Tower of David Ministry Back online.

Roguejim wrote:

pascendi wrote:

Roguejim wrote:

pascendi wrote:Good response.

Nah, not really. Just begs the question as to why, in Bro. Andre's mind, the Church would ever condemn someone for holding to a teaching that is taught by the Church Herself. Bizarre. But at least he's big enough to not want to accuse the Church of heresy. Yep, mighty big...

I read this several times, and to be honest, I have no idea what you mean. I reread his several times, and it makes sense.

That last sentence... should I think ill of Bro. Andre? It sounds like you have more to add. Would you? It sounds like the next in a series is on his way out.

I will try and rephrase my statement in language befitting someone struggling in your present "mansion".


Bro Andre Marie:

"In response to your inquiry, I can say that Brother Francis taught that the adherent of the so-called "baptism of desire," in the strict sense in which it was taught by St. Thomas Aquinas and other orthodox theologians, cannot be called a heretic, or have his orthodoxy questioned in the least. This is because the Church has never seen fit to censure this position as heretical, and we cannot presume to censure what the Church herself has not condemned.... It is merely to state that those who disagree with us on this point cannot be labeled heretics."



Well, the more I read the paragraph above by the Brother, the screwier it appears. The correct reason for not labeling as heretics those who adhere to the so-called "baptism of desire", is because it is an authentic Church teaching to which they adhere. "The Church has never seen fit to censure this position as heretical", BECAUSE IT IS HER OWN POSITION! Nice dodge, Brother.

The statement is perfectly fine. Don't allow yourself to become one of these irritating people who soak another person for truth and understanding, and after they've had their fill, and when they come upon a sticking point, some disagreement, or personal flaw in their previously respected and self-chosen guru, they turn on them and stab them in the back. I can't stand people like that. Intellectual and spiritual hot burglars. You used to really respect this guy, I believe.

As far as the paragraph, it is perfectly fine. He speaks the truth, and if it appears screwier to you, that's probably because you've been hanging around forums where many people can't stand to be contradicted and respond with belittlement and character assassination. You might also be imbibing a bit of this Church-error OCD. Take a step out back and look over the river for a while.

Maybe what he says isn't a dodge at all, maybe it is the truth. One can in fact remain faithful to the Church and at peace with Her members while taking a different position from the preferred stance of the Church on issues that aren't of the Deposit of Faith or moral matters. Another example, borrowed from practice, but still tied to theological opinions: The Latin Church has deemed it proper for children to wait for first Communion and yet later for Confirmation. I don't agree with that, but I follow it. I think the Eastern Catholics have the more perfect practice of Infant Communion and confirmation based on a more perfect sacramental theology. Who can argue with me? If people say I need to submit my mind and will to the Latin approach, I'd ask them how I haven't. If they were to tell me my theology stunk and that the Latins have it all down pat, I'd just point to the East in communion with Rome.

columba wrote:BTW; Welcome pascendi. Good to see you here.

Thank you, columba. I probably won't be on too much because I've been working an obscene number of hours everyday, but I will following along a bit here and there. I need less work and more confusion in my life. lol!

RashaLampa wrote:

Roguejim wrote:
[/i]
Well, the more I read the paragraph above by the Brother, the screwier it appears. The correct reason for not labeling as heretics those who adhere to the so-called "baptism of desire", is because it is an authentic Church teaching to which they adhere. "The Church has never seen fit to censure this position as heretical", BECAUSE IT IS HER OWN POSITION! Nice dodge, Brother.

Did the Church ever censure St. Thomas Aquinas for his position on the Immaculate Conception? There are a lot of things the Church does not see fit to censure although they are not necessarily right.

Well yes, she did censure that position, just a soon as she “defined” the dogma. But there was no "dogma" that St. Aquinas' opinion could be "opposed" to at the time except "all men have sinned". St. Thomas never "rejected" Mary's immaculate purity, but was mistaken only on how she could get there without violating the "once declared clear meaning of the words" found in Romans 3:23.

Of course, by your logic, all of those who held to the doctrine of Aquinas long past when the more common doctrine of Scotus prevailed were realistically holding out for a “definition” that would overturn the century’s old “common opinion” in favor of the Thomistic understanding.

But I don't remember there being a tradition for the Thomistic doctrine even a couple of hundred years past the death of the Angelic Doctor; I don't remember seeing it taught at the Council of Trent or in its Catechism; I don't remember seeing it codified into canon law; and I don't remember it being taught in any way shape or form by the authentic and ordinary magisterium of the Church.

Like with baptism of desire, however, the more common opinion on the Immaculate Conception would solidify over the ages, and if there is any future definition on baptism of desire, I suspect that it will be via a simple and infallible “definitive act” of the pope through the universal and ordinary magisterium (and not via solemn definition).

The old stand-by "St. Thomas Aquinas wasn't infallible" and "what about the Immaculate Conception" arguments are getting just a bit stale.

Don’t worry, Roguejim, when the Church finally censures her own doctrines of baptism of blood and baptism of desire, I don’t think she will condemn as “heretics” those who were docile to her “fallible” authority over these same doctrines by naively taking her word for it that these doctrines are true, and that she has always held these doctrines with “firm conviction”.

Funny how the absurdity of it all is lost on the true-blue Feeneyites.

It does help to keep a sense of humor.

Jehanne writes:

The Church also teaches that people who desire Baptism but who die without it suffer the temporal punishment of Purgatory . . .

So, the Church teaches that their are people in Purgatory who didn't receive the sacrament of Baptism? And this doesn't cause a problem for your position on the necessity of water baptism for the Beatific Vision?

Jehanne also writes:

"Feeneyites" have never condemned Baptism of Desire/Blood for catechumens, that is, for individuals who consciously accept the Primacy of the Roman Pontiff. I would invite anyone to provide a citation that says otherwise.

Let us assume that's true. I say there is absolutely nothing wrong with that position, at least until the V2 regime's statements about salvation "without knowing Christ."

Wait, I say there's still nothing wrong with it.

It's the V2 regime that has the problem.

"Feeneyites" have never condemned Baptism of Desire/Blood for catechumens, that is, for individuals who consciously accept the Primacy of the Roman Pontiff.

