Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus Explanation Please

[DJim]

Yes, Jesus brings the repentant thief to salvation without water.

And there is the significant question of the physical impossibility of providing suitable Baptismal water of any kind–not to mention an actual minister of Baptism–for those who die before being born…

Thus I suppose all who die before birth–when it is impossible to properly Baptize them–must have no hope of spending eternity with God?

I don’t think so–I would rather believe, along with the Magisterium of the Catholic Church, that we can entrust these innocent unbaptized souls to the mercy of God.

And, further, that we don’t need to believe that the mercy of God can only be made manifest in the presence of water…

And believing this does NOT negate the necessity of Baptism for those for whom Baptism is actually possible. Baptism is the normative path to relationshiop with God and is a tremendous gift of grace to the soul.

But God is good–if He can’t give us a gift in one form, I trust that He will find a way to give it in another…

DJim

 

[Teflon93]

Thus I suppose all who die before birth–when it is impossible to properly Baptize them–must have no hope of spending eternity with God?

I don’t think so–I would rather believe, along with the Magisterium of the Catholic Church, that we can entrust these innocent unbaptized souls to the mercy of God.

And, further, that we don’t need to believe that the mercy of God can only be made manifest in the presence of water…

And believing this does NOT negate the necessity of Baptism for those for whom Baptism is actually possible. Baptism is the normative path to relationshiop with God and is a tremendous gift of grace to the soul.

But God is good–if He can’t give us a gift in one form, I trust that He will find a way to give it in another…

DJim

Excellent points.

We also should note that the Catholic Church teaches that God predestines no one to eternal damnation. He does not create to destroy. With no path to salvation, the tiny martyrs that are the children slaughtered in abortion clinics would be damned as well as murdered.

 

[GerardP]

GerardP writes:

If nothing is impossible with God, why can’t He save without water?

If you say God won’t save without water, then you are saying that, for God, saving without water is impossible…

DJim

Going by your logic then, you believe that God can sin. Correct?

 

[GerardP]

Yes, Jesus brings the repentant thief to salvation without water.

Baptism was not a requirement for salvation until after the Resurrection. See the Catechism of the Council of Trent for that.

Even if it were, there is no evidence that the thief was not already Baptized, since he already knows of Jesus and refers to him as “Lord.” So the whole example of the thief is erroneous.

And there is the significant question of the physical impossibility of providing suitable Baptismal water of any kind–not to mention an actual minister of Baptism–for those who die before being born…

Thus I suppose all who die before birth–when it is impossible to properly Baptize them–must have no hope of spending eternity with God?

Impossible for who? Secondly, we have a teaching on Limbo.
I’m sure God can make a determination on the will of the baby and provide what is “necessary” if they choose salvation.

I don’t think so–I would rather believe, along with the Magisterium of the Catholic Church, that we can entrust these innocent unbaptized souls to the mercy of God.

The mercy of God may determine that those souls would not have made it to Heaven anyway by their own choice. Since they have original sin only, they will be denied the beatific vision but will not suffer any pains of torment.

And, further, that we don’t need to believe that the mercy of God can only be made manifest in the presence of water…

Obviously not, if the mercy of God is found in Limbo. The person without baptism is unable to go to Heaven and simultaneously prevents them from suffering for Eternity in the depths of Hell.

And believing this does NOT negate the necessity of Baptism for those for whom Baptism is actually possible. Baptism is the normative path to relationshiop with God and is a tremendous gift of grace to the soul.

Now, you want to make your own Magisterial statement that is not in any infallible decree. Baptism is necessary for salvation and true and natural water is necessary for Baptism. Trent doesn’t say it’s contingent. Contingent is ruled out by necessity.

But God is good–if He can’t give us a gift in one form, I trust that He will find a way to give it in another…

His version of Good and your version of good just may not be the same thing.

“For my thoughts are not your thoughts: nor your ways my ways, saith the Lord. For as the heavens are exalted above the earth, so are my ways exalted above your ways, and my thoughts above your thoughts.”

 

[GerardP]

God is not bound by His sacraments. Why do we keep trying to bind Him thus?

God does bind himself to His word. I keep wondering why we keep discussing the fallacy that God isn’t giving people a “proper chance” based on our own judgement instead of accepting His.

