No salvation outside the Church and invincible ignorance

Roguejim Tue Dec 21, 2010 3:35 pm

From Fr. Muller:

http://www.cfnews.org/invig.htm

Guest Tue Dec 21, 2010 4:27 pm

Isn't Vin getting close to predestination to hell? Which is condemned in Calvanism?

Guest Tue Dec 21, 2010 4:32 pm

I don't think so. After all they can always ask for the asparagus. lol!

Guest Tue Dec 21, 2010 5:02 pm

Roguejim wrote:From Fr. Muller:

http://www.cfnews.org/invig.htm

nice find Jim,
"Their inculpable (invincible) ignorance will not save them; but if they fear God and live up to their conscience, God, in His infinite mercy, will furnish them with the necessary means of salvation, even so as to send, if needed, an angel to instruct them in the Catholic Faith, rather than let them perish through inculpable ignorance." (St. Thomas Aquinas)"

But how can Aquinus on one hand say that God in his Providence will send and angel to instruct to the other side of the earth but has no power to get the catechumen out of the way of the bus so he can recieve baptism?

Guest Tue Dec 21, 2010 5:07 pm

duckbill wrote:But how can Aquinus on one hand say that God in his Providence will send and angel to instruct to the other side of the earth but has no power to get the catechumen out of the way of the bus so he can recieve baptism?

This has been a question of mine since I started studying Aquinas' take on the matter. Especially after reading his treatise on Divine Providence... he seems to contradict himself when he details 'baptism of desire' for someone who was "unable to be baptized" in this life. God is fully able to furnish a man with the graces necessary for salvation, and God will not deny grace to anyone who asks for it... yet, somehow a man could slip through the cracks of Divine Providence and die without Baptism?!? scratch

MRyan Tue Dec 21, 2010 5:44 pm

duckbill wrote:
Roguejim wrote:From Fr. Muller:

http://www.cfnews.org/invig.htm

nice find Jim,
"Their inculpable (invincible) ignorance will not save them; but if they fear God and live up to their conscience, God, in His infinite mercy, will furnish them with the necessary means of salvation, even so as to send, if needed, an angel to instruct them in the Catholic Faith, rather than let them perish through inculpable ignorance." (St. Thomas Aquinas)"

But how can Aquinus on one hand say that God in his Providence will send and angel to instruct to the other side of the earth but has no power to get the catechumen out of the way of the bus so he can recieve baptism?

Because St. Thomas understood the difference between that which is necessary as an intrinsic necessity of means, i.e., Faith, charity and sanctifying grace, which are the very essence of one's eternal salvation (what begins here, is perfected in the kingdom), and the institutional helps which provide the means for effecting this translation to the kingdom.

In other words, the institutional Church and the sacraments are temporary helps instituted by our Lord to aid us in attaining sanctification and salvation (they are not intrinsic to our salvation). On the other hand, Faith, charity and sanctifying grace are intrinsic to our salvation and so absolutely necessary that without any one of them, salvation “cannot be”.

Duckbill, it would appear that you are trying to elevate the sacrament of baptism to an intrinsic necessity of means, rather than recognize it as an extrinsic necessity of means of divine institution; and the only means by which one may attain a state of justification and salvation. Your hypothesis would rule out a centuries old tradition of a means of justification and salvation by the essential bonds of faith and charity - for those souls our Lord may choose to save without benefit of the sacrament. If your hypothesis is true, it would seem that the sacrament of water baptism would always have been necessary for salvation - or it would not be intrinsic to the salvation of all men, everywhere and at all times.

The sacrament of baptism is absolutely necessary to all men for salvation by divine institution, but sanctification and salvation may be attained by a means other than water baptism - under explicit conditions, the fulfillment of which can be known only by our Lord - who serves as the direct and instrumental conduit for transmitting the merit of His blood in the bonds of faith and charity in these theoretical instances. Has anyone ever attained heaven by this means? I have no idea.

I still believe our Lord will provide - but I cannot rule out the possibility - our tradition confirms it, and our Church teaches the same doctrine.

Besides, they didn’t have Greyhound buses in those days.

Guest Tue Dec 21, 2010 6:41 pm

Hmm...well actually tradition includes quotes such as these:

Council of Braga, 572, Canon xvii: “Neither the commemoration of Sacrifice [oblationis] nor the service of chanting [psallendi] is to be employed for catechumens who have died without baptism.” (The Catholic Encyclopedia, “Baptism,” Volume 2, 1907, p. 265)

Guest Tue Dec 21, 2010 6:45 pm

MRyan wrote:
Duckbill, it would appear that you are trying to elevate the sacrament of baptism to an intrinsic necessity of means, rather than recognize it as an extrinsic necessity of means of divine institution; and the only means by which one may attain a state of justification and salvation.

Pope St. Leo the Great, dogmatic letter to Flavian, Council of Chalcedon, 451:

“Let him heed what the blessed apostle Peter preaches, that sanctification by the Spirit is effected by the sprinkling of Christ’s blood (1 Pet. 1:2); and let him not skip over the same apostle’s words, knowing that you have been redeemed from the empty way of life you inherited from your fathers, not with corruptible gold and silver but by the precious blood of Jesus Christ, as of a lamb without stain or spot (1 Pet. 1:18). Nor should he withstand the testimony of blessed John the apostle: and the blood of Jesus, the Son of God, purifies us from every sin (1 Jn. 1:7) and again, This is the victory which conquers the world, our faith. Who is there who conquers the world save one who believes that Jesus is the Son of God? It is He, Jesus Christ, who has come through water and blood, not in water only, but in water and blood. And because the Spirit is truth, it is the Spirit who testifies. For there are three who give testimony – Spirit and water and blood. And the three are one. (1 Jn. 5:4- Cool

IN OTHER WORDS, THE SPIRIT OF SANCTIFICATION AND THE BLOOD OF REDEMPTION AND THE WATER OF BAPTISM. THESE THREE ARE ONE AND REMAIN INDIVISIBLE. NONE OF THEM IS SEPARABLE FROM ITS LINK WITH THE OTHERS."

http://www.ewtn.com/library/councils/chalcedo.htm#1

Guest Tue Dec 21, 2010 7:02 pm

Actually I don't think it I am out of bounds. To be saved one needs to be incorporated into the chosen people. There were physical necessities in the Old Testament too to belong to the Old Testament people of God:

Blood--Seth to Noah--Abraham's descendants
Marriage--wives of Noah's sons--Ruth
Circumcision--Abraham and his house hold slaves etc...
Subjection-- to the Kingship in the line of David, Israel's authority--Naaman

We have no evidence that anyone was saved outside the Chosen people and membership in that society (as listed above) was a physical necessity as well as faith and freedom from serious sin.

Scot Hahn and his followers have been bringing out more and more the need to belong to the Old covenant in physical manifestations.

MRyan Tue Dec 21, 2010 10:43 pm

RashaLampa wrote:Hmm...well actually tradition includes quotes such as these:

Council of Braga, 572, Canon xvii: “Neither the commemoration of Sacrifice [oblationis] nor the service of chanting [psallendi] is to be employed for catechumens who have died without baptism.” (The Catholic Encyclopedia, “Baptism,” Volume 2, 1907, p. 265)

It certainly does; and such customs reflect the current mind of the Church in her legislation of who shall enjoy the privilege of Christian burial and who shall not. But what does that have to do with the tradition and doctrine of BoB/BoD?

The Church is allowed to change her mind on such disciplinary matters when she believes that a certain law/discipline has outlived its purpose or has become too harsh. Times change, and the law often changes with it - but doctrines never change. We should remember that while all ecclesiastical laws are based on certain fundamental truths, confirmation of those truths are only secondary to their primary object, which are matters of justice and prudence.

However, if the Church had no legitimate tradition and teaching on BoB/BoD, she never would have changed this perennial custom with the promulgation of the 1917 Code of Canon Law, under the authorities of Pope St. Pius X and Pope Benedict XV, the latter of whom promulgated it for the Latin Church. The Code itself makes a specific reference to BoD as a teaching of the Church.

The former prohibition does not mean that BoD was not a recognized doctrine of the Church, but only that the Church held that such a subjective possibility should not merit the same consideration and privilege as that of a baptized Catholic in good standing with the Church. The Church would later appear to weigh that prohibition against the seeming injustice of placing the catechumen in the same category as:

pagans, Jews, infidels, heretics, and their adherents (Rit. Rom., VI, c. ii) schismatics, apostates, and persons who have been excommunicated by name or placed under an interdict… Further, Christian burial is to be refused to suicides (this prohibition is as old as the fourth century; cf. Cassian in P.L., XL, 573) except in case that the act was committed when they were of unsound mind or unless they showed signs of repentance before death occurred. It is also withheld from those who have been killed in a duel, even though they should give signs of repentance before death. Other persons similarly debarred are notorious sinners who die without repentance, those who have openly held the sacraments in contempt (for example by staying away from Communion at Easter time to the public scandal) and who showed no signs of sorrow, monks and nuns who are found to have died in the possession of money or valuables which they had kept for their own, and finally those who have directed that their bodies should be cremated after death.” (Catholic Encyclopedia)

Make sense?

Guest Tue Dec 21, 2010 10:54 pm

MRyan wrote: The Code itself makes a specific reference to BoD as a teaching of the Church.

Where?

MRyan Tue Dec 21, 2010 11:11 pm

RashaLampa wrote:
MRyan wrote:
Duckbill, it would appear that you are trying to elevate the sacrament of baptism to an intrinsic necessity of means, rather than recognize it as an extrinsic necessity of means of divine institution; and the only means by which one may attain a state of justification and salvation.

Pope St. Leo the Great, dogmatic letter to Flavian, Council of Chalcedon, 451:

“Let him heed what the blessed apostle Peter preaches, that sanctification by the Spirit is effected by the sprinkling of Christ’s blood (1 Pet. 1:2); and let him not skip over the same apostle’s words, knowing that you have been redeemed from the empty way of life you inherited from your fathers, not with corruptible gold and silver but by the precious blood of Jesus Christ, as of a lamb without stain or spot (1 Pet. 1:18). Nor should he withstand the testimony of blessed John the apostle: and the blood of Jesus, the Son of God, purifies us from every sin (1 Jn. 1:7) and again, This is the victory which conquers the world, our faith. Who is there who conquers the world save one who believes that Jesus is the Son of God? It is He, Jesus Christ, who has come through water and blood, not in water only, but in water and blood. And because the Spirit is truth, it is the Spirit who testifies. For there are three who give testimony – Spirit and water and blood. And the three are one. (1 Jn. 5:4- IN OTHER WORDS, THE SPIRIT OF SANCTIFICATION AND THE BLOOD OF REDEMPTION AND THE WATER OF BAPTISM. THESE THREE ARE ONE AND REMAIN INDIVISIBLE. NONE OF THEM IS SEPARABLE FROM ITS LINK WITH THE OTHERS."

http://www.ewtn.com/library/councils/chalcedo.htm#1

OK, but this is where knowing the true sense of what is being dogmatically declared has its advantages; and will keep one out of trouble. So let's turn to the Haydock Commentary:

Ver. 8. And there are three that give testimony on earth: the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three are one.[3] This is a repetition of what was before said, ver. 6, to be expounded in the same manner. But when it is added, these three are one, the sense is, that they witness one and the same truth. (Witham) --- As the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, all bear witness to Christ's divinity; so the spirit, which he yielded up, crying out with a loud voice upon the cross, and the water and blood that issued from his side, bear witness to his humanity, and are one; that is, all agree in one testimony. (Challoner) (Haydock Bible Commentary, 1859)

So the "LINK" that makes the Spirit, the water, and the blood "inseparable" and "indivisible" is the testimony that they all bear witness to the same truth: Christ's humanity, just as the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost and bear witness to Christ's divinity.

HolyRussia Wed Dec 22, 2010 1:04 am

MRyan,

Duckbill, it would appear that you are trying to elevate the sacrament of baptism to an intrinsic necessity of means, rather than recognize it as an extrinsic necessity of means of divine institution; and the only means by which one may attain a state of justification and salvation. Your hypothesis would rule out a centuries old tradition of a means of justification and salvation by the essential bonds of faith and charity - for those souls our Lord may choose to save without benefit of the sacrament.

You will recognize the following argument I'm sure.

CHAPTER IV.
A description is introduced of the Justification of the impious, and of the Manner thereof under the law of grace.

By which words, a description of the Justification of the impious is indicated,-as being a translation, from that state wherein man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace, and of the adoption of the sons of God, through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Saviour. And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.

What exactly is this "means of justification and salvation by the essential bonds of faith and charity" of which you and the Catholic Church speaks? It would seem to me that Trent plainly says that the means are different "since the promulgation of the gospel," and yet the Holy Ghost worked the translation of Abraham, Moses et al - the elect who walked this earth before the promulgation of the gospel - by the bonds of faith and charity (without baptism or the desire for baptism - unknown to Abraham and Moses) before the promulgation.

It appears nothing has changed, Trent notwithstanding.

