Ordinary vs extraordinary means of salvation

[Acolythus_sum]

Lets take a look at what Pope Benedict says about the Catechsim of the Church shall we…

• “The individual doctrine which the Catechism presents receive no other weight than that which they already possess. The weight of the Catechism itself lies in the whole. Since it transmits what the Church teaches, whoever rejects it as a whole separates himself beyond question from the faith and teaching of the Church [pp. 25-27].”*

I obviously agree with the Pope and do not reject the Catechism as a whole. If I did reject the Catechism as a whole, then I would be separating myself from the faith since some parts contained in the Catchism are from infallible teachings. However, if one rejects only certian parts of the Catechism whose teachings are derived from fallible sources, then one is not rejecting the entire Catechism as a whole and thereby not separating themselves from the faith.

“Thus the Catechism presents the teaching of the Church without elevating the doctrinal status of those teachings beyond what they otherwise have. Consequently, one must look to other documents and to the tradition of the Church to establish the doctrinal weight of any particular point in the Catechism. Since the Catechism treats many things that not only have not been taught infallibly but which also have been proposed in the most tentative of fashions (esp. in the area of social teaching), there remains due liberty for theologians (and others) when they encounter something that has been proposed only tentatively.”

Notice what the Pope said above ,… “Consequently, one must look to other documents and to the tradition of the Church to establish the doctrinal weight of any particular point in the Catechism. Since the Catechism treats many things that not only have not been taught infallibly but which also have been proposed in the most tentative of fashions”

Hence, one is to look to the already established dogmatic traditional teachings of the Church and the infallible documents thereof since the Pope himself admits that much of what is taught in the Catechism is not infallible.

I quoted the Catechism above:

"2034 The Roman Pontiff and the bishops are "authentic teachers, that is, teachers endowed with the authority of Christ, who preach the faith to the people entrusted to them, the faith to be believed and put into practice.“76 The ordinary and universal Magisterium of the Pope and the bishops in communion with him teach the faithful the truth to believe, the charity to practice, the beatitude to hope for.”

It is hard to believe that our last two Popes have put themselves at odds over the Catechism (see my quote earlier from Pope John Paul II). Oh, and Pope Benedict XVI has not made any ex cathedra, infallible declarations. So, your quotes are invalid by your own standard. Perhaps you should find infallible, dogmatic quotes which support your argument, which seem to be your only criteria for determination. Also note (again) that infallibility was not even defined until Oecumenical Council XX in the 19th century, and it has only been exercised a handful of times (again, see above).

 

[Cecilianus]

Faith3Faith, here is an article that gives you your “infallible declarations” that you keep insisting on.

catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/currenterrors/bapdesire.htm#_ftn15

Among others it quotes the Council of Trent:

The state of grace cannot be had except through the laver of regeneration or a desire for it.

and also lists as condemned the following propositions:

No grace is given outside the Church

(condemned in 1713, Unigenitus, by Clement XII)

Pagans, Jews, heretics, and other people of the sort, receive no influx [of grace] whatsoever from Jesus Christ

(condemned in 1690 by Alexander VIII)

You might as well ignore the statements by St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Alphonsus Liguori, St. Augustine, St. Robert Bellarmine, and St. Bonaventure, since they’re not infallible enough for you.

 

[Cecilianus]

Here’s more, from this link: traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=28&catname=2#_ftnref3

A. Desire. St. Alphonsus Liguori defines baptism of desire (flaminis) as: “Perfect conversion to God through contrition or love of God above all things, with the explicit or implicit desire [voto] for true Baptism of water, in whose place it may supply, according to the Council of Trent.” He cites Session 14, on Penance, ch. 4.
St. Alphonsus further states: “It is de fide that men may be also be saved through baptism of desire — from the chapter Apostolicam, de presb. non bapt. and from the Council of Trent, where it is said that no one can be saved ‘without the washing of regeneration or the desire for it’.” (Theologia Moralis, ed. nova. [Rome: Vatican 1909] 3:96-7.)
The first citation is to an Epistle of Pope Innocent II (1130–43), who stated that a priest who “had died without the water of baptism, because he had persevered in the faith of Holy Mother the Church and in the confession of the name of Christ, was freed from original sin and attained the joy of the heavenly fatherland.” (Dz 388)[2]
Other theologians also cite Trent and Innocent II for these definitions. They also cite Pope Innocent III’s decree in 1206 concerning a Jew who desired baptism but was not able to be validly baptized: “If, however, such a man had died immediately, he would have flown to his heavenly home at once, because of the faith of the sacrament, although not because of the sacrament of faith.” (Dz 413)[3]
Some add Pope St. Pius V’s condemnation of the following proposition of Baius: “Perfect and sincere charity… can exist both in catechumens and in penitents without the remission of sins.” This is cited because: “The contradictory of this proposition is true. Therefore, charity cannot exist in unbaptized catechumens without the remission of their sins.” (McAuliffe, Sacramental Theology, 84.)
B. Blood. St. Alphonsus defines baptism of blood as: “The shedding of blood, or death tolerated, for the faith or for another Christian virtue.” As sources, he cites, among others, St. Thomas, St. Robert Bellarmine, Suarez and Cajetan. (ibid.)
As Solà noted (see above), opposition to this doctrine was virtually non-existent. The Magisterium does not usually intervene to issue a solemn definition for a common teaching unless it is widely attacked by heretics.

