N
napad
Guest
Thanks for the link! It is ironic that he was beatified with John XXIII but he was not allowed into St. Peter’s with him.
Do you have the quote on invicible people being saved by Pius IX?
- Status
Do you have the quote on invicible people being saved by Pius IX?
S
SemperFidelis
Guest
Yes, quite absurd indeed.Thanks for the link! It is ironic that he was beatified with John XXIII but he was not allowed into St. Peter’s with him.
Yep, it’s in the post prior to the one you just quoted.
N
napad
Guest
sorry about that chief:blushing: I missed it.
- Here, too, our beloved sons and venerable brothers, it is again necessary to mention and censure a very grave error entrapping some Catholics who believe that it is possible to arrive at eternal salvation although living in error and alienated from the true faith and Catholic unity. Such belief is certainly opposed to Catholic teaching. There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments.
At first glance I’d say this is a heretical statement, (of the Pelagianism flavor)
:
his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is **not guilty of deliberate sin **to suffer eternal punishments.
Since this is in direct opposition to the councils of Lyons and Florence of those who die in original sin:
“The souls of those who die in mortal sin or with original sin only, however, immediately descend to hell, to be punished however with disparate [disparibus] punishments.”
Original sin is not deliberate sin is it?
Don’t you agree?
Yes yes quite heretical.
But I still love Pius IX and do not think he is a heritic. Can you solve the riddle?
S
SemperFidelis
Guest
No problem.
Yep. Read below.Can you solve the riddle?
Since this is in direct opposition to the councils of Lyons and Florence of those who die in original sin:
“The souls of those who die in mortal sin or with original sin only, however, immediately descend to hell, to be punished however with disparate [disparibus] punishments.”
It is neither heretical or in opposition to the Councils of Lyons and Florence.
“There are three distinct forms of Baptism, namely that of fire (desire), that of water and that of blood. Baptism of fire is that provided by repentance and the grace of the Holy Spirit, and purifies from sin. In Baptism of water we are both purified from sin and absolved of all temporal punishment due to sin. In Baptism of blood we are purified from all misery.” (Centiloquij, Tertia pars and De Sacramentorum virtute, Lib. VI.) - St. Bonaventure, Doctor of the Church
“Objection: the sacrament of Baptism is necessary for salvation. Now that is necessary “without which something cannot be” (Aristotle’s Metaphysics V). Therefore it seems that none can obtain salvation without Baptism. Reply: THE SACRAMENT OF BAPTISM IS SAID TO BE NECESSARY FOR SALVATION IN SO FAR AS THERE CAN BE NO SALVATION FOR MAN UNLESS HE AT LEAST HAVE IT IN DESIRE WHICH, WITH GOD, COUNTS FOR THE DEED.” (Summa Theologica 3, 68, 2) - St. Thomas Aquinas, Doctor of the Church
“Moreover, the SACRAMENTS of grace are ordained in order that man may receive the infusion of grace, and before HE RECEIVES THEM, EITHER ACTUALLY OR IN HIS DESIRE, he does not receive grace. This is evident in the case of Baptism, and applies to penance likewise.” (Summa Theologica, Supplement 6, 1) - St. Thomas Aquinas, Doctor of the Church
“And this translation [to the state of justification], since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be EFFECTED, WITHOUT THE LAVER OF REGENERATION, AT LEAST IN THE DESIRE THEREOF [aut eius voto], as it is written; “unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.”” (Denz. 796) - Council of Trent
“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) - 1917 Code of Canon Law
As to implicit Baptism of Desire, which is for the invincibly ignorant:
Man receives the forgiveness of sins before baptism in so far as he has BAPTISM IN DESIRE, EXPLICITLY OR IMPLICITLY; and yet when he actually receives baptism, he receives a fuller remission, as to the remission of the entire punishment. So also before baptism Cornelius and others like him receive grace and virtues through their faith in Christ and THEIR DESIRE FOR BAPTISM, IMPLICIT OR EXPLICIT: but afterwards when baptized, they receive a yet greater fullness of grace and virtues.” (Summa Theologica 3, 69, 4) - St. Thomas Aquinas, Doctor of the Church.
