How do we read Vatican II in the light of tradition that comes out of the Council of Trent?

[Melchior_1]

As stated in the International Theological Commission’s document on the question:

• Because children below the age of reason did not commit actual sin, theologians came to the common view that these unbaptized children feel no pain at all or even that they enjoy a full, though only natural, happiness** through their mediated union with God in all natural goods** (Thomas Aquinas, Duns Scotus)*

Hell is zero union with God, so if there is union there they must be in Heaven. My earlier quote from Aquinas also indicates he thought even adults could have baptism by desire, albeit with purgatory involved.

In its 1980 instruction on children’s baptism the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith: “with regard to children who die without having received baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as indeed she does in the funeral rite established for them,”

International Theological Commission strikes again: *Our conclusion is that the many factors that we have considered above give serious theological and liturgical grounds for hope that unbaptized infants who die will be saved and enjoy the beatific vision. We emphasize that these are reasons for prayerful hope, rather than grounds for sure knowledge. There is much that simply has not been revealed to us. We live by faith and hope in the God of mercy and love who has been revealed to us in Christ, and the Spirit moves us to pray in constant thankfulness and joy.

What has been revealed to us is that the ordinary way of salvation is by the sacrament of baptism. None of the above considerations should be taken as qualifying the necessity of baptism or justifying delay in administering the sacrament. Rather, as we want to reaffirm in conclusion, they provide strong grounds for hope that God will save infants when we have not been able to do for them what we would have wished to do, namely, to baptize them into the faith and life of the Church. *

Also, please tell me, if there is no baptism of desire and/or baptism of blood, why do these guys have a feast day?

 

[Melchior_1]

Also, please tell me, if there is no baptism of desire and/or baptism of blood, why do these guys have a feast day?

Now that I think about it, this guy was never baptized either.

 

[T_More]

Now that I think about it, this guy was never baptized either.

These examples happened under the old covenant law. Christ had not ascended into heaven, and the Holy Ghost had not yet descended at Pentecost.

 

[Melchior_1]

These examples happened under the old covenant law. Christ had not ascended into heaven, and the Holy Ghost had not yet descended at Pentecost.

You’re getting pretty decent at only commenting on one thing and ignoring the rest.

Further, does this mean that all those under “the old law” were “baptized” before entering Heaven?

 

[T_More]

You’re getting pretty decent at only commenting on one thing and ignoring the rest.

Further, does this mean that all those under “the old law” were “baptized” before entering Heaven?

If I’ve missed something, please forgive me. I have had a difficult time keeping up with all the redirects.

Show me what I failed to answer and I will attempt once again to show what the Church has said in the past… All that I ask is that you apply the same.

I have presented quotes from at least 5 councils and many encyclicals throughout this thread. Very recently, you linked a PDF from a sedevacantist, Fr. Cekada, with quotes from 25 theologians and 2 doctors who are not infallible. I can quote many, many early church fathers stating quite plainly nothing that resembles bapsitm of desire/blood. In fact, quite the opposite. So where does that leave us? We must turn to “Peter”:

Pope St. Leo the Great, dogmatic letter to Flavian, Council of Chalcedon, 451: “Let him heed what the blessed apostle Peter preaches, that sanctification by the Spirit is effected by the sprinkling of Christ’s blood (1 Pet. 1:2); and let him not skip over the same apostle’s words, knowing that you have been redeemed from the empty way of life you inherited from your fathers, not with corruptible gold and silver but by the precious blood of Jesus Christ, as of a lamb without stain or spot (1 Pet. 1:18). Nor should he withstand the testimony of blessed John the apostle: and the blood of Jesus, the Son of God, purifies us from every sin (1 Jn. 1:7);
and again, This is the victory which conquers the world, our faith. Who is there who conquers the world save one who believes that Jesus is the Son of God? It is He, Jesus Christ, who has come through water and blood, not in water only, but in water and blood. And because the Spirit is truth, it is the Spirit who testifies. For there are three who give testimony – Spirit and water and blood. And the three are one. (1 Jn. 5:4‐8) IN OTHER WORDS, THE SPIRIT OF SANCTIFICATION AND THE BLOOD OF REDEMPTION AND THE WATER OF BAPTISM. THESE THREE ARE ONE AND REMAIN INDIVISIBLE. NONE OF THEM IS SEPARABLE FROM ITS LINK WITH THE OTHERS.”

