Session 6 Chater 4 revelation

columba Sun Jul 31, 2011 2:31 pm

Here's my revelation concerning Session 6, chapter 4 and the pertinent teaching, “..This translation however cannot, since promulgation of the Gospel, be effected except through the laver of regeneration or its desire ..,” Smile

If we take the words “or its desire ” to mean anything other than an accompanying disposition for the validity of the sacrament, there appears an immediate nullification of the necessity of the sacramental form for obtaining salvation.
I hope I can explain this in a comprehensible way. If the words “or its desire” mean what Mike and others say they mean then the desire for Baptism becomes Baptism itself, because, the “OR” is giving one a choice; either of receiving the sacrament or, merely desiring the sacrament, as both have (according to the sentence if understood in that way) equal validity. Having given no mention of the desire pertaining only to those who (through no fault of their own) cannot physically receive the sacrament in“water form,” it stands written then (if we take the modern interpretation) that the sacrament of Baptism is available in two forms for everyone; the sense perceptible form and the invisible form. Note that each has equal validity according to the words if taken in their recently proposed new meaning.

Now if we take the words “or its desire” to mean an actual accompanying disposition of the catechumen which renders the sacrament valid and therefore makes it impossible for him/her or anyone else to receive the sacrament against their will, then it becomes obvious that this was the intended meaning of the words “or the desire.”
If we propose that this was not the intended meaning then we must accept that sacramental Baptism and the desire for Baptism are one and the same thing; both giving the full measure of grace and efficacy, including the sacramental mark. One can either receive the actual sacrament or desire the sacrament but both will achieve the full measure equally.

Rather than complicate this simple thought I'll leave it at that for now.

Guest Tue Aug 02, 2011 11:21 am

Nicely put, I couldn't agree more.

MRyan Tue Aug 02, 2011 5:42 pm

columba wrote: Here's my revelation concerning Session 6, chapter 4 and the pertinent teaching, “..This translation however cannot, since promulgation of the Gospel, be effected except through the laver of regeneration or its desire ..,”

If we take the words “or its desire” to mean anything other than an accompanying disposition for the validity of the sacrament, there appears an immediate nullification of the necessity of the sacramental form for obtaining salvation.

Trent is not describing the accompanying disposition necessary for a valid sacrament, she is describing (under the new law of grace) that which cannot be lacking to effect the translation to justification; and this translation cannot be effected without water Baptism, or the desire thereof.

columba wrote: I hope I can explain this in a comprehensible way. If the words “or its desire” mean what Mike and others say they mean then the desire for Baptism becomes Baptism itself, because, the “OR” is giving one a choice; either of receiving the sacrament or, merely desiring the sacrament, as both have (according to the sentence if understood in that way) equal validity.

It is not just “Mike and others” as if there is or ever has been some controversy over the true meaning on this declaration; it is Mike and EVERYONE else, to include every single Theologian, Scholastic, School, Roman Catechism, Pope, Saint, etc. who provided commentary on Trent and Justification, and confirmed “or its desire” has only one and the same meaning, which is the same universal common understanding of the Doctors and theologians, not the least of which is that of the Master Doctor, St. Thomas Aquinas.

If, columba, you can provide any testimony from a Saint, Doctor, Theologian, Scholastic or Pope who taught that the true meaning of “or its desire” refers to that disposition necessary to render the sacrament valid, you would eagerly do so; but you can’t, which only marginalizes and exposes your private opinion for being exactly that, and nothing more than that.

columba wrote: Having given no mention of the desire pertaining only to those who (through no fault of their own) cannot physically receive the sacrament in “water form,” it stands written then (if we take the modern interpretation) that the sacrament of Baptism is available in two forms for everyone; the sense perceptible form and the invisible form. Note that each has equal validity according to the words if taken in their recently proposed new meaning.

Neither does Trent give any mention to “or its desire” as a reference to that disposition necessary for the validity of the sacrament, and it has NEVER been understood in that sense. So your characterization of the universal common understanding of “or its desire” as some sort of “modern interpretation” or a “recently proposed new meaning” is completely unsubstantiated and is nothing more than fantasy. You made it up, columba, and you can't back it up.

Produce the evidence that the common understanding of “or its desire” has ever been proposed by the Church and by her Doctors and theologians as anything other than the common Thomistic sense of justifying faith and “desire” (faith, charity/contrition, desire/intention).

Where is the evidence for your novel understanding that you suggest is the "true understanding" until the modern age changed it? Why can’t you produce a single saint or theologian since the Council of Trent who can affirm your understanding?

Why should anyone listen to your novel and contrary opinion on the meaning of a dogmatic description of Justification, and not follow the universal understanding and testimony of the scholastics and theologians – not to mention the Catechism of Trent and other Magisterial teaching?

columba wrote: Now if we take the words “or its desire” to mean an actual accompanying disposition of the catechumen which renders the sacrament valid and therefore makes it impossible for him/her or anyone else to receive the sacrament against their will, then it becomes obvious that this was the intended meaning of the words “or the desire.”

No, it is NOT at all obvious, not to mention that the Church has never understood it in that sense, and neither does your understanding make any sense. The subject is Justification and how it is effected by Baptism in fact, or at least in desire, and it is NOT a description of what cannot be lacking to effect a valid Sacrament, though of course without such an intention and desire no one can be justified, valid sacrament or not.

The fact that someone can have the intention and desire to receive Baptism, and receive it validly (with its Character) without being translated to a state of grace proves your thesis is totally without merit. Trent is not concerning itself here with the necessity of ensuring that an adult’s desire and intention to receive Baptism is one of his own volition (free will) so that the sacrament is validly conferred, she is concerning herself only with providing a brief description of Justification under the law of grace, and with the minimum essentials that will effect this regeneration and translation to grace (Baptism, or the desire for it).

In The Catholic Doctrine on Justification Explained and Vindicated, p.125, Archbishop Francis Patrick Kenrick explains as follows:

The doctrine of St. Thomas is this: some kind of intention is required on the part of the adult for the valid reception of baptism: such intention may exist in one whose faith is not sound, even as to the Sacrament itself. Such an individual, therefore, if baptized, really receives the sacramental character, although his soul is devoid of grace, since without true faith, as well as sincere repentance, justice cannot be attained. To infer hence that a mere profession of faith in whatever may be asserted by the Church, is the whole requirement for baptism, is bad logic, and great injustice.

Your problem, columba, is that you actually believe that Trent decided to brush aside the common doctrine of St. Thomas Aquinas by declaring that under the new law of grace, the instrumental cause of justification (water Baptism) is the ONLY means of justification (in fact, not in desire), which positively excludes anyone from being justified by the desire for Baptism -- as it was always understood by the Church, which is the same true understanding of her Doctors and theologians.

As Fr. Cornelius À Lapide wrote in his “Great Biblical Commentary” on John 3:5: “Lastly, born of water ought here to be understood either in actual fact, or by desire. For he who repents of his sins, and desires to be baptized, but either from want of water, or lack of a minister, is not able to receive it, is born again through (ex) the desire and wish for baptism. So the Council of Trent fully explains this passage (Sess. 7, Can. 4).”

Columba, you do have this in common with the Protestant Bishop M'llvaine, who “in his work on Oxford Divinity, charged the Council of Trent with teaching ‘that baptism is the “only instrumental cause” of justification; so absolutely necessary thereto, - that without it justification is obtained by none,’".

While you would not be so bold as to attempt to translate the Latin text of Trent (OK, strike that), you agree with Bishop M’llvaine that the intended meaning of Trent is to dogmatically declare that the sacrament of Baptism (in re) is the sole instrumental means of justification.

Here is how Archbishop Kenrick, in his A treatise on baptism, replied to this charge:

Bishop M'llvaine in his work on Oxford Divinity, charged the Council of Trent with teaching "that baptism is the 'only instrumental cause' of justification; so absolutely necessary thereto,- that without it justification is obtained by none," and quoted to this effect these words of the Council: "Instrumentalis causa — sacramentum baptismi sine quo nulli unquam justificatio contingit." In my work on Justification, p. 133, I pointed out the gross errors in the quotation, whereby the text and its meaning were entirely perverted. The council does not say, that baptism is the only instrumental cause, or that without it no one was ever justified, but it declares it to be the instrumental cause, and styles it the sacrament of faith — sacramentum fidei, sine qua nulli unquam contigit justification — without which no one was ever justified, since according to the Apostle, "without faith it is impossible to please God." Heb. xi. 6. Mr. Livingston has since adverted to the misquotation, in a treatise "on the salvability of the heathen:" but I am not aware that the Bishop has pointed to the source of his error, or corrected it.

So your “gross error” is not one of translation, but of “entirely perverting” the meaning of Trent as it has always been understood by the Church and her Doctors and theologians. A dubious distinction, indeed.

columba wrote: If we propose that this was not the intended meaning then we must accept that sacramental Baptism and the desire for Baptism are one and the same thing; both giving the full measure of grace and efficacy, including the sacramental mark. One can either receive the actual sacrament or desire the sacrament but both will achieve the full measure equally.

And that is a logical fallacy based on the false presumption that justification can be effected only by the sacrament of Baptism, and not by faith, charity and the desire for Baptism. Neither does it hold that baptism of desire necessarily makes the desire for baptism and Baptism one and the same thing, for only the latter is a sacrament; though both effect the same end, the essential fruit of Baptism -- the translation to justification.

Here, as explained by St. Thomas Aquinas, is the critical theological distinction that seems to be entirely lost on you and a handful of others (such as Rasha) who treat the common doctrine of the theologians with contempt, though you deny this (“who, me?”) as you simply reject the unanimous teaching and declare your novel and perverted private interpretation to be the “true understanding”:

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiæ IIIa Q. 66 Art. 11:

I answer that, As stated above (Question [62], Article [5]), Baptism of Water has its efficacy from Christ's Passion, to which a man is conformed by Baptism, and also from the Holy Ghost, as first cause. Now although the effect depends on the first cause, the cause far surpasses the effect, nor does it depend on it. Consequently, a man may, without Baptism of Water, receive the sacramental effect from Christ's Passion, in so far as he is conformed to Christ by suffering for Him. Hence it is written (Apoc. 7:14): "These are they who are come out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes and have made them white in the blood of the Lamb." In like manner a man receives the effect of Baptism by the power of the Holy Ghost, not only without Baptism of Water, but also without Baptism of Blood: forasmuch as his heart is moved by the Holy Ghost to believe in and love God and to repent of his sins: wherefore this is also called Baptism of Repentance.

St. Thomas teaches, “Christ's Passion, to which a man is conformed by Baptism, and also from the Holy Ghost, as first cause” …With God (and our Lord) also being the final, efficient, meritorious and alone formal cause of justification, “although the effect depends on the first cause, the cause far surpasses the effect, nor does it depend on it.”

Which is why the true understanding of the words of Sesion 6, Ch. 4, “understood in that sense in which the uninterrupted unanimity of the Catholic Church has held and expressed them,” is precisely that same understanding provided by St. Thomas when he teaches:

Consequently, a man may, without Baptism of Water, receive the sacramental effect from Christ's Passion, in so far as he is conformed to Christ by suffering for Him … In like manner a man receives the effect of Baptism by the power of the Holy Ghost, not only without Baptism of Water, but also without Baptism of Blood: forasmuch as his heart is moved by the Holy Ghost to believe in and love God and to repent of his sins: wherefore this is also called Baptism of Repentance.

Tell us, Columba and Rasha, did Trent overturn this universal understanding of the Angelic Doctor and all theologians since the Council of Trent in favor of an interpretation first proposed by a non-Latinst layman some 450 years after the fact; an interpretation that even Fr. Feeney rejected?

Seriously, tell us why we should give this novel interpretation some modicum of respect when not a single saint, Doctor, theologian or Pope can be found since the Council of Trent who taught such a “gross” and “perverted” understanding of Trent’s solemn declarations?

I can understand a Protestant Bishop twisting the meaning of Trent, but what makes Catholics believe they have the authority and the capacity to do so when they stand in direct opposition to the entire tradition, patrimony and unanimity of almost 5 centuries of consistent teaching on the meaning of “or the desire for it”?

Has it ever occurred to you that your rigorist and errant interpretation of the salvation dogma has you reinterpreting the meaning of the sacred declarations of the Church, even if your novel and perverted interpretations are completely unprecedented? Does that not give you at least some pause as you stand in defiance against the ordinary magisterium and the universal unanimity of the Doctors and theologians?

That’s a rhetorical question ... I know it gives you no pause whatsoever.

When the Council of Trent declared in Session 6, Chapter 8: “But when the Apostle says that man is justified by faith and freely, those words are to be understood in that sense in which the uninterrupted unanimity of the Catholic Church has held and expressed them,” she did not limit this admonition to those words, but included in it her complete teaching on Justification, so that the words “‘or the desire for it’ … are to be understood in that sense in which the uninterrupted unanimity of the Catholic Church has held and expressed them”.

Trent is also one Magisterial mind with the Council of Florence when the latter declared:

the synod intends to detract in nothing from the sayings and writings of the holy doctors who discourse on these matters. On the contrary, it accepts and embraces them according to their true understanding as commonly expounded and declared by these doctors and other catholic teachers in the theological schools.

And yet, columba and Rasha expect us to give serious consideration to the idea that the “true understanding” of “or its desire”, “as commonly expounded and declared by these doctors and other catholic teachers in the theological schools”, is NOT THAT same “true understanding ... of the holy doctors and other catholic teachers in the theological schools”; on no, the “true understanding” is that which is expounded by a handful of Catholic layman having zero theological training, let alone an understanding of ecclesiastical Latin.

And it is no different than with Trent’s understanding of John 3: 5. Father James O'Kane, esteemed theologian and Senior Dean of St. Patrick's College, Maynooth, wrote in his Rubrics of the Roman Ritual (Dublin: Duffy & Co., 1922) in the 1860’s:

150. The word water in this text (John 3:5) has always been understood by the Fathers of the Church in the literal sense, and the Council of Trent has anathematized those who, with Calvin, distort its meaning by taking it metaphorically. There can be no doubt, therefore, that the meaning of Our Savior's words, "to be born again of water," is simply "to be regenerated by Baptism," and this is declared necessary to salvation.

151. Moreover, the expression implies that it is necessary, not merely as a fulfillment of a precept is necessary because its voluntary omission would be a sin (necessitate precepti), but that it ("to be born again of water,") is absolutely necessary as a means positively conducing to salvation, so that without it salvation could not be attained, even though its omission were involuntary (necessitate media). This is shown by the universality of the form "Nisi quis" [unless everyone], by which it extends to all.

Mike Malone leaves it there, but Fr. O'Kane completes this discourse by providing the true understanding as it is taught by the Doctors and theologians:

152. But though Baptism is thus necessary to salvation, its defect in those who, through no fault of their own, are unable to receive it, may be supplied in two ways, according to the common doctrine of the Fathers:

1° by an act of perfect charity which includes the desire of Baptism, and which is called Baptismus Flaminis;
2° by martyrdom, which is called Baptismus Sanguinis, and by which even infants, who are put to death for Christ, as were the Holy Innocents, may be saved.

There is no other means of supplying for the Baptism of water, or Baptismus Fluminis, which is always meant by the word Baptism, when used simply and without any adjunct, and which alone is a sacrament.

Or, as the Catechism of the Council of Trent teaches:

should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness.

In other words:

The Church has always held the firm conviction that those who suffer death for the sake of the faith without having received Baptism are baptized by their death for and with Christ. This Baptism of blood, like the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament….For catechumens who die before their Baptism, their explicit desire to receive it, together with repentance for their sins, and charity, assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive through the sacrament. (CCC: 1258, 1259)

Once more:

the synod intends to detract in nothing from the sayings and writings of the holy doctors who discourse on these matters. On the contrary, it accepts and embraces them according to their true understanding as commonly expounded and declared by these doctors and other catholic teachers in the theological schools.

Come on, columba and Rasha, please provide proof of the “true understanding” of or its desire “according to [its] true understanding as commonly expounded and declared by these doctors and other catholic teachers in the theological schools”.

Until you can provide such proofs of a "true understanding" in the same sense as that which is “commonly expounded and declared by these doctors and other catholic teachers in the theological schools”, I don’t know why we are wasting our time with “debating” the merits of novel private interpretation when we have the “uninterrupted unanimity of the Catholic Church” which has “held and expressed” the meaning of “or its desire”, always in the “same sense”.

Can either one of you explain that to me?

columba wrote:
Rather than complicate this simple thought I'll leave it at that for now.

You have your homework, and I hope you can answer, or at least try to answer, my questions and responses.

MRyan Tue Aug 02, 2011 6:49 pm

columba wrote:
I hope I can explain this in a comprehensible way. If the words “or its desire” mean what Mike and others say they mean then the desire for Baptism becomes Baptism itself, because, the “OR” is giving one a choice; either of receiving the sacrament or, merely desiring the sacrament, as both have (according to the sentence if understood in that way) equal validity.

Columba, if I did not respond to your allegation that “OR its desire” (as it is commonly understood and always has been understood by the Church and her Doctors and theologians) “is giving one a choice” of the sacrament, “or merely desiring the sacrament”, it was only because I find it extremely difficult to believe that you can say such things, and mean to be taken seriously ... but then again ... I suppose I should know better.

The idea of “choice” is of course ludicrous; and it is nothing more than that old condemned heresy that suggests Baptism is optional or free; which, I suppose for you, is the whole point.

Actually, I was right the first time; such a ludicrous allegation, one steeped in such shallow and misinformed “theology”, does not merit a response. I know you are serious, but allow me the small comfort of thinking you really can't be. We’ve been over this too many times for nothing to register; though nothing seems to register with those who keep making such specious allegations.

columba Tue Aug 02, 2011 10:22 pm

MRyan wrote:
Trent is not concerning itself here with the necessity of ensuring that an adult’s desire and intention to receive Baptism is one of his own volition (free will) so that the sacrament is validly conferred, she is concerning herself only with providing a brief description of Justification under the law of grace, and with the minimum essentials that will effect this regeneration and translation to grace (Baptism, or the desire for it).

I agree; and that's why Trent is saying that the desire, wish or vow (whichever word one likes to use) to receive sacramental Baptism must be present along with the actual reception of the sacrament. In this proposed brief description of justification the addition of a few extra words such as, This translation however cannot, since promulgation of the Gospel, be effected except through the laver of regeneration or its desire when unforeseen accidents renders its reception impossible,” would have given you quite a strong case. The fact that this clarification is absent makes this “desire for it” all inclusive and part of the actual sacrament of Baptism.

Columba, you do have this in common with the Protestant Bishop M'llvaine, who “in his work on Oxford Divinity, charged the Council of Trent with teaching ‘that baptism is the “only instrumental cause” of justification; so absolutely necessary thereto, - that without it justification is obtained by none,’".

And Mike, you have this in common with the Protestant Bishop M'llvaine,; that he also believes that God is the rewarder of good and the punisher of evil and he also believes in heaven and hell. Guilt by association don't work in this case.

the synod intends to detract in nothing from the sayings and writings of the holy doctors who discourse on these matters. On the contrary, it accepts and embraces them according to their true understanding as commonly expounded and declared by these doctors and other catholic teachers in the theological schools.

I don't know why you use the above quote from the Council of Florence which actually condemned some theological errors printed in a book by Augustine concerning his views pertaining to the equally loveable natures of Christ in both his humanity and Divinity.
This merely shows that the opinions of Doctors, saints and theologians can be overriden by the Church.

Until you can provide such proofs of a "true understanding" in the same sense as that which is “commonly expounded and declared by these doctors and other catholic teachers in the theological schools”, I don’t know why we are wasting our time with “debating” the merits of novel private interpretation when we have the “uninterrupted unanimity of the Catholic Church” which has “held and expressed” the meaning of “or its desire”, always in the “same sense”.

Can either one of you explain that to me?

The true understanding can be found in the Churches own infallible statements concerning the necessity of sacramental Baptism and her condemnations of the opposite beliefs as found in The Syllabus of Errors.

"True and natural water is not necessary for baptism, and therefore the words of Our Lord Jesus Christ, "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost" are metaphorical. Condemned

Baptism is free, that is, not necessary for salvation. Condemned

These supersede opinions of saints and Doctors who themselves would submit to the Churches final word on the matter.
Actually a note accompanying this section in the Encyclopedia of the Catholic Church reads, "The doctrines here condemned by the Council of Trent, are those of various leaders among the early reformers. The contradictory of all these statements is to be held as the dogmatic teaching of the Church."

Columba, if I did not respond to your allegation that “OR its desire” (as it is commonly understood and always has been understood by the Church and her Doctors and theologians) “is giving one a choice” of the sacrament, “or merely desiring the sacrament”, it was only because I find it extremely difficult to believe that you can say such things, and mean to be taken seriously ... but then again ... I suppose I should know better.

The idea of “choice” is of course ludicrous; and it is nothing more than that old condemned heresy that suggests Baptism is optional or free; which, I suppose for you, is the whole point.

Actually, I was right the first time; such a ludicrous allegation, one steeped in such shallow and misinformed “theology”, does not merit a response. I know you are serious, but allow me the small comfort of thinking you really can't be. We’ve been over this too many times for nothing to register; though nothing seems to register with those who keep making such specious allegations.

Keep your hat on Mike, I'm agreeing with you that “OR its desire” isn't referring to a choice, but rather to a disposition necessary. It is you who are reading it as a choice no matter what restrictions or caveats you impose as to the practical applications of that choice.
I agree that this is going over old ground and I was hesitant in bringing the subject to the fore again but I thought I was bringing something to the debate that I hadn't hitherto brought though MarianLibrarian had touched on this before.

Guest Wed Aug 03, 2011 11:10 am

Mike you aren't you being a little hypocritical to come down on Columba so hard when you yourselves deny Trent's teaching on "aut''?

As I recall you are a proponent of Implicit Baptism of Desire, which is contrary to what Trent is teaching. It is teaching desire for the sacrament , if you take the liberal understanding, and not implicit but explicit!
So you are discarding the meaning all theologians gave it up until 1940's or there abouts.

MRyan Wed Aug 03, 2011 2:59 pm

columba wrote:
MRyan wrote:
Trent is not concerning itself here with the necessity of ensuring that an adult’s desire and intention to receive Baptism is one of his own volition (free will) so that the sacrament is validly conferred, she is concerning herself only with providing a brief description of Justification under the law of grace, and with the minimum essentials that will effect this regeneration and translation to grace (Baptism, or the desire for it).
I agree; and that's why Trent is saying that the desire, wish or vow (whichever word one likes to use) to receive sacramental Baptism must be present along with the actual reception of the sacrament. In this proposed brief description of justification the addition of a few extra words such as, This translation however cannot, since promulgation of the Gospel, be effected except through the laver of regeneration or its desire when unforeseen accidents renders its reception impossible,” would have given you quite a strong case. The fact that this clarification is absent makes this “desire for it” all inclusive and part of the actual sacrament of Baptism.

Please. Your argument boils down to “justification=water Baptism”; therefore, “or its desire” is necessary for a valid baptism, and that is the “true understanding” of Trent in its description of justification under the new law of grace; especially since it did not add the words “when unforeseen accidents renders its reception impossible” to “or its desire”.

Might I remind you that neither did Trent add the words “This translation however cannot, since promulgation of the Gospel, be effected without the laver of regeneration or its desire “provided the adult possess the requisite Faith and contrition”, which are absolutely necessary for justification and a valid sacrament.

In fact, you have no response to the fact that one may be validly Baptism by “the laver of regeneration” and “the desire for it” without being translated to a state of justification, the very subject of Session 6, Ch. 4. Why not?

Furthermore, “when unforeseen accidents renders its reception impossible” refers to the possibility of salvation for those justified by faith and charity, and not necessarily to the state of justification itself by “or its desire”. That baptism of blood and baptism of desire are normally discussed in the context of non-accessibility to the sacrament, it is for the simple reason that we are concerned with the state of a soul at the point of death (and Baptism remains a necessity of means), and how baptism of blood and baptism of desire may fulfill the role of baptismal regeneration when the soul is properly disposed.

You say that “you agree” with my assessment of Trent’s intention is Session 6, Ch. 4, and then turn around and provide a meaningless addition to her words as if she needed to qualify and restrict the meaning of “desire” to a specific unavoidable incident, when she is clearly describing only that which can effect a translation to sanctifying grace - - water baptism or its desire.

Neither is Trent providing catechetical instruction on the necessary elements for sacramental validity, when “desire” (as it effects a translation to justification) is clearly understood (by the Church and a unanimous consensus of theologians) as it has always been understood -- in the Thomistic sense.

Trent was not defining a new doctrine that declared that the sacrament of baptism is the ONLY instrument by which justification can be effected (as if the effect dictates the cause), and the Church has NEVER understood it in that sense.

columba wrote:
MRyan wrote:
Columba, you do have this in common with the Protestant Bishop M'llvaine, who “in his work on Oxford Divinity, charged the Council of Trent with teaching ‘that baptism is the “only instrumental cause” of justification; so absolutely necessary thereto, - that without it justification is obtained by none,’".
And Mike, you have this in common with the Protestant Bishop M'llvaine,; that he also believes that God is the rewarder of good and the punisher of evil and he also believes in heaven and hell. Guilt by association don't work in this case.

