Does the Church teach that judaism is true?

[Malleus_01]

Where did you get that God has withheld some truth from us pertaining to salvation, or anything else for that matter?
Please show me where the Scriptures and the Catholic Church teaches that He has not revealed all truth.

Council of Trent Session VI

CHAPTER V
THE NECESSITY OF PREPARATION FOR JUSTIFICATION IN ADULTS, AND WHENCE IT PROCEEDS

It is furthermore declared that in adults the beginning of that justification must proceed from the predisposing grace of God through Jesus Christ, that is, from His vocation, whereby, without any merits on their part, they are called; that they who by sin had been cut off from God, may be disposed through His quickening and helping grace to convert themselves to their own justification by freely assenting to and cooperating with that grace; so that, while God touches the heart of man through the illumination of the Holy Ghost, man himself neither does absolutely nothing while receiving that inspiration, since he can also reject it, nor yet is he able by his own free will and without the grace of God to move himself to justice in His sight.

Hence, when it is said in the sacred writings:
Turn ye to me, and I will turn to you,[19] we are reminded of our liberty; and when we reply:
Convert us, O Lord, to thee, and we shall be converted,[20] we confess that we need the grace of God.

Also, show me where a Pope or Council (before your Vatican II “popes” or “council”) has ever infallibly declared that a person is saved outside the Church.


Malleus: When they consent to Grace Given by GOD they are no longer “OUTSIDE” That is the Precept of Natural Law. And before you attempt to say anything about Vatican II or the Popes since Pope Pius the XII - you are preaching to the Choir.

Man can save themselves by coorperatting with GOD’s GRACE. BUT Keep one thing in mind - they can likewise lose that conversion by once being enlightened returning to their old ways or failing to enter the Church Sacramentally when Invincible ignorance no longer applies. Like the good thief for example. No one baptised him on the Cross. But he was saved nonetheless. Because once he coorperated with GOD’s Grace he was converted and no longer outside the Church.

That was All I was saying.

Pax

 

[TEPO]

The Church does not teach that there is salvation OR truth outside of the Church… She only teaches that other religions are worshipping the same God as us…

This is what I personally don’t get… Especially considering that God said in the OT that He was Jealous and does not like us worshipping “other gods”…

So how can the Church then teach that it is ok to view other religions as worshipping the same God… – Since God said the opposite…

 

[Malleus_01]

The Church does not teach that there is salvation OR truth outside of the Church… She only teaches that other religions are worshipping the same God as us…

Malleus: I disagree. Only GOD can form a TRUE Religion. And only GOD can teach us how to WORSHIP (Old Covenant perfected in the New ). Man made religions cannot do that.

This is what I personally don’t get… Especially considering that God said in the OT that He was Jealous and does not like us worshipping “other gods”…

Malleus: As in the First Commandment you mean that binds EVERY CATHOLIC?

So how can the Church then teach that it is ok to view other religions as worshipping the same God… – Since God said the opposite…

Malleus: The Church doesnt teach that and if anyone believes that they are no longer Catholic.

Pax

 

[TEPO]

Malleus: The Church doesnt teach that and if anyone believes that they are no longer Catholic.

Pax

**CCC 841 **The Church’s relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day."330

Islam derives from a combination of Arianism and Paganism (Moon-god worship)… Islam was created hundreds of years after Christianity in direct opposition to the Trinity. Yet the Church believes that Allah is one in the same as God.

 

[TEPO]

It makes me feel better sometimes to consider the fact that not everything in the CCC is dogma, and I can still be in full communion with the Church if I do not understand or truly believe CCC 841.

But in defense of the Church, I will say that I do believe that Muslims worship the same God as we do, just like the Jews… The only difference is that the Holy Church possesses as much truth as God has chosen to give mankind, while Islam only has truth in that God is a monotheistic Creator who lives in heaven… Thats very very little knowledge.

But at least they have some knowledge.

 

[Malleus_01]

**CCC 841 **The Church’s relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day."330

Islam derives from a combination of Arianism and Paganism (Moon-god worship)… Islam was created hundreds of years after Christianity in direct opposition to the Trinity. Yet the Church believes that Allah is one in the same as God.

Malleus: Is that the Pre Vatican II Baltimore Series ? Obviously not. I stand by what I wrote.

 

[Isaac_Jogues]

Malleus: So then the CHURCH is equal to GOD? I agree that the CHURCH can never do what is against the Will of GOD - BUT GOD can do whatever GOD wants to do. HE is GOD. That is where you are in Error.

I never said God could not do what he wanted to do.

Now GOD WILL Never go against what HE HAS REVEALED to his CHURCH (Hense did I say DE FIDE Remember) -

Do you even understand what you are saying?
By saying that Jews can be saved outside the Church, by the Church; you are saying that God has gone against what “HE HAS REVEALED to his CHURCH”.

