Posted on 01/26/2005 8:18:19 AM PST by gbcdoj
You're excused. No, I'm not changing the terms whatsoever. In fact, what I did was to point out the fact that by saying that you can hold good hope for the unbaptised, that you therefore necessarily also hold that there is hope for those not at all in the Church, which according to the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Bl. Pius IX, is a condemned error.
Now the only way you can skirt this error condemned by Pius IX is to claim that membership in the Church can be had without baptism. Obviously, that door's slammed shut. Would you prefer to make that claim anyways?
"Since you're content to regard Quanto Conficiamur as authoritative, I'll remind you of the exerpt from that encyclical that I have already posted on this thread: "There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments.""
Yeah, but that doesn't mean what you think it means. To prove that you are bent upon employing your own private interpretation in regards to this text, all I would need to do is specifically ask you what exactly that text means in complete detail. You would tell me, and then I would show you how what you had just stated was a denial of a known Catholic dogma.
Checkmate.
So you said:
Let's just recall that this is your own personal interpretation of Trent. St. Alphonsus Ligouri, Pius XII, and the Holy Office disagree, and say that, according to Trent, Baptism is necessary at least in desire."
No, that's your own private interpretation of Trent. It is based upon selective reading of a just a few isolated texts of Pope Pius IX and XII, upon the theological speculations of Saints and theologians while ignoring all else which they have stated on the matter, and by taking a single phrase out of one canon from Trent, and mis-applying it.
That is the total of your case. And the resulting conclusions you draw must necessary consist of these:
1. That there is in fact a way of salvation outside the Church, and
2. That baptism is not really always necessary for salvation, and
3. That matter of the sacrament of baptism isn't really necessary.
Those conclusions are unavoidable, if one is to accept your private readings of Pius IX, Pius XII, certain Saints and theologians, and Trent. But those conclusions are contrary to the dogma of the Catholic Faith.
"Since you are the one upholding an interpretation contrary to a Doctor of the Church, a Roman Congregation, and Pius XII, let's see the proof that we need to understand Trent as you say. How about a quote from the Acts of Trent, or even from one of the Tridentine Fathers, saying that Trent had intended to condemn the doctrine that you brand as "modernist". I find simply astonishing the idea that the Roman Catechism taught a doctrine condemned by Trent."
Trent, Session 7, Canon 4: "If anyone says that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation but are superfluous, and that without them or without the desire of them men obtain from God through faith alone the grace of justification, though all are not necessary for each one, let him be anathema."
Note that both the both the Sacraments and the desire of them are necessary. In regards to baptism in particular:
Trent, Session 7, Canon 2: "If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism and thus twists into some metaphor the words of our Lord Jesus Christ: Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost let him be anathema."
Your private interpretation of the existence of a matter-less baptism violates this canon.
So back to the claim, then, that all the Saints are on your side. Are they?
St. Ambrose of Milan: "...no one ascends into the Kingdom of Heaven except through the sacrament of Baptism. No one is excused from Baptism: not infants nor anyone hindered by any necessity."
That, gbcdoj, directly conflicts with your position, and your claim to the siding of all the saints with you.
Let's try St. Augustine:
"The Lord has determined that the kingdom of heaven should be conferred only on Baptized persons. If eternal life can accrue only those who have been baptized, it follows, of course, that they who die unbaptized incur everlasting death."
Is ignorance salvific? Not according to St. Thomas Aquinas:
"It follows that ignorance has the nature of mortal sin on account of either a preceding negligence, or the consequent result; and, for this reason, ignorance is reckoned one of the general causes of sin. ALL sin proceeds from ignorance."
So much for ignorance being an excuse, then. Let me see. How about the good Pope Bl. Pius IX, the one who is supposedly the one that is the great proponent of your view? What did he really think? He thought this:
Not without sorrow we have learned that another error, no less destructive, has taken possession of some parts of the Catholic world, and had taken up its abode in the souls of many Catholics who think that one should have good hope of eternal salvation of all those who have never lived in the true Church of Christ. Therefore they are wont to ask very often what will be the lot and condition after death of those who have not submitted in any way to the Catholic faith, and by bringing forward most vain reasons, they make a response favorable to their false opinion. …For, it must be held by faith that outside the Apostolic Roman Church, no one can be saved; that this is the only ark of salvation; that he who shall not have entered therein will perish in the flood. …Truths of this sort should be deeply fixed in the minds of the faithful, lest they be corrupted by false doctrines, whose object is to foster an indifference toward religion, which we see spreading widely and growing strong for the destruction of souls."
