Session 6 Chater 4 revelation

columba wrote:

MRyan wrote:
Your doctrine is pure private interpretation. You have no use for the authoritative, living and Ordinary Magisterium of the Church, and you have no use for the universal consensus of the Doctors, Saints and Schools, whose unanimous common understanding of Session 6, Ch. 4 is disputed by no one (especially not the Church) since the decrees of Session VI of the Council of Trent were promulgated.

You mock the Angelic Doctor (and at least six other Doctors) and you mock the Roman Catechism of the Council of Trent with your Protestant accusation of “error” against the Church for deviating from the original intention and meaning of the Council that is alleged to have proclaimed that NO ONE can be justified, let alone saved, without the sacrament of Baptism.

So much hot air Mike. Heard it all before.

You've heard it all before, and you simply dismiss this inconvenient truth with a flick of an arrogant wrist. Its your interpretation against that of the Doctor's and the Church, and the latter loses each and every time.

columba wrote:Here's another anathema from Trent;

If any one asserts, that this sin of Adam,--which in its origin is one, and being transfused into all by propogation, not by imitation, is in each one as his own, --is taken away either by the powers of human nature, or by any other remedy than the merit of the one mediator, our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath reconciled us to God in his own blood, made unto us JUSTICE, santification, and redemption; or if he denies that the said merit of Jesus Christ is applied, both to adults and to infants, by the sacrament of baptism rightly administered in the form of the church; let him be anathema: Session 5, Ch. 3.

And just one more example of your appalling ecclesiology.

Does either baptism of blood or baptism of desire assert:

that this sin of Adam,--which in its origin is one, and being transfused into all by propogation, not by imitation, is in each one as his own, --is taken away either by the powers of human nature, or by any other remedy than the merit of the one mediator, our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath reconciled us to God in his own blood, made unto us JUSTICE, santification, and redemption ?

Does either baptism of blood or baptism of desire deny:

that the said merit of Jesus Christ is applied, both to adults and to infants, by the sacrament of baptism rightly administered in the form of the church;?

You are simply jumping on the "logical fallacy" bandwagon and feel you are justified, against the "innocent" but erroneous teachings of the Church, in doing so, while insinuating that the anathemas of Trent condemn these same universal doctrines.

But how nice to know that your "interpretations are NOT infallible but the statements themselves ARE infallible".

Well, thank goodness for small favors, but don't bother turning to the Church for the "infallible" interpretations. You "opinion" is as good as the Magisterium's and the universal consensus of the Doctors and Schools. Yep.

Columba,

You shouldn't deny Baptism of Desire & Blood; Mike is right in his analysis (well, sort of.) A catechumen who professes all the Catholic Faith and nothing contrary to it, lives in submission to the Roman Pontiff, and dies within the bosom and unity of the Church can be saved without Baptism. This is de fide; end of story.

Of course, we have excellent reasons to believe that the One and Triune God will provide sacramental Baptism to such sincere catechumens, especially, if they should die without martyrdom, for it is equally de fide (that is, universally taught) that catechumens who die without Baptism or martyrdom will have to suffer the horrific temporal punishment in Purgatory due to their own venial sins, at least some of which would have been forgiven through the actual reception of Baptism, and only then, if they should die with perfect charity, without which they would be lost for Eternity. Both teachings are de fide, and one cannot deny one without denying the other.

Still, I agree with you 100% that the Council of Trent never defined Baptism of Desire; if the Council had done that, we would not be arguing about it. Still, the teaching is universal and is part of the Ordinary (hence, infallible) Magisterium of the Church. In this respect, it does not matter if Trent defined the dogma or not; it was "defined" long before Trent.

Still, I am attracted to the (final?) opinion of Saint Augustine (and certainly, his student, Saint Prosper) that the One and Triune God, in His absolute Sovereignty, over His Creation, will provide Baptism to whomever sincerely desires it. Having said that, it is heretical and absurd to say that a catechumen who sincerely desired Baptism but yet who died without it would be lost, just as it is heretical and absurd to say that the Church's "common opinion" on the need for explicit faith in the Blessed Trinity and Incarnation, the temporal debt in Purgatory that would need to be satisfied by catechumens who died without Baptism or martyrdom, the necessity of explicit submission (mind and will) to the Roman Pontiff, or that infants could attain Heaven through any means other than Baptism are somehow mere "opinions" even though such teachings were universally taught and believed by the faithful, theologians, Councils, and Popes alike for centuries on end, and per Vatican II, must be infallible.

Jehanne I don't believe that Mike is right, for the simple reason that I don't believe in baptism of desire or baptism of blood.
I have wavered somewhat between accepting both these theories in principle (by allowing for the null set scenario) and total rejection. I've come down on the side of total rejection because of the contradictions inherent in the very principle itself and the unresolvable contradictions it poses in light of the infallible teachings of the Church.
It might be of help here if I present a quick summary of what I believe the Church teaches regarding Sacramental Baptism and justification.

I do not believe in pre-Baptismal justification because no one can be justified outside the Church and no one at all can be saved who is not subject to the Roman Pontiff. The Church herself teaches that she exercises no jurisdiction whatsoever over the unbaptized and none of these unbaptized are considered subject to her as Trent teaches in session 14, Ch. 3.
Trent here in explaining the sacrament of Penance, makes reference to how it differs from Baptism:
“Besides, it is clear that this sacrament is in many respects different from baptism. For apart from the fact that in matter and form, which constitute the essence of a sacrament, it differs very widely, it is beyond question that the minister of baptism need not be a judge, since the Church exercises judgment on no one who has not entered it through the gate of baptism. <For what have I to do, says Saint Paul, to judge them that are without?> It is otherwise with regard to those who are of the household of the faith, whom Christ the Lord has once, by the laver of baptism made members of His own body.”

Sadly this places the catechumen outside the Church until such time as he receives the waters of Baptism. If he should die before this occurs then he obviously dies outside the Church and cannot enter the kingdom of God without (as Trent states) having been born again of water and the Holy Spirit. If we allow that he did indeed enter the kingdom of heaven, he would have entered without water, thus contradicting the infallible teaching of Our Lord and the literal interpretation of His words as Trent has understood them.

For this reason it is ridiculous to assert that baptism of desire is a doctrine of the faith. The Church can only make doctrine of those things that are knowable. The Church cannot know what final judgment God has rendered concerning the fate of the unbaptized catechumen and hence cannot know if there be even one such unbaptized soul in heaven. If the Church permits speculation upon, and hope in the unfathomable mercy of God, that's well and good, but to do so apart from consideration of the infallible teaching of the Church can leave some believing that this hope equals doctrine.
As even the CCC teaches (despite its later retractions);

1213 Holy Baptism is the basis of the whole Christian life, the gateway to life in the Spirit (vitae spiritualis ianua),4 and the door which gives access to the other sacraments. Through Baptism we are freed from sin and reborn as sons of God; we become members of Christ, are incorporated into the Church and made sharers in her mission: "Baptism is the sacrament of regeneration through water in the word."

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

1216 "This bath is called enlightenment, because those who receive this [catechetical] instruction are enlightened in their understanding . . . ."8 Having received in Baptism the Word, "the true light that enlightens every man," the person baptized has been "enlightened," he becomes a "son of light," indeed, he becomes "light" himself:"

1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation ….

The hope I hold in contemplation of the unfathomable mercy of God, is that He will bring the waters of rebirth to those who sincerely seek Him.
In contemplation of the justice of God I hold that those who are lost, are lost (in one way or another) due to their own sin or negligence.

As far as invincible ignorance is concerned, I concur with the infallible declarations of Holy Mother Church, that those who are outside are lost, and with St Paul who declared, “And if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost, in whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of unbelievers, that the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should not shine unto them.”
2 Cor 4: 3,4

Columba,

Even Father Brian Harrison admits that Baptism of Blood is something that is "very rare," and there is no reason to suppose that Baptism of Desire is any different. Mike can quote the Saints, Doctors, theologians (scholastic), Popes, Councils, etc., until he is blue in the face, but nearly all of those individuals also taught that the number of individuals who would be saved would be very few, a small minority out of the entire human population, most of whom would (or are) destined for the "eternal fire." It may be that some individuals "make it" without Baptism, but according to the universal teaching of the aforementioned individuals, we are talking about a very small number of persons.

As for the Church's canonical jurisdiction over catechumens (which Trent was talking about), such is irrelevant:

“Where the necessity of salvation is concerned all the faithful of Christ must be subject to the Roman Pontiff, as we are taught by Holy Scripture, the testimony of the holy fathers, and by that constitution of our predecessor of happy memory, Boniface VIII, which begins Unam Sanctam.” (Fifth Lateran Council)

The above would, of course, include catechumens, who are part of the "faithful of Christ." As for "implicit submission" to the Pope, the Roman Pontiff, such is at least practical nonsense. Nearly all Protestants and Orthodox (as well as, unfortunately, most Catholics) deny the Primacy of the Pope, which means that they are all destined for the "eternal fire." In this respect, they are like infants who die without Baptism.

Jehanne wrote:Columba,

Even Father Brian Harrison admits that Baptism of Blood is something that is "very rare," and there is no reason to suppose that Baptism of Desire is any different. Mike can quote the Saints, Doctors, theologians (scholastic), Popes, Councils, etc., until he is blue in the face, but nearly all of those individuals also taught that the number of individuals who would be saved would be very few, a small minority out of the entire human population, most of whom would (or are) destined for the "eternal fire." It may be that some individuals "make it" without Baptism, but according to the universal teaching of the aforementioned individuals, we are talking about a very small number of persons.

As for the Church's canonical jurisdiction over catechumens (which Trent was talking about), such is irrelevant:

“Where the necessity of salvation is concerned all the faithful of Christ must be subject to the Roman Pontiff, as we are taught by Holy Scripture, the testimony of the holy fathers, and by that constitution of our predecessor of happy memory, Boniface VIII, which begins Unam Sanctam.” (Fifth Lateran Council)

The above would, of course, include catechumens, who are part of the "faithful of Christ." As for "implicit submission" to the Pope, the Roman Pontiff, such is at least practical nonsense. Nearly all Protestants and Orthodox (as well as, unfortunately, most Catholics) deny the Primacy of the Pope, which means that they are all destined for the "eternal fire." In this respect, they are like infants who die without Baptism.

Jehanne there's a slight problem with this. What separates the very few who do make it from the vast majority who don't? And, if only a miniscule few do make it, why is it not supposed that none at all make it?
Of the supposed few who do make it, have these become members of the Church without being born again of water? If they have, then the Lord has contradicted Himself for He has said, "Unless a man be born again of water..."
Remember, it is already de fide that only those who are subject to the Roman Pontiff are to be considered part of the Church and the Church considers only those who have received the waters of regeneration to be members. Even if the catechumen considers himself a subject of the Church, the Church does not consider him a subject until he has received Baptism. If his desire to be a subject suffices for membership then it's not such a huge step to assert that his desire for Baptism also constitutes Baptism itself. If that be the case then Mike is correct.

The only objection I have to baptism of desire is that it contradicts the dogma of the necessity of membership of the Church for salvation. If the catechumen is already a member then he doesn't need Baptism to make him one.

