Traditionally, almost every Catholic understood EENS to mean at least this much - non-Christians and non-Catholics to whom we are speaking must be told they must embrace the Catholic Faith to be saved. For e.g. see this article in the Remnant, written by a Protestant convert to our Catholic Faith,
Quote"They looked at each other, shook their heads, then looked sadly at me.
"But you can't go to Heaven," they said.
"Why not?"
"'Cause you're not Catholic."
"What do I have to do to be Catholic?"
"You have to go to Catechism."
Those words struck my heart like an arrow. Even though I was not able to actually "go to Catechism" until I was a sophomore in college, I made up my mind right then. I would be Catholic."
https://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/3931-where-have-all-the-catholics-gone
It's also not that controversial in theology to teach that even separated Christians must embrace the Catholic Faith before their death, in order to obtain the grace of final perseverance, and attain to full salvation and complete theosis. See for e.g. this approved Catechism written by missionary Priest Fr. Michael Mueller, From: http://www.catholicapologetics.info/thechurch/catechism/familiar.htm#P1Lxii
QuoteQ. But is it not a very uncharitable doctrine to say that none can be saved out of the Church?
A. On the contrary, it is a very great act of charity to assert this doctrine most emphatically ... Q. Is it then right for us to say that one who was not received into the Church before his death, is damned?
A. No.
Q. Why not?
A. Because we cannot know for certain what takes place between God and the soul at the awful moment of death.
Q. What do you mean by this?
A. I mean that God, in His infinite mercy, may enlighten, at the hour of death, one who is not yet a Catholic, so that he may see the truth of the Catholic faith, be truly sorry for his sins, and sincerely desire to die a good Catholic.
Q. What do we say of those who receive such an extraordinary grace, and die in this manner?
A. We say of them that they die united, at least, to the soul of the Catholic Church, and are saved.
Q. What, then, awaits all those who are out of the Catholic Church, and die without having received such an extraordinary grace at the hour of death?
A. Eternal damnation.
Today's liberals have made EENS almost the opposite; almost anyone and everyone, even those who hate Christ, can be saved, and must be presumed to be invincibly ignorant, and anonymously Christian, having perfect love of God, contrition, and everything else. And whosoever does not agree that even atheists can be saved, is himself allegedly outside the Church, and cannot be saved, they say.
From: https://catholicism.org/father-feeney.html With the benefit of hindsight (e.g. what has happened to the Once-Holy Jesuit Order today), may we say that diluting EENS, especially in Catholic Preaching, with "anonymous Christian" soteriology etc has been a mistake?
"One of the most outstanding prophets of our time."
— Hamish Fraser
"The greatest theologian we have in the United States, by far."
— Rev. John J. McEleny, S.J., (Father's Jesuit Provincial)
"The greatest theologian in the Catholic Church today."
— John Cardinal Wright
Leonard Feeney was born in Lynn, Massachusetts on February 15, 1897. On the eve of Our Lady's Nativity, September 7, 1914, he entered the Jesuit Novitiate of Saint Andrew in upstate New York. During his 14 year formation as a Jesuit, he studied in England, Wales, Belgium, France, and the U.S.A. At the end of a brilliant scholasticate and theologate, he took religious vows as a son of Saint Ignatius, and was ordained a priest on June 20, 1928.
Father Feeney then embarked on what would become one of the most celebrated careers any priest could enjoy as a writer, lecturer and editor. During the 1930's he was literary editor of America, the Jesuit-run Catholic monthly. At the same time, his books, published by some of the major publishers of that time, were becoming standards in Catholic schools and homes all across the country. They include Riddle and Reverie (MacMillan, 1936), Song for a Listener (MacMillan, 1936), You'd Better Come Quietly (Sheed and Ward, 1939), The Leonard Feeney Omnibus (Sheed and Ward, 1943), Your Second Childhood (Bruce Publishing Company, 1945) Mother Seton, an American Woman (Dodd, Mead & Company, 1948), Survival Till Seventeen (Sheed and Ward, 1948).
Father's genius as a writer, speaker and theologian, was attested to by some of the most prominent Catholic figures of his day. Bishop Fulton Sheen once said that the only substitute he would allow on his radio show was Father Feeney. Frank Sheed, of Sheed and Ward said, "For Father Feeney, dogma is not only true; it is breathlessly exciting. That is his special vocation. . . to make his readers feel the thrill." During Father's days at Oxford, Lord Cecil, the famous Oxford don admitted, "I am getting more out of my association with Leonard Feeney than he could possibly get from me." Of the Jesuit's writing, Cecil said, "it shines with a pure, clear light."
In 1942, during the height of his literary fame, Father Feeney was transferred by his Jesuit superiors to Saint Benedict Center, a Catholic student center which had been founded two years earlier by Catherine Goddard Clarke. Mrs. Clarke had sought the permission of the then-Archbishop of Boston, William Cardinal O'Connell, to establish an educational oasis of Catholic truth close to the renowned secular universities in that area. The Cardinal readily agreed to the project, admonishing Mrs. Clarke to "teach the Faith without compromise." So it was that Saint Benedict Center quietly came into existence that year at the intersection of Bow and Arrow Streets in Harvard Square, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
The Center's initial purpose was to provide religious instruction for the Catholic students of the universities and, in keeping with the instructions of Cardinal O'Connell, its policy was to teach the authentic doctrines of the Church through the study of Holy Scripture, and the writings of the Fathers, Doctors, and Saints of the Church. This program of studies achieved immediate success, filling the spiritual vacuum created by an obvious deficiency in the neighboring academic institutions. The Center was attended in large and growing numbers.
With Father Feeney's transfer to Saint Benedict Center, a whole new era in his life — and in the lives of countless others — was to commence. Within three years, he came to see clearly that the Church was headed down a dangerous path of compromise and accommodation, leading to what is now universally recognized as a "crisis in the Church." Not only did Father see the problem before anybody else, he also saw the primary cause: the obscuring of the Catholic Church's teaching "outside the Church, there is no salvation" (extra ecclesiam nulla salus).
In 1949, with the loyal support of those who had become his spiritual children, Father Feeney founded the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary. From the foundation of the Congregation until his death in 1978, Father Feeney continued to teach his disciples and form them into a community of apostles dedicated, not only to the restoration of the Dogma of Faith, extra ecclesiam nulla salus, but also to the conversion of the United States of America to the One, True Faith, outside of which no one at all is saved.
After Father Feeney's death in 1978, the great Scottish apostle of Christ the King, Hamish Fraser, eulogized him as "one of the most outstanding prophets of our time. For not only did he most accurately diagnose the contemporary malaise, long before others became aware of it; he also put his finger on the very omission which was both symptom and cause of the plague of liberal indifferentism which eventually surfaced as post-Conciliar Neomodernism and oecumania."
Wash, rinse, repeat:
Catechism of St. Pius X (Catechism stemmed from a text that was prepared by the Pope himself [Pius X] when he was Bishop of Mantua.):
16 Q. Is Baptism necessary to salvation?
A. Baptism is absolutely necessary to salvation, for our Lord has expressly said:
"Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the
Kingdom of God."
17 Q. Can the absence of Baptism be supplied in any other way?
A. The absence of Baptism can be supplied by martyrdom, which is called Baptism
of Blood, or by an act of perfect love of God, or of contrition, along with the desire,
at least implicit, of Baptism, and this is called Baptism of Desire.
A renegade priest versus a Sainted Pope. I will take a Pope who became a Saint anytime.
Even before this pope's (Pius X) death, Padre Pio referred to him as a "true saint, the true image of Our Lord."
What was his prophecy?
?For Father Feeney, dogma is not only true; it is breathlessly exciting. That is his special vocation. . . to make his readers feel the thrill.?
He was slightly off the perfect precision of EENS if I understand him correctly, but closer than most nowadays.
And yes that is where I agree 100%, EENS is the doctrine of our times, and the most important doctrine that we have to communicate with precision and then the restoration happens.
The modern Church has fallen into what I call:
The No Salvation Outside the Church conundrum gobbledygook trap.
