Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus
#71
(11-11-2011, 11:42 PM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(11-11-2011, 11:35 PM)jordanawef Wrote: The last sentence is confusing though.  Speak it clearer.

:salute:

According to the Church's teaching, all those who die in the state of justification are infallibly saved. Fr. Feeney made an exception for this by saying that those who had been justified by baptism of desire only could not be saved. When asked where they would go, he said that he didn't know.

Can you post the infallible teaching declaring salvation to the unbaptized just?

Fr. Feeney from The Bread of Life................

Q. Where do these souls go if they die in the state of justification but have not received Baptism of Water?

A. I do not know.

Q. Do they go to Hell?

A. No.

Q. Do they go to Heaven?

A. No.

Q. Are there any such souls?

A. I do not know! Neither do you!

Q. What are we to say to those who believe there are such souls?

A. We must say to them that they are making reason prevail over Faith, and the laws of probability over the Providence of God.

May I pause here to declare that I think, both with regard to the Sacrament of Baptism and the Sacrament of Penance, that the Liberal theologians, when it suits them, are making perfect acts of love of God altogether too easy for a fallen nature like ours.

I am not going to think it as difficult for a Catholic who has fallen into mortal sin but who, through his Faith, remembers his Holy Communions, his Blessed Mother, his past confessions, God’s rich forgivenesses in the sacraments, to make an act of perfect love, as for a catechumen, who has not had yet the benefit of one of God’s sanctifying sacraments. But the very fact that the Church requires every mortal sin committed to be confessed, whether one is perfectly sorry for it or not, shows the Church has a maternal suspicion of this perfect act of love of God obtaining forgiveness apart from the Sacrament of forgiveness instituted by Christ.

When I am dying, my dear children, if I tell you I am in the state of mortal sin (and I promise to do so if so it seems to me) do run for a priest, no matter how far you have to run! Do not just kneel down and teach me how to perfectly love without any sanctifying grace in my soul!

If the priest reaches me before I die, know that I have truly received the mercy of God. If the priest does not reach me, then wonder very much whether I have received it or not!



Reply
#72
(11-12-2011, 09:54 AM)Stubborn Wrote:
(11-11-2011, 11:42 PM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(11-11-2011, 11:35 PM)jordanawef Wrote: The last sentence is confusing though.  Speak it clearer.

:salute:

According to the Church's teaching, all those who die in the state of justification are infallibly saved. Fr. Feeney made an exception for this by saying that those who had been justified by baptism of desire only could not be saved. When asked where they would go, he said that he didn't know.

Can you post the infallible teaching declaring salvation to the unbaptized just?

With all due respect, you are very subtly changing the topic of discussion.

This discussion does not concern an "infallible teaching declaring salvation to the unbaptized just". This discussion concerns Fr. Feeney's views on justification.

These are the facts:

(1) Justification is, effectively, the state of sanctifying grace. (Council of Trent)

(2) A person who dies in the state of sanctifying grace is infallibly saved. (Council of Trent)

(3) Fr. Feeney acknowledged that baptism of desire can put a soul into a state of justification.

(4) Fr. Feeney denied that such a person who dies in the state of justification (devoid of water baptism) could be saved.
Bread of Life, Chapter 7 Wrote:Q. What. does "Baptism of Desire" mean?
A. It means the belief in the necessity of Baptism of Water for salvation, and a full intent to receive it.

Q. Can "Baptism of Desire" save you?
A. Never.

Q. Could "Baptism of Desire" save you if you really believed it could?
A. It could not.

Q. Could it possibly suffice for you to pass into a state of justification?
A. It could.

Q. If you got into the state of justification with the aid of "Baptism of Desire," and then failed to receive Baptism of Water, could you be saved?
A. Never.

Fr. Feeney then goes on to explain that a soul can be in the state of justification (state of sanctifying grace) via Baptism of Desire yet not be saved. This is his own summary of his answer:
Bread of Life, Chapter 7 Wrote:Q. Can anyone now be saved without Baptism of Water?
A. No one can be saved without Baptism of Water.

Q. Are the souls of those who die in the state of justification saved, if they have not received Baptism of Water?
A. No. They are not saved.

Q. Where do these souls go if they die in the state of justification but have not received Baptism of Water?
A. I do not know.