Might I also assume this position is the position of Mr. Karam, you know, the guy who wrote that article of which the Holy Office said, "those things which are proposed in the periodical <From the Housetops>, fascicle 3, as the genuine teaching of the Catholic Church are far from being such and are very harmful both to those within the Church and those without," and of whose position Msgr. Fenton remarked, the "most important error" deals with "a denial of the possibility of salvation for any man who had only an implicit desire to enter the Catholic Church"?

And where exactly did the Church say, prior to the Holy Office letter, that an "implicit desire" to enter the Church was ok?

Ok, the Holy Office letter says this, without citation of authority: "but when a person is involved in invincible ignorance God accepts also an implicit desire, so called because it is included in that good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God."

The next paragraph it goes into Pius XII's encyclical, Mystici Corporis Christi, and refers to that as support for the proposition. Putting aside whether that encyclical actually supports the position, is there any Magisterial authority besides MCC (and of course prior) that shows Karam and "Feeneyites" going south with their strict understanding?

Hi again M.. Your appeal for a sense of humour has been noted so if you would kindly humour me again I have a few misgivings concerning your earlier post.

MRyan wrote:
The Church also teaches "What they needed" is baptism and whole bunch of other stuff; that other “stuff” being supernatural Faith and Charity. But you simply dismiss the well-known distinctions taught by Aquinas that provide the theological underpinning for the Church’s understanding of “absolute necessity”, with Faith, Charity and the fruit of the Sacrament being intrinsic to salvation, and with the instruments for the ordinary transmission of sanctifying grace being those divine and even temporary visible institutions and sacramental “helps” to salvation that God does not necessarily bind Himself to for the transmission of Himself in sanctifying grace and for regeneration as a son of God and heir to the kingdom.

Does this mean that the necessary requirement for salvation is Faith and Charity and not sacramental Baptism? Would it not have been more accurate when pronouncing the dogma on the necessity of water Baptism for salvation if the Church had stated that She was referring only to the fruits of the sacrament and not the sacrament itself?
If that is what She really meant then water Baptism seems NOT to be necessary at all if one can somehow gain the fruits of the sacrament in many another diverse way.
This get-out-clause that God is not bound by His sacraments is the only means by which these two opposing conclusions can even have the appearance of being reconciled yet, it was Our Lord Himself who instituted these sacraments and made at least one of them binding on every human creature who is to be saved.
It is for this reason that I do not agree with you that the Church teaches baptism of desire/B as binding on the faithful as a matter of mind and will consent. She does however speculate upon these things and no one need conform their mind and will to a speculation.
The question then is; Is sacramental Baptism necessary for salvation or, is it the fruits of the sacrament that is necessary and, can the fruits of the sacrament precede the sacrament or be detached from the sacrament? The "Yes Yes and No No" words of Our Lord are very haunting and His dogmas are truths fallen from heaven. I can't see how a dogma can be imprecise. I know you will say that it is the Church who interprets Her dogmas but I say that the dogmas themselves are the precise interpretations of the Church.

MRyan wrote:
The Church has never claimed to know (let alone to know “from the Deposit itself”) what happens to souls in sticky situations as if she can know with any certainty the state of any given soul, but she does teach what WILL happen, given certain conditions: “should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters,..

There's a problem with these sticky situations and those unforeseen accidents (aren't all accidents unforeseen?) and how the all-seeing God can be unaware of these situations that will prevent those unfortunate victims of circumstance being washed in the salutary waters. It just don't at up and defies logic.

Can I remind you again of your sense of humour when/if you reply.

pascendi wrote:Would anyone be willing to come forward and state that I must believe that one can enter into the Beatific Vision without being baptized in water and the Holy Ghost in order that I might keep the Catholic Faith whole and undefiled?

What about you, Jim?

What up.

columba wrote:Hi again M.. Your appeal for a sense of humour has been noted so if you would kindly humour me again I have a few misgivings concerning your earlier post.

You, of all people ... have misgivings? Surely you jest; say it isn't so!

Bear with me and I will be happy to humour you with my sarcastic witticisms (some consider homourless) once again.

I see you've ignored my question, MRyan. Of course, I completely ignored your long previous post, but at least I can tell you why: it was full of billowing accusations and stuff. To be quite frank, it was weird. I'd love to have you present that post to anyone who knows me well and watch their response.

However, my question to everyone was actually rather intelligent. I'm wondering if you'd lower yourself to answer it, and as for Jim, whether he tries or not will tell me a lot.

Get yer crayons out, MRyan. MRyan and I and everyone. MRyan is going to answer my question now.

If I don't get a decent response eventually, I might go to FB with it which has a far wider audience.

It is on my FB now, as follows:

I posed a question recently, one I've posed for a decade or so now, and while it seems to make people claw at their faces in rage I've been to this day entirely unable to get anyone to answer it. They've pretended it was above them to answer it, beneath their dignity, or they pretend it is the question of one who is ignorant, or a fool, or one someone who is merely contentious. Here it is, in the comment boxes:

This is the challenge:

"Would anyone be willing to come forward and state that I must believe that one can enter into the Beatific Vision without being baptized in water and the Holy Ghost in order that I might keep the Catholic Faith whole and undefiled?"

Done. It is good to talk about this with people I actually know.

You talkin’ to me? Gee, we wouldn’t want to witness another meltdown, so I better play this game just one more time.

Oh yes, your strawman “seems to make people claw at their faces in rage” (yeah, right); so let me get the claws out of my face and answer once again the same red herring that I’ve answered so many times I’ve lost count.

Is baptism of desire a belief of divine and Catholic Faith? Did I ever say it was? Did I not explain one hundred times what “belief” (call it what you want) in a non-revealed “authentic expression” and authentic teaching of the ordinary magisterium actually entails ... according to the magisterium of the Church?

Oh, perhaps you don't have the time to read this forum and were too busy banning me, going into histrionic meltdowns and deleting/shutting down the old forum to notice.

It amazing that you still seem to believe that I have to play your games; to play by your arbitrary rules and that you can dictate the terms of the debate.

I don’t, and you can’t ... so get over it.

Have fun on Facebook where you can frame the debate however you so choose while ignoring its substance.

You’ll fit right in there with people you actually know.

columba wrote:Hi again M.. Your appeal for a sense of humour has been noted so if you would kindly humour me again I have a few misgivings concerning your earlier post.