HR

Guest Wed Dec 22, 2010 1:35 am

MRyan wrote:
OK, but this is where knowing the true sense of what is being dogmatically declared has its advantages; and will keep one out of trouble. So let's turn to the Haydock Commentary:

Ver. 8. And there are three that give testimony on earth: the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three are one.[3] This is a repetition of what was before said, ver. 6, to be expounded in the same manner. But when it is added, these three are one, the sense is, that they witness one and the same truth. (Witham) --- As the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, all bear witness to Christ's divinity; so the spirit, which he yielded up, crying out with a loud voice upon the cross, and the water and blood that issued from his side, bear witness to his humanity, and are one; that is, all agree in one testimony. (Challoner) (Haydock Bible Commentary, 1859)

But the Letter to Flavian clearly says the "WATER OF BAPTISM," something which the quote from the Haydock commentary never mentions.

Guest Wed Dec 22, 2010 4:54 am

HolyRussia wrote:MRyan,

Duckbill, it would appear that you are trying to elevate the sacrament of baptism to an intrinsic necessity of means, rather than recognize it as an extrinsic necessity of means of divine institution; and the only means by which one may attain a state of justification and salvation. Your hypothesis would rule out a centuries old tradition of a means of justification and salvation by the essential bonds of faith and charity - for those souls our Lord may choose to save without benefit of the sacrament.

You will recognize the following argument I'm sure.

CHAPTER IV.
A description is introduced of the Justification of the impious, and of the Manner thereof under the law of grace.

By which words, a description of the Justification of the impious is indicated,-as being a translation, from that state wherein man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace, and of the adoption of the sons of God, through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Saviour. And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.

What exactly is this "means of justification and salvation by the essential bonds of faith and charity" of which you and the Catholic Church speaks? It would seem to me that Trent plainly says that the means are different "since the promulgation of the gospel," and yet the Holy Ghost worked the translation of Abraham, Moses et al - the elect who walked this earth before the promulgation of the gospel - by the bonds of faith and charity (without baptism or the desire for baptism - unknown to Abraham and Moses) before the promulgation.

It appears nothing has changed, Trent notwithstanding.

HR

Maybe you missed my post but there was a necessity of physical manifestation of belonging to the chosen people in the Old Testament. God has just simplified it in the New Testament, ie Sacramental Baptism.

your quote from Trent:

without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.

"or" has a connotation of "and/with" in this quote otherwise "as it is written"=literal sense, would make no sense.
"
link to article about it

Plus the dogmatic letter to Flavian (above in Rasha's post) makes it clear that Sacramental Baptism is necessary.
We also have Unam Sanctum:

Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, Nov. 18, 1302, ex cathedra:
“With Faith urging us we are forced to believe and to hold the one, holy, Catholic Church and that, apostolic, and we firmly believe and simply confess this Church outside of which there is no salvation nor remission of sin…"
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Bon08/B8unam.htm

How does one belong to the Church? Thru the Sacrament of Baptism only!

Guest Wed Dec 22, 2010 5:15 am

RashaLampa wrote:
MRyan wrote:
OK, but this is where knowing the true sense of what is being dogmatically declared has its advantages; and will keep one out of trouble. So let's turn to the Haydock Commentary:

Ver. 8. And there are three that give testimony on earth: the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three are one.[3] This is a repetition of what was before said, ver. 6, to be expounded in the same manner. But when it is added, these three are one, the sense is, that they witness one and the same truth. (Witham) --- As the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, all bear witness to Christ's divinity; so the spirit, which he yielded up, crying out with a loud voice upon the cross, and the water and blood that issued from his side, bear witness to his humanity, and are one; that is, all agree in one testimony. (Challoner) (Haydock Bible Commentary, 1859)

But the Letter to Flavian clearly says the "WATER OF BAPTISM," something which your quote from the Haydock commentary never mentions.

With all due respect to Haydock, the dogmatic letter to Flavian gives us the correct interpretation:

"(1 Jn. 5:4) IN OTHER WORDS, THE SPIRIT OF SANCTIFICATION AND THE BLOOD OF REDEMPTION AND THE WATER OF BAPTISM. THESE THREE ARE ONE AND REMAIN INDIVISIBLE. NONE OF THEM IS SEPARABLE FROM ITS LINK WITH THE OTHERS."

"In other word" = this is how we should understand this scripture. That Water Baptism and sanctification are one and cannot be separated.

MRyan Wed Dec 22, 2010 11:35 am

HolyRussia wrote:MRyan,

What exactly is this "means of justification and salvation by the essential bonds of faith and charity" of which you and the Catholic Church speaks? It would seem to me that Trent plainly says that the means are different "since the promulgation of the gospel," and yet the Holy Ghost worked the translation of Abraham, Moses et al - the elect who walked this earth before the promulgation of the gospel - by the bonds of faith and charity (without baptism or the desire for baptism - unknown to Abraham and Moses) before the promulgation.

It appears nothing has changed, Trent notwithstanding.

HR

Yes, Trent plainly teaches that the means are different "since the promulgation of the gospel", and those means are, as you acknowledge, baptism or the desire thereof. Both effect the same end, regeneration in Christ as sons of God and heirs to the kingdom. As a divine and ecclesiastical institution, the sacrament of baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation; in other words, it is necessary to all men without exception. No one is exempt from the law. However, this necessity of means does not necessarily mean that its essential effect cannot be effected by another means because, as the Church teaches, God is not bound by His sacraments to effect the same end - regeneration.

That is not a contradiction, it is recognizing the distinction between intrinsic necessity (“without which something cannot be”) and extrinsic necessity (arriving at the same end by another means). In each case it is God who effects the same end for the justice of God is the alone formal cause of our justification and He does not necessarily bind Himself to the instrumental cause of water baptism. And in each case we “are renewed in the spirit of our mind, and we are not only reputed, but are truly called, and are, just, receiving justice within us, each one according to his own measure, which the Holy Ghost distributes to every one as He wills, and according to each one's proper disposition and co-operation.” (Trent , Sess. 6, Ch 7)

The Letter of the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office to Archbishop Cushing (August 8, 1949), said it like this:

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).

Without water, the sacrament of baptism cannot be - water is intrinsic to the sacrament, but water baptism is not necessarily intrinsic to justification, while faith and charity are. That is what Trent means by “or the desire thereof”. Even in such hypothetical cases where someone may be justified “by the desire thereof” through the bonds of faith and charity (only God knows if such a condition is effected), the necessity of baptism, as a necessity of means, remains - no one is exempt from the law; but God is not bound by the law to effect the same end.

And, to your point, it was the same under the Old Law. The Jews were not exempt from the law (such as circumcision). However, they were justified by faith and charity; or an explicit Faith in God which included an implicit faith in our Lord. We may even say that circumcision was an external manifestation or type of the sacrament of baptism. Implicit in every circumcision were a desire for the true sacrament and a desire to be washed in the blood of the Lamb. Circumcision also signified the sacramental seal of salvation - the distinct and indelible mark of the faithful that would bestow upon them the right to participate in the divine life of the Church.

In both the Old and the New dispensations, visible institutions and sacraments were established by God as extrinsic necessities of means and as general helps to salvation. Once again, Christ provided means (divine precepts) and helps to salvation by His institution, which are not of the essence of union with God in themselves. As such, the sacraments, the Mass, the institutional Church, the Church Militant under the Supreme Pontiff and his hierarchy will no longer exist in the next life.

Contrary to this, Duckbill seems to be suggesting that the institutional Church and the sacrament of baptism are intrinsic to our union with God, and the very essence of our salvation. However, unlike faith and charity, these divine institutions facilitate rather than form the life of the soul. Faith and charity are the two spiritual faculties in which our image and likeness to Him are healed and elevated (our intellects and will); and it is in this that the supernatural life of the soul, our life in the kingdom (beginning here and now), consists.

There is no salvation outside the Church; no one can enter the kingdom without being united to the Mystical Body of Christ - the Catholic Church, even if her visible structures shall one day cease to exist.

Oh, and welcome, HR, glad you could join us.

MRyan Wed Dec 22, 2010 12:15 pm

RashaLampa wrote:
MRyan wrote:
OK, but this is where knowing the true sense of what is being dogmatically declared has its advantages; and will keep one out of trouble. So let's turn to the Haydock Commentary:

Ver. 8. And there are three that give testimony on earth: the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three are one.[3] This is a repetition of what was before said, ver. 6, to be expounded in the same manner. But when it is added, these three are one, the sense is, that they witness one and the same truth. (Witham) --- As the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, all bear witness to Christ's divinity; so the spirit, which he yielded up, crying out with a loud voice upon the cross, and the water and blood that issued from his side, bear witness to his humanity, and are one; that is, all agree in one testimony. (Challoner) (Haydock Bible Commentary, 1859)

But the Letter to Flavian clearly says the "WATER OF BAPTISM," something which the quote from the Haydock commentary never mentions.

Haydock did not have to mention it, they mean the same thing. The SPIRIT (of sanctification) and the BLOOD (of Redemption) and the Water (of Baptism) bear witness to his humanity, and are one; that is, all agree in one testimony and witness one and the same truth, and none of them is separable from its LINK with the other (“these three are one and remain indivisible”).

Again, the "LINK" that makes the Spirit of Regeneration and the Blood of Redemption and the Water of Baptism "inseparable" and "indivisible" is the testimony that they all bear witness to the same truth: Christ's humanity, just as the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost all bear witness to Christ's divinity.

Context is king. I think Witham, Challoner and Haydock had a better grasp of the traditional sense (of the Church Fathers) of the Gospel of St. John referenced by Pope St. Leo in his dogmatic letter to Flavian.

Didn’t all of this confusion start with the Dimond Bro’s? These are the same guys who insist that the term “co-Redemptrix” (a term used even by “valid” popes) is “heretical. Oh yes, and they can cite the dogmatic Council of Trent to prove it!

Oy vey.

MRyan Wed Dec 22, 2010 1:49 pm

MarianLibrarian wrote:
MRyan wrote: The Code itself makes a specific reference to BoD as a teaching of the Church.
Where?

From the 1917 Code of Canon Law:

“Baptism, the door and foundation of the Sacraments, in fact or at least in desire necessary unto salvation for all, is not validly conferred except through the ablution of true and natural water with the prescribed form of words.” (Canon 737)

The New Code of Canon Law:

“Baptism, the gateway to the sacraments, is necessary for salvation, either by actual reception or at least by desire. By it people are freed from sins, are born again as children of God and, made like to Christ by an indelible character, are incorporated into the Church. It is validly conferred only by a washing in real water with the proper form of words.” (Can. 849)

Guest Wed Dec 22, 2010 2:47 pm

Haydock did not have to mention it, they mean the same thing. The SPIRIT (of sanctification) and the BLOOD (of Redemption) and the Water (of Baptism) bear witness to his humanity, and are one; that is, all agree in one testimony and witness one and the same truth, and none of them is separable from its LINK with the other (“these three are one and remain indivisible”).

Again, the "LINK" that makes the Spirit of Regeneration and the Blood of Redemption and the Water of Baptism "inseparable" and "indivisible" is the testimony that they all bear witness to the same truth: Christ's humanity, just as the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost all bear witness to Christ's divinity.

Context is king. I think Witham, Challoner and Haydock had a better grasp of the traditional sense (of the Church Fathers) of the Gospel of St. John referenced by Pope St. Leo in his dogmatic letter to Flavian.

Re-reading it I guess we are saying the same thing. Haydock is saying Jesus' humanity is necessary for our salvation-- letter to Flavian says:
"Every spirit which confesses that Jesus Christ came in the flesh is from God, and every spirit which puts Jesus asunder is not from God, and this is Antichrist. But what does putting Jesus as under consist in if not in separating his human nature from him, and in voiding, through the most barefaced fictions, the one mystery by which we have been saved?"

Jesus' human nature was necessary for our salvation and one can't separate His physical humanity from His Divinity and hope at salvation.
BoDers are doing essentially the same as the Monophysites did to our Savior by separating salvation from His physical body and the physical sacrament of baptism.

Could God have saved us by not becoming man? Yes, but the fact is he did and is now a necessity for our salvation.
Could he save without the Sacraments? Yes, but He is the one who said it was necessary so it is.

If sanctification is one with the water of Baptism and can't be separated, then how can they be separated as you say? Because that is what you are saying they are separate.

MRyan Wed Dec 22, 2010 4:59 pm

duckbill wrote:
Haydock did not have to mention it, they mean the same thing. The SPIRIT (of sanctification) and the BLOOD (of Redemption) and the Water (of Baptism) bear witness to his humanity, and are one; that is, all agree in one testimony and witness one and the same truth, and none of them is separable from its LINK with the other (“these three are one and remain indivisible”).

Again, the "LINK" that makes the Spirit of Regeneration and the Blood of Redemption and the Water of Baptism "inseparable" and "indivisible" is the testimony that they all bear witness to the same truth: Christ's humanity, just as the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost all bear witness to Christ's divinity.

Context is king. I think Witham, Challoner and Haydock had a better grasp of the traditional sense (of the Church Fathers) of the Gospel of St. John referenced by Pope St. Leo in his dogmatic letter to Flavian.

