holy Trent infallibly taught that Justification IS Grace by which alone is Salvation.
#51
Tornpage, for crying out loud!  Good to hear from you, my good friend.  Unfortunately, I quit the Incorruptibles,  for personal reasons.  If you are still there say hello for me to all that still remember me.

I lost track of you since our last correspondence, mainly because I misplaced your email address.  Now that I have your address again, I may have a few good tidings to relate to you since our last communication.  Not particularly to recall all those debates on BOD.  [Image: laff.gif]

God be blessed in this holy Passion week.
Ut in omnibus glorificetur Deus!

Vince

Reply
#52
tornpage Wrote:
Quote:didishroom writes:

If the Church infallibly defines that baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation . .


Quote:“Now in order for a thing to be done for an end, some knowledge of the end is necessary.” St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theolgica, First Part of the Second Part, Q.6, Art. 1.

Didishroom,

We often overlook the obvious. I think this is obvious, but you don't hear it said in these passionate debates: baptism is absolutely necessary to have a desire for baptism. Think about it. If I have a desire for a certain woman, say, is that woman necessary for that desire. Of course.

Baptism does not cease as a means because its necessity is only of desire. Necessity is necessity. To paraphrase St. Thomas, baptism is necessary to desire baptism.
That is incoherent, for one desires what one does not have. You are playing with words: it is the existence of baptism which is necessary for desire thereof.
Reply
#53
Quote:Three unique circumstances in which the supreme authority enjoys infallibility can be distinguished: 1) an act of the physical person of the pope speaking ex cathedra; 2) an act of the moral person of an ecumenical council, which is the physical assembly of the pope and the bishops; and 3) the body of acts, unanimous and simultaneous, that emanates from all the pastors of the Church, the pope and the bishops, but dispersed and not gathered together. The teaching of the pope speaking ex cathedra and that of an ecumenical council correspond to the infallibility of the solemn or extraordinary Magisterium, while the unanimous teaching of all the bishops dispersed, under the authority of the pope, is the teaching of the ordinary and universal Magisterium.

This ordinary and universal Magisterium is the subject of the dogmatic constitution Dei Filius of Vatican I. It states that:

Quote:Further, by divine and Catholic faith, all those things must be believed which are contained in the written word of God and in tradition, and those which are proposed by the Church, either in a solemn pronouncement or in her ordinary and universal teaching power, to be believed as divinely revealed. -- Denzinger, The Sources of Catholic Dogma, tr. by Roy J. Deferrari from the 30th ed. of the Enchiridion Symbolorum  (1955; reprint, Loreto Publications, n.d.), 1792.


And in the letter Tuas Libenter of December 21, 1862, Pope Pius IX speaks of the “ordinary teaching power of the whole Church spread throughout the world” (Dz. 1683). During the First Vatican Council, in a speech of April 6, 1870, the official representative of the Pope, Msgr. Martin, gave the following clarification to the text of Dei Filius:

Quote:The word universal means about the same thing as the word used by the Holy Father in the apostolic letter Tuas Libenter, namely the Magisterium of the whole Church spread throughout the world.

It is clear, then, that the ordinary and universal Magisterium is to be distinguished from the Magisterium of an ecumenical council, just as the Magisterium of the pope and the bishops dispersed is distinguished from the Magisterium of the pope and the bishops assembled.
 -- A treatise by Fr. Jean-Michel Gleize

The distinction is that, since the teaching of Baptism of desire and Baptism of blood have the unanimous consensus of the popes and theologians since antiquity (no contrary opposition), this teaching falls under the ordinary and universal Magisterium, which is infallible.

Didi, neither have you demonstrated that God will send an angel or some other means to baptize a person who was unfortunate to die without Baptism.  As you rely on the solemn and extraordinary Magisterium, where would the infallible declaration of this instance be found?
Reply
#54
Quote:The distinction is that, since the teaching of Baptism of desire and Baptism of blood have the unanimous consensus of the popes and theologians since antiquity (no contrary opposition), this teaching falls under the ordinary and universal Magisterium, which is infallible.
That is ridiculous. You cannot know that every one has taught or that it has always been believed by the universal Church.




