FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums
Another EENS, please be patient... - Printable Version

+- FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums)
+-- Forum: Archives (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=6)
+--- Forum: Theology and Philosophy (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=13)
+--- Thread: Another EENS, please be patient... (/showthread.php?tid=44655)



Re: Another EENS, please be patient... - wulfrano - 06-21-2011

(06-21-2011, 08:59 PM)Doce Me Wrote: So sorry for interrupting the flow of posts with a very long follow-up to posts long ago...
"Gregory" Wrote:BOD is not condemned after all, but it is not greater than a theological opinon.

Baptism of Desire is a lot more than "not condemned".  Pre-Vatican II theologians rate it as at least as a common teaching (meaning, the Church teaches it), counting only theologians approved by the Church.  This does not mean it has the certainty of a de fide teaching, but that we are supposed to believe it.  It has a long history in the Church, not one that just happened to spring up from post-modernist liberals.

As the common teaching it is by FAR safer to BELIEVE it even if not with as great a certainty as we have with the Magisterium.  We are meant to argue FOR it not against it, unless we are qualified theologians.  If you want to discuss Baptism of Desire to help you with any difficulties you may have, fine - but don't attack it. 

The approved theologians who have supported Baptism of Desire in the past were NOT modernists; they were defending the teaching of MANY saints and popes.  Even if not all the saints taught the same thing (or if anyone "changed their mind") the opinion in favor of Baptism of Desire (believing that at least dying catechumens might be saved without water) was (as you note) not condemned by the Church in 2000 years.  But if it was as terrible a danger to the faith as you say, the Church (not just some people) surely would have condemned it directly and explicitly by now - by explicitly saying: even catechumens who die without the sacrament can never be saved.  Believing "Outside the Church there is no Salvation" did NOT PREVENT many holy and learned Catholics from believiing in Baptism of Desire. To teach these Catholic children as well as Her enemies the Church would have spoken LONG AGO as Father Feeney has spoken (see "Is This Christ's Church" below)

Remember again what Pope Pius IX said about theologians:
"Pope Pius IX Tuas Libenter" Wrote:But, since it is a matter of that subjection by which in conscience all those Catholics are bound who work in the speculative sciences, in order that they may bring new advantage to the Church by their writings, on that account, then, the men of that same convention should realize that it is not sufficient for learned Catholics to accept and revere the foresaid dogmas of the Church, but that it is also necessary to subject themselves to the decisions pertaining to doctrine which are issued by the Pontifical Congregations, and also to those forms of doctrine which are held by the common and constant consent of Catholics as theological truths and conclusions, so certain that opinions opposed to these same forms of doctrine, although they cannot be called heretical, nevertheless deserve some theological censure.” Tuas Libenter (1863), DZ 1684.

#######################################################################
##### IS THIS CHRIST'S CHURCH? ##########################################
#######################################################################

I think you turn the long history of Baptism of Desire in the Church into a series of logical blunders, fuzzy sentimentalism, stumbling over what past Saints said by mistake, not seeing invisible water (I think I've heard folks say this),  speaking a little carelessly, post-modern liberalism etc, etc.  Well by those "blunders", according to  you, a virtual denial of the central Catholic truth "OUTSIDE THE CHURCH THERE IS NO SALVATION" has crept into CATECHISMS and THEOLOGY MANUALS  and common teaching for CATHOLICS since Trent.  Well, I think this is saying that CHRIST DID NOT DO A GOOD JOB OF PRESERVING TRUTH IN HIS CHURCH, and that FATHER FEENEY (and others like him) WERE NEEDED TO START TURNING THINGS AROUND.  I know we have reasons to question some of what recent  post-Vatican II Popes have taught.  But that is not PAR FOR THE COURSE as you seem to make it.

You say that the teaching of Baptism of Desire is unclear.  Well, then you must think CHRIST ALLOWED THE VAGUE INSIDIOUS MYTH OF BAPTISM OF DESIRE TO SLITHER THROUGH HIS CHURCH with the same results in the teaching of Catholics since Trent, and Father Feeney then came as a knight on a white horse brandishing the Catholic sword of faith to save the day.