Q. Do they go to Hell?
A. No.

Q. Do they go to Heaven?
A. No.

Q. Are there any such souls?
A. I do not know! Neither do you!

Q. What are we to say to those who believe there are such souls?
A. We must say to them that they are making reason prevail over Faith, and the laws of probability over the Providence of God.

Whether or not desire for baptism can, of itself, save a soul, the belief that a person who attains to the state of justification does not go to Heaven is contrary to the Council of Trent and the constant unwavering teaching of the Church, which proclaims that those who die in the state of justification are saved.

You see, in attempting to counter one error, Fr. Feeney simply--and most certainly lamentably--made another error. He reacted boldly to one error with another, in the same way that the Monothelites and Monophysites reacted to Arian heresy by going to the extent of practically denying Christ's humanity. It is a lamentable fact, no doubt, but a fact nonetheless.

So the Fr. Feeney debates, which always center around whether or Fr. Feeney believed in baptism of desire, are radically offtrack. Instead of discussing whether baptism of desire can save a soul, the discussion should center around Fr. Feeney's views on justification, which apparently deviated from the Church's teachings.
Reply
#73
(11-12-2011, 12:52 PM)INPEFESS Wrote: With all due respect, you are very subtly changing the topic of discussion.

This discussion does not concern an "infallible teaching declaring salvation to the unbaptized just". This discussion concerns Fr. Feeney's views on justification.

These are the facts:

(1) Justification is, effectively, the state of sanctifying grace. (Council of Trent)

(2) A person who dies in the state of sanctifying grace is infallibly saved. (Council of Trent)

(3) Fr. Feeney acknowledged that baptism of desire can put a soul into a state of justification.

For the record, I want to believe in BOD. I've been playing devil's advocate forever simply seeking the truth and to date, the truth is still "unless a man be born again of water....."

For #1, please post where Trent says this.

For #2, Yes, agreed

For #3, Yes, agreed

(11-12-2011, 12:52 PM)INPEFESS Wrote: (4) Fr. Feeney denied that such a person who dies in the state of justification (devoid of water baptism) could be saved.

Agreed, that is what he preached.
(11-12-2011, 12:52 PM)INPEFESS Wrote: Fr. Feeney then goes on to explain that a soul can be in the state of justification (state of sanctifying grace) via Baptism of Desire yet not be saved. This is his own summary of his answer:
Bread of Life, Chapter 7 Wrote:Q. Can anyone now be saved without Baptism of Water?
A. No one can be saved without Baptism of Water.

Q. Are the souls of those who die in the state of justification saved, if they have not received Baptism of Water?
A. No. They are not saved.

Q. Where do these souls go if they die in the state of justification but have not received Baptism of Water?
A. I do not know.

Q. Do they go to Hell?
A. No.

Q. Do they go to Heaven?
A. No.

Q. Are there any such souls?
A. I do not know! Neither do you!

Q. What are we to say to those who believe there are such souls?
A. We must say to them that they are making reason prevail over Faith, and the laws of probability over the Providence of God.

Whether or not desire for baptism can, of itself, save a soul, the belief that a person who attains to the state of justification does not go to Heaven is contrary to the Council of Trent and the constant unwavering teaching of the Church, which proclaims that those who die in the state of justification are saved.


To my knowledge, that justification means salvation among those unbaptized is not something Trent would have ever said without contradicting itself. Please post where Trent is granting salvation to just souls who are unbaptized. 

(11-12-2011, 12:52 PM)INPEFESS Wrote: You see, in attempting to counter one error, Fr. Feeney simply--and most certainly lamentably--made another error. He reacted boldly to one error with another, in the same way that the Monothelites and Monophysites reacted to Arian heresy by going to the extent of practically denying Christ's humanity. It is a lamentable fact, no doubt, but a fact nonetheless.

So the Fr. Feeney debates, which always center around whether or Fr. Feeney believed in baptism of desire, are radically offtrack. Instead of discussing whether baptism of desire can save a soul, the discussion should center around Fr. Feeney's views on justification, which apparently deviated from the Church's teachings.

