In hindsight, was Fr. Feeney's warning on diluting EENS in preaching prophetic?

[Stubborn]

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.

[Gerard]

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. 

[St.Justin]

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"

[Maximilian]

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.

[bigbadtrad]

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.

[bigbadtrad]

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?

[St.Justin]

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.

[TheReturnofLive]

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

[Gerard]

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. 

[Gerard]

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. 

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?

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. 

We 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. 

[bigbadtrad]

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.

Justification 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.

[Gardener]

I've always been impressed with the Jesuits' ability to correct Saints and Doctors of the Church.

What would we do without them?

[Gerard]

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. 

Justification 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. 

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.

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?

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.

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. 

Why 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. 

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.

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. 

Maybe 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. 

[Gerard]

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. 

[bigbadtrad]

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 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.

A 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 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.

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. 

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?

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.

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.