Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus
#84
Stubborn, thank you for your kind reply.

I will try be as brief as possible for such an involved question.

First, keep in mind that the most common cause of heresy is ignorance. People who usually end up stubbornly denying a teaching do so because they simply don't understand the teaching. I am not accusing you of heresy here; I am simply making a point about why many people feel the need to deny the possibility of baptism of desire: they read the Council of Trent, they see an apparent contradiction, and they don't understand what it is saying, so they simply deny the meaning of Trent's reference to a person who vows to be baptized but who dies before that happens.

Make sure that you don't deny it simply because you, personally, don't see how it is possible. 

(11-13-2011, 01:52 PM)Stubborn Wrote: 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

Of course. Belief in baptism of desire does not exclude this acknowledgment. That you think it does just goes back to what I was saying earlier: denial of Church teaching is usually the result of not understanding it, so zealous Catholics feel the need to put their feet down in the name of defending Truth. The problem with this is that once a person convinces himself that he is simply defending Truth he will hear of nothing else. This is what I am afraid has happened to you.

If this were just a matter of theological opinion, I wouldn't have much to say about it; there would be no use. In fact, I truly don't like having this discussion. It is very complex, becomes quickly emotional, and requires me to have a level of patience that I find very difficult. But as I mentioned in my previous post, baptism of desire carries a note of sententiae fidei proxima, which means that no-one is permitted to doubt it without jeopardizing their attachment to the Church. Denying baptism of desire is a very serious issue, so I caution you to place aside what you perceive to be theological contradictions in the Council of Trent and read what the post-Trent theologians (all of them, not just some of them) who have been charged with the responsibility of telling us what it means have taught about it. We absolutely must--MUST--submit our understanding to what those who have the authority to teach on such matters have taught. That doesn't mean we have to accept contradictions. It simply means we have to accept the possibility that perhaps we are imagining a contradiction where one doesn't exist. Understanding this teaching does not require one to do what the Modernists ask you to do: just accept contradictions without an explanation. Baptism of desire is theologically understandable; it simply requires the will to examine all of the principles at work in the question.

By doing this, I am simply asking you to reflect upon your methodology. If you say these theologians are clearly wrong by appealing to the Council of Trent than you are simply going in a circle and arguing in the way the Protestants argue with the Bible. The good thing about Catholicism is that we don't have to do that. We can use the subsequent teachings of those with authority to teach on matters pertaining to faith and morals to explain what the Church and Her councils mean. You have seen a contradiction, but the theologians charged with interpreting Trent don't see a contradiction because the issue is much broader in scope than simply saying "Water baptism is necessary for salvation." You see that as a cut and dry method that doesn't need any explanation, but, theologically, it much more complex than that.

For example, are you aware that there are at least 4 different kinds of "necessity"? In fact, the Catholic Encyclopedia, in providing examples of them, uses baptism as an example:
Catholic Encyclopedia: Necessity Wrote:In theology the notion of necessity is sometimes applied with special meaning. ... Again, in relation to the means necessary to salvation theologians divide necessity into necessity of means and necessity of precept. In the first case the means is so necessary to salvation that without it (absolute necessity) or its substitute (relative necessity), even if the omission is guiltless, the end cannot be reached. Thus faith and baptism of water are necessary by a necessity of means, the former absolutely, the latter relatively, for salvation. In the second case, necessity is based on a positive precept, commanding something the omission of which, unless culpable, does not absolutely prevent the reaching of the end.

Sauvage, George. "Necessity." nn. 5-6. The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 10. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1911.

Baptism by water is "necessary", yes; it is not optional, and one cannot use one's free will to "opt" out of it, which is the position the canon condemns: 'no-one can say that it is not necessary.' Instead, Baptism of water is necessary according to a "relative necessity of means", which is a "necessity ... based on a positive precept, commanding something the omission of which, unless culpable, does not absolutely prevent the reaching of the end."