“The Synod teaches moreover, that, although it sometimes happen that this CONTRITION IS PERFECT THROUGH CHARITY, and reconciles man with God BEFORE THIS SACRAMENT BE ACTUALLY RECEIVED, the said reconciliation, nevertheless, is not to be ascribed to that contrition, independently of THE DESIRE [voto] OF THE SACRAMENT WHICH IS INCLUDED THEREIN.” (Denz. 898) - Council of Trent
Most definitely.Original sin is not deliberate sin is it?
Don’t you agree?
S
SemperFidelis
Guest
(cont’d)
St. Alphonsus Liguori, Doctor of the Church -
Baptism, therefore, coming from a Greek word that means ablution or immersion in water, is distinguished into Baptism of water “fluminis”], of desire “flaminis” = wind] and of blood.
We shall speak below of Baptism of water, which was very probably instituted before the Passion of Christ the Lord, when Christ was baptised by John. But baptism of desire is perfect conversion to God by contrition or love of God above all things accompanied by an explicit or implicit desire for true Baptism of water, the place of which it takes as to the remission of guilt, but not as to the impression of the [baptismal] character or as to the removal of all debt of punishment. It is called “of wind” “flaminis”] because it takes place by the impulse of the Holy Ghost who is called a wind “flamen”]. Now it is de fide that men are also saved by Baptism of desire, by virtue of the Canon Apostolicam, “de presbytero non baptizato” and of the Council of Trent, session 6, Chapter 4 where it is said that no one can be saved “without the laver of regeneration or the desire for it.”
Baptism of blood is the shedding of one’s blood, i.e. death, suffered for the Faith or for some other Christian virtue. Now this baptism is comparable to true Baptism because, like true Baptism, it remits both guilt and punishment as it were ex opere operato. I say as it were because martyrdom does not act by as strict a causality “non ita stricte”] as the sacraments, but by a certain privilege on account of its resemblance to the passion of Christ. Hence martyrdom avails also for infants seeing that the Church venerates the Holy Innocents as true martyrs. That is why Suarez rightly teaches that the opposing view * is at least temerarious. In adults, however, acceptance of martyrdom is required, at least habitually from a supernatural motive.
It is clear that martyrdom is not a sacrament, because it is not an action instituted by Christ, and for the same reason neither was the Baptism of John a sacrament: it did not sanctify a man, but only prepared him for the coming of Christ.
“On adults, however, the Church has not been accustomed to confer the Sacrament of baptism at once, but has ordained that it be deferred for a certain time. The delay is not attended with the same danger as in the case of infants, which we have already mentioned; should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness.” - Catechism of the Council of Trent, edited by St. Charles Borromeo
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 Saint Pius X
Q. Can a man be saved without baptism?
“A. He cannot, unless he have it either actual or in desire, with contrition, or to be baptized in his blood as the holy Innocents were, which suffered for Christ.” - Douay Catechism
Implicit Baptism of Desire justifies those are invincibly ignorant and incorporates them into the Mystical Body of Christ. There is no salvation outside the Church, but that doesn’t mean that only professed, water Baptized, members are inside the Church. Blessed Pius IX taught EENS on many occasions, but he also taught invincible ignorance too, knowing that the two didn’t contradict each other, and he was one of the foremost fighters (along with St. Pius X, who also taught the same thing regarding the invincibly ignorant as Bl. Pius IX) of modernism.*
St. Alphonsus Liguori, Doctor of the Church -
Baptism, therefore, coming from a Greek word that means ablution or immersion in water, is distinguished into Baptism of water “fluminis”], of desire “flaminis” = wind] and of blood.
We shall speak below of Baptism of water, which was very probably instituted before the Passion of Christ the Lord, when Christ was baptised by John. But baptism of desire is perfect conversion to God by contrition or love of God above all things accompanied by an explicit or implicit desire for true Baptism of water, the place of which it takes as to the remission of guilt, but not as to the impression of the [baptismal] character or as to the removal of all debt of punishment. It is called “of wind” “flaminis”] because it takes place by the impulse of the Holy Ghost who is called a wind “flamen”]. Now it is de fide that men are also saved by Baptism of desire, by virtue of the Canon Apostolicam, “de presbytero non baptizato” and of the Council of Trent, session 6, Chapter 4 where it is said that no one can be saved “without the laver of regeneration or the desire for it.”
