FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Baptism of Desire: Avoiding the Red Herrings on a Nearby Thread
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
(01-26-2012, 04:53 PM)Parmandur Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-26-2012, 04:09 PM)yablabo Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-26-2012, 03:12 PM)Parmandur Wrote: [ -> ]Physician, heal thyself.  :eyeroll:

The point is, the Magisterium has not defined things the way you seem to think it has, and the universal ordinary testimony of the Church testifies to this, particularly in the documents of Trent.  That you are obstinate in your views is unfortunate.

So you say, but you will not provide proof of such.  You quote the likes of Ludwig Otto, not testimony of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium.

And on the subject of solemn judgments of the Roman Pontiffs:  Provide a single quotation from the Council of Trent that contains the term "baptismus flaminis."...or better yet...an explicit statement from Trent that "voto baptismi" is salvific.  If you say it's there, you must be able to provide evidence of such :)

-- Nicole

"By which words, a description of the Justification of the impious is indicated,- as being a translation [transformation], 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 [transformation], since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire [in voto; votum Baptismi] 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' [John 3:5]" (Council of Trent, Session 6, Monday, January 13, 1547 A.D., Decree on Justification, Chapter IV)

You have been pointed here before, and how this has been interpreted by all the Doctors to mean Baptism of Desire.  Your continual refusal to read this in line with the Church is nothing other than rank Protestantism.  And believe me, I know Protestantism when I see it.

This is getting to the point of hilarity.  I ask for an explicit statement from Trent that "voto/votum baptismi" is salvific, and you give me a sentence saying that the "votum" of the laver of regeneration is a path by which the translation called Justification can be effected...  I hope that I'm not the only one who sees the failure in logic here.  A translation (Justification) is not equal to a state (habitual grace, or salvation) and therefore this falls short of fitting the bill.

Then you go on and say it's all in the interpretation by the Doctors, after you've already told me that it was taught explicitly at Trent?  Logic is made up of straight thinking from one premise to another...you're jumping all over the place.

I do protest against the false rule of faith you are trying to push upon me and others, but I do not protest against that which is contained as found in Scripture and tradition, nor what the Church proposes to be divinely revealed whether in her solemn judgment or in her Ordinary and Universal Magisterium.

-- Nicole
(01-26-2012, 05:54 PM)UnamSanctam Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-26-2012, 01:10 PM)Crusading Philologist Wrote: [ -> ]I like how this issue has gotten those who oppose Baptism of Desire to really go back to look for quotations to support their position. It's a rare day indeed when you see trads quoting St. Gregory of Nazianzus!

Is this sarcastic?

Well, not really. I just don't see traditional Catholics citing St. Gregory very often, so it stood out when I noticed it in this thread.
(01-26-2012, 06:25 PM)yablabo Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-26-2012, 04:53 PM)Parmandur Wrote: [ -> ]"By which words, a description of the Justification of the impious is indicated,- as being a translation [transformation], 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 [transformation], since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire [in voto; votum Baptismi] 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' [John 3:5]" (Council of Trent, Session 6, Monday, January 13, 1547 A.D., Decree on Justification, Chapter IV)

You have been pointed here before, and how this has been interpreted by all the Doctors to mean Baptism of Desire.  Your continual refusal to read this in line with the Church is nothing other than rank Protestantism.  And believe me, I know Protestantism when I see it.

This is getting to the point of hilarity.  I ask for an explicit statement from Trent that "voto/votum baptismi" is salvific, and you give me a sentence saying that the "votum" of the laver of regeneration is a path by which the translation called Justification can be effected...  I hope that I'm not the only one who sees the failure in logic here.  A translation (Justification) is not equal to a state (habitual grace, or salvation) and therefore this falls short of fitting the bill.

Then you go on and say it's all in the interpretation by the Doctors, after you've already told me that it was taught explicitly at Trent?  Logic is made up of straight thinking from one premise to another...you're jumping all over the place.

I do protest against the false rule of faith you are trying to push upon me and others, but I do not protest against that which is contained as found in Scripture and tradition, nor what the Church proposes to be divinely revealed whether in her solemn judgment or in her Ordinary and Universal Magisterium.

