No salvation outside the Church and invincible ignorance

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

Unfortunately, sincerity alone will not get one to heaven, if you know what I mean. I would say we're still miles apart; though perhaps, as you suggest, we're making progress.

duckbill wrote: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.

I wouldn't call this a distraction:

1258 The Church has always held the firm conviction that those who suffer death for the sake of the faith without having received Baptism are baptized by their death for and with Christ. This Baptism of blood, like the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament.

1259 For catechumens who die before their Baptism, their explicit desire to receive it, together with repentance for their sins, and charity, assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive through the sacrament.

So, Duckbill, its your opinion against the authority of the Church. And of course, we could on with the authentic/official citations, Roman Catechisms and the Council of Trent (and the proof that the Church has always understood Sess. 6. Ch. 4 in the way it has always been presented) ... but we don't need to.

You either believe the Church and the universal moral consensus of the saints, doctors and and theologians, or you don't.

duckbill wrote: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.

St. Thomas Aquinas scrutinized the heck out of it - and there had to have been a tradition for it before he could begin to plumb its depths (and he cited this tradition). You will not find a single medieval or post-medieval theologian who would challenge his doctrine - it carried the day right into Trent and its Catechism.

duckbill wrote: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:

Wait ... St. Augustine's theory on the suffering in Limbo was just that ... a theory.

That the Church allowed this teaching to prosper does not mean that his theory was not reformable, whether he believed it was de fide or not. It is similar to St. Liguori's belief that BoD is "de fide" based on the declaration of Trent and on tradition. The Church, however, has never taught that it is "de fide" as a binding matter of faith; though, as it is presented in Sess.6, Ch. 4, and as the Church has always understood it (see the CCC above), justification "by the desire thereof" is an infallible dogmatic teaching and BoD, as far as being sufficient for salvation, is certainly an authentic doctrine of the Church, and can be backed-up by tradition, by the universal teaching of the Church, and dogmatically by Trent, Session 6, Ch. XVI, which states that there can be nothing lacking to the justified that can prevent them from entering into heaven.

duckbill wrote:"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!

OK, but I don't see how this is relevant. The Church has already rendered its decision relative to BoB/BoD, and she does not have to "define" it in order to expect submission to her authoritative teaching.

But, if you want to pursue an exercise in futility, go ahead and find the tradition the Church can revert back to that rejects BoB/BoD. Good luck with that.

duckbill wrote: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.

Not only does it have "dogmatic ground", it has all the magisterial ground one needs to recognize that the Church teaches this doctrine.

duckbill wrote: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."

What does his teaching on un-baptized infants have to do with BoD? Pope Pious XII taught essentially the same doctrine as St. Gregory on infants, and also taught that those who have reached the age of reason could be is saved in the justice of His love (when prevented by some necessity).

So here is the relevant question: Who has more authority - Peter, the Vicar of Christ, or St. Gregory of Nazianzus, who never denied that a catechumen could not attain the beatific vision?

In fact, the one passage that is supposed to "prove" that St. Gregory "rejected" BoD was taken completely out of context, as Fr. Most demonstrates:

St. Gregory of Nazianzen: Oration on the Holy Lights "... if you were
able to judge a man who intends to commit murder solely by his
intention, and without any act of murder, then you could likewise reckon
as baptized one who desired baptism without having received baptism."

COMMENT: Text is given above as quoted by Feeney (Sennott, p. 384,
note). Feeney ignores the context. In the full text (RJ 1012) St. Gregory
speaks of three classes of persons who are not baptized: (1) "Some are
utterly animal or bestial, according to whether they are foolish or
wicked." These will be punished, he says. (2) "Others know and honor the
gift, but delay, some out of carelessness, some because of insatiable
desire." These will be punished. If they desired Baptism, but failed to get
it by their own fault, their desire will not help them. (3) "The third group
will be neither glorified nor punished by the Just Judge: for though
unsealed [not baptized] they are not wicked. They are not so much
wrong-doers as persons who have suffered a loss." Unbaptized infants
come in this third category. He speaks of the Just Judge, because a Just
Judge would not punish those who are not wicked, i.e., unbaptized
infants.

duckbill wrote: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.

Well, good luck with that! I can't wait until you show us this "universal teaching of the Fathers" against BoD.

Seriously, Duckbill, you don't seem to realize that the Church still teaches the same universal doctrine on Baptism; the same doctrine as the Fathers and the same doctrine as Aquinas - that the sacrament of baptism, by divine decree, is necessary to every man without exception. BoB/BoD does nothing to change that, but only places it into proper context. The Church cannot contradict herself on such an essential matter of faith and salvation.

duckbill wrote:And ironically BoD is mainly linked with Augustine, like the Limbo controversy. Augustine later even tried to distance himself from BoD, too.

Not so sure he did, but even if he did, so what? Do you get your doctrines from St. Augustine, or from the Church?

duckbill wrote: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.

And I gave you plenty of assistance. No, really, my pleasure

MRyan wrote:

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

Unfortunately, sincerity alone will not get one to heaven, if you know what I mean.

Well that isn't the impression that one gets from the CCC:
1260
"Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one
and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy
Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way
known to God, of the Paschal mystery."⁶³ Every man who is
ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth
and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can
be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity."


So does the committee who wrote the CCC think most people who read this will see that explicit faith is needed and not just to be sincere? Hmmm... doesn't seem to be working.

duckbill wrote:But unfortunately I can't be as sure as you that the Church is teaching or has taught baptism of desire or baptism of blood with any authority other than distractedly.

I wouldn't call this a distraction:

1258 The Church has always held the firm conviction that those who suffer death for the sake of the faith without having received Baptism are baptized by their death for and with Christ. This Baptism of blood, like the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament.

[/quote]
Don't you think the CCC has an obligation to explain how this jives with Florence?:

"No one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood
for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has persevered within
the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”
[Denzinger 718]

there appears to be a conflict here of some sort, why doesn't the CCC explain this? Obviously they were not distracted

So, Duckbill, its your opinion against the authority of the Church. And of course, we could on with the authentic/official citations, Roman Catechisms and the Council of Trent (and the proof that the Church has always understood Sess. 6. Ch. 4 in the way it has always been presented) ... but we don't need to.

You either believe the Church and the universal moral consensus of the saints, doctors and and theologians, or you don't.

So by that logic was cardinal Raztinger wrong for his apparent rejection of Limbo, not just an aspect but the WHOLE thing, which has saints and theologians supporting it for centuries and the existence was never a question only the suffering:
"One should not hesitate to give up the idea of 'limbo, if need be'"
http://www.traditioninaction.org/ProgressivistDoc/A_067_RatzLimbo.htm
so is he rejecting Church teaching?

It isn't my opinion, it is the constant teaching of the church that the Sacrament, since Pentecost, is absolutely necessary for salvation. I can't reconcile this with baptism of desire.
The Sacraments are necessary for salvation though all are not necessary, for each individual (de fide, Profession of Faith at Trent and Vatican I), which means that one must at least receive one Sacrament, Baptism, to be saved, but baptism of desire is not a sacrament, so Sacraments are not necessary?

I have reason to question it.

As I tried to explain in my last post there is a precedence of the consensus of saints and theologians being wrong. The suffering in Limbo was held de fide:

"It is clear that Bellarmine found the situation embarrassing, being unwilling, as he was, to admit that St. Thomas and the Schoolmen generally were in conflict with what St. Augustine and other Fathers considered to be de fide, and what the Council of Florence seemed to have taught definitively."
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09256a.htm

Not just St. Bellarmine but many until St. Thomas Aquanis.

So there was something held for CENTURIES as de fide by by saints and theologians but was rejected and they weren't just rejecting it without a support they went back to the early Church fathers:
"There is no evidence to prove that any Greek or Latin Father before St. Augustine ever taught that original sin of itself involved any severer penalty after death than exclusion from the beatific vision, and this, by the Greek Fathers at least, was always regarded as being strictly supernatural."
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09256a.htm

So we have a teaching that was held for a long time as de fide then it is corrected by going back to the Church fathers. Feeneyites are doing the same thing. The constant consensus of the Church Fathers is water baptism is absolutely necessary:


Fr. William Jurgens:

“If there were not a constant tradition in the Fathers that the Gospel message of ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost he cannot enter into the kingdom of God’ is to be taken absolutely, it would be easy to say that Our Savior simply did not see fit to mention the obvious exceptions of invincible ignorance and physical impossibility. But the tradition in fact is there; and it is likely enough to be found so constant as to constitute revelation.”[Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 3, pp. 14-15 footnote 31]

St. Robert Bellarmine like you had problems because, like you, he thought it was defined by council and had a very long tradition. Unless you support the Augustinian Limbo then there was a misunderstanding that was corrected.

The same applies to baptism of desire it has a long tradition like the Augustinian Limbo, it seems to have been confirmed by council, and St. Robert thought there could be an argument for that. But by going back to the original tradition of the early Fathers there was a correction made.

This is all Feeneyites are asking for a correction on a faulty theory.

duckbill wrote: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 baptism of desire just didn't seem so important. Very few were dying on their way to being Baptized. The baptism of desire theory has never been scrutinized like it is being scrutinized now, to my knowledge.

St. Thomas Aquinas scrutinized the heck out of it - and there had to have been a tradition for it before he could begin to plumb its depths (and he cited this tradition). You will not find a single medieval or post-medieval theologian who would challenge his doctrine - it carried the day right into Trent and its Catechism.

St. Thomas scrutinized the heck out of the Immaculate Conception but was wrong. And one of the worst theologians of his day was right---Dun Scotus.

duckbill wrote: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:

Wait ... St. Augustine's theory on the suffering in Limbo was just that ... a theory.

