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.
(06-11-2011, 01:04 PM)Stubborn Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-11-2011, 03:23 AM)wulfrano Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-11-2011, 03:16 AM)Gregory I Wrote: [ -> ]Really, that's it? Seriously? Please read that Post one more time, It was directed toward Doce.

What are you talking about wulfrano? :fish:

You say that there is only one baptism.  OK.  Water baptism.  OK  So...heathens, jews and pagans have no chance with today's clergy because today's clergy doesn't have time to go baptize with water anyone.  They are too busy in the swimming pool, or playing cards, or shooting snooker.
Anyone can baptize - priests are not necessary in an emergency..........and lets remember BOD only applies in an emergency that God created - right?

"Anyone can baptize."

Ok.  Let's stop talking the talk and do the walking of the walk.
(06-11-2011, 01:07 PM)Stubborn Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-10-2011, 06:47 PM)wulfrano Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-10-2011, 07:59 AM)Stubborn Wrote: [ -> ]There is no one about to die in the state of justification whom God cannot secure Baptism for, and indeed, Baptism of Water. The schemes concerning salvation, I leave to the sceptics. The clear truths of salvation, I am preaching to you. - Fr. Feeney

I must remind you that Feeney was excommunicated by the Holy Office (former Inquisition) under Pius XII.

As was St. Athanasius and St. Joan of Arc.

FWIW, Fr. Feeney's excommunication was lifted before he died - he never recanted a thing nor was he ever even asked to recant a thing.

The excommunications of St. Athanasius and St. Joan of Arc were unjust and wrong and invalid.  The excommunication of Feeney was just, right and valid.
(06-11-2011, 01:15 PM)Gregory I Wrote: [ -> ]For DOCE.

Before I demolish any misconceptions, and because you seem to like the saints writings (Even though I insist on magisterial teaching) COnsider what St. Francis Xavier Said:

" Before their Baptism, certain Japanese were greatly troubled by a hateful scruple: that God did not
appear merciful, because He had never made Himself known to the Japanese people before,
especially that those who had not worshipped God were doomed to everlasting Hell. They grieve
over the fate of their departed children, parents, and relatives; so they ask if there is any way to free
them by prayer from the eternal misery. And I am obligated to answer: there is absolutely none."

Saint Francis Xavier



By all means, allow me: ;D

First, there are different english translations of the council of Trent, some more accurate than others. The translation of the word "sine" is always "Without", not "except through." The "except through" translation is a dynamic equivalency that has no place in the translation of an actual ecumenical council, since dogmas are made up of WORDS. THerefore we cannot play fast and loose with them.

Now, here is the line in question, not as I translated it, but from this site that translates it into english by "Ed. and trans. J. Waterworth (London: Dolman, 1848)"

19th century, fairly removed from the controversial mid 20th century.

Having established that, let's look at the phrase as translated in the 19th century:

"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."

My friend; context, context CONTEXT. Listen: The declaration that the translation from a state of injustice to justice cannot take place without baptism or its desire is made in the CONTEXT of the following line: "as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God."

Now, please tell me, if this supports baptism of desire, how it makes sense to first emphasize the necessity of baptism, the to say that you can actually be justified by desire, then to reemphasize the necessity of sacramental water baptism in our Lord's own words?

It doesn't, it is a glaring inconsistency, because the END emphasis is on sacramental water baptism, but the FIRST emphasis is on the inability to be justified WITHOUT Baptism or its desire. In order for this to make sense, as the author intended, we must take batism and its desire as a single unit. Similar to how we are saved through faith, yet er must be baptized. We are not saved through faith alone. So we are first moved by faith which leads us to desire baptism, whereby we actually are baptized. Now, can you be justified if you eliminate any portion of this process? NO!

If you have "Faith" in the revealed truth, but you do not desire baptism, you are a hypocrite and condemned.
If you have faith and "desire" baptism, but as fire insurance, simply to be sure of not going to hell, you commit sacrilege against the sacrament (by having a faulty disposition, and are condemned by the very waters that would save you.
If you have faith, which leads not simply to desire, but to the Latin Voto (a solemn vow and intention) and are baptized you will be saved.