PS.
Jehanne, does Fr harrison know of any soul who has been saved through baptism of desire?
To do so he would have to be privy to the secret tribubnal of God's particular judgment. Of course in the general judgment all will be revealed but how can one make a doctrine out of what has not been revealed?

Of course, it is to "prove a negative" (that is, that someone did not receive Baptism), which, I have pointed out often, is an absurdity. However, for those who do not like the "null set," how about the "really small set"? According to the universal consensus of the Fathers, Doctors, Saints, and Popes, Baptism of Desire, if it happens at all, does not happen very often.

To be saved via Baptism of Desire and/or Blood without Baptism, one must be fully Catholic, that is, one must profess and believe everything that the Church professes and believes, at least implicitly, which means that one cannot believe anything that is contrary to Catholic dogma, which means, of course, refusing submission to the Roman Pontiff, which is what nearly all non-Catholics (and, indeed, most Catholics) openly do of their own free will. Very few baptized individuals outside of the canonical boundaries of the Church even begin to meet such a definition of in voto membership in the Church, by their own admission. Most Protestants remain Protestant because either they believe in their religion or are indifferent to it; either way, such individuals cannot possibly have a "perfect love" of God or be laboring in "invincible ignorance" of the Truth.

Jehanne wrote:
To be saved via Baptism of Desire and/or Blood without Baptism, one must be fully Catholic, that is, one must profess and believe everything that the Church professes and believes, at least implicitly, which means that one cannot believe anything that is contrary to Catholic dogma, which means, of course, refusing submission to the Roman Pontiff, which is what nearly all

If (just for now) we consider only the unbaptized catechumen, and lets say he does indeed hold to everything the Church proposes for belief and rejects all teachings contrary to the Church's teachings; can he now be considered a member of the Church and, if he were to die before receiving the laver of regeneration, can we consider him saved?
Remember, he himself believes he has not yet been incorporated into the Mystical Body of Christ (the Church) because the Church who is instructing him tells him so.
The Church teaches him (in accordance with the words of Christ) that unless he be born again of water, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. This statement is either true or false. If indeed he does die and enters into the kingdom of God, he will have entered without being born again of water and so the words of Christ have been proved false, and, the Church, who accepts these words of Christ -as they are written- has also been proved false.

Remember too that it is de fide, that the Church only recognizes as members, those who have been sacramentally Baptised. Even those who have a perfect desire for Baptism (which in reality is a perfect desire for membership of the Church) are as yet considered by the Church as being on the outside.

If I believe that such a catechumen can enter the kingdom of God, I must also believe that rebirth in water is unnecessary and therefore I do not believe the words of Christ as the Church understands them. This is why I believe that everyone who is saved, is not saved without baptism in water and that this water will be supplied -even miraculously if necessary- for the sincere catechumen, for God would not permit those who seek him with a sincere heart to be eternally lost.

He's not a canonical member of the Church, which is why catechumens had to leave the Mass halfway through, but he is still one "of the faithful of Christ," which means that he must submit to the Roman Pontiff, even though the latter is not exercising any formal canonical jurisdiction over him. The divine commandment to receive Baptism still remains, and if he refuses to be Baptized and/or holds the Sacrament in contempt, he will die in a state of mortal sin and will be consigned to Hell forever. In addition, if he dies without Baptism and with imperfect charity, he will be lost, per the Council of Trent and Saint Thomas, even if he sincerely desires to be Baptized. If he dies without Baptism and without martyrdom (but with perfect charity), he will have to suffer the temporal punishment in Purgatory that is due to his own venial sins, which would have been fully forgiven in Baptism.

However, since "it is appointed to men once to die," the One and Triune God can certainly supply Baptism to whomever sincerely wills to receive it.

Jehanne wrote:
Of course, we have excellent reasons to believe that the One and Triune God will provide sacramental Baptism to such sincere catechumens, especially, if they should die without martyrdom, for it is equally de fide (that is, universally taught) that catechumens who die without Baptism or martyrdom will have to suffer the horrific temporal punishment in Purgatory due to their own venial sins, at least some of which would have been forgiven through the actual reception of Baptism, and only then, if they should die with perfect charity, without which they would be lost for Eternity. Both teachings are de fide, and one cannot deny one without denying the other.

Provide the magisterial teaching that declares that it is de fide that those who die immediately upon receiving the baptism of desire must pay the debt of temporal punishment in Purgatory due to their own venial sins.

The Church has magisterially confirmed that those who die as a result of baptism of desire are assured of their salvation, and we also know it is an established de fide doctrine that those who have committed venial sins since their regeneration (whether by Baptism or baptism of desire) must pay any remaining (unpaid) temporal debt for these sins, but I am not aware of a single instance where the Magisterium has confirmed that a perfect charity cannot cancel the debt of temporal punishment if no other venial sins have been committed before death (such as a true death-bed conversion by an act of perfect contrition/charity).

The common opinion is that of St. Thomas who says that the debt still exists; and he is probably correct, though the difference between the "perfect" charity found in baptism of blood is one of degree (and not of kind) as that charity which defines baptism of desire, so St. Thomas cannot possibly know (with de fide certainty) if the perfect charity that defines baptism of blood cannot be the same charity that defines baptism of desire.

Some might object by citing certain theologians who suggest that the difference lies not so much in true charity (present in both), but in the act performed such that blood martyrdom works ex opere operantis, "A term mainly applied to the good dispositions with which a sacrament is received, to distinguish it from the ex opere operato, which is the built-in efficacy of a sacrament properly conferred. But it may refer to any subjective factor that at least partially determines the amount of grace obtained by a person who performs some act of piety." (Fr. Hardon, Modern Catholic Dictionary)

But baptism of desire can also be said to work ex opere operantis in that it is "applied to the good dispositions with which a sacrament is received" (in voto) and refers specifically to the "subjective factor that at least partially determines the amount of grace obtained by a person who performs some act of piety"; e.g., the charity inherent in martyrdom and baptism of desire.

If it is the suffering or the blood of martyrdom (the objective act itself, and not necessarily the charity and intention behind it) that cancels the temporal debt (ex opere operantis) in the same way that the sacrament cancels the debt (ex opere operato), we run the risk of making the act of suffering or martyrdom itself the determining efficacious factor in canceling the temporal debt, and not the subjective factor of "perfect charity" that determines the amount of grace, and hence, the grace necessary to cancel the temporal debt.

I realize that this objection can be answered by saying that only when the act of suffering or martyrdom is united with the only truly efficacious act of our Lord's Blood Redemption can it be said to be "efficacious"; but for me this simply begs the question: Is anyone suggesting that the efficacious application of the merit of the Blood Redemption to a soul who dies united to our Lord in perfect contrition and charity (baptism of desire), and who dies at that same moment, that the efficacy of the Blood Redemption cannot cancel the debt of temporal punishment for any venial sins committed prior to one's regeneration in Christ?

I also realize that St. Thomas is saying that anyone who has not had the opportunity to atone (through acts of penance) for his venial sins must pay the debt if he dies without the sacrament (or without martyrdom); but this still does not answer the question as to why a perfect charity cannot serve as sufficient atonement when the application of the merit of Christ's passion is applied to a soul who dies united to Christ (with a perfect contrition) before he can commit any more venial sins.

While I am thinking out loud here, the point is that the temporal debt still owed (or is cancelled) in a soul who dies immediately upon receiving the baptism of desire, is NOT a de fide teaching of the Church.

Only the Magisterial authority of the Church can make a doctrine de fide, and as far as I can determine, she has not definitively or authoritatively settled this speculative theological question.

If you can show us the authoritative Magisterial teaching that proves that this particular point of doctrine (having nothing to do with the truth of baptism of desire) is de fide, please share it with the Forum, but I am not interested in one of your de fide Jehannian "logical deductions" by way of a Jehannian syllogism.

It is de fide:

"The body of the faithful as a whole, anointed as they are by the Holy One (cf. 1 John 2,20.27), cannot err in matters of belief." (Lumen Gentium, § 12)

The fact that a catechumen's temporal punishment can be remitted only via the waters of Baptism and/or the shedding of one's blood in the Name of Christ was universally taught and universally believed for centuries on end. That is what makes it de fide, per the Ordinary (hence, infallible) Magisterium of the Church. All the Doctors, Popes, Saints, and theologians (at least until recently) agreed on this. For you (or anyone else) to say that it is not de fide is to say that the Universal Church can err on a matter of faith, which is both heretical and absurd.

columba wrote:PS.
Jehanne, does Fr harrison know of any soul who has been saved through baptism of desire?
To do so he would have to be privy to the secret tribubnal of God's particular judgment. Of course in the general judgment all will be revealed but how can one make a doctrine out of what has not been revealed?

Does columba know of any adult soul who has been saved through the sacrament of Baptism?

To do so columba would have to be privy to the secret tribunal of God's particular judgment at the moment of a particular soul’s death. And since he implies that he is privy to such judgments, perhaps he can enlighten us so we don’t have to wait until the general judgment to find out who those souls are that have been judged worthy of the Kingdom of heaven by virtue of their Baptism.

We can only know the secrets of God’s tribunal in this life when they are no longer secret because they have been revealed by the authority of the Church as a dogmatic fact in the act of Canonization. And even here, the Church, through her liturgy, names certain saints who apparently died for Christ without the sacrament “while still a catechumen” or as last minute converts.

We’ll be waiting anxiously for your revelation of God’s not-so secret tribunal.

Jehanne wrote:It is de fide:

"The body of the faithful as a whole, anointed as they are by the Holy One (cf. 1 John 2,20.27), cannot err in matters of belief." (Lumen Gentium, § 12)

The fact that a catechumen's temporal punishment can be remitted only via the waters of Baptism and/or the shedding of one's blood in the Name of Christ was universally taught and universally believed for centuries on end. That is what makes it de fide, per the Ordinary (hence, infallible) Magisterium of the Church. All the Doctors, Popes, Saints, and theologians (at least until recently) agreed on this. For you (or anyone else) to say that it is not de fide is to say that the Universal Church can err on a matter of faith, which is both heretical and absurd.

Baloney. You cannot demonstrate that the "body of the faithful" has been taught and has believed the alleged "universal" doctrine that speculates that those who die immediately in baptism of desire necessarily have to suffer in Purgatory for the unpaid debt of temporal punishment due to venial sins.

Ask any Catholic in any age this question and the response you will mostly get is "what"?

The common opinion and speculations of theologians on certain un-revealed matters of secondary doctrines does not automatically translate to matters of belief for the "body of the faithful", especially when the Church has not confirmed this doctrine either way. You are once again employing a logical fallacy that says that since it is the common opinion of theologians that Baptism and baptism of blood cancel the debt of temporal punishment, ergo, it is impossible for God to cancel this same debt in baptism of desire.

What may be generally true is not necessarily a "de fide" doctrine.

Do you even know what "de fide" means?

Good grief.

Btw, this doctrine on temporal punishments (as it may or may not apply to baptism of desire in every particular circumstance) is "infallible" only in the general sense that neither opinion can give harm. But the Church has not "settled" this question, and you have not provided one Magisterial example to prove your case.