That the Church allowed this teaching to prosper does not mean that his theory was not reformable, whether he believed it was de fide or not. It is similar to St. Liguori's belief that baptism of desire is "de fide" based on the declaration of Trent and on tradition. The Church, however, has never taught that it is "de fide" as a binding matter of faith; though, as it is presented in Sess.6, Ch. 4, and as the Church has always understood it (see the CCC above), justification "by the desire thereof" is an infallible dogmatic teaching and baptism of desire, as far as being sufficient for salvation, is certainly an authentic doctrine of the Church, and can be backed-up by tradition, by the universal teaching of the Church, and dogmatically by Trent, Session 6, Ch. XVI, which states that there can be nothing lacking to the justified that can prevent them from entering into heaven.

Here is the "double think" I get from BoDers all the time. How can you say:
"The Church, however, has never taught that it is "de fide" as a binding matter of faith;"
and then turn around and say :"though, as it is presented in Sess.6, Ch. 4, and as the Church has
always understood it (see the CCC above), justification "by the desire
thereof" is an infallible dogmatic teaching"

How can something be an "infallible dogmatic teaching" and not be "de fide"?
I know you didn't mean to, but you seem to be implying that the Church is promoting heresy by the approval of Feeneyite groups.

duckbill wrote:"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!

OK, but I don't see how this is relevant. The Church has already rendered its decision relative to baptism of blood/baptism of desire, and she does not have to "define" it in order to expect submission to her authoritative teaching.

But, if you want to pursue an exercise in futility, go ahead and find the tradition the Church can revert back to that rejects baptism of blood/baptism of desire. Good luck with that.

thanks for the encouragement

duckbill wrote:I am of the opinion that the same is happening in regards to baptism of desire. 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 baptism of desire has very little dogmatic ground on which to stand.

Not only does it have "dogmatic ground", it has all the magisterial ground one needs to recognize that the Church teaches this doctrine.

Okay show me the dogmatic ground for NOT being a member of the Church one can be saved? Show me the dogmatic grounds how a person is a member of the Church without the Sacramental Seal of Baptism?

Duckbill,

CCC

1260

"Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one
and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy
Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way
known to God, of the Paschal mystery."63 Every man who is
ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth
and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can
be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity."

This is simple justice. You have a problem with this?

Note the highlighted words: "ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church." Do you know any such person? I don't. Every man will be judged according to what has been revealed to him and how he has responded. Again, if a man were not told of the Gospel or the Church, I for one would expect the Lord, being just, to apply that standard. Consider and pay attention to what the Church is saying, not what some radical non-spokesman, or even some radical bishop (some Churchmen have been heretics you know), "interprets" what the Church is saying.

As Pius IX said, we don't know the limits of God's mercy, and don't know what is in a man's mind and soul at the moment of death. This is obvious and true. The Church marks parameters in accordance with its mandate to spread the truth and the light . . . which embraces both mercy and justice, as well as judgment.

Leave them - the ignorant, if any - to God. If you come across one, preach the Word for their salvation.

tornpage

Duckbill,

"No one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood
for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has persevered within the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”
[Denzinger 718]

Their is no contradiction between the Church's current teaching and Florence. Florence tells us one must be "inside" the Church to be saved, and that if one is inside, one must stay there to be saved ("persevere"). If a person were ignorant of the gospel and of the Church, and strive perfectly and with faith and charity to do the will of God - such a hypothetical person would not be damned. Surely you see this, again, is common justice. The Church's recognition of such is a mark that our God is just. The Church addresses hypotheticals and marks parameters for many reasons - as she is assaulted by claims from all sides, Trads, Liberals, heretics, pagans, Jews, Muslims . . . many assaulting her in the name of God, whom only she knows as fully as it is fit for men to know.

A heretic who dies denying the Church, even if he thinks he dies for Christ, would not be saved by his blood offering. As the OT teaches, some blood offerings are actually an abomination. But we, again, don't know what is in the mind of the "heretic" who dies "for" Christ. Only the Lord knows if he is inside the Church or outside, based upon his heart, mind and disposition.

Again, this is simple justice. You must be "with Christ," and stay with Christ, to be saved. We can say what makes one "with Christ," but we can never really now if a specific person is "with Christ." I think you limit "with Christ" to baptized member of the Church. One may be "with Christ" in certain circumstances where one has not reached baptism by water, and thus also "with the Church."

tornpage

Duckbill,

I will leave it up to others to discuss your post. I hope you don’t mind, but I just want to say some things about this one line.

Duckbill: “St. Thomas scrutinized the heck out of the Immaculate Conception but was wrong. And one of the worst theologians of his day was right---Dun Scotus.”

First of all, Blessed John Duns Scotus was a child when St. Thomas died and he was a very good theologian. He built upon St. Thomas’ work by finding answers to some of St. Thomas’ well framed and thorough questions of what was revealed up to that time.

Secondly, it’s wrong to try and discredit St. Thomas Acquinas in order to dismiss what he said about Baptism of Desire.

I just want to clear up something to anyone who might be reading here. St. Thomas Acquinas NEVER denied the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception that was later defined by the Church after his death.

“The most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Savior of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original sin.”

While he was alive they were still debating how to reconcile 2 truths that had always been taught by the Church. One, that no sin ever touched Our Lady’s soul and two, that the Blessed Mother still needed a Savior. So she could not have been sanctified by the grace of Jesus Christ BEFORE her conception.

The Holy Spirit did not enlighten the Church until later that she was not preserved free from sin BEFORE she was conceived (In St. Thomas’s day they believed ensoulment happened at animation of the baby in the womb, which was a few months after conception. So he doesn’t say conception, but animation.) Nor was she preserved free from sin AFTER her conception. What no one, including St. Thomas, thought of back then was that it happened AT THE MOMENT OF HER CONCEPTION. This reconciled the 2 truths.

But St. Thomas never said sin touched her soul or that she was preserved free from sin before her conception. St. Thomas instinctively knew that the Blessed Mother was preserved free from original sin in the womb, sometime after animation/ensoulment and before birth. His timing was off because he never thought of at the moment of animation/ensoulment. So he thought she must of “incurred the stain of original sin” so that she needed Jesus’ salvation, as all men do. But the great Saint knew she was “sanctified in the womb” and that she was “perfectly by Divine Providence preserving her sensitive soul, in a singular manner.”

So it’s misleading for us to infer that St. Thomas was in error. That is a point about him the Protestants like to throw around to deny the Immaculate Conception.

More importantly to these discussions about Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood, St. Thomas was in left field and did not deny the Immaculate Conception. His timing was off, but he was right there with the essence of truth about Our Lady before the Holy Spirit revealed the details to the Church, who then defined the belief. Just like the Church believes St. Thomas was right about the essence of truth about Baptism of Desire, the details of which have not yet been revealed by the Holy Spirit or defined by the Church.

There is nothing wrong with holy mystery, which the Eastern Church embraces. We don’t need to know all the details to have faith and trust in the teachings of the Church. Just because we don’t understand how 2 truths can be reconciled doesn’t mean they can’t be reconciled and both be right. And the Holy Spirit will reveal the details when He sees fit, if He ever sees fit.

So maybe someone personally can’t understand how baptism is necessary for salvation, yet some may be saved through faith, charity, repentence and baptism of desire. But the Church teaches both, so we can trust that they can be reconciled.



http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4027.htm

Question 27
From Article 1

On the contrary, The Church celebrates the feast of our Lady's Nativity. Now the Church does not celebrate feasts except of those who are holy. Therefore even in her birth the Blessed Virgin was holy. Therefore she was sanctified in the womb.

I answer that, Nothing is handed down in the canonical Scriptures concerning the sanctification of the Blessed Mary as to her being sanctified in the womb; indeed, they do not even mention her birth. But as Augustine, in his tractate on the Assumption of the Virgin, argues with reason, since her body was assumed into heaven, and yet Scripture does not relate this; so it may be reasonably argued that she was sanctified in the womb. For it is reasonable to believe that she, who brought forth "the Only-Begotten of the Father full of grace and truth," received greater privileges of grace than all others: hence we read (Luke 1:28) that the angel addressed her in the words: "Hail full of grace!"

Moreover, it is to be observed that it was granted, by way of privilege, to others, to be sanctified in the womb; for instance, to Jeremias, to whom it was said (Jeremiah 1:5): "Before thou camest forth out of the womb, I sanctified thee"; and again, to John the Baptist, of whom it is written (Luke 1:15): "He shall be filled with the Holy Ghost even from his mother's womb." It is therefore with reason that we believe the Blessed Virgin to have been sanctified before her birth from the womb.

From Article 2:

I answer that, The sanctification of the Blessed Virgin cannot be understood as having taken place before animation, for two reasons. First, because the sanctification of which we are speaking, is nothing but the cleansing from original sin: for sanctification is a "perfect cleansing," as Dionysius says (Div. Nom. xii). Now sin cannot be taken away except by grace, the subject of which is the rational creature alone. Therefore before the infusion of the rational soul, the Blessed Virgin was not sanctified.

Secondly, because, since the rational creature alone can be the subject of sin; before the infusion of the rational soul, the offspring conceived is not liable to sin. And thus, in whatever manner the Blessed Virgin would have been sanctified before animation, she could never have incurred the stain of original sin: and thus she would not have needed redemption and salvation which is by Christ, of whom it is written (Matthew 1:21): "He shall save His people from their sins." But this is unfitting, through implying that Christ is not the "Saviour of all men," as He is called (1 Timothy 4:10). It remains, therefore, that the Blessed Virgin was sanctified after animation.

From Article 3:

Therefore it seems better to say that by the sanctification in the womb, the Virgin was not freed from the fomes in its essence, but that it remained fettered: not indeed by an act of her reason, as in holy men, since she had not the use of reason from the very first moment of her existence in her mother's womb, for this was the singular privilege of Christ: but by reason of the abundant grace bestowed on her in her sanctification, and still more perfectly by Divine Providence preserving her sensitive soul, in a singular manner, from any inordinate movement. Afterwards, however, at the conception of Christ's flesh, in which for the first time immunity from sin was to be conspicuous, it is to be believed that entire freedom from the fomes redounded from the Child to the Mother. This indeed is signified (Ezekiel 43:2): "Behold the glory of the God of Israel came in by the way of the east," i.e. by the Blessed Virgin, "and the earth," i.e. her flesh, "shone with His," i.e. Christ's, "majesty."

