Salvation outside the church

[SFD]

Gerard,

Is St. Alphonsus wrong here? He is not referring to St. Dismas here either.

Extract from St Alphonsus Liguori: Moral Theology, Bk. 6, nn. 95-7.

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.”

SFD

 

[SFD]

GerardP this is an amazing critique of Jimmy Akin’s understatnding of the Church’s teaching.** Did Jimmy Akin ever respond to Mr. Miller’s critique?**

stmaria,

Mr. Akin gets quite a number of things confused. I don’t think anyone should read him at all. I would stick with Monsignor Joseph Clifford Fenton S.T.D., former editor of American Ecclesiastical Review, for a proper understanding of the definitions of the Church and questions on membership in the Church and salvation. Fenton quotes the teaching of the Popes and theologians in his presentations.

The post noted below shows that these oft quoted statements of Pope Pius IX are frequently misinterpreted by those like Mr. Akin. It is best to follow Fenton.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=3239052&postcount=23

SFD

 

[GerardP]

Gerard,

Is St. Alphonsus wrong here? He is not referring to St. Dismas here either.

SFD

Well, if the quote is accurate, it’s apparent that he’s misread the Council of Trent. And I’d like to see the text of what he’s referring to when he refers to the "Canon Apostolicam, “de presbytero non baptizato.”

side note: I referred to St. Dismas because it seems to be a common error regarding his salvation. Baptism of Desire or Blood is wrongly attributed as the mechanism.

 

[SFD]

Well, if the quote is accurate, it’s apparent that he’s misread the Council of Trent. And I’d like to see the text of what he’s referring to when he refers to the "Canon Apostolicam, “de presbytero non baptizato.”

side note: I referred to St. Dismas because it seems to be a common error regarding his salvation. Baptism of Desire or Blood is wrongly attributed as the mechanism.

GerardP,

Well, I never mentioned St. Dismas. Neither did St. Alphonsus, for that matter.

The quote from St. Alphonsus is accurate. St. Alphonsus is a Saint, theologian of great weight, and was declared a Doctor of the Church by the Church Herself.

You are claiming that he read Trent incorrectly?

SFD

 

[Sure]

Why engage in the verbal gymnastics on this issue?

“Outside” the Church is the opposite of “Inside” the Church.

Salvation “through” the Church can’t happen unless someone is “Inside” the Church. You can’t go “through” a tunnel without getting “inside” the tunnel.

The resorting to “through” is an attempt to avoid the issue of “inside” the Church and what that means.

We know that people can receive valid baptism and not be “inside” the Church as you seem to be using the meaning. We also know that a baptized person who has committed no sin will go to heaven. So, what of an Episcopalian child who has received valid baptism but dies before the age of reason. We would not call that child “Catholic” yet we know that such a child would be saved. How can this be???

 

[SFD]

We know that people can receive valid baptism and not be “inside” the Church as you seem to be using the meaning. We also know that a baptized person who has committed no sin will go to heaven. So, what of an Episcopalian child who has received valid baptism but dies before the age of reason. We would not call that child “Catholic” yet we know that such a child would be saved. How can this be???

This child is considered a Catholic and attains heaven. He was a member of the Church and died inside the Church.

This is what the Church teaches.

SFD

 

[Sure]

This child is considered a Catholic and attains heaven. He was a member of the Church and died inside the Church.

This is what the Church teaches.

SFD

It seems then that the issue might be the meaning of the word “Catholic” as it SOMETIMES extends to people that we would commonly call “lutherans” or “presbyterians” etc.

What of an episcopalian child of 12 who has not yet been exposed to the Truth of the Catholic Church. Would you consider that child “inside” the Church as well?

 

[GerardP]

We know that people can receive valid baptism and not be “inside” the Church as you seem to be using the meaning.

What do you mean? I’m saying that the “name must be on a registry in a parish” is a dodge from the real argument which is sacramental incorporation into the Church through Baptism.

We also know that a baptized person who has committed no sin will go to heaven.

Right.

So, what of an Episcopalian child who has received valid baptism but dies before the age of reason.

They would go to Heaven.

We would not call that child “Catholic” yet we know that such a child would be saved. How can this be???

