Poll: Do you agree with the following:
You do not have permission to vote in this poll.
6
0%
0 0%
21
0%
0 0%
5
0%
0 0%
Total 0 vote(s) 0%
* You voted for this item. [Show Results]

EENS
#81
(04-06-2010, 04:53 PM)James02 Wrote:
Quote: No one says that baptism is optional. A desire for baptism does not mean the desirer thinks it is optional or that I believe it is optional.
So which anathema do you choose to fall under, Canon 2 or Canon 5.  Be honest, which one is wrong?

Well, ordinarily, I like the Church to decide whether or not I'm a heretic. But I can appreciate your sincerity. You truly believe this so you are applying the implications to one you think is denying it.
I think the evidence provided in my former post is sufficient for now.
Reply
#82
I respect the position of those who say there is EXPLICIT baptism of desire.  There were some Church Fathers and theologians that held that view.    I disagree with it, and believe Trent has spoken.  But I respect the belief.

IMPLICIT desire is a different story.  How it is not Pelagian is impossible for me to understand.  There is also scant support of it in the Church, and nothing rising to the level of infallible.  Against this there is a plethora of dogma saying you must be in the Church to be saved.

Now in order to argue for an implicit desire, and satisfy all the rest of what the Church believes, you would have to believe something along the lines of this: "That God, by His Sovereign Plan, for hidden reasons completely unknown to us, chooses to save Manglar the naked savage.  And this is not because Manglar is "good", or has performed good works, but because God gave him actual Graces to reform.  Then God infuses supernatural Faith in Manglar, and Manglar makes acts of perfect Charity, that is, soley because he loves Jesus, who he now believes in because of the miracle worked by God."

So you believe that God works this massive miracle.  Why not believe also that while God is working this miracle, He also gets him baptized?

The answer is that the proponents of Implicit Desire don't believe what I wrote.  They want to judge God and say it is unfair that the muslim is not saved, thus impossible.  And thus the muslim is saved because he is a good guy.  The Pelagian heresy, except worse, because Pelagius still believed that a self-regenerated man would then come to Baptism.
Reply
#83
(04-05-2010, 06:52 PM)James02 Wrote:
Quote: Its not an open question either though because doctrinal decrees from the Holy Office are not subject to debate:

There wasn't any doctrinal decree from the Holy Office.  It was a private letter.  I will deal this more in depth later, but THIS IS ALL YOU HAVE.  A private letter.  Give me an encyclical or a Council.  You can't.  Implicit Desire is Pelagian.

I will have to post the relevant text about implicit desire again:

Holy Office, 8 August 1949 Wrote:Accordingly, the Most Eminent and Most Reverend Cardinals of this Supreme Congregation, in a plenary session held on Wednesday, July 27, 1949, decreed, and the august Pontiff in an audience on the following Thursday, July 28, 1949, deigned to give his approval, that the following explanations pertinent to the doctrine, and also that invitations and exhortations relevant to discipline be given:

....However, this desire need not always be explicit, as it is in catechumens; but when a person is involved in invincible ignorance God accepts also an implicit desire, so called because it is included in that good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God.

These things are clearly taught in that dogmatic letter which was issued by the Sovereign Pontiff, Pope Pius XII, on June 29, 1943, (AAS, Vol. 35, an. 1943, p. 193 ff.).

Whether a decree is private or public is irrelevant, the authority is the same (and this decree was ordered to be publically published in 1952).  It is the highest court of appeals on doctrinal matters, and its judgments are binding.  They gave the encyclical you ask for: "On the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ"  and the concept of implicit desire has a basis in revelation in the Acts of the Apostles when St. Peter encountered pagans who worshipped the true God the best way they knew how.

As for Pelagianism, this is a heresy that denies Original Sin and the need of God's grace.  It has nothing to do with implicit desire which is sanctifying grace in a soul of good will that is invincibly ignorant. 
Reply
#84
PeterII Wrote:First we must understand that one of the reasons theologians exist is to categorize or prepare propositions for the judgment of the Church.

The other reason would be to make people angry.
Reply
#85
Quote: I will have to post the relevant text about implicit desire again:

It is not relevant.  Can you give me the citation in the AAS?  Oh, that's right, you can't.  It was never promulgated to the AAS.