Re-reading it I guess we are saying the same thing. Haydock is saying Jesus' humanity is necessary for our salvation-- letter to Flavian says:
"Every spirit which confesses that Jesus Christ came in the flesh is from God, and every spirit which puts Jesus asunder is not from God, and this is Antichrist. But what does putting Jesus as under consist in if not in separating his human nature from him, and in voiding, through the most barefaced fictions, the one mystery by which we have been saved?"

Jesus' human nature was necessary for our salvation and one can't separate His physical humanity from His Divinity and hope at salvation.
BoDers are doing essentially the same as the Monophysites did to our Savior by separating salvation from His physical body and the physical sacrament of baptism.

Duckbill, I know it is not your intention, but you are essentially accusing the Roman Catholic Church of the heresy of Monophysism. Of course, it does not appear that you accept the Church’s ordinary and authentic teaching on BoB/BoD, but you know what the CCC and the Catechism of Trent and Canon Law say, and yet you treat these official documents and teachings with the same respect as you do “BoDers” when you accuse the latter of doing essentially the same as what “the Monophysites did to our Savior by separating salvation from His physical body and the physical sacrament of baptism.”

When you accuse “BoDers” of “essential” heresy, you accuse the Church. "BoDers" don’t make it up; they cite the authentic teachings of the Church as their primary source.

Can you show a little respect towards the authority of the Church, even if you dispute the authority of certain teachings?

I’m still not sure how you can compare BoD to an alleged “separating salvation from His physical body and the physical sacrament of baptism.” First you seem to acknowledge the context of St. Leo’s letter and St. John’s teaching on the Spirit, the Water and the Blood, and that “these three are one” since they give testimony to our Lord’s humanity; but you then turn right around and take what appears to be the Bro's. Dimond approach by imposing your own “literal” interpretation which suggests that without water baptism, there can be no Blood Redemption or Spirit of Sanctification, for these three are one and inseparable. Thus; no water, no salvation - end of story.

You don’t seem to realize that your argument is a total non sequitur.

Can you explain to me how the water and blood of Christ’s humanity were transmitted to our Blessed Mother and to John the Baptist by the Holy Spirit without the water of baptism? Can you explain how, as Trent teaches, “the merit of that same most holy Passion, the charity of God [was] poured forth, by the Holy Spirit, in the hearts of those that [were] justified, and is inherent therein” - without material water?

Did our Lord suspend his own immutable “dogma” by separating His humanity (water and blood) from the Spirit of Sanctification?

Does our Lord exhibit Monophysite tendencies when He sanctifies a soul, repels sin and abides therein, prior to water baptism?

Wait, I believe that you reject any idea of sanctification “by the desire thereof”. I have to admit, that makes it pretty clean, even if there might be less than 10 Catholics on the whole planet who have ever believed that.

duckbill wrote:Could God have saved us by not becoming man? Yes, but the fact is he did and is now a necessity for our salvation.
Could he save without the Sacraments? Yes, but He is the one who said it was necessary so it is.

Absolutely, we are in total agreement. In fact, as a divine precept, the sacrament of baptism is necessary as a necessity of means to every man without exception.

See how it easy it is when we agree? silent

duckbill wrote:If sanctification is one with the water of Baptism and can't be separated, then how can they be separated as you say? Because that is what you are saying they are separate.

Water baptism is not “SEPARABLE FROM ITS LINK WITH THE OTHERS” - without dividing Christ’s one human-divine nature. Each testifies to the same truth of His humanity, which is why they are one and indivisible. This has nothing to do with justification by baptism or its desire, let alone salvation by the same effects.

You are such a “literalist”, why don’t you read and acknowledge the actual words of the Letter? The specific context of “not separable” or “indivisible” is that the Spirit, the Blood and the Water are NOT SEPARABLE with ITS LINK with the others.

And what is its inseparable LINK with the others? It is the TESTIMONY that they all bear witness to the same truth: Christ's humanity, just as the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost all bear witness to Christ's divinity.

In other words, Christ’s humanity cannot be separated from His Divinity, they are ONE human-divine nature, and there are three that give testimony to His humanity, the Water of Baptism, the Blood of Regeneration and the Spirit of Sanctification - and these three are one and indivisible because of the identical testimony they give.

Patience … is a virtue. Shocked

HolyRussia Wed Dec 22, 2010 9:49 pm

MRyan,

And, to your point, it was the same under the Old Law. The Jews were not exempt from the law (such as circumcision). However, they were justified by faith and charity; or an explicit Faith in God which included an implicit faith in our Lord.

Although your language ("it was the same under the Old Law") helps my argument immensely - my argument being nothing has changed in the way the Church explains all of this, what the Church said in Trent notwithstanding - I take it you are saying that the "change" is that one must now have explicit faith in Christ. Fine, but the language of the passage of Trent, which speaks of the laver or the desire for it, makes no mention of explicit faith in Christ being necessary. And let us remember, the context is that justification "cannot be effected" sine since the promulgation of the gospel, the sine being the laver or the desire for it, not explicit faith in Christ.

You know some of your cohorts still find an implicit faith capable of leading to justification, even "since the promulgation." This is nonsense, at least to me. And makes Trent a rhapsody of words, a mere rhapsody of words. There is nothing wrong with a rhapsody of words if one is engaging in poetry. I am very fond of poetry. However, when one is speaking as the oracle of God, and infallibly, and defining and pronouncing upon Truth . . . mere rhapsody is intolerable.

Which is why I find the Catholic Church with its "infallible" expressions and reversals, which their army of faithful theologians, lay and professional, labor to "explain" and reconcile, proof positive that an interior revelation and movement wrought of grace by the Holy Ghost (you are right, this is what it comes down to, and God is not bound by the sacraments) which led me from this fold was not delusional . . .

Guest Wed Dec 22, 2010 10:21 pm

HolyRussia, so you must be Eastern Orthodox then right?

Guest Thu Dec 23, 2010 11:57 am

[quote]

MRyan wrote:Duckbill, I know it is not your intention, but you are essentially accusing the Roman Catholic Church of the heresy of Monophysism. Of course, it does not appear that you accept the Church’s ordinary and authentic teaching on BoB/BoD, but you know what the CCC and the Catechism of Trent and Canon Law say, and yet you treat these official documents and teachings with the same respect as you do “BoDers” when you accuse the latter of doing essentially the same as what “the Monophysites did to our Savior by separating salvation from His physical body and the physical sacrament of baptism.”

When you accuse “BoDers” of “essential” heresy, you accuse the Church. "BoDers" don’t make it up; they cite the authentic teachings of the Church as their primary source.

Can you show a little respect towards the authority of the Church, even if you dispute the authority of certain teachings?

I am sorry if it came across that I was accusing you or other BoDers of heresy. I understand this has been a confusing topic for awhile with saints on both sides. That was not my intention. Like the pope I may say things that are misunderstood and thank you for excusing me and giving me a chance to reconsider my words Very Happy

My point was although Jesus' humanity is an instrumental cause, it is in fact, in our reality, essential--intrinsic necessity of means ( as you say). His bodily resurrection is essential as St. Paul says: "if Christ has not been raised your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins. " (1Cor. 15:17)

The Sacrament of Baptism is also an intrinsic necessity of means because one can not become one of the Faithful without the Sacramental seal/mark of Baptism, by intrinsic necessity, it cannot be had in any other way. BoD nor BoB give this seal on the soul.(I could quote the proof of this statement, just ask bounce

)
Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, 1943,#18:
"Through the waters of Baptism those who are born into this world dead in sin are not only born again and made members of the Church, but being stamped with a spiritual seal they become able and fit to receive the other Sacraments."

To be able to receive the sacraments means that one is one of the Faithful, i.e. member of the Church.
Being one of the Faithful is essential to being saved as stated :
Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, Constitution 1, 1215, dogmatically proclained: “There is indeed one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which nobody at all is saved, in which Jesus Christ is both priest and sacrifice.”

The Church Father's draw a sharp distinction between the catechumen and one of the Faithful:
St. Augustine (Tract. in Joannem, xliv, 2; P.L., XXXV, 1714): "Ask a man: are you a Christian? If he be a pagan or a Jew, he will reply: I am not a Christian. But if he say: I am a Christian, ask him again: are you a catechumen, or one of the faithful?" http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05769a.htm

My understanding of the Dogmatic Letter to Flavian seems to be the same as Abroses's on the same point that of justification/sanctification, which cannot be separated from the Sacramental (water) Baptism:

St. Ambrose, De mysteriis, 390-391 A.D.:

“You have read, therefore, that the three witnesses in Baptism are one: water, blood, and the spirit; and if you withdraw any one of these, the Sacrament of Baptism is not valid. For what is water without the cross of Christ? A common element without any sacramental effect. Nor on the other hand is there any mystery of regeneration without water: for ‘unless a man be born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.’ [John 3] Even a catechumen believes in the cross of the Lord Jesus, by which also he is signed; but, unless he be baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, he cannot receive the remission of sins nor be recipient of the gift of spiritual grace.”[Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 2: 1330] although not the whole quote here is the best I could find on the nethttp://www.catholic.com/library/Born_Again_in_Baptism.asp

So Flavian, Ambrose, and Duckbill are one Cool

MRyan Thu Dec 23, 2010 12:54 pm

HolyRussia wrote:
You know some of your cohorts still find an implicit faith capable of leading to justification, even "since the promulgation." This is nonsense, at least to me. And makes Trent a rhapsody of words, a mere rhapsody of words. There is nothing wrong with a rhapsody of words if one is engaging in poetry. I am very fond of poetry. However, when one is speaking as the oracle of God, and infallibly, and defining and pronouncing upon Truth . . . mere rhapsody is intolerable.

Which is why I find the Catholic Church with its "infallible" expressions and reversals, which their army of faithful theologians, lay and professional, labor to "explain" and reconcile, proof positive that an interior revelation and movement wrought of grace by the Holy Ghost (you are right, this is what it comes down to, and God is not bound by the sacraments) which led me from this fold was not delusional . . .

So tell us, HolyRussia, where you will find the one true Church which can speak as the oracle of God, and infallibly, and defining and pronouncing upon the truth … which does not speak the alleged “nonsense” of the Catholic Church, “with their army” of popes, bishops and “faithful theologians, lay and professional, [who] labor to explain’ and reconcile, proof positive that an interior revelation and movement wrought of grace by the Holy Ghost (you are right, this is what it comes down to, and God is not bound by the sacraments) which led me from this fold was not delusional . . .”?

Will you find such an oracle in the Orthodox Church?

Think again.

Any even superficial research into what the Orthodox believe (whether Greek or Russian) with respect to EENS will reveal that they teach the same “nonsense” as the Catholic Church. In fact, in reading what their theologians have to say, whether from the patristic or the more scholastic school of Russian theology (to include “the famous Russian theologian of the last century, A. S. Khomyakov” and even the much revered St. Maximus the Confessor), what we find is an amazing consistency in doctrine that so closely mirrors the Catholic “nonsense” of which you speak, one might even suspect that there was and is some sort of collusion to teach the same truth, even if we disagree on where one finds the true Church.

I would appreciate hearing any thoughts you might have on the article “Is There Salvation Outside the Old-Calendar Orthodox Church?” by Seraphim Johnson, Protopresbyter, found here:

http://www.homb.org/resources/docs/is-there-salvation-outside-the-old-calendar-orthodox-church.pdf?PHPSESSID=c9ea70fddefa55662103739ab0f2aae0

Here’s a representative sampling:

From “a well-known Russian theologian of this century”:

But the limits of the Church beyond death and the possibilities for salvation for those who have not known the light in this life, remain a mystery of the divine mercy for us, on which we dare not count, but to which we cannot place any human bonds. (Lossky, V., The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church, p. 235)

One more:

And the famous Russian theologian of the last century, A. S. Khomyakov, expressed the same ideas:

"Inasmuch as the earthly and visible Church is not the fullness and completeness of the whole Church which the Lord has appointed to appear at the final judgement of all creation, she acts and knows only within her own limits; and (according to the words of Paul the Apostle, to the Corinthians, 1 Cor. 5.12) does not judge the rest of mankind, and only looks upon those as excluded, that is to say, not belonging to her, who exclude themselves. The rest of mankind, whether alien from the Church, or united to her by ties which God has not willed to reveal to her, she leaves to the judgement of the great day. The Church on earth judges for herself only, according to the grace of the Spirit, and the freedom granted her through Christ, inviting also the rest of mankind to the unity and adoption of God in Christ; but upon those who do not hear her appeal she pronounces no sentence, knowing the command of her Saviour and Head, 'not to judge another man's servant' (Rom. 14.4)." (Khomyakov, A. S., The Church is One, section 2; p. 18)

Well, you get the idea … “nonsense” and "delusion" through and through; and these are your new "cohorts", no?