If validly administered. They have recieved the one Baptism of the one faith. Just the same as if a baby from a Catholic family were baptized by non-Catholic doctor.

The only difference is the child is from a non-Catholic family.

 

[GerardP]

It seems then that the issue might be the meaning of the word “Catholic” as it SOMETIMES extends to people that we would commonly call “lutherans” or “presbyterians” etc.

What of an episcopalian child of 12 who has not yet been exposed to the Truth of the Catholic Church. Would you consider that child “inside” the Church as well?

By 12 the innocence of Baptism would probably have been marred by mortal sin. Any profession of a faith other than the Catholic faith would be apostatizing from the Catholic faith.

The only way to Heaven for that person would be a renunciation of their false faith and a perfect act of contrition before death.

They must be reunited to benefit from the sacramental benefits of the Church.

 

[GerardP]

GerardP this is an amazing critique of Jimmy Akin’s understatnding of the Church’s teaching.** Did Jimmy Akin ever respond to Mr. Miller’s critique?**

I don’t know for sure. I’m not aware of any.

 

[GerardP]

GerardP, Well, I never mentioned St. Dismas. Neither did St. Alphonsus, for that matter.

Well I did. And I explained why. Do you have a problem with that?

I used it as an example to make a distinction between the institution of the sacrament of Baptism and the later date when Baptism was made obligatory.

Many people reading your citation would fail to make that distinction and that’s why the erroneous example of St. Dismus to support Baptism of Desire would not be correct.

The quote from St. Alphonsus is accurate. St. Alphonsus is a Saint, theologian of great weight, and was declared a Doctor of the Church by the Church Herself.

You are claiming that he read Trent incorrectly?

SFD

Saints and Doctors of the Church are not infallible. Trent does not say what St. Alphonsus claims. He is mistaken. Fallible theologians (even saints) can make mistakes regarding infallible dogmas.

Read Ligouri on Limbo. He takes Aquinas’ side over Augustine’s side and points out that Augustine was contradictory and confused over the issue.

As was pointed out in the Adam Miller article:

*"…subjecting:
a. that which is infallible to that which is not infallible;

b. that which is definitive to that which is not definitive

…subverts and inverts the Church’s Teaching Authority." *

 

[japhy]

No. He would be a liar and that is not acceptable. You’re adopting the Protestant argument that Jesus didn’t really mean “eat my flesh and drink my blood” or “this is my flesh.”

Can I ask what happens to a person who is brought into communion with the Catholic Church by baptism (by water) and dies immediately afterwards? If he has never eaten the flesh and drunk the blood of Jesus Christ (cf. John 6:53ff), how can he attain to eternal life?

 

[GerardP]

Can I ask what happens to a person who is brought into communion with the Catholic Church by baptism (by water) and dies immediately afterwards? If he has never eaten the flesh and drunk the blood of Jesus Christ (cf. John 6:53ff), how can he attain to eternal life?

He didn’t positively refuse the Sacrament for one thing.

Also, the efficacy of Baptism is the direct result of Christ’s sacrifice on the Cross. The sacraments are all connected that way.

A Baptism followed by a willful denial of the reality of the Eucharist would not save someone since they would be a heretic.

In the case of God determining it’s necessity as is the case with Baptism, a third possibility is God providing the sacrament physically without it being seen by human eyes.

 

[GerardP]

Can I ask what happens to a person who is brought into communion with the Catholic Church by baptism (by water) and dies immediately afterwards? If he has never eaten the flesh and drunk the blood of Jesus Christ (cf. John 6:53ff), how can he attain to eternal life?

These excerpts from Trent should apply to the person immediately expiring after Baptism. Barring any conscious sin on the person’s part.

CHAPTER IV.
That little Children are not bound to sacramental Communion.
Finally, this same holy Synod teaches, that little children, who have not attained to the use of reason, are not by any necessity obliged to the sacramental communion of the Eucharist: forasmuch as, having been regenerated by th by the laver of baptism, and being incorporated with Christ, they cannot, at that age, lose the grace which they have already acquired of being the sons of God. Not therefore, however, is antiquity to be condemned, if, in some places, it, at one time, observed that custom; for as those most holy Fathers had a probable cause for what they did in respect of their times, so, assuredly, is it to be believed without controversy, that they did this without any necessity thereof unto salvation.

