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 2 of 4 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: Tower of David Ministry Back online.

Post  MRyan on Wed May 25, 2011 10:19 am

Jehanne wrote:
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?
To add to what Allie said (and I agree with her), how sincere is the desire if the bride-to-be is so fickle as to “change her mind” about her true love? How “perfect” is her love and how sincere are her intentions when it is a fleeting love? Do you think that God is not capable of reading hearts and does not know our true desires?

Jehanne wrote: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?
The vow/desire for Baptism cannot effect a translation to justification unless it is vivified by a perfect charity, otherwise known as baptism of desire.

In fact, with respect to the vow for Baptism, you raise a good point. A person must have the intention to be Baptized, but his actual Baptism may not result in a life of grace if one’s Faith and intention are not vivified by charity. Charity is the defining and critical element for living the life of grace; and, if present, it always presupposes the possession of the true faith and proper intentions.

If you are trying to make the point that just as the Baptized faithful may fall from grace through a loss of faith and/or charity, so too can those sanctified prior to Baptism; and if so, how can anyone stake salvation on the unstable dispositions of man (hence, the reason why Baptism is the “perfect remedy”) … you are missing the point. Baptism of desire is concerned with the possibility of salvation for those who DIE in a state of grace united to our Lord (and His Church) through the bonds of faith and charity, and that is all it is concerned with.

When Feeneyites say that Justification is the “state of sanctification”, but Baptism is the “state of salvation”, tell that to the souls in the "state of damnation" bearing their indelible Baptismal “seal of salvation” for all eternity. Only those in a state of sanctification may enjoy the beatific vision, and there is not a single soul in hell who has “baptism of desire”.
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 Wed May 25, 2011 10:41 am

MRyan wrote: When Feeneyites say that Justification is the “state of sanctification”, but Baptism is the “state of salvation”, tell that to the souls in the "state of damnation" bearing their indelible Baptismal “seal of salvation” for all eternity. Only those in a state of sanctification may enjoy the beatific vision, and there is not a single soul in hell who has “baptism of desire”.

Hence why I believe Bill Strom is on to something about justification:
http://catholicvox.blogspot.com/2009/03/session-one-dogmatic-constitution-of.html

Unfortunately we cannot even get most priests to agree with the "explicit faith" position of Fr. Harrison, so we will probably never have these issues examined by the Vatican in our lifetime anyway. We can't even get Catholic apologists to admit that you need to believe in Jesus to be saved!

I am sure we have been through this before but....check these points out:


Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis (# 22), June 29, 1943: “Actually only those are to be numbered among the members of the Church who have received the laver of regeneration and profess the true faith.”


Pope Pius XII, Mediator Dei (# 43), Nov. 20, 1947: “In the same way, actually that baptism is the distinctive mark of all Christians, and serves to differentiate them from those who have not been cleansed in this purifying stream and consequently are not members of Christ, the sacrament of holy orders sets the priest apart from the rest of the faithful who have not received this consecration."


Last edited by RashaLampa on Wed May 25, 2011 10:45 am; edited 1 time in total

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Tower of David Ministry Back online.

Post  Jehanne on Wed May 25, 2011 10:43 am

MRyan wrote:
Jehanne wrote:
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?
To add to what Allie said (and I agree with her), how sincere is the desire if the bride-to-be is so fickle as to “change her mind” about her true love? How “perfect” is her love and how sincere are her intentions when it is a fleeting love? Do you think that God is not capable of reading hearts and does not know our true desires?

Are you married, Mike? Ever dated? People fall in love all the time, only later to fall out of love. It's possible, isn't it? Are you saying that it is impossible for someone who has who has a perfect desire to baptized to ever lose that desire completely? If so, then you are denying human free will. Your statement about the One and Triune God "reading hearts" is, of course, absolutely true. However, we, as human beings, can't do that, can we? Indeed, it is a miracle that God can do it, so if He can do that, then He can also bring about Sacramental Baptism in Water to whomever He knows will persevere in his/her desire for Baptism.

MRyan wrote:
Jehanne wrote: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?
The vow/desire for Baptism cannot effect a translation to justification unless it is vivified by a perfect charity, otherwise known as baptism of desire.

In fact, with respect to the vow for Baptism, you raise a good point. A person must have the intention to be Baptized, but his actual Baptism may not result in a life of grace if one’s Faith and intention are not vivified by charity. Charity is the defining and critical element for living the life of grace; and, if present, it always presupposes the possession of the true faith and proper intentions.

If you are trying to make the point that just as the Baptized faithful may fall from grace through a loss of faith and/or charity, so too can those sanctified prior to Baptism; and if so, how can anyone stake salvation on the unstable dispositions of man (hence, the reason why Baptism is the “perfect remedy”) … you are missing the point. Baptism of desire is concerned with the possibility of salvation for those who DIE in a state of grace united to our Lord (and His Church) through the bonds of faith and charity, and that is all it is concerned with.

When Feeneyites say that Justification is the “state of sanctification”, but Baptism is the “state of salvation”, tell that to the souls in the "state of damnation" bearing their indelible Baptismal “seal of salvation” for all eternity. Only those in a state of sanctification may enjoy the beatific vision, and there is not a single soul in hell who has “baptism of desire”.

No apostates in Hell, then? What/who determines when we die? God? Nature? Chance? If God has control over life or death, then He has control over Baptism, also. I do not see how one could affirm the former without affirming the latter.
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 Wed May 25, 2011 12:42 pm

Jehanne wrote:
MRyan wrote:
Jehanne wrote:
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?
To add to what Allie said (and I agree with her), how sincere is the desire if the bride-to-be is so fickle as to “change her mind” about her true love? How “perfect” is her love and how sincere are her intentions when it is a fleeting love? Do you think that God is not capable of reading hearts and does not know our true desires?

Are you married, Mike? Ever dated? People fall in love all the time, only later to fall out of love. It's possible, isn't it? Are you saying that it is impossible for someone who has who has a perfect desire to baptized to ever lose that desire completely? If so, then you are denying human free will. Your statement about the One and Triune God "reading hearts" is, of course, absolutely true. However, we, as human beings, can't do that, can we? Indeed, it is a miracle that God can do it, so if He can do that, then He can also bring about Sacramental Baptism in Water to whomever He knows will persevere in his/her desire for Baptism.
Married for over 36 years, and you? When Catholics take their marriage vows seriously, the love for their spouses mirrors that agape that defines one's love for Christ. While it is not the same love reserved for God alone, it is vivified by the same charity.

You appear to be equating human love with that elevated supernatural love which is sanctified and nurtured in the bonds of Holy Matrimony.

The baptism of desire of which we speak is precisely that "hope" and confidence in the mercy of God that He will not abandon anyone who approaches Him with a pure heart (intention) and the desire (charity) He so desires, should the “perfect remedy” of Baptism be “impossible” to receive.

All of this “speculation” about falling in and out of love prior to Baptism is irrelevant and proves nothing, for the only thing that matters is the state of one’s soul at the moment of death.

If you don’t know by now what the Catechism of Trent is teaching, I can’t help you.

“… 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.

Yep, that's what it says, and that is what the Church teaches still. And that is what you call a “self-contradiction”.

Sure.

Jehanne wrote:
MRyan wrote:
When Feeneyites say that Justification is the “state of sanctification”, but Baptism is the “state of salvation”, tell that to the souls in the "state of damnation" bearing their indelible Baptismal “seal of salvation” for all eternity. Only those in a state of sanctification may enjoy the beatific vision, and there is not a single soul in hell who has “baptism of desire”.

No apostates in Hell, then? What/who determines when we die? God? Nature? Chance? If God has control over life or death, then He has control over Baptism, also. I do not see how one could affirm the former without affirming the latter.
What? All apostates are in hell, every last baptized one of them. What part of my previous statement about the "state of damnation" for the fallen baptized, every one of whom bears the "seal of salvation" did you not understand?
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 Wed May 25, 2011 1:00 pm

MRyan wrote:Married for over 36 years, and you? When Catholics take their marriage vows seriously, the love for their spouses mirrors that agape that defines one's love for Christ. While it is not the same love reserved for God alone, it is vivified by the same charity.

I have been married for 15 years. We have 5 children.

MRyan wrote:You appear to be equating human love with that elevated supernatural love which is sanctified and nurtured in the bonds of Holy Matrimony.

You should read a book called Life in the Son. I got acquainted with it as my upbringing as a Protestant Evangelical. It's a beautiful book that demonstrates, beyond a doubt, the Catholic teaching of perseverance. To attain Heaven, it is not enough just to have faith and pass into the "once saved, always saved" category. I hope that you agree with this, and I am sure that you do. The alternative is formal heresy.

MRyan wrote:The baptism of desire of which we speak is precisely that "hope" and confidence in the mercy of God that He will not abandon anyone who approaches Him with a pure heart (intention) and the desire (charity) He so desires, should the “perfect remedy” of Baptism be “impossible” to receive.

So, you agree that a person who has "baptism of desire" and even "perfect charity" still has free will. Correct? In other words, it is still possible for an unbaptized catechumen to sin mortally? True or false? Do you agree that it is possible for a person who sincerely desires Baptism to change his/her mind and decide, later on, not to be baptized?

MRyan wrote:All of this “speculation” about falling in and out of love prior to Baptism is irrelevant and proves nothing, for the only thing that matters is the state of one’s soul at the moment of death.

You are, once again, pounding on an open door. We all agree with this!

MRyan wrote:If you don’t know by now what the Catechism of Trent is teaching, I can’t help you.

Of course, I know it; I have quoted from it numerous times. It's on my blog, also.

MRyan wrote:“… 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.

Yep, that's what it says, and that is what the Church teaches still. And that is what you call a “self-contradiction”.

Oh, I agree 100%. IF an unforeseen accident would make it impossible... Of course, as Trent also taught us, the commandments of God are not "impossible for us to fulfill."

MRyan wrote:What? All apostates are in hell, every last baptized one of them. What part of my previous statement about the "state of damnation" for the fallen baptized, every one of whom bears the "seal of salvation" did you not understand?

So, you agree that it is possible for a catechumen to become an apostate? How about people who only desire Baptism implicitly? How do they become apostates?
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 Wed May 25, 2011 1:07 pm

MRyan, is the person who has received baptism of desire or baptism of blood subject to the Roman Pontiff?