From Article 5:

I answer that, In every genus, the nearer a thing is to the principle, the greater the part which it has in the effect of that principle, whence Dionysius says (Coel. Hier. iv) that angels, being nearer to God, have a greater share than men, in the effects of the Divine goodness. Now Christ is the principle of grace, authoritatively as to His Godhead, instrumentally as to His humanity: whence (John 1:17) it is written: "Grace and truth came by Jesus Christ." But the Blessed Virgin Mary was nearest to Christ in His humanity: because He received His human nature from her. Therefore it was due to her to receive a greater fulness of grace than others.

MRyan wrote:

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 baptism of desire or baptism of blood, 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!

Ahh.. Now... MRyan I like this post. Maybe now we are getting somewhere. I see clearly what you mean and appreciate the way you've laid this out. I will digest this well and am reluctant to say anything against this as it is quite moving.

MRyan: Is there a debt that our Lord insists must still be paid that He does not want to fully remit in the sacrament?"

What is this supposed to mean?

hsilver wrote:MRyan: Is there a debt that our Lord insists must still be paid that He does not want to fully remit in the sacrament?"

What is this supposed to mean?

It means (even if poorly worded) that if one dies immediately after receiving the sacrament of baptism, there is no temporal punishment yet to be paid. In the case of Baptism of Desire, there may still remain the debt of temporal punishment that must be paid in purgatory.

Look it up - straight from the mouth of the Angelic and Common Doctor.

columba wrote:
Ahh.. Now... MRyan I like this post. Maybe now we are getting somewhere. I see clearly what you mean and appreciate the way you've laid this out. I will digest this well and am reluctant to say anything against this as it is quite moving.

You know, columba, if you keep that up, your tough Irish persona is sure to suffer ... but I truly appreciate the sentiment and good-will. Thank you.

Now, let me find that other thread where we can slog at each other with wonderful and furious Irish abandon under the watchful gaze (be nice!) and tutelage (we pray) of Holy Mother Church.

MRyan wrote:

columba wrote:
Ahh.. Now... MRyan I like this post. Maybe now we are getting somewhere. I see clearly what you mean and appreciate the way you've laid this out. I will digest this well and am reluctant to say anything against this as it is quite moving.

You know, columba, if you keep that up, your tough Irish persona is sure to suffer ... but I truly appreciate the sentiment and good-will. Thank you.

Now, let me find that other thread where we can slog at each other with wonderful and furious Irish abandon under the watchful gaze (be nice!) and tutelage (we pray) of Holy Mother Church.

Sorry to be a kill joy, but I haven't since a response to my challenge :
Okay show me the dogmatic ground for NOT being a member of the Church
one can be saved? Show me the dogmatic grounds how a person is a member
of the Church without the Sacramental Seal of Baptism?

duckbill wrote:
Sorry to be a kill joy, but I haven't since a response to my challenge :
Okay show me the dogmatic ground for NOT being a member of the Church
one can be saved? Show me the dogmatic grounds how a person is a member
of the Church without the Sacramental Seal of Baptism?

If you haven't received a response it is only because you haven't paid attention to previous responses; they seem to go in one ear and out the other. Your “challenge” is based on a logical fallacy and a seriously flawed understanding of dogmatic and magisterial teaching.

Show me the dogmatic grounds that say that not bearing the character of baptism automatically excludes one from salvation (your assertion to the contrary is based on a flawed "dogmatic" syllogism).

Show me the dogmatic grounds that say that anyone who is united to our Lord in the bonds of faith and charity (justification) cannot finally be saved without external and visible membership in the Church.

Here, once again, are the “dogmatic grounds” for justification and salvation when the sacrament is “impossible” to receive by some unforeseen accident.

The dogmatic Council of Trent:

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. (Sess. 6, Ch 4)

CANON IV.-If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous; and that, without them, or without the desire thereof, men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification;-though all (the sacraments) are not indeed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema. (Sess.7, Canon 4)

- …we must believe that nothing further is wanting to the justified, to prevent their being accounted to have, by those very works which have been done in God, fully satisfied the divine law according to the state of this life, and to have truly merited eternal life, to be obtained also in its (due) time, if so be, however, that they depart in grace : seeing that Christ, our Saviour, saith: If any one shall drink of the water that I will give him, he shall not thirst for ever; but it shall become in him a fountain of water springing up unto life everlasting. Thus, neither is our own justice established as our own as from ourselves; nor is the justice of God ignored or repudiated: for that justice which is called ours, because that we are justified from its being inherent in us, that same is (the justice) of God, because that it is infused into us of God, through the merit of Christ. (Sess. 6, Ch 16)

The Catechism of the Council of Trent (Roman Catechism) confirms this dogmatic teaching:

On adults, however, the Church has not been accustomed to confer the Sacrament of Baptism at once, but has ordained that it be deferred for a certain time. The delay is not attended with the same danger as in the case of infants, which we have already mentioned; should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church confirms this same teaching:

1258 The Church has always held the firm conviction that those who suffer death for the sake of the faith without having received Baptism are baptized by their death for and with Christ. This Baptism of blood, like the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament.

1259 For catechumens who die before their Baptism, their explicit desire to receive it, together with repentance for their sins, and charity, assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive through the sacrament.

Two Roman Catechisms, separated by half a millennium, teach the same doctrine based on the dogmatic decrees of the Council of Trent.

It is de fide that one may be justified by the desire for baptism (faith/charity and intention); for “The Church has always held the firm conviction that … This Baptism of blood, like the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament”; and the infallible Church teaches through her authentic and ordinary magisterium that “should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness.”

These “dogmatic grounds” have been affirmed over and over again by the Church in various magisterial documents, and have been affirmed by the universal moral consensus of saints, doctors, theologians and popes … without one dissenting voice since the Council of Trent (and before).

You were saying?

Is heretical then?
Father William Humphrey, SJ:

Baptism, therefore, does what nothing except Baptism can do, so far as character is concerned. The most perfect charity cannot imprint character. The largest measure of sanctifying grace cannot imprint it. The crown of charity in martyrdom cannot imprint it. The charity of Mary, the Queen of Martyrs, made her "full of grace" which sanctified her soul as never a soul was sanctified, save that Soul in which grace was not by measure, since in Him, whose Soul it was, dwelled all the fullness of Godhead corporeally. On His Soul no character was imprinted, since it is to that Soul that character configurates the souls of the sacramentally baptized. That which Mary’s sanctity could not do for her, Mary’s Baptism did. (The One Mediator, 1894, Pages 257-258)

Baptismal Character incorporates. It engrafts. It aggregates. It aggregates to a society. That society is a Body into which it incorporates. This society of men is the visible Church and People of God, the Kingdom of God upon the earth. Of the one visible Church, the Sacrament of Baptism is the one gate of entrance. Every one who enters through that gate enters the Apostolic Roman Church. Every one who has had imprinted on his soul the Baptismal Character has been at one time, even if he is not now, a member of the Apostolic Roman Church, outside which Pius IX has defined it as De Fide that no one can be saved. (THE ONE MEDIATOR, 1894, cf. p.258-259)

duckbill wrote:Is heretical then?
Father William Humphrey, SJ:

Baptism, therefore, does what nothing except Baptism can do, so far as character is concerned. The most perfect charity cannot imprint character. The largest measure of sanctifying grace cannot imprint it. The crown of charity in martyrdom cannot imprint it. The charity of Mary, the Queen of Martyrs, made her "full of grace" which sanctified her soul as never a soul was sanctified, save that Soul in which grace was not by measure, since in Him, whose Soul it was, dwelled all the fullness of Godhead corporeally. On His Soul no character was imprinted, since it is to that Soul that character configurates the souls of the sacramentally baptized. That which Mary’s sanctity could not do for her, Mary’s Baptism did. (The One Mediator, 1894, Pages 257-258)

Baptismal Character incorporates. It engrafts. It aggregates. It aggregates to a society. That society is a Body into which it incorporates. This society of men is the visible Church and People of God, the Kingdom of God upon the earth. Of the one visible Church, the Sacrament of Baptism is the one gate of entrance. Every one who enters through that gate enters the Apostolic Roman Church. Every one who has had imprinted on his soul the Baptismal Character has been at one time, even if he is not now, a member of the Apostolic Roman Church, outside which Pius IX has defined it as De Fide that no one can be saved. (THE ONE MEDIATOR, 1894, cf. p.258-259)

Of course it isn’t “heretical”, but neither does it say what you suggest. And I find it a just a bit ironic that your standard for the truth has gone from the “dogmatic” to the speculative opinion of a theologian who simply confirms what most of them believe: That the character “aggregates to a society”; with this “society of men” being “the visible Church and People of God, the Kingdom of God upon the earth .. the one visible Church”.

So what does that have to do with a Catechumen, for example, who dies without benefit of the sacrament but is united to our Lord in the bonds of faith and charity? What does that have to do with the character of baptism allegedly being absolutely necessary for salvation by an intrinsic necessity of means? Where is your proof?

Btw, the Church has never dogmatically “defined” the character of baptism (what it does) beyond her infallible affirmation that it imprints an indelible seal upon the soul which cannot be repeated. That’s it.

I’m curious; do you mind telling me where you obtained the citations from Fr. Humphrey? Do you have his work “The One Mediator, or Sacrifice and Sacraments” (1890)? I’m willing to bet, since it appears to be non-extant, that you don’t; and that you obtained these citations from a secondary source which I am also willing to bet, if we follow the trail, will eventually lead back to Mike Malone’s “The Only Begotten”, a work I have not only on my bookshelf, but on my hard drive as well.

