Church Contradiction on Baptism of Desire

[james03]

Yes sir, we all agree that we have to keep our Catholic faith or else we will perish forever. But does the Athanasian Creed address the question of what is the minimum necessary to believe in order to be saved?

Yes.  Here's the final statement of the Creed:

44. This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully he cannot be saved.

[james03]

Errors in Protocol 122/49:

1.  Therefore, no one will be saved who, knowing the Church to have been divinely established by Christ, nevertheless refuses to submit to the Church or withholds obedience from the Roman Pontiff, the Vicar of Christ on earth.  Translation:  Satanists go to hell, thus making EENS a meaningless formula, which is condemned by Pope Pius XII.

2.  For in this letter the Sovereign Pontiff clearly distinguishes between those who are actually incorporated into the Church as members, and those who are united to the Church only by desire. -- an outright lie.  Nowhere does the Pope discuss fictional people who are "united" to the Church by desire.  Pure deceit.

3.  With these wise words he reproves both those who exclude from eternal salvation all united to the Church only by implicit desire, -- a lie.  Nowhere does the Pope discuss those who are "united" to the Church, in any way, nor does he discuss any "implicit desire" to belong to the Church.  Furthermore, I do not know of any authoritative text that says people can have an implicit desire to be part of the Church.  This is completely novel.

4.  "Toward the end of this same encyclical letter, when most affectionately inviting to unity those who do not belong to the body of the Catholic Church, he mentions those who "are related to the Mystical Body of the Redeemer by a certain unconscious yearning and desire," " Related is poor translation, but better than "united".  The actual translation is "ordered", and is a reference to the Final Cause of man, that we are all ordered to uniting with God and enjoying the Divine Beatitude.

5.  But it must not be thought that any kind of desire of entering the Church suffices that one may be saved. It is necessary that the desire by which one is related to the Church be animated by perfect charity. Nor can an implicit desire produce its effect, unless a person has supernatural faith:  -- more deceit.  No where does the pope mention that "implicit desire" to enter the Church produces any effect, let alone is salvific.

6.  Nor can an implicit desire produce its effect (salvation), unless a person has supernatural faith -- theological error and circular reasoning:

A person receives supernatural faith by being justified by implicit desire to enter the Church
A person is only justified by implicit desire if he has supernatural faith.

[Stubborn]

Errors in Protocol 122/49:

1.  Therefore, no one will be saved who, knowing the Church to have been divinely established by Christ, nevertheless refuses to submit to the Church or withholds obedience from the Roman Pontiff, the Vicar of Christ on earth.  Translation:  Satanists go to hell, thus making EENS a meaningless formula, which is condemned by Pope Pius XII.

2.  For in this letter the Sovereign Pontiff clearly distinguishes between those who are actually incorporated into the Church as members, and those who are united to the Church only by desire. -- an outright lie.  Nowhere does the Pope discuss fictional people who are "united" to the Church by desire.  Pure deceit.

3.  With these wise words he reproves both those who exclude from eternal salvation all united to the Church only by implicit desire, -- a lie.  Nowhere does the Pope discuss those who are "united" to the Church, in any way, nor does he discuss any "implicit desire" to belong to the Church.  Furthermore, I do not know of any authoritative text that says people can have an implicit desire to be part of the Church.  This is completely novel.

4.  "Toward the end of this same encyclical letter, when most affectionately inviting to unity those who do not belong to the body of the Catholic Church, he mentions those who "are related to the Mystical Body of the Redeemer by a certain unconscious yearning and desire," " Related is poor translation, but better than "united".  The actual translation is "ordered", and is a reference to the Final Cause of man, that we are all ordered to uniting with God and enjoying the Divine Beatitude.

5.  But it must not be thought that any kind of desire of entering the Church suffices that one may be saved. It is necessary that the desire by which one is related to the Church be animated by perfect charity. Nor can an implicit desire produce its effect, unless a person has supernatural faith:  -- more deceit.  No where does the pope mention that "implicit desire" to enter the Church produces any effect, let alone is salvific.

6.  Nor can an implicit desire produce its effect (salvation), unless a person has supernatural faith -- theological error and circular reasoning:

A person receives supernatural faith by being justified by implicit desire to enter the Church
A person is only justified by implicit desire if he has supernatural faith.

7. However, this dogma must be understood in that sense in which the Church herself understands it.  -  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.


Your #3 revisited.
3.  With these wise words he reproves both those who exclude from eternal salvation all united to the Church only by implicit desire, - The really insane part of the whole letter is something I have to believe +Cushing and co had to have laughed their ever loving butts off at this whole letter, particularly the whole belonging to the Church by desire.

