A Question on Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus
#61
The best resources I've seen on this topic are as follows.

From the Catechism of St. Pius X:

[quote]21 Q: What is the constitution of the Church of Jesus Christ?

A: The Church of Jesus Christ has been constituted as a true and perfect Society; and in her we can distinguish a soul and a body.

22 Q: In what does the Soul of the Church consist?

A: The Soul of the Church consists in her internal and spiritual endowments, that is, faith, hope, charity, the gifts of grace and of the Holy Ghost, together with all the heavenly treasures which are hers through the meri
Reply
#62
(03-06-2010, 11:35 PM)PeterII Wrote: BOD is sanctifying grace in the soul of a person who has not yet received the sacrament of Baptism.  The requirement is a free will to accept this grace from God.  The difference comes from the fact that liberals don't recognize that non-Catholics are in the state of objective mortal sin. 

BOD is a good intention, even a vague good intention...........even an intention from those who are incapable to have an intention - as in the case of the unbaptized aborted and infants.

What it is not is "sanctifying grace in the soul of a person who has not yet received the sacrament of Baptism" for there can be no sanctifying grace in a soul stained with Original Sin until that stain is washed away with the waters (real - not metaphorical) of baptism.

Were it any other way, it would reduce the words of Our Lord to a meaningless formula as it has already done to the infallible declarations of His Vicars.

Reply
#63
(03-06-2010, 02:11 PM)PeterII Wrote:
(03-06-2010, 12:48 PM)patrickinmpls Wrote:
(02-27-2010, 01:15 AM)Walty Wrote: Thanks for the good post St. Sebastian.  I guess I'm trying to suss out exactly where the disconnect is between the ecumenical practices of the post-Conciliar Church and the traditional dogma of EENS.  There is certainly a disconnect there, but I'm having trouble putting my finger on it.  It seems that there is a shift from recognizing the Catholic Church as absolutely synonymous with the Church of Christ and thus we have the abandonment of seeking the conversion of others.  Now it almost seems to be implied that other religions are equally valid, or at least within Christ's Church in some vague way even when they are at odds with the visible Catholic Church.  And this implies EENS is false.  I don't know.  I'm still trying to wrap my brain entirely around what is going on here.

The Catholic Church now says the Church of Christ "subsists" in the Catholic Church and not "is equal to"

I know you all dismiss the dimonds as loony tunes, but point of fact is that this page, http://www.sspx.org/miscellaneous/three_...eyites.htm,  contains a falsehood, "with all the fathers, doctors, popes and unanimously all theologians" This is not true, they are not all unanimous  - you only need one counterexample for that statement to be false - and there are many in this document. http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/2..._final.pdf

There is not one negative declaration against baptism of desire from all those sources.  The Dimonds are drawing false conclusions from the statements. 

Well you say that, but I really read it differently than you.  One of the many from the document. 

Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, Can. 2 on the Sacrament of Baptism, Sess. 7, 1547,  “If anyone shall say that real and natural water is not necessary for baptism, and on that account those words of Our Lord Jesus Christ: ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit’ [John 3:5], are distorted into some sort of metaphor: let him be anathema.”


Reply
#64
(03-06-2010, 11:47 PM)Stubborn Wrote:
(03-06-2010, 11:35 PM)PeterII Wrote: BOD is sanctifying grace in the soul of a person who has not yet received the sacrament of Baptism.  The requirement is a free will to accept this grace from God.  The difference comes from the fact that liberals don't recognize that non-Catholics are in the state of objective mortal sin. 

BOD is a good intention, even a vague good intention...........even an intention from those who are incapable to have an intention - as in the case of the unbaptized aborted and infants.

What it is not is "sanctifying grace in the soul of a person who has not yet received the sacrament of Baptism" for there can be no sanctifying grace in a soul stained with Original Sin until that stain is washed away with the waters (real - not metaphorical) of baptism.

Were it any other way, it would reduce the words of Our Lord to a meaningless formula as it has already done to the infallible declarations of His Vicars.

The Church has always believed that perfect contrition or perfect charity can save a soul absent of water baptism:

(A) man can obtain salvation without being actually baptized, on account of his desire for Baptism, which desire is the outcome of "faith that worketh by charity," whereby God, Whose power is not tied to visible sacraments, sanctifies man inwardly. (Summa Theologica, Part IIIa, Q. 68)

It's from revelation:  "For Cornelius, even before his baptism, was filled with the Holy Spirit."  Augustine, On Baptism, Book IV.   

But the soul is always obligated to receive water baptism thereafter and must become an official member of the Catholic Church.  The liberals pervert doctrine by making it seem that other Churches are means of salvation, and that perfect contrition is something easy to get -  like the people who say, "oh I can sin now and just repent on my deathbed."  Well, the fear of Hell on your deathbed is not perfect contrition, it is merely attrition, and won't save your soul.  You will need valid sacraments and can't get those through your pastor or sufi. 
Reply
#65

Quote:Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, Can. 2 on the Sacrament of Baptism, Sess. 7, 1547,  “If anyone shall say that real and natural water is not necessary for baptism, and on that account those words of Our Lord Jesus Christ: ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit’ [John 3:5], are distorted into some sort of metaphor: let him be anathema.”

