ordinary vs extraordinary means of salvation

I'm wondering about this. I hear some Catholics claim that God is not bound to ordinary means of salvation(meaning through the Sacraments and the Church which he established), but that God may be able to save souls through extraordinary means(such as to intercede immedietaly at the point of that person's death).

What are your thoughts on this?

Please give only already established infallible dogmatic teachings of the Church to back up whichever position you hold. thankyou

Catholic_Truth wrote:I'm wondering about this. I hear some Catholics claim that God is not bound to ordinary means of salvation(meaning through the Sacraments and the Church which he established), but that God may be able to save souls through extraordinary means(such as to intercede immedietaly at the point of that person's death).

What are your thoughts on this?

Please give only already established infallible dogmatic teachings of the Church to back up whichever position you hold. thankyou

Session 6, Ch 4 of the Council of Trent is an infallible dogmatic declaration which teaches that regeneration into Christ cannot be effected without the Laver of Regeneration, or its desire. The Church has always held this to mean that one may be justified by desire for the sacrament (explicit or implicit) through the bonds of faith and charity/contrition, and saved should the sacrament be impossible to receive. The Catechism of Trent confirms this same teaching and every single Doctor, Saint and theologian since the Council who weighed in on this subject taught the same doctrine.

Session 6, Ch 16, infallibly and dogmatically declared: “… we must believe that nothing further is wanting to the justified, to prevent their being accounted to have, by those very works which have been done in God, fully satisfied the divine law according to the state of this life, and to have truly merited eternal life, to be obtained also in its (due) time, if so be, however, that they depart in grace…”

Post Council of Trent, if you can find one credible voice of dissent, by way of an approved theologian, a saint, a doctor of the Church or a pope who had a different understanding of this doctrine, perhaps you can share that information with the forum.

Of course, with your "only already established infallible dogmatic teachings" caveat; it does not appear that you are willing to listen to the teaching authority of the Church in the form of papal encyclicals and allocutions, official documents of the CDF and the Holy Office (approved by the pope), approved Scriptural commentaries on John 3:5 (dating back to just after Trent, such as Rheims), Roman Catholic Catechisms, the documents of VCII or any other authoritative teaching the Church may present to the faithful in order to explain how she understands her own dogmatic pronouncements.

So we should end it right here; but I want to present the understanding of invincible ignorance and salvation through the writing of Fr. Michael Mueller, who is most revered and eminently respected by members of this forum, by the SBC and by Feeneyites in general, even if he taught the doctrines of BoB and BoD. Here is what he wrote in his rather “non-dogmatic” The Catholic Dogma: Extra Ecclesiam Nullus Omnino Salvatur/Chapter V/Part 2:

But if we say that inculpable ignorance cannot save a man, we thereby do not say that invincible ignorance damns a man. Far from it. To say, invincible ignorance is no means of salvation, is one thing; and to say, invincible ignorance is the cause of damnation is another. To maintain the latter, would be wrong, for inculpable ignorance of the fundamental principles of faith excuses a heathen from the sin of infidelity, and a Protestant from the sin of heresy; because such invincible ignorance, being only a simple involuntary privation, is no sin. Hence Pius IX. said "that, were a man to be invincibly ignorant of the true religion, such invincible ignorance would not be sinful before God; that, if such a person should observe the precepts of the Natural Law and do the will of God to the best of his knowledge, God, in his infinite mercy, may enlighten him so as to obtain eternal life; for, the Lord, who knows the heart and thoughts of man will, in his infinite goodness, not suffer any one to be lost forever without his own fault."