If a person lives 10 minutes or 100 years God has given them the best amount of time to get to Heaven. God created the world and everything in it for no other purpose than the salvation of souls. Twisting His revealed truth because of emotional appeals to what we determine in our own little minds to be “fair” or just is evidence of a lack of faith in Him.

Years ago Gerry Matatics told me, “If I get to Heaven and I don’t see my daughter there, (referring to his stillborn daughter whom he baptized himself in the hopes that it wasn’t too late) I’m not going to cross my arms and tell God, 'There’s something wrong up here!” That was a lesson in faith and humility for me.

 

[DJim]

Going by your logic then, you believe that God can sin. Correct?

What’s the definition of sin?–That’s right–an offense against God. Right?

Can God offend God? Nope.

The reason that nothing is impossible with God is because God can do everything–but this doesn’t mean He will do everything.

In that sense we agree that God cannot sin–but it is because he can’t contradict Himself and will not sin.

However, you simply can’t claim that for God to save without water is “sinful”. It’s demonstrably NOT sinful, as it’s something He used to do all the time…

In fact, this is why I believe we know with certainty that God does do this without water, when water Baptism is impossible.

It used to be impossible because of time. Today, it is also because of time–for the repentant thief, time ran out before he could receive water baptism.

For those who respond to God’s grace today, but run out of time and therefore are not baptized through no fault of their own, God saves them just as He did the thief on the cross

DJim

 

[GerardP]

I am not intending to ridicule anything except a viewpoint that would on one hand limit the interpretation of an infallible teaching to uphold an erroneous belief while at the same time liberalize the interpretation of a different infallible teaching to uphold the same erroneous belief.

You restrict Trent to mean “water and always water” while simultaneously liberalizing Florence to mean "priests, deacons, laity and SOMETIMES angels and noncorporeal saints…

Why do you do that?

Nothing I have stated is heterodox. So, to call it erroneous is a mistatement on your part. You simply call it absurd because you seem to selective about the miraculous in our world.

I don’t restrict Trent. Trent defines what is “necessary.” To say that something is not “necesary” after what has been defined as “necessary” is a contradiction.

“Leaves room” and “speculates” are the key words there. Aquinas’ speculation never made it into the Decree from the Council of Florence…

You were arguing that it is impossible for Angels to administer sacraments. I quoted Aquinas, are you saying Aquinas is erroneous? If so, show me the anathema.

No lack of respect–just emphasis. I’m sure they would agree they are both dead and living. And that they are as noncorporeal as angels right now…

That doesn’t mean they have no substance.

I actually believe in the “miracle” of God saving with grace alone when it is impossible to save with grace and water.

Why do you think it’s impossible for God to provide what He has decreed is necessary?

In contrast, you interpret a teaching contrary to the interpretation given by the living Magisterium and consequently bind God to have to supply water each time someone is saved through grace. But that’s only half of valid Baptism…

No. I’m referring to the constant and unchangeable teaching of the perennial and infallible Magisterium that can’t be overturn by the authentic and non-infallible Magisterium.

If God can do it by Himself, contrary to the Council of Florence’s statement regarding who is the minister of Baptism (Florence doesn’t include “God” as a potential minister of Baptism), then why can’t God do it without water, contrary to the Council of Trent’s canon on the necessity of water baptism???

Again, Florence doesn’t rule out God. True and natural water being Necessary rules out good wishes.

Operating outside the boundaries of the Council of Florence doesn’t make God a liar, right?

Our Lord himself being the minister of the Sacrament doesn’t break the boundaries of the Truth he has revealed and the definition of Florence or Trent. Our Lord saying, “Water isn’t really necessary.” would be a repudiation of the whole Church and God would be a liar.

Why does operating outside the boundaries of the Council of Trent make God a liar?

Why is this not self-evident? How can Truth contradict Truth?

You don’t see what a slippery slope you’re on.

Perhaps then you have no problem with cookies and milk being confected into the Body and Blood of Our Lord if there is no wine or bread available?

 

[GerardP]

The reason that nothing is impossible with God is because God can do everything–but this doesn’t mean He will do everything.

In that sense we agree that God cannot sin–but it is because he can’t contradict Himself and will not sin.