-- Nicole

As it has been said, "I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you."  If you don't see how Justification is salvific in nature, I don't know what you mean by the words.  It is not that anyone has had to explain this passage, but simply that St. Alphonsus and St. Robert Bellarmine have cited it as obviously teaching BoD, which it clearly does, and any child could see.  The problem isn't that this is "illogical" as you charge, but that you are making in error in judgement, which precedes logical processes.  You can't be convinced of the truth for, as Fr. Cekada has pointed out, you are not admitting Catholic principles of theology.  It is not that anyone is avoiding your questions, it is that your questions are malformed and ignorant.
(01-26-2012, 06:25 PM)yablabo Wrote: [ -> ]I do protest against the false rule of faith you are trying to push upon me and others, but I do not protest against that which is contained as found in Scripture and tradition, nor what the Church proposes to be divinely revealed whether in her solemn judgment or in her Ordinary and Universal Magisterium.

You have clearly made this statement a lie, rather choosing to pick what parts of the Ordinary Magisterium please you most, and tossing away the remnant that is difficult for you.  αἵρεσις, rank αἵρεσις, not καθόλου.
(01-26-2012, 10:57 PM)Parmandur Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-26-2012, 06:25 PM)yablabo Wrote: [ -> ]I do protest against the false rule of faith you are trying to push upon me and others, but I do not protest against that which is contained as found in Scripture and tradition, nor what the Church proposes to be divinely revealed whether in her solemn judgment or in her Ordinary and Universal Magisterium.

You have clearly made this statement a lie, rather choosing to pick what parts of the Ordinary Magisterium please you most, and tossing away the remnant that is difficult for you.  αἵρεσις, rank αἵρεσις, not καθόλου.

I am writing of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium, not merely the teaching office of bishops in their own churches, or in unison and union with the Roman Pontiff on matters binding the religious assent, or that of the Roman Pontiff alone when he is teaching the Church, but not in cathedra.  You seem to be changing suppositions, or trying to.

Sts. Bellarmine and Liguori were both Ordinaries as they were Bishops, but neither is my Bishop...which means neither could exercise the Ordinary Magisterium over me.  As Saints and Doctors of the Church, however, they are owed a pious assent due to their credibility.  This credibility, though, does not guarantee their works the infallibility which our Savior wished His Church to enjoy as reflected in the infallible magisterium of the Roman Pontiff.  Also, the teachings of these Bishops does not qualify for consideration as teaching of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium unless the teachings are universal, antique and unanimous.  Baptism of desire, votum baptismi, or baptismus flaminis as exposed in Ott's Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma contradicts not only the teachings of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium on the necessity of the Sacrament of Baptism, but also solemn judgments of the Roman Pontiff in that regard.  That is hardly difficult to understand.

One cannot, without transgressing natural reason or the faith one has in the Word of God, discern what the Holy Spirit protects as infallible by the fallible interpretations of theologians viz. the absolute necessity of the Sacrament of Baptism.  It is hardly heresy to hold that position, but rather quite Catholic.   :eyeroll:

-- Nicole
(01-26-2012, 04:53 PM)Parmandur Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-26-2012, 04:09 PM)yablabo Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-26-2012, 03:12 PM)Parmandur Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-26-2012, 12:01 PM)yablabo Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-26-2012, 02:38 AM)Gregory I Wrote: [ -> ]Hate monger? Fr. Feeney was devoted to our Lady at all times, and was reconciled to the church without giving up any of his views.

Are you aware that all the fathers of the church prior to St. Bernard of Clairveaux unanimously teach that Baptism is an ABSOLUTE and universal obligation and necessity, and that the unanimous teaching is that none can be saved without it? THis is easily seen from the first century up until the 12th century. It's unanimous.

The truth is the first thing out the window in any sort of discussion. 

I think some of the posters on this thread are more concerned with justifying their spiritual investments than searching for truth in communion...as reflected in the lack of willingness to examine the veracity and the logic behind their claims viz. "baptism of desire."  There is more interest in putting forth the notion that we must adhere to the theologians at all costs, to heck with what the Pope has defined or condemned in his infallible magisterium.