But there may be exceptional cases, in which Almighty God uses supernatural means to save a man inculpably ignorant and living up to his conscience. Suppose such a one is living in a country in which, naturally speaking, during his lifetime he can hear nothing of the Catholic religion. In this case, or, as has been expressed above, "if needed," Almighty God will, in his infinite mercy, make use of a supernatural means to lead that person to salvation, rather than let him perish through inculpable ignorance. He can supernaturally enlighten him, so that he may know what he must believe in order to be saved. “Many of the Gentiles," says St. Thomas, "received divine revelation concerning Christ, as is evident from what they have foretold. […] Indeed, Almighty God, in his infinite mercy, can dispose a soul, in a moment, for receiving sanctifying grace, and infuse, at the same time, this grace into the soul. The light of true faith, the voluntary inclination of free-will to conform to the will and grace of God, the determination of free-will to abstain from sin, the remission of sins, and the infusion of grace, take place by a simultaneous movement; for justification is instantaneous, and has no successive gradation. It is acquired by grace and by the operation of the Holy Ghost, who takes possession of the soul at once: “And suddenly there came a sound from heaven, as of a mighty wind, and it filled the whole house." (Acts, ii. 2.) Resistance and mental deliberation may be long and slow on the part of the sinner, but victory and triumph are quick and sudden on the part of God, by the infusion of his grace into a repentant soul.

Hmmmm… that sounds awfully familiar … wouldn’t you say? In fact, it sounds just like some of those Catholics who you say claim “that God is not bound to ordinary means of salvation (meaning through the Sacraments and the Church which he established), but that God may be able to save souls through extraordinary means (such as to intercede immediately at the point of that person's death).”

Now, Fr. Mueller was a known enemy of that sloppy sentimental theology of the Paulists (and others), and here he is sounding rather “orthodox”, don’t you think?

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

Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis (# 27), June 29, 1943: “He (Christ) also determined that through Baptism (cf. Jn. 3:5) those who should believe would be incorporated in the Body of the Church.”

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

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

Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis (# 27), June 29, 1943: “He (Christ) also determined that through Baptism (cf. Jn. 3:5) those who should believe would be incorporated in the Body of the Church.”

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

I suppose that was intended as a “rebuttal” to Fr. Mueller, as if his commentary is in any way opposed to Mystici Corporis Christi or Mediator Dei. What I think Rasha is saying is this: No one can be united to Christ in the supernatural bond of charity without actual ablution in the matter of the sacrament. In other words, charity or no charity, faith or no faith, intention or no intention; the sacrament is intrinsic to one’s salvation because by it and it alone can one be incorporated into the Mystical Body.

What he is essentially saying is that those who are justified by “the desire thereof” cannot be saved should they die in that state without benefit of the sacrament.

As I said in another thread, the Church deals in objective reality, and does not “speculate” as to who else, besides the visible Faithful, are united to Christ and to His Body by the bonds of faith and charity, but only tells us under what limited conditions this unity (the essential effects of baptism) may be effected. Remember, as the CCC teaches, the Church does not know of any means other than the sacrament of baptism that may assure one of his salvation; but does recognize, as even the Catechism of Trent teaches, that God will still fulfill His promise of regeneration in those souls who are properly disposed, but are hindered from receiving the sacrament they so earnestly desire.

Since we’re in the mood for citing Pope Pius XII, let us not forget this:

“Above all, the state of grace is absolutely necessary at the moment of death without it salvation and supernatural happiness—the beatific vision of God—are impossible. An act of love is sufficient for the adult to obtain sanctifying grace and to supply the lack of baptism; to the still unborn or newly born this way is not open.” (Allocution to midwives, October 29, 1951).

If an act of love is sufficient to obtain sanctifying grace and may supply for the lack of actual ablution, is he not saying that no other union other than supernatural charity (which presupposes faith and intention) is necessary for A) The baptized faithful, and B) For those who are justified -- but necessity prevents the reception of the sacrament?