HolyRussia Thu Dec 23, 2010 5:20 pm

MRyan,

From “a well-known Russian theologian of this century”:

But the limits of the Church beyond death and the possibilities for salvation for those who have not known the light in this life, remain a mystery of the divine mercy for us, on which we dare not count, but to which we cannot place any human bonds. (Lossky, V., The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church, p. 235)

One more:

And the famous Russian theologian of the last century, A. S. Khomyakov, expressed the same ideas:

"Inasmuch as the earthly and visible Church is not the fullness and completeness of the whole Church which the Lord has appointed to appear at the final judgement of all creation, she acts and knows only within her own limits; and (according to the words of Paul the Apostle, to the Corinthians, 1 Cor. 5.12) does not judge the rest of mankind, and only looks upon those as excluded, that is to say, not belonging to her, who exclude themselves. The rest of mankind, whether alien from the Church, or united to her by ties which God has not willed to reveal to her, she leaves to the judgement of the great day. The Church on earth judges for herself only, according to the grace of the Spirit, and the freedom granted her through Christ, inviting also the rest of mankind to the unity and adoption of God in Christ; but upon those who do not hear her appeal she pronounces no sentence, knowing the command of her Saviour and Head, 'not to judge another man's servant' (Rom. 14.4)." (Khomyakov, A. S., The Church is One, section 2; p. 18)

Very good. I have no problem with the above. And the reason why I formerly had a big problem (as I struggled along as a Roman Catholic) with the above was a little thing called "consistency," namely, squaring so-called "infallible" statements about "no salvation outside the church" and the "necessity of baptism as means" and other "infallible" statements of that ilk with the above. That circle don't square.

Which is why I have nothing but deep respect for the "Feeneyites" on this site and in the Church, having formerly aligned myself with them. It is the only consistent position, the only one with eyes to see a duck as a duck, and the honesty to call it a duck. Feeneyites hold the Church to its word, God bless them.

I see you espouse the theory of the best defense being a good offense. Now that I again have the ball, why don't you tell me what is different "since the promulgation of the gospel," as the Church has "infallibly" declared that, since that time, justification CANNOT BE EFFECTED without the laver, or the desire for it? Yet presumably you have people being joined to the Mystical Body still by bonds of faith and charity having nothing to do with the laver or the desire for it, just like in the good old days of Noah, Abraham, et al.

Still.

And, again, what "infallible" Trent says nothwithstanding.

HR

HolyRussia Thu Dec 23, 2010 5:30 pm

Rasha,

HolyRussia, so you must be Eastern Orthodox then right?

Yes, I was, and should be, by the grace of God - literally. I was born and raised Catholic, married Catholic, and later in life, having lost all faith, had my conversion experience and joined the Orthodox Church. I later renounced this blessing, confessed to a Catholic priest and once again became Catholic - due to familial pressures and convenience. I have paid for that, emotionally, spiritually . . .

I have nothing against the Catholic Church, except that many of its "infallible" claims, ironically made since the True Church split into its Eastern and Western camps, are a fraud.

I have friends here, dear friends, whom I will always give audience to and dialogue with. And so I am here.

You are doing a great job with this site, Rasha, and it is blooming. Good luck with it.

HR

Guest Thu Dec 23, 2010 8:13 pm

HolyRussia wrote:Rasha,

HolyRussia, so you must be Eastern Orthodox then right?

Yes, I was, and should be, by the grace of God - literally. I was born and raised Catholic, married Catholic, and later in life, having lost all faith, had my conversion experience and joined the Orthodox Church. I later renounced this blessing, confessed to a Catholic priest and once again became Catholic - due to familial pressures and convenience. I have paid for that, emotionally, spiritually . . .

I have nothing against the Catholic Church, except that many of its "infallible" claims, ironically made since the True Church split into its Eastern and Western camps, are a fraud.

I have friends here, dear friends, whom I will always give audience to and dialogue with. And so I am here.

You are doing a great job with this site, Rasha, and it is blooming. Good luck with it.

HR

You my have grounds to join the Greek Catholic rite or just attend. Many trads. and "Feeneyites" attend eastern liturgies. Most major cities have other Catholic rites.

MRyan Thu Dec 23, 2010 8:31 pm

HolyRussia, I owe you a response ... and shall get to it when time permits. It would help, in the interim, if you can identify those many alleged "infallible" fraudulent claims of the Roman Catholic Church.

Thanks

HolyRussia Fri Dec 24, 2010 3:32 am

MRyan,

Well, we're dealing with one of the more salient examples from Trent. Again:

And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof

This "infallibly" says that one cannot be justified "without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof" since the promulgation of the gospel. Justification "cannot be effected" without one or the other, the laver or the desire for it.

But it turns out that this "infallible" statement is not so "infallible," because justification CAN BE EFFECTED by faith and charity, indeed "without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof," but, ironically and unfortunately, Trent used that very formulation to say the opposite.

As you have shown, the Church says elsewhere in its teachings that justification can be effected by the bonds of faith and charity without the laver or the desire for it - though we have the intellectual magicians with their sleight of brain telling us that such and such is a "desire for the laver" when the laver doesn't even exist in the desiring mind. This is more grotesque than the contradiction itself. Anyway, the "infallible" pronouncement of Trent is thus rendered false by the very authority that pronounced it. I did not mean to be harsh in calling it a fraud, but the arrogance of the claim to infallibility by an authority that plainly and grossly contradicts itself brings out the worst in me.

Truth does not contradict itself. The law of contradiction is "infallible," and for that we may thank Aristotle or some other Greek philosopher, and not the "infallible" Catholic Church, which does not appear to be so "infallible" after all.

I could move on to the doctrine of extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the "infallible" expression of it in the Council of Florence, but I'll await your response.

HR

MRyan Fri Dec 24, 2010 3:02 pm

HolyRussia wrote:MRyan,

Well, we're dealing with one of the more salient examples from Trent. Again:

And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof

This "infallibly" says that one cannot be justified "without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof" since the promulgation of the gospel. Justification "cannot be effected" without one or the other, the laver or the desire for it.

But it turns out that this "infallible" statement is not so "infallible," because justification CAN BE EFFECTED by faith and charity, indeed "without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof," but, ironically and unfortunately, Trent used that very formulation to say the opposite.

As you have shown, the Church says elsewhere in its teachings that justification can be effected by the bonds of faith and charity without the laver or the desire for it - though we have the intellectual magicians with their sleight of brain telling us that such and such is a "desire for the laver" when the laver doesn't even exist in the desiring mind. This is more grotesque than the contradiction itself. Anyway, the "infallible" pronouncement of Trent is thus rendered false by the very authority that pronounced it. I did not mean to be harsh in calling it a fraud, but the arrogance of the claim to infallibility by an authority that plainly and grossly contradicts itself brings out the worst in me.

Truth does not contradict itself. The law of contradiction is "infallible," and for that we may thank Aristotle or some other Greek philosopher, and not the "infallible" Catholic Church, which does not appear to be so "infallible" after all.

I could move on to the doctrine of extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the "infallible" expression of it in the Council of Florence, but I'll await your response.

HR

There is no contradiction, let alone a “grotesque” magical trick or “sleight of brain telling us that such and such is a ‘desire for the laver’ when the laver doesn't even exist in the desiring mind.”

Why would you think that by infallibly stating that justification cannot be effected "without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof", Trent was “infallibly” declaring that this “desire”, vow or intention must be “explicit”, and could not be implicit in one’s explicit faith and explicit intention (and charity) to do all that God and the Church commands?

Did Trent use the word “explicit” in this declaration? Did it even mention the terms “faith” or “perfect contrition” in this particular passage? No, it simply identified that which cannot be lacking for justification, without giving a full explanation or going into any detail on the other necessary dispositions which are included in “the desire thereof” -- beyond the obvious stated requirement of desire for the sacrament.

How did you know that "faith and charity" is implicit in "baptism or the desire thereof"?

This is why we have a Church - to explain to the Faithful what she means by her own dogmatic declarations, and in the same sense she has always understood them.

As a way of backing into this, I just saw the “Fr. Z’s Sentimetnal Theology” post and it reminded me of the original “Sentimental Theology” article by Br. Francis Maluf, M.I.C.M. which first appeared in the late 1940’s, and was reprinted October 28th, 2004 (http://catholicism.org/sentimental-theology.html). Here is part of what Br. Francis wrote regarding the desire for baptism (my emphasis):

Baptism of desire is a desire for the baptism of water and not a wish for the baptism of desire. 7 Only a man who does not know about baptism, and who has not rejected it explicitly, can be supposed in any sense to have an equivalent or virtual desire for it.

In what appears to be an attempt to walk this back, footnote 7 (a later addition) states:

7 As has been shown in other writings from St. Benedict Center, all allusions by the popes, the councils and learned doctors of the Church to this subject matter agree, that only an explicit desire for the actual Sacrament of Baptism can affect justification. What is disputed is whether such desire is sufficient for salvation. We hold with many of the saints the same literal meaning of Our Lord’s words: “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; he that believeth not shall be condemned.” (Mk. XVI:15)

Even the Catechism of the Catholic Church confirms and teaches that the desire of the catechumen for the sacrament must be “explicit”; however, Br. Francis is making a specific reference “to a man who does not know about baptism” who, obviously, “has not rejected it explicitly”. What the St. Benedict Center would subsequently write on this subject does not change what Br. Francis wrote in the original article where he concedes that a man can have an “equivalent”, “virtual” or implicit “desire for it” - the sacrament of baptism. Btw, “Reply to a Liberal Part III: Baptism” by Raymond Karam (FROM THE HOUSETOPS, Vol. III, No. 3, Spring, 1949) has a section on the Church’s traditional teaching on “The Meaning of Baptism of Blood and Baptism of the Spirit”. Only later would the SBC reject this traditional teaching. However, even here, we would do well to consider what Br. Thomas Mary Sennott said concerning this matter in "Is Laisneyism Catholic?" (emphasis mine):

Father Feeney was a great theologian, but he was also a professional rhetorician; he taught Sacred Eloquence at the Jesuit Seminary at Weston. Father would try out a tentative idea on us, and sometimes the more tentative it was in his own mind, the more vehement he became in its presentation. He used to humorously call these rhetorical outbursts "de Feeney definita.” He used to say "my danger is that I can make anything sound plausible." Of course he never did this with some well established truth. All Father Feeney's speculations on Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood are of this de Feeney definita variety. In other words they are pure speculations and nothing else. I had written in They Fought the Good Fight:

"The newspaper reporters would often ask Father Feeney 'what would you do if the Pope came out and defined that there is salvation outside the Church.' Father Feeney would reply, 'but the Pope couldn't do that.' 'Why not they would ask, 'he's the Pope isn't he?' Father Feeney would say, 'God can't contradict Himself; the Holy Ghost would prevent him.' The reporters would fall silent, but I suspect remain unconvinced.

"Father Feeney's opinion on the absolute necessity of Baptism for salvation, which developed only after his condemnation, was never the subject of reporter's questions. But if a reporter had asked, 'what would you do if the Pope said that a catechumen who had faith and charity, but died before the reception of Baptism, could be saved?' Father Feeney I am sure, would have answered, 'I would submit immediately.' 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."(6)

In a second edition of They Fought the Good Fight which has never been published, I added:

"Father Feeney was strongly attracted to this opinion of St. Augustine, but there is nothing from the Solemn Magisterium to settle the matter. To make this particular point then, the essential part of Father Feeney's "doctrinal crusade," is to reduce the crusade to a mere theological opinion. As Fr. Dennis Smith writes: 'My rule of thumb is whenever presenting a doctrinal position, stick with authoritative sources; "my saint tops your saint" or "my commentator tops your commentator" is a game no one can win. In the end it is only what the Church says which really counts.' The Church has not yet told us who was correct on this particular point, St. Thomas or St. Augustine, but she has told us that there is no salvation without her, and that is what really matters."

Actually, St. Augustine and St. Thomas taught the same doctrine; and, even if they didn’t, “In the end it is only what the Church says which really counts”.

Sorry for the detour; but I suspect I know why Br. Francis acknowledged the possibility of a “virtual” desire. Earlier in the article he makes reference to the much abused slogans in vogue among Catholics (then and now) such as “Salvation by sincerity”, “Membership in the soul of the Church” and “Isn’t faith a gift?”, and of course, “How about the baptism of desire?” “And so on and so forth.”

But, Br. Francis continues:

“I am not concerned with these phrases as they might occur in a theological treatise with sufficient explanations and with only proportionate emphasis. I am rather concerned with a practical attitude of mind which seeks and selects precisely these phrases and builds them into a closed system of thought, ready to justify every act of cowardice, disloyalty to the Church, or encouragement to infidels and heretics who have set themselves up as teachers of religion.”

We may rightly infer from this that Br. Francis is saying that there is a legitimate use of the terms such as “baptism of desire” as it “might occur in a theological treatise with sufficient explanations and with only proportionate emphasis”, and that this “use” and “explanation” that is most clearly presented in the common teachings and theological treatises -- is that of the Angelic Doctor, who proposed:

As stated above (1, ad 2; 68, 2) man receives the forgiveness of sins before Baptism in so far as he has Baptism of desire, explicitly or implicitly; and yet when he actually receives Baptism, he receives a fuller remission, as to the remission of the entire punishment. So also before Baptism Cornelius and others like him receive grace and virtues through their faith in Christ and their desire for Baptism, implicit or explicit: but afterwards when baptized, they receive a yet greater fullness of grace and virtues. Hence in Psalm 22:2, "He hath brought me up on the water of refreshment," a gloss says: "He has brought us up by an increase of virtue and good deeds in Baptism. Yet catechumens who die without baptism can be saved but only as through fire. That is, they are absolved of eternal punishment, not temporal punishment." STh III, q. 69, a. 4.