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Tower of David Ministry Back online.

Post  MRyan on Wed May 25, 2011 1:35 pm

RashaLampa wrote:MRyan, is the person who has received baptism of desire or baptism of blood subject to the Roman Pontiff?
Yes, even if subjection is only implicit in one's explicit faith and intention to do the will of God in all things; which includes the will to be subject to the Holy Father.

And of course, being united to our Lord in the bonds of faith and charity necessarily results in being united to the Faithful in the Body of Christ ... which obviously means being united to the Holy Father and being subject to him, even if only implicitly or "virtually". You know we are not speaking of that visible incorporation defined as formal "membership", but a real bond of unity in and with Christ nonetheless.

So I would caution you against citing Pope Pius XII on "membership" in the Mystical Body, while ignoring his teaching on baptism of desire, as if they are opposed.

As Fr. Harrison recently said in an email (I am not at liberty to share):

"Only the followers of Fr. Feeney think that all those who die without explicit, conscious submission to the Roman Pontiff go to Hell."
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 Wed May 25, 2011 1:44 pm

I am going to post the whole article from my blog:

http://unamsanctamecclesiamcatholicam.blogspot.com/2011/04/implicit-submission-another-absurdity.html

Implicit submission, another absurdity.

As the ex cathedra pronouncement by Pope Boniface VIII states, "it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff." As with implicit faith, the modernistic response to this infallible declaration is to say that non-Catholics can have implicit submission to the Pope. As my posts on implicit faith demonstrate, such an idea is manifestly absurd. It is like saying that I can be explicitly "married" to my beloved wife yet at the same time I am not really married to her but am married, albeit "implicitly," to an unknown woman whom I have never met but will meet in Eternity and with whom I have "unconscious desires & bonds of charity" linking me to her. In other words, my marriage to my wife is an illusion even though I love her deeply, have sex with her on a regular basis, and she has given birth to five of our children, all of whom are doing fine.

Consider another example, a brave Union soldier from the American Civil War. Many of these fine men fought and died to keep the United States of America as one nation. The death toll from that War was enormous, and while I am personally convinced that North & South would have united, eventually, even without the loss of 620,000 lives, the men who fought on both sides were brave and courageous men. To suggest, however, that a brave soldier could be fighting for either the North or the South, bravely risking his life while taking the lives of his enemy, obeying his commanding officers, going into battle on a day-by-day basis, consciously and obediently saying his pledges and prayers on a daily basis, yet on an unconscious level, in a way that is completely unknown to him, he is actually living in implicit submission to the other side (i.e. our Union soldier is really a Confederate one, but he just does not know that fact) even though he is killing their soldiers. This idea is an abject absurdity of the highest kind. No one, and I repeat, no one, can be an unconscious traitor. Not even Sigmund Freud would go that far!

To say that one could be implicitly submitting to the Pope while at the same time opposing and denying Catholic dogmas is an insult, not only to Catholics but to non-Catholics, also. One might as well say that our lives are nothing but an illusion and that reality is, in actuality, a computer simulation on some "mad scientist" alien's desk. More about that "possibility" in a future post.
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 Wed May 25, 2011 1:45 pm

Pope Julius III, Council of Trent, On the Sacraments of Baptism and Penance, Sess. 14, Chap. 2: “… since the Church exercises judgment on no one who has not previously entered it by the gate of baptism. For what have I to do with those who are without (1 Cor. 5:12), says the Apostle. It is otherwise with those of the household of the faith, whom Christ the Lord by the laver of baptism has once made ‘members of his own body’ (1 Cor. 12:13).”


Children are placed under the authority of the Church by baptism. Thus, by their baptism they are made subject to the Roman Pontiff, since the Roman Pontiff possesses supreme authority in the Church (First Vatican Council, de fide). This proves that baptism is actually the first component in determining whether or not one is subject to the Roman Pontiff. If one has not been baptized, then one cannot be subject to the Roman Pontiff, because the Church exercises judgment (i.e., jurisdiction) over no one who has not entered the Church through the Sacrament of Baptism (de fide).

It is not possible, therefore, to be subject to the Roman Pontiff without receiving the Sacrament of Baptism, since the Church (and the Roman Pontiff) cannot exercise judgment (jurisdiction) over an unbaptized person (de fide, Trent). And since it is not possible to be subject to the Roman Pontiff without the Sacrament of Baptism, it is not possible to be saved without the Sacrament of Baptism, since every human creature must be subject to the Roman Pontiff for salvation (de fide, Boniface VIII).

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Tower of David Ministry Back online.

Post  Guest on Wed May 25, 2011 1:47 pm

And yes I did cut n paste from the Dimond site so we will just get that out of the way.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Tower of David Ministry Back online.

Post  Jehanne on Wed May 25, 2011 1:49 pm

MRyan wrote:
RashaLampa wrote:MRyan, is the person who has received baptism of desire or baptism of blood subject to the Roman Pontiff?
Yes, even if subjection is only implicit in one's explicit faith and intention to do the will of God in all things; which includes the will to be subject to the Holy Father.

And of course, being united to our Lord in the bonds of faith and charity necessarily results in being united to the Faithful in the Body of Christ ... which obviously means being united to the Holy Father and being subject to him, even if only implicitly or "virtually". You know we are not speaking of that visible incorporation defined as formal "membership", but a real bond of unity in and with Christ nonetheless.

So I would caution you against citing Pope Pius XII on "membership" in the Mystical Body, while ignoring his teaching on baptism of desire, as if they are opposed.

As Fr. Harrison recently said in an email (I am not at liberty to share):

"Only the followers of Fr. Feeney think that all those who die without explicit, conscious submission to the Roman Pontiff go to Hell."

One question, "Can those individuals who only have 'implicit submission' to the Pope ever be guilty of schism?" If so, how?
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 Wed May 25, 2011 1:54 pm

MRyan wrote:
RashaLampa wrote:MRyan, is the person who has received baptism of desire or baptism of blood subject to the Roman Pontiff?
Yes, even if subjection is only implicit in one's explicit faith and intention to do the will of God in all things; which includes the will to be subject to the Holy Father.

I would agree with you on this point if the person is already baptized, such as the only materially schismatic Orthdoox Christian or the materially heretical "Protestant."

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Tower of David Ministry Back online.

Post  Jehanne on Wed May 25, 2011 1:56 pm

We all agree that heresy/schism can be material/venial or formal/mortal. This is why trials before the Inquisitions took so long. Father Harrison is (once again) building a straw man.
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 2:09 pm

RashaLampa wrote:Pope Julius III, Council of Trent, On the Sacraments of Baptism and Penance, Sess. 14, Chap. 2: “… since the Church exercises judgment on no one who has not previously entered it by the gate of baptism. For what have I to do with those who are without (1 Cor. 5:12), says the Apostle. It is otherwise with those of the household of the faith, whom Christ the Lord by the laver of baptism has once made ‘members of his own body’ (1 Cor. 12:13).”


Children are placed under the authority of the Church by baptism. Thus, by their baptism they are made subject to the Roman Pontiff, since the Roman Pontiff possesses supreme authority in the Church (First Vatican Council, de fide). This proves that baptism is actually the first component in determining whether or not one is subject to the Roman Pontiff. If one has not been baptized, then one cannot be subject to the Roman Pontiff, because the Church exercises judgment (i.e., jurisdiction) over no one who has not entered the Church through the Sacrament of Baptism (de fide).

It is not possible, therefore, to be subject to the Roman Pontiff without receiving the Sacrament of Baptism, since the Church (and the Roman Pontiff) cannot exercise judgment (jurisdiction) over an unbaptized person (de fide, Trent). And since it is not possible to be subject to the Roman Pontiff without the Sacrament of Baptism, it is not possible to be saved without the Sacrament of Baptism, since every human creature must be subject to the Roman Pontiff for salvation (de fide, Boniface VIII).

However, I would be interested in seeing this in context...and therefore taken into account how this applies to those who make themselves subject to the pope prior to baptism but after the grace of God is at work in them via contrition and explicit faith in Jesus Christ and therefore the intention of being baptized members of the Catholic Church.

Also, how it pertains to those who are the recipients of God's grace, who sincerely want to follow the Commandments of the Lord and be grafted to the vine; however, perhaps have not yet realized what all of that will entail (becoming baptized members of the Catholic Church and therefore subject to the Roman Pontiff).

In other words, those who are in the process of conversion, which is always the action of God's grace, and who we can presume or at least be hopeful that they will ultimately become fully united to Christ and His Church via baptism; although at this particular moment have not yet fully attained.

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  pascendi on Wed May 25, 2011 4:05 pm

Roguejim wrote: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".)

Well, first off, note that in the above, "baptism" is not absent in either the one proposal about desire, nor the other proposal about water; you've merely presented a distinction between one kind of baptism and another, both laying claim to being "baptism". So in what you lay out above, there is no perfect case of non-contradiction presented as one might fear, for instance claiming that the Church teaches that "baptism is always and sometimes not necessary" which is clearly absurd. I'm trying to answer directly and I'm out of practice so bear with me. This is precisely why we can't go around damning people for being heretics, or call the Church onto the carpet for "teaching error" because no one in any of these discussions is really claiming that baptism is sometimes not necessary for salvation, unless we are dealing with the truly ignorant or the very liberal.

My point above is failsafe on all sides because I made no such distinction. I merely state that baptism is necessary for salvation, which is true. No one can deny this and stand for long.

Now to the next step as to what baptism itself is. There are very many "kinds" of baptism, and no matter what they are, whether they are imperfect forms of the sacrament or stages in some completion by degrees or in phases, or likenesses, or whatever... I don't really know what they are, but they do exist, the most notable being the baptism of John in Scripture. It is something, but it isn't the sacrament of baptism. We can't say it is hollow and empty, but the Church has ruled definitively that it isn't the baptism of water and the Holy Spirit. One lapses into error, as far as I can tell, when they rule out as non-existent what it is which people are trying to identify when they say "baptism of desire" as if what that person were pointing to didn't exist, but error also occurs it seems when people pretend they know that a baptism without water can exist and can save, because we actually have no evidence whatsoever that this is a reality, that it is of the Deposit of Faith.