Yes, of course Fr. Feeney was prophetic.
That's why they had to attack him and discredit him. That's why the Vatican letter was the top of the front-page story in the secular Boston newspaper.
(https://www.gods-catholic-dogma.com/Section%2017.3%20pictures/Leonard%20Feeney%20-%203.jpg)
Read Fr. Feeney's magazine "The Point" and you will see that he predicted everything that would happen to the Church a decade before Vatican II. I know of no other Catholic figure of that time who was prophetic in that way.
https://fatherfeeney.wordpress.com/
Quote from: King Wenceslas on October 02, 2019, 11:23:01 AM
Wash, rinse, repeat:
Catechism of St. Pius X (Catechism stemmed from a text that was prepared by the Pope himself [Pius X] when he was Bishop of Mantua.):
16 Q. Is Baptism necessary to salvation?
A. Baptism is absolutely necessary to salvation, for our Lord has expressly said:
"Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the
Kingdom of God."
17 Q. Can the absence of Baptism be supplied in any other way?
A. The absence of Baptism can be supplied by martyrdom, which is called Baptism
of Blood, or by an act of perfect love of God, or of contrition, along with the desire,
at least implicit, of Baptism, and this is called Baptism of Desire.
A renegade priest versus a Sainted Pope. I will take a Pope who became a Saint anytime.
Even before this pope?s (Pius X) death, Padre Pio referred to him as a ?true saint, the true image of Our Lord.?
Jesus Christ as the Rightful King and High Priest has authority and jurisdiction outside time, and inside time, and everywhere in between, and therefore can administer his Body and Blood, or Baptism, with no restrictions or limitations...Baptism by Desire is simply Jesus using his unlimited authority and jurisdiction to baptize someone. So of course its possible. To deny so is to deny Christ.
Quote from: Maximilian on October 02, 2019, 11:37:16 AM
Yes, of course Fr. Feeney was prophetic.
That's why they had to attack him and discredit him. That's why the Vatican letter was the top of the front-page story in the secular Boston newspaper.
(https://www.gods-catholic-dogma.com/Section%2017.3%20pictures/Leonard%20Feeney%20-%203.jpg)
Read Fr. Feeney's magazine "The Point" and you will see that he predicted everything that would happen to the Church a decade before Vatican II. I know of no other Catholic figure of that time who was prophetic in that way.
https://fatherfeeney.wordpress.com/
any particular article you recommend as a starter?
Quote from: revival2029 on October 02, 2019, 11:40:21 AM
Quote from: Maximilian on October 02, 2019, 11:37:16 AM
Read Fr. Feeney's magazine "The Point" and you will see that he predicted everything that would happen to the Church a decade before Vatican II. I know of no other Catholic figure of that time who was prophetic in that way.
https://fatherfeeney.wordpress.com/
any particular article you recommend as a starter?
He was more on fire early on, and then in later years he had already said most of what he had to say. So I'd start at the beginning.
Quote from: King Wenceslas on October 02, 2019, 11:23:01 AM
Wash, rinse, repeat:
Catechism of St. Pius X (Catechism stemmed from a text that was prepared by the Pope himself [Pius X] when he was Bishop of Mantua.):
16 Q. Is Baptism necessary to salvation?
A. Baptism is absolutely necessary to salvation, for our Lord has expressly said:
"Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the
Kingdom of God."
17 Q. Can the absence of Baptism be supplied in any other way?
A. The absence of Baptism can be supplied by martyrdom, which is called Baptism
of Blood, or by an act of perfect love of God, or of contrition, along with the desire,
at least implicit, of Baptism, and this is called Baptism of Desire.
A renegade priest versus a Sainted Pope. I will take a Pope who became a Saint anytime.
Even before this pope's (Pius X) death, Padre Pio referred to him as a "true saint, the true image of Our Lord."
A couple of problem with that. First, St. Pius X did not write it directly, he ordered a catechism be written. Second it was a local and not a universal catechism, so even if a catechism could be infallible, it has no possibility of that.
First, "Absolutely" either means absolutely or nothing means anything. So, the law of non-contradiction comes into play.
So, for that catechism section to actually adhere to its own internal logic it should read:
16 Q. Is Baptism necessary to salvation?
A. Baptism is not absolutely necessary to salvation, for our Lord has expressly said:
"Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the
Kingdom of God."
But instead, somehow someone somewhere has come up with the "conviction" that is not a part of Revelation that says otherwise.
Second:
17 Q. Can the absence of Baptism be supplied in any other way?
A.
The absence of Baptism can be supplied by martyrdom, which is called Baptism
of Blood, or by an act of perfect love of God, or of contrition, along with the desire,
at least implicit, of Baptism, and this is called Baptism of Desire.This is another shell game of language. Absence can't be supplied. Absence is the lack of something.
This is to avoid the real question: "Can the Sacrament of Baptism be supplied any other way?" Answer: NO.
So, to rephrase the Catechism question with a real answer: Can a lack of Baptism be present in a person?
Yes. per the Council of Florence, a person who spills their blood for Christ, has perfect love or contrition and desire for Baptism still has the absence of Baptism because they were never Baptized.
This is the statement from the infallible declaration of the Council of Florence.
"It (The Catholic Church) firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart "into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels" [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church."
The actual sacrament of Baptism is what brings you into the Church. Not almsgiving, desire or shedding your blood.
Only those already within the Church can benefit from the sacraments which are absolutely necessary to salvation. There's also no benefit for almsgiving, martyrdom or fastings etc. outside the Church.
There is nothing in the Divine Revelation of the Church that points to BOD and BOB as being anything more than a speculation. Even the CCC states that the Church knows for certain no other way to salvation
except that of the sacrament of baptism.
RE: the common phrase that God is not bound by His Sacraments is a non-sequitur (even though it comes from Aquinas) God is not bound by His Sacraments but He binds Himself to His word and His Revelation. He cannot decieve or be deceived. If God has made it necessary for Baptism with water and the Spirit, He will supply both the water and the Spirit, even if it's a microsecond before death. Nobody slips through God's fingers.
Trent sess. 6 chapter:
CHAPTER IV
A BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE JUSTIFICATION OF THE SINNER AND ITS MODE IN THE
STATE OF GRACE
"In which words is given a brief description of the justification of
the sinner, as being a translation from that state in which man is born a
child of the first Adam, to the state of grace and of the adoption of the
sons of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Savior. This
translation however cannot, since promulgation of the Gospel, be effected
except through the laver of regeneration or its desire, as it is written:
Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter
into the kingdom of God.[18]"
Can't get much planer than that.
As Gerard points out Baptism of Desire is nonsense. Should be referred to as Desire for Baptism.
The more I think about it, Baptism of Desire sounds about as legit as "we can have a reasonable hope that all men are saved". I'm trying to picture what the men of Trent had in mind when they tossed that one in. But at least they did say desire for Baptism. Not the new fangled form of it called Baptism of Desire.
I would imagine they were thinking of a Catechumen going through all the paces necessary to join the Church, wearing his white robes and dropping dead the moment before the water is poured on him at Easter.
To answer the OP question I would have to say that Farther Feeney was not prophetic. If anything he was historical and of the present time in which he lived. EENS was true then, it was true before him, and it will always be true.
Quote from: Gerard on October 02, 2019, 01:20:08 PM
A couple of problem with that. First, St. Pius X did not write it directly, he ordered a catechism be written. Second it was a local and not a universal catechism, so even if a catechism could be infallible, it has no possibility of that.
First, "Absolutely" either means absolutely or nothing means anything. So, the law of non-contradiction comes into play.
So, for that catechism section to actually adhere to its own internal logic it should read:
16 Q. Is Baptism necessary to salvation?
A. Baptism is not absolutely necessary to salvation, for our Lord has expressly said:
"Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the
Kingdom of God."
But instead, somehow someone somewhere has come up with the "conviction" that is not a part of Revelation that says otherwise.
Second:
17 Q. Can the absence of Baptism be supplied in any other way?
A. The absence of Baptism can be supplied by martyrdom, which is called Baptism
of Blood, or by an act of perfect love of God, or of contrition, along with the desire,
at least implicit, of Baptism, and this is called Baptism of Desire.