MRyan wrote:
The Church also teaches "What they needed" is baptism and whole bunch of other stuff; that other “stuff” being supernatural Faith and Charity. But you simply dismiss the well-known distinctions taught by Aquinas that provide the theological underpinning for the Church’s understanding of “absolute necessity”, with Faith, Charity and the fruit of the Sacrament being intrinsic to salvation, and with the instruments for the ordinary transmission of sanctifying grace being those divine and even temporary visible institutions and sacramental “helps” to salvation that God does not necessarily bind Himself to for the transmission of Himself in sanctifying grace and for regeneration as a son of God and heir to the kingdom.

Does this mean that the necessary requirement for salvation is Faith and Charity and not sacramental Baptism? Would it not have been more accurate when pronouncing the dogma on the necessity of water Baptism for salvation if the Church had stated that She was referring only to the fruits of the sacrament and not the sacrament itself?

If that is what She really meant then water Baptism seems NOT to be necessary at all if one can somehow gain the fruits of the sacrament in many another diverse way.

Can I remind you again of your sense of humour when/if you reply.

Columba,

Perhaps one of the reason that there is considerable delay in responding to your posts is the fact that your questions have this uncanny way of repeating themselves, and my responses seem to go unanswered; though I may pop open a champagne bottle since you actually acknowledged that the assent due to baptism of desire I am talking about is one of the intellect and will (an assent you reject - but whatever). It took a year, but perhaps there can be progress after all.

Rather than rehashing all of this, I'll supply the very same question you asked previously, and my response.

MRyan wrote:

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 [justified] 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 [or the justified - who cannot have the assurance that he is justified] 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.

MRyan wrote:
Perhaps one of the reason that there is considerable delay in responding to your posts is the fact that your questions have this uncanny way of repeating themselves, and my responses seem to go unanswered;

Yes point taken regarding your response going unanswered. As with my questions being repetitive, likewise with your answers M. It were more out of despair (rather than laziness) that we could ever get through this impasse that I neglected to respond. I feel I best change my approach in the hope of breaking this repetitive cycle and maybe even at best (finally) achieve a conversion either way or at least an "Agree to Differ" conclusion.
To this end, if I may repeat myself by asking the same questions in a more specific, point by point way and you oblige me with simple Yea or Nay answers (qualified if you like with one or two sentences) then I'm sure we can make progress.

though I may pop open a champagne bottle since you actually acknowledged that the assent due to baptism of desire I am talking about is one of the intellect and will (an assent you reject - but whatever). It took a year, but perhaps there can be progress after all.

Yes I do understand your argument and I thought you knew that, and I even understand that for the most part you are not arguing for the actuality of baptism of desire but rather only that the Church does teach it (baptism of blood you most likely believe to be a reality).
My opposing view is that the Church does not teach baptism of desire as a doctrine and does not therefore require the assent of the intellect and will. I merely hope to highlight the contradictions involved that (to date) have not been resolved if we were to accept as fact that the Church does teach baptism of desire as a doctrine.
BTW, I CAN give my assent of the will as there is nothing in the "doctrine" that is opposed to my will; the problem is, it appears to contradict the will of God as expressed through the dogmas of His Church.
As for the intellect, I can't make myself contradict logic and reason and to do so would be akin to living a lie. This of course may be due to some malfunction in the brain cells that prevents me seeing the logic of it all ( and no doubt you have already determined that to be the case) but I do think it resonable that when this type of assent (intellect and will) stands in apparent contradiction to Divine Faith, then the latter takes precedence.

If I may then pose my questions point by point as precisely as I can, the ones I feel highlight the possible areas of contradiction, you then can take me step by step (if you will) as if I were a 7yr old catechumen and explain where I've gone wrong.
I know from the last forum that Pascendi doesn't approve of this method of debate but that just might be to my advantage in you accepting the method.

I have indeed read your response that you posted again. It don't answer all my questions clearly enough to convert me though I appreciate you having writen it. A little more clarity just might move the boulder.
Anyway here goes.

Depending on a Yea or Nay answer to the following, certain other questions will of course arise.

Are Faith and Charity alone the necessary requirements for salvation?

MRyan wrote:Oh, perhaps you don't have the time to read this forum and were too busy banning me, going into histrionic meltdowns and deleting/shutting down the old forum to notice.

I shut it down because I was paying the bill to provide a place for people to discuss the Catholic Faith, but I just couldn't get you to stop discussing in a manner that violated everything we learned from Christ in the Gospels and everything we learned from the Epistles. I was paying the bill, providing the forum, and couldn't get any submission from you on easy-to-accept and commonly-Catholic requests, and hardly any backup from anyone else, and so I asked, why am I laying out my good money only to be abused like this? So I shut it down, and I think I did the right thing by God.

It was the lack of backup from others, though, which led to actually pulling the plug. I thought I had done right in keeping it alive for a couple days so that you could all regroup. Now, I believe that to have been bad judgement on my part.

It amazing that you still seem to believe that I have to play your games; to play by your arbitrary rules and that you can dictate the terms of the debate.

Sir, it is painfully evident that you cannot, or will not, answer my question. Your main weapon isn't reason. It isn't being well-read. It isn't the Catholic Church. Your weapon is the belittlement of anyone who dares to contradict you.

Why don't you quit the lesser and more emotional approach, gather your wits about you, buy some patience, and answer my question. Sir.

Fair enough, columba, let’s take them one at a time:

columba wrote:Are Faith and Charity alone the necessary requirements for salvation?

Good question, but a difficult question since the answer is complicated and filled with nuance. But, if we were to take all of the divine and ecclesiastical precepts, and the commandments and the like that are necessary or instituted for our salvation, and then attempted to reduce them into one fundamental intrinsic “necessity” or rule of faith for salvation; I would say it is the divine gift of Charity, for the sum of all living Faith and the spirit behind all of those precepts (promulgated or instituted for our salvation) are necessarily contained within this one theological and supernatural virtue.

Without Charity there is no life in Christ (and no living Faith). Without Charity Baptism is just a sign that often hides the reality of dead membership in the one Body; a powerful sign, no doubt, that comes with certain rights and is loaded with gifts and graces too numerable and remarkable to list here, but all for naught if there is no Charity (for adults), as the Baptized souls in hell would attest.