Now on to this distinction "the baptism of water". Who makes this distinction "...of water"? The ONLY baptism I know of, the only true baptism, is as Christ and His Church positively define, that of water and the Holy Spirit. Christ Himself ruled definitively when He said "unless you be baptised in water and the Holy Spirit". The Church has upheld this.

All the above is no revelation to you, I know. I think people are approaching this whole discussion from the wrong perspective. Everyone is tempted to use the "test of truth" competition approach, everyone is walking on pins and needles so afraid of being aligned with heretics or falling out of favor with the God, each other or with the Church, everyone seems to lie in wait for their opponent to come into logical conflict and "expose himself" as a fraud. It is all so juvenile, so full of fear and so grating and I think entirely unpleasing to God. It seems a lot of people really believe that having the right position is so pleasing to God, and that being in error is so damnable in His sight. This group mentality is not so much a presention of the Mystical Body as it is a hand telling the foot that he has no place. I have absolutely no problem with the thought that someone can hold a stupid opinion, be in error, or even earn the title "heretic" from his fellow clowns and still be fully pleasing to Him and in a state of grace. I believe this envelop is a lot larger than many theologically frigid trads might admit.

What is the approach from the right perspective? In my opinion, firstly, all should stop pretending that the Church is actually claiming to know, from the Deposit itself, what happens to souls in sticky situations, as if She knew. She doesn't. What is the Church trying to do when She prattles on endlessly whenever She does about souls in sticky situations? She is trying to console souls and comfort minds, and she is RIGHT in doing so. People want to know what happened to their perpetually drunk uncle who died, or their raindancing ancestors, or their stillborn child. They want to believe that the loving almighty God dealt with those souls in great love. They are right in that desire.

To be honest, I don't think God cares if we get the details wrong. I don't even think He wants us to know the intimate details of how He rescues souls.

I do know one thing: if anyone tries to get me to admit that a person can get to Heaven without, as you put it, Baptism "In Water", there will be perpetual carnage laying about me, I will always be victorious in my position, and I'll still be in the Communion line, and might even make it to Heaven, along with all the clowns I've fought with.

Fighting is stupid. It is fun for a while, is actually probably essential to our spiritual development, and a phase we have to go through, but then we... well, grow up.




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 Wed May 25, 2011 6:11 pm

RashaLampa wrote:
MRyan wrote:
RashaLampa wrote:MRyan, is the person who has received baptism of desire or baptism of blood subject to the Roman Pontiff?
Yes, even if subjection is only implicit in one's explicit faith and intention to do the will of God in all things; which includes the will to be subject to the Holy Father.

I would agree with you on this point if the person is already baptized, such as the only materially schismatic Orthdoox Christian or the materially heretical "Protestant."
Wow; so the materially schismatic Orthodox and Protestant Christian, neither of whom is under the jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff, and both of whom explicitly, and at least objectively, rejects the Primacy and Jurisdiction of Peter, may be virtually or subjectively subject to the Roman Pontiff and placed under his jurisdiction by an “implicit desire” because of “invincible ignorance”.

It amazes me how generous the Feeneyite can be with the Baptized “material” schismatic in granting him the possibility of salvation via an “implicit faith”, virtual membership and virtual subjection to the Holy Father (my how Feeneyite times have changed) even when the objectively schismatic Christian rejects any such subjection and demonstrates not the slightest desire to enter the Church (positively rejects the idea), while the un-baptized catechumen and/or the about-to-be-martyred convert who wants nothing more than to enter the Catholic Church in order to be united to our Lord is left without the possibility of salvation because only the Baptized faithful can fall under the “jurisdiction” of the Roman Pontiff.

Indeed, it would seem that Feeneyism is nothing more than Phariseeism writ large where the letter of the law takes precedence over the spirit of the law. So, when a Catholic maintains that “The Catholic understanding of salvation is, in the end, a relational understanding, not a forensic one” (Matt Yonke, Called to Communion, “Doug Wilson Weighs in on the Eternal Fate of Faithful Catholics”), the Feeneyite must object by asserting that the Catholic understanding is forensic first and foremost, for not even a sanctified soul who Loves our Lord with his whole heart and truly desires to enter the Church can be saved without actual ablution in water Baptism.

This is why an Adam Miller calls the possibility of salvation through baptism of blood and baptism of desire “heresy”; this is why a Br. Andre does not recognize the salvific efficacy of sanctifying grace wrought by baptism of blood or baptism of desire; this is why the “official” position of the St. Benedict Center maintains that Trent’s description of justification “by the desire thereof” is, since the promulgation of the Gospel, actually an unfulfilled and non-salvific form of justification that does NOT make one a true heir to the Kingdom; and this is why a Bill Strom and a Duckbill argue that the justification defined by Trent cannot exist without the actual sacrament of Baptism.

And people wonder what all the fuss is about.

Need I say more? It sure would be nice if a living and authoritative "magisterium" was out there that could address these issues, know what I mean? (Sarcasm)
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 Wed May 25, 2011 9:04 pm

MRyan wrote:
Indeed, it would seem that Feeneyism is nothing more than Phariseeism writ large where the letter of the law takes precedence over the spirit of the law. So, when a Catholic maintains that “The Catholic understanding of salvation is, in the end, a relational understanding, not a forensic one” (Matt Yonke, Called to Communion, “Doug Wilson Weighs in on the Eternal Fate of Faithful Catholics”), the Feeneyite must object by asserting that the Catholic understanding is forensic first and foremost, for not even a sanctified soul who Loves our Lord with his whole heart and truly desires to enter the Church can be saved without actual ablution in water Baptism.
So you would have us believe that Divine Providence and Omnipotence is incapable of providing the necessary Sacrament in some circumstances and has to supply for this lack by making an absolute necessity sometimes not necessary? ... I think I'll stick with the Feeneyites.

I don't, for even one second, believe that Our Lord would withhold the opportunity for Baptism from a soul which loves Him with his whole heart and truly desires to enter His Church.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Tower of David Ministry Back online.

Post  MRyan on Wed May 25, 2011 9:23 pm

Jehanne wrote:
I have been married for 15 years. We have 5 children.
You're still newlyweds.

Jehanne wrote:
MRyan wrote:“… 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.

Yep, that's what it says, and that is what the Church teaches still. And that is what you call a “self-contradiction”.
Oh, I agree 100%. IF an unforeseen accident would make it impossible... Of course, as Trent also taught us, the commandments of God are not "impossible for us to fulfill."
That's NOT what Trent says. It says:

Session 6, Chapter 11 on Justification: "...no one should make use of that rash statement forbidden under anathema by the Fathers, that the commandments of God are impossible to observe for a man who is justified. 'For God does not command impossibilities,' but by commanding admonishes you both to do what you can do, and to pray for what you cannot do."

Why are you so selective with your citations, and why did you change the quote from Trent and yank it out of context?

Anyway, yes, the commandments of God are not "impossible to observe" for the justified. Trent is talking about the fulfillment ("observing") the moral law (the commandments).

Having said that, one may fulfill the divine and ecclesiastical precept to be Baptized by abiding by the spirit of the law when its actual fulfillment is humanly impossible. This is what Trent meant when it declared: "God does not command impossibilities,' but by commanding admonishes you both to do what you can do, and to pray for what you cannot do". This would apply to the moral law (observing he commandments"), but we can apply it to divine/ecclesiastical precepts as well.

Again, this is why The Catechism of Trent teaches: "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."

In other words, "do what you can do, and to pray for what you cannot do" (with the right intentions) and God will take care of the rest.

Jehanne wrote:
MRyan wrote:What? All apostates are in hell, every last baptized one of them. What part of my previous statement about the "state of damnation" for the fallen baptized, every one of whom bears the "seal of salvation" did you not understand?
So, you agree that it is possible for a catechumen to become an apostate? How about people who only desire Baptism implicitly? How do they become apostates?

No, I do not agree since there must be objective evidence that one was a formal (visible) Baptized member of the Church before one can become an apostate.

Are these "trick" questions? Is there a point to all this?
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 Wed May 25, 2011 10:15 pm

MarianLibrarian wrote:
MRyan wrote:
Indeed, it would seem that Feeneyism is nothing more than Phariseeism writ large where the letter of the law takes precedence over the spirit of the law. So, when a Catholic maintains that “The Catholic understanding of salvation is, in the end, a relational understanding, not a forensic one” (Matt Yonke, Called to Communion, “Doug Wilson Weighs in on the Eternal Fate of Faithful Catholics”), the Feeneyite must object by asserting that the Catholic understanding is forensic first and foremost, for not even a sanctified soul who Loves our Lord with his whole heart and truly desires to enter the Church can be saved without actual ablution in water Baptism.
So you would have us believe that Divine Providence and Omnipotence is incapable of providing the necessary Sacrament in some circumstances and has to supply for this lack by making an absolute necessity sometimes not necessary? ... I think I'll stick with the Feeneyites.
Now that (the first part) was really disappointing. I would not have you believe any such thing. Have I or has the Church ever said that God is “incapable” of providing the Sacrament of Baptism in any circumstance? Are you so blinded by your Feeneyite mind-set that you cannot understand that when the Roman Catechism of the Council of Trent speaks about the “impossibility” of receiving baptism in certain circumstances, it is NOT suggesting that God can NOT provide the sacrament, but only that providence allows it due to an “unforeseen accident”. Unforeseen to God – NO! But God allows it for His own reasons, and THAT is what you cannot accept, because you know better than the Church.

“Stick” with your Feeneyites; swell, they need some help. But we both know that you are not here to defend the Feeneyite “non-salvific sanctifying grace” doctrine, or any of the mutant variants thereof, for you choose to leave the doctrinal debate to others. Your only argument, when all is said is done, is that God can do it, and so He shall. And that is just peachy; but then, why bother with these misrepresentations of what I said? I guess it makes you feel better. OK.

MarianLibrarian wrote:I don't, for even one second, believe that Our Lord would withhold the opportunity for Baptism from a soul which loves Him with his whole heart and truly desires to enter His Church.
That’s wonderful … I believe the same thing but leave the possibility open because that’s what the Church teaches. If you want to shut the door, go right ahead; but you’re fight is with the Church, not with me.

