holy Trent infallibly taught that Justification IS Grace by which alone is Salvation.
#11
didishroom Wrote:
Quote:Actually I don't call myself a traditionalist and I don't really like the term. I follow Tradition though and therefore the term fits and they (and you?) follow Fr. Feeney therefore the term fits. "If the shoe fits...".
How about you understand the proper use of pronouns? First you say, "we call ourselves "traditionalists." Then you say, "I don't call myself a "traditonalist." When you say "our" you are including yourself.
Don't personally call myself one. But that doesn't mean I won't or don't associate with the name as generally title.

Quote:So you correct me and say you don't think of yourself as a traditionalist and don't like the name( though you admit you follow tradition). But in the same statement, you disregard the same courtesy to the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, even though I gave the exact reasons for not calling them "Feeneyites" as you gave to me for calling yourself a "traditionalist." Are you seriously aware of the contradictions you just made?
What is this insane "courtesy" you have an obsession with? I don't care what people call me as longer as it's truthful and to call me a traditionalist or a Lefebrvists or Papist or Roman or whatever other truthful term is truthful. Feeneyites shouldn't be so worried if they believe they and their theological leader possess the truth. That they have a problem with it says a lot to me but nonetheless they may still be truly ignorant. I don't judge their interior knowledge of theology or doctrine. Mine is not to do that but simply to teach the ignorant as one of the works of mercy.
 
Quote:
Quote:It doesn't matter if they don't like the term, that is what they are. And telling the truth is courtesy.
But you don't like being called a "traditionalist" and you correct me when I refer to you as one, even after you originally called yourself one.
that I don't like doesn't mean I don't accept it as genuine title. 
Quote:So you are admitting that Fr. Feeney's theology was his personal opinion and that BOD was never infallibly defined by the Church?
Yes to the first and yes and no to the latter. Yes, it was his personal opinion. No, I believe it was infallibly declared by the Church at Trent. I don't know if it was made a Dogma though. That is left to better minds. There was at least an universal theological consensus through and at Vatican Council II and I trust the Holy Ghost's protection of the Church from error. I trust orthodox, pious and holy Doctors and Popes of the Church more than Fr. Feeney's private opinon.

Quote:And if so you cannot compare that to this A Call to Action
O I cannot? I just did, and because both are errors in judgment.

Quote:if they, as you say, do support abortion as the Church makes no compromise on the subject.
The Church as in what? Her Divine Element or Her human element, the hierarchy/laity on earth? And neither has the Church made theological compromise with Fr. Feeney's opinion. 

Quote:St. Thomas Aquinas died beliving error(denial of the Immaculate Conception) but remained within the Church, as the dogma had not yet been defined and he was free to accept/reject it.
But it had not reached universal theological consensus at his time either. BOD and BOB has and had even at Fr. Feeney's time. You fail to accept the Universal Ordinary Teachings of the Church's Magisterium.

Quote:And since you seem to admit that BOD is NOT infallibly defined then Fr. Feeny, like Thomas Aquinas, had the right to deny it, unless the Extraordinary Magesterium defines it as an article of Faith(which I don't believe will happen.)
It is not dogmatically defined. That doesn't mean it is not infallible (or even true despite not being infallible). We have to believe the truth, Didishroom, not just what is infallibly defined because that is the purpose of our intellect. That water is H20 or oxygen exists are not dogmas but would do deny these truths?
 
Quote:Hmmm..I'm not sure what you're getting at.
I'm trying to get at your lack of using your intellect or using it rightly. 
Quote:First off, if any Catholic willfully denies the Immaculate Conception when they know the Church's position on it then they are guilty of heresy. Dogmas must be believed by all, not just priest, so I'm not sure why you focused on priests there.
And not only the solemnly defined dogmas of our Faith but as Pope Pius XII taught in one of his encyclical (I'll see if I can find out which one) also the universal ordinary teachings of Holy Mother Church. 
Quote:We know Lutherans are not in the Church because the Church has delcared it so.
Quote:Yes but we also know because they don't believe the same Faith as we do. Hence we'd know even if the hierarchy had not declared them outside. And if not, then how did the hierarchy tell who was Lutheran and who was Catholic before they declared them so? You have circular reasoning. The Lutherans are outside because they deny the Faith, not just because the Church declared them to be. 
Quote:She has never did that with the Fr. Feeney or his Order.
Oh but Pope Pius XII did excommunicate him for some reason. You conveniently refuse to accept that. Granted Pope Paul VI annulled that excommunication, just as Pope Benedict XVI has withdrawn the decree against those of the Bishops of the SSPX. Both theological questions are still not completely defined though. Now the SSPX's has backing in the evil fruits of that which they oppose. I see Saints and Doctors even the Angelic Doctor who taught what Fr. Feeney opposed. 
Quote:And as I pointed out earlier, the Vatican(not just local Ordinaries) has affirmed Fr.'s and his Order's status in the Church.
And as so many Catholic don't realize approval even by the Vatican is not infallible for it is a disciplinary matter, not doctrinal.

Quote:
Quote:To judge a person's actions is not to judge his will. "By their fruits you shalt know them."
And whose fruits are we referring to?
We? I was referring to much of the present hierarchy's fruits. 
Quote:The breakout of all the rampant heresies of liberalism and relativism and indifference toward Holy Religion in our Holy Mother the Catholic Church. If you don't know about this then just hang it up or get check out your average Parish.
Before Vatican II and the unleash of modernist theology and false ecumenism in the open, Fr. Feeney was taking on the liberals and publically attacking Inter-Faith meetings. Yes, false ecumenism was not born at Vatican II. It just had a different name and was more subtle but it was there. Fr. was told to drop the doctrine of EENS(there was no discussion of BOD or BOB at this tiem) for it lead to "bigotry." Now if that isn't liberalism, I don't know what is.
Bigotry? What is your source those close to Fr. Feeney or Pope Pius XII? So what SAINT Alphonsus a liberalist and modernist for teaching the doctrine, how about any of the other number of Saints? Your logic is false. Two errors don't make a truth. The heresies of Modernism and Liberalism do not negate these doctrines of Holy Mother Church.
Quote:
Quote:And you go against the dogmatic interpretation of Holy Mother Church. That is what you in your pride refuse to accept because then you would have to give up your heresy and sins.
So wait a minute..earlier you established that BOD as being salvific in the place of BOW is not infallibly defined by the Church, but now because of my denial of a non-dogmatic opinion, I am a heretic and prideful.
Yes, you are obligated to believe the ordinary teachings of Holy Mother Church not just Her Sacred Dogmas as I have said.
Quote:I hope you understand the gravity of what you're doing here. I await an apology and retraction of this unwarranted accusation which disagrees with what you wrote just a few paragraphs above.
I stand by what I said. You must accept the teachings of Holy Mother Church in the Council of Trent.