So in a very real and profound sense, Faith and Charity (especially Charity) alone are the necessary requirements for salvation, for the fulfillment of all of the precepts necessary for salvation are contained within. In other words, a soul desires Baptism because of his love of God; his ardent and faith-filled desire is to do that which God commands of him, and he will wish to do nothing less. This is that Faith which is pleasing to God, to love Him – completely.

This is why at least one esteemed Pontiff declared that a soul who has supernatural Charity has fulfilled the entire law, there is nothing lacking. Charity is Christ having made His substantial habitation within us ; "It is no longer I who lives, but Christ who lives in me", as St. Paul so eloquently put it.

The soul who postpones his Baptism out of negligence or sloth; or one of the Baptized who supposedly makes a sincere act of Contrition, but does not have the proper intention to seek absolution from a priest; neither of these souls has Charity.

Your turn.

MRyan wrote:This is why at least one esteemed Pontiff declared that a soul who has supernatural Charity has fulfilled the entire law, there is nothing lacking. Charity is Christ having made His substantial habitation within us ; "It is no longer I who lives, but Christ who lives in me", as St. Paul so eloquently put it.

As a follow up, columba, the divine institution of the Church (she is also called a “sacrament” because she is an instrument of grace) and the sacraments were instituted as divine aids and helps for our salvation, for how many are those who can arise to that “perfect love” so desired by God? This is why, as I explained to Jehanne, that the sacrament of Baptism is the “perfect remedy” for salvation, because its perfection is from God who makes up for our own imperfections through the perfect sacrifice of His Son by sanctifying our souls with created and uncreated grace, and by the infusion of the theological virtues ... and all of the other gifts that aid in our sanctification/salvation.

Only a Baptized soul can have his sins forgiven with a less than perfect contrition. Such is the power and perfect remedy called Baptism.

MRyan wrote:

columba wrote:Hi again M.. Your appeal for a sense of humour has been noted so if you would kindly humour me again I have a few misgivings concerning your earlier post.

MRyan wrote:
The Church also teaches "What they needed" is baptism and whole bunch of other stuff; that other “stuff” being supernatural Faith and Charity. But you simply dismiss the well-known distinctions taught by Aquinas that provide the theological underpinning for the Church’s understanding of “absolute necessity”, with Faith, Charity and the fruit of the Sacrament being intrinsic to salvation, and with the instruments for the ordinary transmission of sanctifying grace being those divine and even temporary visible institutions and sacramental “helps” to salvation that God does not necessarily bind Himself to for the transmission of Himself in sanctifying grace and for regeneration as a son of God and heir to the kingdom.

Does this mean that the necessary requirement for salvation is Faith and Charity and not sacramental Baptism? Would it not have been more accurate when pronouncing the dogma on the necessity of water Baptism for salvation if the Church had stated that She was referring only to the fruits of the sacrament and not the sacrament itself?

If that is what She really meant then water Baptism seems NOT to be necessary at all if one can somehow gain the fruits of the sacrament in many another diverse way.

Can I remind you again of your sense of humour when/if you reply.

Columba,

Perhaps one of the reason that there is considerable delay in responding to your posts is the fact that your questions have this uncanny way of repeating themselves, and my responses seem to go unanswered; though I may pop open a champagne bottle since you actually acknowledged that the assent due to baptism of desire I am talking about is one of the intellect and will (an assent you reject - but whatever). It took a year, but perhaps there can be progress after all.

Rather than rehashing all of this, I'll supply the very same question you asked previously, and my response.

MRyan wrote:

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 [justified] 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 [or the justified - who cannot have the assurance that he is justified] 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 read this topic last week but thought it inopportune to enter the discussion so late in the thread regarding problems that were seen in the earlier posts. Coulmba’s post brings up an important point again that identifies the critical central issue in this discussion. Dogma is the formal object of divine and Catholic faith. It is the denial of which makes a person a heretic. But there is more than one way to deny a dogma. The common modernist method is to make dogma subject to theological speculation and then corrupt the meaning of the terms. They begin by affirming their belief in a particular dogma and then, as the discussion progresses, profess a belief directly opposed to the literal meaning of the words.

If anyone says that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation, let him be anathema. Can 5

This dogma concerns the sacrament of baptism. It is not, Columba says, referring to the “fruit of the sacrament.” The adjective, “extrinsic,” is not in the dogma. A “necessity of means” is that which without, the ends cannot be achieved. If the ends can be achieved without it, then it is not a necessity of means by definition. “Extrinsic necessity of means,” and also the term, “relative necessity of means,” are nonsense terms because it is claimed that the ends can be achieved in their absence. To call this abuse of language a “critical distinction” is absurd. The problem is further confounded when the definition offered for the term, “extrinsic necessity of means,” is indistinguishable from the definition for a necessity of precept. Precepts do not bind in cases of impossibility and they are only accidently related to truth. The distinction between a necessity of means and a necessity of precept is not a frivolous one and also has implications in moral theology. It is a condemned error of modernism to treat dogmas as precepts rather than norms of believing.

All you are stating here is the truth that a necessity of precept does not bind in cases of impossibility. But, so what? That is truism regarding any precept whether divine or human. It is not the issue because precepts have nothing to do with dogma which is a truth divinely revealed by God and proposed by the Church as a formal object of faith. It does however explain why they call Fr. Feeney’s understanding of salvation “forensic”. If the dogma is binding only a necessity of precept, and that is how you use the term, “extrinsic necessity of means”, then anyone who unconditionally binds a precept would justifiably be called a Pharisee. But that is not what the dogma does and that is not what Fr. Feeney did. The essence of the sacrament is the form and matter (not the “fruit of the sacrament”) and whoever says the sacrament is not necessary as a necessity of means for salvation is anathematized. If anyone argues that the dogma is binding the sacrament as a necessity of precept only then let him say so plainly and see where that leads.

God is not bound be perceptive norms but He has bound Himself to His divinely revealed truth. “Heaven and earth will pass away but My words will not pass away”(Lk 21-31). If that is doubted, then there are no grounds for faith or hope in anything. The problem Columba has identified concerns the nature of dogma. Is dogma a divinely revealed truth in the form of a categorical proposition by which other conditional truths must be judged or is it itself a contingent “truth” open to theological development not necessarily in line with its literal meaning? What is the formal object of divine and Catholic faith? Is it the dogma that is the formal object of divine and Catholic faith, revealed by God, “who can neither deceive nor be deceived”, or is it the theological exposition of dogma that employs nonsense terminology in contradistinction to the literal meaning of the proposition?