Sorry, but that won’t work. The very fact that you take the same errant position of a Protestant Bishop in perverting the understanding of Trent’s dogmatic teaching on the instrumental cause of justification, and you reject the unanimous consensus of the Catholic Doctors and theologians, proves my point only too well.

This is not a mere matter of coincidence; it goes to prove that your perverted doctrine is more Protestant in understanding than Catholic. For neither you nor Bishop M’llvaine are capable of an appreciation of the “true understanding” of the Church and her Doctors and theologians in their universal teaching on Justification, so you bring your flawed understanding and biased mind to the party and thus pervert the words of Trent by forcing a meaning that is simply not there. Your forensic and pharisaical understanding of justification, while not wholly Calvinistic, has that distinct heretical odor about it (yech).

If you could demonstrate where the Church and her Doctors and theologians ever taught that the instrumental cause of water baptism is the ONLY means (in re) by which our Lord will effect a translation to justice, that might help your cause, but you can’t; so you simply ignore the 800 lb. gorilla sitting in the room, otherwise known as the unanimous consensus of the Doctors and theologians on the true understanding of “or its desire”, and the authentic, living and ordinary Magisterium of the Church that confirms and magisterially ratifies this same true understanding.

Bishop M’llvaine may be excused for ignorance, though his Protestant bias was certainly evident; what’s your excuse? Never mind, I got it; you’re one of the Gnostic-like “remnant” of true believers. Let’s see, counting yourself, Rasha, Duckbill, Cowboy, Bill Strom and the mini radical sede contingent in NY and NM, I think the “remnant” of true believers is up to 8 or 9; though I never know how many radical sede cult followers who swallow this stuff there really are.

Good luck with that.

columba wrote:
MRyan wrote: “the synod intends to detract in nothing from the sayings and writings of the holy doctors who discourse on these matters. On the contrary, it accepts and embraces them according to their true understanding as commonly expounded and declared by these doctors and other catholic teachers in the theological schools.”

I don't know why you use the above quote from the Council of Florence which actually condemned some theological errors printed in a book by Augustine concerning his views pertaining to the equally loveable natures of Christ in both his humanity and Divinity. This merely shows that the opinions of Doctors, saints and theologians can be overriden by the Church.

That was a complete evasion, and completely irrelevant. The reason I cited Florence should be obvious; yet, you dismiss it as if it has no relevancy to your isolated and novel understanding of Trent, which is clearly opposed to its "true understanding as commonly expounded and declared by these doctors and other catholic teachers in the theological schools.”

Let’s try this again: Florence is not saying that it cannot detract from or correct an opinion of a Doctor[s] or theologian[s], it is saying that it “accepts and embraces them [‘the sayings and writings of the holy doctors who discourse on these matters’] according to their true understanding as commonly expounded and declared by these doctors and other catholic teachers in the theological schools.

In other words, if Augustine deviated from the common understanding of the lovable natures of Christ as they are or would be proposed by the Church and “according to their true understanding as commonly expounded and declared by these doctors and other catholic teachers in the theological schools”, then she would have every right to correct his doctrine.

But you are also missing a critical point, which is the fact that we are discussing the correct interpretation of a dogmatic and infallible teaching of the Church, and its “true understanding as commonly expounded and declared by these doctors and other catholic teachers in the theological schools”, and not the “opinion” of certain theologians on a non-definitive doctrine.

While baptism of desire may not be defined ex cathedra, the Church’s dogmatic teaching on justification and how it is effected is de fide; so to propose that the true understanding of what is de fide (“as it is written”) is NOT to be “understood in that sense in which the uninterrupted unanimity of the Catholic Church has held and expressed them”, which you suggest is directly opposed to that “true understanding” as it is written, is just plain absurd.

When Trent, for example, issued its solemn canons on the necessity of natural water for Baptism, and condemned the notion that Baptism is optional or free, not only did she not detract from the sayings and writings of the holy doctors who discourse on these matters, she declared “those words are to be understood in that sense in which the uninterrupted unanimity of the Catholic Church has held and expressed them”; and she “accepts and embraces them according to their true understanding as commonly expounded and declared by these doctors and other catholic teachers in the theological schools.”

In other words, the Church does not detract anything from the universal consensus of Doctors theologians on the “true understanding” of “or its desire”; rather, she “accepts and embraces them … in that sense in which the uninterrupted unanimity of the Catholic Church has held and expressed them”; proof of which can be found in her own consistent magisterial teachings.

columba wrote:
MRyan wrote:
Until you can provide such proofs of a "true understanding" in the same sense as that which is “commonly expounded and declared by these doctors and other catholic teachers in the theological schools”, I don’t know why we are wasting our time with “debating” the merits of novel private interpretation when we have the “uninterrupted unanimity of the Catholic Church” which has “held and expressed” the meaning of “or its desire”, always in the “same sense”.

Can either one of you explain that to me?
The true understanding can be found in the Churches own infallible statements concerning the necessity of sacramental Baptism and her condemnations of the opposite beliefs as found in The Syllabus of Errors.

The Syllabus of Errors? You cite two canons from Trent having nothing to do with baptism of desire and state that “the true understanding can be found in the Church’s own infallible statements concerning the necessity of sacramental Baptism and her condemnations of the opposite beliefs as found in The Syllabus of Errors”?

What?

Speaking of the Syllabus, did you know, columba, that The Syllabus of Errors as a whole enjoys no carte blanche ex cathedra papal infallibility, and that determining the infallibility or non-infalliblity, as well as the degree of assent required for each of the errors, can be known only by having recourse to the specific positive teaching each makes reference to (unless the condemned proposition is specifically condemned as "heretical"); in other words “the meaning of the thesis is determined by the meaning of the document it is drawn from.” [Catholic Encyclopedia: From the article The Syllabus, (c. 1913)].

This is not to say that in condemning doctrinal or moral errors, the Encyclical Letter Quanta Cura (which includes the Syllabus) and the Apostolic See from which it is derived are not preserved by the Holy Spirit from error (in doctrine or in giving harm), but only that not every condemned error is a matter of faith or morals, and that the wording of some of the erroneous propositions, which “gives an apparent breadth to the matter condemned” may “not [be] found in the Pope's own words in his Allocutions and Encyclicals.” (Cardinal Newman)

Bishop Fessler, Secretary-General to the 1st Vatican Council, explains:

The ‘Syllabus,’ as its title shows, is nothing but a collection of those errors of the age that we live in, which Pope Pius in earlier Rescripts of different dates has declared to be errors, and which accordingly he has condemned. The condemnation of errors, according to the traditional practice of the Church, is made in various forms: sometimes they are condemned as heretical; sometimes as savouring of heresy; sometimes as schismatic; sometimes simply as erroneous, or false; sometimes as dangerous, or scandalous, or perverse; sometimes as leading to heresy, or to schism, or to disobedience to ecclesiastical superiors. When a particular doctrine has been condemned by the Pope as heretical in the way designated by the doctrinal definition of the Vatican Council, speaking of the Infallible teaching office of the Pope;--then, indeed, there can be no doubt that we have under these circumstances an utterance of the Pope ex cathedra. But as in the Syllabus, through the whole catalogue of eighty propositions, designated generally in the title as ‘Errors’ (Syllabus errorum), there is nothing to show, as was pointed out above, under what category of condemned propositions, according to old ecclesiastical usage, a particular error falls, we are compelled to have recourse to the records or sources, in which the particular propositions of the Syllabus have been on previous occasions condemned by Popes, in order to learn whether it is condemned simply as erroneous, or whether it has some other designation, and notably whether it has been condemned as heretical. (The True and False Infallibility of the Pope)

Btw, Jehanne would be interested to know that among the thirty-two sources from which the teachings of the famous Syllabus errorum were derived, seventeen of these are papal Allocutions, though how many are of the so-called “low-level” variety we shall leave to the prescience of Jehanne.

Sorry for the detour; but thanks for the lead-in. Now, if you could just explain what The Syllabus of Errors has to do with the Canons of Trent and the true understanding of “or its desire”, that might get us back on track.

columba wrote:"True and natural water is not necessary for baptism, and therefore the words of Our Lord Jesus Christ, "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost" are metaphorical. Condemned

Baptism is free, that is, not necessary for salvation. Condemned”

Again and again, what has baptism of blood or baptism of desire, neither of which is in conflict with either of these Canons, have to do with baptism of desire allegedly “denying” that true and natural water is necessary for the validity and efficacy of the sacrament, or with allegedly asserting that baptism of desire renders Baptism optional or free?

Why do you take the condemned heresies of the Protestant Reformers and think that baptism of desire represents these same heresies, when baptism of desire denies neither the efficacy of water baptism, nor its divine, ecclesiastical and moral necessity as both precept and means? When has the Church or any of her Doctors or theologians ever suggested that Baptism is “optional” or that true and natural water is not necessary for Baptism; or for that matter, that Baptism does not work ex opere operato?

Its simply amazing that you can accuse the Church and her Doctors and theologians of teaching a heresy that is directly opposed to two solemn Canons of Trent, while she continues to teach this same “heretical” doctrine in her Roman Catechisms, Canon Law, a Papal Allocution, Papal Encyclicals, a Vatican Council, etc. etc.; and has been doing so consistently since the very Council of Trent you say formally condemned baptism of blood and baptism of desire.

It doesn't get any more perverted than that.

columba wrote: These [canons] supersede opinions of saints and Doctors who themselves would submit to the Churches final word on the matter.

Of course, but your statement suggests that the unanimous universal teaching of saints, Doctors and theologians on the true understanding of the Church’s doctrine on justification by water baptism “or its desire”, as it is also taught by the authentic and ordinary and living magisterium, is opposed to the “true understanding” held and defined by Trent, which is a complete and utter contradiction.

The only possible defense of your perverted doctrine is for you to prove that the Church and her Doctors and theologians have always held “or its desire” to mean that ONLY water Baptism (in re, accompanied by the free intention to receive it) can translate an adult to a state of justification.

And that is the 800 lb. gorilla in the room, and the gorilla you refuse to acknowledge, because you don’t know how to address this inconvenient fact.

You have no response to the FACT that no sooner had the ink dried on the documents of Trent that the approved Catechisms (to include the Roman catechism of Trent), Scholastics, Theologians and Schools provided consistent commentary and explications on the true understanding of “or its desire” as it has always been understood since St. Thomas Aquinas wrote his comprehensive treatise on this very subject; and the Church has been teaching this same doctrine ever since.

Your perverted doctrine presupposes that the “true understanding” is NOT that unanimous universal understanding of the theologians that is also taught by the Church; no, we are supposed to accept the plausibility of seeing Trent actually overturn the Thomsitc doctrine by solemnly declaring that no one can be justified without the sacrament of Baptism (in re), de fide ... end of story.

And the fact that you cannot produce a single saint, Doctor or theologian who is on record (since the Council of Trent) as agreeing with your errant and perverted doctrine does not slow you down one bit; after all, the dogmas were given to you for private interpretation; which means the universal unanimity of the Doctors and theologians on the "true understanding", which just happens to be that same consistent authentic teaching of the ordinary magisterium (funny how that works), are simply irrelevant, because YOU possess the “true understanding” of the doctrine “as it is written”.

When the Magisterium and the unanimous plurality of theologians finally reject what they have been consistently teaching since the Council of Trent on “or its desire”, and finally come around to your (and Bishop M’llvaine’s) “true understanding” of Trent, then all will be well with the Church. Is that about right?

columba wrote:Actually a note accompanying this section in the Encyclopedia of the Catholic Church reads, "The doctrines here condemned by the Council of Trent, are those of various leaders among the early reformers. The contradictory of all these statements is to be held as the dogmatic teaching of the Church."

And this is supposed to prove what? Are you actually suggesting that “the doctrines here condemned by the Council of Trent, are those of various leaders among the early [Protestant] reformers”, includes the doctrine proposed by St. Thomas Aquinas, according to its “true understanding as commonly expounded and declared by these doctors and other catholic teachers in the theological schools”?

I suppose St. Thomas, the Doctors and the universal consensus of theologians, as well as the authentic ordinary Magisterium of the Church, would be very surprised to learn that their “true understanding” of “or its desire”, with the words “understood in that sense in which the uninterrupted unanimity of the Catholic Church has held and expressed them”, was actually condemned by Trent as those same heresies of the Protestant reformers.

Gee, columba, you will understand if I don’t accept your perverted thesis, won’t you?

One more thing. Did you understand St. Thomas' teaching on the difference between effect and first cause (and in this case, first, final, efficient, meritorious, and the alone final cause), and why the first cause (the Passion of our Lord and the Holy Ghost) cannot be restricted in its operation (to justify) by the effect of an instrumental cause?

I'm almost afraid to ask.

MRyan Wed Aug 03, 2011 3:27 pm

cowboy wrote:Mike you aren't you being a little hypocritical to come down on Columba so hard when you yourselves deny Trent's teaching on "aut''?

As I recall you are a proponent of Implicit Baptism of Desire, which is contrary to what Trent is teaching. It is teaching desire for the sacrament , if you take the liberal understanding, and not implicit but explicit!
So you are discarding the meaning all theologians gave it up until 1940's or there abouts.

This only proves that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. The only correct thing you said was that I am a "proponent" of Implicit Baptism of Desire; yep, precisely as the Church and her Doctors and theologians have always taught and understood it.

Everything else you said is false.

You have no business entering into this discussion, especially after calling me a "jerk" and a "small man". So take your cry-me-some-tears sensitive-self elsewhere; I don't have time for this. And quit acting like columba is some sort of cry-baby panty-waist who can't fend for himself; he can, and doesn't whine like some people we know when he gets a well-deserved rebuttal to his perversion of the meaning of "or its desire" and of water Baptism as the alleged ONLY instrumental cause of justification.

Stay out of it, please; or at least do not address your comments to me.

Thanks.

Jehanne Thu Aug 04, 2011 8:55 am

Mike,

It can be irrefragably shown from the canons of Trent that those who sincerely desire Baptism will always be able to fulfill this divine obligation. As I have posted on my blog:

http://unamsanctamecclesiamcatholicam.blogspot.com/2011/04/absolute-necessity-of-sacramental.html

On the Necessity of Sacramental Baptism in Water by the Command of the One and Triune God.

1) Major Premise -- The One and Triune God commands every human being, without exception, to be Baptized in Water:

Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Session 6, Chapter 4, ex cathedra: "In these words there is suggested a description of the justification of the impious, how there is a transition from that state in which a person is born as a child of the first Adam to the state of grace and of adoption as sons of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ our savior; indeed, this transition, once the gospel has been promulgated, cannot take place without the laver of regeneration or a desire for it, as it is written: UNLESS A MAN IS BORN AGAIN OF WATER and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God (John 3:5)."

2) Minor Premise -- The Commandments of God are not impossible for us to fulfill:

Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Session 6, Chapter 11 on Justification, ex cathedra: "...no one should make use of that rash statement forbidden under anathema by the Fathers, that the commandments of God are impossible to observe for a man who is justified. 'FOR GOD DOES NOT COMMAND IMPOSSIBILITIES,' but by commanding admonishes you both to do what you can do, and to pray for what you cannot do."

Alternate Minor Premise -- God is certainly capable of bringing about the fulfillment of His commands:

Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, Session 3, Chapter 1, On God the creator of all things, ex cathedra: "EVERYTHING THAT GOD HAS BROUGHT INTO BEING HE PROTECTS AND GOVERNS BY HIS PROVIDENCE, which reaches from one end of the earth to the other and orders all things well. All things are open and laid bare before His eyes, even those which will be brought about by the free activity of creatures."

3) Conclusion:

"There is NO ONE about to die in the state of justification WHOM GOD CANNOT SECURE BAPTISM FOR, and indeed, Baptism of Water. The schemes concerning salvation, I leave to the sceptics. The clear truths of salvation, I am preaching to you." (Father Feeney, Bread of Life, pg. 56)

If the above major and minor premises are true, then the conclusion must follow, which means that the "or/aut" cited in the OP must be equivalent to the following:

1) A wedding cannot happen without a bride or groom.

2) A wedding cannot happen without a bridge and groom.

Take your pick. The same is true of Baptism.

Of course, you will say that this is "not what the Church teaches," and cite the Roman Catechism, Catechism of Pope Pius X, the Church's Doctors, the Summa, the 1949 Holy Office letter, Vatican II, the CCC, etc. Per Trent, however, we must conclude that all of those documents are describing null sets, devoid of any human beings whatsoever. Of course, you will object to "null sets," even though such concepts are foundational to all of modern mathematics, and hence, the physical and natural sciences. Without null sets (such as Professor Richard Feynman's normalization techniques in quantum mechanics, which earned him a Nobel Prize), none of classical or modern-day physics would make sense. It should come as no surprise to anyone that the concept of null sets would also be applicable in the realm of theology.

Consider Paragraphs 846-847 of the CCC:

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.

847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.

As any first-year law student will tell you, the following is always true:

Ignorantia juris non excusat -- "Ignorance of the law does not excuse."

What is true of common law is, of course, true of divine law, as Saint Thomas recognized:

"If we consider unbelief as we find it in those who have heard nothing about the faith, it bears the character of punishment, not of sin, because such ignorance is the result of the sin of our first parents. When such unbelievers are damned, it is on account of other sins, which cannot be taken away without faith, not because of their sin of unbelief." (Summa Theologica, IIa IIae, q.10, a.1)

All "invincibly ignorant" people, if they follow "divine light and grace" will, without exception, become Catholic, eventually, which means being Baptized. If you say that this is "impossible," then you mock and blaspheme the One and Triune God, His Sovereignty and Providence over His Creation, His Word & Commandments which He has revealed to us, and above all else, His Perfection.

columba Thu Aug 04, 2011 12:12 pm

Mryan wrote:
This is not a mere matter of coincidence; it goes to prove that your perverted doctrine is more Protestant in understanding than Catholic. For neither you nor Bishop M’llvaine are capable of an appreciation of the “true understanding” of the Church and her Doctors and theologians in their universal teaching on Justification, so you bring your flawed understanding and biased mind to the party and thus pervert the words of Trent by forcing a meaning that is simply not there. Your forensic and pharisaical understanding of justification, while not wholly Calvinistic, has that distinct heretical odor about it (yech).

You've hit on the crux of this whole debate when you say, “...while not wholly Calvinistic, has that distinct heretical odor about it (yech)”
baptism of desire has that distinct heretical odor about it in its present, modernistic form. I can much more easily understand it the same way Jehanne understands it as a null set, devoid of any actual members but filled with theoretical ones. This is what the Doctors and theologians speculated upon, the theoretical possibility of such a set existing despite the dogma of the absolute necessity of sacramental Baptism while acknowledging that God can work in mysterious ways. To say that baptism of desire is a fact, is to say that the thoughts and actions of God can be scrutinized by mere mortals which has the distinct odor of heresy. To say that it does not exist is in accord with what God HAS actually revealed and thus in accord with the dogma Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus.

If you could demonstrate where the Church and her Doctors and theologians ever taught that the instrumental cause of water baptism is the ONLY means (in re) by which our Lord will effect a translation to justice, that might help your cause, but you can’t; so you simply ignore the 800 lb. gorilla sitting in the room, otherwise known as the unanimous consensus of the Doctors and theologians on the true understanding of “or its desire”, and the authentic, living and ordinary Magisterium of the Church that confirms and magisterially ratifies this same true understanding.

And likewise, if you can demonstrate where the Church has ever declared baptism of desire to be a binding dogma of the faith we can start removing that 800lb gorilla. All you can prove is that in various ages speculation has waxed and waned concerning baptism of desire and in our present age it has attained a certain acceptability without any new theology being brought to bear on the matter.

Bishop M’llvaine may be excused for ignorance, though his Protestant bias was certainly evident; what’s your excuse? Never mind, I got it; you’re one of the Gnostic-like “remnant” of true believers. Let’s see, counting yourself, Rasha, Duckbill, Cowboy, Bill Strom and the mini radical sede contingent in NY and NM, I think the “remnant” of true believers is up to 8 or 9; though I never know how many radical sede cult followers who swallow this stuff there really are.

Good luck with that.

My! That's a scary list of names. It reads like a Wild West wanted poster. But lets see who's in league with you Mike!.. Baptists, Methodists and most protestant sects who believe that Baptism isn't strictly necessary for salvation but merely a formality one should subject oneself to in the same way they have a remembrance meal of bread and wine but still worth doing for reasons not tied to faith. Admittedly your set has numbers on its side if you include the majority of modern-day Catholics but you know what Our Lord said about the majority so I'd hesitate to use that as a solid basis for argument. If you do , you might be in a worse position than those of us on the poster.

Speaking of the Syllabus, did you know, columba, that The Syllabus of Errors as a whole enjoys no carte blanche ex cathedra papal infallibility, and that determining the infallibility or non-infalliblity, as well as the degree of assent required for each of the errors, can be known only by having recourse to the specific positive teaching each makes reference to (unless the condemned proposition is specifically condemned as "heretical"); in other words “the meaning of the thesis is determined by the meaning of the document it is drawn from.” [Catholic Encyclopedia: From the article The Syllabus, (c. 1913)].

And did you know Mike that baptism of desire enjoys no carte blanche ex Cathedra papal infallibility and that the contrary position has never been specifically condemned as heresy? In fact the contrary position enjoys many supporting statements such as those now on trial.

Bishop Fessler, Secretary-General to the 1st Vatican Council, (below) makes a good case here. In fact everything he says in this paragraph is precisely what I've said. The Syllabus proposes for belief the contrary of what it condemns.

The ‘Syllabus,’ as its title shows, is nothing but a collection of those errors of the age that we live in, which Pope Pius in earlier Rescripts of different dates has declared to be errors, and which accordingly he has condemned. The condemnation of errors, according to the traditional practice of the Church, is made in various forms: sometimes they are condemned as heretical; sometimes as savouring of heresy; sometimes as schismatic; sometimes simply as erroneous, or false; sometimes as dangerous, or scandalous, or perverse; sometimes as leading to heresy, or to schism, or to disobedience to ecclesiastical superiors. When a particular doctrine has been condemned by the Pope as heretical in the way designated by the doctrinal definition of the Vatican Council, speaking of the Infallible teaching office of the Pope;--then, indeed, there can be no doubt that we have under these circumstances an utterance of the Pope ex cathedra.

columba Thu Aug 04, 2011 12:15 pm

I stumbled across the following letter yesterday from Fr Wathen and he puts the points I'm making in a much more precise way.

THE MATTER OF "BAPTISM OF DESIRE"

In order to think of this subject, the following truths are worthy of our reflection:

(a) Why angels and men prefer Hell to Heaven is called the Mystery of Iniquity; how angels were and men are saved is called the Salvific Will of God.

(b) God's having granted the grace of salvation to the saints from all eternity is called Divine Predestination.

(c) The reason for the creation of the material universe is the repopulation of the heavenly court, after the fall of the angels.

(d) Almighty God therefore creates men in order to save them.

(e) God is absolute goodness and Love Itself; but His ways are inscrutable.

(f) God wants the salvation of every man and the damnation of none.

(g) God does everything in His power to save every man.

(h) If any man is saved, it is because God saved him.

(i) If any man is not saved, it is because he chose not to be saved.

(j) God cannot bestow Heaven on a man who has no merits, who is not sanctified, even if, in the eyes of humans, he is "a good man."

(k) A man cannot be saved outside the Catholic Church, because only the Church can sanctify him.

(l) No man goes to Heaven unless he freely chooses it.

(m) Even though a man must cooperate with God, he cannot save himself; his salvation is due to God, not himself, because anything in the supernatural order requires divine power.

(n) No man goes to Hell unless he freely chooses it.

(o) A man does not choose Hell instead of Heaven; he chooses his will instead of God's.

(p) A man chooses to go to Hell in this life; he freely chooses to remain in Hell forever.

(q) In Hell, no man blames anyone but himself for his damnation.

(r) In Hell, they do not hate God, they resist Him; they hate themselves.

(s) That in the Providence of God which a man does for his salvation is termed Divine Predestination. This means that God provides all the graces a man needs to be saved because He knew from eternity that the man would accept them.

(t) It is the teaching of the Church that God gives to all men sufficient grace for salvation; to those who are saved, He gives efficacious grace.

(u)The reason God does not give efficacious grace to those who will be lost is that they would not accept it; this is the same reason God does not give grace to those in Hell.

(v) The reason the punishment of Hell is eternal is that neither the demons nor damned humans cease to resist God.

(w) God grants the Faith to those who will accept it; those who He knows will not accept it He leaves in ignorance of it; this ignorance is not "invincible;" it is culpable;

(x) It is impossible for us to know or to understand God's dealings with all others; we understand poorly God's dealing with ourselves.

(y) Even though we can judge that our neighbors are failing to fulfill the requirements for salvation, once they have departed this life, it is impossible to know whether they have been saved or lost.

(z) Hell is the necessity of divine justice, which is worthy of all praise.

(aa) In His passion and death, God revealed with forceful clarity how much He wishes to save every man. He gave expression to this consuming desire when He exclaimed: "I thirst" (Jn. 19:28). He ordained that His legs should not be broken, but that His Heart should be opened that the Church of salvation could be born.