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 Wed May 25, 2011 10:49 pm

Oh, and ML, I didn’t address your snarky comment about “making an absolute necessity sometimes not necessary” ... we both know that it would be waste of time presenting the critical theological distinctions governing the various forms of “necessity”, as well as any discussion explaining the Church’s teaching on that which is intrinsic and permanent relative to salvation, and those temporary “helps” instituted for our sanctification.

Whatever.

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 Thu May 26, 2011 12:44 am

All this talk about "charity" you might want to practice some yourself, Mike.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Tower of David Ministry Back online.

Post  Guest on Thu May 26, 2011 3:20 am

MRyan, the Church does not teach that we must believe in "possibilities"... as I have already said: it is one thing to ask whether a thing is "possible" (of course, God could've done whatever He wanted), and quite another to believe it could/would actually happen.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Tower of David Ministry Back online.

Post  MRyan on Thu May 26, 2011 9:59 am

RashaLampa wrote:All this talk about "charity" you might want to practice some yourself, Mike.
I try to and intend to. But, when my posts are turned against me to say something I never said, when theological distinctions of the greatest doctors and theologians of the Church, and the very teachings of the Church herself, are treated as so much gibberish that can be dismissed with a sarcastic turn of a phrase as irrelevant absurdity; and when I’ve explained these distinctions and teachings until I am blue in the face, well forgive me for being a little short with ML for her weightless sarcasm and what appears to be deliberate misrepresentations, but I do expect so much more from her in consideration of her previous thoughtful posts and our previous substantive discussions.

I don’t mind sarcasm as all, as you might have guessed, but at least be prepared to back it up with some substance.

MarianLibrian, I apologize for being a little too severe. I meant no disrespect.
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 Thu May 26, 2011 12:54 pm

MarianLibrarian wrote:MRyan, the Church does not teach that we must believe in "possibilities"... as I have already said: it is one thing to ask whether a thing is "possible" (of course, God could've done whatever He wanted), and quite another to believe it could/would actually happen.
Sorry, but to say that that God “could” never allow one of His elect to be saved by the bonds of faith and charity without benefit of water baptism is a far cry from saying that it “would” never happen, for to deny that it “could” happen is to accuse the Church of teaching error; and has been teaching error since at least the Council of Trent.

Is that your position? Do you hold that the “magisterium” has never left the possibility open, let alone “assured” the salvation of the faith and charity-filled catechumen and martyr who dies without benefit of the sacrament when it is “impossible” to receive?

If this teaching is not an authentic teaching of the magisterium, where does it come from and by what authority does the Church teach it? Or, will you say with columba that the Church does not teach baptism of blood and baptism of desire? Say that again very slowly … I can’t quite get my arms around that one unless one means to say that the “true Church” has never taught and does not teach baptism of blood and baptism of desire; but let's not go there.

Or is it just the “private opinion” of the fallible ordinary magisterium (oops, there’s that word “magisterium” again) that is in reality nothing more than a “private” theological construction that the Church has so carelessly inserted into her official documents and Roman Catechisms as if she actually, and foolishly, believes it?

You do not have to believe that baptism of blood or baptism of desire ever happens, but you are obliged to give due submission of the mind and will to the Church’s authentic ordinary teaching that emphatically and consistently proclaims that it could happen, and she has taught this same doctrine for centuries on end.

And, as you know, “submission” in this case is not the assent of theological faith, but submission of the mind and will to the authority of the Ecclesia docens; and a Catholic’s trust in the divine assistance that it will not fail by allowing the Church to teach a false doctrine to the universal Church.

One of the things I appreciate about this forum, besides the good company, is the fact that we are allowed to explore with cautious freedom the arguments for and against certain teachings (what you call “theological opinions”) and get to the root of the underlying theology and doctrines for each.

I’ve had the opportunity to peel back the onion, if you will, and examine the more “official” written arguments against baptism of blood and baptism of desire, and I hope I have demonstrated at least on some level that the various underlying doctrines and theology against them are often seriously flawed and even call into question other established doctrines.

I take it quite seriously, for example, when it is said that the “magisterium” has never taught baptism of blood and baptism of desire, for the assertion suggests that the “magisterium” is never exercised unless it solemnly defines or defines by a definitive act. Or, it mean that the magisterium is not authentic (and need not be followed) unless a particular teaching is marked for approval by those who sift a long-held particular teaching for strict conformity for what has been believed always and by all men, and anything that falls short of one’s personal definition of “universal”, for example, is simply dismissed as “non-binding” magisterial musings, but not an actual magisterial teaching that requires the assent of the mind and will.

For example, when the Church teaches that she has always held the firm conviction that baptism of blood and baptism of desire are efficacious towards salvation, those who say they know better will say that the Church is clearly wrong, that the evidence simply is not there for such a “firm conviction”. Of course, that the Church says that we must accept her authority even when she teaches doctrines that were not always explicitly revealed or taught by all of the early Fathers is also dismissed as so much “private opinion”.

I also take quite seriously the proposition that holds that the Justification defined by Trent is, since the promulgation of the Gospel, a non-salvific form of sanctifying grace that, while making one a son of God (as under the Old Law), cannot make one a true heir to the kingdom without its fulfillment in water baptism.

Does such a radical position that is clearly opposed to the universal understanding of the Council of Trent's definition of Justification support the long-held claim of Feeneyites that Feeneyism (at least that of the St. Benedict Center) does not deny that one may be justified by faith and charity prior to baptism, when this so-called “justification” does not make one a true heir to the Kingdom; meaning, God cannot substantially abide in this “justified” soul and transform him into a new creature with rights to salvation until he receives the sacrament.

What I am trying to say is "error begets error" and one’s doctrinal dissent from the Church’s authentic teaching on baptism of blood and baptism of desire is fraught with danger.

Please do not deflect this discussion by appealing to the “I do not even know what baptism of desire” means canard by pointing to the Church’s more recent teachings on the invincibly ignorant who may also benefit from baptism of desire, though the doctrine here is not as established, and there is much more room for debate than the more traditional and established doctrines pertaining to the those who possess an explicit faith and a true desire (even if implicit) for Baptism (such as the catechumen and the martyr). I would be glad to discuss this more recent and nebulous form of “baptism of desire”, but would rather that we focus on the core doctrine since, if it can be established by its opponents that it is false, then none of the rest matters.

You see, I don’t think the “I will believe it only when the Church defines it” attitude is what the Church has in mind when she insists that the faithful give due submission to her authentic teachings, especially to her long-established teachings, even if someone might take exception to it.

I wonder how many Feeneyites have ever actually read the Church’s official instructions to theologians about their responsibilities and how they should handle “dissent” when they take exception to a particular doctrine or discipline. And next I wonder what makes laymen think that they fall into the category of Church “theologian” who may at times legitimately “dissent” from Church teaching under certain very restrictive conditions. Do laymen even know what those conditions are, or is it sufficient to say with unaffected simplicity, “define it, then I’ll accept it”?

Just asking.

PS ... sorry for the dissertation.
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 Thu May 26, 2011 1:00 pm

While I will admit that the beginning of my post was exaggerating things, it was in response to the exaggeration of 'Feeneyism' (must we call it that?) as being Pharasaic. Like Fr. Most, you unjustly painted 'Feeneyites' as being unmoved by the plight of the unbaptized (i.e., a "forensic understanding" of salvation).

The letter and spirit of the law are not opposed. If the law is that a man must be baptized in order to be saved, then we must uphold the law and God Himself will pour out enough grace to ensure that the law is upheld (it is, after all, His law). Does God have to do it that way? Of course not, but it is the only way which He Himself has revealed through His Church. If He can bring a man the opportunity for baptism (and He can), then He will. It would be an affront to Divine Providence and Omnipotence to suggest otherwise.

There is no circumstance in which an "unforeseen" event would rob an earnest and loving soul of the opportunity for baptism. The great fear of "what if" which brings dread and terror to untrusting souls must be corrected. Pray, love Our Lord, and follow His commands; He will provide everything necessary (which includes the opportunity for the sacrament of baptism). The 'Feeneyite' position is not one of legality, but of deep trust in Our Lord and His will.


Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Tower of David Ministry Back online.

Post  Guest on Thu May 26, 2011 1:33 pm

baptism of blood, as consistently taught by the Church has (until recently) been understood as a second baptism-- the baptism of a martyr. Not as a replacement for sacramental baptism.

That baptism of desire has no clear understanding is entirely relevant, and not at all a deflection. Just the other day in a discussion on baptism of desire it was asserted to me that "the recipient of baptism of desire is dead", while others grant baptism of desire to catechumens (like the director at my traditional parish, or seemingly St. Josemaria Escriva according to the video posted elsewhere on the forum), and/or others while still living. For some, baptism of desire is animated by perfect contrition and perfect charity; for others an imperfect contrition (if required at all) or charity is all that's required. Others demand an explicit faith, for others an implicit faith suffices. If I flip open the CCC and read about baptism of desire I cannot point out and pin down what exactly it is that the Church 'teaches' about this idea... Is everyone right? Can baptism of desire be applied to the dead or to the living, can imperfect contrition/charity suffice, can charity without contrition suffice, does implicit faith/contrition/charity suffice or must it be explicit? Can a man receive it and not know it? Can a man receive it in this life and then lose it by sin/inconstancy/etc.?

There is no other 'teaching' of the Church so ambiguous, especially as expressed by the faithful.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Tower of David Ministry Back online.

Post  Roguejim on Thu May 26, 2011 2:39 pm

pascendi wrote:
Roguejim wrote: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".)

#1) "...but error also occurs it seems when people pretend they know that a baptism without water can exist and can save, because we actually have no evidence whatsoever that this is a reality, that it is of the Deposit of Faith..."



Well, I was hoping for a yes, or no answer to a very simple and fair question. I believe in the past you have said that baptism of desire is a contradiction to the absolute necessity of water baptism, and can thus be denied since it is only "theological speculation". Let me try something else...

In paragraph #1 above, are you indicating baptism of desire?
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  columba on Thu May 26, 2011 6:17 pm

MRyan wrote:
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.”

Point taken M.. That's why (even if it appears to me to contadict the evidence) I hold your position and believe in the best intentions of the present-day Majisterium even when they speak and act with such ambiguity.

MRyan quotes:

“[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.”

The problem with applying the above proposition to the present times is, that there indisputably is an obscuring of the more important truths pertaining to religion. What this can be put down to is beyond my capabilities to discover but, this obscuring definately does exist and the fruits of it can be found even on this forum.