Fr. Feeney explains the difference between Salvation and Justification - personally, I think his explanation is exceedingly beautiful.......... All the saints of the Old Testament were there in Limbo. Not one of them had seen the Beatific Vision. They were just waiting. Some of those holy souls must have had to wait many centuries in the Limbo of the Just. Why not let them go to Heaven? They were justified! They had the true Faith! They were sanctified! They had died in the state of sanctifying grace!

They had justification and sanctification. Why was salvation being kept from them?



Reply
#74
(11-12-2011, 02:08 PM)Stubborn Wrote:
(11-12-2011, 12:52 PM)INPEFESS Wrote: With all due respect, you are very subtly changing the topic of discussion.

This discussion does not concern an "infallible teaching declaring salvation to the unbaptized just". This discussion concerns Fr. Feeney's views on justification.

These are the facts:

(1) Justification is, effectively, the state of sanctifying grace. (Council of Trent)

For #1, please post where Trent says this.

Stubborn, if you are even going so far as to question what the state of justification is, then how can you have the faintest understanding of what this issue is all about? In order to understanding the baptism of desire discussion, please start by studying the entire sixth session of the Council of Trent--not by reading it with a certain bias, but by understanding what it is actually saying.

I have watched you debate this issue before, and I am not convinced that you are as objective in this discussion as you think you are. I used to flirt with the teachings of Fr. Feeney until a deeper study into the issue revealed that I knew next to nothing about what the Church actually teaches concerning baptism and what baptism of desire actually is. Fr. Feeney overreacted to a liberal error by overcorrecting for it; many well-intentioned people do this, but it is not the appropriate response. He obsessed over his private understanding of the dogma so much in reaction to the liberals that he worked himself in a giant theological mess. The Church summoned him to try to sort out this mess he had gotten himself into, but, as we know, he never answered that call (despite the fact that he said in his book that it was absolutely necessary to obey the pope in all things in order to remain a Catholic.) You say, "But he was sick." Fr. Feeney himself said, however, that the reason he wouldn't go was because he didn't believe he would receive a fair hearing.

In my study of baptism of desire, I learned a lot of things along the way, such as the various different degrees of necessity, the ability of God to act outside of the visible signs of the sacraments, and how baptism of desire actually reconciles the Church's teachings concerning the effect of making a perfect act of love for God, which is a teaching that is rarely even brought up in these discussions. In the end, I didn't let anyone change my mind; my studies ended up changing my own mind about it because I was absolutely objective about it. It wasn't because I was duped into Modernist thinking, as you may be thinking. Anyone who knows me knows how wary I am of Modernist thought. But the fact of the matter is that, in order to reject baptism of desire, you have to (1) mince a whole lot of Church documents and (2) accuse a whole lot of saints, doctors, and scholastics of being influenced by Modernism or of even being Modernists themselves. . . even before the heresy was around. The Feeney view engages in private interpretation of Church dogma like the Protestants do of Scripture and overlooks fine nuances of the Church's teachings on grace, baptism, and perfect charity, which are much broader subjects than the one canon that Fr. Feeney allowed to control his thought to the exclusion of everything else. Whenever there is a discrepancy about what this or that dogma actually means, we should submit to the interpretation of those who have been appointed to speak on behalf of the Church.

No, the justificatory efficacy of desire for baptism is not a dogma of faith, but does carry the note of a sententia fidei proxima, which, in his book Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Ludwig Ott defines as "a doctrine that is regarded by theologians as a truth of revelation but has not yet been finally promulgated as such by the Church." As a result, as uncomfortable it is to acknowledge, one is not permitted to deny this teaching.

If you are open to the possibility of being wrong, then there could be some use in discussing it, but from what I've seen of your discussions of the topic here, you are not open to the possibility of being wrong. Unfortunately, I don't have the time right now to get into an involved discussion on the topic if you are unwilling to consider the possibility that you have misunderstood what the Church actually teaches about this. So, for the time-being, I think I'm just going to have to let it go. I have no hard feelings for you whatsoever, I really think you should reflect upon yourself and try to understand the fullness of what the Church teachings concerning (1) making a perfect act of love for God, (2) why the external signs of the sacraments exist in the first place, (3) the means by which God's can communicate grace, (4) and what exactly the Church was talking about when the Council of Trent said that the desire for the waters of baptism, motivated by perfect charity, could justify a soul without him even knowing it. Pray for understanding--to be guided by a sincere yearning for Truth no matter what--and let God do the rest.