Christ has (in your scheme) allowed even multiple POPES to contradict past popes, rather than to enlighten us further on how to understand the SAME DOCTRINE.  He allowed supposedly non-infallible teaching to almost totally OBSCURE rather than support the infallible teaching of the past.

----
NO!  I think that Christ has not let hideous error into the catechisms of children and approved theological manuals for adults.  In modern times - but about a century ago! - even the catechism of Pope St. Pius X taught baptism of desire. Oh - maybe the Pope didn't officially direct the catechiism, but it was written for his Catholic flock. Baptism of Desire came into the Church far, far back in history - not in the inventive minds of post-modernist thologians. Christ guided the growth of the belief in Baptism of Desire.

#######################################################################
#######################################################################

I AGREE that over history the details of what Baptism of Desire covers vary.  But it is common theological teaching, not a solemnly defined dogma . I do not believe you have the right to dismiss the whole thing because "it's just not defined".  Even if saints have contradicted themselves (which you'd have to prove),  common teaching pulls out what is best,  it is not corrupted over time.

Father Feeney insults the approved common teaching of the Church.  Common theological teaching is to be taken very seriously, as Pope Pius IX so clearly explained.

---------
I DO BELIEVE LIBERALISM HAS SPREAD ERROR IN THE CHURCH.  But liberals take the teaching of baptism of  desire and distort it into saying that "any good intentions get you to heaven" or  "we don't really have to send missionaries now", etc.

It is true that the teacihng of baptism of desire can be taken over by liberals.  But the teaching of the mercy of God in general  is taken over by by liberals and profligates who don't want to face His justice.  This doesn't mean we should stop teaching the mercy of God - or baptism of desire.

=====================================
"Gregory" Wrote:I am STILL patiently waiting for any document of the ordinary magisterium that teaches or shows what is considered baptism of desire.

I don't have one that satisfies YOU.  But you knew that.

The Council of Trent teaches baptism of desire, contrary to YOUR interpretation in a past post. I can say this with confidence because the Catechism of the Council of Trent, St. Alphonsus Ligouri, and Pope Pius XII  follow  or specifically mention Trent when giving this teaching. Your reasoning leads you to reject one key passage of the Catechism , St. Alphonsus, and Pope Pius XII where he mentions Trent.  If my reasoning led me near there, I would know with near certainty that my reasoning was faulty..  (The post I DID do, in response to yours, is ready to go.  I may submt it later, but let me know if you want it sooneer)


Here are some infallible (or non-infallable, you would say) teachings of Popes, and how I think you dismiss them.

I think you dismiss as "not magisterium" encyclicals (or parts of them) that imply baptism of desire such as Pope Pius IX .
"Pope Pius IX, Encyclical Quanto Conficiamur Moerore" Wrote:7. Here, too, our beloved sons and venerable brothers, it is again necessary to mention and censure a very grave error entrapping some Catholics who believe that it is possible to arrive at eternal salvation although living in error and alienated from the true faith and Catholic unity. Such belief is certainly opposed to Catholic teaching. There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments.

Your probably dismiss as "not infallible doctrine" this part the of the 1917 Code of Canon Law
"1917 Code of Canon Law" Wrote:“Baptism, the door and foundation of the Sacraments, in fact or at least in desire necessary unto salvation for all, is not validly conferred except through the ablution of true and natural water with the prescribed form of words.” (Canon 737)
“Those who have died without baptism are not to be given ecclesiastical burial. Catechumens who die without baptism through no fault of their own are to be counted among the baptized.” (Canon 1239)

You undoubtedly dismiss as "not infallible" Pius XII letter of the Holy Office on "no salvation outside of the Church' http://www.romancatholicism.org/feeney-condemnations.htm#a2
"Pius XII letter of the Holy Office" Wrote:--in part:

In His infinite mercy God has willed that the effects, necessary for one to be saved, of those helps to salvation which are directed toward man’s final end, not by intrinsic necessity, but only by divine institution, can also be obtained in certain circumstances when those helps are used only in desire and longing. This we see clearly stated in the Sacred Council of Trent, both in reference to the sacrament of regeneration and in reference to the sacrament of penance (<Denzinger>, nn. 797, 807).