But let's get down to brass tacks and look at this tripe filled letter.  Here's a quote:
Quote: These things are clearly taught in that dogmatic letter which was issued by the Sovereign Pontiff, Pope Pius XII, on June 29, 1943, On the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ. For in this letter the Sovereign Pontiff clearly distinguishes between those who are actually incorporated into the Church as members, and those who are united to the Church only by desire..... he mentions those who ‘are related to the Mystical Body of the Redeemer by a certain unconscious yearning and desire, ..... With these wise words he reproves both those who exclude from eternal salvation all united to the Church only by implicit desire, and those who falsely assert that men can be saved equally well in every religion…

But what does the Encyclical say?
Quote: “As you know, Venerable Brethren, from the very beginning of Our Pontificate, We have committed to the protection and guidance of heaven those who do not belong to the visible Body of the Catholic Church, … We ask each and every one of them to correspond to the interior movements of grace, and to seek to withdraw from that state in which they cannot be sure of their salvation. For even though by an unconscious desire and longing they are ordered/disposed towards the Mystical Body of the Redeemer (etiamsi inscio quodam desiderio ac voto ad mysticum Redemptoris Corpus ordinentur), they still remain deprived of those many heavenly gifts and helps which can only be enjoyed in the Catholic Church. Therefore may they enter into Catholic unity and, joined with Us in the one, organic God of Jesus Christ, may they together with us run on to the one Head in the Society of glorious love (Pius XII, On the Mystical body of Christ).”

Here's another quote:
Quote: Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed

So here's the point.  The letter (a "Protocol") is ERRONEOUS as your very eyes have just revealed to you. The Pope NEVER says that people can be/are UNITED to the Church by implicit desire.  It is not there.  This "Protocol" is not infallible and it is not binding.  It is tripe.

By the way, in a later Encyclical Pope Pius XII has the following, which can only be a comment on the "Protocol":
Quote: “Some say they are not bound by the doctrine, explained in Our Encyclical Letter of a few years ago, and based on the Sources of Revelation, which teaches that the Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same thing. Some reduce to a meaningless formula the necessity of belonging to the True Church in order to gain eternal salvation. Others finally belittle the reasonable character of the credibility of Christian faith. These and like errors, it is clear, have crept in among certain of Our sons who are deceived by imprudent zeal for souls (Pius XII, Humani Generis)
Reply
#86
Here's more tripe from the "Protocol"  (: preliminary memorandum in negotiations, serving as a basis for final agreement.  A draft.  A convention less formal than a treaty.)

Tripe Letter Wrote:But it must not be thought that any kind of desire of entering the Church suffices that one may be saved. It is necessary that the desire by which one is related to the Church be animated by perfect charity. Nor can an implicit desire produce its effect, unless a person has supernatural faith: ....

In other words, a miraculous Immaculate Re-conception.  So the person's so called "implicit desire" has nothing to do with this.  It is talking about a miraculous event whereby someone is enlightened with super natural Faith in Jesus Christ, meaning they are taught all about Him and believe, and they are filled with perfect Charity, that is they perform good works only out of Love for the Triune God.  THAT is what this means.  It probably has never occurred.  And if God is going to send a monk or angel to give this person these gifts, why not baptize him at the same time?  Again, the term "implicit desire" is meaningless; we are talking about a miracle.

But what does the Church teach about Charity (let alone PERFECT charity):

Quote: “Whosoever, then, is divided from this unity of the Church, our Mother, either through heresy in entertaining wrong notions concerning God, or by the erroneousness of schism in not loving his neighbor, is bereft of the grace of that charity, concerning which Paul saith what we have before given;  ‘And though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.’  As if he expressed himself in plain utterance; ‘Without the bounds of its place, the fire of fining being applied to me only afflicts me with torment, and does not purify me by its cleansing.’  [Referring to Job 28:1, “Silver hath beginnings of its veins, and gold hath a place wherein it is fined.”] This place all they that are lovers of holy peace seek with heartiest endeavors, this on seeking they find, this finding they keep, knowing the remission of sin. 

As to where, or when, or to what sort it is vouchsafed:  Where is it, save in the bosom of our Catholic Mother?  When, but before the day of coming departure?  Because, ‘Behold, now is the accepted time; behold, now is the day of salvation (2 Cor 6:2).’  And, ‘Seek ye the Lord while He may be found, call ye upon Him while He is near (Is. 55:6.)’  To what sort of persons, but to the converted, who after the imitating of little children are fashioned by humility as their mistress?  To whom it is said: ‘Suffer little children to come unto Me, and forbid them not; for of such is the kingdom of heaven (Matt. 19:14).’  (Pope St. Gregory the Great, Magna Moralia, Book xviii, chapter 42).”

Reply
#87
Quote:It is not relevant.  Can you give me the citation in the AAS?  Oh, that's right, you can't.  It was never promulgated to the AAS.

It was a statement confirming doctrine, not a judicious act.  The Holy Office knows its procedures and has the authority to disseminate things as it sees fit, not how someone else will tell them. 