Do you see how it is necessary to both desire baptism and receive it to be saved? In other words, you must be properly disposed to receive the sacrament. And the text itself says what is a proper disposition: a vowed intention to receive the sacrament (The word voto used here in latin indicates a vow, not simply desire, which is a completely different word.)

Can I back this interpretation up?

YES I CAN! From the SAME council in the SAME Session, just paragraphs later:

CHAPTER VI.
The manner of Preparation.
"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; and, Be of good faith, son, thy sins are forgiven thee; and, The fear of the Lord driveth out sin; and, Do penance, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost; and, Going, therefore, teach ye all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; finally, Prepare your hearts unto the Lord.

So we see first that in order to be disposed TOWARD Justice, a man must first be moved to faith, and then to penitence which is necessary, then to intend to receive baptism. But is such a person justified? NO. THey are disposed, but not justified, for read what follows:

CHAPTER VII.
What the justification of the impious is, and what are the causes thereof. (apparently not anything that came before)

This disposition, or preparation, is followed by [b]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.[/b]

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 instrumental cause is the sacrament of baptism, which is the sacrament of faith, without which (faith) no man was ever justified.

So clearly, according to Trent, a man cannot be saved without baptism or its desire. The words "except through" are a faulty translation based on faulty premises (reading into the text what is not there).

Also, Trent specifically says the desire to receive baptism is a disposition. It also clearly indicates that this disposition does not justify in itself, but only inasmuch as it leads unto the instrumental cause of our jsutification, which is baptism alone, since under the list of causes Trent makes no mention of any kind of "desire" or even "vow" being in any way the instrumental cause of any person's justification whatsoever.

What has happened is you have not read the council of Trent in accord with itself. Because of that, you are applying modern theology and terminology retroactively to ideas that are not extant in the council. As for the Catechism

A). It is not a magisterial document, but rather a document promulgated and port forth by the magisterium. THere is a difference. THe Catechism is subject to the magisterium, it is not the same as it. It is merely a compendium of magisterial sources, that is why it is called the Catechism of THE COUNCIL OF TRENT, not simply, the teaching Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church. SUch a Catechism has never existed. THey are all specifically indicated as subject to the magisterium, and therefore exist apart from it.

B). THat passage of the Catechism is clear under the insttitution of Baptism who it applies to:

"The second period to be distinguished, that is, the time when the law of Baptism was made, also admits of no doubt. Holy writers are unanimous in saying that after the Resurrection of our Lord, when He gave to His Apostles the command to go and teach all nations: baptising them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, the law of Baptism became obligatory on all who were to be saved."

Oh, can we say it again? ALL who were to be saved. Not just the majority. Everyone who is going to be saved, according to the Catechism, is gonna have to be baptized.

"Oh, well that is only in one place." NOPE!

"Ministers In Case Of Necessity

"Those who may administer Baptism in case of necessity, but without its solemn ceremonies, hold the last place; and in this class are included all, even the laity, men and women, to whatever sect they may belong. This office extends in case of necessity, even to Jews, infidels and heretics, provided, however, they intend to do what the Catholic Church does in that act of her ministry. These things were established by many decrees of the ancient Fathers and Councils; and the holy Council of Trent denounces anathema against those who dare to say, that Baptism, even when administered by heretics, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, with the intention of doing what the Church does, is not true Baptism.

And here indeed let us admire the supreme goodness and wisdom of our Lord. Seeing the necessity of this Sacrament for all, He not only instituted water, than which nothing can be more common, as its matter, but also placed its administration within the power of all. In its administration, however, as we have already observed, all are not allowed to use the solemn ceremonies; not that rites and ceremonies are of higher dignity, but because they are less necessary than the Sacrament."

Again, under the extraordinary ministers of baptism, the Catechism Refers to it as NECESSARY for ALL.