The same in its own degree must be asserted of the Church, in as far as she is the general help to salvation. Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member, but it is necessary that at least he be united to her by desire and longing.

You deny in some way the implications of::
"Council of Florence" Wrote:Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Session 11 (Cantate Domino), ex cathedra: "With regard to children, since the danger of death is often present and the only remedy available to them is the sacrament of baptism by which they are snatched away from the dominion of the devil and adopted as children of God, it admonishes that sacred baptism is not to be deferred for forty or eighty days or any other period of time in accordance with the usage of some people, but it should be conferred as soon as it conveniently can; and if there is imminent danger of death, the child should be baptized straightaway without any delay, even by a lay man or a woman in the form of the church, if there is no priest, as is contained more fully in the decree on the Armenians."
[/b]
Quote: SO far everything supports the rigorist interpretation,

Everything being just those documents that qualify for being "ordinary magisterium" by your rigorist standards.Everything excluding the huge quantity of Saints, Popes, Theologians etc who even when not individually infallible ADD UP as something far more than the "nothing" you would call them. Tradition in the Church does not include just the magisterium.

Thank you, but I will trust Pope Pius IX and Pope Pius XII far more than you. They have the wisdom of POPES, and even you must agree that they are GREAT Popes.  That alone should make you stop relying so much on your own interpretations. Moreover I think their teaching in these places is a part of the ordinary magisterium, but of course you disagree.

As I have said, I think it is appalling to  think that Christ would have allowed the quantity and long history of even non-infallible teaching  on baptism of desire to obscure primary infallible teachings.



This.



From the Baltimore Cathechism:

321. How can those be saved who through no fault of their own have not received the sacrament of Baptism?

Those who through no fault of their own have not received the sacrament of Baptism can be saved through what is called baptism of blood or baptism of desire.

322. How does an unbaptized person receive the baptism of blood?

An unbaptized person receives the baptism of blood when he suffers martyrdom for the faith of Christ.

Greater love than this no one has, that one lay down his life for his friends. (John 15:13)

323. How does an unbaptized person receive the baptism of desire?

An unbaptized person receives the baptism of desire when he loves God above all things and desires to do all that is necessary for his salvation.

If anyone love me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our abode with him. (John 14:23)



Re: Another EENS, please be patient... - Stubborn - 06-22-2011

(06-21-2011, 05:28 PM)wulfrano Wrote:
(06-21-2011, 08:50 AM)Stubborn Wrote:
(06-21-2011, 02:46 AM)wulfrano Wrote: Thank you for the evidence you present.  Still, where is Feeney's abjuration of heresies and errors, which abjuration is a condition sine qua non for lifting the excommunication?  Anyway, St. Alphonse de Liguori is in Heaven and Feeney is.... I dare not say it ....

There was nothing that Fr. needed to abjure - that is why he was not asked to abjure anything.

Feeney was told, ordered and commanded to explain the dogma "Extra Ecclesia" according to Church teaching not according to his weird ideas.  He disobeyed.  He got screwed and never recanted.  Where is he now?

In your mind, you already wrongfully condemn the good Fr. Feeney even though you refuse to learn the truth - so be it.


Re: Another EENS, please be patient... - Stubborn - 06-22-2011

(06-21-2011, 06:51 PM)Gregory I Wrote: FALSE. He was ordered to APPEAR. And he did NOT appear because he knew he would not get a fair trial. He made specific inquiries as to what he was being accused of, and HE WAS NOT TOLD. It is uncanonical to order someone to appear before an ecclesiastical court without giving notice of what was taught. If he went, he would be giving sanction to ecclesiastical abuse, rendering his excommunication, so-called, null.

WHAT HERESY? Extra Ecclesia Nulla Salva is the church's teaching, and he defended it, when every other bishop in the US sold out, including Bishop Sheen, who was an admirer of Fr. Feeney.

Thanks Gregory I! - Absolutely QFT!

This is where the BODers get completely stumped every time.............in their zeal to condemn what they refuse to learn, they find themselves believing the 70 year old media condemnation initiated by +Cushing.