Mike wrote:Does columba know of any adult soul who has been saved through the sacrament of Baptism?

Are saying that the Apostles were not validly Baptized? If so, who do you think baptized them?

Jehanne wrote:

Mike wrote:Does columba know of any adult soul who has been saved through the sacrament of Baptism?

Are saying that the Apostles were not validly Baptized? If so, who do you think baptized them?

Last I checked the Apostles are confirmed "Saints", except one, and we're pretty sure he's in hell.

MRyan wrote:

Jehanne wrote:It is de fide:

"The body of the faithful as a whole, anointed as they are by the Holy One (cf. 1 John 2,20.27), cannot err in matters of belief." (Lumen Gentium, § 12)

The fact that a catechumen's temporal punishment can be remitted only via the waters of Baptism and/or the shedding of one's blood in the Name of Christ was universally taught and universally believed for centuries on end. That is what makes it de fide, per the Ordinary (hence, infallible) Magisterium of the Church. All the Doctors, Popes, Saints, and theologians (at least until recently) agreed on this. For you (or anyone else) to say that it is not de fide is to say that the Universal Church can err on a matter of faith, which is both heretical and absurd.

Baloney. You cannot demonstrate that the "body of the faithful" have been taught and have believed the alleged "universal" doctrine that speculates that those who die immediately in baptism of desire necessarily have to suffer in Purgatory for the unpaid debt of temporal punishment due to venial sins.

Ask any Catholic in any age this question and the response you will mostly get is "what"?

The common opinion and speculations of theologians on certain un-revealed matters of secondary doctrines does not automatically translate to matters of belief for the "body of the faithful", especially when the Church has not confirmed this doctrine either way. You are once again employing a logical fallacy that says that since it is the common opinion of theologians that Baptism and baptism of blood cancel the debt of temporal punishment, ergo, it is impossible for God to cancel this same debt in baptism of desire.

What may be generally true is not necessarily a "de fide" doctrine.

Do you even know what "de fide" means?

Good grief.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_fide

De fide (of the faith) is a "theological note" or "theological qualification" that indicates that some religious doctrine is an essential part of Catholic faith and that denial of it is heresy.[1]

The doctrine is de fide divina et ecclesiastica (of divine and ecclesiastical faith), if contained in the sources of revelation and therefore believed to have been revealed by God (de fide divina) and if taught by the Church (de fide ecclesiastica). If a doctrine has been solemnly defined by a pope or an ecumenical council as a dogma, the doctrine is de fide definita.[1][2]

What is believed to be a truth contained in the sources of revelation thus becomes a "dogma", in the present ecclesiastical sense of this word, only when enunciated by the Church: "According to a long-standing usage a dogma is now understood to be a truth appertaining to faith or morals, revealed by God, transmitted from the Apostles in the Scriptures or by tradition, and proposed by the Church for the acceptance of the faithful."[3]

The fourth Lateran Council (1215) approved his teaching on the Trinity and prefaced a profession of faith with the words, "We believe with Peter Lombard . . . ." His collected works are in J.-P. Migne, Patrologia Latina, vol. 191-192. The best edition of the Four Books of Sentences (no English translation) is considered to be that of the Franciscans of the College of St. Bonaventura (near Florence), Libri quattuor sententiarum (2 vol., 1916). E.F. Rogers' Peter Lombard and the Sacramental System appeared in 1917.

http://www.uv.es/EBRIT/micro/micro_461_92.html

By these measures the synod intends to detract in nothing from the sayings and writings of the holy doctors who discourse on these matters. On the contrary, it accepts and embraces them according to their true understanding as commonly expounded and declared by these doctors and other catholic teachers in the theological schools. (Council of Florence)

As for ignorant Catholic schoolchildren (or adults), I am not sure what that "proves." Most of them dissent from the modern Church's teachings anyway.

MRyan wrote:

Jehanne wrote:

Mike wrote:Does columba know of any adult soul who has been saved through the sacrament of Baptism?

Are saying that the Apostles were not validly Baptized? If so, who do you think baptized them?

Last I checked the Apostles are confirmed "Saints", except one, and we're pretty sure he's in hell.

I was referring to his replacement.

Jehanne wrote:

MRyan wrote:

Jehanne wrote:

Mike wrote:Does columba know of any adult soul who has been saved through the sacrament of Baptism?

Are saying that the Apostles were not validly Baptized? If so, who do you think baptized them?

Last I checked the Apostles are confirmed "Saints", except one, and we're pretty sure he's in hell.

I was referring to his replacement.

Understood; and I was making a point. The 12 Apostles (11 plus the replacement) are recognized as Saints by the Church who also enjoyed the assurance of salvation by our Lord who promised them that they would sit in judgement over the 12 tribes of Israel.

Do you see that as having any relevancy whatsoever to my challenge to columba and my caveat about the Canonized saints?

They were all baptized, by the command of our Lord, so it is de fide that there are baptized individuals in Heaven.

Jehanne wrote:

MRyan wrote:

Jehanne wrote:It is de fide:

"The body of the faithful as a whole, anointed as they are by the Holy One (cf. 1 John 2,20.27), cannot err in matters of belief." (Lumen Gentium, § 12)

The fact that a catechumen's temporal punishment can be remitted only via the waters of Baptism and/or the shedding of one's blood in the Name of Christ was universally taught and universally believed for centuries on end. That is what makes it de fide, per the Ordinary (hence, infallible) Magisterium of the Church. All the Doctors, Popes, Saints, and theologians (at least until recently) agreed on this. For you (or anyone else) to say that it is not de fide is to say that the Universal Church can err on a matter of faith, which is both heretical and absurd.

Baloney. You cannot demonstrate that the "body of the faithful" have been taught and have believed the alleged "universal" doctrine that speculates that those who die immediately in baptism of desire necessarily have to suffer in Purgatory for the unpaid debt of temporal punishment due to venial sins.

Ask any Catholic in any age this question and the response you will mostly get is "what"?

The common opinion and speculations of theologians on certain un-revealed matters of secondary doctrines does not automatically translate to matters of belief for the "body of the faithful", especially when the Church has not confirmed this doctrine either way. You are once again employing a logical fallacy that says that since it is the common opinion of theologians that Baptism and baptism of blood cancel the debt of temporal punishment, ergo, it is impossible for God to cancel this same debt in baptism of desire.

What may be generally true is not necessarily a "de fide" doctrine.

Do you even know what "de fide" means?

Good grief.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_fide

De fide (of the faith) is a "theological note" or "theological qualification" that indicates that some religious doctrine is an essential part of Catholic faith and that denial of it is heresy.[1]

The doctrine is de fide divina et ecclesiastica (of divine and ecclesiastical faith), if contained in the sources of revelation and therefore believed to have been revealed by God (de fide divina) and if taught by the Church (de fide ecclesiastica). If a doctrine has been solemnly defined by a pope or an ecumenical council as a dogma, the doctrine is de fide definita.[1][2]

What is believed to be a truth contained in the sources of revelation thus becomes a "dogma", in the present ecclesiastical sense of this word, only when enunciated by the Church: "According to a long-standing usage a dogma is now understood to be a truth appertaining to faith or morals, revealed by God, transmitted from the Apostles in the Scriptures or by tradition, and proposed by the Church for the acceptance of the faithful."[3]

Please demonstrate where theologians have assigned a "de fide" theological note to the doctrine which states that all of those without exception who have been translation to justice by baptism of desire cannot have already paid the debt of temporal punishment through a perfect charity at the moment of death, and that this doctrine is an essential part of Catholic faith, the denial of which is heresy.

Please also demonstrate where this same point of doctrine is "contained in the sources of revelation and therefore believed to have been revealed by God (de fide divina)" or where it is "taught by the Church (de fide ecclesiastica)", or where it is has "been solemnly defined by a pope or an ecumenical council as a dogma" (de fide definita).

So far, all I see is de fide Jehannista.

If you can demonstrate that the "truth" as proposed above is "contained in the sources of revelation", then please demonstrate when this truth became a "dogma ... in the present ecclesiastical sense of this word, only when enunciated by the Church: 'According to a long-standing usage a dogma is now understood to be a truth appertaining to faith or morals, revealed by God, transmitted from the Apostles in the Scriptures or by tradition, and proposed by the Church for the acceptance of the faithful.'"

Good luck with that.

You are the king of the logical fallacy. Your citations are absolutely meaningless in the present context and only render your "de fide" assertion completely false.

Jehanne wrote:

The fourth Lateran Council (1215) approved his teaching on the Trinity and prefaced a profession of faith with the words, "We believe with Peter Lombard . . . ." His collected works are in J.-P. Migne, Patrologia Latina, vol. 191-192. The best edition of the Four Books of Sentences (no English translation) is considered to be that of the Franciscans of the College of St. Bonaventura (near Florence), Libri quattuor sententiarum (2 vol., 1916). E.F. Rogers' Peter Lombard and the Sacramental System appeared in 1917.

Please demonstrate where The Fourth Lateran Council, in approving Lombard's teaching on the Trinity, intended this approval to mean that his his doctrine on infant baptism (the same as Augustine's) is de fide, as is his complete teachings on temporal punishments.

Good luck with that, O King of the logical fallacy.

Jehanne wrote:

By these measures the synod intends to detract in nothing from the sayings and writings of the holy doctors who discourse on these matters. On the contrary, it accepts and embraces them according to their true understanding as commonly expounded and declared by these doctors and other catholic teachers in the theological schools. (Council of Florence)

Of course, I couldn't agree more; but, once again, are you actually suggesting that each and every "common opinion" of the theologians is "de fide"?

I'm still waiting for one Magisterial statement that confirms that absolutely no one can have the temporal punishments canceled as a result of a perfect charity in baptism of desire, and that this teaching is "de fide".

Jehanne wrote:
As for ignorant Catholic schoolchildren (or adults), I am not sure what that "proves." Most of them dissent from the modern Church's teachings anyway.

No, I said the body of the faithful in any age; not school children and not dissenters.

Just find me one member of the Faithful (let alone "the body of the faithful") who believes this doctrine on temporal punishments as presented above is a "de fide" matter of Catholic faith.

Good luck with that. So far you're batting zero.

Jehanne wrote:They were all baptized, by the command of our Lord, so it is de fide that there are baptized individuals in Heaven.

No, it is de fide that they were saved because it was revealed by our Lord, and it was also made a dogmatic fact by the authority of the Church.

If we follow your logical fallacy to its logical conclusion, we can say that every soul baptized by the command of our Lord (John 3:5) is in heaven.

It is de fide to the same extent that Baptism of Desire and/or Blood are de fide. (Find me a Magisterial reference for those!) You cannot find a single dissenting theologian prior to the rise of Catholic modernism in the late 18th-century, and I would invite you to try.

Maybe I am "batting zero" with you, but I do not believe that such is the case with other people, because traffic to my blog has been increasing over the past few weeks. Why, I do not know -- people are reading it. And, no one seems to think as you do, but let's visit this again, shall we?