 

[Faith3Faith]

Also of note:

Catechism of the Catholic Church:

"2034 The Roman Pontiff and the bishops are "authentic teachers, that is, teachers endowed with the authority of Christ, who preach the faith to the people entrusted to them, the faith to be believed and put into practice.“76 The ordinary and universal Magisterium of the Pope and the bishops in communion with him teach the faithful the truth to believe, the charity to practice, the beatitude to hope for.”

Notice how it included the key words “Universal Magisterium”. Therefore you can’t accept any teaching in the Catechism alone, but only those teachings in the Catechism which adheres to what has already been handed down by the “Universal Magisterium”. So therefore since “Water Baptism” has already been taught as a dogma through the “Universal Magisterium” as the only Sacrament by which initial remission of all sin occurs and the only door by which one enters the Church, then a Catholic would know to reject any teaching from the Catechism which contradicts this teaching., …such as the teachings Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood

 

[Acolythus_sum]

Notice how it included the key words “Universal Magisterium”. Therefore you can’t accept any teaching in the Catechism alone, but only those teachings in the Catechism which adheres to what has already been handed down by the “Universal Magisterium”. So therefore since “Water Baptism” has already been taught as a dogma through the “Universal Magisterium” as the only Sacrament by which initial remission of all sin occurs and the only door by which one enters the Church, then a Catholic would know to reject any teaching from the Catechism which contradicts this teaching., …such as the teachings Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood

Read Cecilianus’ links. They clearly show that all 3 kinds of baptism are considered valid, under certain circumstances.

Also, it is rather clear that the Catechism is an act of the universal magisterium. Also, I would like to see any (infallible dogmatic) quotes that clearly state water baptism is the only means to salvation. Perhaps all those canonized martyrs are actually burning eternally in hell?

 

[Acolythus_sum]

Also, to hold that we know who is saved and who is not is limiting upon the power of our Omnipotent God, who has the power to save anyone he wishes, as is shown splendidly in Cecilianus’ first article. Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself said: “Judge not, lest ye be judged”. Your position is a severe judgment upon those who are, in your eyes, condemned.

 

[TMC]

Lets take a look at what Pope Benedict says about the Catechsim of the Church shall we…

• “The individual doctrine which the Catechism presents receive no other weight than that which they already possess. The weight of the Catechism itself lies in the whole. Since it transmits what the Church teaches, whoever rejects it as a whole separates himself beyond question from the faith and teaching of the Church [pp. 25-27].”*

I obviously agree with the Pope and do not reject the Catechism as a whole. If I did reject the Catechism as a whole, then I would be separating myself from the faith since some parts contained in the Catchism are from infallible teachings. However, if one rejects only certian parts of the Catechism whose teachings are derived from fallible sources, then one is not rejecting the entire Catechism as a whole and thereby not separating themselves from the faith.

“Thus the Catechism presents the teaching of the Church without elevating the doctrinal status of those teachings beyond what they otherwise have. Consequently, one must look to other documents and to the tradition of the Church to establish the doctrinal weight of any particular point in the Catechism. Since the Catechism treats many things that not only have not been taught infallibly but which also have been proposed in the most tentative of fashions (esp. in the area of social teaching), there remains due liberty for theologians (and others) when they encounter something that has been proposed only tentatively.”

