Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus Forum (No Salvation Outside the Church Forum)
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.
Latest topics
» The Unity of the Body (the Church, Israel)
1582 Rheims NT Annotation of John 3:5 EmptySun Mar 17, 2024 9:23 am by tornpage

» Defilement of the Temple
1582 Rheims NT Annotation of John 3:5 EmptyTue Feb 06, 2024 7:44 am by tornpage

» Forum update
1582 Rheims NT Annotation of John 3:5 EmptySat Feb 03, 2024 8:24 am by tornpage

» Bishop Williamson's Recent Comments
1582 Rheims NT Annotation of John 3:5 EmptyThu Feb 01, 2024 12:42 pm by MRyan

» The Mysterious 45 days of Daniel 12:11-12
1582 Rheims NT Annotation of John 3:5 EmptyFri Jan 26, 2024 11:04 am by tornpage

» St. Bonaventure on the Necessity of Baptism
1582 Rheims NT Annotation of John 3:5 EmptyTue Jan 23, 2024 7:06 pm by tornpage

» Isaiah 22:20-25
1582 Rheims NT Annotation of John 3:5 EmptyFri Jan 19, 2024 10:44 am by tornpage

» Translation of Bellarmine's De Amissione Gratiae, Bk. VI
1582 Rheims NT Annotation of John 3:5 EmptyFri Jan 19, 2024 10:04 am by tornpage

» Orestes Brownson Nails it on Baptism of Desire
1582 Rheims NT Annotation of John 3:5 EmptyThu Jan 18, 2024 3:06 pm by MRyan

» Do Feeneyites still exist?
1582 Rheims NT Annotation of John 3:5 EmptyWed Jan 17, 2024 8:02 am by Jehanne

» Sedevacantism and the Church's Indefectibility
1582 Rheims NT Annotation of John 3:5 EmptySat Jan 13, 2024 5:22 pm by tornpage

» Inallible safety?
1582 Rheims NT Annotation of John 3:5 EmptyThu Jan 11, 2024 1:47 pm by MRyan

» Usury - Has the Church Erred?
1582 Rheims NT Annotation of John 3:5 EmptyTue Jan 09, 2024 11:05 pm by tornpage

» Rethink "Feeneyism"?
1582 Rheims NT Annotation of John 3:5 EmptyTue Jan 09, 2024 8:40 pm by MRyan

» SSPX cannot accept Vatican Council II because of the restrictions placed by the Jewish Left
1582 Rheims NT Annotation of John 3:5 EmptyFri Jan 05, 2024 8:57 am by Jehanne

» Anyone still around?
1582 Rheims NT Annotation of John 3:5 EmptyMon Jan 01, 2024 11:04 pm by Jehanne

» Angelqueen.org???
1582 Rheims NT Annotation of John 3:5 EmptyTue Oct 16, 2018 8:38 am by Paul

» Vatican (CDF/Ecclesia Dei) has no objection if the SSPX and all religious communities affirm Vatican Council II (without the premise)
1582 Rheims NT Annotation of John 3:5 EmptySun Dec 10, 2017 8:29 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Piazza Spagna - mission
1582 Rheims NT Annotation of John 3:5 EmptySun Dec 10, 2017 8:06 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Fund,Catholic organisation needed to help Catholic priests in Italy like Fr. Alessandro Minutella
1582 Rheims NT Annotation of John 3:5 EmptySun Dec 10, 2017 7:52 am by Lionel L. Andrades


1582 Rheims NT Annotation of John 3:5

5 posters

Go down

1582 Rheims NT Annotation of John 3:5 Empty 1582 Rheims NT Annotation of John 3:5

Post  tornpage Sat Jan 01, 2011 5:41 pm


5. Born again of Water.] As no man can enter into this world nor have his life and being in the same, except he be born of his carnal parents: no more can a man enter into the life and state of grace which is in Christ, or attain to life everlasting, unless he be born and baptized of water and the Holy Ghost. Whereby we see first, this Sacrament to be called our regeneration or second birth, in respect of our natural and carnal which was before. Secondly, that this sacrament consisteth of an external element of water, and internal virtue of the Holy Spirit: Wherein it excelleth John's baptism, which had the external element, but not the spiritual grace. Thirdly, that no man can enter into the Kingdom of God, nor into the fellowship of Holy Church, without it.