The dogma that Vatican II referred to is called sensus fidelium, or the "sense of the faithful." Now, you would have us believe that a teaching that was universally taught and universally believed may be false, and that is rubbish. The whole universal Church cannot teach and believe something that is false:

"The whole body of the faithful who have an anointing that comes from the holy one (cf. 1 Jn. 2:20, 27) cannot err in matters of belief. This characteristic is shown in the supernatural appreciation of the faith (sensus fidei) of the whole people, when, 'from the bishops to the last of the faithful' they manifest a universal consent in matters of faith and morals. By this appreciation of the faith, aroused and sustained by the Spirit of truth, the people of God, guided by the sacred teaching authority (magisterium) and obeying it, receives not a merely human word but truly the word of God (cf. 1 Th. 2:13), the faith once for all delivered to the saints (cf. Jude 3). The people unfailingly adheres to this faith, penetrates it more deeply with right judgment and applies it more fully in daily life." (Second Vatican Council, Lumen Gentium, #12)

The above truth is infallible, which is why it appeared in the Dogmatic Constitution of the Catholic Church at her Second Vatican Council. If you do not believe the above truth, then you are not Catholic, and I am done talking with you.

Show me a single dissenter from the time of Lombard to the time of Trent (some 400 years) who disagreed with the teachings of him, Aquinas, the Fathers at Lateran IV, Florence, Lateran V, or Trent and/or anyone who disagreed with what was being universally taught and believed in all of the Catholic schools. You, of course, cannot, which makes the teaching de fide, in that it was universally held and believed by all the faithful.

Good Luck with that.

MRyan wrote:

Jehanne wrote:They were all baptized, by the command of our Lord, so it is de fide that there are baptized individuals in Heaven.

No, it is de fide that they were saved because it was revealed by our Lord, and it was also made a dogmatic fact by the authority of the Church.

If we follow your logical fallacy to its logical conclusion, we can say that every soul baptized by the command of our Lord (John 3:5) is in heaven.

No, we cannot; we can, however, say with absolute certainty that there are baptized souls in Heaven. As for non-baptized souls in Heaven, such is pure speculation as to how many of those are in Paradise, if any at all. To say otherwise would be to ask us to have faith "in a negative."

Jehanne wrote:

MRyan wrote:

Jehanne wrote:They were all baptized, by the command of our Lord, so it is de fide that there are baptized individuals in Heaven.

No, it is de fide that they were saved because it was revealed by our Lord, and it was also made a dogmatic fact by the authority of the Church.

If we follow your logical fallacy to its logical conclusion, we can say that every soul baptized by the command of our Lord (John 3:5) is in heaven.

No, we cannot; we can, however, say with absolute certainty that there are baptized souls in Heaven. As for non-baptized souls in Heaven, such is pure speculation as to how many of those are in Paradise, if any at all. To say otherwise would be to ask us to have faith "in a negative."

As usual you have hi-jacked this little challenge by columba to Fr. Harrison and turned it around so you can highlight the irrelevant point that we know there are certain Baptized souls in heaven; but we know this not because we are privy to their particular judgements, but because the Church has told us so by way of proclaiming their canonization as a dogmatic fact.

As I said, and more to the point of columba's challenge to Fr. Harrison, aside from the canonized saints (to include the martyrology), columba can no more "know" the private tribunals of God at one's particular judgement (whether the soul is water Baptized or not) than can Fr. Harrison. What we do know is that each and every soul in heaven has been regenerated into Christ.

Aside from what we can know by way of the Church's declarations on the Saints, we can also say that "As for baptized souls in Heaven, such is pure speculation as to how many of those are in Paradise. To say otherwise would be to ask us to have faith 'in a negative', while also making us privy to God's secret tribunals."

There can be nothing contrary to the Faith to believe that there are certain non-water Baptized Martyrs in heaven. The Church not only allows it, her liturgy reflects this same belief, even if it is not "de fide".

So your little side show that seeks to "prove" that we "know" of certain Baptized souls who are in heaven, but we cannot say the same about the non-water baptized, is completely irrelevant to columba's challenge.

Also irrelevant are your comments that those who are saved by the extraordinary means of baptism of desire is very rare, as if this somehow diminishes the fact of the doctrine. Next you'll be telling us that the fewness of the saved is "de fide"!

Mike,

We know that there are people who are validly baptized, because we can observe that happening every Sunday (at least at some parishes, or at least monthly -- Ugh!), and for an infant (why parents wait 3 or 4 weeks is beyond me -- I baptized my last child an hour after she was born), a valid baptism is always a fruitful one. So, for some infants, we know that there are those who have received the valid sacrament of Baptism, because we have observed them being baptized, as have their parents, godparents, etc. We know that some of these infants will die (we can observe that as well) well before the Age of Reason, and therefore, we know that those infants are in Paradise, which proves that we can know that there are people in Paradise who have died with Baptism. QED.

As for the "fewness of the saved," such was universally taught and universally believed for centuries, and it was something that was also revealed by our Blessed Mother at Fatima.

Jehanne wrote:Mike,

We know that there are people who are validly baptized, because we can observe that happening every Sunday (at least at some parishes, or at least monthly -- Ugh!), and for an infant (why parents wait 3 or 4 weeks is beyond me -- I baptized my last child an hour after she was born), a valid baptism is always a fruitful one. So, for some infants, we know that there are those who have received the valid sacrament of Baptism, because we have observed them being baptized, as have their parents, godparents, etc. We know that some of these infants will die (we can observe that as well) well before the Age of Reason, and therefore, we know that those infants are in Paradise, which proves that we can know that there are people in Paradise who have died with Baptism. QED.

If you read my initial response, since baptism of desire concerns adults only, I made it clear in my response to columba that the subject is limited to adults; not that the subject or contents of a particular exchange concerns you in the least. You have your own agenda, and who cares about the actual substance of the debate.

So how many of the Baptized infants you refer to will be or have been saved after having reached the age of reason?

What's that, you don't know? You aren't privy to God's tribunals at their particular judgement?

Jehanne wrote:As for the "fewness of the saved," such was universally taught and universally believed for centuries, and it was something that was also revealed by our Blessed Mother at Fatima.

So private revelation that only suggests the fewness of the saved amounts to it being a "de fide" dogma?

The "fewness of the saved" was never universally "taught" with a magisterial authority that would constitute a '"de fide" dogma of the faith, the denial of which is heresy.

You are really confused. But I'm glad your blog traffic is picking up, so is the sedevacantist websites's.

"Strive to enter by the narrow gate; for many, I say to you, shall seek to enter, and shall not be able." (Luke 13:24, DRV)

"Enter ye in at the narrow gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction, and many there are who go in thereat." (Matthew 7:13, DRV)

"How narrow is the gate, and strait is the way that leadeth to life: and few there are that find it!" (Matthew 7:14, DRV)

"So shall the last be first, and the first last. For many are called, but few chosen." (Matthew 20:16, DRV)

"For many are called, but few are chosen." (Matthew 22:14, DRV)

Lots of quotes here (standard disclaimers apply):

http://www.romancatholicism.org/jansenism/fathers-fewness.htm

Mike.
Re; Fr Harrisons knoweldge of non-water Baptized souls in heaven.

I was taking it for granted that we all agree that there are in fact sacramentally Baptized souls in heaven. We know this by the Church asserting this as truth through her canonisation process which relies on a study of the holiness of a particular candidate and confirmed miracles granted through their intercession.
As their are no unbaptized souls considered as candidates for sainthood and none we know of who have actually attained sainthood (if there are such I would like to hear more about them) then I am assuming that the only way of knowing this would be through knowledge of God's particular judgment of a soul.

One more relevant question Mike; If there are such unbaptized souls in heaven, they have obviously entered the kingdom of God without being born again of water.
Do you agree with that statement?

Jehanne wrote:It is de fide to the same extent that Baptism of Desire and/or Blood are de fide. (Find me a Magisterial reference for those!) You cannot find a single dissenting theologian prior to the rise of Catholic modernism in the late 18th-century, and I would invite you to try.

Unlike your doctrine that says it is de fide that every soul without exception who is saved through baptism of desire has the debt of temporal punishment that must still be paid, I can cite plenty of "Magisterial references" for baptism of blood and baptism of desire; though, contrary to your opinion (which is shared by St. Liguori and about seven other theologians), neither baptism of blood nor baptism of desire have been declared by the Church as de fide dogmas of the Faith.

It is simply amazing that in previous threads you can ask the question as to why the St. Benedict Center is allowed to hold their position on baptism of desire (that rejects the salvific efficacy of baptism of blood and baptism of desire), and then turn around and tell us that these doctrines are de fide dogmas of the faith, the denial of which is heresy.

Actually, the only de fide part of baptism of desire is that which is dogmatically proclaimed by Trent concerning the translation to justification by the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof. And, while the doctrine proclaiming the salvific efficacy of baptism of blood and baptism of desire (when the sacrament cannot be received) is most certainly an authentic and authoritative teaching of at least the Ordinary Magisterium, in order for this doctrine to become a “definitive” (non-revealed) de fide dogma of faith, it must be confirmed as such:

In the case of a non-defining act, a doctrine is taught infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium of the Bishops dispersed throughout the world who are in communion with the Successor of Peter. Such a doctrine can be confirmed or reaffirmed by the Roman Pontiff, even without recourse to a solemn definition, by declaring explicitly that it belongs to the teaching of the ordinary and universal Magisterium as a truth that is divinely revealed (first paragraph) or as a truth of Catholic doctrine (second paragraph). Consequently, when there has not been a judgment on a doctrine in the solemn form of a definition, but this doctrine, belonging to the inheritance of the depositum fidei, is taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium, which necessarily includes the Pope, such a doctrine is to be understood as having been set forth infallibly. The declaration of confirmation or reaffirmation by the Roman Pontiff in this case is not a new dogmatic definition, but a formal attestation of a truth already possessed and infallibly transmitted by the Church.(CFF Commentary on the Concluding Formula of the Professio Fidei)

I'm not sure that the teaching of the CCC qualifies as a formal, explicit affirmation and declaration of the Roman Pontiff confirming that baptism of desire is taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium.

The point is, it is not enough to make a de fide claim for a universal belief (that even you dispute is “universal”), that is understood as “an infallible teaching … objectively set forth by the whole episcopal body, understood in a diachronic and not necessarily merely synchronic sense”, there must be a “formal attestation … by declaring explicitly that it belongs to the teaching of the ordinary and universal Magisterium as a truth of Catholic doctrine”. (Ibid).

Theologians cannot render a doctrine as a de fide dogma of faith, only the Pope can. Whether a doctrine is "infallible" (and in what sense) or not is a different matter.

I hope this bit of irony is not lost on the Feeneyites of this Forum who have rashly (and more than once) accused me of saying that baptism of blood and baptism of desire are de fide dogmas of the faith, the denial of which is heresy.

I have always approached these doctrines from the standpoint that they are at least authentic and authoritative teachings of the Ordinary Magisterium. My personal belief that they are infallible universal and ordinary magisterial teachings of the Church does not come into play because that is my fallible opinion.

