FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Another EENS, please be patient...
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
OKay Doce : :laughing:

1. Who are you quoting, is it a text of the ordinary magisterium? If so which? ;)

2. Don't glide past the issue. Please explain to me how the dogma that original sin alone is punished with hell is compatible with what Pope Pius IX said. ;D


(05-31-2011, 09:40 PM)Doce Me Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-31-2011, 09:01 PM)Gregory I Wrote: [ -> ]OK, so if Pius IX is right, explain to me why original sin ALONE is punished with hell. Original sin is not something you go out and do: You are born with it. Explain to me how the DOGMA of original sin alone being punished in hell is congruent with what bl. Pope Pius IX said.

"Dr. Ludwig Ott" Wrote:Baptism of desire works ex opere operantis. It  [CHRIST] bestows Sanctifying Grace, which remits original sin, all actual sins, and the eternal punishments for sin. Venial sins and temporal punishments for sin are remitted according to the intensity of the subjective disposition. The baptismal character is not imprinted nor is it the gateway to the other sacraments.

It does not make you a member of the Church.  Christ's command to be baptized by water still applies for the rest of your life until it is done.  Mortal sin is a much bigger danger for non-members, and (of course)  mortal sin always brings eternal punishment if you die with it.

SO if it cannot initiate one into the means of salvation, on what basis can we presume it confers grace? Can you be saved without being born again?
Pope Piux XII Wrote:Some reduce to a meaningless formula the necessity of belonging to the true Church in order to gain eternal salvation.

Pope Innocent Wrote:"There is indeed one universal (Catholic) church of the faithful, outside of which nobody at all is saved." Pope Innocent III

Pope Bonaface Wrote:Urged by faith, we are obliged to believe and to maintain that the Church is one, holy, catholic, and also apostolic. We believe in her firmly and we confess with simplicity that outside of her there is neither salvation nor the remission of sins...and she represents one sole mystical body....There had been at the time of the deluge only one ark of Noah, prefiguring the one Church...and we read that, outside of this ark, all that subsisted on the earth was destroyed."

Vat. Council I Wrote:"Wherefore, by divine and catholic faith all those things are to be believed which are contained in the word of God as found in scripture and tradition, and which are proposed by the church as matters to be believed as divinely revealed, whether by her solemn judgment or in her ordinary and universal magisterium. Since, then, without faith it is impossible to please God and reach the fellowship of his sons and daughters, it follows that no one can ever achieve justification without it, neither can anyone attain eternal life unless he or she perseveres in it to the end.

Pius XII Wrote:Actually only those are to be counted among the members of the Church who have receieved the laver of regeneration and
profess the true faith, and have not, to their misfortune, seperated themselves from the structure of the Body, or for very serious
sins have not been excluded by lawful authorities.

Pope Gregory Wrote:  He who is seperated from the body of the Catholic Church, however praiseworthy his conduct may otherwise seem, will not be
saved.

Pius IX was talking about limbo.

The reason Pope Pius XII said they can not be sure of their salvation, is because they can have a deathbed conversion.  Or, they could be validly baptized, and possibly not have mortal sin on their soul.  Their valid baptism makes them Catholic.  If they are invincibly ignorant, then they are material heretics only.
(05-31-2011, 01:52 AM)Gregory I Wrote: [ -> ]That is completely immaterial to what I am saying.

I am saying that BOD is not compatible with a God who keeps the covenants he makes. It is theological speculation. When Jesus said "I am the way, the truth, and the life, no man comes to the father but by me" did he make any exceptions? No, the need to go through Christ is absolute. When he said that a man must be "born of water and the spirit, else he cannot enter the kingdom of heaven" did he admit for exceptions there? no.

He payed out his own blood on the wood of the cross so that these sacraments might be efficacious, for "Without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin." Therefore the sacraments are part and parcel of the new covenant written in the blood of Christ, and as such they are neither subject to change, nor can the be discounted and treated as necessary in only certain circumstances. And since God does NOT change, the way he acts in the past indicates how he acts in the present: He will not revoke any part of his covenant with man, and the sacrament of baptism is an absolute necessity for salvation.

As it is taught in the ordinary magisterium by Pope Pius XII "Actually, the sole way one is to be made a member of the church is through baptism." There is no speculative virtual membership, i.e. belonging to the "soul" of the church and not the body:

The Mystical body of Christ is the Roman Catholic church. You cannot belong to one without belonging to the other without denying the words of Christ and the teaching of the church.