This is another shell game of language. Absence can't be supplied. Absence is the lack of something.
This is to avoid the real question: "Can the Sacrament of Baptism be supplied any other way?" Answer: NO.
So, to rephrase the Catechism question with a real answer: Can a lack of Baptism be present in a person?
Yes. per the Council of Florence, a person who spills their blood for Christ, has perfect love or contrition and desire for Baptism still has the absence of Baptism because they were never Baptized.
This is the statement from the infallible declaration of the Council of Florence.
"It (The Catholic Church) firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart "into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels" [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church."
The actual sacrament of Baptism is what brings you into the Church. Not almsgiving, desire or shedding your blood.
Only those already within the Church can benefit from the sacraments which are absolutely necessary to salvation. There's also no benefit for almsgiving, martyrdom or fastings etc. outside the Church.
There is nothing in the Divine Revelation of the Church that points to BOD and BOB as being anything more than a speculation. Even the CCC states that the Church knows for certain no other way to salvation
except that of the sacrament of baptism.
RE: the common phrase that God is not bound by His Sacraments is a non-sequitur (even though it comes from Aquinas) God is not bound by His Sacraments but He binds Himself to His word and His Revelation. He cannot decieve or be deceived. If God has made it necessary for Baptism with water and the Spirit, He will supply both the water and the Spirit, even if it's a microsecond before death. Nobody slips through God's fingers.
My vague understanding re: Baptism by Desire is that it applied to people who, for example, get killed before they can be baptized, but had every intention of doing so.
Have you ever came across this?
"My vague understanding re: Baptism by Desire is that it applied to people who, for example, get killed before they can be baptized, but had every intention of doing so. Have you ever came across this?"
That would be one understanding.
As would, "a Catechumen going through all the paces necessary to join the Church, wearing his white robes and dropping dead the moment before the water is poured on him at Easter"
Invincible Ignorance might be another?
Trent never narrowed it down nor has any other Church document after Trent.
Quote from: St.Justin on October 02, 2019, 06:53:00 PM
"My vague understanding re: Baptism by Desire is that it applied to people who, for example, get killed before they can be baptized, but had every intention of doing so. Have you ever came across this?"
That would be one understanding.
As would, "a Catechumen going through all the paces necessary to join the Church, wearing his white robes and dropping dead the moment before the water is poured on him at Easter"
Invincible Ignorance might be another?
Trent never narrowed it down nor has any other Church document after Trent.
Thanks. Did Fr. Feeney not believe this though?
Quote from: dellery on October 02, 2019, 07:12:16 PM
Quote from: St.Justin on October 02, 2019, 06:53:00 PM
"My vague understanding re: Baptism by Desire is that it applied to people who, for example, get killed before they can be baptized, but had every intention of doing so. Have you ever came across this?"
That would be one understanding.
As would, "a Catechumen going through all the paces necessary to join the Church, wearing his white robes and dropping dead the moment before the water is poured on him at Easter"
Invincible Ignorance might be another?
Trent never narrowed it down nor has any other Church document after Trent.
Thanks. Did Fr. Feeney not believe this though?
I know that.. As I understand it, EENS is an infallible teaching of the Church and Trent clarified what that meant. Fr. Feeney accepted EENS but not the clarification of Trent on the Subject.
Only the arrogance of the Church could think that Jesus Christ does not have authority and jurisdiction that supersedes theirs in all facets and has no limitations or restrictions.
The gobbledygook explanation for No Salvation Outside the Church denies that Christ is the Rightful King and High Priest God Man, and can administer his sacraments to whomever he pleases at any time or place, but if you think you can rely on that with the knowledge that the sacraments are readily available by the Church now, you will be in for a rude awakening.
The gobbledygook explanation that has no faith in Christ, seeks to make every exception underneath the sun and neuters the mission of the Church to gather all those men of good will into the Catholic Church, which is the same thing and equal to the Mystical Body of Christ.
EENS is so easy to solve in a way that aligns with the Gospels and all past pronouncements of the Church. I dare to say you must accept EENS to find success and be apart of the offensive military strategy to defend and pronounce the Catholic Faith in the situation that is here and what is coming.
Quote from: St.Justin on October 02, 2019, 07:18:28 PM
Quote from: dellery on October 02, 2019, 07:12:16 PM
Quote from: St.Justin on October 02, 2019, 06:53:00 PM
"My vague understanding re: Baptism by Desire is that it applied to people who, for example, get killed before they can be baptized, but had every intention of doing so. Have you ever came across this?"
That would be one understanding.
As would, "a Catechumen going through all the paces necessary to join the Church, wearing his white robes and dropping dead the moment before the water is poured on him at Easter"
Invincible Ignorance might be another?
Trent never narrowed it down nor has any other Church document after Trent.
Thanks. Did Fr. Feeney not believe this though?
I know that.. As I understand it, EENS is an infallible teaching of the Church and Trent clarified what that meant. Fr. Feeney accepted EENS but not the clarification of Trent on the Subject.
Thanks, my questions are sincere.
Theology goes over my head. I used to try and pull it off but would only expose my stupidity on the matter.
Wouldn't Trent's clarification on EENS be binding though?
Quote from: dellery on October 02, 2019, 07:29:09 PM
Quote from: St.Justin on October 02, 2019, 07:18:28 PM
Quote from: dellery on October 02, 2019, 07:12:16 PM
Quote from: St.Justin on October 02, 2019, 06:53:00 PM
"My vague understanding re: Baptism by Desire is that it applied to people who, for example, get killed before they can be baptized, but had every intention of doing so. Have you ever came across this?"
That would be one understanding.
As would, "a Catechumen going through all the paces necessary to join the Church, wearing his white robes and dropping dead the moment before the water is poured on him at Easter"
Invincible Ignorance might be another?
Trent never narrowed it down nor has any other Church document after Trent.
Thanks. Did Fr. Feeney not believe this though?
I know that.. As I understand it, EENS is an infallible teaching of the Church and Trent clarified what that meant. Fr. Feeney accepted EENS but not the clarification of Trent on the Subject.
Thanks, my questions are sincere.
Theology goes over my head. I used to try and pull it off but would only expose my stupidity on the matter.
Wouldn't Trent's clarification on EENS be binding though?
The Teaching of Trent are Infallible as it was an Ecumenical Council. Ecumenical Councils are one of the two extra-ordinary teaching methods of the Church. the other being when the Pope speaks ex Catherdra. So yes it is binding.
We have Bishops going around saying there is deep truths in other religions.
Blah!
Imagine Christ saying that. LOL
This is what denying EENS has brought us; the pronouncement that there is deep truths in other religions.
No more.
Quote from: St.Justin on October 02, 2019, 07:40:26 PM
The Teaching of Trent are Infallible as it was an Ecumenical Council. Ecumenical Councils are one of the two extra-ordinary teaching methods of the Church. the other being when the Pope speaks ex Catherdra. So yes it is binding.
That was my assumption but wasnt sure if there was some finer distinction escaping me. Your help is appreciated, St. Justin.
Quote from: revival2029 on October 02, 2019, 07:43:53 PM
We have Bishops going around saying there is deep truths in other religions.
Blah!
Imagine Christ saying that. LOL
This is what denying EENS has brought us; the pronouncement that there is deep truths in other religions.
No more.
That's probably the least controversial thing ever written on this forum.
Trent did not address the subject specifically of EENS and Baptism of Blood/Desire. The confusion regarding Trent is the declaration on Justification, not Salvation which dealt with the Protestant errors.
Quote from: Gerard on October 02, 2019, 07:55:44 PM
Trent did not address the subject specifically of EENS and Baptism of Blood/Desire. The confusion regarding Trent is the declaration on Justification, not Salvation which dealt with the Protestant errors.
"Justification
(Latin justificatio; Greek dikaiosis.)