BUT the CHURCH doesnt ALWAYS Say that EVERYTHING it does is DE FIDE Correct?

Correct. YOUR POINT?

GOD has not revealed EVERYTHING to his CHURCH. Do you pretend that we dont NEED GOD?

First of all you have not shown me where the Church teaches that God has not revealed everything we need for salvation to His Church.
Second, what kind of strawman question is “Do you pretend that we dont NEED GOD?” Of course we need HIM. Your question implies that I think we don’t and I never implied that we don’t.

Malleus: St Thomas says that those saved through Natural Law ARE SAVED THROUGH the CHURCH. Apparently you are unfamiliar with the Summa.

I am familiar with the Summa. I just do not use fallible documents to prove my points when talking about infallible dogmas.

Malleus: Are you going to Heaven no matter what? Go ahead answer that question and you will have the answer to yours as to whether or not he has.

No. My point is that God has revealed to us all we need to know about attaining salvation. Not whether or not we are saved. I already said that and you are using fallacious arguments.
Also the last part where you quoted St. Augustine’s comment on Justification, you did not answer my question.
It is not a proven truth whether or not we will be saved or justified and these are not revealed truths from God that show us how to get to heaven. I don’t know why you would respond to my asking where it says that all truth about salvation hasn’t been revealed, with this quote by St. Augustine, it doesn’t prove anything about our conversation.
The same applies in your reply by quoting Trent and it has nothing to do with God not revealing all we need to know about attaining salvation.

Malleus: When they consent to Grace Given by GOD they are no longer “OUTSIDE” That is the Precept of Natural Law. And before you attempt to say anything about Vatican II or the Popes since Pope Pius the XII - you are preaching to the Choir.

The Church and Christ Infallibly teaches that incorporation into the Church is only gained by Baptism by real and natural water. Anyone else who is unbaptized is outside the Church. If you like, I can cite Scripture and Church teaching.

 

[Malleus_01]

It makes me feel better sometimes to consider the fact that not everything in the CCC is dogma, and I can still be in full communion with the Church if I do not understand or truly believe CCC 841.

But in defense of the Church, I will say that I do believe that Muslims worship the same God as we do, just like the Jews… The only difference is that the Holy Church possesses as much truth as God has chosen to give mankind, while Islam only has truth in that God is a monotheistic Creator who lives in heaven… Thats very very little knowledge.

But at least they have some knowledge.

Malleus: Hillaire Belloc agrees with your position - that its a heresy. However - if the Muslims Believe JESUS is a Phrophet - then please explain why they do not believe what he said on Numerous occasions - that he is the SON of GOD.

And Every Catechism is not necessarily DOGMATIC. Its only as good as who promulates it. If it is promulgated by a Heretic - how can it be Dogmatic?

 

[Cristiano]

…And Every Catechism is not necessarily DOGMATIC. Its only as good as who promulates it. If it is promulgated by a Heretic - how can it be Dogmatic?

Can you please show which Catechisms are not dogmatic, why, and what it is the relation between your statement and the statement of the previous poster.

 

[stuart12]

Someone not ‘physically’ inside the Church can be united to her by charity. This can happen if through no fault of their own they don’t know Christ and His Church, and strive continually to find the truth and have an ‘implicit’ desire for baptism and the Catholic Church.
A Catholic dying in the state of grace has absolute certainty of entering heaven, but someone’s chances outside the Church physically are greatly reduced. However, a Jew can be saved, but not saved because of their Jewish faith but through being joined to the Church of Christ in charity. They are saved only through the Church and the Mass she offers daily.

 

[TEPO]

Malleus: Hillaire Belloc agrees with your position - that its a heresy. However - if the Muslims Believe JESUS is a Phrophet - then please explain why they do not believe what he said on Numerous occasions - that he is the SON of GOD.

And Every Catechism is not necessarily DOGMATIC. Its only as good as who promulates it. If it is promulgated by a Heretic - how can it be Dogmatic?

Right. I was under the impression that the CCC is merely a “summary of beliefs that Catholics hold in common”, as opposed to a book of dogmas… I believe that there are alot of grey areas where the Catholic Church has not been given the exact truth by God, so there, we are free to interpret for ourselves.

I think I am right on that, although not positive.

 

[Malleus_01]

Quote:
Malleus: So then the CHURCH is equal to GOD? I agree that the CHURCH can never do what is against the Will of GOD - BUT GOD can do whatever GOD wants to do. HE is GOD. That is where you are in Error.

I never said God could not do what he wanted to do.