Baptism of blood is the shedding of one’s blood, i.e. death, suffered for the Faith or for some other Christian virtue. Now this baptism is comparable to true Baptism because, like true Baptism, it remits both guilt and punishment as it were ex opere operato. I say as it were because martyrdom does not act by as strict a causality “non ita stricte”] as the sacraments, but by a certain privilege on account of its resemblance to the passion of Christ. Hence martyrdom avails also for infants seeing that the Church venerates the Holy Innocents as true martyrs. That is why Suarez rightly teaches that the opposing view * is at least temerarious. In adults, however, acceptance of martyrdom is required, at least habitually from a supernatural motive.
It is clear that martyrdom is not a sacrament, because it is not an action instituted by Christ, and for the same reason neither was the Baptism of John a sacrament: it did not sanctify a man, but only prepared him for the coming of Christ.
“On adults, however, the Church has not been accustomed to confer the Sacrament of baptism at once, but has ordained that it be deferred for a certain time. The delay is not attended with the same danger as in the case of infants, which we have already mentioned; should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness.” - Catechism of the Council of Trent, edited by St. Charles Borromeo
- Q. How many kinds of Baptism are there?
A. There are three kinds of Baptism: Baptism of water, of desire, and of blood. - Baltimore Catechism
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 Saint Pius X
Q. Can a man be saved without baptism?
“A. He cannot, unless he have it either actual or in desire, with contrition, or to be baptized in his blood as the holy Innocents were, which suffered for Christ.” - Douay Catechism
Implicit Baptism of Desire justifies those are invincibly ignorant and incorporates them into the Mystical Body of Christ. There is no salvation outside the Church, but that doesn’t mean that only professed, water Baptized, members are inside the Church. Blessed Pius IX taught EENS on many occasions, but he also taught invincible ignorance too, knowing that the two didn’t contradict each other, and he was one of the foremost fighters (along with St. Pius X, who also taught the same thing regarding the invincibly ignorant as Bl. Pius IX) of modernism.*
N
napad
Guest
S
SemperFidelis
Guest
Yes I did. Read below:
Baptism of Desire justifies those who are invincibly ignorant, hence their Original Sin is washed away. As to those who haven’t reached the age of reason, who therefore can not have a desire for Baptism, either explicitly or implicitly, they go to Limbo. Invincible ignorance alone doesn’t “guarantee” salvation, as, just like everybody else, they can not have mortal sin on the soul at the time of death, which because Confession is not available, must make a perfect act of contrition. Read this from the Baltimore Catechism on the next post (which I already posted in post #4, but I’ll post it again):
S
SemperFidelis
Guest
- Q. Are all bound to belong to the Church?
A. All are bound to belong to the Church, and he who knows the Church to be the true Church and remains out of it, cannot be saved.
In like manner one who, doubting, fears to examine the religion he professes lest he should discover its falsity and be convinced of the truth of the Catholic faith, cannot be saved.
Suppose, however, that there is a non-Catholic who firmly believes that the church to which he belongs is the true Church, and who has never – even in the past – had the slightest doubt of that fact – what will become of him?
If he was validly baptized and never committed a mortal sin, he will be saved; because, believing himself a member of the true Church, he was doing all he could to serve God according to his knowledge and the dictates of his conscience. But if ever he committed a mortal sin, his salvation would be very much more difficult. A mortal sin once committed remains on the soul till it is forgiven. Now, how could his mortal sin be forgiven? Not in the Sacrament of Penance, for the Protestant does not go to confession; and if he does, his minister – not being a true priest – has no power to forgive sins. Does he know that without confession it requires an act of perfect contrition to blot out mortal sin, and can he easily make such an act? What we call contrition is often only imperfect contrition – that is, sorrow for our sins because we fear their punishment in Hell or dread the loss of Heaven. If a Catholic – with all the instruction he has received about how to make an act of perfect contrition and all the practice he has had in making such acts – might find it difficult to make an act of perfect contrition after having committed a mortal sin, how much difficulty will not a Protestant have in making an act of perfect contrition, who does not know about this requirement and who has not been taught to make continued acts of perfect contrition all his life. It is to be feared either he would not know of this necessary means of regaining God’s friendship, or he would be unable to elicit the necessary act of perfect contrition, and thus the mortal sin would remain upon his soul and he would die an enemy of God.
If, then, we found a Protestant who never committed a mortal sin after Baptism, and who never had the slightest doubt about the truth of his religion, that person would be saved; because, being baptized, he is a member of the Church, and being free from mortal sin he is a friend of God and could not in justice be condemned to Hell. Such a person would attend Mass and receive the Sacraments if he knew the Catholic Church to be the only true Church.