One last point.

MRyan said:
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.

It is misleading to say that “Baptism and Penance are alike with respect to necessity.” The comparison of necessity is with respect to different ends. Penance/Salvation has a like necessity to Baptism/Regeneration. To say that “Baptism and Penance are alike with respect to necessity” without including the relationships to their respective ends is to misunderstand the comparison.

Mac

Mac,

If anyone says that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation, let him be anathema. Can 5

This dogma concerns the sacrament of baptism.

That's right, it does, and it doesn't say what you need it to say: water baptism is necessary in every case for salvation. It's simply not there in the text, and you don't even have to go beyond the text.

Another good translation of the critical word - actually, I think a better - is "free":

CANON V.-If any one saith, that baptism is free, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema.

What is being referenced here? If anyone says that baptism is "free," which is glossed as, i.e., "not necessary unto salvation," let him be anathema. Here's the sense: if anyone says that baptism is "free" in the sense of voluntary, i.e. one might forgo it as not necessary, then one is anathema. To persevere in the justification wrought before the sacrament (when and where it happens) one must go on and be baptized in due course unless prevented by some contingency like death. Receiving baptism is not free or voluntary, and I don't know of a single baptism of desire advocate who holds to the Church's teachings that says that. To recognize that baptism of desire can justify or save without the sacrament in some circumstances is not saying baptism is "free" or "not necessary for salvation." The only way you get that reading of this passage is if you take "free" or "optional" out, which is ridiculous, since the "not necessary for salvation" language is a gloss on that very word, "free."

The Latin for the word "free" here is "liberum." Interestingly, this word is used in the phrase "free will" in Latin, as in Trent: Sess. VI, cap. i: "Liberum arbitrium minime extinctum, viribus licet attenuatum et inclinatum"). That context highlights what is at play here. Baptism is not voluntary, as in one cannot exercise their "free will" or choice and decide they don't need it. One may be justified by baptism of desire, but baptism remains a necessity in the sense that you cannot decide, freely, to dispense with it.

Hi Mac!
Welcome aboard! I like your style and the way you explain things. Your in for a "fight" with MRyan.

tornpage wrote:Mac,

If anyone says that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation, let him be anathema. Can 5

This dogma concerns the sacrament of baptism.

That's right, it does, and it doesn't say what you need it to say: water baptism is necessary in every case for salvation. It's simply not there in the text, and you don't even have to go beyond the text.

Another good translation of the critical word - actually, I think a better - is "free":

CANON V.-If any one saith, that baptism is free, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema.

What is being referenced here? If anyone says that baptism is "free," which is glossed as, i.e., "not necessary unto salvation," let him be anathema. Here's the sense: if anyone says that baptism is "free" in the sense of voluntary, i.e. one might forgo it as not necessary, then one is anathema. To persevere in the justification wrought before the sacrament (when and where it happens) one must go on and be baptized in due course unless prevented by some contingency like death. Receiving baptism is not free or voluntary, and I don't know of a single baptism of desire advocate who holds to the Church's teachings that says that. To recognize that baptism of desire can justify or save without the sacrament in some circumstances is not saying baptism is "free" or "not necessary for salvation." The only way you get that reading of this passage is if you take "free" or "optional" out, which is ridiculous, since the "not necessary for salvation" language is a gloss on that very word, "free."

The Latin for the word "free" here is "liberum." Interestingly, this word is used in the phrase "free will" in Latin, as in Trent: Sess. VI, cap. i: "Liberum arbitrium minime extinctum, viribus licet attenuatum et inclinatum"). That context highlights what is at play here. Baptism is not voluntary, as in one cannot exercise their "free will" or choice and decide they don't need it. One may be justified by baptism of desire, but baptism remains a necessity in the sense that you cannot decide, freely, to dispense with it.

Amen, brother; well said. I agree with everything that you wrote 100%.

cowboy wrote:Hi Mac!
Welcome aboard! I like your style and the way you explain things. Your in for a "fight" with MRyan.

Funny guy.

Hey cowboy, mac is no stranger, but only an infrequent visitor. We've already met:

https://catholicforum.forumotion.com/t166-angelqueen-thread-assisi-contrast-lefebvre-and-benedict-xvi

Welcome back, mac.

Btw, I could swear that you are arguing that the fact that baptism is not "optional" or "free" is a condemnation of baptism of desire, as if this doctrine suggests anything of the kind.

Anyway, what Tornpage said. I'll get back yo you on Trent and how Penance and Baptism are alike with respect to necessity. Obviously, we do not agree.

Obviously, no one wants to answer my question. I can answer it. Not sure why everyone pretends it isn't there.

tornpage wrote:Mac,

If anyone says that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation, let him be anathema. Can 5

This dogma concerns the sacrament of baptism.

That's right, it does, and it doesn't say what you need it to say: water baptism is necessary in every case for salvation. It's simply not there in the text, and you don't even have to go beyond the text.

Another good translation of the critical word - actually, I think a better - is "free":

CANON V.-If any one saith, that baptism is free, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema.

What is being referenced here? If anyone says that baptism is "free," which is glossed as, i.e., "not necessary unto salvation," let him be anathema. Here's the sense: if anyone says that baptism is "free" in the sense of voluntary, i.e. one might forgo it as not necessary, then one is anathema. To persevere in the justification wrought before the sacrament (when and where it happens) one must go on and be baptized in due course unless prevented by some contingency like death. Receiving baptism is not free or voluntary, and I don't know of a single baptism of desire advocate who holds to the Church's teachings that says that. To recognize that baptism of desire can justify or save without the sacrament in some circumstances is not saying baptism is "free" or "not necessary for salvation." The only way you get that reading of this passage is if you take "free" or "optional" out, which is ridiculous, since the "not necessary for salvation" language is a gloss on that very word, "free."