In fact, isn’t that precisely what Pope Eugene IV declared when he condemned the proposition that holds: "To be a member of Christ, it is not enough to be united with him in the bond of charity; some other union is needed.” (Sess. 22, Oct. 15, 1435, Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 1, p. 493)

That appears to be exactly what Pope Pius XII is saying. This of course does not mean that the divine precept of baptism “is not necessary”, for it remains absolutely necessary as a necessity of extrinsic means, and anyone who does not have the proper will and intention to receive the sacrament cannot have charity, for he cannot be disposed without such a will (formed by grace) to do all that God and His Church commands of him for his salvation.

And, this is the same Pope Pius XII who approved the Holy Office Letter of 1949 to Archbishop Cushing, which said in part:

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).

Pope Pius XII clearly does not believe that the Sacrament of Baptism is necessary as an intrinsic necessity of means for salvation (without which salvation cannot be), and we have at least two official documents of the Church, one by his own hand and one with his full approval, which confirm the Church’s traditional teaching. Now, one can either accuse the pope of talking out of both sides of his mouth, or of being so slow of mind that he cannot grasp the alleged contradiction; or, one can try and understand what the church actually teaches, and why.

Looks like someone else is discussing this topic here: http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=523270

You will also find new threads on "ordinary vs extraordinary means of salvation" on the Cathinfo.com Forum and in the Fisheaters Forum. I must say that I am shocked by how many self proclaimed "traditional" Catholics accept Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood in those Forums. I don't logically understand how one can accept BOD and BOB and yet accept EENS. Are all these so called "traditional" catholics "traditional" in name only?

Seems to me, a real "traditional" Catholic would hold to what Father Feeney taught.

What say all of you ?? :?:

MRyan, so you will agree then that you are unable to cite an infallible document that makes the distinction between "extrinsic" and "intrinsic" necessity?

MRyan wrote:
In fact, isn’t that precisely what Pope Eugene IV declared when he condemned the proposition that holds: "To be a member of Christ, it is not enough to be united with him in the bond of charity; some other union is needed.” (Sess. 22, Oct. 15, 1435, Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 1, p. 493)

Is he saying here that you can have that charity without baptism? One receives the theological virtues of faith, hope, and charity at baptism.

RashaLampa wrote:MRyan, so you will agree then that you are unable to cite an infallible document that makes the distinction between "extrinsic" and "intrinsic" necessity?

One does not need an “infallible document” to recognize a universally recognized theological distinction that is “intrinsic” to any correct understanding of “necessity” with respect to that which is intrinsic to salvation (without which salvation cannot be), such as faith, charity and justification; and that which is extrinsic to salvation, but necessary as a necessity of means by divine decree - those divine “helps” to our salvation such as the sacraments and the institutional Church (salvation never apart from these means, but one may, under certain conditions, attain the end for which they were instituted by the "desire" for them).

In other words, one does not need an “infallible document” to recognize a universally recognized theological distinction that is “intrinsic” to any correct understanding of the Church’s own teaching on BoD/BoB as Pope Pius XII and the Catholic Church present it.

But I’ll tell you what: I’ll agree if you’ll agree that for your theory to hold true (that there is no such thing as an “extrinsic” necessity when it comes to the sacrament of baptism and the institutional Church) that either Pope Pius XII was a blatant hypocrite, or was so slow of mind that he did not understand that this universally recognized theological distinction is a complete sham.

And if that is true, then the universal and authentic teaching of the Church, as well as the universal moral consensus of the saints, Doctors and theologians is also a sham, and BoD and BoB are not authentic doctrines, they represent the entirely speculative theological constructions of ancient sentimentalists who were looking for a loop-hole in the divine Law that would allow the un-baptized martyr and the faith and charity-filled catechumen to by by-pass “GO” and collect $200.00.

And lo and behold, this “loop-hole” found its way into the Catechism of the Council of Trent and has been universally held and taught ever since; that is, until 1952 when the "true" doctrine was finally rediscovered. It appears that Fr. Mueller, Bishop Hay and Orestes Brownson were "duped" into teaching these sham doctrines (BoD/BoB and "virtual" incorporation) as well.

