Council of trent: no baptism of desire

  • Thread starter Thread starter marineboy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
JKirkLVNV:
I could go on, but I would again just refer you to the posts you’ve made and the threads you’ve started.
I’ve given up on marineboy. Completely stonedeaf. See

winternet.com/~mikelr/flame78.html
Stone Deaf is one of the few truly invincible Warriors because nothing can shatter his impenetrable armor of non recognition. His primitive battle strategy is maddening effective; he simply refuses to acknowledge any arguments he doesn’t like. Kung-Fu Master can hammer away with devastating blows, Cyber Sisters can screech in full throat and Profundus Maximus can expound until he drops, but Stone Deaf remains utterly oblivious as he advances his dogged and often repetitious attacks. In the early stages of battle a wide array of Warriors will fling themselves at Stone Deaf, but inevitably they fall back exahusted or lose interest when they see that their best weapons have no effect. His only real enemy is Admin, who has the power to eject him from the discussion forum.
 
40.png
JGC:
I’ve given up on marineboy. Completely stonedeaf. See

winternet.com/~mikelr/flame78.html
Stone Deaf is one of the few truly invincible Warriors because nothing can shatter his impenetrable armor of non recognition. His primitive battle strategy is maddening effective; he simply refuses to acknowledge any arguments he doesn’t like. Kung-Fu Master can hammer away with devastating blows, Cyber Sisters can screech in full throat and Profundus Maximus can expound until he drops, but Stone Deaf remains utterly oblivious as he advances his dogged and often repetitious attacks. In the early stages of battle a wide array of Warriors will fling themselves at Stone Deaf, but inevitably they fall back exahusted or lose interest when they see that their best weapons have no effect. His only real enemy is Admin, who has the power to eject him from the discussion forum.
Thanks, JGC, for the link. I believe you to be correct.
 
i am beginning to think ur dishonest–u quote ME as saying one has to be catholic to be saved----READ THE NEXT SENTENCE!!! THEN I SAY UNLESS ONE IS INVINCIBLEY IGNORANT—IF ONE IS INVINCIBLE IGNORANT THEY ARE NOT A FORMAL MEMBER !!! IT IS NORMATIVELY NECESSARY TO BE A FORMAL MEMBER OF THE CHURCH–YES THAT IS CHURCH TEACHING… BUT ONE CAN BE INVINCIBLEY IGNORANT AND STILL GO TO HEAVEN…AND YES I STAND BEHIND ALL THE QUOTES THAT SAY PROTESTANISM IS A HERESY–BECAUSE IT IS–IN FACT A WHOLE COUNCIL WAS CALLED TO DEAL WITH THE HERESY–NO HERESY SAVES!!! now Chirst may use that heresy as a means to bring one closer to the truth (SALVATION)but the heresy doesnt save… so again please get ur facts straight—question was trent wrong when it called Protestanism A HERESY???
 
i am beginning to think ur dishonest–u quote ME as saying one has to be catholic to be saved----READ THE NEXT SENTENCE!!! THEN I SAY UNLESS ONE IS INVINCIBLEY IGNORANT—IF ONE IS INVINCIBLE IGNORANT THEY ARE NOT A FORMAL MEMBER !!! IT IS NORMATIVELY NECESSARY TO BE A FORMAL MEMBER OF THE CHURCH–YES THAT IS CHURCH TEACHING… BUT ONE CAN BE INVINCIBLEY IGNORANT AND STILL GO TO HEAVEN…AND YES I STAND BEHIND ALL THE QUOTES THAT SAY PROTESTANISM IS A HERESY–BECAUSE IT IS–IN FACT A WHOLE COUNCIL WAS CALLED TO DEAL WITH THE HERESY–NO HERESY SAVES!!! now Chirst may use that heresy as a means to bring one closer to the truth (SALVATION)but the heresy doesnt save… so again please get ur facts straight—question was trent wrong when it called Protestanism A HERESY???
Well, he is also a candidate for “Garble”!

winternet.com/~mikelr/flame80.html
Garble is a mystery: Is he a foreigner with only tenuous grasp of English? Is his brain addled by some powerful drug? Does he suffer a serious mental debility? Is he typing wearing a catcher’s mit? Garble’s rampant typos, malapropisms and seemingly aggressive use of execrable grammar can’t be explained merely in terms of poor typing skills or the lack of a spell checker. Even non-English speakers generally do a better job of punctuation grammar and capitalization, and Garble is all the more puzzling because if one goes to the trouble of wading through the muddle of his messages a discernable idea will usually emerge. For example, in a forum discussion about a painting he might say, “Sorry the picchr the har is wrog. The culir. I liike the lips bot teh Paintng is sucs”. When attacked for his random capitalization Garble might respond, “oPS i HITTED THE CAPDLOCK”. Not surprisingly, he drives Grammarian and Nitpick absolutely nuts, but he is utterly impervious to any sort of correction and if their attacks persist he will sign off in a huff with something like, “yuor forum si stupef. bYE!” CAUTION: Garble may be Net Rat.
 
