Which of the points of the Syllabus of Errors are defunct because of Vatican II?
#41
(05-17-2017, 04:45 PM)BC Wrote: I'm not having any failure of comprehension, and am very familiar with the concept of B.O.D. and its historical development.
My apologies BC, I jumped the gun and assumed you were making a point that, in fact, you were not. I grew up a Fundy Baptist and I saw so much plastic reasoning that I am real touchy when I (mistakenly) think I see it among Catholics.

(05-17-2017, 04:45 PM)BC Wrote: What I find interesting is the claim that God cannot be bound by His Sacraments, but then also that God can be bound by time or "impossibility", preventing Him from getting the Sacrament to the person. Sure, God could bypass the Sacraments to confer grace, but the question is whether He actually does bypass the Sacraments.  Since God cannot be bound by impossibility or time or inconvenience or other circumstances and is more than capable of bringing Sacramental Baptism to all of His elect, this means that God would have to positively will to bypass the Sacrament.
This is interesting. I think we can be very certain that He's not bound by time or "impossibility". He could of course accomplish the whole shooting match with miraculous appearances or last minute interventions by Catholic missionaries. I think maybe the insistence is due to us thinking the "facts on the ground" demand, as it were, this potential "unboundedness". Let me cite an example that is compelling to me. Unbaptized catechumens (with manifest intent to be baptized) who die before baptism receive a Catholic funeral; why would the Church allow this for someone who is still totally outside the pale of the hope of salvation? I realize that a Catholic funeral is no objective indicator of the presence of sanctifying grace (obviously there are Catholics dying in mortal sin), yet the practice certainly doesn't mean nothing with respect to either the baptized Catholic or the unbaptized catechumen.

One more thing: what do think of the Perfect Act of Contrition? Wouldn't this be an example of God bypassing the Sacraments to confer grace.
Reply
#42
(05-17-2017, 04:39 PM)St. Camillus Wrote: Please don't pretend to be scandalized by my disagreeing with some of the doctors on "baptism of desire" when you have a much bigger disagreement with not merely some of the doctors, but all of them, since they all believed that an explicit faith is necessary for salvation.
I don't believe I have made any assertion that explicit faith was not necessary.
Any tone I assumed was not motivated by scandal, but by my (hopefully mistaken) suspicion that you are in fact, a Feeneyite. MagisterMusicae has already warned us about this and provided a much better explanation than I could have.
Reply
#43

My emphasis in bold:


Archbishop Lefebvre, "Open Letter to Confused Catholics":

"We must say it clearly: such a concept is radically opposed to Catholic dogma. The Church is the one ark of salvation, and we must not be afraid to affirm it. You have often heard it said, "Outside the Church there is no salvation"--a dictum which offends contemporary minds. It is easy to believe that this doctrine is no longer in effect, that it has been dropped. It seems excessively severe.

Yet nothing, in fact, has changed; nothing can be changed in this area. Our Lord did not found a number of churches: He founded only One. There is only one Cross by which we can be saved, and that Cross has been given to the Catholic Church. It has not been given to others. To His Church, His mystical bride, Christ has given all graces. No grace in the world, no grace in the history of humanity is distributed except through her.

Does that mean that no Protestant, no Muslim, no Buddhist or animist will be saved? No, it would be a second error to think that. Those who cry for intolerance in interpreting St. Cyprian's formula, “Outside the Church there is no salvation,” also reject the Creed, “I confess one baptism for the remission of sins,” and are insufficiently instructed as to what baptism is. There are three ways of receiving it: the baptism of water; the baptism of blood (that of the martyrs who confessed the faith while still catechumens) and baptism of desire.

Baptism of desire can be explicit. Many times in Africa I heard one of our catechumens say to me, “Father, baptize me straightaway because if I die before you come again, I shall go to hell.” I told him “No, if you have no mortal sin on your conscience and if you desire baptism, then you already have the grace in you.”

The doctrine of the Church also recognizes implicit baptism of desire. This consists in doing the will of God. God knows all men and He knows that amongst Protestants, Muslims, Buddhists and in the whole of humanity there are men of good will. They receive the grace of baptism without knowing it, but in an effective way. In this way they become part of the Church.

The error consists in thinking that they are saved by their religion. They are saved in their religion but not by it. There is no Buddhist church in heaven, no Protestant church. This is perhaps hard to accept, but it is the truth. I did not found the Church, but rather Our Lord the Son of God. As priests we must state the truth.

------------------------------------------------


Archbishop Lefebvre, "Against the Heresies," pages 216-217, on Proposition #16 of the Syllabus of Errors, in which Pope Pius IX condemned the following statement: "Man may, in the observance of any religion whatever, find the way of eternal salvation, and arrive at eternal salvation":

"Evidently, certain distinctions must be made. Souls can be saved in a religion other than the Catholic religion (Protestantism, Islam, Buddhism, etc.), but not by this religion. There may be souls who, not knowing Our Lord, have by the grace of the good Lord, good interior dispositions, who submit to God — God in so far as these people can conceive Him — and who want to accomplish His will. There certainly are not many such persons, because these people, not being baptized, suffer more than Christians the effects of original sin. But some of these persons make an act of love, which implicitly is equivalent to baptism of desire. It is uniquely by this means that they are able to be saved. Implicit baptism means the Church: by the very fact that baptism of desire is found implicitly in their act of charity and submission to God these persons belong to the Church. They are saved by the Church, by Our Lord Jesus Christ. For there is baptism of water, baptism of blood, baptism of desire (that of catechumens), then baptism of implicit desire, which is contained in an act of true love of God. How many are saved by this form of baptism? God alone knows. It is a great mystery for us. One cannot say, then, that no one is saved in these religions, but if he is saved, it is always by his attachment to the mystical body which is the Catholic Church, even if the persons concerned do not know it."


