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... - Vetus Ordo - 06-27-2011

Well put, Gregory.


Re: Another EENS, please be patient... - Doce Me - 06-27-2011

(06-27-2011, 09:01 PM)Gregory I Wrote:
(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.
Gregory

  The following was prepared long ago (as an answer to part of what you posted above), but didn't fit in until here.
>> # POINTs break text into rough logical segments.

#  POINT 1: OR doesn't mean AND ##########

I certainly accept the translation of  the relevant section of the Council of Trent that you fouind - where "sine" is correctly translated as "without":

"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."

BUT what I said in my original post still applies perfectly. I did not depend on the "except through" phrase.  Rather I ALREADY used the word "WITHOUT" in my reasoning.

Here it is again:
"Doce Me" Wrote:You are interpretting this as though OR really means AND.  The plain and obvious interpretation is that OR means OR - one thing is present, the other is present, or both are present.  If the word AND were intended, it would have been used.

I heard the argument that compared these words to the statement "You cannot play baseball without a bat or a ball".  Now if someone who knows about baseball hears this he may automatically assume that of course both are needed.  But the grammatically correct and clear statement would be "you cannot play baseball without a bat AND a ball".  This statement would produce better results when speaking to a child who doesn't know baseball.  He would know to bring both a bat and a ball, not just one.

So the grammatically correct Council  WOULD HAVE USED "AND" IF THAT IS WHAT IT MEANT.  It said and meant "OR".

"Gregory" Wrote:context, context CONTEXT.

(meaning the whole context of Trent)

CONTEXT does not change the meaning of the word OR to AND

# POINT 2 - Christ's words cover Sacrament and desire of Sacrament ###########

"Gregory" Wrote: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!

  Both baptism and baptism of desire refer to ONE AND THE SAME Sacrament of Baptism that is described in Christ's words - in this way they are united.  Baptism of desire is a desire (Voto) for  the necessary SACRAMENT.  Baptism (the sacrament) AND desire for it ARE both necessary for the sacrament to be salvific.  But Baptism (the sacrament) OR desire (without the sacrament - when the sacrament is impossible, but God acts directly) give the salvific grace.  The word used is OR. Faith is needed in either case.

# POINT 3 - Meaning of "necessary" and "unless" (See point 7 for more)  ###########

Baptism the sacrament is necessary, but necessity does not imply God's promise to bring water when it is IMPOSSIBLE ** FOR A MAN **. God expects us to obey, but there is no disobedience when the thing is impossible for us.  God ALLOWS it to be impossible for us to get to Mass, and does not always miraculously make it possible.  Yet it is necessary to go to Mass, and unless we do we commit a mortal sin and go to hell if we die.  But God does not take it as a sin when we can't do something.

You read Christ's solemn words of command and punishment, and the necessity spoken of for the Sacrament of Baptism as if YOUR sense of rigor and eternal law extending into (and binding, by God's promise) heaven itself  MUST be what they imply. This is the personal interpretation of you and some others, but it is not the interpretation of authoritative teaching in the Church. 

# POINT 4 - Dispositions required for Baptism ###############
"Gregory" Wrote: 
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.

I think this is right.  I don't think I've ever said otherwise..

But so far this only shows that faith and the Voto are necessary as a predisposition  in order for baptism to open the door to salvation.

It does not show salvation can never come through  Faith, the "Voto", and God's baptizing you (directly not via water) because of your Voto, in circumstances He foresees and allows.

# POINT 5 (long) Quote from Trent::  Preparation for Baptism; Sacrament is Instrumental cause for justification; But God can act directly

Quoting a long part of your post:
"Gregory" Wrote: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.

EXACTLY:  This describes the disposition for baptism of desire as well!  The sacrament of baptism is the INSTRUMENTAL cause of justification and our "merciful God who washes and sanctifies gratuitously" is the EFFICIENT cause. But in what we call Baptism of Desire, God washes and sanctifies DIRECTLY rather than instrumentally (using an instrument).  God has commanded us to use the Sacrament of Baptism, that is the commanded instrument, but God has the freedom to act directly, outside the command that He has given MAN, in circumstances He foresees and permits.

In baptism of desire the "voto" is needed before God baptizes directly, just as "voto" is needed before sacramental baptism. In both cases the "voto" is not the instrument.  Baptism of desire is an exceptional case and the words "or its desire" should not be expected to occur or to be explained everywhere baptism is mentioned. When baptism (the sacrament) is described as an instrument, this does not rule out the possibility of God acting directly.

"Gregory" Wrote: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.

I repeat, God who is the efficient cause does not have to use an instrument.  The mere desire of Baptism does not justify, but rather God who justifies the soul. He does use the instrument of the Sacrament of Baptism in by far the majority of cases, it is the command, it is what is spoken of in most places (baptism of desire is obviously NOT explicitly spoken of each time the sacrament is spoken of).  But God can make an exception.  HE can justify without water. 

