Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus Explanation Please

[GerardP]

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.

No. You’re not being careful with what the words say. Becoming “like” little children isn’t the same as “unless you are a little child.”

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…

That’s worth exploring because Christ also said for the Apostles to “teach all things” If His Flesh and Blood are required elements I’m sure He would provide them. Byzantine Baptisms contain intinctures of the Holy Eucharist and confirmation as well.

Who knows? You may have just opened up a new set of questions to be eventually addressed by the Magisterium if it hasn’t addressed it yet.

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.

They had a different Covenant to take care of them. A New Covenant was established and superceded by Christ in fulfillment of the Old. They had their mechanism to take care of them. We have Ours/His.

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

I firmly believe that God provides enough time for them. An Angel or saint can do things between two seconds that we would not be able to comprehend.

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…

No. The Magisterium speculates in its authentic voice that they have no idea what God may or may not provide. Definitively we know that no Baptism means no Heaven.

If anything nowadays, the Churchmen are undefining things and telling people not to think about it theologically at all. The Church knows of no other way into the Church than through Baptism. There are no Protestant or Buddhist or Hindu saints. We don’t know if there ever was a “baptism of desire” in reality it’s a pious, though I believe according to sacramental theology flawed belief.

I’m simply providing through the teaching on the reality of miracles and a long line of standard teachings that the salvation of souls without our personal knowledge of baptism is possible not because they haven’t had a baptism but because they have had a miraculous baptism that we weren’t privvy to.

I don’t have to think that God has to break His revealed truth because he failed to give someone a fair chance. I don’t have to twist the word “necessary” into the word “contingent” Trent holds, the doctrine of the Church holds securely and God’s mercy is easily hoped and prayed for. There’s no watering down of faith or bleak Puritanical damning going on.

 

[DJim]

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.

The above is highly erroneous–the Church, since Trent, has truthfully taught how we are to interpret the “necessity” of Baptism. TRENT even taught, in its decree on justification, that water was NOT necessary relative to baptism of desire!

CHAPTER IV
A BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE JUSTIFICATION OF THE SINNER AND ITS MODE IN THE STATE OF GRACE

In which words is given a brief description of the justification of the sinner, as being a translation from that state in which man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace and of the adoption of the sons of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Savior.

This translation however cannot, since promulgation of the Gospel, be effected except through the laver of regeneration or its desire, as it is written:

Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.[18]

If Trent itself teaches that water is not always necessary, why then can’t you?

The question about unbaptized people who cannot themselves “desire” baptism is indeed an OPEN question.

The “common doctrine” of infants’ limbo was indeed built upon theological opnion alone. There is no “revelation” on this issue in the deposit of faith.

But that “openness” works BOTH ways–you are indeed free to hold the opnion that perhaps God does miraculous things to bring water baptism to those cannot naturally receive it. What you are NOT free to believe is that this is anything more than a THEORY on how God works.

Such a view is NOT dogma and you must, as well, acknowledge that others who rely merely on God’s mercy without water are on equal footing.

You cannot dogmatize your opinion.

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.

No, you are changing the meaning of the Council of Trent. Trent’s teaching makes clear that the term “necessary” is NOT absolute. It teaches that “desire” is an exception. So the word “necessary” cannot mean “absolutely necessary” any more than Florence teaches–as you assert–that ONLY living persons can baptize.

The baptism canon of Trent IS contingent–according to Trent itself.

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.

Uh–anyone who says the real pope is NOT the real pope is INDEED committing heresy…Sedevacantism is heretical.

DJim

 

[DJim]

A few points on the Council of Trent pertaining to claims made in this thread:

Trent on Sacraments:

Canon IV. If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous; and that, without them, or without the desire thereof, men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification;-though all (the sacraments) are not indeed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema.

Trent on Baptism:

Canon I. If any one saith, that the baptism of John had the same force as the baptism of Christ; let him be anathema.