That's your position he's talking about.
pascendi, I'm still waiting for sources who interpreted Trent as you do. St. Alphonsus Liguori, who is a Doctor of the Church, says Trent dogmatically taught baptism of desire. You say that I am a modernist, but Alphonsus a saint? Where is the consistency?
Baptism, therefore, coming from a Greek word that means ablution or immersion in water, is distinguished into Baptism of water, of wind and of blood.We shall speak below of Baptism of water, which was very probably instituted before the passion of Christ the Lord, when Christ was baptised by John. But Baptism of desire is perfect conversion to God by contrition or love of God above all things accompanied by an explicit or implicit desire for true Baptism of water, the place of which it takes as to the remission of guilt, but not as to the impression of the [baptismal] character or as to the removal of all debt of punishment. It is called "of wind" because it takes place by the impulse of the Holy Ghost who is called a wind. Now it is de fide that men are also saved by Baptism of desire, by virtue of the Canon Apostolicam, "de presbytero non baptizato" and of the Council of Trent, session 6, Chapter 4 where it is said that no one can be saved "without the laver of regeneration or the desire for it". (from Moral Theology book 6, no. 95-7)
And St. Alphonsus' works were judged by the Holy See: "nothing in his works has been found worthy of censure" (see Ven. Newman, Apologia, p. 442) - but according to you this doctrine is modernist.
And the resulting conclusions you draw must necessary consist of these:
Have you even read what I have written? I deny all three of those points.
1. It is absolutely impossible for a man to be saved if at death he is not united to the Church. However, it is false to state that for a man to be united to the Church actual reception of the Sacrament of Baptism is necessary, as reception in desire suffices for those who are prevented.
2. Baptism is always necessary for salvation, at least in desire. This is what the 1917 Code of Canon Law says, and it is what I believe: omnibus in re vel saltem in voto necessarius ad salutem (c. 737.1) - "necessary to salvation for all in fact or at least in desire".
3. Actual reception of the Sacrament of Baptism cannot be had without the form, the matter, and the intent, just as with every other sacrament. This is also true of Penance and Holy Communion, concerning which Trent teaches that they can be received spiritually without actual reception.
Note that both the both the Sacraments and the desire of them are necessary.
False. "or the desire of them". It should be "and" if your theology was correct.
all the Saints are on your side
What Saint interprets Trent as you do?
Is ignorance salvific
When have I ever said that ignorance is salvific? You have created an imaginary strawman of a 'modernist' and are arguing with him.
And then you quote Bl. Pius IX, as if I didn't accept every word he wrote there. Outside the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church of Jesus Christ, there is neither salvation nor remission of sins. So I profess; so I believe.
Oops. "or without the desire of them".
You'll be waiting for a long time, because what is said clearly and precisely does not need interpretation. The straight-forward statement of the Catholic truth is the character of true orthodoxy in Catholicism. On the other hand, endlessly "interpreting" everything constantly is an activity which belongs squarely in the camp of liberalism. It only gets worse when you introduce the conciliar documents, which are so ambiguous you can drive a truck through them.
It goes like this: first, looking at the conciliar documents at face value, several people will arrive at several different interpretations. So they refer back to the origin of the documents and ask, "who's interpretation is correct?" The answers they receive create yet further non-clarity, which in turn, provides ample room for yet more interpretations.
In other words, now we have interpretations of interpretations. And then it gets worse. At the end of this growing culture of interpretations is a bunch of laymen, doing guess what: interpreting the interpretations of interpretations. When it finally reaches your average Catholic, it is mere public opinion which ultimately shapes their opinions.
The facts bear this out: most people get their "Catholic doctrine" from laymen. Catholic Answers, Envoy, EWTN, whatever. But not from the Church.