About these authentic magisterial teachings (such as baptism of blood and baptism of desire), the same Commentary on the Professio Fidei declares:

10. The third proposition of the Professio fidei states: "Moreover, I adhere with religious submission of will and intellect to the teachings which either the Roman Pontiff or the College of Bishops enunciate when they exercise their authentic Magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim these teachings by a definitive act." To this paragraph belong all those teachings on faith and morals - presented as true or at least as sure, even if they have not been defined with a solemn judgment or proposed as definitive by the ordinary and universal Magisterium. Such teachings are, however, an authentic expression of the ordinary Magisterium of the Roman Pontiff or of the College of Bishops and therefore require religious submission of will and intellect. They are set forth in order to arrive at a deeper understanding of revelation, or to recall the conformity of a teaching with the truths of faith, or lastly to warn against ideas incompatible with these truths or against dangerous opinions that can lead to error.

A proposition contrary to these doctrines can be qualified as erroneous or, in the case of teachings of the prudential order, as rash or dangerous and therefore "tuto doceri non potest".

And as you know, the hard-core Feeneyites deny that baptism of blood/baptism of desire belong even to this third category of authentic Magisterial teachings, and thus, they cannot require religious submission of will and intellect. In fact, it is freely asserted that these doctrines are false.

But, your strange private notion of the definition of “de fide” truths is in need of serious adjustment.

columba wrote:Mike.
Re; Fr Harrisons knoweldge of non-water Baptized souls in heaven.

I was taking it for granted that we all agree that there are in fact sacramentally Baptized souls in heaven. We know this by the Church asserting this as truth through her canonisation process which relies on a study of the holiness of a particular candidate and confirmed miracles granted through their intercession.

No one disputes that, but your specific challenge to Fr. Harrison asserted that he could not possibly know the secret tribunals of God at a soul's particular judgement, and I simply turned it around by stating that neither can you.

The fact that there are canonized saints in heaven, most of whom we know were Baptized in water, has nothing to do with knowing the private tribunals of God relative to a soul's Baptism.

Yes, I said "most of whom", because no one can possibly know that every one of the elect received a valid baptism, and we KNOW that the Church venerates a few martyrs who appear to have been martyred without the sacrament. In other words, making the case that these particular souls were NOT baptized in water is stronger than the case that they were. Tradition, to include Liturgical tradition, is on the side stating they were not. The traditional testimony concerning the 40th Martyr of Sebaste is a classic case in point.

And unless you are privy to God's secret tribunals, you cannot possibly KNOW that each and every canonized saint was baptized in water.

Yours is the logical fallacy that holds that because we can be certain that the vast majority of the souls in heaven have been baptized in water, then baptism of blood and baptism of desire can be questioned because we cannot know with the same certitude that there are souls in heaven (and how many) who have not been baptized in water.

And, as I have said on countless occasions, the truth of a doctrine on a matter of salvation does not hinge on whether we can know with infallible certitude that there are souls saved by such an extraordinary manner; it is enough to KNOW that the Church teaches the doctrine as authentic and true, and we are then safe in assuming that there are such souls in heaven because the Church not only allows it, she strongly suggests it in her Liturgy, and thus, the doctrine cannot in any way be opposed to the dogmas of the Church.

columba wrote:One more relevant question Mike; If there are such unbaptized souls in heaven, they have obviously entered the kingdom of God without being born again of water. Do you agree with that statement?

Yes, just as I agree that every soul in heaven has been born again and regenerated as co-heirs with Christ, to include those souls justified under the Old Dispensation. If water baptism was intrinsic to salvation, it would have been intrinsic to salvation in every age.

God is NOT bound by His sacraments to effect the same salvific end, even those sacraments instituted as necessity of means.

How so? Once again:

"The whole body of the faithful who have an anointing that comes from the holy one (cf. 1 Jn. 2:20, 27) cannot err in matters of belief. This characteristic is shown in the supernatural appreciation of the faith (sensus fidei) of the whole people, when, 'from the bishops to the last of the faithful' they manifest a universal consent in matters of faith and morals. By this appreciation of the faith, aroused and sustained by the Spirit of truth, the people of God, guided by the sacred teaching authority (magisterium) and obeying it, receives not a merely human word but truly the word of God (cf. 1 Th. 2:13), the faith once for all delivered to the saints (cf. Jude 3). The people unfailingly adheres to this faith, penetrates it more deeply with right judgment and applies it more fully in daily life." (Second Vatican Council, Lumen Gentium, #12)

For centuries, it was universally believed and taught that:

1) Explicit faith in the Blessed Trinity and Incarnation was necessary for salvation on the part of "whosoever will be saved.."

2) Submission, mind and will, to the Roman Pontiff was also necessary for salvation.

3) Martyrdom in the Name of Christ within His Mystical Body, the Holy Roman Catholic Church & Apostolic Church, in the absence of Baptism would avail a catechumen of everlasting life.

4) A catechumen who dies without Baptism and with only imperfect charity cannot attain Heaven, per the Council of Trent.

5) A catechumen who dies without Baptism and with perfect charity will go to Heaven, but he/she must still suffer the temporal punishment in Purgatory due to his/her own venial sins.

Why are the above truths de fide? You've cited it:

In the case of a non-defining act, a doctrine is taught infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium of the Bishops dispersed throughout the world who are in communion with the Successor of Peter. Such a doctrine can be confirmed or reaffirmed by the Roman Pontiff, even without recourse to a solemn definition, by declaring explicitly that it belongs to the teaching of the ordinary and universal Magisterium as a truth that is divinely revealed (first paragraph) or as a truth of Catholic doctrine (second paragraph). Consequently, when there has not been a judgment on a doctrine in the solemn form of a definition, but this doctrine, belonging to the inheritance of the depositum fidei, is taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium, which necessarily includes the Pope, such a doctrine is to be understood as having been set forth infallibly. The declaration of confirmation or reaffirmation by the Roman Pontiff in this case is not a new dogmatic definition, but a formal attestation of a truth already possessed and infallibly transmitted by the Church.(CFF Commentary on the Concluding Formula of the Professio Fidei)

In the past, Popes have declared each of the above 5 statements to be part of the universal and ordinary Magisterium of the Church. Consider this:

Seventhly, the decree of union concluded with the Greeks, which was promulgated earlier in this sacred council, recording how the holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son, and that the phrase and the Son was licitly and reasonably added to the creed of Constantinople. Also that the body of the Lord is effected in leavened or unleavened wheat bread; and what is to be believed about the pains of purgatory and hell, about the life of the blessed and about suffrages offered for the dead. In addition, about the plenitude of power of the apostolic see given by Christ to blessed Peter and his successors, . . . . . about the order of the patriarchal sees. (Council of Florence, Session 8 — 22 November 1439)

What did Florence mean by this:

By these measures the synod intends to detract in nothing from the sayings and writings of the holy doctors who discourse on these matters. On the contrary, it accepts and embraces them according to their true understanding as commonly expounded and declared by these doctors and other catholic teachers in the theological schools. (Council of Florence, Session 22 — 15 October 1435)

Since CDF's declaration would also apply to past Magisteriums (since all Magisteriums are one), the above 5 statements of faith must be true, and hence, de fide.

I am not a "hard-core Feeneyite," as I have always made clear; I do not defend the "hard-core" group, nor their "right" to "defend" their views.

Jehanne wrote:"Strive to enter by the narrow gate; for many, I say to you, shall seek to enter, and shall not be able." (Luke 13:24, DRV)

"Enter ye in at the narrow gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction, and many there are who go in thereat." (Matthew 7:13, DRV)

"How narrow is the gate, and strait is the way that leadeth to life: and few there are that find it!" (Matthew 7:14, DRV)

"So shall the last be first, and the first last. For many are called, but few chosen." (Matthew 20:16, DRV)

"For many are called, but few are chosen." (Matthew 22:14, DRV)

Lots of quotes here (standard disclaimers apply):

http://www.romancatholicism.org/jansenism/fathers-fewness.htm

I'm sorry, but I was looking for a Magisterial confirmation of the Roman Pontiff that explicitly affirms or declares that the "fewness of the saved" belongs "to the teaching of the ordinary and universal Magisterium as a truth that is divinely revealed (first paragraph) or as a truth of Catholic doctrine (second paragraph)".

Where is the proof that the "doctrine is taught infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium of the Bishops dispersed throughout the world who are in communion with the Successor of Peter." And when has "Such a doctrine" been "confirmed or reaffirmed by the Roman Pontiff ... by declaring explicitly that it belongs to the teaching of the ordinary and universal Magisterium ... as a truth of Catholic doctrine"?

I dispute none of your Scriptural citations, but only the Church can tell us if (and in what sense) a particular passage is "de fide".

You might as well say that since it is literally impossible for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, it is de fide that a rich man cannot enter the kingdom of heaven.

You might as well say that since our Lord proclaimed that "Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you", we can say that it is de fide that no one can be sanctified and saved who does not physically receive the Holy Eucharist before death.

It is de fide from the fact that it was universally taught by all of the Church's Fathers, Doctors, Saints, Popes, and theologians. The idea of "universal salvation" is a recent theological novelty.

The "eye of a needle," by the way, was not a "sewing needle," but a small hole in the side of ancient city walls. It was possible for a camel to pass through such a "needle," but it took effort and work on the part of the beast, as it had to get on "all fours" to get through it, something that is not natural for a camel to do.

Jehanne wrote:It is de fide from the fact that it was universally taught by all of the Church's Fathers, Doctors, Saints, Popes, and theologians. The idea of "universal salvation" is a recent theological novelty.

You can't tell us a particular doctrine is "de fide" from a certain so-called "universal" perspective that does not define "de fide" as the Church defines it.

And who said anything about "universal salvation"?

I asked you for explicit confirmation of the Roman Pontiff that explicitly affirms this "universal and ordinary teaching of the Magisterium", and all you can do is punt by redefining "de fide". General infallibility (cannot give harm or be opposed to the Faith) is not the same as "de fide".

Jehanne wrote:The "eye of a needle," by the way, was not a "sewing needle," but a small hole in the side of ancient city walls. It was possible for a camel to pass through such a "needle," but it took effort and work on the part of the beast, as it had to get on "all fours" to get through it, something that is not natural for a camel to do.

Excellent point, but that does not change the fact that only the Church can tell us in what sense this analogy describing the difficulty of the rich in obtaining heaven (and how that pertains to the "fewness of the saved) is "de fide". The meaning of our Lord's analogy is easily grasped, but to then assert that this is "proof" that the "fewness of the saved" is "de fide" is just one more logical fallacy.

It would be de fide ecclesiastica and not de fide definita. I apologize for not making the distinction explicit.

columba wrote:Mike.
Re; Fr Harrisons knoweldge of non-water Baptized souls in heaven.

I was taking it for granted that we all agree that there are in fact sacramentally Baptized souls in heaven. We know this by the Church asserting this as truth through her canonisation process which relies on a study of the holiness of a particular candidate and confirmed miracles granted through their intercession.

MRyan wrote:
No one disputes that, but your specific challenge to Fr. Harrison asserted that he could not possibly know the secret tribunals of God at a soul's particular judgement, and I simply turned it around by stating that neither can you.

Yes. But my point is; As I don't believe in baptism of desire, I wouldn’t have to know the secret tribunals of God to maintain my position. On the other hand, Fr Harrison would.
As Jehanne would say, Fr Harrison would have to prove a negative.