------------------------------------------------

Vox Clamantis:

Spread the Gospel. Love 'em all; let God sort 'em out.

Reply
#44
(05-17-2017, 04:39 PM)St. Camillus Wrote: ...  they all believed that an explicit faith is necessary for salvation.

That's not a "belief" of "the doctors" but a metaphysical certitude.

Faith is certain knowledge of a truth, the obviousness of which cannot be seen hic et nunc, trusting in the authority of the one revealing. In the case of the supernatural virtue of Faith, the one revealing is God (via his various instruments for doing so, like the Magisterium).

Faith requires at least some minimum object -- one has to believe in something. We call this the object of Faith. Faith metaphysically cannot be totally implicit.

Precisely what is the bare minimum is a highly disputed point.

St. Thomas' opinion is that, yes, explicit Faith in the principle mysteries is necessary (Incarnation, Redemption, etc.) That is not a universal opinion.
Reply
#45
(05-17-2017, 10:56 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: Selective quoting does not a good theologian make :

(05-17-2017, 01:16 PM)BC Wrote: Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, Sess. 7, Can. 5 on the Sacrament of Baptism, ex cathedra: “If anyone says that baptism [the Sacrament] is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation (cf. Jn. 3:5): let him be anathema.”

Yet consider the same session's De Sacramentis Canon 3, which gives context to the later De Baptismo Canon 5 you've quoted : "If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous; and that, without them, or without the desire thereof, men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification;-though all (the sacraments) are not indeed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema."

So the only way to understand your quote is that desire for Baptism (along with supernatural Charity, which requires an actual grace giving it, Faith, Hope and perfect contrition) is sufficient for salvation.

Also consider Canon Law (CIC/1917 can. 1239 §2) : Catechumeni qui nulla sua culpa sine baptismo moriantur, baptizatis accensendi sunt. (Catechumens who through no fault of their own die without baptism are to be accounted as baptized [as regards ecclesiatical burial]). The Church accords the full Christian funeral rites to non-baptized Catechumens, meaning the Church asserts there is a real possibility of their salvation without having actually been baptzied (otherwise funeral rites would be in vain and sacrilegious).

(05-17-2017, 01:16 PM)BC Wrote: Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, Can. 2 on the Sacrament of Baptism, Sess. 7, 1547, ex cathedra:  “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.”

This refers to the matter and form of the Sacrament of Baptism. Baptism of desire (or better said, the desire for Baptism) is not a sacrament and thus has no matter or form.

That's why one who is justified by Baptism of Desire would still need to receive Sacramental Baptism if possible, and would not have the Sacramental Character, nor be a visible member of the Church until having been Sacramentally Baptized.

We could easily quote just as many magisterial teachings (Innocent II, Innocent III, Pius XI, which also make it clear that it's a Theological Error to deny Baptism of Desire (as the Church understands it). I would personally consider denial of it not merely error but proximate to heresy, given such quickly and easily leads to the heresy the Fr. Feeney and followers eventually accepted in trying to reconcile their errors with the Faith : that Baptism of Desire confers a "justification" but still dying without Sacramental Baptism one would be damned. That is implicitly to reject the Catholic doctrine on justification and Sanctifying Grace, asserting that a soul with Sanctifying Grace would not be saved.

It is Catholic Doctrine that in addition to Sacramental Baptism one can also receive Sanctifying Grace even though unbaptized and thus be saved if one willingly accepts Martyrdom of an unbaptized soul (often called Baptism of Blood) or if one truly and at least implicit desires Sacramental Baptism (provided that one has, thanks to an actual grace, supernatural Faith, Hope and Charity with a perfect contrition).

I really was not looking to have this thread devolve into a B of D discussion, but seems like they usually do.

I don't have a problem with a desire for Baptism if we mean by it an actual desire for Baptism.  It seems like everyone has a different conception of what a B of D actually is, how it works, under what conditions, etc.  The only thing anyone can agree on is that the sacrament of Baptism is not actually necessary for salvation.

I would have to disagree that Fr. Feeney and his followers ever embraced heresy.  At least as far as I know, they were never formally charged as such, unless you are aware of something I am not.  The Boston Heresy case was about Cardinal Richard Cushing's heresy, who once said,

"“We're told there is no salvation outside the church— nonsense. Nobody can tell me Christ died on Calvary for any select group." http://www.nytimes.com/1970/09/09/archiv....html?_r=0

Now that is heresy. And much more damaging to the faith than any possible error of Fr. Feeney vis-a-vis justification and salvation.

We would have a situation where everyone, a pagan, a Hindu, a Christ hating Jew, a Muslim can find salvation by being sincere in error, seeking baptism (but implicitly so not really) and only those Catholics who think the sacrament of baptism is necessary for salvation, just like almost every Catholic did for 1600 years, could not be saved, which would be the height of absurdity.

