holy Trent infallibly taught that Justification IS Grace by which alone is Salvation.
#21
I think didishroom is answering the question by considering only the Extraordinary Magisterium while others are trying to reconcile the Ordinary Magisterium (note: not Ordinary Universal) with that of the Extraordinary by taking into account the mercy of God. If one considers only the Extraordinary, there is no salvation without Baptism. If one considers the totality of the Magisterium, it would seem to allow for an occasional and rare exception. I think by now we all know what the Extraordinary Magisterium teaches as well as the Ordinary, so I think we should look to Holy Scripture to determine whether or not the mercy of God reconciles the Extraordinary with the Ordinary. Does this make sense?
Reply
#22
Quote:We know very well the martyrdom Jesus was referring.
What do you mean?


Quote:Do we need to qualify what Jesus really meant or simply take His word for it?
Well why do you not take His word when He states the necessity of water baptism? I actually provided proof from the infallible Extraordinary Magisterium that martyrdom does have conditions. Martyrdom by one who left the Church does nothing unless they remain within the Church. So, again, the Church has made it clear that the salvific nature of martyrdom is not universal. She had made at least one distinction about the kinds of martyrdom( one that saves and one that can't), but has made NONE concerning baptism.  



Quote: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 is 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.
Well who was this catechumen who died without baptism? The problem is that you are basing your understanding of dogma on hypothetical scenarios and imaginary people.

And yes, I have discussed this situation before, as did Fr. Feeney. He believed that in His love and mercy God would not allow him to die unbaptized. Again you assume that physical boundaries are some how roadblocks for God.

And if you are willing to dismiss dogma so quickly because that's "following the letter of the law" than why bother with any laws or rules? Let everything be relevant, if all that matters is intent.

Quote:Pope Eugene IV was speaking of another kind of martyrdom, which is not salvific.
Yes, that was my point. That obviously God's statement on martyrdom does have conditions. Therefore it would be wrong to automatically assume that since Jesus said martyrs will go to heaven, then unbaptized catechumens must go to heaven if they are martyred.
We know from the Council of Florence that not all martyrs go to heaven.

 
Quote:I don't understand your statement.
My point is that even though these people suffered for Jesus, because they were lacking just one thing(membership in the Church) they were denied heaven. So why is it ok for martyrs to be damned if they don't remain within the Church, but not catechumens? Why is that heresy? Why is that following the letter not the spirit?


 

Quote: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.
That is certainly your own opinion. Trent doesn't say only dead people can be justified without baptism. Again you are adding your own qualifiers, distinctions and defintions.  

Quote: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.
And if someone truly longs, yearns, desires and vows to be a baptized person why do you believe they will ever be denied that? "Ask and you shall recieve." If someone truly wants baptism and to be a member in the Church then I cannot believe God will let them die without receving what they wanted, just so He could save them through some loophole afterword.




Quote: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.
Where did it even imply such notion?! Again you are making things up out of the blue.


Quote:Don't say that this cannot happen.
Why not?

Quote: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.
Why do you assume that it would get this far? Please, for the love of all that is holy, truly explain to me why do you state that God is prevented from bringing the life saving waters to those who wish it? No one can answer this. They seem more interested in the fate of imaginary people dying without baptism, than what the Church actually says on the subject.

I've already stated this on my previous post to you, and you seem to have ignored it or else you wouldn't have asked this question now. Are you truly not interested in seeking truth, or is your mind already made up?




Quote: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.
No one has denied this. They have just denied that a man will leave this world justified but unbaptized.


Quote:This is his interpretation of EENS, which has nothing to do with Baptism as prescribed by Christ and His Church.
How can you type that in any kind of seriousness? On baptism Jesus only said that those that didn't receive it were damned. He made no distinctions and mentioned no exceptions. So what baptism did our Lord prescribe? You act as if Fr. Feeney made up the concept that BOW was absolutely necessary, even though Jesus and His Church have only spoken of one baptism, that of water.

I must admit I am a little disturbed by your line of reasoning. You state things with no sources, and contradict your own reasoning. When Jesus states the necessity of water baptism, He means something else, but when He says martyrs go to heaven, it means just that and you are wrong to suggest otherwise(even with an infallible document to back you up).You so readilly willing to dismiss dogma because that's "phariseetic" but only when it goes against what you believe.