Quote:Before you start accusing people of heresy(oopps..too late!) you should understand what they actually believe first.
Neither Fr. Feeney, the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary nor myself have I denied anything which you have just listed.
I do, I have studied both sides of this controversy. They logically deny that the possession of Sanctifying Grace is alone what merits Heaven for us. 

Quote:Actually they are by their very definition, because by definition they are the Sacramental Graces of the Sacrament of Baptism, which is includes Sanctifying Grace which alone is salvific. Whether the existence of such means is defined as divinely revealed truth yet I cannot yet say from my studying but they are reasonable conclusions.
No where in documents of the EO will you find anything that says grace alone is necessary for salvation.
What's the EO? The local Council of Orange taught it and so does Trent? Do you deny that Sanctifying Grace is necessary for Salvation?

Quote:And your last statement is showing the fallacy of your whole argument.
At first you admit BOD as never been infallible defined.
Then I'm a prideful heretic for not accepting it.
But now you say you don't know if it a divinely revealed truth.
There is no fallacy. But you are in error. Divinely revealed truth is not the only things that has to be given assent if known.

Quote:So which is it? I don't think you even know and whatever answer I get will just contradict a previous statement of yours.  
It is a doctrine of the Universal Ordinary Magisterium and therefore obligatory for Catholic belief.
 
Quote:
Quote:She say Baptism, ie Cleansing, from sin, not the Sacrament of Baptism. Baptism by Blood and Baptism by the Holy Ghost are Baptism. Get it? What is so hard to understand about that? You have been deceived, my brother.
Forgive my bluntness, brother, but try reading the actual documents themselves instead of adding your own words and interpritations to Trent.
It's not my interpretation but merely a reasonable conclusion, I may be wrong on this. 

Quote:If anyone says that the SACRAMENTS of the New Law are not necessary for salvation but are superfluous: let him be anathema. Trent.
No one here is saying that the Sacraments are superfluous or not necessary for salvation. The reception of the Graces of the Sacraments are only by virtue of the Sacraments themselves. And why don't you quote the WHOLE Canon:
CANON IV. If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous; and that, without them, or without the desire thereof, men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification; though all (the sacraments) are not indeed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema.

Quote:Holy BAPTISM holds the first place among all the SACRAMENTS because it is the gateway to the spiritual life...and since death entered the universe through the first man, "unless we are reborn of water and Spirit, we cannot," as the Truth says, enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Council of Florence.
Again you interpret Holy Mother Church's into error.
 
Quote:The problem is that you are assuming that BOD and BOB already exist so that when the Church says, "baptism", she is not referring exclusively to the sacrament of water.
Actually you are assuming that they didn't exist and that Holy Mother Church is referring to exclusively to the Sacrament. You are the one with the error and the Saints confirm it.

Quote:This is false and she gives no implication that when referring to baptism she means something other than the sacrament. The burden of proof is on you to prove that Trent and other such documents mean something else.
Of couse She did. But She also infallibly declared "or the desire thereof". You sin, if you comprehend what you are doing in denying this.

Quote:The Church only left open the debate about whether this was publicly revealed, not whether or not it is Catholic doctrine.
Where did you get this from? Dogma comes from public Revelation not private revelation. If it was not a doctrine of the Apostles then it is something we cannot be sure of either way, and only God knows.[/quote]Dogmas are those doctrines which are solemnly defined after the death of St. John the Apostle by the Popes as divinely revealed truths. Public Divine Revelation ended with St. John's death though. New truths cannot be created, but our holy Mother the Church has not come down through history with all Her Sacred Dogmas pre-defined, She defines Her pre-existing Truths, Her Doctrines, by organic development. This is why St. Paul says heresies are necessary so that holy Church will define Her Dogmas against error: 1 Corinthians 11:19 For there must be also heresies: that they also, who are approved, may be made manifest among you.

Quote:It is and always will be a matter of Catholic theology because the Church Herself says She cannot judge on the matter of the interior forum in Her Divine Faith. It is impossible to judge the interior forum of another and therefore you don't know if they had Grace or not at death.
By this logic the Church cannot say that anyone goes to hell. But she does.[/quote]She does not and cannot judge WHO has gone to hell but She can and has defined that there is a hell and how to avoid it.

Quote:We declare that a great number of those who are condemned to eternal punishment suffer that everlasting calaminity because of ignorance of those mysteries of faith which must be known and believed in order to be numbered among the Elect. Pope Benedict XIV Acerbe Nimis
She cannot define which specific persons are in hell though. 

Quote:Neither Fr. Feeney or his Order said specific people were in hell. It's true we can never know what is in someone's heart, but at the same time we cannot deny dogma.
If you can never know another person's heart on earth then you cannot know for sure that non-sacramentally baptized souls go to hell, can you?

Quote:It is the Holy Spirit, not men, Who is declaring that all must have the Catholic Faith and be baptized into the Church in order to enter heaven.
In what sense though?

Quote:While saints are great for explaining dogma they do not define dogma nor determine what is or not dogma.
Wrong! Dogmas are the explanations themselves. Some Saints teach both the Church's doctrines, that is, possible future Sacred Dogmas, along with the present Sacred Dogmas, just as the some Saints taught our Most Blessed Mother's Immaculate Conception before it was defined as a Sacred Dogma in 1854 by Bl. Pius IX. 

Quote:"The Church has never accepted even the most holy and most eminent Doctor, and does not now accept even a single one of them, as the principal source of truth. The Church certainly considers Thomas and Augustine great Doctors, and she accords them the highest praise; but she
recognizes infallibility only in the inspired authors of the Sacred
Scriptures. By divine mandate, the interpreter and guardian of the Sacred
Scriptures, depository of Sacred Tradition living within her, the Church
alone is the entrance to salvation; she alone, by herself, and under the
protection and guidance of the Holy Ghost, is the source of truth."

Pope Pius XII
Allocution to the Gregorian University, Oct. 17, 1953
Will you stop it? No Catholic here is claiming that the Doctors are the principal source of truth but they are special guardians and promoters of truth as doctors or 'healers of doctrine' as the title implies. They worked in sanctity to restore and develop true Catholic doctrine. Otherwise the Church, the Pillar and Foundation of Truth, would not have entitled them with the name.
Quote:
Quote:And you are sounding like an inept fool who has never read any document of the Church con[c]erning salvation but believes he has the right to judge others of said issue.
I think I should be the one saying that. I think the fact that I just posted three infallible statements concerning salvation proves that I'v read a document on salvation.
You are the one that said that I just messed up my post's quoting. 
Quote:If you're going to start calling people "fools" you should be careful what you write first, as I've already pointed out numerous contradictions you've made.
I don't call you a fool. You called me a fool. I forgive you though. These debates can get emotion. 

Quote:How have I privately interprited them? I take them at face value!
And you wonder how? As the saying goes "no judge a book by its cover".

