What is the fate of unbaptized babies, Fr. Paul?

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread

This is one of those "gotcha" questions. Everyone is welcome to comment but I specifically address it to Fr. Paul because I don't want to let him off the hook.

The Catholic Church ALWAYS taught that unbaptized babies CANNOT enter heaven because of Original Sin. This teaching was so strong that even the Novus Ordo Church does not dare to directly contradict it, saying that "the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God."

Since the Novus Ordo Church teaches that an unbaptized Jew, Moslem, or Pagan can be saved through "invincible ignorance" then why doesn't she say the same for an unbaptized baby? Who can be more invincibly ignorant than a baby? And who among the unbaptized is more innocent of sin than a baby?

Gotcha.

The fact is that when Pius IX was talking about the possiblity of salvation for those who were outside the Church due to "invincible ignorance" he was referring ONLY to BAPTIZED Christians who were Protestant or Eastern Orthodox. He was NOT talking about Jews, Moslems, and Pagans.

-- Bonzo's Cousin (bonzos@yahoo.com), February 22, 2005

Answers

We have a Feenyite in the house

-- Andrew (andyhbk96@hotmail.com), February 22, 2005.

You haven't answered the question. What is the fate of unbaptized babies?

-- Bonzo's Cousin (bonzoscuz@yahoo.com), February 22, 2005.

Go back to the jungle, o cuz of Bonzo the chimp. You behave just like the Pharisees, who tried to trip up Jesus with clever word traps. Repent, lest ye be eternally lost at death.

There is no such thing as the "Novus Ordo Church." There is the Catholic Church, to which Fr. Paul and I belong. And there are schismatic churches and "gangs," to one of which you belong.

-- (KGreene@eireworld.com), February 22, 2005.


The Holy Catholic Church teaches essentially the same thing about unbaptized babies that it teaches about other unbaptized people - that we entrust them to the mercy of God, Who can save them if that is His will. Do you deny Him that right?

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), February 22, 2005.

here's Dogmatic Trent om Original Sin, bit by bit:

"That our Catholic faith, without which it is impossible to please God, may, errors being purged away, continue in its own perfect and spotless integrity, and that the Christian people may not be carried about with every wind of doctrine; ***whereas that old serpent, the perpetual enemy of mankind, amongst the very many evils with which the Church of God is in these our times troubled, has also stirred up not only new, but even old, dissensions touching original sin, and the remedy thereof***;..."

OK, the Devil is at work.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), February 22, 2005.



....the sacred and holy, ecumenical and general Synod of Trent... ordains, confesses, and declares these things touching the said original sin:

4. If any one denies, that infants, newly born from their mothers' wombs, even though they be sprung from baptized parents, are to be baptized; or says that they are baptized indeed for the remission of sins, but that they derive nothing of original sin from Adam, which has need of being expiated by the laver of regeneration for the obtaining life everlasting,--whence it follows as a consequence, that in them the form of baptism, for the remission of sins, is understood to be not true, but false, --let him be anathema.

For that which the apostle has said, By one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death, and so death passed upon all men in whom all have sinned, is not to be understood otherwise than as the Catholic Church spread everywhere hath always understood it.

For, by reason of this rule of faith, from a tradition of the apostles, even infants, who could not as yet commit any sin of themselves, are for this cause truly baptized for the remission of sins, that in them that may be cleansed away by regeneration, which they have contracted by generation. For, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), February 22, 2005.


"CANON XIII.-If any one saith, that little children, for that they have not actual faith, are not, after having received baptism, to be reckoned amongst the faithful.....; let him be anathema."

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), February 22, 2005.

CANON II.-If any one saith, that true and natural water is not of necessity for baptism, and, on that account, ****wrests, to some sort of metaphor***, those words of our Lord Jesus Christ; Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost; let him be anathema.

CANON V.-If any one saith, that baptism is free, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), February 22, 2005.


Dogmatic Florence:

"But the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go down straightaway to hell to be punished, but with unequal pains. "

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), February 22, 2005.


Florence again:

"All these sacraments are made up of three elements: namely, things as the matter, words as the form, and the person of the minister who confers the sacrament with the intention of doing what the church does. ***If any of these is lacking, the sacrament is not effected***.

.......

Holy baptism holds the first place among all the sacraments, for it is the gate of the spiritual life; through it we become members of Christ and of the body of the church. Since death came into the world through one person, unless we are born again of water and the spirit, we cannot, as Truth says, enter the kingdom of heaven.

The ***matter of this sacrament is true and natural water***, either hot or cold.

The form is: I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy Spirit. ....

The minister of this sacrament is a priest, who is empowered to baptize in virtue of his office. But in case of necessity not only a priest or a deacon, but even a lay man or a woman, even a pagan and a heretic, can baptize provided he or she uses the form of the church and intends to do what the church does.

The ****effect of this sacrament is the remission of all original and actual guilt, also of all penalty that is owed for that guilt."

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), February 22, 2005.



finally Vatican I:

"If anyone says that it is possible that at some time, given the advancement of knowledge, a sense may be assigned to the dogmas propounded by the church which is different from that which the church has understood and understands: let him be anathema."

this is why the Holy Saints gave us the concept of "Limbo".

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), February 22, 2005.


Florence on the availability of remedies other than water baptism:

"With regard to children, since the danger of death is often present and the ****only**** remedy available to them is the sacrament of baptism.., it admonishes that sacred baptism....should be conferred as soon as it conveniently can; and if there is imminent danger of death, the child should be baptized straightaway without any delay,...."

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), February 22, 2005.


Was this question directed at Ian? Why seven posts, Mr. Ian? Why can't you wait and see what Father Paul thinks?

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 22, 2005.

Daer Bonanza,
You started with some false premises. (Not surprising.)

''Since the Novus Ordo Church teaches that an unbaptized Jew, Moslem, or Pagan can be saved through "invincible ignorance"''

Why would you claim this is a ''Novus Ordo'' teaching???

The Catholic Church taught this all along, BC. It happens that the Church post-Vatican II hasn't CHANGED her teaching, and CAN'T.

''Why doesn't she say the same for an unbaptized baby? Who can be more invincibly ignorant?''

I hope Father Paul can get a word in edgewise, before the Boo-Birds saturate this thread. He might have your answer to ''unbaptised invincibly ignorant Babies in Original Sin.''

Are you the newest in a long line here, of Devil's Advocates?

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 22, 2005.


======

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 22, 2005.


I want to maintain reasonable peace with Eugene, but for once come up with a hard line contradictory fact to refute these guys. Please cut out the verbosity with not a fact to back you up.

-- Pete (Chas@charles.com), February 22, 2005.

Are you the program director now?

Acting entitled to editorialise, but beginning with a false premise is distortion of the facts. We all appreciate truthful commentary; you ought to prefer it as well. So what's your gripe?

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 22, 2005.


First, the Mass is an act of worship. Its purpose is not to disseminate doctrinal teaching. The term "novus ordo" refers specifically to the order of the Mass. Therefore there is no such thing as a "novus ordo teaching".

It is meaningless to to quote the documents of Trent or any other early documents of the Church while denying the current teaching of the Church. As I have said before, the Church either teaches consistently and infallibly or it doesn't. If it does, there cannot be any conflict between the documents of trent, properly understood, and current Church teaching, properly understood. If it doesn't, then the documents of Trent are just as suspect as current teaching. If there is truly conflicting teaching over time, then clearly no-one can know the truth because there is absolutlely no way of knowing which teaching is the flawed one, the earlier teaching or the later one. Fortunately Christ addressed that issue when He told the leaders of His Church "WHATSOEVER you bind upon earth [now, 500 years from now, or 2,000 years from now] is bound in heaven". If we accept His word as truth, we know that contradictions in Church teaching, poroperly understood, are not possible. Therefore, one who thinks he sees such a conflict should have the humility to presume that his limited knowledge of doctrinal matters and his simplistic personal interpretations of Church teaching, past and present, are simply infufficient to provide him with a realistic assessment of the situation. Which is why Christ gave us an infallible Church! Of course, if we don't accept His word as truth, that's another matter.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), February 22, 2005.


Paul

"It is meaningless to to quote the documents of Trent or any other early documents of the Church while denying the current teaching of the Church."

it is not. Trent was infallible. Florence was infallible. Vatican I was infallible. VII was self-professedly pastoral in nature. all the Pope's teachings are fallible, save the one about female ordination. thy're chalk and cheese in that respect.

"As I have said before, the Church either teaches consistently and infallibly or it doesn't."

this is only true if EVERY teaching is infallible. but it isn't. i have given you examples before.

"If it does, there cannot be any conflict between the documents of trent, properly understood, and current Church teaching, properly understood."

...but it doesn't teach "consistently and infallibly" - if you mean that it always teaches infallibly. it just doesn't.

eg there is no infallible definition of invincible ignorance. in fact "invincible ignorance" is a novelty. it first appeared in a papal encyclical of Pius IX. it has been used since but never in an infallible teaching. it's scope has been expanded beyond the limited sense in which Pius IX used it. read the stuff i posted. you'll see.

"If it doesn't, then the documents of Trent are just as suspect as current teaching."

it doesn't - but no. as i said the previous Ecumenical Councils were infallible. Vatican II is the one that is "suspect".

"If there is truly conflicting teaching over time, then clearly no- one can know the truth because there is absolutlely no way of knowing which teaching is the flawed one, the earlier teaching or the later one."

there istruly conflicting teaching over time. but the earlier Councils are infallible and internally consistent. it is Vatican II, the fallible Council, that has turned things on their head. go figure, Paul.

"Fortunately Christ addressed that issue when He told the leaders of His Church "WHATSOEVER you bind upon earth [now, 500 years from now, or 2,000 years from now] is bound in heaven"."

well Paul, that's your interpretation of Scripture.

...but remember that the Church - de fide - demands that you accept Her interpretation.

Her interpretation is that this gives the power to forgive sins. moreover, it places the Pope as the leader of the Church, gives certain powers and so on.

however, in terms of infallibility, you need to read Vatican I to understand ex cathedra infallibility. it is very limited in scope.

similarly, Vatican II is not infallible. it itself said so.

the Church has infallibly interpreted that Scripture for us. we must tow the line.

"If we accept His word as truth, we know that contradictions in Church teaching, poroperly understood, are not possible."

they are if fallible teaching contradicts infallible. as it can and does from time to time.

"Therefore, one who thinks he sees such a conflict should have the humility to presume that his limited knowledge of doctrinal matters and his simplistic personal interpretations of Church teaching, past and present, are simply infufficient to provide him with a realistic assessment of the situation."

..and vice versa. one who presumes that every teaching is infallible, based upon an erroneous interpretation of Scripture, should do liklewise.

" Which is why Christ gave us an infallible Church!"

NOT an infallible Church. an infallible Magisterium in those limited circumstances in which the Magisterium teaches infallibly.

" Of course, if we don't accept His word as truth, that's another matter. "

ditto.

PS Paul, read all that stuff i posted. you are really going to struggle to make it consistent with Vatican II. if one thing is sure, it's that they're miles apart.

there can be no consistency because they are teaching remarkably different things. Original Sin is very real. look at how the Doctors struggled with it - it's an unpalatable fact of life.

if you believe that Vatican II is infallible, then you destroy infallibility itself - because you cannot reconcile it with the previous Dogmatic Councils. is that where you stand?



-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), February 22, 2005.


Ian: I'm sure the Deacon will give you the firmest of rebuttals presently. But in between let me say: You've been making a fool of yourself here almost every day. I'm glad; because your redundant plugs for pseudo-traditional beliefs are the perfect foil for sound and truthful exegesis. You seem the perfect Wiley Coyote for the Forum Road Runner here. It might be me, or Paul M., Steve, or Father Paul. But every time you pounce for the kill, you make a fool of yourself once more!

This makes a great exercise in apologetics of our Catholic faith for many lurkers in the wings at our forum. They're here to see --every day, how the truth always triumphs; watching your posts sweat and strain for nothing. You left the Holy Spirit for human wisdom. Ta, ta! That's the reason, Yancy.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 22, 2005.


"I'm sure the Deacon will give you the firmest of rebuttals presently."

perhaps he will.

so long as it doesn't rely upon (A) every teaching of the Church being infallible or (B) VII representing a "new understanding" of the Deposit of Faith.

neither of these is possible in the Catholic model.

but thanks for the words of encouragement! when you feel equipped to address the specific issues, i will be all ears.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), February 22, 2005.


''--in the Catholic model.''

You don't even wonder about doctrine now? Just your ''model'' of the Catholic Church?

Because you keep making up all your audacious rules and regulations;

Now only those decisions you agree with are infallible!!!!!! Others we can ignore? Why aren't you POPE? We never had an infallible voice in here before. You ought to be the Holy Father.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 22, 2005.


Eugene

"model" = A schematic description of a system, theory, or phenomenon that accounts for its known or inferred properties and may be used for further study of its characteristics

there is the Orthodox model, the various protestant models, and so on.

"We never had an infallible voice in here before."

now you're just being modest, Eugene!

anyways, post as much old ad hom nonsense and invective here as you will. i'll wait for a substantive input, from wherever that might come.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), February 22, 2005.


"model" = A schematic description of a system, theory, or phenomenon that accounts for its known or inferred properties and may be used for further study of its characteristics.

No rebuttal is allowed without sticking to your ''model''--???? Is this a dogmatic recurring dream of yours, Ian?

''--So long as it doesn't rely upon: ........... (A) every teaching of the Church being infallible or ...........(B) VII representing a "new understanding" of the Deposit of Faith.'' NEITHER of these two ''conditions'' is Catholic dogma, nor even a ''known or inferred property'' suggested in any model of Papal enunciations.

It follows that ''neither of these is possible in the ''Catholic model,'' is a senseless condition, in order to dispute the truth with you. --I advise Paul M. to say what he believes is fair and truthful. You aren't exempt from staring facts in the face, surely.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 22, 2005.


"NEITHER of these two ''conditions'' is Catholic dogma, nor even a ''known or inferred property'' suggested in any model of Papal enunciations."

Exactly, Eugene.

so if we can agree on these, ie:

A/ not every teaching of the Church is infallible; and

B/ no new meanings can be attached to Dogma

...then you gotta reconcile VII and the older Councils in some real way. my conjecture is that this requires a square peg to be stuffed into a round hole.

it's as simple as that.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), February 22, 2005.


Come on; pay better attention. Neither your A. nor your B. is applicable here. THEY have no dogmatic basis. You have no authority to claim either one or both gives us the truth. It's quite feasible and correct to say all Papal teaching has COMPLETE truth, even without an ex cathedra pronouncement. As long as it's in faith and morals.

The deposit of faith isn't changed because a current Pope or Magisterium carries it to a newer conclusion. The authority to develop it, or restrict it to limits, rests entirely on the Pope and his bishops. Not in your starched and flattened immoveable definition.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 22, 2005.


Ok I'm confused.

VII according to Ian is not infallible. (I say according to Ian because I am totally ignorant about this topic). If it is not infallible, why is there so much drama surrounding the people that question VII?

I know that some people like to complain and moan because they would love to give the church a good beatin', but in general, can one question the words that the church sets in stone before they blindly follow those words?

I would much rather know for a fact that I'm following something for all the right reasons than leave my conscience in turmoil by holding back my questions.

-- Rina (emailmarina@yahoo.com), February 22, 2005.


Eugene

A: see the **narrow definition** of the Infallibilty of the Supreme Pontiff's teaching authority at Vatican I. you advocate extreme "ultramontanism" -- which was rejected at Vatican I.

B: is as old as the Church. confirmed eg at Vatican I. i even posted it above. here it is again: "If anyone says that it is possible that at some time, given the advancement of knowledge, a sense may be assigned to the dogmas propounded by the church which is different from that which the church has understood and understands: let him be anathema." this is a major theme throughout Vatican I.

this is Dogma 1.01 Eugene. don't trust me. read it for yourself. if you disagree, prove me wrong.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), February 22, 2005.


"VII according to Ian is not infallible."

it IS if it repeats previous infallible definitions. it is NOT if it contradicts them, or posits existing non-Dogmatic theories, or creates novelties.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), February 22, 2005.


''A sense assigned to the dogmas propounded by the Church which is different'' This is the premise, ---Different. Once pronounced a dogma cannot be changed into Less than what is pronounced, or ''tried and found inadequate'', or anything opposed, to such dogma. That's a VALID premise.

Nothing in the dogma of salvation in the Catholic Church is opposed, changed or made insignificant by any teaching of Vatican II. Nor altered because the Church's sound doctrine of Baptism of Blood and Desire reveals our mitigating source of more truth.

Nor because the truer understanding of God's infinite Mercy and Infinite Justice mitigates against unjust punishment of a repentent soul.

-- ''. . . from that which the Church has understood and understands.'' --What makes you claim that Catholic Popes didn't understand God's Mercy and Justice?

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 22, 2005.


E: ''A sense assigned to the dogmas propounded by the Church which is different'' This is the premise, ---Different. Once pronounced a dogma cannot be changed into Less than what is pronounced, or ''tried and found inadequate'', or anything opposed, to such dogma. That's a VALID premise.

------Eugene, it doesn't need you to elaborate on its meaning: the meaning is quite clear.

now read this from Florence: "With regard to children, since the danger of death is often present and the ****only**** remedy available to them is the sacrament of baptism.., it admonishes that sacred baptism....should be conferred as soon as it conveniently can; and if there is imminent danger of death, the child should be baptized straightaway without any delay,...."

the ONLY remedy. no other remedy is available. de fide.

E: "Nothing in the dogma of salvation in the Catholic Church is opposed, changed or made insignificant by any teaching of Vatican II."

-------that's an unsubstantiated viewpoint.

E: "Nor altered because the Church's sound doctrine of Baptism of Blood and Desire reveals our mitigating source of more truth."

-------read these:

CANON II.-If any one saith, that true and natural water is not of necessity for baptism, and, on that account, ****wrests, to some sort of metaphor***, those words of our Lord Jesus Christ; Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost; let him be anathema.

CANON V.-If any one saith, that baptism is free, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema.

"All these sacraments are made up of three elements: namely, things as the matter, words as the form, and the person of the minister who confers the sacrament with the intention of doing what the church does. ***If any of these is lacking, the sacrament is not effected***.

The ***matter of this sacrament [Baptism] is true and natural water***, either hot or cold.

there is NO Baptism other than by water.

E: "Nor because the truer understanding of God's infinite Mercy and Infinite Justice mitigates against unjust punishment of a repentent soul. "

--------"truer" understanding? you're changing the "sense" of Dogma. not allowed.

E: "What makes you claim that Catholic Popes didn't understand God's Mercy and Justice?"

you said that not me. they have a PERFECT understanding as expressed in the Dogma. i don't happen to care for it but it's de fide.

if you read the Councils from start to finish, you'd get a feel for how these notions are really hammered home.

ditto, Original Sin - the real point of this thread.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), February 22, 2005.


You have reached an understanding with me, Yancy. You choose to remain ignorant and hidebound.

I don't follow your lead because it's stagnant. You don't follow the lead of our Holy Father until he gives up and does what you proclaim infallible. I follow the Pope. He has Christ's unfailing promise, and you don't.

You've wasted a portion of my time here today and I have no more to give you. I think what I shall do from now is: as I detect your error, I'll alert the forum. But I won't argue with you. That will actually give me plenty to do; and it's more rewarding.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 22, 2005.


Already I have an alert.

ALERT--! Ian inserts a spurious sentence to the words of a Pontiff; attempting to bolster his private opinion:

The ***matter of this sacrament [Baptism] is true and natural water***, either hot or cold. (The Popes' words.)

................................................................. ..............................

''There is NO Baptism other than by water.'' / / / --Merely Ian's insertion; arbitrary and false. We are taught by the Catholic Church that Baptism of Desire and/or of Blood are equivalent to water Baptism in the proper circumstance. They would suffice for salvation of certain souls. Ian denies the Church's teaching.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 22, 2005.


The question is not whther there can be "baptism without water". The question is whether God in His infinite justice and mercy can sometimes bestow the graces of baptism by means other than formal baptism with water. The Church teaches - YES! So-called "baptism of blood" and "baptism of desire" are not "baptism without water", but rather alternative means by which the graces of baptism are bestowed in certain circumstances. Anything less would deny the mercy and justice of God as revealed to the Church.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), February 22, 2005.

Trent does not say "baptism of desire".. They say "desire for baptism"

-- Pete (Chas@charlie.com), February 22, 2005.

I may be over simlifying, but it seems that some here believe ultimately, in the power of God's infinite mercy,--- while others are concerned that we, or the current Church leadership are not taking certain legalistic interpretations seriously, (or have mistakenly diminished their importance) and as a result may be leading ourselves and others into grave error.

This is just me, but I wouldn't expect a baby to be cognitively capable of "desire" so God's "infinite mercy" seems reasonable, especially if death occurred unexpectedly or before a regular baptism could be performed. I understand that Limbo is still a possibility but it doesn't seem to reflect "infinite" mercy, just a sort of general or partial mercy--- pehaps I'm expecting more mercy than I should in such a situation.

I guess its evident that I'm not much of a lawyer.

-- Jim (furst@flash.net), February 22, 2005.


A baby is not cognitively capable of making baptismal promises either. It is the intent of the parents which results in conferral of baptismal graces to the child, whether by actual water baptism or alternatively by "baptism of desire", should the child die before the physical baptism can occur.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), February 22, 2005.

I am also an typical imperfect judge, Jim. My understanding in the past was that the infinite Mercy of God has to equal to perfection His infinite Justice. Original Sin being what it is-- God would never admit a soul stained with it into His glory.

Generations back this impossibilty led theologians to posit a divine equilibrium. Limbo had the requisite quality. In Limbo, babies who died in Original Sin, blameless yet stained by Adam's sinful nature-- were granted eternal happiness in a natural state. It wasn't a share in the heavenly bliss those who have been washed by Baptism have. Yet it wasn't an injustice because God cannot be unjust. It was everlasting, natural happiness, free of all pain and insecurity, and immortal.

Such speculation is faithful contemplation upon God's immense perfection; which eternally maintains exact and perfect equilibrium. Today, theology makes a merely passive guess; reserving all judgment and trusting completely on God's infinite Mercy. Personally, I don't see the urgent necessity for unbaptised babies to be taken to heaven if God won't accept even one flaw. So, why would we have to ascribe ignorance to them? They're not unduly condemned for Original Sin.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 22, 2005.