(bb) The millions who will abide in Limbo forever teach us that no one has the right to the grace of salvation.

Among the many divisions which divide Traditionalist Catholics is that which deals with the Doctrine of Exclusive Salvation ("Outside the Church there is no salvation," "Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus.") I treated of this Doctrine at great length in my book, "Who Shall Ascend?", Part I. Though the effort is far from perfect, I think it is worth reading. What follows is an effort to compress some of the ideas expressed there into a few paragraphs.

The controversy centers on what is required for salvation, particularly, the issue of Baptism. There is a liberal group and a "conservative" group. The liberal group maintains what the Baltimore Catechism teaches, that there are three forms of Baptism: Baptism of water, of blood, and of desire. Those of this persuasion maintain that it is possible for one to be saved without the Sacrament of Baptism (Baptism of water), that what are termed "baptism of blood," the martyrdom of an unbaptized believer, and "baptism of desire," a desire for Baptism. Obviously, the unbaptized martyr has the desire for Baptism (presuming there have been such).

"Baptism of desire" is variously defined. Some think that there has to be a belief in some or all the doctrines of the Catholic religion, implicit or explicit, and a specific desire and/or an intention or resolve to receive Catholic Baptism. Most Catholics nowadays, however, (who give any thought to the matter at all) think that an unbaptised person can and will be saved without any real desire or intention to receive the Sacrament, or enter the Church, provided he is willing to do whatever God requires him to do. The reason he does not do it is that he is ignorant of what God wants him to do. As to what God requires men to do for salvation, from something to nothing, that also is a matter that is open for endless discussion.

Opposed to this position (or these positions) are those who contend that, after faith, the very essential act which God requires for salvation is entrance into the Catholic Church through the reception of the Sacrament of Baptism. This is their understanding of the formula, "Outside the Church, there is no salvation," and of our Lord's words to Nicodemus: "Amen, Amen, I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom" (John 3:5).

It cannot be denied that the two positions are poles apart. The liberal position boils down to this: God will not deny Heaven to any man who does "the best that he knows how." This means that countless millions of men from every generation and place and race and religion, even atheists, can and will be saved. It includes practically everybody.

Those of the liberal view vehemently deny that their position "boils down" to the foregoing, but, the truth of the matter is, unless one adopts the strict interpretation of our Lord's words, allowing no exceptions whatsoever, such is the bent of human beings that they will always widen loopholes to allow themselves and others (especially their relatives) the utmost latitude, and they will regard the "strict position" as intolerable and abhorrent.

The purpose of this writing is to deal seriously with the idea of "baptism of desire," which, in the mind of many "conservative-minded" Catholics, means that non-Catholics will be saved who, for want of a priest: (a) make a perfect act of contrition at the time of their death; and/or:

(b) make an act of faith, wherein they profess belief in the Catholic religion and express to almighty God, implicitly or explicitly, the desire for Baptism.

In support of this position, those who adhere to it refer to the many catechisms which contain it, and to numerous saints who held it, and, the most forceful argument of all: to the fact that the consensus of theologians, living and dead, was that this view should be accepted as proxima fidei, which means that it is "nearly a doctrine."

The problem with this position is that (a) several de fide definitions of the Church condemn it. (b) two canons of the Council of Trent contradict and censure it;

(c) there is no foundation in the Scriptures for the idea of "baptism of desire;"

(d) none of those who promote the idea, which they want to call the "doctrine of baptism of desire," explain how it can have the same effect in the soul as the Sacrament has, that is, how it can dispose one for Heaven.

(e) there is no solid evidence that anyone has been saved by "baptism of desire."

(f) if one can baptize oneself by "desire," why can one not baptize oneself with water?

When all is said and done, the undeniable fact is that "baptism of desisre," which has been spoken of and written about favorably for many centuries, is a product of human creation. It was created "for sentimental reasons" and nothing else. It is an escape from, and a circumvention of, the hard teaching of Christ. His teaching is that, in order to be saved,

(a) a person must truly and firmly believe the teaching of the Catholic Church, which is the teaching of His Gospel,

(b) he must enter the Church by receiving Baptism, and

(c) having entered the Church, he must keep the Commandments of God and the Precepts of the Church,

d) and attain a certain degree of the love of God., and persevere in this state till the end of his life.

The tradition which created and has maintained the fiction of "baptism of desire" arose from the realization of how few human beings would therefore be saved, a tiny percentage of mankind according to the de fide definitions of the Church. Divine Truth said: "Enter ye in at the narrow gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction, and many there are who go in thereat. 7:14. How narrow is the gate, and strait is the way that leadeth to life: and few there are that find it!" (Mt. 7:13, 14). Isaias counted the saved thus: "And the fruit thereof that shall be left upon it, shall be as one cluster of grapes, and as the shaking of the olive tree, two or three berries in the top of a bough, or four or five upon the top of the tree, saith the Lord the God of Israel" (17:6).

If the generative idea of "baptism of desire" is the alarm at the recognition of the fewness of the saved, the major premise which supports it is "invincible ignorance." Where "desire" takes the place of the water of Baptism, "invincible ignorance" takes the place of faith, and "good will" or "sincerity" takes the place of supernatural charity--the love of the Triune God in Christ. The thesis goes like this: God is infinitely good and merciful. He desires the salvation of every man. He will, therefore, save everyone He can. Therefore, in all cases where men do no know what they must do for salvation, it is within His power to waive the requirements which He Himself laid down in the Gospel. It is within His power to supply whatever is wanting, so long as the man is sincerely ignorant and perfectly willing to do whatever is required for salvation. His problem is invincible: through no fault of his own, he simply does not know what God wants him to do.

Another form of the thesis is: God is infinitely good and merciful. He desires the salvation of every man. In the case where a man (like a catechumen) accepts the Faith, dies before he can receive Baptism, He waives the need thereof. Exponents of this thesis love to quote the Scripture which says: "Behold the hand of the Lord is not shortened that it cannot save, neither is his ear heavy that it cannot hear" (Isaias 59:1).

The problem with this thesis is that it is human reasoning, not supernatural mystery, which is why there is nothing in the Scriptures which bespeaks or validates it. It contradicts directly and completely the words of Christ, Who is the Savior of the world. Nor is there anything in the Scriptures or Sacred Tradition which explains how God can waive His own requisites for salvation. His requirements are not merely a list of items which have no significance, not purely arbitrary hurdles, which have somehow to be surmounted or put aside.

The liberal view conceives the prerequisites for salvation as a kind of ticket of admission into Heaven. If almighty God determines in a particular case that the ticket is not required, since Heaven is His, it is within His right and power simply to dispense with the need of a ticket. The result of this divine openhandedness (and contradictoriness) is, obviously, that the number of those conceivably admitted into Heaven without a ticket exceeds the number of those who have one so greatly as to make having a ticket pointless. (Some people from Mexico are going through the process of naturalization, while their fellow countrymen are swarming over the Rio Grande.) To abandon the simile, the result is to make all those who have had the Faith, and struggled with the greatest difficulty to practice it, history's biggest fools, supreme among these being the great saints and martyrs who suffered incalculable labors, trials, privations, and most painful tortures, with the absurd notion that God required these things of them for salvation.

In the prosaic image given above, the only relevant difference between those who have a ticket and those who do not is the ticket itself, as in the case of those entering an arena or a theater. In reality, the fulfillment of the requisites for salvation determines the nature of the person who is either to be admitted into Heaven and him who will not be. The person who has fulfilled the conditions laid down by Christ in the Scriptures is one who has been so transformed that he is worthy of Heaven and belongs there; whereas any person who has not fulfilled these requirements is not worthy of it and can make no claim to belong there, and the only way that he may become worthy is by their fulfillment. God Himself is no more able to waive the requirements for salvation than He can lie. To dispense with the requirements in the case of one person would not only be an act of deception, it would be a contradiction in terms.

This is why the Church, at the Council of Trent, says that the Sacrament of Baptism is necessary with "the necessity of means." Hereby the Church is saying that the Sacrament is as necessary as the soul is necessary for a living man. We say that infants and those who never reach the use of reason cannot go to Heaven without Baptism, even though nothing else but Baptism is required of them for salvation, because they are capable of nothing else. This means that the one and only thing required of such individuals is entrance into the Church.

The reason we say all this is that it is not a ticket which is essential for Heaven, it is a spiritual transformation, a quasi-divinisation, and divine adoption.. The spiritual act whereby a man bestows "baptism of desire" upon himself can have one effect only: an act of contrition or an act of faith accompanied by the willingness to do whatever God requires of him for salvation can bring about the forgiveness of his sins, both original and actual; nothing more. This is called the state of justification. It means that the individual is "out of debt" toward almighty God. He is, so to speak, "out of the red and in the black," but he has no credits; no liabilities, no assets; fit for Limbo, but not for Heaven. More accurately, he is still nothing more than a natural man, instead of a fallen man. For salvation, one must be a "supernatural man," "another Christ," a partaker of the divine nature of Christ, the God Man. He must be conformed to Christ, he must be able to claim the infinite merits of Christ as his own; he must be a sanctified man, endowed with the virtues of Christ, a man who "deserves" the ineffable reward of Heaven, the everlasting vision of God.

It is impossible for a sinful man to bestow these properties and rights upon himself. Those who believe that there is such a thing as "baptism of desire" do not realize how great a thing the granting of salvation is, or even the grace of the Sacrament of Baptism.

The Doctrine of Exclusive Salvation cannot be understood, because, like all of the sacred doctrines, it is a mystery. The mystery here is how is it just and loving on the part of God to establish such a dispensation whereby such a small number of human beings will be saved, even though anyone can be saved who wants to be.

The reason that, in this regard, we cannot speak of "invincible ignorance" is that God has all power to speak to every human being as directly as he speaks to himself, by the Holy Ghost. If God wants to tell him anything, He can do it by an internal voice; that He does speak to His beloved children in this way, everyone who has the Faith can testify. (He speaks to us all the time!) We must conclude that if anyone does not "get the message," it can only be because he chooses not to listen to it, or believe it.

The idea that an individual died before he was able to receive the Sacrament of Baptism is equally curious, because it is God who determines how long each of us shall live to the second. And it is God Who in His most benevolent Providence grants Baptism to everyone who receives it. Is He a monster (for Whom nothing is impossible or difficult) who instructs certain individuals in the absolute necessity of Baptism, grants them the grace of wishing it, then cuts off their life so that they can never receive it? And then casts them into Hell forever for not having received it? No, on the very contrary. He is an all-loving God, Who most certainly provides to the responsive all that is needful to them. If they are truly desirous of Baptism, if need be, He will provide it, even by a miracle. (It is a miracle to us, but not to Him.) This is what the Scriptures means when it says, "The hand of the Lord is not shortened." (Isaias 59:1).

columba Thu Aug 04, 2011 12:21 pm

Jehanne wrote:
All "invincibly ignorant" people, if they follow "divine light and grace" will, without exception, become Catholic, eventually, which means being Baptized. If you say that this is "impossible," then you mock and blaspheme the One and Triune God, His Sovereignty and Providence over His Creation, His Word & Commandments which He has revealed to us, and above all else, His Perfection.

Or.., Just redefine the Church so as no one is ever outside it. Smile

MRyan Thu Aug 04, 2011 12:29 pm

Jehanne wrote:Mike,

It can be irrefragably shown from the canons of Trent that those who sincerely desire Baptism will always be able to fulfill this divine obligation. As I have posted on my blog:

Jehanne, why do you persist with such private syllogistic banalities when you know that the divine obligation may be fulfilled, as the Church INFALLIBLY teaches, by "the desire for it"; meaning, Baptismal regeneration in Christ may be fulfilled through faith, charity/contrition and the desire/intention for Baptism (for catechumens, an explicit desire).

That is the infallible de fide teaching of the Church, so what are you doing telling us that Trent “irrefragably” says otherwise?

It’s funny that the syllogistic conclusion you provided from Fr. Feeney is actually quite orthodox, for no one can have a problem with saying “There is NO ONE about to die in the state of justification WHOM GOD CANNOT SECURE BAPTISM FOR, and indeed, Baptism of Water.”

Of course God CAN secure water baptism for whomever He so chooses, but that is not the point, is it. The point (you appear to reject) is that God, as first, final, efficient, meritorious and the alone formal cause, is not bound by the instrumentality of His sacraments to effect the same end in those He chooses to regenerate who respond to Him in faith, charity/contrition and desire; and in this, we agree, for those who “sincerely desire Baptism will always be able to fulfill this divine obligation -- in reality, or at least in desire.

Let’s examine both of your flawed premises:

2) Minor Premise -- The Commandments of God are not impossible for us to fulfill:

Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Session 6, Chapter 11 on Justification, ex cathedra: "...no one should make use of that rash statement forbidden under anathema by the Fathers, that the commandments of God are impossible to observe for a man who is justified. 'FOR GOD DOES NOT COMMAND IMPOSSIBILITIES,' but by commanding admonishes you both to do what you can do, and to pray for what you cannot do."

First, the title of Chapter 11 is “On keeping the Commandments, and on the necessity and possibility thereof”, so your premise becomes immediately suspect when you change “keeping” the commandment to “fulfill” the Commandments, the latter having a completely different connotation. A precept one is obliged to fulfill under divine and ecclesiastical law is not necessarily the same thing as “keeping” the Ten Commandments so as to avoid falling into grievous sin.

Again, Trent, by making reference to the justified keeping the Commandments, is referring to keeping the moral law and avoiding grievous sin, so that the justified have no excuse for saying that some of the Commandments may be too difficult to keep. As Chapter 11 declares:

For, whoso are the sons of God, love Christ; but they who love him, keep his commandments, as Himself testifies; which, assuredly, with the divine help, they can do. For, although, during this mortal life, men, how holy and just soever, at times fall into at least light and daily sins, which are also called venial, not therefore do they cease to be just. For that cry of the just, Forgive us our trespasses, is both humble and true. And for this cause, the just themselves ought to feel themselves the more obligated to walk in the way of justice, in that, being already freed from sins, but made servants of God, they are able, living soberly, justly, and godly, to proceed onwards through Jesus Christ, by whom they have had access unto this grace. For God forsakes not those who have been once justified by His grace, unless he be first forsaken by them. Wherefore, no one ought to flatter himself up with faith alone, fancying that by faith alone he is made an heir, and will obtain the inheritance, even though he suffer not with Christ, that so he may be also glorified with him. … So also the prince of the apostles, Peter; Labour the more that by good works you may make sure your calling and election. For doing those things, you shall not sin at any time.

You are correct in one respect, Jehanne (even if your premise is severely flawed by taking Chapter 11 out of context), in that anyone who treats the divine obligation with contempt by being slothful with respect to fulfilling the divine precept, has already sinned and is not one of the justified.

But the divine law for Baptism is not a Commandment to keep as a moral obligation (as in avoiding the temptation to sin), it is a divine precept that must be fulfilled, as the Church teaches, in re, or at least in voto (desire) when it is impossible to receive. This is precisely why The Catechism of Trent teaches:

should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness.

Does accusing the Church of “error” ever get old?

Furthermore, this has to be one of the most inane (and insane) things you ever said:

Of course, you will say that this is "not what the Church teaches," and cite the Roman Catechism, Catechism of Pope Pius X, the Church's Doctors, the Summa, the 1949 Holy Office letter, Vatican II, the CCC, etc. Per Trent, however, we must conclude that all of those documents are describing null sets, devoid of any human beings whatsoever.

And here I thought the Church is concerned with the salvation of souls as God created them, in human flesh and blood; and not with teaching “null sets” that do not actually pertain to “any human beings whatsoever”.

I will refrain from commenting further, and let your inane words speak for themselves, especially given that I already exposed the logical failure and intellectual bankruptcy of your grossly misapplied “null set” theory – to which there has been zero response. But I thank you for finally revealing the black hole, formless abyss and the true nature of such a ludicrous proposition when misapplied to the salvation doctrines of the Church.

Back to the subject at hand:

It’s really quite simple: Their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness; and in this, “God commands not impossibilities, but, by commanding, both admonishes thee to do what thou are able, and to pray for what thou art not able (to do), and aids thee that thou mayest” be translated into the justice of His love in grace and righteousness.

Biting my tongue, let’s continue with your other flawed premise:

Alternate Minor Premise -- God is certainly capable of bringing about the fulfillment of His commands:

Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, Session 3, Chapter 1, On God the creator of all things, ex cathedra: "EVERYTHING THAT GOD HAS BROUGHT INTO BEING HE PROTECTS AND GOVERNS BY HIS PROVIDENCE, which reaches from one end of the earth to the other and orders all things well. All things are open and laid bare before His eyes, even those which will be brought about by the free activity of creatures."

Yours is the logical fallacy of petitio principii, which in this case confuses predestination and providence with determinism. Your thesis might have merit IF God Himself absolutely needs baptism by water to save a soul. If He does not have an absolute need of it, then your thesis falls apart: and you are assuming the conclusion in the premise.

Once again, predestination involves God's arranging or foreordaining of all the graces that lead to salvation and constitute salvation. Nothing can hinder God in this respect. However, predestination does not necessarily involve the arrangement of temporal events in life, such as the vehicles that are the instrumental causes of those graces.

Remember, the First Cause is not dependent upon the ordinary and chief instrument of regeneration to effect the same end. Run that by your physicist of Nobel Prize fame, and get back with us.

tornpage Thu Aug 04, 2011 12:50 pm

columba writes:

But lets see who's in league with you Mike!.. Baptists, Methodists and most protestant sects who believe that Baptism isn't strictly necessary for salvation but merely a formality one should subject oneself to in the same way they have a remembrance meal of bread and wine but still worth doing for reasons not tied to faith.

That's really inaccurate and not fair, columba. Whether one agrees or disagrees with Mike is one thing, but let that agreement or disagreement be with Mike, and not some position that is falsely attributed to him.

On the necessity of water baptism scale I am further away from your sense of "necessity" than Mr. Ryan is, yet even my presentation of it can't be read as presenting it as a "formality." That would be a gross mischaracterization of what I've presented, and even more so of Mike's decidedly orthodox and I believe fully Catholic view.

Mike has laid his view out repeatedly on this, and it is the Church's view as presented by its theologians and living magisterium. In all of my disagreements with Mike, Mike was a sounding board representing the Church's position, and he has always been most helpful to me in coming to terms with whether my view is "Catholic."

My disagreements with Mike are always my disagreements with the Church, whose position he is faithful to. To say he is "in league with" Protestants is quite beyond the pale.

Jehanne Thu Aug 04, 2011 12:51 pm

MRyan wrote:Jehanne, why do you persist with such private syllogistic banalities when you know that the divine obligation may be fulfilled, as the Church INFALLIBLY teaches, by "the desire for it"; meaning, Baptismal regeneration in Christ may be fulfilled through faith, charity/contrition and the desire/intention for Baptism (for catechumens, an explicit desire).

That is the infallible de fide teaching of the Church, so what are you doing telling us that Trent “irrefragably” says otherwise?

It does, right here:

On the Necessity of natural water for Sacramental Baptism.

1) Major Premise -- Baptism is necessary for salvation.

Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Session 7, Canon 5, ex cathedra: "If anyone says that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation, let him be anathema."

2) Minor Premise -- True and natural water is necessary for Baptism.

Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Session 7, Canon 2, ex cathedra: "If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism and thus twists into some metaphor the words of our Lord Jesus Christ: 'Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost,' let him be anathema."

3) Conclusion -- True and natural water is necessary for salvation.

Once again, if the major & minor premises are true, then the conclusion must follow.

MRyan wrote:Of course God CAN secure water baptism for whomever He so chooses, but that is not the point, is it. The point (you appear to reject) is that God, as first, final, efficient, meritorious and the alone formal cause, is not bound by the instrumentality of His sacraments to effect the same end in those He chooses to regenerate who respond to Him in faith, charity/contrition and desire; and in this, we agree, for those who “sincerely desire Baptism will always be able to fulfill this divine obligation -- in reality, or at least in desire.

Of course, He is not bound to it, but He has bound Himself to it, by His Word, which means that it is a divine command that we must fulfill.

MRyan wrote:But the divine law for Baptism is not a Commandment to keep as a moral obligation (as in avoiding the temptation to sin), it is a divine precept that must be fulfilled, as the Church teaches, in re, or at least in voto (desire) when it is impossible to receive. This is precisely why The Catechism of Trent teaches:

How do you know that "Baptism is not a Commandment to keep as a moral obligation"? Baptism is never impossible to receive, because “with men this is impossible: but with God all things are possible.” (Matthew 19:26). The burden of proof is on you to show otherwise.

MRyan wrote:Yours is the logical fallacy of petitio principii, which in this case confuses predestination and providence with determinism. Your thesis might have merit IF God Himself absolutely needs baptism by water to save a soul. If He does not have an absolute need of it, then your thesis falls apart: and you are assuming the conclusion in the premise.

Once again, predestination involves God's arranging or foreordaining of all the graces that lead to salvation and constitute salvation. Nothing can hinder God in this respect. However, predestination does not necessarily involve the arrangement of temporal events in life, such as the vehicles that are the instrumental causes of those graces.

How do you know this?

MRyan wrote:Remember, the First Cause is not dependent upon the ordinary and chief instrument of regeneration to effect the same end. Run that by your physicist of Nobel Prize fame, and get back with us.

He's dead.

You are correct to assert that “God is not bound by His Sacraments,” however, neither is He “bound by His physical laws,” which He, after all, created. He is, however, bound by His Perfection, which means that He is bound by His Word, and since He has commanded every human being since the coming of His Son Jesus Christ to be sacramentally Baptized in water and since His commandments are not “impossible for us to fulfill,” we have no choice but to conclude that those who sincerely desire Baptism will receive that Sacrament, perhaps unknown to them in their infancy. Acknowledging this fact eviscerates any extreme hypothetical scenario that one can imagine as to why sacramental Baptism in water did not occur in the situation of a Christian martyr or catechumen. To say otherwise is to confine the theistic God to the deistic playpen. Whether God could use “extraordinary means” other than His Church and His Sacraments to save someone is irrelevant; no situation can ever be imagined that would “require” Him to do so. He can utilize “extraordinary measures” (i.e., miracles) to bring the Sacraments & the Faith to any “person (who) wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God.” To say that someone could be saved via “sincerity through invincible ignorance” is not only to deny human free will but to deny the Sovereignty of the One and Triune God, which is, of course, blasphemy. It is to claim that while God is capable of bringing His Grace to any individual that He is somehow “incapable” of bringing His Light to that person, which is both heretical and absurd.

MRyan Thu Aug 04, 2011 1:46 pm

Jehanne wrote:
MRyan wrote:Of course God CAN secure water baptism for whomever He so chooses, but that is not the point, is it. The point (you appear to reject) is that God, as first, final, efficient, meritorious and the alone formal cause, is not bound by the instrumentality of His sacraments to effect the same end in those He chooses to regenerate who respond to Him in faith, charity/contrition and desire; and in this, we agree, for those who “sincerely desire Baptism will always be able to fulfill this divine obligation -- in reality, or at least in desire.

Of course, He is not bound to it, but He has bound Himself to it, by His Word, which means that it is a divine command that we must fulfill.

You do not have the authority, let alone the competency, to determine if God has bound Himself to the actual fulfillment of Baptism in water for justification, and thus, to determine that God will NOT fulfill His command by "the desire for it". The Church is the sole authority for making such a determination, and she has infallibly made this determination, de fide.

As St. Augustine said, he would not believe a word of Scripture unless the Church told him it was true, and in what sense it is true.

That's what makes us Catholics, and not Protestants.

Jehanne wrote:
MRyan wrote:But the divine law for Baptism is not a Commandment to keep as a moral obligation (as in avoiding the temptation to sin), it is a divine precept that must be fulfilled, as the Church teaches, in re, or at least in voto (desire) when it is impossible to receive. This is precisely why The Catechism of Trent teaches:
How do you know that "Baptism is not a Commandment to keep as a moral obligation"? Baptism is never impossible to receive, because “with men this is impossible: but with God all things are possible.” (Matthew 19:26). The burden of proof is on you to show otherwise.

Stop twisting what I say. I did not say that the "Commandment" to receive baptism is not a moral obligation, I said it is not a moral obligation in the same sense "as in avoiding the temptation to sin", which is similar but distinct from the moral obligation to fulfill a divine precept. You need to understand the difference between keeping a Commandment, and fulfilling a divine precept.

Jehanne wrote:
MRyan wrote:Yours is the logical fallacy of petitio principii, which in this case confuses predestination and providence with determinism. Your thesis might have merit IF God Himself absolutely needs baptism by water to save a soul. If He does not have an absolute need of it, then your thesis falls apart: and you are assuming the conclusion in the premise.

Once again, predestination involves God's arranging or foreordaining of all the graces that lead to salvation and constitute salvation. Nothing can hinder God in this respect. However, predestination does not necessarily involve the arrangement of temporal events in life, such as the vehicles that are the instrumental causes of those graces.
How do you know this?

Scholastic Theology 101; that's what the theologians teach. It's also a matter of simple deduction; the Church teaches that God is not bound by the instruments of His sacraments to effect the same end, ergo .....

