches.

There can be no baptism of desire without the proper intention of the will, which remains free to reject the grace of conversion and NOT to seek Baptism, or to seek Baptism with the wrong (false) intention.

Honestly, Jehanne, I don’t know where you come up with this stuff. You’re bouncing all over the place.

So, you're saying that someone, say, a young woman, could not fall in love with a man, get engaged, send out wedding invitations, and then perhaps a few months later, change her mind, cancel the wedding, and then a few years later fall in love with a different man?

Let's say that someone has the vow to be baptized and has "set a date" with the Church. Is that person capable of changing his/her mind after that point, yet before he/she is baptized? And, if he/she would choose not to be baptized, would you assert that person still has a "desire" to be baptized?

Jehanne,

The person is capable of changing their mind about being baptised. However, this would obviously then negate their previous "desire" for baptism. It doesn't mean that this person at some point in the future will not again repent of their sins, have faith in Jesus and His Church and desire to be baptized again-hopefully this time following through with baptism.

Sorry if I just answered a question you were asking Mike... Wink he may have a different answer from mine but this is the way I would see the scenario you gave. And if you re-read his answer above I "think" you would already have his answer to your scenario.


avatar
Allie

Posts : 100
Reputation : 116
Join date : 2010-12-20
Location : southern Ohio, USA

Back to top Go down

Re: Tower of David Ministry Back online.

Post  Jehanne on Wed May 25, 2011 10:18 am

I agree with what you wrote 100%. How about a person who has an implicit desire for Baptism? How does he/she "change" his/her mind?
avatar
Jehanne

Posts : 926
Reputation : 1025
Join date : 2010-12-21
Age : 49
Location : Iowa

http://unamsanctamecclesiamcatholicam.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: Tower of David Ministry Back online.

Post  Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 1 of 4 1, 2, 3, 4  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


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