"Ian: I'm sure the Deacon will give you the firmest of rebuttals presently."

Catholic dogma is going to get a rebuttal from someone? Interesting.

"But in between let me say: You've been making a fool of yourself here almost every day."

That's... hardly what's been happening.

"This makes a great exercise in apologetics of our Catholic faith for many lurkers in the wings at our forum. They're here to see -- every day, how the truth always triumphs..."

You got that part right.

Wow. This never ceases to amaze me.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), February 22, 2005.


I'm amazed too, Emerald. Amazed when so called traditionists tell me Almighty God isn't interested in souls, He demands baptisms with water -- damn the souls.

Under those terms, I feel free to state Ian has been making a fool of himself and laying low the ''trad'' cause as well. Dogma hasn't been challenged by us. We support the Church. But your champ says only his pet testimonials are infallible. Not any stuff he doesn't support (Vatican II, Novus Ordo, Baptism of Desire, etc.,) Hasn't this amazed you?

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 23, 2005.


Bonzo,

Paul M. has answered, there is nothing I can add except that being left in God's mercy is not, in a manner of speaking, a certainty for Salvation whereas Baptism is. I direct youy to a paper of mine written 7 or 8 years ago during my first year of theological studies.

http://mywebpage.netscape.com/pjd61261/3Baptisms.htm

and

http://mywebpage.netscape.com/pjd61261/Infant+Baptism.htm

Ian,

Congratulation, you have managed to condemn many Saints who were never Baptised. The Good Theif couldn't even desire it because he probably never heard of it; if he did (actually desire baptism) he would have said so and it would have been recorded don't you think?

-- Fr. Paul (pjdoucet@hotmail.com), February 23, 2005.


Fr Paul: "Congratulation, you have managed to condemn many Saints who were never Baptised."

#####i gave you the words from the Dogmatic Councils. IF anyone is condemned, they have been condemned by the Dogmatic Councils and the Holy Spirit. do you consider then condemned?

Fr Paul "The Good Theif couldn't even desire it because he probably never heard of it;..."

########he died under the Old Covenant. Baptism is a New Law Sacrament. it's different.

from Florence: "the sacraments of the old Law....were not causes of grace, but only prefigured the grace to be given through the passion of Christ..."

more: "It firmly believes, professes and teaches that the legal prescriptions of the old Testament or the Mosaic law, ..., once our lord Jesus Christ who was signified by them had come, ***came to an end and the sacraments of the new Testament had their beginning***. .....It does not deny that from Christ's passion until the promulgation of the gospel they could have been retained, provided they were in no way believed to be necessary for salvation. But it asserts that after the promulgation of the gospel they cannot be observed without loss of eternal salvation."

Trent: "If any one saith, that these said sacraments of the New Law do not differ from the sacramnets of the Old Law, save that the ceremonies are different, and different the outward rites; let him be anathema."

Fr Paul: "if he did (actually desire baptism) he would have said so and it would have been recorded don't you think? "

he is Old Law, Father. just like Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and the rest - "Limbus Patrum". they weren't baptised, nor did they desire it. they are in Heaven.

see here: "http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09256a.htm"

PS i've read yr articles. i don't think they address the questions head-on. they certainly do not address the teachings of Florence, Trent et al.

i would note this, however, this: "there is nothing I can add except that being left in God's mercy is not, in a manner of speaking, a certainty for Salvation whereas Baptism is." i believe that this does come out in yr articles and it's closer to the Councils than Paul or Eugene.

but this still doesn't tally well with the Dogmatic Councils, though. if Dogmatic Florence teaches that there is NO OTHER remedy, how come you and Paul and Eugene think otherwise? Florence is "de fide". it MUST be believed.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), February 23, 2005.


Paul

P "A baby is not cognitively capable of making baptismal promises either."

### yes.

P "It is the intent of the parents which results in conferral of baptismal graces to the child,.."

it's most certainly not!

what if the kids got no parents? what if there is no-one at the Baptism but the minister of the Sacrament?

you need (1) the things as the matter [water], (2) words as the form [Trinity], and (3) the person of the minister who confers the sacrament.

the minister could be a Moslem, a pagan, an atheist. but so long as **his/her** intention is to do what the Catholic Church does when it administers the sacrament - ie to remove original sin and personal sin - then, even if the minister does not know these things in this detail, he can administer the Sacrament using the correct matter and form.

the Church supplies the child's faith.

"... whether by actual water baptism or alternatively by "baptism of desire", should the child die before the physical baptism can occur."

baptism of desire??? you've just said that kids cannot desire anything. moreover, there is no "vacarious" baptism of desire. that's just made up. St Thomas, the chief proponent of BoD reserved it exclusively for Catuchumens. it was rejected by Florence and Trent. there is no BoD in any event. leave that work to God! that's His job. not yours.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), February 23, 2005.


To any interested,

It is my understanding that sacraments are outward signs of inward grace, instituted by Christ for our sanctification. As such, matter (inward grace) can objectively only be declared as a result of form (outward signs). Hence -no baptism of desire as such. Of course, this does not limit God's mercy etcetera -this only limits man -man is unable to confer more than Christ instituted.

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), February 23, 2005.


Dear Yancy:
Explain something. You tell us the Good Thief went to Paradise unbaptised;

''########--'' he died under the Old Covenant. Baptism is a New Law Sacrament it's different.''

But under the Old Testament, Both thieves dying at Christ's sides would have been damned. The Law of Moses would have judged our Good Thief a criminal. He would NOT be going to Abraham's bosom, but to hell.

Look at the parable of the rich man and the beggar Lazarus. Both of them under the Old Testament Law. The rich man died and went to the flames of hell. He was in great suffering; and wanted Lazarus to wet a finger and give him some water to ease his pain. Lazarus, also in Old Testament, as you claim, was not sent to hell; but to Abraham's bosom.

The Good Thief was a condemned man. Under the Law, he was NOT saved.

He was saved directly by the Author of the New Testament, Jesus Christ. Christ who gives us His sacraments ! ! ! He was saved under the New Testament by Baptism from the lips of Our Holy Redeemer himself. Otherwise, he would have gone to hell. God MUST HAVE had total knowledge of Saint Disma's interior feelings of love for Jesus. Of sorrow for his sins and desire for Baptism. (If he'd had an option to choose Baptism.) And He granted the Good Thief what the Old Testament would NOT have granted; salvation! Under the Law of Moses, he would have been a criminal crucified for his sins. --He would be damned today!

Therefore, your response to Father Paul's words is FALSE. An error in the sight of any faithful Catholic. --Or in God's.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 23, 2005.


I might add, Ian:,br>The same way you commit an error about salvation in the Old Testament you commit a variety of other errors in your private distortion of Papal declarations and those of our doctors of the Church. The simple truth is, you aren't qualified in the least to expound on theology. PERIOD.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 23, 2005.

Eugene,

the first thing that is undeniably clear is that the Sacraments of the New Law, the Catholic Sacraments, did not take effect until the death of Jesus. i've given you stuff from Florence. see also St Thomas here: http://www.newadvent.org/summa/406602.htm.

therefore, the notion that the thief was baptised BEFORE the Sacrament existed is a nonsense.

in fact the whole discussion about the story of St Dismas having anyhthing to do with Baptism is a complete nonsense.

under the Old Law, it is widely accepted that circumcision under the Old Law removed the effects of Original Sin and imparted grace to some extent or other.

more from St Thomas: http://www.newadvent.org/summa/407004.htm

therefore, if you are concerned about the Original Sin of the good thief, it was gone already.

now, here's the New Advent on "Limbus Patrum":

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09256a.htm

here's St Thomas on Our Lord's descent into Hell - same subject.

it also mentions the fate of the unbaptised babies.

in fact read all of this to see how the Passion atoned for the sins of those who had died beforehand - ie perished under the Old Law.

then, when you've read all that, please reconsider this following statement "The same way you commit an error about salvation in the Old Testament you commit a variety of other errors in your private distortion of Papal declarations and those of our doctors of the Church. The simple truth is, you aren't qualified in the least to expound on theology. PERIOD"

not for my sake but for you own.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), February 23, 2005.


sorry Eugene

hee's the link you probably need most. St Thomas is simply amazing.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), February 23, 2005.


duh.

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/405200.htm

"Christ's descent into hell" from "Summa".

i know you're very unlikely to read any of this Eugene, but i really do hope you will make the effort.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), February 23, 2005.


Both thieves dying at Christ's sides would have been damned. The Law of Moses would have judged our Good Thief a criminal. He would NOT be going to Abraham's bosom, but to hell.

That's about the most poorly thought out rebuttal I've ever seen.

No one's denying that he was a criminal, Gene. It's called repentance and forgiveness. Just like now, that was also available under the Old Law. Or have you forgotten that each and every man/woman on the face of this earth (save Christ Himself, Our Lady and St. John the Baptist), including in the Old Testatment, has sinned? But upon true repentance, which St. Dismas had, they were/are forgiven.

Also, one has to remember, that just because we haven't seen it or just because there is no record of it, does not mean that a true water baptism has not taken place. Who's to say that God did not send angels to baptize those in Abraham's bosom before they were accepted into heaven, just as he sent angels to some saints [some children, and some who were imprisoned] so that they could receive the Eucharist? Or the Redeemer himself may have baptized them upon descending into 'hell'?? God's ways are not our ways. In thinking this way, you can elaborate on what 'may' be, without denying infallible doctrine.

While we do not know the ways of God, and while He can do anything..........the real question should be.......will He do anything? The answer simply is.......NO. The laws He gave us show us who He is - His mercy and His justness combined. To think God would wonder outside of the very realm that defines to us who He is, and what he expects of us, would be to question the essence of God, so to speak. IMO, to think that God would give us the Church, and desire that all belong to her and follow her, and then to hold the belief that some are not even given this 'chance', is to have little faith in God and His ways.

-- Isabel (joejoe1REMOVE@msn.com), February 23, 2005.


IAN:
This is an error-- the first thing that is undeniably clear is that the Sacraments of the New Law, the Catholic Sacraments, did not take effect until the death of Jesus.------------ ---What ''new law?'' We're a Church, Lad. What you claim is ''undeniable'' is just hogwash. ''TAKE EFFECT'' appears to mean some political welfare program to YOU; not a Divine institution for the channeling of GRACE. --GRACE came to sinners directly from Jesus Christ well before He gave His life for us. Our Blessed Mother was given sanctifying grace DIRECTLY from the Triune God, (not from the Old Testament) and Christ was yet to be born! Full of Grace ? ? ? Have you heard of that? It's grace which has brought us salvation.

In the sacraments, grace is brought to the Church's faithful from WHERE? CHRIST! --Has Christ any personal way to grant souls grace? He must have, He's GOD! You make the RITUAL of Baptism something detached from its source. The Source of baptismal grace is Jesus; Who granted baptismal (sanctifying) GRACE to the Good Thief as the HEAD of the Church to come ! The Old Testament wouldn't have been salvation at all for Saint Dismas, but only damnation for sins, which he even CONFESSED, hanging on his cross.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 23, 2005.


Talk about poorly thought out; You make me laugh, Isabel.

Where are you getting these hangups from; over a simple thing like GRACE? Either we have it or we don't. That's what salvation really is. The grace of Jesus Christ; merited for His people by His death and resurrection. We receive it sacramentally as His Church. He is nevertheless the Source forever; and He's CLEARLY free to grant that sanctifying grace as it pleases Him. You've had to concoct something altogether fastidious out of His direct, SCRIPTURAL salvation of Dismas, and of the Holy Innocents. They aren't saved by the Law of Moses! CHRIST had been Incarnated already, LOVE Incarnate. The Old Covenant was at an end.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 23, 2005.


Eugene

if that's what you want to believe, fine. i've given you the sources: the Dogmatic Councils, St Thomas. you reject them. without even bothering to read them. that's your prerogative. however, you are not arguing Catholic theology anymore. you're out on yr own.

repeat: there was no Baptism or any other Sacrament until the Passion was was complete. repeat: there could have been no Baptism until the Passion was complete. ditto, the Catholic Church: there was no Catholic Church until that point. "The Church only came into being when Christ died on the Cross, and was formally inaugurated on Pentecost, when He sent the Holy Spirit as He had promised."

as you would say: PERIOD!!

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), February 23, 2005.


"CHRIST had been Incarnated already, LOVE Incarnate. The Old Covenant was at an end."

the New Testament began with the Incarnation?!?!?!?!?!

is that what you are saying Eugene?!?!?!?!

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), February 23, 2005.


Don't try to divert attention from the arse-whipping you just absorbed, Ian. CHRIST saves sinners. Nothing in the Old Testament saved sinners. You were merely trying to corner salvation into a tiny minority, all with water Baptism. Which you can see now is false doctrine. Baptism is still mandatory, I haven't denied that. But it comes in alternate ways, by God's Holy Will. This is TAUGHT by Christ's Holy Church.

The way YOU have it, God isn't interested in souls, He's only interested in Water Baptisms. What a miniscule worm of an idea, for a purported Catholic!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 23, 2005.


St Thomas on Baptism:

"Wherefore it seems that a sacrament is then instituted, when it receives the power of producing its effect. Now Baptism received this power when Christ was baptized. Consequently Baptism was truly instituted then, if we consider it as a sacrament. ****But the obligation of receiving this sacrament was proclaimed to mankind after the Passion and Resurrection.*** First, because Christ's Passion put an end to the figurative sacraments, which were supplanted by Baptism and the other sacraments of the New Law. Secondly, because by Baptism man is "made conformable" to Christ's Passion and Resurrection, in so far as he dies to sin and begins to live anew unto righteousness. Consequently it behooved Christ to suffer and to rise again, before proclaiming to man his obligation of conforming himself to Christ's Death and Resurrection."

"Reply to Objection 2. .... before His Passion ****He did not make Baptism obligatory ......But after His Passion and Resurrection He made Baptism obligatory*****, not only on the Jews, but also on the Gentiles, when He gave the commandment: "Going, teach ye all nations." "

"Reply to Objection 3. ***Sacraments are not obligatory except when we are commanded to receive them. And this was not before the Passion, as stated above.*******"

Dogmatic Florence:

"It firmly believes, professes and teaches that the legal prescriptions of the old Testament or the Mosaic law, ..., once our lord Jesus Christ who was signified by them had come, ***came to an end and the sacraments of the new Testament had their beginning***. .....It does not deny that from Christ's passion until the promulgation of the gospel they could have been retained, provided they were in no way believed to be necessary for salvation. But it asserts that after the promulgation of the gospel they cannot be observed without loss of eternal salvation."

Baptism NOT necessary for Salvation in the case of the Good Thief.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), February 23, 2005.


therefore, Jesus' forgiving the Thief on the Cross was sufficient.

find another example Eugene.

St Thomas again:

"As stated above (6), Christ's descent into hell had its effect of deliverance on them only who through faith and charity were united to Christ's Passion, in virtue whereof Christ's descent into hell was one of deliverance. ***But the children who had died in original sin were in no way united to Christ's Passion by faith and love: for, not having the use of free will, they could have no faith of their own; nor were they cleansed from original sin either by their parents' faith or by any sacrament of faith.**** Consequently, Christ's descent into hell ***did not deliver the children from thence***. And furthermore, the holy Fathers were delivered from hell by being admitted to the glory of the vision of God, to which no one can come except through grace; according to Rm. 6:23: "The grace of God is life everlasting." Therefore, since children dying in original sin had no grace, they were not delivered from hell."

see also the Dogmatic definitions given above.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), February 23, 2005.


I told you yesterday I would not argue with you. I will just alert others to your idiocy and leave you to it. I don't have all day to give you a Catholic apologetics eye-opener after each one of your false interpretations. You already KNOW the indispensable, deciding fact: We're taught the real truth by the Church and our bishops TODAY. If you refuse to hear the Church, you refuse to hear Our Lord.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 23, 2005.

"The way YOU have it, God isn't interested in souls, He's only interested in Water Baptisms. What a miniscule worm of an idea, for a purported Catholic!"

St Thomas also considered this. i'll post the link tomorrow.

have a good 'rest of the day'.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), February 23, 2005.


Ian,

By who's faith are we Baptised? What is the immediate 'thing' Baptism gives us?

-- Fr. Paul (pjdoucet@hotmail.com), February 23, 2005.


Exactly Eugene. If you refuse to hear the church you are refusing to hear Our Lord. Your church is Vatican two and forward from there. People here have swamped you with doctrine, but if it is before V2 it does not count. You have really lost it Eugene and you need lots of prayers.

-- Pete (Chas@charlie.com), February 23, 2005.

No water needed? That is not what Our Lord said. Read on, where do you find a word about baptism of desire? That was the thoughts of a few saints and the modern church of 200 years or so.

1 Peter 3:20-21 ...In the days of Noah, during the building of the ark, ... a few ... were saved through water. Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you....

John 3:5 I tell you solemnly, unless a man is born through water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.

Titus 3:5 It was for no reason except his own compassion that he saved us, by means of the cleansing water of rebirth and by renewing us with the Holy Spirit...

Mark 16:16 He who believes and is baptised will be saved.

Cleansed of sins through baptism Acts 2:38 "You must repent," Peter answered, "and every one of you must be baptised in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."

Acts 22:16 And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name.

Ephesians 5:26 He made her clean by washing her in water with a form of words, so that when he took her to himself she would be glorious, with no speck or wrinkle or anything like that, but holy and faultless.

Titus 3:5 It was for no reason except his own compassion that he saved us, by means of the cleansing water of rebirth and by renewing us with the Holy Spirit...

1 Corinthians 6:11 You have been washed clean, and sanctified, and justified through the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and through the Spirit of our God.

Hebrews 10:22 Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water.

Joined to the Resurrection through baptism Colossians 2:12 You were buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead.

Romans 6:4

-- Pete (Chas@charluie.com), February 23, 2005.


Pete:
I'm not afraid to stand before the Judgment seat and praise Christ's Holy Church. The doctrine of our Church doesn't depart from the doctrine your Pal Ian is swamping me with. It's the same doctrine.

Ian keeps reminding us of the matter/form of the Rite of Holy Baptism. But we know that since childhood. Ian insists he's provinmg it's the ONLY Baptism. But what he's explained here is only the RITE of Baptism, not the sole source of baptismal grace. We don't deny the efficacy of Baptism in matter and form, with water and the holy Rite. So why keep looking for your documentary proofs?

Our doctrine is not new; nor contrary to any definitions set forth in the past. What we do is EXPLAIN Baptism; both as RITE and as a soul's divine Source of sanctifying grace, --God's love. You poor guys are denying God's action of grace in favor of a perfect ritual that serves God's Will, but hasn't ever LIMITED God. He is LOVE; and He works in mysterious ways as well as through Church's Rite.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 23, 2005.


Father:

"By who's faith are we Baptised?"

our own/ the Church's.

"What is the immediate 'thing' Baptism gives us?"

a wet head. true.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), February 23, 2005.


Eugene:

here's yr link: http://www.newadvent.org/summa/406101.htm

it answers yr question.

Fr:

not meaning to be flippant. you need to be more specific, imho.

definitely signing off now. goodnight everyone. God bless.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), February 23, 2005.


People don't need baptism, they don't need the church, they don't need the sacraments. Why are we fighting over the catholic faith... It isn't even necessary.

-- Pete (Chas@charles.com), February 23, 2005.

Salvation is the most necessary thing there is; in fact, in the long run it is the ONLY necessary thing there is; and the Church Christ founded is the ONLY means of hearing about salvation and receiving it. That makes the Church absolutely essential to all men.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), February 23, 2005.

Exactly, Paul. We believe in Baptism, because Christ said we must be baptised. In answer to Pete, we are faithful Catholics. The main difference between Us and Pete, Ian et al;

--is WE understand Catholic doctrine. They misunderstand it.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 23, 2005.


Dear Yancy:
I've been to New Advent; I have it in my favorites. I've read the Summa Theologica and many other works of Catholic truth. I understand what they say. You don't.

I've tried to help you understand Catholic doctrine, but you just can't. The Church is a cipher to you. Just have faith. I really wish I could help you, but let me just pray for you. There's nothing wrong or extraordinary about you. Keep reading New Advent. Love God and love your neighbor. Ciao.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 23, 2005.


Ian,

An adult being Baptised, what do they ask the Church for?

-- Fr. Paul (pjdoucet@hotmail.com), February 23, 2005.


Matthew 20:2-15

-- Fr. Paul (pjdoucet@hotmail.com), February 24, 2005.

Fr Paul:

"An adult being Baptised, what do they ask the Church for?"

Baptism. sorry, that's the answer to your question. not being flippant. it's just the answer.

"Matthew 20:2-15"

indeed. everyone in the vineyard got paid the same no matter how long they had worked during that day. corollary: anyone who did not work in the vineyard got paid nothing. i hope that you are not resorting to Sola Scriptura and Private Interpretation to make a point!!!

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

NOW, moving on, Father, you have thusfar failed to comment on the Dogmatic and other tracts posted above.

to sumarise crudely:

- there is NO OTHER remedy for the unborn child but baptism [Florence]

- the matter of Baptism is water [Florence]

- without the matter, the Sacrament is ineffective [Florence]

- Baptism is necessary for salvation [Trent]

- water is necessary for baptism [Trent]

- if you die in original sin, you do not go to Heaven [Florence]

- Baptism remits Original Sin [Florence]

- you cannot change the Deposit of Faith. it is sealed. there can be no newer understanding of development. [Vatican I]

noticeably, there is no need to syllogise here. these statements - and there will be others in the other Councils, i have summarised the ones that i have posted above, with sourse references - tell us what we ***MUST*** believe as Catholics; and they are clear and straightforward.

do you have any comment on that? have i missed some Dogmatic definitions that might change the obvious conclusion? can we discuss those matters of faith and morals that the Catholic Faithful MUST believe.

do you believe these?

if not, why not?

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), February 24, 2005.


Eugene

"I've been to New Advent; I have it in my favorites."

me too! we have so much in common!

"I've read the Summa Theologica and many other works of Catholic truth."

me tooo! this is uncanny!!

"I understand what they say. You don't."

that's how i feel too! this is getting wierder and wierder!!

"I've tried to help you understand Catholic doctrine, but you just can't."

do i have to say it again! we are peas in a pod!!

"The Church is a cipher to you. Just have faith. I really wish I could help you, but let me just pray for you."

might you be my long lost identical twin?!?!?!

