Latest Threads
newest posts



Go Back   Catholic Answers Forums > Forums > Apologetics
 

Welcome to Catholic Answers Forums, the largest Catholic Community on the Web.

Here you can join over 400,000 members from around the world discussing all things Catholic. Membership is open to all, Catholic and non-Catholic alike, who seek the Truth with Charity.

To gain full access, you must register for a FREE account. Registered members are able to:
  • Submit questions about the faith to experts from Catholic Answers
  • Participate in all forum discussions
  • Communicate privately with Catholics from around the world
  • Plus join a prayer group, read with the Book Club, and much more.
Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free. So join our community today!

Have a question about registration or your account log-in? Just contact our Support Hotline.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search Thread Display
  #1  
Old Dec 22, '04, 7:25 pm
CatholicCrusade CatholicCrusade is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: December 2, 2004
Posts: 144
Religion: Roman Catholic
Default Why not one more thread for EENS and Baptism of Desire?

Just some things I think that all who support Baptism of Desire would profit by reading:

And excerpt from Br. Andrť Marie, M.I.C.M.

http://www.catholicism.org/pages/arguingbod.htm

Why we do not have to believe in Baptism of Desire
At this point, Iíve spent enough time speaking against people who actually defend extra ecclesiam nulla salus, albeit wrongly. From here on out, I would like to attack the real enemies, the liberals.
I think that itís important to answer, clearly and simply, two questions: The first is, "Why donít we have to believe in Baptism of Desire?" The second is, "Why should we not believe in Baptism of Desire?"
It has never been defined by the Church.
In answer to the first question, "Why donít we have to believe in Baptism of Desire?" I give two reasons. The first is that the Church has never defined it. No Pope ever defined it, either alone, or in an ecumenical council.
It is not a universal teaching.
Now itís predictable that certain people when hearing me claim that no pope ever defined Baptism of Desire would say, "But you donít just have to believe whatís been solemnly defined; thatís what the liberals say. You also have to believe the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium, too." This, is, of course, true; which is why my second reason for saying that we donít have to believe in Baptism of Desire is that it is not a universal teaching of the Church. To be of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium, something has to have been taught universally.
If Baptism of Desire were a universal teaching, then St. Augustine would not have said, "On considering which, again and again, I find that not only martyrdom for the sake of Christ may supply what was wanting of baptism, but also faith and conversion of heart, if recourse may not be had to the celebration of the mystery of baptism for want of time. (BOOK IV, Chapter 22, De baptismo contra Donatistas) This phrase "on considering which, again and again," shows that St. Augustine is using his own mental powers, not witnessing to an ancient tradition. Elsewhere, St. Augustine contradicted this view:
"How many rascals are saved by being baptized on their deathbeds? And how many sincere catechumens die unbaptized and are lost forever!" (Augustine the Bishop, Van Der Meer, p.150)
And here: "No matter what progress a catechumen may make, he still carries the burden of iniquity, and it is not taken away until he has been baptized." (On the Gospel of St. John, Chapter 13, Tract 7)
St. Augustine, I should note, is one of the men St. Bernard calls the "two pillars" upon whom he rests his own opinion of Baptism of Desire. The other pillar is St. Ambrose. The oft-quoted funeral oration for Valentinian, in which Ambroseseems to perhaps maybe espouse Baptism of Desire, is not at all sufficient proof that he indeed held it. I would willingly go toe-to-toe with anyone who holds that St. Ambrose was definitively proclaiming his personal belief in Baptism of Desire in this oration. In addition, even if St. Ambrose was making such a proclamation, he himself contradicts it in a passage in his catechetical treatise, De Mysteriis. The great patrologist PŤre Migne cites two other works of St. Ambrose to justify his statement that "From among the Catholic Fathers perhaps no one insists more than Ambrose on the absolute necessity of receiving Baptism."
Even were I to concede the funeral oration on Valentinian to the opposition, all they now have on their side is a St. Ambrose who contradicts himself. This is hardly a pillar I would count on to support myself. So even if he did at one time or another hold and teach Baptism of Desire, the same thing would hold for him as for his convert, St. Augustine. He was not giving clear witness to an apostolic teaching, but was working as a theologian, and a fallible one.
(continued)
__________________
Os justi meditabitur sapientiam
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old Dec 22, '04, 7:27 pm
CatholicCrusade CatholicCrusade is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: December 2, 2004
Posts: 144
Religion: Roman Catholic
Default Re: Why not one more thread for EENS and Baptism of Desire?