Quote:Didi, neither have you demonstrated that God will send an angel or some other means to baptize a person who was unfortunate to die without Baptism.  As you rely on the solemn and extraordinary Magisterium, where would the infallible declaration of this instance be found?
That God would send an angel of some other means comes from Scripture, St. Thomas Aquinas and recorded events dealing with the saints.

I have never said that God would use extraordinaty means to bring the only means of salvation to somebody, was defined dogma. This point is theology. Theology can help reconcile dogmas together but not trump one over another. My point has been simply this from the beginning:
1.) Defend Fr. Feeney and his Order from false accusations of heresy.

Besides demonstrating the legalism of "Feeneyism", I've pointed out that:

1) The Church has infallibly declared that water baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation.

2) That the Church has NEVER declared that the so-called BOD and BOB can save someone in the place of BOW.

3) The fact that the only proof comes from a false interpritation of one canon in Trent and the opinions of fallible theologians against numerous statements from the EO and O magisteriums saying otherwise, shows how ridiculous it is to say that this theory of BOD is somehow an infallible teaching of the Church.

Some quotes from the Ordinary Magisterium, as well, for your edification:

Thus, if someone so brought up followed the direction of natural reason in seeking good and avoiding evil, we must most certainly hold that God would either reveal to him through internal inspiration what had to be believed, or would send some preacher of the faith to him as He sent Peter to Cornelius (Acts 10:20).St. Thomas Aquinas
 
 

Consequently, if anyone were sanctified in the womb now, they would need to be baptized in order to be conformed to the other members of Christ by receiving the Character of Baptism. Thomas Aquinas.Summa Theologica III, Q68, art 1, obj 3
 
St Thomas’ contemporary, the Franciscan Alexander of Hales (d. 1245), writing of the same problem, says: “If he does what is within his power, the Lord will enlighten him with a secret inspiration, by means of an angel or of a man.”
 
The great Jesuit theologian, Francisco Suarez (d. 1617), held fast to the teaching of St. Thomas and Alexander of Hales: “Whoever has not set up obstacles against it will receive the light or the call…, either externally by means of men…or by interior illumination by means of angels.”
 

 

Council of Braga:Neither commemoration nor chanting is to be employed for catechumens who have died without baptism.
Sacrorum Conciliorum, Mansi vol 9 pg 774

 

 

St. AmbroseTherefore the three witness in Baptism are one: the water, the blood, and the Spirit; for if you take away one of these the Sacrament of Baptism does not exist. For what is water without the cross of Christ? A common element without any sacramental effect. Nor does the mystery of regeneration exist at all without water: "For except a man be born again of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the Kingdom" (St. John 3:5). Now, even the catechumen believes in the cross of the Lord Jesus, wherewith he also signs himself; But unless he be baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, he canot receive remission of his sins nor the gift of spiritual grace.
De Mysteriis, chap IV, no. 4

 

One is the Baptism which the Church administers, the Baptism of water and the Holy Ghost, with which catechumens need to be baptized.
Exposition on Psalm 118, s.3

 

 

St. Gregory of Nazianzen:Of those who fail to be baptized, some are utterly animal or bestial; others honor Baptism but they delay, some out of carelessness, some because of insatiable passion. Still others are not able to receive Baptism because of infancy or some involuntary circumstance which prevents their receiving the gift, even if they desire it. I think the first group will have to suffer punishment, not only for ther sins, but also for their contempt of Baptism. The second group will also be punished, but less because it was not through the wickedness so much as foolishness that brought about their failure. The third group will be neither glorified, nor punished; for although un-Sealed ,they are not wicked. If you were able to judge a man who intends to commit murder solely by his intention and without any act of murder, then you can likewise reckon as baptized one who desired Baptism, without having received Baptism. But, since you cannot do the former, how can you do the latter? Put it this way: if desire has equal power with actual Baptism, you would then be satisfied to desire Glory, as though that longing itself were Glory! Do you suffer by not attaining the actual Glory, so long as you have a desire for it? I can not see it!
Oration on the Holy Lights

 

 

Likewise, I profess that Baptism is necessary for salvation.Benedict XIV Nuper ad Nos.