 
Quote:If you do not desist I will report your behavior to the administrators. I'm all for discussion and arguing but no matter how rude I amy have been in other posts I've never actually called someone a heretic. That is unexcusable.
Then I will explain your error to them.

Quote:And I think if anyone is overemphasizing one truth over another it would be you. You seem to overemphasize the power of grace itself and God's love that you ignore the Church's declaration on the necessity of the sacraments themselves.
You're kidding, right?!

I exclude no doctrine of Faith.[/quote]Yes, you do.

Quote:I do fully accept that due to God's grace and love, anyone can enter the Church any moment before death, but now how you say so.
It's not just how I say, it is how our Holy Mother the Church says.

Quote:Only those are to be considered real members of the Church who have been regenerated in the waters of Baptism, and profess the True Faith...Consequently, as in the real assembly of the faithful there can be one Body, one Lord and one Baptism. Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corpis
 
The Catholic Church, is the kingdom of Christ on earth..The gospels present this kingdom as one which men prepare to enter by peance, and cannot actually enter except by Faith and by baptism,which though an external rite, signifies and prodcues an interior regeneration. Pope Bl. Pius IX Quas Primas
Anyone quote splices and read something they want into the encyclical and writings of Saints and Popes. The Jansenists did the same.

Quote:See? These two popes make it clear it's only by baptism that we can enter heaven. Notice they do not refer to an ambiguous non-sacramental baptism which you mentioned, but the waters of Baptism and an external rite.
The Pope were teaching about the ordinary means of salvation. They are not unwarrantedly going to go into deep theological concepts. It's called the virtue of Prudence.

Quote:
Quote:Also do I need to remind you that the Catholic Church though a truly visible and organized perfect society is spiritual?
Yes, but there is only visible membership in the Church.
Really? And what about the invisible Saints in Heaven? They aren't members of the Church then?

Quote:There is no proof that Vatican II was infallible and we have this from the mouths of the very popes who presided over it.
Where did they say that? Source, please?
From reading the very opening documents, they declare it would not make use of extraorordinary dogmatic papal statements unless they express say so but Pope Paul VI also bound all the Catholic faithful to give their assent to the council at it's closing. Now don't quote me but I have been told that makes it an act of the ordinary universal Magisterium (the Pope union with all the Bishops).

Quote:Though I will also add, that while ambiguous I see no evidence that Vatican II is heretical and even if it so were I have no authority to judge it so.
Then why I quoted was not heresy, right? You are the one being inconstant. Is Vatican II error or not? Heresy or not?

Quote:That being said, I am fully aware of this passage in this Council. So are The Slaves and none of them disagree with it.
Then they either deceive, are insane, believe contradictory statements, or (and I hope) believe that Angels will come to baptize such souls with real natural water before death.

Quote:The problem with this passage is that it does NOT say that a person can be saved without baptism. It doesn't say exactly how this person will be saved, so if this is reconciled with the rest of dogmatic defintionts then we must assume that they are saved by baptism.
False. Because you are assuming that it is already a dogmatic definition that baptism by water is the only mode of baptism. But the Church has never defined that through any Pope or Council.

Quote:The second part, which you did not highlight, shows what it truly means.
 
Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life. Whatever good or truth is found amongst them is looked upon by the Church as a preparation for the Gospel.
I knew I should have included that. But it lends more evidence to BOD/B for it says "with His grace" and not "with baptism by water" or "and with baptism by water".
 
Quote:This passage affirms that God does not deny us what we need to get to heaven. If the Church says we need baptism than this shows that God will give us baptism or at least the opportunity to receive it(whether we receive it or not is up to us). Also look closely as to what it says: have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God. And their "good" but ignorant lives are seen as a preparation for the Gospel.
I see what you mean, but you are still assuming that it is a defined dogma that only Baptism by water is necessary. 
 
Quote:If anything Lumen Gentium affirms my position here, not contradict it.
That is only your private fallible opinion. The Church has never said that. And even our Holy Father as Cardinal (and so fallibly) has said that I can hold my belief.
Reply
#12
Quote:CHAPTER IV. A description is introduced of the Justification of the impious, and of the Manner thereof under the law of grace.

By which words, a description of the Justification of the impious is indicated,-as being a translation, from that state wherein man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace, and of the adoption of the sons of God, through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Saviour. And this translation, 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.

Most of us here are veterans in debates on this passage from the session of the Council of Trent on justification. We’ve all heard the arguments concerning the Holy Innocents and the Good Thief by those who support an implicit BOD theory. Here’s a typical example:

Quote:Do you accept the fact that all nations (i.e., all peoples) have not yet been taught the word of Christ, and therefore have not yet been baptized?

Baptism became obligatory only after Christ's Ascension to Heaven. Since there was no baptism before this time, how were the righteous before God saved? And while the Twelve went to spread the word, there were nations who were yet to receive the Gospel and thus still ignorant of it.

How were these saved, or were they damned because they did not have the Faith and were not baptized? The strict interpetation of EENS states that these poor people were not saved, since EENS to these rigorists means membership in the Church only through water baptism.

This is not what the Church teaches. There are still people in the world who are invincibly ignorant of what the Catholic faith is. If they knew and had the charity to abide in this faith, they would surely seek baptism. Will God in His justice and mercy condemn them?

I have cited that highlighted part from Trent to point out the irrelevance chronologically of the Old Testament saints, the Holy Innocents, and the Good Thief to the implied BOD argument now: they simply do not support it in these latter days, after the proclamation of the gospel.

But it occurred to me that the highlighted passage of Trent not only negates any relevance now of the Old Testament saints, the Holy Innocents, and the Good Thief as a chronological matter in understanding justification, but it also negates as a means now the manner of their justification. As to necessity of baptism, they had an “implicit desire” which means that they loved God and sought to do His will, and had they known of the necessity of baptism would have desired baptism and been baptized. The identity of the manner of the justification of those before the gospel with the alleged manner of justification of the "invincibly ignorant" now is highlighted in the argument of this person supporting the implied BOD theory.

If Trent indicates a change in means since the proclamation, and I think it clearly does, it thereby either precludes the same manner as justifying now and replaces it, or adds an additional means to the prior one. But I do not see how it can be read as just adding an additional means if it notes "cannot be effected" since the proclamation "without" and then just adds an additional means, baptism or the desire thereof, to what existed before. If it were just adding an additional means, its exclusive language would make no sense. I believe Trent therefore rather clearly indicates that the old means is no longer operative since the proclamation of the gospel.

The negative qualifier from Trent, “since the promulgation of the gospel, cannot be effected, without” is not only a chronological qualifier, but also a qualifier as to the manner of justification. If people could be justified in the same manner after the promulgation of the gospel as before, the qualifier is nullified and rendered nugatory. Clearly Trent says that justification is different now.

The interpretation of those who affirm the continuing power of implied baptism to justify seems to me to right out contradict Trent. This is a contradiction on a conceptual level. Trent says that you cannot be justified after the promulgation of the gospel in the same way as you could before.