(continued from above)

Again, if Baptism of Desire were a universal teaching, it would have made its way into the teachings of the Fathers Sts. Jerome, John Chrysostom, Gregory of Nazianzen, Basel the Great, Cyril of Jerusalem, and Gregory the Great, none of whom mention it. Actually, Gregory of Nazianzen does mention it in his "Oration on the Holy Lights," but only to reject it.
The most that our enemies can really say about the Baptism of Desire theory is that it is a commonly held opinion. Fine. Common opinions are not universal teachings. Three examples of common opinions that have been wrong areó
the commonly held, now heretical, medieval opinion touching on the perpetual sinlessness of our Lady, the Immaculate Conception,
the commonly held, now heretical, opinion that Episcopal consecration was not a sacrament, and
the commonly held, now heretical, opinion that the matter for the sacrament of Holy Orders is the handing over of the sacred vessels and not the imposition of hands.
When you have an infallible Church and fallible theologians, todayís common opinion can be tomorrowís damnable heresy. Thatís just the way it is!
Why we should not believe in Baptism of Desire
Now Iíve just established that we donít have to believe in Baptism of Desire. If that were all I did, I would be negligent. Now I would like to establish why we should not believe in Baptism of Desire.
It leads to a contradiction of a defined dogma.
I said that if no salvation outside the Church were not a dogma, we would be fools for arguing Baptism of Desire. It was Father Feeneyís defense of the dogma that led him to accept and champion the no compromise teaching on the issue of Baptism. This is why the first reason I will offer for why we should not believe in Baptism of Desire is that it contradicts a defined dogma.
St. Thomasí belief in Baptism of Desire did not keep him from holding and teaching that there is no salvation outside the Church. The issue wasnít staring him in the face. There werenít people running around putting Jews and Mohammedans in heaven by virtue of what he said in his Summa. In the midst of sheer indifferentism, Father Feeney looked for causes, and when he saw everyone screaming "Baptism of Desire!" be began to question the opinion which he himself had been taught. Today, you canít talk about no salvation outside the Church without someone bring up Baptism of Desire. To St. Thomas, ignorant natives on a desert isle were subjects of Godís providence and God would provide for them if they were of good will; but today, they are subjects of Baptism of Desire and they go to heaven worshipping whatever devil suits their fancy.
Still, there is a problem right there is St. Thomas. It is this, you cannot really hold that there is no salvation outside the Church without holding the necessity of the Sacrament. It destroys the reality of the Mystical Body. How? Baptism is necessary for admission into the Church. The popes assure us of this; Pope Pius XI in Quas Primas and Pope Pius XII in Mystici Corporis, to name two recent examples. Nobody really challenges this. If the theology of the Mystical Body as it was taught by Pope Pius XII is to be defended, then Baptism of Desire has to be condemned.
I will reiterate a point I made two years ago at this conference in my talk on the doctrine of the Mystical Body: In the very same conversation with Nicodemus in which our Lord teaches the necessity of Baptism, he also says this: "And no man hath ascended into heaven, but he that come down from heaven, even the Son of man who is in heaven." Commenting on these words, the great St. Augustine, the doctor of the Mystical Body, says, "The spiritual birth shall be of such sort, as that men from being earthly shall become heavenly: which will not be possible, except they are made members of Me; so that he who ascends, becomes one with Him who descended. Our Lord accounts His body, that is, His Church, as Himself."
(countinued)
__________________
Os justi meditabitur sapientiam
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old Dec 22, '04, 7:28 pm
CatholicCrusade CatholicCrusade is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: December 2, 2004
Posts: 144
Religion: Roman Catholic
Default Re: Why not one more thread for EENS and Baptism of Desire?