Malleus: Then he can save Jews or Muslims or Lutherans INDIVIDUALLY not because of JUDAISM - ISLAM or LUTHERANISM Through their conversion in Grace prior to reception of the Sacraments in the Church through no fault of their own. BUT they are not NON CATHOLIC - but Catholic at the moment of that Conversion and are saved by GOD’s GRACE not by the False Religion. The same applies to Pagans. They have to meet the Parameters of Natural Law and there are many.

Quote:
Now GOD WILL Never go against what HE HAS REVEALED to his CHURCH (Hense did I say DE FIDE Remember) -

Do you even understand what you are saying?
By saying that Jews can be saved outside the Church, by the Church; you are saying that God has gone against what “HE HAS REVEALED to his CHURCH”.

Malleus: I am NOT Saying anything of the Sort. I am saying the same as I just said above. They can be saved by GOD’s Grace through the Church in ADDITION to the SACRAMENTS of the CHURCH. If they be OPPSED to the CHURCH they obviously cannot be saved by coorperation with GRACE since they likewise would oppose GOD
Natural LAW isnt a broad caveat. Its the exception , not the rule.

Quote:
BUT the CHURCH doesnt ALWAYS Say that EVERYTHING it does is DE FIDE Correct?

Correct. YOUR POINT?

Malleus: Whats the “Supreme Law of the Church” would be my point. Do you pretend to put barriers to that law in the way of GOD ALMIGHTY himself?

Quote:
GOD has not revealed EVERYTHING to his CHURCH. Do you pretend that we dont NEED GOD?

First of all you have not shown me where the Church teaches that God has not revealed everything we need for salvation to His Church.

Malleus: To you? Perhaps thats correct. To an Aborigine in the jungles of New Guinea has he? To a Jew raised in Judaism who converts on his death bead in intent has he? Or is it off to Hell with them both out of legalism?

Second, what kind of strawman question is “Do you pretend that we dont NEED GOD?” Of course we need HIM. Your question implies that I think we don’t and I never implied that we don’t.

Malleus: Then we dont know EVERYTHING , do we. Agreed.

Quote:
Malleus: St Thomas says that those saved through Natural Law ARE SAVED THROUGH the CHURCH. Apparently you are unfamiliar with the Summa.

I am familiar with the Summa. I just do not use fallible documents to prove my points when talking about infallible dogmas.

Malleus: So are we to take your words over the Angelic Doctor’s? You obviously dont know “Infallible Dogma” or you wouldnt be arguing with me about Natural law.

Quote:
Malleus: Are you going to Heaven no matter what? Go ahead answer that question and you will have the answer to yours as to whether or not he has.

No. My point is that God has revealed to us all we need to know about attaining salvation.

Malleus: In part I agreee - but remember - GOD doesnt give the same amount of GRACE to each individual - nor does he give it in any particular timetable. Certainly the young Augustine was not the Doctor of the Church he later came to be any more than Saul was St Paul. Who is to judge when these things take place? You?

Not whether or not we are saved. I already said that and you are using fallacious arguments.

Malleus: The Summa is hardly fallicious

Also the last part where you quoted St. Augustine’s comment on Justification, you did not answer my question.

Malleus: Then perhaps you need to read it again.

It is not a proven truth whether or not we will be saved or justified and these are not revealed truths from God that show us how to get to heaven. I don’t know why you would respond to my asking where it says that all truth about salvation hasn’t been revealed, with this quote by St. Augustine, it doesn’t prove anything about our conversation.
The same applies in your reply by quoting Trent and it has nothing to do with God not revealing all we need to know about attaining salvation.

Malleus: Because GOD converts through GRACE. We have free will - both Catholic and Non Catholic. It is how we conform that Free Will to the Will of GOD in Grace that converts us and reveals his Truths. Once revealed - we are convicted. So when you say “God that show us how to get to heaven” - I agree that he does - BUT THROUGH HIS GRACE. Yes the Church is there to facilitate Salvation. And when Jesus Said - "No one cometh to the Father but by Me " he meant it. To whom much is given much is expected. You or I may have been given more Grace than the next guy. But GOD is at work both in his Church and BEYOND his Church.

Quote:
Malleus: When they consent to Grace Given by GOD they are no longer “OUTSIDE” That is the Precept of Natural Law. And before you attempt to say anything about Vatican II or the Popes since Pope Pius the XII - you are preaching to the Choir.

The Church and Christ Infallibly teaches that incorporation into the Church is only gained by Baptism by real and natural water. Anyone else who is unbaptized is outside the Church. If you like, I can cite Scripture and Church teaching.

Malleus: Not True - there is Baptism by Desire and By Blood. It does not REPLACE Sacramental Baptism. Denial of Baptism of Blood and Desire is The Heresy of Feeneyism. And if You claim to deny Baptism of Blood or Desire - you are most likely and adherant of The Heresy of the Dimond Brothers. How close did I come?