Now, assume you could be justified by an explicit desire for the actual sacrament of baptism. One could rationally argue on a conceptual level (though the language of the section must be closely parsed) that such a state of affairs after the promulgation of the gospel would not contradict Trent, since the sacrament did not exist before the proclamation, and hence one could not have been saved by an explicit desire for it before the proclamation.

Leaving aside the issue of whether an explicit desire without the actual sacrament is sufficient, an “implied” desire for the sacrament clearly isn’t in the new dispensation.

I believe this is obvious and irrefutable.

How can “implied” baptism still be given credence and accepted after Trent? The very examples of the Old Testament saints, the Holy Innocents, and the Good Thief, which are offered in proof thereof, actually disprove it when the manner of their justification is considered in light of the infallible pronouncement of the Church in Trent, cited above.

tornpage


Reply
#13
It appears to me that non-"Feeneyites" may refer only to two infallible declarations made at the Council of Trent to support their position, which rests on a disjunctive interpretation of the aut in "sine lavacro regenerationis aut eius voto" (sess. VI, Decr. de Justificatione, cap. IV), and "sine [sacramentis] aut eorum voto" (sess. VII, Decr. de Sacramentis, can. IV).

In the light of the other infallible declarations made at the same Council (ie, in sess. VII, Decr. de Baptismo, can. II and V, that baptism is necessary for salvation, and that water is its true and necessary matter), what makes more sense: to read aut in a conjunctive sense; or to interpret it disjunctively, when the latter reading induces such contradictions as cease not to be debated?
Reply
#14
Godfirst,

Ok, I will attempt to try and answer your response. Though I must say it was very disorganized and I felt myself getting a headache from these very muddled, confusing and contradictory answers. I'm not insulting you or trying to pick a fight. If this is how it is going to go on I doubt I will be able to continue this conversation. INPEFESS had a strong debate but at least he was concise, and I could see where he was coming from.

 

Quote:What is this insane "courtesy" you have an obsession with? I don't care what people call me as longer as it's truthful and to call me a traditionalist or a Lefebrvists or Papist or Roman or whatever other truthful term is truthful. Feeneyites shouldn't be so worried if they believe they and their theological leader possess the truth. That they have a problem with it says a lot to me but nonetheless they may still be truly ignorant. I don't judge their interior knowledge of theology or doctrine. Mine is not to do that but simply to teach the ignorant as one of the works of mercy.
Manners are part of Christian Charity. If someone finds a term or label applied to them to be offensive, there is no reason why you should insist that they should be called that. Pope Benedict XV warned against labels or qualifers other than Catholic and Christian. By adding qualifers and labels to them, it presents them not as Catholics but something else: a strange or splinter sect. And they are neither of those things. I'm not going to argue this anymore.

Quote:Yes to the first and yes and no to the latter. Yes, it was his personal opinion. No, I believe it was infallibly declared by the Church at Trent. I don't know if it was made a Dogma though. That is left to better minds. There was at least an universal theological consensus through and at Vatican Council II and I trust the Holy Ghost's protection of the Church from error. I trust orthodox, pious and holy Doctors and Popes of the Church more than Fr. Feeney's private opinon.
IF it was infallibly defined by the Church, than it is dogma.


Quote:The Church as in what? Her Divine Element or Her human element, the hierarchy/laity on earth? And neither has the Church made theological compromise with Fr. Feeney's opinion.
Well if the Church has compromised on Fr. Feeney would that not mean that BOD is not dogma and that Catholics are free to disagree with it?


Quote:But it had not reached universal theological consensus at his time either. BOD and BOB has and had even at Fr. Feeney's time. You fail to accept the Universal Ordinary Teachings of the Church's Magisterium.
You cannot prove that there was a universal consensus at the time. Unless you have sworn testiment from all of those bishops at the time. That's why we have the Extraordinay Magesterium, and it has yet to act on this matter.
Quote:It is not dogmatically defined. That doesn't mean it is not infallible (or even true despite not being infallible). We have to believe the truth, Didishroom, not just what is infallibly defined because that is the purpose of our intellect. That water is H20 or oxygen exists are not dogmas but would do deny these truths?
Yes, it is true that the Ordinary Magesterium if it is universal in it's teaching can preach infallibly without it being dogmatically defined. However, like I said before there is no way to be entirely sure if something is universally taught, which is why have the Extraordinary Magesterium. But as you admitted it was not dogmatically defined, so as St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Bernard of Clairveaux were free to disbelieve the Immaculate Conception so is any Catholic who wishes to deny BOD. All Catholics must believe the Immaculate Conception because Bl. Pius IX defined it at the end of the 19th century. It had nothing to do with the Ordinary Magesterium.

Quote:I'm trying to get at your lack of using your intellect or using it rightly.
You don't have a right to insult other people for supposedly not using their intellect after writing this muddled nonsensical mess.