(the final one)

It contradicts the plain meaning of Our Lordís words in the Gospel of St. John.
The second reason we should not believe in Baptism of Desire ó and the one that Father Feeney eventually adopted as his greatest apologetic ó is that it contradicts our Lordís words as recorded in the Gospel of St. John, "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he shall not enter into the Kingdom of God."
Our Lord did not make the statement, "Unless a man is baptized, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." Had he said that, then the proponents of metaphorical baptisms may be able to apply his words to the non-sacramental types of baptism. No, our Lord referred to Baptism by its very constituent parts: the external rite and the internal workings of the Holy Ghost. In other words, he used a phrase which unambiguously refers to the Sacrament.
Iíll give you an example of another use of this same technique. If I wanted to make the statement that only angels were allowed to partake of the Beatific Vision before Ascension Thursday, I could simply say, "Only angels were allowed to partake of the Beatific Vision before Ascension Thursday." But we know that there are metaphorical uses of the word "angel," such as the prophesy about St. John the Baptist in the book of Malachias, quoted by St. Matthew, "Behold I send my angel and he shall prepare the way before my face." If someone applied such a metaphorical meaning to my statement about the Beatific Vision, it would compromise the exactness of what I was trying to say. But if I said, "Only created pure spirits were allowed to partake of the Beatific Vision before Ascension Thursday," I would then have defined the very essence of and angel. I would have preempted any metaphorical understanding of my statement. This is what our Lord did in saying "born again of water and the Holy Ghost" instead of "baptized."
Now I can just hear the objection, "But that Scriptural passage has to be understood the way the Church understands it!" OK, fine. In infallible pronouncements, one in the Council of Florence, and three in the Council of Trent, the Church directly and literally applies these words to the Sacrament of Baptism. I have the citations if anyone wants to see get them. As an aside, even Vatican II applies John 3:5 to the Sacrament!
Conclusion
...
I would like to make a short meditation on the piercing of our Lordís side, using these words from St. Johnís Gospel, "But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water." This passage expresses the birth of the Church and the incarnate reality of the Sacraments ó especially Baptism and the Holy Eucharist.
The meditation will consist of a mental exercise. I want to build a chapel in your minds. We can call it, in honor of the Saint commemorated by the Church today, St. Augustineís chapel. We have an altar with a tabernacle, and high above it, a large, and vivid crucifixion scene, in the very graphic Spanish style. Our Lady and St. John are there, and St. Johnís eyes are fixed on the miraculous issue of blood and water flowing from our Lordís corpse. In the pulpit of our little chapel, stands a bishop named St. Augustine and he preaches on this scene, using the actual words he penned during his lifetime about our text from St. Johnís Gospel.
"The Evangelist has expressed himself cautiously; not struck, or wounded, but opened His side: whereby was opened the gate of life, from whence the sacraments of the church flowed, without which we cannot enter into that life which is the true life; And forthwith came thereout blood and water. That blood was shed for the remission of sins, that water tempers the cup of salvation. This it was which was prefigured when Noah was commanded to make a door in the side of the ark, by which the animals that were not to perish by the deluge entered; which animals prefigured the church. To shadow forth this, the woman was made out of the side of the sleeping man; for this second Adam bowed His head and slept on the cross, that out of that which came therefrom, there might be formed a wife for Him. O death, by which the dead are quickened, what can be purer than that blood, what more salutary than that wound!"
In the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.
__________________
Os justi meditabitur sapientiam
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old Dec 22, '04, 7:48 pm
marineboy marineboy is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: November 8, 2004
Posts: 228
Default Re: Why not one more thread for EENS and Baptism of Desire?

