Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism.

columba wrote:
HACS also stands for "Holding Anti Catholic Suppositions"

From Wikipedia:
HACS (Holding Anti Catholic Suppositions) is considered to be a disease of the mind or a malfuntion in the intellect. The sufferer loses some or all ability (depending on the severity of the condition) to differentiate between reality and fantazy, permitting the patient to hold two mutually contradictory beliefs, simultaneously in the mind without experiencing any mental discomfort.

As in the case of a non-culpable adult Orthodox member of a particular Eastern Church who professes the Orthodox faith and is not in visible communion with the Catholic Church, yet "remains truly Catholic in both senses; externally and internally”, while at the same time “‘he is not an external member’ … of the Catholic Church”.

There does not appear to be a treatment for this affliction.

The HACS disorder (© simple Faith) also manifests itself in the following manner:

Supernatural life

…Above all, the state of grace is absolutely necessary at the moment of death without it salvation and supernatural happiness—the beatific vision of God—are impossible. An act of love is sufficient for the adult to obtain sanctifying grace and to supply the lack of baptism” (Pope Pius XII, Allocution to mid wives).

In response, Columba wrote:

But are you saying that Pope Pius XII is declaring that such a transition from "natural man" to "Regenerated man" can be achieved without Baptism. I don't think he has said as much.

In the HACS disorder, a state of grace is absolutely necessary for salvation, and an act of love is sufficient to obtain this state and supply for the lack of Baptism; but this does NOT mean that this same state of grace is sufficient to transform “natural” man into a state of salvific regeneration; thus, Pope Pius XII did not actually mean to say that an act of love is sufficient for the adult to obtain a state of regenerative sanctifying grace that could actually supply for the lack of Baptism, he really meant to say that an act of love can result only in a non-regenerative and non-salvific state of sanctifying grace that cannot supply for the lack of Baptism.

See, Pope Pius XII was one of the original founders of the St. Benedict Center.

As I said, there is no known remedy for the HACS affliction.

Columba,

I think this thread has run its course, and I'd like to focus on some unfinished business.

All sarcasm aside, please respond to my post above on your attempted revision of the clear words of Pope Pius XII (Allocution).

Along those same lines, please respond to my comments from the first page of this thread where I said (slightly edited):

'Furthermore, your “stipulation” presupposes that one must first be in a state of sanctifying grace before one can make in act of "perfect" love that is capable of obtaining (being restored to) sanctifying grace, which would mean that no man in history was ever justified in grace without actual ablution in the Sacrament, which leaves the just of the Old Law up a sinful creek without a paddle, for their faith in the Redeemer to come was to no avail in making them justified friends of God – and leaving Pope Leo XIII looking rather foolish when he declared:

It is indeed true that in those of the just who lived before Christ, the Holy Ghost resided by grace, as we read in the Scriptures concerning the prophets, Zachary, John the Baptist, Simeon, and Anna; so that on Pentecost the Holy Ghost did not communicate Himself in such a way "as then for the first time to begin to dwell in the saints, but by pouring Himself forth more abundantly; crowning, not beginning His gifts; not commencing a new work, but giving more abundantly" (St. Leo the Great, Hom. iii., de Pentec.)...

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

What does that say about your “stipulation”?' [END]

Continuing ... your comments that suggest there is a distinction between created sanctifying grace and the regenerative translation to divine sonship (uncreated grace) actually has merit when we consider the difference between the respective states of sanctification under the Old and New Dispensations.

But that distinction disappears (as clearly taught by Pope Pius XII, Leo XIII and Trent) under the new law of grace where an act of love can truly translate a man into a state of regeneration/sanctifying grace, and supply for the lack of Baptism (the ordinary and chief external means of sanctification, according to Pope Leo XIII).

In other words, under the new law of grace, a state of sanctification is synonymous with a state of regeneration; you cannot have one without the other.

The magisterial teaching of Pope Pius XII in his Allocution is crystal clear, and appertains, as he also taught, to the ordinary common doctrinal teachings of the Magisterium, of which our Lord said, "he who heareth you, heareth Me".

What is left to "dispute"? The Church, and Our Lord, have spoken.

Mike,

Pope Leo XIII does indeed clinch this debate. Add to that great quote the quote from him in Satis Cognitum:

In the same way in man, nothing is more internal than heavenly grace which begets sanctity, but the ordinary and chief means of obtaining grace are external: that is to say, the sacraments which are administered by men specially chosen for that purpose, by means of certain ordinances.

You say, the OT saints had "faith in the Redeemer to come." Indeed, lest anyone doubt my being a rigorist - God forbid - I say that faith in Christ was always necessary, even if the OT saints had it in a dim (but more than just "implicit" by virtue of faith in God) way:

John 8:56 (Abraham)

Abraham your father rejoiced that he might see my day: he saw it, and was glad.

Job 19:25 (Job)

For I know that my Redeemer liveth, and in the last day I shall rise out of the earth.

[25] I know that my Redeemer liveth: Ver. 25, 26, and 27 shew Job's explicit belief in his Redeemer, and also of the resurrection of the flesh, not as one tree riseth in place of another, but that the selfsame flesh shall rise at the last day, by the power of God, changed in quality but not in substance, every one to receive sentence according to his works in this life.

Psalms 109:1 (David)

The Lord said to my Lord: Sit thou at my right hand: Until I make thy enemies thy footstool.

John 12:41 (Isaiah)

These things said Isaias, when he saw his glory, and spoke of him.

Deuteronomy 18:15 (Moses)

The Lord thy God will raise up to thee a PROPHET of thy nation and of thy brethren like unto me: him thou shalt hear . . .

Acts 3:21-24 (in fact, all of the prophets)

Whom heaven indeed must receive, until the times of the restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of his holy prophets, from the beginning of the world. [22] For Moses said: A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me: him you shall hear according to all things whatsoever he shall speak to you. [23] And it shall be, that every soul which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people. [24] And all the prophets, from Samuel and afterwards, who have spoken, have told of these days.

Tornpage,

"Rigorism" has its place, and if St. Thomas Aquinas was a rigorist, you're in good company.

Speaking of Pope Leo XIII, I also meant to highlight the following from the same Encyclical on the Holy Ghost:

It is indeed true that in those of the just who lived before Christ, the Holy Ghost resided by grace ... Moreover, not only was their justice derived from the merits of Christ who was to come

There are those among the extreme Feeneyites who hold that there was/is neither justification nor the remission of sins (can't have one without the other) without water Baptism, neither under the Old nor the New Dispensations.

Pope Leo XIII magisterially put an end to any such foolishness; for how can the Holy Ghost reside by grace, and how can this same justice be derived from the merits of Christ -- without the remission of sins and without a state of sanctification?

OK Mike,

I agree that this thread has probably run its course and my answers to your questions can be found throughout the thread, But I will try again here in the hope that you can comprehend the difference between being in a state of justification (i.e, in the process of being justified) that will -since the institution of the sacrament of Baptism- be fully realized in the reception of the sacrament itself. Where as before the institution of the sacrament, the just from the old law resided in the Limbo of the Fathers, for as Pope Leo XIII pointed out, the Spirit, under the old law, was not given in the same way as it is gven since the completion of the redeeming work of Christ (where His final words from the cross were, "It is finished") and thus the just residing in the Limbo of the Fathers received in reality what was present only in potential in the uncompleted work of justification under the old law.
That's why we can read in Luke 2: 25, of the just and upright man named Simeon, of which we're told, "The Holy Ghost rested on him;" unlike the experience at penticost where we are told the apostles were, "Filled with the Holy Ghost." In the former we have the Holy Ghost prompting and directing in an external way, and in the latter case we have the Holy Spirit performing an inner work of transformation as in, "being born again of the spirit."
I hope now that the meaning of the words of Pope Leo XIII are clearer to you and that their meaning isn't (as you always say) a matter of private interpretation.

A wee story might help to illustrate this better;

An upright and just, unbaptized catechumen dies and finds himself in heaven. He realizes that he has not received the laver of regeneration via the waters of baptism, so fearing for his life he takes refuge under the banquet table hoping that no one will notice him. Now Mike, Simple Faith, George, Jehanne and Columba are already in heaven and all seated round the banquet table waiting for the feast to begin. Mike however notices a foot sticking out friom under the table and goes to investigate. As he looks under the table he sees a set of fearful looking eyes glaring at him in a pleading kind of way. Mike checks to see if anyone is watching before discretely addressing the poor catechumen in a whisper, "What are you doing there?" Now the catechumen is a clever lad and had done his homework well so he replies to Mike, "I haven't been baptized and unless a man be born again of water he cannot (as the Truth says) enter the kingom of God."

Mike begins pleading with the young man, reasurring him that he has arrived here by another way, that of "Baptism of Desire." But the young catechumen is indignant and holds his ground saying, "But there IS no other way! I was already taught by my instructor that 'The Church Knows of no other way apart from Baptism that can assure salvation' and yet your telling me there is another way. Nah, I'm staying here," he says.

Mike now starts becomming a little agitated at the gross indignance of the catechumen in doubting his word and starts to raise his voice a ittle while explaining the whole concept of baptism of desire to the frightend man.

Meanwhile, one of the stewards notices the commotion and takes a closer look. "What's going on here," he asks Mike. "This catechumen," Mike replies, " has received baptism of desire but he refuses to come out from under the table." The steward, in a rage, drags the young man out from under the table. By this time everyone in the room has realized something's going on and all eyes are on the catechumen as he now stands trembling in front of the whole party. Just at that, the master of the banquet appears, and seeing the place in disarray enquires of the steward as to the problem. The steward brings the catechumen forward and explains to the master that this young man has arrived here without Baptism. "How did you get in here?" the master booms. The catechumen is now so scared and trembling that he cannot answer, but a little voice from the side pipes up, "Master, he got here through the path of baptism of desire. "baptism of desire! What's that?" the master asks, and orders the young man to be taken and thrown outside. "Does anyone else here believe in baptism of desire?" asks the master. A few hands tentatively go up. The master, with a look of hioly anger in His face asks, "Who spread this doctrine among you? Who has dared presume to render my words meaningless, those words I spoke when I was with you on earth, Unless a man be born again of water?"
All eyes are now on Mike who himself (by this stage) is now trembling. I'm seated next to Pope Eugene IV and I notice Jehanne is beside Pope Boniface VIII. As I scan the room I also notice seated not far from Jehanne, the two ashen faces of Simple Faith and George. SF is grey in complexion while George has a purple ring round his mouth and both look decidedly terrorized. I also observed that neither had put up their hands when the master had asked the question about belief in baptism of desire.
I see Jehanne nudge Pope Boniface with his elbow. The pope leans over to Jehanne and Jehanne whispers something in His ear. The pope begins to smile, with a slight chuckle being evident from the movement of his shoulders. These two are up to no good I thought to myself, and sure enough, Jehanne leans over to George (who is quite closely seated near by beside SF) and says to Him. "Didn't I see you with Mike? Your one of his suppoters, aren't you? and you too SF, aren't you also one of his supporters?" Both men begin to remonstrate with Jehanne denying having any knowledge of Mike. "I know not the man," says George, while SF begins to call down curses on himself if he'd ever as much had spoken to Mike.

The master, by this stage, has made His decission. "I will give you all a second chance" he says. "Each of you must go back into the world. Mike you will go seek out that catechumen and have him properly baptized, George and Simple Fath, you' must help Mike find that catechumen, and Jehanne and Columba, well, you must keep informing the led-astray masses that "Unless a man be born again of water and the spirit he cannot (as I have said) enter the kingdom of God."

So.. Here we all are back in the world. Jehanne and I are both doing our job.
I could have sworn I saw George and SF pass by whistling, "Here catechumen... come on boy.. whistle whistle... Heeeere boy....
Anyone seen Mike?

Columba,

What does the catechumen desire? Does he/she desire to be baptized, even implicitly? Does he/she pray to be baptized? And yet, is the Church asking us to profess that such prayers end-up not being answered?

I hope that you read Father Harrison's essay and my reply to it. If Father Feeney did, indeed, tell people back in Boston 60 years ago, "Hey, you need to be a card-carrying Catholic and be sacramentally Baptized in Water for the remission of your sins!" what harm was he causing to them?

Columba,

I love the fact that you posted a story. I wish more stories were posted from time to time. We can not judge from down here but in your story if all the names you mention made it to heaven they would have an eternity membership card and would not be kicked out. Could you imagine all of us sitting around a table here on earth? Somehow I am hearing a voice saying run Forrest run ! Jehanne, I have a strong hunch that Church history will be very kind to Father Feeney.