Re: Another EENS, please be patient... - Bakuryokuso - 06-22-2011

(06-22-2011, 01:38 PM)Stubborn Wrote:
(06-21-2011, 05:28 PM)wulfrano Wrote:
(06-21-2011, 08:50 AM)Stubborn Wrote:
(06-21-2011, 02:46 AM)wulfrano Wrote: Thank you for the evidence you present.  Still, where is Feeney's abjuration of heresies and errors, which abjuration is a condition sine qua non for lifting the excommunication?  Anyway, St. Alphonse de Liguori is in Heaven and Feeney is.... I dare not say it ....

There was nothing that Fr. needed to abjure - that is why he was not asked to abjure anything.

Feeney was told, ordered and commanded to explain the dogma "Extra Ecclesia" according to Church teaching not according to his weird ideas.  He disobeyed.  He got screwed and never recanted.  Where is he now?

In your mind, you already wrongfully condemn the good Fr. Feeney even though you refuse to learn the truth - so be it.

Uh, yeah, the excommunication was lifted in 1972 without him having to recant anything.



Re: Another EENS, please be patient... - Stubborn - 06-22-2011

(06-22-2011, 01:43 PM)Bakuryokuso Wrote:
(06-22-2011, 01:38 PM)Stubborn Wrote:
(06-21-2011, 05:28 PM)wulfrano Wrote:
(06-21-2011, 08:50 AM)Stubborn Wrote:
(06-21-2011, 02:46 AM)wulfrano Wrote: Thank you for the evidence you present.  Still, where is Feeney's abjuration of heresies and errors, which abjuration is a condition sine qua non for lifting the excommunication?  Anyway, St. Alphonse de Liguori is in Heaven and Feeney is.... I dare not say it ....

There was nothing that Fr. needed to abjure - that is why he was not asked to abjure anything.

Feeney was told, ordered and commanded to explain the dogma "Extra Ecclesia" according to Church teaching not according to his weird ideas.  He disobeyed.  He got screwed and never recanted.  Where is he now?

In your mind, you already wrongfully condemn the good Fr. Feeney even though you refuse to learn the truth - so be it.

Uh, yeah, the excommunication was lifted in 1972 without him having to recant anything.

This is true - but he was asked to make a profession of faith - so he recited the Athanasian Creed..........

1. Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith;

2. Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.

3. And the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity;

4. Neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance.

5. For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit.

6. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is all one, the glory equal, the majesty coeternal.

7. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit.

8. The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated.

9. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible.

10. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal.

11. And yet they are not three eternals but one eternal.

12. As also there are not three uncreated nor three incomprehensible, but one uncreated and one incomprehensible.

13. So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Spirit almighty.

14. And yet they are not three almighties, but one almighty.

15. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God;

16. And yet they are not three Gods, but one God.

17. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord;

18. And yet they are not three Lords but one Lord.

19. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord;

20. So are we forbidden by the catholic religion to say; There are three Gods or three Lords.

21. The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten.

22. The Son is of the Father alone; not made nor created, but begotten.

23. The Holy Spirit is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.

24. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Spirit, not three Holy Spirits.

25. And in this Trinity none is afore or after another; none is greater or less than another.

26. But the whole three persons are coeternal, and coequal.

27. So that in all things, as aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped.

28. He therefore that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity.

29. Furthermore it is necessary to everlasting salvation that he also believe rightly the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.

30. For the right faith is that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and man.

31. God of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and man of substance of His mother, born in the world.

32. Perfect God and perfect man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting.

33. Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching His manhood.

34. Who, although He is God and man, yet He is not two, but one Christ.

35. One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking of that manhood into God.

36. One altogether, not by confusion of substance, but by unity of person.

37. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ;

38. Who suffered for our salvation, descended into hell, rose again the third day from the dead;

39. He ascended into heaven, He sits on the right hand of the Father, God, Almighty;

40. From thence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead.

41. At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies;

42. and shall give account of their own works.

43. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting and they that have done evil into everlasting fire.