Whereby the *Pelagians, and Calvinists be condemned, that promise life everlasting to young children that die without baptism, and all other that think only their faith to serve, or the external element of water superfluous or not necessary: our Saviour's words being plain and general. Though in this case, God which hath not bound his grace, in respect of his own freedom, to any Sacrament, may and doth accept them as baptized, which either are martyred before they could be baptized, or else depart this life with vow and desire to have that Sacrament, but by some remediless necessity could not obtain it. Lastly, it is proved that this Sacrament giveth grace ex opere operator, that is, of the work itself (which all Protestants deny) because it so breedeth our spiritual life in God, as our carnal birth giveth the life of the world.

A note in the margin next to the annotation says, "Baptism in two cases not necessary, but otherwise supplied."
tornpage
tornpage

Posts : 953
Reputation : 1034
Join date : 2010-12-31

Back to top Go down

1582 Rheims NT Annotation of John 3:5 Empty Re: 1582 Rheims NT Annotation of John 3:5

Post  Guest Sun Jan 02, 2011 12:07 am

tornpage wrote:
5. Born again of Water.] As no man can enter into this world nor have his life and being in the same, except he be born of his carnal parents: no more can a man enter into the life and state of grace which is in Christ, or attain to life everlasting, unless he be born and baptized of water and the Holy Ghost. Whereby we see first, this Sacrament to be called our regeneration or second birth, in respect of our natural and carnal which was before. Secondly, that this sacrament consisteth of an external element of water, and internal virtue of the Holy Spirit: Wherein it excelleth John's baptism, which had the external element, but not the spiritual grace. Thirdly, that no man can enter into the Kingdom of God, nor into the fellowship of Holy Church, without it.

Whereby the *Pelagians, and Calvinists be condemned, that promise life everlasting to young children that die without baptism, and all other that think only their faith to serve, or the external element of water superfluous or not necessary: our Saviour's words being plain and general. Though in this case, God which hath not bound his grace, in respect of his own freedom, to any Sacrament, may and doth accept them as baptized, which either are martyred before they could be baptized, or else depart this life with vow and desire to have that Sacrament, but by some remediless necessity could not obtain it. Lastly, it is proved that this Sacrament giveth grace ex opere operator, that is, of the work itself (which all Protestants deny) because it so breedeth our spiritual life in God, as our carnal birth giveth the life of the world.

A note in the margin next to the annotation says, "Baptism in two cases not necessary, but otherwise supplied."

So your putting this up against Dogma? LOL Laughing

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

1582 Rheims NT Annotation of John 3:5 Empty Re: 1582 Rheims NT Annotation of John 3:5

Post  tornpage Sun Jan 02, 2011 1:23 am

Duckbill,

There is no dogma against this. Rolling Eyes

tornpage
tornpage

Posts : 953
Reputation : 1034
Join date : 2010-12-31

Back to top Go down

1582 Rheims NT Annotation of John 3:5 Empty Re: 1582 Rheims NT Annotation of John 3:5

Post  Guest Sun Jan 02, 2011 9:15 am

tornpage wrote:

There is no dogma against this. Rolling Eyes




Well I probably didn't choose the right way to express what I was thinking and I apologize for coming on a little too strong, myself.

My think was that every time the Church or Church Fathers have used Jn 3:5 it has been literal as the Sacrament of Baptism. So how can it [edited typo] be literally the Sacrament and not be literally the Sacrament?

Our Lord made no exception in his statement.


Last edited by duckbill on Sun Jan 02, 2011 1:37 pm; edited 1 time in total

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

1582 Rheims NT Annotation of John 3:5 Empty Re: 1582 Rheims NT Annotation of John 3:5

Post  Catholic_Truth Sun Jan 02, 2011 11:42 am

tornpage wrote:

There is no dogma against this. Rolling Eyes


tornpage, actually it is a dogmatic infallible teaching of the Church of the necessity of the Sacrament of Water Baptism to enter into God's Church and for salvation.
What you are trying to persuade us(based on fallible documents) is that there is an exception to that Dogma. So if there is an exception to that Dogma, then will you also argue that there is an exception to the dogmatic infallible teaching of "No salvation outside the Church". Lets not stop there,...would it be OK if later "men" of the Church make an exception for the Holy Eucharist and allow some within the Church to entertain the notion that it may not be the actual body, soul and divinity of our Lord? Would it be OK to make an exception for Lutherans and claim that they do receive sanctifying grace from eating bread simply because they think its Jesus' real presence? Where does it all end?
Catholic_Truth
Catholic_Truth