What would Jesus say to us? Our convictions and believes remain in our heart and soul. Those convictions for some can and do change from time to time. We could never dare speak for Jesus...... I believe in One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church and where you find Peter ,you will find the Church. And where you find the Church you will find Jesus.

Those are questions that no baptism of desire believer is willing to answer.

They say thaty one who seeks, prays for and desires Baptism with all his/her heart is refused it becauae God is not bound by the sacraments, but the Church already knows that God is bound by nothing yet He binds himself to his own Word for His Word is His only begotten Son Our Lord Jesus Christ. God and His word are one and the same.

I read the Fr Harrison article and have a few misgivings with some of his assumptions which I feel he has not proven. I was thinking on starting a new thread on the article but I can use your thread, the one with your email to Fr Harrison if you don't mind.

George wrote:
We can not judge from down here but in your story if all the names you mention made it to heaven they would have an eternity membership card and would not be kicked out.

I know George, I was taking some liberties there though I had in the back of my mind the story of St Patrick where he gathered up the bones of a long deceased Irish king (who had lived a just and upright life) and brought him back to life in order to baptize him.

columba wrote:OK Mike,

I agree that this thread has probably run its course and my answers to your questions can be found throughout the thread, But I will try again here in the hope that you can comprehend the difference between being in a state of justification (i.e, in the process of being justified) that will -since the institution of the sacrament of Baptism- be fully realized in the reception of the sacrament itself. Where as before the institution of the sacrament, the just from the old law resided in the Limbo of the Fathers, for as Pope Leo XIII pointed out, the Spirit, under the old law, was not given in the same way as it is gven since the completion of the redeeming work of Christ (where His final words from the cross were, "It is finished") and thus the just residing in the Limbo of the Fathers received in reality what was present only in potential in the uncompleted work of justification under the old law.

That's why we can read in Luke 2: 25, of the just and upright man named Simeon, of which we're told, "The Holy Ghost rested on him;" unlike the experience at penticost where we are told the apostles were, "Filled with the Holy Ghost." In the former we have the Holy Ghost prompting and directing in an external way, and in the latter case we have the Holy Spirit performing an inner work of transformation as in, "being born again of the spirit."

I hope now that the meaning of the words of Pope Leo XIII are clearer to you and that their meaning isn't (as you always say) a matter of private interpretation.

You sound like a school teacher instructing some slow-to-learn petulant child who doesn’t know how to read the very same authoritative magisterial papal document that totally refutes your egregious “private interpretation”. Of course, you didn’t explicitly tell us what you really mean (I know what you mean from previous posts), because you cannot bring yourself to say it, so let me spell it out for you.

You simply ignore the plain meaning of the words of Pope Leo XIII and spin/filter them in the columba rinse cycle to where they come out to mean the very opposite of what they say; just as you did with the Allocution of Pope Pius XII. In fact, you actually cite Scripture against Pope Leo XIII who tells us Scripture supports his clear teaching.

And you end up with some non-sanctifying type of justification that does not include the remission of sins by the merits of the Redeemer to come.

You end up with an “external” type of justification (shades of Luther’s sin-covering “imputation”) where original sin is not remitted and the Holy Ghost simply “rested on him … prompting and directing in an external way”.

And thus, the Holy Ghost did NOT, contrary to what Pope Leo XIII declared, “reside by grace … IN those of the just who lived before Christ … as we read in the Scriptures concerning the prophets, Zachary, John the Baptist, Simeon, and Anna; so that on Pentecost the Holy Ghost did not communicate Himself in such a way ‘as then for the first time to begin to dwell IN the saints, but by pouring Himself forth more abundantly; crowning, not beginning His gifts; not commencing a new work, but giving more abundantly".

It would appear that you went to the Otremer6 school of Feeneyite interpretation that says the Limbo of the Fathers existed because no man before the Redemption could actually be sanctified by the merits of the Redeemer to come. The argument actually reasons that if anyone would have been sanctified by grace by the anticipatory merits of the Redeemer, the gates of heaven would have been flung open and every one of the just would have enjoyed the beatific vision before our Lord actually fulfilled the act of Redemption.

I guess poor St. Thomas Aquinas once again got it wrong when he taught in his Summa:

Objection 4. Further, nothing but sin closes the entrance to the heavenly kingdom. But before the Passion the entrance to the heavenly kingdom was closed to the circumcised. Therefore men were not justified from sin by circumcision.

I answer that, All are agreed in saying that original sin was remitted in circumcision. But some said that no grace was conferred, and that the only effect was to remit sin. The Master holds this opinion (Sent. iv, D, 1), and in a gloss on Romans 4:11. But this is impossible, since guilt is not remitted except by grace, according to Romans 3:2: "Being justified freely by His grace," etc.

Reply to Objection 4. Original sin was taken away in circumcision, in regard to the person; but on the part of the entire nature, there remained the obstacle to the entrance of the kingdom of heaven, which obstacle was removed by Christ's Passion. Consequently, before Christ's Passion not even Baptism gave entrance to the kingdom. But were circumcision to avail after Christ's Passion, it would give entrance to the kingdom.

Christ's Passion is the final cause of the old sacraments: for they were instituted in order to foreshadow it. Now the final cause precedes not in time, but in the intention of the agent. Consequently, there is no reason against the existence of sacraments before Christ's Passion.

And, as the CE tells us:

Since the act of perfect contrition implies necessarily this same love of God, theologians have ascribed to perfect contrition what Scripture teaches belongs to charity. Nor is this strange, for in the Old Covenant there was some way of recovering God's grace once man had sinned. God wills not the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live (Ezekiel 33:11). This total turning to God corresponds to our idea of perfect contrition; and if under the Old Law love sufficed for the pardon of the sinner, surely the coming of Christ and the institution of the Sacrament of Penance cannot be supposed to have increased the difficulty of obtaining forgiveness. That the earlier Fathers taught the efficacy of sorrow for the remission of sins is very clear (Clement in P.G., I, 341 sqq.; and Hermas in P.G., II, 894 sqq.; Chrysostom in P.G., XLIX, 285 sqq.) and this is particularly noticeable in all the commentaries on Luke 7:47. The Venerable Bede writes (P.L., XCII, 425): "What is love but fire; what is sin but rust? Hence it is said, many sins are forgiven her because she hath loved much, as though to say, she hath burned away entirely the rust of sin, because she is inflamed with the fire of love."

No one disputes (and I spelled it out very clearly) that the unfulfilled justification of the old dispensation was not of the same abiding type as under the new dispensation, and Pope Leo XIII spells this out quite clearly, while also affirming that the Holy Ghost did in fact give of Himself IN the just where He resided and dwelt by grace, with “their justice” being “derived from the merits of Christ who was to come”.

So just say it, columba, and tell us that “It is [NOT] true that IN those of the just who lived before Christ, the Holy Ghost resided by grace, as we read in the Scriptures”.

Tell us that The Holy Ghost did not reside by grace IN the souls of the prophets, Zachary, John the Baptist, Simeon, and Anna … as we read in the Scripture”; and tell us that the same prophets, Zachary, John the Baptist, Simeon, and Anna remained in a state of original sin.

Tell us again that the Holy Ghost only “rested” upon the souls of the just …prompting and directing in an external way”.

And tell us that when St. Thomas taught that “All are agreed in saying that original sin was remitted in circumcision”, for example, “All” does not include the true arbiter of truth and tradition – columba.

Go ahead, let’s see you take on the actual words of Pope Leo XIII and twist them to mean the very opposite of what they say, just like you did with Pope Pius XII.

About your silly story, please spare us from such malarkey ... and the less I say about it, the better. After all, it is Lent.

columba wrote:
Those are questions that no baptism of desire believer is willing to answer.

You make up some fantasy dream … and then tell us no one who follows Church teaching is willing to answer the “questions”?

Your work of fiction has as much relevancy as your private interpretations of doctrines that twist what the popes say to mean just the opposite of what was written.

“Say, has anyone up here in Paradise ever heard of ‘baptism of desire’ (tee hee hee)”? And as the Fathers, the saints, the theologians, the Doctors and the popes stand in one unanimous “yes” majority, every single justified soul under the old dispensation steps forward to bear witness to this truth, since not only did they receive the grace of their faith and desire - regeneration, they received the remission of sins and the merits of the One who redeemed them.

columba wrote:
They say that one who seeks, prays for and desires Baptism with all his/her heart is refused it because God is not bound by the sacraments, but the Church already knows that God is bound by nothing yet He binds himself to his own Word for His Word is His only begotten Son Our Lord Jesus Christ. God and His word are one and the same.

They (the authoritative Magisterium and tradition) say that one who seeks, prays for and desires Baptism with all his/her heart is NOT refused that which he desires, the effects of the Sacrament, because God is not bound by the Sacraments to effect the same end.

God’s word “he who heareth you, heareth Me” and the word of His Church “An act of love is sufficient for the adult to obtain sanctifying grace and to supply the lack of baptism” are one and the same.

columba wrote:
I will try again here in the hope that you can comprehend the difference between being in a state of justification (i.e, in the process of being justified) that will -since the institution of the sacrament of Baptism- be fully realized in the reception of the sacrament itself.

Being in a state of justification is NOT the process of being justified; it IS the state of justification/sanctification. One is either in a state of sanctification, or one isn’t.

The process of justification, while recognizing the twofold distinction between external inspiration and the internal diffusion of charity, is not the STATE of justification, it is a process one undergoes in preparation for the state of justification, whether of the type under the old law (which no longer exists), or that of the new law. These are but two types of the same justification which, by necessity, differ in kind; but not in their essential ends; nor in their first, final, efficient, meritorious and alone formal causes; with the end being sanctification, and salvation for those who die in the justified state.

The Limbo of the Fathers was not the “hell” of the damned, it was a temporary hold station for those already sanctified by grace in the merits of the Redeemer to come, whose act of Redemption would heal all of nature and open the gates of heaven.

Mike,

Such an individual would lack the inedible mark on the soul, which only Baptism can give. You yourself have acknowledged this, as, of course, has the Church. The prayer of the catechumen is be baptized, sacramentally; are we at least "allowed to hope" that those prayers were all answered, perhaps by a miracle that is simply unknown to history or perhaps even an angel?

Jehanne wrote:Mike,

Such an individual would lack the inedible mark on the soul, which only Baptism can give. You yourself have acknowledged this, as, of course, has the Church. The prayer of the catechumen is be baptized, sacramentally; are we at least "allowed to hope" that those prayers were all answered, perhaps by a miracle that is simply unknown to history or perhaps even an angel?

Yes, Jehanne, I have acknowledged this, while also citing the gifted and renowned 19th century theologian Fr. Scheeben who teaches that the Holy Ghost, when He justifies a soul internally, also leaves His seal upon a soul - though not the corporate priestly seal that makes one a member of the visible society which bestows the right to participate in the Sacramental life of the Church.

So you should ask yourself why it is necessary that the just of the old law, or the justified Catechumen who dies before he can receive Baptism, is required to bear the seal that makes him a member of the visible Church Militant, and affords him the right to participate in the Sacraments, when he is already a member of the Church Triumphant.

That "we are allowed to hope" implies that they are lacking something essential for their salvation, does it not?

I think it is more appropriate to say that we are allowed to hope that all of those who sincerely intend to do the will of God in all things, and place their faith in Him, will benefit from the Sacrament of salvation, but an act of love will suffice for the lack of Baptism when providence dictates.

We are allowed (aren't we?) to hope for what the catechumen himself hopes and prays for, because can you can say with absolute certainty that "desire alone" would be sufficient for a catechumen who lacked perfect charity (indeed, for a catechumen who died in a state of mortal without Baptism) who, had he/she been baptized, would have revived the graces from the actual reception of the Sacrament to attain everlasting life? Or, are you saying that desire, even that which is gravely deficient and imperfect, would be sufficient, in the absence of Baptism, to secure an individual's salvation? Or, are you saying that it is impossible to imagine a situation of a catechumen dying without Baptism with only imperfect charity and contrition and going to Hell, who would have had otherwise gone to Heaven had he/she been Baptized?