The 1917 Code of Canon Law allowed for the possibility of a B of D in a pastoral context, which incidentally before had never been allowed and expressly forbidden. 

The Sacrament of Baptism, called the Sacrament of Faith, still has to be the instrumental cause of justification in the soul and not simply one's disposition. Because the Sacrament of Baptism is a necessity of means, we must say that one somehow receives it in voto.  The sacrament would be operating and having efficacy through the person's votum. 

Trent, canon 3 can just as easily be read that both the sacrament and the desire of are necessary, regarding in context that of adults. It is not that you need either the sacrament or the desire for the sacrament, because just receiving the sacrament as an adult would benefit you nothing if you did not have a desire and a will to receive it. 

Catechism of the Council of Trent, On Baptism - Dispositions for Baptism, Tan Books, p. 180: "INTENTION - ... In the first place they [adults] must desire and intend to receive it…"

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Third Part, Q. 68, Art. 7: "Those who receive Baptism - Reply to Objection 2: If an adult lack the intention of receiving the sacrament, he must be rebaptized. But if there be doubt about this, the form to be used should be: "If thou art not baptized, I baptize thee."

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Third Part, Q. 68, Art. 7: "Whether the intention of receiving the sacrament of Baptism is required on the part of the one baptized? - According to the Church’s ritual, those who are to be baptized ask of the Church that they may receive Baptism: and thus they express their intention of receiving the sacrament. I answer that, By Baptism a man dies to the old life of sin, and begins a certain newness of life, according to Romans 6:4: "We are buried together with" Christ "by Baptism into death; that, as Christ is risen from the dead . . . so we also may walk in newness of life." Consequently, just as, according to Augustine (Serm. cccli), he who has the use of free-will, must, in order to die to the old life, "will to repent of his former life"; so must he, of his own will, intend to lead a new life, the beginning of which is precisely the receiving of the sacrament. Therefore on the part of the one baptized, it is necessary for him to have the will or intention of receiving the sacrament."

It is not the same for infants, who need not manifest a desire.

It's noteworthy that Benedict XVI stated in March 2016:

“The missionaries of the 16th century were convinced that the unbaptized person is lost forever. After the [Second Vatican] Council, this conviction was definitely abandoned. The result was a two-sided, deep crisis. Without this attentiveness to the salvation, the faith loses its foundation.” http://thewandererpress.com/catholic/new...nary-zeal/

We have had such an unraveling on the necessity of the sacraments, that it is indistinguishable from Karl Rahner's "anonymous Christianity", who was honest enough to admit

“…There can be, and actually are, individuals who are justified in the grace of God, who attain to supernatural salvation in God’s sight (and, moreover, to Christ as well), yet who do not belong to the Church or to Christendom as a visible historical reality as a result of having been touched by the preaching of the Gospel in any concrete ‘this worldly’ sense at any point in their lives. No truly theological demonstration of this thesis can be supplied here from Scripture of Tradition. Such a demonstration would not be easy to make, because the optimism of universal salvation entailed in this thesis has only gradually asserted itself in the conscious faith of the Church. We can trace a course of development from the optimism concerning unbaptized catechumens in Ambrose,through the doctrine of baptismus flaminis and the votum ecclesiae in the Middle Ages and at the Council of Trent, down to the explicit teaching in the writings of Pius XII to the effect that even a merely implicit votum for the Church and Baptism can suffice.” (Fr. Karl Rahner, S.J., “Problem of the Anonymous Christian,” Theological Investigations, Volume XIV, The Seabury Press, New York, 1976, p.283.)
Reply
#46
(05-17-2017, 11:12 PM)NemoClericus Wrote:
(05-17-2017, 04:45 PM)BC Wrote: I'm not having any failure of comprehension, and am very familiar with the concept of B.O.D. and its historical development.
My apologies BC, I jumped the gun and assumed you were making a point that, in fact, you were not. I grew up a Fundy Baptist and I saw so much plastic reasoning that I am real touchy when I (mistakenly) think I see it among Catholics.

(05-17-2017, 04:45 PM)BC Wrote: What I find interesting is the claim that God cannot be bound by His Sacraments, but then also that God can be bound by time or "impossibility", preventing Him from getting the Sacrament to the person. Sure, God could bypass the Sacraments to confer grace, but the question is whether He actually does bypass the Sacraments.  Since God cannot be bound by impossibility or time or inconvenience or other circumstances and is more than capable of bringing Sacramental Baptism to all of His elect, this means that God would have to positively will to bypass the Sacrament.
This is interesting. I think we can be very certain that He's not bound by time or "impossibility". He could of course accomplish the whole shooting match with miraculous appearances or last minute interventions by Catholic missionaries. I think maybe the insistence is due to us thinking the "facts on the ground" demand, as it were, this potential "unboundedness". Let me cite an example that is compelling to me. Unbaptized catechumens (with manifest intent to be baptized) who die before baptism receive a Catholic funeral; why would the Church allow this for someone who is still totally outside the pale of the hope of salvation? I realize that a Catholic funeral is no objective indicator of the presence of sanctifying grace (obviously there are Catholics dying in mortal sin), yet the practice certainly doesn't mean nothing with respect to either the baptized Catholic or the unbaptized catechumen.