It also appears that the universal Church was and still is in a collective state of invincible ignorance.

RashaLampa wrote:

MRyan wrote:
In fact, isn’t that precisely what Pope Eugene IV declared when he condemned the proposition that holds: "To be a member of Christ, it is not enough to be united with him in the bond of charity; some other union is needed.” (Sess. 22, Oct. 15, 1435, Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 1, p. 493)

Is he saying here that you can have that charity without baptism? One receives the theological virtues of faith, hope, and charity at baptism.

Is he saying that one cannot have charity without the sacrament of baptism?

He is saying that he condemns the proposition that holds that "To be a member of Christ, it is not enough to be united with him in the bond of charity; some other union is needed.”

He is saying that there is no other bond other than charity (which presupposes faith) that makes one a living member of Christ. If you would like to suggest that the bond of charity (the translation into the justice of His love) cannot exist without the sacrament of baptism - feel free. But you will be on shaky ground.

MRyan, are not Feeneyites correct when they say that the Church already has established the Dogmatic teaching that only through Water Baptism does one become a member of the Church? I believe I can post you several infallible statements which say such, if you haven't seen them before. Also, are not the Feeneyites correct that it is an already established Dogmatic teaching of the Church that to be a member, then one must hold to the teachings of the Church? I believe I can post you several infallible statements which say such, if you haven't seen them before. Also, are not Feeneyites correct when they say that it is an already established Dogmatic teaching of the Church that only those members within the Church will receive Salvation? I believe I can post you several infallible statements which say such, if you haven't seen them before.

We all know that those outside the Church can receive grace from God, but where does it say any of them receive sanctifying grace ???

Can any of you BOD/BOB defenders provide the supposive infallible dogmatic teaching handed down to us from the Universal Magisterium of the Church which says that someone who does not hold to the Catholic Faith and has not undergone Water Baptism can indeed receive sanctifying grace?

MRyan wrote:
Is he saying here that you can have that charity without baptism?

That is irrelevant, I did not post that quote to support my position, you posted it to support yours. I was illustrating how it doesn't necessarily support your position.

MRyan wrote:as well as the universal moral consensus of the saints, Doctors and theologians

Would you agree that if we could provide an example of at least one saint, Doctor, or theologian then it would not be "universal"?

RashaLampa wrote:

MRyan wrote:
Is he saying here that you can have that charity without baptism?

That is irrelevant, I did not post that quote to support my position, you posted it to support yours. I was illustrating how it doesn't necessarily support your position.

You asked me a question and I answered with a question of my own which went straight to the point: While the citation is not “proof” of my position, neither is it a negation; and in fact, the citation confirms that THE essential bond that unites one to Christ is the bond of charity, which always presupposes faith.

My point was being made by way of syllogism (don't worry Rasha, this in not "binding"), which goes like this:

If one may be translated into the justice of His love by the bonds of faith and charity (and it is charity which vivifies faith and makes it “living”) and, the Church condemned the proposition that holds: "To be a member of Christ, it is not enough to be united with him in the bond of charity; some other union is needed”, then, it is must also be true that anyone who is united to our Lord in the bond of charity (justification) is a member of Christ and, by necessity, a member of His Mystical Body, even if that unity is invisible.

This says nothing of one’s obligation (by divine precept) to enter the Church through the sacrament of baptism - but that is not the point I was making, though it certainly does help to place this obligation in the context of the Church’s traditional teaching on BoD/BoB.

Catholic_Truth wrote:MRyan, are not Feeneyites correct when they say that the Church already has established the Dogmatic teaching that only through Water Baptism does one become a member of the Church? I believe I can post you several infallible statements which say such, if you haven't seen them before.

Of course, but this does no preclude the possibility of an invisible incorporation through the bonds of faith and charity, as the Church teaches. The Church is not going to present a dogmatic teaching and then completely negate it by presenting an erroneous universal doctrine - it simply does not work that way. The doctrine and dogma must form part of one cohesive whole and must be understood in the way the Church herself understands it.