Jehanne wrote:We are allowed (aren't we?) to hope for what the catechumen himself hopes and prays for, because can you can say with absolute certainty that "desire alone" would be sufficient for a catechumen who lacked perfect charity (indeed, for a catechumen who died in a state of mortal without Baptism) who, had he/she been baptized, would have revived the graces from the actual reception of the Sacrament to attain everlasting life? Or, are you saying that desire, even that which is gravely deficient and imperfect, would be sufficient, in the absence of Baptism, to secure an individual's salvation? Or, are you saying that it is impossible to imagine a situation of a catechumen dying without Baptism with only imperfect charity and contrition and going to Hell, who would have had otherwise gone to Heaven had he/she been Baptized?

Jehanne,

If someone who appears to be zealous for the faith is Baptized just before death overtakes him, can we be assured of his salvation?

We can only be assured of the salvation of baptized infants and the canonized saints (or those Revealed by Scripture).

Whether we are talking about Catechumens or the already Baptized, what determines anyone's fitness for heaven is the state of sanctifying grace, which is entirely subjective from our fallible perspective.

The Church simply provides for the ordinary and chief instruments that effect this end when the proper dispositions are present (even when sorrow for sins is an imperfect attrition); and, she also teaches that when the proper dispositions are in fact present, salvation is assured for those who are prevented from receiving the Sacraments (as in baptism of blood, baptism of desire and Penance).

It is not my business to know a precise definition for that sincere charity that renders an act of love salvific, but the Commandment that says "I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate me, but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments" is a good place to begin.

Mike,

You're great at not answering questions. The CCC states:

1453 The contrition called "imperfect" (or "attrition") is also a gift of God, a prompting of the Holy Spirit. It is born of the consideration of sin's ugliness or the fear of eternal damnation and the other penalties threatening the sinner (contrition of fear). Such a stirring of conscience can initiate an interior process which, under the prompting of grace, will be brought to completion by sacramental absolution. By itself however, imperfect contrition cannot obtain the forgiveness of grave sins, but it disposes one to obtain forgiveness in the sacrament of Penance.

Are you saying that a catechumen who dies without Baptism and with only imperfect contrition would go to Heaven?

Jehanne wrote:Mike,

You're great at not answering questions.

I'll ignore that slight.

Jehanne wrote:
The CCC states:

1453 The contrition called "imperfect" (or "attrition") is also a gift of God, a prompting of the Holy Spirit. It is born of the consideration of sin's ugliness or the fear of eternal damnation and the other penalties threatening the sinner (contrition of fear). Such a stirring of conscience can initiate an interior process which, under the prompting of grace, will be brought to completion by sacramental absolution. By itself however, imperfect contrition cannot obtain the forgiveness of grave sins, but it disposes one to obtain forgiveness in the sacrament of Penance.

Are you saying that a catechumen who dies without Baptism and with only imperfect contrition would go to Heaven?

No.

Some unfinished business, after all:

columba wrote:

MRyan wrote:
Your logical fallacy rears its ugly head once again. Why would I reject the term “ipso facto” when I don’t; and when I agreed that AB Lefebvre received a latae sententiae “ipso facto” excommunication as soon as he committed his schismatic act?

Well then, you only prove what I said. If this happens ipso facto to a bishop then its a principle based on an "existing fact" regardless whether it be a bishop, cardinal or pope.
I take it your argument has more to do with the impossibility (as you believe) of a pope falling into heresy or being a heretic before his election as pope. The principle however holds good if it in fact be possible for a pope to become a heretic.

The “principle” proves no such thing.

You went in the wrong direction when you said “your argument has more to do with the impossibility (as you believe) of a pope falling into heresy or being a heretic before his election as pope”; for I do not deny such a possibility before his election, I deny such a possibility upon and after the election, for the very same reasons articulated by Cardinal Billot:

Therefore, from the moment that the pope is accepted by the Church and is united to Her as the head to the body, we can no longer raise the doubt on the possible bias of election or the possible lack of the necessary conditions for legitimacy. Because this adherence of the Church heals in its root all faults committed at the moment of election, and proves infallibly the existence of all the conditions required." (http://catholicism.org/modern-popes.html#5)

Whatever occult heresy or suspicion of heresy that might have existed (for how can someone who is elevated to the papacy be a manifest obstinate heretic – the notion is absurd on its face) vanishes “from the moment that the pope is accepted by the Church and is united to Her as the head to the body”, for as VCI infallibly declared, the pope is that visible foundation of faith and communion upon which the visible edifice of the Church rests.

You say you do not deny this? You certainly do.

columba wrote:

MRyan wrote:

I also agree that public acts of outright heresy may be judged in the external form to be exactly that ... but I reject outright the claims of the sede's against the pope.

Then this is based on your own personal, subjective opinion. You could then at any time reverse this opinion if the evidence disagreed with it to your own satisfaction

No, it is based on a dogmatic fact.

columba wrote:

MRyan wrote:
What I reject is the notion of a validly elected pope (lawfully elected and accepted by the Universal Church) who can wither away into obstinate and pertinacious (formal) heresy.

I already know this to be your opinion but it's not based on any "de fide" Church teaching, and the references you provide in support of your belief do not prove that a pope cannot fall into heresy.

Yes, they do. De fide:

In order that the whole multitude of believers should be held together in the unity of faith and communion, he set blessed Peter over the rest of the apostles and instituted IN him the permanent principle of both unities and their visible foundation”

What is it about this de fide infallible dogmatic proclamation you do not understand?

How can Peter hold the whole multitude of believers together in the unity of faith and communion if our Lord had NOT instituted IN Peter the permanent principle of both unities and their visible foundation, and if Peter could thus fail to hold the whole multitude of believers permanently together in the unity of faith and communion by withering away into obstinate heresy and rejecting the Catholic faith?

Please answer the question.

De fide:

“THAT which our Lord Jesus Christ established IN the Blessed Apostle Peter [the permanent principles of faith and communion], for the continual salvation and permanent benefit of the Church, must of necessity remain for ever, by Christ's authority, in the church which, founded as it is upon a rock, will stand firm until the end of time.’

What is it about this de fide infallible dogmatic proclamation you do not understand?

If “THAT which our Lord Jesus Christ established IN the Blessed Apostle Peter [the permanent principles of faith and communion], for the continual salvation and permanent benefit of the Church, must of necessity remain for ever”, and Peter was allowed to fall into manifest obstinate heresy, then the permanent principles of faith and communion would not be permanent, would they?

De fide:

… and that this See of Saint Peter remains ever free from all blemish of error, according to the divine promise of the Lord Our Saviour made to the Prince of His disciples: I have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not; and thou being once converted, confirm thy brethren."

“According to the divine promise of our Lord”, de fide, “this See of Saint Peter remains ever free from all blemish of error”.

The See of Peter was established IN the person of Peter, for the “See” means "sedes" - "seat". The Seat of Peter is his triple Office of Primacy over the universal Church, about which VCI declared, de fide:

… we promulgate anew the definition of the ecumenical Council of Florence, which must be believed by all faithful Christians, namely that the Apostolic See and the Roman Pontiff hold a world-wide primacy, and that the Roman Pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter, the prince of the apostles, true vicar of Christ, head of the whole Church and father and teacher of all Christian people.

To him, IN blessed Peter, full power has been given by our lord Jesus Christ to tend, rule and govern the universal Church.

What is it about this de fide infallible dogmatic proclamation you do not understand?

MRyan wrote:
You sound like a school teacher instructing some slow-to-learn petulant child who doesn’t know how to read the very same authoritative magisterial papal document that totally refutes your egregious “private interpretation”. Of course, you didn’t explicitly tell us what you really mean (I know what you mean from previous posts), because you cannot bring yourself to say it, so let me spell it out for you.

You simply ignore the plain meaning of the words of Pope Leo XIII and spin/filter them in the columba rinse cycle to where they come out to mean the very opposite of what they say; just as you did with the Allocution of Pope Pius XII. In fact, you actually cite Scripture against Pope Leo XIII who tells us Scripture supports his clear teaching.

Actually I've taken the proper meaning of the words of Pope Leo XII and also those of the allocution of Pope Pius XII. You have interpreted them (as you do with all such teachings) to conform to your already preconceived notions of what they should mean, which is all too often the contrary of what they really do mean.
I can read the words of Pope Leo XIII while remaining within the already established definitive truths of the faith and find no contradiction. Pope Pius XII is a little more ambiguous in his choice of words and can convey a less orthodox meaning if one doesn't bring to the table the traditional understanding as a foundation from which one can establish the true meaning.

And you end up with some non-sanctifying type of justification that does not include the remission of sins by the merits of the Redeemer to come.

You end up with an “external” type of justification (shades of Luther’s sin-covering “imputation”) where original sin is not remitted and the Holy Ghost simply “rested on him … prompting and directing in an external way”.

I do read my bible Mike. “Behold his reward is with him and his work is before him.” (Isaiah 40: 10) and I know that many gifts were conferred on mankind by the foreseen merits of Christ., the greatest of these being the preservation of the Blessed Virgin Mary from all stain of sin. I merely have the same understanding as that of St. Thomas when he says, The Law is completed by the Wisdom books and the prophets. Although the Old Law prescribed charity, it did not give the Holy Spirit. "Some under the Old Covenant possessed the grace of the Holy Spirit and longed for the promises of the New Law. Conversely, there exist carnal men under the New Covenant for whom only fear incites them to virtue" (St Thomas Aquinas)
And I agree that circumcision remitted original sin without granting the power necessary to fulfill the requirements of the law which would be conferred after the resurrection. Circumcision was abolished to make way for baptism which would confer sanctifying grace on all who would validly receive it. Circumcision can no longer remove original sin and so the Jews who practice it today remain in their sin. The only means now known to the Church by which original sin can be removed is through the laver of regeneration; Baptism.

And thus, the Holy Ghost did NOT, contrary to what Pope Leo XIII declared, “reside by grace … IN those of the just who lived before Christ … as we read in the Scriptures concerning the prophets, Zachary, John the Baptist, Simeon, and Anna; so that on Pentecost the Holy Ghost did not communicate Himself in such a way ‘as then for the first time to begin to dwell IN the saints, but by pouring Himself forth more abundantly; crowning, not beginning His gifts; not commencing a new work, but giving more abundantly".

And even St John the Baptist lacked what the new law would bring as Christ Himself confirmed when He said,
“Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist, yet he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he. (Matt 11: 11)
So Pope Leo XIII isn't giving some new revelation. The operation of grace he talks of under the old law is something completely different from the operation of grace under the new law, which is sometimes even referred to as the Law of Grace,

It would appear that you went to the Otremer6 school of Feeneyite interpretation that says the Limbo of the Fathers existed because no man before the Redemption could actually be sanctified by the merits of the Redeemer to come. The argument actually reasons that if anyone would have been sanctified by grace by the anticipatory merits of the Redeemer, the gates of heaven would have been flung open and every one of the just would have enjoyed the beatific vision before our Lord actually fulfilled the act of Redemption.

I don't think Otremer6 or any school of Feenyism interprets the existence of the Limbo of the Fathers in the way you maintain they do. Those existing under the old covenant were justified through circumcision; those of the new covenant through Baptism which was not demanded of the former. The difficulty they have with your interpretation Mike, is that the gates of heaven are "flung open" even to those who have not fulflled the requirements of the new covenant of which they are now under.

I guess poor St. Thomas Aquinas once again got it wrong when he taught in his Summa:
Objection 4. Further, nothing but sin closes the entrance to the heavenly kingdom. But before the Passion the entrance to the heavenly kingdom was closed to the circumcised. Therefore men were not justified from sin by circumcision.

I answer that, All are agreed in saying that original sin was remitted in circumcision. But some said that no grace was conferred, and that the only effect was to remit sin. The Master holds this opinion (Sent. iv, D, 1), and in a gloss on Romans 4:11. But this is impossible, since guilt is not remitted except by grace, according to Romans 3:2: "Being justified freely by His grace," etc.

Did those who were justified by their observance of the old law not share in the fulfillment of the promises of the old law that would occur after the death and resurrection of Christ? Of Course they do. What your insinuating is that those born under the new covenant do not have to conform (out of absolute necessity) to the requirements of the new covenant as those under the old covenant had to do.

Reply to Objection 4. Original sin was taken away in circumcision, in regard to the person; but on the part of the entire nature, there remained the obstacle to the entrance of the kingdom of heaven, which obstacle was removed by Christ's Passion. Consequently, before Christ's Passion not even Baptism gave entrance to the kingdom. But were circumcision to avail after Christ's Passion, it would give entrance to the kingdom.