Anyone who will simply stop for just a moment to think about what the letter is saying, will be forced to conclude that every prot, jew and member of every heretical sect out there, INCLUDING Fr. Feeney, are all united to the Church by desire according to the dictates never before taught by the Church but are newly set forth in this letter. 

[james03]

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.

Missed that.  Pure modernism, it is disgusting.  No wonder the Pope refused to promulgate this.

[Cantarella]

Errors in Protocol 122/49:

1.  Therefore, no one will be saved who, knowing the Church to have been divinely established by Christ, nevertheless refuses to submit to the Church or withholds obedience from the Roman Pontiff, the Vicar of Christ on earth.  Translation:  Satanists go to hell, thus making EENS a meaningless formula, which is condemned by Pope Pius XII.

This first error gives the impression that the dogma of the necessity of the Catholic Faith, the reception of the Sacraments, and the submission to the Roman Pontiff for salvation goes from the application to every human creature (as it was undoubtedly postulated in the dogmatic formulas) to only those "who know" ( "those knowing the Church to have been divinely established..."), meaning there may be a visible exception to the EENS dogma (the exception being the invincible ignorant who has neither: No Faith, no sacraments, and not submission to the Pope of Rome).

[Non Nobis]

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.

Missed that.  Pure modernism, it is disgusting.  No wonder the Pope refused to promulgate this.

Vatican I says that over time " the sacred doctrines of the faith have been defined more closely, and set forth more fully, errors have been condemned and restrained...". http://www.catholicplanet.org/councils/20-Dei-Filius.htm .  Do you think Vatican I is teaching disgusting modernism here?

With more context from the Holy Office letter: "However, this 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."

Private judgments are just what you are making.

You may know that the Pope didn't sign the letter, but how can you know that he refused? If he thought it was disgusting modernism it seems he was committing extremely grave sin by not stopping it or protesting it (a root of modernist infiltration into the Church, as you would have it); or else he was forced to be still for the rest of his life; or else he was a fool. Any of these seem far less likely than that there was an human error in finishing the processing of the letter, and that he did not think anyone would dare question a letter from the Holy Office, unless it was explicitly denied later. The AAS is a part of protocol that is helpful to us; but there is no teaching that says that if a Holy Office statement is not in the AAS it may be destructive of the faith.

[Non Nobis]

Pope Pius XII mentions those who "are related to the Mystical Body of the Redeemer by a certain unconscious yearning and desire",

"Yearning and unconscious desire" implies implicit desire.

" Related is poor translation, but better than "united".  The actual translation is "ordered", and is a reference to the Final Cause of man, that we are ALL ordered to uniting with God and enjoying the Divine Beatitude.

The Pope is not saying that ALL people are related to the Church by yearning and unconscious desire.
"Yearning and unconscious desire" is not "no desire", it is a real desire that GOD can read; He is conscious of it. The fact that all men are ordered to God as to their final end does not at all mean that all men have any kind of desire, even unconscious.  (If your translation to "ordered" rather than "related" is correct, a man with real yearning is indeed better ordered to the Church, and being "ordered" is a kind of relationship)

I say that IF God reads a man's heart and knows that if a missionary would tell him about baptism the next day he would most certainly desire baptism explicitly and receive it and not sin, BUT God chooses that this man should die first, THEN God knows that this man has implicit desire. James haven't you said that a man can have implicit faith in the sense that he (a baptized Catholic, perhaps a child) implicitly believes all that the Church teaches, even if he does not yet know it explicitly because he has not yet been taught? The man who would have learned about baptism tomorrow is in a very similar state; he wishes to believe and act on what God commands with all his heart, soul, mind, and strength, but is not yet able. God does not damn a man for not doing what he cannot do, or not yet knowing what he cannot know -  this is A MATTER OF FAITH every bit as basic as EENS.

Do you make man's heart so small and God's ability to read it so shallow that a man cannot be of good will (in the sense that God desires it, not liberals) or God cannot read it, unless a man believes everything explicitly?  You seem to worry that GOD will let the same people get into heaven that the liberals would choose, that GOD would violate EENS, if He looked at any belief that wasn't explicit.

My opinion is that such a man WHO DOES HAVE IMPLICIT DESIRE (as God desires it, not stupid liberals) IN THE FIRST PLACE (and perseveres in it) will ALWAYS be blessed by God by Divine light before he dies (even in the last instant) so that he has EXPLICIT knowledge of Christ and the Trinity that he needs (he then makes an act of explicit faith, or if he rejects it, he is damned, losing any Sanctifying Grace he had).  This is not contrary to EENS.  God will give what is needed to a man who does what he can to follow God's will. ("What he can" means what GOD knows he can, not some liberal's guess).