One more thing: what do think of the Perfect Act of Contrition? Wouldn't this be an example of God bypassing the Sacraments to confer grace.

No problem.

Historically, funerals for the unbaptized were expressly forbidden.

The Catholic Encyclopedia, “Baptism,” Volume 2, 1907: “A certain statement in the funeral oration of St. Ambrose over the Emperor Valentinian II has been brought forward as a proof that the Church offered sacrifices and prayers for catechumens who died before baptism. There is not a vestige of such a custom to be found anywhere… The practice of the Church is more correctly shown in the canon (xvii) of the Second Council of Braga (572 AD): ‘Neither the commemoration of Sacrifice [oblationis] nor the service of chanting [psallendi] is to be employed for catechumens who have died without Baptism

The 1917 Code of Canon law allowed in the Latin Rite, in the pastoral context of a funeral,for the hope that a catechumen who died before having received the Sacrament of Baptism (as far as publicly was known). 

A perfect act of contrition in order to be valid actually requires the explicit intention to confess one's sins to a priest as soon as possible, according to Trent.

As to your question, you might find this following excerpt interesting.  It is from The Explanation of the Baltimore Catechism Concerning the Salvation of Non-Catholics originally published in 1891  by Rev. Thomas L. Kinkead  from Lesson 11: On the Church  * 121. Q. Are all bound to belong to the Church?

*Note: I do not fully agree with this good Reverend's entire assessment, as it is a quite liberal precursor to what would would develop in the 20th century regarding salvation by "sincerity", but he touches on your question.

If he was validly baptized and never committed a mortal sin, he will be saved; because, believing himself a member of the true Church, he was doing all he could to serve God according to his knowledge and the dictates of his conscience. But if ever he committed a mortal sin, his salvation would be very much more difficult. A mortal sin once committed remains on the soul till it is forgiven. Now, how could his mortal sin be forgiven? Not in the Sacrament of Penance, for the Protestant does not go to confession; and if he does, his minister—not being a true priest—has no power to forgive sins. Does he know that without confession it requires an act of perfect contrition to blot out mortal sin, and can he easily make such an act? What we call contrition is often only imperfect contrition—that is, sorrow for our sins because we fear their punishment in Hell or dread the loss of Heaven. If a Catholic—with all the instruction he has received about how to make an act of perfect contrition and all the practice he has had in making such acts—might find it difficult to make an act of perfect contrition after having committed a mortal sin, how much difficulty will not a Protestant have in making an act of perfect contrition, who does not know about this requirement and who has not been taught to make continued acts of perfect contrition all his life. It is to be feared either he would not know of this necessary means of regaining God’s friendship, or he would be unable to elicit the necessary act of perfect contrition, and thus the mortal sin would remain upon his soul and he would die an enemy of God.
......

I am giving you an example, however, that is rarely found, except in the case of infants or very small children baptized in Protestant sects. All infants rightly baptized by anyone are really children of the Church, no matter what religion their parents may profess. Indeed, all persons who are baptized are children of the Church; but those among them who deny its teaching, reject its Sacraments, and refuse to submit to its lawful pastors, are rebellious children known as heretics.

I said I gave you an example that can scarcely be found, namely, of a person not a Catholic, who really never doubted the truth of his religion, and who, moreover, never committed during his whole life a mortal sin. There are so few such persons that we can practically say for all those who are not visibly members of the Catholic Church, believing its doctrines, receiving its Sacraments, and being governed by its visible head, our Holy Father, the Pope, salvation is an extremely difficult matter.

I do not speak here of pagans who have never heard of Our Lord or His holy religion, but of those outside the Church who claim to be good Christians without being members of the Catholic Church.


In other words, there are two things.  It is impossible to not commit a mortal sin unless one is a rare Catholic saint.  It is almost impossible to have a perfect act of contrition as a non Catholic.
Reply
#47
(05-18-2017, 12:19 AM)Vox Clamantis Wrote: My emphasis in bold:


Archbishop Lefebvre, "Open Letter to Confused Catholics":

"We must say it clearly: such a concept is radically opposed to Catholic dogma. The Church is the one ark of salvation, and we must not be afraid to affirm it. You have often heard it said, "Outside the Church there is no salvation"--a dictum which offends contemporary minds. It is easy to believe that this doctrine is no longer in effect, that it has been dropped. It seems excessively severe.

Yet nothing, in fact, has changed; nothing can be changed in this area. Our Lord did not found a number of churches: He founded only One. There is only one Cross by which we can be saved, and that Cross has been given to the Catholic Church. It has not been given to others. To His Church, His mystical bride, Christ has given all graces. No grace in the world, no grace in the history of humanity is distributed except through her.

Does that mean that no Protestant, no Muslim, no Buddhist or animist will be saved? No, it would be a second error to think that. Those who cry for intolerance in interpreting St. Cyprian's formula, “Outside the Church there is no salvation,” also reject the Creed, “I confess one baptism for the remission of sins,” and are insufficiently instructed as to what baptism is. There are three ways of receiving it: the baptism of water; the baptism of blood (that of the martyrs who confessed the faith while still catechumens) and baptism of desire.

Baptism of desire can be explicit. Many times in Africa I heard one of our catechumens say to me, “Father, baptize me straightaway because if I die before you come again, I shall go to hell.” I told him “No, if you have no mortal sin on your conscience and if you desire baptism, then you already have the grace in you.”