Christ's Passion is the final cause of the old sacraments: for they were instituted in order to foreshadow it. Now the final cause precedes not in time, but in the intention of the agent. Consequently, there is no reason against the existence of sacraments before Christ's Passion.


And, as the CE tells us:
Since the act of perfect contrition implies necessarily this same love of God, theologians have ascribed to perfect contrition what Scripture teaches belongs to charity. Nor is this strange, for in the Old Covenant there was some way of recovering God's grace once man had sinned. God wills not the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live (Ezekiel 33:11). This total turning to God corresponds to our idea of perfect contrition; and if under the Old Law love sufficed for the pardon of the sinner, surely the coming of Christ and the institution of the Sacrament of Penance cannot be supposed to have increased the difficulty of obtaining forgiveness. That the earlier Fathers taught the efficacy of sorrow for the remission of sins is very clear (Clement in P.G., I, 341 sqq.; and Hermas in P.G., II, 894 sqq.; Chrysostom in P.G., XLIX, 285 sqq.) and this is particularly noticeable in all the commentaries on Luke 7:47. The Venerable Bede writes (P.L., XCII, 425): "What is love but fire; what is sin but rust? Hence it is said, many sins are forgiven her because she hath loved much, as though to say, she hath burned away entirely the rust of sin, because she is inflamed with the fire of love."
Precisely. But those who were appealing to the mercy of God through sorrow for their sins, were appealing not by the merits of their own contrition but through the merits of the redeemer who was promised as their ransom and thus, they received pardon for their believing that the promise made them by the Lord would be fulfilled. (ref Luke 1; 45)

I don't know where your going with this Mike in relation to baptism of desire, necessity of implicit faith in Christ, necessity of explicit membership within the one true Church or any other idea that leads you to believe that the requirements of the new covenant for salvation are any less rigid than those of the old. The new confers the ability to fulfill all its requirements, something that the old covenant could not do. One however must avail oneself of the means appointed by God in doing so.

No one disputes (and I spelled it out very clearly) that the unfulfilled justification of the old dispensation was not of the same abiding type as under the new dispensation, and Pope Leo XIII spells this out quite clearly, while also affirming that the Holy Ghost did in fact give of Himself IN the just where He resided and dwelt by grace, with “their justice” being “derived from the merits of Christ who was to come”.

So just say it, columba, and tell us that “It is [NOT] true that IN those of the just who lived before Christ, the Holy Ghost resided by grace, as we read in the Scriptures”.


Tell us that The Holy Ghost did not reside by grace IN the souls of the prophets, Zachary, John the Baptist, Simeon, and Anna … as we read in the Scripture”; and tell us that the same prophets, Zachary, John the Baptist, Simeon, and Anna remained in a state of original sin.


Tell us again that the Holy Ghost only “rested” upon the souls of the just …prompting and directing in an external way”.

And tell us that when St. Thomas taught that “All are agreed in saying that original sin was remitted in circumcision”, for example, “All” does not include the true arbiter of truth and tradition – columba.

Because you misunderstand the significance of the way in which grace was conferred in the old as distinct from the new covenant, you obviously can't understand why anyone else could make a distinction, even when popes try to explain this distinction while not denying the similarities.

Go ahead, let’s see you take on the actual words of Pope Leo XIII and twist them to mean the very opposite of what they say, just like you did with Pope Pius XII.

That you can take the words of Popes Leo XIII and Pius XII and erroneously conform them in support of your crusade against the dogmas of the faith by the promotion of that unholy trinity of baptism of blood, baptism of desire and Invincible Ignorance (one heresy with three distinct errors) then forgive me for not signing up.

About your silly story, please spare us from such malarkey ... and the less I say about it, the better. After all, it is Lent.

The story was for the benefit of those who can take theological concepts and actually apply them to concrete situations (even hypothetical ones) to see how they fare in reality. Didn't expect you to get it or take it in the spirit it was given, but I know that most here will.

I would love to deal with another point you consistently bring up concerning the fact that nothing more is required for salvation save the possession of perfect charity. I will find the quote again when I have time (from some papal refutation of errors) and without deviating from the doctrine of the absolute necessity of sacramental Baptism for salvation, show how it is in accord with the doctrine and totally refutes baptism of desire. I will take it up in another thread though as it will probably be easier to stay on track.

MRyan wrote:
I think it is more appropriate to say that we are allowed to hope that all of those who sincerely intend to do the will of God in all things, and place their faith in Him, will benefit from the Sacrament of salvation, but an act of love will suffice for the lack of Baptism when providence dictates.

Ahh... this is the point I had in mind worth discussing in another thread.

All this discussion about Baptism of Blood, Baptism of Desire and Invincible Ignorance is beyond human comprehension. All of these situations if and when they exists would be known to God alone ( Holy Trinity ) I believe for any mortal to impede, question or speculate on each persons personal judgement day and eternal destination ( exception, known Saints ) is to mock God Himself. The Church has taught officially and repeatedly through the centuries on ( baptism of desire, baptism of blood, ig ) as possibilities, not as probabilities or certainties of Salvation. They can not be denied or ruled out as part of official Church teaching. Why can't a person leave it at that. How do we know what happens to a person in a comma, aborted babies, deathbed confession, martyr for the faith, exact time the soul leaves the body and what may or may not occur. This and all the other countless scenarios and concocted possibilities that may or may not be present at the time of judgement which are known to God and NOT man is better left alone. These possible situations have nothing to do with saving our own souls and helping and praying for all we do come into contact with in Love, Faith and Charity. The need to know the answer of how the Salvation mechanics may or may not work is Salvation discussion lunacy beyond human comprehension and well it should be. We should all know the that there is No Salvation Outside The Catholic Church and Baptism by Water is the formula.

JMJ,

George

George Brenner wrote: All this discussion about Baptism of Blood, Baptism of Desire and Invincible Ignorance is beyond human comprehension. All of these situations if and when they exists would be known to God alone ( Holy Trinity ) I believe for any mortal to impede, question or speculate on each persons personal judgement day and eternal destination ( exception, known Saints ) is to mock God Himself. The Church has taught officially and repeatedly through the centuries on ( baptism of desire, baptism of blood, ig ) as possibilities, not as probabilities or certainties of Salvation. They can not be denied or ruled out as part of official Church teaching. Why can't a person leave it at that. How do we know what happens to a person in a comma, aborted babies, deathbed confession, martyr for the faith, exact time the soul leaves the body and what may or may not occur. This and all the other countless scenarios and concocted possibilities that may or may not be present at the time of judgement which are known to God and NOT man is better left alone. These possible situations have nothing to do with saving our own souls and helping and praying for all we do come into contact with in Love, Faith and Charity. The need to know the answer of how the Salvation mechanics may or may not work is Salvation discussion lunacy beyond human comprehension and well it should be. We should all know the that there is No Salvation Outside The Catholic Church and Baptism by Water is the formula.

JMJ,

George

Well put George. And all along I thought you disagreed with me.

The Church has taught officially and repeatedly through the centuries on (baptism of desire, baptism of blood, ig ) as possibilities, not as probabilities or certainties of Salvation.

But Mike says I must accept that the Church teaches that baptism of desire/baptism of blood IS a certainty and everyone must believe it. That's why I say it is not a de fide doctrine. Hiow can the Church make a doctrine out that which is unknown.
Lucky George I didn't heed you when you told me to "listen to Mike."

MRyan wrote:

Therefore, from the moment that the pope is accepted by the Church and is united to Her as the head to the body, we can no longer raise the doubt on the possible bias of election or the possible lack of the necessary conditions for legitimacy. Because this adherence of the Church heals in its root all faults committed at the moment of election, and proves infallibly the existence of all the conditions required." (http://catholicism.org/modern-popes.html#5)

Whatever occult heresy or suspicion of heresy that might have existed (for how can someone who is elevated to the papacy be a manifest obstinate heretic – the notion is absurd on its face) vanishes “from the moment that the pope is accepted by the Church and is united to Her as the head to the body”, for as VCI infallibly declared, the pope is that visible foundation of faith and communion upon which the visible edifice of the Church rests.

You say you do not deny this? You certainly do.

If an occult heresy did in fact exist does it automacically vanish without the newly elected Pope ever having to interiorly renounce it?
Is it now then impossible for a pope to cling to his hidden heresy even if he wishes to or, does his free will automatically vanish with his ellection?
If he still can cling to his hidden heresy, can anything stop him from promoting this hidden heresy or even -lets say- unknowingly (to him) tainting his other teachings with error which are cosequential to his occult heresy?

In order that the whole multitude of believers should be held together in the unity of faith and communion, he set blessed Peter over the rest of the apostles and instituted IN him the permanent principle of both unities and their visible foundation”

What is it about this de fide infallible dogmatic proclamation you do not understand?

Nothing.

How can Peter hold the whole multitude of believers together in the unity of faith and communion if our Lord had NOT instituted IN Peter the permanent principle of both unities and their visible foundation, and if Peter could thus fail to hold the whole multitude of believers permanently together in the unity of faith and communion by withering away into obstinate heresy and rejecting the Catholic faith?

Please answer the question.

Then he would not be truly Peter.; hence we have sedevacantists.

THAT which our Lord Jesus Christ established IN the Blessed Apostle Peter [the permanent principles of faith and communion], for the continual salvation and permanent benefit of the Church, must of necessity remain for ever, by Christ's authority, in the church which, founded as it is upon a rock, will stand firm until the end of time.’

What is it about this de fide infallible dogmatic proclamation you do not understand?

And what exactly was it that Our Lord established in Peter if not the office of primacy over the whole Church. This office still exists and will always exist til the end of time.
Whether or not that office will be permanently occupied throughout time has not been established but we can tell from the fact that interregnums (periods of discontinuity) exist between the death of one pope and the ellection of another, that what the Lord established in Peter is something different from a promise of absolute unbroken continuity.

So to amswer your question: Nothing.

… and that this See of Saint Peter remains ever free from all blemish of error, according to the divine promise of the Lord Our Saviour made to the Prince of His disciples: I have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not; and thou being once converted, confirm thy brethren."

“According to the divine promise of our Lord”, de fide, “this See of Saint Peter remains ever free from all blemish of error”.

Therefore it follows that if there be "any blemish of error" proceding from the mouth of Peter, then, he is not Peter. Ipso Facto.

… we promulgate anew the definition of the ecumenical Council of Florence, which must be believed by all faithful Christians, namely that the Apostolic See and the Roman Pontiff hold a world-wide primacy, and that the Roman Pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter, the prince of the apostles, true vicar of Christ, head of the whole Church and father and teacher of all Christian people.

To him, IN blessed Peter, full power has been given by our lord Jesus Christ to tend, rule and govern the universal Church.

What is it about this de fide infallible dogmatic proclamation you do not understand?

Nothing. I agree with this 100%.

Columba,

Sorry , no dice ! You have twisted my post into once again your private Interpretation.

The possibility of baptism of desire,baptism of blood and IG are Church teaching which must be believed. My point remains that the Judge is God not us. Are you saying that you do not want or hope or pray that a Martyr for the Faith would have the possibility before God to go to Heaven ?

Baltimore Cathechism (starting in the 19th century): Q. 653. Is Baptism of desire or of blood sufficient to produce the effects of Baptism of water? A. Baptism of desire or of blood is sufficient to produce the effects of the Baptism of water, if it is impossible to receive the Baptism of water.

· St. Pope Pius X (early 20th century): Catechism of Christian Doctrine, para. 132, "A person outside the Church by his own fault, and who dies without perfect contrition, will not be saved. But he who finds himself outside without fault of his own, and who lives a good life, can be saved by the love called charity, which unites unto God, and in a spiritual way also to the Church, that is, to the soul of the Church."

· St. Pope Pius X (early 20th century): Catechism of St. Pius X: 17 Q: Can the absence of Baptism be supplied in any other way? A: The absence of Baptism can be supplied by martyrdom, which is called Baptism of Blood, or by an act of perfect love of God, or of contrition, along with the desire, at least implicit, of Baptism, and this is called Baptism of Desire.

· Catholic Encyclopedia (~1913): X. SUBSTITUTES FOR THE SACRAMENT: “The Fathers and theologians frequently divide baptism into three kinds: the baptism of water (aquæ or fluminis), the baptism of desire (flaminis), and the baptism of blood (sanguinis). However, only the first is a real sacrament. The latter two are denominated baptism only analogically, inasmuch as they supply the principal effect of baptism, namely, the grace which remits sins. It is the teaching of the Catholic Church that when the baptism of water becomes a physical or moral impossibility, eternal life may be obtained by the baptism of desire or the baptism of blood.”

