Church Contradiction on Baptism of Desire

[james03]

A few moons ago, and he brought up some quotes from a book written at the begining of the 19th C. By Bishop George Hay, who can hardly be described as a Liberal

Care to quote the most relevant part?  This quote proves nothing.

edit: Here's a section FROM YOUR CITE:

yet, suppose a heathen should be instructed in the Faith of Christ, and embrace it with all his heart, but die suddenly without Baptism, or be taken away by infidel friends, or put in absolute impossibility of receiving Baptism, and die in the above dispositions with sincere repentance and a desire of Baptism, this person will undoubtedly receive all the fruits of Baptism from God, and therefore is said to be Baptized in desire.

Why did you even post this?

[james03]

James,
re. The unconverted Jew:
Depends what you mean; If you ask if I hold that a Jew can make a supernatural act of faith and perfect contrition, while not explicitly believing in the Blessed Trinity?

This is heresy.  If he doesn't believe in the Trinity, then he doesn't have Faith.  He's just a jew that really believes in his false religion.  For that matter since he denies the Trinity, he can't make a perfect act of contrition.

St. Thomas:

I answer that, The sacrament or Baptism may be wanting to someone in two ways. First, both in reality and in desire; as is the case with those who neither are baptized, nor wished to be baptized: which clearly indicates contempt of the sacrament, in regard to those who have the use of the free-will. Consequently those to whom Baptism is wanting thus, cannot obtain salvation: since neither sacramentally nor mentally are they incorporated in Christ, through Whom alone can salvation be obtained.

[james03]

Michael Wilson, next question:

Did the missionaries make a difference in the percentage of people saved?  So take Mexico a few years before the missionaries arrived.  That is scenario 1.  Now take Mexico after the arrival of the Church and baptism.  That is scenario 2.

Was there a difference in the percentage of the population saved between scenario 1 and scenario 2?

[james03]

What I am trying to say is that it is not enough to understand that this is the case, it is also necessary to understand why this is the case in order for the pre-Vatican II problems to be understood.

Don't want to derail, however the reason WHY was due to evolution.  If man is just a development of gradual changes in apes, then there is no Original Sin.

Once you do away with Original Sin, you don't need Christ, and you don't need the Church, as required in the past.

So then you invent other needs for Christ and His Church.  This is called Vatican II.

[Non Nobis]

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.

Pope Pius is referring to St. Thomas, who says God can provide Faith to the savage by internal inspiration.  This would have to include knowledge of baptism so that the savage could ardently desire baptism.

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.

No one is denying limbo, or claiming that a savage that goes to hell will be treated with injustice.

How can "eternal life" refer to limbo (or any part of hell)?  He is not talking about "eternal life" (heaven) in the first paragraph and then switching abruptly to limbo.

But, believe it or not, I think I agree with you (more importantly St. Thomas) that God's light/inspiration WILL include explicit knowledge of baptism, if indeed you are right that this explicit faith is needed. (Indeed you may be right, at least about knowledge of Christ and the Trinity; I see the arguments).  I think this inspiration MAY be practically instantaneous, so there is no time to explicitly confess the faith and desire externally.

Did the missionaries make a difference in the percentage of people saved?  So take Mexico a few years before the missionaries arrived.  That is scenario 1.  Now take Mexico after the arrival of the Church and baptism.  That is scenario 2.

Was there a difference in the percentage of the population saved between scenario 1 and scenario 2?

God became man, and founded the Church as the ordinary means to help a man (through his entire life, not just at the last moment) to salvation. Of course God's ordinary means are going to make a huge difference.  But you can't arbitrarily guess a limit of 1000.  God can do what He wills to do - even if it is ALWAYS bringing explicit faith at the very last instant to one who has spent his whole life (what ANYONE but God would refer to as his whole life) in the manner that Pope Pius IX explains.  To live a naturally good life takes actual grace; so it is not like God has nothing to do with a man who lives in this way.  Natural goodness is from God.  It most likely is very rare, especially without the help of the Church. But God can preserve it as He wills, and reward it by grace and knowledge that are needed for the final reward, even if a man is not in the Church through (what anyone would call) his whole life.

[Cantarella]

James,
re. The unconverted Jew:
Depends what you mean; If you ask if I hold that a Jew can make a supernatural act of faith and perfect contrition, while not explicitly believing in the Blessed Trinity? Yes, I do.

This answer reminds me of far better times when in 1907, the Sacred Congregation of the Propagation of the Faith, under Blessed Pius X, responded to the question as to whether Confucius could have been saved:

Answer: "It is not allowed to affirm that Confucius was saved. Christians, when interrogated, must answer that those who die as infidels are damned".