"There's nothing wrong or extraordinary about you. Keep reading New Advent. Love God and love your neighbor. Ciao."

mmmm. this is where we differ. i disagree. you are definitely most "extraordinary"!!! dang.

##########################################

on a serious note, Eugene, read my note to Fr Paul. it applies to you just as much. if you have St Thomas on yr Favourites, why not open it. or read the stuff i've posted here.

that last link i gave you will really open yr eyes. you think St Thomas dod not cover everything. well, i suspect he pretty much did.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), February 24, 2005.


Private Interpretation to make a point!!! ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Just about how you make a point; once in a while. But not correct interpretation, of church fathers, Popes, documents--etc.,

You bask in the reflected glory of Saint Thomas, with no clue to what we learned from Jesus Christ. You also ignore what Jesus said to those Pharisees.

For myself, I shall carry you here as a cross. It's a nasty job, Ian. But your brethren are responsible for you, and I feel great compassion for you. Though you ARE so heavy!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 24, 2005.


"Baptism"

Sorry, you are mistaken. They ask for Faith

To answer to the documents will take some time, I will get to it (BTW, I do not read every post as I have not the time; but I shall go back and find yours).

-- Fr. Paul (pjdoucet@hotmail.com), February 24, 2005.


tx Fr Paul.

will be away for some days to come. look forward to yr input at yr convenience.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), February 24, 2005.


bump. bump.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 03, 2005.

recap: "To answer to the documents will take some time, I will get to it...."

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 03, 2005.

Ian,

First of all as regards:

"A/ not every teaching of the Church is infallible; and B/ no new meanings can be attached to Dogma"

A/ Every teaching on Faith and Morals of the Church is infallible.

B/ No Dogma of the Church is an exhaustable teaching, i.e. there is no Dogma where nothing more can ever be said on the matter because God is infinite and therefore inexhaustable.

Eugene,

"It's quite feasible and correct to say all Papal teaching has COMPLETE truth, even without an ex cathedra pronouncement."

Not quite. He must be teaching on Faith and morals and he must be teaching what the Church has always taught. Anything else is basically theological opinion and if binding at all, only during his pontificate.

Ian again,

A response is coming to your "recap" post.

-- Fr. Paul (pjdoucet@hotmail.com), March 03, 2005.


"If anyone says that it is possible that at some time, given the advancement of knowledge, a sense may be assigned to the dogmas propounded by the church which is different from that which the church has understood and understands: let him be anathema."

Ian,

The Church is NOT just anyone, therefore you are improperly applying this statement. Further to my above post as regards "new meanings to Dogmas", I refer you to Leo XIII: "while the Church jealously preserves in their integrity the dogmas she has received, which their divine character makes immutable, she allows and makes provision for some innovations in exterior forms, mostly when they are in conformity with the ancient past." (Constitution Orientalium Dignitas, 1894)

One point I wish to make as I continue to view your interpretation of Church teaching is that you tend to confuse development of doctrine as evolution. The Church's teaching do indeed develop, but they never evolve (i.e. from one meaning into another totally different meaning {such is condemned as illustrated in The Oath Against the Errors of Modernism, Pius X, 1910}).

-- Fr. Paul (pjdoucet@hotmail.com), March 03, 2005.


"It's quite feasible and correct to say all Papal teaching has COMPLETE truth, even without an ex cathedra pronouncement." --ME?

''Not quite. He must be teaching on faith and morals and teaching what the Church has always taught.''

Of course. That goes without saying. For instance-- John Paul II has serious problems with America's invasion of Iraq; he said so publicly.

Though my love and respect for him is filial and completely faithful in the spheres you have mentioned;

I parted with him in the question of our national interests. He has no obligation to look after American national interests; but neither have I been disloyal because I disagree with the Pope about just wars. It might be YOU were opposed to war with Iraq, and I would dispute with you too. I'm a free man, leaving out faith and morals.

In that sphere, the Pope is my acknowledged shepherd. I love the good man.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 03, 2005.


Ian on the necessity of Baptism, quoting Florence: "the ****only**** remedy available to them is the sacrament of baptism."

You really need a lesson in reading, rather than interpretation. What is the point the Church makes here? "the only remedy AVAILABLE TO THEM" There is nothing else available to them here on earth, nothing what so ever. BUT, this does not rule out God's infinite mercy and love. Think about this for a second, a cancer patient has only the various medical remedies available to them for a cure, correct? But this of course does not rule out miracles does it?

To continue with your understanding of the Church's Teaching on the Sacrament of Baptism, I invite you to demonstrate where and, especially, >b>how Vatican II denied that Baptism is necessary for Salvation, or that it is not the only remedy, or that it is a metaphor. The burden of proof is on you to prove She has deviated, not on the Church to defend Her teaching.

Pete,

Could you offer the Church's definition for "desire for Baptism"? What exactly does She mean by "desire for Baptism"?

Ian,

"the notion that the thief was baptised BEFORE the Sacrament existed is a nonsense"

Jesus died before the Good Thief, so guess what?

-- Fr. Paul (pjdoucet@hotmail.com), March 03, 2005.


Eugene,

The Holy Father speaking on the justification of the War in Iraq I dare say is a matter of morals. Therefore if he condemns such actions it is not merely his opinion, especially when his teachings on the matter are consistent with the Church's teachings on Just War. That the war in Iraq is a matter of American national interest is certain, but it is a stretch to call it a matter of American national security. But let's not derail this thread.

Too late, already done. ;)

-- Fr. Paul (pjdoucet@hotmail.com), March 03, 2005.


The Holy Father speaking on the justification of the War in Iraq I dare say is a matter of morals.----------

Let me only say that my worry over his objections was very real and important to me, and to many good Catholics. But upon contemplation I became less apprehensive --without losing any faith in His Holiness. It's a complicated story. One of these days I'll explain. You're right. Leave it for another thread.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 03, 2005.


The folliwing is dogmatic from Trent. There is no baptism of desire.

he last time "desire" is mentioned at Trent is in Canon 4 on the Sacraments:

"Canon 4: If anyone shall say that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation, but are superfluous, and that, although all are not necessary for every individual, without them or without the desire of them through faith alone men obtain from God the grace of justification: let him be anathema."

Again, we see that Trent, as did the Catechism, stresses the "desire for" the sacraments, NOT the "sacraments of desire." It is clearly stated that one who does not receive baptism or confession has not received the sacrament, even though they "desired" the sacrament. In other words, the "desire" for the sacrament does not mean they have received the sacrament. They will be saved without the sacrament (but only if they had a desire for the sacrament

-- Pete (Chas@charles.com), March 04, 2005.


Wrong. "Canon 4: If anyone shall say that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation, but are superfluous,

Nobody says this. They are definitely necessary.

and that, although all are not necessary for every individual, without them OR without THE DESIRE of them through faith alone men obtain from God the grace of justification: let him be anathema." --------------We are really being taught this: ''faith alone,'' without the sacraments OR DESIRE FOR THEM --CAN'T SAVE YOU.

You've proved that the DESIRE for the sacraments at the least, would save --whereas faith alone would NOT save. You destroyed your OWN objection!!!!!! Hahahaha!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 04, 2005.


Go back to school, Pete. You can't read sixth grade level! I really am amazed you brought out Church teaching intending to condemn Baptism of Desire--

Which tells us the Church SUPPORTS the concept of Baptism of Desire! I'm AMAZED!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 04, 2005.


Please show Emerald and Ian your fantastic discovery, Pete. Out of you three comedians, at least ONE might have the reading skill to understand this teaching; which was being adamantly denied here all week.

Many THANKS, for showing Emerald and Ian what the Catholiic Church has always taught us. (There's obviously more where that came from. Go get us another batch to embarrass you with tomorrow.)

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 04, 2005.


Without them or without the desire of them.

This means that both are necessary. A double negative in conjunction with aut ("or") renders the sense of "and". Example:

"No man can survive for a month without food or without water."

Here you can see that when positively reformulated (for reals, for a change), or stated in the positive, that both food and water are necessary for survival. It isn't the case that one stands in for the other in case of its absence.

That might seem somewhat involved. Here's a simpler consideration:

Votum is the word used in Trent for which desire is the translation. Think vow or promise when you think desire, because this best expresses the latin word.

Some insight might be had from the sacrament of matrimony in particular; a vow is exchanged at the altar, but the marriage must be consummated. Both the desire of union and the union make for completion. It isn't the baptism of desire, it is the desire of baptism. The desire which

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), March 04, 2005.


That last sentence wasn't supposed to be part of that last paragraph, sorry. Just meant to point out an additional something, which is this:

It isn't the baptism of desire, it is the desire of baptism, and it is an element or a component in the complete sacrament, and cannot be seperated out and treated in isolation.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), March 04, 2005.


Eugene

in SESSION THE SEVENTH, the "DECREE ON THE SACRAMENTS", we see the Council really going for Luther's jugular. Luther's "capital idea" was sola fide - justification by faith alone. and he also reduced the sacraments to three [Baptism, Penance, and the Eucharist] - though Penance was also discarded eventually.

...so turning to the relevant section of Trent, you must first note that it addresses ALL the Sacraments, having listed the full 7 in Canon I.

if, therefore, you think that "...the DESIRE for the sacraments at the least, would save....", as you say, it MUST follow that you think that the grace available in EVERY Sacrament can be had merely by desiring said Sacrament.

that creates huge problems.

can one become married by a desire to be married? NO. can one become a priest by the desire to be a priest? No. you need the Sacrament, surely?

OK, so absent the Sacrament, there is no marriage or ordination.

....but that's not actually the problem. the real problem is that you have created a scenario where the person wanting to be wed or ordained still gets the grace associated with the Sacrament even though he has not received the Sacrament.

how absurd is that? can your reading of this Canon be correct?

note that the anathemised person must do 2 things to fall foul of this condemnation. he must:

a/ say that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation; and

b/ say that, without them, or without the desire thereof, men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification. let's consider baptism, the case in point. Read Trent on justification.

here's one: "CANON IX.-If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, ***and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will***; let him be anathema.

or this:

"This disposition, or preparation, is followed by Justification itself, which is not remission of sins merely, but also the sanctification and renewal of the inward man, ***through the voluntary reception of the grace, and of the gifts***, whereby man of unjust becomes just, and of an enemy a friend, that so he may be an heir according to hope of life everlasting."

heck, Trent is littered with this kind of stuff.

but you see the point.

you must actually want the Sacrament. it can't be forced upon you; you can't be oblivious to it.

here are some examples of that:

"Wherefore falsely do some calumniate Catholic writers, as if they had maintained that the sacrament of Penance confers grace without any good motion on the part of those who receive it: a thing which the Church of God never taught, or thought: and falsely also do they assert that contrition is extorted and forced, not free and voluntary."

"The holy Synod places under anathema all and singular those persons who shall, in any way whatever, force any virgin, or widow, or any other woman whatsoever...to enter a convent against her will, or to take the habit of any religious order, or to make her profession...."

it's that simple Eugene. you can't force the Sacraments upon a person - and, if you do, there is no infusion of grace .....

furthermore, the Sacrament is ineffective unless the person knows that he is receiving a Holy Sacrament of the Church - sense "desires it". [for that reason, a protestant taking the Blessed Sacrament would receive no grace, as he would most likley not recognise the Real Presence.]

sorry mate. it's nice though to see you reading the Sacred Councils at long last!!!!!!!

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 04, 2005.


Eugene

here's Trent on baptism:

CANON II.-If any one saith, that true and natural water is not of necessity for baptism, and, on that account, wrests, to some sort of metaphor, those words of our Lord Jesus Christ; Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost; let him be anathema.

CANON V.-If any one saith, that baptism is free, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema.

here's Florence:

"All these sacraments are made up of three elements: namely, things as the matter, words as the form, and the person of the minister who confers the sacrament with the intention of doing what the church does.***If any of these is lacking, the sacrament is not effected***........ The ***matter of this sacrament [Baptism] is true and natural water***, either hot or cold."

you're being legalistic, Eugene. the answers are right before your eyes.

no water-->no baptism

no baptism-->Original Sin

Original Sin ---> Hell

miracles do happen. they cease to be miracles, however, if we build them into the faith as "matters of course".

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 04, 2005.


Eugene

"Though my love and respect for him is filial and completely faithful in the spheres you have mentioned; I parted with him in the question of our national interests."

says it all! who's the Pharisee?!?!?!

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 04, 2005.


and this

"Let me only say that my worry over his objections was very real and important to me, and to many good Catholics. But upon contemplation I became less apprehensive...."

what exactly does "apprehensive" mean? loyal? obedient?

you crack me up, sometimes.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 04, 2005.


Fr Paul

thanks for getting back. there are 2 subjects that we are discussing at the moment: the evolution/ development of dogma; and Florence on baptism. i can link them to make my points.

first, i accept that the formulation of a Dogma might change, in the sense that the Assumption could be adequately conveyed by any number of words in any number of different languages.

isn't this much closer to Pope Leo when he says "...she allows and makes provision for some innovations in exterior forms...".

to illustrate, and going to the second point, Florence tells us that there is no other remedy for Original Sin but baptism. i accept that. and, incidentally, i also accept yr analogy of the cancer case and the MIRACLE cure.

but that's just it. it would have to be a Miracle.

that's not what i am seeing though.

i hear of invincible ignorance as if it's a routine exception to the need for water baptism. it's not regarded as a miracle, but as a certainty for those that meet the criteria because, despite the Dogma of Original Sin, God WILL not punish the invincibly ignorant. it has become an established exception to "No salvation outside the Church" and has overiden the doctrine of Original Sin.

so go back to Cantate Domino, and see if Pope Eugene carved out exceptions for certain Jews, pagans or hetetics. he didn't. this is much more than a change in the "exterior form" of EENS. its an exception to a brutally exceptionless rule.

that Dogma has evolved - or however you wish to describe the change - so as to have a different meaning. in certain cases, a certain type of sincerity can save where the person concerned is outside the Church. even miles outside, worshipping Allah or denying the Divinity of Jesus, or whatever.

now observe these notions of unity contained in Cantate Domino:

"....those not living within the Catholic Church....the flock...the unity of the ecclesiastical body... the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church"

now go and read Dominus Iesus. true particular churches? people joined in mysterious ways to the Church? what's going on?

try UNAM SANCTAM:

"..... We believe in [the Church] firmly and we confess with simplicity that outside of her there is neither salvation nor the remission of sins,...There had been at the time of the deluge only one ark of Noah, prefiguring the one Church, which ark, having been finished to a single cubit, had only one pilot and guide, i.e., Noah, and we read that, outside of this ark, all that subsisted on the earth was destroyed.

............

Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff."

where's all this stuff gone to? how can the Greeks be in a true particular Church whne they reject the real essence of the Papacy? how is that Church salvific?

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 04, 2005.


"The Holy Catholic Church teaches essentially the same thing about unbaptized babies that it teaches about other unbaptized people - that we entrust them to the mercy of God, Who can save them if that is His will. Do you deny Him that right? "

[this sounds fair]-sdqa

-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.Com), March 04, 2005.


people don't have to believe in god or be christian to be good ppl and get in heaven...same thing with babies...

-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.Com), March 04, 2005.

and i don't give a **** about the manmade dogmas of trent...

-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.Com), March 04, 2005.

"..and i don't give a **** about the manmade dogmas of trent... "

you're not alone, sdqa.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 04, 2005.


nice...i'm not alone

who's with me then:p?

-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.Com), March 04, 2005.


Pete made a serious mistake. We were being challenged on the necessity for baptism; as well as baptism of desire. To you fanatics, only water-- never a desire for the grace of Holy baptism, counted.

It still doesn't to YOU. But the whole concept is proven now, by this Canon. IF a DESIRE for the sacrament is discernable to Almighty God, and the soul has proved repentent of all sin and righteous to the best of his human capacity, God is MERCIFUL,

In which truth the rest follows; He can and sometimes WILL grant Baptism of Desire. Not on account of the soul's IGNORANCE, but since water Baptism was not passed over, but desired. God faultlessly perceives that a soul of this nature will have been baptised given the choice in this life. Invincible ignorance is the reason he didn't have any choice. All this is crystal clear to God.

Nothing we say in any way frees any soul from the true necessity of Baptism by water; if a soul is able to have that. My pharisaical opponents are concluding falsely that I declared water baptism ''optional.'' Such is their drive to condemn souls and doing so deny God His divine prerogatives. It verges on sin to oppose His Infinite Wisdom and Mercy. And THEY KNOW IT.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 04, 2005.


"But the whole concept is proven now, by this Canon. IF a DESIRE for the sacrament is discernable to Almighty God, and the soul has proved repentent of all sin and righteous to the best of his human capacity, God is MERCIFUL,.."

yes Eugene. therefore the Sheenite Church preaches Ordination by desire, Marriage by Desire, Confirmation by Desire, etc etc

that's the sequitur.

that's sola fide simpliciter by the back door, dude.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 04, 2005.


Ordination, Marriage, and Confirmation are not essential for salvation. The issue here is actually not so-called "Baptism by desire", but rather Salvation by desire. Which brings us back to the bottom line - God can SAVE anyone He chooses to save, whether they have had the opportunity to experience the sacramental rites of His Church or not. Trads seem to have no problem in telling God "you'll do it my way or no way".

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), March 04, 2005.

The Church calls these alternatives to the Rite of Baptism baptisms; and consequently they are salvation. But not by another route

Christ made His conditions clear enough: ''Unless a man be born again, of water and the spirit--''

The key is REBIRTH. What gives rebirth is logically a soul's BAPTISM. He dies and rises again in sanctifying grace. Meaning in Christ.

When sanctifying grace is infused you are being baptised into Christ. God can infuse it Himself because he's God. He isn't ''contradicting'' the dogma of his Church. He is adding souls to His Church in an actual baptism.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 04, 2005.


If my answer was misleading I apologize. Of course water is necessary for baptism.

An analogy is this; A person gets filthy fixing his car. He desires a shower Does he get cleaned up before that shower? Indeed not. He must get under the water. The desire will keep him filthy until he gets that water.

The baby does not need the desire. Mom will give him the bath without his permission.

-- Pete (Chas@charles.com), March 04, 2005.


Desire by itself tells God you would certainly have gotten baptised given that option. But the desire is not enough.

Perfect contrition for all sin and love for God; hope in His divine mercy-- bring divine forgiveness and Christ's merits to bear; Sanctifying Grace.

You can shower with ten bars of soap and the whole river Jordan. It is GRACE you require for salvation.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 04, 2005.


Paul M

extracted from above. here's Trent on baptism:

"CANON II.-If any one saith, that true and natural water is not of necessity for baptism, and, on that account, wrests, to some sort of metaphor, those words of our Lord Jesus Christ; Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost; let him be anathema."

"CANON V.-If any one saith, that baptism is free, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema."

here's Florence:

"All these sacraments are made up of three elements: namely, things as the matter, words as the form, and the person of the minister who confers the sacrament with the intention of doing what the church does.***If any of these is lacking, the sacrament is not effected***........ The ***matter of this sacrament [Baptism] is true and natural water***, either hot or cold."

"With regard to children, since the danger of death is often present and the ****only**** remedy available to them is the sacrament of baptism.., it admonishes that sacred baptism....should be conferred as soon as it conveniently can; and if there is imminent danger of death, the child should be baptized straightaway without any delay,...."

now, these are the words of the Sacred Councils of the Church. when you say: "Trads seem to have no problem in telling God "you'll do it my way or no way", by trads, do you means the Councils and the Popes? you must do.

as for "Ordination, Marriage, and Confirmation are not essential for salvation", well indeed the Canon acknowledges this when it says: "..though all (the sacraments) are not ineed necessary for every individual...".

however, it still leaves Eugene's bizarre interpretation - where individuals take the Sacraments such as Orders, they can do so by desire. in truth, desire is not an alternative to the real Sacrament.

here's more from Trent:

"CANON VI.-If any one saith, that

a/ the sacraments of the New Law do not contain the grace which they signify; or,

b/ that they do not confer that grace on those who do not place an obstacle thereunto;

as though they were merely outward signs of grace or justice received through faith, and certain marks of the Christian profession, whereby believers are distinguished amongst men from unbelievers;

let him be anathema."

when this Canon talks of "desire" [votum - choice], it simply means that you cannot force a Sacrament upon someone - see para b) above. furthermore, the Sacraments are real - see para a) above.

the Church knows of no alternative. the Church is Sacrament- centric. to argue that there are alternatives is to start down the road of Luther. he ditcjed 4 of them, then a 5th, and the others were relegated to something like a sacramental - because he believed, as Eugene did, that Faith alone could save.

of course, how that applie to someone who has no faith is another matter entirely.

the fact remains, though, the Church knows of no other remedy to Original Sin. how come you lot do?

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 04, 2005.


You pay attention to my words, Ian-- in case I trip up you can make me take something back, OK?

Each time you quoted above the word ''Sacrament,'' as the document or Canon teaches;

The Canon context refers to THE HOLY RITE. It means there are no other, better or alternate RITES, in the Church or out of it-- Except the exact way she defines her Rite.

It states clearly as well, to counter any heretical notions, that there is no salvation by faith alone, as Luther wanted to teach. There must be water Baptism or the DESIRE for it. Why did the Church insert the phrase ''desire for it (Baptism)'' into the formal declaration? Because Baptism and sanctifying grace with it, can be effected without a RITE, if God makes it so. That grace comes from God, not necessarily the Church, who is only His channel of grace. This is the easily understood truth the Church teaches and YOU deny.

The Canon could have stated simply, ''If anyone should say without them'' OR without THE DESIRE of them -- ''but through faith alone; men obtain from God the grace of justification: let him be anathema.'' --and no other meaning would be possible. But giving us the words I've struck out for you (the real context) she taught us that Desire is also validly indicative of that sacrament if God should Will it WITHOUT her Baptismal Rite.

He would certainly not grant it to souls who die in sin. First the forgiveness must come, then the grant of Sanctifying Grace. (Just to save you confusion.)

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 04, 2005.


no Eugene

"Why did the Church insert the phrase ''desire for it (Baptism)'' into the formal declaration?"

..because you can receive the Sacrament without wanting it. or without knowing what it is you are receiving.

but, in said event, you have NOT received the grace of the Sacrament.

that's the whole point, dude.

that's why it applies to ALL the Sacraments. you need faith - true. but you also need the Sacrament.

without the Sacrament, or the desire for the Sacrament,....