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)

It's for this very reason that we have the sedevacante adherents. They affirm the above VCI staement as being true and therefore being unable to reconcile the obscurance of doctrine with the true majisterium they assert that this is not the true majisterium.

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.

No. I'm not joining that bandwagon without a definitive revelation (such as a true Pope having been usurped) and in the absence of such a revelation, Pope Benedict XVI is papa for me.
That the, "Rock-like strength and foundational faith of Peter, of abandoning the Faith? is an imposibility I do not agree. We have many doctors of the Church making provision for such an unfortunate occurrence.

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).

For sure... Tornpage and his guardian angel will navigate safely and I trust the same for myself and all.



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  MRyan on Thu May 26, 2011 6:41 pm

Actually, ML, I am not accusing Feeneyites of being unmoved by the plight of the unbaptized, I am simply asserting what I believe is the truth.

Allow me to demonstrate what I mean when I say that “the Feeneyite understanding of salvation is forensic first and foremost” by citing Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum:

“In the same way in man, nothing is more internal than heavenly grace which begets sanctity [relational], but the ordinary and chief means of obtaining grace are external: that is to say, the sacraments which are administered by men specially chosen for that purpose, by means of certain ordinances [forensic].”

Feeneyism simply asserts that there can be no truly salvific relationship with our Lord until the relation that begets sanctity is fulfilled in water baptism “by means of certain ordinances”. Therefore, the Feeneyite understanding of salvation is primarily forensic (which does not mean that it is opposed to the relational, but only that the former defines the latter; or, the relational is dependent upon the forensic).

If, according to the Feeneyite doctrine, a soul who loves our Lord with his whole heart and truly desires to enter the Church cannot be saved unless and until the letter of the law is fulfilled in water baptism, then I do not see how anyone can object when I point out the obvious ... that the Feeneyite understanding of salvation is primarily forensic, for until and without the fulfillment of the law, there can be no relational understanding of salvation.

To say that the spirit and the letter of the law are not opposed in the Feeneyite doctrine is to miss the point entirely, for I did not say that they are opposed. However, when you say “The 'Feeneyite' position is not one of legality, but of deep trust in Our Lord and His will”, that also misses the point. Would you say that no one can be saved by one’s relationship with the Lord through the bonds of faith and charity without that relation being “fulfilled” in the law of baptism?

Of course you would, and would add that God will fulfill the law by providing the sacrament to each and every one of His elect. But please, don’t let me suggest that the Feeneyite understanding of salvation is primarily forensic; that wouldn’t be fair and someone might get the impression that Feeneyites are a heartless bunch who consigns unbaptized catechumens and martyrs to hell, and that wouldn’t be fair either, so perhaps I should just avoid stating the obvious because it is an inconvenient truth.

Funny though, when I asked you some time ago if God was bound by His own law to provide the sacrament, I think you said no, but He will provide it because “He can”; not because He must or that it is “necessary”, but because "He can”.

As I said, that’s nice, but it kind of avoids the substance of these discussions since it focuses on sentiment rather than doctrine.

If you wish to go down this road again, be prepared to explain why it is an “affront to Divine Providence and Omnipotence to suggest” that God can save a soul on his deathbed in the bonds of faith and charity without being obliged to provide the sacrament since He is not bound by His sacraments to transmit the essential fruits of the same.

If you can't give me any reason why God is obliged to provide the sacrament in each and every case (why it an “affront to Divine Providence and Omnipotence") beyond the argument that He will provide because "He can", I'm not sure what your contribution to this discussion is, exactly.

I mean no insult, I just don't see any doctrinal substance to your sentiments.


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 Thu May 26, 2011 7:26 pm

MRyan wrote:I'm not sure what your contribution to this discussion is, exactly.

I mean no insult, I just don't see any doctrinal substance to your sentiments.

Self to Mike: That wasn't necessary, was it?

Mike to Self: No, it wasn't.

Self to Mike: Then retract it.

Mike to Self: Done.
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 Fri May 27, 2011 1:35 am

Roguejim wrote:
pascendi wrote:
Roguejim wrote: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".)

#1) "...but error also occurs it seems when people pretend they know that a baptism without water can exist and can save, because we actually have no evidence whatsoever that this is a reality, that it is of the Deposit of Faith..."



Well, I was hoping for a yes, or no answer to a very simple and fair question. I believe in the past you have said that baptism of desire is a contradiction to the absolute necessity of water baptism, and can thus be denied since it is only "theological speculation".

That's very easy to explain. Isn't it true that "baptism of desire" means various things to various people, and is subject to all manner of intrepretation, and that no one really has down pat something definitive to present and defend such that all agree? True, I'd say. If I have said any such thing, and I probably have, it must have been regarding one of those proposals that claims a person can enter into the Beatific Vision without actually being baptized. But again, you're using this "baptism of water" qualifier, the qualifier thingy being "of water", and it isn't really like the Church ever uses this. People with blogs and who write books and articles and forum personalities do, but the Church?

In truth, though, it was a fair question, but certainly not a simple one. A simple querry about what Christ meant when He said "cut off your hand if it causes you a problem" may have well resulted in my losing my right hand in simplicity during a bad period in my life rather than anything to do with a statement of Christ on how the heretics are sometimes better ejected, perhaps only for a time hopefully, from the Mystical Body. It wasn't a simple question because it was loaded with hidden qualifiers.

Let me try something else...

In paragraph #1 above, are you indicating baptism of desire?

Dunno. Too lazy to go up there and look. Probably I was just saying that what people are pointing to when they talk about "baptism of desire" is something that has a basis in reality, but the jump from that reality to "what suffices" or what is complete, or what is fully necessary, is unwarranted and clearly not of the Deposit of Faith, and clearly not something we are bound to, and how the Church has treated communities who present a sticking point proves at least in a circumstantial way that such communities haven't violated the Faith itself. What they are pointing in ALL the various interpretations of "baptism of desire" are most probably are realities that lead up to a fulfillment in the sacrament, or are phases along the way which come to term in baptism, and are real. They just aren't baptism in water and the Holy Ghost, something which Christ Himself said was necessary.

A true intellectual approach which honors the Faith, imho, is neither going to discount what people are pointing to, nor pretend that it suffices. We can with reason and in good faith note that they speak of realities yet claim that only baptism, from which water is not absent by its very nature, suffices.

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 Fri May 27, 2011 11:46 am

MarianLibrarian wrote:baptism of blood, as consistently taught by the Church has (until recently) been understood as a second baptism-- the baptism of a martyr. Not as a replacement for sacramental baptism.
This is one of those gratuitous assertions having no basis in historical fact, tradition or teaching. Since you are prone to exaggeration and logical fallacy, it is no wonder that you take the fact that baptism of blood was indeed commonly known as a “second baptism” for the Baptized faithful, but you ignore the whole truth of the matter when it is an established fact that blood martyrdom also has a strong and ancient tradition as serving as a replacement for water baptism. Here is but a sampling of proof texts bearing witness to this truth:

Tertullian: "Without baptism, salvation is attainable by none" (Baptism 1 [A.D. 203]), 12). "We have, indeed, a second [baptismal] font which is one with the former [water baptism]: namely, that of blood, of which the Lord says: ‘I am to be baptized with a baptism’ [Luke 12], when he had already been baptized. He had come through water and blood, as John wrote [1 John 5:6], so that he might be baptized with water and glorified with blood. . . . This is the baptism which replaces that of the fountain, when it has not been received, and restores it when it has been lost" (ibid, 16).

St. Cyprian of Carthage (Bishop), 252AD: “The catechumens who suffer martyrdom receive the glorious and most sublime blood-Baptism.” "[T]he baptism of public witness and of blood cannot profit a heretic unto salvation, because there is no salvation outside the Church." (Letters 72[73]:21 [A.D. 253]). "[Catechumens who suffer martyrdom] are not deprived of the sacrament of baptism. Rather, they are baptized with the most glorious and greatest baptism of blood, concerning which the Lord said that he had another baptism with which he himself was to be baptized [Luke 12]" (ibid., 72[73]:22).

Cyril of Jerusalem: "If any man does not receive baptism, he does not have salvation. The only exception is the martyrs, who even without water will receive the kingdom.
. . . For the Savior calls martyrdom a baptism, saying, ‘Can you drink the cup which I drink and be baptized with the baptism with which I am to be baptized [Mark 10]?’ Indeed, the martyrs too confess, by being made a spectacle to the world, both to angels and to men [1 Cor. 4:9]" (Catechetical Lectures 3:10 [A.D. 350]).

John Chrysostom: "Do not be surprised that I call martyrdom a baptism, for here too the Spirit comes in great haste and there is the taking away of sins and a wonderful and marvelous cleansing of the soul, and just as those being baptized are washed in water, so too those being martyred are washed in their own blood" (Panegyric on St. Lucian 2 [A.D. 387]).

Fulgentius of Ruspe: "From that time at which our Savior said, ‘If anyone is not reborn of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3], no one can, without the sacrament of baptism, except those who, in the Catholic Church, without baptism, pour out their blood for Christ, receive the kingdom of heaven and life eternal" (The Rule of Faith 43 [A.D. 524]).

This why Duckbiill posted a thread asking for “proof” of baptism of desire in the writing of the early Fathers, but specifically requested that we avoid the testimony for baptism of blood -- he knew better than to challenge the record. This is why Brian Kelly from the St. Benedict Center confirmed “This is certainly a valid point” in responding to Fr. Laisney who wrote:

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.”

Really, ML, you should know better.

MarianLibrarian wrote:
That baptism of desire has no clear understanding is entirely relevant, and not at all a deflection. Just the other day in a discussion on baptism of desire it was asserted to me that "the recipient of baptism of desire is dead", while others grant baptism of desire to catechumens (like the director at my traditional parish, or seemingly St. Josemaria Escriva according to the video posted elsewhere on the forum), and/or others while still living. For some, baptism of desire is animated by perfect contrition and perfect charity; for others an imperfect contrition (if required at all) or charity is all that's required.
Others demand an explicit faith, for others an implicit faith suffices. If I flip open the CCC and read about baptism of desire I cannot point out and pin down what exactly it is that the Church 'teaches' about this idea... Is everyone right? Can baptism of desire be applied to the dead or to the living, can imperfect contrition/charity suffice, can charity without contrition suffice, does implicit faith/contrition/charity suffice or must it be explicit? Can a man receive it and not know it? Can a man receive it in this life and then lose it by sin/inconstancy/etc.?