The Latin for the word "free" here is "liberum." Interestingly, this word is used in the phrase "free will" in Latin, as in Trent: Sess. VI, cap. i: "Liberum arbitrium minime extinctum, viribus licet attenuatum et inclinatum"). That context highlights what is at play here. Baptism is not voluntary, as in one cannot exercise their "free will" or choice and decide they don't need it. One may be justified by baptism of desire, but baptism remains a necessity in the sense that you cannot decide, freely, to dispense with it.

There are problems with your analysis. The meaning of the word “liberum,” whether translated as “optional” or “free” does not matter. The meaning of the word is given in the text, “that is, necessary for salvation.” If anyone says that baptism is not necessary for salvation they are anathematized.

You have interpreted the term, “necessary for salvation” as a necessity of precept when you say, “To persevere in the justification wrought before the sacrament (when and where it happens) one must go on and be baptized in due course unless prevented by some contingency like death.” Baptism as a precept, like all precepts, does not bind in cases of impossibility, “death,” being one example as you have said.

Precepts are only accidently related to truth. Dogmas are categorical propositions that can only be true or false. It is not possible for a dogma to bind a precept because precepts are always conditional. They are always contingent as any text on moral theology will demonstrate. That is why such terms as “extrinsic necessity of means” and “relative necessity of means” have been invented in an attempt to get around the problem. But it does not work. These, as I said before, are nonsense terms because it is admitted that the ends can be achieved without them. They, therefore, are not a “necessity of means” by definition.

The dogma cited is referring to baptism as a necessity of means for salvation. A necessity of means is that which without, the ends cannot be achieved.

Mac

pascendi wrote:Obviously, no one wants to answer my question. I can answer it. Not sure why everyone pretends it isn't there.

What was the question again?

Never mind, I see it.

No.

MRyan wrote:Fair enough, columba, let’s take them one at a time:

columba wrote:Are Faith and Charity alone the necessary requirements for salvation?

Good question, but a difficult question since the answer is complicated and filled with nuance. But, if we were to take all of the divine and ecclesiastical precepts, and the commandments and the like that are necessary or instituted for our salvation, and then attempted to reduce them into one fundamental intrinsic “necessity” or rule of faith for salvation; I would say it is the divine gift of Charity, for the sum of all living Faith and the spirit behind all of those precepts (promulgated or instituted for our salvation) are necessarily contained within this one theological and supernatural virtue.

Just before I reply Mike I'd like to acknowledge the very good post by Mac which I will read a few more times to digest better its contents which just happen to be the thoughts in my own head but put much more precisely.
And Tornpage's response also has left some food for thought which I'm still digesting while writing.

Back to the response you gave:
From the quote above I can tell where your going with this and it's certainly worth exploring how much water it holds (no pun intended).

A quick note: That word "nuance" usually has a bad effect on me appearing in many a writing which in my experience is usually put there as a means of sugar-coating a contradictory meaning to a well established truth so as to make it more palatable to the reader. I'm not suggesting that this is your intention but it's just a word that causes alarm bells to ring ever since a liberal priest friend began to use it incessantly before finally nuancing himself out of the priesthood. ( Sorry. Just had to get that outa the way).

I do agree with you (to a certain degree) concerning the supernatural virtue of Charity - or perfect Charity- containing within it the fulfillment of all the requirements necessary for salvation. However, as Our Lord Himself stated (Luke 12, I think) concerning the love of God and neighbor that these contained the perfect fulfillment of the law, then, anyone who possesses perfect charity does not break any of the commandments but fulfills every one. Therefore the law of perfect charity does not excuse one from obeying the commandments but rather makes one perfect in observing them.
If this is so, then regarding the necessity of the Divine law pertaining to water Baptism, he who possessed perfect charity would also have fulfilled this law, not just in desire but in actuality as with the commandments.
So, perfect charity does in fact lead one to obey the ten commandments in actuality and not just in desire and this obeying of the commandments would be a necessity proceeding from perfect charity yet, we are being asked to accept as a "doctrine" of the faith that the Divine requirement of sacramental baptism does not have to be fulfilled in actuality.
It is through the providential grace of God that one is enabled to stay within His law. How could it be that one who desired the sacrament of regeneration and consequent incorporation into the Mystical Body (in fulfillment of Divine law) fall outside Divine providence unless by some bad disposition of intent on the part of that person?
We must assume therefore (as we cannot read hearts) that those who have not received water Baptism in accordance with Divine law before departing this life are not incorporated into Christ. We can assume this from the Churches own dogmatic teachings and, that supernatural Faith and Charity were not present in the soul who departed without Baptism. If to assume this is wrong, then that would mean the dogmas of the Church could not be trusted, a point I think Mac has made.

Over to you.

pascendi wrote:Obviously, no one wants to answer my question. I can answer it. Not sure why everyone pretends it isn't there.

I also amswer NO to your question.

pascendi wrote:Would anyone be willing to come forward and state that I must believe that one can enter into the Beatific Vision without being baptized in water and the Holy Ghost in order that I might keep the Catholic Faith whole and undefiled?

What about you, Jim?

Tell you what, when you finally find that person who is “willing to come forward and state" such a thing, send that person my way and I’ll see if I can’t him straight on the difference between the assent of Faith in matters of revealed truths and infallible definitive acts, and religious submission of the mind and will in all other matters of non-revealed authentic magisterial teachings.

You don’t even seem to realize that your “question” asks if someone would like to come forward to confirm a red-herring of your own making; and you seem awfully disappointed when no one comes forward to play stooge to your thoroughly misconceived "statement" that not only has never been proposed by anyone of this forum, but misses the point of this debate entirely.

As for me, I’m not going to play your eccentric games; so have fun debating this straw-man with yourself (or on Facebook). Perhaps you can even get a few like-minded individuals to thoroughly deconstruct this straw-man with you. Now that would be quite impressive; even if entirely meaningless.

MRyan wrote:

pascendi wrote:Would anyone be willing to come forward and state that I must believe that one can enter into the Beatific Vision without being baptized in water and the Holy Ghost in order that I might keep the Catholic Faith whole and undefiled?

What about you, Jim?

Tell you what, when you finally find that person who is “willing to come forward and state" such a thing, send that person my way and I’ll see if I can’t him straight on the difference between the assent of Faith in matters of revealed truths and infallible definitive acts, and religious submission of the mind and will in all other matters of non-revealed authentic magisterial teachings.