Plus, you simply neglected the single most detrimental line to your entire argument:

Necessity of Baptism (These quotes are in order of appearance, so that what is referred to as already being explained is what has already been quoted)

"If the knowledge of what has been hitherto explained be, as it is, of highest importance to the faithful, it is no less important to them to learn that the law of Baptism, as established by our Lord, extends to all, so that unless they are regenerated to God through the grace of Baptism, be their parents Christians or infidels, they are born to eternal misery and destruction. Pastors, therefore, should often explain these words of the Gospel: Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

Again, the rigorist position is maintained: All gotsta be baptized or go to hell, even if their parents are infidels living apart from the faith! No warm and fuzzy sentimental theology HERE thankyouverymuch. ;)

The following quotes from the Catechism of Trent also ENTIRELY back up my point:

"The faithful are also to be instructed in the necessary dispositions for Baptism. In the first place they must desire and intend to receive it; for as in Baptism we all die to sin and resolve to live a new life, it is fit that it be administered to those only who receive it of their own free will and accord; it is to be forced upon none. Hence we learn from holy tradition that it has been the invariable practice to administer Baptism to no individual without previously asking him if he be willing to receive it. This disposition even infants are presumed to have, since the will of the Church, which promises for them, cannot be mistaken.

Again we read:

"Besides a wish to be baptised, in order to obtain the grace of the Sacrament, faith is also necessary. Our Lord and Saviour has said: He that believes and is baptised shall be saved."


SO: THe final recap: According to the Council and Catechism:

First, a desire to receive baptism is necessary to be saved. But this is only a first step, a disposition, and does not justify in itself. Second, the Person desiring must desire RIGHTLY and freely and with faith. Third, the Person intending to receive baptism must repent of his sinfulness. And even here, he is not yet justified. Finally, he is actually baptized, and it is here that he is finally made just, for there is one sole instrumental cause of our justification, sacramental water baptism.

In regards to what you quoted, it should be noted that even if the Catechism were not in error on this point, if a person died and went to heaven without baptism, but GOd chose to ressurect them, could they receive the eucharist or other sacraments? NO! THe obligation to receive baptism remains. But why is that, if the person was in heaven? Didn't they enter into the ultimate of what God desires? are they not worthy above all, having entered into the holy of holies? NO! For they are not made members of the church, and sacraments are reserved for the members of the Church alone. THerefore, it is entirely questionable whether such a one would go to heaven at all. It is a precarious position to say that member may be made a member of the church triumphant without ever having been a member of the church militant, when there are not three churches, but ONE mystical body of Christ that IS the Roman Catholic Church, as taught for millenia and recently reemphasized by Pope Pius XII in Mystici Corporis Christi. I contend simply with Fr. Feeney, I do not know this persons fate, but it is not heaven, since he is not a member of the church.

TO conceive of an invisible church apart from the organizational church is what the protestants teach, and it is a heresy; it is a variant of the "branch theory" put forth by Anglicanism.

I am STILL patiently waiting for any document of the ordinary magisterium that teaches or shows what is considered baptism of desire. SO far everything supports the rigorist interpretation, not the post-modern liberal theologians.

Also, if you take into account the fact that the position I maintain, which is the position is the COuncil and the ROman Catechism, then you will see that St. Alphonsus has innocently made a similar blunder as you. BOD is not condemned after all, but it is not greater than a theological opinon.

It certainly has no greater weight than Limbo which everyone seems to enjoy rejecting so much, even though Limbo is built on surer theological footing. But that's a whole other story.


OK, Gregory.   Someone in this thread said that "anyone can baptize".  OK.  Now this is what I want you to do.  Stop talking the talk and walk the walk.  Out there are many jews, heathens and pagans who need preaching and baptizing.  Do what St. Francis Xavier did. The modern clergy will not do it because it is oecumaniac or lazy or worldly. 
(06-11-2011, 03:21 PM)Stubborn Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-10-2011, 09:38 PM)Doce Me Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-10-2011, 07:59 AM)Stubborn Wrote: [ -> ]At the risk of being a broken record,

You do sound like a broken record , or rather a record with skips, missing the points that I make - or are you going to address them later?

Sorry Doce Me, real life has been getting in my way a lot lately.......could you please simply itemize your points? I absolutely am fascinated with the whole BOD thing and await anyone who can present challenges..........to be 100% honest, I seek to be wrong absolutely so those who could have claimed BOD are saved - but as of yet, no one yet has been able to present a sufficient argument............but regardless of how I come across, my bias is "for" BOD. 