Please don’t bother with the infallible dogmatic declarations; I think I know them by heart.

Also, are not the Feeneyites correct that it is an already established Dogmatic teaching of the Church that to be a member, then one must hold to the teachings of the Church? I believe I can post you several infallible statements which say such, if you haven't seen them before.

Of course, and I can post several declarations from the infallible Church that demonstrate that we do not get to pick and choose the doctrines we will submit to, we submit to all of the Church’s authentic and authoritative teachings because “He who hears you, hears me”. I understand the concept of a legitimate “mental reservation” to ambiguous or confusing doctrines, but the idea of outright “denial and rejection” with respect to a universal doctrine taught by the Church for centuries should be anathema to Catholics - or one would think.

Also, are not Feeneyites correct when they say that it is an already established Dogmatic teaching of the Church that only those members within the Church will receive Salvation? I believe I can post you several infallible statements which say such, if you haven't seen them before.

Only those who have finally entered and are joined to the Mystical Body of Christ can be saved - that’s the dogma; and it doesn’t belong to just Feeneyites. But if you are looking for a dogmatic teaching that says that only those who are united to the visible Church through the sacrament of baptism can be saved - well, go ahead and show me where the Church has ever defined that.

We all know that those outside the Church can receive grace from God, but where does it say any of them receive sanctifying grace ???

It doesn’t say that anywhere because it doesn’t happen. The Church teaches that sanctifying grace flows from and through the Church, but that does not mean that one must be a visible member of the Church for such graces to flow; but it does mean that anyone who is in a state of grace is a untied to the Body of the Church - even if this unity is invisible.

Can any of you BOD/BOB defenders provide the supposive infallible dogmatic teaching handed down to us from the Universal Magisterium of the Church which says that someone who does not hold to the Catholic Faith and has not undergone Water Baptism can indeed receive sanctifying grace?

Now who ever said that someone who does not hold the Catholic Faith can receive sanctifying grace? Where do you come up with this stuff? I’m afraid to ask.

Catholic_Truth wrote:You will also find new threads on "ordinary vs extraordinary means of salvation" on the Cathinfo.com Forum and in the Fisheaters Forum. I must say that I am shocked by how many self proclaimed "traditional" Catholics accept Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood in those Forums. I don't logically understand how one can accept BOD and BOB and yet accept EENS. Are all these so called "traditional" catholics "traditional" in name only?

Seems to me, a real "traditional" Catholic would hold to what Father Feeney taught.

What say all of you ?? :?:

What I say is that I’m still waiting for you to respond to my responses to your initial post.

“Shocked”? I’m shocked that you’re shocked. Feeneyites actually represent a small minority among traditional Catholics.

EENS was ground zero in Fr. Feeney’s fight for the purity of the dogma; he didn’t go public with BoD until 1952. If he had an empathetic ear with conservative Catholics on EENS and on the modernist bent of the liberal Catholic colleges, he lost much of that empathy with his outright rejection of BoD/BoB - a complete reversal to his previous position. The abuse of a doctrine does not negate its truth.

This is what I meant when I suggested elsewhere that it did not help his cause when Fr. Feeney parted company with the likes of such traditional stalwarts as Fr. Micheal Mueller, Bishop Hay and Orestes Brownson. His opponents pounced on his rejection of BoD/BoB, and trads would follow suit.

I believe Br. Thomas Mary Sennott tried to soften the division and to take the edge off of Fr. Feeney's doctrine by characterizing his teaching on BoD as pure speculation and even Irish bluster (in his Is Laisneyism Catholic), but that is not how it was portrayed in Bread of Life.

His rejection of BoD was a natural consequence of his rejection of any doctrine that proposed that one may be “united to the Church only by implicit desire”, even though the Holy Office Letter clarified this teaching by saying that this “desire” must include supernatural (and explicit) faith and perfect charity.