George Brenner wrote: Columba,

Sorry , no dice ! You have twisted my post into once again your private Interpretation.

The possibility of baptism of desire,baptism of blood and IG are Church teaching which must be believed. My point remains that the Judge is God not us. Are you saying that you do not want or hope or pray that a Martyr for the Faith would have the possibility before God to go to Heaven ?

Baltimore Cathechism (starting in the 19th century): Q. 653. Is Baptism of desire or of blood sufficient to produce the effects of Baptism of water? A. Baptism of desire or of blood is sufficient to produce the effects of the Baptism of water, if it is impossible to receive the Baptism of water.


· St. Pope Pius X (early 20th century): Catechism of Christian Doctrine, para. 132, "A person outside the Church by his own fault, and who dies without perfect contrition, will not be saved. But he who finds himself outside without fault of his own, and who lives a good life, can be saved by the love called charity, which unites unto God, and in a spiritual way also to the Church, that is, to the soul of the Church."

· St. Pope Pius X (early 20th century): Catechism of St. Pius X: 17 Q: Can the absence of Baptism be supplied in any other way? A: The absence of Baptism can be supplied by martyrdom, which is called Baptism of Blood, or by an act of perfect love of God, or of contrition, along with the desire, at least implicit, of Baptism, and this is called Baptism of Desire.

· Catholic Encyclopedia (~1913): X. SUBSTITUTES FOR THE SACRAMENT: “The Fathers and theologians frequently divide baptism into three kinds: the baptism of water (aquæ or fluminis), the baptism of desire (flaminis), and the baptism of blood (sanguinis). However, only the first is a real sacrament. The latter two are denominated baptism only analogically, inasmuch as they supply the principal effect of baptism, namely, the grace which remits sins. It is the teaching of the Catholic Church that when the baptism of water becomes a physical or moral impossibility, eternal life may be obtained by the baptism of desire or the baptism of blood.”

George, the cathechisms and encyclopedias are useful documents but not infallible Church document. They are subject to change and indeed have been changed.

George wrote:
Sorry , no dice ! You have twisted my post into once again your private Interpretation.

I didn't think so, But if you say so.

The possibility of baptism of desire,baptism of blood and IG are Church teaching which must be believed. My point remains that the Judge is God not us.

But your ignoring exactly what Mike says the Church in fact does teach; not the possibilty, but the actuality of baptism of blood/ baptism of desire, where we must believe that baptism of desire actually can happen, that souls can enter heaven without the laver of regeneration.
If (as you say) God is the judge, then He has already judged concerning this. "Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he CANNOT enter into the kingdom of God." (John 3:5)

Are you saying that you do not want or hope or pray that a Martyr for the Faith would have the possibility before God to go to Heaven ?

I am saying no such thing. I want everyone to go to heaven.
All martyrs for the faith go to heaven and all martyrs are members of the Church through Baptism, not through their own death for as the Truth says, "unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he CANNOT enter into the kingdom of God."

Columba,

We have posted countless references throughout the centuries of the Catholic Church. Baptism of Blood and Desire are official Church teaching, Leave the judgement and details to God.

there is no objective contradiction.
There is no way you can escape these dilemma: either all these
Saints were right and you are wrong, or they were all wrong and
you are right. I hope you realize the enormity of such a claim, and correct yourself.
Not only given the respect due to the holy Fathers of the
Church, holy Doctors and popes, but above all given the fact that
the unanimous Tradition of the Church is the sure sign that a
doctrine belongs to the deposit of Faith, every Catholic is bound
in conscience–as soon as he knows that so many Fathers, Doctors,
popes and saints have taught both–to hold that both the necessity
of Baptism and the doctrine on Baptism of Blood and Baptism of
Desire are not in contradiction, but rather are both necessary to
understand properly the dogma “outside the Church there is no
salvation.

Green, Red, Yellow and White Light


The green and red light are the clear rigorist colors of our Faith. Hold on to their words with all tenacity and obedience. Our Salvation depends on this. Anyone who knows these colors and abandons them or does not return to them will loose their soul. The yellow light is the Church teaching on those that may by the grace and judgement of God deserve, earn and obtain the Green light. The yellow light is often run by human nature and pride into the red light. The White light is Heaven and all of its supernatural happiness that can not even be imagined in human words or understanding.

Pride, Humility, Ego , Grace, Truth, Obedience, Love, Compassion, Charity, Wisdom, Understanding.......How we live and understand these words will determine our eternal destination of white or black.


* footnote clue: calling Our Popes, that guy or an anti pope or a heretic or not being submissive to the Vicar of Christ is the work of the devil.

columba wrote:

MRyan wrote:
You sound like a school teacher instructing some slow-to-learn petulant child who doesn’t know how to read the very same authoritative magisterial papal document that totally refutes your egregious “private interpretation”. Of course, you didn’t explicitly tell us what you really mean (I know what you mean from previous posts), because you cannot bring yourself to say it, so let me spell it out for you.

You simply ignore the plain meaning of the words of Pope Leo XIII and spin/filter them in the columba rinse cycle to where they come out to mean the very opposite of what they say; just as you did with the Allocution of Pope Pius XII. In fact, you actually cite Scripture against Pope Leo XIII who tells us Scripture supports his clear teaching.

Actually I've taken the proper meaning of the words of Pope Leo XIII and also those of the allocution of Pope Pius XII. You have interpreted them (as you do with all such teachings) to conform to your already preconceived notions of what they should mean, which is all too often the contrary of what they really do mean.

I can read the words of Pope Leo XIII while remaining within the already established definitive truths of the faith and find no contradiction. Pope Pius XII is a little more ambiguous in his choice of words and can convey a less orthodox meaning if one doesn't bring to the table the traditional understanding as a foundation from which one can establish the true meaning.

This is, of course, complete nonsense.

Who but a radical Feeneyite who refuses to be moderated by the Church would actually suggest that when Pope Pius XII taught that “An act of love is sufficient for the adult to obtain sanctifying grace [“Supernatural life”] and to supply the lack of baptism”, he was being “ambiguous in his choice of words” which “can convey a less orthodox meaning if one doesn't bring to the table the traditional understanding as a foundation from which one can establish the true meaning”.

“Bring to the table” simply means to bring one’s errant private interpretation and preconceived non-traditional understanding to the table in order to flesh out the “true meaning” of the pope’s clear words, and turn them upside down so they mean the very opposite of what they say.

What is “ambiguous” about “an act of love is sufficient for the adult to obtain sanctifying grace [‘Supenatural life’] and to supply the lack of baptism”?

I placed “Supernatural life” in brackets for that is the very title of this section of his Allocution, where he prefaces “An act of love is sufficient …” with “…Above all, the state of grace is absolutely necessary at the moment of death without it salvation and supernatural happiness—the beatific vision of God—are impossible.”

Again, where is the ambiguity? The clear meaning of his words is unavoidable, and leaves no room for private interpretation:

“An act of love is sufficient for the adult to obtain sanctifying grace [that “state of grace” which “is absolutely necessary at the moment of death” for “without it salvation and supernatural happiness—the beatific vision of God—are impossible”] and to supply the lack of baptism”.

With his head firmly planted in the sand, Columba has the chutzpah to tell us that Pope Pius XII did not actually mean to suggest that an act of love can place one in a state of sanctifying grace -- that translated state which makes one fit for the beatific vision and which is absolutely necessary at the moment of death for salvation; and Pope Pius XII did not mean to suggest that an act of love can supply for the lack of Baptism -- oh no, he actually meant just the opposite, that the “traditional understanding” he meant to convey (a “traditional understanding” that is in total opposition to the universal moral consensus of the saints and theologians), says that an act of love that places one in a state of salvation/sanctifying grace is actually impossible without Baptism, and thus, an act of love is NOT sufficient for the adult to obtain sanctifying grace and supernatural happiness, and it is NOT sufficient to supply the lack of Baptism.

See, Pope Pius XII’s very clear and direct words are actually “ambiguous”, and if one does not bring to the table one’s preconceived novel idea of “tradition”, it might be easy to fall into the trap of reading and understanding his words precisely as they are written and precisely as they are understood by the Church and by her saints and theologians.

Never mind that Pope Pius XII is the very Pope who approved the 1949 Holy Office Letter to Ab Cushing which makes specific reference to his own Mystici Corporis Christi in the exact same context; and never mind that Pope Pius XII said nothing different than from that which was already taught by a host of Fathers, by St. Aquinas, St. Bonaventure, Peter Lombard and all of the medieval theologians and by every subsequent Doctor and theologian ever to comment on the doctrine (to include Sts. Bellarmine and Liguori); by the Council of Trent, by its Catechism (which spells it out ever more clearly), by the Rheims Scripture Commentaries, by the Douay Catechism, by the 1917 Code of Canon Law, by the Catechism of Pope St. Pius X, by at least two Letters from other Popes, and etc., etc.

And never mind that Pope Pius XII taught nothing different from that which the Church teaches still today through the documents of VCII, the CDF, the 1983 Code of Canon Law, and of course the Catechism of the Catholic Church and its official Compendium, etc. etc.

One can only wonder at what kind of fevered mind can actually twist the words of Pope Pius XII to mean the very oppose of what they say, and then tell us that tradition does not support such a literal interpretation of the clear meaning of his words precisely "as it is written”.

Of course, if the clear words of Pope Pius XII can be so twisted, the words of Pope Leo XIII can also be reconstructed to say just the opposite, for, as columba said, “I can read the words of Pope Leo XIII while remaining within the already definitive truths of the faith and find no contradiction.”

Meaning, of course, columba’s private interpretation of “established definitive truths”.

However, to keep this relatively brief, I will come back to this; besides, I can address only so much of this dreadful obfuscation at any given time.

Mryan wrote:

Who but a radical Feeneyite who refuses to be moderated by the Church would actually suggest that when Pope Pius XII taught that “An act of love is sufficient for the adult to obtain sanctifying grace [“Supernatural life”] and to supply the lack of baptism”, he was being “ambiguous in his choice of words” which “can convey a less orthodox meaning if one doesn't bring to the table the traditional understanding as a foundation from which one can establish the true meaning”.

Who but a radical defender of the counter church and a radical defender of the workers of iniquity would deny that real and natural water is absolutely necessary for Salvation?

How does a radical defender of baptism of desire, who uses Pope Pius XII to back up their heretical belief, explain the following teaching of the same Pontiff?

Copy and paste job:

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

Mryan, if you would only debate the Dimond Brothers, so that they could refute you and crush your perishing arguments, maybe then you would be humbled, renounce your heresies and convert to the True Catholic Faith.

Fatima for our times wrote:

Mryan wrote:

Who but a radical Feeneyite who refuses to be moderated by the Church would actually suggest that when Pope Pius XII taught that “An act of love is sufficient for the adult to obtain sanctifying grace [“Supernatural life”] and to supply the lack of baptism”, he was being “ambiguous in his choice of words” which “can convey a less orthodox meaning if one doesn't bring to the table the traditional understanding as a foundation from which one can establish the true meaning”.

Who but a radical defender of the counter church and a radical defender of the workers of iniquity would deny that real and natural water is absolutely necessary for Salvation?

How does a radical defender of baptism of desire, who uses Pope Pius XII to back up their heretical belief, explain the following teaching of the same Pontiff?

Ah, Foot is back to tell us the teaching of Pope Pius XII is “heretical”. Seems the columba/foot propensity for accusing the Sacred Magisterium of heresy continues unabated.

Fatima for our times wrote:Copy and paste job:

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

There is NO contradiction, for Pope Pius XII is referring specifically to his definition of visible “membership” in the Church Militant (the visible society of believers), of which Baptism serves as the distinctive mark that separates members from non-members, just as the distinctive mark of Holy Orders serves to differentiate the priest from the rest of the faithful who have not received this consecration.

And what that has to do with Pope Pius XII teaching, with the same magisterial authority, that “An act of love is sufficient for the adult to obtain sanctifying grace [“Supernatural life”] and to supply the lack of baptism”?

Nothing, they are two complimentary truths of the same salvation doctrine, as the Church teaches, and her Doctors and theologians attest.

Fatima for our times wrote:
Mryan, if you would only debate the Dimond Brothers, so that they could refute you and crush your perishing arguments, maybe then you would be humbled, renounce your heresies and convert to the True Catholic Faith.