Isn't this what was St. Thomas is saying here:

1. Granted that everyone is bound to believe something explicitly, no untenable conclusion follows even if someone is brought up in the forest or among wild beasts. For it pertains to divine providence to furnish everyone with what is necessary for salvation, provided that on his part there is no hindrance. Thus, if someone so brought up followed the direction of natural reason in seeking good and avoiding evil, we must most certainly hold that God would either reveal to him through internal inspiration what had to be believed, or would send some preacher of the faith to him as he sent Peter to Cornelius (Acts 10:20)..

Note my view does support the need for explicit faith, but it also supports the reality of IMPLICIT DESIRE.

For it pertains to divine providence to furnish everyone with what is necessary for salvation, provided that on his part there is no hindrance.  "Pertains to" means it is just what an All Merciful and All Just God does for man. "No hindrance" doesn't mean sits back and waits, but cooperates with God's graces, and truths and commands as they are known.

[Stubborn]

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.

Missed that.  Pure modernism, it is disgusting.  No wonder the Pope refused to promulgate this.

Vatican I says that over time " the sacred doctrines of the faith have been defined more closely, and set forth more fully, errors have been condemned and restrained...". http://www.catholicplanet.org/councils/20-Dei-Filius.htm .  Do you think Vatican I is teaching disgusting modernism here?

With more context from the Holy Office letter: "However, this 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."

Private judgments are just what you are making.

No, Vatican 1 decrees: Hence, too,that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by holy mother church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding.

It is the sacred dogma that is infallible, not the explanations which reduce it to a meaningless formula. They are speaking about the Thrice Defined Dogma of EENS in the sentence you picked out, as they described it perfectly. They are not talking about the mountain of diluting explanations that completely abandon the meaning of the dogma "under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding."

Just read The Letter. Is it not completely obvious that The Letter starts out by affirming the truth of the dogma, then ends by denying it? It starts out by saying: Now, amongst those things which the Church has always preached and will never cease to teach, there is also this infallible declaration which says that there is no salvation outside the Church.

Then a few paragraphs later it outright denies it, saying: ...those who "by a certain desire and unconscious longing have a certain relationship with the Mystical Body of the Redeemer". He does not in any way exclude them from eternal salvation, but he goes on to affirm that they are in a state "in which they cannot be sure of their eternal salvation" and that "they still remain deprived of those many heavenly gifts and helps which can only be enjoyed in the Catholic Church".

The dogma decrees that they have no hope of salvation whatsoever if they die outside the Church - that is infallible. Otherwise, if what The Letter says is actual Church teaching, then per The Letter itself, we MUST conclude and can be certain the Fr. Feeney belongs to the Church by a certain desire and unconscious longing, he is just in a state in which he cannot be sure of his eternal salvation -  which makes The Letter a colossal farce, which is exactly what it is.

The Letter speaks as if the many "heavenly gifts and helps which can be enjoyed only in the Catholic Church" are luxuries and nonessential accessories of the spiritual life, when, in point of fact, only the Church provides the soul with the means, i.e., the Sacraments, sanctifying grace, and union with Christ, without which salvation is totally impossible.

[Kaesekopf]

We have a definition of Feeneyism and the Forum's stance toward it posted now in the "Forum Rules" section.  It is linked below and copied below, as well.

A Definition of Feeneyism and the Forum's Stance Toward It:
"Feeneyism" is characterized by three errors: a misrepresentation of the dogma "outside the Church there is no salvation", that the doctrine of baptism of desire (and of blood) is optional, and that the Council of Trent teaches that baptism of desire is sufficient for justification "but not for salvation."  These three errors run contrary to the teaching of the Catholic Church. 

Feeneyism is forbidden on this forum and promoting one, two, or all three errors of Feeneyism is subject to moderation.  While Feeneyites are welcome to post here in all sub-fora, they are not permitted to promote, spread, or disseminate information promoting any of the errors of Feeneyism.  Any posts or posters who do so will be subject to moderation.

http://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=3891.msg268122#msg268122

Any further posts or discussions violating that rule in this thread (or other threads) will be subject to bans and moderation.

[james03]

God does not damn a man for not doing what he cannot do, or not yet knowing what he cannot know -  this is A MATTER OF FAITH every bit as basic as EENS.

Classic error.  God damns no one.  We are born damned (you believe in Original Sin, right?).  God saves those whom He has predestined to election.

The Pope is not saying that ALL people are related to the Church by yearning and unconscious desire.

