Latest topics
» Magsiterial Heresy ?
Sat Sep 26, 2015 8:36 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Magisterium should apologise to the SSPX for the excommunication of Archbishop Lefebvre
Sat Sep 26, 2015 8:34 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Brother Francis MICM made a mistake on Vatican Council II
Sat Sep 26, 2015 5:14 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Legion of Christ universities in Rome adapt to leftist laws
Fri May 22, 2015 7:53 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» CM, SSPX, MICM deny the Faith to please superiors
Thu May 21, 2015 4:44 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» SSPX and Church Militant are using the same liberal theology and are unaware of it
Wed May 20, 2015 9:54 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Michael Voris uses liberal theology and yet critcizes Michael Coren
Tue May 19, 2015 10:10 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Fr.John Zuhlsdorf condones Mass for suicide
Tue May 19, 2015 9:18 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Vatican Council II is traditional or liberal depending on how you interpret the Letter of the Holy Office
Mon May 18, 2015 5:57 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Church Militant unable to answer questions on extra ecclesiam nulla salus
Sun May 17, 2015 5:55 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Brother Andre Marie MICM and Christine Niles approve liberal theology on Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus
Sat May 16, 2015 5:23 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Christine Niles misses the elephant in the living room
Fri May 15, 2015 9:54 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Cardinal Pell recommends the Roman Forum and telling a lie
Wed May 13, 2015 9:43 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» GOOGLE CLOSES DOWN BLOG EUCHARIST AND MISSION
Tue May 12, 2015 9:23 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Vatican Council II interpreted without the irrational premise. The SSPX could affirm this
Mon Apr 13, 2015 9:25 am by George Brenner

» Cardinal Raymond Burke approved Fr. John Hardon's error
Thu Mar 12, 2015 5:27 pm by tornpage

» Fr.Robert Barron in Catholicism uses an irrational proposition to reach an irrational conclusion
Sat Mar 07, 2015 6:49 am by Lionel Andrades

» Cardinal Raymond Burke interprets Church documents with an irrational premise and conclusion and offers the Traditional Latin Mass
Sat Mar 07, 2015 6:25 am by Lionel Andrades

» Beautiful Gregorian Chant
Fri Mar 06, 2015 10:10 pm by tornpage

» Fr.Robert Barron in Catholicism uses an irrational proposition to reach an irrational conclusion
Fri Mar 06, 2015 6:47 am by Lionel Andrades


Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus and the Rupture Theology of extreme Feeneyism

Page 2 of 2 Previous  1, 2

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus and the Rupture Theology of extreme Feeneyism

Post  Jehanne on Wed Jan 09, 2013 6:44 pm

Columba,

I think that you should align yourself fully with the position of the Saint Benedict Center in New Hampshire:

http://www.saintbenedict.com/

The theology which they espouse leads to the exact same outcome which you profess, namely, that all of the One and Triune God's Elect in Paradise will have ended this life with sacramental Baptism in Water, no exceptions whatsoever. Someone like Mike may label such beliefs erroneous but a declaration of heresy would need to come either form their Bishop and/or from Rome; so far as I know, the theology expressed by the Brothers & Sisters in New Hampshire does not labor under any canonical decrees whatsoever, either from their Bishop, any canon law expert, the USCCB, any of the Roman Congregations, or, of course, the Holy Father.

Jehanne

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

http://unamsanctamecclesiamcatholicam.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus and the Rupture Theology of extreme Feeneyism

Post  MRyan on Wed Jan 09, 2013 7:07 pm

The new litmus test for orthodoxy:

If a "declaration of heresy" is not forthcoming from one's "Bishop and/or from Rome"; meaning, if your Bishop and/or if Rome does not hunt you down by reading internet blogs and forums, you can publicly say whatever you please, no matter how loopy and no matter how heterodox. If heterodoxy gets you to the "true doctrine", go for it, that's all that matters!

MRyan

Posts : 2247
Reputation : 2419
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus and the Rupture Theology of extreme Feeneyism

Post  Jehanne on Wed Jan 09, 2013 7:52 pm

Father Feeney always considered his position on Baptism of Desire an opinion, an opinion which he shared with some great saints, such as St. Augustine, but only an opinion. That is why he sent copies of Bread of Life in which the following lecture "The Waters of Salvation" is contained, to the Holy Father and to every Cardinal; he was submitting his opinion to the judgment of the Church."

http://www.marycoredemptrix.com/laisneyism.html


Jehanne

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

http://unamsanctamecclesiamcatholicam.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus and the Rupture Theology of extreme Feeneyism

Post  MRyan on Wed Jan 09, 2013 8:06 pm

columba wrote:

I can't be so silly as to deny that those existing before the institution of Baptism could not be saved. All that I asserted was that their salvation was totally dependant on the redemptive work of Christ. How the merits of Christ were applied in the period before the institution of the sacrament of Baptism is not clear to me but I can understand it in a way that neither detracts from the post-pentecost necessity of Baptism and the Church's understanding of justification.
I do not know how Pope Leo XIII could have made it any clearer, “their justice [was] derived from the merits of Christ who was to come”, by “the communication of the Holy Ghost”. What, not clear enough? Is this "ambiguous"?

columba wrote:

I never mentioned the term "sancifying grace" in connection with OT times. Prevenient grace (that was the term I was looking for all this time and couldn't remember it. Thanks for mentioning it in your post) is what I believe they received which was, or will be, translated to sanctifying grace with the death, decent into hell and the resurrection of Christ from the dead, and quite possibly by the sprinkling of water at the resurrection of the body on the last day. As Our Lord says, "The Last shall be First, and the First Last" (Matt 20:16)
When you start citing Scripture, caveat emptor! This “first justified [but not really], last saved” theory has no place in Scripture or theology, and your out-of-context “proof” text doesn’t get you there.

columba wrote:

A state of pre-justification (there's a term for that too which escapes me) existed for those of faith in OT times, for as we know, the law which they were under in that time did not have the power to save; hence the present-day Jews (still laboring under the old law) have excluded themselves from the hope of salvation.
As you should know, Columba, prevenient grace is not the grace of justification, it is an assisting grace that disposes one for justification, as we read in Trent, Session 6, Ch. 5, “On the necessity, in adults, of preparation for Justification, and whence it proceeds”:

The Synod furthermore declares, that in adults, the beginning of the said Justification is to be derived from the prevenient grace of God, through Jesus Christ, that is to say, … they are called; … so they,… may be disposed through His quickening and assisting grace, to convert themselves to their own justification, by freely assenting to and co-operating with that said grace.
For justification, the merits of Christ must be communicated by the Holy Ghost in the souls of those who are properly disposed, whether under the Old Law or the New. Pope Leo XIII:

“Moreover, not only was their justice derived from the merits of Christ who was to come, but the communication of the Holy Ghost after Christ was much more abundant”. In other words, the Holy Ghost communicated the merits of Christ in “those of the just who lived before Christ”, and thus, “It is indeed true that in those of the just who lived before Christ, the Holy Ghost resided by grace, as we read in the Scriptures concerning the prophets, Zachary, John the Baptist, Simeon, and Anna”.

Speaking of “insight”, with respect to the conformity of “minds” between the Fathers of Trent, Pope Leo XIII and tradition, please follow this closely, Columba. The Council of Trent, chapters III and VII, dogmatically defined exactly what the communication of the merits of Christ means:

Ch. III: But, though He died for all, yet do not all receive the benefit of His death, but those only unto whom the merit of His passion is communicated. For as in truth men, … if they were not born again in Christ, they never would be justified; seeing that, in that new birth, there is bestowed upon them, through the merit of His passion, the grace whereby they are made just.

Ch. VII: For, although no one can be just, but he to whom the merits of the Passion of our Lord Jesus Christ are communicated; … by the merit of that same most holy Passion, the charity of God is poured forth, by the Holy Spirit … and is inherent therein:”
Pope Leo XIII:

It is indeed true that in those of the just who lived before Christ ... their justice [was] derived from the merits of Christ who was to come" [by] the communication of the Holy Ghost"; and thus "It is indeed true that in those of the just who lived before Christ, the Holy Ghost resided by grace, as we read in the Scriptures concerning the prophets, Zachary, John the Baptist, Simeon, and Anna”.
Any lights going off yet?

MRyan

Posts : 2247
Reputation : 2419
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus and the Rupture Theology of extreme Feeneyism

Post  MRyan on Wed Jan 09, 2013 8:25 pm

Jehanne wrote:
Father Feeney always considered his position on Baptism of Desire an opinion, an opinion which he shared with some great saints, such as St. Augustine, but only an opinion. That is why he sent copies of Bread of Life in which the following lecture "The Waters of Salvation" is contained, to the Holy Father and to every Cardinal; he was submitting his opinion to the judgment of the Church."

http://www.marycoredemptrix.com/laisneyism.html
Obtuse.

When I said that Bread of Life was not overtly heterodox, but only suggested it (meaning it was implicit), and that only later would others more explicitly state that neither baptism of blood nor baptism of desire can be efficacious towards that justification defined by Trent, what part of this did you not understand?

Let this sink in: "Heterodoxy in the Roman Catholic Church ... means views that differ from strictly orthodox views, but retain sufficient faithfulness to the original doctrine to avoid heresy." (http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heterodoxy)

Add that word to your vocabulary.

MRyan

Posts : 2247
Reputation : 2419
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus and the Rupture Theology of extreme Feeneyism

Post  Jehanne on Wed Jan 09, 2013 8:39 pm

They are fully incorporated in the society of the Church who, possessing the Spirit of Christ accept her entire system and all the means of salvation given to her, and are united with her as part of her visible bodily structure and through her with Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops. The bonds which bind men to the Church in a visible way are profession of faith, the sacraments, and ecclesiastical government and communion. He is not saved, however, who, though part of the body of the Church, does not persevere in charity. He remains indeed in the bosom of the Church, but, as it were, only in a "bodily" manner and not "in his heart." All the Church's children should remember that their exalted status is to be attributed not to their own merits but to the special grace of Christ. If they fail moreover to respond to that grace in thought, word and deed, not only shall they not be saved but they will be the more severely judged. (Lumen Gentium, 14)

If I met you in Heaven someday, Mike, I will be surprised, pleasantly so! (On the other hand, if I should go to eternal Hell, I will not be surprised if I see you there.) In any case, you have no authority within the Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church. You're not an approved theologian, your not a canonist, you don't have Holy Orders, and you're not the Pope.

As I said, the Brothers & Sisters at the Saint Benedict Center in New Hampshire are in full communion with the Holy Father, the Bishop of Rome. They labor under no canonical penalties, sanctions, and/or decrees whatsoever. They are wholly orthodox, as was Father Feeney, who died in full communion with the Catholic Church.

Jehanne

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

http://unamsanctamecclesiamcatholicam.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus and the Rupture Theology of extreme Feeneyism

Post  MRyan on Wed Jan 09, 2013 9:20 pm

Jehanne wrote:
If I met you in Heaven someday, Mike, I will surprised, pleasantly so! In any case, you have no authority within the Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church. You're not an approved theologian, your not a canonist, you don't have Holy Orders, and you're not the Pope.
You forgot to add, "You're not a Third Order M.I.C.M tertiary" who has vowed to remain in full communion with the Holy Father; and who makes no judgments about the pope (like, "he deserves to be burning in Hell").