Jehanne wrote:
MRyan wrote:Remember, the First Cause is not dependent upon the ordinary and chief instrument of regeneration to effect the same end. Run that by your physicist of Nobel Prize fame, and get back with us.
He's dead.

You are correct to assert that “God is not bound by His Sacraments,” however, neither is He “bound by His physical laws,” which He, after all, created. [... on and on and on... ] It is to claim that while God is capable of bringing His Grace to any individual that He is somehow “incapable” of bringing His Light to that person, which is both heretical and absurd.

Once again, your premise falsely assumes that God MUST arrange the temporal events in life in order to fulfill His command for Baptismal regeneration in water (justification) ... but the Church teaches otherwise, and her teaching is infallible; it is THAT simple.

So your characterization of "or its desire" as saying "He is somehow 'incapable' of bringing His Light [or the sacrament] to that person, which is both heretical and absurd" ... is heretical and absurd.

Are you a member of The Dead Physicists Society? If so, let us know when the next symposium will be held on the non-application of "null sets" to actual human beings as these null sets are found in the salvation doctrines of the Church. Should be most interesting!

columba Thu Aug 04, 2011 3:02 pm

tornpage wrote:

columba writes:

But lets see who's in league with you Mike!.. Baptists, Methodists and most protestant sects who believe that Baptism isn't strictly necessary for salvation but merely a formality one should subject oneself to in the same way they have a remembrance meal of bread and wine but still worth doing for reasons not tied to faith.

That's really inaccurate and not fair, columba. Whether one agrees or disagrees with Mike is one thing, but let that agreement or disagreement be with Mike, and not some position that is falsely attributed to him.

On the necessity of water baptism scale I am further away from your sense of "necessity" than Mr. Ryan is, yet even my presentation of it can't be read as presenting it as a "formality." That would be a gross mischaracterization of what I've presented, and even more so of Mike's decidedly orthodox and I believe fully Catholic view.

Mike has laid his view out repeatedly on this, and it is the Church's view as presented by its theologians and living magisterium. In all of my disagreements with Mike, Mike was a sounding board representing the Church's position, and he has always been most helpful to me in coming to terms with whether my view is "Catholic."

My disagreements with Mike are always my disagreements with the Church, whose position he is faithful to. To say he is "in league with" Protestants is quite beyond the pale.

Tornpage, My reason for making the analogy wasn't to place Mike in that same band of heretics or schismatics but simply to show that when he places me in the same boat as protestant Bishops (which of course are really only men dressed up as bishops) and many others who share my view on baptism of desire, he forgets that the same unrealistic comparison can also be made in his case. Some of these comparisons are realistic, some are not, but by mixing the real with the unreal in order to detract from someones credibility is a poor means of supporting an argument. I made the comparison to highlight this point.
I believe myself to be every bit as Catholic as Mike. I believe that he can justifiably claim that the Church promotes baptism of desire as de fide and I can justifiably disagree due to the undefined terms contained in this "doctrine" and the council and papal statements from the past that support my stance.
Mike believes I haven't interpreted them in line with the Churches understanding. I believe that the present understanding remains theoretical and can yet be defined "condemned."
The scope of salvation can be wide or narrow depending on how one reads the present-day church thinking but the narrow view has always been the traditional view. I could easily argue (according to present-day Church thinking and against traditional Church teaching) that the salvation of all religions (including non-Christian) is possible, but as with baptism of desire, non-provable this side of the grave.

MRyan Thu Aug 04, 2011 3:15 pm

columba wrote:I stumbled across the following letter yesterday from Fr Wathen and he puts the points I'm making in a much more precise way.

Sorry, columba, but I am not going to waste my time with this.

Fr. Wathen has zero credibility in my book. He is the same priest who said "the Conciliar Church is not the Catholic Church ... Hence, no one who maintains membership within it can be saved.”

He also said the New Mass is a sacrilege and invalid; so why should I care about what he has to say on Baptism and "liberals"?

But let me ask you this: Can you show us where in that long discourse Fr. Wathen said that no one can be justified without water baptism, that no one can be justified by "the desire for it"? I only gave it a cursory glance, so please show us where he said that.

I would appreciate it if you would do so, otherwise I would have to ask why you even bothered with this long citation when the very subject of this thread; a thread you started, is Trent, Session 6, Ch. 4 and your errant, unsubstantiated and novel private revelation that holds that Trent taught that the instrument of water baptism is the only instrumental means of justification, and that "or its desire" refers only to the intention necessary for a valid sacrament.

While the Protestant Bishop M'llvaine used a bogus translation to come to the same conclusion on the sole instrumentality of water baptism, you have yet to provide a single saint, Doctor, theologian, pope, Catechism, Encyclical or any magisterial source whatsoever that addressed "or its desire" or justification, as saying anything other than what the Doctors, theologians and the Church have always taught.

Rather, you say your authority for your private revelation and interpretation is the solemnly defined dogmas of the Church, by which you mean your private interpretation of the same; notwithstanding its glaring opposition to that of the Church's own magisterially stated understanding, and that same unanimous consensus of the Doctors and theologians.

The only ecclesiastic, apparently, who has correctly interpreted Trent, is the Protestant Bishop M'llvaine, and it is with M'llvaine you place your understanding of Trent, and not with the Catholic theologians, or the authentic and ordinary Magisterium of the Church.

Now, please show us where Fr. Wathen taught that no one can be justified without water Baptism.

Jehanne Thu Aug 04, 2011 3:29 pm

MRyan wrote:
Jehanne wrote:
MRyan wrote:Of course God CAN secure water baptism for whomever He so chooses, but that is not the point, is it. The point (you appear to reject) is that God, as first, final, efficient, meritorious and the alone formal cause, is not bound by the instrumentality of His sacraments to effect the same end in those He chooses to regenerate who respond to Him in faith, charity/contrition and desire; and in this, we agree, for those who “sincerely desire Baptism will always be able to fulfill this divine obligation -- in reality, or at least in desire.

Of course, He is not bound to it, but He has bound Himself to it, by His Word, which means that it is a divine command that we must fulfill.
You do not have the authority, let alone the competency, to determine if God has bound Himself to the actual fulfillment of Baptism in water for justification, and thus, to determine that God will NOT fulfill His command by "the desire for it". The Church is the sole authority for making such a determination, and she has infallibly made this determination, de fide.

As St. Augustine said, he would not believe a word of Scripture unless the Church told him it was true, and in what sense it is true.

That's what makes us Catholics, and not Protestants.

Duh. However, Holy Mother Church has, to my satisfaction at least, already stated this:

Baptism is in water ONLY, the two (water and Baptism) are inseparable, and neither is separable from its link with the other (Pope St. Leo I: Tome-Council of Chalcedon I), and must be confessed as such (Council of Vienne: Denz. 482; [903]; Trent: Denz. 858; [1615]);

I know that you disagree, and that is fine:

http://catholicism.org/father-feeney-fact-sheet.html

MRyan wrote:
Jehanne wrote:
MRyan wrote:But the divine law for Baptism is not a Commandment to keep as a moral obligation (as in avoiding the temptation to sin), it is a divine precept that must be fulfilled, as the Church teaches, in re, or at least in voto (desire) when it is impossible to receive. This is precisely why The Catechism of Trent teaches:
How do you know that "Baptism is not a Commandment to keep as a moral obligation"? Baptism is never impossible to receive, because “with men this is impossible: but with God all things are possible.” (Matthew 19:26). The burden of proof is on you to show otherwise.
Stop twisting what I say. I did not say that the "Commandment" to receive baptism is not a moral obligation, I said it is not a moral obligation in the same sense "as in avoiding the temptation to sin", which is similar but distinct from the moral obligation to fulfill a divine precept. You need to understand the difference between keeping a Commandment, and fulfilling a divine precept.

How do you know this? From "the theologians" who deny the literal existence of Adam & Eve and the Deluge? If Christ, God Himself, commanded it, then everyone is obligated to be Baptized, without exception. And what God has commanded, He can bring about. Mike, why would God allow an adult catechumen to die without Baptism and suffer in Purgatory (as Saint Thomas taught) due to the fact that it "was impossible" for that person to be Baptized? Why does God allow such things to happen, Mike?

MRyan wrote:
Jehanne wrote:
MRyan wrote:Yours is the logical fallacy of petitio principii, which in this case confuses predestination and providence with determinism. Your thesis might have merit IF God Himself absolutely needs baptism by water to save a soul. If He does not have an absolute need of it, then your thesis falls apart: and you are assuming the conclusion in the premise.

Once again, predestination involves God's arranging or foreordaining of all the graces that lead to salvation and constitute salvation. Nothing can hinder God in this respect. However, predestination does not necessarily involve the arrangement of temporal events in life, such as the vehicles that are the instrumental causes of those graces.
How do you know this?
Scholastic Theology 101; that's what the theologians teach. It's also a matter of simple deduction; the Church teaches that God is not bound by the instruments of His sacraments to effect the same end, ergo .....

No, they don't. Find me one theologian who says that we must believe that there are, in fact, unbaptized people in Paradise? Can you prove that there are people in Heaven who have died without Baptism and who had to suffer in Purgatory due to that fact? Are you saying that we must believe that there are people suffering in Purgatory because they had the misfortune to die without Baptism? If not, stop saying that it is "de fide."

MRyan wrote:
Jehanne wrote:
MRyan wrote:Remember, the First Cause is not dependent upon the ordinary and chief instrument of regeneration to effect the same end. Run that by your physicist of Nobel Prize fame, and get back with us.
He's dead.

You are correct to assert that “God is not bound by His Sacraments,” however, neither is He “bound by His physical laws,” which He, after all, created. [... on and on and on... ] It is to claim that while God is capable of bringing His Grace to any individual that He is somehow “incapable” of bringing His Light to that person, which is both heretical and absurd.
Once again, your premise falsely assumes that God MUST arrange the temporal events in life in order to fulfill His command for Baptismal regeneration in water (justification) ... but the Church teaches otherwise, and her teaching is infallible; it is THAT simple.

So your characterization of "or its desire" as saying "He is somehow 'incapable' of bringing His Light [or the sacrament] to that person, which is both heretical and absurd" ... is heretical and absurd.

Are you saying that it is impossible for an angel to bring the Gospel to a Jew, Muslim, etc. who is sincerely seeking the Truth? Pray tell, how exactly is what I am stating heretical and absurd? Are you saying that it is de fide that we must believe that there are people who not only die without Baptism but without explicit faith in the Redeemer? Why would God allow this to occur? What is the point of missionaries coming to the New World and dying for Christ if the North American Indians could "save themselves" via implicit faith while retaining their explicit beliefs in their pagan gods? Is it possible, Mike, for someone to hear the Gospel and not believe? Please explain to me how this would occur; I would really like to know.

MRyan wrote:Are you a member of The Dead Physicists Society? If so, let us know when the next symposium will be held on the non-application of "null sets" to actual human beings as these null sets are found in the salvation doctrines of the Church. Should be most interesting!

Yeah, this is coming from someone who believes that the Sun goes around the Earth, right? You never answered my question from weeks ago about who we should believe -- Pope Urban VIII who taught that the Earth does not move or Pope John Paul II who taught that it does move. Which one, Mike? Or, are they both right??

Right now, Mike, I am corresponding with a Protestant group who claims that the Catholic Church is not the true Church because it/she contracted itself at Vatican II. Their website says that the Church, prior to Vatican II, taught that only Catholics could be saved, but that Pope Pius IX "changed" the Church's teaching, so the Catholic Church cannot be the true Church. Sound familiar? The idea of "theological null sets" is a way to reconcile Vatican II with the pre-Vatican/medieval Councils. Disagree? It not, what advice do you have for me as to what I should say to these Protestants?

MRyan Thu Aug 04, 2011 3:41 pm

columba wrote:I believe that he [Mike] can justifiably claim that the Church promotes baptism of desire as de fide and I can justifiably disagree due to the undefined terms contained in this "doctrine" and the council and papal statements from the past that support my stance.

Let's be clear. The subject of this thread is Trent, Session 6, Ch. 4, and your private revelation that "or its desire" means that water baptism is the ONLY instrumental means of justification, and that "or its desire" refers to the proper intention necessary for a valid sacrament.

Now, what I said is actually de fide is the dogmatic prescription that declares that one may be justified by the laver of regeneration, or the desire for it, and that the Church has always held the same understanding of this de fide teaching; and she has always taught it, in complete agreement with the universal consensus of her theologians, in the same manner and in that same sense.

You claim to "justifiably disagree due to the undefined terms contained in this 'doctrine' and the council and papal statements from the past that support my stance"; but that is not only a bit of hubris, it is a smokescreen for outright dissent by suggesting that the universal consensus of theologians, along with the magisterial teachings of the Church, have erred in their common consensus and "true understanding" of Trent; and therefore teach a false doctrine (and have been teaching a false doctrine since the Council of Trent).

As I said, your private revelation and false interpretation is in sync with that of a Protestant Bishop who used a bogus Latin text to make his accusation against the Church, but I'm still trying to figure out what your excuse is for standing in defiance of the entire Catholic Church, to include Fr. Feeney who did not question the interpretation of "or its desire" as it was always understood; even if he said that justification "by the desire for it" was not sufficient for salvation.

MRyan Thu Aug 04, 2011 5:36 pm

columba wrote:
Mryan wrote:
Bishop M’llvaine may be excused for ignorance, though his Protestant bias was certainly evident; what’s your excuse? Never mind, I got it; you’re one of the Gnostic-like “remnant” of true believers. Let’s see, counting yourself, Rasha, Duckbill, Cowboy, Bill Strom and the mini radical sede contingent in NY and NM, I think the “remnant” of true believers is up to 8 or 9; though I never know how many radical sede cult followers who swallow this stuff there really are.

Good luck with that.
My! That's a scary list of names. It reads like a Wild West wanted poster. But lets see who's in league with you Mike!.. Baptists, Methodists and most protestant sects who believe that Baptism isn't strictly necessary for salvation but merely a formality one should subject oneself to in the same way they have a remembrance meal of bread and wine but still worth doing for reasons not tied to faith. Admittedly your set has numbers on its side if you include the majority of modern-day Catholics but you know what Our Lord said about the majority so I'd hesitate to use that as a solid basis for argument. If you do , you might be in a worse position than those of us on the poster.

Scary is right. You should be reeling in horror. If that does not smack of cult behavior by following the novel opinion of some lay non-Latinist know-it-all (450 years after the fact), I don't know what does.

But, no; Baptists, Methodists and most Protestant sects who believe baptism is merely a formality are not in league with me in the least. In fact, such a caricature of the true doctrine is contemptible, but no more contemptible than accusing the universal consensus of the Doctors and theologians, as well as the Magisterium of the Church, for being so stupid as to not realize that their unanimous “true understanding” and teaching of “or its desire” is in blatant opposition to two canons of Trent, to the true meaning of Session 6, Ch. 4 and to the true understanding presented by Bishop M’llvaine on Session Session Six, Chapter 7 on the ONLY instrumental cause of justification.

Furthermore, you claim that the unanimous consensus I have cited time and again “include the majority of modern-day Catholics”, which implies that there is a credible "minority understanding” that has existed since the Council of Trent that is opposed to that of “the majority of modern-day Catholics”; when this is completely false.

Do you really want me to begin citing the proofs that began almost immediately after Trent on the “true understanding [of 'or its desire' and John 3: 5] as commonly expounded and declared by these doctors and other catholic teachers in the theological schools”, which has not wavered one iota since Trent?

Why do you play this game with me, as if your modern miniscule cadre of lay remnant believers that holds that no one may be justified by the "desire for it" represents some credible "minority" opinion in the Church?

If you wish to allege that “or its desire” means what you say, and not what I have presented as the "true doctrine" in “that sense in which the uninterrupted unanimity of the Catholic Church has held and expressed them”, then do so. But you have produced nothing except your claim to some Gnostic private ability to “interpret” the dogmas of the Church when you have demonstrated that you do not even know the difference between a defined dogma and a non-defined dogmatic declaration (on baptism of blood) that the Church and her theologians have always interpreted in the same manner (the opposite of yours, of course).

So tell us, columba, what did our Lord say about the “majority” when it comes to doctrines that enjoy the “uninterrupted unanimity of the Catholic Church” as to their true understanding, when they enjoy the same understanding “commonly expounded and declared by these doctors and other catholic teachers in the theological schools”? Can I give you a hint? He speaks through Peter, and perhaps you should look up what Peter has to say on this subject.

And what did our Lord say about “he who hears you, hears Me” when speaking through His Vicar on submission of the mind and will to the authentic, living and ordinary magisterium of the Church, even when teaching non-defined doctrines?

I’m sorry, but I do not remember our Lord saying anything about dueling Magisteriums, and “choosing” the “Magisterium” of one age over another, as if our Lord does not speak with one voice through Peter in every age; and I do not remember our Lord saying anything about following a contrary private interpretation of Session 6. Ch 4, when the Church has already and consistently provided the “true understanding” of justification and how it is effected that enjoys an “uninterrupted unanimity” in meaning, and always in the same sense. And that same sense is not “modern”, neither is it just a "majority" opinion; it is universal (as in an “uninterrupted unanimity"), and it is de fide.

Am I repeating myself?

columba Thu Aug 04, 2011 8:25 pm

MRyan wrote:
Sorry, columba, but I am not going to waste my time with this.

Fr. Wathen has zero credibility in my book. He is the same priest who said "the Conciliar Church is not the Catholic Church ... Hence, no one who maintains membership within it can be saved.”

He also said the New Mass is a sacrilege and invalid; so why should I care about what he has to say on Baptism and "liberals"?

If you mean by the Conciliar Church just the Pope and cardinals and bishops in union with him then even this won't reveal to you the real Catholic Church as many of the cardinals and bishops are Catholic in name only and wouldn't know true Catholicism if it hit them broadside (which it soon will) and even these are tolerated and remain in their exalted positions. If we include the the number of NO priests who have abandoned the faith while still being permitted the privilege of preaching their poisonous heresies then the true Church practically becomes invisible and ultimately would be if it weren't for the small but increasingly growing number of traditionalist clergy who's lives have been made a misery by many of the above mentioned reprobates.

BTW, Cardinal Raymond Burke is quoted as saying, "People can lose their faith by attendance at the NO Mass." Therefore all of those affected thus would lose their souls and those who maintain their allegiance to it are putting themselves in danger. Not that far removed from what Fr Wathen said.

I think it's zero tolerance you suffer from Mike towards certain people (anyone who disagrees with you) and has little to do with credibility. Refutation of seemingly credible arguments is what's needed rather than derision at the character of those who hold them.
No one is completely right and no one completely wrong (take that as my contribution to liberalism). Smile

But let me ask you this: Can you show us where in that long discourse Fr. Wathen said that no one can be justified without water baptism, that no one can be justified by "the desire for it"? I only gave it a cursory glance, so please show us where he said that.

If you mean justification as in making one fit for heaven (as baptism of desire implies) then there's a lot of work yet to be done in interpreting the meaning of Justification.
It is said that baptism of desire remits sin but not the punishment due to sin and that a perfect act of repentance inspired by perfect charity (love of God rather than fear of hell) is required by those who die with the unfulfilled desire for Baptism; but, isn't it the case that a perfect act of contrition (for love of God) also remits the temporal punishment due to sin? Their should be no purgatory then for those who are saved through baptism of desire. Another theological conundrum associated with this doctrine. scratch

To quote Fr Wathen;

"The spiritual act whereby a man bestows "baptism of desire" upon himself can have one effect only: an act of contrition or an act of faith accompanied by the willingness to do whatever God requires of him for salvation can bring about the forgiveness of his sins, both original and actual; nothing more. This is called the state of justification. It means that the individual is "out of debt" toward almighty God. He is, so to speak, "out of the red and in the black," but he has no credits; no liabilities, no assets; fit for Limbo, but not for Heaven. More accurately, he is still nothing more than a natural man, instead of a fallen man. For salvation, one must be a "supernatural man,"

How does one become a supernatural man? By the laver of regeneration.
"Water water everywhere but not a drop to drink." comes to mind.
One drop on the head with a few words uttered would have sufficed, but alas for those souls who desired it so much and it was not granted them. What of those then who only implicitly desired it? What of those who rejected it but would have accepted it if they had only known of its necessity? Enter baptism of desire. We will forcibly widen this narrow road of salvation.
I asked my NO, new-age, Irish Association of Catholic Priests member, "How does one get to hell." He said that they would need to be really, really, really bad (well maybe he only said really really but I lost count after the first one).
So I asked him, "What about those who don't believe in Jesus Christ, can they get to heaven or is refusing to believe in Him really really really bad? He said, "The Church teaches that God can find a way for them all."
I think I know who the really really really bad people are. They are those who don't believe this. Despite Fr Wathens credentials (which morally are very good) I would take my chances with him before Fr heretic who assured me that this is what the Church teaches.

Think I'll take up smoking the pipe. They say it's good for pondering.

tornpage Fri Aug 05, 2011 5:25 pm

Columba,

Tornpage, My reason for making the analogy wasn't to place Mike in that same band of heretics or schismatics but simply to show that when he places me in the same boat as protestant Bishops (which of course are really only men dressed up as bishops) and many others who share my view on baptism of desire, he forgets that the same unrealistic comparison can also be made in his case.

Well, I thought Mike's joining of you and the Protestant bishop was accurate in the sense that you both read Trent, Session VI, Chapter IV as saying that justification is only by the laver of regeneration, the only instrumental means of salvation.

Was Mike wrong? I don't think so.

MRyan Sat Aug 06, 2011 11:11 am

columba wrote:
MRyan wrote:
Sorry, columba, but I am not going to waste my time with this.

Fr. Wathen has zero credibility in my book. He is the same priest who said "the Conciliar Church is not the Catholic Church ... Hence, no one who maintains membership within it can be saved.”

He also said the New Mass is a sacrilege and invalid; so why should I care about what he has to say on Baptism and "liberals"?

If you mean by the Conciliar Church just the Pope and cardinals and bishops in union with him then even this won't reveal to you the real Catholic Church as many of the cardinals and bishops are Catholic in name only and wouldn't know true Catholicism if it hit them broadside (which it soon will) and even these are tolerated and remain in their exalted positions. If we include the the number of NO priests who have abandoned the faith while still being permitted the privilege of preaching their poisonous heresies then the true Church practically becomes invisible and ultimately would be if it weren't for the small but increasingly growing number of traditionalist clergy who's lives have been made a misery by many of the above mentioned reprobates.

What I mean by the Conciliar Church is the Roman Catholic Church since VCII, and it is the same RCC since the Councils of Nicea, Trent and VCI. That the Church is comprised of sinners and saints is no surprise, our Lord said take it or leave it – that’s the way it is and He’ll sort it all out on the day of reckoning.

Catholics “in name only”; what a startling revelation, perhaps you can start a thread and name the Catholics in name only … it should do your pipe-smoking head some good.

What I meant is pretty simple: If Fr. Wathen’s ecclesiology is so poor that he actually holds that no one who is a member of the visible Church of Rome, the Church he says he is in communion with, can be saved, and that the N.O. (as promulgated), is an invalid sacrilege, then I simply have no use for such heretical "theology".

You can defend this nonsense all you want by saying, “well, just look at all the phony liberal so-called Catholics”, as if that somehow excuses such blatant heresy by a “traditionalist”; I really don’t care, I’m just telling you that I have no use for the doctrine of Fr. Wathen – he is no scholastic theologian (and here comes another snarky remark by columba), and he has no credibility when he can hold such heretical positions, and I don’t know why I should even listen to him (especially after reading his comments on justification).

columba wrote:
BTW, Cardinal Raymond Burke is quoted as saying, "People can lose their faith by attendance at the NO Mass." Therefore all of those affected thus would lose their souls and those who maintain their allegiance to it are putting themselves in danger. Not that far removed from what Fr Wathen said.

No, that is a mile and a half from what Fr. Wathen said, and if you do not know the difference and can’t appreciate the context, you are hopeless.

Here is what Cardinal Burke actually said: “If we err by thinking we are the centre of the liturgy, the Mass will lead to a loss of faith.” And “liturgical abuses lead to serious damage to the faith of Catholics”. Unfortunately, he said, too many priests and bishops treat violations of liturgical norms as something that is unimportant when, in fact, they are “serious abuses”.

And you want to compare that to Fr. Wathen’s position on the inherent invalidity and sacrilegious nature of the N.O itself? You are being true to form, for I am used to seeing Feeneyites selectively yank certain passage from the writings of the saints and theologians and totally ignore or refuse to cite the passages that provide the true context.

Nice try, but I am sure you would respond by saying “well, it sure seems like the New Mass is man-centered and is routinely abused”, since that will make you feel better. I’m sure you can find all kinds of excuses for justifying the heresy of Fr. Wathen by noting the heresy of others and by noting the priests (and even Bishops) who abuse the Mass without censure.

And of course, you use the same penetrating logical fallacy to reject the Church’s teaching on justification by “the desire for it” (faith, charity/contrition desire) because, well gee, look at all the abuses of the doctrine by liberals who believe anyone can be saved by any old natural and nebulous “desire”.