A great book in many respects; but one that will get you into trouble if you think that his proof texts of the saints and theologians are conclusive of anything except the fine art of selective citation. In defense of his position, Mike presented copious amounts of "proofs" from Fr. O'Kane, Fr. Lapide, Fr. Scheeben, Fr. Kenrick, etc., etc; yet, in each and every case where I peeled back the onion, it turns out that these same sources explicitly taught baptism of blood/baptism of desire. In fact, Mike built such a compelling case on the testimony of Fr. Scheeben alone that I had to find and purchase an extant copy of the book he was constantly citing, The Mysteries of Christianity.

Guess what? Fr. Matthias Scheeben is not a "Feeneyite"! But I guess you would have to say that he is just one more confused theologian (he is known as the greatest theologian of the 19th century) who did not realize that he contradicted himself!

But, if you ever want to read his sublime chapter on the Character of Baptism, let me know, perhaps I'll scan it in and post it.

Are you a betting man, Duckbill? Are you willing to bet that Fr. Humphrey does not teach baptism of desire, since you seem to think that he teaches that no one can enter heaven without the sacramental seal?

Btw, I’ve used Fr. Humphrey’s citations on the character of baptism and the baptism of our Blessed Mother on more than one occasion. Unfortunately, you almost seem to be suggesting that our Blessed Mother could not have been “saved” without the sacrament, rather than it being “necessary” so that she could participate in the sacramental life of the Church and fulfill the divine law of incorporation with the visible Body.

Your problem, Duckbill, is one that is systemic with a lot of Feeneyites who believe that a strong "poof text" from a Father, a saint of a theologian on the absolute necessity of water baptism is somehow a proof against baptism of desire, when it is no such thing. You would have us believe that these same saints, doctors and theologians did not realize that they contradicted themselves when they also taught baptism of blood/baptism of desire. You would also have us believe, in cases where there is a lack of a positive affirmation for baptism of desire, that this serves as "proof" against it; while it does no such thing.

This is a nice quote from Fr. Humphrey:

“A vicar is put in the place of him whom he represents. He is invested with his power, he is furnished with his authority. … He personates his principal. … The master, by his appointment of a vicar, binds himself to ratify his vicar’s acts, and to recognize them as his own.” - (Rev. William Humphrey, S. J. “The Vicar of Christ,” p. 4. New York: Benziger Brothers, 1892.)

As an aside, Bro. Andre Marie does not think the "seal" argument to be a good one, i.e., he does not personally advance this argument as proof against baptism of desire.

Truly, this "argument" is in the realm of pure theological speculation, with no Magisterial weight to support it. A dead end.

MRyan wrote:
I’m curious; do you mind telling me where you obtained the citations from Fr. Humphrey? Do you have his work “The One Mediator, or Sacrifice and Sacraments” (1890)? I’m willing to bet, since it appears to be non-extant)

Actually it is available in PDF format:

http://www.archive.org/details/theonemediatoror00humpuoft

Thanks for the link, Rasha.

Fr. Humphrey does indeed teach baptism of desire; he has a nice page and a half on baptism of desire and baptism of blood, pages 94 through 96.

From the cited pages in Fr. Humphrey's book:

In the case of adults, this necessary state of grace is
possible previous to their actual reception of sacramental
baptism. Adults may come to that sacrament already
justified. They are capable of an act of perfect charity, or
of an act of perfect contrition. That act is an act of perfect
charity as it bears relation to the sin from which it is a
turning towards God. This turning is an effect of which
the Holy Ghost is the principal cause. It is a result of
His operation along with the sinner's co-operation. It
produces the principal effect of sacramental baptism. That
effect is an infusion of sanctifying grace, as that grace is
remissive of the sin which it finds in the soul. This
infusion of grace as remissive of sin suffices, therefore, for
salvation, when the adult is hindered from actual reception
of the Sacrament of Baptism. He who said, "Unless a
man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot
enter into the Kingdom of God," and " He that believeth
and is baptized shall be saved," said also, "He that hath
My commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth
Me, and he that loveth Me shall be loved by My Father,
and I will love".

An act of perfect charity, as it is an act of perfect conformity
of will with the divine will, and thus includes submission
to every command of Christ, contains an at least
implicit desire of that sacramental baptism, actual reception
of which is prescribed by the command of Christ.

MRyan wrote: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.

MRyan asserts that the Spirit of Sanctification and the blood of Redemption are able to bring a soul to this Justification/Sanctification without water baptism . But this is exactly the opposite of what Pope Leo the Great defines dogmatically! Let us quote the crucial portions of his statement................

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)… 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. 5:4-8 ) 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."

Pope St. Leo defines that in Sanctification, the Spirit of Sanctification and the Blood of Redemption cannot be separated from the water of baptism! You must be baptized with water to receive the Spirit of Sanctification and the blood of Redemption, according to this dogma. There can be no Justification by the Spirit and the Blood without the water! This excludes the very concept of baptism of desire and baptism blood, which is that sanctification by the Spirit and the Blood without water is possible.

A sinner cannot be sanctified by the Spirit and the Blood, which he must in order to be saved, without the water of Baptism. In light of this dogmatic letter, baptism of desire and baptism of blood cannot be held, for these theories separate the Spirit and the Blood from the water in sanctification

And lest someone tries to find fault with this infallible definition by arguing that the Blessed Virgin Mary is an exception to it, it should be recognized that Pope St. Leo is defining on sanctification/justification from the state of sin. The Blessed Virgin Mary had no sin. She was conceived already in a state of perfect sanctification

RashaLampa wrote:

MRyan wrote:
I’m curious; do you mind telling me where you obtained the citations from Fr. Humphrey? Do you have his work “The One Mediator, or Sacrifice and Sacraments” (1890)? I’m willing to bet, since it appears to be non-extant)

Actually it is available in PDF format:

http://www.archive.org/details/theonemediatoror00humpuoft

Thanks, Rahsa!

Btw, see pg. 94, "Baptism of desire - of blood"

Catholic_Truth wrote:

MRyan wrote: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.

MRyan asserts that the Spirit of Sanctification and the blood of Redemption are able to bring a soul to this Justification/Sanctification without water baptism . But this is exactly the opposite of what Pope Leo the Great defines dogmatically! Let us quote the crucial portions of his statement................

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)… 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. 5:4-8 ) 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."

Pope St. Leo defines that in Sanctification, the Spirit of Sanctification and the Blood of Redemption cannot be separated from the water of baptism! You must be baptized with water to receive the Spirit of Sanctification and the blood of Redemption, according to this dogma. There can be no Justification by the Spirit and the Blood without the water! This excludes the very concept of baptism of desire and baptism blood, which is that sanctification by the Spirit and the Blood without water is possible.

A sinner cannot be sanctified by the Spirit and the Blood, which he must in order to be saved, without the water of Baptism. In light of this dogmatic letter, baptism of desire and baptism of blood cannot be held, for these theories separate the Spirit and the Blood from the water in sanctification

And lest someone tries to find fault with this infallible definition by arguing that the Blessed Virgin Mary is an exception to it, it should be recognized that Pope St. Leo is defining on sanctification/justification from the state of sin. The Blessed Virgin Mary had no sin. She was conceived already in a state of perfect sanctification

C_T, I do not except you to understand this, let alone accept it, since you obviously take the corrupted doctrine of the Dimond Bro’s as the infallible word of God.

We already went over this with Duckbill where it was clearly explained that:

"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 bear witness to Christ's divinity.

Again, 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 [the one and the same testimony to the truth of His Humanity] with the other (“these three are one and remain indivisible”).

In other words (one more time!), the Spirit of Sanctification (in baptism of desire) cannot be separated from its LINK with the Blood of Redemption and the Water of Baptism because each bears witness to the same LINK -- the truth of Christ's humanity; thus, these three are one and inseparable.

As I said, C_T, this will probably make no sense to you since it will take an actual effort to understand the context of the words of Pope St. Leo; and we already know where you go to find the "truth" ... and its not the Church.

So it is not just "MRyan that asserts that the Spirit of Sanctification and the blood of Redemption are able to bring a soul to this Justification/Sanctification without water baptism"; it is the magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church; a concept with which you seem to be entirely unfamiliar.

MRyan,
I was just curious to know your limits.

I don't reject theology as you assert nor do I reject all non dogmatic statements I just apply the orthodox principle that NON-infallible statements, MUST be read in light of (subject to) what the Church has already infallibly defined as dogma. There is a hierarchy of teachings, the less authoritative is subject to the higher authoritative.
The problem arises when there appears a conflict, such as we have with baptism of desire.

As for membership, it is given only by the Sacrament of Baptism and the "Mark" is an important aspect not to be ignored. Those who receive baptism of desire or baptism of blood do not receive the "Mark" all orthodox theologians agree even baptism of desire advocate, St Alphonsus Liguori, teaches there is no Character given in baptism of desire:

Moral Theology, Bk. 6, nn. 95-7:
“We shall speak below of Baptism of water, which was very probably instituted before the Passion of Christ the Lord, when Christ was baptised by John. But baptism of desire is perfect conversion to God by contrition or love of God above all things accompanied by an explicit or implicit desire for true Baptism of water, the place of which it takes as to the remission of guilt, but not as to the impression of the [baptismal] character or as to the removal of all debt of punishment."

The Character/Seal/Mark (called by all these names) also referred to by the Fathers as the "Seal of Salvation":

St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lecture 1,#3, 386AD:
"He gives not holy things to the dogs (Matthew 7:6); but where He discerns the good conscience, there He gives the Seal of salvation, that wondrous Seal, which devils tremble at, and Angels recognise"

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/310101.htm

If the hypothetical justified catechumen has received Sanctifying Grace why is he not a member of the Church?:
Sacramental Baptism is necessary for membership:

Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis , June 29, 1943 # 22:
“Actually only those are to be numbered among the members of the Church who have received the laver of regeneration and profess the true faith and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the
unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults
committed [excommunicated].”