well where do i start ---baptism of desire --is an implicit desire to follow God to the best of ones ability --thus if a person has the virute of faith which meanS if he knew the truth he would execpt it...i would say that u do have to beleive it as a catholic because of a number of reasons 1. u can certainly quote a number of documents that affirm "outside the church ther is no salvation...."4 th lateran council, florence unam sanctam, trent, athanasius creed etc.. remeber though that church documents must be interpreted the way the church understands them.....if u accept father feeny's postion u must believe that these documents teach that explicit faith and water baptism are always always always absolutley necessary for salvation.....THE PROBLEM IS THAT THE MAGISTERIUM, IN ITS ORDIANRY CAPACITY REJECTS THIS NOTION, UNDER PIUS XII THE HOLY OFFICE ISSUED A LETTER TO THE FAITH FUL IN THE FEENEY CASE AFFIRMING "OUTSIDE THE CHURCH THERE IS NO SALVATION," BUT ALSO SAID "THAT FAITH THAT LEADS TO SALVATION NEED NOT ALWAYS BE EXPLICIT.." SO THE HOLY OFFICE, APPROVED BY THE POPE INTERPRETTED "OUTSIDE THE CHURCH THERE IS NO SALVATION," CONTRARY TO LEONARD FEENEY ... SO U MUST HOLD THAT THERE IS AT LEAST A POSSIBILITY THAT SOMEONE COULD HAVE IMPLICIT FAITH (BAPTISM OF DESIRE) ALTHOUGH U DONT HAVE TO ACTUALLY BELIEVE ANYONE IS "INVINCIBLY IGNORANT....." u could be in goodd standing by saying that " yes i beleive the church teaches that if someone is invincibly ignorant they can be saved, but i highly doubt anyone is actually invincibly ignorant..." u cannt say however that the church doesnt at all teach that an implicit desire, if it existed, would lead one to salvation.....
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old Dec 22, '04, 8:06 pm
CatholicCrusade CatholicCrusade is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: December 2, 2004
Posts: 144
Religion: Roman Catholic
Default Re: Why not one more thread for EENS and Baptism of Desire?

Quote:
Originally Posted by marineboy
well where do i start ---baptism of desire --is an implicit desire to follow God to the best of ones ability --thus if a person has the virute of faith which meanS if he knew the truth he would execpt it...i would say that u do have to beleive it as a catholic because of a number of reasons 1. u can certainly quote a number of documents that affirm "outside the church ther is no salvation...."4 th lateran council, florence unam sanctam, trent, athanasius creed etc.. remeber though that church documents must be interpreted the way the church understands them.....if u accept father feeny's postion u must believe that these documents teach that explicit faith and water baptism are always always always absolutley necessary for salvation.....THE PROBLEM IS THAT THE MAGISTERIUM, IN ITS ORDIANRY CAPACITY REJECTS THIS NOTION, UNDER PIUS XII THE HOLY OFFICE ISSUED A LETTER TO THE FAITH FUL IN THE FEENEY CASE AFFIRMING "OUTSIDE THE CHURCH THERE IS NO SALVATION," BUT ALSO SAID "THAT FAITH THAT LEADS TO SALVATION NEED NOT ALWAYS BE EXPLICIT.." SO THE HOLY OFFICE, APPROVED BY THE POPE INTERPRETTED "OUTSIDE THE CHURCH THERE IS NO SALVATION," CONTRARY TO LEONARD FEENEY ... SO U MUST HOLD THAT THERE IS AT LEAST A POSSIBILITY THAT SOMEONE COULD HAVE IMPLICIT FAITH (BAPTISM OF DESIRE) ALTHOUGH U DONT HAVE TO ACTUALLY BELIEVE ANYONE IS "INVINCIBLY IGNORANT....." u could be in goodd standing by saying that " yes i beleive the church teaches that if someone is invincibly ignorant they can be saved, but i highly doubt anyone is actually invincibly ignorant..." u cannt say however that the church doesnt at all teach that an implicit desire, if it existed, would lead one to salvation.....
The only faith that need not be explicit is that of infants. They have no ability to have faith; therefore, they can have an implicit Faith, if you can use hat terminology, but no one else can or does.

There are probably very few people if any that are invincibly ignorant, but if they are, they are not saved by being such. They are saved either by natural or supernatural means, which St. Thomas Aquinas said, could include God sending an angel, if necessary, to teach the person the truths of the Faith (which would, of course, include Baptism). For a natural means, of couse, He could send missionaries to such a person.