It all gets started with the bogus idea that statement of doctrine is subject to interpretation. Just because someone somewhere along the line didn't have the gnads to state openly and boldly the hardcore, unadulterated and unambigous Catholic truth.
So, no. Clearly stated doctrines don't need to be interpreted. Heck, they don't even need to be understood; they just need to be believed. That's why they are of Divine Revelation... because we need to know them, but couldn't have arrived at an understanding of them by human reason.
There's your whole problem with your modern Catholic right there. They want everything explained to them, but they don't want to just believe.
"St. Alphonsus Liguori, who is a Doctor of the Church, says Trent dogmatically taught baptism of desire. You say that I am a modernist, but Alphonsus a saint? Where is the consistency?"
This is easy; this is no argument really. Did it ever occur to you that, even though St. Alphonsus was a saint, a theologian, and a doctor of the Church, that he could have still been wrong? Like St. Thomas was on other theological conclusions, and other saints on other matters? Whoever said this can not happen, and whoever has ever said that it hasn't happened? It can, and it has.
When I see people approach the topic with this argument, I wonder if they even understand the nature of theology at all. If they did, they would never ask the question, or should we say, propose the supposed conflict. Your argument, laid out simply is this:
St. X said Y. Therefore, Y is the truth. Because if not, X would never have become a saint.
Bad argument. The Saints are not the origin of what's contained in the Deposit of Faith. Saints can make errors. Saints have made errors.
BUT... again since you bring it up another saint, is Alphonsus Liguori really on your side in the first place? Look:
"It should be known that baptism is not only the first, but also the most necessary of all sacraments. Without baptism, no one can enter Heaven."
He also said this:
"How thankful we ought to be to Jesus Christ for the gift of Faith! What would have become of us if we had been born in Asia, Africa, America, or in the midst of heretics and schismatics? He who does not believe is lost."
That's one for baptism, and one for holding the Faith whole and entire. I think you merely engaged in selective quoting, picking and choosing that which supports your opinion.
"Have you even read what I have written? I deny all three of those points."
Of course I've read what you've written. I know you deny all those points. What I'm saying is that, even if you openly deny them on the face of it, those are the inevitable conclusions which result from the opinions you hold. I'm saying you can't avoid concluding those three things, despite your stated denial of them.
"1. It is absolutely impossible for a man to be saved if at death he is not united to the Church. However, it is false to state that for a man to be united to the Church actual reception of the Sacrament of Baptism is necessary, as reception in desire suffices for those who are prevented."
The bolded portion is not of the Deposit of Faith. You have in no way shown it to be. Furthermore, the statement is false.
"2. Baptism is always necessary for salvation, at least in desire. This is what the 1917 Code of Canon Law says, and it is what I believe: omnibus in re vel saltem in voto necessarius ad salutem (c. 737.1) - "necessary to salvation for all in fact or at least in desire"."
Because it shows in the 1917 Code of Canon Law does not make it doctrine. Some saints have even spoken against this very idea; I provide the St. Chrysostom quote above; read it. This isn't a new debate; this very issue we are arguing right now was argued openly, in the very form we are debating it now, in the mid 1800's. Except back then, we didn't have the Ecumenical disaster area which we have now, which happens as a result of these errors.
"3. Actual reception of the Sacrament of Baptism cannot be had without the form, the matter, and the intent, just as with every other sacrament. This is also true of Penance and Holy Communion, concerning which Trent teaches that they can be received spiritually without actual reception."
You are missing the important theological distinction of the necessity of means, and the necessity of precept. Do you know what the difference is?
"When have I ever said that ignorance is salvific? You have created an imaginary strawman of a 'modernist' and are arguing with him."
You cannot say that this is a strawman, when every single argument in favor of a way of salvation outside the Church has ignorance as it's fundamental justification. It is THE excuse used. Strawman? Not a chance
"And then you quote Bl. Pius IX, as if I didn't accept every word he wrote there. Outside the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church of Jesus Christ, there is neither salvation nor remission of sins. So I profess; so I believe."
"Except in the case of..." is what you'd say next, though. That's my whole point. You profess on the one hand, to hold the Faith. You posit, on the other hand, exceptions to it.