I am giving you an example, however, that is rarely found, except in the case of infants or very small children baptized in Protestant sects. All infants rightly baptized by anyone are really children of the Church, no matter what religion their parents may profess. Indeed, all persons who are baptized are children of the Church; but those among them who deny its teaching, reject its Sacraments, and refuse to submit to its lawful pastors, are rebellious children known as heretics.
I said I gave you an example that can scarcely be found, namely, of a person not a Catholic, who really never doubted the truth of his religion, and who, moreover, never committed during his whole life a mortal sin. There are so few such persons that we can practically say for all those who are not visibly members of the Catholic Church, believing its doctrines, receiving its Sacraments, and being governed by its visible head, our Holy Father, the Pope, salvation is an extremely difficult matter.
I do not speak here of pagans who have never heard of Our Lord or His holy religion, but of those outside the Church who claim to be good Christians without being members of the Catholic Church.
N
napad
Guest
You are still very cold and still not admitting the heresy above. Are you a “Team Player” or lover of truth?
Do give-up:wink: I can solve the riddle if you want. Once I do, you will see the heresy for sure! :tiphat:
S
SemperFidelis
Guest
No, I’m right on, you just fail to see or understand the truth. Everything checks out. Would you say Trent was in opposition to Florence? Or would you say that over half of the Doctors of the Church, all the official Catechisms of the Church, and most, if not all of the Early Church Fathers, as well as several Popes were in error and heresy? If that’s not the Ordinary Magisterium speaking, I don’t know what is. But I guess since you (a la Fr. Feeney) know all, why don’t you enlighten us?
N
nkbeth
Guest
“You” in the following are the various “baptism of desire deniers” that I have heard or read in the past. “You” does not mean one particular person on this thread! 
How did Christ protect His teaching Church through the ages, if “baptism of desire deniers” like you are RIGHT? It seems to me that that your teaching implies that these APPALLING things are true:- CHRIST allowed SO MANY saints, doctors, theologians, popes, and councils to in effect (even if not intentionally) DENY His DOGMA of “No Salvation outside the Church”, by their belief in Baptism of Desire, and to TEACH this insidious error to other Catholics through the ages.
- The combined “bungling” of these saints, doctors, theologians, popes, and councils THROUGH CENTURIES PAST managed to CONTAMINATE not only what is read by those who study doctrine closely, but also what is taught to simple Catholics (who never open Denziger’s or the Fathers of the Church).
- CHRIST left His Catholic “little ones” in the hands of those who teach what amounts to a DENIAL OF A CATHOLIC DOGMA, by letting it creep into SO MANY catechisms from the Catechism of Council of Trent to the Catechism of St. Pius X to the Catechisms used at Father Feeney’s time to the Catechism of the Catholic Church today.
- FATHER FEENEY rode in, a Catholic “knight in shining armor” to at last “rescue” the dogma “No Salvation Outside of the Church” which had been obscured or denied for centuries past by Catholic teaching on Baptism of Desire – as if Christ needed his help to restore what Christ failed to protect!
Greatest Catholic Teachers mistakes on “Baptism of Desire” OVER THE CENTURIES
They just “overlooked” Feeneyite reasoning; so they might now say:
Code:
[Gosh, Father Feeney, I just didn’t happen to THINK about “No Salvation Outside the Church” and “Baptism of Desire” together!],[You are right Father Feeney, I was just being too sentimental!]
They “missed” seeing the water baptism that was really there
They “forgot” that God could bring water by a miracle
They “mistranslated” (or misinterpreted) Councils (Council of Trent) or other writing,
They wrote “equivocally” or “ambiguously” (even the Council of Trent itself, some say),
They “misunderstood” what they read elsewhere,
They “erred” in assuming a previous teaching was right,
They were “careless” or a little “liberal” in their writing (even Popes!),
They contradicted themselves or changed their minds (without pointing it out to their careless readers) or retracted past teaching
They just didn’t happen to see another Saint’s retraction of his error,
They really didn’t believe in baptism of desire after all (“of course” they agreed with the Feeneyite position, since they said that the Sacrament was necessary),
and on and on…
Oh! and of course sometimes they were just plain wrong (as. St. Thomas was when he taught that God is not bound by His sacraments); or maybe a little carelessly sentimental (at a time when a belief in Baptism of Desire couldn’t cause the trouble that it does today!)