 


Reply
#23
didishroom Wrote:
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?
I never said I was certain, but I do believe it despite my uncertainty. I will not risk denying what is reasonably true to my mind.

Quote: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.
False. It's not merely because of the Pope's declaration that we know it is true but by it we know with absolute certainty that it is true. It was reasonably true and knowable even before its dogmatic definition, it logically flows from the Dogma of Christ's Divinity. Now we are certain it is true though and how it is true because of the Pope's solemn dogmatic definition. The Apostles knew the truth or it could not have been defined as new truth cannot be made after their deaths. So, as your own logic dictates, the Apostles must has known that Blessed Mary was Immaculately Conceived just as we do now.
Now St. Alphonsus Liguori quoting St. John:
1 John :8 "And there are three that give testimony on earth: the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three are one." Note the doctrine here: there are three in one Baptism. We believe in one Baptism, right? I know I do. But the spirit can give Baptism, the water can give Baptism and the blood can give Baptism. Likewise we believe that the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God, yet not three gods but one God. Understand by the words with which St. John preceded the above verse:1 John 5:7 "And there are three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. And these three are one." The Most Sacred Dogma of the Blessed Trinity. The doctrine of Baptism of B/D/W reflect God's very Triune Divinity.

Quote:However there times in the Church when the Ordinary Magesterium was most definitely NOT unanimous in this doctrine, but the doctrine was true nonetheless.
That is exactly my point. I am not willing to deny a doctrine that I believe is nonetheless true though not unanimous.

Quote: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.
That is an error. We can know the truth without dogmatic definitons. Or how did the Pope know the truth of the Immaculate Conception to define in the first place? If we had no pre-existing statements of the Extraordinary Magisterium to know it before 1854, then from what but the ordinary Magisterium and reason could we argument for it being revealed truth. It was a part of divine deposit of revelation before 1854 given to the Apostles. Not every revealed truth is solemnly defined as revealed yet. But once a divinely revealed truth is solemnly defined then we just know with absolute certainty that it is divinely revealed truth, that does not in anyway mean we cannot know it is true and even revealed truth before (though with less than absolute certainly).

Quote:I'ld be more than happy to continue with this discussion on those terms, provided you stop calling me a "heretic."
You refuse to listen to the Church on a matter of doctrine that at least was obligatory, that to me is heresy, my friend. That's all I'm saying because I have no authority to declare you anything, least of all a heretic. But that is my personal judgment that you at least hold an error (if not an heretical error). I only give it as a warning. You are free to reject it. The responsibility to seek the truth is yours.

Quote: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"
They are not being pitted against the Extraordinary Magisterium but against your private (and I say false) interpretation of it. The most all of the Church's hierarchies have interpreted it against your opinion ever since the Council of Trent and even Trent's Catechism itself interprets it as including BOB and BOD. That is universal and consistent enough for me to be an infallible doctrine of the infallible Ordinary UNIVERSAL Magisterium. I reject Fr. Feeney's (and a few others') private interpretation of an Ecumenical Council of Holy Mother Church. I go with the Roman Catechism, St. Pius X's Catechism, the Baltimore Catechisms, the catechism of the Angelic Doctor, St. Alphonsus's writing, Pope Pius XII's interpretation, etc, etc. I am not about to reject canonized Saints', holy priests', bishops' and doctors' interpretation of a Council's Canons for yours and Fr. Feeney. I await the judgment of the Holy See, but for now I hold what I see as an infallible doctrine and a divinely revealed truth though it not been papally defined as certain yet. I am hopefully though.
Reply
#24
GodFirst Wrote:Now St. Alphonsus Liguori quoting St. John:1 John :8 "And there are three that give testimony on earth: the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three are one." Note the doctrine here: there are three in one Baptism. We believe in one Baptism, right? I know I do. But the spirit can give Baptism, the water can give Baptism and the blood can give Baptism. Likewise we believe that the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God, yet not three gods but one God. Understand by the words with which St. John preceded the above verse:1 John 5:7 "And there are three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. And these three are one." The Most Sacred Dogma of the Blessed Trinity. The doctrine of Baptism of B/D/W reflect God's very Triune Divinity.