CANON IV.–If any one saith, that the communion of the Eucharist is necessary for little children, before they have arrived at years of discretion; let him be anathema.

 

[SFD]

It seems then that the issue might be the meaning of the word “Catholic” as it SOMETIMES extends to people that we would commonly call “lutherans” or “presbyterians” etc.

What of an episcopalian child of 12 who has not yet been exposed to the Truth of the Catholic Church. Would you consider that child “inside” the Church as well?

Under the 1917 code, at the age of 14 they would be legally presumed to be guilty of adhering to a condemned sect. From the age of reason (about 7) to age 14 they are not presumed to adhere…however they may very well adhere on their own initiative after the age of reason.

SFD

 

[japhy]

He didn’t positively refuse the Sacrament for one thing.

John 6:53 (or 54 in the DR and LV) says nothing about refusing the Sacrament, but rather failure to receive it.

In the case of God determining it’s necessity as is the case with Baptism, a third possibility is God providing the sacrament physically without it being seen by human eyes.

So it is possible, then, that God could miraculously manifest a person’s reception of Holy Communion without it being detected by observers. Could it also be possible that God could miraculously manifest a person’s baptism by water without it being detected by observers?

These excerpts from Trent should apply to the person immediately expiring after Baptism. Barring any conscious sin on the person’s part.

How come the Church can infallibly and validly qualify the words of Jesus Christ regarding the reception of the Most Blessed Sacrament, but cannot do the same for the sacrament of Baptism?

I still don’t understand how Trent, s. VI, c. IV – “And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof” – could conceivably not be pronouncing the existence of translation “from that state wherein man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace” by a baptism by desire. Why would they have mentioned “the desire thereof” if not making an exceptional case?

 

[Sure]

Under the 1917 code, at the age of 14 they would be legally presumed to be guilty of adhering to a condemned sect. From the age of reason (about 7) to age 14 they are not presumed to adhere…however they may very well adhere on their own initiative after the age of reason.

SFD

Wow…how illogical. What canon is that? So, at 14 they’re just magically presented with the truth of catholicism???

 

[GerardP]

John 6:53 (or 54 in the DR and LV) says nothing about refusing the Sacrament, but rather failure to receive it.

And? What’s the point? The Scriptures aren’t the final word on everything in the Church.

So it is possible, then, that God could miraculously manifest a person’s reception of Holy Communion without it being detected by observers. Could it also be possible that God could miraculously manifest a person’s baptism by water without it being detected by observers?

Have you read this thread? I made that very point pages ago.

How come the Church can infallibly and validly qualify the words of Jesus Christ regarding the reception of the Most Blessed Sacrament, but cannot do the same for the sacrament of Baptism?

Because God didn’t want the Church to. His rules. Not the Churchmen’s.

I still don’t understand how Trent, s. VI, c. IV – “And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof” – could conceivably not be pronouncing the existence of translation “from that state wherein man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace” by a baptism by desire. Why would they have mentioned “the desire thereof” if not making an exceptional case?

Because they are talking about justification. Not salvation. Justification can be lost. Salvation can’t because it only occurs at judgement time if at all.

 

[japhy]

Have you read this thread? I made that very point pages ago.

I have read the thread, but I don’t recall you being as explicit about the nature of the miraculous baptism as you are being now about miraculous Holy Communion.

Actually, I think I take that back. Re-reading #54 – “Desire may provide justification but God’s response to that justification would be to provide a water Baptism. Belief or hope in gratuitous miracles on God’s part is logically and doctrinally sound when compared to accepting contradictory statements that contribute to the ‘de-incarnationalization of Christ.’” – you admit that hope in a miraculous provision of water baptism by God is sound. I had at first thought you meant that all who are justified would necessarily then go on to receive an “ordinary” water baptism, whereas now I see that you are saying that such water baptism might be miraculously provided by God.

Are you suggesting it is possible, then, that miraculous water baptism is effected (by God) when a catechumen dies with a desire for baptism?

And, moreover, that, if said miraculous baptism is effected, it is guaranteed to be effected with water (in whatever means God manifests it) since water is necessary for an actual baptism to occur?