Some of these principles are derived from and enunciated by the Angelic Doctor himself, whose work was used as a foundation for the very council we are discussing (the Council of Trent):
St. Thomas Aquinas Wrote:Reply to Objection 2. Although we do not read that they confessed, it may be that they did; for many things were done which were not recorded in writing. Moreover Christ has the power of excellence in the sacraments; so that He could bestow the reality of the sacrament without using the things which belong to the sacrament.

Summa Theologica, Supplementum Tertiae Partis, Question 6, Article 1, Reply to Objection 2.
 

If St. Thomas' writings were used as the foundation of these teachings, and if St. Thomas, himself, acknowledged that Christ could work outside of the outward signs of the sacrament, then clearly the Council of Trent was not contradicting itself on this teaching in the way that you think it might if we accept this teaching.

I am not going to lay out all of the evidence that contradicts the Feenyite view, but it is important when interpreting ecclesiastical documents to have a thorough understanding of the complex theological concepts upon which they are predicated.

St. Thomas Aquinas speaks of the necessity of water baptism, yet he, himself, acknowledges that Christ can operate outside of the visible signs of the sacrament.

If you study the purpose of the signs of the sacrament, you will learn that they exist so as to provide us with certainty that we received this or that sacrament. We can never be certain that we have received them until after we've received the visible sign. They are outward signs that the Church requires by divine decree for the sake of providing certainty that we have actually received this or that sacrament.

But, in the same way that one can be pardoned for one's sins with a perfect act of love for God before confession (yet not know that one has), one can receive the grace of Baptism before actually receiving the visible sign of the sacrament (without knowing that one has).

However, the fine distinction that must be kept in mind is that we can never know whether we have received this or that sacrament until we have received the visible sign of the sacrament. In this way, yes, Baptism of water is absolutely necessary for salvation.

Hence, we cannot presume that we have been forgiven for our sins or that we have received the grace of baptism until we have received the sacraments themselves.

In this way, Baptism of water is absolutely necessary: there is no choice to receive it or not to receive it.

However, we know that God can confer the grace of Baptism outside of the visible sign. One is not permitted to then "opt" out of water Baptism, for he can never know that God has actually conferred the grace upon him. He may feel as though he has received the grace, but he cannot know, and must presume he hasn't received it, so he is obliged by the law of the Church to receive Baptism of water immediately. If he dies before he receives the outward sign, we can only hope that his vow to be baptized was animated by perfect charity and that it sufficed to justify his soul, as the Council of Trent indicated that it could.

This is why the 1917 Code of Canon Law legislates that those who die as catechumens are to be buried with baptized Catholics. The Church, infallibly guided by the Holy Ghost, would not have bound this law in Heaven if there were absolutely no possibility whatsoever that they had received the grace prior to actual water Baptism. We know from the Church's own law that She, Herself, considers them Catholics. Whether they were animated by the perfect charity necessary to actually receive the reality of the sacrament, however, is known only to God. We can only hope and pray . . .

Quote: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.

Be careful before claiming that the ordinary magisterium is contradictory. Doubt yourself and your own understanding before you doubt the ordinary magisterium. We are not obliged to submit to the extraordinary magisterium only.

Quote: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. 

The translation to "desire" rather than "vow" renders the same consequence: they both speak of a person who vows to be baptized, and whose vow is animated by perfect charity, but who dies before receiving the visible sign of the sacrament, which is necessary to be sure that he has received the sacrament. That is what baptism of desire is: a vow, animated by perfect charity, to receive the sacrament as soon as possible. 

Quote: 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.