This is the famous letter which, when read aloud at the dogmatic Council of Chalcedon, caused all of the fathers of the council (more than 600) to rise to their feet and proclaim: “This is the faith of the Fathers, the faith of the apostles; Peter has spoken through the mouth of Leo.”

…and to reinforce the power of this decree, ANOTHER infallible statement to reiterate Pope St. Leo the Great’s letter…

Pope St. Gelasius, Decretal, 495: “Also the epistle of blessed Leo the Pope to Flavian… if anyone argues concerning the text of this one even in regard to one iota, and does not receive it in all respects reverently, let him be anathema.”

 

[Melchior_1]

You say on one hand to turn to “Peter”, yet you reject our last three Pope’s stance on this issue. Turn to “Peter”, yet reject the last Ecumenical Council which contained a Dogmatic Constitution.

The question at this point becomes how to connect what our current Pope says, and reconcile it with what you have posted. And also what the following people say;
*
“Baptism, the door and foundation of the Sacraments, in fact or at least in desire necessary unto salvation for all, is not validly conferred except through the ablution of true and natural water with the prescribed form of words.” (Canon 737)*

*“Those who have died without baptism are not to be given ecclesiastical burial. Catechumens who die without baptism through no fault of their own are to be counted among the baptized.” (Canon 1239) 1917 Code of Canon Law

“A person outside the Church by his own fault, and who dies without perfect contrition, will not be saved. But he who finds himself outside without fault of his own, and who lives a good life, can be saved by the love called charity, which unites unto God, and in a spiritual way also to the Church, that is, to the soul of the Church.” Pope St. Pius X, Catechism of Christian Doctrine*

*“17 Q: Can the absence of Baptism be supplied in any other way?
A: The absence of Baptism can be supplied by martyrdom, which is called Baptism of Blood, or by an act of perfect love of God, or of contrition, along with the desire, at least implicit, of Baptism, and this is called Baptism of Desire.” **Catechism of Pope St. Pius X, The Sacraments - Baptism, Necessity of Baptism and Obligations of the Baptized ***

So at this point we need to look at the following; has the Ordinary Magisterium declared the threefold Baptism? If yes, then this case is closed.

 

[T_More]

You say on one hand to turn to “Peter”, yet you reject our last three Pope’s stance on this issue. Turn to “Peter”, yet reject the last Ecumenical Council which contained a Dogmatic Constitution.

You cannot get more plain than the last quote I just posted, as well as what the other councils have decreed.

The question at this point becomes how to connect what our current Pope says, and reconcile it with what you have posted. And also what the following people say;
*
“Baptism, the door and foundation of the Sacraments, in fact or at least in desire necessary unto salvation for all, is not validly conferred except through the ablution of true and natural water with the prescribed form of words.” (Canon 737)*

“Those who have died without baptism are not to be given ecclesiastical burial. Catechumens who die without baptism through no fault of their own are to be counted among the baptized.” (Canon 1239) 1917 Code of Canon Law

“A person outside the Church by his own fault, and who dies without perfect contrition, will not be saved. But he who finds himself outside without fault of his own, and who lives a good life, can be saved by the love called charity, which unites unto God, and in a spiritual way also to the Church, that is, to the soul of the Church.” Pope St. Pius X, Catechism of Christian Doctrine

*“17 Q: Can the absence of Baptism be supplied in any other way?
A: The absence of Baptism can be supplied by martyrdom, which is called Baptism of Blood, or by an act of perfect love of God, or of contrition, along with the desire, at least implicit, of Baptism, and this is called Baptism of Desire.” **Catechism of Pope St. Pius X, The Sacraments - Baptism, Necessity of Baptism and Obligations of the Baptized ***

**Also from the same catechism (which once again, IS NOT INFALLIBLE, as trent11 demonstrated:

The Catechism of Pope St. Pius X, The Sacraments, “Baptism,” Q.16: “Q. Is Baptism necessary to salvation? A. Baptism is absolutely necessary to salvation**, for Our Lord has expressly said: ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost,
he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.’”

The Catechism of Pope St. Pius X, The Apostles’ Creed, “The Church in Particular,” Q. 27: “Q. Can one be saved outside the Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church? A. No, no one can be saved outside the Catholic, Apostolic Roman Church, just as no one could be saved from the flood outside the Ark of Noah, which was a figure of the Church.”

This catechism is contradicting itself!