Did you read what Fr. Muller wrote, which I suggested to you in another thread?
__________________
Os justi meditabitur sapientiam
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old Dec 22, '04, 8:15 pm
TNT TNT is offline
Regular Member
Book Club Member
 
Join Date: November 27, 2004
Posts: 2,776
Religion: ROMAN CATHOLIC
Default Re: Why not one more thread for EENS and Baptism of Desire?

Quote:
Why not one more thread for EENS and Baptism of Desire?
1. We do not have the personnel to follow up on the implications (Missionaries for conversion.)
2. With advances in science and communication, man has moved into automated salvation vs the old 1 by 1 conversion.
Example:
Our grandparents went thru the store checkout, put each item on the counter, the clerk typed in the price, then summed it up, then you put the cash on the counter, clerk counted it, bagged your stuff, helped you to your car (buggy).
BUT today, we go to the self-serve counter, slide the stuff across a scanner, pay with a card in a slot, and bag it ourselves. No need to talk or listen to another human being!
This is called Self-service Checkout.
In this analogy, man has likewise progressed in salvation theology... you don't have to go thru that lengthy conversion process. You just sincerely desire it, and it's yours...lately, with further advances in theological technology, you only have to have an unconscious desire ie you don't even have to think of it..none of that 19th cent. going to church, having catechesis, ceremonies and rites, getting washed in water, getting involved with other people, etc.
And you get to skip the church with all the rules and study...you are now saved outside the membership in any church, since the only true church is the human race...since the Incarnation. We just discovered this, and thank g we did...with the busy schedules and all.
This is called Self-Salvation.
The last reason is:
Everyone who has an opinion on these matters has cast it in stone. We call this mental rigor-mortice.
VERY few will go back to the old "affirmations" (aka dogmas).

You can't stop progress!
God Bless
__________________
=>To destroy a Religion, you must first sever its traditions.
Liberalism :A mental disorder wherein the Illogical becomes completely logical with no lasting effect on the conscience.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old Dec 22, '04, 8:25 pm
CatholicCrusade CatholicCrusade is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: December 2, 2004
Posts: 144
Religion: Roman Catholic
Default Re: Why not one more thread for EENS and Baptism of Desire?



lol
__________________
Os justi meditabitur sapientiam
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old Dec 22, '04, 8:35 pm
pnewton's Avatar
pnewton pnewton is offline
Forum Elder
 
Join Date: June 1, 2004
Posts: 32,981
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Why not one more thread for EENS and Baptism of Desire?

I for one hold to the belief in baptism by desire in some form for two reasons:

1) It is taught in the Catechism (par 1259). Since the catechism is a more sure norm of the Catholic faith than anyone's opinion, this is the only reason a faithful Cathloic needs.

2) I know of one Biblical example - the thief on the cross. He was not baptized and did not die for the faith, yet Jesus admitted him to heaven.
__________________
"Then the King will say to those on His right, 'Come, you who are blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry, and you gave Me something to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me something to drink; I was a stranger, and you invited Me in." - Jesus

Nooo!! I didn't mean it!
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old Dec 22, '04, 8:48 pm
CatholicCrusade CatholicCrusade is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: December 2, 2004
Posts: 144
Religion: Roman Catholic
Default Re: Why not one more thread for EENS and Baptism of Desire?

Quote:
Originally Posted by pnewton
I for one hold to the belief in baptism by desire in some form for two reasons:

1) It is taught in the Catechism (par 1259). Since the catechism is a more sure norm of the Catholic faith than anyone's opinion, this is the only reason a faithful Cathloic needs.

2) I know of one Biblical example - the thief on the cross. He was not baptized and did not die for the faith, yet Jesus admitted him to heaven.
1) The CCC is not infallible. In fact, it has been corrected nearly 100 (or possibly more) times. If you have a little white one, you can see how many times it was changed, since the corrections are in the back. Who knows if it will be changed yet again to bring this point into line with Tradition. It is clear, then, that no matter how many times it is said by the Pope or anyone else that the CCC is a "sure norm", it does not make it such. How can it be sure if it is being corrected and changed? It is not sure; it is a changing document. I would stick with what is infallibly defined by the Church and what is infallibly defined as heretical by the Church, which if going by that, Baptism of Desire would be heretical.

