Latest topics
» Rethink "Feeneyism"?
Thu Jul 13, 2017 4:24 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


Holy Office Letter of 1949: What position did it "condemn"?

Page 4 of 5 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: Holy Office Letter of 1949: What position did it "condemn"?

Post  MRyan on Wed Jun 22, 2011 11:03 am

tornpage wrote:Mike,

You had a very good post a few back, and you quoted St. Augustine in it:

St. Augustine who, in his treatise On Baptism: Against the Donatists, asks us “not to depreciate a man’s righteousness should it begin to exist before he joined the Church, as the righteouness of Cornelius began to exist before he was in the Christian community,” also says in the same sentence that this righteousness “was not thought worthless, or the angel would not have said to him, ‘Thy alms have been accepted and thy prayers have been heard;’ nor did it yet suffice for his gaining the kingdom of Heaven, or he would not have been told to send for Peter, in order to be baptized by him.”
That's - not to beat the dead horse to too much of a pulp - the essence of this dispute. This state of justification no longer "suffice[s] for [the] gaining of the kingdom of Heaven." Which is what I maintain Trent is saying in Session VI, Chapter IV - "this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected without the laver of regeneration, or the desire for the same," which requires explicit faith (I say).
That's OK, let's beat this to a pulp because it is important. First of all, Trent does not say what you allege. In fact, when she does speak about justifying faith in a subsequent chapter, she makes a reference to that faith which alone is pleasing to God, and references Heb. 11/6.

Second, when you say "this state of justification no longer "suffice[s] for [the] gaining of the kingdom of Heaven.", you are taking Augustine's and Aquinas' teachings out of context.

Whether Aquinas and Augustine disagreed about whether Cornelius was truly justified before or subsequent to Peter's presentation of the Gospel is irrelevant to the established fact that St. Thomas teaches that justification was possible prior to arriving at an explicit faith.

So when Augustine says that the justification of Cornelius prior to baptism did not "yet suffice for his gaining the kingdom of Heaven", he may in fact be referring to a preparation for justification through the operation of the Holy Ghost, but we are concerned here with the teaching of St. Thomas who would say the same thing about sufficiency, but only in the context of works or precepts yet to be fulfilled that are necessary for salvation, and not necessarily in the context of the unfulfilled justification under the old dispensation.

This is why St. Thomas teaches that anyone sanctified in the womb would still require Baptism in order to be incorporated into the Church ... and this is true; but he is not commenting on whether anyone so justified who dies before this work can be accomplished cannot be saved in this same state.

Your "error" is to portray the justification described by St. Thomas in the example of Cornelius as the unfulfilled justification under the old dispensation, when it is clear that anyone justified since the promulgation of the Gospel is justified under the new law of grace.

And under the new law of grace, either one is justified in and through Christ as an heir to the kingdom, or there is no justification ... period.

tornpage wrote:You make some good points regarding justification, I concede that. But the justification of Cornelius before Christ was preached to him and he believed was not sufficient for salvation. JPII and BXVI and the bishops and priests today believe this type of justification of Cornelius before explicit faith is sufficeint, contra St. Augustine and St. Thomas. Of course, they go behind that, in so far as they say Jews and Muslims who deny Christ have a justification which saves - and we haven't even touched that yet.

This is why I keep distancing the argument from the finer theological points, because they do not diminish or evade this central point.
And, as I said, I am not buying it; for St. Thomas does in fact teach that a soul may be justified (remission of sins, faith and works pleasing to God, baptism of desire; etc.) prior to arriving at an explicit faith.

You will have to hold that St. Thomas was in error and/or he had a faulty understanding of justification under the new law of grace. Your other option is to hold that a justified soul who does not come to an explicit faith in our Lord prior to his demise will have "infallibly" fallen from grace since the infallible "efficacious" grace of explicit faith was withheld. This justified soul with a supernatural faith in God is simply not fit for the kingdom ... and thus cannot remain in a state of grace as an heir to the same.

In deference to St. Thomas, there was a theologian or two who proposed this theory, but their opinion did not stand for very long as being entirely credible.



avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2257
Reputation : 2429
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Holy Office Letter of 1949: What position did it "condemn"?

Post  MRyan on Wed Jun 22, 2011 11:06 am

tornpage wrote:Mike,

Some great commentary on Cornelius by St. Robert Bellarmine, and provided by you no less via Father Hardon on the "rigorist" interpretation:

RIGORIST THEORY

It is clear that Cornelius, who was already in the state of sanctifying grace even before the actual reception of Baptism, would not have been saved if he had not sent for Peter to be baptized by him… St. Robert Bellarmine says…on the authority of St. Augustine: ‘Further, Augustine in his Epistle 57 to Dardamus, in Book 1 Of the Predestination of the Saints, chapter 7; in Book 1, Question 2, To Simplician; in Book 1, Chapter 8, On Baptism; and in Book IV, Chapter 21 of the same, says that Cornelius the Centurion, although he was praised in the Scriptures, was not yet such that he could have been saved, unless he became incorporated in the Church through the Sacrament of Baptism.” [321]

Quite obviously, Bellarmine gives an answer to this objection which he quotes from the Sectarians. He says: “Cornelius had unquestionably received the forgiveness of his sins before Baptism, at least after he heard the faith from Blessed Peter and had a desire for Baptism. For, as it is said in Acts 10, he also had the Holy Spirit dwelling within him. But Augustine in the passages quoted is speaking of the time when Cornelius had not yet heard of Christ and did not even have a desire for Baptism. For, speaking of the later time, Augustine himself says (quest. 35 in Numbers): ‘Cornelius, hearing and believing what Peter preached, was so cleansed that even before visible Baptism he, together with those who were with him, received the gift of the Holy Spirit.’” [322]

Hey, Mike . . . I owe you one. Very Happy
Anytime; but, as I said "Whether Aquinas and Augustine disagreed about whether Cornelius was truly justified before or subsequent to Peter's presentation of the Gospel is irrelevant to the established fact that St. Thomas teaches that justification is possible prior to arriving at an explicit faith."

You can't escape that fact.
avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2257
Reputation : 2429
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Holy Office Letter of 1949: What position did it "condemn"?

Post  MRyan on Wed Jun 22, 2011 11:48 am

Lionel,

Thanks for that reply, but I would have preferred that you addressed my specific arguments that go right to the heart of the matter and demonstrate the inconsistency of your theory.

The doctrine of baptism of desire is not just a “philosophical principle” because it can only be known “de jure” (see my examples demonstrating that we can apply this “principle” in an infinite number of ways to other doctrines); it is a doctrine and truth of the Church that, while not “of the faith” as an established dogma, still requires religious submission under the impulse or obedience of faith in deference to the authority of the ecclesia docens.

So it is an “explicit” teaching that “cannot contradict Cantate Domino, Council of Florence on extra eccleisam nulla salus.”

In that we can agree.
avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2257
Reputation : 2429
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Holy Office Letter of 1949: What position did it "condemn"?

Post  Jehanne on Wed Jun 22, 2011 1:48 pm

MRyan wrote:Anytime; but, as I said "Whether Aquinas and Augustine disagreed about whether Cornelius was truly justified before or subsequent to Peter's presentation of the Gospel is irrelevant to the established fact that St. Thomas teaches that justification is possible prior to arriving at an explicit faith."

You can't escape that fact.

This just proves Father Feeney's position:

"Explicit faith in those two things was necessary at all times and for all people: but it was not sufficient at all times and for all people." ( Summa Theologica, II-II, Q.2, A.8 )

Cornelius was justified without explicit faith, but he still needed it, which is why Peter was miraculously transported to him.
avatar
Jehanne

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

http://unamsanctamecclesiamcatholicam.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: Holy Office Letter of 1949: What position did it "condemn"?

Post  tornpage on Wed Jun 22, 2011 2:06 pm

Mike,

And for the probably 20th time, whether "so and so" was justified does not change the fact that St. Thomas, St. Augustine, and others held that "so and so" could not be saved (St. Augustine) or that is was "necessary" for salvation to come to explicit faith in Christ (St. Thomas).

The Magisterium (not Fr. GL, not the private judgment of a theologian) is teaching that one can be saved "without knowing Christ."

One view is right, and the other wrong.

You pooh pooh this as a matter of "opinion" on the part of St. Thomas and St. Augustine. Whatever: it is an "opinion" contradictory to, and opposed by, the teaching Church today.

Tell me when the teaching Church in the past was wrong about any issue tied up with faith and salvation similar to this one.

There is a direct conflict between JPII teaching that some "receive salvation . . . without recognizing Christ" and my belief that explicit faith is a "necessity of infallibility."

For that matter, in context (people practicing other non-Christian religions), JPII's statement must also be read as indicating that some have received salvation without water baptism.

Do you agree that the teaching of JPII highlighted above requires us to abandon our (or just my) beliefs in a "necessity of infallibility" with regard to explicit faith and water baptism?

Then, my next question, does any teaching of the Magisterium beyond JPII's statement or statements require me (you, anyone) to abandon a belief that explicit faith in Christ or baptism is a "necessity of infallibility"?


avatar
tornpage

Posts : 856
Reputation : 919
Join date : 2010-12-31

Back to top Go down

Re: Holy Office Letter of 1949: What position did it "condemn"?

Post  MRyan on Wed Jun 22, 2011 2:28 pm

Jehanne wrote:
MRyan wrote:Anytime; but, as I said "Whether Aquinas and Augustine disagreed about whether Cornelius was truly justified before or subsequent to Peter's presentation of the Gospel is irrelevant to the established fact that St. Thomas teaches that justification is possible prior to arriving at an explicit faith."

You can't escape that fact.

This just proves Father Feeney's position:

"Explicit faith in those two things was necessary at all times and for all people: but it was not sufficient at all times and for all people." ( Summa Theologica, II-II, Q.2, A.8 )

Cornelius was justified without explicit faith, but he still needed it, which is why Peter was miraculously transported to him.
No, it does not "prove" Fr. Feeney's position, it only "proves" that Cornelius was infallibly predestined to baptism and explicit faith. It does NOT prove that "others like him" are infallibly predestined to the same.

As the greatest "Thomist" of the 20th century taught (Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange), what St. Thomas teaches here is generally true, but not as a "certain" theological conclusion and certainly not "absolutely".
avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2257
Reputation : 2429
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Holy Office Letter of 1949: What position did it "condemn"?

Post  tornpage on Wed Jun 22, 2011 3:09 pm

Show us the Magisterial teaching to which you refer.

I assume that means there isn't one. Good, I hope you're right.

So when the CCC/compendium says one "can" be saved "without knowing Christ," does it mean they "can" be saved because they will later come to an explicit faith in Christ, or that they "can" be saved if they died in a "without knowing Christ" state under the right conditions, but those conditions don't happen?

The other question, somewhat modified:

Do you agree that the teaching of JPII highlighted above ("some receive salvation without recognizing Christ) conflicts with my belief in a "necessity of infallibility" with regard to explicit faith and water baptism?
avatar
tornpage

Posts : 856
Reputation : 919
Join date : 2010-12-31

Back to top Go down

Re: Holy Office Letter of 1949: What position did it "condemn"?

Post  tornpage on Wed Jun 22, 2011 3:18 pm

will insist in return that you address the Church’s teaching on the possibility of sanctification and salvation for certain members of the Orthodox Church who do not profess a “right belief” in the dogma of Papal Primacy.

If that teaching means that one can be saved while at the same time denying a dogma of the Church regarding Papal Primacy, I disagree with the teaching. No one who denies a dogma of the Church (an item of Revelation) is among the elect if they die in that denial. Period.

That was easy.
avatar
tornpage

Posts : 856
Reputation : 919
Join date : 2010-12-31

Back to top Go down

Re: Holy Office Letter of 1949: What position did it "condemn"?