A biblio-ecclesiastical term; which denotes the transforming of the sinner from the state of unrighteousness to the state of holiness and sonship of God. Considered as an act (actus justificationis), justification is the work of God alone, presupposing, however, on the part of the adult the process of justification and the cooperation of his free will with God's preventing and helping grace (gratia praeveniens et cooperans). Considered as a state or habit (habitus justificationis), it denotes the continued possession of a quality inherent in the soul, which theologians aptly term sanctifying grace. Since the sixteenth century great differences have existed between Protestants and Catholics regarding the true nature of justification. As the dogmatic side of the controversy has been fully explained in the article on GRACE, we shall here consider it more from an historical point of view. "
"What has been said applies to the salvation of adults; children and those permanently deprived of their use of reason are saved by the Sacrament of Baptism."
Both of the above are from New Advent
I see no difference between Justification and Salvation. When a person is Justified ( in the state of Sanctifying Grace ) if they were to die immediately attain their Salvation. Should they later commit Mortal Sin they lose their Justification ( Sanctifying Grace) and their Salvation until such time as they return to a state of Justification ( Sanctifying Grace). So I don't understand your position.
Granted it takes faith, but with it we easily understand that Almighty God provided *you* with the time to do it, and the water for doing it, and the minister for doing it. If God arranged for you to be baptized, it is by the very same Providence He arranges it for anyone else who desires or is willing to receive it. There simply is no circumstance that can keep our Omnipotent God from providing that which He Himself made a requirement for salvation.
Can anyone incorporate the doctrine of the Divine Providence (see Mat 7:7-8) into a formula for a baptism of desire?
Quote from: Stubborn on October 03, 2019, 07:24:48 AM
Granted it takes faith, but with it we easily understand that Almighty God provided *you* with the time to do it, and the water for doing it, and the minister for doing it. If God arranged for you to be baptized, it is by the very same Providence He arranges it for anyone else who desires or is willing to receive it. There simply is no circumstance that can keep our Omnipotent God from providing that which He Himself made a requirement for salvation.
Can anyone incorporate the doctrine of the Divine Providence (see Mat 7:7-8) into a formula for a baptism of desire?
No need, Trent already Infallibly did it for us. I have to ask why would a Catholic need more?
Quote from: St.Justin on October 03, 2019, 08:51:05 AM
Quote from: Stubborn on October 03, 2019, 07:24:48 AM
Granted it takes faith, but with it we easily understand that Almighty God provided *you* with the time to do it, and the water for doing it, and the minister for doing it. If God arranged for you to be baptized, it is by the very same Providence He arranges it for anyone else who desires or is willing to receive it. There simply is no circumstance that can keep our Omnipotent God from providing that which He Himself made a requirement for salvation.
Can anyone incorporate the doctrine of the Divine Providence (see Mat 7:7-8) into a formula for a baptism of desire?
No need, Trent already Infallibly did it for us. I have to ask why would a Catholic need more?
Well, Trent said that the sacraments of the new law are necessary for salvation (Session 7, Canon 4, first sentence). Obviously, the salvation that Trent is talking about applies only to those who have died baptized with the sacrament. God provides the sacrament to everyone who has ever been baptized and whoever will be baptized. A baptism of desire is not a sacrament, God is not involved in it.
Whether or not Justification can be obtained prior to reception of the sacrament is a point that has been disputed, but either way, that does not matter here because Justification does not apply to the dead, Justification obviously applies only to the living.
I am asking for anyone to incorporate the doctrine of the Divine Providence (see Mat 7:7-8) into a formula for a baptism of desire.
Quote from: Stubborn on October 03, 2019, 09:12:11 AM
Quote from: St.Justin on October 03, 2019, 08:51:05 AM
Quote from: Stubborn on October 03, 2019, 07:24:48 AM
Granted it takes faith, but with it we easily understand that Almighty God provided *you* with the time to do it, and the water for doing it, and the minister for doing it. If God arranged for you to be baptized, it is by the very same Providence He arranges it for anyone else who desires or is willing to receive it. There simply is no circumstance that can keep our Omnipotent God from providing that which He Himself made a requirement for salvation.
Can anyone incorporate the doctrine of the Divine Providence (see Mat 7:7-8) into a formula for a baptism of desire?
No need, Trent already Infallibly did it for us. I have to ask why would a Catholic need more?
Well, Trent said that the sacraments of the new law are necessary for salvation (Session 7, Canon 4, first sentence). Obviously, the salvation that Trent is talking about applies only to those who have died baptized with the sacrament. God provides the sacrament to everyone who has ever been baptized and whoever will be baptized. A baptism of desire is not a sacrament, God is not involved in it.
Whether or not Justification can be obtained prior to reception of the sacrament is a point that has been disputed, but either way, that does not matter here because Justification does not apply to the dead, Justification obviously applies only to the living.
I am asking for anyone to incorporate the doctrine of the Divine Providence (see Mat 7:7-8) into a formula for a baptism of desire.
Trent sess. 6 chapter:
CHAPTER IV
A BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE JUSTIFICATION OF THE SINNER AND ITS MODE IN THE
STATE OF GRACE
"In which words is given a brief
description of the justification of
the sinner, as being a translation from that state in which man is born a
child of the first Adam, to the state of grace and of the adoption of the
sons of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Savior.
This
translation however cannot, since promulgation of the Gospel, be effected
except through the laver of regeneration or its desire, as it is written:Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter
into the kingdom of God.[18]"
It appears that it is no longer any dispute, Trent spoke very clearly.
Those who defend Feeney, please take my advice. Please.
Every time (Future Saint) Fr. Feeney comes up, someone throws out a marble called "baptism of desire" and you all go running off chasing it, a technical theological matter that might have saved a handful of people. And you forget about the main question: Is FAITH IN JESUS CHRIST required for salvation?
Billions of Moslems, Billions of Hindus, Billions of Buddists, Billions of heathens, and millions of jews go to hell because they do not have Faith in Christ, let alone a desire to be baptized. THAT is the dispute.
The Athanasian Creed is Dogma.
Quote from: james03 on October 03, 2019, 10:52:29 AM
Those who defend Feeney, please take my advice. Please.
Every time (Future Saint) Fr. Feeney comes up, someone throws out a marble called "baptism of desire" and you all go running off chasing it, a technical theological matter that might have saved a handful of people. And you forget about the main question: Is FAITH IN JESUS CHRIST required for salvation?
Billions of Moslems, Billions of Hindus, Billions of Buddists, Billions of heathens, and millions of jews go to hell because they do not have Faith in Christ, let alone a desire to be baptized. THAT is the dispute.
The Athanasian Creed is Dogma.
So is Trent.
Quote from: St.Justin on October 03, 2019, 10:25:44 AM
Quote from: Stubborn on October 03, 2019, 09:12:11 AM
Quote from: St.Justin on October 03, 2019, 08:51:05 AM
Quote from: Stubborn on October 03, 2019, 07:24:48 AM
Granted it takes faith, but with it we easily understand that Almighty God provided *you* with the time to do it, and the water for doing it, and the minister for doing it. If God arranged for you to be baptized, it is by the very same Providence He arranges it for anyone else who desires or is willing to receive it. There simply is no circumstance that can keep our Omnipotent God from providing that which He Himself made a requirement for salvation.
Can anyone incorporate the doctrine of the Divine Providence (see Mat 7:7-8) into a formula for a baptism of desire?
No need, Trent already Infallibly did it for us. I have to ask why would a Catholic need more?
Well, Trent said that the sacraments of the new law are necessary for salvation (Session 7, Canon 4, first sentence). Obviously, the salvation that Trent is talking about applies only to those who have died baptized with the sacrament. God provides the sacrament to everyone who has ever been baptized and whoever will be baptized. A baptism of desire is not a sacrament, God is not involved in it.
Whether or not Justification can be obtained prior to reception of the sacrament is a point that has been disputed, but either way, that does not matter here because Justification does not apply to the dead, Justification obviously applies only to the living.
I am asking for anyone to incorporate the doctrine of the Divine Providence (see Mat 7:7-8) into a formula for a baptism of desire.