<End Greatest Catholic Teachers mistakes on “Baptism of Desire” …>
It is TRUE to say that Catholic teachers (at least some of them) can be wrong about conclusions they make, and even that heresies can sometimes run rampant in many places. But is OUTRAGEOUS to say that in some fumbling combination they should contaminate the body of Catholic teaching with a implied denial of a defined dogma, not just at certain times, but throughout most of Catholic history.
Christ protects His living teaching Church. We must listen to Her. The teaching Church helps us to understand Catholic dogma better - not to make us “understand it in a different sense”, but to understand it more fully (it is about God’s INFINITE truths), and to explain related truths.
BELIEVE:
“No Salvation outside the Church” is True (you are a heretic if you don’t)
“Baptism of Desire” is real (you are in error against Catholic faith if you don’t)
Wait to give your verdict on their supposed incompatibility. Read the evidence for Baptism of Desire (e.g. as identified by SemperFidelis). Think – do you REALLY want to claim that YOU understand these things better than the greatest Catholic Teachers? Isn’t it possible that it is YOU who are wrong and THEY who are right?
Isn’t it possible that you are NOT reading Catholic Dogma as a Saint would?
Didn’t Christ really protect His truth “No Salvation Outside the Church” for centuries without you?
S
SemperFidelis
Guest
Very nice!“You” in the following are the various “baptism of desire deniers” that I have heard or read in the past. “You” does not mean one particular person on this thread!
How did Christ protect His teaching Church through the ages, if “baptism of desire deniers” like you are RIGHT? It seems to me that that your teaching implies that these APPALLING things are true:
It seems that “baptism of desire deniers” think that Catholic teachers (from theologians to Popes) “fumbled” Catholic Truth through the centuries by mistakes such as these:
- CHRIST allowed SO MANY saints, doctors, theologians, popes, and councils to in effect (even if not intentionally) DENY His DOGMA of “No Salvation outside the Church”, by their belief in Baptism of Desire, and to TEACH this insidious error to other Catholics through the ages.
- The combined “bungling” of these saints, doctors, theologians, popes, and councils THROUGH CENTURIES PAST managed to CONTAMINATE not only what is read by those who study doctrine closely, but also what is taught to simple Catholics (who never open Denziger’s or the Fathers of the Church).
- CHRIST left His Catholic “little ones” in the hands of those who teach what amounts to a DENIAL OF A CATHOLIC DOGMA, by letting it creep into SO MANY catechisms from the Catechism of Council of Trent to the Catechism of St. Pius X to the Catechisms used at Father Feeney’s time to the Catechism of the Catholic Church today.
- FATHER FEENEY rode in, a Catholic “knight in shining armor” to at last “rescue” the dogma “No Salvation Outside of the Church” which had been obscured or denied for centuries past by Catholic teaching on Baptism of Desire – as if Christ needed his help to restore what Christ failed to protect!
Greatest Catholic Teachers mistakes on “Baptism of Desire” OVER THE CENTURIES
They just “overlooked” Feeneyite reasoning; so they might now say:
[Thank you Father Feeney, I just didn’t NOTICE that Christ’s words on Baptism made nonsense of Baptism of Desire!]Code:[Gosh, Father Feeney, I just didn’t happen to THINK about “No Salvation Outside the Church” and “Baptism of Desire” together!],
[You are right Father Feeney, I was just being too sentimental!]
They “missed” seeing the water baptism that was really there
They “forgot” that God could bring water by a miracle
They “mistranslated” (or misinterpreted) Councils (Council of Trent) or other writing,
They wrote “equivocally” or “ambiguously” (even the Council of Trent itself, some say),
They “misunderstood” what they read elsewhere,
They “erred” in assuming a previous teaching was right,
They were “careless” or a little “liberal” in their writing (even Popes!),
They contradicted themselves or changed their minds (without pointing it out to their careless readers) or retracted past teaching
They just didn’t happen to see another Saint’s retraction of his error,
They really didn’t believe in baptism of desire after all (“of course” they agreed with the Feeneyite position, since they said that the Sacrament was necessary),
and on and on…
Oh! and of course sometimes they were just plain wrong (as. St. Thomas was when he taught that God is not bound by His sacraments); or maybe a little carelessly sentimental (at a time when a belief in Baptism of Desire couldn’t cause the trouble that it does today!)