44. This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully he cannot be saved.


Re: Another EENS, please be patient... - wulfrano - 06-22-2011

(06-22-2011, 01:50 PM)Stubborn Wrote:
(06-22-2011, 01:43 PM)Bakuryokuso Wrote:
(06-22-2011, 01:38 PM)Stubborn Wrote:
(06-21-2011, 05:28 PM)wulfrano Wrote:
(06-21-2011, 08:50 AM)Stubborn Wrote:
(06-21-2011, 02:46 AM)wulfrano Wrote: Thank you for the evidence you present.  Still, where is Feeney's abjuration of heresies and errors, which abjuration is a condition sine qua non for lifting the excommunication?  Anyway, St. Alphonse de Liguori is in Heaven and Feeney is.... I dare not say it ....

There was nothing that Fr. needed to abjure - that is why he was not asked to abjure anything.

Feeney was told, ordered and commanded to explain the dogma "Extra Ecclesia" according to Church teaching not according to his weird ideas.  He disobeyed.  He got screwed and never recanted.  Where is he now?

In your mind, you already wrongfully condemn the good Fr. Feeney even though you refuse to learn the truth - so be it.

Uh, yeah, the excommunication was lifted in 1972 without him having to recant anything.

This is true - but he was asked to make a profession of faith - so he recited the Athanasian Creed..........

1. Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith;

2. Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.

3. And the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity;

4. Neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance.

5. For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit.

6. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is all one, the glory equal, the majesty coeternal.

7. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit.

8. The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated.

9. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible.

10. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal.

11. And yet they are not three eternals but one eternal.

12. As also there are not three uncreated nor three incomprehensible, but one uncreated and one incomprehensible.

13. So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Spirit almighty.

14. And yet they are not three almighties, but one almighty.

15. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God;

16. And yet they are not three Gods, but one God.

17. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord;

18. And yet they are not three Lords but one Lord.

19. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord;

20. So are we forbidden by the catholic religion to say; There are three Gods or three Lords.

21. The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten.

22. The Son is of the Father alone; not made nor created, but begotten.

23. The Holy Spirit is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.

24. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Spirit, not three Holy Spirits.

25. And in this Trinity none is afore or after another; none is greater or less than another.

26. But the whole three persons are coeternal, and coequal.

27. So that in all things, as aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped.

28. He therefore that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity.

29. Furthermore it is necessary to everlasting salvation that he also believe rightly the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.

30. For the right faith is that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and man.

31. God of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and man of substance of His mother, born in the world.

32. Perfect God and perfect man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting.

33. Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching His manhood.

34. Who, although He is God and man, yet He is not two, but one Christ.

35. One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking of that manhood into God.

36. One altogether, not by confusion of substance, but by unity of person.

37. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ;

38. Who suffered for our salvation, descended into hell, rose again the third day from the dead;

39. He ascended into heaven, He sits on the right hand of the Father, God, Almighty;

40. From thence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead.

41. At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies;

42. and shall give account of their own works.

43. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting and they that have done evil into everlasting fire.

44. This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully he cannot be saved.


The lifting of the excommunication is null and void since it was made by the infiltrated Talmudic Jew Paul VI.


Re: Another EENS, please be patient... - Gregory I - 06-22-2011

Gimme a break wulfrano, you have no proof to back that slanderous and libelous accusation. I am not a fan of Paul VI, but I cannot make this ridiculous claim. The Pope commands your respect for his office, even if he fails to live up to it. Even though I do not like everything JPII did, he nevertheless was the Pope, and I respect him as such, and give obedience where obedience is due. Not BLIND obedience, but with my eyes open.

I wouldn't be so comfortable making baseless accusations, and once again, a document of the ordinary magisterium meets certain requirements. ALl the documents presented either do not meet those requirements, OR they do not spell out BOD. Hoping a person in invincible ignorance may be saved due to their sincerity is a valid hope!

I simply contend their salvation will not occur apart from the Catholic faith, and Baptism.

Once again, the Catechism of the Council of Trent, which is not a magisterial document, but was nevertheless promulgated by a Pope and a Saint, states CLEARLY: All those who are to be saved are obliged to be baptized.