Post  Guest on Wed Jun 22, 2011 5:06 pm

MRyan implicit desire just can't hold up. I think Tornpage has won this one, because it can't be traced to Jesus Christ as a teaching nor the majority of the Church Fathers. I don't think the Church has taught officially in a dogmatic way that implicit faith is enough. So we can't say the Church is in heresy, it is now a debatable point.

Anyway its a good debate. And its nice because on other forums wakos start saying insulting things that are just over the top and devolve the whole discussion. So hats off to both you and tornpage.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Holy Office Letter of 1949: What position did it "condemn"?

Post  Jehanne on Wed Jun 22, 2011 5:19 pm

MRyan wrote:
Jehanne wrote:
MRyan wrote:Anytime; but, as I said "Whether Aquinas and Augustine disagreed about whether Cornelius was truly justified before or subsequent to Peter's presentation of the Gospel is irrelevant to the established fact that St. Thomas teaches that justification is possible prior to arriving at an explicit faith."

You can't escape that fact.

This just proves Father Feeney's position:

"Explicit faith in those two things was necessary at all times and for all people: but it was not sufficient at all times and for all people." ( Summa Theologica, II-II, Q.2, A.8 )

Cornelius was justified without explicit faith, but he still needed it, which is why Peter was miraculously transported to him.
No, it does not "prove" Fr. Feeney's position, it only "proves" that Cornelius was infallibly predestined to baptism and explicit faith. It does NOT prove that "others like him" are infallibly predestined to the same.

As the greatest "Thomist" of the 20th century taught (Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange), what St. Thomas teaches here is generally true, but not as a "certain" theological conclusion and certainly not "absolutely".

I do not need the "great" Father Garrigou-Lagrange to "interpret" and/or "add words" to what Saint Thomas said; the latter was quite capable of speaking for himself. I find it ironic and the hight of absurdity that it would take 700 hundred years after Thomas' death for someone "great" to come along and finally tell the World what the Angelic Doctor actually meant. Funny how none of Saint Thomas' contemporaries came to the "insights" that the "great" Father Garrigou-Lagrange "discovered." It seems infinitely more probable to me that Saint Thomas meant what he said and said what he meant. Just because someone is "sanctified" in the womb and/or prior to explicit faith does nothing to change the absolute obligation to receive sacramental Baptism for the sanctified infant or to come to explicit faith in the Blessed Trinity and Incarnation for the sanctified adult. (Father Feeney would, of course, extend Baptism to the latter group, also.) To say otherwise is to say something that Saint Thomas did not say, and Saint Thomas, of course, wrote volumes. If he thought like Father Garrigou-Lagrange claims that he thought, he would have said so.
avatar
Jehanne

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

http://unamsanctamecclesiamcatholicam.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: Holy Office Letter of 1949: What position did it "condemn"?

Post  tornpage on Wed Jun 22, 2011 11:43 pm

Mike,

it is obvious that you are unfamiliar with Lud’s position.

Don't insult me. I know exactly what Lud and you are up to, always have: a man may be justified without explicit faith in Christ; a man who dies in a state of justification is saved; ergo, . . .

Laboratory think-tank twaddle.

The man who said one could be justified without explicit faith also believed that "after the advent of Christ, every man who dies justified also dies with explicit knowledge of Christ." You don't have to believe me - that was Lud being quoted.

You want to talk bulldog? You keep repeating this "not an absolute necessity" over and over again when it was left in the dust miles ago.

But you do know where the rubber meets the road:

This places St. Thomas’s understanding of “necessity” into proper context; meaning he did not hold this necessity as an absolute necessity, but, as Lud correctly surmises, he held this reformable opinion as an extension of the infallible Providence and Predestination of God, “insofar as God's intention never fails.”

Reformable opinion he says. Yeah, St. Thomas is opinion, and St. Augustine is opinion, but it happens to be the Church's opinion as infallibly expressed in the Athanasian Creed. Doctrine develops, but it grows from seed to flower, from what contains it to a fuller expression without contradiction, since truth can't contradict itself. A "necessity of infallibilty" such that it is necessary for salvation to have the Catholic faith (the AC), which means belief in the Incarnation and Trinity at a minimum, is not a "seed" that yields the abomination that is its contrary: individuals receiving salvation "without knowing Christ." That's not development from an existing foundation, but a total leveling and a raising of a new edifice.

Yet I go agree with you, yes sir: "the infallible Providence and Predestination of God." It does come back to that. And according to that infallible Providence and Predestination, none of the elect die without explicit faith in Christ . . . just like St. Thomas believed.

Go argue with God and tell Him, "but it's not an absolute necessity."
avatar
tornpage

Posts : 856
Reputation : 919
Join date : 2010-12-31

Back to top Go down

ONLY AN OBSERVATION. NOT A PHILOSOPHY

Post  Guest on Thu Jun 23, 2011 4:29 am

Mike,

Mike says :
Lionel,
Thanks for that reply, but I would have preferred that you addressed my specific arguments that go right to the heart of the matter and demonstrate the inconsistency of your theory.

Lionel: Mike, theory ? I am not putting forward a theory. This is not philosophy or theology I repeat.
I am just observing, calling attention to an assumption which is irrational. It is : the baptism of desire is never de facto known to us, it is not real to us as is the baptism of water.

Mike:The doctrine of baptism of desire is not just a “philosophical principle” because it can only be known “de jure”

Lionel: The baptism of desire can be known de jure only and the baptism of water can be known de facto. The baptism of desire is only known to God while we the baptism of water is repeatable and seeable to us. No philosophical principle here.

Mike: (see my examples demonstrating that we can apply this “principle” in an infinite number of ways to other doctrines);

Lionel: Mike, you have chosen to make it a philosophical principle and apply it like the Principle of Non Contradiction.

Mike :
it is a doctrine and truth of the Church that, while not “of the faith” as an established dogma, still requires religious submission under the impulse or obedience of faith in deference to the authority of the ecclesia docens.

Lionel: Yes we must believe in the baptism of desire. However we have to choose which of the two understandings we have of the baptism of desire. Some Catholics consider the Baptism of Desire as de facto known to us and so contradicting Cantate Domino. Others also accept the Baptism of Desire and consider it de jure and not in contradiction with Cantate Domino , which says everyone de facto needs to enter the Church.
Mike:So it is an “explicit” teaching that “cannot contradict Cantate Domino, Council of Florence on extra eccleisam nulla salus.”

Lionel: So we agree that the baptism of desire is always de jure (known only in principle), it is implicit and known only to God and so does not contradict Cantate Domino ?!
Mike:In that we can agree.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Holy Office Letter of 1949: What position did it "condemn"?

Post  MRyan on Thu Jun 23, 2011 10:58 am

LionelAndrades wrote:Mike,

Mike says:
Lionel,
Thanks for that reply, but I would have preferred that you addressed my specific arguments that go right to the heart of the matter and demonstrate the inconsistency of your theory.

Lionel: Mike, theory ? I am not putting forward a theory. This is not philosophy or theology I repeat.
I am just observing, calling attention to an assumption which is irrational. It is: the baptism of desire is never de facto known to us, it is not real to us as is the baptism of water.

Mike:The doctrine of baptism of desire is not just a “philosophical principle” because it can only be known “de jure”

Lionel: The baptism of desire can be known de jure only and the baptism of water can be known de facto. The baptism of desire is only known to God while we the baptism of water is repeatable and seeable to us. No philosophical principle here.
Baptism of desire cannot be known de facto, but that is irrelevant to the fundamental de facto truth it represents. We are discussing the conditions under which a soul can be assured of his salvation; i.e., how one attains a state of grace. Baptism of desire assures (de facto) the salvation of souls who have the requisite dispositions. No philosophical principle here, only Catholic truth. Baptism also assures the salvation of souls who have the requisite dispositions.

That is THE issue. As I said, the St. Benedict Center denies this fundamental truth when it states that the essential effects of baptism of blood and baptism of desire are not, de facto, efficacious for salvation since neither can make one a “true” heir to the Kingdom. We are not playing semantic games here about a state of sanctification vs. a state of salvation; we are talking about an alleged non-fulfilled and defective form of sanctifying grace by “the desire thereof” that is not, under the new law of grace, sufficient for salvation and can save no man who dies in this “unfulfilled” state.

That does not sound like the Justification defined by Trent under the new law of grace to me.

All of these “de facto/de jure” distinctions serve as a distraction to this fundamental disagreement in doctrine.

That water Baptism can be known de facto with the proper matter, form and intention tells us nothing de facto about the state of the soul receiving it (adults). Baptism of desire is about the de facto transmission of the essential gift of sanctifying grace that is ordinarily received de facto through the divinely instituted instrument of Baptism. It can never “replace” the sacrament of Baptism, but only supply its essential fruit since God is not absolutely bound to His sacraments for the transmission of the same.

That baptism of desire cannot be known de facto has as much relevancy as the fact that we cannot know the de facto state of any given Baptized soul.

Tell us Lionel, when a good-willed faithful Catechumen dies before he can receive Baptism, why does the Church treat him as one of the baptized Faithful by giving him a Catholic burial in consecrated ground? Does your de facto/de jure distinction have ANY relevancy here?

In both cases, there is no de facto presumption of salvation, but there is a realistic hope de jure that salvation will be realized since it appears that both the Baptized and the Catechumen are equipped for salvation. The Baptized soul bears the de facto mark that gives him a right to a Christian burial and the hope of salvation (provided that he is not a notorious sinner whose burial would cause scandal), while the Catechumen bears the marks of faith, charity and intention that the Church sees as objective “proof” that he should be considered as one of the Faitfhful with the same rights to Christian burial and the same hope of salvation.

LionelAndrades wrote:
Mike: it is a doctrine and truth of the Church that, while not “of the faith” as an established dogma, still requires religious submission under the impulse or obedience of faith in deference to the authority of the ecclesia docens.

Lionel: Yes we must believe in the baptism of desire. However we have to choose which of the two understandings we have of the baptism of desire. Some Catholics consider the Baptism of Desire as de facto known to us and so contradicting Cantate Domino. Others also accept the Baptism of Desire and consider it de jure and not in contradiction with Cantate Domino , which says everyone de facto needs to enter the Church.
I don’t know of anyone who would be so bold as to consider Baptism of Desire as de facto known to us … "and so contradicting Cantate Domino". Not even the “Called to Communion” former “reformed Christians” (Calvinists) or those converts featured on EWTN’s “Coming Home” series, who talk as if every one of their sincere Protestant friends and family they left behind are already in a de facto state of salvation would be so bold as to state this de facto. Why they act as if a state of inculpable ignorance is “de facto” is troubling, but it does not mean that they actually hold it de facto.

But neither is it surprising considering the marked change in emphasis from exclusionary de facto dogmatic imperatives to inclusive de jure possibilities, without, we hope, rendering the former meaningless by stating de facto what can only be known de jure. But, there are abuses on both sides.

Sorry, Lionel, but it appears that you have constructed something of a straw-man, though I do understand the point you are trying to make. I just don’t see its relevancy to the issue of “non-salvific sanctification” or to the de facto truth of salvation effected de jure by baptism of desire and Baptism when the right dispositions are present. In both cases, salvation is assured, de facto; though the requisite dispositions can only be known de jure.

If I start counting sheep de jure at night to get some sleep ... its your fault.
And if a fence must be "explicitly revealed" with every leap, I'll blame tornpage.

avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2257
Reputation : 2429
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Holy Office Letter of 1949: What position did it "condemn"?

Post  MRyan on Thu Jun 23, 2011 11:16 am

cowboy wrote:MRyan implicit desire just can't hold up. I think Tornpage has won this one, because it can't be traced to Jesus Christ as a teaching nor the majority of the Church Fathers. I don't think the Church has taught officially in a dogmatic way that implicit faith is enough. So we can't say the Church is in heresy, it is now a debatable point.