Ah yes, that’s a wonderful excuse for rejecting the Church’s doctrine, and perhaps I should reconsider my severe assessment of Fr. Wathen’s heretical doctrine; he might have a valid point and the Whole of Babylon he calls “the conciliar Church” might indeed be the imposter we see as the Holy See of Rome.

Nah.

columba wrote:
I think it's zero tolerance you suffer from Mike towards certain people (anyone who disagrees with you) and has little to do with credibility. Refutation of seemingly credible arguments is what's needed rather than derision at the character of those who hold them.

No one is completely right and no one completely wrong (take that as my contribution to liberalism).

My zero tolerance is for blatant heresy. That you or someone else does not see it as such is irrelevant. You can spin Fr. Wathen’s words any way you want ... I am more than familiar with his work and read at least one of his books on the New Mass … and I have no problem calling a spade a spade.

Furthermore, I asked you to provide evidence from a saint, theologian, Doctor or pope since the Council of Trent who taught that no one can be justified without water baptism in re, and you bring forth the testimony of Fr. Wathen who does not qualify as an approved theologian, and whose theology is entirely suspect (I’m being kind) as we have already seen, and shall see further on.

columba wrote:
MRyan wrote:
But let me ask you this: Can you show us where in that long discourse Fr. Wathen said that no one can be justified without water baptism, that no one can be justified by "the desire for it"? I only gave it a cursory glance, so please show us where he said that.
If you mean justification as in making one fit for heaven (as baptism of desire implies) then there's a lot of work yet to be done in interpreting the meaning of Justification.
It is said that baptism of desire remits sin but not the punishment due to sin and that a perfect act of repentance inspired by perfect charity (love of God rather than fear of hell) is required by those who die with the unfulfilled desire for Baptism; but, isn't it the case that a perfect act of contrition (for love of God) also remits the temporal punishment due to sin? Their should be no purgatory then for those who are saved through baptism of desire. Another theological conundrum associated with this doctrine.

There is no need for more work in “interpreting” the meaning of Justification; Trent did a pretty good job of defining exactly what it means, which is why your attempt to re-define the Justification of Trent is so, well, regrettable. What you mean to say is that there is more work to be done in intepretaing the meaning of baptism of desire (which results in justification), and that would be fine.

Under the new law of grace, justification is the translation to a state of grace as sons of God and heirs to the Kingdom. So yes, it makes one “fit” for heaven. A so-called justification that makes one fit for Limbo is not justification ... and it is that simple.

Trent also dogmatically declared that no one can be justified without the laver of regeneration, or the desire for it, and this is de fide. The Church and her doctors and theologians have ALWAYS understood “or its desire” in the Thomistic sense of faith/contrition/desire, in what St. Thomas more accurately calls “Baptism of Repentance”. That you want to continually challenge the unanimous consensus of the Doctors and theologians, and the Church’s own teaching that magisterially confirms this same understanding, is a personal problem that resides with you and a handful of lay rigorists who simply don’t get it.

You say there should be no purgatory for those who are justified and saved by baptism of desire, but you can’t tell us why except to suggest that the remission of sins in baptism of desire should have the same debt of punishment paid as in water baptism (debt paid in full). They are not the same debt and only water Baptism and Martyrdom can satisfy the full debt of punishment (the stain). St. Thomas Aquinas:

III, Q. 68, Article 2, Reply to Objection 2. No man obtains eternal life unless he be free from all guilt and debt of punishment. Now this plenary absolution is given when a man receives Baptism, or suffers martyrdom: for which reason is it stated that martyrdom "contains all the sacramental virtue of Baptism," i.e. as to the full deliverance from guilt and punishment. Suppose, therefore, a catechumen to have the desire for Baptism (else he could not be said to die in his good works, which cannot be without "faith that worketh by charity"), such a one, were he to die, would not forthwith come to eternal life, but would suffer punishment for his past sins, "but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire" as is stated 1 Corinthians 3:15.

To better understand why this is so, you need to read and digest “OF THE DEBT OF PUNISHMENT (EIGHT ARTICLES)”, Summa, II, Q. 87. http://www.ccel.org/a/aquinas/summa/FS/FS087.html

columba wrote:
To quote Fr Wathen;

"The spiritual act whereby a man bestows "baptism of desire" upon himself can have one effect only: an act of contrition or an act of faith accompanied by the willingness to do whatever God requires of him for salvation can bring about the forgiveness of his sins, both original and actual; nothing more. This is called the state of justification. It means that the individual is "out of debt" toward almighty God. He is, so to speak, "out of the red and in the black," but he has no credits; no liabilities, no assets; fit for Limbo, but not for Heaven. More accurately, he is still nothing more than a natural man, instead of a fallen man. For salvation, one must be a "supernatural man,"
How does one become a supernatural man? By the laver of regeneration.

Yes, by the laver of regeneration, or at least the desire for it, as the Church actually teaches.

As I said, what Fr. Wathen is describing is not justification, so I don’t see the relevancy. Someone not fit for heaven is not justified ... period. Someone who is not in a state of grace is not justified … period. In fact, someone fit only for “Limbo” is in a state of original sin … so what in the world is Fr. Wathen talking about when he says that one may have his sins forgiven by faith (or) contrition and desire, but may be fit only for Limbo? This is complete and utter heretical nonsense.

He says: "an act of contrition or an act of faith … can bring about the forgiveness of his sins, both original and actual; nothing more … but he has no credits; no liabilities, no assets; fit for Limbo, but not for Heaven.”

First of all, baptism of desire is not “an act of contrition OR an act of faith”, it is both, or baptism of desire cannot exist. But it gets even worse when he bakes up the warmed over heresy that posits that one may have the remission of sins without the infusion of justifying grace. It is sanctifying grace that drives original and actual sins from the soul, and nothing less.

You said, “No one is completely right and no one completely wrong”. Fr. Wathen is completely wrong, and if you agree with him, so are you.

Ponder that as you “take up smoking the pipe.”

MRyan Sat Aug 06, 2011 12:17 pm

columba wrote: To say that baptism of desire is a fact, is to say that the thoughts and actions of God can be scrutinized by mere mortals which has the distinct odor of heresy. To say that it does not exist is in accord with what God HAS actually revealed and thus in accord with the dogma Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus.

This is why your theology is not much better than Jehanne’s “null set” black-hole devoid-of-humans abstraction; which is to say, pretty sorry. Will you now say that an adult who is Baptized is justified as a matter of fact? If so, who are you to say that the thoughts and actions of God can be scrutinized by mere mortals, when this has the distinct odor of heresy?

In fact, you have yet to respond to the FACT that neither actual water baptism nor the intention to receive it can guarantee a translation to justification. What guarantees this translation to justice? Baptism, true Faith, attrition/contrition, and the proper desire/intention for Baptism; or, “the desire for” Baptism. In other words, no adult can be justified in Baptism without faith, attrition/contrition and desire; and no one can be justified by “the desire for it” prior to baptism (or without Baptism when it is impossible to receive) without faith and a more “perfect” contrition or charity.

Of course, Trent did not spell this out in its entirety in Session 6, Ch. 4, because she knew it would be understood as the Church has always understood it … and it was. And not for nothing did she place the Summa on the altar, along with Sacred Scripture, at the opening Mass for Trent.

So yes, baptism of desire is a fact in the sense that it is a true doctrine of the Church that applies to flesh and blood persons. When the proper dispositions are present, and under the right conditions, baptism of blood and baptism of desire happen in fact, precisely as the Church teaches (the Catechism of Trent said it WILL avail one to grace and righteousness, the CCC says it ASSURES the grace and salvation of those so disposed); just as Baptism and justification happen in fact with the proper matter, form and intention(s). That we cannot know if either means of justification (through the same regeneration) happens in fact for every adult who receives baptism, or appears to have the Catholic Faith, charity and the right intentions, is irrelevant.

That those adults who actually receive the sacrament are more likely to be justified in fact, goes without saying; but as I said, we are only concerned with the Church's teaching on how one may be justified "by the desire for it", and not with how often it actually occurs.

Your understanding of Catholic theology is in need of remediation.

Jehanne Sat Aug 06, 2011 1:56 pm

Mike,

Please provide the exact Magisterial reference that says that we, as faithful Catholics, must believe that there are people who sincerely desire Baptism yet who, through no fault of their own, die without it, and as a consequence, suffer in Purgatory due to the sole misfortune of having died without Baptism.

Also, once again (for the third or fourth time) whom do we, as faithful Catholics, believe:

1) Pope Urban VIII who taught that the Earth does not move.

2) Pope John Paul II who taught that the Earth does move.

MRyan Sat Aug 06, 2011 4:18 pm

Jehanne wrote:Mike,

Please provide the exact Magisterial reference that says that we, as faithful Catholics, must believe that there are people who sincerely desire Baptism yet who, through no fault of their own, die without it, and as a consequence, suffer in Purgatory due to the sole misfortune of having died without Baptism.

You really don’t get it, do you?

The firm theological foundation for this teaching on the temporal debt that must be paid for actual sins that would normally be fully paid in water Baptism, or would be fully paid in the suffering of Martyrdom, is very clear; and as such, the magisterium has declared on more than one occasion that “one may not desert Aquinas, especially in philosophy and theology, without great harm; following him is the safest way to the knowledge of divine things” (Pope St. Pius X).

No one said that one MUST believe the doctrine, but one would be rash to dispute it.

Leo XIII stated that “this is the greatest glory of Thomas, altogether his own and shared with no other Catholic Doctor, that the Fathers of Trent, in order to proceed in an orderly fashion during the conclave, desired to have opened upon the altar together with the Scriptures and the decrees of the Supreme Pontiffs, the Summa of St. Thomas Aquinas whence they could draw counsel, reasons and answers.”

And the answer the Fathers of Trent drew from the Summa on “or its desire”, according to columba, was to reject the doctrine of Aquinas and to declare that no one can be justified by faith, charity and desire without actual sacramental ablution. And Trent also drew from the Summa the doctrine of baptism of desire as a “null set black-hole devoid of any human beings”, though one would be hard-pressed to find such a monstrous doctrine in the Summa. But I do know of some prime swamp land in Florida for sale at a great price!

Why should we follow the doctrine of St. Thomas in such matters? I don't know, but I always found these reasons to be pretty compelling:

St. Pius X said that the chief of Leo’s achievements is his restoration of the doctrine of St. Thomas. For he “restored the Angelic Doctor … as the leader and master of theology, whose divine genius fashioned weapons marvelously suited to protect the truth and destroy the many errors of the times. Indeed those principles of wisdom, useful for all time, which the holy Doctors passed on to us, have been organized by no one more aptly than by Thomas, and no one has explained them more clearly.” Indeed, Pius said, those who depart from the teaching of St. Thomas “seem to effect ultimately their withdrawal from the Church … As we have said, one may not desert Aquinas, especially in philosophy and theology, without great harm; following him is the safest way to the knowledge of divine things.… If the doctrine of any other author or saint has ever been approved at any time by us or our predecessors with singular commendation joined with an invitation and order to propagate and to defend it, it may be easily understood that it was commended only insofar as it agreed with the principles of Aquinas or was in no way opposed to them.” Theology professors “should also take particular care that their students develop a deep affection for the Summa … In this way and no other will theology be restored to its pristine dignity, and the proper order and value will be restored to all sacred studies, and the province of the intellect and reason flower again in a second spring.”

Benedict XV stated that “the eminent commendations of Thomas Aquinas by the Holy See no longer permit a Catholic to doubt that he was divinely raised up that the Church might have a master whose doctrine should be followed in a special way at all times.”

Pius XI said that “indeed, We so approve of the tributes paid to his almost divine brilliance that we believe Thomas should be called not only Angelic but Common or Universal Doctor of the Church. As innumerable documents of every kind attest, the Church has adopted his doctrine for her own.… It is no wonder that the Church has made this light her own and has adorned herself with it, and has illustrated her immortal doctrine with it … It is no wonder that all the popes have vied with one another in exalting him, proposing him, inculcating him, as a model, master, doctor, patron and protector of all schools … Just as it was said of old to the Egyptians in time of famine: ‘Go to Joseph, so that they should receive a supply of corn to nourish their bodies, so to those who are now in quest of truth We now say: ‘Go to Thomas’ that they may ask from him the food of solid doctrine of which he has an abundance to nourish their souls unto eternal life.” (http://www.thomasaquinas.edu/a-liberating-education/popes-st-thomas)

Well, if that doesn't work, one can always "go to" the doctrine of some unschooled lay non-Latinist, or Bishop M'llvaine; both of whom can inform us of the "true understanding" of "or its desire" in the dogmatic declarations of Trent.

Yep.

Wait, do I hear the 'ol "St. Thomas erred on the Immaculate Conception" canard stirring in the background that is supposed to lay waste to the testimony of the popes on following the undisputed doctrines of St. Thomas? Is the earth the center of the universe?

Jehanne wrote:
Also, once again (for the third or fourth time) whom do we, as faithful Catholics, believe:

1) Pope Urban VIII who taught that the Earth does not move.

2) Pope John Paul II who taught that the Earth does move.

Once again, I don't care what you believe. I believe in the inerrancy of Scripture which places the earth at the center of the universe and also testifies to the movement of the sun. You can mock that belief all you want; it does not phase me in the least.

Better yet, take the Sungenis $2000 challenge and “prove” geocentrism is false, and a heliocentric universe is proven true. He’s still waiting to spend the money. Surely someone who is such an esteemed member of the Dead Physicist’s Society is up to the challenge.

Why do you keep changing the subject?

Jehanne Sat Aug 06, 2011 5:04 pm

MRyan wrote:
Jehanne wrote:Mike,

Please provide the exact Magisterial reference that says that we, as faithful Catholics, must believe that there are people who sincerely desire Baptism yet who, through no fault of their own, die without it, and as a consequence, suffer in Purgatory due to the sole misfortune of having died without Baptism.
You really don’t get it, do you?

The firm theological foundation for this teaching on the temporal debt that must be paid for actual sins that would normally be fully paid in water Baptism, or would be fully paid in the suffering of Martyrdom, is very clear; and as such, the magisterium has declared on more than one occasion that “one may not desert Aquinas, especially in philosophy and theology, without great harm; following him is the safest way to the knowledge of divine things” (Pope St. Pius X).

No one said that one MUST believe the doctrine, but one would be rash to dispute it.

I do not dispute it, not for a moment, but I hold to Saint Augustine's final view that all of the One and Triune God's elect are, without exception, predestined to receive sacramental Baptism in Water precisely because of Saint Thomas' teaching that one's mere desire for Baptism does not remit that person's temporal punishment, and given Thomas' other teachings in the Summa on the Providence of God, Saint Augustine's final view seems all the more probable.

MRyan wrote:
Leo XIII stated that “this is the greatest glory of Thomas, altogether his own and shared with no other Catholic Doctor, that the Fathers of Trent, in order to proceed in an orderly fashion during the conclave, desired to have opened upon the altar together with the Scriptures and the decrees of the Supreme Pontiffs, the Summa of St. Thomas Aquinas whence they could draw counsel, reasons and answers.”
And the answer the Fathers of Trent drew from the Summa on “or its desire”, according to columba, was to reject the doctrine of Aquinas and to declare that no one can be justified by faith, charity and desire without actual sacramental ablution. And Trent also drew from the Summa the doctrine of baptism of desire as a “null set black-hole devoid of any human beings”, though one would be hard-pressed to find such a monstrous doctrine in the Summa. But I do know of some prime swamp land in Florida for sale at a great price!

Why should we follow the doctrine of St. Thomas in such matters? I don't know, but I always found these reasons to be pretty compelling:

St. Pius X said that the chief of Leo’s achievements is his restoration of the doctrine of St. Thomas. For he “restored the Angelic Doctor … as the leader and master of theology, whose divine genius fashioned weapons marvelously suited to protect the truth and destroy the many errors of the times. Indeed those principles of wisdom, useful for all time, which the holy Doctors passed on to us, have been organized by no one more aptly than by Thomas, and no one has explained them more clearly.” Indeed, Pius said, those who depart from the teaching of St. Thomas “seem to effect ultimately their withdrawal from the Church … As we have said, one may not desert Aquinas, especially in philosophy and theology, without great harm; following him is the safest way to the knowledge of divine things.… If the doctrine of any other author or saint has ever been approved at any time by us or our predecessors with singular commendation joined with an invitation and order to propagate and to defend it, it may be easily understood that it was commended only insofar as it agreed with the principles of Aquinas or was in no way opposed to them.” Theology professors “should also take particular care that their students develop a deep affection for the Summa … In this way and no other will theology be restored to its pristine dignity, and the proper order and value will be restored to all sacred studies, and the province of the intellect and reason flower again in a second spring.”

Benedict XV stated that “the eminent commendations of Thomas Aquinas by the Holy See no longer permit a Catholic to doubt that he was divinely raised up that the Church might have a master whose doctrine should be followed in a special way at all times.”

Pius XI said that “indeed, We so approve of the tributes paid to his almost divine brilliance that we believe Thomas should be called not only Angelic but Common or Universal Doctor of the Church. As innumerable documents of every kind attest, the Church has adopted his doctrine for her own.… It is no wonder that the Church has made this light her own and has adorned herself with it, and has illustrated her immortal doctrine with it … It is no wonder that all the popes have vied with one another in exalting him, proposing him, inculcating him, as a model, master, doctor, patron and protector of all schools … Just as it was said of old to the Egyptians in time of famine: ‘Go to Joseph, so that they should receive a supply of corn to nourish their bodies, so to those who are now in quest of truth We now say: ‘Go to Thomas’ that they may ask from him the food of solid doctrine of which he has an abundance to nourish their souls unto eternal life.” (http://www.thomasaquinas.edu/a-liberating-education/popes-st-thomas)
Well, if that doesn't work, one can always "go to" the doctrine of some unschooled lay non-Latinist, or Bishop M'llvaine; both of whom can inform us of the "true understanding" of "or its desire" in the dogmatic declarations of Trent.

Yep.

Wait, do I hear the 'ol "St. Thomas erred on the Immaculate Conception" canard stirring in the background that is supposed to lay waste to the testimony of the popes on following the undisputed doctrines of St. Thomas? Is the earth the center of the universe?

I accept all of Saint Thomas' teachings, including, his teachings on Baptism of Desire. It is you who have added to what Saint Thomas taught and not Father Feeney:

"All ceremonies are professions of faith, in which the interior worship of God consists. Now man can make profession of his inward faith, by deeds as well as by words: and in either profession, if he make a false declaration, he sins mortally." (Summa Theologica, Ia IIae, q.103, a.4)

"If we consider unbelief as we find it in those who have heard nothing about the faith, it bears the character of punishment, not of sin, because such ignorance is the result of the sin of our first parents. When such unbelievers are damned, it is on account of other sins, which cannot be taken away without faith, not because of their sin of unbelief." (Summa Theologica, IIa IIae, q.10, a.1)

"Everyone is bound to believe something explicitly...even if someone is brought up in the forest or among wild beasts. For it pertains to Divine Providence to furnish everyone with what is necessary for salvation, provided that on his part there is no hindrance. Thus, if someone so brought up followed the direction of natural reason in seeking good and avoiding evil, we must most certainly hold that God would either reveal to him through internal inspiration what had to be believed, or he would send some preacher of the faith to him as He sent Peter to Cornelius (Acts 10:20)." ( The Disputed Questions on Truth, q.14, a.11 )

"After grace had been revealed, both learned and simple folk are bound to explicit faith in the mysteries of Christ, chiefly as regards those which are observed throughout the Church, and publicly proclaimed, such as the articles which refer to the Incarnation, of which we have spoken above ( Question 1, Article 8 ). As to other minute points in reference to the articles of the Incarnation, men have been bound to believe them more or less explicitly according to each one's state and office." (Summa Theologica, IIa IIae, q.2, a.7)

"It is impossible to believe explicitly in the mystery of Christ, without faith in the Trinity, since the mystery of Christ includes that the Son of God took flesh; that He renewed the world through the grace of the Holy Ghost; and again, that He was conceived by the Holy Ghost. Wherefore just as, before Christ, the mystery of Christ was believed explicitly by the learned, but implicitly and under a veil, so to speak, by the simple, so too was it with the mystery of the Trinity. And consequently, when once grace had been revealed, all were bound to explicit faith in the mystery of the Trinity: and all who are born again in Christ, have this bestowed on them by the invocation of the Trinity, according to Matthew 28:19: 'Going therefore teach ye all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.'" ( Summa Theologica, IIa IIae, q.2, a.8 )

"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, IIa IIae, q.2, a.8 )

But, you say, we do not have to take Saint Thomas "literally"; in fact, he was not being literal when he said, "Explicit faith in those two things was necessary at all times and for all people..." You say that when Thomas taught that "explicit faith" was necessary for salvation, he was really not being "explicit" and that we should not take what he said "explicitly." And, yet, you would have us believe that Thomas would have found Father Feeney's theology to be heretical.

MRyan wrote:
Jehanne wrote:
Also, once again (for the third or fourth time) whom do we, as faithful Catholics, believe:

1) Pope Urban VIII who taught that the Earth does not move.

2) Pope John Paul II who taught that the Earth does move.
Once again, I don't care what you believe. I believe in the inerrancy of Scripture which places the earth at the center of the universe and also testifies to the movement of the sun. You can mock that belief all you want; it does not phase me in the least.

Better yet, take the Sungenis $2000 challenge and “prove” geocentrism is false, and a heliocentric universe is proven true. He’s still waiting to spend the money. Surely someone who is such an esteemed member of the Dead Physicist’s Society is up to the challenge.

Why do you keep changing the subject?

No such society exists, Mike. And, nice dodge on which Pope was incorrect. So, are you saying that Pope John Paul II was wrong to assert that the Earth does move? If so, why should we consider Ut Unum Sint to be without error?

Brother Andre has an excellent article on sedevacantism from 2005:

http://catholicism.org/modern-popes.html

Consider this section:

Saint Robert Bellarmine posits five opinions for consideration:

1. The pope cannot be heretical.

2. The pope, falling into heresy, even purely internal heresy, ipso facto loses the papacy.

3. Even if the pope falls into heresy, the pope would not lose the papacy.

4. An heretical pope is not removed ipso facto, but must be declared deposed by the Church.

5. An heretical pope is deposed ipso facto at the moment that his heresy becomes manifest — that is, public and widely known.

Various theologians have chosen their favorite opinion, but no one consensus is reached by all. St. Robert prefers the fifth postulate.

All five options, Mike, are mutually exclusive; they cannot all be true. If one is true, then the other four must be false. It's the Law of Non-contradiction at work. The same is true of Baptism of Desire:

1) At least one person in Heaven has died without sacramental Baptism in Water.

2) No souls in Heaven have died without sacramental Baptism in Water.

Both of the above propositions cannot both be true. If one is true, then the other must be false. If #2 is correct, then the number of individuals who have attained the Beatific Vision with only Baptism of Desire and/or Blood would constitute a null set.

columba Mon Aug 08, 2011 1:38 pm

tornpage wrote:Columba,

Tornpage, My reason for making the analogy wasn't to place Mike in that same band of heretics or schismatics but simply to show that when he places me in the same boat as protestant Bishops (which of course are really only men dressed up as bishops) and many others who share my view on baptism of desire, he forgets that the same unrealistic comparison can also be made in his case.

Well, I thought Mike's joining of you and the Protestant bishop was accurate in the sense that you both read Trent, Session VI, Chapter IV as saying that justification is only by the laver of regeneration, the only instrumental means of salvation.

Was Mike wrong? I don't think so.

Fair comment Tornpage. Where I differ though from the Protestant "bishop" in a major way is with his Sola Fide belief. Mike however goes another step beyond sola fide with Implicit Faith. Does implicit faith = actual faith? Likewise, does desire = full attainment? Does implicit desire = explicit desire = full attainment?

Mike admits that explicit desire < full attainment (doesn't imprint the sacramental mark), so, is implicit desire less than explicit desire les than full attainment? If so, where does it all end? There can't be any firm boundries on this road. Can there be for example an implicit, implicit desire that saves? Or, does having a soul = implicit desire = explicit desire = Baptism by desire which is lesser than sacramental Baptism but equal to salvation?

When Mike can define what the Church teaches concerning the requiremants for valid baptism of desire, it might then be possible to argue as to whether or not this is de fide. All that Mike is able to do is give his own interpretation of what baptism of desire actually is, as if there already existed this universal, definitive understanding of it.
Meanwhile, I personally feel it conducive to a proper understanding of the faith to hold that "Those who believe and are Baptized will be saved," and that Session 6, Chapter 4 requires an adult to freely desire Baptism without coercion.

Re, Justification. Only God can say if a man be justified in His sight. None of us can claim that we're justified before God never mind determining the state of another.
What we do know however, is that Baptism washes away all trace of original and actual sin and opens up the way for reception of the other sacraments, and as someone here has pointed out before; if a catechumen who died before Baptism where brought back to life, he would still require the sacrament of Baptism before recieving Our Lord in the Holy Eucharist.
If a catechumen were to die before Baptism, who's to determine whether this be a mercy or a punishment. It certainly doesn't seem like a mercy considering the grief expresed by those who lost loved ones before Baptism. And who's to determine that in every such case it has not been a punishment. I'm not saying that it is; I'm only asking, who can determine this?
If it were a punishment in every case then there'd be no such thing as baptism of desire.