2) St. Dismas (the Good Thief) did not need to be baptized, for Baptism had not yet been instituted as necessary. The Great Commision had not yet been given by Christ to teach all nations baptizing them in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. St. Alphonsus de Ligouri and St. Robert Bellarmine (among other Doctors, I believe, and basing their statements on the Council of Trent) have declared that the necessity for Baptism did not commence until Pentecost day. No matter what, though, it is impossible to assert that the requirement could have taken place before the Ascension, since just before it Christ gave the command to baptize all nations. Therefore, Baptism was not necessary until long after the death of St. Dismas.

In any event, it is only obvious that there had to be some point in history in which Baptism became necessary, for there must be a certain point in history in which the Old Law ceased to exist and the New Law superceded it. When the New Law superceded the Old, Baptism became necessary at this time, which according to the holy Saints and Doctors, was at Pentecost day, which makes sense since this is when the Apostles were able to fulfill the command of Christ by being able to communicate with those of divers tongues.
__________________
Os justi meditabitur sapientiam
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old Dec 22, '04, 8:59 pm
pnewton's Avatar
pnewton pnewton is offline
Forum Elder
 
Join Date: June 1, 2004
Posts: 32,981
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Why not one more thread for EENS and Baptism of Desire?

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatholicCrusade
1) . It is clear, then, that no matter how many times it is said by the Pope or anyone else that the CCC is a "sure norm", it does not make it such. How can it be sure if it is being corrected and changed? It is not sure; it is a changing document. I would stick with what is infallibly defined by the Church and what is infallibly defined as heretical by the Church, which if going by that, Baptism of Desire would be heretical.
.
I agree that the CCC is not infallable. I never said it was. I just trust it a lot more than your reasoning. You have said the Pope is wrong, the Catechism contains heresy and used Fr. Feeney's arguement (who was excommunicated for heresy).
__________________
"Then the King will say to those on His right, 'Come, you who are blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry, and you gave Me something to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me something to drink; I was a stranger, and you invited Me in." - Jesus

Nooo!! I didn't mean it!
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old Dec 22, '04, 9:03 pm
CatholicCrusade CatholicCrusade is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: December 2, 2004
Posts: 144
Religion: Roman Catholic
Default Re: Why not one more thread for EENS and Baptism of Desire?

Quote:
Originally Posted by pnewton
I agree that the CCC is not infallable. I never said it was. I just trust it a lot more than your reasoning. You have said the Pope is wrong, the Catechism contains heresy and used Fr. Feeney's arguement (who was excommunicated for heresy).
Fr. Feeney was not excommunicated for heresy. He was excommunicated for "disobedience" which was later rescinded, as it was clear that Father did not have any canonical obligation to go to Rome as Pius XII wanted him to, since he was given no reason, even after having requested one many times. This was clearly against Canon Law. For that reason, Paul VI lifted the "excommunication" (if it was even valid) that was imposed by Pius XII simply by Fr. Feeney reciting the Athanasian Creed, which, above all other Creeds of the Church, affirms the absolute necessity of the Church.

I ask you not to rely on my reasoning. On the contrary, simply listen to the Church's infallible councils. That which is fallible (CCC) cannot trump that which is infallible and spoken from the mouth of God through the Church.
__________________
Os justi meditabitur sapientiam
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old Dec 22, '04, 9:15 pm
John Higgins John Higgins is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: May 19, 2004
Posts: 1,427
Religion: Roman Catholic
Default Re: Why not one more thread for EENS and Baptism of Desire?

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatholicCrusade
Why not one more thread for EENS and Baptism of Desire?
1. Because it's been done to death.

2. Because the supporters (at least here) of the rigorist Feeneyite position of EENS have no support in the Catechism or Canon Law.