It is somewhat analogous to the situation in the moral arena, whereby one makes an exception to abortion in the case of rape or incest.
If you pursue this far enough, one thing will be increasingly more evident: a baptism of blood or desire alone, is not of the Deposit of Faith. They are theological speculations concerning difficult cases.
You can't have a sacrament without the matter.
Sure, then. Trent clearly and precisely says that the desire for Baptism can justify, before it is actually received. That's what I see when I read the Decree, and that's what St. Alphonsus and the Holy Office saw too.
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. (Trent, Decree on Justification, cap. iv)CANON XXXIII.-If any one saith, that, by the Catholic doctrine touching Justification, by this holy Synod inset forth in this present decree, the glory of God, or the merits of our Lord Jesus Christ are in any way derogated from, and not rather that the truth of our faith, and the glory in fine of God and of Jesus Christ are rendered (more) illustrious; let him be anathema. (Trent, Canons on Justification)
Did it ever occur to you that, even though St. Alphonsus was a saint, a theologian, and a doctor of the Church, that he could have still been wrong?
Of course. Did it ever occur to you that you could be wrong, when you are upholding a doctrine condemned by the Church as "very harmful both to those within the Church and those without" (Holy Office, 1949 Letter to Archbishop Cushing)?
Tell me, how is supernatural charity and faith destroyed in a man by the sword of excommunication used validly but unjustly? Trent declares clearly that "God forsakes not those who have been once justified by His grace, unless he be first forsaken by them" (Decree on Justification, cap. xi). Clearly the unjustly excommunicated man retains his state of justification. Outside the Church there is no remission of sins - this is a dogma - and therefore he is still in the Church, although not a member.
I think you merely engaged in selective quoting, picking and choosing that which supports your opinion.
Did you even read the excerpt from Moral Theology that I quoted? He says that Baptism of Desire is de fide. You can't pretend he didn't say that. With regards to the second quote, it's irrelevant. St. Thomas says that God can give Faith through an internal inspiration and St. Alphonsus certainly would have agreed. As for the first, it's perfectly true. "The other two Baptisms are included in the Baptism of Water, which derives its efficacy, both from Christ's Passion and from the Holy Ghost. Consequently for this reason the unity of Baptism is not destroyed." (St. Thomas, Summa theologiae III q. 66 a. 11).
Because it shows in the 1917 Code of Canon Law does not make it doctrine.
Does the 1917 Code teach a modernist doctrine? Yes or no?
I provide the St. Chrysostom quote above; read it
St. John Chrysostom also denied Mary's sinlessness. However, if he was alive today he certainly would recognize his mistakes and conform to the Church.
this very issue we are arguing right now was argued openly, in the very form we are debating it now, in the mid 1800's
Okay, let's see the quotes from the 1800s denying that catechumens could be saved.
You are missing the important theological distinction of the necessity of means, and the necessity of precept. Do you know what the difference is?
I do. Do you? The Sacrament of Penance is, in deed or in desire (just as baptism), a necessity of means for those who sin mortally after baptism. Trent explains that "this sacrament of Penance is, for those who have fallen after baptism, necessary unto salvation; as baptism itself is for those who have not as yet been regenerated." (Decree on Penance, cap. ii). Besides, you continually insist that Baptism cannot be received in desire since there is no matter; but Penance received in desire also lacks the matter, which is confession to a priest, and the form, which is the words of absolution.
You cannot say that this is a strawman, when every single argument in favor of a way of salvation outside the Church has ignorance as it's fundamental justification. It is THE excuse used. Strawman? Not a chance
Wrong. Firstly, there are no ways of salvation outside the Church. Why do you impute this position to men of great learning who knew this? Anyway, you would qualify the salvation of martyred catechumens as "a way of salvation outside the Church", but there is no ignorance there. Ignorance comes in because it can excuse from the necessity of precept requiring membership in the Church, but God saves and he saves through his Church, the one Ark of salvation outside of which no man at all is saved. I deny absolutely that the state of ignorance can justify, and if you examine the Letter of the Holy Office you will find no such nonsense.