"...aut re, aut voto..."

you need BOTH.

this theme occurs repeatedly throughout Trent, as i have shown.

good enough for the Council, good enough for me.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 04, 2005.


"Why did the Church insert the phrase ''desire for it (Baptism)'' into the formal declaration?" ------>>> <<<--------- ''because you can receive the Sacrament without wanting it. or without knowing what it is you are receiving.'' --Ian

This is a completely unintelligible explanation, and certainly not a theologian's logic. Would you take another, less desperate stab at it? Answer me again, this time carefully.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 04, 2005.


Eugene

it IS that simple. indeed it is. read the Council. that's all there is to it.

if you do not see this, explain this:

CANON XIII.-If any one saith, that little children, ***for that they have not actual faith***, are not, after having received baptism, to be reckoned amongst the faithful; and that, for this cause, they are to be rebaptized when they have attained to years of discretion; or, that it is better that the baptism of such be omitted, than that, while not believing by their own act, ***they should be bapized in the faith alone of the Church***; let him be anathema."

you see, this is the point. you need to want the Sacraments. kids can't. the Church explains that they are baptised in the faith of the Church.

you see -- you need to want the Sacraments or they are not effected.

Trent is --- yawn --- full of this kind of stuff. there's no mystery, Eugenius. none at all.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 04, 2005.


Well, thanks a lot. I've got you figured out now. Not only don't you know what you're talking about here. You run away when confronted for your errors.

I have rules which I must follow when something reaches the point of diminishing returns.

I have the necessary charity not to humiliate another person because he's gone helpless. I try to keep him my friend if he'll have me. The match is over. Shake hands and wait for another, sharper opponent, and wish Ian good luck next time.

Good luck, carry on, have faith, Yancy!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 04, 2005.


The new understanding is: "Let anyone who says that any human being who does not believe in Almighty God, Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit, the Trinity, the death and ressurection of Christ or has not been baptised by water can not achieve salvation by the mercy of Almighty God, let him be an anathema. "

Perhaps if the Church simply came out and said this, it might be crystal clear for everyone and we'd be done with it, eh?

-- Lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), March 04, 2005.


but if the church is infaillable in it's teachings how can it first teach things like trent and later teach invincible ignorance?

-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.Com), March 04, 2005.

In fact the Church HAS taught us this; with the sole exception of ''has not been baptised by water can not achieve salvation by the mercy of Almighty God.''

The plain truth is, all salvation is because of God's infinite mercy. We've been taught that Baptism is not an option, but truly necessary; but water baptism is understood to be the Catholic Rite, our visible Baptism in the Church. There are yet another two variations of the same sacrament; only they have no RITE visible to us in this life. Baptism of Desire, as we've been debating here, and Baptism of Blood, or martyrdom for Christ and our faith. This is taught by the Church; and is also upheld in scriptural passages quoting Christ in the gospels.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 04, 2005.


indeed sdqa:

"but if the church is infaillable in it's teachings how can it first teach things like trent and later teach invincible ignorance?"

that's the whole point.

Eugene and co make a mokery of the Church.

that's why so many people deserted their vocations after V-II.

another simple truth.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 04, 2005.


"Baptism of Desire, as we've been debating here, and Baptism of Blood, or martyrdom for Christ and our faith. This is taught by the Church; ...."

where? show us, pls.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 04, 2005.


Good luck, carry on, have faith, Yancy! Go home to your reading.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 04, 2005.

"Baptism of Desire, as we've been debating here, and Baptism of Blood, or martyrdom for Christ and our faith. This is taught by the Church; ...."

again, sir, where? show us, pls.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 05, 2005.


You were shown. You're also a Big Boy now. if you can't understand it yet; go back and study your faith. Not only the conciliar documents you hope will take everything away. You r FAITH.

I sy it since you dispute each day here the most glorious truths of the catholic faith:

God is All-Loving and merciful
God can do nothing that isn't Perfectly Just
God wills that all men be saved, and gave his only-begotten Son for that ultimate end.

GOD IS LOVE.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 05, 2005.


Eugene

the Councils and the Popes and St Augistien and St Thomas knew all of this -- much better than you know it.

yet, they disagree with you.

why?

quote, pls.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 05, 2005.


I never disagree with any Pope or conciliar document. Because they are infallible, as to our faith and morality.

YOU disagree.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 05, 2005.


do too.

do not.

do too.

etc.

Eugene, point me to your source...and i don't mean that panphlett from Bishop Sheen.

something of authority that proves that you are not relying upon your own private interpretation of morality.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 05, 2005.


Just as an aside: You seem to have something against Bishop Sheen. Did he meddle with you, in some way? He had no private Church; and YES; I'm happy to say his Catholic doctrine is the same as my Catholic faith.

You claim some Councils and Popes and St Augustine and St Thomas knew all of this -- much better than you know it. -- But I know it even better than they! Really! (Ask and I'll explain.)

You conclude, (falsely) ''yet, they disagree with you.'' --And I wish I knew IN WHAT truth they disagree with me? I believe Catholic doctrine. Whereas, you deny the challenges of Catholic doctrine. You leave God behind and follow the schismatics!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 05, 2005.


"Did he meddle with you, in some way?"

that's really disgusting Eugene. completely inappropriate. shame on you.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 05, 2005.


"I never disagree with any Pope or conciliar document. Because they are infallible, as to our faith and morality."

[the conciliar documents are contradictory;trent and vatican 2...how can an infaillable church with infaillable teachings teach first one thing and later the somewhat the opposite of it...?

you just simply trust in this institution and take everything that they tell you as a truth,they gave theirselves the authority to teach and say whatever they want and you believe everything that they teach and that they will teach is infaillable because god protects the institution,while history has shown enough i think,if god really protects this institution like you claim he does,then he wouldn't allow it go corrupt in the middle ages...and please don't come and tell me that it were only 'a couple of evil men' and deny historical facts]-sdqa

-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.Com), March 05, 2005.


"Like every heretic eager to corrupt others as he himself has been corrupted, the Traditionalist [heretic] fights against right order and any authority that would guide him out of his error." -- Bishop Louis Vezelis, O.F.M.

-- (m@r.k), March 05, 2005.

Just let's understand: ----- ''You seem to have something against Bishop Sheen. Did he meddle with you, in some way? He had no private Church;

and YES; I'm happy to say his Catholic doctrine is the same as my Catholic faith.''

You seem to suggest Bishop Sheen had something dirty about him. I think YOU'RE making a disgusting remark here. I'm hardly surprised, since you're shameless. And; why do you say there's a Sheen Church? That's outright slander against our clergy.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 05, 2005.


Eugene

i, for one, have no evidence WHATSOEVER that Archbishop Shene "meddled" with anyone. ANYONE. you sick puppy.

retract that first, you foul slob, and we can take it from there.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 05, 2005.


Eugene

i, for one, have no evidence WHATSOEVER that Archbishop Sheen "meddled" with anyone. ANYONE. you sick puppy.

retract that first, you foul slob, and we can take it from there.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 05, 2005.


"You seem to suggest Bishop Sheen had something dirty about him."

and that.

a night on the tequila?

still pretty bad.

goodness gracious. have you lost all sense of decency?

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 05, 2005.


Slob? Foul? I asked a direct question: What do you have against a Catholic bishop--? Did he ''meddle'' at any time with you, as a teacher of the faith? You insinuate this is foul? Get your stupid mind out of the sewer. Did you ever ''meddle'' in some way, that you can call that a foul or disgusting label?

It's clear you can't defend your theological errors; and now you get down CRUDE with the person who's been walloping you every day. If you had any powers of persuasion you wouldn't have to get vile and silly; you'd present a clean case. Sorry to see you floundering so badly. Get a new hobby, Yancy!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 05, 2005.


Ian and Emerald,

I will try to be brief as I am feeling under the weather.

"Without them or without the desire of them. This means that both are necessary."

This statement that both of you have made in one form or another is contradictory to Canon XIII above. If you continue to hold to this statement ("both are necessary") than you cannot hold to Canon XIII because infants cannot desire Baptism and thus would be lacking one of the necessities that you put forth.

Paul M. has already pointed this out, but the two of you are simply not listening. You keep harping over and over about the Sacrament of Baptism as if we say it or its grace can be received without its form. We are not. We are simply saying that God in His infinite mercy and love can save people PERIOD. We are not saying that there is another or other ways to gain Salvation, we are not saying that Christ, His Church, or His Sacraments are not necessary for Salvation. They are necessary, there is no other way for us to obtain Salvation (and I use that term loosely because all is FREE GIFT that no one has merited except Christ); there is no other means to this end. But this in no way can ever place any limits on God.

The Church (Vatican II to present) does not teach that without the Sacraments, etc. people can be saved, can here meaning that there is an alternative way or path. The Church teaches that they can be saved, can here meaning may, as in we cannot rule out the infinite goodness of God. After all, Jesus did not die on the Cross for Catholics only, or for the Baptised only, He died for ALL - ONCE FOR ALL. Yet in His dying for all it does not mean that all are saved, but instead that the possibility for the Salvation of all is there for those who co-operate with God's grace. If I've said it once, I've said it a million times, IT ALL BOILS DOWN TO OBEDIENCE to God's will - after all, that is how Jesus saves, it is through His obedience to His Father's will.

-- Fr. Paul (pjdoucet@hotmail.com), March 05, 2005.


Ian, do you realise that you just incurred an anathema? You quote:

"CANON XIII.-If any one saith, that little children, ***for that they have not actual faith***, are not, after having received baptism, to be reckoned amongst the faithful; and that, for this cause, they are to be rebaptized when they have attained to years of discretion; or, that it is better that the baptism of such be omitted, than that, while not believing by their own act, ***they should be bapized in the faith alone of the Church***; let him be anathema.'"

AND THEN you state this:

"this is the point. you need to want the Sacraments. kids can't. the Church explains that they are baptised in the faith of the Church.

you see -- you need to want the Sacraments or they are not effected."

You really need to be FAR more careful when you read the documents, it is obvious that you are very clumsy. This statement of the Council: "they should be bapized in the faith alone of the Church" is actually CONDEMNED by that Canon.

And as for this: "you need to want the Sacraments" it is only true for Marriage. Personal "want" for any of the others only has to do with the fruitfulness of the Sacrament, it is "affected" regardless of personal wants as this depends on the Minister (Bishop, Priest, Deacon, the baptist) not on the recipient.

You are in way over your head and you cannot swim, you best get back to shore, or better yet climb into the Ark of Salvation - the Catholic Church with Peter at the healm.

-- Fr. Paul (pjdoucet@hotmail.com), March 05, 2005.


Told you I wasn't feeling well.

"This statement of the Council: 'they should be bapized in the faith alone of the Church' is actually CONDEMNED by that Canon."

Now look who's clumsy.

Anyway, my point astill stands; that is, Ian's and Emerald's statement that BOTH are necessary (the Sacrament and the desire for the Sacrament). It's obvious that infants cannot desire Baptism, and the Canon does not in any way support your position, but ours (BOTH are not necessary). Either ONE or the OTHER is necessary - at least the desire.

-- Fr. Paul (pjdoucet@hotmail.com), March 05, 2005.


Ian is just as talented as Emerald in misinterpretation.

-- (just@n.observation), March 05, 2005.

Which means this reference to DESIRE as the alternative in doctrine is a desire only God can see, in unbaptised yet just souls. Other conditions absolutely crucial can only be charity, invincible ignorance and perfect contrition. God can grant sanctifying grace with no formal rites when the occasion calls for it.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 05, 2005.

"Ian is just as talented as Emerald in misinterpretation."

i think you and the good Cardinal need to go back and re-read Fr Paul's two posts.

in his first, he misread the anathema at Trent which read as follows:

CANON XIII.-If any one saith ... that it is better that the baptism of [little children] be omitted, than that, while not believing by their own act, they should be bapized in the faith alone of the Church; let him be anathema.'"

.....and concluded that the statement "they should be bapized in the faith alone of the Church" is actually CONDEMNED by that Canon.

the Church was actually, as Fr Paul then accepted, CONDEMNING the notion that the baptism should be deferred until such time as the child has an active Faith, the reason being that such children are " bapized in the faith alone of the Church".

Fr Paul got it the wrong way round.

however, Fr Paul still considers that "Anyway, my point still stands....It's obvious that infants cannot desire Baptism..."

now let's see what Trent says [Dogmatic C. VII on Justification]:

"This disposition [of adults], or preparation, is followed by Justification itself, ..., through the **voluntary** reception of the grace, and of the gifts, ..."

the adult must "voluntarily" receive the sacrament - "voto". the Sacrament could never be imposed against the will of the adult.

"Of this Justification....the **instrumental** cause is the sacrament of baptism, which is the sacrament of faith, without which (faith) no man was ever justified.."

here we see why the adult volunteers to be baptised. the faith [that results from the prevenient grace of God and man's free will] creates the faith leads to the adult's desire for baptism.

so, even though the Council makes it clear that the **instrumental** cause of Justification, ie Faith, is present in the child, Fr Paul still considers that this imputed faith leaves the child "indifferent" to the Sacrament or unwilling to accept it.

well, Fr Paul?

just what kind of Faith does the child have? why is it different from the instrumental cause of the adult's baptism. what happens to the Faith that instrumentally brough about the baptism of the adults?

you're really out on a limb here, Father.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 06, 2005.


btw Fr Paul, those extracts from Trent are de fide. everything in the decree on Justification is de fide. read the intro -- and tread carefully.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 06, 2005.

...and one further thought Fr Paul and i hope this is my second last of the day.

i think you have slammed the door firmly shut on any Baptism of Desire. you see the desire for Baptism that started as a theory of St Thomas reserved to Catuchumens works of their Faith. their knowledge of Christ and of the necessity fo Baptism for salvation.

now, having shown that the baby presented for baptism has the faith of the Church, what has the Church NEVER taught that children go to Heaven.

why shouldn't they desire baptism through the imputed desire of the Church? as they would have been baptised in the faith of the Church.

that in itself shows BoD to be an invention that runs contrary to Catholic Dogma.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 06, 2005.


Emerald

an aside. the priest today didn't baptise another 3 children. no water.

i think it's war. i will probably go straight to the bishop.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 06, 2005.


Do what you can, but also put it in Jesus and Mary's hands of course. Maybe ask them to put these helpless souls under the mantle of her protection, and have no doubt that He will and she will.

I heard a story recently about a priest in some diocese in the states here that was doing something along the lines of what you describe, and while from what I understood the bishop wasn't the most un- liberal bishop in the world, at least he tracked down every case and had the baptisms performed properly. He did his job.

Go for it, and back it up with prayer.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), March 06, 2005.


Ian:
I don't see Father Paul out on a limb. What I see (again and again) is YOU making multiple posts (Yancy's Anthology of Errors) that show your own ignorance. You don't understand the documents you're quoting.

Since it's apparent you've decided NEVER to let reason or correct English syntax to interfere with your Bronze Age theology, what is the use in telling you the truth??? You're content with your broad brush of Catholic Baptism (the Rite and only the Rite--) so we ought to ignore you. Both you and Emeraldiot have maligned a Catholic priest and that archbishop whose book I quoted. (Not the substance of that book, the PERSON who wrote it.) --Not the worthy theology of Father Paul, but his own person; because what you tell him is that he's lying. That he, (a Catholic priest) doesn't know what he's talking about. These are egregious offenses against guess what ? --The Catholic Church! You aren't worthy of good Catholics arging with you. But you aren't ''out on a limb''. You are simply a poor brute.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 06, 2005.


Eugene,

there isn't a single point of substance in that last post.

go back up and read -- and, if you disagree, give reasons.

what exactly do you think, in Trent, supports the notion that you can - against someone's will - baptise them, or ordain them to the priesthood, or confirm them: because that is exactly the cause that you are currently supporting.

do you really think that you can give the Sacraments to someone against their will?

this is the further error of Fr Paul when he says: "Personal "want" for any of the others [ie Sacraments] only has to do with the fruitfulness of the Sacrament, it is "affected" regardless of personal wants as this depends on the Minister (Bishop, Priest, Deacon, the baptist) not on the recipient."

do you truly agree with Fr Paul in what he says?!?! truly?!?!

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 06, 2005.


Dear Ian,
You're so out of it now you've become unintelligible. Who knows what the dickens you're trying to say here?

If my words lack substance to you, I feel just great. I don't want to be identified by your standards. Ciao; leave som wine for the others; I do believe your last post is DUI.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 06, 2005.


no Eugene.

you are supporting Fr Paul without actually understanding his argument.

he has just said that the minister of the sacrament determines whether it has been received [save for matrimony], not the recipient.

that means that priests can go out and forcibly convert Moslems.

do you accept that?

i don't.

IOW please read the posts or butt out. you are becoming a right nuisance.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 06, 2005.


I'm a nuisance??? You post eighteen to my three and I make a nuisance of myself? Hahaha!

Cut to the chase, Man, ''that means that priests can go out and forcibly convert Moslems. Do you accept that?''

If the Church ever taught that, I would have to believe it. Father Paul is --1. A voicde in here for the Church, and yet --2. Saying NO such thing. ----------->> Once more you've distorted words to suit your private agenda. But--what do I care? I don't see the least credibility in anything you say anymore. I's a shame when fanaticism replaces grace in a Catholic. Ciao, Nuisyancy.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 06, 2005.


Fr. Paul on another thread had allied himself with the thoughts of Karl Rahner.

The problem with Karl Rahner is that he himself never allied himself with the Catholic Church.

Perhaps it would be best if Fr. Paul were to explain what it is that he likes about the musings of one Karl Rahner.

Fr. Paul, I yield to you the balance of my time. At least, long enough time for you to explain to everyone exactly what it is that impresses you so much about Karl Rahner.

Also, it would be helpful, if you actually are aquainted with the thoughts of Rahner, to expound on them for us, particularly on his theory of The Anonymous Christian. I think people need to hear about it, so that they can understand exactly what it consists of.

Of course, expounding on it will draw it out into the open, so that it can be put squarely under the spotlight of Catholic dogma. So we can see whether it melts.

Whenever you're ready...

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), March 06, 2005.


yes Gene, a COMPLETE nuisance.

here's what the priest said:

"Personal "want" for any of the others only has to do with the fruitfulness of the Sacrament, it is "affected" regardless of personal wants as this depends on the Minister (Bishop, Priest, Deacon, the baptist) not on the recipient."

have you ever seen this before? it's posted above. you ought to have read it. did you? clearly not.

..which is why you are a complete nuisance.

you don't read anyhing. you add nothing to the discussion - apart from stuff you find in that old 1954 pamphlett from Bishop Sheehan, that you clearly consider infallible, and only then because you agree with it. you prefer to insult people, claim victory in debates that are actually discussions, and to which you have added nothing.....

.....ie you are a complete nuisance, sir. sorry. but it's true.

now, do you agree with Fr Paul? yes or no? can we start here? can priests forcibly convert Moslems?

i say "no".

you say "?".

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 06, 2005.


If you can quote a sentence, Emerald-- of Father Paul's [allying] allied himself with the thoughts of Karl Rahner;

Paste it here, and let me read it. if he shows an alliance or connection to Rahner, I'll confront the good priest myself. I really will. But you can't. It's all in your mind, Pal.

FOR the pseudo- theologiyancy:

''yes or no? can we start here? can priests forcibly convert Moslems?'' --No. Father Paul wasn't saying that. About this: ''Bishop Sheehan, that you clearly consider infallible''----- That I consider the Catholic Church infallible? ,p> Yes, indeed. She is infallible always. Archbishop Sheehan isn't infallible, but he teaches ONLY the doctrines of the Catholic Church, who IS. ------------------------------------ (Would you like another chance? Hit me with another stupid question.)

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 06, 2005.


Gene says "Paste it here, and let me read it. if he shows an alliance or connection to Rahner, I'll confront the good priest myself. I really will. But you can't. It's all in your mind, Pal."

Let Fr. Paul tell both you and I his thoughts concerning Karl Rahner. Fr. Paul's exact words:

"Many today are quick to condemn Karl Rahner also whenever they here his name, but the truth is that he is one of the greatest theologians of recent years the Church has known."

He's out there somewhere. Certainly he can flesh out his claim a bit for both of us. He can explain what he means by this. I already know what it's going to consist of.

You can't sit on your fence constructed of mere attitude forever, Gene. Sooner or later you're going to have to come to terms with the fact that many of those you spar with are friends of the Church, and many whom you would ally with are not your friends or friends of the Church at all. Not at all.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), March 06, 2005.


According to you, this proves Fr Paul is a follower of the radical Karl Rahner; ''. . . but the truth is that he is one of the greatest theologians of recent years the Church has known.''

But that is anathema for you? First you impugned the priest for not agreeing with you and now, he thinks a theologian is justly great. Meaning YOU are great, but haven't received due credit from Fr Paul. Who knows. maybe Rahner is a phony. Maybe you're a great Catholic thinker.

I judge only what you're saying in this forum, which is self-aggrandizing and elitist. Was Rahner the same? Then I would repudiate him and Father Paul in the same page. I'll keep my promise and question Fr Paul about his radical leanings. As with you, I've only judged what he's said in here; very orthodox and well-studied. No wonder you pulled out your long knives; he scares you.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 07, 2005.


Let me say also, whether you just mean it to sting, or you truly believe this: ''You can't sit on your fence constructed of mere attitude forever, Gene. Sooner or later you're going those you spar with are friends ****with the fact**** that many of those you spar with are friends of the Church, and many whom you would ally with are ***not your friends or friends of the Church at all.**** Not at all.

I don't sit on any fence; and my ''attitude'' has always been purely reciprocal with you-- You don't show me respect. You gain no respect from me that way. As to FACTS; where is that ***fact**** you refer to? It's all a figment of your own imagining. Since when does this faithful Catholic have to come to terms with elitism in religion? Holier than thous are simply a fact of life. Jesus dealt with them in Jerusalem.

I know from the gospels who loved Jesus most. Humble sinners. The downtrodden and the simple souls. Those who ''sparred'' with Christ were mostly Scribes and Pharisees; Big Shots who talked down to the Son of God. And they were convinced of their superiority, Emmie. They felt they should be the teachers; not Christ. Don't you read these gospels and feel sorry for the Scribes and Pharisees? --Emerald; these hypocrites are not your friends or friends of the Church at all. --Not at all.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 07, 2005.


Nope. I stand by what I side. You're coming to a theological fight armed with nothing but your attitude. When you arrive, you commence slinging said attitude at the wrong army.