 

[Isaac_Jogues]

I never said God could not do what he wanted to do.

Malleus: Then he can save Jews or Muslims or Lutherans INDIVIDUALLY not because of JUDAISM - ISLAM or LUTHERANISM Through their conversion in Grace prior to reception of the Sacraments in the Church through no fault of their own. BUT they are not NON CATHOLIC - but Catholic at the moment of that Conversion and are saved by GOD’s GRACE not by the False Religion. The same applies to Pagans. They have to meet the Parameters of Natural Law and there are many.

God’s Grace works in them to convert to the Church but they are not part of it until they are Baptized.

Malleus: Whats the “Supreme Law of the Church” would be my point. Do you pretend to put barriers to that law in the way of GOD ALMIGHTY himself?

God is the Supreme Law of the Church and He has delegated the rule of the Church to the Popes. What they say goes. And they have said many times that whoever dies outside the Church goes to hell and does not receive salvation.

First of all you have not shown me where the Church teaches that God has not revealed everything we need for salvation to His Church.

Malleus: To you? Perhaps thats correct. To an Aborigine in the jungles of New Guinea has he? To a Jew raised in Judaism who converts on his death bead in intent has he? Or is it off to Hell with them both out of legalism?

I am familiar with the Summa. I just do not use fallible documents to prove my points when talking about infallible dogmas.

Malleus: So are we to take your words over the Angelic Doctor’s? You obviously dont know “Infallible Dogma” or you wouldnt be arguing with me about Natural law.

It doesn’t make sense that no one should listen to me when I am just reiterating Dogma and you are interpreting St. Thomas’ views on the Natural law.
How can you say that what God has revealed to us is merely legalism. St. Paul and St. Augustine have something different to say about Natural Law and people who are ignorant about the Church (invincibly ignorant).
2 Cor. 4:3-4 And if our gospel be also hid, it is hid to them that are lost, In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of unbelievers, that the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should not shine unto them.
According to St. Paul, not knowing about the Gospel does not give people a pass into heaven. St. Augustine explains it also.
St. Augustine: It is false, therefore, that the dead are judged also in regard to what they would have done if the gospel had reached them while they were alive…because they die without Baptism that in their case it happens deservedly because God foreknew that if they had lived and the gospel had been preached to them, they would have heard it without belief…that they are held bound by original sin alone, and for this alone they go to damnation; and we see that with others original sin is remitted only through the gratuitous grace of God in regeneration.

The Church and Christ Infallibly teaches that incorporation into the Church is only gained by Baptism by real and natural water. Anyone else who is unbaptized is outside the Church. If you like, I can cite Scripture and Church teaching.

Malleus: Not True - there is Baptism by Desire and By Blood. It does not REPLACE Sacramental Baptism. Denial of Baptism of Blood and Desire is The Heresy of Feeneyism. And if You claim to deny Baptism of Blood or Desire - you are most likely and adherant of The Heresy of the Dimond Brothers. How close did I come?

First of all, Fr. Feeney was not excommunicated for his belief in the Church’s dogma. He was also received back into the Church without having to relinquish his firm belief in EENS.
Second, it doesn’t take a genius to know that I follow the Dimond Bro.s since I cite them in my first post which you responded to.
Third, there is no infallible teaching by a Pope or Council that teaches Baptism of Desire or Blood; in fact it’s just the opposite. You can name all the Church fathers you want (eg. St. Thomas) that have speculated on the subject and I can show you flaws in the argument.
Fourth, if Baptism of Blood and desire do not replace sacramental Baptism, as you say, then you must admit that they cannot bring salvation.
Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, Sess. 7, Can. 5 on the Sacrament of Baptism, ex cathedra: “If anyone says that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation (cf. Jn. 3:5): let him be anathema.”
Fifth, what I said was true. That real and natural water are necessary for this to take place. Martyrdom and a desire for it are not enough.
JOHN 3:5 “JESUS ANSWERED: AMEN, AMEN, I SAY TO THEE, UNLESS A MAN BE BORN AGAIN OF WATER AND THE HOLY GHOST, HE CANNOT ENTER INTO THE KINGDOM OF GOD.”
Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, Can. 2 on the Sacrament of Baptism, Sess. 7, 1547, ex cathedra: “If anyone shall say that real and natural water is not necessary for baptism, and on that account those words of Our Lord Jesus Christ: ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit’ [John 3:5], are distorted into some sort of metaphor: let him be anathema.”
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra:
“The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church… will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives… even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ…”

 

[NeedImprovement]

There’s a very nice article written on the Holy Innocents by Fr. Robert McNamara at this link irondequoitcatholic.org/index.php/Main/TheHolyInnocents?action=browse

It should be of interest to quite a few fellow members.