The rest is history.

Btw, Catholic_Truth, I've been to an SBC conference, I've talked with Br. Andre (and have immense respect for him) and have corresponded with several others members. I am quite familiar with "the troubles" in Boston (I consider Gary Potter a friend) and was pretty notorious as a somewhat enthusiastic defender of all things Feeneyite for several years, as a couple of members of this forum will attest (as they roll their eyes). ''

If I am a "reformed Feeneyite" it is only because I go where the truth leads me; but I will still defend Fr. Feeney from his detractors and I still have much respect for my friends who have been fighting this battle for many years, and my heart is with them still; even if we cannot agree on certain fundamental principles.

I'm not a rookie at this - keep that in mind before inundating me with dogmatic pronouncements, without addressing my arguments.

MRyan wrote: I'm not a rookie at this - keep that in mind before inundating me with dogmatic pronouncements, without addressing my arguments.

Since you're not a "rookie", then would you be willing to debate one of the Dimond brothers on this topic of "ordinary vs extraordinary means" of salvation? You can contact them at mhfm1@aol.com or call them toll free at 1-800-275-1126.

They are always willing to debate persons such as yourself.

Catholic_Truth wrote:

MRyan wrote: I'm not a rookie at this - keep that in mind before inundating me with dogmatic pronouncements, without addressing my arguments.

Since you're not a "rookie", then would you be willing to debate one of the Dimond brothers on this topic of "ordinary vs extraordinary means" of salvation? You can contact them at mhfm1@aol.com or call them toll free at 1-800-275-1126.

They are always willing to debate persons such as yourself.

Wow. Enter the Twlight Zone. Maybe Rasha should invite them here. Wouldn't that be lovely...

Catholic_Truth wrote:

MRyan wrote: I'm not a rookie at this - keep that in mind before inundating me with dogmatic pronouncements, without addressing my arguments.

Since you're not a "rookie", then would you be willing to debate one of the Dimond brothers on this topic of "ordinary vs extraordinary means" of salvation? You can contact them at mhfm1@aol.com or call them toll free at 1-800-275-1126.

They are always willing to debate persons such as yourself.

Ah, drinking from the poisonous well, I see.

The Dimonds are actually pretty good in many respects on the doctrine. I read their book from cover to cover (before it was posted on their website) and had high praise for it when it first came out. But they get it completely wrong when they start dogmatizing their opinions in opposition to the perennial magisterium and the universal consensus of the saints and theologians. Theological principles and “magisterium” are concepts that are simply lost on them, and they feel that they and they alone, are in possession of the “true doctrine as it was once declared”.

Have you ever read John Daly’s critique of their theology? It’s pretty devastating.

Remember, these are the same Bro’s who proclaim that “Co-Redemptrix” is heretical, and that anyone who does not agree with their explanation on why it is heretical is a heretic.

So no, I do not "debate" such people - it’s best to leave them alone and not to encourage them.

MRyan wrote:

Catholic_Truth wrote:MRyan, are not Feeneyites correct when they say that the Church already has established the Dogmatic teaching that only through Water Baptism does one become a member of the Church? I believe I can post you several infallible statements which say such, if you haven't seen them before.

Of course, but this does no preclude the possibility of an invisible incorporation through the bonds of faith and charity, as the Church teaches. The Church is not going to present a dogmatic teaching and then completely negate it by presenting an erroneous universal doctrine - it simply does not work that way. The doctrine and dogma must form part of one cohesive whole and must be understood in the way the Church herself understands it.

Please don’t bother with the infallible dogmatic declarations; I think I know them by heart.

The reason you don't want me to post the infallible dogmatic declarations is because it is from those declarations that we know what the "Universal Magisterium" teaches, ....Therefore I will post the traditional dogmatic infallible Church's teachings which you must accept as a Catholic.......