Posts : 116
Reputation : 149
Join date : 2010-12-19
Location : Louisiana

http://www.PaltalkExpress.com

Back to top Go down

1582 Rheims NT Annotation of John 3:5 Empty Re: 1582 Rheims NT Annotation of John 3:5

Post  tornpage Sun Jan 02, 2011 11:53 am

So, since your citation of Trent didn't work out so well, you offer no other infallible "proof" texts to foist upon us? Now it's simply your fiat, "it is a dogmatic infallible teaching of the Church of the necessity of the Sacrament of Water Baptism to enter into God's Church and for salvation"? I give you the priestly Rheims annotators and theologians, and you give us . . . CT.

I'm not buying into CT. I'll stick with my Rheims NT, the Council of Trent (which does say that one can be justified by the desire for baptism), the Catechism of Trent, the current Catechism, the Compendium, Bishop Hay, St. Alphonsus . . . I trust you get the picture.

tornpage



Last edited by tornpage on Sun Jan 02, 2011 11:54 am; edited 1 time in total
tornpage
tornpage

Posts : 953
Reputation : 1034
Join date : 2010-12-31

Back to top Go down

1582 Rheims NT Annotation of John 3:5 Empty Re: 1582 Rheims NT Annotation of John 3:5

Post  tornpage Sun Jan 02, 2011 11:58 am

CT,

So if there is an exception to that Dogma, then will you also argue that there is an exception to the dogmatic infallible teaching of "No salvation outside the Church".

Why don't you get some Windex for your crystal ball? You will never hear me argue that there is an exception to the infallible teaching that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church.

And I have not argued for an exception to the necessity of baptism for salvation - as the Church defines the necessity of baptism, which is the only definition that matters. Unless you're a Protestant or something.

tornpage
tornpage
tornpage

Posts : 953
Reputation : 1034
Join date : 2010-12-31

Back to top Go down

1582 Rheims NT Annotation of John 3:5 Empty Re: 1582 Rheims NT Annotation of John 3:5

Post  Catholic_Truth Sun Jan 02, 2011 12:21 pm

tornpage wrote: You will never hear me argue that there is an exception to the infallible teaching that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church.

So you don't entertain the possibilty that protestants, jews, muslims etc.... can be saved by the Church by being connected to the Church in some mysterious way such as through invincible ignorance ?

Plus, even if you reject implicit desire for water baptism due to invincible ignorance, then you still obviously make an exception in the case of explicit desire for Water Baptism, such as catechumens who are still outside the church .

Therefore you are making an EXCEPTION to the infallible teaching that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church
Catholic_Truth
Catholic_Truth

Posts : 116
Reputation : 149
Join date : 2010-12-19
Location : Louisiana

http://www.PaltalkExpress.com

Back to top Go down

1582 Rheims NT Annotation of John 3:5 Empty Re: 1582 Rheims NT Annotation of John 3:5

Post  MRyan Sun Jan 02, 2011 2:21 pm

Catholic_Truth wrote:
tornpage wrote: You will never hear me argue that there is an exception to the infallible teaching that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church.
So you don't entertain the possibilty that protestants, jews, muslims etc.... can be saved by the Church by being connected to the Church in some mysterious way such as through invincible ignorance ?
No, he doesn’t entertain any such possibility (as if he needs me to answer for him), and neither does the Church.

In fact, I’ll bet he would say:

There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. (Pope Pius IX, QUANTO CONFICIAMUR MOERORE)
Did you see any mention of being saved "through invincible ignorance"?

What is it with you? Do you deliberately mangle and misrepresent the teachings of the Church so that you can reject and condemn every authentic teaching that does not fit into your little “dogmatic” conception of what the Church “really” teaches?

It's obvious that you believe that the Church has granted YOU the authority to interpret her dogmas; and as such, you are uniquely qualified to oppose the Church by telling her that she’s been spewing heresies for centuries; heresies that have resulted in the “watering down” of her own dogmas and having caused a “recession in meaning” from their original meaning as they were “once declared” (under the specious excuse of a "deeper understanding").

I must hand it to you, the authority and responsibility you have been granted to correct the Church (and condemn her when she does not listen) is simply awesome, and quite inspiring; I am genuinely impressed.

And I love it when you cite dogmatic canons and then tell us that the Church’s interpretation of these canons (not to mention the unanimous consensus of her popes, saints, doctors and theologians) is actually heretical. Like I said, I am impressed.