There is no other 'teaching' of the Church so ambiguous, especially as expressed by the faithful.
That was a nice deflection, I must hand it to you. It’s incredible that you seem perplexed over the fact that there are non-defined doctrinal contingencies related to baptism of desire that remain unsettled, so that gives Catholics an excuse to dismiss that teaching which is in fact clearly spelled out in the Roman Catechisms as being “always firmly held”. Well, we can dismiss that specific teaching because of the more nebulous contingent circumstances that might apply to baptism of desire, but were not always “firmly held” with the same “conviction” ... is that right?

If you asked me if someone can pick up the CCC or the Catechism of Trent and know that the Church teaches that God will provide the fruit of the sacrament of Baptism to those who are properly disposed with the proper faith, charity and intention, but are prevented from receiving the sacrament by an unforeseen circumstance, the answer is a definite yes, that’s what the Church teaches.

You can pretend that the Church does not teach this, that’s up to you, but there it is in black and white. I suppose you can also deny that there is a moral universal consensus of saints and theologians that confirms this same teaching, even if its non-defined aspect leaves room for varying opinions on where this teaching falls in the sliding scale of theological certitude and the required level of assent, though they are unanimous in saying that it is a valid "teaching" of the Church. In fact, the CCC teaches that the Church has always held the firm conviction that baptism of blood and baptism of desire are salvific.

You appeal to the fact that Catholics have different ideas as to the definition and limits of baptism of desire, but that is no different than if we asked three Feeneyites and three non-Feeneyites what the Church’s definition of Justification is, and I can almost guarantee you that you would be lucky to get two answers that are the same.

Tell me ML, whose fault is that? Do you think that because there is confusion and inconsistency in defining baptism of desire and its limits that Catholics are free to reject the Church’s established and traditional teaching because there are other contingent circumstances with respect to invincible ignorance, as the Church also teaches, where baptism of desire might apply?

Really? Let’s return to my example of Justification. The Council of Trent has infallibly declared that no one can refuse assent to its dogmatic teaching on Justification without suffering an anathema, and yet it is clear to me that my understanding of Trent’s dogmatic “description” of Justification (its definition and how it is effected since the promulgation of the Gospel) is not the same as that held by the St. Benedict Center, NH. In fact, this forum is evidence enough that Feeneyites cannot agree on how “true” Justification is effected.

If I follow your logic, I am free to withhold assent to the Church’s teaching on Justification because I can’t get two definitions by Catholics that are the same. So I guess I am free to withhold assent and “reject” the definition and understanding of Justification as it is understood by the universal moral consensus of saints and theologians (and the Church) since the Council of Trent. I mean, the St. Benedict Center’s “official” understanding of Justification might also be correct, isn’t that right?

So much confusion over a dogmatic truth, and you act mystified that there is confusion over the difficult and non-defined doctrine of baptism of desire, and use that as an excuse to dismiss the long-held teaching of the Church on this very doctrine.

I guess we can also blame the Council of Nicea for the spread of the Arian heresy because the heresy did not take off like wild-fire until soon after the Council.

And only a Feeneyite would be horrified by the “presumption” of St. Josemaria Escriva who so boldly tells the Jewish girl who desperately wants to become a Catholic that she remains under the authority of her parents and to obey them in all things, while trusting in God and being patient that he will provide ... and that she “already has baptism of desire”.

I don’t understand the feigned shock given the fact that the Feeneyite doctrine holds that while “baptism of desire” may place one in a state of grace, that state of grace remains non-salvific until water Baptism. So what’s the big deal? Actually, St. Josemaria Escriva was only repeating what the Catechism of the Council of Trent teaches, that the Jewish girl's “intention and determination to receive Baptism and [her] repentance for past sins, will avail [her] to grace and righteousness.”

St. Josemaria Escriva was simply telling the girl that her faith and desire will not go unrewarded; that (objectively speaking), the girl possessed the requisite dispositions for “baptism of desire”, and that she should place her trust in God that he will provide. Is it possible that the girl was a charlatan and was not as sincere in her conversion as she portended? Sure, but so what – the objective evidence told a different story and if she was being insincere, God knows it.

Now, if you wish to object to the fact that Catholic converts and Catholics in general act as if all of their nice Protestant friends are in a state of “baptism of desire” and are sure to be saved where they are, I’m with you. Objectively speaking, sincere Protestants are outside the Church. God may save them, but not where they are. If they are saved, God will bring them into the Church, even if there is no objective evidence that He did so; but we shouldn’t presume that “sincerity=salvation” when there is no objective evidence for the desire for conversion.
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 Fri May 27, 2011 4:15 pm

MRyan wrote:This is why Brian Kelly from the St. Benedict Center confirmed “This is certainly a valid point” in responding to Fr. Laisney who wrote:

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.”

It's a non-sequitur; there are no unbaptized martyrs. Such a "category" of individuals constitutes a null set.
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 Fri May 27, 2011 5:53 pm

Jehanne wrote:
MRyan wrote:This is why Brian Kelly from the St. Benedict Center confirmed “This is certainly a valid point” in responding to Fr. Laisney who wrote:

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.”

It's a non-sequitur; there are no unbaptized martyrs. Such a "category" of individuals constitutes a null set.
The established teaching of the Catholic Church on baptism of blood is not a non-sequitur. The Church does not have to PROVE that there are non-baptized martyrs in heaven, she only has to teach there can be through baptism of blood; and her Liturgical traditions give ample evidence to this doctrine, while her authentic and ordinary teachings are evidence enough that her doctrine is true because she says its true.

Your irrelevant "opinion" is the only "null set" around here.
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 Fri May 27, 2011 7:20 pm

MRyan wrote:
Jehanne wrote:
MRyan wrote:This is why Brian Kelly from the St. Benedict Center confirmed “This is certainly a valid point” in responding to Fr. Laisney who wrote:

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.”

It's a non-sequitur; there are no unbaptized martyrs. Such a "category" of individuals constitutes a null set.
The established teaching of the Catholic Church on baptism of blood is not a non-sequitur. The Church does not have to PROVE that there are non-baptized martyrs in heaven, she only has to teach there can be through baptism of blood; and her Liturgical traditions give ample evidence to this doctrine, while her authentic and ordinary teachings are evidence enough that her doctrine is true because she says its true.

Your irrelevant "opinion" is the only "null set" around here.

Here we go on the "merry go round" again. No, it's not just "my opinion"; it's the opinion of a large number of individuals who enjoy full communion with Rome. Once again, you cannot explain why Father Feeney died in full communion with Rome and why he never abjured any of his "errors" and/or "heresies" as part of his formal reconciliation with Rome, nor was he even asked to do so.

Of course, the Church does not have to "prove" anything, because, as I have told you ad nauseam, to "prove" that there are unbaptized martyrs in Heaven would be to "prove a negative," which, of course, is impossible, at least in such an instance. The Liturgical traditions of the Church express, at least in part (or least implicitly), the very real hope that the martyr who died was, in fact, Baptized, for how could such liturgical traditions ever express the "hope" that someone who had, in fact, died for Christ was not baptized?? You agree that to be Baptized and died for Christ would be better than to not be Baptized and die for Christ??? Such would be the ultimate sacrilege for any liturgy to only express the latter "hope."
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 Sat May 28, 2011 4:47 pm


Yes, Jehanne, “here we go again” on the “merry go round” with your spinning and hi-jacking of the thread marked by your obsessive “null set” inanities, irrelevant “opinions”, seriously flawed syllogisms and logical fallacies. Your “Implicit submission, another absurdity” (and swipe at Fr. Harrison), as well as your “Implicit Faith, The Mother of all Heresies” and “The absurdity of implicit faith” posts demonstrate only that you have no business commenting on the teachings of the Church and the works of her Doctors and theologians, because you are simply not equipped for the task.

You only make yourself look foolish when you mock the Doctors of the Church (calling their teachings “absurd”) such as Sts. Thomas Aquinas and Alphonsus Liguori, and every Doctor and theologian in between who explained how one’s desire for Baptism may be implicit in one’s faith and proper intention. And when the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office teaches the same doctrine, you call it “heretical” (as you also did with the doctrine of St. Thomas).

Good for you for starting a blog “So That”, in those prescient words of Mark Shea, “No Thought of Mine, No Matter How Stupid, Should Ever Go Unpublished Again!”

What is supposed to pass as a rebuttal to my arguments is your irrelevant “opinion” that “there are no unbaptized martyrs”; an irrelevant opinion that has no bearing whatsoever on whether the Church actually teaches baptism of blood, which we most certainly can “prove”, through her authentic and ordinary magisterium … which is the whole point of this discussion, and not your worthless opinion that baptism of blood never happens because the Church’s teaching is a worthless “null set”.

The Church does not teach doctrine, she teaches “null sets”. Got it … you’ve repeated this inanity time and again. Now, please provide the appropriate broken record response telling us once again that there are no unbaptized martyrs in heaven, so who cares what the Church teaches and who cares what all of the doctors, saints and theologians taught since at least the Council of Trent since YOU have an infallible dogma to fall back on, and they don’t. I guess they missed that particular class on the dogmas of the Church when they were studying for their doctorates in theology.

Now what if I told you that certain Saints did in fact teach that given an unavoidable choice for the catechumen between Baptism and Martyrdom without Baptism (but not both), they would opt for the latter every time because it is indeed a more glorious form of the One Baptism? What you call “the ultimate sacrilege for any liturgy” … the Saints considered entirely orthodox because they KNEW that God accepted the supreme act of charity and considered it even more pleasing than water baptism.

See, Jehanne, the Saints were not "forensic" Feeneyites when it came to salvation and the ultimate form of charity (baptism of blood), which is in fact the most perfect form of baptism of desire. And, it is also true that baptism of desire results in the transmission of the essential and perfect fruit of the "perfect remedy" for fallen man - Baptism.