Anyway its a good debate. And its nice because on other forums wakos start saying insulting things that are just over the top and devolve the whole discussion. So hats off to both you and tornpage.
Thanks, Cowboy; and I can always count on you to tell me when I've lost a debate. I believe by your count I am something like zero and three.

But you don't seem to realize that when you say "we can't say the Church is in heresy", that you are only helping me win this debate, for that is THE issue. Tornpage made the accusation that he is thinking that the Church is in "error" for teaching what must be at least a "materially" heretical doctrine.

So you see, Cowboy, whatever one thinks about "implicit faith", I won this debate a long time ago ... and tornpage knows it; he's just being stubborn for the sake of being stubborn and because he loves a good debate ... and so do I.

But it is an excellent discussion on an important issue and perhaps some good can come from it, regardless of who you believe "won" this debate.

The Church is going to win this one ... count on it.
avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2257
Reputation : 2429
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Holy Office Letter of 1949: What position did it "condemn"?

Post  MRyan on Thu Jun 23, 2011 12:05 pm

DeSelby wrote:
MRyan wrote:Sorry, DeSelby, I did not mean to put this on "ignore".

I think I can be more precise with my answer if I know where you are coming from; so I'd like to hear your opinion on what Unam Sanctam means with respect to the necessity of submission to the Roman Pontiff as a necessity of means for salvation.

What is your take, for example, on the notion of an "implicit" or "virtual" submission inherent within an explicit will to do the will of God and the will of Church in all things ... when prevented from knowing about this precept?

No problem.

My opinion on the "notion of an 'implicit' or 'virtual' submission inherent within an explicit will to do the will of God and the will of the Church in all things" is simply that, yes, that notion is sound, but it is only sound within certain limits. For instance, if a native is converted by a Catholic missionary, believes in the Trinity and the Incarnation, is baptized, but for some reason -- let's say the missionary is killed by the other natives -- isn't able to continue instruction but maintains the faith, then the concept of an implicit or virtual submission is fine, it seems to me.
OK; but I would add that we cannot discount the teaching of St. Thomas here on an explicit faith being manifested through internal inspiration. Since there may not be a possibility (the good-willed soul laying unconscious on his deathbed) of an objective act of explicit faith except internally, is this what the Church means when she suggests that one's faith in Christ may be implicit in one's supernatural faith in God? I don't see why not.

I would only caution against applying limits to where the Church allows freedom (for God). But I agree in essence with what you are saying.

DeSelby wrote:It's when this concept of implicitness (whether it be submission to the pontiff or belief in the Trinity and Incarnation and so on) is extrapolated to all and sundry -- Jews, Muslims, Protestants, Orthodox, etc. -- that I believe it becomes unsound.
Understood, and I'm glad that you included the Orthodox in your example; for if it can be established that the Church's teaching on the possibility sanctification and salvation for a member of the Orthodox Church who does not "believe rightly" in the dogma of Papal Primacy is sound; then if the "notion is sound, but it is only sound within certain limits".

Agreed? What are those limits?
avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2257
Reputation : 2429
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Holy Office Letter of 1949: What position did it "condemn"?

Post  MRyan on Thu Jun 23, 2011 1:58 pm

tornpage wrote:Mike,

it is obvious that you are unfamiliar with Lud’s position.

Don't insult me. I know exactly what Lud and you are up to, always have: a man may be justified without explicit faith in Christ; a man who dies in a state of justification is saved; ergo, . . .

Laboratory think-tank twaddle.
I can’t help it if you are insulted by your own misrepresentation of mine and Lud’s position relative to St. Thomas on explicit faith. You said that Lud and I “agree with St. Thomas with this - believes explicit faith in Christ is a 'necessity of infallibility' for salvation but that one could also be justified without it.”

Neither Lud nor I said any such thing about agreeing with St. Thomas on the “necessity of infallibility”. If you think Lud agrees, then you have either misunderstood what he said, or didn’t read his article(s). It should be obvious that we agree with St. Thomas in general, but not absolutely.

So what’s with the theatrics and feigned outrage when the only one who doesn’t seem to understand what Lud said is you?

Any what’s with this “I know exactly what Lud and you are up to, always have: a man may be justified without explicit faith in Christ; a man who dies in a state of justification is saved; ergo, . . .”?

Gee, you mean you finally recognize why the justification under the new law of grace is important to this discussion? Congratulations; seems I can’t get anything past you … you know all of my “tricks”!

tornpage wrote:The man who said one could be justified without explicit faith also believed that "after the advent of Christ, every man who dies justified also dies with explicit knowledge of Christ." You don't have to believe me - that was Lud being quoted.
I know what St. Thomas taught ... is this supposed to be some revelation? But I am not the one elevating his "common opinion" to a dogma of the Church, especially when it has been established that the "more probable" opinion is not the only opinion, and that the Church is the official arbiter and referee of all such opinions. If she suggests that one may be saved through an implicit faith in our Lord, you are in no position to call her a liar.

tornpage wrote:You want to talk bulldog? You keep repeating this "not an absolute necessity" over and over again when it was left in the dust miles ago.

But you do know where the rubber meets the road:

This places St. Thomas’s understanding of “necessity” into proper context; meaning he did not hold this necessity as an absolute necessity, but, as Lud correctly surmises, he held this reformable opinion as an extension of the infallible Providence and Predestination of God, “insofar as God's intention never fails.”

Reformable opinion he says. Yeah, St. Thomas is opinion, and St. Augustine is opinion, but it happens to be the Church's opinion as infallibly expressed in the Athanasian Creed. Doctrine develops, but it grows from seed to flower, from what contains it to a fuller expression without contradiction, since truth can't contradict itself. A "necessity of infallibilty" such that it is necessary for salvation to have the Catholic faith (the AC), which means belief in the Incarnation and Trinity at a minimum, is not a "seed" that yields the abomination that is its contrary: individuals receiving salvation "without knowing Christ." That's not development from an existing foundation, but a total leveling and a raising of a new edifice.

Yet I go agree with you, yes sir: "the infallible Providence and Predestination of God." It does come back to that. And according to that infallible Providence and Predestination, none of the elect die without explicit faith in Christ . . . just like St. Thomas believed.

Go argue with God and tell Him, "but it's not an absolute necessity."
Such a flair for the dramatic ... and here you are taking swings at the Church for not accepting your opinion and for "a total leveling and a raising of a new edifice...."; ah yes, the Whore of Babylon strikes again.

Such twaddle.

avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2257
Reputation : 2429
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Holy Office Letter of 1949: What position did it "condemn"?

Post  MRyan on Thu Jun 23, 2011 2:38 pm

tornpage wrote:
will insist in return that you address the Church’s teaching on the possibility of sanctification and salvation for certain members of the Orthodox Church who do not profess a “right belief” in the dogma of Papal Primacy.

If that teaching means that one can be saved while at the same time denying a dogma of the Church regarding Papal Primacy, I disagree with the teaching. No one who denies a dogma of the Church (an item of Revelation) is among the elect if they die in that denial. Period.

That was easy.
Too easy; and that’s the problem since you have simply wiped the teaching of the Church, of VCII and the Primacy of the pope’s universal authority over canon law and the sacraments off the table.

With such a pharisaical mindset, there appears to be no allowance for the distinction between “knowingly” denying a dogma of the Church such as Papal Primacy, and doing so out of ignorance born of a century’s long tradition.

And in this, St. Augustine disagrees with you, as my citation from a previous post clearly demonstrates:

"The Apostle Paul has said: 'A man that is an heretic after the first and second admonition reject, knowing that he that is such is subverted and sins, being condemned of himself.' (Titus 3:10-11) But though the doctrine which men hold be false and perverse, if they do not maintain it with passionate obstinacy, especially when they have not devised it by the rashness of their own presumption, but have accepted it from parents who had been misguided and had fallen into error, and if they are with anxiety seeking the truth, and are prepared to be set right when they have found it, such men are not to be counted heretics. Were it not that I believe you to be such, perhaps I would not write to you. And yet even in the case of a heretic, however puffed up with odious conceit, and insane through the obstinacy of his wicked resistance to truth, although we warn others to avoid him, so that he may not deceive the weak and inexperienced, we do not refuse to strive by every means in our power for his correction." (Letters 43,1)

Jehanne calls this teaching from a Doctor of the Church, and the magisterium, "Freudian psychobabble".

What do you call it?
avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2257
Reputation : 2429
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Holy Office Letter of 1949: What position did it "condemn"?

Post  tornpage on Thu Jun 23, 2011 3:08 pm

I don't know about Lud, but you need the special decoder for mushy thinkers (I think the St. Benedict Center still has a few):

You said that Lud and I “agree with St. Thomas with this - believes explicit faith in Christ is a 'necessity of infallibility' for salvation but that one could also be justified without it.”

Neither Lud nor I said any such thing about agreeing with St. Thomas on the “necessity of infallibility”.

Here's what I said:

Apparently, St. Thomas - and you and Lud agree with this - believes explicit faith in Christ is a "necessity of infallibility" for salvation but that one could also be justified without it.

Meaning (while the decoder is in transit), you and Lud agree that St. Thomas held that explicit faith in Christ was a "necessity of infallibility" and that he also believed that one coud be justified without explicit faith in Christ - I wasn't saying, alas, that you agreed with St. Thomas.

Let's repeat the full quote so you can follow (while the decoder's still in transit):

Your words:

So with respect to the necessity of Baptism you hold it as a "necessity of infallibility", but not so "infallible" that it excludes baptism of desire; and not as "strongly" as you hold the necessity of explicit faith.

In other words, its all "relative" depending on how "strongly" one beleives that God predestines each of the elect to Baptism or explicit faith.

Way to cut through the "crap".

My full response:

Apparently, St. Thomas - and you and Lud agree with this - believes explicit faith in Christ is a "necessity of infallibility" for salvation but that one could also be justified without it. In other words, St. Thomas believes that it's "infallible" (explicit faith) that all the saved in the Gospel era explicitly believe in the Trinity and Incarnation but that it's "not so 'infallible' that it excludes a justification by implicit faith" at some point prior.

So (while the decoder is still in transit): in other words, my belief that all who will be saved will receive water baptism, while recognizing one could be justified by baptism of desire, is like St. Thomas's belief that all who will be saved will come to explicit faith, while recognizing that one could be justified by implicit faith. Man, you are trying!!!

Gee, you mean you finally recognize why the justification under the new law of grace is important to this discussion

Dude, I spotted the big, fat, fully-fanned peacock tail of your argument to that effect when you first arrived at this discussion. I never recognized, however, that your distinction is "important to this discussion." That flea on your big, fat, fully-fanned peacock tail only shows himself to those with a certain mindset - those who refuse to accept that God saves all of His elect, since the Incarnation and according to His "infallible Providence and Predestination," by way of the Catholic faith.

the Whore of Babylon strikes again.



I sure hope that decoder gets there pronto!
avatar
tornpage

Posts : 856
Reputation : 919
Join date : 2010-12-31

Back to top Go down

Re: Holy Office Letter of 1949: What position did it "condemn"?

Post  MRyan on Thu Jun 23, 2011 3:23 pm

cowboy wrote:MRyan implicit desire just can't hold up. I think Tornpage has won this one, because it can't be traced to Jesus Christ as a teaching nor the majority of the Church Fathers. I don't think the Church has taught officially in a dogmatic way that implicit faith is enough. So we can't say the Church is in heresy, it is now a debatable point.
Cowboy, as a follow-up; let me remind you that certain doctrines of the Church cannot be traced to our Lord as an explicit teaching, nor to the majority of the Church Fathers. If you think that the dogmas of Papal Primacy and the Assumption as they are defined were taught “explicitly” by our Lord and universally by the Church Fathers, you would be in for one helluva debate with those who will provide proof galore that this is not so. These dogmas are infallibly true because the Church defined that these revealed truths and traditions are there, even if much of their universality is IMPLICIT or inferred in the explicit teaching of a few.