Please tell us more; please tell us what the Church “really” teaches, as opposed to the doctrines of the flim-flam artists who have been posing as Vicars, teachers, guardians of the faith, theologians and Doctors ever since they totally screwed up the teachings of the Council of Trent by allowing and teaching doctrines that stand in direct (heretical) opposition to her own dogmas.

Oh please, do continue to enlighten us. This can only get better.
MRyan
MRyan

Posts : 2314
Reputation : 2492
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

1582 Rheims NT Annotation of John 3:5 Empty Re: 1582 Rheims NT Annotation of John 3:5

Post  Jehanne Mon Jan 03, 2011 7:26 am

tornpage wrote:

Though in this case, God which hath not bound his grace, in respect of his own freedom, to any Sacrament, may and doth accept them as baptized, which either are martyred before they could be baptized, or else depart this life with vow and desire to have that Sacrament, but by some remediless necessity could not obtain it. Lastly, it is proved that this Sacrament giveth grace ex opere operator, that is, of the work itself (which all Protestants deny) because it so breedeth our spiritual life in God, as our carnal birth giveth the life of the world.

A note in the margin next to the annotation says, "Baptism in two cases not necessary, but otherwise supplied."

Yes, it says that catechumens in the Catholic Church can be saved without Water Baptism who die with the VOW to receive it, not Jews, infidels, pagans, and especially, Protestants. You can't have your theological cake and eat it, too! If you are going to post the Douay-Rheims commentary as being representative of the Ordinary Magisterial of the Church (hence, infallible), then you must accept all of it. The same goes for Saint Thomas and all the other Church fathers that you cite. Baptism of Blood & Desire for catechumens, perhaps; for everyone else, absolutely not. Why not accept the following words literally:

"There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved."

Plain enough.
Jehanne
Jehanne

Posts : 933
Reputation : 1036
Join date : 2010-12-21
Age : 56
Location : Iowa

Back to top Go down

1582 Rheims NT Annotation of John 3:5 Empty Re: 1582 Rheims NT Annotation of John 3:5

Post  Guest Mon Jan 03, 2011 8:59 am


Whereby the *Pelagians, and Calvinists be condemned, that promise life everlasting to young children that die without baptism, and all other that think only their faith to serve, or the external element of water superfluous or not necessary: our Saviour's words being plain and general.


Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

1582 Rheims NT Annotation of John 3:5 Empty Re: 1582 Rheims NT Annotation of John 3:5

Post  MRyan Mon Jan 03, 2011 8:45 pm

RashaLampa wrote:
Whereby the *Pelagians, and Calvinists be condemned, that promise life everlasting to young children that die without baptism, and all other that think only their faith to serve, or the external element of water superfluous or not necessary: our Saviour's words being plain and general.

That’s right, and the Church agrees.

But I hope you are not suggesting the Church promises life everlasting like the Pelagians and Calvinists(I trust you are not), or that baptism of desire renders the sacrament "superfluous or not necessary” (I trust you are not). That’s a lie - - and I'm tired of hearing it from others who believe they're smarter than the Church, her saints and her theologians.

If those others do not know the difference between the heresy of the Calvinists/Pelagians and the Church's doctrine on baptism of desire, they have no business "advising" other Catholics on what the Church "really" teaches.




MRyan
MRyan

Posts : 2314
Reputation : 2492
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

1582 Rheims NT Annotation of John 3:5 Empty Re: 1582 Rheims NT Annotation of John 3:5

Post  Jehanne Mon Jan 03, 2011 9:13 pm

MRyan wrote:
RashaLampa wrote:
Whereby the *Pelagians, and Calvinists be condemned, that promise life everlasting to young children that die without baptism, and all other that think only their faith to serve, or the external element of water superfluous or not necessary: our Saviour's words being plain and general.

That’s right, and the Church agrees.

But I hope you are not suggesting the Church promises life everlasting like the Pelagians and Calvinists(I trust you are not), or that baptism of desire renders the sacrament "superfluous or not necessary” (I trust you are not). That’s a lie - - and I'm tired of hearing it from others who believe they're smarter than the Church, her saints and her theologians.

If those others do not know the difference between the heresy of the Calvinists/Pelagians and the Church's doctrine on baptism of desire, they have no business "advising" other Catholics on what the Church "really" teaches.