40.png
marineboy:
i am beginning to think ur dishonest–u quote ME as saying one has to be catholic to be saved----READ THE NEXT SENTENCE!!! THEN I SAY UNLESS ONE IS INVINCIBLEY IGNORANT—IF ONE IS INVINCIBLE IGNORANT THEY ARE NOT A FORMAL MEMBER !!! IT IS NORMATIVELY NECESSARY TO BE A FORMAL MEMBER OF THE CHURCH–YES THAT IS CHURCH TEACHING… BUT ONE CAN BE INVINCIBLEY IGNORANT AND STILL GO TO HEAVEN…AND YES I STAND BEHIND ALL THE QUOTES THAT SAY PROTESTANISM IS A HERESY–BECAUSE IT IS–IN FACT A WHOLE COUNCIL WAS CALLED TO DEAL WITH THE HERESY–NO HERESY SAVES!!! now Chirst may use that heresy as a means to bring one closer to the truth (SALVATION)but the heresy doesnt save… so again please get ur facts straight—question was trent wrong when it called Protestanism A HERESY???
I ask you again, read the Catechism of the Catholic Church. CCC818 “However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities[that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers…All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason, are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church.” Go on and read 819 about what our Protestant brothers and sisters have"outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church." Read 838, regarding “certain, though imperfect.” I’m not dishonest. You are browbeating people with your own private agenda and that would be fine, I can always just ignore you. But there are people hear who come to find out Truth and if they stumble across some of your postings, they’re going to get a false view of Catholicism. They have to be warned to read your posts with the knowledge that what you present is not the teaching of the Catholic Church. We don’t go about advocating the destruction of Protestantism. We hope for their eventual reunion and some of us try to be careful with our words so that we don’t impair that reunion. I urge you to stop posting this stuff.
 
  1. The only reasonable “Baptism of Desire” is the explicit baptism of desire. An implicit desire has never been defined (well neither has an explicit, but that is for another time)
  2. Trent does not say you can be saved by desire but that you can be justified. They are two different things.
 
it is not brow beating it is fact…the catechism is using “nicer” language… but their is nothing in there that contradicts what i say… u can say that protestants have an imperfect commmunion with the Church, but it is very clear from Church teaching that they are not members of the Church…Pius XII in the mystical body of Christ states, “Only those must be sonsidered members of the Church, who have recieved the bath of regeneration, who profess the true faith, and have not miserably withdrawn from the union of the Body nor have been seperated from it by legitimate authority…” (denzinger 3802) Pius IX explicitly said that non-catholic religious groups ARE NOT members of the Church founded by Christ (Apostolic Letter Iam Vos Omnes, 1868, denzinger 2997) i dont see why we all wouldnt want protestanism to cease to exist—again i make the point that it is a heresy…trent was all about the heresy of protestanism…u would advocate the destruction of arianism, modalism, mormonism, donatism, etc—y not Protestanism --i say it again that Outside the Church there is no salvation applies to protestants and the only way they can be saved is if they are invincibly ignorant of the one true faith and seek to do good to the best of their ability…call it brow beating if u want… but i dont want protestants or catholics thinking that “everything is gonna be ok”—cause its not… salvation does matter and Protestants need to be converted—if u want to give hugs and kisses then fine…sometimes they do some good but how many times do u hear catholics really let protestants know that “hey this is serious…” so serious that it involves ur salvation… omg did we forget about hell… wow!!! well i have rarely if ever heard any catholic mention hell in discussioning things with protestants… well u should… not by being mean spirited or bringing it up in every sentence but a fair charitable(charity sometimes involves saying something someone may not want to hear) warning at the end of a discussion is very very appropriate…a great example of this is pat madrid’s statement at the end of his deabte with james white on sola scriptura… pat stated that many of u “run the risk of going to hell for not entering the catholic church…” go get the debate and listen to it…if more of u would promise to make statements like that… hey i will shut up in a second—
 