# POINT 6 rating the Catechism of the Council of Trent ################
"Gregory" Wrote:As for the Catechism of the Council of Trent

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...

It is the most reliable and authoritative "document put forth by the magisterium"  fairly shortly after the Council.  Its statements and interpretation of the Council are authoritative and for more  reliable than OURS.   I try to rely on the Catechism.

***************************************************************************
# POINT 7 NECESSITY OF BAPTISM -- NOT DENIED BY BAPTISM OF DESIRE ##
***************************************************************************
Truths that GOOD CATHOLICS WHO BELIEVE IN BAPTISM OF DESIRE ALSO BELIEVE BECAUSE THEY ARE A PART OF THE FAITH

These truths are taught by the Council and by the Catechism (see your previous post for quotes)

* EVERYONE is obliged to receive baptism to be saved
* BAPTISM IS NECESSARY FOR ALL
* GOD COMMANDS THE USE OF WATER, THE MOST COMMON SUBSTANCE
* All must be regenerated to God through the grace of Baptism (Christians or infidels) or they are born to eternal misery.

St. Alphonsus Ligouri and the Catechism and Popes (speaking infallibly or OTHERWISE) and many theologians and Catholic sources long before our modern times were NOT post-modern-fuzzy-sentimentalists-who-were-a-little-careless-about-their-faith-and-didn't-know-how-to-interpret-Trent-as-well-as-you-or-just-forgot-about-the-necessity-of-baptism. They are just UNDERSTANDING what you are MISSING about the meaning of NECESSARY for GOD and for MAN.  They just remembered that  "receiving baptism" can be "receiving baptism of desire", even if the sacrament itself requires water and is commanded for life.

Man uses the word "unless" and "necessary"  allowing for an deliberately unspoken exception - and so can God when speaking to US. We say "water is necessary for tomatoes to grow", and it IS truly necessary, yet God may provide a miraculous exception.   A mother may say "Unless you get in the car in 1 minute no dessert for you", and she is not lying or forgetful,  yet if the child twists his ankle, she makes an exception.  God ALLOWS men to "twist their ankle" on the way to obey a command, and does not count this a sin.  It doesn't matter that God has absolute power and can foresee everything, He still can allow such impossibility for a man, and can make an exception.  God is more merciful than a mother. Unlike the mother, God does not just "let you get away with it" - FAR FROM IT.  But if He wills it He CAN step in and sanctify you directly.

# POINT 8 Catechism backs up what is said in Council  on dispostion for baptism ###
"Gregory" Wrote:The following quotes from the Catechism of Trent also ENTIRELY back up my point:
<To shorten this, these seem to be the main points to back up yours>

- the faithful need to be taught dispositions for baptism, first of all:
* the DESIRE and INTENT to recive it (should not be forced)
* Besides a wish (desire) to be baptized, FAITH is also needed

And, in your final recap:

  * desire to receive baptism is only a first step, a disposition, and does not justify in itself
  * one sole instrumental cause of our justification, sacramental baptism

I think my thoughts about the Council also apply to the Catechism. To reiterate:
In baptism of desire,  the desire (and all the same dispositions as for the sacrament) is followed by God's baptizing, without water, that is without any instrument, but directly. The human desire is not enough.  God must give the justifying grace of baptism.

# POINT 9 Catechism teaches Baptism of Desire, but you disagree with it #####

The Catechism of the Council of Trent clearly supports Baptism of Desire. The following quote speaks of  an adult for whom baptism by water is impossible:

"Catechism of the Council of Trent" Wrote:"... should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness."

You hesitate to admit you disagree with this , arguing that "even if the Catechism were not in error...it is entirely questionable whether such a one would go to heaven at all"
Basically you really do disagree with the Catechism.  I trust the Catechism and ITS interpretation of the Council, thank you.

# POINT 10 NO FORGIVENESS OF SINS OUTSIDE THE CHURCH  ####

The following is my reasoning, and something like the reasoning of Msgr. Joseph Clinton Fenton in his book "The Catholic Church and Salvation":   Monsignor Joseph Clifford Fenton (January 16, 1906 - July 7, 1969), a priest of the diocese of Springfield, Massachusetts, was professor of fundamental dogmatic theology at the Catholic University of America and editor of the American Ecclesiastical Review (1943–1963).[1] He is considered one of the most outstanding American Catholic theologians of the 20th century, serving as a peritus for Cardinal Ottaviani at the Second Vatican Council. He was also Secretary of the Catholic Theological Society of America.[2].
(from wikipedia)  He fought the Vatican II changes.  He was no post-modernist liberal.