What St. Aquinas is saying is that the act of Faith must be explicit while it suffices for the desire of baptism itself to be implicit since “he who desires the whole desires necessarily every part of that whole.”

This traditional teaching was confirmed by St. Alphonsus Liguori, another Doctor of the Church, in his commentary on the Works of the Council of Trent, where he states:

Who can deny that the act of perfect love of God, which is sufficient for justification, includes an implicit desire of Baptism, of Penance, and of the Eucharist. He who wishes the whole wishes the every part of that whole and all the means necessary for its attainment. In order to be justified without baptism, an infidel must love God above all things, and must have an universal will to observe all the divine precepts, among which the first is to receive baptism: and therefore in order to be justified it is necessary for him to have at least an implicit desire of that sacrament.

So, this distinction between the explicit desire required of the catechumen who has been instructed in the faith, and the “infidel” who is not aware of the necessity of the divine precept, but has the requisite explicit faith, charity and intention, has always been recognized by the Church.

Anyone who would call the Church’s teaching on implicit desire “a fraud” is the one who is guilty of “arrogance” for assuming for oneself the “infallible” authority to determine for the Church what she means by her own doctrines.

Sorry, HolyRussia (well; I’m not), but you are barking up the wrong “infallible” tree.

HolyRussia Sun Dec 26, 2010 3:47 am

MRyan,

Why would you think that by infallibly stating that justification cannot be effected "without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof", Trent was “infallibly” declaring that this “desire”, vow or intention must be “explicit”, and could not be implicit in one’s explicit faith and explicit intention (and charity) to do all that God and the Church commands?

I only know what Trent says. It says the means of justification are now different since the promulgation of the gospel; there has been a change in the economy of salvation. You concede this. Trent says that justification "cannot be effected" without these new means. It plainly lays these means down as a sine qua non: without them justification "cannot be effected."

Your argument has a number of problems, the first being, if the de minimis desire can be implicit, then there is a means of justification now, since the promulgation of the gospel, which is the same as that which existed prior to the promulgation of the gospel. This renders the exclusivity of the "new" means that Trent trumpets and emphasizes with its "since the promulgation" and "cannot be effected" false. You cannot claim that Trent is only indicating a change in the "extrinsic means," the sacramentary or "law" means, with the same "intrinsic" means of faith and charity still applying, because of Trent's bold and clear drawing of that line in the sand: the means have changed "since the promulgation of the gospel," and justification now "cannot be effected" without utilizing the changed means.

To put it simply: if an "implicit desire" for baptism suffices, then the only change is in the "extrinsic means," and justification can be effected without those means. Call me a simpleton, arrogant, whatever, but I will read this passage on its plain terms, which are that the means for justification period (forget your fancy distinction between "intrinsic" and "extrinsic") have changed, and that now, "since the promulgation of the gospel," justification "cannot be effected" without these new means. That "cannot be effected" language precludes these new means being a merely "extrinsic" change in the way justification is now worked.

To make it clear that the way of "implied baptism of desire" is a way that was available to the saints under the old dispensation, all you have to do is look at the definition of an implied desire for baptism:

Fr. A. Tanquery

Dogmatic Brevior, ART.IV, Section I,II - 1945 (1024-5)

The Baptism of Desire. Contrition, or perfect charity, with at least an implicit desire for Baptism, supplies in adults the place of the baptism of water as respects the forgiveness of sins.
This is certain.
Explanation: a) An implicit desire for Baptism, that is, one that is included in a general purpose of keeping all the commandments of God is, as all agree, sufficient in one who is invincibly ignorant of the law of Baptism . . .

Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston, August 8, 1949

However, this desire need not always be explicit, as it is in catechumens; but when a person is involved in invincible ignorance God accepts also an implicit desire, so called because it is included in that good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God.

A general purpose of keeping the commandments of God, or of wishing to conform one's will to the will of God - these are the ways men have always been justified.
I therefore cannot accept Trent's trumpeted and dramatic articulation of a change in means "since the promulgation of the gospel" such that now justification "cannot be effected" without these new means as including an implicit desire that was a means of justification of the Old Testament saints.

I suspect you know what the stakes are, and know you can't evade Trent's language which clearly indicates things are different now such that justification "cannot be effected" now as it was formerly. This is why I believe you indicate that now "explicit faith" is required. If you only mean to indicate that "explicit faith" in God is required, well, again, then nothing has changed "since the promulgation of the gospel." Which would leave your argument subject to the same criticism as I indicate above - such "explicit faith" (you quote Liguori, who describes this requirement as being that one "must love God above all things, and must have an universal will to observe all the divine precepts") was always required for justification, and not just "since the promulgation of the gospel."

Or do you mean, as St. Thomas does, that "explicit faith" now, since the promulgation of the gospel, requires faith in Christ? That would indeed be a change in the means of justification that signals a new requirement since the promulgation. The only problem you would have here is that the Catholic Church has not indicated that one must have "explicit faith" in Christ to be justified in the gospel age. If in fact Trent is indicating in the passage under discussion that one must now have such "explicit faith," then the Catholic Church is contradicting Trent, or doesn't understand its own pronouncement in Trent. I'll cite one source saying it is an "open" question as to whether such "explicit faith" in Christ is required, and another, one of the manuals the Catholic Church uses for instruction in the faith, which indicates that it is not:

“A Manual Of Catholic Theology, Based On Scheeben's ‘Dogmatik’, With A Preface By Cardinal Manning”.

Quote:
SECT. 45. — Necessity of Faith.

2. It is an open question whether, after Christ's coming, Faith in the Christian economy is not indispensable. Many texts in Holy Scripture seem to demand Faith in Christ, in His death and resurrection, as a necessary condition of salvation. On the other hand, it is not easy to understand how eternal salvation should have become impossible for those who are unable to arrive at an explicit knowledge of Christian Revelation. The best solution of the difficulty would seem to be that given by Suarez (De Fide, disp. xii., sect. iv.). The texts demanding Faith in Christ and the Blessed Trinity must not be interpreted more rigorously than those referring to the necessity of Baptism, especially as Faith in Christ, Faith in the Blessed Trinity, and the necessity of Baptism are closely connected together. The Faith in these mysteries is, like Baptism, the ordinary normal means of salvation. Under extraordinary circumstances, however, when the actual reception of Baptism is impossible, the mere implicit desire (volum) suffices. So, too, the implicit desire to believe in Christ and the Trinity must be deemed sufficient. By “implicit desire” we mean the desire to receive, to believe, and to do whatever is needful for salvation, although what is to be received, believed, and done is not explicitly known. The implicit wish and willingness to believe in Christ must be accompanied by and connected with an explicit Faith in Divine Providence as having a care of our salvation ; and this Faith implies Faith and Hope in the Christian economy of salvation {see St. Thom., 2a 2ae, q. 2, a. 7). (Volume I, Third Edition, Revised, London, Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co., Lt. New York, Cincinnati, Chicago, Benziger Bros. 1906)

Compendium of the Catechism

262. Is it possible to be saved without Baptism?

1258-1261
1281-1283

Since Christ died for the salvation of all, those can be saved without Baptism who die for the faith (Baptism of blood). Catechumens and all those who, even without knowing Christ and the Church, still (under the impulse of grace) sincerely seek God and strive to do his will can also be saved without Baptism (Baptism of desire). The Church in her liturgy entrusts children who die without Baptism to the mercy of God.

If Trent was indicating that "explicit faith" in Christ is now required, someone should have told the writers of that manual, and of the Compendium. For that matter, someone should tell Pope Benedict XVI (then Cardinal Ratzinger):

Referring to a believing Jew, Cardinal Ratzinger clarified that "we are in agreement that a Jew, and this is true for believers of other religions, does not need to know or acknowledge Christ as the Son of God in order to be saved, if there are insurmountable impediments, of which he is not blameworthy, to preclude it. However, the fact that the Son of God entered history, made himself part of history, and is present as a reality in history, affects everyone.

This is why I call the passage in Trent not "infallible" but a fraud: the Catholic Church itself does not believe what it said in Trent, that there has been a change in the divine economy such that now justification "cannot be effected" without baptism or the desire for it. You, of course, tell me that I am wrong in how I read Trent, but I've given my reasons and analysis, and I think they are cogent. I don't know what more I can say, so I will listen to your response and "take it off the air" as they say on the radio.

HR

MRyan Mon Dec 27, 2010 3:19 pm

HolyRussia,

Actually, you don’t appear to know what Trent said, you know only what you think she said because of your own faulty and somewhat narrow, superficial and Pharisaical understanding of Trent and her teaching on how regeneration (the translation to justification) is effected. In other words, you have accused Trent of pinning the attainment of justification "exclusively" to the law of baptism or an “explicit" desire for the fulfillment of the divine and ecclesiastical law, rather than to the fulfillment of the spirit of the law (the same regeneration in Christ) by the means and bonds which are intrinsic to our justification/salvation:

As it is written (1 Samuel 16:7), "man seeth those things that appear, but the Lord beholdeth the heart." Now a man who desires to be "born again of water and the Holy Ghost" by Baptism, is regenerated in heart though not in body. thus the Apostle says (Romans 2:29) that "the circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not of men but of God." (Summa Theologica II, Q. 68, A. 2)

Your argument essentially reduces the “change in the economy of salvation” to one of a new means for the attainment of justification, as if the fundamental “change in the economy of salvation” is the INSTRUMENTAL MEANS, or the “explicit desire” for the INSTRUMENTAL MEANS, by which justification is now “exclusively” and solely effected (“without baptism or its 'explicit' desire, justification/salvation cannot be”).

You have, in essence, elevated the divinely instituted means for the attainment of justification (from which no man is exempt), or its "explicit" desire, to an intrinsic necessity of means; the same intrinsic necessity as supernatural faith, charity, sanctifying grace, and unity with our Lord in His Mystical Body.

In other words, the instrumental means has now become the end, or the very object for which it was instituted.

And that’s what you read in Trent.

I asked you “How did you know that 'faith and charity' is implicit in ‘baptism or the desire thereof’?”

No response? The fact of the matter is that Trent did not “define” in this particular passage the term “desire”, and neither did she intend to. But she does expect Catholics to understand what she means by “the desire thereof” (as she has always understood it) beyond its obvious reference to a desire for the sacrament.

For what good is a desire for the sacrament if charity is lacking? Implicit in “or its desire” is the doctrine that Justification cannot be effected by the desire for the sacrament without faith and charity.

In fact, Pope Eugene IV condemned the proposition which 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)

No, your “doctrine” suggests that Trent actually teaches that “it is not enough to be united with him in the bond of charity”, if that charity does not include at least an "explicit" desire for the sacrament of baptism; as if Trent rejects the traditional understanding which posits that justification cannot be effected by faith, vow/intention (to include an explicit or implicit intention/desire for the sacrament) and charity; no, you would have us believe that Trent declared (though no where did she say this) that this union cannot be effected without baptism, or its “explicit” desire (“a sine qua non: without them justification ‘cannot be effected.’")

If you really wish to understand the “change in the economy of salvation”, to where not only the ordinary means for the transmission of the merit of Christ’s blood would become a necessity of means (by divine institution), but the "giving or sending forth of the Holy Ghost after Christ's glorification was to be such as had never been before; not that there had been none before, but it had not been of the same kind" (St. Aug., De Trin., 1. iv. c. 20); perhaps you should read again DIVINUM ILLUD MUNUS (ON THE HOLY SPIRIT), by Pope Leo XIII (1897), of which this is a small part:

7. … 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; 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, for "as long as the heir is a child he differeth nothing from a servant, but is under tutors and governors" (Gal. iv., I, 2). 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, just as the price surpasses in value the earnest and the reality excels the image. Wherefore St. John declares: "As yet the Spirit was not given, because Jesus was not yet glorified" (John vii., 39). So soon, therefore, as Christ, "ascending on high," entered into possession of the glory of His Kingdom which He had won with so much labour, He munificently opened out the treasures of the Holy Ghost: "He gave gifts to men" (Eph. iv., Eight). For "that giving or sending forth of the Holy Ghost after Christ's glorification was to be such as had never been before; not that there had been none before, but it had not been of the same kind" (St. Aug., De Trin., 1. iv. c. 20).

…No one can express the greatness of this work of divine grace in the souls of men. Wherefore, both in Holy Scripture and in the writings of the fathers, men are styled regenerated, new creatures, partakers of the Divine Nature, children of God, god-like, and similar epithets. Now these great blessings are justly attributed as especially belonging to the Holy Ghost. He is "the Spirit of adoption of sons, whereby we cry: Abba, Father." He fills our hearts with the sweetness of paternal love: "The Spirit Himself giveth testimony to our spirit that we are the sons of God" (Rom. viii., 15-16). This truth accords with the similitude observed by the Angelic Doctor between both operations of the Holy Ghost; for through Him "Christ was conceived in holiness to be by nature the Son of God," and "others are sanctified to be the sons of God by adoption" (St. Th. 3a, q. xxxii., a. I). This spiritual generation proceeds from love in a much more noble manner than the natural: namely, from the untreated Love.