Since you are incapable of defending your pathetic arguments, the invitation still stands for your sect leaders and mentors to pay us a visit on this forum to “crush” my “perishing arguments”.

I'm sure the insults, condemnations and fur-flying would last all of 20 minutes, or about two posts from each, which ever came first.

If you and your little heretical and schismatic "remnant" sede sect represent the pope-less and indefectible visible Church on earth, no thanks; I'll stay with the visible One True Church of Christ and remain in communion with His visible Vicar who received IN his very person the permanent principles of faith and communion, and the charism of a never-failing-faith (de fide).

In other words, "Get thee behind me, Satan, thou art a scandal unto me: because thou savourest not the things that are of God, but the things that are of men."

Fatima,

How does a radical defender of baptism of desire, who uses Pope Pius XII to back up their heretical belief, explain the following teaching of the same Pontiff?

You seriously need to take a deep breath and think about this.

If you might humor me, please answer these questions:

1) Do you agree that Pius XII said, "An act of love is sufficient for the adult to obtain sanctifying grace [“Supernatural life”] and to supply the lack of baptism”?

2) If you concede that Pius XII said that, do you believe there is a contradiction between that saying and his writing, "baptism is the distinctive mark of all Christians, and serves to differentiate them from those who have not been cleansed in this purifying stream and consequently are not members of Christ"?

3) If you do believe there is a contradiction, how do you explain it?

4) If you do not believe there is a contradiction between the two statements, how do you explain that?

Thanks in advance,

tornpage

At least MRyan has an explanation, Fatima. You must have an explanation. What is it?

MRyan wrote:
There is NO contradiction, for Pope Pius XII is referring specifically to his definition of visible “membership” in the Church Militant (the visible society of believers), of which Baptism serves as the distinctive mark that separates members from non-members, just as the distinctive mark of Holy Orders serves to differentiate the priest from the rest of the faithful who have not received this consecration.

And what that has to do with Pope Pius XII teaching, with the same magisterial authority, that “An act of love is sufficient for the adult to obtain sanctifying grace [“Supernatural life”] and to supply the lack of baptism”?

Nothing, they are two complimentary truths of the same salvation doctrine, as the Church teaches, and her Doctors and theologians attest.

Mike, I see a contradiction between "Baptism is the distinctive mark of all Christians, and serves to differentiate them from those who have not been cleansed in this purifying stream and consequently are not members of Christ, the sacrament of holy orders sets the priest apart from the rest of the faithful who have not received this consecration.” and this, “An act of love is sufficient for the adult to obtain sanctifying grace [“Supernatural life”] and to supply the lack of baptism” when using your understanding. But the contradiction vanishes when both are understood correctly. The former speaks for itself and doesn't really need any interpretation beyond the actual words Pope Pius XII has written.

MRyan wrote:
There is NO contradiction, for Pope Pius XII is referring specifically to his definition of visible “membership” in the Church Militant (the visible society of believers), of which Baptism serves as the distinctive mark that separates members from non-members, just as the distinctive mark of Holy Orders serves to differentiate the priest from the rest of the faithful who have not received this consecration.

First off; Are you saying that Baptism only confers upon the recipient, visible membership, without incorporating that person into Christ and also making him/her a recipient and participent of those graces merited (on his/her behalf) by the redemptive work of Christ? Is Baptism not both a visible and spiritual incorporation into Christ, achieving what it signifies and signifying what is achieved? Just as with the sacrament of Holy Orders, no one at all, can become a priest without the sacrament, not even with the greastest and most pure intention or desire, the sacrament of Holy Orders is absolutely necessary and without it there can be no priest or priesthood. Likewise, as Pope Pius XII teaches, without Baptism they cannot be members of the Church; neither part members or part joined in some invisible way, for he is comparing both sacraments and saying, as Holy Orders sets a priest apart from the rest of the faithful, baptism sets the baptized apart from the rest of society. No matter how much one would desire baptism or be worthy of it, one cannot have the benefts that baptism confers without the reception of the actual sacrament.

Therefore when he speaks of "an act of love being sufficient for the adult to obtain sanctifying grace [“Supernatural life”] and to supply the lack of baptism," he must be speaking of something other than what you say he is speaking of, for if all that be necessary for salvation is "an act of love" then baptism itself is an optional sacrament and of no necessity for salvation and, (as I keep reminding you), " the Church knows of no other means by which one can be saved except through the sacrament of Baptism."

If then an act of love suffices for salvation, the only means by which this act of love can be possble, is through the sacrament of Baptism. An act of can suffice for salvation, and. if this act of love could be achieved without the reception of baptism then it would indeed suffice for salvation and supply for the lack of Baptism. Can this happen? Nowhere does Pope Pius XII say it can. That's why I said earlier that his words can be ambiguous at times.

Tornpage wrote:

You seriously need to take a deep breath and think about this.

If you might humor me, please answer these questions:

1) Do you agree that Pius XII said, "An act of love is sufficient for the adult to obtain sanctifying grace [“Supernatural life”] and to supply the lack of baptism”?

2) If you concede that Pius XII said that, do you believe there is a contradiction between that saying and his writing, "baptism is the distinctive mark of all Christians, and serves to differentiate them from those who have not been cleansed in this purifying stream and consequently are not members of Christ"?

3) If you do believe there is a contradiction, how do you explain it?

4) If you do not believe there is a contradiction between the two statements, how do you explain that?

Thanks in advance,

tornpage

Hi Tornpage

I think this may be the first time you and I actually spoke to one another since we both have been on this forum. Thank you for your questions.

I do see a contradiction in both statements by Pope Pius XII, but I do not understand them how Mryan would understand them. I think Columba, in his response to Mryan, best explained it.

MRyan wrote in his response to Fatima for our times:

There is NO contradiction, for Pope Pius XII is referring specifically to his definition of visible “membership” in the Church Militant (the visible society of believers), of which Baptism serves as the distinctive mark that separates members from non-members, just as the distinctive mark of Holy Orders serves to differentiate the priest from the rest of the faithful who have not received this consecration.

And what that has to do with Pope Pius XII teaching, with the same magisterial authority, that “An act of love is sufficient for the adult to obtain sanctifying grace [“Supernatural life”] and to supply the lack of baptism”?

Nothing, they are two complimentary truths of the same salvation doctrine, as the Church teaches, and her Doctors and theologians attest.

Columba response to Mryan:

Mike, I see a contradiction between "Baptism is the distinctive mark of all Christians, and serves to differentiate them from those who have not been cleansed in this purifying stream and consequently are not members of Christ, the sacrament of holy orders sets the priest apart from the rest of the faithful who have not received this consecration.” and this, “An act of love is sufficient for the adult to obtain sanctifying grace [“Supernatural life”] and to supply the lack of baptism” when using your understanding. But the contradiction vanishes when both are understood correctly. The former speaks for itself and doesn't really need any interpretation beyond the actual words Pope Pius XII has written.

MRyan response to Fatima for our times:

There is NO contradiction, for Pope Pius XII is referring specifically to his definition of visible “membership” in the Church Militant (the visible society of believers), of which Baptism serves as the distinctive mark that separates members from non-members, just as the distinctive mark of Holy Orders serves to differentiate the priest from the rest of the faithful who have not received this consecration.

Columba response to Mryan:

First off; Are you saying that Baptism only confers upon the recipient, visible membership, without incorporating that person into Christ and also making him/her a recipient and participent of those graces merited (on his/her behalf) by the redemptive work of Christ? Is Baptism not both a visible and spiritual incorporation into Christ, achieving what it signifies and signifying what is achieved? Just as with the sacrament of Holy Orders, no one at all, can become a priest without the sacrament, not even with the greastest and most pure intention or desire, the sacrament of Holy Orders is absolutely necessary and without it there can be no priest or priesthood. Likewise, as Pope Pius XII teaches, without Baptism they cannot be members of the Church; neither part members or part joined in some invisible way, for he is comparing both sacraments and saying, as Holy Orders sets a priest apart from the rest of the faithful, baptism sets the baptized apart from the rest of society. No matter how much one would desire baptism or be worthy of it, one cannot have the benefts that baptism confers without the reception of the actual sacrament.

Therefore when he speaks of "an act of love being sufficient for the adult to obtain sanctifying grace [“Supernatural life”] and to supply the lack of baptism," he must be speaking of something other than what you say he is speaking of, for if all that be necessary for salvation is "an act of love" then baptism itself is an optional sacrament and of no necessity for salvation and, (as I keep reminding you), " the Church knows of no other means by which one can be saved except through the sacrament of Baptism."

If then an act of love suffices for salvation, the only means by which this act of love can be possble, is through the sacrament of Baptism. An act of can suffice for salvation, and. if this act of love could be achieved without the reception of baptism then it would indeed suffice for salvation and supply for the lack of Baptism. Can this happen? Nowhere does Pope Pius XII say it can. That's why I said earlier that his words can be ambiguous at times.

Pope Pius XII did not teach baptism of desire; he understood correctly that there is only one baptism, not two or three, only one, as he taught in Mystici Corporis Christi (# 22):

Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi (# 22):

“As therefore in the true Christian community there is only one Body, one Spirit, one Lord, and one Baptism, so there can be only one faith. And therefore if a man refuse to hear the Church let him be considered – so the Lord commands – as a heathen and a publican. It follows that those who are divided in faith or government cannot be living in the unity of such a Body, nor can they be living the life of its one Divine Spirit.”

Fatima,

Hello . . . yes, I believe this is the first exchange we've had. Since you rely on Columba, I'll cite the relevant portions of his response:

Therefore when he speaks of "an act of love being sufficient for the adult to obtain sanctifying grace [“Supernatural life”] and to supply the lack of baptism," he must be speaking of something other than what you say he is speaking of, for if all that be necessary for salvation is "an act of love" then baptism itself is an optional sacrament and of no necessity for salvation and, (as I keep reminding you), " the Church knows of no other means by which one can be saved except through the sacrament of Baptism."

If then an act of love suffices for salvation, the only means by which this act of love can be possble, is through the sacrament of Baptism. An act of can suffice for salvation, and. if this act of love could be achieved without the reception of baptism then it would indeed suffice for salvation and supply for the lack of Baptism. Can this happen? Nowhere does Pope Pius XII say it can. That's why I said earlier that his words can be ambiguous at times.

This isn't a response in my view. He must be speaking of something other, Columba says. No kidding. Of what? That is the question.

Look at the language - as MRyan has - and address it. Note Pius XII says, the act of love is "sufficient . . . to obtain sanctifying grace," and "supplies the lack of baptism."

What is he saying there?

All this contradictory double speak. I think it's about time the Dimond brothers offically declare Pope Pius XII an anti-pope and add him to their list of heretic popes.
Now, when did the great apostasy begin? Oh, that's right 1939.

Time to look if pope Pius Xl should get Dimond brother approval.

tornpage wrote:Fatima,

Hello . . . yes, I believe this is the first exchange we've had. Since you rely on Columba, I'll cite the relevant portions of his response:

Therefore when he speaks of "an act of love being sufficient for the adult to obtain sanctifying grace [“Supernatural life”] and to supply the lack of baptism," he must be speaking of something other than what you say he is speaking of, for if all that be necessary for salvation is "an act of love" then baptism itself is an optional sacrament and of no necessity for salvation and, (as I keep reminding you), " the Church knows of no other means by which one can be saved except through the sacrament of Baptism."

If then an act of love suffices for salvation, the only means by which this act of love can be possble, is through the sacrament of Baptism. An act of can suffice for salvation, and. if this act of love could be achieved without the reception of baptism then it would indeed suffice for salvation and supply for the lack of Baptism. Can this happen? Nowhere does Pope Pius XII say it can. That's why I said earlier that his words can be ambiguous at times.

This isn't a response in my view. He must be speaking of something other, Columba says. No kidding. Of what? That is the question.

Look at the language - as MRyan has - and address it. Note Pius XII says, the act of love is "sufficient . . . to obtain sanctifying grace," and "supplies the lack of baptism."

What is he saying there?

On rereading my reply to Mike I can see that I haven't stated my thoughts too clearly so I'll try again. Pope Pius XII says, the act of love is "sufficient . . . to obtain sanctifying grace," and "supplies the lack of baptism, and I agree; an act of love is sufficient, and if an act of love could be made by one who has not received Baptism then that act would supply for the lack of Baptism.