A catechumen who has faith and dies on the road to baptism - perhaps even martyred - is INDEED NOT A MEMBER OF THE CHURCH. And OUTSIDE THE CHURCH THERE IS NO SALVATION.  But how can you say such a man is ABSOLUTELY AND IN EVERY SENSE "OUTSIDE THE CHURCH"? There is also NO FORGIVENESS OF SINS OUTSIDE THE CHURCH.  But a man "availed to grace and righteousness" (which can't be had without faith),  MUST have had his sins forgiven. Doesn't that meant that he is INSIDE the Church insofar as he is forgiven, and heading towards membership? I can't see this any other way when I accept Trent, the Catechism of the Council of Trent, and so many other Catholic sources.




Re: Another EENS, please be patient... - Doce Me - 06-27-2011


(06-11-2011, 01:15 PM)Gregory I Wrote: Saint Francis Xavier:

" 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."
Any man who does not worship God is doomed to Hell.
Man knows God well enough even by nature to have no excuse for not worshiping him
Not being  taught about God makes it very much harder to worship God and avoid hell.
Any man in Hell can not be saved by any amount of prayer.



Re: Another EENS, please be patient... - Gregory I - 06-28-2011

Gregory

  The following was prepared long ago (as an answer to part of what you posted above), but didn't fit in until here.
>> # POINTs break text into rough logical segments.

#  POINT 1: OR doesn't mean AND ##########

I certainly accept the translation of  the relevant section of the Council of Trent that you fouind - where "sine" is correctly translated as "without":

"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."

BUT what I said in my original post still applies perfectly. I did not depend on the "except through" phrase.  Rather I ALREADY used the word "WITHOUT" in my reasoning.

Here it is again:
"Doce Me" Wrote:You are interpretting this as though OR really means AND.  The plain and obvious interpretation is that OR means OR - one thing is present, the other is present, or both are present.  If the word AND were intended, it would have been used.

I heard the argument that compared these words to the statement "You cannot play baseball without a bat or a ball".  Now if someone who knows about baseball hears this he may automatically assume that of course both are needed.  But the grammatically correct and clear statement would be "you cannot play baseball without a bat AND a ball".  This statement would produce better results when speaking to a child who doesn't know baseball.  He would know to bring both a bat and a ball, not just one.

So the grammatically correct Council  WOULD HAVE USED "AND" IF THAT IS WHAT IT MEANT.  It said and meant "OR".

"Gregory" Wrote:context, context CONTEXT.

(meaning the whole context of Trent)

CONTEXT does not change the meaning of the word OR to AND

Okay, right here, you are hair splitting. Allow me to illustrate: This is the text: "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."

First off, the EMPHASIS is on the translation from injustice, to justice. Keeping that in mind, it says that this translation CANNOT be effected WITHOUT (baptism) or the desire for said baptism: For, as it is written, unless a man is born of water and the spirit, he cannot be saved. THere is nothing in the text to suggest two separate modes of salvation; rather only a SINGLE mode (water baptism) is being spoken of, and the necessary disposition that must accompany it. THere is nothing in this text to suggest either an implicit or explicit desire for baptism APART from baptism. The conditionally negative statements "CANNOT be effected WITHOUT baptism or (WITHOUT) the desire for baptism" are obviously tied together because of :

A. Their proximity
B. The whole chapter 4 is ONLY about the necessity of baptism, and mentions no salvation apart from baptism.
C. Only two and three chapters later the desire for baptism is referred to as a disposition. There is nothing in the text to indicate it has any salvific value apart from baptism.


# POINT 2 - Christ's words cover Sacrament and desire of Sacrament ###########

"Gregory" Wrote: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!

  Both baptism and baptism of desire refer to ONE AND THE SAME Sacrament of Baptism that is described in Christ's words - in this way they are united.  Baptism of desire is a desire (Voto) for  the necessary SACRAMENT.  Baptism (the sacrament) AND desire for it ARE both necessary for the sacrament to be salvific.  But Baptism (the sacrament) OR desire (without the sacrament - when the sacrament is impossible, but God acts directly) give the salvific grace.  The word used is OR. Faith is needed in either case.

Demonstrate this directly from the council, using the council as its own context. All the specifics, especially the notion that the Desire for the sacrament, when baptism cannot be received, conveys grace. It doesn't exist in Trent, it is a theological speculation.

# POINT 3 - Meaning of "necessary" and "unless" (See point 7 for more)  ###########

Baptism the sacrament is necessary, but necessity does not imply God's promise to bring water when it is IMPOSSIBLE ** FOR A MAN **. God expects us to obey, but there is no disobedience when the thing is impossible for us.  God ALLOWS it to be impossible for us to get to Mass, and does not always miraculously make it possible.  Yet it is necessary to go to Mass, and unless we do we commit a mortal sin and go to hell if we die.  But God does not take it as a sin when we can't do something.

SO, you are saying that God commands impossible things for certain people. In other words, God does not take his covenant, sealed in the blood of Christ seriously. If God wants to save someone, he will do so in a way that does not contradict his revealed word. And he has revealed who are to be saved: YOU ARE ALSO LIMITING THE POWER OF GOD TO A MAN'S PHYSICAL CIRCUMSTANCES.