Jehanne wrote:As I said, the Brothers & Sisters at the Saint Benedict Center in New Hampshire are in full communion with the Holy Father, the Bishop of Rome. They labor under no canonical penalties, sanctions, and/or decrees whatsoever. They are wholly orthodox, as was Father Feeney, who died in full communion with the Catholic Church.
You have no authority or competency within the Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church to determine that anyone or any one group who has suffered under canonical censures, interdicts and/or excommunication to be "wholly orthodox" simply because the penalties have been lifted and no decree of "heresy" has been forthcoming (though some of them may indeed be wholly orthodox).

Heterodoxy does NOT mean "wholly orthodox", and any doctrine that rejects the justifying and salvific efficacy of the baptisms of blood and desire is heterodox. Please don't try and tell me that anyone who REJECTS the CCC's teaching and the Church's tradition on the baptisms of blood and desire is "wholly orthodox", it's not going to work. To be a Catholic in good standing with the Church does not make one "wholly orthodox".

And, as a Roman Catholic I have every right to make that determination, for I do not believe that the doctrines of the Church should be subject to the opinion polls of a splinter group; and I have every right to defend the Church and her magisterial teachings - all of them, just as Fr. Feeney and certain of his followers had every right to accuse the Holy Office of teaching heresy. Where are the accusers now? Oh, they're still out there, mark my word. In fact, I know one of them who said that an implicit desire that does not turn explicit before one's death is "formally heretical". He says just the darnedest things.

But that's OK, he says loopy things like that all the time because he doesn't know any better. But he knows what is "wholly orthodox" and what isn't, just ask him.

I'm done responding to your foolishness, good luck talking to yourself.

MRyan

Posts : 2247
Reputation : 2419
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus and the Rupture Theology of extreme Feeneyism

Post  Jehanne on Wed Jan 09, 2013 9:34 pm

MRyan wrote:
Jehanne wrote:
If I met you in Heaven someday, Mike, I will surprised, pleasantly so! In any case, you have no authority within the Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church. You're not an approved theologian, your not a canonist, you don't have Holy Orders, and you're not the Pope.
You forgot to add, "You're not a Third Order M.I.C.M tertiary" who has vowed to remain in full communion with the Holy Father; and who makes no judgments about the pope (like, "he deserves to be burning in Hell").

I never said that. I believe that what I did say was something to the effect, "If he is burning in Hell..." Not even Dante, who's Divine Comedy was declared to be orthodox, placed all Popes in Heaven. I do not believe that Pope John Paul II was a good example of a Catholic, but in spite of that, I never sent him letters, emails, etc., saying he was "obtuse," "ignorant," etc. In fact, I never wrote to him at all.

MRyan wrote:
Jehanne wrote:As I said, the Brothers & Sisters at the Saint Benedict Center in New Hampshire are in full communion with the Holy Father, the Bishop of Rome. They labor under no canonical penalties, sanctions, and/or decrees whatsoever. They are wholly orthodox, as was Father Feeney, who died in full communion with the Catholic Church.
You have no authority or competency within the Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church to determine that anyone or any one group who has suffered under canonical censures, interdicts and/or excommunication to be "wholly orthodox" simply because the penalties have been lifted and no decree of "heresy" has been forthcoming (though some of them may indeed be wholly orthodox).

Heterodoxy does NOT mean "wholly orthodox", and any doctrine that rejects the justifying and salvific efficacy of the baptisms of blood and desire is heterodox. Please don't try and tell me that anyone who REJECTS the CCC's teaching and the Church's tradition on the baptisms of blood and desire is "wholly orthodox", it's not going to work. To be a Catholic in good standing with the Church does not make one "wholly orthodox".

That is not for you to decide! Your actions are "proximate to schism" when you declare "as not wholly orthodox" individuals whom the Bishop of Rome would regard as being wholly orthodox.

MRyan wrote:And, as a Roman Catholic I have every right to make that determination, for I do not believe that the doctrines of the Church should be subject to the opinion polls of a splinter group; and I have every right to defend the Church and her magisterial teachings - all of them, just as Fr. Feeney and certain of his followers had every right to accuse the Holy Office of teaching heresy. Where are the accusers now? Oh, they're still out there, mark my word. In fact, I know one of them who said that an implicit desire that does not turn explicit before one's death is "formally heretical". He says just the darnedest things.

Show me in the 1983 Code of Canon law where you have this "right"?! Do you mean that you have the "right" to judge others whom the Church has not judged? Or, whom the Church has judged to be orthodox?

MRyan wrote:But that's OK, he says loopy things like that all the time because he doesn't know any better. But he knows what is "wholly orthodox" and what isn't, just ask him.

I'm done responding to your foolishness, good luck talking to yourself.

Hey, Mike, this is just a message board, okay; no one really cares. The only reason why I posted at all in this thread was that your very title "extreme Feeneyism" is both uncharitable and an oxymoron. There is no such thing as "extreme Feeneyism", for one can hardly call "Feeneyism" those theological views which Father Feeney himself rejected.

Jehanne

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

http://unamsanctamecclesiamcatholicam.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus and the Rupture Theology of extreme Feeneyism

Post  columba on Thu Jan 10, 2013 12:12 pm

MRyan wrote:
I love it Columba, when you say such things as “the baptism of desire brigade”, as if there is any other “brigade” of Catholics that does not affirm with the Church that a state of sanctifying grace can be effected by faith, charity and intention – “the desire thereof” for baptism.

Who's denying that a state of sanctifying grace cannot be effected by faith, charity and intention? Not I, as long as the faith is supernatural and likewise the charity. How an non-regenerated man can possess either of these supernatural viirtues while yet in this pre-baptismal state (a child of wrath) is beyond me; (and St. Paul too may I add).

Intention of course can make up for the lack of at least one of the sacraments; that being sacramental confession. But this, as we know, only applies to the Baptized who have perfect contrition for their mortal sins and who intend to avail of the sacrament as soon as reasonably possible.

As I said in my previous post, "the desire thereof" in Trent 6:4, refers to a necessary disposition of the impious in order that they may receive the sacrament of Baptism to their benefit. ( I stand corrected where I said that the sacrament would not be valid if the desire were not present. Your right of course; it would still be valid but not efficacious).

The point which I was hoping you would concede is that 6:4 deals only with the translation of the impious from an unjustified state to a state of justification.
Do you agree that this is what 6:4 is treating of?

MRyan wrote:
Such belief is affirmed by the Doctors, the saints..[etc, etc, etc]

I'm not here trying to prove that such n' such a saint or Doctor agreed or disagreed with the "doctrine" of baptism of desire; I'm trying to establish if you agree or not that Trent 6:4 is dealing only with the impious and how they are translated to a state of justification?

MRyan wrote:
Columba’s “brigade”, however, would seem to consist of Duckbill, Peter Abelard and the condemned heretic Baius.

Mike, you will find that there are a lot more Catholics than me, Duckbill and a condemned heretic. There are actually proportionately more condemned heretics within the baptism of desire camp, some of whom reject Baptism altogether.

MRyan wrote:
Speaking of which, in his discussion of baptism of desire and baptism of blood, the Spanish Dominican Fr. Marin Solà wrote:

Adversaries: Certain heretics have affirmed that ‘no adult can be saved without receiving baptism itself before he dies, however much he would burn with desire for it, and that it would do him no good unless he were washed with water.’ Baius also taught that charity was not always joined to the remission of sins.”

Does the good Father count among those heretics such great saints as Ambrose and Gregory of Nazianzus?

Against the second part [baptism of blood] there are hardly any adversaries, save for a few theologians who disagree over the manner in which the martyrdom achieves its effect. (De Sacramentis, [BAC 1954], 69. His emphasis.)

If he's speaking of a unanimous consensus of theologians throughout Church history then I'm afraid he is incorrect.

Mryan wrote:
Fr. Solà simply confirms what St. Alphonsus Liguori and at least nine other accredited theologians also affirmed, when not hesitating to call this doctrine “de fide”. And if not necessarily “de fide” there is not a single theologian since Trent that anyone can point to who does not hold the doctrine as “true”.

Mike, when are you ever going to stick to facts regarding the requirements for a teaching to be "de fide?" There are far more than nine accredited theologians in the Catholic Church and we do not have this unanimous agreement among them. If there were unanimous agreement, the Church would have declared this "not necessarily de fide” teaching a dogma.

MRyan wrote:
And, btw, it is precisely that doctrine “or the desire thereof” on the translation to justification that is dogmatically defined de fide by the Council of Trent, which is why Pope Pius XII teaches, for example, that “An act of love is sufficient for the adult to obtain sanctifying grace and to supply the lack of baptism”; and why the CCC teaches “The Church has always held the firm conviction that ... This Baptism of blood, like the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament”; and this is why Pope Leo XIII infallibly declared that "nothing is more internal than heavenly grace which begets sanctity, but the ordinary and chief means of obtaining grace are external".

Did any of the above reference Trent 6;4 as the source of their teaching?
I'm still trying to establish whether or not you agree that Trent 6;4 is dealing solely with the translation of the unjust, not those already justified by desire?

MRyan wrote:
But it is the infallible magisterial Encyclical “On the Holy Ghost”, Divinum Illud Munus, by Pope Leo XIII that completely demolishes Columba’s novel heterodoxy that says the justice enjoyed by the saints, e.g., “the prophets, Zachary, John the Baptist, Simeon, and Anna”, was NOT “derived from the merits of Christ who was to come”, at least not until our Lord came and actually redeemed the human race and instituted the sacrament of Baptism, the sole means by which the merits of his redemption can be applied.

I may not have made it too clear, but for the record, I believe that the just of the OT received their justification by having the merits of Christ applied to them before His coming by means of following the precepts of the Lord which were in force at that time. Ultimate salvation however was available to no one until Christ actually opened the gates of heaven with His ascension into glory. There's nowhere to be found in the teaching of the Church that those who entered heaven with the Lord did not receive the laver of regeneration. I'm not saying that I hold this as de fide; all I'm saying is that I'm not in heresy for speculating thus. What I do hold as de fide is that all who entered heaven since the time the sacrament of Baptism was made obligatory by the Lord Himself, each of those post-pentecost souls received it.

MRyan wrote:
Columba's doctrine effectively leaves the massa damnata (the justified saints of the old law) in a state of original sin, and NOT as justified children of God (though not yet adopted sons) in whom the Holy Ghost “resided by grace” and whose justice was “derived from the merits of Christ who was to come” by the “communication of the Holy Ghost”.

Just so we're clear, Columba tells us the justified saints (the massa damnata) were left in some sort of “pre-justified” state of “prevenient” or assisting grace that disposes one for the reception of grace, but does not actually remove original sin or justify/sanctify anyone by the communication of “the merits of Christ who was to come”.

I trust my above explanation has covered this.

MRyan wrote:
And now Columba has another one of his Gnostic-like eureka moments while reading again Trent’s Session VI, Ch. 4, and has gained some new insight that seems to have escaped all of the above named magisterial and accredited authorities, even all of the Doctors and theologians, to include the Fathers of Trent who wrote its Catechism and affirmed the universal understanding of this same dogmatic passage in Chapter 4 of Trent's Session VI.

Leaving aside catechisms and other documents of the Church which don't fall under the Church's established criteria of those documents which are guaranteed infallible, can you tell me if Trent 6;4 refers to the unjustified or the justified?