The fact that there are canonized saints in heaven, most of whom we know were Baptized in water, has nothing to do with knowing the private tribunals of God relative to a soul's Baptism.
Yes, I said "most of whom", because no one can possibly know that every one of the elect received a valid baptism, and we KNOW that the Church venerates a few martyrs who appear to have been martyred without the sacrament. In other words, making the case that these particular souls were NOT baptized in water is stronger than the case that they were. Tradition, to include Liturgical tradition, is on the side stating they were not. The traditional testimony concerning the 40th Martyr of Sebaste is a classic case in point.

I say we can in fact know that everyone of the elect received a valid Baptism because Our Lord affirmed that, “Unless a man be born again of water...”
I'll leave aside for the moment baptism of blood (even though it could appear as a stronger argument in support of rebirth without water) and the controversy surrounding the circumstances of the 40th Martyr of Sebaste who's name in fact is unknown and it can't be infallibly proven that any such martyrs were unbaptized.

And unless you are privy to God's secret tribunals, you cannot possibly KNOW that each and every canonized saint was baptized in water.

I am however privy to God's infallible word and the Church's understanding of it that. “Unless a man be born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.”

Yours is a logical fallacy that holds that because we can be certain that the vast majority of the souls in heaven have been baptized in water, then baptism of blood and baptism of desire can be questioned because we cannot know with the same certitude that there are souls in heaven (and how many) who have not been baptized in water.

I do protest! I'm endevouring to combat logical falacy.
I say that, far from knowing with the same degree of certitude that there ARE unbaptized souls in heaven, we can't know with any certitude at all, and without being privy to the particular judgments of God we can only speculate at most and, speculation cannot rise to the level of doctrine, at least until some new evidence be produced that was hitherto unknown. To my knowledge no such new evidence has ever been produced.

And, as I have said on countless occasions, the truth of a doctrine on a matter of salvation does not hinge on whether we can know with infallible certitude that there are souls saved by such an extraordinary manner; it is enough to KNOW that the Church teaches the doctrine as authentic and true, and we are then safe in assuming that there are such souls in heaven because the Church not only allows it, she strongly suggests it in her Liturgy, and thus, the doctrine cannot in any way be opposed to the dogmas of the Church.

I disagree (surprise surprise). The Church has nowhere in her Councils or infallible teaching capacity (and I think you agree with that) ever made it compulsory to accept baptism of desire as a doctrine of the faith. She has in some of her Catechisms strongly suggested and in certain non-universal statements and letters suggested the possibility of such, but, without detracting from her own dogmatic pronouncements concerning the necessity of sacramental Baptism for the attainment of salvation she has not ventured to declare this speculation de fide.

columba wrote:
One more relevant question Mike; If there are such unbaptized souls in heaven, they have obviously entered the kingdom of God without being born again of water. Do you agree with that statement?

Yes, just as I agree that every soul in heaven has been born again and regenerated as co-heirs with Christ, to include those souls justified under the Old Dispensation. If water baptism was intrinsic to salvation, it would have been intrinsic to salvation in every age.

I say you're wrong Mike. Those things which the Divine law declare intrinsic to salvation, immediately become intrinsic. What was intrinsic in one age can be dispensed with and replaced with something else in a subsequent age if God so chooses and then mercifully reveals it to His Church.
The sacrifice of Christ was not intrinsic to our salvation. God could have chosen another way. Because of this choice, the sacrifice of Christ is now intrinsic to our salvation.

God is NOT bound by His sacraments to effect the same salvific end, even those sacraments instituted as necessity of means.

God can neither deceive nor be deceived. When He declares something to be necessary He must surely bind Himself to His own declaration even while possessing the power to do whatever He pleases. Truth is Truth. If it were any other way we could never discern revealed, objective truth from the unknown and mysterious workings of God. That God in fact has made His mind known to us concerning those things which pertain to our eternal salvation is, of-the faith.

I'm not trying to be clever here but if baptism of desire can achieve salvation, Wouldn't Our Lord have said, “Unless a man be born again of the Spirit” and omitted any reference to the necessity of water? The Church in her own understanding of these words in St Johns Gospel didn't feel it necessary to explain away the water.

Jehanne wrote:
The "eye of a needle," by the way, was not a "sewing needle," but a small hole in the side of ancient city walls. It was possible for a camel to pass through such a "needle," but it took effort and work on the part of the beast, as it had to get on "all fours" to get through it, something that is not natural for a camel to do.

Jehanne. I listened to a sermon on Audio Sancto a few months ago and the priest talked about this eye of the needle. He named the particular biblical scholar (a Protestant I think) who first came up with the novel idea that there existed a narrow arch somewhere in Jerusalem called The Eye of the Needle.
He said that no such reference has ever been found to the existance of such an arch and the words of Our Lord should be understood literally to mean the eye of a sewing needle.

Just thought I'd mention that.

Jehanne wrote:How so? Once again:

"The whole body of the faithful who have an anointing that comes from the holy one (cf. 1 Jn. 2:20, 27) cannot err in matters of belief. This characteristic is shown in the supernatural appreciation of the faith (sensus fidei) of the whole people, when, 'from the bishops to the last of the faithful' they manifest a universal consent in matters of faith and morals. By this appreciation of the faith, aroused and sustained by the Spirit of truth, the people of God, guided by the sacred teaching authority (magisterium) and obeying it, receives not a merely human word but truly the word of God (cf. 1 Th. 2:13), the faith once for all delivered to the saints (cf. Jude 3). The people unfailingly adheres to this faith, penetrates it more deeply with right judgment and applies it more fully in daily life." (Second Vatican Council, Lumen Gentium, #12)

Once again you simply read whatever it is you want to read into a passage and ignore its true context.

Pay attention: The faithful “cannot err in matters of belief” when “they manifest a universal consent in matters of faith and morals” ('from the bishops to the last of the faithful'), provided this universal consent is “guided by the sacred teaching authority (magisterium) and obeying it, receives not a merely human word but truly the word of God (cf. 1 Th. 2:13), the faith once for all delivered to the saints”; in other words – when the obey the magisterium on a matter of REVEALED TRUTH (or a non-revealed truth that is “definitively” affirmed as a “formal attestation by the Roman Pontiff” by “declaring explicitly that it belongs to the teaching of the ordinary and universal Magisterium as a truth of Catholic doctrine”).

Also, “a universal consent in matters of faith and morals” ('from the bishops to the last of the faithful'), is a truth “objectively set forth by the whole episcopal body, understood in a diachronic [a universal consent -- from the bishops in every age to the last of the faithful] and not necessarily merely synchronic sense”.

You’re still batting zero.

Jehanne wrote:
For centuries, it was universally believed and taught that:

1) Explicit faith in the Blessed Trinity and Incarnation was necessary for salvation on the part of "whosoever will be saved.."

Like Luther did with Scripture, you added the word “explicit” to the infallible creeds and declarations of the Roman Pontiffs. You have also accused the Church of heresy for Magisterially teaching (e.g., in the papal Encyclical Redemtoris Missio) that an implicit faith in Christ may suffice for salvation for those in invincible ignorance. The opinion of St. Thomas is not a “de fide” dogma of Faith and if you are not willing to be moderated by the Church and be “guided by the sacred teaching authority (magisterium) and obeying it” then you make a mockery of the very citations you cite as “proof” for your erroneous “de fide” proclamations and your scandalous accusations of heresy that is necessarily implicit in you false arguments.

Jehanne wrote:
2) Submission, mind and will, to the Roman Pontiff was also necessary for salvation.

Yes it is, for those who are Baptized members of the Faithful. And “every creature” must be subject to the Roman Pontiff, at least in desire (implicit or explicit).

What happened to your “explicit” submission is “de fide”, and to say otherwise (as the Church does in her doctrine on invincible ignorance) is “formally heretical and absurd”?

Jehanne wrote:
3) Martyrdom in the Name of Christ within His Mystical Body, the Holy Roman Catholic Church & Apostolic Church, in the absence of Baptism would avail a catechumen of everlasting life.

Provide the “formal attestation by the Roman Pontiff” that declares “explicitly that [this authentic doctrine] belongs to the teaching of the ordinary and universal Magisterium as a truth of Catholic doctrine”.

The teaching is infallible, but it is not proven to be “de fide”. Prove it.

Jehanne wrote:
4) A catechumen who dies without Baptism and with only imperfect charity cannot attain Heaven, per the Council of Trent.

If by imperfect charity you mean “attrition” as opposed to true contrition, that would be true of the baptized who have fallen from grace; but I’m still not sure this is “de fide” with respect to catechumens who have yet to have been infused with the supernatural virtue of charity (and sanctifying grace) that can elevate a sincere attrition to a “perfect charity”. I think Fr. Matthias Joseph Scheeben (one of the most renowned theologians of the 19the century) had some interesting thoughts on this (with even the grace of an imperfect charity being irresistible to God in the uninitiated), but I’ll have to look up the details.

Of course, once the catechumen has been justified in grace, he is capable of possessing a supernatural charity (a “perfect contrition”), which would be necessary for salvation without the sacrament - - so we are probably saying the same thing.

Jehanne wrote:
5) A catechumen who dies without Baptism and with perfect charity will go to Heaven, but he/she must still suffer the temporal punishment in Purgatory due to his/her own venial sins.

Only if the debt has not been paid. And it is NOT “de fide” that this debt cannot be paid through a perfect charity at the moment of death; and nothing you have brought forth by way of evidence amounts to a “formal attestation by the Roman Pontiff” that declares “explicitly that [this authentic doctrine] belongs to the teaching of the ordinary and universal Magisterium as a truth of Catholic doctrine … understood in a diachronic [a universal consent -- from the bishops in every age to the last of the faithful] and not necessarily merely synchronic sense”.

Jehanne wrote:
Why are the above truths de fide? You've cited it:

In the case of a non-defining act, a doctrine is taught infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium of the Bishops dispersed throughout the world who are in communion with the Successor of Peter. Such a doctrine can be confirmed or reaffirmed by the Roman Pontiff, even without recourse to a solemn definition, by declaring explicitly that it belongs to the teaching of the ordinary and universal Magisterium as a truth that is divinely revealed (first paragraph) or as a truth of Catholic doctrine (second paragraph). Consequently, when there has not been a judgment on a doctrine in the solemn form of a definition, but this doctrine, belonging to the inheritance of the depositum fidei, is taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium, which necessarily includes the Pope, such a doctrine is to be understood as having been set forth infallibly. The declaration of confirmation or reaffirmation by the Roman Pontiff in this case is not a new dogmatic definition, but a formal attestation of a truth already possessed and infallibly transmitted by the Church.(CFF Commentary on the Concluding Formula of the Professio Fidei)

So you use my citation to prove your case, and you cannot bring forth a single magisterial proof text (with the possible exception of number 4), that represents a “formal attestation by the Roman Pontiff” that declares “explicitly that [your version of a “de fide” truth] belongs to the teaching of the ordinary and universal Magisterium as a truth of Catholic doctrine … understood in a diachronic [a universal consent -- from the bishops in every age to the last of the faithful] and not necessarily merely synchronic sense”.

You’re still batting zero.