So at this point we need to look at the following; has the Ordinary Magisterium declared the threefold Baptism? If yes, then this case is closed.

I believe the disconnect we’re having here is recognzing when the magesterium becomes infallible, and when it is not. See the next post of mine below.

 

[T_More]

The Authentic (i.e. “authoritative”) Magisterium of the Church – i.e., the teaching office of the Church exercised by proper authority – has different levels of infallibility:

Extraordinary Infallible Magisterium (“Solemn Magisterium”): this is exercised when the Pope, as supreme pastor of the entire Church, speaks ex cathedra (from the Chair of Peter) and solemnly defines a dogma concerning faith and morals to be held by the entire Church, or when a Dogmatic Council convened and endorsed by a Pope formally defines a matter of faith and morals to be held by the entire Church. This is a very rarely excercised assertion of authority (only a few times in the past few hundred years). When the Pope teaches using his extraordinary infallible Magisterium, or when a Council dogmatically defines something and the Pope endorses that defintion, Catholics must believe what is taught de fide, as an article of faith.

Ordinary Infallible Magisterium (“Constant Magisterium” or “Universal Magisterium”): this is exercised when the Pope, Council, Bishop, priest or any authorized teacher teaches in accordance with Tradition, the Sacred Deposit of Faith, and what has been always accepted and taught by the Church in the past

Merely Authentic Ordinary Magisterium: any teaching by Pope, Bishop, priest, or any authorized teacher, that does not fall into the above two levels of infallibility is, quite simply, fallible, even though it may be part of the Authentic Magisterium (that is, it is “authorized” teaching). Teaching at this level is owed obedience – as long as obeying does not harm the Faith, lead to sin or the loss of souls, does not contradict the Faith, etc. If what is being taught contradicts the Faith, it not only can be resisted, it must be resisted.

In addition to Magisterium, the Pope can, of course, simply act as a private person and offer his personal opinions on anything from current events to sports to food to movies. These may be of interest to us Catholics, who tend to sensibly love – or at least respect the office of – the Holy Father, but they are not “Church teaching” in any way. In the same way, a Council may be called that is pastoral and not dogmatic in nature (such as Vatican II).

Now, some Catholics forget the second level of the Magisterium, the “Ordinary Infallible Magisterium.” They forget the Sacred Deposit of Faith, the unanimous agreement of the early Christian Fathers, and Sacred Tradition. These “Catholics” are the “liberal Catholics” or “modernist Catholics” you hear so much from in the media. They are the ones who root for the ordination of women, the eradication of the Christian view of homosexuality, etc. These are the well-organized, well-funded, loud “Catholics” who eat away at the Church’s teachings and have become well-entrenched in various dioceses.

Another type of Catholic forgets about that third level of teaching that is not infallible at all. Any time the Pope teaches, he must be heard, his authority given respect, and the teaching given the benefit of the doubt because it comes from the Vicar of Christ. But if it contradicts prior infallible Magisterium, it is not infallible – and it must not be obeyed if it proves harmful to the faith. Catholics who forget this level of Magisterium try very hard to be “orthodox” by being obedient, but they often have a false sense of obedience – an obedience that sometimes borders on a pre-conscious papolatry (“pope worship”), though, of course, they know better and know that “worshipping the Pope” would be a terrible sin. They usually have a very healthy sensus catholicus, a desire for traditional Catholicism, and a virtuous patience, but they simply attribute to the Pope authority he does not have and they truly need to come to a better understanding of what the Magisterium is. These Catholics are often called “neo-conservatives,” “conservatives,” or “neo-Catholics” (they often think of and refer to themselves as “traditional Catholics” though they are not). You will see these otherwise wonderful Catholics tying themselves into knots trying to defend some of the novelties that followed Vatican II, or sweating bullets making excuses for some of the Holy Father’s more scandalous actions (e.g., “ecumenical” services that include praying with Animists, Buddhists, Muslims, Jews, Protestants; allowing altar girls and “Extraordinary Eucharistic Ministers”, etc.), failures to act (e.g., lack of discipline given to Bishops), and opinions (e.g., support for the anti-subsidiarity, anti-life, anti-Christ United Nations).

Their desire to protect the Holy Father is understandable – and laudable! – especially since the papacy has been attacked so unfairly since the Protestant Rebellion and the ensuing secular revolution, most often with outrageous lies. But these Catholics have to wake up, study a bit, and defend true Catholic teaching as it has been known for 2,000 years.

