Replies

"pascendi, I'm still waiting for sources who interpreted Trent as you do."

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.

You'll be waiting for a long time, because what is said clearly and precisely does not need interpretation.

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.