Quote:So here's the point.  The letter (a "Protocol") is ERRONEOUS as your very eyes have just revealed to you. The Pope NEVER says that people can be/are UNITED to the Church by implicit desire.  It is not there.  This "Protocol" is not infallible and it is not binding.  It is tripe.

Unfortunately to believe this, you have to believe that the Pope himself can't interpret the very encyclical which he wrote.  And the idea of a protocol is silly, because the Holy Office does not "negotiate" on matters of doctrine. 

As the encyclicals you quote explain, as the Pope himself reaffirmed, and as the great anti-liberal theologian Mons. Joseph Clifford Fenton said on the matter:
Quote:The encyclical Mystici Corporis  showed clearly that the explanation of this teaching involved a recognition of the fact that salvation is possible for men “who are related to the Mystical Body of the Redeemer by a certain unconscious yearning  and desire.”[13]  The encyclical Humani generis reproved those who “reduce to an empty formula the necessity of belonging to the true Church in order to gain eternal salvation.”[14]


The teachings compliment each other.  To belong to the Church, one must be a member in actuality or necessarily have a true supernatural faith animated by charity.  That is what is meant by "desire" and not reducing "necessity" into something empty.   "Implicit" adds the factor of invincible ignorance to a genuine supernatural faith and charity. 
Reply
#88
I don't think I can make a fully-formed argument right now, but I do have some information that might be of some help in this debate. It comes from the 1917 Code of Canon Law:

"Baptism, the foundation of the sacraments, is necessary for salvation for all in re or in desire" (1917 Code of Canon Law, n. 737; found in Adolphe Tanquerey's Brevior Synopsis of Dogmatic Theology, bk. II, sec. 1014, First Thesis, b, 3: p. 226).

And here is the Latin translation that I've found online:

Can 737 §1. Baptismus, Sacramentorum ianua ac fundamentum, omnibus in re vel saltem in voto necessarius ad salutem, valide non confertur, nisi per ablutionem aquae verae et naturalis cum praescripta verborum forma.

http://www.jgray.org/codes/cic17lat.html


It may be of note that Tanquerey quoted canon 737 before writing his thesis on baptism of desire (sec. 1021), where he used Matt. 10:39 and the statement from the Council of Trent that has been brought up in this debate (Sess. VI, cap. 4: Den. 796).


Personally, I agree with Fr. Müller's statement in The Catholic Dogma:

"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" (Part II, sec. 11).
Reply
#89
Quote: And the idea of a protocol is silly,

I agree it is silly.  But that is what it is, Protocol 122/49.  By the way, the definition of Protocol I used came from a 1910 Catholic dictionary.  To claim a Protocol is somehow binding is indeed absurd and silly.  Especially after I showed it was erroneous.

Quote: you have to believe that the Pope himself can't interpret the very encyclical which he wrote. .....As the encyclicals you quote explain, as the Pope himself reaffirmed,

Let's see what the Pope's comment are on his own Encyclical:
Quote: Some reduce to a meaningless formula the necessity of belonging to the True Church in order to gain eternal salvation. ...... These and like errors, it is clear, have crept in among certain of Our sons who are deceived by imprudent zeal for souls

So do you believe baptism is not necessary for salvation, or do you believe that natural water is not required for baptism?
Reply
#90
(04-08-2010, 03:47 PM)James02 Wrote:
Quote: And the idea of a protocol is silly,

I agree it is silly.  But that is what it is, Protocol 122/49.  By the way, the definition of Protocol I used came from a 1910 Catholic dictionary.  To claim a Protocol is somehow binding is indeed absurd and silly.  Especially after I showed it was erroneous.

Quote: you have to believe that the Pope himself can't interpret the very encyclical which he wrote. .....As the encyclicals you quote explain, as the Pope himself reaffirmed,

Let's see what the Pope's comment are on his own Encyclical:
Quote: Some reduce to a meaningless formula the necessity of belonging to the True Church in order to gain eternal salvation. ...... These and like errors, it is clear, have crept in among certain of Our sons who are deceived by imprudent zeal for souls

So do you believe baptism is not necessary for salvation, or do you believe that natural water is not required for baptism?

If you want to use technical terms, then you are going to have to define them the way the Holy Office intended.  In the case of Protocol 122/49, it is a record of their tribunal reiterating Church teaching.  It's authority is the same as any other decree from the Holy Office. 

Baptism is necessary for salvation.  But something can be a necessity of means and/or a necessity of precept.  In the case of Baptism it is both.  The common Church teaching is that Baptism is absolutely necessary in the case of infants.  As for adults, voto will suffice to impart sanctifying grace.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)