MRyan Wed Aug 10, 2011 1:37 pm

Jehanne wrote:
MRyan wrote:
Jehanne wrote:Mike,

Please provide the exact Magisterial reference that says that we, as faithful Catholics, must believe that there are people who sincerely desire Baptism yet who, through no fault of their own, die without it, and as a consequence, suffer in Purgatory due to the sole misfortune of having died without Baptism.
You really don’t get it, do you?

The firm theological foundation for this teaching on the temporal debt that must be paid for actual sins that would normally be fully paid in water Baptism, or would be fully paid in the suffering of Martyrdom, is very clear; and as such, the magisterium has declared on more than one occasion that “one may not desert Aquinas, especially in philosophy and theology, without great harm; following him is the safest way to the knowledge of divine things” (Pope St. Pius X).

No one said that one MUST believe the doctrine, but one would be rash to dispute it.

I do not dispute it, not for a moment, but I hold to Saint Augustine's final view that all of the One and Triune God's elect are, without exception, predestined to receive sacramental Baptism in Water precisely because of Saint Thomas' teaching that one's mere desire for Baptism does not remit that person's temporal punishment, and given Thomas' other teachings in the Summa on the Providence of God, Saint Augustine's final view seems all the more probable.

This is actually quite an astonishing example of totally convoluted thinking. You don’t dispute for a moment the teaching of Aquinas on temporal punishment even for those who are regenerated in Christ through baptism of desire, but you believe such punishment does not ever happen because of this same teaching. Such incoherent logic is astonishing … it really is.

But it is no more astonishing than your claim that you do not dispute the Church’s teaching that God, as first, final, efficient, meritorious and the alone formal cause of justification, is not bound by the instrumentality of His sacraments to effect the same end in those He chooses to regenerate directly, for those who “sincerely desire Baptism will always be able to fulfill this divine obligation" – in reality, or at least in desire.

In fact, you say, this teaching may even be part of the deposit of revealed truth; but, you simply “dispute” the fact that what is true as a Catholic doctrine may actually occur in the reality of flesh and blood regeneration by faith and charity, because, you say, no one, since the promulgation of the Gospel under the new law of grace, ever has been, is or will be justified and saved without actual water Baptism. In other words, here you go again with your utterly foolish and theologically vacuous “null set black-hole devoid of any human beings doctrine”.

You make a mockery of the doctrines of the Church and a mockery of the Doctors and theologians for their being so stupid as to believe that the doctrines they propose might actually be true, and are not wholly fatuous academic exercises in the realm of purely never-will-happen speculations that are self-contradictory (Providence vs. baptism of desire); for baptism of desire cannot be true for flesh and blood sinners in need of real redemption when the sacrament is impossible to receive, because the sacrament is never impossible to receive. God is not bound by the sacraments, but He will never fail to provide the actual sacrament because… well, because He wishes to “perfect” every soul in the “perfect remedy” of Baptism … because Jehanne said so – and never mind what the Church teaches about what WILL happen under certain conditions … Jehanne just rejects the conditions themselves as fables devoid of having any relevance to reality, while telling us he accepts the doctrines.

It bears repeating; you say since baptism of desire is true (in theory only), then there is no reason to dispute St. Thomas’ teaching on temporal punishments, except to say that (like baptism of desire) such teachings are implausible to begin with, though of course you do NOT dispute them as theories. In other words, you accept the teaching of the Church on baptism of blood and baptism of desire, and even on temporal punishments, but you REJECT (as self-refuting) the theological and doctrinal underpinnings that might render these doctrine a reality for fallen flesh and blood sinners; and you attempt to turn Aquinas against himself while also laughing at the insanity of the Church for actually seeming to believe that when she says that the proper dispositions, under certain circumstances, WILL and DO ASSURE the faith-filled soul of justification and salvation, that such occurrences actually happen to real human beings.

I mean, what is the Church thinking?

Jehanne wrote: All five options [of Bellarmine on the deposing of a “heretical” pope], Mike, are mutually exclusive; they cannot all be true. If one is true, then the other four must be false. It's the Law of Non-contradiction at work. The same is true of Baptism of Desire:

1) At least one person in Heaven has died without sacramental Baptism in Water.

2) No souls in Heaven have died without sacramental Baptism in Water.

Both of the above propositions cannot both be true. If one is true, then the other must be false. If #2 is correct, then the number of individuals who have attained the Beatific Vision with only Baptism of Desire and/or Blood would constitute a null set.

No, Bellarmine’s five options are in no way comparable to the Church’s Magisterial teaching on baptism of desire. You think you can present baptism of blood and baptism of desire as you would the five theoretical options for the disposition of a heretical pope, when in truth, it is Bellarmine who believed that such an occurrence of obstinate and pertinacious heresy is itself a complete null set, for not only has it never once occurred in the entire history of the papacy, the divine protection of a never-failing-faith, as VCI would affirm, gives us the dogmatic assurance that it never will happen.

In other words, if Bellarmine entertained the 5 options in a purely academic exercise (because theologians were all over the map and the Church had never “defined” Peter’s never-failing faith as a dogma), he did not believe for a minute that baptism of blood/baptism of desire were doctrines in the same category as the five “null sets” that he believed never have and never will happen; he believed baptism of blood and baptism of desire to be true because they did in fact have relevancy to flesh and blood human beings, and not to theoretical abstractions, as the traditional teaching on the Martyrs testifies, and the long tradition of the Doctors and theologians on baptism of desire attests.

You act like because you are allowed to believe that NO ONE is admitted to the Kingdom without water baptism, that this generosity places the Church in a contradiction precisely for allowing you to believe this, when you are the one who has taken advantage of the Church’s generosity by throwing it back in her face by presenting a logical fallacy of your own making by saying that only one of your gratuitous assumptions can be true.

I know a certain Catholic who believes that NOT ONE of the fallen baptized faithful can be restored to a state of grace (such that would allow entrance to the Kingdom) without actual sacerdotal absolution from an ordained Catholic minister. In other words, never mind what Trent teaches about sincere contrition and intention when a priest is not available, this person believes that no one who has fallen after baptism can enter the kingdom without actual sacerdotal absolution.

Well, gee, do you KNOW of anyone who was saved by a perfect contrition and intention when a priest was not available? Do we even know if such a person was in a state of mortal sin? Does the fact that we do not and cannot know such things force a contradiction between the prospect of at least one non-sacramentally absolved person in heaven, and the contention that there are no such souls in heaven?

Where does this game of "null set" theology, as it is falsely applied to actual doctrines, and not to theoretical abstractions, end?

His arguments on sacerdotal absolution are exactly the same as yours. If his argument is allowed, then it can be said that his position and the teaching of Trent “are mutually exclusive; they cannot [both] be true. If one is true, then the other one must be false. It's the Law of Non-contradiction at work:

1) At least one baptized person in Heaven has died after falling from grace without sacerdotal absolution.

2) No baptized souls in Heaven have died without sacerdotal absolution."

See, this must also be true for baptism of blood and baptism of desire!

There you go, Jehanne, the insanity of your private null set madness on full display.

Btw, like the denial of the tradition of the martyrs (that some died without Water Baptism), do you think that all of the baptized Japanese (who were without a priest for some two centuries) were barred from the Kingdom?

Never mind your miraculous sacerdotal absolution by bi-locating priests, what does the Church teach with respect to such situations, and what does the Church teach on baptism of blood and baptism of desire, as opposed to the theoretical musings of theologians on the disposition of an obstinately “heretical” pope?

If you can’t see the difference by now, I can’t help you.

I’ll return to Augustine and your sloppy caricature of Thomistic teaching in another post – if I can muster the resolve.

Jehanne Wed Aug 10, 2011 3:42 pm

MRyan wrote:But it is no more astonishing than your claim that you do not dispute the Church’s teaching that God, as first, final, efficient, meritorious and the alone formal cause of justification, is not bound by the instrumentality of His sacraments to effect the same end in those He chooses to regenerate directly, for those who “sincerely desire Baptism will always be able to fulfill this divine obligation" – in reality, or at least in desire.

The One and Triune God is, of course, not bound by sacramental Baptism of Water, but He has bound Himself to that. He could have chosen another method, but that is the One that He chose for Himself. Since God is a Perfect Being, and since His Commandments (including, the divine commandment to be Baptized, which, I know, you believe can be "fulfilled" solely by desire) are not impossible for us to fulfill, it stands to reason that those who sincerely desire Baptism will find their way to the Sacrament. This argument is simply one of deduction from the canons of Trent.

But once again, you are claiming that there are actual souls suffering in Purgatory due solely to the misfortune of having died without Baptism. Am I correct here? Are you saying that this is a de fide teaching of the Church? Please be specific. Am I a heretic for believing that all of the One and Triune God's elect whom He has predestined to everlasting life have also, without exception, been predestined by Him to receive the actual sacrament of Baptism in Water? And, once again, please be specific.

By the way, does Baptism of Desire apply to the other Sacraments of the Church? Do two people, a man and a woman, who desire to be married, but they die without exchanging vows, is their sincere desire to be married make them married? How about Holy Orders? Does a man's sincere desire to be a priest make him a priest? Or, is the actual Sacrament necessary for that outcome? Of course, all "Feeneyites" (at least those formally associated with the Saint Benedict Centers) agree that one's desire, after Baptism, of receiving Penance can substitute for the actual Sacrament, but all that this proves is that the Sacraments are different from each other.

Still no word on which Pope to believe, Pope John Paul II, who taught that the Earth moves, or Pope Urban VIII, who taught that it does not.

DeSelby Wed Aug 10, 2011 5:36 pm

Jehanne wrote:Still no word on which Pope to believe, Pope John Paul II, who taught that the Earth moves, or Pope Urban VIII, who taught that it does not.

Where did Pope John Paul II officially and without ambiguity teach that the earth moves?

You could respond in the geocentrism thread if you'd like to be detailed—I see no need to derail the topic of this thread with a sudden change of subject.

Jehanne Wed Aug 10, 2011 9:58 pm

http://www.its.caltech.edu/~nmcenter/sci-cp/sci-9211.html

8. Another crisis, similar to the one we are speaking of, can be mentioned here. In the last century and at the beginning of our own, advances in the historical sciences made it possible to acquire a new understanding of the Bible and of the biblical world. The rationalist context in which these data were most often presented seemed to make them dangerous to the Christian faith. Certain people, in their concern to defend the faith, thought it necessary to reject firmly-based historical conclusions. That was a hasty and unhappy decision. The work of a pioneer like Fr Lagrange was able to make the necessary discernment on the basis of dependable criteria.

It is necessary to repeat here what I said above. It is a duty for theologians to keep themselves regularly informed of scientific advances in order to examine if such be necessary, whether or not there are reasons for taking them into account in their reflection or for introducing changes in their teaching.

12. Another lesson which we can draw is that the different branches of knowledge call for different methods. Thanks to his intuition as a brilliant physicist and by relying on different arguments, Galileo, who practically invented the experimental method, understood why only the sun could function as the centre of the world, as it was then known, that is to say, as a planetary system. The error of the theologians of the time, when they maintained the centrality of the earth, was to think that our understanding of the physical world's structure was, in some way, imposed by the literal sense of Sacred Scripture. Let us recall the celebrated saying attributed to Baronius "Spiritui Sancto mentem fuisse nos docere quomodo ad coelum eatur, non quomodo coelum gradiatur". In fact, the Bible does not concern itself with the details of the physical world, the understanding of which is the competence of human experience and reasoning. There exist two realms of knowledge, one which has its source in Revelation and one which reason can discover by its own power. To the latter belong especially the experimental sciences and philosophy. The distinction between the two realms of knowledge ought not to be understood as opposition. The two realms are not altogether foreign to each other, they have points of contact. The methodologies proper to each make it possible to bring out different aspects of reality.

13. Your Academy conducts its work with this outlook. Its principal task is to promote the advancement of knowledge with respect for the legitimate freedom of science which the Apostolic See expressly acknowledges in the statutes of your institution. What is important in a scientific or philosophic theory is above all that it should be true or, at least, seriously and solidly grounded. And the purpose of your Academy is precisely to discern and to make known, in the present state of science and within its proper limits, what can be regarded as an acquired truth or at least as enjoying such a degree of probability that it would be imprudent and unreasonable to reject it. In this way unnecessary conflicts can be avoided.

MRyan Fri Aug 12, 2011 12:33 pm

Jehanne wrote: The One and Triune God is, of course, not bound by sacramental Baptism of Water, but He has bound Himself to that.

You are equivocating. Every time the sacrament is validly conferred on a properly disposed adult, God has infallibly bound the sacrament to efficaciously transmit the merit and fruits of the Passion (ex opere operato); but He has NOT bound Himself EXCLUSIVELY to the instrumentality of the sacrament to effect the same end. This is either true, or it is false; and you can’t have it both ways with your mindless “null set” theory and then say that God has bound Himself to effect justification and salvation ONLY by the instrumental means of Baptism, because Jehanne said so, and let’s all forget what the Church actually teaches.

Jehanne wrote: He could have chosen another method, but that is the One that He chose for Himself. Since God is a Perfect Being, and since His Commandments (including, the divine commandment to be Baptized, which, I know, you believe can be "fulfilled" solely by desire) are not impossible for us to fulfill, it stands to reason that those who sincerely desire Baptism will find their way to the Sacrament. This argument is simply one of deduction from the canons of Trent.

He has chosen only one method for the Church – correct; and there is no other method but the sacrament of baptism that can serve as the instrument of the Church to confer the effects of the sacrament, and all the graces that come with it; but, He is NOT bound by His divinely instituted instrument to effect the same end since He is the First, the Final, the Efficient, the Meritorious and the alone Final CAUSE of Justification, “not that whereby He Himself is just, but that whereby He maketh us just, that, to wit, with which we being endowed by Him, are renewed in the spirit of our mind, and we are not only reputed, but are truly called, and are, just, receiving justice within us, each one according to his own measure, which the Holy Ghost distributes to every one as He wills, and according to each one's proper disposition and co-operation.” (Trent, Sess, 6, Ch. 7)

In other words, as the First, Final and alone Formal cause, He can choose the direct and primary instrument of Himself over the secondary instrumental means to effect the same translation to whomsoever He wills.

Baptism of blood and desire are not “methods” to be conferred, they are non-sacramental forms of the One Baptism in the sense that they effect the same essential end as Baptism by a direct transmission via the instrument of the First and the alone Formal Cause of justification and salvation.

And your "argument is" NOT "simply one of deduction from the canons of Trent"; it is an illogical deduction formed as a result of a logical fallacy where one or more premises are false. If it had any merit, you would be able to point to a Doctor, saint, theologian or pope since the Council of Trent who came to the conclusion that the canons of Trent suggest that God WILL provide the sacrament of baptism to every one of the justified ... no exceptions.

Of course, the subject of this (columba's) thread is not even that; but whether Trent teaches that one my be justified by the desire for baptism (faith, charity, intention). The St. Benedict Center holds that no one can be truly justified without the sacrament of Baptism, and you appear to be falling right in-line with that errant doctrine, while telling us you accept the Church's teaching. You sure are slippery; and your "null set" doctrine is not a doctrine, it is abysmally poor theology that allows you to "accept" the Church's teachings, while effectively rejecting rejecting baptism of blood and baptism of desire as having any relevance for flesh and blood humans in need of redemption.

Jehanne wrote: But once again, you are claiming that there are actual souls suffering in Purgatory due solely to the misfortune of having died without Baptism. Am I correct here?

No. Having died without Baptism is not the primary cause for having to pay the debt of temporal punishments; the primary cause is venial sin(s). Non-Baptized souls who suffer in Purgatory are there to satisfy the same unpaid debt as the Baptized, to whatever degree the debt must be paid. Has it ever crossed your mind that there may be reasons God may choose to have this debt paid, and not to arrange temporal affairs to ensure the sacrament is provided in each and every case, and to have each Baptized adult die immediately so as to avoid committing a venial sin?

Baptism may be the “perfect remedy”, but God may choose a regenerative remedy that employs the perfecting purgation of temporal punishments (perhaps due to a less than “perfect”, but sufficiently sincere resolve and/or charity of the penitent). How many adult souls die immediately following Baptism and are thus assured of their immediate entrance to the Kingdom? So why do you complain that those who are assured of their salvation through baptism of desire may have to pay an un-remitted temporal debt in Purgatory?

Jehanne wrote: Are you saying that this is a de fide teaching of the Church? Please be specific. Am I a heretic for believing that all of the One and Triune God's elect whom He has predestined to everlasting life have also, without exception, been predestined by Him to receive the actual sacrament of Baptism in Water? And, once again, please be specific.

Your doctrine is heretical, IMHO, only if you deny that one may be justified by “the desire for it”. The doctrine is de fide. I think “proximate to heresy” is a better description of your doctrine.

But having died without Baptism is not the cause of temporal punishments; and non-Baptized souls who suffer Purgatory are there to satisfy the same unpaid debts for the temporal punishments as the Baptized. It sounds as if you are arguing against the “injustice” of having adult souls suffer in Purgatory due solely to the misfortune of having committed a venial sin soon after their Baptism. Will you also object to the fact that there may be adult souls in hell who died immediately after the Baptisms (with the sacramental seal), but were not properly disposed?

St. Aquinas’s teaching on the debt of temporal punishments is not de fide, and no one said it was. However, I told you that it would be rash to dispute his teachings when the Church has not in any way modified or corrected his doctrine. I love it when un-schooled laymen think they can enter the ring with St. Thomas and beat him on theological grounds without a single theologian or magisterial teaching to back his challenge. And please stop with “am I a heretic?” method of argumentation, especially after all these months of having beaten this stupid argument into the ground; for it is the weak argument of a man who is not sure of his position; and seeing the shaky ground upon which you stand, you should be concerned that you have to resort to this tired and distracting form of argumentation..

The problem is not with your private belief that God predestines each of His elect to water Baptism, the problem is with your subsequent attempt to turn the Church against herself by setting one doctrine against another as if they were opposed, when they are not. The Omnipotence and Providence of God in no way renders baptism of blood and baptism of desire as empty “null sets”, let alone as false (same difference); and the Church has never declared that each of the elect is predestined to Water Baptism. Whether you believe St. Augustine actually “changed” his mind on baptism of desire is irrelevant when placed in the context of actual Magisterial teaching and the unanimous consensus of the Doctors and theologians, without one dissenting voice since at least the Council of Tent.

Jehanne wrote: By the way, does Baptism of Desire apply to the other Sacraments of the Church? Do two people, a man and a woman, who desire to be married, but they die without exchanging vows, is their sincere desire to be married make them married? How about Holy Orders? Does a man's sincere desire to be a priest make him a priest? Or, is the actual Sacrament necessary for that outcome? Of course, all "Feeneyites" (at least those formally associated with the Saint Benedict Centers) agree that one's desire, after Baptism, of receiving Penance can substitute for the actual Sacrament, but all that this proves is that the Sacraments are different from each other.

Is that the best you can come up with?

Let it be noted that Jehanne has no response to my rebuttal to his totally discredited analogy where he tried to compare Bellarmine’s five “null set” options (pertaining to a totally theoretical and academic exercise to determine the most likely outcome in the case of an obstinately heretical pope) to the doctrines of baptism of blood and baptism of desire.

Can someone enter the Kingdom of heaven without the sacrament of Marriage, or Holy Orders or Penance? Is the actual sacrament necessary to effect that same end (salvation)? You know the answer, and you also know your analogy, like your totally discredited 5 (null set) options of Bellarmine analogy, misses the mark completely. You are forever comparing apples with oranges, changing the subject and throwing logical fallacies on the wall to see if anything sticks.

Though not every sacrament is necessary to every individual, as the Council of Trent also teaches, “This sacrament of penance is for those who have fallen after baptism necessary for salvation, as baptism is for those who have not yet been regenerated.” In other words, Baptism and Penance (after a fall from grace) are alike with respect to necessity since both are necessary as necessities of precept and of means for salvation.

Now, can someone receive the grace (the essential fruit) of the sacrament of Baptism under certain conditions through faith, charity and intention?

If you say yes, but then add that this type of regeneration is unfulfilled and defective in that this form of sanctifying grace cannot, under any circumstances, make one an heir to the Kingdom without the actual sacrament of Baptism, congratulations, you are an “official” Feeneyite who endorses the “official” Feeneyite position.

Me, I think this whole unfulfilled or defective form of justification (since the promulgation of the gospel under the law of grace) theory is entirely heterodox, but I guess I am not a “big tent” inclusive type of person who is open to entertaining heterodoxy as orthodoxy.

Oh wait, unlike the St. Benedict Center, you do not actually deny the efficacy of baptism of blood and baptism of desire for salvation (though you support the St. Benedict Center postion!), you simply state that as doctrines (even revealed truths), they are meaningless “null sets” since there are not any conditions by which the sacrament would be “impossible” to receive, not for the last minute convert and martyr, and not for any catechumen. So says Jehanne, and never mind what the Church actually teaches. So when the Catechism of Trent and the CCC teach that when the sacrament is in fact impossible to receive, a catechumen’s desire and resolve to receive it WILL avail him to grace and righteousness, we can take Jehanne’s advice and toss this doctrine out as a ridiculous “null set”, for if the catechumen is one of the elect, then God will supply the sacrament, and the Catechism of Trent is simply wrong, as is the Catholic Church for continuing to teach this same doctrine which Jehanne allegedly accepts, but then renders it absolutely null and void.

You remind me of the rad trads who say they are in communion with the pope, and then turn around and reject his official doctrines, his disciplines and his laws.

But don’t worry, Jehanne, the St. Benedict Center doesn’t really care that you say you accept the Church’s teaching on the efficacy of baptism of blood and baptism of desire, even while pushing your inane “doctrines as null sets” theory (though I am sure they would distant themselves from it), so long as you say you’re a Feeneyite. After all, the Church’s doctrines of baptism of blood and baptism of desire, as Brian Kelly said, are NOT “magisterial”, so I guess we can say they are mere theological opinions that appear to be favored by the Church, but no one is actually obliged to submit to the authority of the Church’s official teaching since the Church doesn’t actually exercise any real magisterial authority here that cannot be ignored or rejected (after all, these so-called “doctrines” are not “binding” matters of revealed truth), and the Church cannot demand of the faithful the religious submission of the mind and will to mere “theological opinions” and “null sets”.

I mean, if someone can reject the Council’s teaching on “or its desire” by pushing a novel exclusive understanding that says that no one can be justified by faith, contrition and desire, a heterodox position that is directly opposed to the universal understanding of the Doctors and theologians (the very same understanding taught by the Church), and still be counted as a “Feeneyite”, this suggests that now matter how loony the theory, quantity sometimes has its advantages over quality (though sede’s need not apply!).

Jehanne wrote: Still no word on which Pope to believe, Pope John Paul II, who taught that the Earth moves, or Pope Urban VIII, who taught that it does not.

And, as I said, you can believe whomsoever you want; I’ve stated my position, and stand by it.

If you want to discuss this in greater detail, then move it to the geocentrism thread and stop cluttering this thread with your irrelevant distractions. Let me just say that the 1616 and the 1633 decisions of the Inquisition are not infallible; they are not binding on the Church and those who say that Pope Urban VIII declared helocentrism to be “formally heretical” are mistaken. The declaration against Galileo was in fact a disciplinary measure, though the declaration by a canonical trial (1633) that says Geocentrism is the correct view of cosmology has never been formally or officially rescinded or abrogated.

There are several problems with the text of Pope JPII speech to the PAS (heliocentrists and atheists), and a naïve assumption about science and what it has actually proven. Also, this issue was not “closed in 1820 with the imprimatur given to the work of Canon Settele”, for the imprimatur only allowed Canon’s Settle book, which accepts heliocentrism as an established physical fact, to be published (after the Master of the Sacred Palace {the Church's chief censor}, Filippo Anfossi, refused to license Settele's book).

Now, take it to the other thread if you wish to continue; but as it is, you cannot force a “one must choose between one pope and another” argument with me – it won’t work and you once again made some false assumptions.

Jehanne Fri Aug 12, 2011 2:48 pm

MRyan wrote:The problem is not with your private belief that God predestines each of His elect to water Baptism, the problem is with your subsequent attempt to turn the Church against herself by setting one doctrine against another as if they were opposed, when they are not.

Please stop saying that my "opinion" is "private." If Saint Augustine, one of the principle Doctor's of the Church, held to the view that is expressed in my signature, then this view is hardly "private." You have done us a benefit with the following:

By these measures the synod intends to detract in nothing from the sayings and writings of the holy doctors who discourse on these matters. On the contrary, it accepts and embraces them according to their true understanding as commonly expounded and declared by these doctors and other catholic teachers in the theological schools. (Council of Florence, Session 22—15 October 1435)

So, Saint Augustine's view is valid, and your claim that his view is "proximate to heresy" is both ludicrous and absurd.