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius12/P12MYSTI.HTM

Pius XII is drawing from dogmatic teaching, the Council of Florence says the same:

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

http://www.catecheticsonline.com/SourcesofDogma7.php

What is LACKING in the hypothetical justified catechumen, if he already has Sanctifying grace? The Seal of Salvation--the Mark of Baptism. This is what can NOT be gotten outside the Sacrament. This is the intrinsic necessity of means of participating in the Sacraments. You quoted truly from Trent that 'nothing is wanting in the justified' but they don't have the Seal of Baptism ( seems to be a lack, because they cannot participate in the other sacraments), so if nothing is wanting then maybe Trent wasn't talking about the hypothetical justified catechumen after all, but Trent is talking about the Sacrament of Baptism only and that's what they mean. This Seal is what makes one a member of the Church. By it we are made worthy to participate in the other sacraments :

Pope Pius XII "On the Mystical Body of Christ,"June 29, 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."

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius12/P12MYSTI.HTM

Members of the Church are made up of those who profess the true Faith and participate in the Sacraments:

Catechism of the Council of Trent, The Members of the Church Militant:
“The Church militant is composed of two classes of persons, the good and the bad, both professing the same faith and partaking of the same sacraments…”
http://www.cin.org/users/james/ebooks/master/trent/tcreed09.htm

St. Francis De Sales, Doctor of the Church:

“The Church is a holy university or general company of men united and collected together in the profession of one same Christian faith; in the participation of the same sacraments…”[The Catholic Controversy, p. 161]

The Church has always taught that one is not a member of the Church unless he is Sacramentally Baptized. Ludwig Ott teaches this as all orthodox theologians have, that one is not a member of the Church if one is not eligible to participate in the Sacraments. This explains why an ex-communicant is not a member of the Church although he may still have true Faith.

“The so-called Baptism by blood and Baptism of desire, it is true, replace Sacramental Baptism in so far as the communication of grace is concerned, but do not effect incorporation into the Church , as they do not bestow the sacramental character by which a person becomes attached formally to the Church.” (Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma , p. 311.)

So if you don't have the Seal you cannot receive the other sacraments and are not a member of the Church and finally the hypothetical justified catechumen is not possible because outside the Church there is no remission of sins:

Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, Nov. 18, 1302:
“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

The hypothetical justified catechumen is just that hypothetical. Justification is only within the Church and is only given by the Sacrament of Baptism since New Covenant began.

duckbill wrote:MRyan,
I was just curious to know your limits.

Both my freedom and my limits are guided by the established norms and boundaries of the magisterium.

duckbill wrote:I don't reject theology as you assert

Yes; you do, and you have no shame in doing so. You simply dismiss the testimony of the Doctors and the universal consensus of the theologians when they do not conform to your novel, unorthodox and legalistic system of grace and salvation.

duckbill wrote:nor do I reject all non dogmatic statements I just apply the orthodox principle that NON-infallible statements, MUST be read in light of (subject to) what the Church has already infallibly defined as dogma. There is a hierarchy of teachings, the less authoritative is subject to the higher authoritative.

The problem arises when there appears a conflict, such as we have with baptism of desire.

The “light” by which dogmas must be read is the light of the Magisterium, and not your personal light of enlightenment that you believe gives you the right to re-“interpret” dogmas as they were “once declared”, as if the Church’s understanding of her own dogmas can be false, and yours correct.

That is your problem; not mine, and I do not have the time to re-hash all of your logical fallacies when you do not take the Church as your mother and mistress of all Truth.

The alleged "conflict" with baptism of desire exists only with those who simply refuse to acknowledge the authority (and traditions) of the Church, and who sweep the universal moral consensus of the theologians clean off the table.

Since you cited Fr. Humphrey in support of your novel thesis, for your reading pleasure I posted the section on baptism of blood and desire from the same book (thank you, Rasha, for the on-line source).

Tell us, Duckbill, was Fr. Humphrey just one more errant theologian who did not realize, just like St. Aquinas and all the rest, that his "inconsistency" was in fact a denial, or a "recession in meaning", of the absolute necessity of water baptism; a necessity of precept and means established by divine decree?

And you say that you do not "reject" theology?

C_T, I do not except you to understand this

Change that to "expect". My "Word" editor makes no distinction so long as it corrects the spelling to a legitimate word as I type.

Speaking of typos, Rasha seems to have removed the edit function (with a time limit no less) for posts re-visited. I was one of those who liked to correct the typos I missed the first time around.

It is what it is!

tornpage wrote:Thanks for the link, Rasha.

Fr. Humphrey does indeed teach baptism of desire; he has a nice page and a half on baptism of desire and baptism of blood, pages 94 through 96.

Sorry, Tornpage, I missed your post and citation and posted a separate thread with the referenced text.

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:"

MRyan, do you seriously think the Holy Spirit would give us an infallible declarative statement so as to make a teaching absoluely clear to all the faithful , but then that teaching must be "interpreted" by "fallible" men in "fallible" commentaries, otherwise the faithful wouldn't really know what the actual "infallible statements" themselves tell us !!??!!??

See, this is your whole problem MRyan. Instead of going to the "infallible source document" itself, you instead turn to "fallible documents" to tell you what the "infallible document" says. So, then the "fallible document" in your mind becomes the "infallible teaching" and therefore now you have an excuse to ignore what the original "Infallible document" said in the name of a "DEEPER UNDERSTANDING"( i.e.- the Haydock Commentary )

Catholic_Truth 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:"

MRyan, do you seriously think the Holy Spirit would give us an infallible declarative statement so as to make a teaching absoluely clear to all the faithful , but then that teaching must be "interpreted" by "fallible" men in "fallible" commentaries, otherwise the faithful wouldn't really know what the actual "infallible statements" themselves tell us !!??!!??

See, this is your whole problem MRyan. Instead of going to the "infallible source document" itself, you instead turn to "fallible documents" to tell you what the "infallible document" says. So, then the "fallible document" in your mind becomes the "infallible teaching" and therefore now you have an excuse to ignore what the original "Infallible document" said in the name of a "DEEPER UNDERSTANDING"( i.e.- the Haydock Commentary )

Oh goodness, nothing demonstrates better the bankruptcy of pungent private dogmatism than this pile of horrific heterodoxy.

C_T, have you eve read 1 John 5:4-8, the Scripture passage Pope St. Leo is referencing with his “these three are one” exclamation?

Apparently not; for if you had, you might have gotten a glimmer of the context of St. John’s own words where he infallibly declared “And there are three that give testimony on earth: the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three are one”.

Of course, you don’t have a clue as to what St. John and Pope St. Leo are talking about, but you do have the authority to “read” a dogmatic declaration as it was “once declared” and yank it completely out of context with your own specious interpretation which is devoid of all Catholic truth.

Haydock even provides the testimony of the Fathers in support of its commentary, but we know how far that goes when we have infallible sources such as C_T hanging around.

Of course, we are not relying on Haydock for our understanding; but the Church; who has never understood this dogmatic declaration as you do.

But, I forgot, you are your own magisterium (though you appear to submit to the one in upstate NY).

Seriously; for the good of your soul, you really need to make a total break with the evil source of your appalling ecclesiology (and I use the word loosely).

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."


Mryan if I may stick my nose in again. I still don’t see your interpretation of the above as the Catholic interpretation. If – as you maintain - that any one of the three, operating individually, can produce the fruits of the three combined and the “non separation” can be viewed in this way, then a serious difficultly results. If the water, (the visible part) can be omitted while the “spirit” achieves the desired end (justification and salvation) then why can all the other visible aspects of (not only) the sacraments but of corporal membership not be considered expendable?

Is the Church not a corporate body with visible members, visible sacraments and a visible head? Can the Church really exist in spirit alone? If this (as you permit) is possible for even one individual member then it’s not such a stretch of the imagination to consider the possibility that this could pertain also to an unlimited number of members. Once the principle of visible membership is denied for a single member it can also be denied of any particular member and allow for any amount of invisible members. This could be closer to sedevacantism than you might think as this could also be applicable (in principle) to the Pope as not necessarily needing to be the visible head.

“By their fruits you shall Know,” them says the Lord.

baptism of desire cannot really be separated from Invincible Ignorance or the false perception of Universal Salvation. What are the fruits of belief in baptism of desire?
They are; the dismissal of evangelisation as a necessary duty or even a worthwhile venture, the abolition of the Church Militant, the blurring of distinction between the one true Church and other false religions, the denial of Baptism as necessary to salvation, the denial of the intrinsic value of the other sacraments including belief in the True Presence, and above all, the denial of the right of the Church to present herself as the sole means by which humanity can know the truth of the full revelation of God given in and by Christ to the world.

Am I overstating the danger inherent in this theory of baptism of desire? I don’t think so. How else could the following statement ever have been made of the Church and it’s now perceived position in the realms of religious belief?

“The question that really concerns us, the question that really oppresses us, is why it is necessary for us in particular to practice the Christian Faith in its totality; why, when there are so many other ways that lead to heaven and salvation, it should be required of us to bear day after day the whole burden of ecclesial dogmas and of the ecclesial ethos. And so we come again to the question: What exactly is Christian reality? What is the specific element in Christianity that not merely justifies it, but makes it compulsorily necessary for us? When we raise the question about the foundation and meaning of our Christian existence, there slips in a certain false hankering for the apparently more comfortable life of other people who are also going to heaven. We are too much like the laborers of the first hour in the parable of the workers in the vineyard (Mt. 20:1-16). Once they discovered that they could have earned their day’s pay of one denarius in a much easier way, they could not understand why they had had to labor the whole day. But what a strange attitude it is to find the duties of our Christian life unrewarding just because the denarius of salvation can be gained without them! It would seem that we – like the workers of the first hour – want to be paid not only with our own salvation, but more particularly with others’ lack of salvation. That is at once very human and profoundly un-Christian.”
Cardinal” Joseph Ratzinger, Co-Workers of the Truth, 1990, p. 217:

Am I overreacting? Can a theory so destructive of the unity and coporate nature of the Church be called a doctrine of the faith? Could it not be the more likely that you have missinterpreted the Church Fathers, Doctors, Councils and dogmas that the rest of us here are told we are not assnting to? How can I and others interpret the same Faters, Doctors and Councils differently? The answer, We interpret them in subjection to the infallible dogma.

columba wrote: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."