Canon II. If any one saith, that true and natural water is not of necessity for baptism, and, on that account, wrests, to some sort of metaphor, those words of our Lord Jesus Christ; Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost; let him be anathema.

Canon III. If any one saith, that in the Roman church, which is the mother and mistress of all churches, there is not the true doctrine concerning the sacrament of baptism; let him be anathema.

Canon IV. If any one saith, that the baptism which is even given by heretics in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, with the intention of doing what the Church doth, is not true baptism; let him be anathema.

Canon V. If any one saith, that baptism is free, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema.

I would like to point out that:

1. Trent says ALL sacraments are “necessary unto salvation”–not just Baptism.
2. Trent also says that all sacraments are not necessary for every individual–which should be obvious. But it should be noted that Trent does NOT make Baptism an exception to this principle. That is, Trent does not say specifically that even Baptism–as Sacrament–is necessary for every individual.
3. Trent says specifically that water is necessary for the Sacrament of Baptism.
4. Trent then says in a separate canon that Baptism is not “free” but “necessary unto salvation.”
5. Trent does NOT say that water baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation.

Can we all see what’s going on here?

ALL Sacraments are called by Trent as “necessary unto salvation”, and Trent does NOT stress that water baptism is to be understood as any more or less necessary than the rest of the Sacraments.

Trent also admits that baptism of desire is possible, distinct from Sacramental baptism, in its decree on justification.

ALL Sacraments are necessary for salvation.

Penance, for example, is described in that way. Yet, just like baptism, the decree on penance mentions that the desire for the Sacrament (a la perfect contrition) can suffice when reception of the Sacrament is not possible.

Does this mean that those who believe in the miracle of water baptism and its minister being provided for those who require it would ALSO insist that Catholics impeded from receiving “natural” Sacramental Penance will somehow, as a rule, receive Penance before death from a miraculously provided priest???

In any case, Trent is very clear on this–Baptism has no more of an absolute necessity placed upon it than do the other Sacraments, ALL of which it says are “necessary unto salvation.”

And, it goes without saying that water is needed as valid matter for valid Sacramental Baptism. But Trent does not say water baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation.

The Church’s Magisterium has always understood this.

I believe I will start a thread shortly on the topic of this year’s publication of the Pope’s International Theological Commission on the “limbo” issue. It’s very intriguing.

Oh, and btw, that ITC document cites the 1949 letter from the Holy See to Boston regarding Fr. Feeney (Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston, DS 3870; ND 855). Apparently it most certainly has magisterial weight, despite what folks have said to the contrary…I believe the DS 3870 citation indicates the letter to be among the Acts of the Apostolic See?

DJim

 

[bobzills]

ALL Sacraments are necessary for salvation.

I think that this is clearly false.
For example, a priest or a baptised infant can be saved without receiving the Sacrament of Matrimony.

 

[DJim]

I think that this is clearly false.
For example, a priest or a baptised infant can be saved without receiving the Sacrament of Matrimony.

Here’s the Canon from Trent:

Canon IV. If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous; and that, without them, or without the desire thereof, men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification;-though all (the sacraments) are not indeed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema.

Trent says “the sacraments of the New Law” are “necessary unto salvation.” Right? And by that phrase it means that they are “not indeed necessary for every individual.”

You see the point–Trent does NOT mean absolutely necessary for salvation when it uses the phrase “necessary unto salvation”.

Trent says “ALL” the sacraments are necessary for salvation, anathematizing those who disagree…

DJim

PS–oh, and notice the “desire thereof” part too–for all the Sacraments necessary for salvation!

 

[bobzills]

Trent says “ALL” the sacraments are necessary for salvation, anathematizing those who disagree…

DJim

PS–oh, and notice the “desire thereof” part too–for all the Sacraments necessary for salvation!

I guess that this is a mistake, since a priest or an infant can be saved without desiring the Sacrament of Matrimony.

 

[DJim]

I guess that this is a mistake, since a priest or an infant can be saved without desiring the Sacrament of Matrimony.