According to the deceitful protocol, correct, but he doesn't use "related", he is talking about ALL who are ordered to the Church.  Best to read the original, and not the deceitful protocol:

"As you know, Venerable Brethren, from the very beginning of Our Pontificate, We have committed to the protection and guidance of heaven those who do not belong to the visible Body of the Catholic Church, ... We ask each and every one of them to correspond to the interior movements of grace, and to seek to withdraw from that state in which they cannot be sure of their salvation. For even though by an unconscious desire and longing they are ordered/disposed towards the Mystical Body of the Redeemer....

As you can see, the protocol letter completely (intentionally) blows it.

[james03]

Non Nobis:

1.  Do you now agree that the context is "those who do not belong to the visible Body of the Catholic Church", thus all non-Catholics?

2.  On venial sin, if venial sin is not punished in hell, then what happens to someone who goes to hell with venial sins and mortal sin?  Is he given a pass on the venial sins?

[james03]

From the other thread, Pope Ubarn on the headhunting moslems.  Puts things in perspective:

"All who die by the way, whether by land or by sea, or in battle against the pagans, shall have immediate remission of sins. This I grant them through the power of God with which I am invested. O what a disgrace if such a despised and base race, which worships demons, should conquer a people which has the faith of omnipotent God and is made glorious with the name of Christ!.........Let those who have been accustomed unjustly to wage private warfare against the faithful now go against the infidels and end with victory this war which should have been begun long ago. ....... Let those who have been fighting against their brothers and relatives now fight in a proper way against the barbarians. ..... Behold! on this side will be the sorrowful and poor, on that, the rich; on this side, the enemies of the Lord, on that, his friends.

[Cantarella]

Classic error.  God damns no one.  We are born damned (you believe in Original Sin, right?).  God saves those whom He has predestined to election.

From the Epistle to the Romans, St. Paul teaches:

For whom he foreknew, he also predestinated to be made conformable to the image of his Son; that he might be the firstborn amongst many brethren. [30] And whom he predestinated, them he also called. And whom he called, them he also justified. And whom he justified, them he also glorified.

Commentary on that verse from the Douay-Rheims:

[29] He also predestinated: That is, God hath preordained that all his elect should be conformable to the image of his Son. We must not here offer to pry into the secrets of God's eternal election; only firmly believe that all our good, in time and eternity, flows originally from God's free goodness; and all our evil from man's free will.

From all eternity Almighty God has known who were His own. To those, the Gospel will be preached to. Central to God's plan of salvation is the Church Herself, which is the implement that God instituted for the rescuing of His Elect from those born of the flesh and the world who will not take partake in Christ's divinity.  This is the only Ark of Salvation.

[Non Nobis]

God does not damn a man for not doing what he cannot do, or not yet knowing what he cannot know -  this is A MATTER OF FAITH every bit as basic as EENS.

Classic error.  God damns no one.  We are born damned (you believe in Original Sin, right?).  God saves those whom He has predestined to election.

"God damns" means to most Catholics "God punishes with the eternal torments (sensible pain) of hell".  Original sin does not leave us damned in this USUAL sense of damn; it does not of itself send anyone to eternal torments.  It is extremely misleading to say "we are born damned" because most people will think this means by default we go to eternal torments. (I seriously wish you would stop saying "we are born damned" - it is extremely ugly, to say the very least.)

Even if "God damns" isn't used much because it could be taken in the Calvinist sense, or in a blasphemous sense (when wished against someone), still God deliberately punishes those who die in mortal sin in the eternal torments of hell.  Going to hell (with sensible pain!) requires a deliberate act of mortal sin; it is not a default.

St. Augustine says God damns some:

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/160366.htm
St. Augustine:  If haply there be any heretics who still in their hearts maintain that Christ exhibited Himself to sight, but that Christ's was not very flesh; let them now lay aside that error, and let the Gospel persuade them. We do but blame them for entertaining this conceit: He will damn them if they shall persevere in it.

St.Thomas says in what sense  God wills the damnation of a man:

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/2019.htm#article8
God does not will the damnation of a man, considered precisely as damnation, nor a man's death, considered precisely as death, because, "He wills all men to be saved" (1 Timothy 2:4); but He wills such things under the aspect of justice.

It is true that God saves only those whom He has predestined. It is also true that God wills the damnation (just punishment in the fires of hell) only of those who deliberately commit mortal sin and die in that state (the reprobate).  And, yes I think it is true that those who die with original sin alone are among the reprobate, but they are not damned in the USUAL sense (the sense that St. Augustine and St. Thomas use).  There is mystery here; it is not answered by saying "We are born damned".

[Gardener]

The "we are born damned" idea comes from the massa damnata theory of Augustine.

Fr. Most compares and contrasts his various teachings on this subject here:

http://www.ewtn.com/library/THEOLOGY/AUGUSTIN.htm

As one can see, Augustine had no consistent thought on the subject, and often argued against himself.