In fact, it's so wrongheaded that I retain hope for you. The real enemies of the Church are far more clever than this. There is hope for you yet, Gene.

"No wonder you pulled out your long knives; he scares you."

Fr. Paul, bring it on. Tell me all about Karl Rahner. Call me, I don't know... Emerald Scissorhands or something, like Gene imagines. But do tell me why you think that Karl Rahner is one of the greatest theologians of recent memory.

See, Gene, if he comes out front and answers why, honestly, you're going to find out I was right; that behind a facade of orthodoxy, there's this raging universalism and syncretism which has it's origins in the same mysterious force that has always worked to impede the social reign of Christ the King.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), March 07, 2005.


Emerald:
You speak of syncretism and universalism as some evil at work, disloyal to the Holy Spirit in Christs' Holy Church. God gave us the Incarnation, actually connecting Divinity and Man. He didn't have to stop being God. Christ made us a Universal Church, as in Catholic. ''Raging'', is it?

You're so attuned to your own pejoratives you call the Holy Spirit a syncretist and an ordained priest dishonest, suggesting Fr Paul can't contend with your amazing wisdom honestly. He must FALL, ''Bring it on!'' What an EGO. I must give you full credit for being honest, though. You're in our faces always challenging me, anyway-- to treat you like a fool. Because you don't hide or soften your foolishness. Now THAT'S honest!

Then you falsely accuse others of a ''facade'' of orthodox Catholic faith; dishonest about working for Christ. After all, you say: ''One fold and One Shepherd??? It's a fraud; nothing but universalism!'' To you, that isn't Christ's work. You believe all others except Pharisees are headed for damnation. Christ never prophesied such a turn of events. He SAID plainly: ''There is to be One Fold.'' Despite what you think of Rahner, or orthodoxy or me.

And, I'm sure Father Paul is capable of speaking without a forked tongue, Emerald. He always seemed very priestly and straightforward to me. I'm sorry you object.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 07, 2005.


I see Ian and Emerald are still having problems with the English language. Forcing or going against one's will does not equal lack of personal want.

And would you please stop with the broken record about the matter and from of the Sacrament of Baptism? NOBODY argues with you on that, NOBODY says the Sacrament comes another way. How many times do we need to tell you before you will listen? We are talking about the Saving Grace of God that is a FREE GIFT. The only means for anybody on earth is Baptism, but we are talking about God giving to whomever He wishes - that's Divine Justice.

You misquote me as regards the Sacraments (sans Marriage) about personal want or desire. My point = if a Bishop lays his hands on a mans head, pronounces the words of Ordination, etc. he is Ordained. I am not talking about forcing, that is absurd, I'm talking about a guy who is just going through the motions.

As to Karl Rahner I will only say this - he has written many great works that reveal him to be a great theologian; that he has also written some iffy stuff or some outright bad stuff does not warrant writing him off completely. The Church herself quotes Origen extensively in the Liturgy of the Hours, doesn't mean She agrees with everything he had to say.

Perhaps we should nullify St. Augustine, strip him of his title of Doctor of the Church because he wrote wrongly about the marital act (claiming it was always sinful). And while we are at it St. Catherine of Sienna also for saying the Blessed Virgin Mary was a sinner (because Mary told her so in an apparition).

"Repent, and believe the Good News!"

-- Fr. Paul (pjdoucet@hotmail.com), March 07, 2005.


"As to Karl Rahner I will only say this - he has written many great works that reveal him to be a great theologian..."

Such as? Don't be shy. Elaborate.

"...he has also written some iffy stuff or some outright bad stuff..."

I know. Which things were you thinking of in particular?

"Perhaps we should nullify St. Augustine, strip him of his title of Doctor of the Church because he wrote wrongly about the marital act (claiming it was always sinful). And while we are at it St. Catherine of Sienna also for saying the Blessed Virgin Mary was a sinner (because Mary told her so in an apparition)."

And therefore I suppose it would make sense to you for someone to point out that some of the saints and theologians of the Church innocently but erroniously speculated about a baptism of desire in certain limited situations, even though the concept is not in the Deposit of the Faith.

I think you're catching on.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), March 07, 2005.


"not in the Deposit of the Faith"

Says you. Call it Baptism of Desire, Desire for Baptism, whatever, it's there. I've posted Innocent II, the Catechism has been posted, Trent (in Latin even), what more do you need?

-- Fr. Paul (pjdoucet@hotmail.com), March 07, 2005.


It hasn't been deposited in Emerald's faith, Father. Remember--what Emerald believes is revealed by God. What the plebeians believe overturns Tradition.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 07, 2005.

Let's talk about Karl Rahner.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), March 08, 2005.

''about Karl Rahner.''

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett

You were just a while ago demanding I stick to one subject and not follow my own trains of thought. But now you seem to diverge? How consistent of you, Emmie.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 08, 2005.


Once again someone is presupposing a definition of Baptism and presupposing that only one economy of salvation exists or can exist!

"Unless a man be baptized in water and the spirit..." So saith our Lord. But what water? Literally pure h20 or mixed? How applied?

Was "water" a literal, categorical statement? I.e. the grace that the sacrament endows can not be given men in any other fashion even by God himself?

Amniotic fluid - for centuries called "water" as in "her water broke" is MOSTLY water, h20. Salt water...is mostly water too.

So for an aborted child, water is present. Who is to say the Spirit CAN'T be present? That God can't - not that he wouldn't but that he metaphysically CAN'T offer that soul a grace which ordinarily only comes about by human free will cooperating with His?

"Oh, hey, I'm sorry, but my Catholic theology forces me to conclude that aborted babies don't enter heaven, and since there are only two eternal destinies for souls, namely heaven and hell, they must eventually be damned"...is this your line of thinking?

As an aside... we can CONSECRATE A NATION - LIKE RUSSIA against its political leaders' wishes, but somehow God can't give the grace of justice to an unborn child? Does that make sense? I didn't think so.

God is just, and merciful and love itself. Hundreds of millions of children die in abortion - and we are to believe that as good Catholics we MUST believe that all such souls are damned because they didn't receive the sacrament?

OK, fine. Now explain to me the part about God being Just and Merciful and Love again?

God is all powerful but he chooses to allow souls to be lost in hell for all eternity only because someone else wishes to harm them. Wow, that's pretty just, merciful and loving (*NOT).

I suppose no one has considered that God can take care of such souls in ways known only to Himself, but that we're reponsible for the souls that make it into this world?

Oh wait, that would be the Catholic view! That would require theological consistency and philosophical logic! Can't have that!

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), March 08, 2005.


Joe

if i was God, we'd all be saved.

i'm not.

you're not -- so the people that you want to save are not saved unless God wants it.

..and on it goes.

the Church has already made it's bed. it must lie in it.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 08, 2005.


You've about reiterated my explanation of baptismal doctrine, Joe. To be truly Catholic, the doctrine MUST be absolutely true, not 99.9% true. There is no room for error. The pseudo-theologians we meet with here are positive they can establish 100% truth of water baptism and none other-- by quoting a few papal documents and/or statements out of context.

In order for a quote of that sort to be relevant for the study it's applies to, it MUST not be in opposition to another revealed truth. What our ''trads'' conclude from certain anathemas of past Popes conflicts with Catholic doctrine, vis., God's infinite Mercy and love; as well as his Justice. We also know from the very lips of Jesus Christ that an avenue of salvation will always be found for men of good will; and for the truly repentent sinner.

I'd like to see the papal bull which teaches us that God punishes the innocent with everlasting fire and Catholics ONLY can repent and be saved in the last hour.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 08, 2005.


For us...in this world, this economy of salvation...as far as we are concerned.. the Church is necessary and thus sacraments are necessary for salvation. Insofar as we have the freedom to move, we are bound to move...

But the question is what happens to souls who are not baptized and die before birth - souls who lie outside our ability to act on their behalf.

Obviously out of our hands....so, duh, in God's hands.

Some would want to conclude a metaphysical limit to God's ability to grant the gift of justification (and thus reduce the PROBABILITY to zero) to the means that He has revealed to us.

But the fact is...He has revealed to us that while He commands us to do our part, He himself is still at work in the salvation of souls, so their salvation isn't EXCLUSIVELY placed in our hands.

How so? Well, Our Lord positively commanded the apostles to preach...but time and again in Acts it was angels that inspired pagans to seek out these apostles to get them to come to them.

There was a team work going on...God preparing the way, the apostles moving in to reap the harvest.

But with respect to babies killed in abortion...there is no chance that a human being could baptize them. But does this also apply to their guardian angels?

When we pour water over an infant and say the words of baptism we are WILLING that this soul receive that grace which the sacrament confers are we not?

Acts of the will are metaphysically actions of our spiritual soul - not very different from acts of will on the part of angelic spirits.

QUA human beings it's impossible...but Christ has told us that for God all things are possible. Could not their angels baptise them in an economy of grace known only to God?

In the womb there is water...all that is lacking are the words - i.e. the will of some person to grant that other soul access to Divine favor.

Sure it's possible. Now is it probable? THAT is the question.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), March 08, 2005.


Ian, if the above doesn't satisfy, this is my response to you.

To make a moral judgment a person needs to take into consideration the given action, the intent of those involved, and the circumstances. Missing any of the 3 factors means basically being unsure of the moral status of the actor involved.

Now if the question is the salvation of a soul - we need to look at the above factors as well... we know that salvation (i.e. going to heaven) is a supernatural act, obtainable only through the grace of God and not by mere human will.

We also know that intent has a big role to play: no one can be baptized against their will, but they could be baptised without the appearance of their will (i.e. children)

Finally there are the circumstances of time and place: were the signs present?

God wills all men to be saved - that much we know from scripture.

Now HOW does He go about applying this grace to individuals? Christ redeemed the race on the cross, but willed that each soul receive this grace individually through baptism.

Since most live for years after baptism, and we are incarnate spirits, we have need for a community, a family, a union in which to grow in knowledge and wisdom and virtue.... baptism is essential, but there are more sacraments besides...

Again, as far as we are concerned, baptism is essential. But what about as far as God is concerned? OUR economy requires visible signs and community. But God? God is spirit.

He also wills that all nations be made disciples by the preaching of the apostles whom he sends, and with whom he promised to remain with until the end of time....

So once a child is born and comes into the world of accessibilty to us, it's largely our fault whether or not this soul hears the Good News and accepts it.

But what about the child who does not enter this world, and hence is hidden to all but God and his angels?

Are you saying that we MUST believe there is a metaphysical IMPOSSIBILITY for God to have an encounter with an unborn child or that an angel can't will for this soul to be baptised?

Catholics believe we can consecrate whole nations... even from afar. That we can interceed for souls in purgatory...from afar... but somehow there is a metaphysical impossibility to baptize from afar an infant alread swimming in water?

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), March 08, 2005.


"Are you saying that we MUST believe there is a metaphysical IMPOSSIBILITY for God to have an encounter with an unborn child or that an angel can't will for this soul to be baptised?"

are you saying that it is impossible that God could have revealed the fate of the unborn child to us already.

Florence is very clear on this point. very clear, indeed.

the problem is that, if you pick and chose the bits that seem agreeable ofr fair, where do you stop?

ours is not reason why, ours is but to do and die.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 09, 2005.


The Council of Florence handled the case of unborn children as opposed to born children?

YOU haven't done your homework my friend.

Nowhere does a council bring up the fate of the unborn who are killed by others.The Church is silent about the fate of these souls, leaving others - like you - to infer that they must be damned.

But again, original sin isn't a personal sin - it's actually a lack of supernatural life in the soul, not an offense by the souls against God. (*which is why we can truly say the unborn are innocent).

As far as we (therefore "the Church Militant") are concerned, these souls are beyond our reach, hence, can't be baptized by us.

But that doesn't preclude the possibility that their angels could or God could directly apply grace to them on his own accord out of mercy.

If you think such a theory is heretical, show me where. If you think such a theory would provoke a widespread refusal to baptized the born...you'd be grasping at straws and falling into the heresy of consequentialism.

Admit it - though its hard - that neither Florence, nor you, nor anyone has thought of this before...you just assume what is possible and what isn't.

For the sake of the argument, qua us..yes, baptism is necessary. But my whole point is what about qua God?

For us, Catholics already, the Catholic Church is essential for our salvation. But we have already seen that souls can be in a real holy relationship with Christ (via baptism alone) and be outside the VISIBLE structure of the Church!

Your inability to comprehend this - and Florence and Trent's negative formulation of this truth as opposed to the positive formulation doesn't mean I'm wrong or a heretic. It just means you haven't done your homework.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), March 09, 2005.


Joe

"The Council of Florence handled the case of unborn children as opposed to born children?"

well it does. "With regard to children, since the danger of death is often present and the **only remedy** available to them is the sacrament of baptism....."

Trent also: "For, by reason of this rule of faith, from a tradition of the apostles, even infants, who could not as yet commit any sin of themselves, are for this cause truly baptized for the remission of sins, that in them that may be cleansed away by regeneration, which they have contracted by generation. For, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."

Florence declares water baptism as the **only remedy**.

why do you think we have had so many theologians playing around with the idea of "Limbo"?

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 09, 2005.


Wow. I asked if Florence or Trent dealt with UNBORN children and you reply with "well they spoke about BORN children so what?"

Uh, duh, well, um...let's take this from the top shall we?

I don't, and the Pope doesn't and Vatican II didn't claim that sacramental baptism as taught and practiced by the Church since 33 AD isn't essential for BORN people to receive the grace of Justification.

What I have speculated - as have Church fathers a millenia ago - is what happens to UNBORN children who die IN THE WOMB, surrounded BY WATER?

I've also asked if it was METAPHYSICALLY POSSIBLE, given what has been revealed to us for GOD to directly grant this unmeritable gift of Justification to souls in a way known only to himself, BY HIMSELF, without human intervention.

You say no. I ask why. You refer to NON CONCLUSIVE sentences in past Councils.

I suggest reasons why it is POSSIBLE for God to do things out of the ordinary path, beyond the beck and call he made to us...

Take a new example: St.Paul's conversion. God directly intervened in an apparition of Jesus to Paul. Now wait a second...didn't Jesus tell us that WE were the ones he commanded to go make disciples of all peoples? What's he doing going ahead of us and doing what ought to be our work for us?

Seems to me that there are things we are supposed to take care of...like baptizing infants and adults and then evangelizing them afterwards... but that this isn't the whole extent of the Church because HE'S THE ONE BUILDING IT, AND IT'S HIS, NOT OURS.

If it was exclusively ours....then, sure, without sacramental baptism, souls metaphysically couldn't be saved. But since the Church - the union of souls with God in Christ through the Holy Spirit is created first and foremost BY GOD HIMSELF, then a possibility exists.

And no Church teaching, no council, no pope, no saint has ever - to my knowledge - defined or declared as dogma or doctrine that the above idea is heresy or impossible.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), March 09, 2005.


Let me make that even clearer... God commanded us that WE have to use water...but does that mean that the grace of justification is metaphysically bound to water? I.e. that God himself can't grant that grace to any soul he wishes for lack of h20?

Man is limited but is God? This is frightfully important given the hundreds of millions of aborted babies lost in the last couple of decades from abortifacent contraceptives and surgical abortions - as well as IVF and cloning facilities that literally are killing human beings by the thousands and thousands...

All those human beings receive a soul - created ex nihilo by the Holy Spirit only to die some days, weeks, or months later by violence - violence which kills in darkness amid amniotic fluid which is mostly water... and you think since they can't be baptized, they're damned???

Well...as far as human intervention goes, they are beyond our reach. But that's not the point. The point is God's power and whether or not it is conceivable, possible, for Him TO DIRECTLY INTERVENE AND GRANT WHAT IN ANY CASE IS AN UNMERITABLE GIFT.

Take the Immaculate Conception - we justify that dogma by refering to a theory of anticipatory grace - almost time travel if you will. Mary was spared the stain (or loss) of original sin in virtue of her future role as Mother of God.

No other human being ever received such a grace, although in an ANALOGOUS WAY , Catholic theology acknowledges the concept of "grace of state" meaning, that a person will have been given grace to do what a given office requires him to do.

The theology of what a vocation is also involves the concept of grace given a soul for the sake of carrying some cross in the future - in anticipation of such a cross and mission.

Insofar as grace is a supernatural reality it cannot be grasped by human senses - thus, you don't really directly know and for sure when and if you've received an actual grace to do something. You know after the fact, not before.

Sacraments are important in that being visible, sensible, signs, they are known to the senses and thus we can know for sure that a supernatural effect has occurred.

Looking at Mary, the Immaculately Conceived human being... she was JUSTIFIED 45 to 50 years BEFORE Jesus Christ died on the Cross, thereby redeeming the human race and allowing the grace of Justification to be applied to individuals' souls via Baptism.

BUT MARY WASN'T BAPTIZED WAS SHE? THE GRACE OF JUSTIFICATION CAME TO HER SOUL DIRECTLY - NOT VIA WATER BAPTISM.

We believe that. That's a dogma, defined in 1850 right?

Is this ANTICIPATORY JUSTIFICATION WITHOUT WATER metaphysically possible given God's omnipotence? Sure. Is it possible for us, here on earth given our limitations by nature? No way, Jose.

So in our economy of salvation, the sacraments are essential...for men. But God runs the show and if He wants to save someone in a way known only by himself, he can, and I for one am not going to claim that Florence or Trent or theologian Bob have "proven" otherwise when they haven't specifically even dealt with the above points.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), March 09, 2005.


"Wow. I asked if Florence or Trent dealt with UNBORN children and you reply with "well they spoke about BORN children so what?" "

with respect, Joe, Florence spoke of "children". the natural meaning is that the only remedy is water baptism, which must be applied as soon as physically possible.

it is, imho, somewhat legalistic to argue that the child, whilst still in the womb, is not a child.

...and we also know that Baptism is necessary for Salvation, Water is necessary for Baptism, the Sacraments are necessary for Salvation, etc etc etc

i would direct you to New Advent on Limbo of Children expecting that you are already very familiar with it - but especially to the bit that discusses St Robert Bellarmine's role.

as for the "rights and the wrongs" [does it seem fair] and the "possibilities of Divine intervention, well i say again "ours is not to reason why, our is but to do and die".

i think, if we [anyone] reason too far, we start changing the teachings so that they suit our reason.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 09, 2005.


You should start UNDERSTANDING those teachings. Nothing changes, we either understand or we misconstrue. That's all you do, Ian.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 09, 2005.

Ian...FYI, "The Charge of the Light Brigage" ISN'T SCRIPTURE - and it's certainly NOT even good military tactics!

Using that line of non-thinking (very Lutheran by the way) one would have to just meekly do whatever one's local bishop told him to do no matter how contradictory this may be from the Pope's magisterium!

Secondly, no it's not "legalistic" but logical. You don't baptize unborn babies do you? Yet we Catholics believe that life and ensoulment begins with Conception don't we? And if you think the few theologians who claim otherwise are right try explaining why we celebrate the Annunication on March 25th sometime or why a mere couple weeks later - well before "quickening" Mary was greeted by Elizabeth as "Mother of my Lord" as opposed to "Mother of a vegetable or animal soul who will later become my Lord"!

Since no Christian has ever tried to baptise the unborn, NO COUNCIL HAS EVER BROUGHT UP THE IDEA. LOGICALLY THEREFORE NO COUNCIL HAS EVER SHOT DOWN THE IDEA EITHER.

Come on. If I'm wrong, you can prove it. apples to apples, not apples to handgrenades or ignoring 99% of my posts!

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), March 09, 2005.


"Let me make that even clearer... God commanded us that WE have to use water...but does that mean that the grace of justification is metaphysically bound to water? I.e. that God himself can't grant that grace to any soul he wishes for lack of h20?"

########as you say below, He did - to Mary. but then again, the Sacrament didn't exist at that point. and that's a real exceptional case. a Miracle. as miraculous as the Virgin Birth.

then Abraham and co - saved under the Old Law.

more generally, i believe in Miracles. but that's about the height of it.

can God renege on a teaching? He's told us what we must believe. Bible and Tradition.

"Man is limited but is God?"

#######God does have "limitations". eg He cannot sin. there are others. eg he is "limited" by having to be perfect.

"This is frightfully important given the hundreds of millions of aborted babies lost in the last couple of decades from abortifacent contraceptives and surgical abortions - as well as IVF and cloning facilities that literally are killing human beings by the thousands and thousands... "

#######i agree. it's truly disgusting. have you ever wondered though - would it be less offensive if the abortionists told those pesky Catholics - "what's yr problem, they're going to Heaven, and i don't believe in Heaven, so everyone's a winner?"

"All those human beings receive a soul - created ex nihilo by the Holy Spirit only to die some days, weeks, or months later by violence - violence which kills in darkness amid amniotic fluid which is mostly water... and you think since they can't be baptized, they're damned??? "

####yes. original sin.

"Well...as far as human intervention goes, they are beyond our reach. But that's not the point."

#######i think it is. Florence. no other remedy but the waters of baptism. that's what we are told to believe.

"The point is God's power and whether or not it is conceivable, possible, for Him TO DIRECTLY INTERVENE AND GRANT WHAT IN ANY CASE IS AN UNMERITABLE GIFT."

indeed. can He? it's often said that God is not limited by His Sacraments. however, we must believe Florence. how do we reconcile?

"Take the Immaculate Conception - we justify that dogma by refering to a theory of anticipatory grace - almost time travel if you will. Mary was spared the stain (or loss) of original sin in virtue of her future role as Mother of God."

#######Mary could not have been baptised. the Sacrament only took effect after the Passion. a Miracle occurred.

"No other human being ever received such a grace, although in an ANALOGOUS WAY , Catholic theology acknowledges the concept of "grace of state" meaning, that a person will have been given grace to do what a given office requires him to do."

yes.

"The theology of what a vocation is also involves the concept of grace given a soul for the sake of carrying some cross in the future - in anticipation of such a cross and mission."

makes sense.

"Insofar as grace is a supernatural reality it cannot be grasped by human senses - thus, you don't really directly know and for sure when and if you've received an actual grace to do something. You know after the fact, not before."

makes sense.

"Sacraments are important in that being visible, sensible, signs, they are known to the senses and thus we can know for sure that a supernatural effect has occurred."

yes.

"Looking at Mary, the Immaculately Conceived human being... she was JUSTIFIED 45 to 50 years BEFORE Jesus Christ died on the Cross, thereby redeeming the human race and allowing the grace of Justification to be applied to individuals' souls via Baptism."

no Sacraments at that time - per above. a one-off Miraculous event.