However, you simply can’t claim that for God to save without water is “sinful”. It’s demonstrably NOT sinful, as it’s something He used to do all the time…

God cannot decieve. So to say that something is “necessary” and that “unless you are baptized with water and the Holy Spirit” you cannot enter the Kingdom of Heaven. And then to turn around and make it untrue would be a lie.

In fact, this is why I believe we know with certainty that God does do this without water, when water Baptism is impossible.

I don’t believe it is ever impossible for the person seeking Him.

It used to be impossible because of time. Today, it is also because of time–for the repentant thief, time ran out before he could receive water baptism.

Are you even reading my posts? I pointed out that St. Dismus was saved under the Old Covenant. Baptism was not insituted as necessary until after the Resurrection.

For those who respond to God’s grace today, but run out of time and therefore are not baptized through no fault of their own, God saves them just as He did the thief on the cross

You’re saying He saves them under the Old Covenant?

 

[GerardP]

Excellent points.

We also should note that the Catholic Church teaches that God predestines no one to eternal damnation. He does not create to destroy. With no path to salvation, the tiny martyrs that are the children slaughtered in abortion clinics would be damned as well as murdered.

I’m sorry that I have to point out a few things that you wrote that don’t make sense.

God does not predestine people for Hell we know that. He also knows that many will not make it to Heaven.

His mercy could be manifest in Limbo or in permitting an infanticide or any other death because it would increase the suffering of the damned.

Babies butchered in abortuaries are not martyrs. They are victims. Martyrs are witnesses for Christ who are killed.

We live in an age where people think we are entitled to Heaven. We aren’t and it’s very difficult to get to. Limbo is a very merciful and just solution to the difficulties that arise.

 

[Teflon93]

God does bind himself to His word. I keep wondering why we keep discussing the fallacy that God isn’t giving people a “proper chance” based on our own judgement instead of accepting His.

If a person lives 10 minutes or 100 years God has given them the best amount of time to get to Heaven. God created the world and everything in it for no other purpose than the salvation of souls. Twisting His revealed truth because of emotional appeals to what we determine in our own little minds to be “fair” or just is evidence of a lack of faith in Him.

Years ago Gerry Matatics told me, “If I get to Heaven and I don’t see my daughter there, (referring to his stillborn daughter whom he baptized himself in the hopes that it wasn’t too late) I’m not going to cross my arms and tell God, 'There’s something wrong up here!” That was a lesson in faith and humility for me.

Exchanged one Law for another, haven’t you?

 

[Teflon93]

I’m sorry that I have to point out a few things that you wrote that don’t make sense.

God does not predestine people for Hell we know that. He also knows that many will not make it to Heaven.

If a child is killed before he or she can be baptised, and if there is no alternate pathway to salvation for them, have they not been predestined to Hell?

His mercy could be manifest in Limbo or in permitting an infanticide or any other death because it would increase the suffering of the damned.

We’re talking about the victim here. What of the child’s soul?

Limbo is not heaven, right?

Babies butchered in abortuaries are not martyrs. They are victims. Martyrs are witnesses for Christ who are killed.

Or perhaps they died to demonstrate our callous disregard for life and call us to repent, in which case they would qualify.

We live in an age where people think we are entitled to Heaven. We aren’t and it’s very difficult to get to. Limbo is a very merciful and just solution to the difficulties that arise.

There is no evidence such a place exists. So who’s creating things based upon their simple notions of fairness now?

 

[GerardP]

Exchanged one Law for another, haven’t you?

Can you expand on that for me? I’m not following you.

 

[GerardP]

If a child is killed before he or she can be baptised, and if there is no alternate pathway to salvation for them, have they not been predestined to Hell?

My point is that while a regular Church baptism with water may not be possible. A miraculous baptism that is perhaps undetectable is not. The availability of this would be determined by God based on his perfect knowledge of the will of the child. Should the child be one that God knows will only go to Hell by their choices, it would be merciful of Him to permit them to die without Baptism and therefore not suffer in Hell.

The point is as long as they were alive they had a moment of will that was responded to by God.

We’re talking about the victim here. What of the child’s soul?

Limbo is not heaven, right?

Correct. But the Church has taught that Limbo would be a state of natural happiness for those within it.

Heaven is not a right. That has to be remembered. No one who doesn’t get to Heaven has been robbed of the chance to go there.