<End Greatest Catholic Teachers mistakes on “Baptism of Desire” …>
It is TRUE to say that Catholic teachers (at least some of them) can be wrong about conclusions they make, and even that heresies can sometimes run rampant in many places. But is OUTRAGEOUS to say that in some fumbling combination they should contaminate the body of Catholic teaching with a implied denial of a defined dogma, not just at certain times, but throughout most of Catholic history.
Christ protects His living teaching Church. We must listen to Her. The teaching Church helps us to understand Catholic dogma better - not to make us “understand it in a different sense”, but to understand it more fully (it is about God’s INFINITE truths), and to explain related truths.
BELIEVE:
“No Salvation outside the Church” is True (you are a heretic if you don’t)
“Baptism of Desire” is real (you are in error against Catholic faith if you don’t)
Wait to give your verdict on their supposed incompatibility. Read the evidence for Baptism of Desire (e.g. as identified by SemperFidelis). Think – do you REALLY want to claim that YOU understand these things better than the greatest Catholic Teachers? Isn’t it possible that it is YOU who are wrong and THEY who are right?
Isn’t it possible that you are NOT reading Catholic Dogma as a Saint would?
Didn’t Christ really protect His truth “No Salvation Outside the Church” for centuries without you?
N
napad
Guest
Ok since your starting to get testy I’ll tell you.
The same passage is more correctly rendered by Father Stepanich.
“…for God, Who has perfect knowledge, examines and judges the minds, the souls, the thoughts and the deeds of all men, and He does not permit, in His sovereign Goodness and Mercy, any men NOT CULPABLE OF WILFUL SIN to be punished with eternal torment.” (The Remnant, Nov. 3, 1973, p. 3.)
**The point of interest is the word suppliciis in the Latin original is translated correctly by “torment” not punishment (although “torments” would have been more accurate) It was translated wrongly by the word “punishment” by EWTN.
If translated punishment it is heresy but if translated more correctly as torment then it is in continuity with doctrine and tradition.
The tradition of the Faith is that the loss of the Beatific Vision is a **punishment **but not a torment. The souls of unbaptized infants can enjoy a perfect natural happiness in Limbo (which, by the way, is part of Hell, not of Heaven), but still they are suffering a punishment. But those who have commited diliberate sin suffer the punishment of torment.
Sorry for stringing you along so long but I have corrected so many for this miss translation I thought I’d try something a little different to make a point of checking your sources. Plus if you at least made it more of a diolog I would have told you sooner.
So now the riddle is answered the translator who wrote " punishment " is the “heritic” not Blessed Pius IX.
Now you can agree with me that the sentence was a heresy but Pius IX is not a heritic!!!:dancing: :extrahappy:
S
SemperFidelis
Guest
My copy of Denzinger says the following:
Indeed, this is certainly quite contrary to Catholic teaching. It is known to Us and to you that they who labor in invincible ignorance of our most holy religion and who, zealously keeping the natural law and its precepts engraved in the hearts of all by God, and being ready to obey God, live an honest and upright life, can, by the operating power of divine light and grace, attain eternal life, since God who clearly beholds, searches, and knows the minds, souls, thoughts, and habits of all men, because of His great goodness and mercy, will by no means suffer anyone to be punished with eternal torment who has not the guilt of deliberate sin. (1677)
So is Denzinger a poor translation too? If that’s the case, you better call the Holy See because they use the Denzinger translations to such a great extent that they should probably know from you it’s in error. Supposing that Blessed Pius IX really meant what YOU think he does, (and he didn’t) you still have the mountain of Popes, Doctors, Catechisms, Early Church Fathers, and the Council of Trent to refute. On top of that you still fail to recognize the sentence previous to the one you have an “issue” with. This thread has just shown me more and more that Fr. Feeney was wrong, and that his interpretation of EENS was a novel invention. Also, I’m sure nkbeth is awaiting your response, as am I.
N
napad
Guest
I never mentioned Feeny. Did I?
I pointed out tthe sentence in question clearly.
You need to read what people write and not what you think they wrote.
If you want to stick with a faulty translation that is up to you.
I thought it was a good riddle but maybe you weren’t ready to follow truth over esprit de corp.
You can still, in humility, accept you just missed it. there is no fault in being human.
But your free to accept heresy if you like. Its your soul not mine.
Though I feel sorry for you.