You are also calling into question the Church’s true teaching on the development of doctrine. If what tornpage said is true, then there can be no development, but only a corruption; a corruption that infected the Church some 500 years ago and has been metastasizing ever since to where it is taught openly and freely today by theologians and the Church alike; thereby rendering your “there is no heresy” statement wishful thinking. But there is no heresy, and this is an “opinion” that remained open, as the theologians and the Church attest, while the Church today offers “implicit faith” (under certain conditions) as a valid teaching.


Last edited by MRyan on Thu Jun 23, 2011 3:31 pm; edited 1 time in total
avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2257
Reputation : 2429
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Holy Office Letter of 1949: What position did it "condemn"?

Post  MRyan on Thu Jun 23, 2011 3:29 pm

tornpage wrote:
I sure hope that decoder gets there pronto!
Did you say "deodor"?

OK, the decoder arrived and your misunderstanding was actually mine.

Now, back to the "Whore of Babylon" twaddle.
avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2257
Reputation : 2429
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Holy Office Letter of 1949: What position did it "condemn"?

Post  MRyan on Thu Jun 23, 2011 4:20 pm

tornpage wrote:Mike,

Tell me when the teaching Church in the past was wrong about any issue tied up with faith and salvation similar to this one.

Ummm ... Baptism of desire?

Oh wait, the Church was not wrong; though you once argued against the teaching; I'm sure this point is not lost on you.
avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2257
Reputation : 2429
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Holy Office Letter of 1949: What position did it "condemn"?

Post  tornpage on Thu Jun 23, 2011 5:47 pm

Ummm ... Baptism of desire?

Oh wait, the Church was not wrong; though you once argued against the teaching; I'm sure this point is not lost on you.

Bad example . . . but you pulled out of the nose dive.

And, no, the point is valid, and it is not lost.

However - and this is the point now - back then, both the Church and I couldn't be right.

This is critical [he faces the audience and drops all play and sarcasm from his tone]: is the Church teaching that some are (de facto) saved "without knowing Christ" (JPII did; and please see my questions about the CCC and the Compendium, and throw in Vat II)?

Because if it is, I (we, anyone else) must either abandon belief in certain "necessities of infallibilty" like explicit faith and water baptism, or abandon this Church as an impostor. Or do you buy the theory that, "hey, the true Church can be wrong in its teachings, but only can't be wrong in it's solemn teachings"?

At stake for me is the whole issue of God's "infallible Providence and Predestination," and you know how big an issue that is for a "Thomist" like me. And I cannot believe God would save outside the Catholic faith he brought with His blood - why would he give anything less (and the saving faith is a pure gift from the Holy Ghost)?

And another big question, just what is the truth that all the elect who seek will find?

This is a lot of fun, but if you could focus your next response on the questions in the last two paragraphs . . . we're at a critical juncture.

Thanks.

avatar
tornpage

Posts : 856
Reputation : 919
Join date : 2010-12-31

Back to top Go down

Re: Holy Office Letter of 1949: What position did it "condemn"?

Post  tornpage on Thu Jun 23, 2011 6:10 pm

If I were smarter and consistent back then, I would have been a Feeneyite sede.

Now that's a group that would strain the Lord's eyesight upon His return. Luke 18:8.
avatar
tornpage

Posts : 856
Reputation : 919
Join date : 2010-12-31

Back to top Go down

Re: Holy Office Letter of 1949: What position did it "condemn"?

Post  tornpage on Thu Jun 23, 2011 6:50 pm

"The Apostle Paul has said: 'A man that is an heretic after the first and second admonition reject, knowing that he that is such is subverted and sins, being condemned of himself.' (Titus 3:10-11) But though the doctrine which men hold be false and perverse, if they do not maintain it with passionate obstinacy, especially when they have not devised it by the rashness of their own presumption, but have accepted it from parents who had been misguided and had fallen into error, and if they are with anxiety seeking the truth, and are prepared to be set right when they have found it, such men are not to be counted heretics. Were it not that I believe you to be such, perhaps I would not write to you. And yet even in the case of a heretic, however puffed up with odious conceit, and insane through the obstinacy of his wicked resistance to truth, although we warn others to avoid him, so that he may not deceive the weak and inexperienced, we do not refuse to strive by every means in our power for his correction." (Letters 43,1)


Jehanne calls this teaching from a Doctor of the Church, and the magisterium, "Freudian psychobabble".

What do you call it?

I call it just, and the truth. Like baptism of desire: if one were to die in a state of faith and charity, with prefect contrition and the right desire, before receiving baptism, of course God would save that person. It's simple justice, and this is too.

However, salvation is a gift from God, as is faith, charity, contrition, and baptism. None of the elect die without the Catholic faith: He does not give His children that seek a stone, when they ask for bread.

I have highlighted the key part of St. Augustine's statement. If "they are with anxiety seeking the truth," they will find it, and will not die holding to any material heresies if they are among the elect.

I believe no one is saved (de facto) while holding to any heresy. Or without explicit faith in Christ.

Now, to my big question: does the Church teach otherwise?
avatar
tornpage

Posts : 856
Reputation : 919
Join date : 2010-12-31

Back to top Go down

THE BAPTISM OF DESIRE PER SE AND AS A DOCTRINE

Post  Guest on Fri Jun 24, 2011 4:43 am


Mike
Mike says :
Baptism of desire cannot be known de facto, but that is irrelevant to the fundamental de facto truth it represents.

Lionel: So we agree that it cannot be known de facto.
It is irrelevant, I could agree with you, in the sense one is a observation only and the other a doctrine.

Mike: We are discussing the conditions under which a soul can be assured of his salvation;

Lionel: Correct. That is a discussion.
However at this point I am not into that discussion, but am making an observation about the nature of baptism of desire per se and not the doctrine, theory or discussion.

Mike :i.e., how one attains a state of grace. Baptism of desire assures (de facto) the salvation of souls who have the requisite dispositions. No philosophical principle here, only Catholic truth. Baptism also assures the salvation of souls who have the requisite dispositions.

Lionel: I agree.
Here we are into the doctrine of the baptism of desire, the faith aspect.

Mike:That is THE issue.
Lionel: Yes it is the issue of faith and doctrine. Here we are not discussing the baptism of desire per se but its faith and intellectual attributes and its necessity for salvation. It in an intellectual discussion of the meaning.Please be aware of the distinction.

Mike:As I said, the St. Benedict Center denies this fundamental truth when it states that the essential effects of baptism of blood and baptism of desire are not, de facto, efficacious for salvation since neither can make one a “true” heir to the Kingdom.

Lionel: Again we are discussing the doctrine and its interpretation by St. Benedict Centre.
So we have the discussion of the baptism of desire and its relation to salvation and we have the knowledge of the baptism of desire in itself being de facto unknown to us humans.Two different things.

Mike: We are not playing semantic games here about a state of sanctification vs. a state of salvation;

Lionel:We are not talking about the state of sanctification or the state of salvation when we say that the baptism of desire is de facto known only to God and we can only accept it in principle.

Mike: we are talking about an alleged non-fulfilled and defective form of sanctifying grace by “the desire thereof” that is not, under the new law of grace, sufficient for salvation and can save no man who dies in this “unfulfilled” state.

That does not sound like the Justification defined by Trent under the new law of grace to me.

Lionel: However in a sense this is, as you say, ‘irrelevant’ to knowing that the baptism of desire is always de jure and so never an exception to Cantate Domino.

Mike:All of these “de facto/de jure” distinctions serve as a distraction to this fundamental disagreement in doctrine.

Lionel: It is distinct from the doctrine and I do not mix them up.
Mike:That water Baptism can be known de facto with the proper matter, form and intention tells us nothing de facto about the state of the soul receiving it (adults).

Lionel: It is not related and in a sense, ‘irrelevant’.

Mike:Baptism of desire is about the de facto transmission of the essential gift of sanctifying grace that is ordinarily received de facto through the divinely instituted instrument of Baptism. It can never “replace” the sacrament of Baptism, but only supply its essential fruit since God is not absolutely bound to His sacraments for the transmission of the same.

Lionel: Above you have referred to the doctrine itself of course.
Mike:That baptism of desire cannot be known de facto has as much relevancy as the fact that we cannot know the de facto state of any given Baptized soul.

Lionel: Correct. It is not related.

Mike:Tell us Lionel, when a good-willed faithful Catechumen dies before he can receive Baptism, why does the Church treat him as one of the baptized Faithful by giving him a Catholic burial in consecrated ground? Does your de facto/de jure distinction have ANY relevancy here?

Lionel: No.

Mike:In both cases, there is no de facto presumption of salvation, but there is a realistic hope de jure that salvation will be realized since it appears that both the Baptized and the Catechumen are equipped for salvation. The Baptized soul bears the de facto mark that gives him a right to a Christian burial and the hope of salvation (provided that he is not a notorious sinner whose burial would cause scandal), while the Catechumen bears the marks of faith, charity and intention that the Church sees as objective “proof” that he should be considered as one of the Faitfhful with the same rights to Christian burial and the same hope of salvation.

Lionel: Mike above you are discussing the doctrine.When I refer to de-facto-de jure baptism of desire I am not discusing the doctrine but baptism of desire per se.

MikeI don’t know of anyone who would be so bold as to consider Baptism of Desire as de facto known to us … "

Lionel:This is what is usually implied. There are numerous cases. Feeney.I have reported many cases such cases.

Saturday, June 18, 2011
MOST HOLY FAMILY MONASTERY SEDEVACANTISTS CONSIDER BAPTISM OF DESIRE DE FACTO AND KNOWABLE IN THE PRESENT TIME http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2011/06/most-holy-family-monastery.html

Wednesday, June 22, 2011
SEDEVACANTISTS SLIP ON baptism of desire UNDERSTANDING AND CRITICIZE POPE JOHN PAUL IIhttp://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2011/06/sedevanatists-slip-on-baptism of desire-understanding.html#links

Wednesday, June 22, 2011
sedevacantist websites SLIPS ON baptism of desire DEFINITION AND CRITICIZES SSPX http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2011/06/sedevacantist websites-slips-on-baptism of desire-definition-and.html




Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Holy Office Letter of 1949: What position did it "condemn"?

Post  tornpage on Fri Jun 24, 2011 7:31 am

Lionel,

Is eucharistandmission.blogspot yours?

Well, anyway, this is what it has to say about some of what Pope Benedict expresses in his public reflections in his published book, Light of the World:

‘Christ is salvation for all. That there do not exist two ways of salvation, and that therefore Christ is also the savior of the Jews, and not only of the pagans’.-Pope Benedict XVI. This is heresy. It is denying ex cathedra dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. It is implying cases of people saved with the baptism of desire or invincible ignorance are known to us. It is a denial of Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II and Dominus Iesus 20, which says everyone needs Catholic Faith and the baptism of water for salvation, the Church is necessary for salvation.To deny an ex cathedra dogma and other teachings which firmly must be believed by all Catholics, is a mortal sin. The person is automatically excommunictad. Without Confession and a public rectification of the scandal the Mass offered by him is a sacrilege.

Where do you come down on my question for Mike? Does BXVI, the Church in the Catechism or the Compendium, in Vatican II, or our prior pope JPII - do any of them teach that people are de facto saved without explicit belief in Christ, "without knowing Christ"?

Here's a quote from JPII to consider:

"Normally, it will be in the sincere practice of what is good in their own religious traditions and by following the dictates of their own conscience that the members of other religions respond positively to God’s invitation and receive salvation in Jesus Christ, even while they do not recognize or acknowledge him as their Savior.”

Holy cow, Mike, on this issue of the Church teaching this, I believe JPII is just reiterating a teaching in a document of one of the Conciliar Church's Congregatons!!!