"BUT MARY WASN'T BAPTIZED WAS SHE? THE GRACE OF JUSTIFICATION CAME TO HER SOUL DIRECTLY - NOT VIA WATER BAPTISM."

She couldn't have been. She didn't need to be. Trent carves out Mary from the Decree on Original Sin. the exception to the rule. there was no Original Sin to wash. there was also no Baptism to wash it away.

"We believe that. That's a dogma, defined in 1850 right?"

sure is.

"Is this ANTICIPATORY JUSTIFICATION WITHOUT WATER metaphysically possible given God's omnipotence? Sure."

is it? by Miracle, yes.

"Is it possible for us, here on earth given our limitations by nature? No way, Jose." yes.

"So in our economy of salvation, the sacraments are essential...for men."

yup.

"But God runs the show and if He wants to save someone in a way known only by himself, he can, and I for one am not going to claim that Florence or Trent or theologian Bob have "proven" otherwise when they haven't specifically even dealt with the above points."

the Councils are very clear on these points. we are limited, not by their lack of clarity, but by our own reason. imho.

[thanks, btw, for not using ad hom and all the usual tactics. those tactics never work and just make Catholics look bad. thanks too for sharing. it is educational.]

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 09, 2005.


Joe

you are one ace typer. i am one post behind, i think.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 09, 2005.


So you agree with me then that God can do miracles which are beyond our power (*and thus beyond our responsibilty)?

Mary's salvation from original sin was a miracle - outside the normal order of things.

Paul's conversion was a miracle too- outside the normal order of things.

The fact that Jesus did and therefore can appear directly to souls to lead them to his Church doesn't mean WE aren't supposed to evangelize, it just means that it's possible for God to work outside the visible organization of the Church and beyond the limits of our human members.

That's my point. An ordinary, common economy of salvation exists which mandates sacraments but an extraordinary, divine economy of salvation also exists wherein God can do what God wants to do to save souls who otherwise would be lost for no fault of their own.

Baptism is necessary in our economy - but not for God as we see in the case of Mary. It's therefore conceivable that God miraculously intervenes in the case of aborted children too. After all, the definition of miracle isn't a rare event since Mass is a miracle and it happens all the time. Miracles are defined by suspensions of the normal law by a higher power.

We can't bank on miracles in the sense of not doing our part - as that would be the sin of presumption and tempting God. But neither can we claim that miracles are IMPOSSIBLE and that thus it's a certainty that those souls are in hell.

For this discussion it doesn't matter at all what the abortionists think or may say. Their opinion pro or con doesn't enter into the question of possibility/impossibility.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), March 09, 2005.


we're converging Joe, in one sense...and, yes, in my heart, i see the hope of Universal Salvation for all due to the unfathomable Love of Jesus for us.

but i also see that Perfect Justice is in fact an objective concept - - and, of course, there is Original Sin.

..and so, i need to ask you a question. to which i do not know the answer -- so at least respect the honesty.

what does "de fide" mean?

a/ we MUST believe. agreed.

b/ is that the same as "IT IS ABSOLUTELY COMPLETELY GUARANTEED TRUE"?

St Thomas describes the Sacraments almost as amounting to a system that God thought we might find easy to follow - a practical way of living the Faith. that's how i understand him anyway.

...but, if the answer is b/, then do we also have to exclude those Miracles that we pray for?

i've been struggling with this for ages.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 09, 2005.


Origin's theory of ultimate salvation is a heresy. Anyone who thinks all souls are saved is wrong because it is "de fide" that some souls have been damned and we can be morally certain that souls even now are damning themselves.

It'd be hard if not impossible for example to reason oneself into a position to think suicide bombers who intentionally mingle among civilians including women and children before blowing themselves into the next life can possibly go to heaven.

But while I do believe - as the Church teaches - that the threat of eternal loss is VERY REAL and VERY PROBABLE for alot of people in this hedonistic and sinful age... it simply doesn't follow that ALL people are so lost.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), March 09, 2005.


Joe will undoubtedly answer this question, Ian by writing you a lengthy discourse with clarity and sense. The TRUTH.

But you and Emerald dismiss those by singling out some part to deny. You'll do that while ignoring the other parts of the discourse which uphold Joe's hard work. --You do it all the time.

De Fide Latin for faith: we give it our faith, or fidelity. We see it for true because God reveals it. That's why in an ex cathedra pronunciation, the words ''So it seemed to us and to the Holy Spirit'' are said.

None of us at this forum have argued anything theological in which we've denied a reveaed truth. We're acting in submission to all the doctrines of the Catholic Church, De Fide.

You have too, we realize; but you misconstrue parts of those doctrines. You also overlook or bypass many De Fide truths such as the Infinite Justice and Infinite Mercy of an ALL-KNOWING GOD. Not to even mention the words and intentions of Jesus Christ in the gospels. Faithful Catholics hold them completely de fide. We don't fight them.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 09, 2005.


yes Joe. here's the crunch, for me. sorry for seeming repetitive.

...but eaxctly what does "de fide" mean?

a/ we MUST believe it? nothing more?

b/ or "IT IS ABSOLUTELY, COMPLETELY, GUARANTEED TRUE"?

c/ same as b/ but subject to Miracles?

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 09, 2005.


Eugene

so take yr pick. is it (a), (b), or (c)? or is there a (d) and an (e)?

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 10, 2005.


Joe

"Origin's theory of ultimate salvation is a heresy. Anyone who thinks all souls are saved is wrong because it is "de fide" that some souls have been damned and we can be morally certain that souls even now are damning themselves."

that's very interesting. a while back, i posted an interview with the Cardinal of England in a Catholic newspaper. he accepted that the existence of Hell was de fide, but he considered himself free to believe that it was empty.

i didn't think of it in the way you did, but my natural instinct - sense: led to believe by the Church - was that MOST of us are toast. that's in the Bible. the narrow gate. St Paul's race.

"It'd be hard if not impossible for example to reason oneself into a position to think suicide bombers who intentionally mingle among civilians including women and children before blowing themselves into the next life can possibly go to heaven."

indeed.

"But while I do believe - as the Church teaches - that the threat of eternal loss is VERY REAL and VERY PROBABLE for alot of people in this hedonistic and sinful age... it simply doesn't follow that ALL people are so lost."

not ALL, just the great majority. that's why my working assumpion is that i'm hell bound. i really think i am. that doesn't stand me out though - we almost all are.

if i thought otherwise, i'd start skipping Mass.

this is where - whilst i cannot put my finger on it to the exactitude you might demand - i think the Church needs to pull its socks up.

why can't the Pope write some hell and brimfire and make the priests read it out at Mass? isn't that what used to happen? Cantate Domino read from every pulpit in the world. no-one left in any doubt about the necessity of the Church?

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 10, 2005.


"Anyone who thinks all souls are saved is wrong because it is "de fide" that some souls have been damned and we can be morally certain that souls even now are damning themselves."

You approach this, Joe, as if you were unsure of yourself. It's like you're reluctant to admit it.

I think it's time for a fair assessment. Take a look around you. Go to the top of some hill overlooking a city, and begin the meditate on what you see, based on what you know to be true. Throw one item only into your head... take the standard of purity for instance.

We have it on God's authority:

I Corinthians, 6: "Know you not that the unjust shall not possess the kingdom of God? Do not err: Neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers: Nor the effeminate nor liers with mankind nor thieves nor covetous nor drunkards nor railers nor extortioners shall possess the kingdom of God."

Ephesians 5: "For know you this and understand: That no fornicator or unclean or covetous person (which is a serving of idols) hath inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. Let no man deceive you with vain words. For because of these things cometh the anger of God upon the children of unbelief."

Who isn't a fornicator anymore? Or an adulterer? But get this. It gets stricter. Watch:

"You have heard that it was said to them of old: Thou shalt not commit adultery. But I say to you, that whosoever shall look on a woman to lust after her, hath already committed adultery with her in his heart." --Sermon on the Mount

Now look out at that city you're meditating over while on your guru hill. Gather up all your common experience and throw it into the mental mix; conversations, observations, you name it. Realize the fact that nobody believes these things or lives by them, and you know this. You do in fact know that. In fact, they'd laugh at you, out there, for believing what you believe, Joe, about sanctity and purity. They'd do so with willingness and confidence. And I mean virtually all of them.

The few that don't? They talk a good talk, but the good-talk yacker/personal-compliance ratio brings the number of those in actually living in compliance with moral principle to yet even a smaller group.

Fact: virtually no one pays any attention to the rule of purity. One unexpiated mortal sin bars one from heaven.

...and that was just purity.

Why the reluctance to admit that most of humanity is lost? It only makes sense. You'd pretty much have to deny the principles of your own Catholic Faith to even be reluctant to say it!

It makes complete sense to say it. All the saints did. They constantly told us this. Were they wrong? The mother of God at Fatima said it. What, are we going to wave her off and talk down to her like she wouldn't know because she's stuck in a celestial laundry room all day? Maybe she needs some sensitive, enlightened modernist prelate to get her up to speed in her understanding. Heh.

"It'd be hard if not impossible for example to reason oneself into a position to think suicide bombers who intentionally mingle among civilians including women and children before blowing themselves into the next life can possibly go to heaven."

Just wait. Some clown will come along and claim that since he was invincibly ignorant, that he only thought he was trying to do the right thing, and that since we supposedly believes in the same God we do, that he was serving our God, and therefore, can be saved.

"But while I do believe - as the Church teaches - that the threat of eternal loss is VERY REAL and VERY PROBABLE for alot of people in this hedonistic and sinful age..."

Look, it's gauranteed unless the God's remedies are applied in order to solve the problem.

"...it simply doesn't follow that ALL people are so lost."

Most, then. That does follow. And we err if we don't pound that message home. In fact, we're weak sissies if we don't.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), March 10, 2005.


....and the other thing - "perfect contrition". chop of the hand if it causes you to sin.

i confess, but then i commit the same sins again and again and again. why? am i really, really sorry?

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 10, 2005.


...i think the best i muster is "attrition" which cannot be forgiven without the actual Sacrament. that makes life somewhat of a lottery to say the least.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 10, 2005.

Guys, guys... what is the question that sparked this thread? "Will the morally hedonistic go to heaven without sacramental baptism"?

No.

It was "what is the fate of unbaptized babies"?

So we're not discussing the fate of people with actual sin on their consciences but of those who have done no sin and merely (if I can say "merely") suffer original sin which isn't an actual sin of the invidual at all but a lack of supernatural grace.

We agree that God is all powerful, merciful, loving and just. We agree that for us he has commanded that we baptise people to bring them into his family.

But we also have to agree that since the grace of justice comes from him, He has in times past granted it to people outside the way he has commanded us to minister it.

Finally, de fide... you keep ducking the point. Baptism is essential to salvation because no soul that is unjust can enter Heaven.

But baptism is a MEANS of applying an unmeritable grace to a human soul. For us, it has been revealed as the only sure way for US to minister this grace to souls. BUT NOT FOR GOD.

Emerald and Ian...it's also important to not PROJECT one's own fears and worries and psychological states onto Catholic theology - that was Luther's problem. Just because you guys are morbid and pessimistic and perhaps are recovering from serious personal sin, DOESN'T MEAN that people everywhere are suffering the same way or carry the same burden.

I've met hundreds of people around the world who exibited signs of genuine holiness of life: simplicity, poverty, chastity, gratitude, humility, joy, etc.

On a scale of 1 to 10, 1 being the least problematic and 10 being the worst...I'd say that sins of impurity are a 4 - not just I but also Dante and Church Fathers....

Impurity is a sin of the flesh - but many people can come to know the error of their ways, even long before they successfully climb out of the muck and to be sure God's grace is working on them and they know it! They are viscerally aware of the slavery that is sin and the compulsion to do what they know is wrong and often wish they wouldn't do.

But the worst sins, those of the spirit almost always blind the one possessed by them such that those people don't have such reality checks and don't realize their error or danger for years.

Yes, a mortal sin will kill your soul just as any other mortal sin...but pride is worst than lust. If therefore the dominant passion or vice of our age is lust - as it appears to be - then I think America has hope for a conversion.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), March 10, 2005.


"...to not PROJECT one's own fears and worries and psychological states onto Catholic theology - that was Luther's problem. "

that's a coincidence Joe, because i have started a thread over at Ask Jesus on Luther - to explore this very idea.

my read is that Luther's mindset was very Catholic, in the sense that he knew how terribly precarious our position is. he despaired and thought that we ought to put all our hope in faith with little prospect of reward.

where he went wrong was his rejection of the sacraments as manmade or purely symbolic. and all the other stuff condemned in Trent.

yes, he went absolutely bonkers and seemed to consider just about everything a man did as being evil.

what i have asked over at Ask Jesus is whether Sola Fide has moved from being "faith is our slim yet only hope" to "we are saved so long as we believe" in the modern Lutheran Church. i don't know the answer to that.

dosuments like Dominus Iesus place a lot of emphasis on God's will that we all be saved. they don't seem to interested in the Scriptures, as posted by Emerald, which foretell of a very low success rate. freewill.

is this a trend?

anyways, point taken, relevance to original sin? well that's why we sin. thread back on track.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 10, 2005.


"Ephesians 5: 'For know you this and understand: That no fornicator or unclean or covetous person (which is a serving of idols) hath inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. Let no man deceive you with vain words. For because of these things cometh the anger of God upon the children of unbelief.'"

So how is it that Augustine of Hippo was Canonized a Saint?

He repented and converted you say?

So how is it that now you claim to be God Almighty and know the eternal destiny of these people you speak of?

Why don't you be like us? Talk to these people and try to enlighten them. Better yet, show them the Truth. After all, that's what Jesus did He showed us the Father, He didn't merely tell us about Him.

But before you try to do this, know the most important thing that is needed to be successful - you must have Love.

-- Fr. Paul (pjdoucet@hotmail.com), March 10, 2005.


Luther was wrong on so many levels I would need a book to answer.

First of all, he had all of 2 years of theology under his sizable belt, not the customary 10 to become a doctor of theology. So his formation was sub-standard.

Secondly, he had a horrible childhood - real abuse - a bad father and thus had alot of sexual/psychological problems which led to scrupulosity. Like many in that mental state, he was in a real psychological agony, and since his conception of God was patterned on that of his abusive father, he was terrified that every stray temptation was the equivalent of a vengeful God just waiting for the chance to smite him.

Small wonder then that he would experience such an euphoric sense of relief with his novel idea that thoughts, words, works, and actions don't mean ANYTHING and that all he needs is mere faith; that Jesus somehow is so distinct from the Father that he covers Luther's dung- heap of a life with pure snow, rather than actually transforms it.

Paradoxically then, his whole movement was founded not on love and faith in the real changing power of God, but on fear and desperation grasping for a talisman-like belief that's "It's all OK".

But this totally misreads sacramental theology and indeed Trinitarian theology. It ignores what and who God is, what and who human beings are, and the attitude revealed to us in the Gospels of Jesus.

It may VERY WELL BE TRUE that for many pagans the moral situation is precarious! But the devil takes that situation and applies it to the Catholic in order to make him feel desperate and also doubt the reality of grace and its transformative power in his soul.

Look, did Peter actually walk on water or not? He did. That was TOTALLY IMPOSSIBLE GIVEN NATURAL LAWS OF FLUID AND GRAVITY. But it was METAPHYSICALLY POSSIBLE GIVEN THE POWER OF GOD.

He didn't appear to walk, or just imagine he walked, HE WALKED. We aren't just covered or made to appear just or imagine we are just...when baptised or forgiven in confession, WE ARE JUSTIFIED.

We are made a new man - a man in Christ. A friend, no longer a slave.

So what's with the doom and gloom and feeling of sitting under a Sword of Damocles which hangs by a thread - a thread God the Father is almost gleefully watching with scissors in hand to cut to moment we step out of line. Is THAT image IN ANY WAY analogous to the IMAGE painted by Our Lord of the good father in the story of the Prodigal Son???

I didn't think so.

Guys, theology - and all the dogmas and traditions have to have some echo in the New Testament and especially the words or actions of Our Lord. If not, then chances are, what you THINK are dogmas or traditions, aren't or don't mean what you THINK they mean.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), March 10, 2005.


Please quote us a paragraph from Dominus Jesus that you think SEEMS odd.

It's a fact (scripture) that God wills all men to be saved.

It's also a fact that He forces no one to be saved (or damned).

It's also a fact that while he offers grace to all, not all will accept.

Now then, ask yourself the following: if he does indeed offer all men the chance to be saved...HOW does he do this if there are 6 billion people on earth, but only 1 billion Catholics and thus whole regions or areas where no Christian had, has, or can reach with the Good News?

If the above divine will for all men to come to salvation is true...and the visible structure of His Church is finite and certainly not present in the souls of all people.... then doesn't this force us to conclude, logically, that God's at work by himself, in souls beyond our reach?

Now this doesn't mean we give up missionary activity - as much as it means we feel more confident of success in that activity because God loves all people, wants them to be saved, and is working on them even as we speak - planting seeds for us to nurture and then harvest.

I'd say the success rate as far as salvation goes for people who are Catholics is pretty high - and pretty low for people who aren't. But so what does that prove other than to whom more is given, more can be expected?

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), March 10, 2005.


Joe

my ref to Scrfiptures was a reference to the type that Emerald posted. what i'm saying is that God wants us all to be saved, but very very few will be saved. that's crudely what the Bible says.

as for Dominus Iesus, see this as one example:

"Above all else, it must be firmly believed that “the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and baptism (cf. Mk 16:16; Jn 3:5), and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through baptism as through a door”.77 This doctrine must not be set against the universal salvific will of God (cf. 1 Tim 2:4); “it is necessary to keep these two truths together, namely, the real possibility of salvation in Christ for all mankind and the necessity of the Church for this salvation”."

that's what i meant: "....namely, the **real possibility** of salvation in Christ for all mankind...".

how so? what does **real possibility** mean?

now here's what follows:

"With respect to the way in which the salvific grace of God — which is always given by means of Christ in the Spirit and has a mysterious relationship to the Church — comes to individual non- Christians, the Second Vatican Council limited itself to the statement that God bestows it “in ways known to himself”.83 Theologians are seeking to understand this question more fully. "

...and so back and forth we go. is it water baptism that is necessary for salvation or not?

maybe the question "could God perform a non-Sacrametnal baptism" should be answered: "yes, but basically He's said He's not going to do it so He won't".

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 10, 2005.


Where did He say He is not going to do it?? On the contrary, God told the Church, "he who hears you hears Me"; "whatsoever you bind on earth [even after Trent] is bound in heaven". The Church says God does it; therefore God says He does it.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), March 10, 2005.

Paul

try St Matthew C.7 for starters. v14 especially.

this Chapter in the Bible doesn't seem to contemplate any possiblity at all of universal salvation.

read Trent on perseverance.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 10, 2005.


Paul

"Where did He say He is not going to do it?? "

in the Councils. no salvation unless baptised in true and natural water.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 10, 2005.


...as originally taught by Jesus in St John 3:5. "Jesus answered, "Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit."

the Church has told us that that means Sacramental Baptism. the Sacraments are necessary for Salvation. Wter is necessary for Baptism. Baptism is necessary for salvation. Unless Original Sin is remedied before death, it's Hell. there is NO other remedy for Original Sin. all Dogmatic definitions.

is it possible God could - YES. will He - NO. why? He said so.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 10, 2005.


Ian:
You can't explain why the Holy Innocents of Bethlehem, whom the Catholic Church venerates since apostolic times are in glory today. Not one of these babies was water baptised. Not even by John the Baptist! Except for Baptism of Blood, (Martyrdom for Christ.)

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 10, 2005.

>"this Chapter in the Bible doesn't seem to contemplate any possiblity at all of universal salvation. "

A: No-one here is speaking of universal salvation! That is a completely separate issue. The Church has taught from day one, and teaches just as definitively now, that not all people will be saved! That's what "universal salvation" means - nothing else. The fact that salvation is AVAILABLE to ALL men because Jesus Christ died for ALL men is likewise the teaching of the Church from day one, as clearly stated in the earliest known documents of the Church, the New Testament. This has absoilutely nothing to do with the heresy of universal salvation. Only a misguided personal interpretation could lead to such a suggestion.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), March 10, 2005.


Eugene

"Holy Innocents of Bethlehem"

on more time. the Sacraments only became obligatory for Salvation after the Passion.

Council of Florence:

"It ***firmly believes, professes and teaches*** that the legal prescriptions of the old Testament or the Mosaic law, which are divided into ceremonies, holy sacrifices and sacraments, because they were instituted to signify something in the future, although they were adequate for the divine cult of that age, once our lord Jesus Christ who was signified by them had come, came to an end and the sacraments of the new Testament had their beginning. Whoever, **after the passion**, places his hope in the legal prescriptions and submits himself to them as necessary for salvation and as if faith in Christ without them could not save, sins mortally. It does not deny that ***from Christ's passion until the promulgation of the gospel*** they could have been retained, provided they were in no way believed to be necessary for salvation. But it asserts that after the promulgation of the gospel they cannot be observed without loss of eternal salvation."

this is why, from the perspective of the salvific effect of Baptism, St Dismas is irrelevant, and any and all other Old Testament characters are also irrelevant.

the Old Testament ended some time after the Passion. these children were murdered when Jesus was still an infant.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 10, 2005.


If that's all, why does the Catholic Church celebrate their feast on Dec 28 each year; they were only a group of little victims with no religious significance. They all died in original Sin, Ian? And Dismas wasn't sent to hell? Why not, if he was a criminal?

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 10, 2005.

"But it asserts that AFTER the promulgation of the gospel they cannot be observed without loss of eternal salvation."

BINGO. DING DING DING DING DING. Ten points for Ian!

AFTER a soul has been exposed to the gospel, he has no option BUT to seek entrance into the community via the sacraments.

And just as all the qualifiers about before the resurrection and the interim period suggest...people can't be held morally responsible for not being baptised if they don't know about the Gospel or the new Divine revelation that baptism is necessary for entrance into the people of God.

As I metion on the thread of Vatican II... you guys, Emerald included, NEVER seem to quote scripture. That's always struck me as odd and now I know it's at the root of your theological problems.

You're not playing with a fully informed deck of cards.