MRyan wrote:
Just to be clear, it brings a soul to a state of “extra-baptismal justification” by re-birth in the grace of Baptism.

There is no such thing as a “pre-baptismal justification” that does not apply the merits of Christ’s passion or places one in a state of sanctifying grace.

If you mean by “pre-baptismal justification” a state of sanctifying grace that may be effected prior to water Baptism, OK.

Yes. That's what I meant. But I don't hold that a state of sanctifying grace that may be effected prior to water Baptism actually exists.

MRyan wrote:

Columba wrote:
Here's the problem. The chapter is speaking about the impius and how they (the impius) are translated to a state of justification. It is not speaking about those who have been already justified through a pre-baptismal faith animated by charity; it's talking about the impius.. In other words; the non-justified.

This is problematic on more than one level. The Council is indeed providing a dogmatic “description … of the Justification of the impious, and of the Manner thereof under the law of grace.” As such, the Council is affirming that under the law of grace, the impious are justified by the laver of regeneration, or its desire (faith, charity, intention).

Are you saying then that the unjustified (the impious) can possess supernatural faith and charity? If so, they are not the impious, they are the justified. You agreed that 6;4 is dealing solely with the impious. We are told how the impious make this transition form their state of impiety to that of justification. If they are already in a state of justification by their desire for Baptism, then Baptism can't re-justify those who are already in a state of justification. Agreed?

MRyan wrote:
And this is the same internal regeneration (re-birth) affirmed by Christ in His decree “unless a man be born again by … [communication of the merits of] the Holy Ghost”, with “by water and the Holy Ghost” (the sacrament) being the external sign (of signification) and ordinary means of internal regeneration; the sacrament of which He instituted for our redemption and incorporation into His Body that we may participate in the sacramental life of the Church, and, ultimately, will result in our glorification.

Mike, you can't have it both ways. You chastise those who take the "or" in 6;4 to mean "and" and at the same time you now take the "and" in John 3:5 to mean "or."
You separate those two elements which Our Lord Himself has joined, namely, the water and the spirit.

This is why the esteemed Fr. O'Kane, speaking with the universal moral consensus of theologians, and with the Church, teaches:

There is no other means (baptism of blood and baptism of desire) 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.

Calling someone "esteemed" doesn't make them right.
I disagree with Fr. O'Kane and I disagree that this “universal moral consensus” of theologians in the Church is in fact universal.

MRyan wrote:
Columba, get it through your thick Irish head that this particular dogmatic passage has NOTHING to do with validity of the sacrament, for the only disposition that can render the sacrament invalid (which is not even the subject) is the disposition of the person administrating the sacrament who does not have the intention to do what the Church does, to baptize “In the name of the Father and …”.

Yes Mike, you are correct.
I corrected my error earlier in the post. I would be contradicting my own understanding of the sacrament if I were to hold that the sacrament was rendered invalid by lack of desire on the part of the candidate as that would mean that he could be re-baptized at a later date which I know is not possible. However, if one were physically held down and baptized against their will, would the sacrament be valid? Just asking.

What I was trying to get across was the fact that for the undesiring candidate, the sacrament would be as good as invalid concerning the gain, or lack thereof he would acquire from it. This I believe is what Trent was protecting against in 6;4.

MRyan wrote:
You in fact prove my point and render your own argument entirely worthless when you say “the word ‘desire’ has to refer to a disposition that must be present (in an adult) for the sacrament to be valid”,

Far from it. My argument is as sound as ever. Desire on the part of the candidate is still a requirement for the sacrament to be efficacious unto salvation. The undesiring candidate would not be justified by the sacrament. In the same way as a baptized person can lose their justification, the undesiring candidate would not be justified before God in the first place. This is what Trent was making clear. What you are saying Mike, is that the desiring candidate is already justified before the sacrament. If so, he is not one of the impious of whom the chapter speaks.

Mryan wrote:
So yes, please stew on that for awhile; and perhaps you should spend more time reading and trying to understand what the Church and her theologians actually teach before taking it upon yourself to dissect the dogmatic passages of the Church that you apparently have not the competency to understand.

I read quite a lot, but there's such a think as the "Sensus Catholicus" and I read without losing it. Understanding is a gift of the Holy Ghost and comes through prayer (the asking). If reading alone sufficed, Martin Luther and many like him would now be saints. So we shouldn't rely too much on our knowledge Mike; I don't deny that it is a good thing but by itself it can't save.

MRyan wrote:
However, with personable "theology" and private interpretation given free reign today, not matter how loopy, it would be most uncharitable of me to tell someone that they have it completely wrong; but seriously, Columba, your "theology" is appalling, and your latest in a long line of errors is most egregious.

Be that as it may (or may not), I'm still waiting to hear how the translation of the impious to a state of justification can be brought about by desire alone. Once again, if this were possible then the water would be superfluous, but for those who had not the desire, the water, in their case, would be essential. Ah.. But hold on a minute! Those without the desire would be still-born. Nah... That can't be correct. In reality it must mean, that the desire and the water are inseparable. Now that makes sense. No desire, no translation; No water, no translation. Can't have one without the other.

columba

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus and the Rupture Theology of extreme Feeneyism

Post  columba on Thu Jan 10, 2013 1:54 pm

Jehanne wrote:
I think that you should align yourself fully with the position of the Saint Benedict Center in New Hampshire:

http://www.saintbenedict.com/

The theology which they espouse leads to the exact same outcome which you profess, namely, that all of the One and Triune God's Elect in Paradise will have ended this life with sacramental Baptism in Water, no exceptions whatsoever.

Jehanne,
If that is their position then I am already aligned with the St. Benedict Centre, at least in that respect. There must be however, some other positions they hold that I possibly could not align myself with. I don't know enough about them to judge on this but I will read up on their position and find out the details.

I'm thinking, that if they are in a better position with Rome than are the SSPX, there must be some compromise of dogma going on (it's the sceptic in me). I fully support the SSPX position except for their stance on baptism of desire and Invincible Ignorance.
Maybe this is the rock on which they (the SSPX) flounder, and quite possibly the invisible cause of the present state of disunity existing in their society. Of course Mike will have a different take on the reason for the split.

columba

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus and the Rupture Theology of extreme Feeneyism

Post  columba on Thu Jan 10, 2013 3:26 pm

MRyan wrote:

columba wrote:

I can't be so silly as to deny that those existing before the institution of Baptism could not be saved. All that I asserted was that their salvation was totally dependant on the redemptive work of Christ. How the merits of Christ were applied in the period before the institution of the sacrament of Baptism is not clear to me but I can understand it in a way that neither detracts from the post-pentecost necessity of Baptism and the Church's understanding of justification.

I do not know how Pope Leo XIII could have made it any clearer, “their justice [was] derived from the merits of Christ who was to come”, by “the communication of the Holy Ghost”. What, not clear enough? Is this "ambiguous"?

Yes of course. We all agree on this. What is not clear however is in what manner the Holy Ghost applies the merits of Christ under the Old Law; as in: At what instant could an "Old Law" subject declare himself free of original sin? We know that the presence of original sin alone disqualifies one from the Beatific Vision. We also know that a soul who receives sacramental Baptism can tell you to the very hour and minute the exact time at which his soul was washed clean of the stain of originasl sin. In other words, we know how the Holy Ghost actually applies the merits of Christ under the new law. We can't say the same concerning the old law.

MRyan wrote:

columba wrote:

I never mentioned the term "sancifying grace" in connection with OT times. Prevenient grace (that was the term I was looking for all this time and couldn't remember it. Thanks for mentioning it in your post) is what I believe they received which was, or will be, translated to sanctifying grace with the death, decent into hell and the resurrection of Christ from the dead, and quite possibly by the sprinkling of water at the resurrection of the body on the last day. As Our Lord says, "The Last shall be First, and the First Last" (Matt 20:16)


When you start citing Scripture, caveat emptor! This “first justified [but not really], last saved” theory has no place in Scripture or theology, and your out-of-context “proof” text doesn’t get you there.

I agree Mike.
My citing of Scripture doesn't prove anything. I merely used it to show that "the first shall be last and the last shall be first" citation is, a spiritual reality.

MRyan wrote:
As you should know, Columba, prevenient grace is not the grace of justification, it is an assisting grace that disposes one for justification, as we read in Trent, Session 6, Ch. 5, “On the necessity, in adults, of preparation for Justification, and whence it proceeds”:

Yes Mike. I do understand what prevenient grace is. It is the grace offered by God which begins the process of justification in those who cooperate with it. Those who cooperate with it will (eventually) be fully justified. The means by which full justification is achieved under the New Law is certain. It's called sacramental Baptism. Under the Old Law things aren't as clear, but what we do know is that justification under both the new, and the old law, is achieved through the application of the merits of Christ.

MRyan wrote:
For justification, the merits of Christ must be communicated by the Holy Ghost in the souls of those who are properly disposed, whether under the Old Law or the New. Pope Leo XIII:

Did I just hear myself say that?
I thought you were quoting this as an example of where I'm in disagreement with Pope Leo XIII. scratch

MRyan wrote:
“Moreover, not only was their justice derived from the merits of Christ who was to come, but the communication of the Holy Ghost after Christ was much more abundant”. In other words, the Holy Ghost communicated the merits of Christ in “those of the just who lived before Christ”, and thus, “It is indeed true that in those of the just who lived before Christ, the Holy Ghost resided by grace, as we read in the Scriptures concerning the prophets, Zachary, John the Baptist, Simeon, and Anna”.

And your point is?

MRyan wrote:
Speaking of “insight”, with respect to the conformity of “minds” between the Fathers of Trent, Pope Leo XIII and tradition, please follow this closely, Columba. The Council of Trent, chapters III and VII, dogmatically defined exactly what the communication of the merits of Christ means:

Ch. III: But, though He died for all, yet do not all receive the benefit of His death, but those only unto whom the merit of His passion is communicated. For as in truth men, … if they were not born again in Christ, they never would be justified; seeing that, in that new birth, there is bestowed upon them, through the merit of His passion, the grace whereby they are made just.

Ch. VII: For, although no one can be just, but he to whom the merits of the Passion of our Lord Jesus Christ are communicated; … by the merit of that same most holy Passion, the charity of God is poured forth, by the Holy Spirit … and is inherent therein:”

This...all of it, is not contrary to the position I hold on the necessity of sacramental Baptism for justification under the new law.

MRyan wrote:

It is indeed true that in those of the just who lived before Christ ... their justice [was] derived from the merits of Christ who was to come" [by] the communication of the Holy Ghost"; and thus "It is indeed true that in those of the just who lived before Christ, the Holy Ghost resided by grace, as we read in the Scriptures concerning the prophets, Zachary, John the Baptist, Simeon, and Anna”.

Any lights going off yet?

The lights all went out in Massachusetts. Coming soon to a town near you!

Can you show me, Mike, where any of this would confirm as true, the speculative theories of the "baptism of desire brigade?"

columba

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus and the Rupture Theology of extreme Feeneyism

Post  MRyan on Fri Jan 11, 2013 10:47 am

Columba,

There is a long list of errors in your responses that I have yet to address, but there is one important question that is central to this entire discussion to which I can't seem to get a straight answer.