For me, pretty much my entire belief is based on the Divine Providence of God - or should I say, my understanding of it - admittedly, as this doctrine is another very deep doctrine, I have an awful lot to learn and I strive to learn more about it all the time. 

Some points worthy to note:
Nothing whatsoever has ever been defined - neither explicitly or implicitly regarding BOD. Even often quoted great Doctors and Saints have contradicted themselves - added to that - there is absolutely no mention of BOD anywhere in papal declarations or Scripture. Quite the opposite -  IMO.
   
I do not foolishly hold God to His own law - He made the Law and He is God - He can break His own Law whenever He chooses without any regard whatsoever...............but then, one *must* ask themselves...... why would He have made the law if He Himself cannot or would not keep it?

If He cannot or will not keep it, certainly none of us can be expected to keep it. If He Himself would not keep it, then would He have required us to be bound to it? IOW, it is we who are bound by God's Law, not God. He has zero problem keeping the Law He Himself instituted - OR HE NEVER WOULD HAVE INSTITUTED IT........that, of course, is my opinion, based on my understanding of the doctrine of Divine Providence.

For the reason that God only knows, God made water the absolute necessity for us - not for Him. For whatever reason, He loves water. He created life sustaining water, and made it completely essential for temporal  - - - and for eternal life. Why? Who knows? Only God knows.

For whatever reason, He loves for us to use water. He loves water so much that even in the very beginning of Genesis, the second verse says:
And the earth was void and empty, and darkness was upon the face of the deep: and the Spirit of God moved over the waters. - to which the Haydock tells us..........Spirit of God, giving life, vigour, and motion to things, and preparing the waters for the sacred office of baptism, in which, by the institution of Jesus Christ, we must be born again; and, like spiritual fishes, swim amid the tempestuous billows of this world.

I have an actual Latin Vulgate written in 1492 that confirms this translation to be completely accurate........it says "waters".

In Scripture, we read where God feeds even the birds - because they need food. God could certainly choose to sustain them without food - but instead, He chooses to give them what they seek - food - that's why food was created - why not the same for water?

In Scripture we are told to ask, seek and knock - so He can give us what we need - because He wants to give us what we need. He tells us we need water - if we desire water for baptism, please supply one good reason as to why would He deprive us of earth's most abundant resource which He Himself created - without which all life on earth would perish?

It makes Him happy to give us what we need. Happier than we can ever imagine in this life - because only He knows why He made the Law and what our reward is when we abide by His law.

OTOH, BOD forces - nay, BOD even *commands* that God to break His own Law because of "circumstances" presumed unforeseen by God. Or foreseen by God, but created by God for no other purpose than to break His own Law. THIS MAKES ZERO SENSE.

Certainly He could have the ever popular "ignorant native" or a sincere Catechumen no where near water about to die - - - - or even floating on a boat alone in a lake about to die for that matter - - - then take that person and reward that person with salvation without that water that He Himself commanded to be an absolute necessity - because of "circumstances" - but then that forces God to take from this world, one who is certainly sincere precisely at God's pre-appointed time without baptism....................So BOD is forcing God into taking one at their "scheduled time" as being more more of an "emergency" for salvation - rather than believing that God, in His Mercy would simply wait till that person get's baptized. Seems to me it's a whole lot easier for God to simply wait till the person can be baptised than to actually do something like taking the person before baptism due to a pre-scheduled death- no? I mean - must God also keep to a schedule for the sake of BOD? What about that?
 

*OR* does it make sense that God, the loving heavenly Father that He is, that He would put off taking that person until that person can fulfill the law God instituted - even if it takes another 30 years?

Again, BOD forces God's hand. That is not possible, and that is where my belief rests.


You remind me of Job's friends.  Just read what God told them. 
Tell us how it goes Wulfrano. I don't have the issue with the church you do. You don't trust the hierarchy. I have issues with them, but I know there are Catholic missions out there baptizing people. PLus, to take things into your own hands out of impatience is a Protestant Phenomenon.
(06-11-2011, 08:57 PM)Gregory I Wrote: [ -> ]Tell us how it goes Wulfrano. I don't have the issue with the church you do. You don't trust the hierarchy. I have issues with them, but I know there are Catholic missions out there baptizing people. PLus, to take things into your own hands out of impatience is a Protestant Phenomenon.