The doctrine of the Church also recognizes implicit baptism of desire. This consists in doing the will of God. God knows all men and He knows that amongst Protestants, Muslims, Buddhists and in the whole of humanity there are men of good will. They receive the grace of baptism without knowing it, but in an effective way. In this way they become part of the Church.

The error consists in thinking that they are saved by their religion. They are saved in their religion but not by it. There is no Buddhist church in heaven, no Protestant church. This is perhaps hard to accept, but it is the truth. I did not found the Church, but rather Our Lord the Son of God. As priests we must state the truth.

------------------------------------------------


Archbishop Lefebvre, "Against the Heresies," pages 216-217, on Proposition #16 of the Syllabus of Errors, in which Pope Pius IX condemned the following statement: "Man may, in the observance of any religion whatever, find the way of eternal salvation, and arrive at eternal salvation":

"Evidently, certain distinctions must be made. Souls can be saved in a religion other than the Catholic religion (Protestantism, Islam, Buddhism, etc.), but not by this religion. There may be souls who, not knowing Our Lord, have by the grace of the good Lord, good interior dispositions, who submit to God — God in so far as these people can conceive Him — and who want to accomplish His will. There certainly are not many such persons, because these people, not being baptized, suffer more than Christians the effects of original sin. But some of these persons make an act of love, which implicitly is equivalent to baptism of desire. It is uniquely by this means that they are able to be saved. Implicit baptism means the Church: by the very fact that baptism of desire is found implicitly in their act of charity and submission to God these persons belong to the Church. They are saved by the Church, by Our Lord Jesus Christ. For there is baptism of water, baptism of blood, baptism of desire (that of catechumens), then baptism of implicit desire, which is contained in an act of true love of God. How many are saved by this form of baptism? God alone knows. It is a great mystery for us. One cannot say, then, that no one is saved in these religions, but if he is saved, it is always by his attachment to the mystical body which is the Catholic Church, even if the persons concerned do not know it."


------------------------------------------------

Vox Clamantis:

Spread the Gospel. Love 'em all; let God sort 'em out.

http://saintspeterandpaulrcm.com/OPEN%20...209-10.htm

On the question of dogma, the SSPX, like the Modernists, err regarding the nature of dogma, which they treat as the proper subject for theological exposition to gain new interpretative insights unfettered by the restrictive literal meaning of the words.  St. Pius X in Pascendi condemns the heresy of Modernism and the Modernist’s rejection of dogma. The word dogma and its cognates appear 36 times in the encyclical. In Pascendi St. Pius X says that dogmas are not "symbols" of the Truth but "absolutely contain the Truth." Again in Pascendi, St. Pius X says:

On the subject of revelation and dogma in particular, the doctrine of the Modernists offers nothing new - we find it condemned in the Syllabus of Pius IX, where it is enunciated in these terms: Divine revelation is imperfect, and therefore subject to continual and indefinite progress, corresponding with the progress of human reason; and condemned still more solemnly in the Vatican Council: The doctrine of the faith which God has revealed has not been proposed to human intelligences to be perfected by them as if it were a philosophical system, but as a divine deposit entrusted to the Spouse of Christ to be faithfully guarded and infallibly interpreted. Hence the sense, too, of the sacred dogmas is that which our Holy Mother the Church has once declared, nor is this sense ever to be abandoned on plea or pretext of a more profound comprehension of the truth.
St. Pius X, Pascendi

In Lamentabili Pope St. Pius X condemns the proposition that, "The dogmas which the Church professes as revealed are not truths fallen from heaven, but they are a kind of interpretation of religious facts, which the human mind by a laborious effort prepared for itself." Again in the same document St. Pius X condemns the error that holds that, "The dogmas of the faith are to be held only according to a practical sense, that is, as preceptive norms for action, but not as norms for believing."

This last condemnation is important to understand. There are linguistic clues to the nature of dogma that help make the comments of St. Pius X more intelligible. All dogma is expressed in the form of categorical universal propositions that are in the order of truth-falsehood. They remain either true or false regardless of time, person, place or circumstances. Once a doctrine is dogmatically defined it becomes a formal object of Divine and Catholic Faith. A heretic is a baptized Catholic who refuses to believe an article of Divine and Catholic Faith.

Commands, injunctions, laws, orders, precepts, etc. are in the order of authority-obedience. All commands, injunctions, laws, orders, precepts etc. are hierarchical, they do not bind in cases of necessity or impossibility such as invincible ignorance, they have no power against a conscience that is both true and certain, and they must be in accord with natural law and Divine positive law. None of these restrictions apply to dogma.

Time and again and again and again Catholics apply the restrictions that govern commands, injunctions, laws, orders, precepts, etc. to limit the universality of dogmatic truths. They treat dogmas as “preceptive norms for action, but not as norms for believing.”  The following two quotations by Pope John Paul II are examples of this corruption of language and truth.