Uh oh.
avatar
tornpage

Posts : 856
Reputation : 919
Join date : 2010-12-31

Back to top Go down

Re: Holy Office Letter of 1949: What position did it "condemn"?

Post  tornpage on Fri Jun 24, 2011 7:36 am

Normally, “it will be in the sincere practice of what is good in their own religious traditions and by following the dictates of their own conscience that the members of other religions respond positively to God’s invitation and receive salvation in Jesus Christ, even while they do not recognize or acknowledge him as their Saviour (cf. Ad gentes, nn. 3, 9, 11)” (Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue – Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples, Instruction Dialogue and Proclamation, 19 May 1991, n. 29; L’Osservatore Romano English edition, 1 July 1991, p. III).

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/1998/documents/hf_jp-ii_aud_09091998_en.html

Uh oh.
avatar
tornpage

Posts : 856
Reputation : 919
Join date : 2010-12-31

Back to top Go down

Re: Holy Office Letter of 1949: What position did it "condemn"?

Post  Guest on Fri Jun 24, 2011 8:47 am

tornpage

Tornpage says
‘Christ is salvation for all. That there do not exist two ways of salvation, and that therefore Christ is also the savior of the Jews, and not only of the pagans’.-Pope Benedict XVI. This is heresy. It is denying ex cathedra dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. It is implying cases of people saved with the baptism of desire or invincible ignorance are known to us.

Lionel:Correct. This is another example of how those saved with the baptism of desire or in invincible ignorance are considered known de facto to us in the present times.
It’s implying that we know such ‘implicit cases’ and so they contradict the dogma i.e there is not one way of salvation in which every one with no exception needs to formally and de facto enter the Church as the Church taught for centuries.

Pope Benedict XVI tells Peter Seewald in Light of the World (Ignatius) that there is only one way of salvation not two. i.e. those who are saved are saved by Jesus and the Church.
Correct, but without a clarification it is Cushingism.
There is only one way of salvation and everyone needs to enter the Catholic Church especially is the centuries- old teaching on extra ecclesiam nulla salus. The pope never says this.

Even if everyone who is saved is saved through Jesus and the Church, everyone with no exception needs to enter the Church for salvation.
The pope is throwing out Cantate Domino, Council of Florence, Council of Trent, Vatican Council II (Ad Gentes 7), Dominus Iesus 20 etc.-from Lionel's blog
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2011/05/holy-father-pope-benedict-xvi-is.html#links

tornpage says :
Does BXVI, the Church in the Catechism or the Compendium, in Vatican II, or our prior pope JPII - do any of them teach that people are de facto saved without explicit belief in Christ, "without knowing Christ"?

Lionel
They teach that Christ is needed for salvation, explicitly or implicitly. However the message that comes through often is that just Christ is needed, the Church is not. It’s Jesus without the Church.


tornpage says :
"Normally, it will be in the sincere practice of what is good in their own religious traditions and by following the dictates of their own conscience that the members of other religions respond positively to God’s invitation and receive salvation in Jesus Christ, even while they do not recognize or acknowledge him as their Savior.”

Lionel: In principle, as a possibility, a person can be saved by following his conscience (Vatican Council II) and it will be known only to God. Since we cannot identify any such person on earth it does not contradict the dogma Cantate Domino.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

GOOD CONSCIENCE EXAMPLE. DE FACTO OR DE JURE

Post  Guest on Fri Jun 24, 2011 10:01 am

Mike,

We agree that we do not know any case of a person saved with the baptism of desire. There is no de facto case that we know of.

What about a person being saved with a good conscience ?
Would you say that de facto we do not know any such case ?
So it does not contradict the dogma?

Normally, “it will be in the sincere practice of what is good in their own religious traditions and by following the dictates of their own conscience that the members of other religions respond positively to God’s invitation and receive salvation in Jesus Christ, even while they do not recognize or acknowledge him as their Saviour (cf. Ad gentes, nn. 3, 9, 11)” (Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue – Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples, Instruction Dialogue and Proclamation, 19 May 1991, n. 29; L’Osservatore Romano English edition, 1 July 1991, p. III).
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/1998/documents/hf_jp-ii_aud_09091998_en.html

So if one does consider the above passage (conscience) referring to someone being saved de facto and known to us, then it would contradict the dogma?

If I refer to the above passage as someone being saved with a good conscience as a possibility, in in principle and known only to God , then the passage above does not contradict the dogma Cantate Domino?

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Holy Office Letter of 1949: What position did it "condemn"?

Post  MRyan on Fri Jun 24, 2011 10:16 am

Lionel,

At the risk of going in circles:

LionelAndrades wrote:
Mike
Mike says: Baptism of desire cannot be known de facto, but that is irrelevant to the fundamental de facto truth it represents.

Lionel: So we agree that it cannot be known de facto.
It is irrelevant, I could agree with you, in the sense one is a observation only and the other a doctrine.
Yes, in the same sense that we can "know" that any one person is in a state of grace.

LionelAndrades wrote:Mike: We are discussing the conditions under which a soul can be assured of his salvation;

Lionel: Correct. That is a discussion.
However at this point I am not into that discussion, but am making an observation about the nature of baptism of desire per se and not the doctrine, theory or discussion.
You cannot make an observation about the NATURE of baptism of desire without discussing doctrine; i.e., without discussing what baptism of desire IS. Whether it is "knowable" or not is irrelevant to its nature.

LionelAndrades wrote:Mike: i.e., how one attains a state of grace. Baptism of desire assures (de facto) the salvation of souls who have the requisite dispositions. No philosophical principle here, only Catholic truth. Baptism also assures the salvation of souls who have the requisite dispositions.

Lionel: I agree.
Here we are into the doctrine of the baptism of desire, the faith aspect.

Mike: That is THE issue.
Lionel: Yes it is the issue of faith and doctrine. Here we are not discussing the baptism of desire per se but its faith and intellectual attributes and its necessity for salvation. It in an intellectual discussion of the meaning.Please be aware of the distinction.
I am aware of the distinction, but discussing the "meaning" of baptism of desire per se only in the context of whether it is "knowable" per se is hardly relevant to the nature of baptism of desire ... what it IS.

LionelAndrades wrote:Mike: As I said, the St. Benedict Center denies this fundamental truth when it states that the essential effects of baptism of blood and baptism of desire are not, de facto, efficacious for salvation since neither can make one a “true” heir to the Kingdom.

Lionel: Again we are discussing the doctrine and its interpretation by St. Benedict Centre.
So we have the discussion of the baptism of desire and its relation to salvation and we have the knowledge of the baptism of desire in itself being de facto unknown to us humans.Two different things.
Which is relevant to the NATURE of baptism of desire ... how?

LionelAndrades wrote: Mike: we are talking about an alleged non-fulfilled and defective form of sanctifying grace by “the desire thereof” that is not, under the new law of grace, sufficient for salvation and can save no man who dies in this “unfulfilled” state.

That does not sound like the Justification defined by Trent under the new law of grace to me.

Lionel: However in a sense this is, as you say, ‘irrelevant’ to knowing that the baptism of desire is always de jure and so never an exception to Cantate Domino.
I understand what you are saying; but the statement is misleading for it implies that baptism of desire does not form an integral part of the Church's understanding of the salvation dogmas. That you would define the "nature" of baptism of desire only in the context of being "knowable" to God alone suggests that the "exception" to water baptism in certain cases stands outside the dogma itself.

Speaking of Cantate Domino, can you show me where it declares that water baptism is the only means by which one may be "joined" to the Church ... "no exceptions"?

LionelAndrades wrote:Mike: I don’t know of anyone who would be so bold as to consider Baptism of Desire as de facto known to us … "

Lionel:This is what is usually implied. There are numerous cases. Feeney.I have reported many cases such cases.

Saturday, June 18, 2011
MOST HOLY FAMILY MONASTERY SEDEVACANTISTS CONSIDER BAPTISM OF DESIRE DE FACTO AND KNOWABLE IN THE PRESENT TIME http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2011/06/most-holy-family-monastery.html

Wednesday, June 22, 2011
SEDEVACANTISTS SLIP ON baptism of desire UNDERSTANDING AND CRITICIZE POPE JOHN PAUL IIhttp://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2011/06/sedevanatists-slip-on-baptism of desire-understanding.html#links

Wednesday, June 22, 2011
sedevacantist websites SLIPS ON baptism of desire DEFINITION AND CRITICIZES SSPX http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2011/06/sedevacantist websites-slips-on-baptism of desire-definition-and.html
Since only the first link works, I’ll address your comments therein.

There is a post by the sedevacantist Most Holy Family Monastery (sedevacantist websites) criticizing a priest who says that a person can be saved with the baptism of water if God chooses and that all such cases are hypothetical for us. (Traditionalist-sedevacantist priest, Fr. Kevin Vaillancourt, denies the salvation dogma By Bro. Peter Dimond, O.S.B.)

The problem is that the sedevacantist websites considers the Baptism of Desire as de facto and knowable in the present times and so it contradicts the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, for them, which says there are no exceptions, and everyone needs to enter the Church for salvation.
Actually, I assume you meant to say “a priest who says that a person can be saved with the baptism of [desire] if God chooses”, and not “the baptism of water”.

More importantly, I don’t see where the referenced sede sites “imply” any such thing. Not only does the anti baptism of desire site, for example, hold that baptism of desire cannot be “known” de facto, it denies that it can exist even in principle (de jure), not even for God … for it is anathema sit to His own dogma on the de facto necessity of water Baptism. In fact, they deny that a soul can be justified prior to Baptism, de jure or otherwise; so there is absolutely no basis for you to suggest “that the sedevacantist websites considers the Baptism of Desire as de facto and knowable in the present times and so it contradicts the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus".

And neither does the other (pro baptism of desire) site suggest that baptism of desire is "de facto and knowable in the present times".

You say that you don't confuse the distinction between doctrine and the "nature" (your faulty definition) of baptism of desire; it appears to me that you do.

avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2257
Reputation : 2429
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Holy Office Letter of 1949: What position did it "condemn"?

Post  MRyan on Fri Jun 24, 2011 10:58 am

LionelAndrades wrote:Mike,

We agree that we do not know any case of a person saved with the baptism of desire. There is no de facto case that we know of.
Just as we do not know, with the exceptions of the canonized Blessed in heaven, of any case (de facto) of a person (adult) saved by Baptism.

Speaking of the canonized saints, the Church teaches (through her official Liturgical texts) and allows it to be held that certain of the martyrs were saved with the baptism of blood, without necessarily having been Baptized in water.

LionelAndrades wrote:What about a person being saved with a good conscience ?
What about him? You mean can he be saved outside the Church? No. Can he be saved without formal membership? Yes.

LionelAndrades wrote:Would you say that de facto we do not know any such case?
Of course, and neither does the Church.

LionelAndrades wrote:So it does not contradict the dogma?
Only if one reads it in a heretical sense; e.g., that one can be saved without supernatural faith and outside the Church.

LionelAndrades wrote:
Normally, “it will be in the sincere practice of what is good in their own religious traditions and by following the dictates of their own conscience that the members of other religions respond positively to God’s invitation and receive salvation in Jesus Christ, even while they do not recognize or acknowledge him as their Saviour (cf. Ad gentes, nn. 3, 9, 11)” (Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue – Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples, Instruction Dialogue and Proclamation, 19 May 1991, n. 29; L’Osservatore Romano English edition, 1 July 1991, p. III).
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/1998/documents/hf_jp-ii_aud_09091998_en.html

So if one does consider the above passage (conscience) referring to someone being saved de facto and known to us, then it would contradict the dogma?
But that's not what it says; but yes, if anyone considered it in such a radical sense, sure.