Of course, the liberal of today would argue that the non-Catholic does not die AS an infidel really, but as a *last minute - hidden Catholic*. It is all about semantic games nowadays.  It all depends on....

Agreed: "all those who die as infidels are damned".
However, not all those who outwardly die as infidels are damned, or else the Catholic Church would teach that: "Only those who actually receive Baptism of water in the Catholic Church are saved"; But the Church also accepts that a person can move from the state of sin to the state of Sanctifying Grace through an act of perfect Charity, without actually receiving Baptism.  Which of course brings us into a forbidden subject on this forum. 

This hypothetical unconverted Jew, not only dies unbaptized (with original sin), but dies explicitly rejecting Christ and His Church. Given that the subject of Baptism, as Christ instituted, is forbidden in this forum, then let me just say that this is a firm denial of other two essential components of the Exclusive Catholic dogma of salvation: Explicit Faith (at the very least, in the Incarnation and the Trinity), and personal submission to the Roman Pontiff, the Bishop of Rome.

Do you disagree with the Angelic Doctor here?

After the Incarnation, all men, if they wish to be saved, are "bound to explicit faith in the mysteries of Christ, chiefly as regards those which are observed throughout the Church and publicly proclaimed, such as the articles that refer to the Incarnation." 4  And, after the Incarnation, all men, in order to be saved, "are bound to explicit faith in the mystery of the Trinity."

[Michael Wilson]

The Jewish religion explicitly rejects Our Lord and the Catholic Church, but not every Jew. That is they do not culpably and knowingly do so.
re. Explicit denial of the B.T. & Refusal of Submission; again, it has to be knowing and culpable; as you realize that in order for a sin to be Mortal it must include "sufficient knowledge" and "full consent".
Re. The Angelic Doctor. The faithful followers of St. Thomas, post the discovery of America and the millions of souls that were discovered to be living without any knowledge of the Church  and its teachings have agreed that if St. Thomas had lived to see these discoveries, would have adapted his teaching to such a situation.
I already posted this on another thread that you were on. However there is a legitimate difference in opinions as to the necessity of the explicit confession of the Blessed Trinity in the Church. Either opinion is legitimate.

[Michael Wilson]

A few moons ago, and he brought up some quotes from a book written at the begining of the 19th C. By Bishop George Hay, who can hardly be described as a Liberal

Care to quote the most relevant part?  This quote proves nothing.

edit: Here's a section FROM YOUR CITE:

yet, suppose a heathen should be instructed in the Faith of Christ, and embrace it with all his heart, but die suddenly without Baptism, or be taken away by infidel friends, or put in absolute impossibility of receiving Baptism, and die in the above dispositions with sincere repentance and a desire of Baptism, this person will undoubtedly receive all the fruits of Baptism from God, and therefore is said to be Baptized in desire.

Why did you even post this?

The part I posted was relevant to the discussion I have with Cantarella. If you would read his  post to me previous to the Bishop Hayes one,  and then the one of Bishop Hayes .

[Michael Wilson]

James,
re. The unconverted Jew:
Depends what you mean; If you ask if I hold that a Jew can make a supernatural act of faith and perfect contrition, while not explicitly believing in the Blessed Trinity?

This is heresy.  If he doesn't believe in the Trinity, then he doesn't have Faith.  He's just a jew that really believes in his false religion.  For that matter since he denies the Trinity, he can't make a perfect act of contrition.

St. Thomas:

I answer that, The sacrament or Baptism may be wanting to someone in two ways. First, both in reality and in desire; as is the case with those who neither are baptized, nor wished to be baptized: which clearly indicates contempt of the sacrament, in regard to those who have the use of the free-will. Consequently those to whom Baptism is wanting thus, cannot obtain salvation: since neither sacramentally nor mentally are they incorporated in Christ, through Whom alone can salvation be obtained.

Yes James, I seem to fall into "heresy" every time I have a discussion with you;  This is one of the reasons I will allow others to carry on in my place.

[ts aquinas]

Does anyone truly know (not you specifically james) what Fr. Feeney was advocating and censored for or is a title of an argument simply seen and automatically understood?

Contrary to popular belief, the censorship of Fr. Feeney had nothing to do with the teaching on "Baptism of Desire" which came out later. The Holy Office in 1949 was completely unaware of Fr. Feeney's views concerning justified catechumens. For his theology regarding this was first expressed in the book Bread of Life, which was published until 1952. Fr. Feeney was censored because of the "rigorist" view of on Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus and his anti-Judaism rethoric; coming from Saint Benedict Center combined with the liberal and political maneuvers of Jew-friendly Cardinal Cushing and other progressivists at Rome. This Catholic dogma which basically means that only Catholics go to Heaven really clashes with the world, specially in times of reigning Judaism. By the way, did you know that Cushing played a vital role in drafting Vatican II documents Nostra Aetate and Ad Gentes?. He is highly responsible for the error found in V2 Council, helped by the liberal Jesuits who condemned Fr. Feeney. The error is that non Catholics in invincible ignorance can be saved. This Cushing error is shared by most traditionalists and obviously most post- Vatican II Curia.