You need to read more of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which you so sillily enjoy citing as "authoritative." Here's one example of your professed orthodoxy:

1261 As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them," allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.

Now, an authoritative, infallible source from we Feeneyites:

It has been decided likewise that if anyone says that for this reason the Lord said: “In my house there are many mansions” [John 14]: that it might be understood that in the kingdom of heaven there will be some middle place or some place anywhere where the blessed infants live who departed from this life without baptism, without which they cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven, which is life eternal, let him be anathema. For when the Lord says: “Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he shall not enter into the kingdom of God” [John 3], what Catholic will doubt that he will be a partner of the devil who has not deserved to be a coheir of Christ? For he who lacks the right part will without doubt run into the left [cf. Matt. 25,46]. (Council of Carthage, 418)

Now, Mr. Theologian, which text should we, as good Catholics, believe?
Jehanne
Jehanne

Posts : 933
Reputation : 1036
Join date : 2010-12-21
Age : 56
Location : Iowa

Back to top Go down

1582 Rheims NT Annotation of John 3:5 Empty Re: 1582 Rheims NT Annotation of John 3:5

Post  MRyan Mon Jan 03, 2011 10:43 pm

Jehanne wrote:You need to read more of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which you so sillily enjoy citing as "authoritative." Here's one example of your professed orthodoxy:

1261 As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them," allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.


Now, an authoritative, infallible source from we Feeneyites:

It has been decided likewise that if anyone says that for this reason the Lord said: “In my house there are many mansions” [John 14]: that it might be understood that in the kingdom of heaven there will be some middle place or some place anywhere where the blessed infants live who departed from this life without baptism, without which they cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven, which is life eternal, let him be anathema. For when the Lord says: “Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he shall not enter into the kingdom of God” [John 3], what Catholic will doubt that he will be a partner of the devil who has not deserved to be a coheir of Christ? For he who lacks the right part will without doubt run into the left [cf. Matt. 25,46]. (Council of Carthage, 418)

Now, Mr. Theologian, which text should we, as good Catholics, believe?
“We Feeneyites”? Don’t flatter yourself. The Feeneyites I know actually know who the Pope is -- and do not accuse the Church of "formal heresy".

The respective texts are not in contradiction for they are addressing two separate issues. Both texts agree, and the CCC spells it out, that:

1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation ... The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude ... God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.

In other words, both texts teach the same doctrine that holds: “The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism” that can assure salvation, which is the same thing as saying “without [baptism] they cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven”.

What Carthage was concerned with here (her only concern) was condemning the notion of a middle place in heaven “where the blessed infants live who departed from this life without baptism.”

However, the CCC, addressing a different but complimentary aspect of the doctrine, also teaches that “God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments”, and thus, in placing hope in our Lord’s tenderness towards children, without suggesting that he will provide the means, the Church places the fate of these children in God’s hands, and it is only the “hope” in God’s mercy that "allow[s] us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism.”

In other words, the Church knows of no other way than baptism, and does not suggest for a minute that there is another way - but to God alone, who is not bound by the sacraments to translate a soul into the justice of His love. And because she knows of no other way, “All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.”

There is only one Church and only one Magisterium - and it is the same Magisterium exercising her authority at Carthage that exercises her teaching authority now. There is no contradiction and there is no "recession" in meaning. And one does not have to be a “theologian” to be able to use common sense and to know how to read.

Of course, when one has an agenda, it is easy to read whatever one wants into the official teachings of the Church in order to scourge her with yet one more stripe.
MRyan
MRyan

Posts : 2314
Reputation : 2492
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

1582 Rheims NT Annotation of John 3:5 Empty Re: 1582 Rheims NT Annotation of John 3:5

Post  Jehanne Mon Jan 03, 2011 11:01 pm

MRyan wrote:
Jehanne wrote:You need to read more of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which you so sillily enjoy citing as "authoritative." Here's one example of your professed orthodoxy:

1261 As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them," allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.


Now, an authoritative, infallible source from we Feeneyites:

It has been decided likewise that if anyone says that for this reason the Lord said: “In my house there are many mansions” [John 14]: that it might be understood that in the kingdom of heaven there will be some middle place or some place anywhere where the blessed infants live who departed from this life without baptism, without which they cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven, which is life eternal, let him be anathema. For when the Lord says: “Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he shall not enter into the kingdom of God” [John 3], what Catholic will doubt that he will be a partner of the devil who has not deserved to be a coheir of Christ? For he who lacks the right part will without doubt run into the left [cf. Matt. 25,46]. (Council of Carthage, 418)

Now, Mr. Theologian, which text should we, as good Catholics, believe?
“We Feeneyites”? Don’t flatter yourself. The Feeneyites I know actually know who the Pope is -- and do not accuse the Church of "formal heresy".