And I am a bit disappointed that you would start to patronize me with your snarky responses to my numerous references to Divinum Illud Munus as if we have been in agreement all along with the teaching of Pope Leo XIII On the Holy Ghost confirming that the remission of sins and the state of sanctifying grace were effected in the souls of the just who received "the merits of Christ who was to come".

This is what you said on the first page of this thread after leading me to believe we were in agreement with respect to OT justification:

Columba wrote]
MRyan wrote:
With that behind us, let me summarize your position as I understand it by noting how you characterize the differences in the translation to justification in OT versus NT times.

Under the former, the virtues/dispositions of faith, charity and contrition (“circumcision of the heart”) moved our Lord to respond with the gift of sanctifying grace and the future merits of His passion. We are in agreement, and that's where our agreement ends.
I don't think we actually are in agreement here.

I never mentioned the term "sancifying grace" in connection with OT times. Prevenient grace … is what I believe they received which was, or will be, translated to sanctifying grace with the death, decent into hell and the resurrection of Christ from the dead, and quite possibly by the sprinkling of water at the resurrection of the body on the last day.
As Our Lord says, "The Last shall be First, and the First Last" (Matt 20:16)

A state of pre-justification … existed for those of faith in OT times, for as we know, the law which they were under in that time did not have the power to save; hence the present-day Jews (still laboring under the old law) have excluded themselves from the hope of salvation.
And this is completely contradicted by your own words in another response which say:

Penance and the remission of sins were always possible both OT and NT times.
In OT times remission of sins was granted to those penitents who placed their hope in the Lord through faith in the redeemer to come. The merits of Christ are applicable to all generations past and present and availed of by following the precepts laid down by the Lord for each period.
Columba, it is either one or the other, it cannot be both. If in OT times the "remission of sins was granted to those penitents who placed their hope in the Lord through faith in the redeemer to come" then the OT just were justified in sanctifying grace, period, for it is heretical to hold otherwise.

And all of a sudden it’s all been a big misunderstanding to where you now say, after being shown the exact words of Pope Leo XIII for the umpteenth time:

Yes of course. We all agree on this. What is not clear however is in what manner the Holy Ghost applies the merits of Christ under the Old Law; as in: At what instant could an "Old Law" subject declare himself free of original sin? We know that the presence of original sin alone disqualifies one from the Beatific Vision. We also know that a soul who receives sacramental Baptism can tell you to the very hour and minute the exact time at which his soul was washed clean of the stain of originasl sin. In other words, we know how the Holy Ghost actually applies the merits of Christ under the new law. We can't say the same concerning the old law.
We all agree on what, that "the just of the OT received their justification by having the merits of Christ applied to them before His coming", and that this translation to justice resulted in a state of non-sanctifying (remission of sins!) "prevenient grace"?

This whole bit about “At what instant could an ‘Old Law’ subject declare himself free of original sin” where you display your appalling lack of knowledge on the difference between the old law and the new law is a complete smokescreen, but it does once again raise some doubts as to whether you actually believe that a state of sanctification (remission of sins) actually existed in the souls of the OT just.

Here again, is your “official” explanation:

I may not have made it too clear, but for the record, I believe that the just of the OT received their justification by having the merits of Christ applied to them before His coming by means of following the precepts of the Lord which were in force at that time. Ultimate salvation however was available to no one until Christ actually opened the gates of heaven with His ascension into glory. There's nowhere to be found in the teaching of the Church that those who entered heaven with the Lord did not receive the laver of regeneration. I'm not saying that I hold this as de fide; all I'm saying is that I'm not in heresy for speculating thus. What I do hold as de fide is that all who entered heaven since the time the sacrament of Baptism was made obligatory by the Lord Himself, each of those post-pentecost souls received it.
Clear as mud.

If you "believe that the just of the OT received their justification by having the merits of Christ applied to them before His coming", and if you believe that by these same merits the "remission of sins was granted to those penitents who placed their hope in the Lord through faith in the redeemer to come", then you must also believe that these same souls received the gift of sanctifying grace, the very gift that equips a soul the kingdom of God by which their salvation is assured so long as they die in that state of grace.

I want to hear you renounce once and for all this notion of a "pre-justified" state of "prevenient grace" which is not a state of grace, but a state of preparation that prepares one for sanctification by way of assisting graces.

I asked you point blank:

Just so we're clear, Columba tells us the justified saints (the massa damnata) were left in some sort of “pre-justified” state of “prevenient” or assisting grace that disposes one for the reception of grace, but does not actually remove original sin or justify/sanctify anyone by the communication of “the merits of Christ who was to come”.
Your response “I trust my above explanation has covered this.”

No, it did not. All I see is an Irish tap dance around the central issue.

Again, do you or do you not hold that by the very fact that “the OT received their justification by having the merits of Christ applied to them” they received not only the remission of sins, but the salvific gift of sanctifying grace?

We’re not going anywhere until you answer the question.

MRyan

Posts : 2247
Reputation : 2419
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus and the Rupture Theology of extreme Feeneyism

Post  columba on Fri Jan 11, 2013 1:18 pm

MRyan wrote:
And I am a bit disappointed that you would start to patronize me with your snarky responses to my numerous references to Divinum Illud Munus as if we have been in agreement all along with the teaching of Pope Leo XIII On the Holy Ghost confirming that the remission of sins and the state of sanctifying grace were effected in the souls of the just who received "the merits of Christ who was to come".

Mike, the problem -as you see it- is, that our individual understanding of certain passages contained in Divinum Illud Munusare are not in agreement. The insinuation present when you reference those words of Pope Leo XIII is that my understanding of them is contrary to the understnding of their author and therefore Pope Leo XIII -in my view- must be mistaken and columba is here to correct him.

The fact is, I understand those words as you understand them and how Pope Leo XIII himself understood them when he wrote them and, I can't see anything in those words of Pope Leo that contradict my position on baptism of desire. I infer from his words only that which can reasonably be inferred but you Mike, on the other hand, have them supporting extra-sacramental justification and salvation for those under the New Law.
This, IMO, is a distortion in as much as it attributes some new meaning that isn't present (nor meant to be) in the actual words themselves.

From my understanding (and that of Pope Leo XII) the merits of Christ are applicable to all generations past, present and future. Before the coming of Christ they were applied to a lesser degree and didn't achieve the same effects as they would after His death, resurrection and ascension:

so that on Pentecost the Holy Ghost did not communicate Himself in such a way "as then for the first time to begin to dwell in the saints, but by pouring Himself forth more abundantly; crowning, not beginning His gifts; not commencing a new work, but giving more abundantly" (St. Leo the Great, Hom. iii., de Pentec.). But if they also were numbered among the children of God, they were in a state like that of servants, (Divinum Illud Munus; 7)

Therefore, those who were justified under the Old Law, still awaited something more and so lacked some perfection essential for final salvation; a perfection however that would not be denied them. In that sense, they were in a different state of justification from those of the New Covenant. One such difference (at least in emphasis) is recorded in the Gospels: "I will not now call you servants: for the servant knoweth not what his lord doth. But I have called you friends:" (John 15:15)

How was this full measure (so to speak) of justification supplied? We know it was supplied through Baptism in the New Covenant. Who's to say that those of the Old Covenant would be denied this means?

Gotta go for now but will be back to finish my Irish Jig. (The Yanks tap dance, the Paddy's jig).


columba

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus and the Rupture Theology of extreme Feeneyism

Post  MRyan on Fri Jan 11, 2013 2:16 pm

MRyan wrote:Columba,

All I see is an Irish tap dance around the central issue.

Again, do you or do you not hold that by the very fact that “the OT received their justification by having the merits of Christ applied to them” they received not only the remission of sins, but the salvific gift of sanctifying grace?

We’re not going anywhere until you answer the question.

MRyan

Posts : 2247
Reputation : 2419
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus and the Rupture Theology of extreme Feeneyism

Post  columba on Fri Jan 11, 2013 8:14 pm

MRyan wrote:
MRyan wrote:Columba,

All I see is an Irish tap dance around the central issue.

Again, do you or do you not hold that by the very fact that “the OT received their justification by having the merits of Christ applied to them” they received not only the remission of sins, but the salvific gift of sanctifying grace?

We’re not going anywhere until you answer the question.

No. I do not hold to your above assertion for several reasons.

1. You cannot show me where the term "sanctifying grace" was ever used in connection with the justification of the OT saints

2. Even though they received the remission of their sins, they lacked the means of obtaining salvific justification under the old law, the new law of grace having not yet been proclaimed. They knew the precepts of God but lacked the power under the old law to fulfill them perfectly.

3. At the ressurection of Christ from the dead, He first descended into hell to preach to the souls of the just there detained. (1 Peter 3:18)
Did He preach that they had yet "to come up throgh the water" to receive their full regeneration in Christ? Could be, for we are told in Matt 27:52,
"And the graves were opened: and many bodies of the saints that had slept arose."
What was the purpose of them regaining their mortal bodies? There must be some reason, for we know that the resurrection of the body is a feature of the final judgment, not commonly a feature before it, yet it has been known in the past where great saints raised the dead for the specific purpose of administering the sacrament of Baptism.

4. In the two volume work, The Apostolic Fathers, (Loeb Classical Library), a footnote on p. 236 of volume II, states, "The idea of hearing the Gospel and that Baptism is necessary for the righteous dead of pre Christian times is common."


It may not be common now but there'll be no charges of heresy for believing it.
I hold that the just of the old covenant did not receive, there and then, the sancifying grace which was a promise pertaining to the new covenant but were assured of it at the coming of Christ and His descend among the dead.
"For whom he has predestinated, these also he has called; and whom he has called, these also he has justified; but whom he has justified, these also he has glorified."
(Romans 8:30)


Question answered I hope?

columba

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus and the Rupture Theology of extreme Feeneyism

Post  columba on Fri Jan 11, 2013 8:30 pm

A question for you Mike:

columba wrote:
What is not clear however is in what manner the Holy Ghost applies the merits of Christ under the Old Law; as in: At what instant could an "Old Law" subject declare himself free of original sin? We know that the presence of original sin alone disqualifies one from the Beatific Vision. We also know that a soul who receives sacramental Baptism can tell you to the very hour and minute the exact time at which his soul was washed clean of the stain of originasl sin. In other words, we know how the Holy Ghost actually applies the merits of Christ under the new law. We can't say the same concerning the old law.

Is the above a true statement?

columba

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus and the Rupture Theology of extreme Feeneyism

Post  MRyan on Sat Jan 12, 2013 1:22 pm

Columba wrote:

No. I do not hold to your above assertion for several reasons.

1. You cannot show me where the term "sanctifying grace" was ever used in connection with the justification of the OT saints
I do not have to show you where the term “sanctifying grace” was ever used by Pope Leo XIII in his Encyclical On the Holy Ghost, for it is clear that when he says “It is indeed true that in those of the just who lived before Christ, the Holy Ghost resided by grace, as we read in the Scriptures concerning the prophets, Zachary, John the Baptist, Simeon, and Anna”, he cannot be referring to anything other than sanctifying grace, for the Holy Ghost does not “reside” in the souls of the just by way of “prevenient grace”; no, he does not “reside” in the souls of the just without sanctifying these same souls.

Finishing this thought, Pope Leo XIII then says, “so that on Pentecost the Holy Ghost did not communicate Himself in such a way ‘as then for the first time to begin to dwell in the saints, but by pouring Himself forth more abundantly; crowning, not beginning His gifts; not commencing a new work, but giving more abundantly’ (St. Leo the Great, Hom. iii., de Pentec.).”