Or perhaps they died to demonstrate our callous disregard for life and call us to repent, in which case they would qualify.

The wages of sin are death. If their will was somehow engaged. If they were infused with knowledge to know their state and given the choice. Then they may qualify as martyrs and the necessary ingredients for salvation (ie. water baptism) would somehow miraculously be provided.

There is no evidence such a place exists. So who’s creating things based upon their simple notions of fairness now?

Certainly you’re not stating that I’m the creator of Limbo are you?

Here’s a helpful article from Fr. Brian Harrison

seattlecatholic.com/a051207.html

 

[DJim]

Baptism was not a requirement for salvation until after the Resurrection. See the Catechism of the Council of Trent for that.

This is exactly the biggest part of the problem–you assume that which you haven’t proven–which is that your interpretation of Trent’s canon on Baptism is correct and that, indeed Baptism is a requirement for salvation.

The Catholic Church has interpreted the canon differently than you have.

Even if it were, there is no evidence that the thief was not already Baptized, since he already knows of Jesus and refers to him as “Lord.” So the whole example of the thief is erroneous.

Not erroneous at all–Jesus didn’t inquire as to his baptismal status and still welcomed him to Paradise.

Impossible for who? Secondly, we have a teaching on Limbo.

No we do NOT have a teaching on limbo–we ONLY have theological opinion or speculation on the concept of limbo. The Magisterium has NEVER taught the authenticity of limbo. Period.

I’m sure God can make a determination on the will of the baby and provide what is “necessary” if they choose salvation.

Then you and I agree–right? God can determine to save someone without using water…

The mercy of God may determine that those souls would not have made it to Heaven anyway by their own choice. Since they have original sin only, they will be denied the beatific vision but will not suffer any pains of torment.

It is not our place to speculate on how God’s mercy works. You have NO idea whether such innocents will be “denied the beatific vision” or not.

Now, you want to make your own Magisterial statement that is not in any infallible decree. Baptism is necessary for salvation and true and natural water is necessary for Baptism. Trent doesn’t say it’s contingent. Contingent is ruled out by necessity.

You are painfully obvious in your inconsistency–Trent can only mean this, but Florence can mean something else other than what it states is the minister of baptism.

You, sir, are wrong.

His version of Good and your version of good just may not be the same thing.

And your version of Trent and HIS may not be the same thing either, according to the Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church…

DJim

 

[DJim]

God does bind himself to His word. I keep wondering why we keep discussing the fallacy that God isn’t giving people a “proper chance” based on our own judgement instead of accepting His.

We’re not arguing over that–we’re arguing over how the Church interprets its own teaching on Baptism, particularly as expressed in the Council of Trent. You erroneously claim that the Church teaches that salvation can only come through water Baptism.

That’s wrong.

Twisting His revealed truth because of emotional appeals to what we determine in our own little minds to be “fair” or just is evidence of a lack of faith in Him.

Well then I would suggest that you heed your own words and stop doing that…

Years ago Gerry Matatics told me, “If I get to Heaven and I don’t see my daughter there, (referring to his stillborn daughter whom he baptized himself in the hopes that it wasn’t too late) I’m not going to cross my arms and tell God, 'There’s something wrong up here!” That was a lesson in faith and humility for me.

Gerry Matatics, too, should heed your words above. That poor man needs to disavow his sedevacantist foolishness and return to the One True Church.

Let’s both pray for his return to the faith, shall we?

DJim

 

[DJim]

Nothing I have stated is heterodox. So, to call it erroneous is a mistatement on your part. You simply call it absurd because you seem to selective about the miraculous in our world.

Your error is in your contradiction of the clear teaching of the Magisterium of the Holy Roman Catholic Church that the means of salvation does not always have to include water.

I don’t restrict Trent. Trent defines what is “necessary.” To say that something is not “necesary” after what has been defined as “necessary” is a contradiction.

Well then STOP doing so with the Council of Florence when it tells you who the minister of baptism is. Don’t go only halfway, go all the way. Trent says water and only water right? Florence says living people and only living people…

You were arguing that it is impossible for Angels to administer sacraments. I quoted Aquinas, are you saying Aquinas is erroneous? If so, show me the anathema.