What we have today are ecclesiastical Nestorians: Theologians who say that the Visible Church is one thing, and the invisible, mystical body another; and all a man needs to be saved is to belong to the mystical body. False. The Mystical body IS the Roman catholic church, you cannot be in one without being in the other (In a state of justification that is).



Thank you for explaining your position.  But if you check out carefully the Council of Trent you will find the expresion "or the desire for them"
THe phrase "or the desire for them is not what you think."

The text is this: " 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."

Look at the parallels here: FIrst it emphasizes the necessity of water baptism, then it says desire, then it ends emphasizing the water baptism in the words of Christ. That's not consistent if desire can save, why underscore the water baptism part at the end?

The way it's phrased "without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof" does not mean each of these things is to be taken individually, but both together. It's pretty much what Christ says: "Whoever believes AND is baptized will be saved." They are to ba taken together: If you do not desire baptism, you cannot be saved, because you will not do what it takes to be baptized. Again, it was also at this time period that there were a lot of conversos in spain and people being baptized under false pretenses for social status and whatnot. It was emphasized that those who present themselves for baptism have to WANT to be baptized, i.e. Faith is a necessary disposition in those who have the use of reason.

Think of it this way, You can say "The sacrament of matrimony cannot be validly confected without the consent of the spouses or their desire to receive the sacrament." See, that actaully makes sense if you use the word "without." Some english translations of trent say "except through." But would this make sense:

"The sacrament of matrimony cannot be validly confected except through the consent of the spouses or their desire to receive the sacrament."

What is implied is a false dichotomy; that the sacrament can be vlidly confected by EITHER consent, OR the desire to receive it. FALSE for the sacrament of matrimony.

SImilarly, that is what is going on here: The phrase "without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof" is talking about DESIRE to receive the sacrament being PART OF the process of justification that is FULFILLED by the receiving of the sacrament itself. And I legitimize this interpretation by session 6 of the council of trent:

"Now they (adults) are disposed unto the said justice, when, excited and assisted by divine grace, conceiving faith by hearing, they are freely moved towards God, believing those things to be true which God has revealed and promised,-and this especially, that God justifies the impious by His grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus; and when, understanding themselves to be sinners, they, by turning themselves, from the fear of divine justice whereby they are profitably agitated, to consider the mercy of God, are raised unto hope, confiding that God will be propitious to them for Christ's sake; and they begin to love Him as the fountain of all justice; and are therefore moved against sins by a certain hatred and detestation, to wit, by that penitence which must be performed before baptism: lastly, when they purpose to receive baptism, [Page 34] to begin a new life, and to keep the commandments of God. Concerning this disposition it is written; He that cometh to God, must believe that he is, and is a rewarder to them that seek him"

BUT being disposed unto justice is only the first PRELIMINARY to justification, and is NOT justification itself, because the council continues on, saying:

"This disposition, or preparation, is followed by Justification itself, which is not remission of sins merely, but also the sanctification and renewal of the inward man, through the voluntary reception of the grace, and of the gifts, whereby man of unjust becomes just, and of an enemy a friend, that so he may be an heir according to hope of life everlasting.

Of this Justification the causes are these: the final cause indeed is the glory of God and of Jesus Christ, and life everlasting; while the efficient cause is a merciful God who washes and sanctifies gratuitously, signing, and anointing with the holy Spirit of promise, who is the pledge of our inheritance; but the meritorious cause is His most beloved only-begotten, our Lord Jesus Christ, who, when we were enemies, for the exceeding charity wherewith he loved us, merited Justification for us by His most holy Passion on the wood of the cross, and made satisfaction for us unto God the Father; the instru-[Page 35]mental cause is the sacrament of baptism, which is the sacrament of faith, without which (faith) no man was ever justified"

So, it is pretty clear: A man must not only want to be baptized, because he could desire it for wrong motives and commit the sin of sacrilege, which is a mortal sin, in which case the very waters that would save him condemn him; but he must approach with FAITH after having resolved to amend his ways, and be serious in his desire to BE baptized: But even by this, a MAN IS NOT MADE JUST.

Justification occurs when that man, purposing to receive baptism, IS actually baptized, because baptism is the sole instrumental cause of our justification, the council of Trent bearing witness. THEREFORE, in order to be saved, yes a man must both desire to be baptized and actually BE baptized, and these things are to be held TOGETHER, and not separate as necessary steps that lead to the fulfillment of the whole.