The text is clear–the canon says all the sacraments are necessary for salvation, but not all the sacraments are necessary for every individual.

This raise the question as to what Trent really means by “necessary for salvation”–and raises the issue of how a Sacrament (or the “desire” for it) which is not necessary for every individual are necessarily salvific for all.

The answer is, I think, rather simple: When Trent uses the phrase “necessary unto salvation,” the meaning relates to the Church as a whole first.

Only if we keep in mind that Trent was defending against those who were attempting to discard the Sacraments will this really make sense.

Trent, in saying Baptism is “necessary unto salvation”, is defending against the Protestant view that would dismiss the Sacrament entirely. But Trent is NOT addressing the specific question of whether water Baptism is absolutely necessary for individual salvation in all cases.

All Sacraments or the personal desire for them–including Baptism–are necessary unto salvation for the Church and can’t be discarded.

This doesn’t mean that all must “desire” all Sacraments or “receive” all Sacraments.

DJim

 

[GerardP]

The above is highly erroneous–the Church, since Trent, has truthfully taught how we are to interpret the “necessity” of Baptism. TRENT even taught, in its decree on justification, that water was NOT necessary relative to baptism of desire!

Good Morning! I hope you had a nice weekend.

I find this quite funny since reading your later posts in this thread show you struggling to interpret Trent according to what you believe to be true instead of trying to reconcile the infallible words of Trent with what appears to be contradictory to you.

If Trent itself teaches that water is not always necessary, why then can’t you?

You’re applying Trent’s teaching on Justification to Trent’s teaching on Baptism. You’re confusing things.

The question about unbaptized people who cannot themselves “desire” baptism is indeed an OPEN question

The “common doctrine” of infants’ limbo was indeed built upon theological opnion alone. There is no “revelation” on this issue in the deposit of faith.

There is no revelation on Baptism of Desire either. On the contrary, there are ex cathedra pronouncements explicitly condemning the idea (see Cantate Domino)

But that “openness” works BOTH ways–you are indeed free to hold the opnion that perhaps God does miraculous things to bring water baptism to those cannot naturally receive it. What you are NOT free to believe is that this is anything more than a THEORY on how God works.

I’m just as free to believe that God does nothing miraculous to save those that didn’t get a chance for a regular Baptism because they never sought it even implicitly. I’m also just as free to believe that the “speculative” person who never heard of Christ yet was somehow miraculously sincere never existed or never can exist.

Such a view is NOT dogma and you must, as well, acknowledge that others who rely merely on God’s mercy without water are on equal footing.

You cannot dogmatize your opinion.

I can speak dogmatically about the dogma. Water is absolutely necessary. You want to hold an error. You can hold an error either culpably or inculpably. But you can’t force me to accept a contradiction in Trent because your interpretation of Trent is contradictory.

No, you are changing the meaning of the Council of Trent. Trent’s teaching makes clear that the term “necessary” is NOT absolute. It teaches that “desire” is an exception.

For JUSTIFICATION only. Justification is not the same thing as salvation. Protestants hold that justification is the same as salvation. We don’t.

So the word “necessary” cannot mean “absolutely necessary” any more than Florence teaches–as you assert–that ONLY living persons can baptize.

Anything not absolutely necessary is contingent and therefore not necessary. You are trying to hold a contradiction.

You are further asserting that Angels and Saints are not alive and able to function for God’s purposes. Nothing like that has ever been ruled out by the Church or proposes a contradiction in any Church teaching.

The baptism canon of Trent IS contingent–according to Trent itself.

The Baptism canon of Trent is absolute. The Justification section of Trent is absolute about justification.

Uh–anyone who says the real pope is NOT the real pope is INDEED committing heresy…Sedevacantism is heretical.

DJim

Start another thread on this topic if you want. As it is you are wrong and simultaneously condemning St. Vincent Ferrer for supporting an anti-Pope during the Great Schism.