But this gets back to what I said earlier: failing to understand something results in a simple denial of it in the name of maintaining Truth. If what is being taught contradicts what has already been interpreted by the ordinary magisterium, then it must be rejected as opposed to Catholicism, but if the ordinary magisterium is interpreting a teaching of the Church in a way that doesn't contradict previous teaching (and Baptism of desire does not if you understand why water is necessary in the first place), then it must be given assent of faith. It is very, very dangerous and proud to say "it doesn't make sense to me, so it must be wrong" because that is not reacting to a true contradiction; that is saying "I don't understand it so there must be a contradiction." You have to study the broader question here. There are many things you have to understand first before even beginning to examine this question. "What is a sacrament?" "Why do we need them?" "What is a visible sign?" "Why do we need them?" Et cetera.


Quote:I do not recall ever saying he did not go because he was sick, if I did then I was wrong and apologize.

Perhaps you didn't. I know many others say that this was the reason.

Quote: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.

A reason, and an arguably strong reason, no doubt, but the fact of the matter is that he was summoned to Rome by the pope himself, the Vicar of Christ on Earth. Fr. Feeney taught that it was absolutely necessary to obey the pope in order to remain Catholic, yet he chose to disobey him here. God will judge him justly, I'm sure, but there is simply no more urgent a matter than to respond to the pope's direct order. Obeying a superior is God's will unless it requires you to do something against the Faith. It would have been lamentable for Fr. Feeney to have to leave his post, but leaving his post to answer the summon of the pope is not contrary to the Faith (as would be, say, compromising with Modernism).
Quote: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.

Interesting! I will have to look into this.

Pax tecum.