An excerpt follows. First though, I would note :

How absolutely befitting it is to the original topic of this thread, that in the eyes of the Holy Catholic Church , the very first martyrs for Christ were in fact Jews - not Christians.

It appears that our Holy Father Pope John Paul II exhibited a particularly keen insight in stating the Jews are "our older brothers."

EXCERPT FROM FR. MNAMARA’S ARTICLE:

"…Jesus, of course, escaped the blood-letting. His hour to die had not yet come, so God through an angel told Joseph to hurry the Mother and Child out of the country. But the other boy infants of Bethlehem were slain. The number of victims may not have been more than a dozen since Bethlehem was a small village. But for that village the decimation was a disaster, and the “sobbing and loud lamentations” of its mothers rose to high heaven.

Since those days, many Christian mothers have lost children who for one reason or another were never baptized, or could not be baptized because of circumstances. This has been for them a true anxiety, because of the official teaching of the Church, following Christ, that “no one can enter into God’s Kingdom without being begotten of water and Spirit” (John 3:5). It is also a general concern of Christians in these days of the new Holocaust, the slaying of infants - by abortion - in the womb. Will those who suffer death before birth also be deprived by God of heaven because nobody baptized them?

People who are sincerely worried about the fate of unbaptized infants can find consolation in the feast of the Holy Innocents. These little victims were not old enough to receive baptism by desire. Although the Church venerates them as martyrs, they were certainly not typical martyrs. The typical martyr is one who chooses to obey God rather than man; and the Holy Infants had no such choice. Yet the Church has always held that they are in heaven, despite the lack of baptism of water or blood or desire. As St. Augustine said, they are the “flowers of the martyrs” - “the first buds of the Church killed by the frost of persecution; they died not only for Christ but in His stead.”

If Jesus demanded that all men - including infants - be baptized by water or at least by blood or by desire, we must heed that rule, and be most careful to have our children baptized as quickly as possible. That is vital. But the fact that God laid down this rule does not mean that He himself cannot make exceptions to it. Other passages in Scripture testify that Jesus died for all mankind, and that He wanted all mankind to be saved. These passages must be balanced with the passage on baptism; for they show the mercy of the Creator…"

 

[Malleus_01]

God is the Supreme Law of the Church and He has delegated the rule of the Church to the Popes. What they say goes. And they have said many times that whoever dies outside the Church goes to hell and does not receive salvation.

Malleus: And St Thomas Aquinas likewise TEACHES that those saved by Natural Law are SAVED WITHIN the CHURCH. You simply do not understand the Depth of the Supreme Law of the Church - so our argument is one of depth not DOGMA.

It doesn’t make sense that no one should listen to me when I am just reiterating Dogma and you are interpreting St. Thomas’ views on the Natural law.

Malleus: Sorry - but you are misinterpreting DOGMA. I have not denied the DOGMA “Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus” merely your legalistic and erroneous interpretation of same. You are not the POPE nor was Father Feeney. So the very same charge you level against St Thomas Aquinas can be meansured in regards to the two of you as well. Now do you want to explain how St Thomas Aquinas is considered not only a Canoniized Saint - but in addition a DOCTOR of the CHURCH and how a lay person like you and a Priest like “Father Feeney” (When was he canonized again?) can lay claim to greater insight in regards to that depth of understanding of the DOGMA of “Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus”. Feel free to justify with apologetics that claim you appear to be making. I await your proofs.

How can you say that what God has revealed to us is merely legalism. St. Paul and St. Augustine have something different to say about Natural Law and people who are ignorant about the Church (invincibly ignorant).

Malleus: Feel free to cite the works and exegesis of same - not idle subjective conjecture. Source?

2 Cor. 4:3-4 And if our gospel be also hid, it is hid to them that are lost, In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of unbelievers, that the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should not shine unto them.

Malleus: And the Exegesis of same is found where again? Or are you merely self interpreting?

According to St. Paul, not knowing about the Gospel does not give people a pass into heaven. St. Augustine explains it also.

St. Augustine: It is false, therefore, that the dead are judged also in regard to what they would have done if the gospel had reached them while they were alive…because they die without Baptism that in their case it happens deservedly because God foreknew that if they had lived and the gospel had been preached to them, they would have heard it without belief…that they are held bound by original sin alone, and for this alone they go to damnation; and we see that with others original sin is remitted only through the gratuitous grace of God in regeneration.

Malleus: Ah but this portends that GOD foreknew and thus they are condemned because of unbelief. That doesnt define as universal this doctrine being true in every case. Example: We know likewise that there is no such thing as predestination. That is Why St Augustine clearly states : "because they die without Baptism that in their case " Are you saying that St Augustine is in violation of and in defiance of and believes in Predestination? OR is St Augustine saying that some individuals go to Hell for Unbelief? And do you understand the distinction?