 

[DJim]

You’re applying Trent’s teaching on Justification to Trent’s teaching on Baptism. You’re confusing things.

You mean you’re not supposed to apply one teaching to another? Wow…

There is no revelation on Baptism of Desire either. On the contrary, there are ex cathedra pronouncements explicitly condemning the idea (see Cantate Domino)

Your interpretation of CD as “condemning” Baptism of Desire is ludicrious.

I’m just as free to believe that God does nothing miraculous to save those that didn’t get a chance for a regular Baptism because they never sought it even implicitly. I’m also just as free to believe that the “speculative” person who never heard of Christ yet was somehow miraculously sincere never existed or never can exist.

Indeed you are. But must believe with the assent of divine faith that God gives everyone sufficient grace for salvation. MUST.

I can speak dogmatically about the dogma. Water is absolutely necessary. You want to hold an error. You can hold an error either culpably or inculpably. But you can’t force me to accept a contradiction in Trent because your interpretation of Trent is contradictory.

Trent does NOT teach that water is absolutely necessary. I have demonstrated as much. Trent teaches that for the Sacrament of Baptism, natural water is (obviously) necessary.

Trent also teaches that ALL Sacraments are necessary for salvation.

For JUSTIFICATION only. Justification is not the same thing as salvation. Protestants hold that justification is the same as salvation. We don’t.

I agree. Sacramental Baptism and baptism of desire both successfully “justify” the individual. Now all you have to do is properly interpret what Trent means by “necessary for salvation,” and I think you’ll have it.

Anything not absolutely necessary is contingent and therefore not necessary. You are trying to hold a contradiction.

Nope. You’re trying to hold Trent to a false definition of the term “necessary unto salvation”…

You are further asserting that Angels and Saints are not alive and able to function for God’s purposes. Nothing like that has ever been ruled out by the Church or proposes a contradiction in any Church teaching.

Never said that–angels and saints or more alive than the rest of us. My point was that you are inconsistently interpreting the canons. To apply rigid and absolute view to Florence’s teaching on the minister of Baptism yields the result of excluding angels and noncorporeal saints from being proper ministers of Baptism.

The Baptism canon of Trent is absolute. The Justification section of Trent is absolute about justification.

The Baptism canon cannot legitimately be viewed as absolute.

Start another thread on this topic if you want. As it is you are wrong and simultaneously condemning St. Vincent Ferrer for supporting an anti-Pope during the Great Schism.

If St. Vincent Ferrer was at one time a sedevacantist, his sedevacantist view should be condemned.

DJim

 

[DJim]

GerardP–

Focusing attention on one question about Trent–

What does it mean when it says ALL Sacraments (or the desire thereof) are “necessary unto salvation”?

DJim

 

[GerardP]

You mean you’re not supposed to apply one teaching to another? Wow…

What do you mean “wow?” The various teachings of the Church are specific to their object. You seem want to apply basically the perfect act of contrition which can remit sin and apply that to convey the baptismal mark that the sacrament conveys.

Your interpretation of CD as “condemning” Baptism of Desire is ludicrious.

Not at all. Can you show me where Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood are implicitly endorsed by Cantate Domino?

Indeed you are. But must believe with the assent of divine faith that God gives everyone sufficient grace for salvation. MUST.

I do believe that. And also believe that God is not so lazy as to allow it to be “impossible” for someone lead by that grace not to enter the Church.

Trent does NOT teach that water is absolutely necessary. I have demonstrated as much. Trent teaches that for the Sacrament of Baptism, natural water is (obviously) necessary.

Trent:
If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism and thus twists into some metaphor the words of Our Lord Jesus Christ: “Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven,” let him be anathema. [Canon 2 of the Canons on Baptism, 7th Session, Sacrament of Baptism]

861 Can. 5. If anyone shall say that** baptism **is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation: let him be anathema [cf. n.796 ].

Trent also teaches that ALL Sacraments are necessary for salvation.