Natural water is necessary for the sacrament of baptism.  You can't use gasoline or ketchup.  So what was the Dimond brothers point?  That's what I mean about drawing false conclusions.   
Reply
#66
(03-07-2010, 05:30 PM)PeterII Wrote: The Church has always believed that perfect contrition or perfect charity can save a soul absent of water baptism:

(A) man can obtain salvation without being actually baptized, on account of his desire for Baptism, which desire is the outcome of "faith that worketh by charity," whereby God, Whose power is not tied to visible sacraments, sanctifies man inwardly. (Summa Theologica, Part IIIa, Q. 68)

It's from revelation:  "For Cornelius, even before his baptism, was filled with the Holy Spirit."  Augustine, On Baptism, Book IV.   

But the soul is always obligated to receive water baptism thereafter and must become an official member of the Catholic Church.  The liberals pervert doctrine by making it seem that other Churches are means of salvation, and that perfect contrition is something easy to get -  like the people who say, "oh I can sin now and just repent on my deathbed."  Well, the fear of Hell on your deathbed is not perfect contrition, it is merely attrition, and won't save your soul.  You will need valid sacraments and can't get those through your pastor or sufi. 

Well of course Perfect Contrition (which requires a perfect act of love) can put a soul in the state of sanctifying grace, but that is not BOD.

Aside from that, what chances do we, as Catholics have of making an act of Perfect Contrition let alone an infant who is incapable or a prot/jew/muslim/infidel/etc who doesn't even know about "Perfect Contrition"?

We as Catholics cannot know if our Perfect Contrition did the job yet many Catholics are all too happy to say everyone else with some vague desire is saved?

Preposterous.
Reply
#67
(03-07-2010, 05:34 PM)PeterII Wrote:
Quote:Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, Can. 2 on the Sacrament of Baptism, Sess. 7, 1547,  “If anyone shall say that real and natural water is not necessary for baptism, and on that account those words of Our Lord Jesus Christ: ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit’ [John 3:5], are distorted into some sort of metaphor: let him be anathema.”

Natural water is necessary for the sacrament of baptism.  You can't use gasoline or ketchup.  So what was the Dimond brothers point?  That's what I mean about drawing false conclusions.   

You assert that someone can be baptized without water.
You assert that someone can be baptized with their desire for baptism (and therefore without real and natural water).

You say "Natural water is necessary for the sacrament of baptism."  but you believe "Natural water or desire or blood is necessary for the sacrament of baptism."




Reply
#68
Quote:You assert that someone can be baptized without water.
You assert that someone can be baptized with their desire for baptism (and therefore without real and natural water).

You say "Natural water is necessary for the sacrament of baptism."  but you believe "Natural water or desire or blood is necessary for the sacrament of baptism."

Wow, those are a lot of assertions!  I only said that you need to use water to perform the sacrament of baptism.  Take the statement at face value. 

As for the other assertions, I believe what the Church has always believed:  That there is one sacrament of baptism, and two analogous baptisms that provide the grace necessary to save one's soul when the other cannot be had due to circumstances beyond the individual's control. 
Reply
#69
Walty Wrote:This is the most frustrating thing.  Baptism by desire seems to have authority in tradition.  As does baptism of blood.  What doesn't have any authority in tradition ( I don't think) is the notion that a vast majority of people living today outside the Church are going to be saved via either.  But I can't find anyone who can give me a traditional and definitive answer to what exactly BOD is and what the requirements are.

Walty,
I think Fr. Michael Mueller answered your question the best in his work, The Catholic Dogma. He explains who is guilty of heresy and who is not, and he also does an excellent job covering baptism of desire and invincible ignorance.

See also Bishop George Hay's The Sincere Christian (App., pp. 345-390). He explains invincible ignorance quite well, and thus who qualifies for receiving baptism of desire.

Here's a quick reference:

"Inculpable or invincible ignorance has never been and will never be a means of salvation. ... But if we say that inculpable ignorance cannot save a man, we thereby do not say that invincible ignorance damns a man. Almighty God, who is just and condemns no one without his fault, puts, therefore, such souls as are in invincible ignorance of the truths of salvation, in the way of salvation, either by natural or supernatural means. ... If a person cannot receive Baptism or Penance in reality, and is aware of the obligation of receiving it, he must have the explicit desire to receive it; but, if he is not aware of this obligation, he must have at least the implicit desire to receive it, and this desire must be joined to divine faith in the Redeemer and to an act of perfect charity or contrition, which includes the sincere desire of the soul to comply with all that God requires of it in order to be saved. This act of perfect charity is a gratuitous gift and an extraordinary grace of God, which we cannot have of ourselves; it is a great miracle of grace, that God alone can perform a miracle that changes a person from being a heathen or a heretic into a Catholic. Any one, therefore, who dies without this miraculous change of his soul will be lost forever" (The Catholic Dogma, part II, sec. 7, 8, 11).

Finally, both works can be found online.
Reply
#70

"He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be condemned."

The words of Almighty God Himself.  Who among the sentimentalists disputes these words?

All men who would be saved, will be saved, according to God's justice and mercy.


JMJ


























'

The words of Almighty God Himself.  Which part of this is unclear to the sentimental of heart?
And who is it who will contradict Him?

Any man who is of good will and intent towards God, will accept and respond to the grace given him and will diligently seek the truth, and finding it will become a true part of the Church, and hence can be saved.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)