Jehanne wrote:
In the past, Popes have declared each of the above 5 statements to be part of the universal and ordinary Magisterium of the Church.

What is gratuitously asserted is gratuitously denied.

Jehanne wrote:
Consider this:

Seventhly, the decree of union concluded with the Greeks, which was promulgated earlier in this sacred council, recording how the holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son, and that the phrase and the Son was licitly and reasonably added to the creed of Constantinople. Also that the body of the Lord is effected in leavened or unleavened wheat bread; and what is to be believed about the pains of purgatory and hell, about the life of the blessed and about suffrages offered for the dead. In addition, about the plenitude of power of the apostolic see given by Christ to blessed Peter and his successors, . . . . . about the order of the patriarchal sees. (Council of Florence, Session 8 — 22 November 1439)

Ok, let’s consider it. What does "what is to be believed about the pains of purgatory and hell" have to do with the alleged “de fide” dogma that says that each and every soul without exception must suffer in Purgatory for the temporal debt that cannot be paid in any other way, not even by a perfect charity?

A “de fide” dogma way of logical fallacy, of course.

What did Florence mean by this:

By these measures the synod intends to detract in nothing from the sayings and writings of the holy doctors who discourse on these matters. On the contrary, it accepts and embraces them according to their true understanding as commonly expounded and declared by these doctors and other catholic teachers in the theological schools. (Council of Florence, Session 22 — 15 October 1435)

It meant exactly what it said, and not what you think it says. When the Council of Florence condemned certain propositions, and followed by saying “By these measures the synod intends to detract in nothing from the sayings and writings of the holy doctors who discourse on these matters”; nothing she said here suggests that everything the holy doctors say and write on the subject is “de fide”, but only that “the synod intends to detract in nothing” from these same sayings and writings.

And neither is Florence declaring that when she “accepts and embraces them according to their true understanding as commonly expounded and declared by these doctors and other catholic teachers in the theological schools” that she is suggesting their entire body of teaching on the subject is “de fide”.

Where do you come up with this stuff?

Jehanne wrote:
Since CDF's declaration would also apply to past Magisteriums (since all Magisteriums are one), the above 5 statements of faith must be true, and hence, de fide.

That would be true if you can prove that the for each of the four “de fide” propositions there is a “formal attestation of the Roman Pontiff … declaring explicitly that it belongs to the teaching of the ordinary and universal Magisterium as a truth of Catholic doctrine”; and that each is understood as “an infallible teaching … objectively set forth by the whole episcopal body, understood in a diachronic and not necessarily merely synchronic sense”.

Jehanne wrote:
I am not a "hard-core Feeneyite," as I have always made clear; I do not defend the "hard-core" group, nor their "right" to "defend" their views.

Your unique, that’s for sure.

You are King of the Logical Fallacy, but you know little about the meaning of "de fide".

As I have pointed out above, the 5 points (which are not an exhaustive list, by the way) are infallible (which means that they are true) in virtue of de fide ecclesiastica. That Pope John Paul II was a heretic for what he stated in Redemptoris Missio does not trouble me in the least, but we've been down that road before. (Just because he may be in Hell is not an invitation to join him there, is it? With respect to his sorry-ass Pontificate, the only thing that I profess is that I am not his judge.) To add to my list:

6) Infants who die without Baptism are forever excluded from Heaven, the Beatific Vision.

7) Individuals who attain the Age of Reason and who make a false profession of faith are guilty of mortal sin; if such persons were in a state of grace, they would fall from it.

8 ) Sacred Scripture is without error of any kind, as such, Adam & Eve were real people, the parents of all humankind, and the Deluge was a worldwide event that destroyed all life on the face of the Earth.

Check #8 with "your theologians," and see how many of them would adhere to this de fide ecclesiastica teaching.

I will provide references to all the above 8 (and beyond) de fide ecclesiastica teachings over time, even though such references have been posted on this board numerous times and are on my blog (plus in many other locations online!)

*** BUMP***

Columba, I never received a reply to this post except by way of your standard response to Jehanne where you said:

I do not believe in pre-Baptismal justification because no one can be justified outside the Church and no one at all can be saved who is not subject to the Roman Pontiff.

For the sake of brevity, let's begin the post here with this critical issue:

columba wrote:
Spare me the lesson Mike. I've studied Gaelic, French and some Spanish and what you say is true of many languages. The point is, the word “Without” conveys the true meaning in Session 6, Ch.4 and in a clearer way than “Except through,” especially with the inclusion of John 3:5 dispelling any doubt.

No, I will not spare you the lesson, for you are clearly wrong. You are simply mistaken in your assumption about John 3:5 and the intent of the Fathers, and your linguistic studies did not prepare you to be able recognize the grammatical rules and nuances of Medieval Latin ... and that's just a fact, as your amateurish attempt at a "common sense" translation reveals.

As a professional Medieval Latinsit informed me:

Aut is the strongest disjunction in the Latin language, of all the various disjunctions: aut, vel, sive, etc. Hence why medieval grammarians called it the coniunctio disiunctiva, not the coniunctio subdisiunctiva, or anything else.

If the Fathers of Trent did indeed mean 'or' than there would be no other way to phrase the point without introducing a lengthy periphrasis which would be entirely out of the economical style typical of and proper to the ecclesiastical language.

If the Father did intend a conjuntive meaning, "and," there are many other ways they could have said it and they are guilty of a very bad and informal Latin.

Let me stress once again: there is no other way to phrase this line to make the disiunctive stronger. At the same time, if they intended a conjunctive, there are numerous other ways they could have said.

It is therefore philologically reckless to read this aut as an 'and.'

Second, as to the question of ambiguity, there is none - Either the Father's meant 'or' (as I have shown to be likely) or they meant 'and' (very unlikely) but I bet you that you cannot find a single instance in the Latin language of any period where an author chooses the word 'aut' in order to express an ambiguity between a conjunction and a disjunction.

Furthermore, and more to the point, like you, I once tried to argue:

"Now, the previous example from Session Six Ch. 4 contains a negative ["sine"] which would seem to have to be distributed over the disjunction "Aut". "Sine" means "Without", and the entire passage is in the negative in describing what cannot be lacking for justification: meaning - neither water baptism nor the vow/desire for it can be lacking. No?

NO! The response:

sorry, but in Latin sine is not a negative, even if in English we translate it with one. For the rule to apply you need a genuine negative particle, like non, neque, nec, etc.

Did you catch that, columba? You are making the same mistake I once did by making false assumptions. The problem is that we are not equipped to handle such complexities of translation with our little Latin-English dictionaries and our understanding of the rules of English grammar.

If "sine" is often translated as "except through", it is because (I would guess) the translators wanted to convey the true sense of "sine" and "aut" that "without" does not necessarily convey. And as we can see with your dictionary translation and false assumption, they were perfectly justified in doing so.

As the professional Medievel Latinist (and traditional Catholic) said:

... these rules are difficult, and there is no grammar book in English (or any other for that matter) that can spell out all the rules for you. You just have to spend many years reading Latin texts (a course, by the way, that I would heartily recommend: to put the study of theologia before the study of grammatica is to invert the Christian model of education).

Will you learn the lesson?

Hello MRyan,

Ah yes, language and its true meaning. Mike, Need your help with this one.

Aut and Sine

Either/ or and Neither/Nor

So If you say that you cannot play baseball without a bat or ball, is that bad english ?
In this sentence, "or" means "and."

Also, I must admit as hard as I try I misspell or leave out a word even when I proof read. I think we all do that, just the human elemement. For example the topic of this post is really Session 6, Chapter 4. The only reason I bring this up is that for me, I leave Doctrine up to how the Church understands or explains it through the Church Magesterium. Otherwise I would get in TROUBLE.

George Brenner wrote:Hello MRyan,

Ah yes, language and its true meaning. Mike, Need your help with this one.

Aut and Sine

Either/ or and Neither/Nor

So If you say that you cannot play baseball without a bat or ball, is that bad English ?
In this sentence, "or" means "and."

No, its bad Latin. In classical Latin, aut (or) can mean “and” even if “vel” would be more accurate; however, in medieval and especially ecclesiastical Latin, the grammar was tightened and the rules became much more rigid such that the Church simply would not use aut to mean “and” in a dogmatic text, especially when she is looking to be as accurate as possible. As the Catholic professional medieval Latinist said, it would have been very poor and sloppy grammar and he challenges anyone to find such an example where the Church used aut (or) when she should have used “vel” (and). (I tried, and failed - he shot each one of them down while patiently explaining why the particular example did not fit.)

As was also demonstrated, sine/aut cannot mean “neither/nor” because “sine” is not a negative when it is not modified by “a genuine negative particle, like non, neque, nec, etc.” This is why I believe some translations have “except through” instead of “without” because "cannot … without" can convey a neither/nor meaning which is simply not the Latin meaning. So those so-called grammatical purists with their Latin/English dictionaries who accuse the translators of deliberately trying to pull one over on us by not being faithful to the translation of “sine” are correct in the sense that it was indeed intentional to use “except through” … because it conveys the more accurate meaning, though it is not the literal translation.

The true meaning of the passage is reflected in the 1917 Code of Canon Law, “Baptism [to be justified thereby], the door and foundation of the Sacraments, in fact or at least in desire is necessary unto salvation for all”.

But here’s the real kicker. I have continually challenged columba and any of the other “aut means and, or neither/nor” folks with their pocket dictionaries to name a single theologian, scholar, Doctor, saint or Pope who, since the Council of Trent, agreed with their modern “translation” and who thus did not understand this passage the way the Church and her theologians have always understood it.

The sound of crickets is the only reply.

There was never any “debate” over the “correct” translation because the scholars and the theologians would have scoffed at any of these amateurish attempts to change the obvious and precise meaning of the text.

Such "schooling" of the scholars and the Church (and their universal consensus) in the "correct" meaning of a text written in the mother tongue of the Church takes a certain amount of hubris, don’t you think? But it does serve to validate your point: it can spell nothing but TROUBLE.

Just two examples demonstrating how the scholars/schools understood Trent:

The Rheims New Testament (from the College of Rheims) of 1582 (just 18 years after the promulgation of the decrees of Trent), wrote this in its Annotation for John 3:5:

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

It also sounds like the authors also read the Catechism of Trent.

And to complete the Rheims connection, here is a little Q & A from the The Douay Catechism of 1649:

Q. Can a man be saved without baptism?
A. He cannot, unless he have it either actual or in desire, with contrition, or to be baptized in his blood as the holy Innocents were, which suffered for Christ.
Q. How prove you that?
A. Out of John iii. 5. "Unless a man be born again of water, and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."

Let's see what columba has to say.

Thank you very much, MRyan

That last post of yours helped me better understand. I am going to print your answer to me as handy reference.

JMJ,

George

Mike is pounding on "open doors" again:

At the Fifth Lateran Council (1512-1517) Pope Leo X reaffirmed the teaching of Boniface VIII: "Where the necessity of salvation is concerned all the faithful of Christ must be subject to the Roman Pontiff, as we are taught by Holy Scripture, the testimony of the holy fathers, and by that constitution of our predecessor of happy memory, Boniface VIII, which begins Unam Sanctam."