9. The beginnings of this regeneration and renovation of man are by Baptism. In this sacrament, when the unclean spirit has been expelled from the soul, the Holy Ghost enters in and makes it like to Himself. "That which is born of the Spirit, is spirit" (John iii., 6). The same Spirit gives Himself more abundantly in Confirmation, strengthening and confirming Christian life; from which proceeded the victory of the martyrs and the triumph of the virgins over temptations and corruptions. We have said that the Holy Ghost gives Himself: "the charity of God is poured out into our hearts by the Holy Ghost who is given to us" (Rom. v., 5).

Btw, HolyRussia, this encyclical “On The Holy Spirit” is filled with references to the teachings of St. Thomas Aquinas, yet you would have us believe that Trent discarded his teaching with respect to how the desire for the sacrament may be implicit in one’s faith and charity (“or the desire thereof”), and imposed on the faithful a new and “exclusive” “change in the economy of salvation” to where only baptism, or an “explicit” desire for the sacrament, can effect a translation to justification.

But you only know what you read; even if you must impose your own “interpretation” on the words themselves. Can you not see the circular logic and closed system of thought your arguments represent; arguments that cannot seem to think with the mind of the Church?

I will leave your “explicit faith” arguments and “complaints” for another post (too big a topic to address here). I think it will help if we keep these issues separate.

And there is no reason to "take it off the air". Let your arguments stand and fall by the weight of their merits. If I have demonstrated that they are, thus far, of little weight, it is your obligation to refute my arguments with something more than your idea of “cogent facts”, the likes of which simply dismiss important theological distinctions which have long been recognized by the Church and her Doctors and theologians such as Sts. Aquinas and Liguori, and every saint and theologian in-between who ever weighed in on this subject.

Roguejim Mon Dec 27, 2010 10:37 pm

Mryan states:

"Yes, Trent plainly teaches that the means are different "since the promulgation of the gospel", and those means are, as you acknowledge, baptism or the desire thereof. Both effect the same end, regeneration in Christ as sons of God and heirs to the kingdom. As a divine and ecclesiastical institution, the sacrament of baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation; in other words, it is necessary to all men without exception. No one is exempt from the law. However, this necessity of means does not necessarily mean that its essential effect cannot be effected by another means because, as the Church teaches, God is not bound by His sacraments to effect the same end - regeneration.

That is not a contradiction, it is recognizing the distinction between intrinsic necessity (“without which something cannot be”) and extrinsic necessity (arriving at the same end by another means). In each case it is God who effects the same end for the justice of God is the alone formal cause of our justification and He does not necessarily bind Himself to the instrumental cause of water baptism. And in each case we “are renewed in the spirit of our mind, and we are not only reputed, but are truly called, and are, just, receiving justice within us, each one according to his own measure, which the Holy Ghost distributes to every one as He wills, and according to each one's proper disposition and co-operation.” (Trent , Sess. 6, Ch 7)

...Because St. Thomas understood the difference between that which is necessary as an intrinsic necessity of means, i.e., Faith, charity and sanctifying grace, which are the very essence of one's eternal salvation (what begins here, is perfected in the kingdom), and the institutional helps which provide the means for effecting this translation to the kingdom.

In other words, the institutional Church and the sacraments are temporary helps instituted by our Lord to aid us in attaining sanctification and salvation (they are not intrinsic to our salvation). On the other hand, Faith, charity and sanctifying grace are intrinsic to our salvation and so absolutely necessary that without any one of them, salvation “cannot be”.

One man's critique(not mine):
"1. The man is correct when saying that one may be justified prior to the reception of the sacraments, as, I believe, you already knew. Most of what he says is seeking to prove this.

2. He falls when he drives a wedge between "the institutional church and the sacraments" on the one hand and "Faith, charity and sanctifying grace" on the other. "Faith" cannot be separated from "the faith of the Church," for we GET faith from the Church. "Charity" cannot be separated from the communion of the Church, wherein charity is practiced. (Schism, recall, is a sin against charity, while heresy is a sin against faith.) Lastly, the "institutional Church" can only be logically distinguished, but not logically separated from the Mystical Body of Christ. Pope Pius XII condemned that separation in Mystici Corporis.

3. I would not cram the "no baptism of desire" idea into this man. But I would try to make the points I made in No. 2, above. The way he writes, one would think the Incarnation -- and therefore the incarnate reality of the Church -- was somewhat superfluous of God."

MRyan Tue Dec 28, 2010 12:14 am

Roguejim,

I suppose that it is by design that “the man” who took the liberty to “critique” my post remains anonymous; but as far as I am concerned, his critique fails on all counts, and resoundingly so. Let him put his name behind his “critiques”, for I do not like debating phantoms who offer such fallacious and deficient “critiques” under the cover of anonymity (outside of this forum).

I reject every one of his assertions. I did not drive a wedge between "the institutional church and the sacraments"; I did not drive a wedge between “Faith” (or any other theological virtue) and "the Church," and never once did I suggest that the “institutional church” can be "logically separated" from the Mystical Body of Christ.

I don’t have time for such shallow "analysis".

[... Deleted by MRyan .. enough said ... let those non-forum members who wish to "critique" my posts with something more than arguments of straw, come out of the darkness]

HolyRussia Tue Dec 28, 2010 2:28 am

MRyan,

Can you not see the circular logic and closed system of thought your arguments represent; arguments that cannot seem to think with the mind of the Church?

No, I can't. And I have no interest in thinking with the mind of the Catholic Church.

The Catholic Church likes to say things like, "there is no salvation outside of me," and,
"since the promulgation of the gospel one cannot be justified except by baptism or the desire for it," and then proceed to say, when it serves, for whatever reason, that there is salvation outside of her or that one can be justified without baptism or a desire for baptism. And then she will say, but those outside are not really "outside," or that they are "outside" but still dependent for their salvation on what goes on inside, thereby saved by the Church, even if "outside" the Church, so then not really "outside" the Church . . . whatever.

Or she will say, yes, they don't know what baptism is, they have never heard of baptism, but they still desire baptism by virtue of seeking to please God. Again I say, whatever.

By virtue of claiming to be "infallible," and then proceeding to make these grand and binding pronouncements that she will later want to distance herself from to please the neighbors - or whatever her motivation - she contradicts herself, which is a bit of a problem for an institution claiming to be "infallible."

If I have demonstrated that they are, thus far, of little weight, it is your obligation to refute my arguments with something more than your idea of “cogent facts”, the likes of which simply dismiss important theological distinctions which have long been recognized by the Church and her Doctors and theologians such as Sts. Aquinas and Liguori, and every saint and theologian in-between who ever weighed in on this subject.

Well, it's nice that the Catholic Church has all these nice distinctions. She can fall back on them when she's taken to task for saying things like, "their is no salvation outside the Catholic Church," or "one cannot be justified after the promulgation of the gospel without baptism or the desire for baptism." In the meantime some suckers might take her literally and join her as dues paying members. That was a pretty good gig for a long time. But the market, and the buyer, has changed.

Don't take my word, just listen to your AD men. Their quotes are all over this place.

I've listened, and I really do think I'm a reasonable man. I stand by my last post, and see nothing I need to refute.

I'm sorry. Really, or not really? I'll let you guess.

HR

MRyan Tue Dec 28, 2010 4:03 pm

HR,

Let me see if I understand this: The Orthodox Church you now belong to teaches the same doctrine on salvation as the Catholic Church; but, no problem, the Orthodox Church never made a claim to “infallibility”, so her “double-speak” can be excused.

No? Show me where I am wrong.

It appears that you’d rather join a non-infallible Church which teaches that there is no salvation outside of her; but, that under certain conditions; God may save some souls who are united to her in the invisible bonds of faith and charity. Wow, whoever heard of such “inside/outside” double-talk, know what I mean?

Can you explain that to me - I’m having a hard time reconciling the huge hypocrisy of rejecting a faith that teaches the same doctrine on salvation (and even infallibly so) as the Church you just entered.

Is your Church “infallible” in all such matters, or are you content with the diversity of opinions your present Church allows you?

As far as refuting my post; I’m sorry, but you have ignored every argument and just keep repeating the same stale mantras.

I was hoping that you were serious about entering into a productive debate; or at least as productive as circumstances will allow.

All I hear coming through is bitterness.

HolyRussia Wed Dec 29, 2010 12:11 am

MRyan,

You don't listen so well. I didn't "just enter" the Orthodox Church. But let me add to what you didn't hear something I haven't said before: my entering the Orthodox Church had nothing to do with Trent, which I wasn't even aware of when I did enter the Orthodox Church. But that's my business, and not particularly relevant to this discussion - the only reason any of my personal journey has been broached here was in an honest response to Rasha.

So . . . you may or may not be right about the Orthodox Church asserting that there is no salvation outside the Church. I haven't studied the question particularly closely. But "hypocrisy" is precisely the issue. The content of the Orthodox Church's faith on this and any issue is tradition (the united voice of the fathers) and the statements of the universal ecumenical councils, the last of which goes back to I think the 8th or 9th century. I am not aware of there being any dogmatic assertion regarding EENS by an Orthodox authority, i.e. an ecumenical council, or even a univocal and developed testimony on that issue by the fathers. The Catholic Church, however, has, and keeps, making these grand assertions on these complex points "infallibly" and . . . well, you know. And you can only put a foot in a mouth that is open.

Now, getting back to the Trent passage. You have said that it does indicate that the means now are different. I'd like you to parse the passage a bit for me, because, again, even though it makes you dubious about either my intellect or my emotional balance (i.e, my "bitterness"), I'm still not getting it.

You say, yes, the means are now different, and then you say the means include - and the language of the passage at issue embraces - an "implied" baptism of desire. Which your quote from Ligouri indicates is a love of God above all things, and a universal will to observe all the divine precepts. As I said before, men have always been able to be justified this way, before or after the promulgation of the gospel. You concede that Trent is talking about a different means, yet you ignore the fact that is says justification "cannot be effected" now without those different means.

I would like you to answer these related questions. You concede that Trent says the means are now different since the promulgation of the gospel. So, first, do you agree that Trent says that justification "cannot be effected" without these different means? If not, please tell me why not by focusing on the passage in question. If so, please explain to me what those different means are. Because if you include as a means a love of God above all things and a will to observe the divine precepts, there is nothing different or new about those means, and they did not arise as a means "since the promulgation of the gospel."

I would like you to concentrate on the passage and the language of Trent in Session VI, Chapter IV.

HR

Guest Wed Dec 29, 2010 9:35 am

I agree with Holy Russia. I really can't follow what is your position.

Do you say that the Council of Trent was teaching the "Anonymous Christian" theory of Karl Rahner--- ie. implicit desire?

Or are you saying that Trent was teaching explicit desire-- i.e. Liguori/Aquinas ?

And how do you reconcile it with the canons:

Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, Sess. 7, Can. 5 on the Sacrament of Baptism: “If anyone says that baptism [the Sacrament] is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation (cf. Jn. 3:5): let him be anathema.”[Denzinger 861] http://www.catecheticsonline.com/SourcesofDogma9.php

Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, Can. 2 on the Sacrament of Baptism, Sess. 7, 1547: “If anyone shall say that real and natural water is not necessary for baptism, and on that account those words of Our Lord Jesus Christ: ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit’ [John 3], are distorted into some sort of metaphor: let him be anathema.”[Denzinger 858] http://www.catecheticsonline.com/SourcesofDogma9.php

What is your position?

MRyan Wed Dec 29, 2010 1:30 pm

duckbill wrote:I agree with Holy Russia. I really can't follow what is your position.

Do you say that the Council of Trent was teaching the "Anonymous Christian" theory of Karl Rahner--- ie. implicit desire?

Or are you saying that Trent was teaching explicit desire-- i.e. Liguori/Aquinas ?

And how do you reconcile it with the canons:

Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, Sess. 7, Can. 5 on the Sacrament of Baptism: “If anyone says that baptism [the Sacrament] is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation (cf. Jn. 3:5): let him be anathema.”[Denzinger 861] http://www.catecheticsonline.com/SourcesofDogma9.php
Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, Can. 2 on the Sacrament of Baptism, Sess. 7, 1547: “If anyone shall say that real and natural water is not necessary for baptism, and on that account those words of Our Lord Jesus Christ: ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit’ [John 3], are distorted into some sort of metaphor: let him be anathema.”[Denzinger 858] http://www.catecheticsonline.com/SourcesofDogma9.php
What is your position?

The Council of Trent did not teach anyone’s “theory”, she taught dogmatic truth, and one of those truth’s holds that the translation (or regeneration) into Christ (justification) cannot be effected without the laver of baptism, or the desire thereof.

The Church has always held this to mean that one may be justified by “the desire thereof”, and may be saved in this state of grace should the sacrament remain impossible to receive - as the Council’s own Catechism confirms, as does every single authorized commentary, and every single saint, doctor, theologian and pope who ever explained the Church’s own understanding of this dogmatic teaching.