First of all, Fr. Feeney was not excommunicated for his belief in the Church’s dogma.

Malleus: True , he was excommunicated for not believing in it.

He was also received back into the Church without having to relinquish his firm belief in EENS.

Malleus: He never was and neither are the Dimonds which is why they are Heretics in denial to this day of Baptism of Blood and Desire.

Second, it doesn’t take a genius to know that I follow the Dimond Bro.s since I cite them in my first post which you responded to.

Malleus: I post to content - not to individuals And likewise it doesnt take a genius to figure out that they are Heretics either.

Third, there is no infallible teaching by a Pope or Council that teaches Baptism of Desire or Blood; in fact it’s just the opposite.

Malleus: Once again untrue. The Council of Trent Concerning Baptism of Blood and Desire session 6, Chapter 4 where it is said that no one can be saved “without the laver of regeneration or the desire for it.” Note “DESIRE FOR IT”

St Alphonsus Liguori - founder of the Redemptorists agrees :

(Extract from St Alphonsus Liguori: Moral Theology, Bk. 6, nn. 95-7.)

---

Baptism, therefore, coming from a Greek word that means ablution or immersion in water, is distinguished into Baptism of water “fluminis”], of desire “flaminis” = wind] and of blood.

 

[Malleus_01]

We shall speak below of Baptism of water, which was very probably instituted before the Passion of Christ the Lord, when Christ was baptised by John. But baptism of desire is perfect conversion to God by contrition or love of God above all things accompanied by an explicit or implicit desire for true Baptism of water, the place of which it takes as to the remission of guilt, but not as to the impression of the [baptismal] character or as to the removal of all debt of punishment. It is called “of wind” “flaminis”] because it takes place by the impulse of the Holy Ghost who is called a wind “flamen”]. Now it is de fide that men are also saved by Baptism of desire, by virtue of the Canon Apostolicam, “de presbytero non baptizato” and of the Council of Trent, session 6, Chapter 4 where it is said that no one can be saved “without the laver of regeneration or the desire for it.”

Baptism of blood is the shedding of one’s blood, i.e. death, suffered for the Faith or for some other Christian virtue. Now this baptism is comparable to true Baptism because, like true Baptism, it remits both guilt and punishment as it were ex opere operato. I say as it were because martyrdom does not act by as strict a causality “non ita stricte”] as the sacraments, but by a certain privilege on account of its resemblance to the passion of Christ. Hence martyrdom avails also for infants seeing that the Church venerates the Holy Innocents as true martyrs. That is why Suarez rightly teaches that the opposing view * is at least temerarious. In adults, however, acceptance of martyrdom is required, at least habitually from a supernatural motive.

It is clear that martyrdom is not a sacrament, because it is not an action instituted by Christ, and for the same reason neither was the Baptism of John a sacrament: it did not sanctify a man, but only prepared him for the coming of Christ.

You can name all the Church fathers you want (eg. St. Thomas) that have speculated on the subject and I can show you flaws in the argument.

Fourth, if Baptism of Blood and desire do not replace sacramental Baptism, as you say, then you must admit that they cannot bring salvation.

Malleus: Neither can Baptism bring Salvation by and of itself. One can Sin thereafter mortally (Like when one Denies Dogma for example)*

 

[Malleus_01]

Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, Sess. 7, Can. 5 on the Sacrament of Baptism, ex cathedra: “If anyone says that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation (cf. Jn. 3:5): let him be anathema.”

Malleus: And as previously Stated in Session 6 they defined what they meant by Baptism Didnt they? Obviously once one desires Salvation and through Grace approaches GOD he is SAVED. Want an example from Scripture?

Matthew : 9:2. And behold they brought to him one sick of the palsy lying in a bed. And Jesus, seeing their faith, said to the man sick of the palsy: Be of good heart, son, thy sins are forgiven thee. 9:3. And behold some of the scribes said within themselves: He blasphemeth.9:4. And Jesus seeing their thoughts, said: Why do you think evil in your hearts?9:5. Whether is easier, to say, Thy sins are forgiven thee: or to say, Arise, and walk?9:6. But that you may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (then said he to the man sick of the palsy,) Arise, take up thy bed, and go into thy house.9:7. And he arose, and went into his house.9:8. And the multitude seeing it, feared, and glorified God that gave such power to men. Was he saved or did he still have to be baptised? Did Jesus forgive ALL his Sins both Actual and Original? Certainly if Original Sin wasnt forgven - then he wasnt saved according to your criteria. Or the Woman Caught in Adultery which appears in John Chapter 8 (Well after Chapter 3 on Baptism which appears in Chapter 3 I might add) John 8:11. Who said: No man, Lord. And Jesus said: Neither will I condemn thee. Go, and now sin no more. John : 8:12. Again therefore, Jesus spoke to: them, saying: I am the light of the world. He that followeth me walketh not in darkness, but shall have the light of life. So the Obvious Question would be - WHY do you condemn her too? Perhaps you should likewise read what OUR LORD Wrote on the ground regarding those who condemn sinners for legalism.