Protestants are gaining ground because they not only baptize new people but are also sucking out members of the Church and making them Protestants.  Protestants are doers not talkers.
(06-11-2011, 09:20 PM)wulfrano Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-11-2011, 08:57 PM)Gregory I Wrote: [ -> ]Tell us how it goes Wulfrano. I don't have the issue with the church you do. You don't trust the hierarchy. I have issues with them, but I know there are Catholic missions out there baptizing people. PLus, to take things into your own hands out of impatience is a Protestant Phenomenon.

Protestants are gaining ground because they not only baptize new people but are also sucking out members of the Church and making them Protestants.  Protestants are doers not talkers.

They also lack an apostolic mission.

Catholics can't go out of their own accord preaching and baptising.
(06-11-2011, 09:22 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-11-2011, 09:20 PM)wulfrano Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-11-2011, 08:57 PM)Gregory I Wrote: [ -> ]Tell us how it goes Wulfrano. I don't have the issue with the church you do. You don't trust the hierarchy. I have issues with them, but I know there are Catholic missions out there baptizing people. PLus, to take things into your own hands out of impatience is a Protestant Phenomenon.

Protestants are gaining ground because they not only baptize new people but are also sucking out members of the Church and making them Protestants.  Protestants are doers not talkers.

They also lack an apostolic mission.

Catholics can't go out of their own accord preaching and baptising.


That's the problem.  Millions in America, Africa and Asia are falling into the hands of heretics who have no apostolic mission.  Why?  Because those who do have the  apostolic mission are doing nothing but having a good time in parish festivals, parish bingo games and parish dances.
(06-11-2011, 09:28 PM)wulfrano Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-11-2011, 09:22 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-11-2011, 09:20 PM)wulfrano Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-11-2011, 08:57 PM)Gregory I Wrote: [ -> ]Tell us how it goes Wulfrano. I don't have the issue with the church you do. You don't trust the hierarchy. I have issues with them, but I know there are Catholic missions out there baptizing people. PLus, to take things into your own hands out of impatience is a Protestant Phenomenon.

Protestants are gaining ground because they not only baptize new people but are also sucking out members of the Church and making them Protestants.  Protestants are doers not talkers.

They also lack an apostolic mission.

Catholics can't go out of their own accord preaching and baptising.

That's the problem.  Millions in America, Africa and Asia are falling into the hands of heretics who have no apostolic mission.  Why?  Because those who do have the  apostolic mission are doing nothing but having a good time in parish festivals, parish bingo games and parish dances.

True, but the problem nevertheless remains: no Catholic can preach and baptise without being sent by the Church.

So we must work to fix the problems in our own house first through prayer, penance and example. We can't simply take matters into our own hands and pretend to be priests with a canonical mission.
(06-11-2011, 09:31 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-11-2011, 09:28 PM)wulfrano Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-11-2011, 09:22 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-11-2011, 09:20 PM)wulfrano Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-11-2011, 08:57 PM)Gregory I Wrote: [ -> ]Tell us how it goes Wulfrano. I don't have the issue with the church you do. You don't trust the hierarchy. I have issues with them, but I know there are Catholic missions out there baptizing people. PLus, to take things into your own hands out of impatience is a Protestant Phenomenon.

Protestants are gaining ground because they not only baptize new people but are also sucking out members of the Church and making them Protestants.  Protestants are doers not talkers.

They also lack an apostolic mission.

Catholics can't go out of their own accord preaching and baptising.

That's the problem.  Millions in America, Africa and Asia are falling into the hands of heretics who have no apostolic mission.  Why?  Because those who do have the  apostolic mission are doing nothing but having a good time in parish festivals, parish bingo games and parish dances.

True, but the problem nevertheless remains: no Catholic can preach and baptise without being sent by the Church.

So we must work to fix the problems in our own house first through prayer, penance and example. We can't simply take matters into our own hands and pretend to be priests with a canonical mission.


OK  But please don't complain that millions are going to hell because they were not baptized with water by anyone at all.