The respective texts are not in contradiction for they are addressing two separate issues. Both texts agree, and the CCC spells it out, that:

1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation ... The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude ... God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.

In other words, both texts teach the same doctrine that holds: “The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism” that can assure salvation, which is the same thing as saying “without [baptism] they cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven”.

What Carthage was concerned with here (her only concern) was condemning the notion of a middle place in heaven “where the blessed infants live who departed from this life without baptism.”

However, the CCC, addressing a different but complimentary aspect of the doctrine, also teaches that “God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments”, and thus, in placing hope in our Lord’s tenderness towards children, without suggesting that he will provide the means, the Church places the fate of these children in God’s hands, and it is only the “hope” in God’s mercy that "allow[s] us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism.”

In other words, the Church knows of no other way than baptism, and does not suggest for a minute that there is another way - but to God alone, who is not bound by the sacraments to translate a soul into the justice of His love. And because she knows of no other way, “All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.”

There is only one Church and only one Magisterium - and it is the same Magisterium exercising her authority at Carthage that exercises her teaching authority now. There is no contradiction and there is no "recession" in meaning. And one does not have to be a “theologian” to be able to use common sense and to know how to read.

Of course, when one has an agenda, it is easy to read whatever one wants into the official teachings of the Church in order to scourge her with yet one more stripe.

Oh, really. O, silly one, I could on and on and on! But, honestly, I do not have the time. But, just one more:

"With regard to children, since the danger of death is often present and the only remedy available to them is the sacrament of baptism by which they are snatched away from the dominion of the devil and adopted as children of God, it admonishes that sacred baptism is not to be deferred for forty or eighty days or any other period of time in accordance with the usage of some people, but it should be conferred as soon as it conveniently can; and if there is imminent danger of death, the child should be baptized straightaway without any delay, even by a lay man or a woman in the form of the church, if there is no priest, as is contained more fully in the decree on the Armenians." (Council of Florence, Session 11, February 4, 1442)

Now, I could quote ad nauseam Church Father, theologian, catechism, and council that children who die without Baptism are excluded from the Beatific Vision. But, you have shown your true colors, haven't you! And, with this crowd at least, you have lost all credibility.

No, I have not accused the Church of heresy, but of error. The former may be absolutely true, and if so, the present Pope may no longer be Catholic, but I admit that I cannot make such a judgment, only the Church and perhaps only God Himself. However, I refuse to follow a Pope into error, by denying a dogma of the Catholic Faith, that of the absolute necessity of Baptism as the sole and only means of salvation for infants and children who not reached the age of reason.

You are free to continue to play "word games" if you wish, but I have had my fill.
Jehanne
Jehanne

Posts : 933
Reputation : 1036
Join date : 2010-12-21
Age : 56
Location : Iowa

Back to top Go down

1582 Rheims NT Annotation of John 3:5 Empty Re: 1582 Rheims NT Annotation of John 3:5

Post  MRyan Mon Jan 03, 2011 11:12 pm

“Double dose”.

Thank goodness for small favors -- he has no more time to demonstrate his profound ... well, I'm at a loss ... but ad nauseum somehow seems appropriate.
MRyan
MRyan

Posts : 2314
Reputation : 2492
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

1582 Rheims NT Annotation of John 3:5 Empty Re: 1582 Rheims NT Annotation of John 3:5

Post  Forum Janitor Tue Jan 04, 2011 12:10 am

Guys, guys, let's try to keep our cool here. Remember rule #2 of the forum. 1582 Rheims NT Annotation of John 3:5 289808

https://catholicforum.forumotion.com/t40-official-forum-rules-read-before-posting

I am going to lock this thread for now. Thanks.
Forum Janitor
Forum Janitor
Admin

Posts : 235
Reputation : 565
Join date : 2010-12-18
Location : Forum Janitor

https://catholicforum.forumotion.com

Back to top Go down

1582 Rheims NT Annotation of John 3:5 Empty Re: 1582 Rheims NT Annotation of John 3:5

Post  Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Back to top

- Similar topics

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