Mryan if I may stick my nose in again. I still don’t see your interpretation of the above as the Catholic interpretation. If – as you maintain - that any one of the three, operating individually, can produce the fruits of the three combined and the “non separation” can be viewed in this way, then a serious difficultly results. If the water, (the visible part) can be omitted while the “spirit” achieves the desired end (justification and salvation) then why can all the other visible aspects of (not only) the sacraments but of corporal membership not be considered expendable?

Let’s see if I can unravel this. “My” interpretation is not the Catholic interpretation because, you claim, when “separated” from actual Water Baptism, the Spirit of Sanctification cannot “produce the fruits of the three combined”. But you are missing the point; the fruits of the combined cannot be separated from their inseparable link with each other, such that, the Spirit of Sanctification contains the fruit of Water Baptism, as well as the fruit of the Blood Redemption, for these three are one and inseparable (and each testifies to the truth of Christ’s humanity).

You don’t comprehend any of this, do you. Did you actually read the relevant section of 1 John:5 as well as the Haydock commentary before trying to put your spin on the words of Pope St. Leo?

You do realize that if your ill-informed interpretation is correct, that the Church is wrong, the Fathers are all wrong and her theologians are all wrong. In other words, the Holy See is stained with heresy for teaching through her ordinary and universal magisterium that one may be justified by the Spirit of Sanctification without always having the benefit of Water Baptism. But, thank goodness we have you and a couple of sede’s to correct the Fathers and the Church in their egregious error.

Do you realize how arrogant and prideful that sounds? Can you produce even one credible source which agrees with your “opinion”? If not, can you give us just one good reason why anyone should listen to you, and not the Fathers and the Church?

columba wrote:Is the Church not a corporate body with visible members, visible sacraments and a visible head? Can the Church really exist in spirit alone?

Yes she is, and no she can’t. Who suggested otherwise?

columba wrote:If this (as you permit) is possible for even one individual member then it’s not such a stretch of the imagination to consider the possibility that this could pertain also to an unlimited number of members. Once the principle of visible membership is denied for a single member it can also be denied of any particular member and allow for any amount of invisible members. This could be closer to sedevacantism than you might think as this could also be applicable (in principle) to the Pope as not necessarily needing to be the visible head.

When the Church teaches that one may be invisibly united to the Church through the bonds of faith and charity, the principle of visible membership is not denied in the least. Your error is to assume that no one can be united to Christ and His Mystical Body without formal membership in the visible Body. The only thing close to sedevacantism is your sede theory which has the Church teaching a heretical doctrine.

columba wrote: “By their fruits you shall Know,” them says the Lord.

Amen to that!

columba wrote:baptism of desire cannot really be separated from Invincible Ignorance or the false perception of Universal Salvation. What are the fruits of belief in baptism of desire?

Total non-sequitur. But I am troubled by your “Invincible Ignorance” comment which suggests that the Church has suggested that one may be saved by or through inculpable ignorance, when she taught no such thing. If you want to know the “fruit” of baptism of desire, read the relevant passage from the Catechism of Trent, as well as from Pope Pius IX in Quanto Conficiamur Moerore, and you’ll learn what it is.

columba wrote:They are; the dismissal of evangelisation as a necessary duty or even a worthwhile venture, the abolition of the Church Militant, the blurring of distinction between the one true Church and other false religions, the denial of Baptism as necessary to salvation, the denial of the intrinsic value of the other sacraments including belief in the True Presence, and above all, the denial of the right of the Church to present herself as the sole means by which humanity can know the truth of the full revelation of God given in and by Christ to the world.

Am I overstating the danger inherent in this theory of baptism of desire? I don’t think so. How else could the following statement ever have been made of the Church and it’s now perceived position in the realms of religious belief?

Your overstatements are just that -- overstatements if not outright falsehoods. Blame your lack of comprehension and the new “orientation” of ecumenism on baptism of desire … good one. What Cardinal Ratzinger wrote 10 years ago can be taken completely out of context, and I have no doubt that you have.

columba wrote:Am I overreacting? Can a theory so destructive of the unity and coporate nature of the Church be called a doctrine of the faith? Could it not be the more likely that you have missinterpreted the Church Fathers, Doctors, Councils and dogmas that the rest of us here are told we are not assnting to? How can I and others interpret the same Faters, Doctors and Councils differently? The answer, We interpret them in subjection to the infallible dogma.

Yes, you are overreacting. It is not a “theory” except in the context of a theoretical examination of Providence that allows for the freedom of God to save whom he will - but never apart from the Church, and never apart from the fruits of baptism. Your error is to keep regarding Baptism of Desire as some sort of practical proposal or set of rules that one may lay down for the Creator.

You are really asking me if I might have misinterpreted the Church Fathers, Doctors, Councils and dogmas, when they speak the same truth and teach the same doctrine? Are you really suggesting that you and a handful of your compatriots possess the “true” interpretation that is faithful to infallible dogmas, and that the Church, the Fathers, the theologians, the doctors and the saints who are of one mind in interpretation are all wrong?

Yours, as it appears to me, is the doctrine of neo-Protestant personal interpretation.

There would be no problem if the “the Church and the unanimous consent the saints and theologians are in error” crowd would submit to the Catholic Church and accept her teachings as she understands them.

MRyan I noticed you didn't comment on the following quote.

“The question that really concerns us, the question that really oppresses us, is why it is necessary for us in particular to practice the Christian Faith in its totality; why, when there are so many other ways that lead to heaven and salvation, it should be required of us to bear day after day the whole burden of ecclesial dogmas and of the ecclesial ethos. And so we come again to the question: What exactly is Christian reality? What is the specific element in Christianity that not merely justifies it, but makes it compulsorily necessary for us? When we raise the question about the foundation and meaning of our Christian existence, there slips in a certain false hankering for the apparently more comfortable life of other people who are also going to heaven. We are too much like the laborers of the first hour in the parable of the workers in the vineyard (Mt. 20:1-16). Once they discovered that they could have earned their day’s pay of one denarius in a much easier way, they could not understand why they had had to labor the whole day. But what a strange attitude it is to find the duties of our Christian life unrewarding just because the denarius of salvation can be gained without them! It would seem that we – like the workers of the first hour – want to be paid not only with our own salvation, but more particularly with others’ lack of salvation. That is at once very human and profoundly un-Christian.”
Cardinal” Joseph Ratzinger, Co-Workers of the Truth, 1990, p. 217:

I take it you are in agreement with this?

MRyan wrote:

columba wrote: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."

You don’t comprehend any of this, do you. Did you actually read the relevant section of 1 John:5 as well as the Haydock commentary before trying to put your spin on the words of Pope St. Leo?

MRyan, let me break it down for you ,....A CATHOLIC DOES NOT NEED ANYONE TO INTERPRET WHAT HAS ALREADY BEEN DECLARED INFALLIBLY BY THE CHURCH

The proximate of faith is the "infallible statements" themselves....

MRyan, instead of simply reading the infallible statement "as it is written" , you instead turn to the "fallible" Haydock commentary. Plus to top it off, you then go straight to scripture, as Protestants do, and in doing so you claim to somehow have this "DEEPER UNDERSTANDING" of what Pope St. Leo meant to say.

The Holy Council of Vatican I teaches that "the doctrine of Faith that God has revealed, was not proposed to the minds of men as a philosophical discovery to be perfected, but as the divine deposit, entrusted to the Spouse of Christ that she might faithfully keep it and infallibly define it. Consequently, the meaning of the sacred apostolic teachings which must always be preserved, is that which our Holy Mother the Church has determined. Never is it permissible to depart from this in the name of a "DEEPER UNDERSTANDING" (Dogmatic Constitution Dei Filius, Dz.1800).

Therefore, MRyan, it is you who are putting your own "SPIN" on what Pope St. Leo had infallibly stated

Columba,

"Agreement" with what? What do you find so troubling? That God provides other means to bring someone inside the Mystical Body? Are you like one of the laborers in the first hour who finds life unrewarding just because the denarius of salvation can be offered and gained to another without visible membership, and even at the last hour?

Does that trouble you so? Does that really torque you off?

Did Cardinal Ratzinger suggest that any of these “others” our Lord calls who are outside the fold will NOT finally be joined to the Mystical Body … even in a “mysterious manner” known to God (and the Church triumphant) alone? Didn’t Pope Pius IX and doesn’t the Church teach that these too may be enlightened with the grace of truth and salvation?

Just what is your problem?

C_T,

Only a Protestant or a heretic would believe that his own fallible interpretation of a dogma as it was “once declared” can supersede the Church’s own magisterial and authentic interpretation as she herself understands it, and has always understood it.

The Dogmatic Constitution Dei Verbum, the Second Vatican Council:

CHAPTER II: HANDING ON DIVINE REVELATION

But the task of authentically interpreting the Word of God, whether written or handed on, has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church, whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ. This teaching office is not above the Word of God, but serves it, teaching only what has been handed on, listening to it devoutly, guarding it scrupulously and explaining it faithfully in accord with a divine commission and with the help of the Holy Spirit; it draws from this one deposit of faith everything which it presents for belief as divinely revealed.

MRyan wrote:Columba,

"Agreement" with what? What do you find so troubling? That God provides other means to bring someone inside the Mystical Body? Are you like one of the laborers in the first hour who finds life unrewarding just because the denarius of salvation can be offered and gained to another without visible membership, and even at the last hour?

Does that trouble you so? Does that really torque you off?

Did Cardinal Ratzinger suggest that any of these “others” our Lord calls who are outside the fold will NOT finally be joined to the Mystical Body … even in a “mysterious manner” known to God (and the Church triumphant) alone? Didn’t Pope Pius IX and doesn’t the Church teach that these too may be enlightened with the grace of truth and salvation?

Just what is your problem?