EDITED
Reply


Messages In This Thread
Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus - by jbcatholic - 08-18-2011, 02:52 PM
Re: Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus - by Scriptorium - 08-18-2011, 03:23 PM
Re: Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus - by jbcatholic - 08-18-2011, 03:41 PM
Re: Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus - by Doce Me - 08-18-2011, 03:44 PM
Re: Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus - by Scriptorium - 08-18-2011, 03:59 PM
Re: Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus - by charlesh - 08-18-2011, 05:45 PM
Re: Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus - by JoniCath - 08-18-2011, 07:06 PM
Re: Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus - by charlesh - 08-18-2011, 08:25 PM
Re: Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus - by SouthpawLink - 08-18-2011, 08:51 PM
Re: Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus - by Doce Me - 08-18-2011, 09:07 PM
Re: Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus - by charlesh - 08-19-2011, 03:37 AM
Re: Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus - by Gregory I - 08-19-2011, 09:10 PM
Re: Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus - by UnamSanctam - 08-19-2011, 09:15 PM
Re: Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus - by charlesh - 08-20-2011, 02:10 AM
Re: Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus - by Gregory I - 08-20-2011, 02:34 AM
Re: Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus - by Stubborn - 08-20-2011, 11:15 AM
Re: Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus - by charlesh - 08-20-2011, 01:41 PM
Re: Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus - by Gregory I - 08-20-2011, 05:53 PM
Re: Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus - by anthony - 08-20-2011, 08:00 PM
Re: Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus - by charlesh - 08-20-2011, 08:52 PM
Re: Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus - by Stubborn - 08-20-2011, 09:06 PM
Re: Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus - by charlesh - 08-20-2011, 09:13 PM
Re: Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus - by Louis_Martin - 08-20-2011, 09:15 PM
Re: Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus - by Stubborn - 08-20-2011, 09:15 PM
Re: Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus - by Gregory I - 08-20-2011, 11:51 PM
Re: Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus - by Stubborn - 08-20-2011, 11:58 PM
Re: Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus - by Gregory I - 08-21-2011, 12:08 AM
Re: Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus - by Stubborn - 08-21-2011, 12:49 AM
Re: Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus - by vtcatholic - 09-24-2011, 01:52 PM
Re: Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus - by jordanawef - 10-02-2011, 05:32 PM
Re: Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus - by Stubborn - 10-02-2011, 07:36 PM
Re: Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus - by OldMan - 10-02-2011, 10:01 PM
Re: Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus - by jordanawef - 10-02-2011, 11:25 PM
Re: Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus - by Stubborn - 10-03-2011, 06:11 AM
Re: Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus - by jordanawef - 10-03-2011, 11:35 AM
Re: Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus - by Stubborn - 10-03-2011, 11:42 AM
Re: Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus - by McNider - 10-03-2011, 04:27 PM
Re: Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus - by jordanawef - 10-04-2011, 10:05 AM
Re: Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus - by jordanawef - 10-04-2011, 10:18 AM
Re: Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus - by Stubborn - 10-04-2011, 02:10 PM
Re: Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus - by Stubborn - 10-04-2011, 02:12 PM
Re: Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus - by Stubborn - 10-04-2011, 02:21 PM
Re: Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus - by Stubborn - 10-04-2011, 03:02 PM
Re: Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus - by INPEFESS - 10-09-2011, 04:21 AM
Re: Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus - by INPEFESS - 10-09-2011, 04:33 AM
Re: Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus - by jordanawef - 10-09-2011, 02:52 PM
Re: Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus - by Stubborn - 10-14-2011, 07:44 AM
Re: Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus - by SouthpawLink - 10-14-2011, 01:42 PM
Re: Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus - by Stubborn - 10-14-2011, 05:07 PM
Re: Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus - by INPEFESS - 10-14-2011, 11:07 PM
Re: Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus - by Stubborn - 10-18-2011, 07:37 AM
Re: Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus - by Stubborn - 10-19-2011, 07:54 AM
Re: Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus - by Vetus Ordo - 11-08-2011, 10:27 AM
Re: Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus - by Stubborn - 11-10-2011, 08:47 AM
Re: Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus - by Doce Me - 11-10-2011, 05:07 PM
Re: Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus - by jordanawef - 11-10-2011, 11:44 PM
Re: Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus - by jordanawef - 11-10-2011, 11:51 PM
Re: Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus - by Stubborn - 11-11-2011, 07:11 AM
Re: Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus - by JM3 - 11-11-2011, 02:02 PM
Re: Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus - by jordanawef - 11-11-2011, 03:20 PM
Re: Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus - by INPEFESS - 11-11-2011, 11:24 PM
Re: Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus - by jordanawef - 11-11-2011, 11:30 PM
Re: Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus - by jordanawef - 11-11-2011, 11:35 PM
Re: Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus - by INPEFESS - 11-11-2011, 11:42 PM
Re: Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus - by INPEFESS - 11-12-2011, 05:00 AM
Re: Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus - by Stubborn - 11-12-2011, 09:54 AM
Re: Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus - by INPEFESS - 11-12-2011, 12:52 PM
Re: Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus - by Stubborn - 11-12-2011, 02:08 PM
Re: Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus - by INPEFESS - 11-13-2011, 12:05 AM
Re: Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus - by aquinasg - 11-13-2011, 01:15 AM
Re: Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus - by Stubborn - 11-13-2011, 01:52 PM
Re: Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus - by aquinasg - 11-13-2011, 02:00 PM
Re: Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus - by Stubborn - 11-13-2011, 02:06 PM
Re: Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus - by Stubborn - 11-13-2011, 02:13 PM
Re: Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus - by aquinasg - 11-13-2011, 03:02 PM
Re: Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus - by aquinasg - 11-13-2011, 03:16 PM
Re: Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus - by INPEFESS - 11-14-2011, 01:13 AM
Re: Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus - by Stubborn - 11-14-2011, 06:48 AM
Re: Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus - by Stubborn - 11-14-2011, 08:15 AM
Re: Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus - by Stubborn - 11-21-2011, 08:50 AM
Re: Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus - by Stubborn - 11-23-2011, 01:32 PM
Re: Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus - by Stubborn - 11-23-2011, 06:31 PM
Re: Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus - by Doce Me - 11-24-2011, 12:04 AM
Re: Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus - by Stubborn - 11-29-2011, 04:00 PM
Re: Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus - by Stubborn - 11-29-2011, 04:04 PM
Re: Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus - by Doce Me - 11-29-2011, 11:59 PM
Re: Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus - by Stubborn - 11-30-2011, 07:55 AM
Re: Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus - by Doce Me - 11-30-2011, 09:51 PM
Re: Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus - by Stubborn - 12-01-2011, 10:46 AM



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)