Douay-Rheims Bible
"He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be condemned." Mark 16:16

Rev. 22:14 New American Standard Bible (©1995)
"Blessed are those who wash their robes, so that they may have the right to the tree of life, and[b] may enter by the gates
into the city."

John 3:5 Douay-Rheims Bible
"Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."

Is it really believeable, that such a person who should discover God (who knows how) and desire him, and seek to love him above all, that the truth of the Catholic faith, which is the sole saving faith on the face of the planet, should be denied? WHere has God ever acted this way? Hasn't he always brought light to those who seek him? Doesn't the illumination of grace dispel darkness and ignorance? Christ does not leave in the dark blindness of ignorance one who seeks after him. He reveals the truth to him.
Those who perish without the word having been preached to them, they are reprobate.

SCRIPTURE:

2 Corinthians 4

1Therefore, seeing we have this ministration, according as we have obtained mercy, we faint not;
    2But we renounce the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor adulterating the word of God; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience, in the sight of God.

  3And if our gospel be also hid, it is hid to them that are lost,

    4In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of unbelievers, that the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should not shine unto them.


    5For we preach not ourselves, but Jesus Christ our Lord; and ourselves your servants through Jesus.

    6For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God, in the face of Christ Jesus.[/b]




You read Christ's solemn words of command and punishment, and the necessity spoken of for the Sacrament of Baptism as if YOUR sense of rigor and eternal law extending into (and binding, by God's promise) heaven itself  MUST be what they imply. This is the personal interpretation of you and some others, but it is not the interpretation of authoritative teaching in the Church. 

WRONG, it is the authoritative teaching of the Church. Read Trent: Session 7, On Baptism, Canon II

CANON II.-If any one saith, that true and natural water is not of necessity for baptism, and, on that account, wrests, to some sort of metaphor, those words of our Lord Jesus Christ; Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost; let him be anathema.

In other words, Trent AUTHORITATIVELY Teaches that John 3:5 is ONLY about Sacramental Water baptism administered with true and natural water. Any metaphorical meaning is anathema.



# POINT 4 - Dispositions required for Baptism ###############
"Gregory" Wrote: 
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.

I think this is right.  I don't think I've ever said otherwise..

But so far this only shows that faith and the Voto are necessary as a predisposition  in order for baptism to open the door to salvation.

That is all the council says. There is no other context for the Voto.

It does not show salvation can never come through  Faith, the "Voto", and God's baptizing you (directly not via water) because of your Voto, in circumstances He foresees and allows.

Argument from silence=Fallacy. This notion you have cannot legitimately be read backward into the text that has nothing to do with it!!! Irrelevant. You cannot impose your predispositions.

# POINT 5 (long) Quote from Trent::  Preparation for Baptism; Sacrament is Instrumental cause for justification; But God can act directly

Quoting a long part of your post:
"Gregory" Wrote: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.

EXACTLY:  This describes the disposition for baptism of desire as well!  The sacrament of baptism is the INSTRUMENTAL cause of justification and our "merciful God who washes and sanctifies gratuitously" is the EFFICIENT cause. But in what we call Baptism of Desire, God washes and sanctifies DIRECTLY rather than instrumentally (using an instrument). 

THIS IS THE MAIN POINT OF YOUR ERROR. Nowhere in the council, or in any othe scriptures or in any document of the ordinary or extraordinary magisterium is it taught that God bypasses the instrumental causes he has SET IN PLACE. Trent does not teach such a thing, so I do not know why you mention it. Trent nowhere teaches that God abandons the instrumental cause for the sole efficient cause. Nor could he: For he has made the instrumental cause NECESSARY. How then can the Lord establish one thing and then disestablish it at other times? God does not work that way, he always maintains the integrity of the means he establishes that pertain to salvation!


God has commanded us to use the Sacrament of Baptism, that is the commanded instrument, but God has the freedom to act directly, outside the command that He has given MAN, in circumstances He foresees and permits.

NOPE. This is not taught by the church. The church teaches, rightly, that the Sacraments do not bind God. BUT, he has bound HIMSELF to them, inasmuch as he WILLED them to be the means by which he would communicate his grace. Or is God fickle? Or is he too weak to work within HIS established means? If God is REALLY sovereign, then he can bring about the salvation of ANYBODY using the MEANS he has established, right? And if that is the case, is it not more perfect to bring to completion using the established means, or is it more perfect to bypass the means in order to bring to completion? Obviously, the more perfect way is to not only achieve the end desired (salvation) but to achieve it in the WAY it was established (solely through baptism).

In baptism of desire the "voto" is needed before God baptizes directly,

There is no biblical or magisterial evidence to support the notion that God baptizes directly. Hence it can only be speculation, and BAD speculation at that, ESPECIALLY when HE instituted the sacraments as necessary.

just as "voto" is needed before sacramental baptism. In both cases the "voto" is not the instrument.  Baptism of desire is an exceptional case and the words "or its desire" should not be expected to occur or to be explained everywhere baptism is mentioned. When baptism (the sacrament) is described as an instrument, this does not rule out the possibility of God acting directly.