Acts 7 talk about deacons preaching the gospel in Samaria and then baptising these heretics...but their still needing the apostles to come to give them the Holy Spirit... but Acts 10 speaks of the direct intervention of God, the Holy Spirit coming down on PAGANs BEFORE they were baptised.

What does this mean if NOT that GOD CAN AND HAS IN FACT GRANTED THE GIFT OF JUSTICE TO SOULS BEFORE THEY HAVE BEEN BAPTISED INTO THE CHURCH?

Baptism is thus a positive command by Our Lord to US... we, who have heard the gospel are bound to obey it, including receiving baptism and persevering in the communion...

But God can - and has - granted union with souls directly, miraculously, without the mediation of the Church, but in such a way that these souls could enter the visible Church.

As I mention above on this thread, there's no theological reasn why guardian angels or saints or God himself couldn't appear to an unborn baby and either baptise him or her in utero, or just grant the gift of Justice directly, in a miraculous way, and thus, extra- sacramentally.

That's the question of the thread, not what happens to post-morally conscious adults wallowing in serious habits of vice.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), March 11, 2005.


Over all, excellent, Joe. I wish you'd exposed something Ian wasn't realizing about --"But it asserts that AFTER the promulgation of the gospel they cannot be observed without loss of eternal salvation."...........(What cannot be observed?),p> Clearly this passage refers to observance of the Mosaic ritual obligations, as opposed to (or added to) the sacrament of Baptism. Ian again, unwittingly proved the point,

The Law of Moses was finished when the Gospel was announced to the Jews. No more were converts under that previous Covenant; there was a New Covenant ratified in the Precious Blood of Jesus Christ.

Yet Ian thinks St Dismas couldn't be baptized spiritually in the free gift he obtained for his act of faith in Jesus Christ! The Law certainly couldn't matter; since he'd broken the Law when he was in sin. It was only faith in Jesus that brought Dismas salvation. That faith brought Dismas into the New Covenant. It counts as repentence, charity and Baptism of Desire. Christ merited this grace for him, and Dismas received it ALL from Jesus.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 11, 2005.


Ian,

Haven't I already told you that Dismas did not die until after Christ died. Therefore, "St Dismas is irrelevant, and any and all other Old Testament characters are also irrelevant." could not be more false.

BTW Where in the Old Testament can I find reference to Dismas? I can only find him in the New Testament. How can he be an "Old Testament character"?

-- Fr. Paul (pjdoucet@hotmail.com), March 12, 2005.


Well, Ian maintains that all Old Testament law was in force until after definite institution of the sacraments took effect. This would have been too late to give Baptism of Desire to a soul born before the event. Never mind that the Mosaic Law demanded St Dismas should be damned for breaking such commandments. (Go figure.)

Ian apparently thinks the calendar has power over God's infinite mercy and that Christ Himself didn't possess authority enough to baptise Dismas, owing to the bad time-line! The key word is BAPTISE. Like a true literal Sola Scriptural Christian, Yancy specifies ALL souls who enter heaven must have undergone ONE manner of Baptism; --a water ceremony, the sacramental RITE. Any notion of gratuitous Sanctifying Grace being granted to souls is departing from Catholic dogma! IMPOSSIBLE!!! He can ''quote'' this dogma, Pal! Christ better look out !

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 12, 2005.


Joe: read it again. read the sentence before, and the sentence before that. it actually proves the **opposite** of what you think it does.

Fr Paul: the thief was most likely circumcised. he had confession before Jesus. who could also personally eradicate personal sin. you can't. Jesus does it through you, via the Sacraments. read Forence again.

Eugene: what's yr point??

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 12, 2005.


Dear Yancy: I made my point. Your arguments are full of holes, the forgiveness of Jesus Christ is equal to Baptism, since all sanctifying grace flows from HIM.

The circumcision of Dismas is true; the part of Mosaic Law he had observed. The same Law condemned him for breaking God's commandments. So for you to insist he is not a participant in the New Covenant, BAPTISED in the Spirit at Calvary, --shows how badly you conceive of a SIMPLE truth: Sanctifying Grace saves us in Baptism. You think the Gospel didn't apply to Dismas! Jesus is more than capable of giving a soul such a grace without form and matter. He needs no release from any dogma you can quote. He's GOD. You are a midget proclaiming an anti-Gospel, because you deny Him that leeway.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 12, 2005.


"Your arguments are full of holes..."

They aren't.

"...the forgiveness of Jesus Christ is equal to Baptism, since all sanctifying grace flows from HIM."

Wrong. There's a difference between the state of justification and the state of sanctifying grace. The state of justification does not by any means equal baptism or what is effected by baptism.

You're wrong, Gene.

<>i>"The circumcision of Dismas is true; the part of Mosaic Law he had observed. The same Law condemned him for breaking God's commandments. So for you to insist he is not a participant in the New Covenant, BAPTISED in the Spirit at Calvary, --shows how badly you conceive of a SIMPLE truth: Sanctifying Grace saves us in Baptism."

Gene, you're all over the map here, theologically.

"You think the Gospel didn't apply to Dismas!"

Statements such as these aren't precise or explicit enough to work with. They make for a decent appearance attitude-wise if you're looking to garner public acceptance or rejection for the individual you are sparring with, but do they address the truth of what Ian is really thinking? Of course not. Learn to debate on principle; not with attitude. If you're going to apply attitude, make sure it is tied to principle. Like icing on a cake. You have so much icing, and no cake going on here, Gene.

"Jesus is more than capable of giving a soul such a grace without form and matter."

There are many types of grace. You need to be explicit about which sort of grace you're speaking about. If you refer to the graces of the sacraments, NO, matter and form are indeed absolutely intrinsic to them.

"He needs no release from any dogma you can quote. He's GOD."

Another attitude thingy. Lots of bark, no bite.

"You are a midget proclaiming an anti-Gospel, because you deny Him that leeway."

Nonsense.

"In this happiest of thieves, in the centurion and in the others who confessed Jesus Christ on the Cross, began to appear the results of the Redemption. But the one most favored was this Dismas, who merited to hear the second word of the Savior on the Cross: "Amen, I say to thee, this day shalt thou be with Me in Paradise." Having thus justified the good thief, Jesus turned his loving gaze upon his afflicted Mother, who with saint John was standing at the foot of the Cross. Speaking to both, he first addressed his Mother, saying: "Woman, behold thy son!'' and then to the Apostle: "Beho1d thy Mother!" --Ven. Mary of Agreda

St. Dismas was under the Old Law, as were the rest of the justified souls who died before Christ's salvific work was complete. When Dismas entered The Limbo of the Fathers, or "Abraham's Bosom", he announced the good news to those in that place, who were in some state of confusion, that Christ was to arrive shortly to rescue them. That's the "Decent into Hell" you know from the Creed.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), March 12, 2005.


Emerald and Ian still are not listening.

DISMAS DID NOT DIE UNTIL AFTER CHRIST DIED. CHRIST'S DEATH WAS THE FULFILMENT AND THUS THE SACRAMENTS BEGAN. DISMAS WAS THUS JUSTIFIED BY CHRIST (as you yourself quote, but have much trouble understanding something so simple and plain), NOT BY THE MOSAIC LAW. THEREFORE HE DIED UNDER THE NEW TESTAMENT, NOT THE OLD.

-- Fr. Paul (pjdoucet@hotmail.com), March 12, 2005.


Ascension. Think: Ascension.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), March 12, 2005.

The souls of the justified were released from Limbo by Christ, and from there entered into Heaven at the time of Christ's own Ascension into Heaven.

I Peter 3:

"Because Christ also died once for our sins, the just for the unjust: that he might offer us to God, being put to death indeed in the flesh, but enlivened in the spirit, In which also coming he preached to those spirits that were in prison: Which had been some time incredulous, when they waited for the patience of God in the days of Noe, when the ark was a building: wherein a few, that is, eight souls, were saved by water. Whereunto baptism, being of the like form, now saveth you also: not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but, the examination of a good conscience towards God by the resurrection of Jesus Christ."

Ephesians 4:

"One Lord, one faith, one baptism. One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in us all. But to every one of us is given grace, according to the measure of the giving of Christ. Wherefore he saith: Ascending on high, he led captivity captive: he gave gifts to men. Now that he ascended, what is it, but because he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth? He that descended is the same also that ascended above all the heavens: that he might fill all things."

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), March 12, 2005.


No response from Robot.
And he really thinks sanctifying grace is different or inferior to grace from the sacraments. Maybe it doesn't come to the Church from Christ? Thomas Aquinas College made a robot out of this boy. But in the Aquinas classes nobody learned what sanctifying grace is. Only thing they learned is Ascension. Is there any way you could go back, Emmie and get a tuition refund?

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 12, 2005.

"Thomas Aquinas College made a robot out of this boy."

Don't count on it. They didn't like me much there either. And that was a long, long time ago.

Knock it off, Gene. If you can't approach the subject clinically, then, don't.

Fr. Paul, what it comes down to is this: Dismas is one of the last gasp arguments for those who want to posit that one can enter the Kingdom of God without being baptized in water and the Spirit. Those who argue against the necessity of the matter and form of the sacrament of baptism always end up using Dismas, plus a couple lines from Popes Pius IX and XII taken out of context, and a handful saints and theologian's speculations. That's the sum total of the case made.

But there are far, far finer and deeper explanations to St. Dismas' situation, and much can be learned from looking deeply into the progression of events during the Passion of Christ through to His Ascension into heaven, the progressive institution of the Sacraments, and the whole sequence of putting into place of the New Law.

Can you say this: "aha! See? St. Dismas went to Heaven without being baptised in water, and therefore, people can enter into without it!"... can you say this?

Absolutely not. The whole order of approach, theologically, is goofed. Proper way: first, uphold the dogma. Then, go explain Dismas. This is improper: explain Dismas, then use your explanation to call into question a dogma of the Faith... wrong. Dead wrong as to theological method.

Btw, St. Augustine speculated one way on Dismas, then later, speculated that Dismas was baptized by the water which flowed from Christ's side. That probably isn't what happened, but in any case, St. Augustine ultimately reaffirmed that we ought not doubt the necessity of baptism.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), March 12, 2005.


Emerald,

What does this mean? "Today you will be with me in Paradise."

The Ascension? Exactly when did this take place? Keep in mind Jewish numerology (in case you forgot, the Apostles and Evangelists were Jews).

When was the Sacrament of Baptism instituted?

-- Fr. Paul (pjdoucet@hotmail.com), March 12, 2005.


"This is improper: explain Dismas, then use your explanation to call into question a dogma of the Faith... wrong."

Whose calling into question a dogma of the Faith? We are only calling into question your interpretation of said dogma. No more, no less.

-- Fr. Paul (pjdoucet@hotmail.com), March 12, 2005.


Father,
If robots have knee-jerks, this is Emerald coming back at you:

''Paradise had to be ''the bosom of Abraham,'' since Dismas was an Old Testament soul, and he went there (Limbo) and saw Jesus. Ya, dah, ya, dah. Baptism couldn't ''take place'' until Ascension.''

This is what's called fooling you by sophistry and Sola Scriptura. It's very much how a Jehovah's Witness ''works for the kingdom.'' TACKY and RIdiculous.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 12, 2005.


Eugene

read this: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09256a.htm

" Actual possession of the beatific vision was postponed, even for those already purified from sin, until the Redemption should have been historically completed by Christ's visible ascendancy into Heaven. "

i don't understand the point you make though. specifically

- what is the effect of circumcision? - what was the effect of the thief's circumcision - what stood between the thief and Heaven?

....and aren't you just making Emerald's point in a really blatant way -- ie what we are really doing here is looking to understand how the thief was saved, rather than using said understanding to mount a challenge to the necessity of water baptism? or, more particularly, aren't you are looking to understand it by applying this baptism of desire novelty, which then the proves baptism of desire - though it doesn't!!

example: that's like proving Pythagoreas' theorem using: sin^2 + cos^2 = 1. i've seen people do that too!!!!

now, you tell me, if you say he was circumcised - do you maintain that he also needed to be baptised? and does it matter whether or not Jesus died before he did? tell me.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 13, 2005.


actually Gene, i know you won't read it so i'll summarise.

the Jews believed in what we Catholics call Limbo. no-one could go to Heaven until the Coming of the Messiah. so this tranquil waiting room held all those who died under the Old Law in a state that would lead to eternal salvation.

therefore, in that remarkable statement to the thief, Jesus announced that the thief would be taken to this Limbo. therein were to be found the righteous of the Old Law.

we know that Paradise was not Heaven because the Ascension was still to come. this place he visited "today". Apostles Creed?

by taking St Dismas to be dealt with together with Abraham and the other Old Covenanters, we see St Dismas as an Old Covenanter.

that's the simple explanation of St Dismas.

to twist this into some proof of BoD is just nonsense.

if Jesus baptised Abraham in Limbo, then fine. He could have used water. or He could have considered Ahraham free of original sin due to his circumcision - that's a lot more likely. but so what? how can such speculation cut across dogmatic definitions?

what matters is that, for us living under the New Law, water baptism is necessary for salvation. PERIOD. we have no get out's.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 13, 2005.


Of course, for US. We aren't in invincible ignorance, so we have to rely on the Church only.

God doesn't HAVE to show infinite mercy to me. He only extends it where it's desperately hoped for and when a soul appeals to His divine Mercy. This is ALL about mercy. Our God is not an ogre; He's a loving Father. Your idea of God is one who closes doors on His own creatures.

Let me say clearly that I don't believe this on my own logic or intuition. This is what the Catholic Church teaches in her DOCTRINE.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 13, 2005.


"...we know that Paradise was not Heaven because the Ascension was still to come."

Exactly.

"...if Jesus baptised Abraham in Limbo, then fine. He could have used water."

Luke 16:

"And lifting up his eyes when he was in torments, he saw Abraham afar off and Lazarus in his bosom: And he cried and said: Father Abraham, have mercy on me and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water to cool my tongue: for I am tormented in this flame."

-- Emerald (em@cox.net), March 13, 2005.


"Your idea of God is one who closes doors on His own creatures."

you are way off the "moral [sic] highground", Gene. you've just toasted every highranking non-Catholic involved in the ecumenical movement. the Chief Rabbi. the heads of the Lutheran and Anglican cuommunities. all the rest.

these are "good people" who sincerely follow God as they think best. they know the Church well as they all study looking for area of agreement and disagreement. no ignorance.

"Let me say clearly that I don't believe this on my own logic or intuition. This is what the Catholic Church teaches in her DOCTRINE."

really? seems to me you have mis-stated Catholic teaching as set forth in Dominus Iesus etc. these people that you have toasted probably do not "know" the Church to be the one founded by Jesus and are, therefore, not condemned by EENS. rather, whilst "it is also certain that **objectively speaking** they are in a **gravely deficient** situation in comparison with those who, in the Church, have the fullness of the means of salvation" - ie the Sacraments, such "followers of other religions can receive divine grace".

it's not even "invincible ignorance" anymore Gene, it comes down to "actual knowledge", i think. and what does **objectively speaking** mean?? it's getting closer to "sincerity saves". we're a long, long way from home.

anyways, now still convinced that St Dismas is about BoD? if so, why?

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 13, 2005.


seems to me you have mis-stated Catholic teaching as set forth in Dominus Iesus etc.

No, I haven't. I'm not referring to the church's baptismal rites.

''these people that you have toasted probably do not "know" the Church to be the one founded by Jesus and are, therefore, not condemned by EENS. rather, whilst "it is also certain that **objectively speaking** they are in a **gravely deficient** situation in comparison with those who, in the Church, have the fullness of the means of salvation" - ie the Sacraments-- ''

I ''toasted'' only the infinite love and mercy of God. I don't know what you're talking about, ''in comparison with those who, in the Church, have the fullness of the means of salvation -'' The mercy of God is extended where ever He pleases, **Objectively speaking.** and YOU aren't the Church. Let her speak for herself, Savonarola.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 13, 2005.


---''anyways, now still convinced that St Dismas is about BoD? if so, why?'' OF COURSE. Because Dismas was saved for his act of faith in Christ. To be saved, a soul must be born again. Obviously, Dismas was saved. It had to be a re-birth in sanctifying grace by which he was born again, (as in any baptism) since there IS no other re- birth.

Christ is the source of all sanctifying grace; crucified in the same hour as Dismas. He gave Dismas his salvation personally. How??? In granting of sanctifying grace, (Baptism of Desire) as God is free to do. That is tantamount to water baptism down at the cathedral, Sport.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 13, 2005.


Emerald,

When did the Ascension take place? Read Mark and Luke; sounds like Easter Sunday. But what do we make of Luke? In his Gospel the Ascension takes place the same day as the Resurrection; in Acts Luke tells us Jesus was with them 40 days! Precise or ambiguous? Which is it? Help me out here.

-- Fr. Paul (pjdoucet@hotmail.com), March 14, 2005.


Anybody know when Dismas died?

-- Fr. Paul (pjdoucet@hotmail.com), March 14, 2005.

Proper method: accept first the dogma of the Faith. Then after this acceptance, apply the intellect in the pursuit of understanding.

Will preceeds intellect.

Too long have people assumed that they must know enough to choose. It is actually the case that we choose the good, and then after this, come the fruits of knowledge and wisdom.

Proper theological method: accept all the principles of the faith first. Then apply the human reason. If the conclusion contradicts the faith, reject the conclusion, and revisit either the logic or one of the premises which is not an article of Faith.

Never bring an article of Faith into a reduction to the absurd.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), March 14, 2005.


All wisdom of men is only folly to God.
Emerald's supercilious instructions: ''Proper method: accept first the dogma of the Faith. Then after this acceptance, apply the intellect,''

Bad premise, bad lesson. Nobody has disputed any dogma of the Catholic Church (You invented that). We never circumvented any real teaching of our Church.

FYI, Dismas actually was going to hell forever had not his act of faith in the final moments of life moved Jesus Christ to compassion and forgiveness. This is written!

The Law was never about to save Dismas. He transgressed against it; yet saved himself by faith in his Saviour. You may argue, but it's written in the Bible. Christ granted His loving forgiveness, together with the sanctifying grace that makes a soul born again (Before the ascension). Dismas died to his sins (though circumcised) and was reborn in Jesus.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 14, 2005.


"All wisdom of men is only folly to God."

Actually, it's this: the folly of God is greater than the wisdom of men.

"Emerald's supercilious instructions: ''Proper method: accept first the dogma of the Faith. Then after this acceptance, apply the intellect,'' Bad premise, bad lesson."

Tell that to St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas. Because that's exactly what they thought, too.

"Nobody has disputed any dogma of the Catholic Church (You invented that). We never circumvented any real teaching of our Church."

What about when you say that someone can enter the Kingdom of God without being baptised?

"FYI, Dismas actually was going to hell forever had not his act of faith in the final moments of life moved Jesus Christ to compassion and forgiveness."

Right.

"The Law was never about to save Dismas. He transgressed against it; yet saved himself by faith in his Saviour. You may argue, but it's written in the Bible."

See, what you're doing here again is making a statement consisting of something I neither affirmed nor denied, and then use this statement as a strawman, saying I'm wrong for thinking what you just wrote about. I neither posited nor denied anything you just said there.

"Christ granted His loving forgiveness, together with the sanctifying grace that makes a soul born again (Before the ascension). Dismas died to his sins (though circumcised) and was reborn in Jesus."

Now that you've explained Dismas, we can therefore say that it's not always true that unless one be baptism in water and the spirit, they will not enter the kingdom of God.

In other words, your explanation is more precious to you and more certain than any article of the Faith.

Case in point.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), March 14, 2005.


Emerald continues to quote others out of context:

""Emerald's supercilious instructions: ''Proper method: accept first the dogma of the Faith. Then after this acceptance, apply the intellect,'' Bad premise, bad lesson." [posted by Eugene]

"Tell that to St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas. Because that's exactly what they thought, too." (Posted by Emerald)

Within context, Eugene has a valid qualifier: "Nobody has disputed any dogma of the Catholic Church." To translate: Your premise is bad, your lesson is bad, because they do not apply for the Dogma is not disputed (i.e. denied, etc.).

Emerald continues to be the spin-doctor. Sing it with me now...

One, two, princes kneel before you (that's what I said, now) Princes, Princes who adore you (Just go ahead, now) One has diamonds in his pockets (that's some bread, now) This one, he wants to buy you rockets (Ain't in his head, now)

This one, he got a princely racket (That's what I said, now) Got some big seal upon his jacket (Ain't in his head, now) Marry him, your father will condone you (how bout that, now) Marry me, your father will disown you (he'll eat his hat, now)

Aww, marry him or marry me, I'm the one that loves you baby can't you see? Ain't got no future or a family tree, But I know what a prince and lover ought to be, I know what a prince and lover ought to be....

Said, if you want to call me baby (Just go ahead, now) An' if you want to tell me maybe (Just go ahead, now) If you wanna buy me flowers (Just go ahead, now) And if you want to talk for hours (Just go ahead, now)

(from http://www.spindoctors.com/)

Sorry, I couldn't resist. Lent has been long without musical entertainment. :)

-- Fr. Paul (pjdoucet@hotmail.com), March 14, 2005.


Eugene

"toasted" - sense "made toast of" NOT "raised a glass to".

what i'm saying is that you condemned the Chief Rabbi, the Archbishop of Canterbury amd all those other religious leaders who are simply NOT ignorant of the faith. furthermore, that's not what's in Dominus Iesus. therefore, you are also outside the teachings of that Encyclical. you neither have the populist moral highground, nor conformity with Papal Encyclicals, on yr side.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 14, 2005.


Eugene

i am short of time at the moment for posting but i advise you to read the Summa on Our Lord's time in Limbo of the Fathers.

there is simply nothing that indicates that He could not have baptised them by water. NOTHING. given that He commanded Water Baptism, that seems the obvious choise.

read this:

"The holy Fathers while yet living were delivered from original as well as actual sin through faith in Christ; also from the penalty of actual sins, ***but not from the penalty of original sin***, whereby they were excluded from glory, since the price of man's redemption was not yet paid: just as the faithful are now delivered by baptism from the penalty of actual sins, and from the penalty of original sin as to exclusion from glory, yet still remain bound by the penalty of original sin as to the necessity of dying in the body because they are renewed in the spirit, but not yet in the flesh, according to Rm. 8:10: "The body indeed is dead, because of sin; but the spirit liveth, because of justification." "

as for St Dismas, as he was taken to the same place, one might conclude that he too was "... delivered from original as well as actual sin through faith in Christ; also from the penalty of actual sins,..." but NOT from "the penalty of original sin".