Fifth, what I said was true. That real and natural water are necessary for this to take place. Martyrdom and a desire for it are not enough.

Malleus: 3:5. Jesus answered: Amen, amen, I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

COLOR=“Navy”]JOHN 3:5 “JESUS ANSWERED: AMEN, AMEN, I SAY TO THEE, UNLESS A MAN BE BORN AGAIN OF WATER AND THE HOLY GHOST, HE CANNOT ENTER INTO THE KINGDOM OF GOD.”

And in 1 JOHN it likewise states : 5:7. And there are Three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. And these three are one.5:8. And there are three that give testimony on earth: the spirit and the water and the blood. And these three are one.

Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, Can. 2 on the Sacrament of Baptism, Sess. 7, 1547, ex cathedra: “If anyone shall say that real and natural water is not necessary for baptism, and on that account those words of Our Lord Jesus Christ: ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit’ [John 3:5], are distorted into some sort of metaphor: let him be anathema.”

Malleus: No one disagrees with the Form Mattter or Intent of the Sacrament of Baptism which is what the Council of Trent was describing.

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra:
“The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church… will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives… even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ…”

Malleus: And those saved through Natural Law are saved within the Church. Your point?

 

[Isaac_Jogues]

Malleus: And St Thomas Aquinas likewise TEACHES that those saved by Natural Law are SAVED WITHIN the CHURCH. You simply do not understand the Depth of the Supreme Law of the Church - so our argument is one of depth not DOGMA.

Well Jesus, through His Church, teaches that only those who are Water Baptized are WITHIN His Church.
Pope Julius III, Council of Trent, On the Sacraments of Baptism and Penance, Sess. 14, Chap. 2, ex cathedra: “…there is certainly no doubt that the minister of baptism need not be a judge, since the Church exercises judgment on no one who has not previously entered it by the gate of baptism. For what have I to do with those who are without (1 Cor. 5:12), says the Apostle. ** It is otherwise with those of the household of the faith, whom Christ the Lord by the laver of baptism has once made ‘members of his own body’** (1 Cor. 12:13).”
Pope Eugene IV, The Council of Florence, “Exultate Deo,” Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra: “Holy baptism… through it we are made members of Christ and of the body of the Church. And since death entered the universe through the first man, ‘unless we are born again of water and the Spirit, we cannot,’ as the Truth says, ‘enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:5]. The matter of this sacrament is real and natural water.”
Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis (# 22), June 29, 1943: “Actually only those are to be numbered among the members of the Church who have received the laver of regeneration [water baptism] and profess the true faith.”
I will take the Infallible teaching of the Church over you or any others teaching.

Malleus: Sorry - but you are misinterpreting DOGMA. I have not denied the DOGMA “Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus” merely your legalistic and erroneous interpretation of same. You are not the POPE nor was Father Feeney. So the very same charge you level against St Thomas Aquinas can be meansured in regards to the two of you as well. Now do you want to explain how St Thomas Aquinas is considered not only a Canoniized Saint - but in addition a DOCTOR of the CHURCH and how a lay person like you and a Priest like “Father Feeney” (When was he canonized again?) can lay claim to greater insight in regards to that depth of understanding of the DOGMA of “Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus”. Feel free to justify with apologetics that claim you appear to be making. I await your proofs.

You are interpreting a Dogma in your own way. You are doing precisely what you are accusing me of doing. I interpret this Dogma (EENS) the way the Church tells me to.
Pope Pius IX, First Vatican Council, Sess. 3, Chap. 2 on Revelation, 1870, ex cathedra: “Hence, also, that understanding of its sacred dogmas must be perpetually retained, which Holy Mother Church has once declared; and there must never be a recession from that meaning under the specious name of a deeper understanding.”
I am to believe the Dogma as it was declared. I am not to say “Well it says ‘Outside the Church there is no Salvation’ but I need a deeper understanding of what exactly outside the Church means etc…”. Outside the Church means a person who has not entered the Church or once entered has fallen from it. Natural Law does not save people outside the Church.
Also, I hope you feel free to list the quote from St. Thomas that proves this assertion. Where it says that people outside the Church are saved through Natural Law. Not how Grace is given to those outside the Church to convert to Catholicism, because everyone knows about these Graces, but they do not save anyone.