That's a rather simple matter I could handle myself. It isn't rocket science. The answer to my question is, by the way, "no".

You don’t even seem to realize that your “question” asks if someone would like to come forward to confirm a red-herring of your own making; and you seem awfully disappointed when no one comes forward to play stooge to your thoroughly misconceived "statement" that not only has never been proposed by anyone of this forum, but misses the point of this debate entirely.

I realize everything which pertains to these conversations. I misconceive nothing. The question is designed to draw out the principles necessary to keep any conversation about this subject in proper focus, and it has to do with the simple yet important matter of keeping always in the forefront the proper distinction between what derives of the Faith itself and what derives of the intellect.

As for me, I’m not going to play your eccentric games; so have fun debating this straw-man with yourself (or on Facebook). Perhaps you can even get a few like-minded individuals to thoroughly deconstruct this straw-man with you. Now that would be quite impressive; even if entirely meaningless.

Most of them seem to understand the nature and intent of the question no matter which side of the discussion they fell on. No one seemed to believe any deconstruction was necessary, most likely because the truth is that it isn't actually a straw-man question, a rather an intelligent and very useful question.

Would you say "no"?

columba wrote:

pascendi wrote:Obviously, no one wants to answer my question. I can answer it. Not sure why everyone pretends it isn't there.

I also amswer NO to your question.

Thank you! Whew. I owe you one.

Perhaps you or others may have noticed what I do, perhaps not, but most will deny that this is what they are claiming the Faith demands of us, but through the twisting and turning through the varied premises involved, some the principles of the Faith itself, others, of philosophy, some of morality and also theological conclusions, ALL of them true and legitimately employed, some people will actually put themselves into the logical position of having to answer "yes" to the question. However, staring the question in the face, they can't bring themselves to answer the question in the affirmative.

As Aristotle wrote somewhere, can't remember where, to paraphrase, when the theory doesn't fit the facts, it must be tossed. No brainer, but often overlooked by the brightest.

To the forum members who have engaged me, or have followed this debate on the question of submission of the mind and will to the authoritative non-revealed teachings of the Church; even if you disagree with me, and even if I had to repeat myself many times over to explain the distinctions at play; please note very carefully what is being alleged.

It is alleged that even if I deny that pascendi “must believe that one can enter into the Beatific Vision without being baptized in water and the Holy Ghost in order that I might keep the Catholic Faith whole and undefiled”, I have, “through the twisting and turning through the varied premises involved” put myself “into the logical position of having to answer ‘yes’ to the question”; and that I can’t bring myself “to answer the question in the affirmative.”

Since I know that anyone who has been paying attention to this debate knows precisely why this question is a straw-man, and since pascendi already knows everything there is to know about this debate; and already knows every principle related to this topic, let him now PROVE his allegation by presenting the logic of his irrefutable principles.

Justice demands it since I categorically deny his specious accusation. If he feels up to the challenge to back-up his accusation, I will also challenge him to draw “the proper distinction between what derives of the Faith itself and what derives of the intellect”, as it relates to what is derived from the impulse or obedience of faith (religious submission of the mind and will to non-revealed doctrines of the authentic magisterium).

Let’s see if he really understands the principles involved. Everything I have written on this topic here is a public record; and I stand by it (even my typos and atrocious grammar).

I think its time that he back-up his allegation and address my specific arguments.
If he responds by saying that his response was not necessarily directed at me, then my point about a straw-man argument stands entirely vindicated, for he is just blowing smoke; and wasting my time (yours too).

Actually, having giving this some thought ... I've decided that to maintain peace on the forum, I will not be engaging pascendi in any tit for tat.

What I have written, I have written, it's all there; and for my own peace, I think its for the best. The history is too dark and violent to think that anything good can come of this.

No need to say more.

Thanks for understanding.

Perhaps one of the others will step up to the plate and explain why my question is a strawman. I don't see it.

MRyan wrote:Actually, having giving this some thought ... I've decided that to maintain peace on the forum, I will not be engaging pascendi in any tit for tat.

Now? Now you give this some thought? This is exactly what I'd asked you to do back then, for the peace of the forum. Not with just me, but with everyone you flew into a tit for tat with.

If people say they understand you now, I'd just ask them why they didn't understand me then.

Truth be told, I've actually been less irritated with you than I have with all the others who never stepped up to the plate to support, but instead, pretended any conflict was above them. I needed support in upholding a peaceful platform for Catholic discussion, and I didn't get it from them. Their fault was worse.

I'm done with all of you. Go seek the truth on your own time, not on mine, and not on my dime.

A response to the chokehold, armbar, half-nelson question of the twice deserted, Pascendi. (The name of the theologian is being withheld at his/her request.)

"Dear Mr. Roguejim,

Assuming that "keeping the Catholic faith whole and undefiled" means rejecting not only heresies (direct denials of revealed truth) but also doctrinal errors (denials of truths that are deduced by reasoning from the sources of revelation), then your "Catholic acquaintance" has a massive wall of authoritative opposition to contend with.

Practically all the approved theologians since the Middle Ages have not only been "willing" to come forward and state that Catholics "must believe that one can enter into the Beatific Vision without being baptized in water"; they have already actually "come forward" and said it in their treatises!

I don't have time to write a treatise on this myself, citing multiple authors, but - to take one of the best known 20th-century examples - Dr. Ludwig Ott, in his world-famous Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, affirms that the reality of baptism of desire (and Baptism of Blood, which your friend also apparently denies) is proxima fidei - "proximate to faith" (p. 356). That means baptism of desire and baptism of blood are already proposed by the Church as certainly true, and might perhaps in future be defined as an integral part of the faith (like the Immaculate Conception was defined only in 1854). Another widely approved traditional theologian, Adolphus Tanquerey, teaches that baptism of desire and baptism of blood are both theologically "certain" (Synopsis Theologiae Dogmaticae, vol. 2, pp. 358-363. In fact, if I'm not mistaken, about the last approved Catholic theologian to agree with your baptism of desire-denying friend was Peter Abelard, who lived about 900 years ago. (These are the only two traditional Catholic dogma manuals that I happen to have at hand here on my own bookshelves at present.)