…to be continued…

 

[T_More]

If it has always been taught by the Church as a matter of faith or morals, it is infallible. If it is a solemn definition, it is infallible.

Ex., you are reading two Encyclicals. The first Encyclical reads:

Venerable Brethren, the red dogs runs at night. The cow jumped over the Moon. Jesus Christ is God. Little Jack Horner sat in a corner. Women may not be ordained to the priesthood.

In this document, the only parts which would be infallible would be the lines “Jesus Christ is God” and “women may not be ordained to the priesthood” because these have always been taught. This is teaching at the level of the Universal Magisterium, which is infallible.

The second Encyclical reads:

By the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own authority, we pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma: that X, Y, Z. Hence if anyone, which God forbid, should dare willfully to deny or to call into doubt that which we have defined, let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith. And, by the way, the red dog runs at night.

Notice the explicit “we define” here? Notice that it is addressed to “anyone,” not just to members of the Latin Church or of the Eastern Churches, etc.? Notice the penalty in place for non-acceptance of what is being said (if you don’t believe this, you have fallen away from the Catholic Faith)? By these marks, you can know that infallible teaching is being expressed.

In this document, X, Y, and Z are infallible, but not “the red dog runs at night.” This is teaching at the level of the Extraordinary (or Solemn) Magisterium, which is also infallible and is to be accepted “de fide.” (Note: Protestants and uneducated Catholics who ask blankly, “Is Enclyclical X infallible?” need to recognize that a 100-page Encyclical may be written that is not infallible in any way, or has 10 paragraphs that are infallible, or 1 sentence that is infallible, etc.). This sort of exercise of the Solemn Magisterium is very rare, but very necessary when clarity is needed over a teaching that has always been taught, but whose details haven’t been strictly defined.

All other teachings are owed obedience as long as they do not lead to a loss of Faith, harm the Church, impede the salvation of souls, lead to an evil, etc.

 

[Melchior_1]

It doesn’t get much more than “faith and morals” when dealing with Baptism, mate. The writings of the Popes I have listed fall straight into that category.

 

[trent11]

As stated in the International Theological Commission’s document on the question:

• Because children below the age of reason did not commit actual sin, theologians came to the common view that these unbaptized children feel no pain at all or even that they enjoy a full, though only natural, happiness** through their mediated union with God in all natural goods*** (Thomas Aquinas, Duns Scotus)

Hell is zero union with God, so if there is union there they must be in Heaven. My earlier quote from Aquinas also indicates he thought even adults could have baptism by desire, albeit with purgatory involved.

“It should be noted, however, that this poena damni incurred for original sin implied, with Abelard and most of the early Scholastics, a certain degree of spiritual torment, and that St. Thomas was the first great teacher who broke away completely from the Augustinian tradition on this subject, and relying on the principle, derived through the Pseudo-Dionysius from the Greek Fathers, that human nature as such with all its powers and rights was unaffected by the Fall (quod naturalia manent integra), maintained, at least virtually, what the great majority of later Catholic theologians have expressly taught, that the limbus infantium is a place or state of perfect natural happiness.” (Limbo, Catholic Encyclopedia)

"Besides the professed advocates of Augustinianism, the principal theologians who belonged to the first party were Bellarmine, Petavius, and Bossuet, and the chief ground of their opposition to the previously prevalent Scholastic view was that its acceptance seemed to compromise the very principle of the authority of tradition. As students of history, they felt bound to admit that, in excluding unbaptized children from any place or state even of natural happiness and condemning them to the fire of Hell, St. Augustine, the Council of Carthage, and later African Fathers, like Fulgentius, intended to teach no mere private opinion, but a doctrine of Catholic Faith.” (Limbo, Catholic Encyclopedia)

Carthage: “It has been decided likewise that if anyone says that for this reason the Lord said: “In my house there are many mansions”: that it might be understood that in the kingdom of heaven there will be some middle place or some place anywhere where happy infants live who departed from this life without baptism, without which they cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven, which is life eternal, let him be anathema.”

Augustine: “Let no one promise infants who have not been baptized a sort of middle place of rest and happiness, such as he pleases and wherever he pleases, between damnation and the kingdom of heaven. This is what the Pelagian heresy promised them.” (The Soul and Its Origin)

I can keep posting quote after quote and dogma after dogma, but the point is made that no unbaptized infant is granted heaven, a middle place nor free of pain in Hell. Your precious scholastics were in error, departed from tradition, compromised dogma and brought shame and embarrassment to the Church on this matter and were corrected by Trent which resounded the message of Carthage. The matter was settled, Peter spoke.