See what I mean? We MUST approach in faith and longing (desire) and THEN actaully receive baptism to be saved. IF you lack the proper disposition of faith and desire while approaching the sacrament, you cannot be saved. The waters of baptism condemn you for your sacrilege, until you should confess your sacrilege, at which time the sanctifying grace of baptism is infused.

(06-01-2011, 02:39 AM)Gregory I Wrote: [ -> ]THe phrase "or the desire for them is not what you think."

The text is this: " 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."

Look at the parallels here: FIrst it emphasizes the necessity of water baptism, then it says desire, then it ends emphasizing the water baptism in the words of Christ. That's not consistent if desire can save, why underscore the water baptism part at the end?

The way it's phrased "without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof" does not mean each of these things is to be taken individually, but both together. It's pretty much what Christ says: "Whoever believes AND is baptized will be saved." They are to ba taken together: If you do not desire baptism, you cannot be saved, because you will not do what it takes to be baptized. Again, it was also at this time period that there were a lot of conversos in spain and people being baptized under false pretenses for social status and whatnot. It was emphasized that those who present themselves for baptism have to WANT to be baptized, i.e. Faith is a necessary disposition in those who have the use of reason.

Think of it this way, You can say "The sacrament of matrimony cannot be validly confected without the consent of the spouses or their desire to receive the sacrament." See, that actaully makes sense if you use the word "without." Some english translations of trent say "except through." But would this make sense:

"The sacrament of matrimony cannot be validly confected except through the consent of the spouses or their desire to receive the sacrament."

What is implied is a false dichotomy; that the sacrament can be vlidly confected by EITHER consent, OR the desire to receive it. FALSE for the sacrament of matrimony.

SImilarly, that is what is going on here: The phrase "without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof" is talking about DESIRE to receive the sacrament being PART OF the process of justification that is FULFILLED by the receiving of the sacrament itself. And I legitimize this interpretation by session 6 of the council of trent:

"Now they (adults) are disposed unto the said justice, when, excited and assisted by divine grace, conceiving faith by hearing, they are freely moved towards God, believing those things to be true which God has revealed and promised,-and this especially, that God justifies the impious by His grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus; and when, understanding themselves to be sinners, they, by turning themselves, from the fear of divine justice whereby they are profitably agitated, to consider the mercy of God, are raised unto hope, confiding that God will be propitious to them for Christ's sake; and they begin to love Him as the fountain of all justice; and are therefore moved against sins by a certain hatred and detestation, to wit, by that penitence which must be performed before baptism: lastly, when they purpose to receive baptism, [Page 34] to begin a new life, and to keep the commandments of God. Concerning this disposition it is written; He that cometh to God, must believe that he is, and is a rewarder to them that seek him"

BUT being disposed unto justice is only the first PRELIMINARY to justification, and is NOT justification itself, because the council continues on, saying:

"This disposition, or preparation, is followed by Justification itself, which is not remission of sins merely, but also the sanctification and renewal of the inward man, through the voluntary reception of the grace, and of the gifts, whereby man of unjust becomes just, and of an enemy a friend, that so he may be an heir according to hope of life everlasting.

Of this Justification the causes are these: the final cause indeed is the glory of God and of Jesus Christ, and life everlasting; while the efficient cause is a merciful God who washes and sanctifies gratuitously, signing, and anointing with the holy Spirit of promise, who is the pledge of our inheritance; but the meritorious cause is His most beloved only-begotten, our Lord Jesus Christ, who, when we were enemies, for the exceeding charity wherewith he loved us, merited Justification for us by His most holy Passion on the wood of the cross, and made satisfaction for us unto God the Father; the instru-[Page 35]mental cause is the sacrament of baptism, which is the sacrament of faith, without which (faith) no man was ever justified"

So, it is pretty clear: A man must not only want to be baptized, because he could desire it for wrong motives and commit the sin of sacrilege, which is a mortal sin, in which case the very waters that would save him condemn him; but he must approach with FAITH after having resolved to amend his ways, and be serious in his desire to BE baptized: But even by this, a MAN IS NOT MADE JUST.

Justification occurs when that man, purposing to receive baptism, IS actually baptized, because baptism is the sole instrumental cause of our justification, the council of Trent bearing witness. THEREFORE, in order to be saved, yes a man must both desire to be baptized and actually BE baptized, and these things are to be held TOGETHER, and not separate as necessary steps that lead to the fulfillment of the whole.