Yeah it does, inasmuch as it rules out the possibility of God willing what he will not absolutely uphold. God is not a God of change, but he upholds what he establishes at all times. God is SUBJECT to his will; and he has WILLED that men be saved through baptism. He CANNOT do otherwise, because he CANNOT will otherwise. He CANNOT will in opposition to his will.

Or do you expect a world-wide flood sometime soon? ;D He can't flood the earth again, because he CANNOT WILL in contradiction to himself.


"Gregory" Wrote: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.

I repeat, God who is the efficient cause does not have to use an instrument. 

Of Necessity, no, he does not. But HE HAS WILLED TO DO SO. An THERE IS NO EVIDENCE that he wills the contrary. He cannot.

The mere desire of Baptism does not justify,

Thank you.  ;D

but rather God who justifies the soul. He does use the instrument of the Sacrament of Baptism in by far the majority of cases, it is the command, it is what is spoken of in most places (baptism of desire is obviously NOT explicitly spoken of each time the sacrament is spoken of).  But God can make an exception.  HE can justify without water. 

No, he cannot, not after the Establishment of the Church on Pentecost. Because his will is SOVEREIGN and absolute. and he has WILLED that none should enter into heaven who do not have the sacramental character of water baptism. Read Rev. 22:14-16.


# POINT 6 rating the Catechism of the Council of Trent ################
"Gregory" Wrote:As for the Catechism of the Council of Trent

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...

It is the most reliable and authoritative "document put forth by the magisterium"  fairly shortly after the Council.  Its statements and interpretation of the Council are authoritative and for more  reliable than OURS.   I try to rely on the Catechism.

YOu DO? Okay, Good, then here ya go:

Baptism Made Obligatory After Christ's Resurrection

"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."


ALL who are to be saved MUST MUST MUST be baptized. It's an obligation. Failure to meet obligation? WHo knows? But Heaven's out of the case. NO sacramental seal, no heaven.

***************************************************************************
# POINT 7 NECESSITY OF BAPTISM -- NOT DENIED BY BAPTISM OF DESIRE ##
***************************************************************************
Truths that GOOD CATHOLICS WHO BELIEVE IN BAPTISM OF DESIRE ALSO BELIEVE BECAUSE THEY ARE A PART OF THE FAITH

These truths are taught by the Council and by the Catechism (see your previous post for quotes)

* EVERYONE is obliged to receive baptism to be saved
* BAPTISM IS NECESSARY FOR ALL
* GOD COMMANDS THE USE OF WATER, THE MOST COMMON SUBSTANCE
* All must be regenerated to God through the grace of Baptism (Christians or infidels) or they are born to eternal misery.

St. Alphonsus Ligouri and the Catechism and Popes (speaking infallibly or OTHERWISE) and many theologians and Catholic sources long before our modern times were NOT post-modern-fuzzy-sentimentalists-who-were-a-little-careless-about-their-faith-and-didn't-know-how-to-interpret-Trent-as-well-as-you-or-just-forgot-about-the-necessity-of-baptism. They are just UNDERSTANDING what you are MISSING about the meaning of NECESSARY for GOD and for MAN.  They just remembered that  "receiving baptism" can be "receiving baptism of desire", even if the sacrament itself requires water and is commanded for life.

Man uses the word "unless" and "necessary"  allowing for an deliberately unspoken exception - and so can God when speaking to US. We say "water is necessary for tomatoes to grow", and it IS truly necessary, yet God may provide a miraculous exception.   A mother may say "Unless you get in the car in 1 minute no dessert for you", and she is not lying or forgetful,  yet if the child twists his ankle, she makes an exception.  God ALLOWS men to "twist their ankle" on the way to obey a command, and does not count this a sin.  It doesn't matter that God has absolute power and can foresee everything, He still can allow such impossibility for a man, and can make an exception.  God is more merciful than a mother. Unlike the mother, God does not just "let you get away with it" - FAR FROM IT.  But if He wills it He CAN step in and sanctify you directly.

# POINT 8 Catechism backs up what is said in Council  on dispostion for baptism ###
"Gregory" Wrote:The following quotes from the Catechism of Trent also ENTIRELY back up my point:
<To shorten this, these seem to be the main points to back up yours>

- the faithful need to be taught dispositions for baptism, first of all:
* the DESIRE and INTENT to recive it (should not be forced)
* Besides a wish (desire) to be baptized, FAITH is also needed

And, in your final recap:

  * desire to receive baptism is only a first step, a disposition, and does not justify in itself
  * one sole instrumental cause of our justification, sacramental baptism

I think my thoughts about the Council also apply to the Catechism. To reiterate:
In baptism of desire,  the desire (and all the same dispositions as for the sacrament) is followed by God's baptizing, without water, that is without any instrument, but directly. The human desire is not enough.  God must give the justifying grace of baptism.