One does not have to anathematized to be in error–Since Florence comes after Aquinas, it is clear that Florence did not deem his speculation as authentic. It’s ironic how inconsistently you apply Aquinas…

That doesn’t mean they have no substance.

Does the soul have material substance? What good can material water do for a non-material soul? Further, what about the recipient??? Do you insist they are baptized in the flesh? Or not?

Why do you think it’s impossible for God to provide what He has decreed is necessary?

That’s just it–YOU have decreed that God decreed it’s necessary even when it’s not naturally possible. The Church hasn’t decreed that.

No. I’m referring to the constant and unchangeable teaching of the perennial and infallible Magisterium that can’t be overturn by the authentic and non-infallible Magisterium.

\

The Magisterium can NEVER contradict itself and can NEVER teach error in its universal teaching on faith/morals.

You’re saying it can…

Perhaps then you have no problem with cookies and milk being confected into the Body and Blood of Our Lord if there is no wine or bread available?

Not responsive to the issue. Ask me instead if I have a problem with someone baptizing with coffee or soda…

DJim

 

[DJim]

God cannot decieve. So to say that something is “necessary” and that “unless you are baptized with water and the Holy Spirit” you cannot enter the Kingdom of Heaven. And then to turn around and make it untrue would be a lie.

Well, apparently you have an odd threshold for when God lies. Jesus also told us that we can’t enter the Kingdom of Heaven unless we become like little children.

So I guess everyone who grows up is damned.

And in John 6, Jesus says that we have no life within us unless we eat his flesh and drink his blood.

So I guess water baptism is NOT enough after all–Jesus says it’s not in John 6. No one has eternal life without Eucharist too, right? Saying otherwise makes God out to be a liar…

Are you even reading my posts? I pointed out that St. Dismus was saved under the Old Covenant. Baptism was not insituted as necessary until after the Resurrection.

My point is that the barrier was the same in both cases–time–living prior to the New Covenant meant that those people ran out of time and died and could not receive the gift of water baptism.

Likewise, there are those alive today who will run out of time before being able to receive that gift.

I’m also saying that the Magisterium teaches that God can and does fine another way to impart the gift, and the Magisterium does NOT insist that water be involved…

DJim

 

[GerardP]

This is exactly the biggest part of the problem–you assume that which you haven’t proven–which is that your interpretation of Trent’s canon on Baptism is correct and that, indeed Baptism is a requirement for salvation.

The Catholic Church has interpreted the canon differently than you have.

This is getting ridiculous. You are getting into Pyrrhonism at this point. I “interpret” but you seem to know exactly what the Church teaches.

You have “interpreted” what the Catholic Church teaches and I know it to be erroneous.

Not erroneous at all–Jesus didn’t inquire as to his baptismal status and still welcomed him to Paradise.

He didn’t HAVE to. Baptism wasn’t a requirement prior to the Resurrection. Why do you keep ignoring that fact? Read the Catechism of the Council of Trent. It’s written there as a heading all its own.

No we do NOT have a teaching on limbo–we ONLY have theological opinion or speculation on the concept of limbo. The Magisterium has NEVER taught the authenticity of limbo. Period.

We do have a teaching. It’s not a dogmatic fact. Just as Baptism of Blood or Desire is a teaching that is not a dogmatic fact.

Then you and I agree–right? God can determine to save someone without using water…

I would if God through the Church had not infallibly used the word “necessary” Just as it was “necessary” that the Son of Man should sacrifice Himself on the Cross.

It is not our place to speculate on how God’s mercy works. You have NO idea whether such innocents will be “denied the beatific vision” or not.

Why? Read the article I linked. Popes have said that they go straight to Hell and condemned the idea that Limbo is merely a Pelagian Myth.

St. Augustine speculated that infants actually suffer the pains of Hell.

You are painfully obvious in your inconsistency–Trent can only mean this, but Florence can mean something else other than what it states is the minister of baptism. You, sir, are wrong.

Trent says one thing that clearly binds. “Necessary.” Florence opens up the options for the minister of Baptism and prevents one from saying “A priest only.” One Council binds one topic in order to correct and error of liberality, one Council loosens the boundaries in order to correct an error of rigidity.