LionelAndrades wrote:If I refer to the above passage as someone being saved with a good conscience as a possibility, in in principle and known only to God , then the passage above does not contradict the dogma Cantate Domino?
De jure salvation is just as heretical as de facto salvation if it contradicts the dogma. I am not sure what you are saying, so I refer to it in the same sense as "a preparation for the Gospel" read in the light of the Church's more authoritative dogmatic pronouncements such as Lumen Gentium 16 where "preparation" suggests that it will be fulfilled through supernatural faith and unity with the the Church, sometimes in ways known to God alone.
avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2257
Reputation : 2429
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Holy Office Letter of 1949: What position did it "condemn"?

Post  Guest on Fri Jun 24, 2011 11:06 am

Mike,
You have to hold one position and stay with it.
When you say that there is no de facto baptism of desire case that we know of, what do you mean?
If you say there is no de facto case that we know of this is distinct, different from the meaning of baptism of desire, its definition and relation to salvation etc as known in the doctrine?
We have to get these two points clear.
Rationally I can know there is no baptism of desire that we humans can know of and this is different from discussing baptism of desire as known as a doctrine its relation to salvation etc.


Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Holy Office Letter of 1949: What position did it "condemn"?

Post  Guest on Fri Jun 24, 2011 11:13 am

Mike says:

Yes, in the same sense that we can "know" that any one person is in a state of grace.

Lionel:Agreed we cannot tell any one person is in a state of grace we cannot judge in general.

Mike says:
You cannot make an observation about the NATURE of baptism of desire without discussing doctrine; i.e., without discussing what baptism of desire IS. Whether it is "knowable" or not is irrelevant to its nature.

Lionel:Yes there is a difference.
You can choose to discuss the doctrine and probably we agree on the doctrine. However there is a difference between the doctrine discussed by many people and reasoning that the baptism of desire is never de facto known to us, as the state of grace on a person’s soul is unknown to us.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Holy Office Letter of 1949: What position did it "condemn"?

Post  Guest on Fri Jun 24, 2011 11:22 am

Mike says :

I understand what you are saying; but the statement is misleading for it implies that baptism of desire does not form an integral part of the Church's understanding of the salvation dogmas.

Lionel: I am not reasoning out what is the meaning of the baptism of desire, nor saying that it is a doctrine of the Church or it is not an integral part of the Church’s understanding. Here I am out of that reasoning, intellectual level. I am just making an observation about the baptism of desire. That like you say we do not know any defacto case just as we do not know the state of the soul of a person in grace …

Mike:
That you would define the "nature" of baptism of desire only in the context of being "knowable" to God alone suggests that the "exception" to water baptism in certain cases stands outside the dogma itself.

Lionel: I am not defining the nature of Baptism of Desire as a doctrine but speaking of the baptism per se, as it is.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Holy Office Letter of 1949: What position did it "condemn"?

Post  MRyan on Fri Jun 24, 2011 11:30 am

LionelAndrades wrote:Mike,
You have to hold one position and stay with it.
When you say that there is no de facto baptism of desire case that we know of, what do you mean?
If you say there is no de facto case that we know of this is distinct, different from the meaning of baptism of desire, its definition and relation to salvation etc as known in the doctrine?
We have to get these two points clear.
Rationally I can know there is no baptism of desire that we humans can know of and this is different from discussing baptism of desire as known as a doctrine its relation to salvation etc.


I am very consistent with my position and I do not know why you would suggest otherwise. I’m not the one who appears to be confused about the “nature” of baptism of desire by focusing only on whether it can be “known” de facto in any one case. You really should try and clear this up since the “nature” of something cannot be removed from its essence. Whether it can be “known” de facto or not does not change its nature/essence, and it does not prevent the Church from making an objective assumption of its presence (based on the “nature” of baptism of desire) for the sake of Christian burial.

Furthermore, you are clearly wrong in your judgment when you say that the referenced “sedevacantist websites considers the Baptism of Desire as de facto and knowable in the present times and so it contradicts the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, for them, which says there are no exceptions, and everyone needs to enter the Church for salvation.”

Both the anti and the pro baptism of desire websites base their positions on their respective understanding of the nature of baptism of desire itself, whether it is a true doctrine or not; and NOT on whether it is “knowable” in any one case. And, as you should know, the anti baptism of desire site does not even accept baptism of desire de jure, so how in the world can they consider “the Baptism of Desire as de facto and knowable in the present times?

Sorry, Lionel, but I am not the one being inconsistent.
avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2257
Reputation : 2429
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Holy Office Letter of 1949: What position did it "condemn"?

Post  Guest on Fri Jun 24, 2011 11:33 am

Mike asks:
Speaking of Cantate Domino, can you show me where it declares that water baptism is the only means by which one may be "joined" to the Church ... "no exceptions"?


Lionel:

“The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.” (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441.) Ex cathedra – from the website Catholicism.org

The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that [b]none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her

You can only be joined 'with Her' through Catholic Faith and the Baptism of water, there can be no exception on earth.
We cannot give someone the baptism of desire or administer the grace to be saved in invincible ignorance etc.


Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Holy Office Letter of 1949: What position did it "condemn"?

Post  MRyan on Fri Jun 24, 2011 11:52 am

LionelAndrades wrote:Mike says:

Yes, in the same sense that we can "know" that any one person is in a state of grace.

Lionel:Agreed we cannot tell any one person is in a state of grace we cannot judge in general.
The Church makes such a judgment when she affords Christian burial to the un-baptized Catechumen. Her objective judgement of the existence of "baptism of desire" is based on "knowable" objective evidence, even if she cannot know this "de facto".

When St. Josemaria Escriva de Balaguer told the Jewish girl that she had "baptism of desire", he was making an objective assessment based on the girl's ardent catholic faith, charity and intention, and was reassuring her that God would not fail her by her remaining obedient to her parents and delaying her Baptism.

The Catechism of Trent taught the very same doctrine and gave the very same assurance to any soul who possessed these same dispositions and desires. Sure, the Jewish girl could have been insincere, but that does not change the truth of the doctrine and it does not mean that the Saint "erred" by telling the girl that God would supply for what is lacking materially, if necessary.
avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2257
Reputation : 2429
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Holy Office Letter of 1949: What position did it "condemn"?

Post  MRyan on Fri Jun 24, 2011 11:57 am

LionelAndrades wrote:Mike asks:
Speaking of Cantate Domino, can you show me where it declares that water baptism is the only means by which one may be "joined" to the Church ... "no exceptions"?


Lionel:

“The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.” (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441.) Ex cathedra – from the website Catholicism.org

The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that [b]none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her

You can only be joined 'with Her' through Catholic Faith and the Baptism of water, there can be no exception on earth.
We cannot give someone the baptism of desire or administer the grace to be saved in invincible ignorance etc.

I asked you to show me where Cantate Domino declares that water baptism is the only means by which one may be "joined" to the Church ... "no exceptions"?; and you cannot do so. You instead "infer" from the declaration that there is only one instrumental means to be "joined" to the Church, and it is by water baptism ... though the Bull nowhere says this.

avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2257
Reputation : 2429
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Holy Office Letter of 1949: What position did it "condemn"?

Post  Guest on Fri Jun 24, 2011 12:03 pm

Mike says:

Furthermore, you are clearly wrong in your judgment when you say that the referenced “sedevacantist websites considers the Baptism of Desire as de facto and knowable in the present times and so it contradicts the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, for them, which says there are no exceptions, and everyone needs to enter the Church for salvation.”


from Lionel's blog
MOST HOLY FAMILY MONASTERY SEDEVACANTISTS CONSIDER BAPTISM OF DESIRE DE FACTO AND KNOWABLE IN THE PRESENT TIME

There is a post by the sedevacantist Most Holy Family Monastery (sedevacantist websites) criticizing a priest who says that a person can be saved with the baptism of water if God chooses and that all such cases are hypothetical for us. (Traditionalist-sedevacantist priest, Fr. Kevin Vaillancourt, denies the salvation dogma By Bro. Peter Dimond, O.S.B.)


Well, I guess we now know why Fr. Vaillancourt loves baptism of desire so much. It’s because Fr. Vaillancourt believes in salvation outside the Church and is not even Catholic. For a time he even had a warning about our material at the back of his chapel; but, as we see above, it’s quite clear whose material one must be on guard against. Fr. Vaillancourt typifies the “traditionalist” and sedevacantist priests who deny the salvation dogma.

Lionel:
We know that the Baptism of desire can only be accepted in principle ( dejure) and is never de facto for us so how can it be an exception ?

Mike: If the baptism of desire is not known de facto to us, just like the state of grace of a person as you have mentioned, then why should the baptism of desire contradict the dogma Cantate Domino?

Why is the baptism of desire an exception to Cantate Domino for the sedevacantist websites?

It is implied by the sedevacantist websites that the baptism of desire is defacto and known to us, known to the Dimond Brothers, so it contradicts Cantate Domino.

You have agreed that de facto we do not know a single case of someone saved with the baptism of desire?


The sedevacantist websites states

‘ that there is baptism of desire in any way, shape or form (see the book for more details). On page 17 Vaillancourt indicates that Buddhists, pagans and Muslims could be saved, and that such an idea isn’t ruled out by Catholic teaching:

Fr. Kevin Vaillancourt, I Baptize With Water, p. 17: “Are there any more ‘good faith’ pagans in existence? Is it possible for the Communists of China or the faithful adherents of Buddhism and Mohammedism of the Near and Far East to either have never heard the Gospel, or else had the Gospel presented to them in an erroneous light?... Can the Chinese Communist, or the Indian Buddhist or the Pakistani Muslim be included in such a consideration [of invincible ignorance]? Only God knows, and it is not up to me to decide for Him. I write here merely to uphold the dogmatic principle of the possibility of such cases today, without admitting that all, or even a significant number of those who are in such circumstances will achieve salvation through justification.” (Catholic Research Institute, 2000).

Lionel:
The sedevacantist websites is rejecting the baptism of desire and criticizing a priest who says that a person can be saved with the baptism of water if God chooses and that all such cases are hypothetical for us.

Mike: Can the baptism of desire be hypothetical for us, in the sense that it is just a concept that we know in the mind? This is what the Dimond brothers do not accept.
So if it is not hypothetrical is it de facto? And if it is de facto does it contradict the dogma as the sedevacantist websites would indicate?


Fr. Kevin Vaillancourt, I Baptize With Water, p. 18, quoting from Fr. Tanquery with approval: “Necessity of means, however, is not an absolute necessity, but a hypothetical one. In certain particular circumstances, for example, in the case of the invincible ignorance or of incapability, actual membership in the Church can be supplied by the desire for this membership. It is not necessary that this be explicitly present; it can be included in a willingness and readiness to fulfill the will of God. In this way those who are outside the Catholic Church can achieve salvation.”

The sedevacantist websites says :

Well, I guess we now know why Fr. Vaillancourt loves baptism of desire so much. It’s because Fr. Vaillancourt believes in salvation outside the Church and is not even Catholic. For a time he even had a warning about our material at the back of his chapel; but, as we see above, it’s quite clear whose material one must be on guard against. Fr. Vaillancourt typifies the “traditionalist” and sedevacantist priests who deny the salvation dogma.

Mike: The sedevacantist websites do not make the distinction between
Dejure and defacto baptism of desire so they remain confused and confuse others. e.g
Fr. Vaillancourt loves baptism of desire so much. It’s because Fr. Vaillancourt believes in salvation outside the Church and is not even Catholic.

Fr.Vaillancourt believes in baptism of desire that is hypothetically known to us.
De jure (in principle, hypothetically) he can be correct. God can save someone with the baptism of desire and it would be known only to God.
De facto everyone needs to enter the Church for salvation as the dogma says.

However the sedevacantist websites does not have any dejure concept of the baptism of desire. They reject it completely since they imply it is de facto known to us.


The Baptism of desire is always hypothetical for us and de facto only for God.
We know that the Baptism of desire can only be accepted in principle ( dejure) and it is never de facto for us, so how can it be an exception ?