40.png
marineboy:
i am beginning to think ur dishonest–u quote ME as saying one has to be catholic to be saved----READ THE NEXT SENTENCE!!! THEN I SAY UNLESS ONE IS INVINCIBLEY IGNORANT—IF ONE IS INVINCIBLE IGNORANT THEY ARE NOT A FORMAL MEMBER !!! IT IS NORMATIVELY NECESSARY TO BE A FORMAL MEMBER OF THE CHURCH–YES THAT IS CHURCH TEACHING… BUT ONE CAN BE INVINCIBLEY IGNORANT AND STILL GO TO HEAVEN…AND YES I STAND BEHIND ALL THE QUOTES THAT SAY PROTESTANISM IS A HERESY–BECAUSE IT IS–IN FACT A WHOLE COUNCIL WAS CALLED TO DEAL WITH THE HERESY–NO HERESY SAVES!!! now Chirst may use that heresy as a means to bring one closer to the truth (SALVATION)but the heresy doesnt save… so again please get ur facts straight—question was trent wrong when it called Protestanism A HERESY???
marineboy, you asked me why I personally confronted you and your threads and this is why! I believe you are trying NOT to dialog, but only say something misleading and argumentative in a less than constructive way. Furthermore, you pick subject matter to attack non-catholics, while twisting the catechism and councils to try to prove your own view point. God Bless you and I might have to take an aspirin in this latest thread:rolleyes: God Bless
 
40.png
marineboy:
it is not brow beating it is fact…the catechism is using “nicer” language… but their is nothing in there that contradicts what i say… u can say that protestants have an imperfect commmunion with the Church, but it is very clear from Church teaching that they are not members of the Church…Pius XII in the mystical body of Christ states, “Only those must be sonsidered members of the Church, who have recieved the bath of regeneration, who profess the true faith, and have not miserably withdrawn from the union of the Body nor have been seperated from it by legitimate authority…” (denzinger 3802) Pius IX explicitly said that non-catholic religious groups ARE NOT members of the Church founded by Christ (Apostolic Letter Iam Vos Omnes, 1868, denzinger 2997) i dont see why we all wouldnt want protestanism to cease to exist—again i make the point that it is a heresy…trent was all about the heresy of protestanism…u would advocate the destruction of arianism, modalism, mormonism, donatism, etc—y not Protestanism --i say it again that Outside the Church there is no salvation applies to protestants and the only way they can be saved is if they are invincibly ignorant of the one true faith and seek to do good to the best of their ability…call it brow beating if u want… but i dont want protestants or catholics thinking that “everything is gonna be ok”—cause its not… salvation does matter and Protestants need to be converted—if u want to give hugs and kisses then fine…sometimes they do some good but how many times do u hear catholics really let protestants know that “hey this is serious…” so serious that it involves ur salvation… omg did we forget about hell… wow!!! well i have rarely if ever heard any catholic mention hell in discussioning things with protestants… well u should… not by being mean spirited or bringing it up in every sentence but a fair charitable(charity sometimes involves saying something someone may not want to hear) warning at the end of a discussion is very very appropriate…a great example of this is pat madrid’s statement at the end of his deabte with james white on sola scriptura… pat stated that many of u “run the risk of going to hell for not entering the catholic church…” go get the debate and listen to it…if more of u would promise to make statements like that… hey i will shut up in a second—
Mr. Madrid does not hold the charism that the Pope and the Magisterium hold, thus I don’t feel particularly obligated to believe him. And I’m not hugging and kissing anybody. Catechism, catechism, catechism. “I declare it to be a sure norm for teaching the faith and thus a valid and legitimate instrument of ecclesial communion,” (John Paul II), Mr. Madrid’s or any other apologist or theologian’s opinion notwithstanding.
 
marineboy, what you said was great, except for: “i say it again that Outside the Church there is no salvation applies to protestants and the only way they can be saved is if they are invincibly ignorant of the one true faith and seek to do good to the best of their ability”

Invincible ignorance neither saves nor condemns. You cannot be saved merely by being invincibly ignorant. Those who are invicincibly ignorant CANNOT be saved without being baptized and becoming member of the Catholic Church: “We must mention and condemn again that most pernicious error which has been imbibed by certain Catholics who are of the opinion that those people who live in error and have not the true faith and are separated from Catholic unity, may obtain life everlasting. Now this opinion is most contrary to the Catholic faith, as is evident from the plain words of Our Lord, (Matt 18:17; Mark 16:16; Luke 10:16; John 3:18) as also from the words of Saint Paul (2 Tit. 52:11) and of Saint Peter (2 Peter 2:1) To entertain opinions contrary to this Catholic faith is to be an impious wretch*.*” - Blessed Pope Pius IX

Please read what Fr. Muller, published by the Holy See, has written regarding this:

Invincible Ignorance
40. Which Protestants are not guilty of the sin of heresy, but commit other great sins?
Those who are Protestants without their fault and who never had an opportunity of knowing better, are not guilty of the sin of heresy; but if they do not live up to the dictates of their conscience, they will be lost, not on account of their heresy, which for them was no sin, but on account of other grievous sins which they committed.
  1. Will those heretics be saved, who are not guilty of the sin of heresy, and are faithful in living up to the dictates of their conscience?
Inculpable ignorance of the true religion excuses a heathen from the sin of infidelity, and a Protestant from the sin of heresy. But such ignorance has never been the means of salvation. From the fact that a person who lives up to the dictates of his conscience, and who cannot sin against the true religion on account of being ignorant of it, many have drawn the false conclusion that such a person is saved, or, in other words, is in the state of sanctifying grace, thus making ignorance a means of salvation or justification.

If we sincerely wish not to make great mistakes in explaining the great revealed truth, “Out of the Church there is no salvation,” we must remember:

a) That there are four great truths of salvation, which everyone must know and believe in order to be saved;

b) That no one can go to Heaven unless he is in the state of sanctifying grace;

**c) **That, in order to receive sanctifying grace, the soul must be prepared for it by divine Faith, Hope, Charity, true sorrow for sin with the firm purpose of doing all that God requires the soul to believe and to do, in order to be saved;

d) That this preparation of the soul cannot be brought by inculpable ignorance. And if such ignorance cannot even dispose the soul for receiving the grace of justification, it can much less give this grace to the soul. Inculpable ignorance has never been a means of grace or salvation, not even for the inculpably ignorant people that live up to their conscience. But of this class of ignorant persons we say, with Saint Thomas Aquinas, that God in His mercy will lead these souls to the knowledge of the necessary truths of salvation, even send them an angel, if necessary, to instruct them, rather than let them perish without their fault. If they accept this grace, they will be saved as Catholics.

Please also see the entire article, especially on heretics (26-39) here: oltyn.com/Muller-Slv.htm
 
If there’s no baptism of desire, I won’t waste my time praying, I would rather go on a killing rampage since I can’t be baptised with water in China. I don’t believe God mean this.
 
40.png
abcdefg:
If there’s no baptism of desire, I won’t waste my time praying, I would rather go on a killing rampage since I can’t be baptised with water in China. I don’t believe God mean this.
What do you mean you can’t be baptized with water? It’s against the law? What?

If it’s against the law, it doesn’t matter, you have to break the law. If you have the ability to get on the internet, I assume you have the ability to access water… in fact, it is the most accessible form of anything, which is why it was chosen as the matter for Baptism. Moreover, I am sure you could find someone who will baptize you, even if there are no priests, since it is not necessary that a priest (or even a Catholic) baptize you. The Church teaches that anyone can baptize validly (even if he is not baptized) so long as he uses true and natural water, he says the correct words: “I baptize thee in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost”, and he has the intention to do what the Church does, which is to cleanse the soul from Original Sin and all actual sin.
 
This is part of a Church document obtained at www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFFEENY.HTM

about the teaching of Fr. Feeney:

LETTER OF THE SACRED CONGREGATION OF THE HOLY OFFICE

Given on
August 8, 1949 explaining the true sense of Catholic doctrine that there is no salvation outside the Church.

Now, among those things which the Church has always preached and will never cease to preach is contained also that infallible statement by which we are taught that there is no salvation outside the Church.

However, this dogma must be understood in that sense in which the Church herself understands it. For, it was not to private judgments that Our Savior gave for explanation those things that are contained in the deposit of faith, but to the teaching authority of the Church. …

Therefore, no one will be saved who, knowing the Church to have been divinely established by Christ, nevertheless refuses to submit to the Church or withholds obedience from the Roman Pontiff, the Vicar of Christ on earth. …

In His infinite mercy God has willed that the effects, necessary for one to be saved, of those helps to salvation which are directed toward man’s final end, not by intrinsic necessity, but only by divine institution, can also be obtained in certain circumstances when those helps are used only in desire and longing.

These things are clearly taught in that dogmatic letter which was issued by the Sovereign Pontiff, Pope Pius XII, on June 29, 1943, (AAS, Vol. 35, an. 1943, p. 193 ff.). For in this letter the Sovereign Pontiff clearly distinguishes between those who are actually incorporated into the Church as members, and those who are united to the Church only by desire. …

Furthermore, it is beyond understanding how a member of a religious Institute, namely Father Feeney, presents himself as a “Defender of the Faith,” and at the same time does not hesitate to attack the catechetical instruction proposed by lawful authorities, and has not even feared to incur grave sanctions threatened by the sacred canons because of his serious violations of his duties as a religious, a priest, and an ordinary member of the Church.