John


"Oh, rubbish! You have no power here." -- Glinda, The Good Witch
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old Dec 22, '04, 9:16 pm
marineboy marineboy is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: November 8, 2004
Posts: 228
Default Re: Why not one more thread for EENS and Baptism of Desire?

catholicrusade unfortuanetley for u the church has ruled on the interpretation of extra ecclessiam nulla salus and the holy office uses the word salvation... read the letter of the holy office in the father feeney case...IT CANNOT BE REFERING TO INFANTS SINCE THE CONTROVERSY OVER FEENEY DEALT WITH ADULTS WHO COULD OR COULD NOT BE SAVED BASED ON THEIR IMPLICIT OR EXPLICIT FAITH... THE BOTTOM LINE IS THE CHURCH NO WHERE SAYS THESE EXACT WORDS "EXPLICIT FAITH IS ABSOLUTELY NECESSAR IN EVERY AND ALL CIRCUMSTANCES" OR "WATER BAPTISM IS NECESSARY IN EVERY AND ALL CIRCUMSTANCES" BUT WHAT IT DOES SAY IS THAT IMPLICIT FAITH CAN LEAD TO SALVATION--SO GUEES WHAT UR WRONG !!!!! READ THE LETTER THAT THE HOLY OFFICE ISSUED
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old Dec 22, '04, 9:22 pm
CatholicCrusade CatholicCrusade is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: December 2, 2004
Posts: 144
Religion: Roman Catholic
Default Re: Why not one more thread for EENS and Baptism of Desire?

The Holy Council of Trent

Canons on Baptism

Can V. If anyone saith that Baptism is free, that is, not necessary unto salvation, let him be anathema.

Can II. If anyone saith that trure and natural water is not necessary for Baptism and thus wrests into some sort of meaphor the words of our Lord Jesus Christ: "unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost", let him be anathema.

Let us apply a simple Syllogism.

Water is necessary for Baptism.
Baptism is necessary for salvation.
Water is necessary for salvation.

The word "Baptism" is not qualified in the Canons. It MUST, then, be assumed that the word "Baptism" in Can. II is the same as in Can. V.

It really is not very difficult.

As you can see, the Church has said that water Baptism is absolutely necessary in all circumstances.

Moreover, as far as eliciting explicit Faith, the Church teaches that those who have come to the age of use must elict the Faith that God exists, that God is Remunerator (rewarder), the Incarnation, and the Blessed Trinity. This is what St. Thomas Aquinas defined as necessary, and these are at least commonly held among theologians as being necessary (at least those who believe in outside the Church no salvation, which is few if any of modern 'theologians').
__________________
Os justi meditabitur sapientiam
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old Dec 22, '04, 10:27 pm
JKirkLVNV JKirkLVNV is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: October 17, 2004
Posts: 9,411
Religion: Roman Catholic
Default Re: Why not one more thread for EENS and Baptism of Desire?

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatholicCrusade
Fr. Feeney was not excommunicated for heresy. He was excommunicated for "disobedience" which was later rescinded, as it was clear that Father did not have any canonical obligation to go to Rome as Pius XII wanted him to, since he was given no reason, even after having requested one many times. This was clearly against Canon Law. For that reason, Paul VI lifted the "excommunication" (if it was even valid) that was imposed by Pius XII simply by Fr. Feeney reciting the Athanasian Creed, which, above all other Creeds of the Church, affirms the absolute necessity of the Church.
.
Citation, please. My understanding is that the excommunication was never lifted. Something occured before a notary, but nothing with the approval of a bishop or the Pope.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Go Back   Catholic Answers Forums > Forums > Apologetics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search Thread
Search Thread:

Advanced Search
Display

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump




Prayer Intentions

Most Active Groups
6460CAF Prayer Warriors Support Group
Last by: oldgraymare2
5958Let's empty Purgatory
Last by: RJB
5070Petitions Before the Blessed Sacrament
Last by: grateful_child
4615Devotion to the Sorrowful Mother
Last by: DesertSister62
4218Poems and Reflections
Last by: tonyg
4052OCD/Scrupulosity Group
Last by: Popeye14
3286For seniors and shut- ins
Last by: GLam8833
3259Catholic Vegetarians & Vegans
Last by: 4elise
2807Let's Empty Purgatory 2
Last by: RomanoAmerio
2443SOLITUDE
Last by: tuscany



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 7:42 am.

Home RSS Feeds - Home - Archive - Top

Copyright © 2004-2014, Catholic Answers.