The Church has also always taught that for those, like the catechumen, who have been instructed in the necessity of baptism, that the desire and vow for the sacrament must be explicit (as the CCC teaches). However, the Church, the living magisterium, also teaches that for those who have not been instructed in the necessity of the sacrament, this same desire may be implicit in one’s faith, charity and intention to do all that the Church commands.

That’s what the Church “teaches”, and that’s my “position”.

Or are you saying that Trent was teaching explicit desire-- i.e. Liguori/Aquinas?

Now you lost me; I thought we were talking about Session 6, Ch. 4, which deals only with that which cannot be lacking for a translation to justification - the sacrament, or the desire thereof. Both St. Aquinas and St. Liguori taught that the desire for the sacrament may be implicit in one’s explicit faith and intention to do all that God commands. The Church has always recognized the validity of this doctrine. So no, I did not say “that Trent was teaching explicit desire-- i.e. Liguori/Aquinas”.

With respect to the cited Canons of Trent, I don’t have to reconcile those canons, for those canons have NOTHING to do with whether one may be justified and saved through the essential fruits of baptism that the bonds of faith and charity (the desire thereof) so effect.

Contrary to the heresy of the Calvinists and other such Protestants, the sacrament of baptism is NOT optional, it is not free; and NO ONE is exempt from this divine law. And, without water there is NO sacrament.

That is “my” position.

Btw, Duckbill, do me a favor and contact the SBC and ask them to explain this to you. They’ll tell you the truth - that these Canons have nothing to do with “baptism of desire”.

There can be no greater proof of a theology gone amok than we see here with such a superficial "understanding" of what these two Canons actually teach (and don't teach). And it does not seem to matter how many testimonies of the approved theologians, canonists, educated Feeneyites and even the Church herself are brought forth to demonstrate the true clarity of these Canons, we will always have a certain small cadre of extreme Feenyites who actually believe that these Canons represent a condemnation of Baptism of Desire, when they do no such thing.

If your position is the position of the Church, how is that the Church, and, for that matter, everyone else except a handful of radical Feeneyites, disagrees with you? I mean, don’t you ever stop to consider that your extreme “position” is held by almost no one, and never has been?

I mean no disrespect, Duckbill, but perhaps its time that you acknowledge that you just might have an incorrect understanding of these sacred Canons.

MRyan Wed Dec 29, 2010 3:39 pm

HR,

Fair enough; and its true, sometimes I don’t listen so well. OK, we are not here to discuss your reasons for leaving the Catholic Church, or when that happened; though you have not been shy in informing us of your great disdain and contempt for the Catholic Church and her so-called contradictions. And, even if your reasons had nothing to do with Trent, I will insist that I have the right to ask you why the teachings of the Orthodox Church on salvation are not relevant to this discussion, because we are speaking on matters of faith - the same faith taught by Trent, about which you appear to want to suggest that the Church can’t make up her own mind.

If the Catholic Church is on trial here, so is the faith of the Orthodox Church you now profess, but you can’t tell us what that is, exactly ... because you don’t know.

If the dogma of salvation is not important to you, at least not important enough for you to investigate what the Orthodox Church actually teaches, why the vitriol and why the accusations against the Catholic Church for not, allegedly, being consistent in her dogmatic teachings on EENS and the requisite “desire” for baptism?

You don’t know what your own faith professes on EENS, but you have no problem accusing the Catholic Church of putting her foot in her mouth, or calling Trent a “fraud” when a Cardinal Ratzinger suggests that the inculpable non-belief of a Jew (totally subjective) may not represent an insurmountable obstacle to God who may enlighten this same Jew of good-will (again, totally subjective) with the divine light of grace, as Fr. Mueller suggests, in an extraordinary and instantaneous manner even at his death.

In other words, the divine light of grace will enlighten this Jew with an EXPLICIT faith that may never pass from his lips. Pope Pius IX taught the same doctrine - a doctrine of the Church. Do I wish that Cardinal Ratzinger might have been a bit more forthcoming with an explanation? Of course, just as I wish the decree on Ecumenism of the Second Vatican Council was not so lopsided in its presentation.

Of course, this is the same Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope, who also taught (in an official and authoritative document of the CDF) that this same Jew, with his false beliefs, is in a grievously deficient situation and will not only be lost, but will be severely punished if he does not respond to the divine graces God gives him.

So stop renting your vestments and at least try to understand what the Pope is saying; after all, it will be by his efforts and the work of the Holy Ghost that you and the Orthodox will be brought back, kicking and screaming (not so much), into full unity with the one true Church under the supreme authority of the one Shepard.
santa

Let’s begin with this. Would you agree that the alone formal cause of justification is Jesus Christ? Of course you would, and I will assume that you would also agree that He was the alone formal cause of justification under the Old Law as well.

We would also agree that the various instruments under the Old Law for effecting justification -- the sacraments (such as circumcision) and the Temple, were “types” pre-figuring the sacraments and the institutional Church. Of course, the sacraments of the Old Law did not derive their efficacy from the action of the sacrament itself (ex opere operato), but solely from the action of our Lord through the faith of the just in the Redeemer to come.

Now here is where I believe your confusion sets in, for you seem to believe that this “change” in the manner by which justification is effected (baptism or its desire) is the “essential” change between the Old and the New Dispensations.

But, while it is true that this change represents a divine precept from which no man is exempt, what has not changed is the fact that our Lord is still the alone Formal cause of our justification, not to mention that He is also the Final, the Efficient and the Meritorious cause; and may choose to act as the Instrumental cause when translating a soul into the justice of His love.

The “essential” change, then, is not so much the manner by which (by divine precept) the translation to justice would be effected; the most important change is the very nature of justification itself, which is why I asked you to take another look at Divinum Illud Munus (On the Holy Spirit) by Pope Leo XIII, who taught:

…but the communication of the Holy Ghost after Christ was much more abundant, just as the price surpasses in value the earnest and the reality excels the image. Wherefore St. John declares: "As yet the Spirit was not given, because Jesus was not yet glorified" (John vii., 39). So soon, therefore, as Christ, "ascending on high," entered into possession of the glory of His Kingdom which He had won with so much labour, He munificently opened out the treasures of the Holy Ghost: "He gave gifts to men" (Eph. iv., Eight). For "that giving or sending forth of the Holy Ghost after Christ's glorification was to be such as had never been before; not that there had been none before, but it had not been of the same kind" (St. Aug., De Trin., 1. iv. c. 20)

.
That is THE essential change. Are we on the same page?

If not, it will be of little benefit to discuss what Trent and the Church means by “the desire thereof” in the context of explicit faith and explicit desire.

HolyRussia Thu Dec 30, 2010 8:42 am

MRyan,

Yes, I am "with you."

One might say my "bitterness" is not with "her" (i.e. the Catholic Church) but with her prelates who fail to, for example, make it clear that if a Jew is to be saved they will, before death, embrace Our Lord explicitly, and die "Catholic" - if they are to be saved. They certainly appear to be saying that that last step, that last death bed conversion, is not necessary. I say "appear to be saying" in deference to your argument, because it certainly looks to me that they are saying that one can be saved "without knowing Christ" (the Compendium), with the "can" not denoting a possibility that can be effectuated in the future (e.g., their deathbed conversion), but a reality that will become complete simply with their passing in their state of being a faithful Jew - the "can" just referring to the deferment of their death, a future event, not a future conversion to the faith.

As we discuss this, I can think of another "infallible" passage that dovetails nicely with what Trent is saying:

Council of Florence (Denzinger 712)

It firmly believes, professes, and teaches that the matter pertaining to the law of the Old Testament, of the Mosiac law, which are divided into ceremonies, sacred rites, sacrifices, and sacraments, because they were established to signify something in the future, although they were suited to the divine worship at that time, after our Lord's coming had been signified by them, ceased, and the sacraments of the New Testament began; and that whoever, even after the passion, placed hope in these matters of the law and submitted himself to them as necessary for salvation, as if faith in Christ could not save without them, sinned mortally. Yet it does not deny that after the passion of Christ up to the promulgation of the Gospel they could have been observed until they were believed to be in no way necessary for salvation; but after the promulgation of the Gospel it asserts that they cannot be observed without the loss of eternal salvation. All, therefore, who after that time observe circumcision and the Sabbath and the other requirements of the law, it declares alien to the Christian faith and not in the least fit to participate in eternal salvation, unless someday they recover from these errors.

I don't have time to connect the links between this passage and Trent, but you have already intimated them, anyway.

Of course, while Florence helps Trent out immensely, and shows that Trent is thinking consistently with the mind of Florence, it doesn't help Cardinal Ratzinger or the Compendium, which "seem" to be saying that one can "observe" those abandoned old rites and not only not be "alien" to the Church, but actually be saved.

I will come back to say more with more time. Thank you for the dialogue; it is very instructive and helpful.

HR

Guest Thu Dec 30, 2010 11:11 am

Hi MRyan,
Nice to see you had a pleasant holiday and are now full of vim and vigor Very Happy

Be patient because I really want to understand your position.

The Council of Trent did not teach anyone’s “theory”, she taught
dogmatic truth, and one of those truth’s holds that the translation (or
regeneration) into Christ (justification) cannot be effected without the
laver of baptism, or the desire thereof.

The Church has always
held this to mean that one may be justified by “the desire thereof”, and
may be saved in this state of grace should the sacrament remain
impossible to receive - as the Council’s own Catechism confirms, as does
every single authorized commentary, and every single saint, doctor,
theologian and pope who ever explained the Church’s own understanding of
this dogmatic teaching.

Are you saying that Trent was teaching only explicit Desire for the Sacrament is necessary?

The Church has also always taught that
for those, like the catechumen, who have been instructed in the
necessity of baptism, that the desire and vow for the sacrament must be
explicit (as the CCC teaches).

This point I think is clear, you are saying that those who are catechumens and know that the Sacrament of Baptism is necessary for salvation, don't need to be Baptized if they have explicit desire,( assuming some unfortunate event that keeps them from the Sacrament) right?

But I don't understand how do they know it is necessary, when in reality it isn't necessary. All that is necessary seems to be the Desire for the Sacrament.
I just seems like a contradiction.

However, the Church, the living
magisterium, also teaches that for those who have not been instructed in
the necessity of the sacrament, this same desire may be implicit in
one’s faith, charity and intention to do all that the Church commands.

That’s what the Church “teaches”, and that’s my “position”.

So you are saying that those who DON"T know that it is necessary to be Baptized are saved by just an implicit Desire, right?

summery of your understanding (the way I am understanding you)

1. Baptism is necessary for all
2. Baptism isn't necessary for catechumens who have some tragic event preventing them, but need to explicitly Desire Baptism.
3. Baptism isn't necessary for those ignorant of the Faith as long as they follow their conscience, and don't need to explicitly Desire Baptism.

Point one is false because points 2 and 3 say that it isn't necessary.

So it seems the person in point 3 has the best chance at heaven, because it seems the closer one gets to the Church the more difficult are the requirements for salvation.
So ignorance seems to be a blessing and Faith a burden.

e.g. If I need to believe in the Assumption of Mary or go to hell but those who just live ignorant of the Faith by their conscience, with no concern about the Assumption, Baptism...etc, can go to heaven, isn't that a burden on being a Faithful Catholic? It appears that ignorance of the Faith makes salvation easier.

MRyan Thu Dec 30, 2010 2:35 pm

duckbill wrote:Hi MRyan,
Nice to see you had a pleasant holiday and are now full of vim and vigor

Be patient because I really want to understand your position.

Thank you, Duckbill, for remembering that my middle name is “Patience”. Very Happy

duckbill wrote:
MRyan wrote:The Council of Trent did not teach anyone’s “theory”, she taught dogmatic truth, and one of those truth’s holds that the translation (or regeneration) into Christ (justification) cannot be effected without the
laver of baptism, or the desire thereof.

The Church has always held this to mean that one may be justified by “the desire thereof”, and may be saved in this state of grace should the sacrament remain
impossible to receive - as the Council’s own Catechism confirms, as does every single authorized commentary, and every single saint, doctor, theologian and pope who ever explained the Church’s own understanding of this dogmatic teaching.

Are you saying that Trent was teaching only explicit Desire for the Sacrament is necessary?

Not at all, I am saying that the Church understands “or the desire thereof” in the same manner as it was held by St. Aquinas and as she has held it ever since; meaning, that the desire for the sacrament must be explicit for those who have been instructed in the sacrament’s necessity, and may be “implicit” in the faith, charity and intention of someone who has not been so instructed.

duckbill wrote:
MRyan wrote:The Church has also always taught that for those, like the catechumen, who have been instructed in the necessity of baptism, that the desire and vow for the sacrament must be explicit (as the CCC teaches).

This point I think is clear, you are saying that those who are catechumens and know that the Sacrament of Baptism is necessary for salvation, don't need to be Baptized if they have explicit desire,( assuming some unfortunate event that keeps them from the Sacrament) right?