-- Nicole

Physician, heal thyself.  :eyeroll:

The point is, the Magisterium has not defined things the way you seem to think it has, and the universal ordinary testimony of the Church testifies to this, particularly in the documents of Trent.  That you are obstinate in your views is unfortunate.

So you say, but you will not provide proof of such.  You quote the likes of Ludwig Otto, not testimony of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium.

And on the subject of solemn judgments of the Roman Pontiffs:  Provide a single quotation from the Council of Trent that contains the term "baptismus flaminis."...or better yet...an explicit statement from Trent that "voto baptismi" is salvific.  If you say it's there, you must be able to provide evidence of such :)

-- Nicole

"By which words, a description of the Justification of the impious is indicated,- as being a translation [transformation], 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 [transformation], since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire [in voto; votum Baptismi] 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' [John 3:5]" (Council of Trent, Session 6, Monday, January 13, 1547 A.D., Decree on Justification, Chapter IV)

You have been pointed here before, and how this has been interpreted by all the Doctors to mean Baptism of Desire.  Your continual refusal to read this in line with the Church is nothing other than rank Protestantism.  And believe me, I know Protestantism when I see it.

Oh please, Trent hardly teaches BOD here at all, allow me to demonstrate:

Trent is CLEARLY teaching you CANNOT be saved without baptism or its desire. If you break this into simple equivocal statements without injuring the text:

You CANNOT be saved without baptism, OR

You cannot be saved without the desire for baptism.

What it is saying is that you must have the necessary predispositions in order to be saved by baptism. This canon is answering the question

"Do all who are baptized receive the grace of the sacrament?"

No. Only those who are properly disposed receive the grace of the sacrament.

Very well, what are the proper dispositions?:

1. They must desire it.
2. They must have faith (Implicit in 1).
3. They must be living in charity.

If any of these dispositions are missing, they receive the sacramental character, but no grace. In fact, it is a mortal sin of sacrilege to be baptized for worldly reasons, such as status. The waters that would save in this case condemn.

I always thought the Catechism of Trent was the best interpreter of Trent:

Dispositions for Baptism

Intention

"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."

So all this canon is saying is that you must be baptized, and you must desire to be baptized. IN other words, you CANNOT attain justification without baptism and the proper disposition.

If you need more proof, I can give a more fuller answer using only the Council of Trents own quotes.

Now, as regard to the issue not being dogmatically settled, let's consider something:

When considering baptism, there are three elements that go hand in hand. The waters of baptism and the sanctifying power of the Holy Spirit which cleanses by merit of the redeeming blood of Christ.

It is fair to say that baptism of desire is the sanctifying power of the Holy Spirit which applies the merits of Christs blood apart from any physical water or sacramental matter.

But this idea is CONDEMNED dogmatically in the Dogmatic Letter of Pope St. Leo to Flavian of Constantinople! AKA the Tome of Leo DOGMATICALLY settles this idea:

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

“Let him heed what the blessed apostle Peter preaches, that
sanctification by the Spirit is effected by the sprinkling of
Christ’s blood (1 Pet. 1:2); and let him not skip over the same
apostle’s words, knowing that you have been redeemed from the
empty way of life you inherited from your fathers, not with
corruptible gold and silver but by the precious blood of Jesus Christ,
as of a lamb without stain or spot (1 Pet. 1:18). Nor should he
withstand the testimony of blessed John the apostle: and the
blood of Jesus, the Son of God, purifies us from every sin (1 Jn. 1:7);
and again, This is the victory which conquers the world, our faith.
Who is there who conquers the world save one who believes that Jesus
is the Son of God? It is He, Jesus Christ, who has come through water
and blood, not in water only, but in water and blood. And because the
Spirit is truth, it is the Spirit who testifies. For there are three who
give testimony – Spirit and water and blood. And the three are
one. (1 Jn. 5:4‐8) IN OTHER WORDS, THE SPIRIT OF
SANCTIFICATION AND THE BLOOD OF REDEMPTION
AND THE WATER OF BAPTISM. THESE THREE ARE ONE
AND REMAIN INDIVISIBLE. NONE OF THEM IS
SEPARABLE FROM ITS LINK WITH THE OTHERS.