In its 1980 instruction on children’s baptism the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith: “with regard to children who die without having received baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as indeed she does in the funeral rite established for them,”

International Theological Commission strikes again: *Our conclusion is that the many factors that we have considered above give serious theological and liturgical grounds for hope that unbaptized infants who die will be saved and enjoy the beatific vision. We emphasize that these are reasons for prayerful hope, rather than grounds for sure knowledge. There is much that simply has not been revealed to us. We live by faith and hope in the God of mercy and love who has been revealed to us in Christ, and the Spirit moves us to pray in constant thankfulness and joy.

What has been revealed to us is that the ordinary way of salvation is by the sacrament of baptism. None of the above considerations should be taken as qualifying the necessity of baptism or justifying delay in administering the sacrament. Rather, as we want to reaffirm in conclusion, they provide strong grounds for hope that God will save infants when we have not been able to do for them what we would have wished to do, namely, to baptize them into the faith and life of the Church. *

Looks like Pelagianism, sounds like Pelagianism, feels like Pelagianism but this isn’t Pelagianism? Hmmm…

Also, please tell me, if there is no baptism of desire and/or baptism of blood, why do these guys have a feast day?

I will look into this link after I get home.

 

[thewanderer]

I was excepting an argument against my statement that implicit desire is an oxymoron rather than you arguing that St. Aquinas believed in oxymorons or not.

Yes, because you completely misunderstood what I was saying in the first place.

It has been demonstrated already because the words after “cannot happen without the the laver of regeneration or a desire for it,” “as it is written” is used to describe John 3:5. If desire was sufficient, then we cannot read that verse “as it is written” and would render “as it is written” meaningless. Why else would the Council quote that verse “as it is written” when that very verse requires a person to be reborn both of Spirit and Water? Seeing it otherwise causes vast contradictions.

The problem is that it is up to the Church to interpret scripture, and scripture does not always mean that which it most obviously seems to mean. Take for example the following passage John 6:51

I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world.

This text, using your guidelines of accepting the words entirely at face value, is saying that if you ever received the eucharist you will go to heaven. However, this is clearly not how the Church understands this passage. In otherwords your above argument is not an argument that proves necessity. As you are relying on your own interpretation of the meaning of that passage which may or may not be correct.

You can see how the desire for baptism is supplied and satisfied for the infant by either the parents (or guardians) or the society of the saints since his or her faculty of the intellect and will are not yet fully developed. Interestingly enough, the Church has always taught that baptism is the only source of salvation for the infant, yet you will have me believe that when the child passes the age of reason that said necessity is lifted and replaced with necessity of desire. No, passing the age of reason doesn’t replace anything but adds another requirement of the individual on top of baptism, desire for it. Hence the proper interpretation of that text in question.

I am afraid that faith and desire are two very different things. Desire is an act of the will, faith is a supernatural grace. While an infant may be given faith such a child cannot yet desire. Since the text in question was speaking not of faith but of desire, this text from the catechism does nothing to prove your point.

It should note as well that baptisms, for adults, are invalidated if desire is lacking such as being forced, sleep, done out of some joke, etc… something for you to contemplate on.

Of course this is true, but I really do not see how it is pertinent. *

 

[T_More]

It doesn’t get much more than “faith and morals” when dealing with Baptism, mate. The writings of the Popes I have listed fall straight into that category.

So what does that tell you when popes do not transmit what has already been dogmatically defined by the Church? Answer: the charism of infallibilty cannot apply to said statements. While sad that such statements did and can take place, it doesn’t mean the Church as a whole has defected, if that is the conclusion you’re trying to draw.

 

[T_More]

The problem is that it is up to the Church to interpret scripture, and scripture does not always mean that which it most obviously seems to mean.

Could not agree more. Which is why multiple infallible councils have decreed what John 3:5 means and have been quoted time and time again on this thread and most of them have been completely ignored.
**It would seem that this has happened with others as well… ***

 

[thewanderer]

The problem is that it is up to the Church to interpret scripture, and scripture does not always mean that which it most obviously seems to mean.