That sounds reasonable to me.

 

[SFD]

GerardP:

SFD:

GerardP,
Well, I never mentioned St. Dismas. Neither did St. Alphonsus, for that matter.

Well I did. And I explained why. Do you have a problem with that?

GerardP,

Yes, I do. It is the introduction of a red herring into the discussion.

GerardP:

I used it as an example to make a distinction between the institution of the sacrament of Baptism and the later date when Baptism was made obligatory.

Many people reading your citation would fail to make that distinction and that’s why the erroneous example of St. Dismus to support Baptism of Desire would not be correct.

What distinction? Are you denying the moral unanimity of theologians who teach both “Baptism of Desire” and “Baptism of Blood”?

GerardP:

SFD:

he quote from St. Alphonsus is accurate. St. Alphonsus is a Saint, theologian of great weight, and was declared a Doctor of the Church by the Church Herself.

You are claiming that he read Trent incorrectly?

SFD

Saints and Doctors of the Church are not infallible. Trent does not say what St. Alphonsus claims. He is mistaken. Fallible theologians (even saints) can make mistakes regarding infallible dogmas.

No, they are not infallible as individuals…but neither are you. They are however, when they teach in moral unanimity, incapable of teaching error. As I understand it, the moral unanimity of theologians is not in itself granted the charism of “infallibility” but rather they are witnesses to the preaching of the Church, which means that if they all agree (morally unanimous) they cannot be wrong - not because they have some special charism but rather because, like the “Church believing”, if they could all be mistaken then that would mean that the magisterium had been mistaken. Any other position is a denial of reason.

GerardP:

Read Ligouri on Limbo. He takes Aquinas’ side over Augustine’s side and points out that Augustine was contradictory and confused over the issue.

As was pointed out in the Adam Miller article:

"…subjecting:
a. that which is infallible to that which is not infallible;

b. that which is definitive to that which is not definitive

…subverts and inverts the Church’s Teaching Authority."

Who is Adam Miller?

Here is Scheeben:
Scheeben:

The consent of Theologians produces certainty that a doctrine is Catholic truth only when on the one hand the doctrine is proposed as absolutely certain, and on the other and the consent is universal and constant (Consensus universalis et constans non solurn opinionis sed firmae et ratae sententiae). If all agree that a particular doctrine is a Catholic dogma and that to deny it is heresy, then that doctrine is certainly a dogma. If they agree that a doctrine cannot be denied without injuring Catholic truth, and that such denial is deserving of censure, this again is a sure proof that the doctrine is in some way a Catholic doctrine. If, again, they agree in declaring that a doctrine is sufficiently certain and demonstrated, their consent is not indeed a formal proof of the Catholic character of the doctrine, nevertheless the existence of the consent shows that the doctrine belongs to the mind of the Church (catholicus intellectus), and that consequently its denial would incur the censure of rashness.

These principles on the authority of Theologians were strongly insisted on by Pius IX in the brief, Gravissimas inter (cf. infra, § 29), and they are evident consequences of the Catholic doctrine of Tradition. Although the assistance of the Holy Ghost is not directly promised to Theologians, nevertheless the assistance promised to the Church requires that He should prevent them as a body from falling into error; otherwise the Faithful who follow them would all be led astray. The consent of Theologians implies the consent of the Episcopate, according to St. Augustine’s dictum: “Not to resist an error is to approve of it — not to defend a truth is to reject it.” (“Error cui non resistitur approbatur, et veritas quae non defenditur opprimitur “ (Decr. Grat., dist. 83, c. error). And even natural reason assures us that this consent is a guarantee of truth. “Whatever is found to be one and the same among many persons is not an error but a tradition” (Tertullian). (Supra, p. 68.)

(A Manual Of Catholic Theology, Based On Scheeben’s “Dogmatik” Joseph Wilhelm, D.D., PHD. And Thomas B. Scannell, D.D. With A Preface By Cardinal Manning, Vol. 1. 1906, pp. 83-84.)

Was Pope Pius IX wrong as well? Did he misread Trent?

Gerard, do you think that every theologian from the sixteenth century until today mistranslated the Latin of the Council of Trent? That doesn’t even make sense. Translated into what? Do you think theology is done in English?

SFD