It is nice to know that you acknowledge the fact that the "decisions of the Inquisition are not infallible," which, of course, would include the "decisions" against Father Feeney. (Of course, as the condemnation against Galileo was signed by a sitting Pope, which did not happen with Father Feeney, I am stating the obvious.) It is also nice to know that you agree that there are "several problems with the text of Pope JPII speech," and by implication, things like Pope Innocent III's private letter are not necessarily part of Magisterial teaching, either.

Your claim that individuals can be "assured of their salvation through baptism of desire" is most strange. Not even the 1949 Holy Office letter went that far:

But it must not be thought that any kind of desire of entering the
Church suffices that one may be saved. It is necessary that the
desire by which one is related to the Church be animated by perfect
charity.

How one can "know" if he/she has "perfect charity" is beyond me! Seems kind of arrogant to even make such a claim, especially, on one's own behalf.

It's good to see that you acknowledge that catechumens who die without Baptism suffer in Purgatory for their own venial sins. While they freely chose to sin, did they "freely" choose not to be Baptized, which they sincerely desired? Perhaps the One and Triune God allows such to happen, but I do not believe such to be the case, ever; such a view is hardly "private."

MRyan Fri Aug 12, 2011 6:02 pm

Jehanne wrote:
MRyan wrote:The problem is not with your private belief that God predestines each of His elect to water Baptism, the problem is with your subsequent attempt to turn the Church against herself by setting one doctrine against another as if they were opposed, when they are not.
Please stop saying that my "opinion" is "private." If Saint Augustine, one of the principle Doctor's of the Church, held to the view that is expressed in my signature, then this view is hardly "private." You have done us a benefit with the following:

By these measures the synod intends to detract in nothing from the sayings and writings of the holy doctors who discourse on these matters. On the contrary, it accepts and embraces them according to their true understanding as commonly expounded and declared by these doctors and other catholic teachers in the theological schools. (Council of Florence, Session 22—15 October 1435)
So, Saint Augustine's view is valid, and your claim that his view is "proximate to heresy" is both ludicrous and absurd.

No, I said there was nothing wrong with your private belief (and it is "private") that God predestines every soul to water Baptism; it was only your subsequent "null set" foolishness that I consider "proximate to heresy" because it effectively rejects baptism of blood and baptism of desire by appealing to other doctrines as if they they are opposed, and makes the Church appear to be in doctrinal error.

The fact is that I reject your "opinion" that St. Augustine "changed" his position, and I have the authority of St. Aquinas and the other Doctors and theologians to back it up -- not one of whom ever suggested that St. Augustine "changed" his position.

Your favorite citation was taken out of context and there is not a single retraction by St. Augustine; with his Book of Retractions completed just prior to his unfinished treatise addressed to Julian of Eccleum. By the way, the Latin title Retractationes literally means "re-treatments" (not "Retractions").

And of course, you had no reply to my demonstration of how the alleged “proof” (taken from On the Soul and its Origin) of St. Augustine’s “change” in position on baptism of desire was clearly taken out of the obvious stated context of infant baptism ... because you really don’t care that even IF it were true that St. Augustine changed his position (he did not), neither the Church nor the universal consensus of Doctors and theologians ever accepted this alleged doctrinal “change” in Augustine, and in fact would only come to solidify the doctrines and the theology of baptism of blood and baptism of desire as the ages rolled on.

If Fr. Rahner said St. Augustine “changed” his position, then you accept this as Gospel proof … even if the evidence is sketchy and inconclusive at best, and sloppy and decidedly unsubstantiated at worse. And the fact that neither St. Aquinas nor any of the other Doctors who were familiar with all of Augustine's writings ever said a word about St. Augustine changing his position doesn’t bother you either – after all, you trust the Scholarship of Fr. Rahner and that of a few other moderns scholars who obviously knew Augustine better than the Doctors and other scholastics.

Anyone who has read St. Augustine knows that when his opponents attempted to use his arguments against him, if he actually did change or modify his position, he freely admitted this and states precisely how and why his position changed. He also tells us when his specific arguments are taken out of context and in isolation against his greater teaching.

And yet we are supposed to believe that in the final year or two of his life, in his unfinished book against the heretical Pelagianism of Julian of Eccleum, when Pelagianism itself was dying (and semi-pelagianism was on the rise), “proof” that St. Augustine reversed his life-long teachings on baptism of blood and baptism of desire, and rejected all of the theological underpinning that support these doctrines, is taken from one statement from Book 5, chapter 4 (your favorite "signature" passage).

In summary, St. Augustine did NOT change his opinion, and I don’t care what Fr. Rahner or any other Johnny-come-lately modern scholar says against the opinion of Aquinas and other Doctors who knew Augustine's writings better than they did. I’ve already demonstrated how St. Augustine was taken completely out of context in On the Soul and its Origin (that really is some shoddy “scholarship” by those who site him out of context), and your favorite citation from Against Julian does not “prove” what you allege. I read the entire book 5 over the weekend and am convinced more than ever that St. Augustine did NOT “change” his consistent teaching on baptism of blood and baptism of desire.

Furthermore, it is alleged that Augustine changed his position later during his anti-Pelagian period, when this is demonstrably false. He had already wrote the bulk of his work against Pelagianism (and wrote in favor of baptism of blood and baptism of desire) well before he wrote his treatise against Juilian of Eccleum, and, as I said, Pelagianism was already on the way out by the time he decided to address the Pelagianism of Julian, a work he was hesitant to even consider since the doctrine was almost laughable -- so thoroughly discredited it already was.

However, by citing the Council of Florence, you really demonstrate by how far you can be off the mark. Its as if you can turn any magisterial declaration that discredits your position in your favor by making it say just the opposite of what it actually declares.

When the Council declared that "it accepts and embraces them according to their true understanding as commonly expounded and declared by these doctors and other catholic teachers in the theological schools", she is referring to the "common doctrines" of the Doctors and theologians as they are "commonly expounded and declared by these doctors and other catholic teachers in the theological schools".

Now, Saint Thomas finished his Summa in 1274, 161 years before this declaration of Florence. What no one disputes is the fact that the medieval theologians and the schools were unanimous in their understanding of the efficacy of baptism of blood and baptism of desire. So even IF Augustine "changed" his position, the best evidence you can come with is that some theologians thought he was inconsistent; but it doesn't really matter because his alleged "change" in position was not the doctrine "commonly expounded and declared by these doctors and other catholic teachers in the theological schools".

"Commonly expounded" means the "common doctrine" of the Doctors, theologians and the Schools; it does not mean an early opinion that is no longer held, such as Augustine's belief that unbaptized infants suffered the eternal torments of the senses.

Come to your senses, man, and get with the program.

Jehanne wrote:It is nice to know that you acknowledge the fact that the "decisions of the Inquisition are not infallible," which, of course, would include the "decisions" against Father Feeney. (Of course, as the condemnation against Galileo was signed by a sitting Pope, which did not happen with Father Feeney, I am stating the obvious.) It is also nice to know that you agree that there are "several problems with the text of Pope JPII speech," and by implication, things like Pope Innocent III's private letter are not necessarily part of Magisterial teaching, either.

No, you are mistaken. The decisions of the Inquisition (ratified by the pope), the Letters of Innocents II and III addressing baptism of desire, as well as Fr. Feeney's excommunication, are all official "magisterial" acts; and not one of them is a "private" musing of a pope.

The question of disciplinary measures and the doctrines which are affirmed within must be settled by the Pope as to the exact binding nature of the doctrine(s), if there are any. What I said is that as a disciplinary (and thus reformable) measure, neither the Inquisition (which cannot bind anyone) nor the pope made it a matter of conscience with respect to whether the Faithful must believe or accept, under the pain of sin, a geocentric universe.

At the time of Galileo, I would say that a geocentric system was the only common doctrine of the Church, and I do not believe this has changed, JPII's ambiguous and confusing remarks to the PAS notwithstanding. If the Church has always allowed heliocentrism to be taught as a theory (except for Galileo - who tried to extend it beyond theory), there is no way that helocentrism can be considered formally heretical.

I hold it to be erroneous, and will have the last laugh (with my geocentric friends).

Jehanne wrote:Your claim that individuals can be "assured of their salvation through baptism of desire" is most strange. Not even the 1949 Holy Office letter went that far:

But it must not be thought that any kind of desire of entering the
Church suffices that one may be saved. It is necessary that the
desire by which one is related to the Church be animated by perfect
charity.
How one can "know" if he/she has "perfect charity" is beyond me! Seems kind of arrogant to even make such a claim, especially, on one's own behalf.

The only thing "strange" is your willful misrepresentation of what I said. Are you suggesting that the Catechism of Trent and the CCC are teaching that one can "know" with certainty just who has baptism of desire and who doesn't? Where do you read such tortured logic into this teaching when it says no such thing, and neither did I?

Are you really so obtuse that you don't know the difference between the objective requirements that assure the salvation of someone who is in possession of these objective requirements, and the subjective state of an adult whose internal dispositions
can be known by God alone, even if they appear to be properly disposed?

Tell us, Jehanne, is someone who dies in a state of sanctifying grace assured of their salvation? Does the Church teach that we can know with certainty who these souls are?

Oh, sorry; the first question was a bit unfair, considering the "official" position of the St. Benedict Center and all (they say "NO"); a position you now seem bound and determined to defend.

Those souls who possess the true faith, who are sincerely contrite and who have the desire/resolve to receive baptism, are assured of their salvation should the sacrament be impossible to receive; and THAT is what the Church teaches. She did not "define" "perfect charity", and she never will, but it should be obvious that this faith vivifying charity is motivated by a sincere contrition and a love of God above all things.

Jehanne wrote:It's good to see that you acknowledge that catechumens who die without Baptism suffer in Purgatory for their own venial sins. While they freely chose to sin, did they "freely" choose not to be Baptized, which they sincerely desired? Perhaps the One and Triune God allows such to happen, but I do not believe such to be the case, ever; such a view is hardly "private."

Anyone who freely chooses not to be baptized out of contempt for the sacrament is not in Purgatory, but someplace a bit warmer. The whole notion of desiring baptism with the proper faith, contrition and resolve, and then choosing NOT to be baptized, is what is "absurd"; as least in your attempt to apply this to baptism of desire. You really don't get it.

You are devolving once again, into a catatonic state of blathering incoherence. I don't really care what you believe, but only what the Church teaches.

Jehanne Fri Aug 12, 2011 7:16 pm

MRyan wrote:The fact is that I reject your "opinion" that St. Augustine "changed" his position, and I have the authority of St. Aquinas and the other Doctors and theologians to back it up -- not one of whom ever suggested that St. Augustine "changed" his position.

His student, Saint Prosper of Aquitaine, knew him:

"For in this respect they are in the same condition as the greatest sinners; regenerated in baptism they are alike in sanctity; take away baptism, and they perish all together. It is a fact then, that grace seeks its adopted sons even among the worse sinners in their very last moments, and that many who looked less wicked are denied this gift. But who could say that these facts escape God’s ruling or that He decrees them without a profound justice? …It is obvious that all who die without baptism are lost." (The Call of All Nations 1, 17; 2, 24)

"No man attains to eternal life without the sacrament of baptism." (Answers to the Gauls 9)

I agree with Brian Kelly:

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

As Brian points out, Saint Thomas made a few historical errors, so Saint Thomas hardly "knew" Saint Augustine. However, if it could be shown that I (and Brian) are misreading Saint Augustine, then I will be happy to withdraw my position. For starters, find me one scholar who agrees with you and says that Rahner got it wrong.

MRyan wrote:When the Council declared that "it accepts and embraces them according to their true understanding as commonly expounded and declared by these doctors and other catholic teachers in the theological schools", she is referring to the "common doctrines" of the Doctors and theologians as they are "commonly expounded and declared by these doctors and other catholic teachers in the theological schools".

Oh, I agree, but the burden of proof is on you to show that the scholastics (who, by the way, disagreed amongst themselves on certain theological questions, as is evidenced by the fact that there were fist-fights among disagreeing theologians on the floor at the Council of Trent) would have objected to Father Fenney's theology. I do not think that they would have, as evidenced by the fact that Peter Abelard at least flirted with the idea of the absolute necessity of actual sacramental Baptism in Water, something that he was not condemned for doing, unlike some of his other ideas.

MRyan wrote:Now, Saint Thomas finished his Summa in 1274, 161 years before this declaration of Florence. What no one disputes is the fact that the medieval theologians and the schools were unanimous in their understanding of the efficacy of baptism of blood and baptism of desire. So even IF Augustine "changed" his position, the best evidence you can come with is that some theologians thought he was inconsistent; but it doesn't really matter because his alleged "change" in position was not the doctrine "commonly expounded and declared by these doctors and other catholic teachers in the theological schools".

Agree to disagree. Again, Peter Abelard was never condemned on this question, unlike some other of his ideas. Why? Why did Florence never explicitly mention baptism of desire? Why did Trent not say the following:

If anyone says that a catechumen who has embraced all of the Catholic Faith, who lives in submission to the Roman Pontiff, and who has the vow to receive Sacramental Baptism in Water yet who, through no fault of his own, dies before receiving that Sacrament due to some unforeseen accident making it impossible for him to be Baptized, that such a person cannot attain Heaven, let him be anathema.

Do you think that we would be arguing over this issue if Trent had said this or something similar? (Answer: "No," for me at least.)

MRyan wrote:"Commonly expounded" means the "common doctrine" of the Doctors, theologians and the Schools; it does not mean an early opinion that is no longer held, such as Augustine's belief that unbaptized infants suffered the eternal torments of the senses.

So, Saint Augustine's view on the fate of unbaptized infants is now heretical? When did it become heretical?

MRyan wrote:No, you are mistaken. The decisions of the Inquisition (ratified by the pope), the Letters of Innocents II and III addressing baptism of desire, as well as Fr. Feeney's excommunication, are all official "magisterial" acts; and not one of them is a "private" musing of a pope.

The question of disciplinary measures and the doctrines which are affirmed within must be settled by the Pope as to the exact binding nature of the doctrine(s), if there are any. What I said is that as a disciplinary (and thus reformable) measure, neither the Inquisition (which cannot bind anyone) nor the pope made it a matter of conscience with respect to whether the Faithful must believe or accept, under the pain of sin, a geocentric universe.

At the time of Galileo, I would say that a geocentric system was the only common doctrine of the Church, and I do not believe this has changed, JPII's ambiguous and confusing remarks to the PAS notwithstanding. If the Church has always allowed heliocentrism to be taught as a theory (except for Galileo - who tried to extend it beyond theory), there is no way that helocentrism can be considered formally heretical.

Well (once again) here is the text of Galileo's abjuration:

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1630galileo.asp

Whereas you, Galileo, son of the late Vincenzio Galilei, of Florence, aged seventy years, were denounced in 1615, to this Holy Office, for holding as true a false doctrine taught by many, namely, that the sun is immovable in the center of the world, and that the earth moves, and also with a diurnal motion; also, for having pupils whom you instructed in the same opinions; also, for maintaining a correspondence on the same with some German mathematicians; also for publishing certain letters on the sun-spots, in which you developed the same doctrine as true; also, for answering the objections which were continually produced from the Holy Scriptures, by glozing the said Scriptures according to your own meaning; and whereas thereupon was produced the copy of a writing, in form of a letter professedly written by you to a person formerly your pupil, in which, following the hypothesis of Copernicus, you include several propositions contrary to the true sense and authority of the Holy Scriptures; therefore (this Holy Tribunal being desirous of providing against the disorder and mischief which were thence proceeding and increasing to the detriment of the Holy Faith) by the desire of his Holiness and the Most Emminent Lords, Cardinals of this supreme and universal Inquisition, the two propositions of the stability of the sun, and the motion of the earth, were qualified by the Theological Qualifiers as follows:

The proposition that the sun is in the center of the world and immovable from its place is absurd, philosophically false, and formally heretical; because it is expressly contrary to Holy Scriptures.

The proposition that the earth is not the center of the world, nor immovable, but that it moves, and also with a diurnal action, is also absurd, philosophically false, and, theologically considered, at least erroneous in faith.

Therefore . . . , invoking the most holy name of our Lord Jesus Christ and of His Most Glorious Mother Mary, We pronounce this Our final sentence: We pronounce, judge, and declare, that you, the said Galileo . . . have rendered yourself vehemently suspected by this Holy Office of heresy, that is, of having believed and held the doctrine (which is false and contrary to the Holy and Divine Scriptures) that the sun is the center of the world, and that it does not move from east to west, and that the earth does move, and is not the center of the world; also, that an opinion can be held and supported as probable, after it has been declared and finally decreed contrary to the Holy Scripture, and, consequently, that you have incurred all the censures and penalties enjoined and promulgated in the sacred canons and other general and particular constituents against delinquents of this description. From which it is Our pleasure that you be absolved, provided that with a sincere heart and unfeigned faith, in Our presence, you abjure, curse, and detest, the said error and heresies, and every other error and heresy contrary to the Catholic and Apostolic Church of Rome.

Only "disciplinary"?

Jehanne wrote:Your claim that individuals can be "assured of their salvation through baptism of desire" is most strange. Not even the 1949 Holy Office letter went that far:

MRyan wrote:Those souls who possess the true faith, who are sincerely contrite and who have the desire/resolve to receive baptism, are assured of their salvation should the sacrament be impossible to receive; and THAT is what the Church teaches. She did not "define" "perfect charity", and she never will, but it should be obvious that this faith vivifying charity is motivated by a sincere contrition and a love of God above all things.

How do you they know that they are "sincerely contrite"? According to the CCC, does "imperfect contrition" secure forgiveness of one's sins or must such contrition be perfect? How can one know if one has perfect contrition?

MRyan wrote:
Jehanne wrote:It's good to see that you acknowledge that catechumens who die without Baptism suffer in Purgatory for their own venial sins. While they freely chose to sin, did they "freely" choose not to be Baptized, which they sincerely desired? Perhaps the One and Triune God allows such to happen, but I do not believe such to be the case, ever; such a view is hardly "private."
Anyone who freely chooses not to be baptized out of contempt for the sacrament is not in Purgatory, but someplace a bit warmer. The whole notion of desiring baptism with the proper faith, contrition and resolve, and then choosing NOT to be baptized, is what is "absurd"; as least in your attempt to apply this to baptism of desire. You really don't get it.

No, you're misreading me. An adult catechumen who dies with perfect faith, charity, and contrition (but without martyrdom) but without Baptism is consigned to Purgatory. True?

MRyan Sat Aug 13, 2011 10:06 pm

Jehanne wrote:
I agree with Brian Kelly:

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

Fine, then let’s cut straight to the chase.

Brian Kelly wrote:

The Book of Sentences and Saint Bernard

Baptism of desire is not found in the most respected theology book, written near the end of the twelfth century, The Four Books of Sentences of Bishop Peter Lombard, which work Saint Thomas studied and commented upon a century later. The Sentences would continue to be the theology textbook for all Catholic universities until the Summa Theologica gradually replaced it in the seventeenth century. Until that time, for almost five centuries, it was a standard requirement for a theology degree to write a commentary of the famous Sentences. Peter Lombard had taught in Paris at the Cathedral University of Notre Dame, at about the same time the Sorbonne was being founded. Interesting in this connection is that Lombard, the great Master of the Sentences, studied under Peter Abelard and Hugh of St. Victor before he began teaching in Paris. Both of these men were renowned intellectual giants of the twelfth century: the latter crowned his theological acumen with a holy life, while the former, a master dialectician, was plagued by a remorseful conscience for a good part of his life and, finally, was moved to spend his last days as a penitent in the monastery of Cluny.

These names have been brought up to highlight the fact that Bishop Lombard’s Collection of authoritative teachings and Commentary on theology makes no mention of baptism of desire in his treatment of the first sacrament. Yet, he was a contemporary of Saint Bernard and Hugh of St. Victor, who both opined in favor of baptism of desire. In a letter to Master Hugh, who had asked the saint’s opinion about the question of baptism of desire, Bernard cited the two fathers, Ambrose and Augustine, as his authority in favoring it. But he clearly spoke of it as a matter of opinion:

“We adduce only the opinions and words of the fathers and not our own; for we are not wiser than our fathers. . . . Believe me, it will be difficult to separate me from these two pillars, by which I refer to Augustine and Ambrose. I confess that with them I am either right or wrong in believing that people can be saved by faith alone and the desire to receive the sacrament, even if untimely death or some insuperable force keep them from fulfilling their pious desire.” (my italic)

Peter Abelard

In his Theologia Christiana Peter Abelard specifically rejected baptism of desire (2, Patrologia Latina 178, 1205), arguing that the speculation on the subject offered by Saint Ambrose in the Valentinian eulogy contradicted the fathers. Not this, but certain other of Abelard’s propositions were condemned in 1141 at the Council of Sens, which was presided over by Saint Bernard of Clairvaux. And, although Master Lombard disagreed with Abelard on several of his propositions, he always held him in high esteem, and the former’s Four Books of Sentences were heavily influenced by the scriptural commentary of the latter, which lay heavily on the literal, historical, and grammatical sense. This is quite possibly why there is no favorable mention of baptism of desire in the fourth Book, which dealt with each sacrament in particular. When one puts together this whole scenario, it appears likely that Hugh of St. Victor read Abelard’s specific rejection of baptism of desire in his Theologia Christiana, and, noting that there was no favorable mention of it either in Peter Lombard’s Book of Sentences, he was prompted to write to Saint Bernard for his opinion.

That is quite a persuasive argument, I must admit. Peter Lombard was indeed a renowned master theologian whose influence cannot be overstated, for:

Up to the twelfth century there had been no text-book for the study of theology. It is certainly interesting, then, to see how the Lombard systematized the theological teaching of the Middle Ages into a compendium which became the basis of the instruction in the schools and universities for centuries, and the starting point for the work of all Catholic theologians. In the thirteenth century the Masters of Paris condemned several propositions, which have since then been published at the end of the book. (Peter Lombard and the Sacramental System by Elizabeth Frances Rogers, 1917, p.65)

So renowned was Peter Lombard that the Third Council of the Lateran in 1179 began one canon with “We believe with Peter Lombard.” (Ibid; Cap. II. 2 {mansi, v. XXII. P. 983}); and his Four Books of Sentences became “a standard theology text for nearly 200 years” (http://www.ourcatholicfaith.org/churchhistory.html)

So if it were actually true that “Baptism of desire is not found in the most respected theology book, written near the end of the twelfth century, The Four Books of Sentences of Bishop Peter Lombard, which work Saint Thomas studied and commented upon a century later” (it was actually finished around 1150 AD), and which work was the “basis of the instruction in the schools and universities for centuries, and the starting point for the work of all Catholic theologians”, then perhaps the Doctors and theologians were not as unified in their theology as I so often allege in my assertions that, with the possible exception of such strays as Peter Abelard, whose own theology (as we know) could be very suspect, baptism of blood and baptism of desire were and remain the “common doctrines” of the Church since at least the middle ages, which the Church “accepts and embraces … according to their true understanding as commonly expounded and declared by these doctors and other catholic teachers in the theological schools”.

Of course, if it can be demonstrated with actual proof from the Sentences of Peter Lombard that he did in fact teach baptism of blood and baptism of desire, then one more Feeneyite myth would bite the dust, and one must ask once again, why are Feeneyites so eager to make such outrageous factual statements without actually checking their source(s)?

Well, guess what? One more outrageous myth is about to go up in smoke.

Roguejim knows exactly what I’m talking about and has been frustrated to no end, as have I, with this shoddy so-called ‘scholarship’ which simply takes a certain reputed “fact” or an out-of-context citation, repeated by Feeneyites to no end as the Gospel truth, when it is actually a terrible misrepresentation or an outright myth.

But I would like to know how anyone can make such a bold assertion about the Sentences of Peter Lombard, upon which rests such credibly sounding (but baseless) theories and conclusions, without actually reading the 4th Book in question or even checking a reliable unbiased source with something more substantive than hearsay?

I expect better from Brian Kelly, Jehanne, and I know we all make mistakes, but this is inexcusable since his article was published and posted on the St. Benedict Center’s main web site.

Let’s get to the The Quatuor Libri Sententiarum (“The Four Books of Sentences”) Of Peter The Lombard, and let the Master of Sentences speak for himself.

Before I begin, Jehanne, I would ask that you pay close attention to what Peter Lombard actually teaches, for he answers most if not all of your objections, to include how St. Augustine must be read when there appears to be contradictions. He also addresses temporal punishments (and you thought St. Aquinas made it up).

Though I will be citing from a book (a dissertation), Peter Lombard and the Sacramental System by Elizabeth Frances Rogers, (1917, Google books), the citations themselves are taken from its Appendix; which is “a Translation of Book IV, Distinctions I-XXVI Of The Quatuor Libri Sententiarum Of Peter The Lombard”. Note: “Distinctions” are chapters.

In other words, there is no editing, no commentary, no selective out-of context citations, and no ambiguity. I even resisted the urge to emphasize with bolding and color highlights - there's simply too much to emphasize and highlight. The captioned [footnotes] of specific sources, I believe, belong to Ms. Rogers.