The sedevacantist websites states

‘ that there is baptism of desire in any way, shape or form (see the book for more details). On page 17 Vaillancourt indicates that Buddhists, pagans and Muslims could be saved, and that such an idea isn’t ruled out by Catholic teaching:

De facto we do not know any case on earth of someone who does not need the Baptism of water and Catholic Faith. De jure ( in principle) it is possible that known only to God, there could be an Indian Buddhist saved. He could have faith, charity and the desire and God could send a preacher to him or send someone to baptize him with water.

The sedevacantist websites is rejecting the baptism of desire since they mistake it for being as real for us as the baptism of water.

Fr. Kevin Vaillancourt, I Baptize With Water, p. 17: “Are there any more ‘good faith’ pagans in existence? Is it possible for the Communists of China or the faithful adherents of Buddhism and Mohammedism of the Near and Far East to either have never heard the Gospel, or else had the Gospel presented to them in an erroneous light?... Can the Chinese Communist, or the Indian Buddhist or the Pakistani Muslim be included in such a consideration [of invincible ignorance]? Only God knows, and it is not up to me to decide for Him. I write here merely to uphold the dogmatic principle of the possibility of such cases today, without admitting that all, or even a significant number of those who are in such circumstances will achieve salvation through justification.” (Catholic Research Institute, 2000).

De facto we do not know any case on earth of someone who does not need the Baptism of water and Catholic Faith.
De jure ( in principle) it is possible that known only to God, there could be an Indian Buddhist etc saved. He could have faith, charity and the desire and God could send a preacher to him or send someone to baptize him with water.


Fr.Vailancourt is saying de jure( he uses the word hypothetically) there could be an Indian Buddhist saved and this would be known to God. The sedevacantist websites only has the de facto understanding of the baptism of desire.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Holy Office Letter of 1949: What position did it "condemn"?

Post  Guest on Fri Jun 24, 2011 12:09 pm

I asked you to show me where Cantate Domino declares that water baptism is the only means by which one may be "joined" to the Church ... "no exceptions"?; and you cannot do so. You instead "infer" from the declaration that there is only one instrumental means to be "joined" to the Church, and it is by water baptism ... though the Bull nowhere says this.
It's like Ad Gentes 7 Vatican Council II which says all need baptism for salvation.

You have to infer, that it is a reference to the baptism of water since we cannot administer the baptism of blood or desire.

You have to infer that every adult needs Catholic Faith for salvation since the baptism of water is given to adults with Catholic Faith
.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Holy Office Letter of 1949: What position did it "condemn"?

Post  MRyan on Fri Jun 24, 2011 12:35 pm

Tornpage, citing Lionel’s blogspot:

Pope Benedict expresses in his public reflections in his published book, Light of the World:
‘Christ is salvation for all. That there do not exist two ways of salvation, and that therefore Christ is also the savior of the Jews, and not only of the pagans’.-Pope Benedict XVI.

This is heresy. It is denying ex cathedra dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. It is implying cases of people saved with the baptism of desire or invincible ignorance are known to us is in accord with the dogma.
Lionel,

It is not “heresy” and it does not “imply” any de facto such thing. This is your fundamental error, and we see the same error in your judgment against the sede website(s) that, allegedly, “considers the Baptism of Desire as de facto and knowable in the present times and so it contradicts the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus”.

This is truly bizarre and you have not demonstrated at all that what you say is true. In fact, it is patently false and only demonstrates that you have taken the “de facto/de jure” principles to an irrational and illogical conclusion.

Lionel, your last more lengthy response was all over the place and you have “quotes” attributed to me I never said. And please lose the 18 point font. If you can’t read the regular font (12 point), then please manually change the “large” font from 18 to 14. That would help.
avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2257
Reputation : 2429
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Holy Office Letter of 1949: What position did it "condemn"?

Post  MRyan on Fri Jun 24, 2011 12:46 pm

LionelAndrades wrote:
I asked you to show me where Cantate Domino declares that water baptism is the only means by which one may be "joined" to the Church ... "no exceptions"?; and you cannot do so. You instead "infer" from the declaration that there is only one instrumental means to be "joined" to the Church, and it is by water baptism ... though the Bull nowhere says this.
It's like Ad Gentes 7 Vatican Council II which says all need baptism for salvation.

You have to infer, that it is a reference to the baptism of water since we cannot administer the baptism of blood or desire.

You have to infer that every adult needs Catholic Faith for salvation since the baptism of water is given to adults with Catholic Faith
.
And I have no problem "inferring" any of that; but I made my point.

I also have no problem "inferring" that the Church teaches that none of the dogmatic salvation texts positively precludes someone from being "joined" to the Church by the virtues of supernatural faith and charity, even if the Church knows of no means under her jurisdiction and divine mandate that can provide for salvation other than the instrumental means she, as the sacrament of salvation, supplies.
avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2257
Reputation : 2429
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Holy Office Letter of 1949: What position did it "condemn"?

Post  MRyan on Fri Jun 24, 2011 1:04 pm

LionelAndrades wrote:Mike says :

I understand what you are saying; but the statement is misleading for it implies that baptism of desire does not form an integral part of the Church's understanding of the salvation dogmas.

Lionel: I am not reasoning out what is the meaning of the baptism of desire, nor saying that it is a doctrine of the Church or it is not an integral part of the Church’s understanding. Here I am out of that reasoning, intellectual level. I am just making an observation about the baptism of desire. That like you say we do not know any defacto case just as we do not know the state of the soul of a person in grace …

Mike:
That you would define the "nature" of baptism of desire only in the context of being "knowable" to God alone suggests that the "exception" to water baptism in certain cases stands outside the dogma itself.

Lionel: I am not defining the nature of Baptism of Desire as a doctrine but speaking of the baptism per se, as it is.
How can you make an "observation about the baptism of desire .. as it is" (whether we can know if it exists de facto) while ignoring what it is ... its very nature? The Church is concerned only with the truth of the latter, and not the former; yet you have made the former the centerpiece of your flawed doctrine and see "implied" de facto "known" cases of baptism of desire where they do not exist ... and rashly accuse others of "heresy" (even the pope) as a result.
avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2257
Reputation : 2429
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Holy Office Letter of 1949: What position did it "condemn"?

Post  MRyan on Fri Jun 24, 2011 1:24 pm

Lionel,

On the sede thread, you wrote:

In 2005 apologist Gerry Matatics , Founder and President, Biblical Foundations International http://www.gerrymatatics.org/, did not know there was an alternative.

Now I am saying that the baptism of desire in its very nature is not an exception to the dogma, since it cannot be defacto known to us ever ; we do not know anyone on earth saved with the baptism of desire ,invincible ignorance etc.
This is not an “alternative”, it is a “novelty”. Once again you say that “baptism of desire in its very nature is not an exception to the dogma”, when in its very nature baptism of desire supplies for what is lacking when Baptism cannot be received.

That’s what baptism of desire IS, in its very NATURE. It is either true, or it isn’t and hiding behind this “de facto/de jure” distinction is not an “alternative”, it is a cop-out, IMHO.
avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2257
Reputation : 2429
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Holy Office Letter of 1949: What position did it "condemn"?

Post  MRyan on Fri Jun 24, 2011 4:31 pm

tornpage wrote:
"The Apostle Paul has said: 'A man that is an heretic after the first and second admonition reject, knowing that he that is such is subverted and sins, being condemned of himself.' (Titus 3:10-11) But though the doctrine which men hold be false and perverse, if they do not maintain it with passionate obstinacy, especially when they have not devised it by the rashness of their own presumption, but have accepted it from parents who had been misguided and had fallen into error, and if they are with anxiety seeking the truth, and are prepared to be set right when they have found it, such men are not to be counted heretics. Were it not that I believe you to be such, perhaps I would not write to you. And yet even in the case of a heretic, however puffed up with odious conceit, and insane through the obstinacy of his wicked resistance to truth, although we warn others to avoid him, so that he may not deceive the weak and inexperienced, we do not refuse to strive by every means in our power for his correction." (Letters 43,1)
Jehanne calls this teaching from a Doctor of the Church, and the magisterium, "Freudian psychobabble".

What do you call it?

I call it just, and the truth. Like baptism of desire: if one were to die in a state of faith and charity, with prefect contrition and the right desire, before receiving baptism, of course God would save that person. It's simple justice, and this is too.
In other words, you are the arbiter of justice and “truth”, and not the Church.

tornpage wrote: However, salvation is a gift from God, as is faith, charity, contrition, and baptism. None of the elect die without the Catholic faith: He does not give His children that seek a stone, when they ask for bread.
Nice rhetorical flourish, while ignoring the substance of what the Church teaches; that the very Orthodox soul in question can die with the Catholic Faith, while not being held responsible for the century’s long misunderstanding of Papal Primacy.

tornpage wrote: I have highlighted the key part of St. Augustine's statement. If "they are with anxiety seeking the truth," they will find it, and will not die holding to any material heresies if they are among the elect.
Your highlight changes nothing of what St. Augustines said, but only serves to underscore the point that “if they are with anxiety seeking the truth, and are prepared to be set right when they have found it, such men are not to be counted heretics.” That is precisely what the Church says about the possibility of grace and salvation for the Orthodox who are “prepared to be set right when they have found” the truth.

You are saying that if he does not find the truth of right belief about Papal Primacy before death, he is damned. You, and your magisterium of one.

tornpage wrote: I believe no one is saved (de facto) while holding to any heresy.

Funny, that’s what the Church teaches as well, and that is the whole point. It is not a “heresy” when it is not culpable.

tornpage wrote: I believe no one is saved (de facto) … without explicit faith in Christ.
Now, to my big question: does the Church teach otherwise?
Yes, she does, or she at least strongly suggests this interpretation though her various papal General Audiences and other ecumenically minded type documents, though her official magisterial texts such as Lumen Gentium, Ad Gentes and Dominus Iesus can “suggest” both the traditional and the more liberal interpretations. But she is not, contrary to your opinion, “shoveling implicit faith down my throat”; though she is telling you that you cannot completely discount her teaching in this regard.

I don’t see why one cannot hold to the more traditional understanding while waiting for a magisterial clarification. In this way, one sets his will to the authority of the Church teaching, while reserving submission of the intellect until the issue can be resolved in one’s own mind.

After all, if we are not sure how to interpret “teachings set forth by the authentic ordinary Magisterium in a non-definitive way”, we know that such teachings “require degrees of adherence differentiated according to the mind and the will manifested; this is shown especially by the nature of the documents, by the frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or by the tenor of the verbal expression.”

While I think that some level of “resistance” can be justified based on the nature of the documents [magisterial or non-magisterial], by the frequent repetition of the same doctrine [in tradition, etc.], or by the tenor of the verbal expression [often ambiguous]; the “mind and the will manifested” cannot, perhaps, be so easily discounted, even if it is not “magisterial”.

My own advice would be to avoid accusations of “error” and “heresy”, though there is room for clarification and even reform without saying that the Church can teach error on a matter of doctrine necessary for salvation.

The last is simply not acceptable.
avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2257
Reputation : 2429
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Holy Office Letter of 1949: What position did it "condemn"?

Post  columba on Fri Jun 24, 2011 5:52 pm

MRyan wrote:
You are saying that if he does not find the truth of right belief about Papal Primacy before death, he is damned. You, and your magisterium of one.

Mike I'm surprised that a man of your calibre could maintain that this is what's being said and do so unwittingly.
As you well know there are some truths of the faith which MUST be held by all and without which one cannot be saved. i.e, Belief in the Trinity and the incarnation.
The rest can be held implicitly if explcit knowledge has not been given.