Trent sess. 6 chapter:
CHAPTER IV
A BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE JUSTIFICATION OF THE SINNER AND ITS MODE IN THE
STATE OF GRACE
"In which words is given a brief description of the justification of
the sinner, as being a translation from that state in which man is born a
child of the first Adam, to the state of grace and of the adoption of the
sons of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Savior. This
translation however cannot, since promulgation of the Gospel, be effected
except through the laver of regeneration or its desire, as it is written:
Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter
into the kingdom of God.[18]"
It appears that it is no longer any dispute, Trent spoke very clearly.
Not really very clear, this is because some understand it as you do, which is an "either/or" proposition - that is; "one can either get sacramentally baptized, or simply desire to be baptized, either way works". Which of course means one could get baptized by mistake, or even against their will, in which case the baptism would be valid but sinful, and should the person die in that state, he would die in the state of mortal sin, not justification. Which is why some understand it as I do, which is basically: "or" means "and".
The Providence provided in a baptism of desire to put one in the state of justification, is the same Providence provided to all adults at some point prior to them being sacramentally baptized. But it seems as if by design, a baptism of desire lacks the providing of the sacrament, which Trent says is necessary for salvation, which God always provides to all who desire it.
This is why I ask anyone to incorporate the doctrine of the Divine Providence into a baptism of desire, because as it stands, it is not there. Or rather it may be there for justification, but not for salvation.
QuoteSo is Trent.
True. A council and a dogmatic creed have spoken: You can not be saved without Faith in Jesus Christ.
Quote from: james03 on October 03, 2019, 10:52:29 AM
Those who defend Feeney, please take my advice. Please.
Every time (Future Saint) Fr. Feeney comes up, someone throws out a marble called "baptism of desire" and you all go running off chasing it, a technical theological matter that might have saved a handful of people. And you forget about the main question: Is FAITH IN JESUS CHRIST required for salvation?
Billions of Moslems, Billions of Hindus, Billions of Buddists, Billions of heathens, and millions of jews go to hell because they do not have Faith in Christ, let alone a desire to be baptized. THAT is the dispute.
The Athanasian Creed is Dogma.
Good advice, these discussions never end well. I'm done.
Quote from: St.Justin on October 02, 2019, 08:52:22 PM
Quote from: Gerard on October 02, 2019, 07:55:44 PM
Trent did not address the subject specifically of EENS and Baptism of Blood/Desire. The confusion regarding Trent is the declaration on Justification, not Salvation which dealt with the Protestant errors.
Both of the above are from New Advent
I see no difference between Justification and Salvation. When a person is Justified ( in the state of Sanctifying Grace ) if they were to die immediately attain their Salvation. Should they later commit Mortal Sin they lose their Justification ( Sanctifying Grace) and their Salvation until such time as they return to a state of Justification ( Sanctifying Grace). So I don't understand your position.
That's a Protestant understanding. You don't have Salvation until you are actually beholding the beatific vision. ie. You're not saved until you are are actually saved and in Heaven.
Justification is the transition from the state of sin, to that of righteousness (ie. out of sin) Justification itself doesn't give you salvation. It makes you eligible for salvation.
The Sacrament of Baptism gives both Justification and the indelible Baptismal mark which incorporates one into the body of Christ. That is how Sacramental Baptism both justifies and saves, but Baptism of Desire (if it ever happened) puts no indelible "mark" on the soul.
Quote from: Gerard on October 03, 2019, 01:51:03 PM
Quote from: St.Justin on October 02, 2019, 08:52:22 PM
Quote from: Gerard on October 02, 2019, 07:55:44 PM
Trent did not address the subject specifically of EENS and Baptism of Blood/Desire. The confusion regarding Trent is the declaration on Justification, not Salvation which dealt with the Protestant errors.
Both of the above are from New Advent
I see no difference between Justification and Salvation. When a person is Justified ( in the state of Sanctifying Grace ) if they were to die immediately attain their Salvation. Should they later commit Mortal Sin they lose their Justification ( Sanctifying Grace) and their Salvation until such time as they return to a state of Justification ( Sanctifying Grace). So I don't understand your position.
That's a Protestant understanding. You don't have Salvation until you are actually beholding the beatific vision. ie. You're not saved until you are are actually saved and in Heaven.
Justification is the transition from the state of sin, to that of righteousness (ie. out of sin) Justification itself doesn't give you salvation. It makes you eligible for salvation.
The Sacrament of Baptism gives both Justification and the indelible Baptismal mark which incorporates one into the body of Christ. That is how Sacramental Baptism both justifies and saves, but Baptism of Desire (if it ever happened) puts no indelible "mark" on the soul.
If you read what I posted which is the Catholic position on Justification and salvation. The bottom line is that if one's Soul is in the state of Sanctifying grace when they die they go to Heaven ( or as you say attain their Salvation) The Catholic teaching is very clear that when the soul is Justified it is in the state of Sanctifying Grace and would go to Heaven.
"This translation however cannot, since promulgation of the Gospel, be effected except through the laver of regeneration or its desire, as it is written: Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.[18]"
The translation of the Soul is from sin to Sanctifying Grace and that is the teaching of the Church and it is as plain as it gets.
Trent also plainly states very plainly "be effected except through the laver of regeneration
or its desire"
Quote from: james03 on October 03, 2019, 10:52:29 AM
Every time (Future Saint) Fr. Feeney comes up, someone throws out a marble called "baptism of desire" and you all go running off chasing it, a technical theological matter that might have saved a handful of people. And you forget about the main question: Is FAITH IN JESUS CHRIST required for salvation?
Yes, this. Ignore the legalists who try to obscure the reality.
Quote from: Gerard on October 03, 2019, 01:51:03 PM
Quote from: St.Justin on October 02, 2019, 08:52:22 PM
Quote from: Gerard on October 02, 2019, 07:55:44 PM
Trent did not address the subject specifically of EENS and Baptism of Blood/Desire. The confusion regarding Trent is the declaration on Justification, not Salvation which dealt with the Protestant errors.
Both of the above are from New Advent
I see no difference between Justification and Salvation. When a person is Justified ( in the state of Sanctifying Grace ) if they were to die immediately attain their Salvation. Should they later commit Mortal Sin they lose their Justification ( Sanctifying Grace) and their Salvation until such time as they return to a state of Justification ( Sanctifying Grace). So I don't understand your position.
That's a Protestant understanding. You don't have Salvation until you are actually beholding the beatific vision. ie. You're not saved until you are are actually saved and in Heaven.
Justification is the transition from the state of sin, to that of righteousness (ie. out of sin) Justification itself doesn't give you salvation. It makes you eligible for salvation.
The Sacrament of Baptism gives both Justification and the indelible Baptismal mark which incorporates one into the body of Christ. That is how Sacramental Baptism both justifies and saves, but Baptism of Desire (if it ever happened) puts no indelible "mark" on the soul.
Its not Protestant, it's Catholic. St. Justin is correct. The soul is justified, not saved, while in the Church Militant, but at the point of death God does not withdraw His grace of the justified soul and deny salvation.
The question is on what theological grounds is a soul justified and not saved at the moment of death? Where does the Church teach a justified soul at the moment of death will not be saved?
We know the Church gives Catholic burials to catechumens for this reason if they die before baptism.
Quote from: james03 on October 03, 2019, 10:52:29 AM
The Athanasian Creed is Dogma.
To answer your 1st question: yes faith in Jesus Christ is required.
To your quote I wasn't sure how the Athanasian Creed is dogma. While nothing in it is wrong, and it's beautiful, how is it a dogma?
Quote from: bigbadtrad on October 03, 2019, 07:34:56 PM
Quote from: james03 on October 03, 2019, 10:52:29 AM
The Athanasian Creed is Dogma.
To answer your 1st question: yes faith in Jesus Christ is required.
To your quote I wasn't sure how the Athanasian Creed is dogma. While nothing in it is wrong, and it's beautiful, how is it a dogma?
Not sure it contains dogma either plus it says nothing about Baptism.
Quote from: bigbadtrad on October 03, 2019, 07:34:56 PM
Quote from: james03 on October 03, 2019, 10:52:29 AM
The Athanasian Creed is Dogma.