 

Everyone, therefore, must be incorporated to Christ, and everyone must become incporated into Him by baptism, and into the Church which His Body. In explicit terms Christ affirmed the necessity of Faith and Baptism and therefore also affirms the necessity of the Church; for through Baptism as through a door men enter the Church.Vatican II, Ad Genitus Divinitus.

 

Since the trangression of the first man, the whole progeny of the human race is vitiated; no one can be freed from the condition of the old man except by the sacrament of the baptism of Christ. Pope St. Leo the Great.

 

Whoever is not loosed by the waters of rebirth remains bound by the first chain of guilt. Pope St. Gregory the Great.

 

 

In Baptism, neophytes receive forgiveness of sins, adoptions as sons of God, and the character of Christ, by which they are made members of the Church and for the first time become sharers in the Priesthood of their Savior.Pope Paul VI, Consti Divinae Consortes Naturae

 

If we for whatever reason deny the absoluteness of God's Law concerning the necessity of water Baptism for salvation, or any other defined dogma, than we too excommunicate ourselves by heresy from the ChurchPope Paul VI, Apostolic Exhortation on the Fifth Anniversary of the Closing of Vatican II

 

Baptism is the distinctive mark of all Christians, and serves to differentiate them from those who have not been cleansed in this purifyuing stream and consequently are not members of Christ.Pope Pius XII Mediator Dei

 

 

 

 

 

Reply
#55
Quote:I wonder then, my friends, if we might ask ourselves a question as it pertains to this: Would God permit, for His greater glory, a catechumen to die before baptism, knowing that the intentions of that catechumen would have remained steadfast in his resolve all the way to the point of baptism? Would this salvation further glorify God?
I don't see why. God could certainly save someone with just sanctifying grace on his soul, if He wished to. However, He said He wouldn't. With all due respect, I think it is dangerous, no matter our intentions, to speculate further than this.


Reply
#56
Ah, didi, your response clearly misrepresents the purpose of my post. I wasn't asking the question subjectively, but to see if people really believed whether God would do this. Other people haven't closed their eyes to this possibility, so I would like to see why not. If they do believe this, then I want to know why they think so. I don't know everything, and so I would like to learn what I don't know. If there's something to be learned here, then I would like to learn it. I will let the people who know something about this speak for themselves in support of their belief. No worries my friend!
Reply
#57
Ah....
Reply
#58
Quote:That is incoherent, for one desires what one does not have. You are playing with words: it is the existence of baptism which is necessary for desire thereof.

If the "existence" of the sacrament is necessary for salvation, then the sacrament is necessary for salvation. Or is its nonexistence necessary for salvation?

And as St. Thomas also noted:

Quote:Objection 3. Further, as stated above (1; 65, 4), the sacrament of Baptism is necessary for salvation. Now that is necessary "without which something cannot be" (Metaph. v). Therefore it seems that none can obtain salvation without Baptism.

Reply to Objection 3. The sacrament of Baptism is said to be necessary for salvation in so far as man cannot be saved without, at least, Baptism of desire; "which, with God, counts for the deed" (Augustine, Enarr. in Ps. 57).

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Third Part, Q.68, Article 1

Show me where it says "baptism with water is necessary" for salvation. The Church has only said "baptism is necessary" for salvation. As both St. Thomas and I said, it is, even if it is received only in desire.

But I understand. I used to think St. Thomas was just "playing with words," too.


Vincentius,

Looking forward to that email. Great to be in touch with you again.

tornpage
Reply
#59
tornpage Wrote:
Quote:That is incoherent, for one desires what one does not have. You are playing with words: it is the existence of baptism which is necessary for desire thereof.

If the "existence" of the sacrament is necessary for salvation, then the sacrament is necessary for salvation. Or is its nonexistence necessary for salvation?

You do not understand: the existence of the sacrament is necessary for it to be desired, for one cannot desire that which does not exist. But the very definition of desire precludes its object from already being in one's possession.

tornpage Wrote:And as St. Thomas also noted:

Quote:Objection 3. Further, as stated above (1; 65, 4), the sacrament of Baptism is necessary for salvation. Now that is necessary "without which something cannot be" (Metaph. v). Therefore it seems that none can obtain salvation without Baptism.