S
SemperFidelis
Guest
You didn’t have to. I’m not stupid, and I can see where you’re going with this. If I’m wrong here, why don’t you spell out your beliefs for me?
Nice way to dodge the question. Is Denzinger a faulty translation or not? And how long are you going to deny what the sentence before the “one in question” in fact says?
Welcome to the Ordinary Magisterium. When something has been taught as long as it has by so many with authority, the “team player” and the “espirit de corps” teachings are the Truth. They are not mutually exclusive.
Since you have no authority to deem this “issue” heresy, your “throwing” heresy at me, doesn’t bother or matter to me in the least. If Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood “worked” for over half the Doctors of the Church and many Saints theology-wise, I think you can be rest assured my soul isn’t in peril. You don’t think St. Thomas Aquinas, et al. are in hell do you? Ah, I didn’t think so.
N
nkbeth
Guest
Napad:
What DO you think about Baptism of Desire if you are not a follower of Father Feeney?
I was confused by your “riddling”
In a post to SemperFideles you said:
You didn’t explain how this line is not heretical:
his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments.
When I read this I mentally “corrected” the translation to mean <eternal punishments *>. Indeed, hell includes limbo where there is no torment. But when I say “Jesus… save me from the fires of hell” I’m not thinking about limbo at all.
SO… I thought you were saying that it is HERETICAL to think that “noone not guilty of deliberate sin will suffer the eternal punishments *”
But I think **some “baptism of desire deniers” **DO say that someone not baptized by water might NOT be guilty of deliberate sin, but would STILL go to hell (eternal torments), since they were not members of the Church. In other words they say that Pope Pius IX IS either heretical or approaching heresy *when when he says (using your Father Stepanich translation):
**
“…for God, Who has perfect knowledge, examines and judges the minds, the souls, the thoughts and the deeds of all men, and **He does not permit, in His sovereign Goodness and Mercy, any men NOT CULPABLE OF WILFUL SIN to be punished with eternal torment.” ****(The Remnant, Nov. 3, 1973, p. 3.)
Now, since I think you DO accept Fr. Stepanich’s translation, I would like to know, DO you deny that someone who receives “baptism of desire” without the Sacrament of Baptism may (by God’s extraordinary grace) attain to eternal life (heaven)? Or what DO you think - that baptism of desire sends you to some kind of LIMBO?
Look at the Denziger translation SemperFidelis provided:
It is known to Us and to you that they who labor in invincible ignorance of our most holy religion and who, zealously keeping the natural law and its precepts engraved in the hearts of all by God, and being ready to obey God, live an honest and upright life, can, by the operating power of divine light and grace, attain eternal life, since God who clearly beholds, searches, and knows the minds, souls, thoughts, and habits of all men, because of His great goodness and mercy, will by no means suffer anyone to be punished with eternal torment who has not the guilt of deliberate sin. (1677)
What do you say? That “eternal life” could mean Limbo?
Please clarify your position on Baptism of Desire - Thanks!*
What DO you think about Baptism of Desire if you are not a follower of Father Feeney?
I was confused by your “riddling”
In a post to SemperFideles you said:
You didn’t explain how this line is not heretical:
his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments.
When I read this I mentally “corrected” the translation to mean <eternal punishments *>. Indeed, hell includes limbo where there is no torment. But when I say “Jesus… save me from the fires of hell” I’m not thinking about limbo at all.
SO… I thought you were saying that it is HERETICAL to think that “noone not guilty of deliberate sin will suffer the eternal punishments *”
But I think **some “baptism of desire deniers” **DO say that someone not baptized by water might NOT be guilty of deliberate sin, but would STILL go to hell (eternal torments), since they were not members of the Church. In other words they say that Pope Pius IX IS either heretical or approaching heresy *when when he says (using your Father Stepanich translation):
**
“…for God, Who has perfect knowledge, examines and judges the minds, the souls, the thoughts and the deeds of all men, and **He does not permit, in His sovereign Goodness and Mercy, any men NOT CULPABLE OF WILFUL SIN to be punished with eternal torment.” ****(The Remnant, Nov. 3, 1973, p. 3.)
Now, since I think you DO accept Fr. Stepanich’s translation, I would like to know, DO you deny that someone who receives “baptism of desire” without the Sacrament of Baptism may (by God’s extraordinary grace) attain to eternal life (heaven)? Or what DO you think - that baptism of desire sends you to some kind of LIMBO?