Quote:And not only the solemnly defined dogmas of our Faith but as Pope Pius XII taught in one of his encyclical (I'll see if I can find out which one) also the universal ordinary teachings of Holy Mother Church.
Yes, but like I said, there is no way to decide what the real consensus is on BOD. In fact with so much liberalism and heresy rampant there is no way to get a consensus on any dogma of the Church from the Ordinary Magesterium alone. And since there have been bishops supportive of Fr. Feeney and one declaring a book defending Fr.'s theology to be free from all moral and doctrinal error, there is definitely NOT a unanimous agreement on BOD. Which means we can only look to the Extraordinary Magesterium and since you admit that there has been no definition from them, then anyone is free to disregard BOD as being salvific in place of BOW.  
Quote:Oh but Pope Pius XII did excommunicate him for some reason. You conveniently refuse to accept that. Granted Pope Paul VI annulled that excommunication, just as Pope Benedict XVI has withdrawn the decree against those of the Bishops of the SSPX. Both theological questions are still not completely defined though. Now the SSPX's has backing in the evil fruits of that which they oppose. I see Saints and Doctors even the Angelic Doctor who taught what Fr. Feeney opposed.
Oh "for some reason." You don't even know why, but feel entitled to make criticisms about it. And no I don't accept it for "convenience sake." By Canon Law, the excommunication was invalid and all censures were removed by Paul VI as you admit. And this is all irrelevant as this discipline was for supposed disobedience not doctrine. And I see the popes opposed to the Angelic Doctor, and saints, including Fathers and Doctors who were against BOD. So what? It's not going to make you change your mind, so why should the others make me change mine? 
Quote:And as so many Catholic don't realize approval even by the Vatican is not infallible for it is a disciplinary matter, not doctrinal.
True, but it does make you wonder why the Church was willing to make sure Fr. Feeney die within the Church, without him recanting his theology when his was perhaps the most threatening to the ecumenism that was rampant at the time? You may not buy it, but it does make you think that the Church recognized how wrongly Fr. Feeney was treated for simply teaching Church dogma, and wanted to make sure Fr. died without censure but that it was done quietly so as not to risk embarrassment on their part.  
Quote:Bigotry? What is your source those close to Fr. Feeney or Pope Pius XII? So what SAINT Alphonsus a liberalist and modernist for teaching the doctrine, how about any of the other number of Saints? Your logic is false. Two errors don't make a truth. The heresies of Modernism and Liberalism do not negate these doctrines of Holy Mother Church.
Hmmm....I may not be, according to you, using my intellect, but at least I can sort of string a sentence together. But now to your question.During the hubub of the so-called Boston Heresy Case, Archbishop Cushing made a speech at Milton, Massachusetts and, "I cannot understand any Catholic who has any prejudice whatsoever against a Jew or any other non-Catholic. If there is any Catholic organization harboring such prejudices, I will assume the responsibility of remedying it. A Catholic cannot harbor animosity against men, women or children of another creed, nationality or color...some of the finest benefactors to the Boston Catholic Archdiocese are non-Catholics."This was directed at Fr. Feeney and St. Benedict Center for simply defending EENS. This whole issue came about when some of Fr.'s students, who were professors at Catholic university, including Fakir Mulaf(who is now Br. Francis and superior of one of the branches of Fr.'s Order), were fired for not renouncing EENS. Again, this was no debate on BOD or BOB as Fr. at this time still held them. This was simply on the matter of No Salvation Outside the Church. Their connection to Fr. Feeney and his defense of them was what prompted the censures against them. When these proffessors were fired, Fr. Keleher made a press release explaing why: They continued to speak in class and out of class on matters contrary to the traditional teaching of the Catholic Church, leading to bigotry and intolerance.  It was from these sources that Rome was informed of Fr. Feeney's "heresy", and the priest was not given a chance to defend himself. Archbishop Cushing even said in public concerning this matter:"No Salvation Outside the Church?Nonesense!"  And no I never said St. Alphonsus Ligouri was a modernist. Don't put words in my mouth. I was simply pointing that the people who censured Fr. Feeney were not concerned with BOD or BOB but simply EENS, and that the liberalism spoken from their own mouths, show that this was not a battle between Holy Mother Church's dogma and the heresies of an uppitty priest.   
Quote:I stand by what I said. You must accept the teachings of Holy Mother Church in the Council of Trent.
I do accept Trent. I don't deny one tenent of the Council You have yet to prove that I do.
 
Quote:
 I do, I have studied both sides of this controversy. They logically deny that the possession of Sanctifying Grace is alone what merits Heaven for us.
Obviously you have not, or at least you have not without much prejudice. Before, you stated that Fr. Feeney denied grace could precede baptism. I delcared that that was untrue and challenged you to prove otherwise. Now you're changing the subject, and saying the grace alone merits heaven. So please for all of our sakes and for the sake of our discussion, make it clear what you are saying and stop jumping around.
 
Quote:What's the EO? The local Council of Orange taught it and so does Trent? Do you deny that Sanctifying Grace is necessary for Salvation?
Sorry if you did not understand what I mean by EO. I've used this with other discussions and everyone got it, but I forgot who already knows it and who doesn't. I'm referring to the Extraordinary Magesterium.
 As for the Council of Orange, who cares? You don't even provide quotes from it, so I must take for your word that that's what it says. And as a local Council it is not guaranteed infallibility. And I can easily counter this supposed affirmation of BOD from the local Council of Orange with the local Council of Brage which declares, "Neither commemoration nor chanting is to be employed for catechumens who have died without baptism."
Sacrorum Conciliorum, Mansi vol 9 pg 774. Strange declaration if it has always been universally held that BOD exists. 
Quote:There is no fallacy. But you are in error. Divinely revealed truth is not the only things that has to be given assent if known.
As a Catholic I am only obligated to believe "divinely revealed truth". I don't know what else we are bound to believe, according to you. If it's not divinely revealed, than how can we be sure of it? Do you even know what you are writing? This whole argument of yours has been a mishmosh of uncertainties, accusations, contradictions and sentence fragments.  
Quote:It's not my interpretation but merely a reasonable conclusion, I may be wrong on this.
You may be wrong on this? But you have the gall to accuse those who disagree with you to be heretics?!
 
Quote:No one here is saying that the Sacraments are superfluous or not necessary for salvation. The reception of the Graces of the Sacraments are only by virtue of the Sacraments themselves. And why don't you quote the WHOLE Canon:
CANON IV. If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous; and that, without them, or without the desire thereof, men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification; though all (the sacraments) are not indeed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema.
Yes, you are saying that the sacraments are not necessary! Or have you already forgotten what you just wrote? To say someone can enter heaven without baptism means it's not necessary. Trent didn't say, "baptism was the best way, or the ordinary way." It said it was the only way!And the second half is referring to Justification, not salvation.    
Quote:Again you interpret Holy Mother Church's into error.
Oh yeah, you really got me there! To you, a document of the infallible Magesterium which states that only those who are baptized with water can enter heaven means something else! How can you just reply that I'm falsely interpreting the Church? Did I interpret there? NO! I quoted! The fact that you have no responce other than a childish "well you're still wrong" proves the problem of your whole argument.
 
Quote:Actually you are assuming that they didn't exist and that Holy Mother Church is referring to exclusively to the Sacrament. You are the one with the error and the Saints confirm it.
You've lost your argument and now you're grasping at straws. Those quotes I've provided refer exclusively to the waters of the sacrament of baptism and mention that they are saved by an external rite. Should I repeat them again?
 
Holy BAPTISM holds the first place among all the SACRAMENTS because it is the gateway to the spiritual life...and since death entered the universe through the first man, "unless we are reborn of water and Spirit, we cannot," as the Truth says, enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Council of Florence.
 Only those are to be considered real members of the Church who have been regenerated in the waters of Baptism, and profess the True Faith...Consequently, as in the real assembly of the faithful there can be one Body, one Lord and one Baptism. Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corpis
 
The Catholic Church, is the kingdom of Christ on earth..The gospels present this kingdom as one which men prepare to enter by peance, and cannot actually enter except by Faith and by baptism,which though an  external rite, signifies and prodcues an interior regeneration. Pope Bl. Pius IX Quas Primas


Quote:Of couse She did. But She also infallibly declared "or the desire thereof". You sin, if you comprehend what you are doing in denying this
Trent is referring to Justification, not Salvation.
  
Quote:In what sense though?
I don't get what you're getting at. 

Quote:Dogmas are those doctrines which are solemnly defined after the death of St. John the Apostle by the Popes as divinely revealed truths. Public Divine Revelation ended with St. John's death though. New truths cannot be created, but our holy Mother the Church has not come down through history with all Her Sacred Dogmas pre-defined, She defines Her pre-existing Truths, Her Doctrines, by organic development. This is why St. Paul says heresies are necessary so that holy Church will define Her Dogmas against error: 1 Corinthians 11:19 For there must be also heresies: that they also, who are approved, may be made manifest among you.
Exactly, and in 2,000 years she has never defined BOD nor is there a consensus amongs the Fathers, saints or the world's bishops on it.