More here:

http://unamsanctamecclesiamcatholicam.blogspot.com/2011/04/right-wing-liberals-and-unam-sanctam.html

Baptism of Desire is salvific (something that was never in dispute, as far as I am concerned); it just makes much more sense to believe that "whomever the One and Triune God predestines to the eternal beatitude, His elect, are also predestined by Him (due to His Sovereignty, Providence, and Perfection) to receive Sacramental Baptism in Water, with no exceptions." Even if catechumens (who are part of "Christ's faithful") die without sacramental Baptism and with only implicit desire for it, such desire must still be encapsulated within explicit faith of the Blessed Trinity & Incarnation and explicit submission to the Roman Pontiff. This is why Trent would also declare:

Pope Pius IV, Council of Trent, Iniunctum nobis, Nov. 13, 1565, ex cathedra: "This true Catholic faith, outside of which no one can be saved… I now profess and truly hold…"

Mike would, of course, like to extend "implicit desire" to include "implicit submission" to the Roman Pontiff, but we know such to be absurd, and hence, heretical:

1) Implicit submission is a denial of human free will. It's like saying that a person could be an "unconscious traitor." How could someone with only "implicit submission" ever choose to be guilty of schism? It's like saying that an American citizen who only has "implicit patriotism" could still be guilty of treason while at the same time still be "implicitly patriotic," and therefore, not guilty of treason, in spite of that person's human actions. It's like saying that Osama bin Laden was "an implicit American patriot" even as he was masterminding the September 11th attacks. No court would, of course, ever accept this type of "logic."

2) Implicit submission is a denial of the Perfection of the Triune God. The and One Triune God is a Perfect Being, therefore, He cannot lie, ever. As such, He would never, by His "divine light and grace," lead someone to believe in a false religion.

3) Ignorantia juris non excusat. This principle is universally recognized; ignorance of divine law & revelation may diminish one's culpability for sin; it does not excuse it. The "we were just following orders" is not a valid defense, so the Orthodox, even though they were raised as Orthodox are without excuse.

In Mike's world, there is no such thing as a "foul ball" in the game of baseball. Because a ball can "zig-zag" beyond the foul line before coming to rest in the field, Mike believes that such "proves" that we are "allowed to hope" that there is no such thing as a "foul ball" in the game of baseball.

And just when we thought Don was taking a hiatus from the forum in order to contemplate in Zen-like fashion the finer mysteries of sede-swampism, here he is again attempting to completely hi-hack the thread by going on and on with his daffy "formally heretical" theories by which he even condemns his former mentor, Br. Andre.

And he accuses me of pounding "open doors" when he agrees with my post on the meaning of Trent, Session, Six, Ch. Four.

Your are a real boor, Jehanne.

I do not believe that the Council of Trent formally defined Baptism of Desire:

http://unamsanctamecclesiamcatholicam.blogspot.com/2011/04/council-of-trent-baptism-of-desire.html

Clearly, the Council viewed the theological idea as being part of the Ordinary Magisterium of the Church, which is why it was taught in the Roman Catechism:

Ordinarily They Are Not Baptised At Once

"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.

Nay, this delay seems to be attended with some advantages. And first, since the Church must take particular care that none approach this Sacrament through hypocrisy and dissimulation..."

********* KEEP READING !!!!!!!!! *********

In Case Of Necessity Adults May Be: Baptised At Once

Sometimes, however, when there exists a just and necessary cause, as in the case of imminent danger of death, Baptism is not to be deferred, particularly if the person to be baptised is well instructed in the mysteries of faith. This we find to have been done by Philip, and by the Prince of the Apostles, when without any delay, the one baptised the eunuch of Queen Candace; the other, Cornelius, as soon as they expressed a wish to embrace the faith.

If "Baptism of Desire" were so certain, such a "slam dunk" teaching, why the above teaching? If catechumens could have "good assurance" that "their desire" was sufficient to bring them to everlasting life, why worry about baptizing them if they are "imminent danger"? Why the need for the above instruction?

Jehanne wrote:I do not believe that the Council of Trent formally defined Baptism of Desire

Clearly, the Council viewed the theological idea as being part of the Ordinary Magisterium of the Church, which is why it was taught in the Roman Catechism

Session 6, Ch. 4 is an infallible dogmatic description "of the Justification of the impious, and of the Manner thereof under the law of grace", but it did not "formally define" baptism of desire, and no said it did. But it did infallibly declare that justification cannot be effected except through water baptism, or [at least] by the desire for it (de fide), as the Church has always taught.

So this infallible dogmatic teaching is not restricted to the Ordinary magisterium, but is derived from the Supreme and the universal/ordinary magisterium.

Baptism of desire is the doctrine that holds that those justified by "the desire thereof" are assured of their salvation if they die in that same state of grace. So baptism of desire is derived from an infallible syllogism that goes like this:

- Impious (adults) may be effectively translated through grace as adopted sons and heirs to the kingdom by faith, charity and contrition before or without the sacrament under certain necessary conditions (de fide)

- That sanctifying grace is a state of salvation (de fide)

- Therefore, since the promulgation of the Gospel, all who die in a state of justification are saved (de fide)

Jehanne wrote:

Ordinarily They Are Not Baptised At Once

"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.

Nay, this delay seems to be attended with some advantages. And first, since the Church must take particular care that none approach this Sacrament through hypocrisy and dissimulation..."

********* KEEP READING !!!!!!!!! *********

In Case Of Necessity Adults May Be: Baptised At Once

Sometimes, however, when there exists a just and necessary cause, as in the case of imminent danger of death, Baptism is not to be deferred, particularly if the person to be baptised is well instructed in the mysteries of faith. This we find to have been done by Philip, and by the Prince of the Apostles, when without any delay, the one baptised the eunuch of Queen Candace; the other, Cornelius, as soon as they expressed a wish to embrace the faith.

If "Baptism of Desire" were so certain, such a "slam dunk" teaching, why the above teaching? If catechumens could have "good assurance" that "their desire" was sufficient to bring them to everlasting life, why worry about baptizing them if they are "imminent danger"? Why the need for the above instruction?

Because no one can know the true internal dispositions of a soul (what if the contrition was mere attrition?), and because the divine precept for baptism is the only means that the Church knows that can assure their salvation, even if their contrition was less than "perfect".

Baptism of desire is an extraordinary means of salvation that can be known with absolute certainty only by God, and the Church is in the divinely-mandated business of providing the ordinary means of salvation, without exception and without fail.

MRyan wrote:
Baptism of desire is an extraordinary means of salvation that can be known with absolute certainty only by God, and the Church is in the divinely-mandated business of providing the ordinary means of salvation, without exception and without fail.

Let me finish that thought so it is absolutely clear:

Baptism of desire is an extraordinary means of salvation that can be known with absolute certainty only by God, and the Church is in the divinely-mandated business of providing the ordinary means of salvation, without exception and without fail; except when prevented by some necessity.

In these cases, the Church can assure the salvation of someone only in the objective sense that stipulates that they must be properly disposed; but she cannot know with absolute certainty that any one particular person is properly disposed, though she may assume they are by the objective evidence and may thus allow for a Christian burial.

The necessity of Baptism is never mitigated by someone's desire for the sacrament; it can only be mitigated by God who is the supreme judge of such cases. The Church simply teaches the conditions necessary for justification and salvation should some necessity prevent reception of the sacrament.

Jehanne, are we clear?

MRyan wrote:

Jehanne wrote:I do not believe that the Council of Trent formally defined Baptism of Desire

Clearly, the Council viewed the theological idea as being part of the Ordinary Magisterium of the Church, which is why it was taught in the Roman Catechism

Session 6, Ch. 4 is an infallible dogmatic description "of the Justification of the impious, and of the Manner thereof under the law of grace", but it did not "formally define" baptism of desire, and no said it did. But it did infallibly declare that justification cannot be effected except through water baptism, or [at least] by the desire for it (de fide), as the Church has always taught.

So this infallible dogmatic teaching is not restricted to the Ordinary magisterium, but is derived from the Supreme and the universal/ordinary magisterium.

Baptism of desire is the doctrine that holds that those justified by "the desire thereof" are assured of their salvation if they die in that same state of grace. So baptism of desire is derived from an infallible syllogism that goes like this:

- Impious (adults) may be effectively translated through grace as adopted sons and heirs to the kingdom by faith, charity and contrition before or without the sacrament under certain necessary conditions (de fide)

- That sanctifying grace is a state of salvation (de fide)

- Therefore, since the promulgation of the Gospel, all who die in a state of justification are saved (de fide)

Jehanne wrote:

Ordinarily They Are Not Baptised At Once

"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.

Nay, this delay seems to be attended with some advantages. And first, since the Church must take particular care that none approach this Sacrament through hypocrisy and dissimulation..."

********* KEEP READING !!!!!!!!! *********

In Case Of Necessity Adults May Be: Baptised At Once

Sometimes, however, when there exists a just and necessary cause, as in the case of imminent danger of death, Baptism is not to be deferred, particularly if the person to be baptised is well instructed in the mysteries of faith. This we find to have been done by Philip, and by the Prince of the Apostles, when without any delay, the one baptised the eunuch of Queen Candace; the other, Cornelius, as soon as they expressed a wish to embrace the faith.

If "Baptism of Desire" were so certain, such a "slam dunk" teaching, why the above teaching? If catechumens could have "good assurance" that "their desire" was sufficient to bring them to everlasting life, why worry about baptizing them if they are "imminent danger"? Why the need for the above instruction?

Because no one can know the true internal dispositions of a soul (what if the contrition was mere attrition?), and because the divine precept for baptism is the only means that the Church knows that can assure their salvation, even if their contrition was less than "perfect".

Baptism of desire is an extraordinary means of salvation that can be known with absolute certainty only by God, and the Church is in the divinely-mandated business of providing the ordinary means of salvation, without exception and without fail.

I agree with the above 100%. Still, the Providence of the One and Triune God leads me to believe that all of His Elect will end this life with Sacramental Baptism in Water.

MRyan wrote:

MRyan wrote:
Baptism of desire is an extraordinary means of salvation that can be known with absolute certainty only by God, and the Church is in the divinely-mandated business of providing the ordinary means of salvation, without exception and without fail.

Let me finish that thought so it is absolutely clear:

Baptism of desire is an extraordinary means of salvation that can be known with absolute certainty only by God, and the Church is in the divinely-mandated business of providing the ordinary means of salvation, without exception and without fail; except when prevented by some necessity.

In these cases, the Church can assure the salvation of someone only in the objective sense that stipulates that they must be properly disposed; but she cannot know with absolute certainty that any one particular person is properly disposed, though she may assume they are by the objective evidence and may thus allow for a Christian burial.

The necessity of Baptism is never mitigated by someone's desire for the sacrament; it can only be mitigated by God who is the supreme judge of such cases. The Church simply teaches the conditions necessary for justification and salvation should some necessity prevent reception of the sacrament.

Jehanne, are we clear?

I agree 100%. However, I think that Trent is clear that imperfect contrition on the part of a catechumen, in the absence of Sacramental Baptism in Water, would not be sufficient for eternal life; for that, the actual Sacrament would be necessary.