Pope Julius III, Council of Trent, On the Sacraments of Baptism and Penance, Sess. 14, Chap. 2, ex cathedra: “But in fact this sacrament [Penance] is seen to differ in many respects from baptism. For, apart from the fact that the matter and form, by which the essence of a sacrament is constituted, are totally distinct, there is certainly no doubt that the minister of baptism need not be a judge, since the Church exercises judgment on no one who has not previously entered it by the gate of baptism. For what have I to do with those who are without (1 Cor. 5:12), says the Apostle. It is otherwise with those of the household of the faith, whom Christ the Lord by the laver of baptism has once made ‘members of his own body’ (1 Cor. 12:13).”

Pope Eugene IV, The Council of Florence, “Exultate Deo,” Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra: “Holy baptism, which is the gateway to the spiritual life, holds the first place among all the sacraments; through it we are made members of Christ and of the body of the Church. And since death entered the universe through the first man, ‘unless we are born again of water and the Spirit, we cannot,’ as the Truth says, ‘enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3]. The matter of this sacrament is real and natural water.”

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

Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis (# 27), June 29, 1943: “He (Christ) also determined that through Baptism (cf. Jn. 3:5) those who should believe would be incorporated in the Body of the Church.”

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

In the early Church, the unbaptized catechumens (i.e., those who had not received the Sacrament of Baptism) had to leave after the Mass of the catechumens, when the faithful professed the Creed. The unbaptized were not allowed to stay for the Mass of the faithful , because it is only by receiving the Sacrament of Baptism that one becomes one of the faithful. This is the teaching of Tradition.
Also unlike today, in the earlier Church when catechumens had been water baptized , many of them had continued as catechumens for some time afterwards, which would explain those cases of Saints who are reported to have still been catechumens.

So far, I have provided numerous infallible dogmatic declarations from numerous Popes that all say only those who have been WATER Baptized can enter into his Church. so MRyan, if you want to prove your case that unbaptized persons can become members of God's Church outside of sacramental Water baptism, then you are required to provide infallible dogmatic teachings from the Church which backs up your case. If you can't, then that means what I have provided carries more weight than anything you can provide. Please don't provide casual comments from Doctors, Theologians, Popes, Bishops, Priests and other Saints. Such commentaries are fallible and meaningless, when compared to already established infallible dogmatic statements which all Catholics must accept and believe.
Also, for every Doctor, Saint and Theologian you provide who claims a person can become a Saint without Water baptism, then I can provide a Doctor, Saint and Theologian who says the exact opposite. So that means you have no case when it comes to "Universal doctrine" having already been established when it comes to BOD and BOB. Your peception of universal doctrine must only be understood in the light of what has already been established infallibly by the "Universal Magisterium" of the Church. Therefore since it has been dogmatically taught that only Water Baptism is the door by which one enters the Church, then you must accept that this has always been the universal doctrine of the Church as well.

Roguejim wrote:

Catholic_Truth wrote:

MRyan wrote: I'm not a rookie at this - keep that in mind before inundating me with dogmatic pronouncements, without addressing my arguments.

Since you're not a "rookie", then would you be willing to debate one of the Dimond brothers on this topic of "ordinary vs extraordinary means" of salvation? You can contact them at mhfm1@aol.com or call them toll free at 1-800-275-1126.

They are always willing to debate persons such as yourself.

Wow. Enter the Twlight Zone. Maybe Rasha should invite them here. Wouldn't that be lovely...

:affraid: :affraid: Peace --Flower power--Peace! man Peace! Lets keep this gig groovy man

Its really quite simple. None of you baptism of desire( Baptism of Desire ) supporters can make the claim that a Catholic must accept the present day Church's teaching of baptism of desire as being Church doctrine, whether its taught as explicit, implicit or both. This is because baptism of desire is only being taught by today's "ordinary magisterium", but was never taught by the "Universal Magisterium". The "Universal Magisterium" trumpts the "ordinary magisteium", so therefore a Catholic is to adhere to what the "Universal Magisterium" has always taught.,... Its that simple.