Quote:She cannot define which specific persons are in hell though
And who was doing that here? No one. So why bring it up?

 
Quote:If you can never know another person's heart on earth then you cannot know for sure that non-sacramentally baptized souls go to hell, can you?
Yes you can, because the Church has said that only people who meet certain criteris can go to heaven while those that don't go to hell. I myself can't declare specific people are in hell, because I have no way of knowing whether or not they met the criteria. But I know that if they didn't meet the criteria then they are in hell.



Quote:Wrong! Dogmas are the explanations themselves. Some Saints teach both the Church's doctrines, that is, possible future Sacred Dogmas, along with the present Sacred Dogmas, just as the some Saints taught our Most Blessed Mother's Immaculate Conception before it was defined as a Sacred Dogma in 1854 by Bl. Pius IX.
No, dogmas are the definitions. They are defined by the Church, not individual saints. And did I say that saints don't preach dogmas? No, I said they don't define dogmas or determine what is or isn't dogma. So please read what I write before declaring "Wrong!" 



 
Quote:Will you stop it? No Catholic here is claiming that the Doctors are the principal source of truth but they are special guardians and promoters of truth as doctors or 'healers of doctrine' as the title implies. They worked in sanctity to restore and develop true Catholic doctrine. Otherwise the Church, the Pillar and Foundation of Truth, would not have entitled them with the name.
No, but you are judging Fr. Feeney and myself as heretics based on what Doctors have said. So obviously you think they are infallible, but if not then desist with bringing them up in this argument as if they have any weight in dogmatic matters.

 
Quote:You are the one that said that I just messed up my post's quoting. 
Huh?
 
Quote:I don't call you a fool. You called me a fool. I forgive you though. These debates can get emotion.
 

You said I'm "sounding like an inept fool."
 
Quote:
And you wonder how? As the saying goes "no judge a book by its cover".
Why are you bringing in stupid and irrelevant secular sayings into a discussion on Catholic dogma? The whole point of the Church making definitve dogmatic statements is so there is no question as to what the Church teaches. If what the Church says relies solely on the interpretation of theologians and not the words themselves then there is no point to any of this and there is nothing we can be sure of.
 
 
Quote:Then I will explain your error to them.
And they'll ignore you and then ban you. Never have they gotten into these debates, suggesting that they are unsure of it themselves. And regardless they never will tolerate a person here accusing another of being a heretic.


 
Quote:You're kidding, right?!
Yeah, you're right. I've wasting my precious time just to be a jerk. I do actually agree with you.[Image: rolleyes.gif]



Quote:Yes, you do.
Which is?





Quote:Only those are to be considered real members of the Church who have been regenerated in the waters of Baptism, and profess the True Faith...Consequently, as in the real assembly of the faithful there can be one Body, one Lord and one Baptism. Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corpis
 
The Catholic Church, is the kingdom of Christ on earth..The gospels present this kingdom as one which men prepare to enter by peance, and cannot actually enter except by Faith and by baptism,which though an external rite, signifies and prodcues an interior regeneration. Pope Bl. Pius IX Quas Primas
Quote:Anyone quote splices and read something they want into the encyclical and writings of Saints and Popes. The Jansenists did the same.
That's not a refuation. That's a denial of what was written. I don't see you quoting Catholic dogma in all of it's entirety for your argument. So why am I a Jansenist?
You're just proving more and more that your argument doesn't have a leg to stand on when you dismiss statements from the popes on the necessity of sacramental baptism celebrated in water by calling the poster a Jansenist. This is getting pathetic.


 
Quote:The Pope were teaching about the ordinary means of salvation. They are not unwarrantedly going to go into deep theological concepts. It's called the virtue of Prudence.
You are twisting things! Where or where does he make any distinctions between ordinary and extraordinary means? Hmm? He doesn't! You believe in BOD so anything that contradicts it, is thus talking about something else! That is wrong! The popes said only water baptism can save. There was nothing about desire, impossible circumstances or anything like that. You are dangerously adding your own intepritation to these pontiffs words. Shame on you!


Quote: 

Really? And what about the invisible Saints in Heaven? They aren't members of the Church then?

They received visible baptism and submitted to a visible pope and existed in a visible community before thier death.
 
Quote:Where did they say that? Source, please?
From reading the very opening documents, they declare it would not make use of extraorordinary dogmatic papal statements unless they express say so but Pope Paul VI also bound all the Catholic faithful to give their assent to the council at it's closing. Now don't quote me but I have been told that makes it an act of the ordinary universal Magisterium (the Pope union with all the Bishops).
I'm not going into this as it has been discussed in other parts before and is a distraction from the real argument. But Popes Paul VI and John Paul II said it can only be interpreted in light of Tradition and should be discarded when it does. Pope Benedict even expressed that criticism of the documents of the Council itself was permissible. Maybe another day we can get into this, but not now.



Quote:Then why I quoted was not heresy, right? You are the one being inconstant. Is Vatican II error or not? Heresy or not?
Did I say it was heretical? Did I say I don't believe in Vatican II? How have I been inconsistent?



 
Quote:Then they either deceive, are insane, believe contradictory statements, or (and I hope) believe that Angels will come to baptize such souls with real natural water before death.
So heresy isn't enough? Now they are lunatics and deceivers,as well? My, my someone is getting too self righteous.
And yes, as St. Thomas Aquinas even said, in accordance with events from Holy Scripture, God will use extraordinary means(angels, miraculous transportations of priests or other ministers) to bring baptism to such a soul who desires it. "Ask and you shall receive"


Quote:
 

False. Because you are assuming that it is already a dogmatic definition that baptism by water is the only mode of baptism. But the Church has never defined that through any Pope or Council.

Ok, I'm saying this in the best way possible: you are driving me literally bonkers. I believe all my time I will ever need in Purgatory has been served just right now.

I've just spent how much time showing you statements from popes and councils saying that the external rite of the sacrament of water baptism is completely necessary for salvation? You write these off, as being taken out of context. Now you deny that there ever were such definitions in the first place. I am seriosuly doubting your sanity.

 

 
Only those are to be considered real members of the Church who have been regenerated in the waters of Baptism, and profess the True Faith...Consequently, as in the real assembly of the faithful there can be one Body, one Lord and one Baptism. Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corpis
 
The Catholic Church, is the kingdom of Christ on earth..The gospels present this kingdom as one which men prepare to enter by peance, and cannot actually enter except by Faith and by baptism,which though an external rite, signifies and prodcues an interior regeneration. Pope Bl. Pius IX Quas Primas

 

 

Even if the Church never said baptism of water was the only way, it doesn't prove positively that BOD exists.