Notice what the Pope said above ,… “Consequently, one must look to other documents and to the tradition of the Church to establish the doctrinal weight of any particular point in the Catechism. Since the Catechism treats many things that not only have not been taught infallibly but which also have been proposed in the most tentative of fashions”

Hence, one is to look to the already established dogmatic traditional teachings of the Church and the infallible documents thereof since the Pope himself admits that much of what is taught in the Catechism is not infallible.

Notice how it included the key words “Universal Magisterium”. Therefore you can’t accept any teaching in the Catechism alone, but only those teachings in the Catechism which adheres to what has already been handed down by the “Universal Magisterium”. So therefore since “Water Baptism” has already been taught as a dogma through the “Universal Magisterium” as the only Sacrament by which initial remission of all sin occurs and the only door by which one enters the Church, then a Catholic would know to reject any teaching from the Catechism which contradicts this teaching., …such as the teachings Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood

You have apparently invented a new religion which is made up of only those Catholic teachings that you have decided are infallible, augmented elsewhere with doctrines and dogmas of your own choosing. There is a term for that kind of religion - we call it Protestant.

 

[Faith3Faith]

You have apparently invented a new religion which is made up of only those Catholic teachings that you have decided are infallible, augmented elsewhere with doctrines and dogmas of your own choosing. There is a term for that kind of religion - we call it Protestant.

With all due respect, the First Vatican Council gives the definition for infallibility. You might want to read that.

So you say I am protestant because I hold to the already established traditional dogmatic infallible teachings of the Holy Catholic Church ?!?!? Thats a new one

The problem with your kind is that you put non-infallible papal statements, encyclicals, apostolic letters, sermons, writings of the Saints, and catechisms all on the same level. This is what causes all of the confusion amongst your kind .

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra:

“The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia produce eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church."

 

[Cecilianus]

With all due respect, the First Vatican Council gives the definition for infallibility. You might want to read that.

So you say I am protestant because I hold to the already established traditional dogmatic infallible teachings of the Holy Catholic Church ?!?!? Thats a new one

The problem with your kind is that you put non-infallible papal statements, encyclicals, apostolic letters, sermons, writings of the Saints, and catechisms all on the same level. This is what causes all of the confusion amongst your kind .

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra:

“The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia produce eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church."

You might want to consult the definition of infallibility, Faith3Faith. In order to be infallible the Pope has to be speaking to ALL Catholics - not just those of the Holy Roman Church. I’m not a Roman Catholic, for example.

And you cannot quote these words without taking for granted that the Church admits such a thing as invincible ignorance, which is the only way a Jew or Protestant or pagan could be saved. Dogmatic decrees are not isolated magic formulas that can be considered in isolation from their context, like laws. They must be understood within the integrity of the Church’s whole tradition. You are not thinking with the mind of the Church with this kind of legalistic approach.

 

[Faith3Faith]

You might want to consult the definition of infallibility, Faith3Faith. In order to be infallible the Pope has to be speaking to ALL Catholics - not just those of the Holy Roman Church. I’m not a Roman Catholic, for example.

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra: - “The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches"

If a Catholic truly knew his faith, then he would know that Pope Eugene IV was speaking as “The Bishop of Rome” when he said ““The Holy Roman Church”. Therefore he was making it know to all the Church that he was speaking as the Pope. I’m amazed that you don’t know that, especially since there is no such thing as a “Roman rite”. Instead it has always traditionally been called the “Latin rite”. This idea that there is a “Roman rite” is a recent invention by Catholics who don’t know their own faith very well.

 

[Faith3Faith]

the Church admits such a thing as invincible ignorance, which is the only way a Jew or Protestant or pagan could be saved.

Since you have made the claim that a Jew, Protestant or Pagan could be saved by “invincible ignorance”, then it is up to you to provide us all with the infallible dogmatic teaching of the Church which says that.

I’ve provided the infallible dogmatic teaching of the Church which says a Jew, Protestant and Pagan cannot be saved,…here it is again…

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra:
“The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire"

 

[Cecilianus]

Since you have made the claim that a Jew, Protestant or Pagan could be saved by “invincible ignorance”, then it is up to you to provide us all with the infallible dogmatic teaching of the Church which says that.

I’ve provided the infallible dogmatic teaching of the Church which says a Jew, Protestant and Pagan cannot be saved,…here it is again…

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra:
“The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire"

Because “God is good and He loves mankind”, not some wicked Calvinist God as you worship. What will you do if you get up to Heaven and see pagans and Jews and heretics there, given how sure of yourself that they won’t be there? Whatever happened to “judge not, that ye may not be judged?”