# POINT 9 Catechism teaches Baptism of Desire, but you disagree with it #####

The Catechism of the Council of Trent clearly supports Baptism of Desire. The following quote speaks of  an adult for whom baptism by water is impossible:

"Catechism of the Council of Trent" Wrote:"... should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness."

I think this section is completely out of sync with all the rest, which tells me that it is speculation.

You hesitate to admit you disagree with this , arguing that "even if the Catechism were not in error...it is entirely questionable whether such a one would go to heaven at all"
Basically you really do disagree with the Catechism.  I trust the Catechism and ITS interpretation of the Council, thank you.

# POINT 10 NO FORGIVENESS OF SINS OUTSIDE THE CHURCH  ####

The following is my reasoning, and something like the reasoning of Msgr. Joseph Clinton Fenton in his book "The Catholic Church and Salvation":   Monsignor Joseph Clifford Fenton (January 16, 1906 - July 7, 1969), a priest of the diocese of Springfield, Massachusetts, was professor of fundamental dogmatic theology at the Catholic University of America and editor of the American Ecclesiastical Review (1943–1963).[1] He is considered one of the most outstanding American Catholic theologians of the 20th century, serving as a peritus for Cardinal Ottaviani at the Second Vatican Council. He was also Secretary of the Catholic Theological Society of America.[2].
(from wikipedia)  He fought the Vatican II changes.  He was no post-modernist liberal.

A catechumen who has faith and dies on the road to baptism - perhaps even martyred - is INDEED NOT A MEMBER OF THE CHURCH. And OUTSIDE THE CHURCH THERE IS NO SALVATION.  But how can you say such a man is ABSOLUTELY AND IN EVERY SENSE "OUTSIDE THE CHURCH"? There is also NO FORGIVENESS OF SINS OUTSIDE THE CHURCH.  But a man "availed to grace and righteousness" (which can't be had without faith),  MUST have had his sins forgiven. Doesn't that meant that he is INSIDE the Church insofar as he is forgiven, and heading towards membership? I can't see this any other way when I accept Trent, the Catechism of the Council of Trent, and so many other Catholic sources.

There is no other way to be saved than within the church. There is no way to be made a member of the Church, which IS the mystical body of Christ, other than by baptism. Therefore, there is NO salvation except through baptism. If the person REALLY desired Christ, they would have been baptized. IN fact, it may be a just judgement on the part of God for their hidden sinfulness: Ananias and Saphira come to mind. I am not willing to concede that all who die on the way to the baptismal font die in saintly dispositions. Only God can judge the heart of man: But I will take Christ at HIS words: No sacramental Character: No salvation.



[/quote]


Re: Another EENS, please be patient... - Gregory I - 06-29-2011

Where you at Doce? :laughing:

Another thing to keep in mind: BOD advocates always seem to stress the (erroneous) golden rule that "God can do whatever he wants." Well, if that is the case, then God has no need for BOD and out the window it goes.

God canno simply do ANYthing, he can only do those things in accordance with his will and consonant with his nature.

Therefore, the question becomes, is it consonant with the will of God, and in accordance with his nature, to establish something as a necessity, THE FULL CONSEQUENCES OF WHICH HE KNOWS, and then abrogate it for those who have apparently slipped through the salvific cracks?

When Christ established baptism, he knew what he was doing. He needed no plan b. He KNEW of the millions who would die without it, justly condemned. And he made no special provision for them himself. The CHURCH is the sole provision for the salvation of men; and the ONLY way into this church is through faith and baptism conjoined. Pope Pius XII taught thus in the ordinary magisterium in Mystici Corporis Christi.

Unless you say God needed a plan b, because he didn't really fully take into account the implications of his establishing something as restrictive as baptism! :o
It's almost like it's possible that Jesus meant ONLY what he said!!!! :pray: Lord save us, what novelty. :pazzo:


Oh, and for Wulfrano, here is the official letter stating that Fr. Feeney reconciled with Rome before his death.


Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei

N. 343/98
Rome, 27 October 1998


"Dear ______,

We wish to acknowledge receipt of your document, Statements and Allegations Made By Some Australian Members of The Society of St. Pius X, which you sent to His Eminence Cardinal Ratzinger for evaluation. It has been transmitted to this Pontifical Commission as dealing with matters that come within our particular competence.

First of all, we thank God that you have been able to be Sufficiently objective about the claims of the Society of St. Pius X to leave it and return to full communion with the Church. We recognize that this has been a long journey for you and your wife and we trust that all that you have experienced has helped you to be a better Catholic, aware of the wounds of the Church in its members on earth, but even more conscious of its indefectibility.