I don't find it troubling at all that God can provide other means to Bring people into the Church when the Church won't evangelize and I will salvation for all no matter at what hour of the day they gain it but I can't see where Cardinal Ratzinger was saying they achieve this through invisible membership of the Church. Read again the following line;

“The question that really concerns us, the question that really oppresses us, is why it is necessary for us in particular to practice the Christian Faith in its totality; why, when there are so many other ways that lead to heaven and salvation,

If Cardinal Ratzinger is implying even invisible membership here then it's very much disguised; so much so that you may be the only one here with the verbal gymnastic power to make it orthodox.

I admire your defense of everything the Pope does or says, even when it defies logic but you also believe that the Pope has been given the charism of personal inerrancy (I gathered this from Pascendi's) and therefore this will always have to be your stance no matter what the apparent contradictions.

MRyan wrote:C_T,

Only a Protestant or a heretic would believe that his own fallible interpretation of a dogma as it was “once declared” can supersede the Church’s own magisterial and authentic interpretation as she herself understands it, and has always understood it.

The Dogmatic Constitution Dei Verbum, the Second Vatican Council:

CHAPTER II: HANDING ON DIVINE REVELATION

But the task of authentically interpreting the Word of God, whether written or handed on, has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church, whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ. This teaching office is not above the Word of God, but serves it, teaching only what has been handed on, listening to it devoutly, guarding it scrupulously and explaining it faithfully in accord with a divine commission and with the help of the Holy Spirit; it draws from this one deposit of faith everything which it presents for belief as divinely revealed.

Somehow, MRyan, it doesn't surprise me that you'd quote from Vatican II which had attempted to redefine past dogmatic teachings in the name of a "DEEPER UNDERSTANDING" . Vatican II is the council which all the liberal modernists love to quote, while themselves admitting that because of that council, the Church had moved away from its past understanding of dogmatic truths. So you posting from Vatican II only works against your case. Also, you don't seriously expect any traditional Catholic with any sense who is reading this thread to believe that the Church had originally understood Pope St. Leo's statement the way you and the Haydock fallible commentary understands it? Seriously, do you think we are all fools?
Pope St. Leo makes it clear that the Holy Spirit which sanctifies us, and the sacrifice of our Lord, Jesus Christ, which redeems us and the Water baptismal Sacrament are inseparable,...PERIOD . Only a liberal modernist would try to twist that infallible statement to mean that they,(Holy Spirit, Christ' Sacrifice,Water Baptismal Sacrament), all can be separated while not being separated, and while claiming to come to this fallible false and diabolical conclusion in the name of a "DEEPER UNDERSTANDING" .

Pope Pius IX, First Vatican Council, Sess. 3, Chap. 2 on Revelation, 1870, ex cathedra: “Hence, also, that understanding of its sacred dogmas must be perpetually retained, which Holy Mother Church has once declared ; and there must never be a recession from that meaning under the specious name of a deeper understanding .”

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

Catholic_Truth wrote:

MRyan wrote:C_T,

Only a Protestant or a heretic would believe that his own fallible interpretation of a dogma as it was “once declared” can supersede the Church’s own magisterial and authentic interpretation as she herself understands it, and has always understood it.

The Dogmatic Constitution Dei Verbum, the Second Vatican Council:

CHAPTER II: HANDING ON DIVINE REVELATION

But the task of authentically interpreting the Word of God, whether written or handed on, has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church, whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ. This teaching office is not above the Word of God, but serves it, teaching only what has been handed on, listening to it devoutly, guarding it scrupulously and explaining it faithfully in accord with a divine commission and with the help of the Holy Spirit; it draws from this one deposit of faith everything which it presents for belief as divinely revealed.

Somehow, MRyan, it doesn't surprise me that you'd quote from Vatican II which had attempted to redefine past dogmatic teachings in the name of a "DEEPER UNDERSTANDING" . Vatican II is the council which all the liberal modernists love to quote, while themselves admitting that because of that council, the Church had moved away from its past understanding of dogmatic truths. So you posting from Vatican II only works against your case. Also, you don't seriously expect any traditional Catholic with any sense who is reading this thread to believe that the Church had originally understood Pope St. Leo's statement the way you and the Haydock fallible commentary understands it? Seriously, do you think we are all fools?

Why yes, I do. The only fools who understand the words of Pope St. Leo in the restrictive out-of-context manner as you are neo-Protestant Fundamentalists whose numbers we can probably count on one-hand (not counting their brain-washed sect followers) and who make it a habit of condemning everyone in the world who disagrees with their pseudo-magisterial bluster - including the Church.

Since you won’t listen to the living, authoritative and permanent Magisterium of a Vatican Council, you will have no excuse for not listening to Pope Leo XIII who, in Satis Cognitum, said the exact same thing as the cited text from The Dogmatic Constitution Dei Verbum:

Wherefore, as appears from what has been said, Christ instituted in the Church a living, authoritative and permanent Magisterium, which by His own power He strengthened, by the Spirit of truth He taught, and by miracles confirmed. He willed and ordered, under the gravest penalties, that its teachings should be received as if they were His own.

To refuse to the Church the primacy is most impious and above measure arrogant. And if all learning, no matter how easy and common it may be, in order to be fully understood requires a teacher and master, what can be greater evidence of pride and rashness than to be unwilling to learn about the books of the divine mysteries from the proper interpreter, and to wish to condemn them unknown?" (De Unitate Credendi, cap. xvii., n. 35).

10. But as this heavenly doctrine was never left to the arbitrary judgment of private individuals, but, in the beginning delivered by Jesus Christ, was afterwards committed by Him exclusively to the Magisterium already named, so the power of performing and administering the divine mysteries, together with the authority of ruling and governing, was not bestowed by God on all Christians indiscriminately, but on certain chosen persons.

12. From this text it is clear that by the will and command of God the Church rests upon St. Peter, just as a building rests on its foundation. Now the proper nature of a foundation is to be a principle of cohesion for the various parts of the building. It must be the necessary condition of stability and strength. Remove it and the whole building falls. It is consequently the office of St. Peter to support the Church, and to guard it in all its strength and indestructible unity.

Since you dare to cite Pope Pius IX in support of your heterodoxy, let’s review once again what he actually taught:

Pope Pius IX, First Vatican Council, Sess. 3, Chap. 2 on Revelation, 1870, ex cathedra: “Hence, also, that understanding of its sacred dogmas must be perpetually retained, which Holy Mother Church has once declared; and there must never be a recession from that meaning under the specious name of a deeper understanding.”

C_T, for once in your life pay attention. I won’t admonish you for citing the wrong Chapter of Session 3 (copy and paste errors beget errors), but did Pius IX say that there was no such thing as coming to a “deeper understanding” of dogma? Of course not, for to say such a thing would be false. The examples of coming to a deeper understanding of a revealed truth ("once declared" in the Creed, for example) are numerous; but if you don’t “get it”, I would be glad to demonstrate.

Pay attention: Pius IX was condemning the notion of coming to a deeper understanding of a dogma that is actually a recession from that meaning once declared by Holy Mother Church. Pope Pius IX nowhere suggests the heretical idea that the living, authoritative and permanent Magisterium can be accused of a recession in meaning, but condemned the puffed-up arrogance of private individuals who spew their “dogmatic” interpretations as if they have the competency and the authority to do so.

In fact, here is the actual ex cathedra canon that infallibly and dogmatically condemns what you propose:

VCI, Session 3, Chapter 4. On faith and reason, ex cathedra

Canon 3: If anyone says that it is possible that at some time, given the advancement of knowledge, a sense may be assigned to the dogmas propounded by the Church which is different from that which the Church has understood and understands: let him be anathema.

And, since you have accused the Church of "assigning a meaning to her own dogma which is different from that which the Church has understood and understands: let him be anathema”. If the shoe fits ....

15. Consequently, the situation of those, who by the heavenly gift of faith have embraced the Catholic truth, is by no means the same as that of those who, led by human opinions, follow a false religion; for those who have accepted the faith under the guidance of the Churchcan never have any just cause for changing this faith or for calling it into question. (VCI, Session 3, Chapter 3, On Faith)

One more time, the fruits of the Spirit the Water and the Blood cannot be separated from their inseparable link with each other; such that, the Spirit of Sanctification contains the fruit of Water Baptism, as well as the fruit of the Blood Redemption, for these three are one and inseparable (for each is a witness to the truth of Christ’s humanity).

That is what St. John the Evangelist was teaching, that is what Pope St. Leo was teaching, that is how the fathers understand it, that is how Haydock, Challoner and Witham understand it, and that is how the Church understands it; otherwise, the Holy See would be stained with error for teaching that the Spirit of Sanctification contains the fruit and merit of the Redemption when a soul is translated to the justice of His love in faith, charity and intention.

And you can’t even blame this on VCII.

But, the teachings of the living, authoritative and permanent Magisterium can’t slow you down; you have sold your soul to a private magisterium in upstate NY -- and good luck with that since these are the same fellows who take a dogmatic declaration from the Council of Trent and, on their own authority, declare that the term “co-redemptrix” is a heretical recession in meaning from the dogma of Christ’s sole redemptive sacrifice as it was “once declared” (the popes who used this term were obviously just “material heretics” since they never got the chance to read the dynamic duo’s penetrating, living, authoritative and permanent magisterial insight).

Yes, by their fruits you will know them - and the operation of error was given to these fellows so that we may know just how far they have fallen from the one Ark of salvation.

MRyan wrote:Since you won’t listen to the living, authoritative and permanent Magisterium of a Vatican Counci.....

Mike, isn't that the same living, authoritative Magisterium which says it is permissible to hold to the strict interpretation of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus, reconciled Fr. Feeney to the Church without a recantation of his beliefs, and has reconciled several groups of his followers without asking them to recant? Or is it a different one?

If the living Magisterium of the Church has reconciled these people, then by what authority do you hurl epithets such as "heretic" at them? Do you believe that the living, authoritative Magisterium has erred?

Deacon Augustine wrote:

MRyan wrote:Since you won’t listen to the living, authoritative and permanent Magisterium of a Vatican Counci.....