IN OTHER WORDS to maintain that you can have the Sanctifying power of the Holy Spirit apply the merits of the redeeming blood of Jesus Christ to an individual APART FROM THE WATERS OF BAPTISM goes counter to the Dogmatic teaching of Both the Pope, who authored this dogmatic Tome, AND the Ecumenical council of Chalcedon which unanimously approved it and set it forth as a bastion of Christian orthodoxy.

Just so you can see how serious this Tome is, let's consider:

This dogmatic letter of Pope Leo was accepted by the Council of
Chalcedon in its definition of Faith, which was approved authoritatively by Pope Leo
himself.

It was also approved by Pope Vigilius at
the Second Council of Constantinople (553) and by the dogmatic Third Council of
Constantinople (680‐681). It was also confirmed infallibly by a number of other popes,
including: Pope St. Gelasius, 495, Pope Pelagius II, 553, and Pope Benedict XIV,
nuper ad nos, 1743.

Pope St. Gelasius shows how no one can contradict, in the
slightest way, this dogmatic epistle of Pope St. Leo to Flavian.

Pope St. Gelasius, Decretal, 495: “Also the epistle of blessed
Leo the Pope to Flavian… if anyone argues concerning the
text of this one even in regard to one iota, and does not receive
it in all respects reverently, let him be anathema.”
(01-27-2012, 12:16 AM)yablabo Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-26-2012, 10:57 PM)Parmandur Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-26-2012, 06:25 PM)yablabo Wrote: [ -> ]I do protest against the false rule of faith you are trying to push upon me and others, but I do not protest against that which is contained as found in Scripture and tradition, nor what the Church proposes to be divinely revealed whether in her solemn judgment or in her Ordinary and Universal Magisterium.

You have clearly made this statement a lie, rather choosing to pick what parts of the Ordinary Magisterium please you most, and tossing away the remnant that is difficult for you.  αἵρεσις, rank αἵρεσις, not καθόλου.

I am writing of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium, not merely the teaching office of bishops in their own churches, or in unison and union with the Roman Pontiff on matters binding the religious assent, or that of the Roman Pontiff alone when he is teaching the Church, but not in cathedra.  You seem to be changing suppositions, or trying to.

Sts. Bellarmine and Liguori were both Ordinaries as they were Bishops, but neither is my Bishop...which means neither could exercise the Ordinary Magisterium over me.  As Saints and Doctors of the Church, however, they are owed a pious assent due to their credibility.  This credibility, though, does not guarantee their works the infallibility which our Savior wished His Church to enjoy as reflected in the infallible magisterium of the Roman Pontiff.  Also, the teachings of these Bishops does not qualify for consideration as teaching of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium unless the teachings are universal, antique and unanimous.  Baptism of desire, votum baptismi, or baptismus flaminis as exposed in Ott's Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma contradicts not only the teachings of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium on the necessity of the Sacrament of Baptism, but also solemn judgments of the Roman Pontiff in that regard.  That is hardly difficult to understand.

One cannot, without transgressing natural reason or the faith one has in the Word of God, discern what the Holy Spirit protects as infallible by the fallible interpretations of theologians viz. the absolute necessity of the Sacrament of Baptism.  It is hardly heresy to hold that position, but rather quite Catholic.   :eyeroll:

-- Nicole

They do so, only when you read them incorrectly.  This supposed contradiction that you insist on is not a problem for almost any Catholics, whether Popes or Doctors or children.  :eyeroll:
(01-27-2012, 02:16 AM)Gregory I Wrote: [ -> ]Oh please, Trent hardly teaches BOD here at all

St. Alphonsus disagrees with you, St. Robert Bellarmine disagrees with you, Ludwig Ott disagrees with you, traditional theology disagrees with you.  The Church disagrees with you,  :eyeroll:
Actually, here's a post from an older thread that sums up the case rather completely.  It really seems that Father Cekada is right, that Feeneyites are not willing to listen to the tradition of the Church where it does not suit them or make sense in an individualistic way:

(11-11-2010, 02:30 PM)SouthpawLink Wrote: [ -> ]
Stubborn Wrote:Again, why is or without the desire of them automatically INTERPRETED as the Baptism of Desire?

By whose authority?