 

[Cecilianus]

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra: - “The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches"

If a Catholic truly knew his faith, then he would know that Pope Eugene IV was speaking as “The Bishop of Rome” when he said ““The Holy Roman Church”. Therefore he was making it know to all the Church that he was speaking as the Pope. I’m amazed that you don’t know that, especially since there is no such thing as a “Roman rite”. Instead it has always traditionally been called the “Latin rite”. This idea that there is a “Roman rite” is a recent invention by Catholics who don’t know their own faith very well.

He’s also speaking as the Bishop of Rome when sends directives to the parish priests on diocesan policy. The “Bishop of Rome” and “Universal Pontiff” are two different faculties - one speaks to one diocese, the other to the Universal Church. And he doesn’t mention me in that statement, so it’s not universal, so it’s not infallible, so I can complete disregard it without even listening.

(I’m being anal about this to show how silly and egoistic it is to insist on absolute infallibility - including insisting on precise magic formulas to make something an “infallible statement” as people do to deny the dogmatic character of Vatican II.)

 

[Faith3Faith]

he doesn’t mention me in that statement, so it’s not universal, so it’s not infallible, so I can complete disregard it without even listening.

I think any Catholic who knows their faith will realize that you just hung yourself with that last comment. :dts:

 

[Cecilianus]

I think any Catholic who knows their faith will realize that you just hung yourself with that last comment. :dts:

Exactly - it’s called reductio ad absurdam.

 

[Acolythus_sum]

Faith3faith, please respond with a logical answer:

Also, to hold that we know who is saved and who is not is limiting upon the power of our Omnipotent God, who has the power to save anyone he wishes, as is shown splendidly in Cecilianus’ first article. Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself said: “Judge not, lest ye be judged”. Your position is a severe judgment upon those who are, in your eyes, condemned.

 

[Faith3Faith]

The Catholic Church has always taught that receiving the Sacrament of Water Baptism is the only way into Christ’s Church, outside of which there is no salvation…

John 3:5 - Jesus said, “I tell you, amen, amen,…unless you are born again through Water and the Spirit( Water Baptism) you cannot enter into the Kingdom of Heaven”

 

[Acolythus_sum]

The Catholic Church has always taught that receiving the Sacrament of Water Baptism is the only way into Christ’s Church, outside of which there is no salvation…

John 3:5 - Jesus said, “I tell you, amen, amen,…unless you are born again through Water and the Spirit (Water Baptism) you cannot enter into the Kingdom of Heaven”

That was not logic. Please respond by means of logic (reason) to show how this limit upon the power of God is legitimate.

From the Catholic Encyclopedia ( newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm ):

[T]he Council of Trent (Sess, IV, cap, vi) teaches that justification can not be obtained, since the promulgation of the Gospel, without the washing of regeneration or the desire thereof (in voto). In the seventh session, it declares (can. v) anathema upon anyone who says that baptism is not necessary for salvation.

 

[Acolythus_sum]

And please show where the phrase “water baptism” is SPECIFICALLY used in reference to the necessity of baptism.

 

[Faith3Faith]

That was not logic. Please respond by means of logic (reason) to show how this limit upon the power of God is legitimate.

From the Catholic Encyclopedia ( newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm ):

The Council of Trent (Sess, IV, cap, vi) teaches that justification can not be obtained, since the promulgation of the Gospel, without the washing of regeneration or the desire thereof (in voto). In the seventh session, it declares (can. v) anathema upon anyone who says that baptism is not necessary for salvation.

TO SAY THAT SOMETHING CANNOT TAKE PLACE WITHOUT “X” OR “X” IS NOT NECESSARILY TO SAY THAT SOMETHING CAN TAKE PLACE WITH EITHER “X” OR “X”,… no man can be saved without at least the desire/vow for the waters of baptism. If a man was Baptized with Water, but had no desire for it, then his Baptism is null and void. Therefore all who submit to the required Water Baptismal Sacrament must also have a desire to receive it.

The Council of Trent defines as a dogma that the **Sacrament of Baptism **(Baptism of Water) is necessary for salvation. This must be confessed by all Catholics, and all who deny it are anathematized. All baptism of desire advocates do not hold that the Sacrament of Baptism is necessary for salvation.

Ask any Catholic Priest if baptism of desire is considered a “sacrament” and he will say “NO”. Only **WATER BAPTISM **is taught by the Catholic Church to be a “Sacramental” Baptism

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