Feeneyism
#91
(01-22-2011, 04:18 PM)Stubborn Wrote: St. Joan of Arc died excommunicated - what is your point?

I already posted the necessity of water as dictated from St. Augustine, St. Thomas, St. Alphonsus, Pope St. Pius V and the Council of Trent. Again what's your point?

With BOD, one can attain justification, but no water = no salvation.

Folks may not like what is infallibly defined, but to change it they can only do what V1 condemned, namely, abandon the dogma's meaning in the name of a more profound understanding.

Excommunications aren't infallible, as they can be lifted at a later date.  Canonizations, however, are deemed infallible.  The Church has canonized various men who -- according to your interpretation of Trent -- denied a declared dogma of the Church.  In other words, she infallibly canonized manifest heretics.  What does that say about her as the doctrinally infallible Church of Christ?

Nowhere have I denied the necessity of sacramental baptism, nor do any of the Church's theologians.  It is true, however, that the sanctifying grace given in baptism can be supplied by other means (i.e. perfect charity).  Of course, this does not mean that men who receive this grace are no longer under the obligation to receive sacramental baptism, because they still are.  If, on the other hand, they die before being able to meet the obligation, their perfect charity and contrition, and their desire for the sacrament will secure them their salvation.

Finally, you have no ecclesiastical authority whatsoever to be telling other people, not to mention the Church's own well-educated Doctors and theologians, what the Council of Trent actually meant; you are disobeying interpretations which have been approved by the Church.  Moreover, you pass over the fact that Trent mentioned "desire thereof" on several different occassions:

Sess. VI, chap. 4: Dz. 796 - "This translation after the promulgation of the Gospel cannot be effected except through the laver of regeneration [can. 5 de bapt.], or a desire for it"
Sess. VI, chap. 14: Dz. 807 - "the sacramental confession of the same, at least in desire and to be made in its season"
Sess. VII, can. 4: Dz. 847 - "If anyone shall say that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation, but are superfluous, and that, although all are not necessary for every individual, without them or without the desire of them through faith alone men obtain from God the grace of justification; let him be anathema."
Sess. XIV, chap. 4: Dz. 898 - "The Council teaches, furthermore, that though it sometimes happens that this contrition is perfect because of charity and reconciles man to God, before this sacrament is actually received, this reconciliation nevertheless must not be ascribed to the contrition itself without the desire of the sacrament which is included in it."

The Church's own approved theologians have used these passages in support of baptism of desire.  Once again, why should we heed your interpretation over the Church's own theologians, whose interpretations by the way, have never been condemned in the last four centuries, but on the contrary, have been expressly approved by her?
Reply
#92
(01-22-2011, 05:10 PM)SouthpawLink Wrote:
(01-22-2011, 04:18 PM)Stubborn Wrote: St. Joan of Arc died excommunicated - what is your point?

I already posted the necessity of water as dictated from St. Augustine, St. Thomas, St. Alphonsus, Pope St. Pius V and the Council of Trent. Again what's your point?

With BOD, one can attain justification, but no water = no salvation.

Folks may not like what is infallibly defined, but to change it they can only do what V1 condemned, namely, abandon the dogma's meaning in the name of a more profound understanding.

Excommunications aren't infallible, as they can be lifted at a later date.  Canonizations, however, are deemed infallible.  The Church has canonized various men who -- according to your interpretation of Trent -- denied a declared dogma of the Church.  In other words, she infallibly canonized manifest heretics.  What does that say about her as the doctrinally infallible Church of Christ?

Nowhere have I denied the necessity of sacramental baptism, nor do any of the Church's theologians.  It is true, however, that the sanctifying grace given in baptism can be supplied by other means (i.e. perfect charity).  Of course, this does not mean that men who receive this grace are no longer under the obligation to receive sacramental baptism, because they still are.  If, on the other hand, they die before being able to meet the obligation, their perfect charity and contrition, and their desire for the sacrament will secure them their salvation.