Fr. Feeney was not censored over a doctrinal matter, but a disciplinary one. In times where rampant liberalism already had taken over the Church, the Vatican did not want to bend to the pressure Fr. Feeney was exerting with his defense of "Outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation, whatsoever" (same dogma, by the way, which every martyr died for, every saint believed in, and that has been thrice infallibly defined, so every Catholic is bound to profess).

Fr. Feeney was reconciled with the Church without ever recanting his "rigorist" view on EENS.

I know he was. Didn't know he was a fellow anti-Zionist, good man. You'll have to explain his position then on justification being exclusive from sanctification and where these souls go because it's either heaven or hell, advocating a possible third is heresy.

[Cantarella]

Re. The Angelic Doctor. The faithful followers of St. Thomas, post the discovery of America and the millions of souls that were discovered to be living without any knowledge of the Church  and its teachings have agreed that if St. Thomas had lived to see these discoveries, would have adapted his teaching to such a situation.
I already posted this on another thread that you were on. However there is a legitimate difference in opinions as to the necessity of the explicit confession of the Blessed Trinity in the Church. Either opinion is legitimate.

Do you believe then that the Church could adapt Her teachings to a situation according to the times as you implied here that St. Thomas would have if he had lived in a different historical period? (and you object Vatican II Council "Aggiornamento", why?  ). That would allow for the evolvement of a dogma, a proposition that is condemned. The Church cannot contradict Herself and it is de fide that explicit Faith and canonical submission to the Roman Pontiff are necessary for salvation. Vatican I teaches that understanding of sacred dogmas must be "perpetually retained, which Holy Mother Church has once declared; and there must never be a recession from that meaning under the specious name of a deeper understanding".

Pope Pius XII talks about this modernist dilution of dogmas in Humani Generis also:

14. In theology, some want to reduce to a minimum the meaning of dogmas; and to free dogma itself from terminology long established in the Church and from philosophical concepts held by Catholic teachers, to bring about a return in the explanation of Catholic doctrine to the way of speaking used in Holy Scripture and by the Fathers of the Church. They cherish the hope that when dogma is stripped of the elements which they hold to be extrinsic to divine revelation, it will compare advantageously with the dogmatic opinions of those who are separated from the unity of the Church and that in this way they will gradually arrive at a mutual assimilation of Catholic dogma with the tenets of the dissidents.

15. Moreover, they assert that when Catholic doctrine has been reduced to this condition, a way will be found to satisfy modern needs, that will permit of dogma being expressed also by the concepts of modern philosophy, whether of immanentism or idealism or existentialism[4] or any other system. Some more audacious affirm that his can and must be done, because they hold that the mysteries of faith are never expressed by truly adequate concepts but only by approximate and ever changeable notions, in which the truth is to some extent expressed, but is necessarily distorted. Wherefore they do not consider it absurd, but altogether necessary, that theology should substitute new concepts in place of the old ones in keeping with the various philosophies which in the course of time it uses as its instruments, so that it should give human expression to divine truths in various ways which are even somewhat opposed, but still equivalent, as they say. They add that the history of dogmas consists in the reporting of the various forms in which revealed truth has been clothed, forms that have succeeded one another in accordance with the different teachings and opinions that have arisen over the course of the centuries.

[Quaremerepulisti]

What I am trying to say is that it is not enough to understand that this is the case, it is also necessary to understand why this is the case in order for the pre-Vatican II problems to be understood.

Don't want to derail, however the reason WHY was due to evolution.  If man is just a development of gradual changes in apes, then there is no Original Sin.

Once you do away with Original Sin, you don't need Christ, and you don't need the Church, as required in the past.

So then you invent other needs for Christ and His Church.  This is called Vatican II.

Whether or not this is correct (and I don't believe it is), this is not what I was asking.  I wasn't asking why were people saying a Jew could be saved as a Jew, I was asking why is it actually the case that a Jew can't be saved as a Jew.  There's nothing intrinsically deficient about their religion; after all, it was salvific for those under the Old Testament.  It is because the interior light and grace of the Holy Ghost (necessary for supernatural Faith) no longer leads toward Judaism, but towards Christianity.  Without this last premise (which was very much obscured pre-Vatican II) the statement that a Jew can't be saved as a Jew simply can't be rationally defended.