My objection to Mike's understanding of those words of Pius XII is that he (Mike) aiutomatically assumes that this act of love IS possible without first having been regenerated in Christ throuigh baptism. If it were possible to make an act of love (pre-baptism) then Baptism itself would not be necessary for anyone. Consdering that this act of love must be supernatural -as opposed to natural- would presume that a soul who has not been incorporated (as yet) into Christ is capable of such an act.
Pius XII has not said that it is possible. He's saying that it would suffice but not saying that it can actually take place. Implying, maybe, but when we look at what Pope Boniface VIII says about subjection to the Roman Pontiff, there is as much implication in that statement (even more so) as is present in that of Pius XII, yet Mike can ignore all the implications that do not agree with Baptism of desire, and accept implications that do. Therefore, I can combat Mike's arguments using his very own rules of engagement.

Simple Faith,
I thought you were heading off for the weekend to the hills of Donegal. Have you got internet acess there?

BTW. HAPPY ST. PATRICKS DAY to ALL

columba wrote:

MRyan wrote:
There is NO contradiction, for Pope Pius XII is referring specifically to his definition of visible “membership” in the Church Militant (the visible society of believers), of which Baptism serves as the distinctive mark that separates members from non-members, just as the distinctive mark of Holy Orders serves to differentiate the priest from the rest of the faithful who have not received this consecration.

And what that has to do with Pope Pius XII teaching, with the same magisterial authority, that “An act of love is sufficient for the adult to obtain sanctifying grace [“Supernatural life”] and to supply the lack of baptism”?

Nothing, they are two complimentary truths of the same salvation doctrine, as the Church teaches, and her Doctors and theologians attest.

Mike, I see a contradiction between "Baptism is the distinctive mark of all Christians, and serves to differentiate them from those who have not been cleansed in this purifying stream and consequently are not members of Christ, the sacrament of holy orders sets the priest apart from the rest of the faithful who have not received this consecration.” and this, “An act of love is sufficient for the adult to obtain sanctifying grace [“Supernatural life”] and to supply the lack of baptism” when using your understanding. But the contradiction vanishes when both are understood correctly. The former speaks for itself and doesn't really need any interpretation beyond the actual words Pope Pius XII has written.

So, you see a “contradiction” between the two magisterial proposals by the same Pope on a doctrinal matter of salvation, but that same “contradiction” vanishes into thin air when the former is understood as it is written since it “speaks for itself”, while the latter obviously does not speak for itself since it allegedly stands in contradiction to the former.

In other words, only when the clear meaning of the latter as it is written is turned upside down to mean the opposite of what it says, are the two proposals reconciled and the “contradiction” simply vanishes.

In other words, if the latter “speaks for itself” to mean that an act of love can actually supply for the lack of Baptism and place one in a state of sanctifying grace, making one fit for “Eternal life”, then “Pope Pius XII was in “error”; the same error we see in the 1949 Holy Office Letter to Ab Cushing approved by Pope Pius XII which makes specific reference to his Mystici Corporis Christi in the exact same context; and the same error already taught by a host of Fathers, by St. Aquinas, St. Bonaventure, Peter Lombard and all of the medieval theologians and by every subsequent Doctor and theologian ever to comment on the doctrine (to include Sts. Bellarmine and Liguori); by the Council of Trent, by its Catechism (which spells it out ever more clearly), by the Rheims Scripture Commentaries, by the Douay Catechism, by the 1917 Code of Canon Law, by the Catechism of Pope St. Pius X, by at least two Letters from other Popes, and etc., etc.

And this is the same “error” taught by the Magisterium still today in the documents of VCII, the CDF, the 1983 Code of Canon Law, and of course the Catechism of the Catholic Church and its official Compendium, etc. etc.

See, Foot applauds your mind-bending “explanation”, so you must be on to something. And since Foot has no problem calling the magisterial teaching of Pope Pius XII on an “act of love” heretical, I assume you must also find it heretical since you are on record of stating that such alleged errors against the Faith (such as Pope BXVI’s magisterial teaching on Particular Churches) are presumed heretical until proven otherwise.

Of course, it never occurred to you that it is your rigorist interpretation of the former that is in manifest error, and Pope Pius XII knew exactly what he was talking about, and there is absolutely no contradiction. You have in fact imposed your own rigorist narrow and novel “interpretation” to the former teaching, while ignoring its context and its complete uniformity with the Church’s full teaching on Baptism and internal unity with the Mystical Body, with external corporate membership being possible in voto with “an act of love”; an act of charity which vivifies one's faith and unites one to Christ in re.

columba wrote:

MRyan wrote:
There is NO contradiction, for Pope Pius XII is referring specifically to his definition of visible “membership” in the Church Militant (the visible society of believers), of which Baptism serves as the distinctive mark that separates members from non-members, just as the distinctive mark of Holy Orders serves to differentiate the priest from the rest of the faithful who have not received this consecration.

First off; Are you saying that Baptism only confers upon the recipient, visible membership, without incorporating that person into Christ and also making him/her a recipient and participent of those graces merited (on his/her behalf) by the redemptive work of Christ?

No, I am not saying that or even remotely suggesting any such thing, and why in the world would I?

columba wrote:
Is Baptism not both a visible and spiritual incorporation into Christ, achieving what it signifies and signifying what is achieved?

Of course, and what has that to do with an internal unity in re and membership in voto?

columba wrote:
Just as with the sacrament of Holy Orders, no one at all, can become a priest without the sacrament, not even with the greastest and most pure intention or desire, the sacrament of Holy Orders is absolutely necessary and without it there can be no priest or priesthood.

Quite so, and what has that to do with an internal unity in re and membership in voto?

Is the mark of Holy Orders necessary for salvation? Can someone be Baptized and/or be restored to a state of grace after having fallen - without recourse to a valid Priest? Are the Sacraments which confer or restore supernatural life absolutely necessary in re when an “act of love” may suffice when a barrier prevents actual reception? What has the Church always taught, and what does the Church teach still today?

Is the indelible seal of Baptism which is said to incorporate or identify its members with the visible corporate Body of the Church, and to bestow the right to receive the Sacraments of the Church, absolutely necessary for salvation when the members of the Church Triumphant do not all bear the seal and have no need of the Sacraments of the Church?

Is it not just as credible to suggest, as does Fr. Scheeben, that the mystical seal of the Holy Ghost is applied to every Redeemed soul, with or without the indelible seal of Baptism?

If someone is going to speculate that there was some intrinsic necessity for the just of the Old Law to have received water Baptism before entrance into the Kingdom, when neither Scripture nor tradition supports any such necessity (not to mention that these same souls have not been re-united with their corporate bodies – so to what material "body" is “water” applied?), then it even more credible to suggest that the mystical seal of the Holy Ghost is applied to every soul the Holy Ghost takes possession of, and resides therein.

columba wrote:
Likewise, as Pope Pius XII teaches, without Baptism they cannot be members of the Church; neither part members or part joined in some invisible way, for he is comparing both sacraments and saying, as Holy Orders sets a priest apart from the rest of the faithful, baptism sets the baptized apart from the rest of society. No matter how much one would desire baptism or be worthy of it, one cannot have the benefts that baptism confers without the reception of the actual sacrament.

This where you really go off the rails, for Pope Pius XII never once suggested that “without Baptism they cannot be members of the Church; neither part members or part joined in some invisible way”, when that is exactly what he taught in his Allocution, in the approved 1949 Holy Office Letter, as well as in Mystici Corporis Christi.

There is no such thing as “partial membership” in the ecclesiastical Body of the Church Militant; one is either a baptized "member" of this social Body, or one isn’t. So "membership in voto" is not "partial" corporate "membership"; it places one IN the Church without the benefit of corporate membership. And corporate membership is all Pope Pius XII is referring to, without for a moment suggesting that one cannot be internally united to the same Mystical Body in re by an "act of love", while being united to the corporate Body in voto.

Tell us columba, is a baptized adult who internally rejects the Catholic faith still a “member” of the Mystical Body if he has not publicly manifested his rejection?

columba wrote:Therefore when he speaks of "an act of love being sufficient for the adult to obtain sanctifying grace [“Supernatural life”] and to supply the lack of baptism," he must be speaking of something other than what you say he is speaking of, for if all that be necessary for salvation is "an act of love" then baptism itself is an optional sacrament and of no necessity for salvation and, (as I keep reminding you), " the Church knows of no other means by which one can be saved except through the sacrament of Baptism."

“Therefore”, your logical fallacy has completed its fallacious circle. What he “must” be speaking of is precisely what he says; that an act of love suffices for the lack of baptism and places one in a state of salvific sanctifying grace.

And where on earth do you get the idea that the sacrament of Baptism is “optional” to the potential candidate when by some necessity he is prevented from receiving it?

As a divine and ecclesiastical precept, it is not “optional”; as if there is some “optional choice” that can be made by the recipient or by the one conferring the sacrament, when it is at all times necessary. It is so necessary that when an act of love suffices for the lack of baptism, the necessity remains and the sacrament must be conferred as soon as, and if, the barrier to its reception is removed.

However, nowhere has the Church ever taught that this same necessity is intrinsic to effecting the same end for which the sacrament was instituted.

In fact, I wonder if you realize that when you admit that original sin was removed in the just of the Old Law, that salvific sanctifying grace, by necessity, was immediately infused into these same souls where the Holy Ghost resided by grace.

So where is the intrinsic necessity of water Baptism for the souls of the OT who could be sanctified and saved by the merits of the Redeemer to come without water Baptism?

If actual water Baptism was intrinsic to salvation, it would be at all times necessary to salvation, just as faith, charity and regeneration/sanctification are intrinsic to salvation, for they form the very basis of eternal beatitude; whereas those instruments instituted as divine aids to our salvation are temporary, and are not intrinsic to eternal beatitude.

columba wrote:If then an act of love suffices for salvation, the only means by which this act of love can be possble, is through the sacrament of Baptism. An act of can suffice for salvation, and. if this act of love could be achieved without the reception of baptism then it would indeed suffice for salvation and supply for the lack of Baptism. Can this happen? Nowhere does Pope Pius XII say it can. That's why I said earlier that his words can be ambiguous at times.

It “means” no such thing, and how can you sit there and deny the very words of Pope Pius XII when you say “Nowhere does Pope Pius XII say … this act of love could be achieved without the reception of baptism then it would indeed suffice for salvation and supply for the lack of Baptism”, when he quite specifically, without any ambiguity, says that it can indeed “happen”.

Your novel theory which says that “an act of love” is impossible without having first received water Baptism is absolutely false; and is not supported by Scripture, Tradition or the Magisterium of the Church, especially when each of these teaches that the very opposite of what you allege. You absolutely made it up out of whole cloth and it is the core principle of your fallacious “doctrine”.

Once again, you do not seem to realize that your argument is refuted by the very fact of your admission that the just souls of the OT received the remission of sins, and, by necessity, the infusion of salvific sanctifying grace. Since neither circumcision nor any other sacrament of the Old Law worked ex opere operato, with sanctification and the remission of sins being effected by charity and faith in the Redeemer to come (and an implicit desire for Baptism), are your going to propose that what was possible for the just of the OT is impossible under the new law of grace?

You won’t get far with that.

Your suggestion that Pope Pius XII was being “ambiguous” lacks any credibility whatsoever; it is a desperate attempt to impose your fallacious doctrine on the good Pope, and he will have none of it, and neither shall we.

simple Faith wrote:All this contradictory double speak. I think it's about time the Dimond brothers offically declare Pope Pius XII an anti-pope and add him to their list of heretic popes.
Now, when did the great apostasy begin? Oh, that's right 1939.

Time to look if pope Pius Xl should get Dimond brother approval.

Actually, S-F, if they had any "credibility" and consistent standards, they would add, as others have, the very ecumenical sounding Pope Leo XIII to the anti-pope list for also daring to suggest that internal sanctification was at all times possible and that the Sacraments are the ordinary and chief external means of sanctification.

Let's see, that would take the origins of the "great apostasy" and the pope-less Church back to 1878, though how in the world a valid pope or two squeezed in there since then is anyone's guess.

That Catechism of Pope St. Pius X is the very definition of extreme Feeneyite/sede heresy ... hmmm. I guess the Sainted Pontiff never read his own Catechism, the Italian edition of which is actually extant.

MRyan wrote:
So, you see a “contradiction” between the two magisterial proposals by the same Pope on a doctrinal matter of salvation, but that same “contradiction” vanishes into thin air when the former is understood as it is written since it “speaks for itself”, while the latter obviously does not speak for itself since it allegedly stands in contradiction to the former.