You will have noted that we are that very Pontifical Commission referred to in Father Jean Violette's letter to you of 21 January 1995 as made up of "liberals, modernists who have infiltrated the positions of authority in the Church and who are using their authority to do away with Tradition..." We trust that you will now understand that this is not a fair description of us or of our often difficult and delicate work.

We will now attempt to address ourselves to your questions in the order in which you have raised them.

a. The Pope is the supreme legislator in the Church. In an Apostolic Letter which he issued motu proprio (on his own initiative) he declared that

Mons. Lefebvre and the priests Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson and Alfonso de Galarreta, have incurred the grave penalty of excommunication envisaged by ecclesiastical law. (Cf. Code of Canon Law, can. 1382).

Those mentioned above who are still living and have not asked pardon from the Church for the ill which they have caused are still under the censure of excommunication.

b. While the priests of the Society of St. Pius X are validly ordained, they are also suspended a divinis, that is they are forbidden by the Church from celebrating the Mass and the sacraments because of their illicit (or illegal) ordination to the diaconate and the priesthood without proper incardination (cf. canon 265). In the strict sense there are no "lay members" of the Society of St. Pius X, only those who frequent their Masses and receive the sacraments from them.

While it is true that participation in the Mass at the chapels of the Society of St. Pius X does not of itself constitute "formal adherence to the schism", such adherence can come about over a period of time as one slowly imbibes a schismatic mentality which separates itself from the teaching of the Supreme Pontiff and the entire Catholic Church classically exemplified in A Rome and Econe Handbook which states in response to question 14 that the SSPX defends the traditional catechisms and therefore the Old Mass, and so attacks the Novus Ordo, the Second Vatican Council and the New Catechism, all of which more or less undermine our unchangeable Catholic faith.

It is precisely because of this schismatic mentality that this Pontifical Commission has consistently discouraged the faithful from attending Masses celebrated under the aegis of the Society of St. Pius X.

b. Thus far the Church has not officially declared what Constitutes "formal adherence to the schism" inaugurated by the late Archbishop Lefebvre (cf. Ecclesia Dei 5, c), but the Code of Canon Law defines schism as "refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him" (canon 751). The above citation together with the other documentation which you have included in your dossier and your own exchange of correspondence with Father Violette clearly indicate the extent to which many in authority in the Society of St. Pius X corroborate that definition.

c. It may still be difficult to characterize the entire Society of St. Pius X, but the documentation which you have submitted witnesses to a consistent condemnation of the new Mass, the Pope and anyone who disagrees with the authorities of the Society in the smallest degree. Such behaviour is not consistent with the practice of the Catholic faith.

d. We reiterate what we stated above: "The Pope is the Supreme legislator in the Church." Communion with him is a fundamental, non-negotiable hallmark of Catholicism which is not determined by those who set themselves up to judge him, but by the Pope himself (cf. Second Vatican Council's Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen Gentium #22-25).

e. The question of the doctrine held by the late Father Leonard Feeney is a complex one. He died in full communion with the Church and many of his former disciples are also now in full communion while some are not. We do not judge it opportune to enter into this question.

f. You want to know how authoritative our responses are. We Must indicate to you that this letter accurately reflects the practice and pastoral solicitude of this Pontifical Commission, but it is not an official declaration of the Holy See. Those declarations are fundamentally limited to Quattuor abhinc annos of 3 October 1984 and Ecclesia Dei of 2 July 1988, both of which were published in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis. The Holy Father does not ordinarily make detailed statements on very specific questions such as those which you have submitted. He entrusts such responses to the variou dicasteries and organisms of the Holy See which have competence in particular areas. With regard to the matters which you have brought up, the competence belongs to this Pontifical Commission.

g. The Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts rules primarily on the interpretation of the law. Any more Authoritative response to your questions than the one we have given would be more likely to come from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. The fact that that Congregation has transmitted your dossier to us indicates that at this time our response should be sufficient. Statements of dicasteries and organisms of the Holy See which touch on faith and morals are not considered infallible, but should be taken as norms of moral certitude.

i. Our response to your questions may be made public.



With prayerful best wishes I remain,
Sincerely yours in Christ,

(signed) Msgr. Camille Perl
Secretary


Re: Another EENS, please be patient... - Stubborn - 06-29-2011

Gregory 1 is the man!

Great stuff - thanks!


Re: Another EENS, please be patient... - UnamSanctam - 06-29-2011

(06-29-2011, 11:05 AM)Stubborn Wrote: Gregory 1 is the man!

Great stuff - thanks!

He and Doce have certainly put time and effort into posting.


Re: Another EENS, please be patient... - Doce Me - 06-29-2011

(06-29-2011, 01:09 PM)UnamSanctam Wrote:
(06-29-2011, 11:05 AM)Stubborn Wrote: Gregory 1 is the man!

Great stuff - thanks!

He and Doce have certainly put time and effort into posting.

I think Gregory I wins!  I can't keep up.