[Michael Wilson]

Re. The Angelic Doctor. The faithful followers of St. Thomas, post the discovery of America and the millions of souls that were discovered to be living without any knowledge of the Church  and its teachings have agreed that if St. Thomas had lived to see these discoveries, would have adapted his teaching to such a situation.
I already posted this on another thread that you were on. However there is a legitimate difference in opinions as to the necessity of the explicit confession of the Blessed Trinity in the Church. Either opinion is legitimate.

Do you believe then that the Church could adapt Her teachings to a situation according to the times as you implied here that St. Thomas would have if he had lived in a different historical period? (and you object Vatican II Council "Aggiornamento", why?  ). That would allow for the evolvement of a dogma, a proposition that is condemned. The Church cannot contradict Herself and it is de fide that explicit Faith and canonical submission to the Roman Pontiff are necessary for salvation. Vatican I teaches that understanding of sacred dogmas must be "perpetually retained, which Holy Mother Church has once declared; and there must never be a recession from that meaning under the specious name of a deeper understanding".

Pope Pius XII talks about this modernist dilution of dogmas in Humani Generis also:

14. In theology, some want to reduce to a minimum the meaning of dogmas; and to free dogma itself from terminology long established in the Church and from philosophical concepts held by Catholic teachers, to bring about a return in the explanation of Catholic doctrine to the way of speaking used in Holy Scripture and by the Fathers of the Church. They cherish the hope that when dogma is stripped of the elements which they hold to be extrinsic to divine revelation, it will compare advantageously with the dogmatic opinions of those who are separated from the unity of the Church and that in this way they will gradually arrive at a mutual assimilation of Catholic dogma with the tenets of the dissidents.

15. Moreover, they assert that when Catholic doctrine has been reduced to this condition, a way will be found to satisfy modern needs, that will permit of dogma being expressed also by the concepts of modern philosophy, whether of immanentism or idealism or existentialism[4] or any other system. Some more audacious affirm that his can and must be done, because they hold that the mysteries of faith are never expressed by truly adequate concepts but only by approximate and ever changeable notions, in which the truth is to some extent expressed, but is necessarily distorted. Wherefore they do not consider it absurd, but altogether necessary, that theology should substitute new concepts in place of the old ones in keeping with the various philosophies which in the course of time it uses as its instruments, so that it should give human expression to divine truths in various ways which are even somewhat opposed, but still equivalent, as they say. They add that the history of dogmas consists in the reporting of the various forms in which revealed truth has been clothed, forms that have succeeded one another in accordance with the different teachings and opinions that have arisen over the course of the centuries.

It has nothing to do with evolution of dogma; St. Thomas believed that the faith had been preached throughout the world. Therefore nobody was exempt from believing in the Incarnation and the Bl. Trinity. The discovery of America demonstrated that St. Thomas's premise was wrong. Therefore his conclusion could also be incorrect, or at least modified; which some Thomists did.

[Michael Wilson]

What I am trying to say is that it is not enough to understand that this is the case, it is also necessary to understand why this is the case in order for the pre-Vatican II problems to be understood.

Don't want to derail, however the reason WHY was due to evolution.  If man is just a development of gradual changes in apes, then there is no Original Sin.

Once you do away with Original Sin, you don't need Christ, and you don't need the Church, as required in the past.

So then you invent other needs for Christ and His Church.  This is called Vatican II.

Whether or not this is correct (and I don't believe it is), this is not what I was asking.  I wasn't asking why were people saying a Jew could be saved as a Jew, I was asking why is it actually the case that a Jew can't be saved as a Jew.  There's nothing intrinsically deficient about their religion; after all, it was salvific for those under the Old Testament.  It is because the interior light and grace of the Holy Ghost (necessary for supernatural Faith) no longer leads toward Judaism, but towards Christianity.  Without this last premise (which was very much obscured pre-Vatican II) the statement that a Jew can't be saved as a Jew simply can't be rationally defended.

QMR,
I think that the reason that a Jew cannot be saved as a Jew, is that the modern Jewish religion is not identical to the pre-Christ religion. That is, Our Lord told the Pharisees that Abraham, Moses etc. All believed in Him;indeed, nobody can be saved except through faith in Christ, either explicit, or implicit; thus GLG, explains that those who believe in a God rewarder of the good and evil, implicitly believe in Christ. But the post Christ religion specifically rejects Our Lord as the Messiah.

[james03]

Michael Wilson, next question:

Did the missionaries make a difference in the percentage of people saved?  So take Mexico a few years before the missionaries arrived.  That is scenario 1.  Now take Mexico after the arrival of the Church and baptism.  That is scenario 2.

Was there a difference in the percentage of the population saved between scenario 1 and scenario 2?