Communicating Himself; communicating the merits of Christ who was to come; giving of Himself; pouring Himself, residing and dwelling in the souls of the just – and you want to tell us Pope Leo XIII is NOT referring to the divine indwelling and the gift of sanctification?

To “dwell in the saints” is an explicit reference to the divine indwelling, the uncreated cause of created sanctifying grace. And in paragraph 9, which has no less than three specific references to the doctrine of St. Thomas Aquinas, Pope Leo XIII, citing the Angelic Doctor, declares:

"Thy heart has a certain hidden power, and therefore the Holy Ghost, who invisibly vivifies and unites the Church, is compared to the heart." (Summ. Th. 3a, q. vii., a. I, ad 3). More than this, the just man, that is to say he who lives the life of divine grace, and acts by the fitting virtues as by means of faculties, has need of those seven gifts which are properly attributed to the Holy Ghost.
The “just man” is the man “who lives the life of divine grace”, which is nothing other than sanctifying grace.

So when Pope Leo XIII says ““It is indeed true that in those of the just who lived before Christ, the Holy Ghost resided by grace, he would go on to tell us exactly what he means:

Moreover, God by grace resides in the just soul as in a temple, in a most intimate and peculiar manner. From this proceeds that union of affection by which the soul adheres most closely to God, more so than the friend is united to his most loving and beloved friend, and enjoys God in all fulness and sweetness. Now this wonderful union, which is properly called "indwelling," differing only in degree or state from that with which God beatifies the saints in heaven, although it is most certainly produced by the presence of the whole Blessed Trinity-"We will come to Him and make our abode with Him," (John xiv. 23.)-nevertheless is attributed in a peculiar manner to the Holy Ghost. For, whilst traces of divine power and wisdom appear even in the wicked man, charity, which, as it were, is the special mark of the Holy Ghost, is shared in only by the just. In harmony with this, the same Spirit is called Holy, for He, the first and supreme Love, moves souls and leads them to sanctity, which ultimately consists in the love of God.
The just of the OT did not have the same “degree” of perfection as that which exists and is abundantly poured forth after Christ’s coming, just as the latter degree of perfection is a lesser degree of that “with which God beatifies the saints in heaven”; so your suggestion that the justice of the Old Law could not justify with the grace of sanctification because it could not “fulfill them perfectly”, is entirely without merit, based as it is on a false premise.

Quite simply, the “Holy Ghost … resided by grace … in those of the just [‘who lives the life of divine grace’] who lived before Christ”, and in the “giving” of Himself, “communicate[d] Himself in such a way” as “to dwell in the saints”.

So when you suggest, Columba, that Pope Leo XIII, even with citing the Summa of St. Thomas no less than nine times in this same brief Encyclical, tossed aside the same doctrine of St. Thomas Aquinas on the Holy Ghost, grace and justification, particularly his doctrine on OT justification (after all, you say, Trent also rejected his doctrine on extra-sacramental justification), one can only shake one’s head in utter bafflement at this arrogance when this same Pope says this of the Angelic Doctor, in his Encyclical Aeterni Patris:

On which point the words of Blessed Urban V to the University of Toulouse are worthy of recall: "It is our will, which We hereby enjoin upon you, that ye follow the teaching of Blessed Thomas as the true and Catholic doctrine and that ye labor with all your force to profit by the same."(35) [....] while to these judgments of great Pontiffs on Thomas Aquinas comes the crowning testimony of Innocent VI: "His teaching above that of others, the canonical writings alone excepted, enjoys such a precision of language, an order of matters, a truth of conclusions, that those who hold to it are never found swerving from the path of truth, and he who dare assail it will always be suspected of error."(36)

22. The ecumenical councils, also, where blossoms the flower of all earthly wisdom, have always been careful to hold Thomas Aquinas in singular honor. In the Councils of Lyons, Vienna, Florence, and the Vatican one might almost say that Thomas took part and presided over the deliberations and decrees of the Fathers, contending against the errors of the Greeks, of heretics and rationalists, with invincible force and with the happiest results. But the chief and special glory of Thomas, one which he has shared with none of the Catholic Doctors, is that the Fathers of Trent made it part of the order of conclave to lay upon the altar, together with sacred Scripture and the decrees of the supreme Pontiffs, the Summa of Thomas Aquinas, whence to seek counsel, reason, and inspiration. http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_04081879_aeterni-patris_en.html
And you have the audacity to write:

I've no doubt the Angelic Doctor would have abandoned this view [“Baptism of Repentence”] in favor of the dogmatic pronoucements of Trent. Having established that the other two Baptisms are contained in, and part of, the sacrament of Baptism, he separartes them above into three independent Baptisms. Obviously both views are not consistent with each other and one view must ultimately give way to the other.
This is just one more of your egregious errors, for nowhere can it be said that St. Thomas “separates them … into three independent Baptisms”. Such a deliberate mischaracterization is appalling, but hardly surprising coming from someone who routinely disparages the common doctrine of the Doctors as “mistaken theology that allows extra-sacramental effects to be present in places where it is of dogmatic certainty that they cannot be present.

In other words, you say, “both perfect charity and sincere contrition are impossible without regeneration. Regeneration is impossible without Baptism. If it (regeneration) is possible without the Sacrament of Regeneration, then Baptism itself is merely one means among others to the same end.

Ultimately, Columba, your private interpretations of dogma and your egregious ecclesiology lead you to heresy, as evidenced here:

2. Even though they received the remission of their sins, they lacked the means of obtaining salvific justification under the old law, the new law of grace having not yet been proclaimed. They knew the precepts of God but lacked the power under the old law to fulfill them perfectly.
It is simply heretical to allege that the remission of sins can be effected without the conferring of sanctifying grace. While this error was proposed by the Nominalists and even the Master of the Sentences, Peter Lombard, St. Thomas Aquinas corrected Lombard with these words:

I answer that, All are agreed in saying that original sin was remitted in circumcision. But some said that no grace was conferred, and that the only effect was to remit sin. The Master holds this opinion (Sent. iv, D, 1), and in a gloss on Romans 4:11. But this is impossible, since guilt is not remitted except by grace, according to Romans 3:2: "Being justified freely by His grace," etc. (Sth. III, q.70, a.4)
And, driving a dogmatic nail into your heretical coffin, “the Fathers of Trent” who “made it part of the order of conclave to lay upon the altar, together with sacred Scripture and the decrees of the supreme Pontiffs, the Summa of Thomas Aquinas, whence to seek counsel, reason, and inspiration”, infallibly declared in Sess. VI, can. 11:

If anyone should say that men are justified either by the imputation of Christ’s justice alone or by the remission of sins alone, exclusive of grace and charity, which are diffused in their hearts by the Holy Ghost, and that it inheres in them, or even that grace, by which we are justified, is only a favor from God: let him be anathema.”
And, when you say that the OT just, whose justice was derived from the merits of Christ who was to come, were made “just”, but not sanctified, by following the law (obedience to the Commandments), you don’t even realize that your heresy shares the same dubious distinction as that of Baius, who said the exact same thing, as St. Alphonsus Liguori reveals in his “The History of Heresies and Their Refutation;”

4. He [Baius] says, in the forty-second and sixty-ninth propositions, that the justification of the sinner does not consist in the infusion of Grace, but in obedience to the Commandments; but the Council teaches (Sess. vi, cap. 7), that no one can become just, unless the merits of Jesus Christ are communicated to him; for it is by these the Grace which justifies is infused into him: "Nemo potest esse Justus, nisi cui merita passionis D. N. Jesu Christi communicantur." And this is what St. Paul says: "Being justified freely by his grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus" (Rom. iii, 24). (http://www.catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/protestantism/hrefute.pdf)
You always seem to travel in such distinguished circles, and I can hardly wait to see how you “spin” and tap-dance your way out of this one.

A simple and humble recantation of your heretical error, Columba, is in order, don't you think?

MRyan

Posts : 2247
Reputation : 2419
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus and the Rupture Theology of extreme Feeneyism

Post  MRyan on Sat Jan 12, 2013 2:11 pm

Trent, Session VI, CANON XI:

If any one saith, that men are justified, either by the sole imputation of the justice of Christ, or by the sole remission of sins, to the exclusion of the grace and the charity which is poured forth in their hearts by the Holy Ghost, and is inherent in them; or even that the grace, whereby we are justified, is only the favour of God; let him be anathema.
To glean the theological substance behind Trent’s dogmatic anathema it attaches to Columba’s heretical assertion that the remission of sins can be effected without the infusion of sanctifying grace, we turn to “Grace: Commentary on the Summa Theologica of St. Thomas, Chapter Three, by Rev. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P. (http://www.ewtn.com/library/Theology/grace3.htm):

Reply to third objection. As St. Augustine says (I Retract., chap. 23), to grace pertains not only the remission of sins, but also reconciliation and peace; moreover, the very remission of sins is itself accomplished by sanctifying grace received into the soul, as will be clear from what follows below (q.113, a. 2).

Similarly the Council of Trent (Denz., no. 821) speaks of grace as diffused and inhering in the soul; again (Denz., no. 809): “It is called our justice because by its inherence in us we are justified.” As Gonet observes in his commentary on this article (p. 87), the Council of Trent proscribes the error of the Master of the Sentences according to whom charity is the Holy Ghost Himself dwelling in us and moving us to the act of charity.

Again in IIa IIae, q. 23, a. 2, he makes it clear that charity is something created in the soul and not, as the Master of the Sentences would have it, the Spirit Himself moving us to an act of charity. In the latter case, the soul would not produce the act of charity connaturally or meritoriously; to do so requires an infused habit elevating the will. Otherwise the supernatural order would be less perfect than the natural order. At the same time, an infused habit is, as it were, a second nature in us, so that our supernatural acts are also connatural.
Continuing in “Article Six: Justification [1159]”, Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange writes:

1. By justification sins are truly remitted, deleted, taken away, not merely externally covered. Were it otherwise, man would be simultaneously just and unjust, God's love for sinners would be the same as His love for His friends and children, and sinners remaining in a state of sin would be worthy to receive eternal life, and Jesus Christ would not have taken away the sins of the world. [1160].

For this remissive justification, infusion of sanctifying grace is absolutely necessary. [1161] Against Scotists and Nominalists, Thomists insist on this doctrine, because justification is an effect of God's love, and God's love, since it is not merely affective, but effective, produces something real in the soul, the grace, namely, which justifies and sanctifies. God's act of adoption is not a mere human adoption.

Opposed to this Thomistic teaching is the Nominalistic position which prepared the Lutheran doctrine of justification without infusion of grace, by merely external attribution of the merits of Christ. Thomists have always affirmed, even before the Council of Trent, the doctrine defined by that Council, [1167] that the formal cause of justification is sanctifying grace. (http://www.ewtn.com/library/theology/reality.htm#31)
Speaking of the "formal cause of justification" Trent declares in Session VI, Ch. VII,

the alone formal cause is the justice of God, 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.

Father John A. Hardon, S.J, in his “Course on Grace”, teaches:

Chapter V. Grace in the Old Testament

Justification in the Old Testament. Justification may be described simply as the acquisition of sanctifying grace (or of infused justice). If a man is in the state of sin (original or mortal) justification will mean for him a transition from the state of sin and injustice to the state of sanctifying grace and justice. Justification is all-important for salvation, for only the just – those in sanctifying grace – at the moment of death will be saved and reach the love and enjoyment of the Beatific Vision.