But I don't understand how do they know it is necessary, when in reality it isn't necessary. All that is necessary seems to be the Desire for the Sacrament.
I just seems like a contradiction.

Not quite, but I get the gist of what you are saying. The necessity of the divine precept remains a necessity of means no matter what - but, yes, if the sacrament is impossible to receive by some necessity, the essential effects of the sacrament may be attained by “the desire thereof” (and all that this entails).

So, your statement that “in reality it isn’t necessary” simply isn’t true. For the catechumen and everyone else, the sacrament is always necessary; and, as a divine precept, it is absolutely necessary as a necessity of means. St. Thomas and the Church are not contradicting themselves; they simply recognize that God may effect a spiritual regeneration without benefit of the sacrament - if He chooses to. We don’t fully understand how or when this takes place (indeed, God may also choose to raise a soul from his “slumber” in order to have him baptized), but she simply recognizes the possibility and tells us what the necessary conditions and dispositions are that might allow it. This also goes back to having a proper understanding of intrinsic ("without which something cannot be") and extrinsic necessities.

duckbill wrote:
MRyan wrote:However, the Church, the living magisterium, also teaches that for those who have not been instructed in the necessity of the sacrament, this same desire may be implicit in one’s faith, charity and intention to do all that the Church commands.

That’s what the Church “teaches”, and that’s my “position”.
So you are saying that those who DON"T know that it is necessary to be Baptized are saved by just an implicit Desire, right?

“May” be saved; yes, but their desire will be implicit in their explicit justifying faith -- and in their charity and intentions. There is no justification without faith, and there is no living faith without charity and a properly formed will (intention).

summery of your understanding (the way I am understanding you)

1. Baptism is necessary for all
2. Baptism isn't necessary for catechumens who have some tragic event preventing them, but need to explicitly Desire Baptism.
3. Baptism isn't necessary for those ignorant of the Faith as long as they follow their conscience, and don't need to explicitly Desire Baptism.

Point one is false because points 2 and 3 say that it isn't necessary.

1. As a divine precept, the sacrament of baptism is necessary to all men without exception for salvation.

Actually, I reject points 2 and 3 out of hand. I know what you mean with #2, but you are poisoning the well every time you say “Baptism isn't necessary for …”. Your statement, if not entirely false, it at least terribly misleading for it implies that necessity is subjective with respect to those who are somehow exempt from the law; while in truth, the only "exemption" applies to God who is not bound by the Sacraments to effect the same ends.

Let me say it like this, Baptism is at all times necessary to every man without exception; and only God can provide the fruits of the sacrament through the bonds of faith and charity (manifested in the "desire" for baptism) without an actual ablution. The Church simply tells us what the necessary conditions/dispositions are for our Lord, the alone formal cause of our justification, to translate a soul into the justice of His love; and, if He so chooses, to effect his salvation.

No. 3 is simply false. I never said that “Baptism isn't necessary for those ignorant of the Faith”. An explicit and a supernatural Faith is necessary for salvation - period. Now, when the Church teaches that someone who is inculpable in his ignorance of the faith can be saved, she is not saying that they can be saved without coming to a knowledge of the truth, she is saying that those who have the proper dispositions and respond to the graces God gives them, that these too can be saved -- and that God will not fail to enlighten them with the grace of truth and righteousness -- so that they may finally be saved in the Mystical Body of Christ, outside of which no one at all can be saved. While the last part tends to get lost in the translation, this is what she teaches and this is what she has always taught.

So it seems the person in point 3 has the best chance at heaven, because it seems the closer one gets to the Church the more difficult are the requirements for salvation.
So ignorance seems to be a blessing and Faith a burden.

e.g. If I need to believe in the Assumption of Mary or go to hell but those who just live ignorant of the Faith by their conscience, with no concern about the Assumption, Baptism...etc, can go to heaven, isn't that a burden on being a Faithful Catholic? It appears that ignorance of the Faith makes salvation easier.

Not at all. Ignorance is a curse; and, as Pope BXVI said, when coupled with false beliefs, it places one in a grievously deficient situation. That one can finally be saved if one has the proper intentions, is a giant subjective crap shoot - and if the baptized faithful find the gate to the kingdom to be all too narrow, what about those living outside of sacramental grace and unity with the Mystical Body? As Pope St. Pius X and other popes have declared, more souls die out of ignorance of the true faith than we can possibly know. And, while it also true that we cannot know how many souls God may save by virtue of His mercy and providence, there is only one means by which we can be saved - and it is the Catholic Church, outside of which, well ... you know the rest.

HolyRussia Thu Dec 30, 2010 10:27 pm

MRyan,

To pick up where I left off.

I do not think Divinum Illud Munus (On the Holy Spirit) by Pope Leo XIII clarifies the passage in Trent. Sure, it speaks of a change in the way grace works, but to apply it to the Trent passage that passage would have to mean that justification "can not be effected" without this "new" sending forth of the Holy Ghost. I can't read Trent that way, since, if it does speak of an implicit desire for baptism, that desire has been defined as a desire to follow all the divine precepts, etc.

Let me ask you: did the Holy Ghost, who worked before the promulgation of the gospel, albeit not in the same "kind," not inspire certain men to desire to fulfill all the divine precepts, and follow God's law, before the promulgation, and did this inspiration and desire save them? Yes. YES!!!

So to say that justification "cannot be effected" without this new, different in kind grace (Divinum Illud Munus) is simply not true if "implicit desire," as Liguori et al define it, holds. I agree with Pope Leo XIII as to grace now being different in kind after Our Lord's Passion and the promulgation of the Gospel - yes - but I do not agree that one cannot be justified without this "new" kind of grace, if Trent includes "implicit desire" for baptism and if Ligouri et al. define "implicit desire" correctly.

But we're good. I think Trent is simply saying that now - after the promulgation - justification "cannot be effected without" baptism (the sacramental way of what you describe as "extrinsic means") or the desire for the same (which may be implied through faith and charity, the "intrinsic means"), whereas formerly - before the promulgation - one could make use of and "could observe" the rites of the old law (circumcision, the Sabbath and other requirements of the law) in pursuing justification. When Trent says justification since the promulgation of the gospel "cannot be effected" without baptism it is precluding any other "extrinsic means," such as circumcision, observation of the Sabbath or other requirements of the law, and one might say reiterating the sense of Florence that those means now, since the promulgation, do not apply - only baptism suffices as the "extrinsic means" now.

Look at it this way: formerly, one could be justified by wearing an orange suit (bear with the analogy) or love. Now, one cannot be justified without wearing a blue suit or love. The fact that one could be justified by love under both dispensations doesn't mean that there has not been a change in the means of justification. There has been, since now wearing an orange suit will be of no avail.

Thank for your help, MRyan.

Now HolyRussia bids you all adieu. To paraphrase the Fool from King Lear: "I'll go to bed at noon." For those not familiar with King Lear: that was the Fool's last line, after which he disappeared from the play in Act III.

HR

Guest Fri Dec 31, 2010 10:19 am

O now your patience again-- Very Happy

Let me see if I understand.
You hold:
The sacrament of Baptism is necessary for us, but not for God, who could save us without it, if he wishes.
My question is why?
Why would God want to save some with the Sacrament and some without it?
I mean, is it too difficult for Him to get the Sacrament to everyone who wishes to receive it? So He goes to plan "B"?

We agree that belief in Jesus as Lord is absolutely necessary, right?
Can I celebrate because we agree on something? Well I will before you respond any way!
flower

:affraid:

MRyan Fri Dec 31, 2010 12:56 pm

duckbill wrote:O now your patience again--
Let me see if I understand.
You hold:
The sacrament of Baptism is necessary for us, but not for God, who could save us without it, if he wishes.
My question is why?
Why would God want to save some with the Sacrament and some without it?
I mean, is it too difficult for Him to get the Sacrament to everyone who wishes to receive it? So He goes to plan "B"?

Your question is “why?” You are questioning the wisdom of God’s providence if He translates a soul into the justice of His love and supplies the essential effects of baptism to a soul who responds to his grace with a grace-assisted fervent faith, desire and charity? You are questioning the wisdom of the Church with her teaching that God is not necessarily bound to supplying these same effects in the sacrament of baptism; and that, as the formal, final, efficient and meritorious cause of our justification, He may supply these effects directly (as instrumental cause)?

And you want to know “why”? I don’t know why, I only know what the Church teaches.

In fact, I don’t know why a soul who dies united to our Lord and His Body in the bonds of faith and charity may be deprived of the sacramental seal that marks him in an organic incorporation with the Church and bestows upon him the right to the other sacraments (even if he has no further need of these institutional aids to holiness). I can’t answer that - but I suspect that the Holy Ghost still provides, in the substantial habitation, an indelible seal of incorporation which marks the soul as one of God’s own and as one of the invisible faithful (but clearly visible to the faithful in heaven). And, for those who have been unfortunate enough to have departed this life without the laver of baptism, if He chooses to provide the sacramental seal through actual ablution at a later “time” and manner of His choosing (as He has done) - I don’t ask why He didn’t do this before a given soul “died” in the first place, I simply rejoice and accept that His ways are not always our ways. But He does so in fact “bind” Himself to that which is necessary for our salvation - and no one can be saved without regeneration and re-birth into Christ.

This is pure conjecture, but I wonder, in the case of BoD or BoB, if God may withhold actual ablution for another reason. St. Thomas Aquinas alluded to this when he taught that the souls who receive only a spiritual sanctification may still require purgatory for the temporal punishments that would normally be cleansed with the full remission of sins in the sacrament. Is there a debt that our Lord insists must still be paid that He does not want to fully remit in the sacrament? Who knows.

Why our Lord would extend mercy and the gift of baptism to some souls at death’s door, and not to others, while still uniting Himself to certain souls in the bonds of faith and charity - is a mystery, and not ours to reason “why”, at least not with any degree of certitude.

The more relevant question should be "why" do we question the Church's judgment, teaching and wisdom in all such matters?

We agree that belief in Jesus as Lord is absolutely necessary, right?
Can I celebrate because we agree on something? Well I will before you respond any way!

Of course, that is what I believe. Party on!

Guest Fri Dec 31, 2010 5:47 pm

Thank you I admire your sincerity. And we aren't so far apart. We both believe in the necessity of Faith.

But unfortunately I can't be as sure as you that the Church is teaching or has taught BoD or BoB with any authority other than distractedly.

Yes, I know you will jump all over me for that comment but the Church has had to fight on a lot of fronts through the centuries at the same time and BoD just didn't seem so important. Very few were dying on their way to being Baptized. The BoD theory has never been scrutinized like it is being scrutinized now, to my knowledge.

When St. Thomas Aquinas and his compatriots opposed St. Augusine's theory of the suffering in Limbo ( which till that time was considered de fide). The Scholastics seemed to take there lead from one of the most cantankerous, brilliant, and unbalanced, thinkers of his time--Peter Abelard:

"Abelard was the first to rebel against the severity of the Augustinian tradition on this point [of infant suffering]. According to him there was no guilt (culpa), but only punishment (poena), in the proper notion of original sin; and although this doctrine was rightly condemned by the Council of Soissons in 1140, his teaching, which rejected material torment (poena sensus) and retained only the pain of loss (poena damni) as the eternal punishment of original sin (Comm. in Rom.), was not only not condemned but was generally accepted and improved upon by the Scholastics."
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07010b.htm

But in reality they were returning to a more ancient tradition more in line with St. Gregory of Nazianzus, because it seemed the Augustinian teaching was an innovation in its day, and the history of subsequent Catholic theologians seemingly out of respect bowed to Augustine on this subject, for several centuries!

I am of the opinion that the same is happening in regards to BoD. Many regard it de fede but it brings up more problems than it solves:
1.Infant Baptism
2.the seal- membership in the Church
3. Evagelization
4. Limbo
Those are just off the top of my head, and BoD has very little dogmatic ground on which to stand.
St. Gregory of Nazianzus was opposed to unbaptized babies going to heaven because they were not sealed, so too I follow him in regard to BoD. If one is not sealed by Baptism one can not enter heaven:
St. Gregory of Nazianzus (circa 329 - circa 390) commented in Orat., XL, 23
that infants dying
without baptism "will neither be admitted by the just judge to
the glory of Heaven nor condemned to suffer punishment, since, though
unsealed [by baptism], they are not wicked."

I think like the Augustinian theory that infants suffered in Limbo sensible pain was so long held and little questioned till the Scholastics, who returned to the more ancient tradition of the Fathers, so too the absolute necessity of the Sacrament of Baptism will return to the universal teaching of the Fathers.
And ironically BoD is mainly linked with Augustine, like the Limbo controversy. Augustine later even tried to distance himself from BoD, too.

I started another thread asking for help finding Fathers of the Church that supported BoD not BoB, specifically BoD. So far I have found only 2: Ambrose and Augustine, ( I think Justine Martyr too but haven't found that yet). do you have any entries just post them there, please no Baptism of Blood.

Forum Janitor Fri Dec 31, 2010 11:02 pm

The last posts in this thread have been moved to the Water Cooler section under the new thread "Welcome Tornpage!"

Thanks,

The Cleaning Crew

Sponsored content