Normally, it will be in the sincere practice of what is good in their own religious traditions and by following the dictates of their own conscience that the members of other religions respond positively to God’s invitation and receive salvation in Jesus Christ, even while they do not recognize or acknowledge him as their Saviour.
John Paul II, The Seeds of the Word in the Religions of the World, September 9, 1998

For those, however, who have not received the Gospel proclamation, as I wrote in the Encyclical Redemptoris Missio, salvation is accessible in mysterious ways, inasmuch as divine grace is granted to them by virtue of Christ's redeeming sacrifice, without external membership in the Church, but nonetheless always in relation to her (cf. RM 10). It is a mysterious relationship. It is mysterious for those who receive the grace, because they do not know the Church and sometimes even outwardly reject her.
John Paul II, General Audience, May 31, 1995

Modernists are really linguistic deconstructionalists. They begin by transferring dogmatic truths from the order of truth-falsehood to the order of authority-obedience and then use authority as a weapon against truth. They end up denying the intentionality of language and then the meaning begins to change with the wind.

This novel doctrine of ‘salvation by implicity’ was formulated in the 1949 Letter sent from Cardinal Marchetti-Selvaggiani in the Holy Office to Cardinal Richard Cushing of Boston (Protocol No. 122/49) condemning Fr. Leonard Feeney’s defense of the traditional teaching on the necessity of the Church membership for salvation.[iv]

This 1949 Letter, first published in 1952, has come to be the doctrinal foundation for new Ecumenical Ecclesiology that has entirely replaced St. Robert Bellarmine’s definition that the Catholic Church “is the society of Christian believers united in the profession of the one Christian faith and the participation in the one sacramental system under the government of the Roman Pontiff.” It is this Ecumenical Ecclesiology that is the underpinning for the destruction of nearly every Ecclesiastical Tradition in the Latin rite since Vatican II, the most important of which is the traditional Roman rite of the Mass.

This Letter of the Holy Office is heretical. But before addressing that question, it should be remembered that this Letter was never entered formally in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis and therefore it has no greater authority than a private letter from one bishop to another. The Letter was included in the 1962 edition of Denzinger’s, not by virtue of the authority of the document, but rather by the modernist agenda of the editor, Rev. Karl Rahner. This Denzinger entry was then referenced in a footnote in the Vatican II document, Lumen Gentium.

The 1949 Letter was written to address Fr. Feeney’s defense of the dogma that there is “no salvation outside of the Catholic Church.” Fr. Feeney did not formulate his theological teaching on ‘baptism of desire’ until several years after this Letter was written. So it is an error to say as some have said that the 1949 Letter “condemns Fr. Feeney’s teaching on Baptism.”

The 1949 Letter says that people can gain salvation by an “implicit” membership in the Catholic Church. The material cause of this “membership” and salvation is the “good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God.” This is a form of Pelagianism. The 1949 Letter denies the defined dogmas of the Catholic Church that an explicit Faith is necessary for salvation, that the sacrament of Baptism is necessary for salvation, and that being subject to the Roman Pontiff is necessary for salvation. No quote from Scripture, father, doctor, saint, council, magisterial document or accepted tradition affirms this belief of ‘salvation by implicity’. Since supernatural Faith is believing “what God has revealed on the authority of God,” there is no explanation provided how there can be “supernatural faith” if someone does not know if God has revealed anything or what, if anything, God has revealed. The people who think this Letter is orthodox should be asked to try their hand at writing a Credo of implicit Catholic Faith.

The 1949 Letter further undermines all dogma by its modernist affirmation that, “dogma must be understood in that sense in which the Church herself understands it. For, it was not to private judgments that Our Savior gave for explanation those things that are contained in the deposit of faith, but to the teaching authority of the Church.” The truth of the matter is that the dogmatic formulation is the “sense in which the Church herself understands” divinely revealed truth. It is the Church giving “explanation (to) those things that are contained in the deposit of faith” It is the dogma itself that is infallible and dogma is not subject to theological refinement but itself is the formal object of Divine and Catholic Faith. To say, “dogma must be understood in that sense in which the Church herself understands it,” is to claim for the theologian an authority that belongs to the dogma itself. When this modernist proposition is accepted, there is no dogmatic declaration that can be taken as a definitive expression of our faith for it will always be open to theological refinement.

On September 1, 1910, one-hundred years ago this month, St. Pius X published his Motu Proprio, Sacrocrum Antistitum, containing the Oath Against Modernism which was made both by the author and the recipient of the 1949 Letter.  In that oath they swore to almighty God, that they would “wholly reject the heretical notion of the evolution of dogmas, which pass from one sense to another alien to that the Church held from the start” and that they “likewise condemn every error whereby is substituted for divine deposit, entrusted by Christ to His spouse and by her to be faithfully guarded, a philosophic system or a creation of the human conscience, gradually refined by the striving of men and finally to be perfected hereafter by indefinite progress.”

The 1949 Letter as published also contained a critical mistranslation of a passage from the encyclical, Mystici Corporis, by saying that non-Catholics "are related to the Mystical Body of the Redeemer by a certain unconscious yearning and desire," The words “related to” are a mistranslation of the Latin which should read “ordained toward.” Also the Latin original is in the subjunctive mood expressing a wish or desire, and not a condition of fact.  It is properly translated as “may be ordained towards” and not, as was done, in the indicative mood as “related to.” It is evident that this mistranslation entirely changes the meaning of what Pius XII said.

Archbishop Lefebvre accepted the 1949 Letter as an orthodox expression of Catholic faith as evidenced by his own writings. The society he founded does so as well.