Could men be justified in the Old Testament after the fall of Adam? Yes. From the moment God promised a Redeemer, the grace of Christ began to flow out, so to speak, in view of His future merits and by its help men could achieve justification. This meant concretely that there was a remedy for original sin, open to all men, whereby they could gain remission of original sin, infusion of sanctifying grace and the right to the Beatific Vision, its love and enjoyment.

This remedy, according to many theologians, took two forms, that of “sacrament” and that of an interior act – or perfect love or contrition. The Old Law “sacraments,” however, were not the cause of sanctifying grace, as ours are, but only conditions. Still, sanctifying grace did come to men when they received these “sacraments.”

Summary. For Old Testament adults generally the way to sanctifying grace was an act of perfect contrition or love. For Jewish adults certain “sacraments” were also available. For Old Testament infants generally the way to sanctifying grace was the so-called “sacrament of nature,” an outward sign serving as a condition or occasion for internal grace. For Jewish boys there was the “sacrament of circumcision.” (http://www.therealpresence.org/archives/Grace/Grace_002.htm)

MRyan

Posts : 2247
Reputation : 2419
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus and the Rupture Theology of extreme Feeneyism

Post  MRyan on Sat Jan 12, 2013 4:03 pm

columba wrote:A question for you Mike:

columba wrote:
What is not clear however is in what manner the Holy Ghost applies the merits of Christ under the Old Law; as in: At what instant could an "Old Law" subject declare himself free of original sin? We know that the presence of original sin alone disqualifies one from the Beatific Vision. We also know that a soul who receives sacramental Baptism can tell you to the very hour and minute the exact time at which his soul was washed clean of the stain of originasl sin. In other words, we know how the Holy Ghost actually applies the merits of Christ under the new law. We can't say the same concerning the old law.

Is the above a true statement?
No.

We know how the Holy Ghost actually applied the merits of Christ under the old law as well. The sacraments of the old law, to include the “sacrament of nature”, did not work ex opere operanto, and in fact those who lived under the old dispensation did not have a developed understanding of original sin and sanctification that we have (through a glass darkly). Thus, generally speaking, ceremonies and actions associated with the sacraments which established an Abrahamic covenant or those based on the love of God (e.g., sincere contrition or presenting a child to God) were considered as “signs” of an effected justice.

Your question is simply misplaced, and has no bearing whatsoever on the justification, sanctification and remission of sins that were effected in the souls of the just by the merits of Christ who was to come.

MRyan

Posts : 2247
Reputation : 2419
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus and the Rupture Theology of extreme Feeneyism

Post  MRyan on Sat Jan 12, 2013 6:01 pm

http://hebrewca.ipower.com/files/10.02GraceandPoweroftheSacraments.pdf

2. The Grace and Power of the Sacraments

by Dr. Lawrence Feingold STD

The Sacraments of the Old Covenant Did Not Function ex Opere Operato

The intrinsic efficacy of the sacraments that function ex opere operato is a property unique to the seven sacraments of the New Covenant. The sacraments of the Old Covenant did not have this property of being intrinsically efficacious. They served as public signs and manifestations of faith in God’s redemption (through the Messiah) which would justify Israel. Through this manifestation of faith, God conferred grace on Israel. This is taught by St. Paul in Romans 4:9–11:

We say that faith was reckoned to Abraham as righteousness. How then was it reckoned to him? Was it before or after he had been circumcised? It was not after, but before he was circumcised. He received circumcision as a sign or seal of the righteousness which he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised.
Furthermore, St. Paul speaks of the rites of the Old Law, in comparison with those of the New, as “weak and needy elements” (Gal 4:9). The contrast between the sacraments of the Old and New Covenants is brought out in Hebrews 9:13–14:

For if the sprinkling of defiled persons with the blood of goats and bulls and with the ashes of a heifer sanctifies for the purification of the flesh, how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify your conscience from dead works to serve the living God.
We see from this that the rites of the Old Testament did not have the intrinsic power to purify man’s interior, for they were outward signs that “point to what would be effected by our sacraments of the New Law.” They were not yet instruments applying to the faithful the merits gained from the Blood of Christ.

The Council of Trent defined that the sacraments of the New Law differ essentially from those of the Old, and not merely in their outward forms.16 This implies that the sacraments of the Mosaic Law do not have the same property of being efficacious ex opere operato.

St. Thomas gives a profound reason for this difference between the sacraments of the Old and New Covenants. The sacraments of the Old Covenant could not fittingly work ex opere operato simply because Christ had not yet become incarnate.

They could only work as still obscure signs of faith and hope in the coming Incarnation and Passion which would work man’s salvation. The sacraments of the New Covenant can have this power to work ex opere operato because they are instituted by the Word Incarnate, who alone among men has the power to make His words and gestures—and words and gestures realized in His Person through ministers—efficacious in producing grace and applying the fruit of His Passion to men.

The faithful of Israel were justified by their faith in the coming of the Messiah. A future event can achieve its effect in advance of its actual occurrence insofar as it is somehow known, desired, and loved, and thus already active in man’s spiritual life. The rites of Israel are signs of these future salvific events. They are also memorials of events of God’s saving action in Israel’s history, which typologically prefigure Christ and the Church. These signs are not efficacious in themselves as the words of the Word Incarnate, for they were given prior to the Incarnation, but rather are signs of His future working.

An instrumental cause such as a chisel can work as an efficient cause only when the sculptor is physically present and holding the chisel in his hand. Before that time the chisel cannot carve the statue. However, it can produce some effect in the mind of an observer. It can be a sign that the statue will soon be made, when the sculptor finally arrives. The chisel waiting to be used can give hope to a client that the statue he has commissioned will one day be completed. The rites of Israel were like chisels without the hand of the sculptor physically present to wield them. They were signs, instituted by God, manifesting faith and hope in future salvific events, and their pious use drew down God’s grace upon Israel. The sacraments of the New Covenant, on the other hand, are instruments in the hand of Christ who, having come and merited the successful completion of the entire work, has ascended into heaven, and yet has these instruments working on earth through words and gestures realized in His person through ministers in the Church marked by Holy Orders.

Does the fact that the rites of Israel did not cause grace ex opere operato mean that they were not at all efficacious in imparting grace? No. Pope Innocent III, in a letter of 1201 to Humbert, Archbishop of Arles, teaches that “original sin was remitted by the mystery of circumcision and the danger of damnation avoided,” although no one could enter heaven until the Sacrifice of Christ was accomplished. St. Thomas Aquinas explains that grace was conferred on the faithful of Israel on the occasion of receiving the sacraments of the Old Covenant, such as circumcision, by a direct act of God, but not opere operato.

Interestingly, he states that all theologians were in agreement that original sin was remitted by the rite of circumcision. They differed, however, with regard to the effects of grace bestowed. Some theologians held that circumcision only remitted original sin, but bestowed no grace. This is impossible, however, because original sin essentially consists in the privation of sanctifying grace. Thus the remission of original sin necessarily implies the giving of sanctifying grace.

If original sin was remitted on the occasion of circumcision, which was received only by boys, what about the girls of Israel? To my knowledge, St. Thomas does not address this issue. However, the fact that the rites of Israel did not function ex opere operato is helpful here. Reception of the rite of circumcision was the occasion of God’s remitting original sin, but the salvific effect was not coming uniquely through circumcision as through the only efficacious instrument. Thus the giving of sanctifying grace was not limited to circumcision. God could equally remit original sin for the girls in the ceremony in which they received their names (Simchat bat), which like circumcision, is a ceremony that incorporated a person (in this case, a girl) into the people of Israel.

The best way to explain, it seems to me, why the giving of grace in the Old Testament was tied to circumcision is that circumcision was the visible sign by which males became members of the people of Israel, and salvation was given by God to the members of Israel on the occasion of their incorporation into the People of God. In this way girls likewise could be participants of this grace when they were incorporated into the People on the celebration of their naming.

St. Thomas also held that the grace of God would have been given to remit original sin also prior to the institution of circumcision under the Patriarchs and also to the nations outside of Israel. He hypothesized that this gift would have been given on the occasion of the prayers of parents for the sanctification of their children, according to whatever rite was traditional in their culture:

Just as before the institution of circumcision, faith in Christ to come justified both children and adults, so, too, after its institution. But before, there was no need of a sign expressive of this faith; because as yet believers had not begun to be united together apart from unbelievers for the worship of one God. It is probable, however, that parents who were believers offered up some prayers to God for their children, especially if these were in any danger. Or bestowed some blessing on them, as a “seal of faith”; just as the adults offered prayers and sacrifices for themselves. (ST III, q. 70, a. 4, ad 2.)

MRyan

Posts : 2247
Reputation : 2419
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus and the Rupture Theology of extreme Feeneyism

Post  MRyan on Sun Jan 13, 2013 10:38 am

columba wrote:
MRyan wrote:
Again, do you or do you not hold that by the very fact that “the OT received their justification by having the merits of Christ applied to them” they received not only the remission of sins, but the salvific gift of sanctifying grace?
No. I do not hold to your above assertion for several reasons. [Reasons 1 and 2 already proven false, and no. 2 heretical]

3. At the ressurection of Christ from the dead, He first descended into hell to preach to the souls of the just there detained. (1 Peter 3:18) Did He preach that they had yet "to come up throgh the water" to receive their full regeneration in Christ? Could be, for we are told in Matt 27:52, "And the graves were opened: and many bodies of the saints that had slept arose."

What was the purpose of them regaining their mortal bodies? There must be some reason, for we know that the resurrection of the body is a feature of the final judgment, not commonly a feature before it, yet it has been known in the past where great saints raised the dead for the specific purpose of administering the sacrament of Baptism.
As you admit, the OT just being resurrected for the purpose of baptism is pure speculation. It has little to do with the doctrine on justification, and everything to do with your false theory that says no one can be or ever was justified (sanctified) without actual sacramental ablution.

Neither do the instances of saints having brought back the dead for the purpose of Baptism prove that these same souls lacked that which is intrinsically necessary for salvation, for our Lord may have provided a manifestation of His power for dramatic affect in order to impress upon the faithful the necessity of the chief and ordinary means of sanctification, and that this obligation is not to be trifled with (slothful contempt), by being delayed unnecessarily. The saints were forever fighting this tendency among converts who were often less than zealous in fulfilling this necessary obligation (for a variety of reasons having little to do with a true desire).

Yes, these miraculous interventions are powerful testimonies to the importance of the Laver of Regeneration, but again, they certainly do not prove your heterodox thesis, particularity as it relates to the OT just.

While Matthew speaks of their “bodies” as having “arose”, these may have been visual but not actual flesh and blood manifestations of either their old, or their glorified, bodies. Even if they were flesh and blood resurrected bodies, their recorded purpose was to serve as powerful visible witnesses to our Lord’s death and resurrection. As Pentecost was still some 40 days off, there was no urgency or necessity to have these souls baptized, and if they were baptized, baptized by whom? The Apostles for the most part were scattered, and remained hidden in fear. There is absolutely no written or oral record/tradition of their baptisms.

columba wrote:4. In the two volume work, The Apostolic Fathers, (Loeb Classical Library), a footnote on p. 236 of volume II, states, "The idea of hearing the Gospel and that Baptism is necessary for the righteous dead of pre Christian times is common."