 

This just shows your prejudice and blindess. You are so convinced that BOD exists, even though you admit it's never been defined, that papal and concilair documents that explicitly contradcit BOD are ignored while an ambiguous statement from Vatican II which just says God will save people who do not yet know the Gospel is proof in BOD.

 
Quote:I knew I should have included that. But it lends more evidence to BOD/B for it says "with His grace" and not "with baptism by water" or "and with baptism by water".
But since the Church has already said baptism is necessary for salvation, than we must assume that if they are saved then they were saved by baptism.
 

Quote:
 

I see what you mean, but you are still assuming that it is a defined dogma that only Baptism by water is necessary. 

Gee, where would I have gotten such a crazy idea from?

 

Only those are to be considered real members of the Church who have been regenerated in the waters of Baptism, and profess the True Faith...Consequently, as in the real assembly of the faithful there can be one Body, one Lord and one Baptism. Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corpis
 
The Catholic Church, is the kingdom of Christ on earth..The gospels present this kingdom as one which men prepare to enter by peance, and cannot actually enter except by Faith and by baptism,which though an external rite, signifies and prodcues an interior regeneration. Pope Bl. Pius IX Quas Primas

 

Holy Baptism holds the first place amoung all the sacraments because it is the gateway to the spiritual life...And sine death entered the universe through the first man, "unless we be born again of water and the Spirit we cannot, "as Truth says, "enter the kingdom of heaven." Florence.

 

If anyone says that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation, let him be anathema. Trent

 

For there is one Mediator between God and men..Jesus Chrsit.Neither is there salvation in any other. Everyone therefore MUST be converted to Christ and everyone MUST become incorporated into Him by BAPTISM.

Vatican II, Ad Gentes Divinitus

 

You ask how I prove this? From the very words of the Lord! We make no exceptions where no distinction is made! Pope Leo XIII Satis Cognitum.

 

 
Quote:That is only your private fallible opinion. The Church has never said that. And even our Holy Father as Cardinal (and so fallibly) has said that I can hold my belief.
Did I say you can't hold them? You are the only one here who has accused one of heresy.And our Holy Father has visited "Feeneyites" before and had no problem with them. Why do you?


 
 
Reply
#15
Ok, didishroom and Godfirst: I don't mean to preach, but I am trying to follow this debate, and it is so overwhelmingly broad that there is no hope for a resolution anywhere in the next century, and I find myself constantly jumping ahead just so that I can find a statement that actually relates to the purpose of this debate. There are so many issues being tossed around that this discussion has covered the topics of almost every thread on this forum. If either or you are interested in proving the other wrong, I think it would be best to stick exclusively to the relative issues contained within the Extraordinary Magisterium of the Church (and maybe the Ordinary Magisterium if it doesn't contradict the Extraordinary Magisterium) including Ex Cathedra statements from the Chair of Peter, infallible councils, and Holy Scripture. All else is red-herring. There is a specific order (and only one) in which the relative canons from Trent must be considered. If they are arranged in any other order than this, one canon contradicts the other and then one canon doesn't actually mean what it states. Just my advice, or course, but this seems to be going nowhere. Maybe a recap would help to determine the exact points of contention or to expose erroneous interpretations?

Miserere nobis.


Reply
#16
INPEFESS Wrote:I think it would be best to stick exclusively to the relative issues contained within the Extraordinary Magisterium of the Church (and maybe the Ordinary Magisterium if it doesn't contradict the Extraordinary Magisterium) including Ex Cathedra statements from the Chair of Peter, infallible councils, and Holy Scripture.
That is the whole problem with discussions like these. The Extraordinary Papal Magisterium is not the only thing that has to be held for Catholic Faith. The teachings of the Ordinary Universal Mgaisterium of the Church must also be held for Catholic Faith. Both of these are parts of the one infallible and Divine Magisterium.  I am still unclear though as to what constitutes the Ordinary Universal. But I take St. Vincent's Canon for it myself which is "what has been believed everywhere, always and by all [Catholics]". This is what I go by. BOB and BOD fit that, but it hasn't been solemnly and strictly defined yet so we don't know how they are. I pray and hope the Pope along or with a Council defines these important theological issues. I read a private revelation that said that there would be another Ecumenical Council that would define the true discipline and doctrine of the Church, so very confidence and hopeful. God will work it out. The Holy Ghost has not and will not abandon His Church.
Reply
#17
Quote:That is the whole problem with discussions like these. The Extraordinary Papal Magisterium is not the only thing that has to be held for Catholic Faith. The teachings of the Ordinary Universal Mgaisterium of the Church must also be held for Catholic Faith. Both of these are parts of the one infallible and Divine Magisterium.
 

Very true.
 
 
Quote:I am still unclear though as to what constitutes the Ordinary Universal. But I take St. Vincent's Canon for it myself which is "what has been believed everywhere, always and by all [Catholics]". This is what I go by.

But as I've pointed out, how can you be so sure? The Church cannot invent new doctrines, so when she defines something as dogma it must be something that has been handed down by the Apostles. But if we were living before Bl. Pius IX definition of the Immaculate Conception, no Catholic would be bound to believe it. Yet because of the pope's declaration we know it's true. However there times in the Church when the Ordinary Magesterium was most definetly NOT unanimous in this doctrine, but the doctrine was true nonetheless.  
 
 
 
Quote:
BOB and BOD fit that, but it hasn't been solemnly and strictly defined yet so we don't know how they are. I pray and hope the Pope along or with a Council defines these important theological issues. I read a private revelation that said that there would be another Ecumenical Council that would define the true discipline and doctrine of the Church, so very confidence and hopeful. God will work it out. The Holy Ghost has not and will not abandon His Church.
BUt INEPFESS is right. In this case we should only reference the Extraordinary Magesterium, because the Ordinary Magisterium is NOT unanimous, nor has it even been, on this current issue. Unless you have a consensus of every bishop in the world right now on what is the truth about BOD and BOB, then you can't keep falling back on the Ordinary Magisterium. For as I've pointed out there have bishops who've supported Fr. Feeney and his theology, and none of the Fathers were unanimous in their writings on the subject.

I'ld be more than happy to continue with this discussion on those terms, provided you stop calling me a "heretic."  

 
p.s. If we do continue this subject, passages from the Ordinary Magisterium would be fine, for the purpose of helping to explain things. But they must not be held with the same authority or be pitted against a passage from the Extraordinary Magisterium. And it must be a real quote from a bishop or pope. Not blanket statements like, "The Ordinary Magesterium has always held BOD"


Reply
#18
Quote:
Quote:
I am still unclear though as to what constitutes the Ordinary Universal. But I take St. Vincent's Canon for it myself which is "what has been believed everywhere, always and by all [Catholics]". This is what I go by.
But as I've pointed out, how can you be so sure? The Church cannot invent new doctrines, so when she defines something as dogma it must be something that has been handed down by the Apostles. But if we were living before Bl. Pius IX definition of the Immaculate Conception, no Catholic would be bound to believe it. Yet because of the pope's declaration we know it's true. However there times in the Church when the Ordinary Magesterium was most definetly NOT unanimous in this doctrine, but the doctrine was true nonetheless. 