See what I mean? We MUST approach in faith and longing (desire) and THEN actaully receive baptism to be saved. IF you lack the proper disposition of faith and desire while approaching the sacrament, you cannot be saved. The waters of baptism condemn you for your sacrilege, until you should confess your sacrilege, at which time the sanctifying grace of baptism is infused.

What does a newborn to be baptized know of wanting or desiring the baptism?
 
All I know or care to know is what Pius IX and the Holy Office of Pius XII said concerning the salvation of those who are in invincible ignorance.
(06-01-2011, 05:43 PM)wulfrano Wrote: [ -> ]All I know or care to know is what Pius IX and the Holy Office of Pius XII said concerning the salvation of those who are in invincible ignorance.

That is a pretty safe attitude.

Gregory (if I am right) instead puts down Pope Pius IX (and probably the Holy Office), in addition to respected Catholic theologians (such as Ludwig Ott)  (and on and on) because he is personally sure that they cannot be reconciled with Trent (his interpretation) and (e.g.) "the dogma that original sin alone is punished with hell"

It is better to question one's own thinking for far longer, and to make every effort to better understand how truths fit together, not on pitting them one against the other and dismissing truth as error.  We are meant to listen to the teaching Church, especially the Pope, and not to think only about solemn doctrines in a corner by ourselves.

Gregory, I will answer more if I can find the time.  I am not trying to  "slide" past anything.
(06-01-2011, 06:17 PM)Doce Me Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-01-2011, 05:43 PM)wulfrano Wrote: [ -> ]All I know or care to know is what Pius IX and the Holy Office of Pius XII said concerning the salvation of those who are in invincible ignorance.

That is a pretty safe attitude.

Gregory (if I am right) instead puts down Pope Pius IX (and probably the Holy Office), in addition to respected Catholic theologians (such as Ludwig Ott)  (and on and on) because he is personally sure that they cannot be reconciled with Trent (his interpretation) and (e.g.) "the dogma that original sin alone is punished with hell"

It is better to question one's own thinking for far longer, and to make every effort to better understand how truths fit together, not on pitting them one against the other and dismissing truth as error.  We are meant to listen to the teaching Church, especially the Pope, and not to think only about solemn doctrines in a corner by ourselves.

Gregory, I will answer more if I can find the time.  I am not trying to  "slide" past anything.


This.
(06-01-2011, 06:17 PM)Doce Me Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-01-2011, 05:43 PM)wulfrano Wrote: [ -> ]All I know or care to know is what Pius IX and the Holy Office of Pius XII said concerning the salvation of those who are in invincible ignorance.

That is a pretty safe attitude.

Gregory (if I am right) instead puts down Pope Pius IX (and probably the Holy Office), in addition to respected Catholic theologians (such as Ludwig Ott)  (and on and on) because he is personally sure that they cannot be reconciled with Trent (his interpretation) and (e.g.) "the dogma that original sin alone is punished with hell"

It is better to question one's own thinking for far longer, and to make every effort to better understand how truths fit together, not on pitting them one against the other and dismissing truth as error.  We are meant to listen to the teaching Church, especially the Pope, and not to think only about solemn doctrines in a corner by ourselves.

Gregory, I will answer more if I can find the time.  I am not trying to  "slide" past anything.

It's not my interpretation. Read Abp. George Hay, Read Fr. Meuller, Read Orestes Brownson. A Catholic Bishop, Priest and Lay theologian. All from the 19th century. And there is STILL no documentation from the ordinary magisterium supporting baptism of desire yet...

I would love to see the documentation from the ORDINARY MAGISTERIUM (Not private letters) that displays the doctrine of baptism of desire: THat is, the doctrine that those who are invincibly ignorant of our religion can be saved in the sincere and honest obeservance of their own. And this ignorance excuses one, not only from the sinfulness of unblief, but from any obligation to know the Catholic faith, and the one unique Christ, apart from whom none can be saved.

Also, I'd like to know how you reconcile what Pope Pius IX said with the DOGMA (That is what it is, sorry) that those who die in original sin ALONE are punished in hell.

Show me where the ordinary magisterium teaches this, because this is what the theologians of today say.
Look, I can rephrase the whole thing: Can being DISPOSED toward justice actually justify in and of itself? Does a disposition convey sanctifying grace as an instrumental cause?