Look at the Denziger translation SemperFidelis provided:
It is known to Us and to you that they who labor in invincible ignorance of our most holy religion and who, zealously keeping the natural law and its precepts engraved in the hearts of all by God, and being ready to obey God, live an honest and upright life, can, by the operating power of divine light and grace, attain eternal life, since God who clearly beholds, searches, and knows the minds, souls, thoughts, and habits of all men, because of His great goodness and mercy, will by no means suffer anyone to be punished with eternal torment who has not the guilt of deliberate sin. (1677)
What do you say? That “eternal life” could mean Limbo?
Please clarify your position on Baptism of Desire - Thanks!
*
S
SemperFidelis
Guest
Napad:
What DO you think about Baptism of Desire if you are not a follower of Father Feeney?
I was confused by your “riddling”
In a post to SemperFideles you said:
You didn’t explain how this line is not heretical:
his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments.
When I read this I mentally “corrected” the translation to mean <eternal punishments *>. Indeed, hell includes limbo where there is no torment. But when I say “Jesus… save me from the fires of hell” I’m not thinking about limbo at all.
SO… I thought you were saying that it is HERETICAL to think that “noone not guilty of deliberate sin will suffer the eternal punishments *”
But I think **some “baptism of desire deniers” ***DO say that someone not baptized by water might NOT be guilty of deliberate sin, but would STILL go to hell (eternal torments), since they were not members of the Church. In other words they say that Pope Pius IX IS either heretical or approaching heresy *when when he says (using your Father Stepanich translation):
**
“…for God, Who has perfect knowledge, examines and judges the minds, the souls, the thoughts and the deeds of all men, and **He does not permit, in His sovereign Goodness and Mercy, any men NOT CULPABLE OF WILFUL SIN to be punished with eternal torment.” ****(The Remnant, Nov. 3, 1973, p. 3.)
Now, since I think you DO accept Fr. Stepanich’s translation, I would like to know, DO you deny that someone who receives “baptism of desire” without the Sacrament of Baptism may (by God’s extraordinary grace) attain to eternal life (heaven)? Or what DO you think - that baptism of desire sends you to some kind of LIMBO?
Look at the Denziger translation SemperFidelis provided:
It is known to Us and to you that they who labor in invincible ignorance of our most holy religion and who, zealously keeping the natural law and its precepts engraved in the hearts of all by God, and being ready to obey God, live an honest and upright life, can, by the operating power of divine light and grace, attain eternal life, since God who clearly beholds, searches, and knows the minds, souls, thoughts, and habits of all men, because of His great goodness and mercy, will by no means suffer anyone to be punished with eternal torment who has not the guilt of deliberate sin. (1677)
What do you say? That “eternal life” could mean Limbo?
Please clarify your position on Baptism of Desire - Thanks!
Not only this, but napad still has to somehow refute what Blessed Pius IX said in his “other” encyclical on invincible ignorance, Singulari Quidem. And this is just Bl. Pius IX. That still leaves, oh about half of the Doctors of the Church, the Council of Trent, numerous Catechisms, and several other Popes. It’s an “uphill battle” for sure for the Feeneyites, and requires nothing short of verbal gymnastics.
V
VARC
Guest
"[The most Holy Roman Church] firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart `into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels’ (Matt. 25:41), unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church."Pope Eugene IV Bull Cantate Domino
According to the plain meaning of these words, the Feeneyites are right. This goes out of its way to exclude everybody “living” outside the church from heaven. It appears that this infallible pope isn’t properly schooled in Thomastic theology. And since the pope is the infallible authority in the church, the entirety of quotes from church fathers makes no difference.
According to the plain meaning of these words, the Feeneyites are right. This goes out of its way to exclude everybody “living” outside the church from heaven. It appears that this infallible pope isn’t properly schooled in Thomastic theology. And since the pope is the infallible authority in the church, the entirety of quotes from church fathers makes no difference.
S
SemperFidelis
Guest
Ah yes, because we’ve never come across this Papal Bull before. Clearly I guess the Church hasn’t either, since it teaches invincible ignorance and Baptism of Desire. You should call the Holy See and tell them about this Papal Bull. Of course only in the mind of a Feeneyite do invincible ignorance and Baptism of Desire contradict the above. If the Feeneyites are right, then the Church has been in error for a really long time. Fortunately they’re not, so I guess we’re safe.
- Status