Pax tecum.
Reply
#75
Stubborn, as to your recent question of "what was keeping the Old Testament Saints out of Heaven".....Salvation was being kept from them because they were not yet Baptized - with water - as Pope Benedict XII stated in "Benedictus Deus" (1336). Unfortunately he didn't go into an explanation as to exactly how they were eventually baptized. Nonetheless, we do know that many of them took on the flesh and walked about Jerusalem after Our Lord's death. Was it impossible for the Almighty God to baptize them after death? Is anything impossible for God? Did He not obtain water for over a million Israelites in the middle of the blazing desert, every single day, for 40 years? And how many of the Saints have raised the dead to life for the sole purpose of baptizing them? St. Patrick raised many to life - just to baptize them. St. Collette did the same, as did St. Martin of Tours, as did St. Peter Claver, St. Francis of Rome, St. Francis Xavier, St. Gerard Majella, and the list goes on. Many fortunate souls have also been saved miraculously from death because they were not yet baptized. The great martyr, St. Isaac Jogues, was in the habit of sneaking into the tents of the native indians in order to baptize the little babies who were on the verge of death. As soon as he would baptize them, they would pass away. If, however, for some reason he could not reach the infant, it would strangely recover. This happened so many times that the natives began to believe it was the actual Rite of Baptism that was killing the children.
Again, is anything impossible for God? Could He not bring water out of the ground of a prison cell, as he did for St. Peter, so he could baptize the guards? Could He not, at a moment's notice, send someone to baptize, as St. Phillip to the Ethiopian? Could He not miraculously transport someone even to the outskirts of a foreign country to preach the Gospel, as He did with Venerable Mary of Agreda? Explain to me, all you who maintain so-called "Baptism of Desire", exactly WHY Almighty God cannot seem to reach someone with a drop of water....Your position, when taken to its absurd end, is blasphemy against the soveriegn power, wisdom, and omniscience of God.
"Baptism of Desire" began from St Augustine's unfortunate misinterpretation of a remark of St. Ambrose during the funeral eulogy for the Emperor Valentinian. It has long since been condemned.
The matter has been settled by the infallible teachings of the Magisterium on the SACRAMENT of Baptism (Canon V, again): "If anyone says that Baptism (the Sacrament) is not necessary for salvation, let him be anathema". Canon II goes even further and condemns any metaphorical "baptisms" - such as "Baptism of Desire".
The haphazard reference to a "desire" for a sacrament in Canon IV, quoted by someone earlier (which is from Session 7 of the Council), is speaking of the Sacrament of Penance, the "desire" for which justifies a man even without the actual reception of the Sacrament (as stated clearly in Session 14, Chapter 4). Remember, this Canon is covering ALL the Sacraments in general.  
Baptism of Desire is heretical, plain and simple. It is also blasphemous to assert that the Almighty is powerless to reach someone with a drop of water.
For those who have trouble understanding how on earth the Saints could have held such a belief, when that very belief is heretical, you would do well to gain a proper understanding of the concept of heresy. St. Thomas Aquinas teaches us that "The essence of heresy is a rejection of the Divine teaching authority of the Magisterium". That means that when you are faced with the true and infallible teachings of the Magisterium, and yet continue in your obstinate decision to base your beliefs on the fallible writings of the Saints and theologians, you fall into heresy. Wake up.
We can go round and round and round with this issue until you all take your last gasping breath of fresh air. Until then, if you truly wish it to be your last, you just keep relying on the fallible writings of Fr. Feeny, St. Augustine, and St. Thomas Aquinas, while those of us who wish to breathe the air of paradise, will continue to put our faith in the infallible teachings of the Magisterium of the Holy Catholic Church, as Almighty God demands of us.
Reply
#76
Well you are a sedevacantist, so why didn't Pius V lose his office when he issued the Catechism of Trent, and why didn't Benedict XV cease to be the Vicar of Christ when he issued the 1917 Canon law, both of which teach baptism by desire?