Your friend quite likely follows Fr. Feeney, who accepted the Council of Trent's teaching that one can indeed be justified by a (repentant) desire for baptism (votum baptismi), but who also argued that such a desire would not be sufficient for eternal salvation. In other words, he held that anyone who is among the elect (predestined by God for the Beatific Vision) will in fact, since the New Covenant came into effect, receive sacramental baptism before death. God's Providence will see that he gets it. That would mean, for instance, that even a devout catechumen who may have been for a time justified by his faith, perfect contrition, and desire for baptism, must have lapsed back into mortal sin and gone to hell, if he turns out to die unexpectedly before receiving the sacrament.

As far as I know, this was Fr. Feeney's own original 'twist' on the Council of Trent: I'm pretty sure no approved theologian in the 400 years between Trent and the Saint Benedict Center ever added that gloss on the Tridentine teaching. Rather, the approved theologians took it for granted that if it is possible to reach justification without sacramental baptism, it is also possible to stay justified till death without it, and so reach Heaven.

The Church herself endorsed this position straight after Trent in her Roman Catechism, composed by some of the leading participants in the Council itself. (And who is more likely to have understood the mind of the Council better, they or Fr. Feeney centuries later?) We read the following in the said Catechism, in a section headed by the assertion that (in contrast to the baptism of infants), "The Baptism of Adults should be deferred":

". . . For that delay is not attended with the danger which was said above to impend over infants; for should any sudden accident render it impossible for adults [i.e., catechumens] to be cleansed in the saving water, their intention and determination to receive it, and their repentance for their previous ill-spent life, will suffice them to grace and justification" (II, II, Q. 35, emphasis added). Even though the words "grace and justification" are used here, rather than "eternal salvation", it is perfectly clear from the words in bold type that the Catechism means the person can stay justified right up till death without receiving "the saving water". In which case he/she will of course be saved. For only the kind of "sudden acident" that causes death will make it "impossible" for the sacrament to be administered. Also, if the Catechism authors had thought, like Fr. Feeney, that all such adult catechumens, even after having been temporarily justified, would be excluded forever from Heaven if they died without the sacrament, then of course delaying their baptism would be "attended with" the same "danger" as that of delaying the baptism of infants.

More recently, that great champion of orthodoxy and foe of modernism, Pope St. Pius X, mandated in 1905 a Catechism for use in all the schools of the Roman Province, in which Q&A #567 asserts unequivocally that baptism of desire and baptism of blood can be sufficent (i.e., saving) substitutes for sacramental baptism. As far as I know, all approved Catechisms have taught unequivocally the efficacy of these two substitutes. So your friend can scarcely claim that ##1258 and 1259 of the new Catechism of the Catholic Church are introducing some liberal or modernist novelty when they assert the validity of baptism of desire and baptism of blood.

Doctrine that is taught unanimously as certain, century after century, by all approved theologians and in all episcopally and papally approved Catechisms, is the kind of doctrine that fulfills the requirements for an infallible teaching of the Ordinary Magisterium (cf. Lumen Gentium, 25). Admittedly, baptism of desire and baptism of blood cannot be said at this stage in history to belong to the first of the three categories of doctrine specified in the Church's current (1989) official Profession of Faith (i.e., dogmas, which are proposed by the Church as revealed truth to be accepted with 'divine and Catholic faith'). However, they belong in the second category of truths in the said profession, which are also taught infallibly. These are truths "to be held definitively"; for even if not themselves revealed, they are implied in some way by revelation, and so are necessary for "guarding and expounding" the revealed deposit.

So the bottom line is that I am perfectly willing to join with the above authorities in order to "come forward and state" that while, in "rejecting [baptism of desire and baptism of blood] as erroneous", your "Catholic acquaintance" may not perhaps have lost the theological virtue of Catholic faith altogether, as do formal heretics who stubbornly reject truths in the first category (dogmas), he is certainly not keeping the Catholic faith "whole and undefiled". I fear that he is committing a serious sin of pride in pitting his own private interpretation of Scripture and Tradition against that of all the approved theologians, Successors of the Apostles, and Successors of Peter, as expressed in their Ordinary Magisterium over many centuries.

In fact, denying baptism of desire and baptism of blood strikes me as one of the ugliest and horrific theological errors imaginable. For if those deniers are correct, God did not predestine for eternal life, and so did not grant efficacious grace, to even one person out of the millions upon millions of people living in these huge continents of the Americas, in most of Africa and the Far East, in Australia and the Pacific, etc., for century after century after Pentecost until missionaries finally arrived to offer them sacramental baptism.

Doesn't that scenario seem to you to turn the doctrine that God wills the salvation of all men into a sick joke? It does for me.

Indeed, since salvation was possible for some such folks before the coming of Christ, when Baptism was not required and saving grace as available through the more simple and implicit faith in the Savior outlined in Hebrews 11, the denial of baptism of desire and baptism of blood actually implies that the coming of Our Lord and Savior was the worst disaster possible for all those millions of pagans who lived before missionaries arrived! For it removed their only chance of salvation by imposing the new - and for them, impossible - absolute requirement of sacramental Baptism! That seems absurd as well as sick!"

(a retired theology professor)

Practically all the approved theologians since the Middle Ages have not only been "willing" to come forward and state that Catholics "must believe that one can enter into the Beatific Vision without being baptized in water"; they have already actually "come forward" and said it in their treatises!

I don't have time to write a treatise on this myself, citing multiple authors, but - to take one of the best known 20th-century examples - Dr. Ludwig Ott...

Oh. He doesn't have time to name practically all those theologians. So he cites Ott.

Wow, Jim. That's impressive. I'm blown down.

So, mister chokehold breaker... do I have to believe it to maintain my Catholic Faith or what?

I'm going to start a pool. We'll be betting on exactly how long this unnamed theologian will maintain Rogue's favor before being dispensed with by Jim. I'm going to clean up, but being as generous as I am, I'll simply turn and, with my proceeds, buy a round for the house.

Let's posit he is right, and my oh my is he forceful... and confident. I've sunk into the horror of horrors here. Let me ask you... don't you think my bishop should be contacted? Jim! It is this important, Jim. Contact my bishop immediately such that he may prevent me from receiving the Blessed Sacrament this Sunday next.

MRyan. Look. This person Jim consulted has guts. Where are your guts? This guy actually comes out strongly and gives me an affirmative; he says that I must respond "yes" to my querry.

Why can't you?