But Trent qualifies that. I don’t need Holy Orders but as an adult, I do need someone in my life who has recieved Holy Orders in order to stay in sacramental union with the Church in order to be saved.

I agree. Sacramental Baptism and baptism of desire both successfully “justify” the individual. Now all you have to do is properly interpret what Trent means by “necessary for salvation,” and I think you’ll have it.

The Sacrament of Baptism is what puts the indelible mark on the soul and opens up Heaven. That mark cannot be wished for. It is necessary to have it through the sacrament of Baptism.

Nope. You’re trying to hold Trent to a false definition of the term “necessary unto salvation”…

Never said that–angels and saints or more alive than the rest of us. My point was that you are inconsistently interpreting the canons. To apply rigid and absolute view to Florence’s teaching on the minister of Baptism yields the result of excluding angels and noncorporeal saints from being proper ministers of Baptism.

I’m rigid on Trent because Trent is rigid. I’m allowed by Florence to speculate on the noncorporeal agents of God (or the glorified corporeal agents) to administer certain sacraments because Florence doesn’t cut off the possibility and no later Council cuts it off either.

Trent cuts off the reduction of Baptism to metaphorical uses by condemning anyone who doesn’t take Our Lord literally.

Desire is mentioned in Trent only in regards to justification not salvation.

You’re either faced with a contradictory Trent and nothing means much of anything anymore or, you have to reconcile Trent’s dealing with justification as something different from salvation itself.

The Baptism canon cannot legitimately be viewed as absolute.

Yes it can. If you can, take a look at some of Fr. Feeney’s writings on the subject and if you want to point out some things you think are errors, please share them. I’m open to listening.

I’ve read the various arguments against his arguments from those written by the SSPX to the various non-“ultratraditionalists” apologetics sites.

So far, Fr. Feeney has had the strongest argument as far as I can tell.

If St. Vincent Ferrer was at one time a sedevacantist, his sedevacantist view should be condemned.

There’s no “if” about it. He thought the wrong man was the Pope. And he thought the right man wasn’t the Pope. That is the position of many sedevacantists.

It’s not a heresy.

 

[GerardP]

GerardP–

Focusing attention on one question about Trent–

What does it mean when it says ALL Sacraments (or the desire thereof) are “necessary unto salvation”?

DJim

You’ll find the answer in Canon III:

*-If any one saith, that these seven sacraments are in such wise equal to each other, as that one is not in any way more worthy than another; let him be anathema. *

Baptism is absolute.

Penance is not absolute except for the defiled after Baptism.

From the 10th session.

*For, by baptism putting on Christ, we are made therein entirely a new creature, obtaining a full and entire remission of all sins: unto which newness and entireness, however, we are no ways able to arrive by the sacrament of Penance, without many tears and great labours on our parts, the divine justice demanding this; so that penance has justly been called by holy Fathers a laborious kind of baptism. And this sacrament of Penance is, for those who have fallen after baptism, necessary unto salvation; as baptism itself is for those who have not as yet been regenerated. *

The necessity of contrition is the “desire of” regarding Penance. The adult who has attained the use of reason must have the “desire of” Baptism in order for it to be effective. Godparents or the baptizer supply the intent for the unaware baptized.

Again from Trent:

This movement of* contrition was at all times necessary for obtaining the pardon of sins;** and, in one who has fallen after baptism, it then at length prepares for the remissions of sins, when it is united with confidence in the divine mercy, **and with the desire of performing *the other things which are required for rightly receiving this sacrament.

As you can see “desire of” doesn’t confer the sacrament. It’s a condition that is required for the proper reception of the sacrament.

 

[DJim]

What do you mean “wow?” The various teachings of the Church are specific to their object. You seem want to apply basically the perfect act of contrition which can remit sin and apply that to convey the baptismal mark that the sacrament conveys.

Are you really trying to assert that God can only “justify” and not save someone who does not bear the “mark” of Baptism?

Do you insist that all who are in Heaven bear the “mark” of Baptism?