Mike, isn't that the same living, authoritative Magisterium which says it is permissible to hold to the strict interpretation of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus, reconciled Fr. Feeney to the Church without a recantation of his beliefs, and has reconciled several groups of his followers without asking them to recant? Or is it a different one?

Fr. Feeney may have been admonished for an incorrect understanding of the Church's teaching on Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus, but I wasn’t aware that Fr. Feeney was excommunicated for his beliefs. I could have sworn it was disciplinary matter; did I miss something?

Deacon Augustine wrote:If the living Magisterium of the Church has reconciled these people, then by what authority do you hurl epithets such as "heretic" at them? Do you believe that the living, authoritative Magisterium has erred?

Where have I hurled the epithet "'heretic' at them"?

Go ahead, prove your accusation, or take it back.

You’re a little late to the party and perhaps you should familiarize yourself with what I actually said before making false accusations and misrepresenting what I said.

You’re a dime late and a dollar short. I'm a little disappointed; I always expected better from you.

Btw, Deacon, I addressed the old “the St. Benedict Center is not outside the Church” red herring elsewhere, because its one of those “defenses” that keeps popping up, when it is entirely irrelevant to any of my arguments. Since the “Pete Vere” slam dunk was recently thrown at me (again), here is part of my response (from the “Trent and Forced Baptisms” thread”

The Church does not “create doctrines”, she teaches doctrines. The Church does not teach “authentic expressions” of “theological opinions”; she teaches authentic expressions of truth through her authoritative instruments for teaching Catholic truth. The fact that some of these expressions are non-defined doctrines does not make them any less authentic expressions of the truth (only the degree of adherence changes depending on the factors already presented - which may vary depending on one's understanding of these same factors).

Let’s get to the issue of precisely what Br. Andre was seeking from Pete Vere, and what the latter told him:

Br. Andre Marie to Pete Vere: “I'm wondering if you are able to put in writing something testifying to the lawfulness of holding Father Feeney's position as a Catholic in good standing with the Church.”

Pete Vere: “In our discussions with the Congregation [for the Doctrine of the Faith] it seemed rather clear that proponents of a strict interpretation of the doctrine should be given the same latitude for teaching and discussion as those who would hold more liberal views. [MRyan ... like the Pope and the Magisterium]

On that note, the evidence is clear: while the position held by Fr. Feeney and his spiritual descendants may be controversial, holding these positions does not, in itself, place one outside of the Catholic Church. In short, it is clear from the Church’s current pastoral and canonical practice that the Church considers this an internal controversy, and that she acknowledges the good standing of most of those who uphold a restrictive interpretation of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus, baptism of blood and baptism of desire.”

So tell me, [XXXXX], where I ever suggested that it is “unlawful” to hold the more “restrictive interpretation of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus, baptism of blood and baptism of desire”? Tell me where I suggested that “holding these positions … place one outside of the Catholic Church”.

Can you?

I suspect that this “Pete Vere” argument is simply one more straw-man used to dodge the real issue that I’ve tried to bring to light (and if I am wrong, show me), but one that keeps getting buried beneath these non-sequiturs, irrelevancies, detours and false arguments.

The St. Benedict Center and anyone else can “hold” their opinions on Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus and the absolute necessity of the sacrament; I have absolutely no problem with that. In fact, I have no problem with those who hold that the merit of our Lord’s passion cannot be transmitted without actual sacramental ablution. My only problem is with the non-Catholic attitude expressed on this forum and elsewhere that suggests that the Church has erred in her authentic expressions of Magisterial truth (baptism of blood/baptism of desire) and that we are free to deny and to reject those same “errors” because they are not authentic expressions of the Magisterium - they do not represent authentic truths, they are theological speculations that have never been “defined”; and Catholics are thus free to determine for themselves what the true and authentic expressions of the Magisterium really are, because the Church cannot “create doctrines”.

A dangerous position; indeed.

That’s my “arm-chair” opinion, and I am free to hold and defend it.

I’m still waiting for a legitimate argument that defends the notion that the Church’s authentic teachings on baptism of desire/baptism of blood are not “expressions of the ordinary Magisterium of the Roman Pontiff” that form a apart of “a statement of the Church's faith and of catholic doctrine” (the CCC).

Half-truths about the CCC like “it's a reference book"; and irrelevancies which say that the CCC is “not something that creates doctrine” are not valid arguments that even begin to address the real issue -- they are evasions and non-sequiturs.

But that’s OK; I’m used to it.

MRyan wrote:

Deacon Augustine wrote:

MRyan wrote:Since you won’t listen to the living, authoritative and permanent Magisterium of a Vatican Counci.....

Mike, isn't that the same living, authoritative Magisterium which says it is permissible to hold to the strict interpretation of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus, reconciled Fr. Feeney to the Church without a recantation of his beliefs, and has reconciled several groups of his followers without asking them to recant? Or is it a different one?

Fr. Feeney may have been admonished for an incorrect understanding of the Church's teaching on Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus, but I wasn’t aware that Fr. Feeney was excommunicated for his beliefs. I could have sworn it was disciplinary matter; did I miss something?

Deacon Augustine wrote:If the living Magisterium of the Church has reconciled these people, then by what authority do you hurl epithets such as "heretic" at them? Do you believe that the living, authoritative Magisterium has erred?

Where have I hurled the epithet "'heretic' at them"?

Go ahead, prove your accusation, or take it back.

You’re a little late to the party and perhaps you should familiarize yourself with what I actually said before making false accusations and misrepresenting what I said.

You’re a dime late and a dollar short. I'm a little disappointed; I always expected better from you.

"...fools....neo-Protestant fundamentalists", "your heterodoxy"

I assumed that you had levelled these charges at a Feeneyite for holding a Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma, but on closer inspection that may not be the case. Nevertheless, you're not going to save any souls by addressing them like this, Mike - it will only antagonise them.

MRyan wrote:Btw, Deacon, I addressed the old “the St. Benedict Center is not outside the Church” red herring elsewhere, because its one of those “defenses” that keeps popping up, when it is entirely irrelevant to any of my arguments. Since the “Pete Vere” slam dunk was recently thrown at me (again), here is part of my response (from the “Trent and Forced Baptisms” thread”

The Church does not “create doctrines”, she teaches doctrines. The Church does not teach “authentic expressions” of “theological opinions”; she teaches authentic expressions of truth through her authoritative instruments for teaching Catholic truth. The fact that some of these expressions are non-defined doctrines does not make them any less authentic expressions of the truth (only the degree of adherence changes depending on the factors already presented - which may vary depending on one's understanding of these same factors).

Let’s get to the issue of precisely what Br. Andre was seeking from Pete Vere, and what the latter told him:

Br. Andre Marie to Pete Vere: “I'm wondering if you are able to put in writing something testifying to the lawfulness of holding Father Feeney's position as a Catholic in good standing with the Church.”

Pete Vere: “In our discussions with the Congregation [for the Doctrine of the Faith] it seemed rather clear that proponents of a strict interpretation of the doctrine should be given the same latitude for teaching and discussion as those who would hold more liberal views. [MRyan ... like the Pope and the Magisterium]

On that note, the evidence is clear: while the position held by Fr. Feeney and his spiritual descendants may be controversial, holding these positions does not, in itself, place one outside of the Catholic Church. In short, it is clear from the Church’s current pastoral and canonical practice that the Church considers this an internal controversy, and that she acknowledges the good standing of most of those who uphold a restrictive interpretation of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus, baptism of blood and baptism of desire.”

So tell me, [XXXXX], where I ever suggested that it is “unlawful” to hold the more “restrictive interpretation of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus, baptism of blood and baptism of desire”? Tell me where I suggested that “holding these positions … place one outside of the Catholic Church”.

Can you?

I suspect that this “Pete Vere” argument is simply one more straw-man used to dodge the real issue that I’ve tried to bring to light (and if I am wrong, show me), but one that keeps getting buried beneath these non-sequiturs, irrelevancies, detours and false arguments.

The St. Benedict Center and anyone else can “hold” their opinions on Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus and the absolute necessity of the sacrament; I have absolutely no problem with that. In fact, I have no problem with those who hold that the merit of our Lord’s passion cannot be transmitted without actual sacramental ablution. My only problem is with the non-Catholic attitude expressed on this forum and elsewhere that suggests that the Church has erred in her authentic expressions of Magisterial truth (baptism of blood/baptism of desire) and that we are free to deny and to reject those same “errors” because they are not authentic expressions of the Magisterium - they do not represent authentic truths, they are theological speculations that have never been “defined”; and Catholics are thus free to determine for themselves what the true and authentic expressions of the Magisterium really are, because the Church cannot “create doctrines”.

A dangerous position; indeed.

That’s my “arm-chair” opinion, and I am free to hold and defend it.

I’m still waiting for a legitimate argument that defends the notion that the Church’s authentic teachings on baptism of desire/baptism of blood are not “expressions of the ordinary Magisterium of the Roman Pontiff” that form a apart of “a statement of the Church's faith and of catholic doctrine” (the CCC).

Half-truths about the CCC like “it's a reference book"; and irrelevancies which say that the CCC is “not something that creates doctrine” are not valid arguments that even begin to address the real issue -- they are evasions and non-sequiturs.

But that’s OK; I’m used to it.

I can find much common ground with that position statement.

Deacon Augustine wrote:

"...fools....neo-Protestant fundamentalists", "your heterodoxy"

I assumed that you had levelled these charges at a Feeneyite for holding a Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma, but on closer inspection that may not be the case. Nevertheless, you're not going to save any souls by addressing them like this, Mike - it will only antagonise them.

Then you assumed wrong. No problem, Deacon, we can move on.

Let me just add that you don’t know the history here ... I have no respect for the fetid swamps of a particular faith-killing sedevacantism emanating from upstate NY.

It pure poison and my protagonist only continues to bait me with their drivel while ignoring the truth.

So, while I appreciate your sage advice and will take it under consideration, I have chosen to call a spade a spade for a reason. Sometimes only a tough stance and the hard truth can work against hard-heads when all else fails.

But, you're probably right.