To answer your 1st question: yes faith in Jesus Christ is required.
To your quote I wasn't sure how the Athanasian Creed is dogma. While nothing in it is wrong, and it's beautiful, how is it a dogma?
It was certainly used as an authoritative Creed in the Western Church, in a similar vein to how the Apostle's Creed is. If you read Abelard's "History of my Calumnities," (Abelard was an 12th century theologian who butted heads with Saint Bernard, because Abelard viewed theology very academically whereas Saint Bernard believed that theology could only be experienced in it's truest form through prayer and Monasticism), when he was accused of heresy on his Trinitarian theology, he was required to recite the Athanasian Creed to show his fidelity to Church doctrine - something he personally felt was insulting because any Catholic youth could recite it from memory.
See Chapter 10.
https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/basis/abelard-histcal.asp
Quote from: St.Justin on October 03, 2019, 02:17:45 PM
QuoteQuote
I see no difference between Justification and Salvation. When a person is Justified ( in the state of Sanctifying Grace ) if they were to die immediately attain their Salvation. Should they later commit Mortal Sin they lose their Justification ( Sanctifying Grace) and their Salvation until such time as they return to a state of Justification ( Sanctifying Grace). So I don't understand your position.
That's a Protestant understanding. You don't have Salvation until you are actually beholding the beatific vision. ie. You're not saved until you are are actually saved and in Heaven.
Justification is the transition from the state of sin, to that of righteousness (ie. out of sin) Justification itself doesn't give you salvation. It makes you eligible for salvation.
The Sacrament of Baptism gives both Justification and the indelible Baptismal mark which incorporates one into the body of Christ. That is how Sacramental Baptism both justifies and saves, but Baptism of Desire (if it ever happened) puts no indelible "mark" on the soul.
If you read what I posted which is the Catholic position on Justification and salvation. The bottom line is that if one's Soul is in the state of Sanctifying grace when they die they go to Heaven ( or as you say attain their Salvation) The Catholic teaching is very clear that when the soul is Justified it is in the state of Sanctifying Grace and would go to Heaven.
"This translation however cannot, since promulgation of the Gospel, be effected except through the laver of regeneration or its desire, as it is written: Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.[18]"
The translation of the Soul is from sin to Sanctifying Grace and that is the teaching of the Church and it is as plain as it gets.
Trent also plainly states very plainly "be effected except through the laver of regeneration or its desire"
You are reading that incorrectly. It is not an "either/ or" formulation. It is a negative coordinating conjunction. Eg. "The store cannot be opened without unlocking the lock or turning the alarm off." Those aren't two separate options.
If the formulation were a positive one, "This translation since the promulgation of the Gospel CAN be effected through the laver of regeneration, OR its desire..." it would make sense in isolation. It would not however make any sense with the scriptural citation which demands both water AND the Holy Ghost.
To rewrite the Scriptural passage to mean what you claim Trent is stating, it would have to be..."A man cannot enter the Kingdom of Heaven except He be born again of water OR the Holy Ghost." But that's not what Christ said. And when Trent is actually discussing Baptism and not Justification, the Council makes no bones about the necessity for water Baptism and the necessity of the Sacrament for Salvation as well as putting an anathema on anyone who denies that true and natural water is necessary.
Trent is fighting the Protestants ideas that faith alone is sufficient, the Council is also clarifying that running around baptizing people who haven't been moved by grace to seek it out will not be efficacious towards Justification in God's eyes. You need both water and the grace of the Spirit.
Quote from: bigbadtrad on October 03, 2019, 07:30:05 PM
Its not Protestant, it's Catholic. St. Justin is correct. The soul is justified, not saved, while in the Church Militant, but at the point of death God does not withdraw His grace of the justified soul and deny salvation.
Now you're stating the opposite of what he stated. He stated there is no difference between Justification and Salvation.
QuoteThe question is on what theological grounds is a soul justified and not saved at the moment of death? Where does the Church teach a justified soul at the moment of death will not be saved?
Justification by itself doesn't entitle a person to Heaven. It simply reconciles a persons sins. If anything, they would deserve nothing at worst and the Garden of Eden at best. Baptism is the gateway to Salvation. Justification can come and go but the indelible mark of Baptism is there forever.
QuoteWe know the Church gives Catholic burials to catechumens for this reason if they die before baptism.
That's simply a policy of the Church grounded in Hope for the catechumen. It guarantees nothing. God may just as well in His mercy let a catechumen die before Baptism in order lessen the eternal punishments of Hell if He knows the Catechumen would eventually fall into and die in mortal sin.
Quote from: Gerard on October 04, 2019, 12:58:12 AM
Now you're stating the opposite of what he stated. He stated there is no difference between Justification and Salvation.
I believe he meant to their goal which is eternal life. He wasn't trying to split earthly life (justification) from judgement (salvation) but their ultimate end which is the same.
QuoteJustification by itself doesn't entitle a person to Heaven. It simply reconciles a persons sins.
Justification is "A biblio-ecclesiastical term; which denotes the transforming of the sinner from the state of unrighteousness to the state of holiness and sonship of God."
So according to your belief God transforms the sinner, makes them a son of God and then strips them of everything without water baptism and they go to Hell. I never knew sanctifying grace was so worthless.
Think of what you're saying. The soul is forgiven sin, the Holy Ghost indwells in their soul, they are a child of God and then God sends them to Hell if they die without baptism.
The Church then plays Russian roulette with their soul by delaying baptism, and worse they give a Catholic burial as a mere policy, which would be a sham stunt to make everyone feel like they are praying for someone in Hell.
Why would the church delay baptism and then make a mockery of praying for someone in Hell?
I'm not trying to sound harsh Gerard but the Church would be a huge mockery and Her policies injurious to souls while publicly praying for the damned in mock ceremonies.
Maybe the Church is more merciful than we are. A wise priest told me that years ago.
I've always been impressed with the Jesuits' ability to correct Saints and Doctors of the Church.
What would we do without them?
Quote from: bigbadtrad on October 04, 2019, 04:07:17 AM
Quote from: Gerard on October 04, 2019, 12:58:12 AM
Now you're stating the opposite of what he stated. He stated there is no difference between Justification and Salvation.
I believe he meant to their goal which is eternal life. He wasn't trying to split earthly life (justification) from judgement (salvation) but their ultimate end which is the same.
How you squeezed that idea out of what he wrote is a real stretch. The means and the end are not the same. Being freed from jail via a Presidential pardon is not meeting the President.
QuoteQuoteJustification by itself doesn't entitle a person to Heaven. It simply reconciles a persons sins.
Justification is "A biblio-ecclesiastical term; which denotes the transforming of the sinner from the state of unrighteousness to the state of holiness and sonship of God."
So according to your belief God transforms the sinner, makes them a son of God and then strips them of everything without water baptism and they go to Hell. I never knew sanctifying grace was so worthless.
Sure you did. Provided you think confession is worthless as well. You must also think Baptism is worthless as well since what Christ said is obviously not true. So, you must think Christ' words are worthless as well.
QuoteThink of what you're saying. The soul is forgiven sin, the Holy Ghost indwells in their soul, they are a child of God and then God sends them to Hell if they die without baptism.
I would assume many people go to Hell without Baptism and many people go to Hell after having been baptized. The big question is....has God ever unjustly allowed someone to die without water baptism? Or, has He provided water baptism for those who desired it and were justified in anticipation of the Sacrament?
QuoteThe Church then plays Russian roulette with their soul by delaying baptism, and worse they give a Catholic burial as a mere policy, which would be a sham stunt to make everyone feel like they are praying for someone in Hell.
Russian roulette or Abandonment to Divine Providence...Potato, Potahto. A Catholic burial is always based on Hope since the outcome of someone's judgement is beyond our knowledge. Also, no one will know nor will they be blamed for praying for someone who wound up in Hell. God won't waste prayers made in earnest.
QuoteWhy would the church delay baptism and then make a mockery of praying for someone in Hell?