Reply
#77
(11-13-2011, 12:54 AM)sedevacantist Wrote: Stubborn, as to your recent question of "what was keeping the Old Testament Saints out of Heaven".....Salvation was being kept from them because they were not yet Baptized - with water - as Pope Benedict XII stated in "Benedictus Deus" (1336). Unfortunately he didn't go into an explanation as to exactly how they were eventually baptized. Nonetheless, we do know that many of them took on the flesh and walked about Jerusalem after Our Lord's death. Was it impossible for the Almighty God to baptize them after death? Is anything impossible for God? Did He not obtain water for over a million Israelites in the middle of the blazing desert, every single day, for 40 years? And how many of the Saints have raised the dead to life for the sole purpose of baptizing them? St. Patrick raised many to life - just to baptize them. St. Collette did the same, as did St. Martin of Tours, as did St. Peter Claver, St. Francis of Rome, St. Francis Xavier, St. Gerard Majella, and the list goes on. Many fortunate souls have also been saved miraculously from death because they were not yet baptized. The great martyr, St. Isaac Jogues, was in the habit of sneaking into the tents of the native indians in order to baptize the little babies who were on the verge of death. As soon as he would baptize them, they would pass away. If, however, for some reason he could not reach the infant, it would strangely recover. This happened so many times that the natives began to believe it was the actual Rite of Baptism that was killing the children.
Again, is anything impossible for God? Could He not bring water out of the ground of a prison cell, as he did for St. Peter, so he could baptize the guards? Could He not, at a moment's notice, send someone to baptize, as St. Phillip to the Ethiopian? Could He not miraculously transport someone even to the outskirts of a foreign country to preach the Gospel, as He did with Venerable Mary of Agreda? Explain to me, all you who maintain so-called "Baptism of Desire", exactly WHY Almighty God cannot seem to reach someone with a drop of water....Your position, when taken to its absurd end, is blasphemy against the soveriegn power, wisdom, and omniscience of God.
"Baptism of Desire" began from St Augustine's unfortunate misinterpretation of a remark of St. Ambrose during the funeral eulogy for the Emperor Valentinian. It has long since been condemned.
The matter has been settled by the infallible teachings of the Magisterium on the SACRAMENT of Baptism (Canon V, again): "If anyone says that Baptism (the Sacrament) is not necessary for salvation, let him be anathema". Canon II goes even further and condemns any metaphorical "baptisms" - such as "Baptism of Desire".
The haphazard reference to a "desire" for a sacrament in Canon IV, quoted by someone earlier (which is from Session 7 of the Council), is speaking of the Sacrament of Penance, the "desire" for which justifies a man even without the actual reception of the Sacrament (as stated clearly in Session 14, Chapter 4). Remember, this Canon is covering ALL the Sacraments in general.  
Baptism of Desire is heretical, plain and simple. It is also blasphemous to assert that the Almighty is powerless to reach someone with a drop of water.
For those who have trouble understanding how on earth the Saints could have held such a belief, when that very belief is heretical, you would do well to gain a proper understanding of the concept of heresy. St. Thomas Aquinas teaches us that "The essence of heresy is a rejection of the Divine teaching authority of the Magisterium". That means that when you are faced with the true and infallible teachings of the Magisterium, and yet continue in your obstinate decision to base your beliefs on the fallible writings of the Saints and theologians, you fall into heresy. Wake up.
We can go round and round and round with this issue until you all take your last gasping breath of fresh air. Until then, if you truly wish it to be your last, you just keep relying on the fallible writings of Fr. Feeny, St. Augustine, and St. Thomas Aquinas, while those of us who wish to breathe the air of paradise, will continue to put our faith in the infallible teachings of the Magisterium of the Holy Catholic Church, as Almighty God demands of us.