Oh, and if your going to make the claim that baptism of desire has been the Universal and Constant teaching of the Church, then you will have to provide evidence that the majority of early Church fathers accepted baptism of desire as a truth. However, if it is shown that the majority of early Church Fathers rejected baptism of desire, then that means you have no case and that baptism of desire is not a doctrinal teaching of the Church.

Catholic_Truth wrote:Its really quite simple. None of you baptism of desire( Baptism of Desire ) supporters can make the claim that a Catholic must accept the present day Church's teaching of baptism of desire as being Church doctrine, whether its taught as explicit, implicit or both. This is because baptism of desire is only being taught by today's "ordinary magisterium", but was never taught by the "Universal Magisterium". The "Universal Magisterium" trumpts the "ordinary magisteium", so therefore a Catholic is to adhere to what the "Universal Magisterium" has always taught.,... Its that simple.

There is no such thing as one Magisterium “trumping” another as if they can be in any way opposed. There is only one Magisterium, which utilizes different modes of transmission for expressing the same truths. The divinely conferred authority behind the authentic ordinary Magisterium is the same divinely conferred authority behind the ordinary and universal Magisterium.

The only differentiation we make is with respect to the required level of submission a particular teaching commands, which can be known by the manifested will and intention of the supreme teacher and legislator. Obviously, the supreme magisterium, when defining, or the ordinary and universal magisterium, when proposing a doctrine for belief in a definitive act, require the assent of faith. All other teachings of the Magisterium, regardless of its mode of expression, require at least the submission of the mind and will.

Catholic_Truth wrote:Oh, and if your going to make the claim that baptism of desire has been the Universal and Constant teaching of the Church, then you will have to provide evidence that the majority of early Church fathers accepted baptism of desire as a truth. However, if it is shown that the majority of early Church Fathers rejected baptism of desire, then that means you have no case and that baptism of desire is not a doctrinal teaching of the Church.

But they did accept baptism of blood and baptism of desire as truths and the Church provides all the evidence we need when she teaches, and has always taught, that baptism of blood/baptism of desire form a part of Apostolic Tradition. If it was not a part of Tradition, Trent would not have dogmatically taught the doctrine. While the truth cannot change and Revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle, the Magisterium elicits more (analytically) from certain truths of the deposit of Faith, or acquires (historically) further dimensions of that same truth. What is latent in the deposit of faith can be drawn out much like an acorn of truth develops over time into the fullness of a tree, without losing any of the substance and meaning of the core truth as it was “once declared”.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church aims to hand down, and does hand down, nothing else but "the Catholic faith that comes to us from the apostles"

I already challenged you to produce the evidence for your gratuitous and fallacious statement that “most of the early Church fathers rejected Baptism of Desire.”

http://www.naturesongs.com/cricket1.wav

Good luck with that.

The Church “has the duty to proceed opportunely in defining points of faith with solemn rites and decrees, when there is a need to declare them to resist more effectively the errors and the assaults of heretics or to impress upon the minds of the faithful clearer and more profound explanations of points of sacred doctrine... Not because the Church has defined and sanctioned truths by solemn decree of the Church at different times, and even in times near to us, are they [truths not so defined] therefore not equally certain and not equally to be believed. For has not God revealed them all?” (Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos)

St. Alphonsus Liguori:

“To reject the divine teaching of the Catholic Church is to reject the very basis of reason and revelation, for neither the principles of the one nor those of the other have any longer any solid support to rest on; they can be interpreted by everyone as he pleases; every one can deny all truths whatsoever he chooses to deny. I therefore repeat: If the divine teaching authority of the Church, and the obedience to it are rejected, every error will be endorsed and must be tolerated.” (Appendix to his work on the Council of Trent)