The Vincentian Canon is a triple test of catholicity:  it distinguishes between true and false traditions (capital T and small t).  Tradition is part of the Deposit of Faith, as we all know that.

I don't remember who said this:  "No doctrine is define until violated" but this is the case we are faced. 

The dogmas of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Mary into Heaven needed to be defined.  It is not about whether a doctrine is rejected before it is declared dogma, but whether it has been held to be true by consent, everywhere and by all.  We keep hearing about St. Thomas Aquinas and his "rejection" of Mary as immaculately conceived.  He did no such thing.  I need to be shown where he explicitly (or even implicitly) rejects this teaching.

Why do we keep arguing about the conjunctive "OR" in Trent's definition of what makes man justified in the eyes of God, and thereby be in the state of sanctifying grace?  It is grace that saves.  If you are justified before God, you have grace in your soul, and if you die that moment, you are saved. 

Was Trent indicating an alternative:  "receive the laver of regeneration OR the desire of it" -- hot OR cold, this, that OR the other.  Trent definitely did not indicate OR to mean "AND."  "Unless you have the desire to be baptized AND be actually baptized according to the Catholic rite of Baptism" is the qualified statement.  We have first to have the desire.  So then we need to define what "desire" is and what Trent indicated it to mean.  But of course we will always end in going in circles and the argument goes on forever.

Why hasn't the Church defined BOD and put the final stamp of approval on it?  Because there was never a need to do so.   The session on Justificattion from the Council of Trent has already defined it but the problem is that five hundred years later a priest has had a crisis of conscience in trying to understand the Church's doctrine of EENS.  No salvation outside the Church, and if that is the case, no one who is NOT a member of the Church can be saved, and to be a member, one must first have to be baptized.  No baptism, no salvation.  The Chinese dictum:  "No tickee, no laundry."   This is the elusive and overlooked linchpin doctrine.  

If BOD and BOB were contrary to Catholic belief, St. Pius V, St Pius X, St Alphonsus, St. Robert Bellarmine and other venerable and eminent theologians would have outrightly and vehemently rejected it.  In fact they did not and we have it in the catechisms of Trent, St. Pius X, the Baltimore, and elsewhere as being taught as true and accepted Catholic teaching.

The three infallible doctrines of Innocent III, Eugene IV, etc., pertaining to no salvation outside the Chuch:  this was directed to those who refused to be incorporated and be members of the Body of Christ.  And the Canons of the Council of Trent regarding Baptism were directred to those heretics of the Reformation who rejected Baptism as efficacious and necessary for salvation.  If you were not in this group, you were not anathematized. 
These Canons have nothing to do with desire or martyrdom (the shedding of blood for Christ, which He had said, there is no greater act than to give one's life for another -- "for My sake".



Reply
#19
Quote:I don't remember who said this:  "No doctrine is define until violated" but this is the case we are faced. 
If so then where are the pronouncements condeming Fr. Feeney? Please don't bring up the 1949 Letter from the Holy Office. I don't want to go down this pointless road again. It was a letter written from one bishop to another, before Fr. Feeney even developed his theology.


Quote:The dogmas of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Mary into Heaven needed to be defined.  It is not about whether a doctrine is rejected before it is declared dogma, but whether it has been held to be true by consent, everywhere and by all. 
 And only the Extraordianry Magisterium can determine that, unless you have a consensus signed by every bishop in the world.

 
 
Quote:We keep hearing about St. Thomas Aquinas and his "rejection" of Mary as immaculately conceived.  He did no such thing.  I need to be shown where he explicitly (or even implicitly) rejects this teaching.
Granted, the burden of proof is on me to prove that, but it seems to be accepted by everyone on both sides of this argument of BOD.

Here is NewAdvent:
St. Thomas
[-]
  •
Reply
#20
To respond to every line of your argument would be tedious, so I will stick to these few:

Quote:My point I want to make, is that depsite Jesus' affirmation that those who suffer death for His sake will reach heaven, it is NOT a universal affirmation. The Church has made it clear that in at least one case martyrdom is not enough. Martyrdom, like Purgatory, washes away venial sin and temporary punishment due to sin. It does not remove obligations or requirements for salvation. Pope Eugene makes it clear that those who have left the Church cannot enter heaven even if they suffer martyrdom.

We know very well the martyrdom Jesus was referring. Do we need to qualify what Jesus really meant or simply take His word for it? The catechumen who was awaiting to be fed to the lions already had in his heart supernatural love for Christ and was willing to die for Him. Further, he already possesses the desire to be baptized. Do you think that waiting in the dungeon there would even be water available for Baptism? If there was, great. What if there wasn't? This catechumen would be going to his death for nothing? Would Christ turn His back on this faithful follower? This is something you don't put into consideration. There is more than just the letter of the law. Christ castigated the Pharisees for that.

Pope Eugene IV was speaking of another kind of martyrdom, which is not salvific.

Quote:Now, just ponder this for a second. Absorb it in. And ask, "Why would the salvific powers of martyrdom prove beyond a doubt that they can replace the necessity of salvific baptism, when we see they don't even replace the necessity of salvific Faith"?

I don't understand your statement.

Quote:Again, we are not Protestants! This is should not be an issue of "Baptism of Desire vs Baptism of Water" or "Baptism of Blood vs Baptism of Water." We are Catholics, we choose "both." The desire for Baptism cannot be seperated from sacramental baptism, for a heartless baptism is as non-salvific as a sacrementless desire.

In the previous countless debates on BOD, I kept restating that NOBODY can make the qualified competent statement, "I was baptized by desire." That is silly. The person who has been justified by desire is already dead.

I am going to say, repeating what you state above, Now, just ponder this for a second. Absorb it in. And ask, when we define what "desire" means, we are speaking of the "longing," and "hankering," or "yearning," to want to be incorporated in the Body of Christ and become, not only a member of His Church, but also to receive the Sacrament which makes one adopted sons of God. What you and many others fail to understand or to grasp is the fact that Trent placed the possibility of unknown factors that could prevent the person seeking Baptism to make it to the laver (fount of ablution) because of some untoward incident. Don't say that this cannot happen. Because, what if it happens and the person does NOT make it to the waters of Baptism? Is he lost? That is what you are implicating: no water baptism, no salvation. That is what fr. Feeney said, and that is what has been echoed by those who adhere to his teaching. I'm not insulting him. He said in so many words, no baptism, no salvation. This is his interpretation of EENS, which has nothing to do with Baptism as prescribed by Christ and His Church.


Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)