The doctrine of the Church also recognizes implicit baptism of desire. This consists in doing the will of God. God knows all men and He knows that amongst Protestants, Muslims, Buddhists and in the whole of humanity there are men of good will. They receive the grace of baptism without knowing it, but in an effective way. In this way they become part of the Church.
The error consists in thinking that they are saved by their religion. They are saved in their religion but not by it. There is no Buddhist church in heaven, no Protestant church. This is perhaps hard to accept, but it is the truth. I did not found the Church, but rather Our Lord the Son of God. As priests we must state the truth.
Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Open Letter to Confused Catholics


And the Church has always taught that you have people who will be in heaven, who are in the state of grace, who have been saved without knowing the Catholic Church. We know this. And yet, how is it possible if you cannot be saved outside the Church? It is absolutely true that they will be saved through the Catholic Church because they will be united to Christ, to the Mystical Body of Christ, which is the Catholic Church. It will, however, remain invisible, because this visible link is impossible for them. Consider a Hindu in Tibet who has no knowledge of the Catholic Church. He lives according to his conscience and to the laws which God has put into his heart. He can be in the state of grace, and if he dies in this state of grace, he will go to heaven.
Bishop Bernard Fellay, The Angelus, A Talk Heard Round the World, April, 2006


The 1949 Letter is the theological foundation for modern ecumenism, and ecumenism is the theological foundation for the Novus Ordo and the justification for the overturning of nearly every single Ecclesiastical Tradition in the Roman rite since Vatican II. It is, and should be, a problem for every traditional Catholic that quotations of Archbishop Lefebvre and statements made by Pope John Paul II, the Great Ecumenist, on this question of salvation are in such close agreement because they are in principle agreeing with modern Ecumenical Ecclesiology that presupposes that there are many invisible “Catholics” among the heretics, schismatics, infidels, and pagans of the world and that the Church of Christ in fact “subsists” in the Catholic Church and is not, in this world, co-extensive with its visibly baptized members who profess the one, holy, catholic and apostolic faith.

The SSPX’s disagreement with the Vatican on Ecumenism can only be with the means employed and not the ends, a disagreement of degree and not one of kind. Since ecumenism is the overarching theological justification for the transmutation of every Ecclesiastical Tradition since Vatican II, and since the SSPX regards Ecclesiastical Traditions as purely disciplinary matters, and not as necessary integral elements of our Faith, they can only argue questions of policy and not principle.  With ‘salvation by implicity’, there can be no meaningful argument against Ecumenism or Religious Liberty. The accusation of schism becomes meaningless.  Pope John Paul II’s prayer meeting at Assisi makes perfect theological sense. After all, if the Holy Ghost dwells within the souls of many pagans, infidels, heretics, Jews, Muslims, even atheists and agnostics who are in the state of grace and secret members of the Mystical Body of Christ, why should we refuse to pray with them?

Pope Benedict XVI, in December of 2005 addressing the Roman Curia on his “hermeneutics of reform,” emphasized that there is a need for “distinguishing between the substance and the expression of the faith.” That is, he holds that there is a disjunction between Catholic truth and dogmatic formulations. The SSPX expresses a similar opinion with regard to the dogmatic declarations on necessity of the sacraments in general and the sacrament of baptism in particular for salvation, as well as the dogmatic declarations on the necessity for salvation of being a member of the Catholic Church, of professing the Catholic Faith explicitly, and of being subject to the Roman Pontiff. The SSPX argues against a strict literal reading of these dogmatic formulations. Here they are in agreement with the modern Church that dogmatic formulations are open to theological refinement not necessarily in agreement with the literal meaning of the words.

The SSPX discussions with the Vatican on doctrinal and liturgical questions can go nowhere because the SSPX has taken liturgical and doctrinal positions that in principle are indistinguishable from the Modernists. Their liturgical position, grounded in the Bugnini 1962 transitional extra-ordinary form of the Novus Ordo Missal, will make it impossible to resist the Reform of the Reform. The doctrinal position that holds that dogma is not a definitive expression of our Faith, a formal object of Divine and Catholic Faith, but rather a human expression open to endless theological refinement, will undermine any possible opposition to Ecumenical Ecclesiology.

The common end of all Modernist activity is the destruction of dogma.  The SSPX in their negotiations with Rome cannot defend the Catholic Faith against Modernist errors because the only defense is the immutable universal truth of defined Catholic dogma. In accepting the 1949 Letter as normative, they have stripped themselves of the only weapon against a corrupted authority. They cannot effectively complain about the prayer meeting at Assisi because they have accepted its theological justification.

D. M. Drew
Ss. Peter & Paul Roman Catholic Mission
York, PA

http://saintspeterandpaulrcm.com/OPEN%20...209-10.htm
'If you succeed in bringing a single soul to heaven, what charity! what a gain! what glory to God!'

St. Paul of the Cross
Reply
#48
Archbishop Lefebvre:

"The error consists in thinking that they are saved by their religion. They are saved in their religion but not by it.

"Evidently, certain distinctions must be made. Souls can be saved in a religion other than the Catholic religion (Protestantism, Islam, Buddhism, etc.), but not by this religion.
[/quote]
"

Unfortunately, Archbishop Lefebvre's (God bless him) statements are a word for word direct contradiction of  Pope Gregory XVI's , Summo Iugiter Studio (# 2), May 27, 1832:

“Finally some of these misguided people attempt to persuade themselves and others that men are not saved only in the Catholic religion.."