For infants, they don't and shouldn't delay. For adults with reason, they should be delayed for instruction so they can have both the water and the "desire" or intention that is necessary for the validity of the Sacrament. For the infirm and infants, the Godparents supply the intention.
QuoteI'm not trying to sound harsh Gerard but the Church would be a huge mockery and Her policies injurious to souls while publicly praying for the damned in mock ceremonies.
What would be injurious to souls would be for the Church to have a running tally on the numbers and identities of souls in Hell. There's no mechanism given by God for your scenario to be functional.
QuoteMaybe the Church is more merciful than we are. A wise priest told me that years ago.
Depends how you define "mercy." Human ideas of mercy are not necessarily God's mercy. And the Church isn't merciful separate from God. God is more merciful than we are, but none of us would have thought of the Flood and Noah's Ark as a solution to a sinful and corrupted world.
All of this is really about humans attempting to widen the narrow path.
I'm not judging anyone and I'm not damning anyone. I don't have that power. I'm simply saying what the Church has actually stated. I'm not adding, twisting or finagling anything to put a spin on how and how many are saved. I simply accept what God has determined and revealed and I accept my human limitations and the human limitations of the Church in its human membership. I simply assume that God makes up for the lack with consistency in what He has revealed according to what He knows. Others assume God simply contradicts what He has revealed when it suits Him.
God may save many more people than it appears or many people that appear to be saved are ultimately lost. Only He knows how truly narrow the path is.
Quote from: Gardener on October 04, 2019, 08:29:09 AM
I've always been impressed with the Jesuits' ability to correct Saints and Doctors of the Church.
What would we do without them?
We would probably be left with more Saints and Doctors' mistakes and errors. Saints aren't saints because of their infallibility in theological matters, they are saints because they led holy lives.
St. Robert Bellarmine was a Jesuit and is a Doctor of the Church. And error is possible even among Doctors of the Church.
Quote from: Gerard on October 04, 2019, 10:12:38 AM
Sure you did. Provided you think confession is worthless as well.
I noticed you didn't address my point, only to find my argument hypocritical as if contraries are contradictions, which is illogical.
QuoteI would assume many people go to Hell without Baptism and many people go to Hell after having been baptized. The big question is....has God ever unjustly allowed someone to die without water baptism?
The key word is "unjustly" and the answer is "no" but my answer is different in yours as to consequences of justice.
QuoteA Catholic burial is always based on Hope since the outcome of someone's judgement is beyond our knowledge.
But if the soul is always in Hell such a ceremony would be a mockery wouldn't it? Unless I'm mistaken that's your argument: the soul without baptism will definitively go to Hell, and if so such a ceremony would be a mock prayer.
QuoteFor infants, they don't and shouldn't delay. For adults with reason, they should be delayed for instruction so they can have both the water and the "desire" or intention that is necessary for the validity of the Sacrament. For the infirm and infants, the Godparents supply the intention.
But the time before they desire and receive it can last months. If the soul definitively went to Hell the Church would be playing the game of roulette if it was a necessity of means. It would make the concept of the charity of God an absurdity from my perspective at least.
QuoteWhat would be injurious to souls would be for the Church to have a running tally on the numbers and identities of souls in Hell. There's no mechanism given by God for your scenario to be functional.
How can you escape that conclusion if water baptism is absolutely necessary to reach the pearly gates? It would seem like an easy thing to measure. I don't know how that wouldn't be true and anyone could answer what I just said but I'll make it very clear.
If water baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation why don't we just say those souls are in Hell? Would mechanics of theology would preclude this if true?
QuoteGod may save many more people than it appears or many people that appear to be saved are ultimately lost. Only He knows how truly narrow the path is.
Or maybe slightly bigger than what we think too. We know it's narrow as God said so, but maybe it's not so narrow to those who love Him in faith and truth.
To summarize my understanding of justification includes salvation if they die in the state of grace, but yours does not. St. Benedict Center's quote is "justification is necessary but insufficient for salvation." I have asked for them to justify (pun but I jest) this quote based on a theologian but it's never been produced a justified soul is damned.
Quote from: bigbadtrad on October 04, 2019, 10:43:27 AM
Quote from: Gerard on October 04, 2019, 10:12:38 AM
Sure you did. Provided you think confession is worthless as well.
I noticed you didn't address my point, only to find my argument hypocritical as if contraries are contradictions, which is illogical.
I thought I did address your point. You seem to think that having sanctifying grace is equivalent to salvation when Catholics consistently lose sanctifying grace and have to restore their souls though confession.
QuoteQuoteI would assume many people go to Hell without Baptism and many people go to Hell after having been baptized. The big question is....has God ever unjustly allowed someone to die without water baptism?
The key word is "unjustly" and the answer is "no" but my answer is different in yours as to consequences of justice.
If God allows someone to die without Baptism and they go to Hell, they aren't being treated unjustly. If someone dies with Baptism and they are in the state of grace, they go to Heaven. If someone desires Baptism and God gifts them with sanctity that they cooperate with, why would God not also provide the water that He has deemed and revealed as necessary for them? It doesn't matter whether or not their are witnesses or not. If St. Thomas teaches that God will send an Angel to instruct someone if necessary why wouldn't the Angel also Baptize them?
QuoteQuoteA Catholic burial is always based on Hope since the outcome of someone's judgement is beyond our knowledge.
But if the soul is always in Hell such a ceremony would be a mockery wouldn't it? Unless I'm mistaken that's your argument: the soul without baptism will definitively go to Hell, and if so such a ceremony would be a mock prayer.
For something to be a mockery, someone has to have a malicious intent. A child who prays for the soul of their dead dad in Hell and who thinks they are an angel in Heaven is not mocking God and their prayers are not mockeries to God.
QuoteQuoteFor infants, they don't and shouldn't delay. For adults with reason, they should be delayed for instruction so they can have both the water and the "desire" or intention that is necessary for the validity of the Sacrament. For the infirm and infants, the Godparents supply the intention.
But the time before they desire and receive it can last months. If the soul definitively went to Hell the Church would be playing the game of roulette if it was a necessity of means. It would make the concept of the charity of God an absurdity from my perspective at least.
Not at all. You simply allow for the hope that God's charity manifest itself in the way that God has revealed. If one can hope that God will allow someone into Heaven without the Sacrament of Baptism, it's a lot more orthodox to believe that He will provide the Sacrament in the fulfillment of all Justice. Jesus did not need circumcision nor the Baptism of St. John the Baptist. But He followed the Law because it was what God had determined. God follows His own laws because He can't deceive nor lie.
QuoteQuoteWhat would be injurious to souls would be for the Church to have a running tally on the numbers and identities of souls in Hell. There's no mechanism given by God for your scenario to be functional.
How can you escape that conclusion if water baptism is absolutely necessary to reach the pearly gates? It would seem like an easy thing to measure. I don't know how that wouldn't be true and anyone could answer what I just said but I'll make it very clear.
If water baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation why don't we just say those souls are in Hell? Would mechanics of theology would preclude this if true?
You're approach is almost secularist. Witnesses are not necessary for the validity of a Baptism. We belong to a religion built on miracles. Virgin birth, resurrection, transubstantiation, bi-location, invisibility, teleportation, superhuman physical feats, infused knowledge, multiplication of food, walking on water, control of the weather etc.
With all of that to contend with, how can someone determine for sure that someone actually died without water baptism? The only thing we know is whether or not we witnessed a baptism. Who is to say an Angel can't stretch a man's consciousness in the last moment, infuse his mind with knowledge, allow for his will to make a decision and the Angel can manifest a single drop moving across the forehead while he states the formula for Baptism?
I see no reason for watering down a declarative infallible statement of the Church. That approach avoids the miraculous and diminishes the preternatural and supernatural in favor of being anchored to a purely materialist approach. That approach is solely dependent on human agency.
QuoteQuoteGod may save many more people than it appears or many people that appear to be saved are ultimately lost. Only He knows how truly narrow the path is.
Or maybe slightly bigger than what we think too. We know it's narrow as God said so, but maybe it's not so narrow to those who love Him in faith and truth.