Re: Another EENS, please be patient... - Doce Me - 06-29-2011

Even those you say agree with Father Feeney don't seem so sure, to say the least:

Was Bishop George Hay  so solidly against Baptism of Desire? Read:
"Bishop George Hay, from The Sincere Christian Wrote:Q. 28. But, in the case proposed, if a person, in his last moments shall receive the light of Faith from God, and embrace it with all his heart, would this suffice to make him a member of the True Church in the sight of God?

  A. Most and undoubtedly; the case is the same in this as in that of Baptism. Though Jesus Christ expressly says, "Except a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God," [John 3: 5] which establishes the absolute necessity of Baptism for salvation, yet, suppose a heathen should be instructed in the Faith of Christ, and embrace it with all his heart, but die suddenly without Baptism, or be taken away by infidel friends, or put in absolute impossibility of receiving Baptism, and die in the above dispositions with sincere repentance and a desire of Baptism, this person will undoubtedly receive all the fruits of Baptism from God, and therefore is said to be Baptized in desire. In like manner, suppose a person brought up in a false religion embraces with all his heart the light of True Faith, which God gives him in his last moments-----as it is absolutely impossible for him in that state "to join the external Communion of the Church in the eyes of men, "yet he certainly will be considered united to her in the sight of God, by means of the True Faith which he embraces, and his desire of being united to the Church, were it in his power.

Was Father Michael Muller so solidly against Baptism of Desire?  Read:
"Father Michael Muller, C.Ss.R  God the Teacher of Mankind: Grace and the Sacraments" Wrote:8. Can the baptism of water be ever supplied?

When a person cannot receive the baptism of water, it may be supplied by the baptism of desire, or by the baptism of blood. Almighty God is goodness itself. Hence He wishes that all men should be saved. But, in order to be saved, it is necessary to pass, by means of baptism, from the state of sin to the state of grace. Infants, therefore, who die unbaptized, can never enter the kingdom of heaven. The case of grown persons is somewhat different; for, when grown persons cannot be actually baptized before death, the baptism of water may be supplied by what is called the baptism of desire.

There is an infidel. He has become acquainted with the true faith. He most earnestly desires baptism. But he cannot have any one to baptize him before he dies. Now, is such a person lost because he dies without the baptism of water? No; in this case, the person is said to be baptized in desire.

Was Orestes Brownson against Baptism of Desire? Read:
"Orestes Brownson,  The Great Question -- Part II" Wrote:It is evident, both from Bellarmine and Billuart, that no one can be saved unless he belongs to the visible communion of the Church, either actually or virtually, and also that the salvation of catechumens can be asserted only because they do so belong ; that is, because they are in the vestibule, for the purpose of entering,  have already entered in their will and proximate disposition. St. Thomas teaches with regard to these, in case they have faith working by love, that all they lack is the reception of the visible sacrament in re ; but if they are prevented by death from receiving it in re before the Church is ready to administer it, that God supplies the defect, accepts the will for the deed, and reputes them to be baptized. If the defect is supplied, and God reputes them to be baptized, they are so in effect, have in effect received the visible sacrament, are truly members of the external communion of the Church, and therefore are saved in it, not out of it. *(footnote: * Summa 3, Q. G8, a. 2. corp. ad 2. et ad 3.)

Bellarmine, Billuart, Perrone, &c, in speaking of persons as belonging to the soul and not to the body, mean, it is evident, not persons who in no sense belong to the body, but simply those who, though they in effect belong to it, do not belong to it in the full and strict sense of the word, because they have not received the visible sacrament in re. All they teach is simply that persons may be saved who have not received the visible sacrament in re ; but they by no means teach that persons can be saved without having received the visible sacrament at all. There is no difference between their view and ours, for we have never contended for any thing more than this ; only we think, that, in these times especially, when the tendency is to depreciate the external, it is more proper to speak of them as belonging in effect to the body, as they certainly do, than it is to speak of them simply as belonging to the soul; for the fact the most important to be insisted on is, not that it is possible to be saved without receiving the visible sacrament in re, but that it is impossible to be saved without receiving the visible sacrament at least in voto et proximo, disposition.

The case* of catechumens disposes of all who are substantially in the same category.    The only persons, not catechumens, who can be in the same category, are persons who have been validly baptized, and who stand in the same relation to the sacrament of Reconciliation that catechumens do to the sacrament of Faith.



Re: Another EENS, please be patient... - UnamSanctam - 06-29-2011

(06-29-2011, 06:43 PM)Doce Me Wrote:
(06-29-2011, 01:09 PM)UnamSanctam Wrote:
(06-29-2011, 11:05 AM)Stubborn Wrote: Gregory 1 is the man!

Great stuff - thanks!

He and Doce have certainly put time and effort into posting.

I think Gregory I wins!  I can't keep up.

Its not a contest. Its about the truth. I think it is nice that you both have such strong fortitude to get through these long posts. I just don't seem to have the attention span or time. God bless.