I said "wow, btw, because I thought it was obvious that the two canons are related and illuminate one another–they are not taught in isolation, which is what you seem to suggest.

Not at all. Can you show me where Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood are implicitly endorsed by Cantate Domino?

You cannot show me where they are explicitly condemned–that suffices to prove that CD does not condemn them. There is no positive reference made for us to consider. Therefore, they are not condemned by CD.

I do believe that. And also believe that God is not so lazy as to allow it to be “impossible” for someone lead by that grace not to enter the Church.

Just as long as God does it YOUR way…right? He’s got to use water–your way.

Trent:
If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism and thus twists into some metaphor the words of Our Lord Jesus Christ: “Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven,” let him be anathema. [Canon 2 of the Canons on Baptism, 7th Session, Sacrament of Baptism]

Thanks for proving my point–again. Water is necessary for baptism. Baptism, just as ALL Sacraments are, is necessary for salvation.

But this does not translate into “the only way somebody gets to Heaven is through baptism with REAL water.”

Trent NEVER says that!

But Trent qualifies that. I don’t need Holy Orders but as an adult, I do need someone in my life who has recieved Holy Orders in order to stay in sacramental union with the Church in order to be saved.

No, the point you have yet to address directly is that Trent says ALL Sacraments are “necessary for salvation.” And that, YES, “Trent qualifies that.” That’s exactly right. IOW, Trent gives us the interpretation of the phrase “necessary for salvation” as it is used in the Council.

In the Canon on Baptism, we must apply the same “qualification” TRENT applies when it states just how all Sacraments are necessary for salvation–the phrase is NOT intended to imply that all MUST physically receive ALL sacraments in order to be saved personally. The phrase “necessary for salvation” is BROAD–it refers to the life of the Church, not to the life of the individual, in this context.

Why won’t you admit this?

DJim

 

[DJim]

The Sacrament of Baptism is what puts the indelible mark on the soul and opens up Heaven. That mark cannot be wished for. It is necessary to have it through the sacrament of Baptism.

Yes, but the indelible mark of Baptism is NOT necessary for entry into Heaven. Or, if one were to say it is, then one would have to say that God supernaturally provides that mark via something other than water Baptism for the holy ones in heaven who predated baptism.

I’m rigid on Trent because Trent is rigid. I’m allowed by Florence to speculate on the noncorporeal agents of God (or the glorified corporeal agents) to administer certain sacraments because Florence doesn’t cut off the possibility and no later Council cuts it off either.

False. NEITHER Council provides an absolute. BOTH Trent and Florence teach with the same rigidity. You’re simply stuck, if you are consistent. The only way to maintain your error is to remain inconsistent–insisting Florence has “wiggle room” while Trent does not. Why? Got me. There’s nothing in the Florence text that says there may be “other” ministers. Just as in Trent there’s nothing that says there may be other ways to be saved (right?)

Trent cuts off the reduction of Baptism to metaphorical uses by condemning anyone who doesn’t take Our Lord literally.

Yes, we take Our Lord literally, in the sense that HE meant–which is up to the Magisterium–not us–to decide. Following Trent, the Magisterium has made clear what Trent meant. Or do you not take our Lord literally when He says “He who hears you, hears me”???

Desire is mentioned in Trent only in regards to justification not salvation.

That’s really not accurate. Trent mentions “desire” in the Canon stating that ALL Sacraments are necessary for salvation.

Want to comment on that?

You’re either faced with a contradictory Trent and nothing means much of anything anymore or, you have to reconcile Trent’s dealing with justification as something different from salvation itself.

There’s no contradiction. You just have to take Trent’s interpretation of “necessary unto salvation” at face value and not make up your own interpretation…

Yes it can. If you can, take a look at some of Fr. Feeney’s writings on the subject and if you want to point out some things you think are errors, please share them. I’m open to listening.

You’re the Feeney expert. Produce some quotes and we’ll discuss. The quote I rely on is the Magisterial document which says that Feeney was in error–the 1949 Letter from the Holy See.