From Haydock's:
Quote:Ver. 8. And there are three that give testimony on earth: the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three are one.[3] This is a repetition of what was before said, ver. 6, to be expounded in the same manner. But when it is added, these three are one, the sense is, that they witness one and the same truth. (Witham) --- As the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, all bear witness to Christ's divinity; so the spirit, which he yielded up, crying out with a loud voice upon the cross, and the water and blood that issued from his side, bear witness to his humanity, and are one; that is, all agree in one testimony. (Challoner)
The Comma Johanneum is nearly universally held to be a later interpretation or glose.
Reply
#25
Quote:Originally Posted by veritatem dilexisti

From Haydock's:

Ver. 8. And there are three that give testimony on earth: the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three are one.[3] This is a repetition of what was before said, ver. 6, to be expounded in the same manner. But when it is added, these three are one, the sense is, that they witness one and the same truth. (Witham) --- As the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, all bear witness to Christ's divinity; so the spirit, which he yielded up, crying out with a loud voice upon the cross, and the water and blood that issued from his side, bear witness to his humanity, and are one; that is, all agree in one testimony. (Challoner)

The Comma Johanneum is nearly universally held to be a later interpretation or glose.

Interesting commentary on this passage. Are you trying to show how the testimonies to the Truth are similarly entry into the Church through three methods of baptism (means by which the sacrament may be obtained) or that this passage has nothing to do with baptism?
Reply
#26
INPEFESS Wrote:Are you trying to show how the testimonies to the Truth are similarly entry into the Church through three methods of baptism (means by which the sacrament may be obtained) or that this passage has nothing to do with baptism?

This passage manifestly has nothing to do with baptism. The Church teaches infallibly that water is the true and necessary matter of this sacrament (Council of Trent, sess. VII, Decr. de Baptismo, can. II); does GodFirst believe that, if a priest were to baptise an infant as with water, but using blood instead, the baptism would be valid?
Reply
#27
Quote: Originally Posted by veritatem dilexisti

This passage manifestly has nothing to do with baptism. The Church teaches infallibly that water is the true and necessary matter of this sacrament (Council of Trent, sess. VII, Decr. de Baptismo, can. II); does GodFirst believe that, if a priest were to baptise an infant as with water, but using blood instead, the baptism would be valid?

I can't speak for Godfirst, but the Ordinary Universal Magisterium does not teach that blood may baptize in water's stead. In fact, the Catechism specifically refutes this notion by teaching that if water is not available, no other liquid will suffice. It is here that BOD suffices to act in water's stead. I believe the Catechism teaches that no other liquid will suffice because Trent has decreed that only true and natural water can baptize. The Baltimore Catechism, however, does not interpret this as an elimination of BOB/BOD because it acknowledges that BOW is not always available (prisoners locked away without water, for example). The Catechism explains that BOB is nothing short of martyrdom and teaches that it is accomplished only through death for Christ. Similary, it teaches that BOD is attained only through death. Because of this, I would doubt Godfirst beliefs that blood may be used in water's stead.
Reply
#28
I find this interpritation of John to be erronious. It only seems to support  BOD and BOB if you're looking for it. Nowhere in that passage does it directly refer to baptism, and even if it did, it only affirms, if anything, what real baptism is.

Sacramental baptism is, as Jesus said, of "water and the Spirit." St. Paul says when we are baptized we are baptized with Christ's death and resurrection. At the Cross, water and blood flowed from Jesus' side. And the Fathers have testified this event to be of the pouring of the Spirit. When we are sacramentally baptized we receive water, the Spirit and the blood. Just as the Trinity cannot be seperated so too can neither of these aspects of baptism, which is why I cannot hold that we can have desire for baptism or martyrdom in place of water. If we receive one we receive all."What God has joined together let no one put asunder."
Reply
#29
Quote:does GodFirst believe that, if a priest were to baptise an infant as with water, but using blood instead, the baptism would be valid?

Good point. If desire is the true salvific means than why not substitute water, if there be none, with something else?

Reply
#30
Quote:
Quote:does GodFirst believe that, if a priest were to baptise an infant as with water, but using blood instead, the baptism would be valid?

Good point. If desire is the true salvific means than why not substitute water, if there be none, with something else?

When arguments such as this start going circular, thinking goes pulpy and logic goes out the window. I hope this is the last of the baptism debates. Nobody really learns anything. I don't know why I keep getting drawn to it.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)