It may not be common now but there'll be no charges of heresy for believing it.
Common to whom? Please post the paragraph and the specific sentence containing the footnote so we can understand the context of this statement. If you want to believe it, that’s fine, but it does not “prove” your false doctrine that says the OT just were not sanctified and equipped for heaven.

columba wrote:I hold that the just of the old covenant did not receive, there and then, the sancifying grace which was a promise pertaining to the new covenant but were assured of it at the coming of Christ and His descend among the dead.
And, as already demonstrated, to hold that they were made just (the remission of sins) by the merits of Christ who was to come, but without the infusion of sanctifying grace, is heretical.

columba wrote:"For whom he has predestinated, these also he has called; and whom he has called, these also he has justified; but whom he has justified, these also he has glorified." (Romans 8:30)
And this applies to the OT just as well.

MRyan

Posts : 2247
Reputation : 2419
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus and the Rupture Theology of extreme Feeneyism

Post  columba on Mon Jan 14, 2013 12:10 pm

Mike,

I'll ignore your accusations of heresy as they do not apply to the position I actually hold but might apply to the position you think I hold.

So far we, and all Catholics, agree that in the old covenant -as in the new- just souls could attain salvation. All Catholics believe that final justificatin is gained through perseverence and that initial justification can be lost.

I've no problem believing that the just of the OT could have availed of the merits of the redeemer to come before His actual coming for it is certain that no man is saved except through Christ.

What is really in dispute here is the manner in which those of the OT, as opposed to those of the NT, were justified. You reckon, Mike, that if the OT just could be justified at all, then this would prove that water Baptism for those of the NT is not an absolute necessity.

I tried to show that their is still room to hold, as an opinion, that even the just of the OT could actually be in need of the same water, even if they received the benefits of this regeneration before the actual ablution, by the foreknowledge of God that this washing would actually occur. I cited some instances from Scripture and the saints to show that this indeed could be a possibility. You say that those particular references of mine could be read in a different way. i,e. that these were merely external signs to enhance the faith of on-lookers to show (in the case of saints who raised the dead and baptized them) the necessity of Baptism. If however this were the case, it would only enhance belief in the ABSOLUTE necessity for water Baptism, whereas, baptism of desire would diminish this same faith in the sacrament, that through these miracles the Lord was encouraging. So, we would have God encouraging Belief in Baptism by the use of miracles on one hand, and on the other, discouraging belief through the notion of baptism of desire.

I'll cite once again the CCC as I believe that it does contain real Catholic doctrine. If the CCC could be divided into two books by putting the orthodox in one and the hetrodox in the other, we could distinguish more clearly the "New Church" from the True Church. My citations are from the True Church edition.

CCC, 1215: This sacrament is also called "the washing of regeneration and renewal by the Holy Spirit," for it signifies and actually brings about the birth of water and the Spirit without which no one "can enter the kingdom of God."7

CCC, 1266: The Most Holy Trinity gives the baptized sanctifying grace, the grace of justification:- enabling them to believe in God, to hope in him, and to love him through the theological virtues;- giving them the power to live and act under the prompting of the Holy Spirit through the gifts of the Holy Spirit;- allowing them to grow in goodness through the moral virtues. Thus the whole organism of the Christian's supernatural life has its roots in Baptism.

CCC, 1277: Baptism is birth into the new life in Christ. In accordance with the Lord's will, it is necessary for salvation, as is the Church herself, which we enter by Baptism.

CCC, 1254: ...Preparation for Baptism leads only to the threshold of new life. Baptism is the source of that new life in Christ from which the entire Christian life springs forth.


Pay particular attention to the cyan highlighted reference and tell me once again how baptism of desire takes a soul beyond "the threshold of new life."


columba

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus and the Rupture Theology of extreme Feeneyism

Post  MRyan on Mon Jan 14, 2013 2:15 pm

Columba,

If you take offense to my so-called “accusation” of heresy, get over it, for I am simply stating an objective fact – your doctrine is heretical. I am not judging culpability, but only stating the truth as I see it. If I am wrong, show me, and I will retract my accusation. Your error is so fundamentally wrong in my mind that I have every right to bring it to your attention, and to the attention of this forum, not to score “points” (this is not a game), but to present the true doctrine and to have you come to the fullness of the truth.

You can hide from your heretical doctrine that says that the justification of the OT saints was derived from the merits of Christ who was to come, but that this same justice, whereby “the Holy Ghost resided [and dwelled] by grace” ... "by pouring Himself forth” and “giving… abundantly”, “as we read in the Scriptures concerning the prophets, Zachary, John the Baptist, Simeon, and Anna”, extended only to the remission of sins and not to the infusion of sanctifying grace, but eventually you will have to confront this heresy that was formally condemned by the Sixth Session of the Council of Trent, Canon XI.

You say the “manner” in which “those of the OT, as opposed to those of the NT, were justified” is “in dispute”, as if this alleged “dispute” can take away from the infallible fact of their justification/sanctification, especially when Trent’s infallible condemnation (and the dogma it contains) is clear enough, precisely “as it is written”, and the Church has never understood it in any other way.

In other words, you suggest, until the Church can “infallibly” demonstrate the precise instant when the just were infused with sanctifying grace, you are not obliged to believe that the just received the gift of sanctifying grace as it takes place in the sacrament of baptism ex opere operanto, at least in those souls who are properly disposed for the reception of grace.

Why you have such a double standard is beyond comprehension, for you hold that the justified OT saints received the remission of sins by the merits of Christ who was to come, but you cannot tell us the exact “instant” these same merits were applied to these same soul by which sins were forgiven, though leaving them bereft of the indwelling of the Spirit and the gift of sanctifying grace, without which there is no remission of sins!

For me, it’s all about the whole deposit of faith and the Magisterium, for you, its all about my “reckoning” that “if the OT just could be justified at all, then this would prove that water Baptism for those of the NT is not an absolute necessity.”

This is nonsense, but it utterly haunts you as you see your whole house of cards come tumbling down with one brisk breeze of dogmatic truth.

But this is where you go off the rails, as usual, for, since the promulgation of the Gospel Baptism is absolutely necessary as an extrinsic necessity of means, meaning NO ONE can be regenerated and saved without the grace of baptismal regeneration (“unless one is reborn”), and that the divine precept of means (“of water and the Spirit”) can only be excused by necessity.

This is what the Church teaches, and this is what she has always held.

The justice of the OT saints was derived from the merits of Christ who was to come, and these same merits effected the remission of sins and the infusion of sanctifying grace.

The sooner you accept this dogmatic truth, the sooner you can approach this topic with the eyes of faith.

MRyan

Posts : 2247
Reputation : 2419
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus and the Rupture Theology of extreme Feeneyism

Post  MRyan on Mon Jan 14, 2013 3:51 pm

columba wrote:
CCC, 1277: Baptism is birth into the new life in Christ. In accordance with the Lord's will, it is necessary for salvation, as is the Church herself, which we enter by Baptism.
Of course, and understood precisely as the Church understands it: “Baptism … is necessary for salvation, as is the Church herself”, meaning, as the 1949 LETTER OF THE SACRED CONGREGATION OF THE HOLY OFFICE explains:

this dogma must be understood in that sense in which the Church herself understands it. For, it was not to private judgments that Our Savior gave for explanation those things that are contained in the deposit of faith, but to the teaching authority of the Church.

In His infinite mercy God has willed that the effects, necessary for one to be saved, of those helps to salvation which are directed toward man's final end, not by intrinsic necessity, but only by divine institution, can also be obtained in certain circumstances when those helps are used only in desire and longing. This we see clearly stated in the Sacred Council of Trent, both in reference to the sacrament of regeneration and in reference to the sacrament of penance (<Denzinger>, nn. 797, 807).

The same in its own degree must be asserted of the Church, in as far as she is the general help to salvation. Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member, but it is necessary that at least he be united to her by desire and longing.
So, yes, “Baptism is” in fact “birth into the new life in Christ”, which “can also be obtained in certain circumstances when those helps are used only in desire and longing. This we see clearly stated in the Sacred Council of Trent”, as the Church has always understood her own dogmatic declarations.

columba wrote:

CCC, 1254: ...Preparation for Baptism leads only to the threshold of new life. Baptism is the source of that new life in Christ from which the entire Christian life springs forth.
Pay particular attention to the [dark blue] highlighted reference and tell me once again how baptism of desire takes a soul beyond "the threshold of new life."
Ok, if you insist. The “preparation for Baptism” is not Baptism, neither does the Church consider it a de facto baptism of desire so long as the sacrament is still available to the penitent preparing for baptism, either in fact or in desire.

When the Council solemnly teaches, for example, that when “Catechumens who, moved by the Holy Spirit, seek with explicit intention to be incorporated into the Church are by that very intention joined with her. With love and solicitude Mother Church already embraces them as her own”, until actual sacramental ablution (or whatever sacrament of initiation is lacking), she considers the objective state of the Catechumen as "the threshold of new life”, and does not presume with a certitude she does not possess that he has already obtained new life, even if he is already in a state of grace (known only to God).

Only should the Catechumen die with the internal dispositions that he externally manifested in life is he assured of obtaining that which he desired, and only then (without any assurance) does the Church presume the good hope of salvation by extending to him a Christian burial as one of her own.

If, as the Catechism of Trent teaches, “should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters [left at “the threshold of new life”], their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness.”

Glad I could be of assistance. Now, back to Trent, Session VI, Canon XI and the OT just who, you allege, received by the merit of Christ the remission of sins but not the gift of sanctifying grace; if you please.

MRyan

Posts : 2247
Reputation : 2419
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus and the Rupture Theology of extreme Feeneyism

Post  columba on Mon Jan 14, 2013 8:16 pm

Mryan wrote:

Columba,

If you take offense to my so-called “accusation” of heresy, get over it,

No need for me to get over it Mike.
The ability to offend is conditioned upon the recipients capacity to take offense.
I don't take offense that easy, hence, I'm still here. The notion that baptism of desire -prevalent within the modernized Church- is to be held as a doctrine of faith, to me is a heretical notion that goes against Church dogma, therefore your position on baptism of desire is heretical. In consideration of the state of almost universal, diabolical disorientation, no judgment on culpability from this quarter either. I believe we will one day see this "doctrine" anathematized for the Church cannot contradict herself.

On the other hand; if my positiion on OT justifcation is wrong then I'm still not in heresy for as yet, no dogma or teaching excludes it. How can I be in heresy by believing that the OT saints were justified solely by the application of the merits of the redeemer to come? How can I be in heresy for not knowing the exact details of how those merits of Christ were applied in OT times? How can I be in heresy for believing that while the OT justified lacked much of what was available to the NT saints but were, at last, not excluded from it's fullness?

I do protest Mike, that your contention is not with my understanding of OT justification, but rather with my assertion that no matter what form this justification took, it cannot lend any credence to the false doctrine of baptism of desire; those in the OT being justified by their adherence to the divine precepts applicable to those times and likewise, those of the NT justified.