Could not agree more. Which is why multiple infallible councils have decreed what John 3:5 means and have been quoted time and time again on this thread and most of them have been completely ignored.
**It would seem that this has happened with others as well… ***

Tmore, you are assuming that that particular statement is to be understood the way that you and Trent11 interpret it, which has not yet been proven. Look, if you want to have a discussion about this we have to do things in the right order. You cannot assume that your understanding is correct and make arguments based on that assumption, that is not going to get anywhere because it is not something that is yet accepted by all involved in the conversation. We have to go back until we find what we do hold in common, and then make arguments based on what we hold in common. This is what I have been asking Trent11 to do. So far he has failed to give any necessary arguments. If this continues what is going to have to happen is a discussion about how to determine which interpretation is most likely, and then have a discussion to help determine which interpretation ismost likely. But what is imperitive if we are to actually have a discussion is that you and Trent11 not assume that your interpretation is correct in the arguments you are making to help convince us that your interpretation is correct, that gets nowhere and is circular reasoning. Either you and Trent11 need to give an actual argument for the neccessity of your interpretation or you need to admit that you do not have such an argument so that we can move onto the step of discussing probable arguments, and more particularly, what would make one kind of probable argument more important/correct than another. After which we could move onto bringin forward probably arguments to see which interpretation holds the most weight in probability. But whatever else, please stop using circular reasoning, it will not get us anywhere.

 

[Melchior_1]

Looks like Pelagianism, sounds like Pelagianism, feels like Pelagianism but this isn’t Pelagianism?

You’re saying our last three Popes and the CDF for the last thirty years embraced, have taught, and preached a heresy? Good times.

So what does that tell you when popes do not transmit what has already been dogmatically defined by the Church? Answer: the charism of infallibilty cannot apply to said statements. While sad that such statements did and can take place, it doesn’t mean the Church as a whole has defected, if that is the conclusion you’re trying to draw.

It tells me to trust our Shepard will not teach heresy, and assent accordingly on issues of faith and morals (which this is).

The the Pope says that there is nothing in Vatican II which conflicts anyone else. It’s up to us to either;

1. Obey, and wait for theologians to explain it to us.
2. Obey, and figure out on our own how everything fits together.

Nothing is really gained by saying “Benedict is a heretic”, which Trent11 essentially called Benedict.

 

[Sirach2]

Melchior:

Nothing is really gained by saying “Benedict is a heretic”, which Trent11 essentially called Benedict.

Add this to your list, Melchior:

• The Catechisms are not infallible. (Therefore, don’t believe them?)
• St. Thomas Aquinas had 24 errors in the Summa. (Not a worthy source?)
• Denzinger [allegedly] misquoted the Council of Trent. (Discard this source also)
• Pope Pius XII did not add his letter re Feeney to the AAS. (Not valid?)
• Apologists Keating and Akin are misinformed. (Ignore what they say?)
• Popes from the inception of Vatican II are not guiding the faithful according to historically promulgated documents. (That makes them erroneous?)

Anything that could be done here to spread STD’s [steal, trample, destroy] with Catholics has been tried - not a lick missing. Destroy our faith in the pope, the catechism, Doctors of the Church, faithful apologists, and a reputable publisher of church documents and history, and what’s left?

It appears that we should all shake the dust here. Not a thing we present will be accepted, but it actually opens a new door for additional opportunities to discredit the Church and subvert our faith. Does anyone see it yet?

 

[trent11]

The problem is that it is up to the Church to interpret scripture, and scripture does not always mean that which it most obviously seems to mean. Take for example the following passage John 6:51

This text, using your guidelines of accepting the words entirely at face value, is saying that if you ever received the eucharist you will go to heaven. However, this is clearly not how the Church understands this passage. In otherwords your above argument is not an argument that proves necessity. As you are relying on your own interpretation of the meaning of that passage which may or may not be correct.

And the Church has spoken, John 3:5 is to be read as it is written as the Council of Trent declared Baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation in the Canons, in previous councils, in previous Papal statements, according to many patristic Fathers and the traditional Church attitude towards Catechumens such as excluding them from the Mass of the Faithful, refusing them Catholic burials, weeping for them for what they have been deprived of and granting them baptism when they are in danger of death since desire is not sufficient as we read,

"Pope St. Siricius, Letter to Himerius, 385:

“As we maintain that the observance of the holy Paschal time should in no way be relaxed, in the same way we desire that infants who, on account of their age, cannot yet speak, or those who, in any necessity, are in want of the water of holy baptism, be succored with all possible speed, for fear that, if those who leave this world should be deprived of the life of the Kingdom for having been refused the source of salvation which they desired, this may lead to the ruin of our souls. If those threatened with shipwreck, or the attack of enemies, or the uncertainties of a siege, or those put in a hopeless condition due to some bodily sickness, ask for what in their faith is their only help, let them receive at the very moment of their request the reward of regeneration they beg for. Enough of past mistakes! From now on, let all the priests observe the aforesaid rule if they do not want to be separated from the solid apostolic rock on which Christ has built his universal Church.”