Reply to Objection 3. The sacrament of Baptism is said to be necessary for salvation in so far as man cannot be saved without, at least, Baptism of desire; "which, with God, counts for the deed" (Augustine, Enarr. in Ps. 57).

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Third Part, Q.68, Article 1

Show me where it says "baptism with water is necessary" for salvation. The Church has only said "baptism is necessary" for salvation. As both St. Thomas and I said, it is, even if it is received only in desire.

I shall proceed with a simple syllogism; if the premisses are true, so is the conclusion, which if you wish to deny, you must demonstrate the falsity of at least one of the premisses.

1. Water is of necessity for baptism (Council of Trent, sess. VII, Decr. de Baptismo, can. II).
2. Baptism is necessary for salvation (ibid., can. V).
3. Therefore, water is necessary for salvation.
Reply
#60
Quote:You do not understand: the existence of the sacrament is necessary for it to be desired, for one cannot desire that which does not exist. But the very definition of desire precludes its object from already being in one's possession

You have to ask yourself, "whose definition"? And you have to answer with the only one that matters: the Church's. The Church proclaims both the necessity of the sacraments and the FACT that desire for the sacraments may suffice under certain conditions. You have to accept this. And this is not inconsistent.

Let me address your point above and your syllogism together, and therefore somewhat indirectly as to the syllogism, though I think you can get the drift of the ultimate response to the syllogism from what I say below - though I'll directly address your syllogism later. 

The Fourth Commandment provides that one must honor one’s father and mother. Which typically includes obeying their commands and authority. However, if doing so either violates another provision of the law, which is paramount, you do not need to obey them. For example,

Quote:Matthew 10:34 -37

34.  Do not think *that I came to send peace into the earth: I came not to send peace, but the sword.  35.  For I come to separate *man against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.  36.  And a mans enemies, they of his own household. 37.  He that loveth father or mother more than me, is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter above me, is not worthy of me.

37. More than.]  No earthly thing, nor duty to Parents, wife, children, country, or to a man's own body and life, can be any just excuse why a man should do, or feign himself to do or believe anything, against Christ or the unity and faith of the Church.

If there should be a tension between the Fourth Commandment and obedience to Christ, the Fourth Commandment gives way. This is Truth. One who recognizes this and concedes this would not be “saying” that one should not “honor their father and mother.”

I frame that this way because of Trent’s proscription:

Quote: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.

Trent tells us that the sacraments are necessary, but also tells us that a desire for baptism or the sacrament of penance may suffice for justification initially or for restoration after a subsequent fall. I have expressed elsewhere why this is not inconsistent. But I'll lay that out again.


Quote:“Now in order for a thing to be done for an end, some knowledge of the end is necessary.” St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theolgica, First Part of the Second Part, Q.6, Art. 1.

Quote:Objection 3. Further, as stated above (1; 65, 4), the sacrament of Baptism is necessary for salvation. Now that is necessary "without which something cannot be" (Metaph. v). Therefore it seems that none can obtain salvation without Baptism.

Reply to Objection 3. The sacrament of Baptism is said to be necessary for salvation in so far as man cannot be saved without, at least, Baptism of desire; "which, with God, counts for the deed" (Augustine, Enarr. in Ps. 57).

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Third Part, Q.68, Article 1

The sacrament is necessary for the desire (to quote St. Thomas, the “knowledge of the end [i.e. baptism] is necessary”), and the desire “counts for the deed” – in other words, the one desiring baptism or penance who for some reason beyond their control does not receive it has in fact received it in the eyes of the Lord. Again, the “necessity” of baptism is not violated: they have received it. So says the Truth. 

If you want to insist on actual physical receipt of the sacraments of either baptism or penance you are placing a lesser reality (the material realm) over a greater (the spiritual). We are a composite of body and soul, as Christ is. The body (the sacraments) is an absolutely necessary part of our humanity, and is necessary in the divine economy of salvation (e.g., the resurrection of the body, the “necessity” of the sacraments). But the body serves the greater reality.

The Church tells us that the sacraments are absolutely necessary, and tells us that desire for them may suffice under certain conditions. This is consistent, and is Truth. Don’t force your sense of “necessity” onto the one economy of salvation. Your sense of “necessity” means nothing.

And I say that as one who himself has forced my sense of “necessity” onto the Truth. 
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)