....and so you are using a rash speculation about how the baptism was effected to cut through a Dogma - "water necessary for baptism, baptsim necessary for salvation". Jesus could have baptised them in caviar or precious diamonds ....or water.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 14, 2005.


lol!

Well here, let me join the chorus. Here's an old song for all the modernists out there who are seeking the truth in the mean between two falsely posited extremes. Enjoy:

There’s more besides
joyrides
Little house in the countryside
Understand;
learn to demand.
Compromise...
... and sometimes lie.

Get the balance right

Be responsible
respectable
Stable,
Less gullible.
Concerned and caring
Help the helpless
But always remain...
...ultimately selfish.

Get the balance right

You think you’ve got a hold of it all
But you haven’t got a hold at all
When you reach the top
Get ready to drop.
Prepare yourself for the fall;
you’re gonna fall.
It’s almost predictable.

Don’t take this way
Don’t take that way
Straight down the middle until next thursday
Push to the left
Back to the right
Twist and turn ’til you’ve got it right.

Get the balance right

Ah. You know what, though? I've come to the conclusion that that music will poison people eventually.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), March 14, 2005.


Gentlemen, why argue about physical signs of divine grace? We have been told - by Christ - that the only way FOR US to minister HIS GRACE of justification to souls is via the sacraments of baptism firstly (using water and the words) and then post-baptism via confession or in extremis, perfect contrition.

The thread asks the fate of BABIES WHO DIE before reaching the age of reason.

As far as we, fellow human souls, are concerned, outward signs of inner graces, the sacraments are the norm, that's how God willed his grace to be shared.

BUT THIS DOESN'T PRECLUDE GOD FROM GRANTING HIS GIFTS DIRECTLY TO SOULS - BUT OBVIOUSLY, IN INVISIBLE, NON-PUBLIC AND THUS NON- VERIFIABLE WAYS.

WE DON'T KNOW IF HE DOES THIS. BUT WE CAN'T SAY THAT HE CAN'T. MAYBE HE DOES, MAYBE HE DOESN'T BUT OUR JOB IS TO DO OUR JOB, NOT HIS.

-- joe (joestong@yahoo.com), March 14, 2005.


This has nothing to do directly with this thread but it in reponse to Emerald's assertion - nowhere proved that:

"Too long have people assumed that they must know enough to choose. It is actually the case that we choose the good, and then after this, come the fruits of knowledge and wisdom."

All sentient beings must first know, i.e. judge between options in order to make an act of their will that has moral standing.

If a man was to do something objectively bad while asleep - like, say, sleepwalk out into oncoming traffic... he wouldn't be morally responsible because he "didn't know what he was doing". The will may be active, but absent the mind, no moral choice has been made.

The dialogical nature of our minds demands a process. Otherwise a choice, an act of the will, would have no MORAL content until AFTER we learn more!

Genesis according to Emerald:

"Eve saw a tree without distinguishing it from another (to do so would be to judge, and hence know something about it). She didn't find it good to look at or useful for knowledge since such a conclusion requires the intellect. No, she perceived it with her eyes, and desired it in her heart without any conception at all that God had forbidden her of that fruit. She ate it and suddenly her mind is open and all wisdom and knowledge floods in..."

In the actual book of Genesis EVE KNEW what fruit she was touching - the one in the middle of the garden and chose to doubt God anyway, thus sinning both from lack of trust and disobedience.

You can't love (or hate) what you do not know as good or evil. You can't make a choice if you don't first know of two options.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), March 14, 2005.


Emerald couldn't back his argument, so he worries about the proper sequence of events in the gospels. He's hoping for a rebuttal to come out of Ascension Day. God wouldn't close up shop until a specified date or event had transpired; the grace is His well before the sacrament was given His Church. He gives grace where He will, when He chooses.

Nobody cares what the pseudo-theologians find objectionable. Holy Mother Church teaches our doctrine; and about the sacrament of Baptism just three factors. One, the absolute necessity of this in order to be born again. Two, the Holy Rite with its matter and form; unchanging. Three, The alternative and equal gift of salvation; by Blood (martyrdom) and by Desire. --this is the teaching of the Catholic Church. If we have it from her, the case is closed.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 14, 2005.


The Law was never about to save Dismas. He transgressed against it; yet saved himself by faith in his Saviour. You may argue, but it's written in the Bible. Christ granted His loving forgiveness, together with the sanctifying grace that makes a soul born again (Before the ascension). Dismas died to his sins (though circumcised) and was reborn in Jesus.

Gene, you say this as though any of us think that just because he was circumsized he was going to be saved. That couldn't be further from the truth, just as we don't believe that all who are baptized will be saved.

Nobody ever argued that it was his repentance and God's forgiveness that enabled him to be saved. That's a given. Repentance of one's sins and forgiveness from God have been 'must haves' since the beginning of time, whether one lived under the Old Law or New Law.

What is being debated about Dismas was whether he was subject to the Old Law or New Law. Clearly, it was the old, as just a very small amount of research would prove this to you. The salvific act of Christ was completed upon his Ascension. That is when the sacraments became necessary. Dismas died before the Ascension. Baptism, for him, not necessary.

You are so intent in proving [Emerald, Ian, myself, et al] wrong that you won't take the small amount of time it takes to find this out for yourself.

-- Isabel (joejoe1REMOVE@msn.com), March 14, 2005.


''You are so intent in proving [Emerald, Ian, myself, et al] wrong that you won't take the small amount of time it takes to find this out for yourself.'' -- I have merely told Emerald and Ian that they're refuted by the Church, not by anyone here; not even me. It's very unfair of you now, to charge me with correcting an error for personal reasons. I have nothing to gain. I'm intent on making them face what the church teaches. It's not my doctrine. It's not even Father Paul's doctrine, or Archbishop Sheehan's or Pope John Paul II's. It's the Church's doctrine on Holy Baptism.

If my poor efforts to corroborate this truth by showing incidents of God's infinite mercy in the gospels --if my efforts are somehow unconvincing to all of you; that fault is my own. I'll admit it.

But you haven't refuted the Church nor overcome her infallible word.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 14, 2005.


Then you have to allow, Gene, that if Dismas was subject to the Old Law, as the New Law had not yet been made mandatory, then he is a poor example for your case for Baptism of Desire.

Choose another example. One who would have been subject to the New Covenant Christ established. Can you think of any?

Because it really boils down to this: If one is going to argue away Catholic dogma over *theological speculation*, it would be better for their case if they had a good 'example' to 'prove' their reasoning for compromising the faith. The Holy Innocents and St. Dismas just don't fit into that mold.

-- Isabel (joejoe1REMOVE@msn.com), March 14, 2005.


Please;
''Argue away Catholic dogma'' is your self- serving judgment. I firmly uphold and believe the dogma we must be born again in Baptism. Do you seriously think after taking part in more than fifty posts here I was arguing away dogma? The fact is that THE CHURCH not I,

--Teaches the truth of Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood. Don't take my word. Look up the definitions of each of them and come back. You may then ''argue away'' the teaching of our Church's doctrine.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 14, 2005.


Isabel,

"Dismas died before the Ascension."

Says who? When did the Ascension take place? I asked this before and gave the Scriptural references; no mention of when Dismas died, but looks like Ascension was same day as the Resurrection.

-- Fr. Paul (pjdoucet@hotmail.com), March 14, 2005.


This alone will not give reason enough for Isabel, Ian, Emerald et all to concede anthing. We sholdn't expect it. It's enough to know that in principle, the precedent for salvation direct from the Source of sanctifying grace, GOD-- is a fact; this without the visible sacrament.

Their weasel words about the stipulated date of Baptism's ''beginning'' have to do with our Church's own time-line, or arrival. But God was there before the Church undertook her mission. God's teachings took place in each gospel narrative BEFORE the Church's mission. Everything Christ taught and all His wonderous works, His love and mercy; His MERITS, at the time he lived it as well as retroactively, are TRUE before the Church started her mission on earth.

And, although it's true the Holy Spirit was sent on Pentecost, long after the martyrdoms of the Holy Innocents and the salvation of Dismas,-- The Triune God, with the Holy Spirit; is active in the New Testament from the day in which Mary the Virgin was conceived free of original Sin. Based on these truths the Church can trust the anecdotal evidence seen in the life of Jesus Christ as obvious precedent for each and every sacrament. Any single thing and everything Jesus did is proof. Well in advance of His Ascension.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 15, 2005.


Notice I keep asking for proof and times, but no answers come. I asked long ago 'When was Baptism instituted?' When was the Ascension? No takers?

-- Fr. Paul (pjdoucet@hotmail.com), March 15, 2005.

'When was Baptism instituted?'

River Jordan. INSTITUTED.

"When was the Ascension?"

40 days after Resurrection. same length as the flood. same as in the desert. symbolises: finality, completeness, ...........:

"He said to them, "Go into the whole world and proclaim the gospel to every creature. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved; whoever does not believe will be condemned."

when did St Dismas die? same day as Jesus because that is the day St Dismas was taken to the Limbo of the Fathers to preach to the spirits in prison.

from MCC:

"The Church which He founded by His Blood, He strengthened on the Day of Pentecost by a special power, given from heaven. For, having solemnly installed in his exalted office him whom He had already nominated as His Vicar, He had ascended into Heaven; and sitting now at the right hand of the Father He wished to make known and proclaim His Spouse through the visible coming of the Holy Spirit with the sound of a mighty wind and tongues of fire. For just as He Himself when He began to preach was made known by His Eternal Father through the Holy Spirit descending and remaining on Him in the form of a dove, so likewise, as the Apostles were about to enter upon their ministry of preaching, Christ our Lord sent the Holy Spirit down from Heaven, to touch them with tongues of fire and to point out, as by the finger of God, the supernatural mission and office of the Church."

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 15, 2005.


Fr Paul

i quoted MCC because you'll also find most of the Sacraments in that last para. in my crude way, i'd say that the way the Sacraments were instituted and took effect mirrored the institution of Church and Her launch to save the world.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 15, 2005.


"..that is the day St Dismas was taken to the Limbo of the Fathers to preach to the spirits in prison. "

Lord Jesus did the preaching, btw. my poor sentence construction.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 15, 2005.


Re-writing the book of Luke, Ian? He said Christ's words were, ''Amen I say to thee, this day thou shalt be with me in Paradise.''

You say, ''This day thou shalt be with me in Limbo, without my sanctifying grace, which allows entrance into heaven.'' I know you're a Master of exegesis, and a Bowdlerizer par excellence;

But now you've really distinguished yourself. --Wow!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 15, 2005.


Eugene

you're making no sense. imho.

so why not stay out of the way and let the good priest continue along his point of thinking.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 15, 2005.


Dear Ian,
You're the one who is constantly in the way. I never contradict the good priest; you do.

Your misfortune is, Father has other priorities more important than pecking at a PC keyboard, keeping up with you. BUT-- I'm elderly and retired. My good wife is out of town for a few days; and I have time. You'll hate it when I'm still responding quickly this evening to all your glaring mistakes. Just keep trying; but TRY HARDER! (Here I would insert an emoticon, if I knew how. --Never could understand that trick.)

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 15, 2005.


Gene

go back upthread and read.

"today" in Paradise? the Apostles Creed? descended? where to? Heaven?

the Ascension? 40 days after the resurrection? surely. do you disagree?

the 40 days is Scriptural. read Acts.

have you concocted a quick trip to Heaven - Jesus & St Dismas - that's not in the Bible.

you need to be careful.

why, do you think, is Fr Paul questioning the timing of the Ascension?

sadly getting close to my last post of the day. wife is IN town. Hey-ho!

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 15, 2005.


Father is questioning only your concept and understanding of the mysteries, and your faulty notions about Jesus Christ. You would love it if Christ had to proceed by your guesses and perorations. Because you think:

''You concocted a quick trip to Heaven - Jesus & St Dismas - That's not in the Bible.'' I know what Christ said. He didn't say Limbo; and He DID say ''This Day.'' Did you know, One day is as a thousand years for God, and a thousand years are as a day?'' And Paradise is another name for heaven! That's in the Bible. And Jesus is God. Are you wiser than God?

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 15, 2005.


that's a house of cards Gene.

...designed to topple a dogmatic definition.

you're better than that.

you won't surrender anything by admitting that St Dismas has nothing to do with Baptism of Desire.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 15, 2005.


I can't directly point to it; but to the source of his salvation I can; and it wasn't water baptism.

Why should Jesus Christ, source of sanctifying grace, topple a dogmatic definition?

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 15, 2005.


"Why should Jesus Christ, source of sanctifying grace, topple a dogmatic definition? "

The better question is, why should you...

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), March 15, 2005.


I uphold and agree with the dogma we're talking about; which is that Baptism is necessary for being born again and receiving sanctifying grace. And the Matter and Form of the Holy Rite of Baptism. Which parts of it do I topple? Is Jesus Christ dying on the cross to merit sanctifying grace for the world a denial of the Church's dogma of Baptism? If so, you ought to tell us.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 15, 2005.

When you call something 'baptism' which is separated from it's form, and is not sacramental. That's how.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), March 16, 2005.

...it's matter, I mean. Well actually, it is both, come to think of it.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), March 16, 2005.

If calling salvation is restricted to the Rite of Baptism, then nobody is ever saved but the minority who has had the matter/form administered. Yet we know others are saved. Salvation is effected by Christ's grace, the merits of his death & resurrection. Not by the Rite; the Rite is a way of showing, and obtaining said grace.

Salvation has definitely been granted extraordinarily to souls who never had baptism adminstered to them by the Church. It's because Christ granted it to some souls. Absolutely.

If you don't want to call this Baptism. call it salvation by grace. (But that's what Baptism IS, behind the sacrament.) The dogma will remain inviolate, because for the Church's purposes, water baptism is the norm and an absolute imperative. Which I never denied.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 16, 2005.


"If calling salvation is restricted to the Rite of Baptism, then nobody is ever saved but the minority who has had the matter/form administered."

Since the promulgation of the New Law, that's correct. That is in fact the teaching of the Church, reflecting the words of Christ Himself.

"Yet we know others are saved."

No we don't.

"Salvation is effected by Christ's grace, the merits of his death & resurrection."

Nobody is denying this.

"Not by the Rite; the Rite is a way of showing, and obtaining said grace."

What you keep calling a rite, sir, is a sacrament. It actually does something. It remedies Original Sin.

continued...

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), March 16, 2005.


"Salvation has definitely been granted extraordinarily to souls who never had baptism adminstered to them by the Church."

What specifically do you mean when you say "by the Church"?

"It's because Christ granted it to some souls. Absolutely."

How did they receive it?

"If you don't want to call this Baptism."

It's not a matter of what I don't want to call it. It's what the Church does, or does not, call it.

"call it salvation by grace."

It's your thing. You name it.

"(But that's what Baptism IS, behind the sacrament.)"

Baptism IS is sacrament, not something lurking behind the sacrament. Talk about sophistry.

You also continually interchange the word ritual and sacrament.

"The dogma will remain inviolate, because for the Church's purposes, water baptism is the norm and an absolute imperative. Which I never denied."

lol! You just did deny it. You talked it into an oblivion. There's this thing, this "power" behind the ritual of baptism which is the real baptism, and anyone can have this "power" without "the ritual" if God wills it. That's kind of what you're saying. It's almost like "baptism subsists within baptism"... one of those things again.

Council of Trent (again), Session 7, Sacraments in General, Canon 8:

If anyone says that by the sacraments of the New Law grace is not conferred ex opere operato, but that faith alone in the divine promise is sufficient to obtain grace, let him be anathema.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), March 16, 2005.


Didn't I say you were hard to communicate with?

''this "power" behind the ritual of baptism which is the real baptism, and anyone can have this "power" without "the ritual" if God wills it.'' ---------->> Who said power?

I only said salvation is owed to the GRACE obtained and signified in Baptism. Not power, Emerald. Grace was merited for us by Christ on his cross. Did Christ merit Baptism for you? Or did He merit and grant us GRACE; arrived through the sacrament of Baptism?

Again, sophistry: ''anyone can have this "power" without "the ritual" ''

Not so. You invent this false inference. ANYBODY wasn't what we said; (Catholic doctrine and I) --A soul in perfect contrition and charity; even in invincible ignorance and CONTRITE, FORGIVEN BY GOD, -- Can be GRANTED-- I never said can ''HAVE'' --

-------------- Sanctifying Grace. And the sacramental rite is still valid for OTHERS. Try to connect the little dots, Emerald. Slowly, cautiously. And always remember; this is what the Catholic Church teaches. it isn't my idea.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 16, 2005.


"Didn't I say you were hard to communicate with?"

I might be hard to communicate, but you're impossible.

"A soul in perfect contrition and charity; even in invincible ignorance and CONTRITE, FORGIVEN BY GOD," -- Can be GRANTED-- I never said can ''HAVE'' ---------------- Sanctifying Grace."

There is a state of justification, and then that of sanctifying grace. Sanctifying grace comes through baptism. You're saying that sanctifying grace comes through a certain state of justification. You even complicate state of justification by bringing invincible ignorance into the equation.

You really need to step back and get very specific about these things.

"And the sacramental rite is still valid for OTHERS."

Valid? Do you mean, necessary? We weren't disputing validity. We were talking about necessity.

All it comes down to, really, is that you absolutely insist that there can be the infusion into the soul of sanctifying grace without the actual reception of baptism. You want to treat the graces of baptism as in some sense independent of the sacrament of baptism itself, and obtainable outside of it. You'll deny this, saying that it is through the existence of baptism in the world-at-large that others can partake in it somehow, without actually receiving it. Then you'll say the Church has always taught what you're saying. It doesn't.

"Try to connect the little dots, Emerald. Slowly, cautiously."

Maybe it ain't me. Maybe it's you.

"And always remember; this is what the Catholic Church teaches."

Is not.

"it isn't my idea."

Is to.

Why don't you actually try to understand this conversation instead of assuming I'm evil and stupid. Would that be too much to ask?

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), March 16, 2005.


...Can be GRANTED-- I never said can ''HAVE'' --- Sanctifying Grace.

What the heck difference is this? You say that said person can be granted it, but not have it? You chew me out for... not knowing the difference?

What difference? lol! This is getting more and more and more bizarre as it goes on.

This is like more fogology or hazyology. This is making no sense whatsoever.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), March 16, 2005.


If you don't believe anything I say, it's all right. Be a sceptic and go with God. You haven't disproven anything because it's all true.

If you knew how to disprove it, or any part of it, you would have by now, since you're relentless.

I didn't assume you were evil and stupid. I assumed you were unwilling to see. That's a fair assumption. It's been proved to me by the simple evidence of your disregard for God in this equation. God and LOVE. With all your unctuous blather, it never occurs to you that a stance like yours makes God out as Unjust. The first premise has been a soul deserving of mercy. Not dogma, the Church, or you or me.

A soul in whom, God who is omniscient sees true repentence and hatred for evil; a soul that has suffered, and has hoped for a better life after this one. --Granted mercy out of his infinite love.

Your conclusion from the premise is: Can't help it. Hasn't been baptised. Didn't fit the mold, straight dogma etc., and finally-- God won't mind punishing such a soul for eternity. (Tough break.) When EVERYTHING we know of Jesus Christ in the gospels spells out compassion, love and forgiveness.

And this means that I-- Eugene, have been operating on ''attitude'', and theorizing. But the Catholic Church doesn't agree with you. She teaches just what I've told you. With God all things are possible. And that God is Love.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 16, 2005.


"With all your unctuous blather, it never occurs to you that a stance like yours makes God out as Unjust."

See that? That's modern man, thinking that justice demands that he be spared. That's not reality, though, and not Catholic belief.

What's reality? This: that the sentence of justice demands damnation. If God were to be unjust, then ALL would be saved. Justice says that man is deprived of salvation because of original and actual sin. Modern man argues with this... says he deserves something. He doesn't.

That's the bad news. There's good news, though. The good news is the Church and the sacraments, which are proof of the mercy of God.

"The first premise has been a soul deserving of mercy."

There is no soul deserving of mercy. All souls deserve damnation.

That "people deserve stuff" is the error which lies behind the error.

So I talk about the sacraments and about dogma. You call that robotic, rigid, lacking love, compassion, whatever.

I'm looking at what our original state was, and what we deserved. I'm seeing that we were damned by default, in original and actual sin. I see God, in an act of mercy, provide us with concrete sacramental realities to specifically remedy these damnable things. I see God provide us with the revelation of truth.

I see that as the concrete intervention of God on our behalf, and intervention arising puring out of His mercy.

I call that an act of love and mercy on God's part.

So what do some people say about this act of love... this Church, this sacrament?

They say they aren't necessary, or aren't always necessary, or can be bypassed, or there's another way, because it would be a shame to lose a soul who... deserved mercy?

He gave us the sacraments.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), March 16, 2005.


Eugene

doesn't it worry you that salvation for the ignorant [in the way you describe] is not considered possible by the vast, vast majority of the Church Fathers.

you really have to dig deep for **anything** that supports your viewpoint. you will find loads, yes loads, the vast vast majority, that goes the other way.

all the great writers of the Church considered Original Sin a huge obstacle to Salvation.

look at the "supporting" sources that argue your viewpoint. barely none.

therefore, even were it not for the dogmatic definitions that we do have, that rule out non-sacramental baptism (including for the ignorant), you'd still realy struggle to call BoD, as you keep defining it, a plausible "theory".

backtrack a bit - St Thomas and others argued BoD for the Catuchumen. NOT so according to Trent. no BoD for Catuchumens.

...moreover, St Thomas regarded ignorance as punishable - Original Sin - even though there was no sin of infidelity.

this stuff has really come out of nowhere. are you really not worried about that? one encyclical. nothing else that amounts to anything.

dogmatic definitions going right in the other direction. the real issue, btw.

i think this is why these discussion don't really go anywhere. we end up arguing about who is limiting the power or Mercy of God or can God be limited by the Sacraments, or.......

i think the short answer to that is that Justice needs to be done -- because of Original Sin. that's God's justice. that's what all the Fathers recognise. that explains this "ostensible" unfairness in the system. but i'm not God so i accept that.

if you are comfortable -- tell me, what brought about the "enlightenment"? how did the Church suddenly get this notion? have we over-egged Original Sin or the Sacraments for 2,000 years?

who recognised this terrible "mistake"?

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 16, 2005.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