So does this mean that all who were not baptized by water (i.e. the conventional water baptism) are not saved?

Baptism of Desire is not in contradiction with God's aspect of Him being omnipotent. It exists exactly because God is so. God is so powerful that he is able to save those who wish to be saved. These people who desire to be saved are Baptized by their desire to be saved, and therefore be baptized. The are able to be Baptized by their own desire because God knows what is in their hearts and God is so powerful, he can offer them salvation.

I ask, when did God ever condemn anyone who does not wish to be condemned? A person who does not want to burn in hell will obviously seek to be baptized. But if that person cannot be baptized because of a reason that he has no control over, yet still desires to be saved and loves God with all his heart, will that person be damned?

Of course not!

God will never condemn anyone who does not wish no to be condemned. God will not damn those who, by their own free will choose to love him. God will never send to hell those who were unable to be baptized because of circumstances or situations over which they have no choice, no option or no control.

The only people that are not saved are those who choose not to be saved.

Dear sedevacantist, will not an all-loving God save those who want to be saved? How can you reconcile the fact that God is all-loving, all-merciful, understanding and good, with the non-existence of Baptism of Desire? Do you think the Church will make doctrines that contradict these aspects of God?

If Baptism of Desire does not exist, then God would not save who wish to be saved. God would condemn those who chose not to be condemned. That contradicts the fact that God is all-loving and merciful!
Reply
#78
(11-13-2011, 12:05 AM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(11-12-2011, 02:08 PM)Stubborn Wrote:
(11-12-2011, 12:52 PM)INPEFESS Wrote: With all due respect, you are very subtly changing the topic of discussion.

This discussion does not concern an "infallible teaching declaring salvation to the unbaptized just". This discussion concerns Fr. Feeney's views on justification.

These are the facts:

(1) Justification is, effectively, the state of sanctifying grace. (Council of Trent)

For #1, please post where Trent says this.

Stubborn, if you are even going so far as to question what the state of justification is, then how can you have the faintest understanding of what this issue is all about? In order to understanding the baptism of desire discussion, please start by studying the entire sixth session of the Council of Trent--not by reading it with a certain bias, but by understanding what it is actually saying.


INPEFESS, first I want to tell you that I, and most others here I am sure, respect your thoughts immensely - I am not a very good writer by any stretch of the imagination - certainly way, way below par compared to you, so please do not read disrespect toward you in my post and I apologize right now if at times I come across that way - it is certainly not done on purpose. 

I have studied the entire sixth session of the Council of Trent and can say that nowhere does it teach that one who is unbaptized can attain salvation. If I am wrong, please show me what it is actually saying.

I'll post two teachings from Trent's 6th session below - that should be enough I think, but if not, please post the pertinent information that you say I am missing or denying - - I am not trying to deny the truth and will happily thank you abundantly if you will point out the thing you believe I am missing or denying!


Sixth Session, Capter VII
What the justification of the impious is, and what are the causes thereof.
Of this Justification the causes are these: the final cause indeed is the glory of God and of Jesus Christ, and life everlasting; while the efficient cause is a merciful God who washes and sanctifies gratuitously, signing, and anointing with the holy Spirit of promise, who is the pledge of our inheritance; but the meritorious cause is His most beloved only-begotten, our Lord Jesus Christ, who, when we were enemies, for the exceeding charity wherewith he loved us, merited Justification for us by His most holy Passion on the wood of the cross, and made satisfaction for us unto God the Father; the instrumental cause is the sacrament of baptism, which is the sacrament of faith, without which (faith) no man was ever justified

Now I am very interested to see if Trent turns around and contradicts what they just said above. I have never been able to find Trent contradicting itself, in fact Trent agrees precisely with every other "official" infallibly declared statement on this subject - -  but in case I am either not reading this correctly or Trent does contradict themselves, please show me.

Here is yet another teaching from Trent's 6th session:

CHAPTER XIV. (Is speaking about those who are already baptized)
On the fallen, and their restoration. (Note it says their "restoration", not their initiation)

As regards those who, by sin, have fallen from the received grace of Justification, they may be again justified, when, God exciting them, through the sacrament of Penance they shall have attained to the recovery...................Whence it is to be taught, that the penitence of a Christian, after his fall, is very different from that at (his) baptism;and that therein are included not only a cessation from sins, and a detestation thereof, or, a contrite and humble heart, but also the sacramental confession of the said sins,-at least in desire, and to be made in its season,-and sacerdotal absolution; and likewise satisfaction by fasts, alms, prayers, and the other pious exercises of a spiritual life; not indeed for the eternal punishment,-which is, together with the guilt, remitted, either by the sacrament, or by the desire of the sacrament,-but for the temporal punishment, which, as the sacred writings teach, is not always wholly remitted, as is done in baptism, to those who, ungrateful to the grace of God which they have received, have grieved the Holy Spirit, and have not feared to violate the temple of God. Concerning which penitence it is written; Be mindful whence thou art fallen; do penance.......