To summarize my understanding of justification includes salvation if they die in the state of grace, but yours does not. St. Benedict Center's quote is "justification is necessary but insufficient for salvation." I have asked for them to justify (pun but I jest) this quote based on a theologian but it's never been produced a justified soul is damned.
There isn't a single, extra person who is saved according to your formulation than there is to mine. While you make the assumption that some person will be justified and brought into Heaven without the sacrament of Baptism through a special dispensation of God. I believe God will in that very same case and every case, provide a water Baptism whether we who witness the death are aware of it or not. It is no greater effort on God's part and at the same time, the infallible declarations of the Church and the revealed truth of the Church isn't compromised. Necessary still means necessary, water is not a metaphor, the Church still admits they know of no other means for salvation besides that of water Baptism. They guess God has a solution. Someone has somehow tied God's wrists in the idea that if you don't see the Baptism happen, God couldn't still give a water Baptism through a member of the Church Triumphant.
My position is solid and has a particular beauty and rightness to it. For all we know, just as there is an angel of death, there may be an angel of last minute Baptisms. Or perhaps Sts. Adam and Eve have the special mission to provide for those baptisms in order to rescue their children at the last moment.
If you die in the State of Sanctifying Grace you are saved and you go to Heaven. That is the teaching of the Catholic Church.
Justification is one method of obtaining Sanctifying Grace and another is via the Sacraments.
It matters little on the source of Sanctifying Grace to be saved only that you are in the state of Sanctifying Grace when you die.
From New Advent:
Sanctifying grace
Since the end and aim of all efficacious grace is directed to the production of sanctifying grace where it does not already exist, or to retain and increase it where it is already present, its excellence, dignity, and importance become immediately apparent; for holiness and the sonship of God depend solely upon the possession of sanctifying grace, wherefore it is frequently called simply grace without any qualifying word to accompany it as, for instance, in the phrases "to live in grace" or "to fall from grace".
All pertinent questions group themselves around three points of view from which the subject may be considered:
I. The preparation for sanctifying grace, or the process of justification.
II. The nature of sanctifying grace.
III. The characteristics of sanctifying grace.
Justification: the preparation for sanctifying grace
(For an exhaustive treatment of justification, see the article JUSTIFICATION).
The word justification (justificatio, from justum facere) derives its name from justice (justitia), by which is not merely meant the cardinal virtue in the sense of a constant purpose to respect the rights of others (suum cuique), nor is the term taken in the concept of all those virtues which go to make up the moral law, but connotes, especially, the whole inner relation of man to God as to his supernatural end. Every adult soul stained either with original sin or with actual mortal sin (children are of course excepted) must, in order to arrive at the state of justification, pass through a short or long process of justification, which may be likened to the gradual development of the child in its mother's womb. This development attains its fullness in the birth of the child, accompanied by the anguish and suffering with which this birth is invariably attended; our rebirth in God is likewise preceded by great spiritual sufferings of fear and contrition.
In the process of justification we must distinguish two periods: first, the preparatory acts or dispositions (faith, fear, hope, etc.); then the last, decisive moment of the transformation of the sinner from the state of sin to that of justification or sanctifying grace, which may be called the active justification (actus justificationis) with this the real process comes to an end, and the state of habitual holiness and sonship of God begins. Touching both of these periods there has existed, and still exists, in part, a great conflict of opinion between Catholicism and Protestantism.
This conflict may be reduced to four differences of teaching. By a justifying faith the Church understands qualitatively the theoretical faith in the truths of Revelation, and demands over and above this faith other acts of preparation for justification. Protestantism, on the other hand, reduces the process of justification to merely a fiduciary faith; and maintains that this faith, exclusive even of good works, is all-sufficient for justification, laying great stress upon the scriptural statement sola fides justificat. The Church teaches that justification consists of an actual obliteration of sin and an interior sanctification. Protestantism, on the other hand, makes of the forgiveness of sin merely a concealment of it, so to speak; and of the sanctification a forensic declaration of justification, or an external imputation of the justice of Christ. In the presentation of the process of justification, we will everywhere note this fourfold confessional conflict. "
"A masterly, psychological description of the whole process of justification, which even Ad. Harnack styles "a magnificent work of art", will be found in the famous cap. vi, "Disponuntur" (Denzinger, n. 798). According to this the process of justification follows a regular order of progression in four stages: from faith to fear, from fear to hope, from hope to incipient charity, from incipient charity to contrition with purpose of amendment. If the contrition be perfect (contritio caritate perfecta), then active justification results, that is, the soul is immediately placed in the state of grace even before the reception of the sacrament of baptism or penance, though not without the desire for the sacrament (votum sacramenti). If, on the other hand, the contrition be only an imperfect one (attritio), then the sanctifying grace can only be imparted by the actual reception of the sacrament (cf. Trent, Sess. VI, cc. iv and xiv). The Council of Trent had no intention, however, of making the sequence of the various stages in the process of justification, given above, inflexible; nor of making any one of the stages indispensable. Since a real conversion is inconceivable without faith and contrition, we naturally place faith at the beginning and contrition at the end of the process. In exceptional cases, however, for example in sudden conversions, it is quite possible for the sinner to overlap the intervening stages between faith and charity, in which case fear, hope, and contrition are virtually included in charity. "
Quote from: Gerard on October 04, 2019, 12:17:57 PM
There isn't a single, extra person who is saved according to your formulation than there is to mine. While you make the assumption that some person will be justified and brought into Heaven without the sacrament of Baptism through a special dispensation of God. I believe God will in that very same case and every case, provide a water Baptism whether we who witness the death are aware of it or not. It is no greater effort on God's part and at the same time, the infallible declarations of the Church and the revealed truth of the Church isn't compromised. Necessary still means necessary, water is not a metaphor, the Church still admits they know of no other means for salvation besides that of water Baptism. They guess God has a solution. Someone has somehow tied God's wrists in the idea that if you don't see the Baptism happen, God couldn't still give a water Baptism through a member of the Church Triumphant.
My position is solid and has a particular beauty and rightness to it. For all we know, just as there is an angel of death, there may be an angel of last minute Baptisms. Or perhaps Sts. Adam and Eve have the special mission to provide for those baptisms in order to rescue their children at the last moment.
Thanks for this thoughtful response. Work just jumped up on me and I just got a new project but I did read your post. Again, thanks for your thoughtful reply. Even if we disagree I respect our mutual desire to have everyone baptized and become Cathollic. Pray for me
Quote from: Gerard on October 04, 2019, 10:17:26 AM
Quote from: Gardener on October 04, 2019, 08:29:09 AM
I've always been impressed with the Jesuits' ability to correct Saints and Doctors of the Church.
What would we do without them?
We would probably be left with more Saints and Doctors' mistakes and errors. Saints aren't saints because of their infallibility in theological matters, they are saints because they led holy lives.
St. Robert Bellarmine was a Jesuit and is a Doctor of the Church. And error is possible even among Doctors of the Church.
But consistently? And crossing the gamut of the work of such esteemed Doctors as St. Thomas Aquinas, Alphonsus Liguori, etc.? And, having taught these things, particularly St. Thomas, having not had them corrected as was his error on the Immaculate Conception?
Come on.
Quote from: Gardener on October 04, 2019, 02:00:41 PM
But consistently?
Yes.
Quote
Come on.
Come on? How about an ecumenical council teaching error and Rome falling into something nigh apostasy?
Three canonised popes taught the same "errors". The claim that this is somehow different, or that "baptism of desire" aka salvation by implicit faith is somehow not a novelty of the second millennium Western church while the ideas of Vatican II are is just special pleading. Western Catholicism, via the theologians, has been pulling new ideas and doctrines out of its arse for the past 800+ years. It's just bias and mental gymnastics by which people convince themselves that it's somehow "Apostolic tradition" from the "deposit of Faith".
Someone please explain: if St. John Paul II can have been a heretic or at the least have held to errors, why not Alphonsus Liguori or even Thomas Aquinas? If Rome could run afoul of the Faith 60 years ago, why not 160 or even 1,000 years ago?