MRyan wrote:
Yes, she does, or she at least strongly suggests this interpretation though her various papal General Audiences and other ecumenically minded type documents, though her official magisterial texts such as Lumen Gentium, Ad Gentes and Dominus Iesus can “suggest” both the traditional and the more liberal interpretations. But she is not, contrary to your opinion, “shoveling implicit faith down my throat”; though she is telling you that you cannot completely discount her teaching in this regard.

It's not as if we have nothing to go on when confronted by a teaching that can either be read as orthadox or hetrodox.
We have Pope Pius VI condemnation of ambiguity which I'm sure you are familiar with. He advices that the suspect text shoud be held to its erronious meaning and confronted as such. Here are the relevent passages.

(Pope Pius VI Bull “Auctorem fidei," August 28, 1794)
..."it cannot be excused in the way that one sees it being done, under the erroneous pretext that the seemingly shocking affirmations in one place are further developed along orthodox lines in other places, and even in yet other places corrected; as if allowing for the possibility of either affirming or denying the statement, or of leaving it up the personal inclinations of the individual – such has always been the fraudulent and daring method used by innovators to establish error. It allows for both the possibility of promoting error and of excusing it."


..."It is a most reprehensible technique for the insinuation of doctrinal errors and one condemned long ago by our predecessor Saint Celestine who found it used in the writings of Nestorius, Bishop of Constantinople, and which he exposed in order to condemn it with the greatest possible severity. Once these texts were examined carefully, the impostor was exposed and confounded, for he expressed himself in a plethora of words, mixing true things with others that were obscure; mixing at times one with the other in such a way that he was also able to confess those things which were denied while at the same time possessing a basis for denying those very sentences which he confessed."

"Whenever it becomes necessary to expose statementswhcgh disguise some suspected error or danger under the veil of ambiguity, one must denounce the perverse meaning under which the error opposed to Cathoilic truth is camouflaged."

avatar
columba

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Holy Office Letter of 1949: What position did it "condemn"?

Post  tornpage on Sat Jun 25, 2011 5:53 am

Mike,

Thanks for answering. Time for tornpage to do some thinking.

Columba,

Yep.

Matthew 5:37

But let your speech be yea, yea: no, no: and that which is over and above these, is of evil.
avatar
tornpage

Posts : 856
Reputation : 919
Join date : 2010-12-31

Back to top Go down

Re: Holy Office Letter of 1949: What position did it "condemn"?

Post  tornpage on Sat Jun 25, 2011 5:53 am

Thinking. And praying.
avatar
tornpage

Posts : 856
Reputation : 919
Join date : 2010-12-31

Back to top Go down

Re: Holy Office Letter of 1949: What position did it "condemn"?

Post  MRyan on Sat Jun 25, 2011 11:44 am

columba wrote:
MRyan wrote:
You are saying that if he does not find the truth of right belief about Papal Primacy before death, he is damned. You, and your magisterium of one.

Mike I'm surprised that a man of your calibre could maintain that this is what's being said and do so unwittingly.
As you well know there are some truths of the faith which MUST be held by all and without which one cannot be saved. i.e, Belief in the Trinity and the incarnation.
The rest can be held implicitly if explcit knowledge has not been given.
Sorry columba, but something seems to be lost in translation. Are you agreeing with me or with tornpage? The Orthodox in question believes in the Trinity and the Incarnation, so are you suggesting that he can hold Papal Primacy “implicitly”, even while holding an inculpable false belief in the same?

What are you trying to say and what does that have to do with the Orthodox soul in question?

Since you seem to want to change the parameters of this particular discussion, YOU are not the authority to tell us that the dogma declares that EXPLICIT belief in the Trinity and the Incarnation must be held before one dies, or one cannot be saved; when the Church suggests that such a belief may be implicit in one’s supernatural Faith and Charity in God. Every one of the elect comes to an explicit faith, of that we are certain; but the Church did NOT define that this explicit faith in the Mysteries of our Lord must be explicit in one’s act of faith before he is rendered unconscious and dies.

Suddenly those who tell us that St. Thomas was wrong on baptism of desire want to elevate his opinion on explicit faith to dogmatic status? Or perhaps you will cite the Holy Office, you know the one from the 18th century (the one you actually agree with for a change) which wrote that one must be taught the essential mysteries before the catechumen is baptized, and that this somehow is a dogmatic imperative telling us that no one can be saved without such an explicit belief?

As St. Pius X lamented, how many souls are lost because of ignorance of these chief mysteries? Indeed, but does that mean that ALL such souls are lost? Pope St. Pius X did NOT say that.

This is a matter having a direct impact on the correct understanding of a dogma necessary for salvation; and a point of doctrine the theologians considered “open” -- and you want to tell me that the Church can’t even get that right? What do we need her for if the dogmas have been handed down to you and others for safekeeping?

But I stand by my curt and cheap sounding reply in this instance because it cuts right to the chase and removes all the window dressing. We have only one Magisterium and the Magisterium teaches quite specifically what I described with respect to the Orthodox. If someone does not “believe” that is what the Church teaches, they are either willfully blind or are fine with telling the Church she is in “error” on such an important matter of salvation.

And I am not suggesting that tornpage is deliberately setting himself up as the arbiter of “truth”; he is giving his opinion on what he believes the truth is. But it is equally important that he be reminded that when he does so, he runs head first into the living, authoritative and divinely appointed Magisterium of the Church. The only reason I even entered into this debate was because tornpage said he thought that the Church is in “error” on a matter of faith necessary for salvation (and is teaching “material” heresy).

I realize that this is a somewhat popular opinion these days, but I like to frame it exactly in the terms I see it. On a very fundamental level, it is quite simple. We have a living Authority and we either trust that Authority to feed us the truth, especially those truths that tell us how the Church understands the dogmas on salvation; or we set ourselves up as the arbiters of truth as we falsely pit one "Magisterium" against another by rendering our personal opinion on what the "true" Magisterium teaches. Am I wrong, or have I exaggerated this fundamental teaching – perhaps; but if so, show me where and how.

Even Fr. Harrison calls “implicit faith” in our Lord “proximate to heresy” (whatever THAT means – like being “proximate” to being pregnant, but not pregnant), though in this instance we are discussing a related and very important issue on whether the Orthodox can hold the true Faith while being inculpable in the matter of Papal Primacy.

What does the Church teach? Is there some confusion here? Has she not made it clear? But, on the other hand, is she giving “carte blanche” salvation to the Orthodox or suggesting that none of the Orthodox can be at fault for rejecting Papal Primacy? To the latter two questions the answer is NO.

It is all well and good to render one’s private opinion that God will supply the good-willed Orthodox soul with “right belief” in Papal Primacy and the filioque before he dies, but to foist this opinion as a “dogma”, thereby implying that the Church is teaching heresy, is where we “come to Jesus”, if I may use such a phrase.

columba wrote:
MRyan wrote:
Yes, she does, or she at least strongly suggests this interpretation though her various papal General Audiences and other ecumenically minded type documents, though her official magisterial texts such as Lumen Gentium, Ad Gentes and Dominus Iesus can “suggest” both the traditional and the more liberal interpretations. But she is not, contrary to your opinion, “shoveling implicit faith down my throat”; though she is telling you that you cannot completely discount her teaching in this regard.

It's not as if we have nothing to go on when confronted by a teaching that can either be read as orthadox or hetrodox.

We have Pope Pius VI condemnation of ambiguity which I'm sure you are familiar with. He advices that the suspect text shoud be held to its erronious meaning and confronted as such. Here are the relevent passages.

(Pope Pius VI Bull “Auctorem fidei," August 28, 1794)
..."it cannot be excused in the way that one sees it being done, under the erroneous pretext that the seemingly shocking affirmations in one place are further developed along orthodox lines in other places, and even in yet other places corrected; as if allowing for the possibility of either affirming or denying the statement, or of leaving it up the personal inclinations of the individual – such has always been the fraudulent and daring method used by innovators to establish error. It allows for both the possibility of promoting error and of excusing it."


..."It is a most reprehensible technique for the insinuation of doctrinal errors and one condemned long ago by our predecessor Saint Celestine who found it used in the writings of Nestorius, Bishop of Constantinople, and which he exposed in order to condemn it with the greatest possible severity. Once these texts were examined carefully, the impostor was exposed and confounded, for he expressed himself in a plethora of words, mixing true things with others that were obscure; mixing at times one with the other in such a way that he was also able to confess those things which were denied while at the same time possessing a basis for denying those very sentences which he confessed."

"Whenever it becomes necessary to expose statementswhcgh disguise some suspected error or danger under the veil of ambiguity, one must denounce the perverse meaning under which the error opposed to Cathoilic truth is camouflaged."
Now show us where this condemnation of ambiguity condemns the Church for “deceptively” teaching the possibility of salvation for the Orthodox who is prepared in his will to accept the Truth, and believes that he holds the truth whole and entire.

Show me the ambiguity in this matter and where the Church condemns herself.

You actually accuse the Church of using a fraudulent method in her magisterial teachings “to establish error”. You have no shame in yanking whatever previous magisterial text that strikes your fancy out of context in order to condemn the very same Magisterium whose divinely appointed task is to keep error from infecting the Church.

Of course, your ERROR is to assume that the Church teaches error and thus uses ambiguous language to hide her errors by making it appear that it can be understood in both an orthodox and liberal sense. What you fail to realize is that the Church gives you the freedom to hold your position, while allowing for the possibility of salvation in the very terms you condemn.

Every time you cite the Bull “Auctorem fidei," you only expose the fallacy of your own sede-like arguments by turning the Church against herself. You also conveniently ignore what else the same Synod of Pistoia had to say; you know, like condemning as “heretical” – “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’’”.

Ah yes, the very Church you condemn for her deceptive ambiguity for the purpose of fraudulently promoting “error” has been deliberately obscuring the more important truths of our Faith; in particular, the “error” and heresy called “implicit faith”, and for granting the possibility of grace and salvation to the Orthodox (for example).

Now, you were saying?
avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2257
Reputation : 2429
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Holy Office Letter of 1949: What position did it "condemn"?

Post  MRyan on Sat Jun 25, 2011 4:22 pm

Some magisterial perspective on the possible sanctification and salvation of those belonging to the separated Eastern Churches:

CCC 818:

However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers .... All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church.
UNITATIS REDINTEGRATIO:

The children who are born into these Communities and who grow up believing in Christ cannot be accused of the sin involved in the separation, and the Catholic Church embraces upon them as brothers, with respect and affection. For men who believe in Christ and have been truly baptized are in communion with the Catholic Church even though this communion is imperfect… The ecumenical movement is striving to overcome these obstacles. But even in spite of them it remains true that all who have been justified by faith in Baptism are members of Christ's body,(21) and have a right to be called Christian, and so are correctly accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church.(22)

Moreover, some and even very many of the significant elements and endowments which together go to build up and give life to the Church itself, can exist outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church: the written word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, and visible elements too. All of these, which come from Christ and lead back to Christ, belong by right to the one Church of Christ.

The brethren divided from us also use many liturgical actions of the Christian religion. These most certainly can truly engender a life of grace in ways that vary according to the condition of each Church or Community. These liturgical actions must be regarded as capable of giving access to the community of salvation.

It follows that the separated Churches(23) and Communities as such, though we believe them to be deficient in some respects, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church.

These Churches, although separated from us, yet possess true sacraments and above all, by apostolic succession, the priesthood and the Eucharist, whereby they are linked with us in closest intimacy. Therefore some worship in common (communicatio in sacris), given suitable circumstances and the approval of Church authority, is not only possible but to be encouraged.
1983 Code of Canon Law:

Can. 844 §3. Catholic ministers administer the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick licitly to members of Eastern Churches which do not have full communion with the Catholic Church if they seek such on their own accord and are properly disposed.
Matthew 5:37:

But let your speech be yea, yea: no, no: and that which is over and above these, is of evil.
avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2257
Reputation : 2429
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Holy Office Letter of 1949: What position did it "condemn"?

Post  Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 4 of 5 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


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