And your version of Trent and HIS may not be the same thing either, according to the Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church…

DJim

That’s why I’ve been saying that ultimately this issue will have to be dealt with again with a clear ex cathedra pronouncement.

 

[GerardP]

We’re not arguing over that–we’re arguing over how the Church interprets its own teaching on Baptism, particularly as expressed in the Council of Trent. You erroneously claim that the Church teaches that salvation can only come through water Baptism.
That’s wrong.

The Church has infallibly declared that water is necessary. That has a philosophical implication. Theologians are arguing about if there is any other way to understand that teaching. So far, no one has come up with anything and nothing else has been revealed.

Well then I would suggest that you heed your own words and stop doing that…

I’m not twisting anything. I’m taking the Church’s Magisterial statement at their full value. The only way to reconcile those statements, the demands and decrees of Christ is to look to what other resources have been revealed to us. Namely, the miraculous to be hoped for in the case of souls that we can have no assurance of their final destination.

Gerry Matatics, too, should heed your words above. That poor man needs to disavow his sedevacantist foolishness and return to the One True Church.

Let’s both pray for his return to the faith, shall we?

I disagree with Gerry’s stance on the state of the papacy, but I haven’t yet heard his full argument. Sedevacantism is not a heresy. Otherwise a number of saints would have been condemned for being heterodox. But I have heard Gerry’s explanation of Baptism with Magisterial and theological arguments and he provides a compelling case.

The problem with most sedevacantists I’ve encountered is that they have the same mistaken understanding of the papacy and the Magisterium of the Church that the EWTN personalities often espouse. They are just two sides of the same coin.

 

[GerardP]

Your error is in your contradiction of the clear teaching of the Magisterium of the Holy Roman Catholic Church that the means of salvation does not always have to include water.

I’m sorry but that’s just not true. The Magisterium has stated that the Church knows of no other way than Baptism to attain Salvation. And equally that true and natural water is necessary for Baptism. No metaphors.

Well then STOP doing so with the Council of Florence when it tells you who the minister of baptism is. Don’t go only halfway, go all the way. Trent says water and only water right? Florence says living people and only living people…

Florence does not say that. And saints are living people. If Florence had said that a living, breathing human being is necessary to administer Baptism that would rule out Angels. That would still leave open some Saints and Our Lord himself.

One does not have to anathematized to be in error–Since Florence comes after Aquinas, it is clear that Florence did not deem his speculation as authentic. It’s ironic how inconsistently you apply Aquinas…

Aquinas’ speculations weren’t relevant to the discussions. I’m sure if someone had brought it up, it may have been dealt with.
You are telling me that the speculation is heterodox and I’m telling you it isn’t. Because Aquinas isn’t heterodox.

In either case, Aquinas on Angels or Aquinas on Baptism of Desire, neither one was chosen by any Councils for defining.

Does the soul have material substance? What good can material water do for a non-material soul? Further, what about the recipient??? Do you insist they are baptized in the flesh? Or not?

The soul and the body are one which is why we will spend Eternity with our bodies from the time of the Last Judgement onwards into Eternity.

Yes. They must be baptized in the flesh. Water mush touch them and move across them. I don’t care if it’s microscopic.

That’s just it–YOU have decreed that God decreed it’s necessary even when it’s not naturally possible. The Church hasn’t decreed that.

That’s because the whole argument of “not possible” is pure speculation. God will get the good souls who seek him out into the Church before they die. One way or the other, directly like you and I or miraculously like the Ethiopian Eunuch or even more miraculously by getting people that we would see no practical way for them to have been Baptized.

The Magisterium can NEVER contradict itself and can NEVER teach error in its universal teaching on faith/morals.

You’re saying it can…

I’m saying that the Authentic Magisterium is simply the Pope speaking as an individual theologian is fallible. John the 22nd preaching error from the pulpit.

The ordinary infallible and the extraordinary infallible Magisterium of the Church cannot be wrong. If there is a conflict with the authentic Magisterium, you go with the infallible.

Not responsive to the issue. Ask me instead if I have a problem with someone baptizing with coffee or soda…

What wrong with coffee or soda when water isn’t possible? Good wishes will suffice. Right?

Actually soda like seltzer water or something that might pass as water would be licit to attempt with if someone were near death. A conditional baptism would be required if the person survived.