Such a novelty statement that non Catholics can be saved in their false religion but not by it would have been unheard of in centuries past.
Reply
#49
(05-18-2017, 08:59 AM)BC Wrote: I really was not looking to have this thread devolve into a B of D discussion, but seems like they usually do.

I don't have a problem with a desire for Baptism if we mean by it an actual desire for Baptism.  It seems like everyone has a different conception of what a B of D actually is, how it works, under what conditions, etc.  The only thing anyone can agree on is that the sacrament of Baptism is not actually necessary for salvation.

We can both agree here.

I think this is the biggest problem with BoD. The terminology is terrible, because it's only analogously like Baptism in that the true desire for Baptism in a very specific case could confer some of the same effects as Sacramental Baptism. To call it "Baptism" confuses people.

Trent's terminology is the ideal, and if we just said "Desire for Baptism" I think that would solve 90 % of the issues on BoD.

The only way BoD can be properly understood is a desire that come from an actual grace or series of actual graces by which a soul is given Supernatural Faith and Hope, then a perfect contrition for sins and desire at least to implicitly do whatever God wishes to remit these sins (implicit desire for Baptism), and finally as a result of this Charity (which comes hand-in-hand Sanctifying Grace).

Understood this way, we can see that it's always the result of supernatural grace (not man's wishfulness or inefficacious desire), and thus relatively rare.

(05-18-2017, 08:59 AM)BC Wrote: I would have to disagree that Fr. Feeney and his followers ever embraced heresy.  At least as far as I know, they were never formally charged as such, unless you are aware of something I am not.

Agreed, they were never formally charged with heresy, but Fr. Feeney clearly professed material heresy in his Bread of Life, following the letter from the Holy Office, when trying to nuance his position. In order to save his theory and not deny that God could give a soul a special actual grace by which it could receive Faith, Hope, Contrition and Charity, he says that:
Bread of Life, pg. 98 Wrote:Let us suppose an act of perfect love has occurred in a man’s soul. Can this man be said to be freed from original sin by this perfect act of love of God? He cannot, in the true and full sense. There has not been imprinted on his soul, by reason of this perfect act of love of God, the character which Baptism imprints, to seal him as redeemed and outfit him for the resurrection of the body and life everlasting.

Which means Sanctifying Grace (which must come with Charity) is insufficient to save a man, and only the Baptismal Character saves a man. That's outright heresy because it contradicts perennial Catholic teaching on the nature of Sanctifying Grace, positing a justification which is not for salvation. This is clearly opposed to Trent's Sixth's session, chap. 7:
Quote:This disposition, or preparation, is followed by Justification itself, which is not remission of sins merely, but also the sanctification and renewal of the inward man, through the voluntary reception of the grace, and of the gifts, whereby man of unjust becomes just, and of an enemy a friend, that so he may be an heir according to hope of life everlasting.

(05-18-2017, 08:59 AM)BC Wrote: It is not the same for infants, who need not manifest a desire.

Because they cannot have a desire, thus Baptism of Desire doesn't work for them. Also, Baptism of Blood also would seem impossible, since Martyrdom must be willingly accepted to be true Martyrdom, except in the very special case of the Holy Innocents. Hence why we never delay is baptizing an infant, but will certainly delay to teach the necessary truths of the Faith to a Catechumen.

As regards the rest, we're not in any disagreement, from what I see.
Reply
#50
(05-18-2017, 09:54 AM)BC Wrote: Archbishop Lefebvre:

"The error consists in thinking that they are saved by their religion. They are saved in their religion but not by it.

"Evidently, certain distinctions must be made. Souls can be saved in a religion other than the Catholic religion (Protestantism, Islam, Buddhism, etc.), but not by this religion.
"

Unfortunately, Archbishop Lefebvre's (God bless him) statements are a word for word direct contradiction of  Pope Gregory XVI's , Summo Iugiter Studio (# 2), May 27, 1832:

“Finally some of these misguided people attempt to persuade themselves and others that men are not saved only in the Catholic religion.."

Such a novelty statement that non Catholics can be saved in their false religion but not by it would have been unheard of in centuries past.

This is a problem of semantics, not of theology.

That's happens when you expect the precision of a dogmatic theology textbook from a popular work which is trying to simplify theology for the layman.

Thus, only if you want to read contradiction in do you find it.

Lefebvre says clearly, even without adding context and explanation, that the religion of non-Catholics is not in any way salvific : "The error consists in thinking that they are saved by their religion." This affirms what Gregory XVI says in your quote.

Then he states a very clear fact that a person in a sect or false religion is "in their religion" (i.e. visibly a member of their false religion or sect). And says that if saved they are not saved by this false sect or religion. This also accords with what Gregory XVI says.

If saved (somehow) and not saved by a false sect or religion, it must be by the true religion, i.e. the Catholic Church. Again, this accords with what Gregory XVI says.

Thus the only reasonable way to read Lefebvre statement, even without exploring the context, is that he is saying that only the Catholic Church is the ark of salvation and everyone who is saved is saved through Her. If one is visibly outside of her, but somehow saved, it is not by their being outside, but by some invisible connection with the Catholic Church.

Which all accords with what Gregory XVI says, especially if you read his statement in conjunction with various other Magisterial (i.e. infallible) teachings.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)