"Except in the case of..." is what you'd say next, though.
Wrong. I absolutely deny that any man can be saved outside the Catholic Church and I deny absolutely that there are any exceptions. What I affirm is that membership is not necessary for salvation except by a necessity of precept. Ignorance or inability can excuse from this necessity of precept, but being joined to the Church is absolutely necessary for salvation. It is false to say that all catechumens are outside the Church. "Catechumens who, moved by the Holy Spirit, seek with explicit intention to be incorporated into the Church are by that very intention joined with her. With love and solicitude Mother Church already embraces them as her own." (LG 14). That is the teaching of the Church; there is not a single previous teaching which contradicts.
You can't have a sacrament without the matter.
As if I said such a nonsensical thing. You can't have a sacrament without the form, either, but Penance received in desire can justify even though the Sacrament of Penance is a necessity of means for those who have sinned mortally. The Sacrament of Baptism is necessary for salvation in deed (actual reception) or at least in desire. There are no exceptions to this necessity; no one can be saved without the grace of Baptism.
Now you're just arguing in circles. The Syllabus (Article 17) is a quotation from Quanto Conficiamur. We have already dealt with this encyclical, which could not be more clear that non-Catholics are not ipso facto excluded from the chance of salvation. You're prooftexting out of context.
To prove that you are bent upon employing your own private interpretation in regards to this text...
I don't need to interpret this text. It has been interpreted by Pius XII, by Vatican II, and (under JPII) in Dominus Iesus. Indeed, the question-begging appeal to "known Catholic dogma" is an exercise in private interpretation by you.
All hail and bow down to the self appointed lay magisterium.
This has to be dealt with:
"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. (Trent, Decree on Justification, cap. iv)"
Let's simplify this with a quick substitution.
Gospel = cup of tea
Laver of Regenaration = Water
Desire thereof=teabag.
And this translation, since the promulgation of the cup of tea, cannot be effected, without the Water, or the teabag, as it is written; unless a man have tea of water and the teabag, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God. (Trent, Decree on Justification, cap. iv)
So, the question becomes more apparent, Can you have a cup of tea by desire? or do you just have hot water?
The next big question that comes around is How is baptism of desire not "saved by faith alone?"
For, although no one can be just, but he to whom the merits of the Passion of our Lord Jesus Christ are communicated, yet is this done in the said justification of the impious, when by the merit of that same most holy Passion, the charity of God is poured forth, by the Holy Spirit, in the hearts of those that are justified, and is inherent therein: whence, man, through Jesus Christ, in whom he is ingrafted, receives, in the said justification, together with the remission of sins, all these (gifts) infused at once, faith, hope, and charity. For faith, unless hope and charity be added thereto, neither unites man perfectly with Christ, nor makes him a living member of His body. For which reason it is most truly said, that Faith without works is dead and profitless; and, In Christ Jesus neither circumcision, availeth anything, nor uncircumcision, but faith which worketh by charity. This faith, Catechumen's beg of the Church-agreeably to a tradition of the apostles-previously to the sacrament of Baptism; when they beg for the faith which bestows life everlasting, which, without hope and charity, faith cannot bestow: whence also do they immediately hear that word of Christ; If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.
Let's simplify this with a quick substitution.
Your reading makes the "or" nonsense. It should really be "and", if you were right.
This translation cannot be effected without Baptism or its desire.
This translation cannot be effected without Baptism and its desire.
Equivalent? I think not.
In addition:
It may happen that an excommunicated man retains his baptism, the profession of faith and the subjection to the legitimate prelates, and thus be a friend of God, if his excommunication was unjust; it may also happen that a man justly excommunicated does penance, and have the above three before he receives the absolution, and thus he would be in the Church, even while remaining still excommunicated. I answer that such a man is in the Church by his soul, i.e., by desire, which is sufficient for him unto salvation, but he is not yet by his body, i.e., by external communion, which makes one properly speaking member of the visible Church on earth. (St. Robert Bellarmine, De Ecclesia Militante, 3:6)
Is there anything esle you'd like to discuss, such as nature of this distinction between a invisible and invisible Church, or are you finished for now?
You misspelled "else"
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.