Stubborn,
I think it is permissible to interpret “or without the desire of them” as baptism of desire because it was already taught 1) before the Council, 2) at the time of the Council, and 3) unanimously after the Council (below you’ll see that several theologians interpreted the texts under question as supporting baptism of desire). Aside from your interpretation of the canons, I’m positive that you will not find any papal or conciliar condemnation of baptism of desire, nor will you find any pope who forbids theologians from teaching it (or who systematically puts theology manuals that teach baptism of desire on the Index). Here is the evidence I have been able to find so far:

1) Support of baptism of desire before the Council of Trent:

Popes:

Innocent II (Dz. 388)
Innocent III (Dz. 413)

Doctors:

St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Cat. Lect., III, 4
St. Basil, Homily 13 in S. Baptisma (cited by Herve)
St. Ambrose, De obitu Valentiniani consolation: P.L. XVI, 1367
St. John Chrysostum, Hom. 1 ad Illuminados (cited by Herve)
St. Augustine, De Baptismo, IV, 22, 29; De Civ. Dei, XIII, 7
St. Gregory Nazianzen, Or. 40, 23 (cited by Herve)
St. Bernard, Tractatus de Baptismo, II, 8: P.L. CLXXXII, 1036-37
St. Albert the Great, Opera Omnia, vol. XXVI, pp. 35-40: Tract III, De Baptismo, q. I, art. 7 (cited by Fr. Laisney, see below)
St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, III, q. 66, a. 11; q. 68, a. 2
St. Bonaventure, In Sent. IV,  d. 4, P. 2, a. I, q. I

Fathers and Theologians:

Anonymous, De Rebaptismate, n. 5: P.L. III, 1189
St. Cyprian, Ep. 73, 23
St. Gregory of Nyssa, Cont. differentes Baptismum (cited by Herve)
St. Fulgentius, The Rule of Faith, n. 43
Hugh of St. Victor, De sacramentis christianae fidei, II, VI, 7: P.L. CLXXVI, 453


2) Desire for sacraments taught at the Council of Trent:

Sess. VI, chap. 4: Dz. 796 - "This translation after the promulgation of the Gospel cannot be effected except through the laver of regeneration [can. 5 de bapt.], or a desire for it"
Sess. VI, chap. 14: Dz. 807 - "the sacramental confession of the same, at least in desire and to be made in its season"
Sess. VII, can. 4: Dz. 847 - "If anyone shall say that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation, but are superfluous, and that, although all are not necessary for every individual, without them or without the desire of them through faith alone men obtain from God the grace of justification; let him be anathema."
Sess. XIV, chap. 4: Dz. 898 - "The Council teaches, furthermore, that though it sometimes happens that this contrition is perfect because of charity and reconciles man to God, before this sacrament is actually received, this reconciliation nevertheless must not be ascribed to the contrition itself without the desire of the sacrament which is included in it."


3) Support of baptism of desire after the Council of Trent:

Magisterium:

Roman Catechism, P. II, chap. II, q. 36
Pope St. Pius V, Ex Omnibus Afflictionibus: Dz. 1031, 1033, 1043, 1070
Pope Paul V, Roman Ritual, Part II, chap. I, par. 1
Pope Gregory XIII, Roman Martyrology – unbaptized saints proposed for veneration by the faithful (Ss. Emerentiana, Genesius of Arles, Victor of Braga, and Rogatian)
Pope St. Pius X, 1917 Code of Canon Law, can. 737 §1; 1239 §2 (see also the personal Catechism of Pope St. Pius X)
Holy Office Letter to Archbishop of Boston, Suprema Haec Sacra: DS 3869-3872

Doctors:

St. Alphonsus de Liguori, Theologia Moralis, Lib. VI, Tr. 2, chap. 1, nn. 95-97
St. Robert Bellarmine, De Ecclesia militante, Lib. III, chap. 3

Theologians:

Cano, De Locis Theologicis, Lib. IV, chap. 2-3 (de Ecclesiae Catholicae Auctoritate)
Suarez, De Baptismo, disp. XXVII, sect. II, n. 5 (cited by Tanquerey)
Hunter, Outlines of Dogmatic Theology, vol. III, sec. 694, pp. 224-226
Pesch, Praelectiones Dogmaticae, t. VI (?), n. 423 (cited by Tanquerey)
*Pohle-Preuss, The Sacraments: A Dogmatic Treatise, vol. I, pp. 243-248
*Tanquerey, Synopsis Theologiae Dogmaticae, vol. III, p. 362
Billot, De Ecclesia Christi, q. VII, th. 14; De Ecclesiae Sacramentis, q. XXIV, th. 25, pp. 240-261; De Gratia Christi, th. 13, p. 197sqq. (cited by Fr. Laisney in Is Feeneyism Catholic?, p. 79)
Franzelin, De Ecclesia, pp. 414-423 (cited by Fr. Laisney)
Wilhelm and Scannell, A Manual of Catholic Theology, Based on Scheeben's 'Dogmatic', vol. II, Lib. VII, sec. 252, I, 2, a
Garrigou-Lagrange, De Revelatione, pp. 613-615 (cited by Fr. Laisney)
*Herve, Manuale Theologiae Dogmaticae, vol. III, p. 562
*Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, p. 356
McHugh and Callan, Moral Theology: A Complete Course, vol. II, sec. 2662, pp. 631f.
Prümmer, Handbook of Moral Theology, sec. 551, p. 253; sec. 555, p. 254

*All four cited Sess. VI, chap. 4 (Dz. 796) as well as the pre-Tridentine pontiffs as evidence in support of baptism of desire.
The church does not disagree, and Ludwig Ott contradicts himself:

Dr. Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, The Necessity
of Baptism, p. 354: “1. Necessity of Baptism for Salvation‐
Baptism by water (Baptismus Fluminis) is, since the
promulgation of the Gospel, necessary for all men without
exception, for salvation. (de fide.)”

tell me, is it WRONG to believe that the sanctification of the holy spirit and the redemptive merits of Christs blood can be APPLIED APART from the waters of baptism in ANY circumstance?

It does not fall to any saint or individual or ANY theologian to interpret the deposit of faith for me, but it falls to the TEACHING Authority of the Church ALONE.

Pope Pius XII, Humani generis (# 21), Aug. 12, 1950: “This deposit of faith our
Divine Redeemer has given for authentic interpretation not to each of the
faithful, not even to theologians, but only to the Teaching Authority of the
Church.
’”

Remember, the DOGMAS need no further interpretation, because they ARE interpretations of the deposit of faith!

SO, here is what you need to believe:

Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, Constitution 1, 1215, ex cathedra:
“There is indeed one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which
nobody at all is saved, in which Jesus Christ is both priest and sacrifice.”

Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, Nov. 18, 1302, ex cathedra:
“With Faith urging us we are forced to believe and to hold the one, holy, Catholic
Church and that, apostolic, and we firmly believe and simply confess this
Church outside of which there is no salvation nor remission of sin…
Furthermore, we declare, say, define, and proclaim to every human creature
that they by absolute necessity for salvation are entirely subject to the Roman
Pontiff.”

Pope Clement V, Council of Vienne, Decree # 30, 1311‐1312, ex cathedra:
“Since however there is for both regulars and seculars, for superiors and subjects,
for exempt and non‐exempt, one universal Church, outside of which there is no
salvation, for all of whom there is one Lord, one faith, and one baptism…”3

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Sess. 8, Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra:
“Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic faith; unless
each one preserves this whole and inviolate, he will without a doubt perish in
eternity.”

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra:
“The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all
those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or
heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the
everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they
are joined to the Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of this
ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do
the Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and
other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia produce eternal
rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given
away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he
has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”

Pope Leo X, Fifth Lateran Council, Session 11, Dec. 19, 1516, ex cathedra:
“For, regulars and seculars, prelates and subjects, exempt and non‐exempt,
belong to the one universal Church, outside of which no one at all is saved, and
they all have one Lord and one faith.”

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

Pope Benedict XIV, Nuper ad nos, March 16, 1743, Profession of Faith: “This faith
of the Catholic Church, without which no one can be saved, and which of my
own accord I now profess and truly hold…”
Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, Session 2, Profession of Faith, 1870, ex cathedra:
“This true Catholic faith, outside of which none can be saved, which I now
freely profess and truly hold…”




Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23