I am afraid that faith and desire are two very different things. Desire is an act of the will, faith is a supernatural grace. While an infant may be given faith such a child cannot yet desire. Since the text in question was speaking not of faith but of desire, this text from the catechism does nothing to prove your point.

I would argue this point even further, but for the sake of the debate it is no longer relevant since I forgot that the chapter in Trent we’re discussing excludes infants as we read the very sub-heading “A description is introduced of the Justification of the impious, and of the Manner thereof under the law of grace.” Can be found as well within the very chapter. “Impious” only pertains to actual sinners, and the very Latin itself used (impii) is too strong to refer to infants. So we see that this chapter is only speaking of those that have capability of desire, and it is dogma according to Pope Innocent III that intent is required for a valid baptism, ergo this chapter is reinforcing the necessity of desire since if that was absent then the baptism would be invalid.

**

Should we agree with a catechism that states there is no grace outside the Church?

Of course this is true, but I really do not see how it is pertinent.

Just asking you to contemplate that with the subject.

 

[trent11]

Add this to your list, Melchior:

• The Catechisms are not infallible. (Therefore, don’t believe them?)
• St. Thomas Aquinas had 24 errors in the Summa. (Not a worthy source?)
• Denzinger [allegedly] misquoted the Council of Trent. (Discard this source also)
• Pope Pius XII did not add his letter re Feeney to the AAS. (Not valid?)
• Apologists Keating and Akin are misinformed. (Ignore what they say?)
• Popes from the inception of Vatican II are not guiding the faithful according to historically promulgated documents. (That makes them erroneous?)

Anything that could be done here to spread STD’s [steal, trample, destroy] with Catholics has been tried - not a lick missing. Destroy our faith in the pope, the catechism, Doctors of the Church, faithful apologists, and a reputable publisher of church documents and history, and what’s left?

It appears that we should all shake the dust here. Not a thing we present will be accepted, but it actually opens a new door for additional opportunities to discredit the Church and subvert our faith. Does anyone see it yet?

You said you were done and were not going post on the thread any longer, now here you are interjecting at will against your own promise. Your word cannot be trusted even in a small things like this, how can anyone trust your word in greater things?

I’m willing to bet that it is tearing you apart that you cannot find one single dogmatic decree, canon, letter etc… of any kind to back your position but only reference you have is the source of fallible theologians, and at the same time we’re the only ones presenting the dogmatic canons, decrees, letters, etc… as they are.

And no one called Benedict a heretic, only demonstrated that the theological commissions provided by Mel are almost stating exactly what the Pelagians stated and what St. Augustine fought against.

 

[Melchior_1]

You said you were done and were not going post on the thread any longer, now here you are interjecting at will against your own promise. Your word cannot be trusted even in a small things like this, how can anyone trust your word in greater things?

Calling into question a man’s character is a surefire way to sway others to your side of a discussion.

I’m willing to bet that it is tearing you apart that you cannot find one single dogmatic decree, canon, letter etc… of any kind to back your position but only reference you have is the source of fallible theologians, and at the same time we’re the only ones presenting the dogmatic canons, decrees, letters, etc… as they are.

I don’t think it is, because Sirach rests comfortably within the arms of the one who holds the keys. Further, we are the ones who are siding with the current Pope on matters of faith and morals.

It doesn’t concern you that apparently even sedevacantists approve of baptism of desire?

And no one called Benedict a heretic, only demonstrated that the theological commissions provided by Mel are almost stating exactly what the Pelagians stated and what St. Augustine fought against.

Sorry mate, but you’re calling Benedict a heretic, or at best you’re accusing him of Pelagianism. Just like you’re accusing Aquinas of it, and the last three Popes of it. And St. Pius X, defender of the faith against modernism.

Speaking of which, I fail to see how pelagianism comes close to Baptism of desire.