And there you go again with your, “look, Fr. Feeney died in full communion with Rome” mantra; as if that is supposed to prove something, but I am not sure what. You have ignored my many posts dismissing this completely irrelevant red herring for I have never once accused Fr. Feeney of heresy. In fact, the only accusation of “heresy” that I see presented here comes from some extreme Feeneyite factions who call baptism of blood and baptism of desire, and/or implicit desire, “heresy.” I guess all those “heretics” who hold such beliefs are not in “full communion” with Rome. Wait, come to think of it, Rome can’t be in “full communion” with Rome, for she teaches the same “heresies”.

But you are a lot of fun, Jehanne, I must admit; but please don’t take yourself too seriously.
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 28, 2011 4:54 pm

MRyan,

I am still amazed that you consistently post as though you know and understand the mind of everyone you meet. I say one thing, and of course I must by that mean this other thing even though it was never stated by me. Do you actually have discussions with people, or just lecture them about how stupid you think they are? Is there any disagreement you've had on this forum where you haven't insinuated that the other person is an idiot? If we're all so blind and dumb I wonder why you waste so much time here.

Though I am wasting breath (or rather, time typing):

Overall, I think the problem is that while some things are separable in theory; they are inseparable in actuality. So, while we can distinguish between things, and create an infinite number of hypothetical possibilities, their actuality cannot be realized. 'baptism of desire' is an example of this. While it is perfectly possible that Our Lord *could* (in theory/hypothetically) impart the grace of baptism without the reception of the sacrament, it could never happen in actuality because Our Lord would grant the opportunity for sacramental baptism... Thus, the distinction between "forensic" and "relational" (where did these terms come from again?), seems to only serve to allow you to criticize 'Feeneyites' as a heartless bunch.

This hypothetical being united to Our Lord through the bonds of faith and charity cannot be perfect except through the reception of baptism. You rightfully acknowledged that I would protest that Our Lord would grant [the opportunity for] baptism to those souls who truly love Him and desire to comply with His will; but then you turn around and pretend that there could be such a thing as an unbaptized catechumen or martyr in hell. IF the catechumen or unbaptized martyr truly loved Our Lord, didn't I just say that Our Lord would provide the opportunity for him to receive the sacrament of baptism? The unbaptized in hell are those who wished to be in hell; those who did not love Our Lord, did not seek Him, nor did they cooperate with His graces. There are no accidents. In our previous discussion when you asked if God was bound by His own law to provide the sacrament I did not reply that "He can"; I replied "He would". God has bound Himself to His sacraments, even though He is not bound by them (but we are). God does not provide the opportunity for the sacrament simply because He can, but because He wills it. God is not obliged to provide baptism because He can; God will provide baptism because He has willed that the reception of baptism is necessary for entrance into the kingdom of heaven.

I think one can find a Church Father to quote in support of nearly anything. Don't get me wrong, I am not dismissing the testimony of the Fathers; but of the ones you posted only 2 of them specifically mentioned the baptism of blood replacing sacramental baptism. The rest of them I could've used to support the 'second baptism' position...

You call my reference to the lack of clear definition of baptism of desire a deflection-- and then try to deflect from responding to the conflict by pretending that there is some confusion about the Church's teaching on justification... really?! While we could point out countless Conciliar statements defining the Church's clear teaching on justification, you have 1 statement from the Council of Trent in which I must read into the text the idea that 'desire' can replace sacramental baptism.

I know my sentiments lack any real doctrinal substance to contribute to the discussion, but hey, I guess I'm just too dense to know when to keep my mouth shut.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Tower of David Ministry Back online.

Post  MRyan on Sat May 28, 2011 7:39 pm

Very good, MarianLibrarian, and so it continues.

I'll respond in due time ... As for now, let's give it a rest.

Perhaps we can eventually reach an understanding while agreeing to disagree. That's all I've been striving for from the beginning. As it is, we are too far apart on the fundamentals.

Rasha, don't worry; all will be well.

Enjoy the weekend, everyone.

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  Jehanne on Sat May 28, 2011 8:47 pm

MarianLibrarian wrote:Overall, I think the problem is that while some things are separable in theory; they are inseparable in actuality. So, while we can distinguish between things, and create an infinite number of hypothetical possibilities, their actuality cannot be realized. 'baptism of desire' is an example of this. While it is perfectly possible that Our Lord *could* (in theory/hypothetically) impart the grace of baptism without the reception of the sacrament, it could never happen in actuality because Our Lord would grant the opportunity for sacramental baptism... Thus, the distinction between "forensic" and "relational" (where did these terms come from again?), seems to only serve to allow you to criticize 'Feeneyites' as a heartless bunch.

Here's a hypothetical:

Saint Alphonsus Maria Liguori, Doctor (1696-1787): "If, however, God were to permit a pope to become a notorious and contumacious heretic, he would by such a fact cease to be pope, and the apostolic chair would be vacant." (Verita della Fede, III, VIII. 9-10)

The same can be said about Baptism of Desire:

Saint Alphonsus Maria Liguori, Doctor (1696-1787): "Baptism, therefore, coming from a Greek word that means ablution or immersion in water, is distinguished into Baptism of water ['fluminis'], of desire ['flaminis' = wind] and of blood.

We shall speak below of Baptism of water, which was very probably instituted before the passion of Christ the Lord, when Christ was baptised by John. But Baptism of desire is perfect conversion to God by contrition or love of God above all things accompanied by an explicit or implicit desire for true Baptism of water, the place of which it takes as to the remission of guilt, but not as to the impression of the [baptismal] character or as to the removal of all debt of punishment. It is called 'of wind' ['flaminis'] because it takes place by the impulse of the Holy Ghost who is called a wind ['flamen']. Now it is de fide that men are also saved by Baptism of desire, by virtue of the Canon Apostolicam, 'de presbytero non baptizato' and of the Council of Trent, session 6, Chapter 4 where it is said that no one can be saved 'without the laver of regeneration or the desire for it'.

Baptism of blood is the shedding of one's blood, i.e. death, suffered for the Faith or for some other Christian virtue. Now this Baptism is comparable to true Baptism because, like true Baptism, it remits both guilt and punishment as it were ex opere operato. I say as it were because martyrdom does not act by as strict a causality ['non ita stricte'] as the sacraments, but by a certain privilege on account of its resemblance to the passion of Christ. Hence martyrdom avails also for infants seeing that the Church venerates the Holy Innocents as true martyrs. That is why Suarez rightly teaches that the opposing view [i.e. the view that infants are not able to benefit from Baptism of blood – translator] is at least temerarious. In adults, however, acceptance of martyrdom is required, at least habitually from a supernatural motive.

It is clear that martyrdom is not a sacrament, because it is not an action instituted by Christ, and for the same reason neither was the Baptism of John a sacrament: it did not sanctify a man, but only prepared him for the coming of Christ." (Moral Theology, Bk. 6, nn. 95-7)

Now, it stands to reason that if the One and Triune God could prevent a Pope from falling into heresy that He could also bring Sacramental Baptism in Water to everyone of His elect, including, those infants who suffer martyrdom.
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  tornpage on Sat May 28, 2011 10:49 pm

Jehanne,

You have finally hit upon an argument that can give some real support to the Feeneyite position. No, it's not this:

Now, it stands to reason that if the One and Triune God could prevent a Pope from falling into heresy that He could also bring Sacramental Baptism in Water to everyone of His elect, including, those infants who suffer martyrdom.

This is the same old same old that you trot out repeatedly.

The new argument that you accidentally hit upon is this: the common opinion and one with a great mass of weight, given Magisterial expression by Paul IV in Cum Ex, is that a pope who is a heretic loses his membership in the Church and hence cannot be the head of the Church. This is pretty much the accepted view, and expresses a divine law. Any yet, most also state that this has never happened.

So what do we have? A divine law which, when applied to a pontiff, deprives him of his seat, and yet this divine law has likely and probably never occurred in practice. The theory is valid, but the reality is lacking.

What a wonderful analogy the "heretic pope" principle thereby offers to the idea of baptism of desire. Yes, one could be justified by a desire for baptism, but it never happens in reality.

By golly you could be on to something here.

I know distinctions could be made, but this has some promise for the Feeneyite position I think. Need to think on it, but interesting. A live example or analogy that can be applied to baptism of desire.



avatar
tornpage

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Tower of David Ministry Back online.

Post  pascendi on Sun May 29, 2011 2:27 am

tornpage wrote:
The new argument that you accidentally hit upon is this: the common opinion and one with a great mass of weight, given Magisterial expression by Paul IV in Cum Ex, is that a pope who is a heretic loses his membership in the Church and hence cannot be the head of the Church. This is pretty much the accepted view, and expresses a divine law.

Yeah. And it is also false. A pope actually can be in heresy and retain his office.

Great mass of weight. Magisterial expression and stuff. The accepted view. Sure.

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  pascendi on Sun May 29, 2011 2:52 am

Jehanne wrote:Here's a hypothetical:

Saint Alphonsus Maria Liguori, Doctor (1696-1787): "If, however, God were to permit a pope to become a notorious and contumacious heretic, he would by such a fact cease to be pope, and the apostolic chair would be vacant." (Verita della Fede, III, VIII. 9-10).

I do believe that St. Alphonsus Liguori, Doctor of the Church, was wrong on this point. I do believe that the Supreme Pontiff can lapse into heresy and yet retain his office. I wonder if anyone realizes the power of such a statement. It basically means that in one stroke I have entirely defeated the basis for the sedevacantist position. Without this premise in hand, they cannot survive, and they don't possess it. They can posture and prance around, but the undermining is done and not one will ever recognize this or credit me for it. But the act is done, game over. We have absolutely zero evidence, from the Catholic Faith itself, that a notorious heretic pope loses his office. None. It is all the game of speculative theology if so, or if not, but nothing of the Faith itself.

I am obliged to respect St. Alphonsus for who he is and what he was, but the Faith itself does not oblige me to agree with him.

And likewise we also have absolutely no proof whatsoever that anyone who has died without baptism has entered into the Beatific Vision, nor any evidence whatsoever that the Catholic Faith requires us to believe that such a thing can happen, lest we lose the Faith itself. We do however have countless brilliant and inquisitive minds who wish to show their skill on a field of theological battle who claim we must.

It is like no one, no matter how well studied, no matter how well trained, how experienced, how witty, eloquent or otherwise, knows the difference between the Catholic Faith and theology. I have well respected friends who continually tempt the demarcation lines between Faith and reason, conflating, though they should know better in light of their education.