No I don't see a contradiction. The contradiction I referred to was only present while using your understanding.

In other words, only when the clear meaning of the latter as it is written is turned upside down to mean the opposite of what it says, are the two proposals reconciled and the “contradiction” simply vanishes.

The contradiction isn't there to begin with. Your understanding pits one teaching of Pope Pius XII against another.

In other words, if the latter “speaks for itself” to mean that an act of love can actually supply for the lack of Baptism and place one in a state of sanctifying grace, making one fit for “Eternal life”, then “Pope Pius XII was in “error”;

No. If implications are added from ones own predetermined understanding then it makes Pius XII appear to be in contradiction with the dogma of the necessity of baptism for salvation.

And this is the same “error” taught by the Magisterium still today in the documents of VCII, the CDF, the 1983 Code of Canon Law, and of course the Catechism of the Catholic Church and its official Compendium, etc. etc.

The trouble with the magisterium today is that no one can tell for sure whether they are teaching error or not; at least teaching it in a binding way.

See, Foot applauds your mind-bending “explanation”, so you must be on to something. And since Foot has no problem calling the magisterial teaching of Pope Pius XII on an “act of love” heretical, I assume you must also find it heretical since you are on record of stating that such alleged errors against the Faith (such as Pope BXVI’s magisterial teaching on Particular Churches) are presumed heretical until proven otherwise.

I don't see where FFOT has said he doesn't agree with Pope Pius XII. I merely saw him write that he didn't agree with your spin on the pope's words.
Re particular churches, was dealt with by Pope Eugene IV.

Of course, it never occurred to you that it is your rigorist interpretation of the former that is in manifest error, and Pope Pius XII knew exactly what he was talking about, and there is absolutely no contradiction. You have in fact imposed your own rigorist narrow and novel “interpretation” to the former teaching, while ignoring its context and its complete uniformity with the Church’s full teaching on Baptism and internal unity with the Mystical Body, with external corporate membership being possible in voto with “an act of love”; an act of charity which vivifies one's faith and unites one to Christ in re.

It did occur to me many times that I could be in error on many things but I know for sure that I indeed would be in error if I were to take as gospel all your interpretation of Church teachings.
Your ability to extract "implied" meanings (even from the most dogmatically clear statements) is were you flounder in understanding later Church teachings which to them you also have to imply meanings that are not present in the statements themselves.
If you keep going it won't be long before you can explain the whole faith away.

Will put this reply on hold. Have to pop off for a while but will be back later.

Columba,

No I don't see a contradiction.

According to your reading there is a contradiction. There is in truth no contradiction, but you actually manufacture one with your reading.

According to you, you need to be baptized with water to make the "act of love" that "suppl[ies] the lack of baptism."

This doesn't set off flashing red lights for you?

MRyan wrote:

columba wrote:
Just as with the sacrament of Holy Orders, no one at all, can become a priest without the sacrament, not even with the greastest and most pure intention or desire, the sacrament of Holy Orders is absolutely necessary and without it there can be no priest or priesthood.

Quite so, and what has that to do with an internal unity in re and membership in voto?

Is the mark of Holy Orders necessary for salvation? Can someone be Baptized and/or be restored to a state of grace after having fallen - without recourse to a valid Priest? Are the Sacraments which confer or restore supernatural life absolutely necessary in re when an “act of love” may suffice when a barrier prevents actual reception? What has the Church always taught, and what does the Church teach still today?

The mark of holy orders IS necessary for salvation but not all need receive it.
All sacraments are necessary for salvation though not all necessary for everyone, but at least one sacrament is necessary for ALL. That sacrament must be Baptism. Without Baptism no other scrament can be received.

Is the indelible seal of Baptism which is said to incorporate or identify its members with the visible corporate Body of the Church, and to bestow the right to receive the Sacraments of the Church, absolutely necessary for salvation when the members of the Church Triumphant do not all bear the seal and have no need of the Sacraments of the Church?

You keep talking about the "visible corporate Body of the Church" as if that visible corporate body was absent a soul. The soul gives life to the body and what is a body without a soul?.. A corpse.
Likewise, if one is not part of the body of the Church, how can one be animated by the soul of the Church, the Holy Spirit?

Just as circumcision left an indelible mark on the physical body prefiguring the spiritual mark of a baptism, those of both the old and the new covenant bear an indelible mark of incorporation into one body. To say that their are human souls in heaven without a mark of belonging to this one body is a gross presumption.

Is it not just as credible to suggest, as does Fr. Scheeben, that the mystical seal of the Holy Ghost is applied to every Redeemed soul, with or without the indelible seal of Baptism?

No. It is more credible to believe that the physical body (which is to be resurected on the last day) will have also have been prepared for beatification through the physical sacrament of baptism; and it is more credible to believe that God would not deny the just soul the redemptive waters of baptism if that just soul desired it with all his heart.

If someone is going to speculate that there was some intrinsic necessity for the just of the Old Law to have received water Baptism before entrance into the Kingdom, when neither Scripture nor tradition supports any such necessity (not to mention that these same souls have not been re-united with their corporate bodies – so to what material "body" is “water” applied?), then it even more credible to suggest that the mystical seal of the Holy Ghost is applied to every soul the Holy Ghost takes possession of, and resides therein.

Again no. It is Baptism itself that makes it possible for the soul to be possessed by Holy Ghost, for how could the soul of the Church (the Holy Ghost) be in possession of a body remaing outside the Church, for as the Church teaches, one who is without Baptism does not belong to the Church.

MRyan wrote:

columba wrote:
Likewise, as Pope Pius XII teaches, without Baptism they cannot be members of the Church; neither part members or part joined in some invisible way, for he is comparing both sacraments and saying, as Holy Orders sets a priest apart from the rest of the faithful, baptism sets the baptized apart from the rest of society. No matter how much one would desire baptism or be worthy of it, one cannot have the benefts that baptism confers without the reception of the actual sacrament.

This where you really go off the rails, for Pope Pius XII never once suggested that “without Baptism they cannot be members of the Church; neither part members or part joined in some invisible way”, when that is exactly what he taught in his Allocution, in the approved 1949 Holy Office Letter, as well as in Mystici Corporis Christi.

The 1949 letter is not an infallible teaching document of the Church and I don't know what you mean when you refer to Mystici Corporis Christi as teaching contrary to the necessity of Church membership through Baptism.
I take it you are not referring to the following extracts from that encyclical.

22." Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed..."


26. "For the Divine Redeemer began the building of the mystical temple of the Church when by His preaching He made known His Precepts; He completed it when he hung glorified on the Cross; and He manifested and proclaimed it when He sent the Holy Ghost as Paraclete in visible form on His disciples."

27. "..He also determined that through Baptism [27] those who should believe would be incorporated in the Body of the Church;.. "

30. "..finally, that He entered into possession of His Church, that is, of all the members of His Mystical Body; for they would not have been untied to this Mystical Body through the waters of Baptism except by the salutary virtue of the Cross, by which they had been already brought under the complete sway of Christ."

MRyan wrote:
There is no such thing as “partial membership” in the ecclesiastical Body of the Church Militant; one is either a baptized "member" of this social Body, or one isn’t. So "membership in voto" is not "partial" corporate "membership"; it places one IN the Church without the benefit of corporate membership. And corporate membership is all Pope Pius XII is referring to, without for a moment suggesting that one cannot be internally united to the same Mystical Body in re by an "act of love", while being united to the corporate Body in voto.

You say that corporate membership is all Pope Pius XII is referring to. I can't see how this can be, for he has already stipulated what he means by membership and how one attans membership through Baptism. At the very most, you could possibly argue that a link exists with baptized heretics or schismatics (an unprofitable link for them I might add) in consideration of their baptism but to include the non-baptized as joined by desire is really pushing the boudaries of private interpretation.

Tell us columba, is a baptized adult who internally rejects the Catholic faith still a “member” of the Mystical Body if he has not publicly manifested his rejection?

Yes. And like the hereitic or schismatic, one member who cannot profit himself or the Church while remaining so.
Mike you have refuted a few straw men in my posts which requires me to keep repeating the real crux of my disagreement withn you.

Wioll have to continue tomorrow.

tornpage wrote:Columba,

No I don't see a contradiction.

According to your reading there is a contradiction. There is in truth no contradiction, but you actually manufacture one with your reading.

According to you, you need to be baptized with water to make the "act of love" that "suppl[ies] the lack of baptism."

This doesn't set off flashing red lights for you?

I do get what you mean Tornpage. It would be possible to read those words as contradicting the necessity of sacramental Baptism, but by Pius XII restating what was already always known, that is, that an act of love can suffice for salvation, it would also suffice for one who lacked baptism (and I believe this) with the implication if it were possible for such a one to make a supernatural act of love. But he doesn't state that this act of love is "in fact" possible and I for one don't believe that it is. But if it were possible it would suffice even for the unbaptized.
I have heard it taught that if the devil could make a single act of love, hell would cease to exist, but we know infallibly that this is not possible; in the same way we also know infallbly that "unless a man be born again of water etc.." therefore the pope could have (if he had so wished) included the damned in his statement and his statement would still hold true.

Columba,

Let's try it this way.

Men in America (or Ireland) can swim, and monkeys can't (I don't know if they can or not, but let us assume). So I say, "For men it is possible to swim to England, and this can supply for the lack of a boat, but monkeys can't . . . they need a boat."

And now assume the person saying that was not me, but the pope.

This is how ridiculous you sound to me.

Using your same reasoning; lets say I said, unless a man be born again of water and the spirit he cannot enter ther kingdom of God. Now lets say it wasn't me who was saying this but the Pope, and lets say the pope was not saying it as from himself but repeating what he heard the Lord say. Maybe you can see now how rediculous baptism of desire sounds.

Or, lets say the pope said, "I know of no other means except a boat by which a monkey can get from Ireland to America" but then in the next breath he says, "I do know of another way a monkey can get to America." Would you not say that this pope is confused?

Columba,

John 3:5 refers to the new birth and regeneration in Christ that is necessary to enter the kingdom of heaven. You are interpreting the "water" to mean baptism. Of course the water of baptism is one way to achieve this regeneration. But the Church herself has rightly given us the meaning of this Scripture, and it is not yours:

Council of Trent, Session VI

CHAPTER IV.

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

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

This regeneration referred to by Our Lord was prophesied by Ezekiel: the "water," comprehensively understood to include "desire," as it does, simply means the necessary cleansing from our old sinful natures which is wrought by regeneration in Christ, which is a necessary component of the rebirth:

Ezekiel 36:22-27

Therefore thou shalt say to the house of Israel: Thus saith the Lord God: It is not for your sake that I will do this, O house of Israel, but for my holy name's sake, which you have profaned among the nations whither you went. [23] And I will sanctify my great name, which was profaned among the Gentiles, which you have profaned in the midst of them: that the Gentiles may know that I am the Lord, saith the Lord of hosts, when I shall be sanctified in you before their eyes. [24] For I will take you from among the Gentiles, and will gather you together out of all the countries, and will bring you into your own land. [25] And I will pour upon you clean water, and you shall be cleansed from all your filthiness, and I will cleanse you from all your idols.

[26] And I will give you a new heart, and put a new spirit within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and will give you a heart of flesh. [27] And I will put my spirit in the midst of you: and I will cause you to walk in my commandments, and to keep my judgments, and do them. [28] And you shall dwell in the land which I gave to your fathers, and you shall be my people, and I will be your God.

As Trent told us, "desire" can provide this "water" of cleansing.

Or, lets say the pope said, "I know of no other means except a boat by which a monkey can get from Ireland to America" but then in the next breath he says, "I do know of another way a monkey can get to America." Would you not say that this pope is confused?

The pope never said a "monkey" could get to heaven without a "boat." In fact, he said the opposite: a monkey couldn't get to heaven without a boat. He said a man could.

Nice try.

Actually . . . no, pretty poor.

A honest reading of Trent is that one cannot choose not to be Baptized. Question is, "And as it is appointed unto men once to die, and after this the judgment," (Hebrews 9:27) would a Sovereign God allow someone to end this life without Baptism who was truly worthy of it? We are certainly allowed to hope that such is never the case. Some people do go to Hell and "live" to tell about it:

http://www.olrl.org/doctrine/came_back.shtml
http://www.olrl.org/doctrine/cry.shtml