Quatuor Libri Sententiarum Of Peter The Lombard, Book IV, Distinction IV; Part I

III. How this is to be understood: As many of you as were baptized in Christ, have put on Christ.

We are asked therefore how this is to be taken [Romans 6:4]: “As many of you as were baptized in Christ, have put on Christ.” – We can say that those who are baptized in Christ, this is, in conformity with Christ, just as they die to their old sin, as Christ to the old penalty, put on Christ, whom through grace they have dwelling in them. It can be explained in another way: For in two ways we are said to put on Christ: either by the receiving of the sacrament or by the comprehension of the thing. Wherefore Augustine: [Lib. V. de Baptismo contra Donatistas …] “men put on Christ sometimes as far as receiving the sacrament, sometimes as far as sanctifying the life; and the first may be true of the good and the pious.” All therefore who are baptized in the name of Christ, put on Christ either by the receiving of the sacrament, or by sanctification.

Part II; IV. That suffering and faith and contrition take the place of baptism.

There are also some, as we said above, who receive the thing and not the sacrament. For those who shed their blood for the name of jesus, even if they do not receive the sacrament, receive the thing. Wherefore Augustine: “Do you ask, which is greater: faith or water; I have no doubt what I should respond: faith. If therefore that which is less can sanctify, does not that which is greater? that is faith, of which Christ says: ‘Whoever shall believe in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live.’[John 2:25] – But some say that no adult believes in Christ or has charity without baptism, unless he sheds his blood for the Lord, supporting their view with the subjoined testimonies. Augustine [says (Fulgent). De Fide Petrum …] “From the time that the Savior said; ‘Unless a man be born again of water and of the holy Spirit’ etc; without the sacrament of baptism no one, except those who shed blood in the Church, can receive eternal life.” The same: “We believe that no catechumen although dying in good works, has eternal life, except he die in martyrdom whereby the whole sacraments of baptism are completed.” The same: “We believe that the way of salvation is only for the baptized.” – But the statements he makes less fully here he supplements in the chapters quoted above; and for that reason these passages are to be thus understood, that only those who have time to be baptized and are not, are excepted from salvation. For if anyone having faith and charity wishes to be baptized, and cannot because preveneted by necessity, the goodness of the Almighty will supply what has been lacking in the sacrament. For while he can perform it, he is bound, unless he do perform it, he is bound, unless he do perform it; but when he is not able, but wishes to do so, God, who is not bound his power to sacraments, does not impute it to him. But that there is invisible sanctification in some without the visible sacrament, Augustine clearly teaches, saying in his commentary on Leviticus, [Lib. III. Qaestion. In Pentateuch. Q. 84. (Levit. 21, 15.)] “Invisible sanctification exists and benefits some without visible sacraments; but visible sanctification, which comes from the visible sacraments, can be present, but cannot benefit without the invisible. However the visible sacrament is not for that reason to be despised. Because the one who despises it, cannot be invisibly sanctified. Hence Cornelius and those with him were baptized, although already sanctified by the Holy Spirit. [Acts 10:44 f] Nor is the visible sanctification to be judged superfluous, because the invisible preceded it. Therefore the invisible sanctification without the visible can exist and benefit; but the visible which is caused by the sacrament only, is not able to benefit without the invisible, since therein is its whole utility. Visible baptism did not benefit Simon Magus, [Acts 8: 13 f] because the invisible was lacking; but it benefited those in whom the visible was present.” Nor is another’s faith so valuable to an infant, as his own to an adult. [… The rest of the para. is on infants].

V. What is the profit of baptism to those who come with faith.

We are often asked concerning those who are already sanctified by the Spirit, and come to baptism with faith and charity, what baptism confers on them. For it seems to offer them nothing, since they are already justified by faith and contrition, and their since are already remitted. – To this we can rightly reply that they are certainly justified by faith and contrition, that is, purged from the stain of sin, and absolved from the debt of eternal punishment, but as yet they are held to temporal satisfaction, by which penitents are bound in the Church. When however they receive baptism, they are both cleansed from their sins, if they have committed any in the interim after conversion, and are absolved from satisfaction; and helping grace and every virtue is increased in them, so that they can then be called new men. The incentive to sin is also lessened still more in them. Therefore Jerome [this passage is not found in Jerome] says that the faith, which makes them faithful, is given and nourished in the waters of baptism; because it is there given sometimes to one who does not have it yet, and again it is given to one who has it that he may have it more fully. [Matt. 25, 29] This we must also understand of others.

VI. What is remitted in the baptism of a just person.

He who therefore comes to baptism clean is there made cleaner, and the one who already has faith, it is there given more fully. That every external satisfaction is there discharged, Ambrose [(Among his works.) Comment. In Epist. Ad Rom. II, 29, and C. Sine poenitentia (99.), de Consecrat. Dist. 4.] shows in his comment on this passage: “For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance,” [Rom. II: 29] saying: “The grace of God in baptism does not require groaning or lamentations, or any work, but forgives all freely.” This certainly must be understood of external groaning or lamentations; for without the interior groaning and lamentations, no adult is renewed; but exterior satisfactions and afflictions, that is, the mourning garments of penitents, are thereby remitted. Baptism, therefore, bestows much, even on one already justified by faith; because he comes to baptism, just as the branch was brought by the dove to the ark; before, he was within in the judgment of God, but now he within, in the judgment of the Church also. But since sin is forgiven in baptism, and exterior satisfaction is not enjoined, someone may ask why the punishment of death, to which we are condemned for sin, is not taken away. The saints declare this is so, “because if men were freed from that punishment by baptism, they would think that, and not the eternal kingdom the reward of baptism. Therefore the guilt of sin being removed, temporal punishment still remains, in order that men may seek that life more eagerly, which will be free from all punishments.[Isidore, I. Sent. C. 22. n. 3; see also Augustine, XIII. De Civ. Dei, c. 4.] Therefore death remains, that the faithful may have a cause for conflict, and an occasion for conquest, who would not conquer if they did not fight; nor would they fight if in baptism they were made immortal.

VII. Of what thing (res) the baptism, which a just person receives, may be the sacrament.

If someone asks of that thing that baptism may be a sacrament,[sacrament in the sense of sign] which is given to one already righteous, we may say that it is a sacrament of that which has preceded it, that is, of the remission already granted through faith, and of the remission of temporal punishment of sin, if any has been committed in the interim, and of the newness of life and of all grace there offered. It is in fact the sign of everything of which is the cause. Nor should you wonder that sometimes the thing precedes the sacrament, since it sometimes also follows long after, as in the case of those who come insincerely, whom baptism begins to benefit when they afterwards do penance; in these cases baptism was the sacrament of the sanctification they have by doing penance. – But if they never do penance, nor abandon their decrepit, of what of what thing (res) is the baptism they receive the sacrament? We can say: of the thing which would have taken place, if their wickedness had not prevented it.

Well, Jehanne, I think some serious reflection on your part is in order; don’t you?

Jehanne Sat Aug 13, 2011 10:35 pm

I agree with everything that "Peter The Lombard" wrote, always have.

MRyan Sat Aug 13, 2011 11:01 pm

Jehanne wrote:I agree with Brian Kelly:... I agree with everything that "Peter The Lombard" wrote, always have.

I see; then you already knew what Lombard taught on baptism of blood and baptism of desire, while telling us that you agree with Brian Kelly who categorically denied that Peter Lombard taught any such thing in his Sentences.

You "agree with everything that 'Peter The Lombard' wrote, always have", even though he systematically destroyed every one of your objections. This is rich.

Tell me, is it the fact that you don't have the guts to correct a fellow-Feeneyite you obviously admire, or you simply don't care that this outrageous myth is allowed to spread unchecked by people like you who continue to link to a gross misrepresentation of the truth while telling us to "read this", and "I agree with it".

Know what I think? You had no idea what Peter The Lombard actually taught. If you did know, there would be no excuse for your conniving duplicity.

I think I'm through playing these games with you. You are indeed the Teflon Man.

For those who would like to read Peter Lombard for themselves, and a very interesting commentary on his work, can find it here:

Peter Lombard and the sacramental system
By Elizabeth Frances Rogers

http://books.google.com/books?id=EskOAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA76&dq=Peter+Lombard,+Volume+2&hl=en&ei=b85GTu-2NIbl0QGP1uzLBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CDQQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=Peter%20Lombard%2C%20Volume%202&f=false

MRyan Sat Aug 13, 2011 11:30 pm

http://catholicism.org/baptism-of-desire-its-origin-and-abandonment-in-the-thought-of-saint-augustine.html#comment-7690

I left a comment/rebuttal - with the source. Let's see if Mr. Kelly responds.

Jehanne Sun Aug 14, 2011 12:01 am

MRyan wrote:http://catholicism.org/baptism-of-desire-its-origin-and-abandonment-in-the-thought-of-saint-augustine.html#comment-7690

I left a comment/rebuttal - with the source. Let's see if Mr. Kelly responds.

Good for you!!

MRyan wrote:I see; then you already knew what Lombard taught on baptism of blood and baptism of desire, while telling us that you agree with Brian Kelly who categorically denied that Peter Lombard taught any such thing in his Sentences.

You "agree with everything that 'Peter The Lombard' wrote, always have", even though he systematically destroyed every one of your objections. This is rich.

Great form criticism! I do agree with Brian Kelly, whom you acknowledged in a previous post as having a perfectly orthodox position. True or False? (Let me answer for you: True.) So, what Brian Kelly believes (and what I believe) you have already acknowledged as being completely orthodox. So, I am not sure why, according to you, Master Lombard's teachings "systematically destroyed every one of your (my) objections." If my (and Brian's) position is perfectly orthodox, as you have already stated, pray tell, what is there left to "destroy"?

I have never claimed that Mr. Kelly's article is without historical error (but, please, do wait for his reply), but I do "agree" with him in that we share a very common, if not identical, theology, which you have long ago acknowledged (multiple times, by the way) as being wholly orthodox.

By the way, Master Peter Lombard made some historical errors of his own, which your author/editor acknowledged.

MRyan Sun Aug 14, 2011 12:36 am

Jehanne wrote:
MRyan wrote:http://catholicism.org/baptism-of-desire-its-origin-and-abandonment-in-the-thought-of-saint-augustine.html#comment-7690

I left a comment/rebuttal - with the source. Let's see if Mr. Kelly responds.

Good for you!!

MRyan wrote:I see; then you already knew what Lombard taught on baptism of blood and baptism of desire, while telling us that you agree with Brian Kelly who categorically denied that Peter Lombard taught any such thing in his Sentences.

You "agree with everything that 'Peter The Lombard' wrote, always have", even though he systematically destroyed every one of your objections. This is rich.

Great form criticism! I do agree with Brian Kelly, whom you acknowledged in a previous post as having a perfectly orthodox position. True or False? (Let me answer for you: True.) So, what Brian Kelly believes (and what I believe) you have already acknowledged as being completely orthodox. So, I am not sure why, according to you, Master Lombard's teachings "systematically destroyed every one of your (my) objections." If my (and Brian's) position is perfectly orthodox, as you have already stated, pray tell, what is there left to "destroy"?

I have never claimed that Mr. Kelly's article is without historical error (but, please, do wait for his reply), but I do "agree" with him in that we share a very common, if not identical, theology, which you have long ago acknowledged (multiple times, by the way) as being wholly orthodox.

By the way, Master Peter Lombard made some historical errors of his own, which your author/editor acknowledged.

Nice try; you are as slippery and evasive as ever. My reference to Mr. Kelly being "orthodox" was in direct reference to his apparent belief in the salvific efficacy of baptism of blood and baptism of desire, though he believes that God will still provide the sacrament. If this is an accurate reading of his position, then it is indeed orthodox, unlike the St. Benedict Center's "official" position which denies the efficacy of baptism of blood and baptism of desire for "true justification" and salvation.

That's a huge difference, as much as you stick your head in the sand and ignore it.

And this is no mere "historical error", this is egregious scholarship on a point of fact that was used as a foundation stone upon which to build his errant theories and conclusions, which now come crumbling down. His "historical errors" are directly related to his false portrayal of the teachings of a master Theologian who influenced every single theologian who followed him.

The fact that Peter Lombard made "historical errors" has NOTHING to do with his clear and concise teachings on baptism of blood and baptism of desire; teachings which represent the common understanding of the Doctors and theologians since at least the middle ages; and go ahead and try and argue otherwise - you already lost this one, and its devastating.

All you can do is throw crap on the wall again to see if you can find something to stick.

I am man enough to admit that I accepted Brian Kelly's propaganda on Peter Lombard, and it isn't the first time I heard it ... always from Feeneyite sources, of course. Only recently did I discover his actual "Sentences" could be found on-line and I was blown away by how utterly false is the lame charge that he did NOT teach baptism of blood and baptism of desire.

And you tell me that you already knew the truth of what Lombard taught; and you failed to correct this little "historical error" of Brian Kelly while linking to his article as if this little "historical error" were true; an egregious error that led to other errors and unwarranted conclusions? What kind of person are you?

That truth doesn't matter to you?

No, it doesn't.

It boils the blood - which is why I started digging since I was burned too many times in the past - I don't trust Feeneyites ... period. And I don't trust you.

Jehanne Sun Aug 14, 2011 1:18 am

I don't trust me, either.

MRyan wrote:Nice try; you are as slippery and evasive as ever. My reference to Mr. Kelly being "orthodox" was in direct reference to his apparent belief in the salvific efficacy of baptism of blood and baptism of desire, though he believes that God will still provide the sacrament. If this is an accurate reading of his position, then it is indeed orthodox, unlike the St. Benedict Center's "official" position which denies the efficacy of baptism of blood and baptism of desire for "true justification" and salvation.

This is not the impression that I am getting from them; but, maybe, it is all just a "conspiracy."

MRyan Sun Aug 14, 2011 1:06 pm

MRyan wrote:http://catholicism.org/baptism-of-desire-its-origin-and-abandonment-in-the-thought-of-saint-augustine.html#comment-7690

I left a comment/rebuttal - with the source. Let's see if Mr. Kelly responds.

My comments are "awaiting moderation". I'm sure Mr. Kelly will want to verify the source I provided and read the citations from Book IV for himself before responding.

Despite my profound disappointment, I know Brian Kelly well enough to trust that he will amend his article, and/or offer a retraction once he realizes that his assumptions he had about the teachings of Peter Lombard are simply and categorically false.

I really would like to know his "source" for such an erroneous allegation that was proffered thrice in the same article as a matter of established fact. I can tell you where it did not originate -- in the Sentences of Peter Lombard.

Some myths die hard, but may this one suffer a quick and permanent burial.

Feeneyites who have a real respect and zeal for the truth will recognize the implications of Master Lombard's teachings, which represent a compendium of Patristic and current theological doctrines; doctrines that would be firmly ensconced in the Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas that would not be written and finished for another 125 years.

However, the die-hards will simply shrug their shoulders and say "so what, it changes nothing - the Doctors and theologians are all wrong, and so is the fallible Church when she confirms this doctrine over and over again."

Yep.

And then there's Jehanne. Sigh

Here is what I wrote:

Mr. Kelly,

In reference to your repeated claim that “Baptism of desire is not found in the most respected theology book, written near the end of the twelfth century, The Four Books of Sentences of Bishop Peter Lombard", in The Quatuor Libri Sententiarum Of Peter The Lombard, Book IV, Distinction IV; Part I, Section III and Part II, Sections IV, V, VI and VII, baptism of desire and baptism of blood are quite clearly taught, without any ambiguity.

Perhaps you should check your sources?

Google the ebook, Peter Lombard and the sacramental system By Elizabeth Frances Rogers (1917), and go the “Appendix” for the translation of Book IV.

In Christ,

M. Ryan

Jehanne Sun Aug 14, 2011 2:03 pm

Mike,

You have already told me the position that I and Brian hold is perfectly orthodox, so once again, you are "pounding on open doors." Besides, your quotes from Master Lombard only prove that "Feeneyism" was alive and well long before Father Fenney came on the scene. And, the Church never condemned those whom Master Lombard was addressing, did She, or did I just miss that Magisterial reference?

By the way, Mr. Kelly's quote is that there was "no favorable mention," which, of course, is different than "no mention."

MRyan Sun Aug 14, 2011 3:09 pm

Go ahead, Jehanne, ignore what I actually wrote with respect to a "perfectly orthodox" position, as opposed to the "official" position of he St. Benedict Center. Btw, I do not find your convoluted position at all "orthodox"; that you can present an orthodox position, and then turn right around and completely undermine it is not the definition of "orthodoxy". Go ahead and see if you can find your outrageous "null set" inanity in the teachings of Peter Lombard, or any other Doctor or theologian ... and get back with us.

Master Lombard’s doctrine cannot be reconciled with the “official” position of the St. Benedict Center which does “NOT accept the salvific nature of Baptism of Desire and of Blood (without the sacrament), but I know how very common these theological opinions are [like that of Master Lombard]” (Br. Andre)

Do you get it? Br. Andre does NOT accept the common theological “opinion” of Master Lombard in that Br. Andre does NOT “accept the salvific nature of Baptism of Desire and of Blood (without the sacrament)”.

Master Lombard’s doctrine cannot be reconciled with the “official” position of the St. Benedict Center that holds: “In Conclusion, Justification can be attained by a person with the Catholic Faith together with at least a desire for the Sacraments. He CANNOT attain Salvation unless he receives the Sacraments.” (Br. David Mary)

Master Lombard’s doctrine cannot be reconciled with the “official” position of the St. Benedict Center and of Fr. Feeney that “excluded baptism of desire and blood as ‘means of salvation.’ This he [Fr. Feeney] did.” (Br. Michael, in “A Reply to Verbum”)

Master Lombard’s doctrine cannot be reconciled with the “official” position of the St. Benedict Center that holds “that ustified, but unbaptized, catechumens … have not yet been ‘born of God’ fully. (John 1:14) Why not? because the ‘power,’ which has been given them in ‘receiving Christ’ to be made ‘the sons of God’ (John 1:12) has to be fully actualized in the laver of regeneration. They are in grace, but not yet sealed as ‘sons’ and ‘heirs.’”.

Under the new law of grace, true Justification IS the grace of divine sonship, and if the justified cannot be made “the sons of God” until this “power” has been “actualized in the laver of regeneration”, then they have NOT received the grace of divine sonship, and are not truly justified and equipped for the Kingdom.

And that is NOT the doctrine of Peter Lombard. Do you know how to read?

Master Lombard’s doctrine cannot be reconciled with the “official” position of the St. Benedict Center and Fr. Feeney, who wrote in Bread of Life, pg 131:

But, let us suppose an act of perfect love has occurred in a man’s soul. Can this man be said to be freed from original sin by this perfect act of love of God? He cannot, in the true and full sense. There has not been imprinted on his soul, by reason of this perfect act of love of God, the character which Baptism imprints, to seal him as redeemed, and outfit him for the resurrection of the body and life everlasting.

Quatuor Libri Sententiarum Of Peter The Lombard:

Book, IV, Part II; IV. That suffering and faith and contrition take the place of baptism.

There are also some, as we said above, who receive the thing and not the sacrament. For those who shed their blood for the name of Jesus, even if they do not receive the sacrament, receive the thing. Wherefore Augustine: “Do you ask, which is greater: faith or water; I have no doubt what I should respond: faith. If therefore that which is less can sanctify, does not that which is greater? that is faith, of which Christ says: ‘Whoever shall believe in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live.’[John 2] – But some say that no adult believes in Christ or has charity without baptism, unless he sheds his blood for the Lord, supporting their view with the subjoined testimonies. Augustine [says (Fulgent). De Fide Petrum …] “From the time that the Savior said; ‘Unless a man be born again of water and of the holy Spirit’ etc; without the sacrament of baptism no one, except those who shed blood in the Church, can receive eternal life.” The same: “We believe that no catechumen although dying in good works, has eternal life, except he die in martyrdom whereby the whole sacraments of baptism are completed.” The same: “We believe that the way of salvation is only for the baptized.” – But the statements he makes less fully here he supplements in the chapters quoted above; and for that reason these passages are to be thus understood, that only those who have time to be baptized and are not, are excepted from salvation. For if anyone having faith and charity wishes to be baptized, and cannot because prevented by necessity, the goodness of the Almighty will supply what has been lacking in the sacrament. For while he can perform it, he is bound, unless he do perform it; but when he is not able, but wishes to do so, God, who is not bound his power to sacraments, does not impute it to him.

Do you know how to read, Jehanne, or do you close your eyes and imagine what the text is actually saying based on other Feeneyite articles having nothing to do with the alleged non-salvific nature of baptism of blood and baptism of desire?

My “impression” is that you are in willful denial.

Jehanne Sun Aug 14, 2011 3:59 pm

As you know, I have applied to become a Third Order M.I.C.M, and have not heard anything on my application in weeks. (I suppose that I am in "limbo" here.) In any case, becoming a T.O. is not so much about me accepting M.I.C.M as it is about them accepting me. As I have told you numerous times, Father Fenney's Bread of Life is a polemic, as evidenced by the fact that much of it was written in the second person, unlike Master Lombard’s work. If the M.I.C.M brothers & sisters can at least tolerate my/Brian's position, then you should be thankful for the fact that there are "Feeneyite moderates" among the "hard-line" ones.

Your posting of Master Lombard’s work only solidifies my position. You can hardly claim that those who die without Baptism do not suffer the temporal punishment in Purgatory due to their own venial sins as not being de fide, because such was certainly the common teaching of the Church for centuries, and is infallible via the Ordinary Magisterium per the Council of Florence. For that reason alone, I believe that everyone whom the One and Triune God has predestined to everlasting life, His Elect, have, without exception, been predestined by Him to receive sacramental Baptism in Water, which would remit the temporal, as well as eternal, punishment of sin prior to Baptism.

MRyan Sun Aug 14, 2011 4:14 pm

Jehanne wrote:Mike,

your quotes from Master Lombard only prove that "Feeneyism" was alive and well long before Father Fenney came on the scene. And, the Church never condemned those whom Master Lombard was addressing, did She, or did I just miss that Magisterial reference?

And this is one of the most incredibly obtuse statements I have ever read. Master Lombard was not writing a "condemnation" of anyone, he wrote a comprehensive compendium of theology that also reconciled conflicting doctrines. And this he did with the various passages of St. Augustine that only appeared to be in conflict with his other passages, but did not express the "fullness" of his teaching. And that is precisely what is wrong with those few moderns scholars who, for the first time, and only recently, actually claimed that St. Augustine "changed" his position.

And then you have the audacity to ask me to prove a negative, as if there was a single medieval Doctor or theologian who agreed with Fr. Rahner. Some theologians found Augustine's doctrines to be inconsistent, but there is no record (until the 20th century) that I am aware of a Doctor or theologian stating that Augustine "changed" his position on baptism of blood and baptism of desire. That is just shoddy scholarship, if you ask me.

Your remark also suggests that Feenyism was alive and well in the mid 12th century. Where? With Master Lombard in full support of baptism of blood and baptism of desire, where are the Feeneyites?

You are correct in one respect; Peter Abelard's doctrine against the possibility of baptism of desire (your sole "tradition") was as surely discredited by his peers (such as Bernard of Clairvaux, Hugo of St. Victor and the Summa Sententiarum) as the Feeneyite doctrine on the non-salvific nature of baptism of blood and baptism of desire.

Jehanne wrote:By the way, Mr. Kelly's quote is that there was "no favorable mention," which, of course, is different than "no mention."

This is really bad. Why do I even bother?

Brian Kelly:

Baptism of desire is not found in the most respected theology book, written near the end of the twelfth century, The Four Books of Sentences of Bishop Peter Lombard, which work Saint Thomas studied and commented upon a century later.

These names have been brought up to highlight the fact that Bishop Lombard’s Collection of authoritative teachings and Commentary on theology makes no mention of baptism of desire in his treatment of the first sacrament.

When one puts together this whole scenario, it appears likely that Hugh of St. Victor read Abelard’s specific rejection of baptism of desire in his Theologia Christiana, and, noting that there was no favorable mention of it either in Peter Lombard’s Book of Sentences, he was prompted to write to Saint Bernard for his opinion.

"Baptism of desire is not found ... no mention of baptism of desire" and "no favorable mention of it either in Peter Lombard’s Book of Sentences".

It's called willful denial. Peter Lombard, BooK of Sentences:

... only those who have time to be baptized and are not, are excepted from salvation. For if anyone having faith and charity wishes to be baptized, and cannot because prevented by necessity, the goodness of the Almighty will supply what has been lacking in the sacrament.

"Baptism of desire is not found ... no mention of baptism of desire" and "no favorable mention of it either in Peter Lombard’s Book of Sentences".

It's called willful denial.

MRyan Sun Aug 14, 2011 4:38 pm

Good luck in being accepted as a Third Order M.I.C.M.

If you wish to argue that Br. Andre's, Br. David Mary's and Br. Michael's statements on the "official" position of the St. Benedict Center, which are consistent with the "polemical" teaching of Fr. Feeney, are also of the same "polemical" sort that cannot be taken at face value (such that baptism of blood and baptism of desire are actually efficacious towards salvation, despite the "polemic" to the contrary), it would not surprise me you would spin such an argument; but I take their stated position "as it is written"; and until that "hard-line" position is amended, I will consider it heterodox.

That you do not seem to be concerned with the "hard-line" position of the St. Benedict Center, and that of your future superior, is what is troubling; but I am not in your shoes, and never will be.

Sponsored content