Finally, you have no ecclesiastical authority whatsoever to be telling other people, not to mention the Church's own well-educated Doctors and theologians, what the Council of Trent actually meant; you are disobeying interpretations which have been approved by the Church.  Moreover, you pass over the fact that Trent mentioned "desire thereof" on several different occassions:

Sess. VI, chap. 4: Dz. 796 - "This translation after the promulgation of the Gospel cannot be effected except through the laver of regeneration [can. 5 de bapt.], or a desire for it"
Sess. VI, chap. 14: Dz. 807 - "the sacramental confession of the same, at least in desire and to be made in its season"
Sess. VII, can. 4: Dz. 847 - "If anyone shall say that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation, but are superfluous, and that, although all are not necessary for every individual, without them or without the desire of them through faith alone men obtain from God the grace of justification; let him be anathema."
Sess. XIV, chap. 4: Dz. 898 - "The Council teaches, furthermore, that though it sometimes happens that this contrition is perfect because of charity and reconciles man to God, before this sacrament is actually received, this reconciliation nevertheless must not be ascribed to the contrition itself without the desire of the sacrament which is included in it."

The Church's own approved theologians have used these passages in support of baptism of desire.  Once again, why should we heed your interpretation over the Church's own theologians, whose interpretations by the way, have never been condemned in the last four centuries, but on the contrary, have been expressly approved by her?

I claim no ecclesiastical authority. I'm just a trad on a message board.

It's not "my interpretation", I am not the one reinterpreting anything. I already posted that "the desire thereof" is 1) not exclusively the desire of baptism, 2) "the desire thereof" as defined in Trent,  grants the grace of justification, not salvation. Is that reinterpreting anything? No, it is repeating, not reinterpreting. How is it folks see that as a reinterpretation is beyond me.

I am the one reading it literally. Truth is, you are reinterpreting it, not me. All I can be accused of is NOT reinterpreting it.
I am the one "maintaining" that "which has once been declared by holy mother church". Again, *that* is no reinterpretation of dogma, *that* is dogma itself.

"Abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding" is condemned, and it is condemned no matter who reinterprets it. Again, *that* is no reinterpretation of dogma, *that* is dogma itself.

As of now, not one person here has supplied "the" official Church doctrine on BOD which states one can attain salvation via BOD. What exactly is it that you all are defending any way?

Reply
#93
Quote:  If, on the other hand, they die before being able to meet the obligation, their perfect charity and contrition, and their desire for the sacrament will secure them their salvation.

For the sake of argument, assuming baptism of desire can save you, what you describe would be insufficient for salvation:

Ath. Creed Wrote:1. Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith;

2. Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. 

You left out that he must also hold the Catholic Faith.
Reply
#94
(01-15-2011, 12:19 AM)faith3faith Wrote:
(01-14-2011, 11:21 PM)Gerard Wrote: It's my belief that if anyone is saved who to our senses was not a Catholic.  It's because God physically provided the sacrament even though we weren't witness to it. 

Amen!!!!! This is exactly the Feeneyite Traditional Catholic position.

Infact, St. Thomas Aquinas had said that if baptism were essential to the salvation of such a man(who was unable to be baptized by anyone on Earth), then God would sooner send an Angel to (water)baptize him than allow him to be lost.

Yes, this strike me too.  I tell people that one MUST be Catholic to go to Heaven, because it is only the Catholic Faith that pleases God.  If God intervenes in such ways for "good willed people" who are not Catholic at the moment of their death, and send angels to baptize them, then of course I would never second-guess God for a second, but rejoice that another sheep was spared!  However, since I do NOT know for certain that this occurs, I cannot myself tell others that "oh, its okay...angels will baptize you" and this will happen without myself LYING and utterly displeasing God and sinning mortally myself, and so I will not do it.  Jesus Christ was very clear with what we MUST do, and that is what I tell people.  I suspect St Thomas is right---but I DON'T KNOW FOR SURE.  But I DO know for sure that a Catholic who dies in the state of the grace is promised by Christ to be with Him after death, so that is ALL I can say without lying.

But this all doesn't answer the question of this false oecumenism, does it?  Sadly, no.  That is what I lament so deeply about these "pan-religious" efforts: they make it seem as if God has said that "Everyone makes it!" when He has said expressly the opposite.  Christ warned us again and again that not all souls are saved, and that this is the consequence of free will.  We just cannot and should not be telling people, presenting it to people, and acting with people as if these things like paganism and false religions are good things, because they are so horrible!  Just horrible!  We should tell people to GET OUT of there, not encourage them--not smile and accept "holy" books!  The same with the East: we need to get them back to the One Church, not play footsy sending gifts back and forth.  And we should not empower their schismatic leaders---that is very bad in my opinion.  But I'm off topic now, so I'll stop.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)