 

[Isaac_Jogues]

Malleus: And St Thomas Aquinas likewise TEACHES that those saved by Natural Law are SAVED WITHIN the CHURCH. You simply do not understand the Depth of the Supreme Law of the Church - so our argument is one of depth not DOGMA.

Well Jesus, through His Church, teaches that only those who are Water Baptized are WITHIN His Church.
Pope Julius III, Council of Trent, On the Sacraments of Baptism and Penance, Sess. 14, Chap. 2, ex cathedra: “…there is certainly no doubt that the minister of baptism need not be a judge, since the Church exercises judgment on no one who has not previously entered it by the gate of baptism. For what have I to do with those who are without (1 Cor. 5:12), says the Apostle. ** It is otherwise with those of the household of the faith, whom Christ the Lord by the laver of baptism has once made ‘members of his own body’** (1 Cor. 12:13).”
Pope Eugene IV, The Council of Florence, “Exultate Deo,” Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra: “Holy baptism… through it we are made members of Christ and of the body of the Church. And since death entered the universe through the first man, ‘unless we are born again of water and the Spirit, we cannot,’ as the Truth says, ‘enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:5]. The matter of this sacrament is real and natural water.”
Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis (# 22), June 29, 1943: “Actually only those are to be numbered among the members of the Church who have received the laver of regeneration [water baptism] and profess the true faith.”
I will take the Infallible teaching of the Church over you or any others teaching.

Malleus: Sorry - but you are misinterpreting DOGMA. I have not denied the DOGMA “Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus” merely your legalistic and erroneous interpretation of same. You are not the POPE nor was Father Feeney. So the very same charge you level against St Thomas Aquinas can be meansured in regards to the two of you as well. Now do you want to explain how St Thomas Aquinas is considered not only a Canoniized Saint - but in addition a DOCTOR of the CHURCH and how a lay person like you and a Priest like “Father Feeney” (When was he canonized again?) can lay claim to greater insight in regards to that depth of understanding of the DOGMA of “Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus”. Feel free to justify with apologetics that claim you appear to be making. I await your proofs.

You are interpreting a Dogma in your own way. You are doing precisely what you are accusing me of doing. I interpret this Dogma (EENS) the way the Church tells me to.
Pope Pius IX, First Vatican Council, Sess. 3, Chap. 2 on Revelation, 1870, ex cathedra: “Hence, also, that understanding of its sacred dogmas must be perpetually retained, which Holy Mother Church has once declared; and there must never be a recession from that meaning under the specious name of a deeper understanding.”
I am to believe the Dogma as it was declared. I am not to say “Well it says ‘Outside the Church there is no Salvation’ but I need a deeper understanding of what exactly outside the Church means etc…”. Outside the Church means a person who has not entered the Church or once entered has fallen from it. Natural Law does not save people outside the Church.

 

[Isaac_Jogues]

How can you say that what God has revealed to us is merely legalism. St. Paul and St. Augustine have something different to say about Natural Law and people who are ignorant about the Church (invincibly ignorant).

Malleus: Feel free to cite the works and exegesis of same - not idle subjective conjecture. Source?

2 Cor. 4:3-4 And if our gospel be also hid, it is hid to them that are lost, In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of unbelievers, that the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should not shine unto them.

Umm… the source is the Bible. The work is St. Paul writing to the Corinthians.
How else can you interpret this? The Gospel is hid to them that are lost. The devil blinds them because they are unbelievers. God allows this because they would not receive it even if it were shown to them. Catholics do believe in Predestination to a certain extent. But this involves our free will and the fact that God know all, past, present and future.

St. Augustine: It is false, therefore, that the dead are judged also in regard to what they would have done if the gospel had reached them while they were alive…because they die without Baptism that in their case it happens deservedly because God foreknew that if they had lived and the gospel had been preached to them, they would have heard it without belief…that they are held bound by original sin alone, and for this alone they go to damnation; and we see that with others original sin is remitted only through the gratuitous grace of God in regeneration.

Malleus: Ah but this portends that GOD foreknew and thus they are condemned because of unbelief. That doesnt define as universal this doctrine being true in every case. Example: We know likewise that there is no such thing as predestination. That is Why St Augustine clearly states : "because they die without Baptism that in their case " Are you saying that St Augustine is in violation of and in defiance of and believes in Predestination? OR is St Augustine saying that some individuals go to Hell for Unbelief? And do you understand the distinction?

Wow. That’s a lot of questions.
I am saying that St. Augustine believes in real predestination (not protestant) based on freewill. That’s why he says that God foreknew that if they (those outside the Church) had lived, they would have not believed the Gospel even if it had been preached to them.
And also St. Augustine is obviously saying that these souls are not condemned for their unbelief, but because they never had their original sin remitted through regeneration (Baptism).