Therefore, let them who in grave peril are ranged against the Church seriously bear in mind that after “Rome has spoken” they cannot be excused even by reasons of good faith. Certainly, their bond and duty of obedience toward the Church is much graver than that of those who as yet are related to the Church “only by an unconscious desire.” Let them realize that they are children of the Church, lovingly nourished by her with the milk of doctrine and the sacraments, and hence, having heard the clear voice of their Mother, they cannot be excused from culpable ignorance, and therefore to them apply without any restriction that principle: submission to the Catholic Church and to the Sovereign Pontiff is required as necessary for salvation.
 
40.png
JKirkLVNV:
You are browbeating people with your own private agenda and that would be fine, I can always just ignore you. But there are people hear who come to find out Truth and if they stumble across some of your postings, they’re going to get a false view of Catholicism. They have to be warned to read your posts with the knowledge that what you present is not the teaching of the Catholic Church. We don’t go about advocating the destruction of Protestantism. We hope for their eventual reunion and some of us try to be careful with our words so that we don’t impair that reunion. I urge you to stop posting this stuff.
Which is why I have continually posted CCC and other reference material. marineboy isn’t getting it though
:banghead:
 
40.png
CatholicCrusade:
What do you mean you can’t be baptized with water? It’s against the law? What?

If it’s against the law, it doesn’t matter, you have to break the law. If you have the ability to get on the internet, I assume you have the ability to access water… in fact, it is the most accessible form of anything, which is why it was chosen as the matter for Baptism. Moreover, I am sure you could find someone who will baptize you, even if there are no priests, since it is not necessary that a priest (or even a Catholic) baptize you. The Church teaches that anyone can baptize validly (even if he is not baptized) so long as he uses true and natural water, he says the correct words: “I baptize thee in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost”, and he has the intention to do what the Church does, which is to cleanse the soul from Original Sin and all actual sin.
Thanks for your words
 
Lumen Gentium 16.

Finally, those who have not yet received the Gospel are related in various ways to the people of God.(18*) In the first place we must recall the people to whom the testament and the promises were given and from whom Christ was born according to the flesh.(125) On account of their fathers this people remains most dear to God, for God does not repent of the gifts He makes nor of the calls He issues.(126); But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Mohamedans, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind. Nor is God far distant from those who in shadows and images seek the unknown God, for it is He who gives to all men life and breath and all things,(127) and as Saviour wills that all men be saved.(128) Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience.(19*) Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life. Whatever good or truth is found amongst them is looked upon by the Church as a preparation for the Gospel.
 
DECREE ON ECUMENISM
UNITATIS REDINTEGRATIO

Chapter 1

3.The children who are born into these (separated) Communities and who grow up believing in Christ cannot be accused of the sin involved in the separation, and the Catholic Church embraces upon them as brothers, with respect and affection. For men who believe in Christ and have been truly baptized are in communion with the Catholic Church even though this communion is imperfect.

The differences that exist in varying degrees between them and the Catholic Church-whether in doctrine and sometimes in discipline, or concerning the structure of the Church-do indeed create many obstacles, sometimes serious ones, to full ecclesiastical communion. The ecumenical movement is striving to overcome these obstacles. But even in spite of them it remains true that all who have been justified by faith in Baptism are members of Christ’s body,(21) and have a right to be called Christian, and so are correctly accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church.(22)

It follows that the separated Churches(23) and Communities as such, though we believe them to be deficient in some respects, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church.
 
no jgc i am getting and i agree with that and the catechism… no where does the catechism say that one doesnt have an obligation to become catholic… i have continuously defended the notion of baptism of desire but u seem to overlook that… i am merely pointing out that it applys to Protestants as well…
 
Catholic Crusade and Marineboy,

You’re right, but don’t expect to convince anyone of it. You’re arguing with people who evidently think:

– that “Baptism is necessary” means “Baptism is required for those who have it, but not for those who lack it;”

– that it is possible to desire something you have never heard of;

– that is is possible to give implicit assent to something that you explicitly deny;

– that when the Fathers of the Council of Trent said one can be justified by desire of baptism, they were trying to say in their incompetent way that one may be saved by baptism of desire, since it’s obvious that “justification” and “salvation” are synonyms (right?);and

– that “baptism of desire” is surely the same thing as “desire of baptism,” (just as “the love of sin” is the same as the “sin of love”);

– and most important of all, that no one is competent to judge what the magisterium really teaches except the pope when he exercises his office as head of the magisterium, so you’ll always be wrong because you can’t understand his pronouncements – unless you agree with your opponents, of course, since their fidelity to the Holy Father’s genuine meaning guarantees their correct understanding!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top