It is absolutely, entirely IMPOSSIBLE for you, Myran, or you Tornpage, to get ANY ONE of these people here to admit that someone can attain the Beatific Vision without the sacrament of Baptism, and yet it appears thay you pretend that they are obligated to agree with you in the name of the Catholic Faith itself. And that they are deficient, stupid, crazy, dishonest, if they don't.

You KNOW you cannot demand this of them. You don't have what it takes to pull it off. You don't have the goods to drive the stake into the heart of the matter. Just admit it.




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  pascendi on Sun May 29, 2011 3:05 am

To emphasize: no one seems to be able to distinguish between what is of the Faith itself, and what is a product of theology. That's a pretty disconcerting fact. For crying out loud, somebody please get a clue.

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 Sun May 29, 2011 12:58 pm

pascendi wrote:
tornpage wrote:
The new argument that you accidentally hit upon is this: the common opinion and one with a great mass of weight, given Magisterial expression by Paul IV in Cum Ex, is that a pope who is a heretic loses his membership in the Church and hence cannot be the head of the Church. This is pretty much the accepted view, and expresses a divine law.

Yeah. And it is also false. A pope actually can be in heresy and retain his office.

Great mass of weight. Magisterial expression and stuff. The accepted view. Sure.
Yeah sure; when the great mass of weight, Magisterial expression and stuff and the more common opinion and accepted view, is precisely what said Tornpage said it is.

Let’s see you produce the “Great mass of weight” and the “magisterial expression and stuff” that proves that your opinion is the more “accepted view’.

Know what I think?

You don't have what it takes to pull it off. You don't have the goods to drive the stake into the heart of the matter. Just admit 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  Jehanne on Sun May 29, 2011 1:10 pm

MRyan wrote:Yeah sure; when the great mass of weight, Magisterial expression and stuff and the more common opinion and accepted view, is precisely what said Tornpage said it is.

Let’s see you produce the “Great mass of weight” and the “magisterial expression and stuff” that proves that your opinion is the more “accepted view’.

Know what I think?

You don't have what it takes to pull it off. You don't have the goods to drive the stake into the heart of the matter. Just admit it.

The "common opinion" among the Church's (sic) theologians of today is that "gay sex" is both licit and moral. Even Karl Rahner, the most influential theologian at Vatican II, wrote a paper dissenting from Humanae Vitae. Are the theologians of today's Church representative of the Church's Ordinary Magisterium?
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 29, 2011 1:59 pm

Jehanne wrote:
MRyan wrote:Yeah sure; when the great mass of weight, Magisterial expression and stuff and the more common opinion and accepted view, is precisely what said Tornpage said it is.

Let’s see you produce the “Great mass of weight” and the “magisterial expression and stuff” that proves that your opinion is the more “accepted view’.

Know what I think?

You don't have what it takes to pull it off. You don't have the goods to drive the stake into the heart of the matter. Just admit it.

The "common opinion" among the Church's (sic) theologians of today is that "gay sex" is both licit and moral.

Wow, I didn't know that; I really didn’t. I mean, I could have sworn that the majority of theologians held to the Church’s infallible teaching that “gay sex” is inherently and objectively evil and that homosexuality is a grave disorder. Are you suggesting that what you call a “common opinion” among the dissident “(sic) theologians” out there can in any way shape or form make up a teaching of the “ordinary Magisterium”?

If you are, remember that without unity in doctrine (faith and morals) with the Pope(s), there is no such thing as an “ordinary magisterium” of theologians.

Jehanne wrote:Even Karl Rahner, the most influential theologian at Vatican II, wrote a paper dissenting from Humanae Vitae. Are the theologians of today's Church representative of the Church's Ordinary Magisterium?
No, the dissenting theologians are not "representative of the Church's Ordinary Magisterium", for the reason just given.
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 29, 2011 2:13 pm

MRyan wrote:
Jehanne wrote:Even Karl Rahner, the most influential theologian at Vatican II, wrote a paper dissenting from Humanae Vitae. Are the theologians of today's Church representative of the Church's Ordinary Magisterium?
No, the dissenting theologians are not "representative of the Church's Ordinary Magisterium", for the reason just given.

Well, they are a majority among "the theologians" of today:

http://credo.stormloader.com/Doctrine/bishcomd.htm

Note the Catholic Theological Society of America's "Human Sexuality" report:

http://www.jstor.org/pss/3812185

You have to buy it, though:

http://www.amazon.com/Human-Sexuality-Directions-American-Catholic/dp/0809102234

(Hint: They do not affirm the traditional teachings of the Church.)
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 29, 2011 3:08 pm

Jehanne wrote:
MRyan wrote:
Jehanne wrote:Even Karl Rahner, the most influential theologian at Vatican II, wrote a paper dissenting from Humanae Vitae. Are the theologians of today's Church representative of the Church's Ordinary Magisterium?
No, the dissenting theologians are not "representative of the Church's Ordinary Magisterium", for the reason just given.
Well, they are a majority among "the theologians" of today:

http://credo.stormloader.com/Doctrine/bishcomd.htm

Note the Catholic Theological Society of America's "Human Sexuality" report:

http://www.jstor.org/pss/3812185
You provide two links, the first being "U.S. Bishops' Committee on Doctrine
and Richard P. McBrien" by James Likuodis who demolishes the very argument of McBrien that you also appear to be selling, that:

"when the Pope officially teaches one thing and dissenter theologians another, the latter may well be teaching the truth. As Professor James Hitchcock has pointed out, such a contention simply makes:

"a mockery out of any coherent Catholic ecclesiology."
(National Catholic Register 1/18/81).
The "common opinion" you are trying to peddle as the work of the "ordinary Magisterium" is the work of five dissenting theologians, about which, Likoudis says:

When the same Report was issued as a book "Human Sexuality: New Directions in American Catholic Thought" and edited by Rev. Anthony Kosnik, it was condemned in 1979 by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith for its "erroneous principles" and denial of "absolute values". (See Flannery's "Vatican Council II : More Post-Conciliar Documents", pages 505-509). For Fr. Richard McBrien, however, the CTSA volume (whose "new directions" sanctioned not only contraception but also homosexuality, pornography, and bestiality!) represented progress in Catholic moral theology.
Likoudis also said this:

"Pope John Paul II could well have been speaking of McBrien's "Catholicism" when he declared to all the U.S. Bishops gathered together in Los Angeles on September 16 1987:

'Dissent from Church doctrine remains what it is, DISSENT: as such it may not be proposed or received on an equal footing with the Church's authentic teaching.'"

Jehanne wrote:You have to buy it, though:

http://www.amazon.com/Human-Sexuality-Directions-American-Catholic/dp/0809102234

(Hint: They do not affirm the traditional teachings of the Church.)
Hint: They do not represent in any way shape or form the "ordinary" teaching of the "magisterium".

Sure, I'll be sure to buy it; just like I'm buying your poor attempt at discrediting my arguments by "proving" that the "ordinary Magisterium" can be represented by the dissenting "common opinion" of theologians.

Not. But I appreciate the humor.

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 Sun May 29, 2011 3:20 pm

What a mass of confusion! Let me try this again (as if it will make a difference). Rasha, forget the emoticons . . . you need to enable us to post in crayon.

Many of those who vigorously oppose the Feeneyites accept the "common opinion" (just read the definitive treatment of the subject by doctor of the Church, St. Robert Bellarmine) that a pope who becomes a heretic would ipso facto lose his membership in the Church, and hence his pontificate. Even St. Robert accepted that view. However, St. Robert also believed that it would never happen - he being of the view that Peter's faith can't fail, as Our Lord efficaciously prayed (could Our Lord pray any other way?) that it wouldn't.

Thus, we have this theological opinion which many who oppose the Feeneyites hold as true - this is the key point. Contrary to some - and I don't know where they got that from the post responded to - I was not attempting to in any way dissuade Jehanne from his Feeneyism or convince him to accept baptism of desire in my last post.

Now follow. A Feeneyite (such as Jehanne) can therefore point to this theological principle accepted by his opponent as true, and the majority view (a pope who becomes a heretic loses his seat) - accepted by at least one doctor of the Church, St. Robert Bellarmine - and the belief that it does not and could not happen - as St. Robert also believed - and say this is exactly the situation with baptism of desire - one who has baptism of desire and dies before baptism would be justified, but it doesn't and won't happen in reality. A Feeneyite could say his view of baptism of desire is consistent with the way St. Robert viewed a heretic pope: it is true X would result if it happened, but it doesn't happen.

Therefore, we have precedent of a theological truth which does not have a real instance in the world of fact, [b]just like my belief as to baptism of desire. [/b]

Since the Church has never said it has happened (baptism of desire), I may maintain this position, and the analogy with the theological principle of a heretic pope losing his seat (and the lack of a real instance of this true principle) gives a real example of how this view accords with an accepted theological principle and the way it works in reality in this other instance.

This was the whole gist of my post. It was not to convince Jehanne to abandon his view - to the contrary, as I hope is now clearer - on baptism of desire, nor to indicate we must follow theologians.

Rasha, make them big crayons.
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 Sun May 29, 2011 3:53 pm

MRyan wrote:
When the same Report was issued as a book "Human Sexuality: New Directions in American Catholic Thought" and edited by Rev. Anthony Kosnik, it was condemned in 1979 by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith for its "erroneous principles" and denial of "absolute values". (See Flannery's "Vatican Council II : More Post-Conciliar Documents", pages 505-509). For Fr. Richard McBrien, however, the CTSA volume (whose "new directions" sanctioned not only contraception but also homosexuality, pornography, and bestiality!) represented progress in Catholic moral theology.
Likoudis also said this:

"Pope John Paul II could well have been speaking of McBrien's "Catholicism" when he declared to all the U.S. Bishops gathered together in Los Angeles on September 16 1987:

'Dissent from Church doctrine remains what it is, DISSENT: as such it may not be proposed or received on an equal footing with the Church's authentic teaching.'"

It is interesting to note that the late Brother Thomas Mary Sennott's book They Fought the Good Fight received an Imprimi potest and also approval from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith:

http://www.marycoredemptrix.com/laisneyism.html
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 2 of 4 Previous  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