Perhaps you should check out the thread on the ITC 2007 statement on unbaptized infants…

There’s no “if” about it. He thought the wrong man was the Pope. And he thought the right man wasn’t the Pope. That is the position of many sedevacantists.

It’s not a heresy.

You’re just stating that for comic effect, right? 'Cause, that’s funny. There is NO confusion regarding who is Pope today. Sedevacantism is an extreme form of schism if not outright heresy. Both are to be condemned.

DJim

 

[bobzills]

Sedevacantism is an extreme form of schism if not outright heresy.

I don;t believe this is true at all. For example, during the time when a Pope is being elected, there is no Pope and the seat is vacant and there is nothing wrong with being a sedevacantist during that time. You are neither a schismatic nor a heretic if you are a sedevacantist during the period after the death of one pope and before the election of another.

 

[DJim]

I don;t believe this is true at all. For example, during the time when a Pope is being elected, there is no Pope and the seat is vacant and there is nothing wrong with being a sedevacantist during that time. You are neither a schismatic nor a heretic if you are a sedevacantist during the period after the death of one pope and before the election of another.

Oh, please–let’s be reasonable in discourse. You can’t compare the interim period between papal elections with the situation arising when a Pope IS elected and overtly rejected by a sedevacantist.

To reject a Pope deliberately is an act of schism, and possibly, depending on an individual’s reasons for doing so, heresy.

Don’t try to sugar coat a grave error against the faith.

DJim

 

[Genesis315]

Oh, please–let’s be reasonable in discourse. You can’t compare the interim period between papal elections with the situation arising when a Pope IS elected and overtly rejected by a sedevacantist.

To reject a Pope deliberately is an act of schism, and possibly, depending on an individual’s reasons for doing so, heresy.

Don’t try to sugar coat a grave error against the faith.

DJim

I would say it’s at least material schism. During the Great Western Schism when there were a couple antipopes, there were Saints on different sides before it was healed–St. Catherine of Siena supported the real Pope while St. Vincent Ferrer supported one of the antipopes. He was technically in material schism, although most people find him to have been in good faith.

The only heresy that most modern sedevacantists could be guilty of is denying the permanence and indefectibility of the Church of Rome or the Chair of St. Peter–but that’s debatable. (some really out-there versions hold to actual heresies, like Mary being present substantially in the Eucharist along with Jesus).

 

[bobzills]

Don’t try to sugar coat a grave error against the faith.

You made a blanket statement that sedevacantism is heresy and schismatic. My contention is that there are time when it is neither, and that it is the only logical and reasonable position.

 

[DJim]

You made a blanket statement that sedevacantism is heresy and schismatic. My contention is that there are time when it is neither, and that it is the only logical and reasonable position.

In context, the term applied to the belief that the “see is vacant” when in fact it is NOT vacant.

You ripped out the context and left the term and then applied the term to something else.

I understand the term is connected to the interim between papal elections, but my “blanket” statement was clearly focused on the specific belief that there is no Pope when in fact there IS a pope.

Back on topic:

I have yet to hear from any “absolute water baptism” believers regarding Trent’s own interpretation of “necessary for salvation” as applied to all Sacraments.

Want to give it a shot?

DJim

 

[ToMo]

GerardP–you seem to be willing to get into an argument with Pope Pius IX over this issue. HE is the one who said:

Care to re-consider your erroneous, overly rigid interpretation in light of the clear teaching of a 19th-Century pope?

DJim

I don’t think that Gerard’s interpretation is overly rigid; that argument might be better aimed at this statement from Unam Sanctam: “We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”

To me, it doesn’t seem like there is much room for interpretation there…the statement is simple and forceful…look at the words used: ABSOLUTELY, NECESSARY, EVERY, and SUBJECT (which is defined as “under the authority or control of.”)

This statement has to be as true now as it was then…the truth is immutable…2+2=4 today, as it did 500 years ago, as it will 500 years hence.