FWIW, I am not seeking to be right, I am seeking the truth. I have found absolute clear consistency in all infallible truths and have found inconsistency and contradictory teachings from the "Ordinary Magisterium"  i.e. Doctors, Theologians and Saints etc (as I have already posted their contradictions) on this subject.


Chapter IV (Latin)
“Quae quidem translatio post evangelium promulgatum sine lavacro regenerationis aut eius voto fieri non potest, sicut scriptum est: Nisi quis renatus fuerit ex aqua et Spiirtu Sancto, non potest introire in regnum Dei.

Chapter IV (English)
By which words, a description of the Justification of the impious is indicated,-as being a translation, from that state wherein man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace, and of the adoption of the sons of God, through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Saviour. And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.

For the record, I do not know Latin, but "voto" sure looks like the word "Vow" and not "Desire" to me. So I am of the opinion that there has been a mistranslation of the canons.  But I do not believe one necessarily needs to know Latin to know that or the desire thereof in the context of the canon makes no sense in light of the Scripture at the end of the canon. This is something (using the context of a sentence) I think most of us learned in the 3rd or 4th grade. Again, if I am not reading it correctly, please correct me. I fail to be able to reason out how one must be born again of water while at the same time stating the mere desire of it suffices - I also cannot understand how anyone can reason that out.


(11-13-2011, 12:05 AM)INPEFESS Wrote: I have watched you debate this issue before, and I am not convinced that you are as objective in this discussion as you think you are. I used to flirt with the teachings of Fr. Feeney until a deeper study into the issue revealed that I knew next to nothing about what the Church actually teaches concerning baptism and what baptism of desire actually is. Fr. Feeney overreacted to a liberal error by overcorrecting for it; many well-intentioned people do this, but it is not the appropriate response. He obsessed over his private understanding of the dogma so much in reaction to the liberals that he worked himself in a giant theological mess. The Church summoned him to try to sort out this mess he had gotten himself into, but, as we know, he never answered that call (despite the fact that he said in his book that it was absolutely necessary to obey the pope in all things in order to remain a Catholic.) You say, "But he was sick." Fr. Feeney himself said, however, that the reason he wouldn't go was because he didn't believe he would receive a fair hearing.

I do not recall ever saying he did not go because he was sick, if I did then I was wrong and apologize. The reason he did not go was because he was afraid of the scandal that would befall the SBC in his absence if he were to leave in the midst of the "Boston Heresy Case". He most likely foresaw them shunting him off into the world of "some place where he would not be heard from" - similar to what they did to that priest in El Paso recently and is the same thing that was perpetrated on many good priests after V2.

BTW, The Archbishop who was the instrumental cause of the whole "Boston Heresy Case" and everything else against Fr. Feeney  was Archbishop Richard James Cushing. According to wikepedia, At the Second Vatican Council (1962–1965) Cushing played a vital role in drafting Nostra Aetate, the document that officially absolved the Jews of deicide charge.

Nice guy hey? Gives a little bit of insight as to what Fr. was up against even back then.

Reply
#79
Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.

This verse does have a reference to baptism, but the word for "water" means "a river" or a great quantity of water. So it also means spiritual water (grace) and does not exclude baptism by desire
Reply
#80
(11-13-2011, 10:03 AM)LorenzoMdeVera Wrote: So does this mean that all who were not baptized by water (i.e. the conventional water baptism) are not saved?

Baptism of Desire is not in contradiction with God's aspect of Him being omnipotent. It exists exactly because God is so. God is so powerful that he is able to save those who wish to be saved. These people who desire to be saved are Baptized by their desire to be saved, and therefore be baptized. The are able to be Baptized by their own desire because God knows what is in their hearts and God is so powerful, he can offer them salvation.

Where is Divine Providence in this? Does God not feed the birds of the air when he could easily sustain them without food? Does he not promise that if we seek we will find? If we knock it will be opened? if we ask it will be given to us? Would God deny baptism one who is sincere and in need of Baptism while He feeds the birds?

Why would God make that promise to us at all if when we asked, God only made us believe we were answered when we really weren't?  Why would God make that promise to us at all if when we seeked, we really didn't find but were satisfied that God only led us to believe we found what we were seeking?

If you then being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children: how much more will your Father who is in heaven, give good things to them that ask him? How does BOD agree with this?

I think you get what I'm saying here.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)