Tellme, since all the sacraments are oriented toward salvation, what if BOD was true, and a person died desiring baptism and they went to heaven. They have attained the ultimate and highest initiation, being in the closest possible unity with Christ, they have achieved the goal of all the sacraments. Say they came to life again miraculously: Since they had gone to heaven, could they then receive the Eucharist or do they need to be baptiszed first? They need to be baptized, even then! Why? THey went to heaven, they are obviously at least in the "soul" of the church right? WHy can't they then receive the eucharist without baptism?


Re: Another EENS, please be patient... - wulfrano - 06-22-2011

(06-22-2011, 10:07 PM)Gregory I Wrote: Gimme a break wulfrano, you have no proof to back that slanderous and libelous accusation. I am not a fan of Paul VI, but I cannot make this ridiculous claim. The Pope commands your respect for his office, even if he fails to live up to it. Even though I do not like everything JPII did, he nevertheless was the Pope, and I respect him as such, and give obedience where obedience is due. Not BLIND obedience, but with my eyes open.

I wouldn't be so comfortable making baseless accusations, and once again, a document of the ordinary magisterium meets certain requirements. ALl the documents presented either do not meet those requirements, OR they do not spell out BOD. Hoping a person in invincible ignorance may be saved due to their sincerity is a valid hope!

I simply contend their salvation will not occur apart from the Catholic faith, and Baptism.

Once again, the Catechism of the Council of Trent, which is not a magisterial document, but was nevertheless promulgated by a Pope and a Saint, states CLEARLY: All those who are to be saved are obliged to be baptized.

Tellme, since all the sacraments are oriented toward salvation, what if BOD was true, and a person died desiring baptism and they went to heaven. They have attained the ultimate and highest initiation, being in the closest possible unity with Christ, they have achieved the goal of all the sacraments. Say they came to life again miraculously: Since they had gone to heaven, could they then receive the Eucharist or do they need to be baptiszed first? They need to be baptized, even then! Why? THey went to heaven, they are obviously at least in the "soul" of the church right? WHy can't they then receive the eucharist without baptism?

If you go to Rome you will find the Golden Book of Italian Nobility.  Therein you will see that under the heading MONTINI, it says that the Montinis go back to their founder in Brescia, to the north of Italy, all of them hebrews.  Pope Paul VI's actions against catholic Tradition could not have been more  jewish nor more masonic in accordance with the ages-old rabbinic talmudic plan to naturalize and desacralize the Church.  In fact, in 1972, coincidentally the year he forgave Feeney, he smugly said that the smoke of Satan had just entered the Church.  Who opened the door?

Baptism of desire and Baptism of blood are not sacraments.  Baptism of water must be administered as soon as possible no matter what for salvation.  However, as Pope Pius IX says,in cases of invincible ignorance, we trust that Merciful God Almighty will not condemn the unbaptized because of the sin of infidelity but perhaps for other sins.   


Re: Another EENS, please be patient... - Gregory I - 06-22-2011

But Pope Pius IX does NOT say that, he says that we can trust that God will not condemn anyone who is not personally guilty. But he did not say by what means an invincibly ignorant person MIGHT be saved. I contend that if someone REALLY desires Christ, then Christ will make the Sacraments available, miracuolously if need be.


Re: Another EENS, please be patient... - Doce Me - 06-22-2011

(06-22-2011, 10:07 PM)Gregory I Wrote: Tellme, since all the sacraments are oriented toward salvation, what if BOD was true, and a person died desiring baptism and they went to heaven. They have attained the ultimate and highest initiation, being in the closest possible unity with Christ, they have achieved the goal of all the sacraments. Say they came to life again miraculously: Since they had gone to heaven, could they then receive the Eucharist or do they need to be baptiszed first? They need to be baptized, even then! Why? THey went to heaven, they are obviously at least in the "soul" of the church right? WHy can't they then receive the eucharist without baptism?

You are talking about God "miraculously" ripping someone out of the beatific vision, out of eternal life.  That makes absolutely no sense.  If God gives a man sanctifying grace by baptism of desire, and the man then dies, he is saved and no longer needs the sacraments.  In this life, the sacrament of Baptism is needed in order to receive the Eucharist..

Gregory, note I posted a very long post 10 or 15 posts ago.  You can look at it if you want to.