I have however one retraction to make. I stated many months ago that there were no record (to my knowledge) of any Gentiles of the OT having been justified. I was incorrect. The people of Nineveh were one such exception, as was the Queen of Sheba. These of course were also justified by the application of the merits of the Redeemer to come and by thereafter following the divine precepts which applied at that time, as is the present case concerning the justified Gentiles of the NT.

columba

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus and the Rupture Theology of extreme Feeneyism

Post  MRyan on Fri Jan 18, 2013 3:17 pm

columba wrote:
MRyan wrote:
And columba says that the just saints of the old dispensation were justified by the imputation of the justice and merits of Christ, inclusive of the remission of sins; to the exclusion of the grace and the charity.
And columba says no such thing. I said that the just of the OT would not be denied regeneration in Christ.
Nice try, but it won’t fly, your heretical doctrine remains.

You flat out deny that the OT just received the gift of sanctification at the same time they received the remission of sins by the application of the future merits of our Lord -- merits that for some reason were efficacious for the remission of sins, but without the power to infuse the very grace by which sins are removed in the first place.

You would have the souls of the OT just to have had their sins remitted not by the infusion of sanctifying grace, but by the graceless merits of Christ that could only represent the future promise of grace; the promise of which would not be realized in fact until our Lord’s Ascension, and by the law of sacramental water ablution.

In other words, the contrition of the OT saints was sufficient enough for the remission of sins by the application of the merits of Christ who was to come, but NOT “perfect” enough for the same merits of Christ to drive out sin and to have the Holy Ghost reside by the grace of sanctification in the souls of the just.

In other words, you do in fact allege that “the just saints of the old dispensation were justified by the imputation of the justice and merits of Christ, inclusive of the remission of sins; to the exclusion of the grace and the charity which were NOT poured forth in their hearts by the Holy Ghost, and were NOT inherent in them”.

You cannot have it both ways, if they were justified with the remission of sins by the merits of Christ who was to come, it is IMPOSSIBLE for this justice to exist exclusive of sanctifying grace and charity.

And that is precisely what the Council of Trent formally condemned – anathema sit.

MRyan

Posts : 2247
Reputation : 2419
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus and the Rupture Theology of extreme Feeneyism

Post  columba on Sat Jan 19, 2013 6:41 pm

MRyan wrote:
You flat out deny that the OT just received the gift of sanctification at the same time they received the remission of sins by the application of the future merits of our Lord -- merits that for some reason were efficacious for the remission of sins, but without the power to infuse the very grace by which sins are removed in the first place.

The remission (forgiveness) of sin is not a grace; it's an action of God whereby He decides -in accord with His mercy- to overlook the offense and grant pardon to the sinner. The sinner -on his part- must first be repentant. The sinner's repentance is initiated by an appeal from conscience; the initial appeal from conscience could be considered a prevenient grace; the act of repentance itself, is made possible by another action of God by which He bestows on the sinner, actual grace; the grace to perform the act. We can see then, that even prior to the act of repentance, the grace of God is at work. Here's the question: Can either the prevenient or the actual grace = justification? The answer; No; the sinner cannot be justified while still in his sin. Did the sinner receive grace before repentance? Yes; for if he hadn't he could not have repented. The first appeal from conscience began the process of justification, the actual grace to repent was the continuation of the process the remission of sin yet another step, and incorporation into Christ -the redeemer- another step, and salvation itself, the final stage. That's why I said earlier that there was no mention of sanctifying grace when speaking in connection with the “OT just.” I didn't know for sure that the term “sanctifying grace” was not used of them, but an orthodox guess told me that it could't; and as you have not refuted this I can be pretty sure that it hasn't.

But lets just say for the sake of argument that sanctifying grace was bestowed on the "OT just" and that the manner in which they obtained it is a universal constant and how that would relate to the justified of the NT. If we follow the formula: Cooperation with prevenient grace leads to a further grace called actual grace; cooperation with actual grace leads to sanctifying grace, and considering this formula never changes; we can now declare Baptism to be a nonessential sacrament and baptism of desire to be the ordinary means of sanctification; for as we know, the vast majority of souls do not receive the sacrament of Baptism and, God wills the salvation of all; therefore He must abide by the methods that we His creatures impose upon Him in order that He may fulfill His will and offer to all the saving ??? whatever it is of baptism of desire, who, through no fault of their own have not received Baptism.

Now lets look at it from the point of view where God is in charge: God wills the salvation of all. God can bring to salvation anyone He so wishes. God said that he would save those who wished to be saved. All who wish to be saved will receive the graces necessary to obtain their salvation. The method for receiving graces has been determined by God. The method is: acknowledgment of sin (initiated by prevenient grace), repentance of sin (initiated through actual grace) and finally, Baptism, (bestowing of sanctifying grace). Can God bring to the waters of Baptism all who will to be saved? Yes. Does God have to bring all the just to Baptism? No. Did God say all the just must be Baptized in water? Yes. Will God bring all the just to Baptism? Yes. Why? Because He said so. “Unless a man be born again of water, He cannot enter the kingdom of God.” Does the Church believe that all must receive Baptism in order to be saved? Yes. The Church has always believed that Baptism is essential for salvation. “The Church knows of no other means apart from Baptism by which a soul can be saved.”

In my world, God is the first mover, the intermediate mover and the final mover; the beginning and the end; In Mike's world (or the latter day church of hermeneutics) we can't be too sure as to who's moving what. It often appears as if the tail's wagging the dog.

columba

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus and the Rupture Theology of extreme Feeneyism

Post  MRyan on Sat Jan 19, 2013 7:33 pm

Columba,

It's bad enough that you dismiss as so much refuse the common doctrine of the theologians and especially the Doctor of Doctor's, St. Thomas Aquinas, whose Summa was cited by Pope Leo XIII no less than nine times in his brief Encyclical On the Holy Spirit, but, when you usurp the role of the Doctors and start playing arm-chair "theologian", it is a sight to behold, a real spectacle.

And quite pitiful. Really.

I don't have the energy right now to unpack this nonsensical drivel.

Your heresy remains, and you remain blind to it because of your false and heretical ecclesiology, the heremenutic of non-servium that shakes its arrogant fists at the Magisterium and cries, "I am the arbiter of truth and tradition, now get with my program which is the program of the 'true magisterium' if you would only wake up and realize it!"

CANON XI.-If any one saith, that men are justified, either by the sole imputation of the justice of Christ, or by the sole remission of sins, to the exclusion of the grace and the charity which is poured forth in their hearts by the Holy Ghost, and is inherent in them; or even that the grace, whereby we are justified, is only the favour of God; let him be anathema. (Trent, Session VI)

MRyan

Posts : 2247
Reputation : 2419
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus and the Rupture Theology of extreme Feeneyism

Post  columba on Sat Jan 19, 2013 8:12 pm

MRyan wrote:
Columba,

It's bad enough that you dismiss as so much refuse the common doctrine of the theologians and especially the Doctor of Doctor's, St. Thomas Aquinas, whose Summa was cited by Pope Leo XIII no less than nine times in his brief Encyclical On the Holy Spirit, but, when you usurp the role of the Doctors and start playing arm-chair "theologian", it is a sight to behold, a real spectacle.

Yes; I was playing arm-chair theologian by reading the arm-chair theology of the Catholic Encyclopedia on the different forms of grace and their funtion, and doing so under the misconception that they were taking their understanding from those same saints, Doctors and theologians. Can you recommend an orthodox book Mike? I might have known not to trust that New Advent one.

columba

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus and the Rupture Theology of extreme Feeneyism

Post  MRyan on Sat Jan 19, 2013 9:20 pm

No, columba, you are simply reading and embellishing the CE under the light of your false hermeneutic.

If you want a reading assignment from the same New Advent Encyclopedia, you can begin with the following:

See New Advent, Summa Theologica > Third Part > Question 62, Article 6. Whether the sacraments of the Old Law caused grace?
(http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4062.htm#article6)

See New Advent, Summa Theologica, First Part of the Second Part > Question 102 Article 5:

On the contrary, It is written (Leviticus 20:eight): "I am the Lord that sanctify you." But nothing unreasonable is done by God, for it is written (Psalm 103:24): "Thou hast made all things in wisdom." Therefore there was nothing without a reasonable cause in the sacraments of the Old Law, which were ordained to the sanctification of man. (http://www.newadvent.org/summa/2102.htm#article5)
See New Advent, Justification: “Thus it follows from Holy Writ that by the infusion of sanctifying grace sin is destroyed and blotted out of absolute necessity, and that the Protestant theory of "covering and not imputing sin" is both a philosophical and a theological impossibility.” (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08573a.htm)

See New Advent, Supernatural Adoption: “The Old Testament, which St. Paul aptly compares to the state of childhood and bondage, contains no text that would point conclusively to our adoption. There were indeed saints in the days of the Old Law, and if there were saints there were also adopted children of God, for sanctity and adoption are inseparable effects of the same habitual grace.” (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01148a.htm)

HABITUAL GRACE – “Constant supernatural quality of the soul which sanctifies a person inherently and makes him or her just and pleasing to God. Also called sanctifying grace or justifying grace.” (http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/dictionary/index.cfm?id=33850)

New Catholic Dictionary: Habitual grace:

A supernatural quality infused by God into the soul at the moment of justification, perfecting the soul in a supernatural way, establishing it in justice and sanctity, making it a sharer in the Divine Nature, truly constituting it an adopted son of God with a title to eternal life, and consecrating it as a living temple of the Most High God. By habitual grace, a free gift of God, the soul is privileged to enter on a state of friendship with God, which is of its nature permanent, but may be broken temporarily or forever by the abuse of free will and the introduction of sin. Cherished and guarded in the soul it is an unfailing pledge of everlasting life with God. (http://saints.sqpn.com/ncd03799.htm)
See also, “THE MEANING OF GRACE”, Charles Journet (http://www.ewtn.com/library/DOCTRINE/MNGGRACE.HTM)

That's just the beginning, let me know if you need more.


MRyan

Posts : 2247
Reputation : 2419
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus and the Rupture Theology of extreme Feeneyism

Post  Lionel Andrades on Tue Jan 22, 2013 5:52 am


Jehanne:
As I said, the Brothers & Sisters at the Saint Benedict Center in New Hampshire are in full communion with the Holy Father, the Bishop of Rome. They labor under no canonical penalties, sanctions, and/or decrees whatsoever. They are wholly orthodox, as was Father Feeney, who died in full communion with the Catholic Church.

Lionel:
Jehanne I agree with you.

Lionel Andrades

Posts : 260
Reputation : 384
Join date : 2013-01-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus and the Rupture Theology of extreme Feeneyism

Post  Lionel Andrades on Tue Jan 22, 2013 10:47 am

Fr.Leonard Feeney's interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus was also in full communion with the Catholic Church.

It was in agreement with Vatican Council II and post Vatican Council II documents.

Whether the baptism of desire results in justification or salvation, it does not contradict the teachings of the Catholic Church that every one needs to be a visible member of the Church for salvation (2013) and there are no known exceptions.
Since invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire is accepted as a possibility and not an exception, there not being any exceptions to the literal interpretation of the dogma, the St.Benedict Center is in agreement with the Magisterium of the Catholic Church.They are in agreement with the Magisterium expressed in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Vatican Council II and the thrice defined dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

Lionel Andrades

Posts : 260
Reputation : 384
Join date : 2013-01-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus and the Rupture Theology of extreme Feeneyism

Post  Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 2 of 2 Previous  1, 2

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


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