Baronius Press, a publisher of traditional Catholic books, describes Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Fr. Ludwig Ott as follows:
Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma has been considered as the definitive single volume summary of Catholic dogmatic theology ever since its original publication in German in 1952. This great work by Ludwig Ott presents a comprehensive yet concise outline of the entire system of Catholic doctrine, laying out its sources in Scripture and Tradition as taught by the Magisterium of the Church.
There can be no doubt that of all those present at Vatican Council II, the revolutionary prelates and periti that comprised the German contingent were most keenly aware of Ott’s magnum opus as they assembled some ten years following its publication.
These men, whose mission it was to make certain that the Rhine would flow into the Tiber, knew better than anyone else that Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma would provide considerable ammunition for any who might arise in defense of Catholic tradition moving forward, thus forestalling the aggiornamento they so coveted.
Of primary concern to the progressive Council fathers, in particular those who came to Rome from the birthplace of Protestantism, was ecumenism. Throughout the conciliar text one sees evidence of a concerted effort to affirm the heretic communities. The ecumenists even went so far as to assure them of their divinely ordained importance in God’s plan of salvation, a 180 degree turn from authentic Catholic tradition and an open invitation to religious indifferentism.
So, what did they do?
In drafting the text of Unitatis Redintegratio, the Decree on Ecumenism, it appears as if they consulted Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma in order to launch a preemptive, nearly word-for-word, strike aimed directly at Ott’s faithful presentation.
Under the heading “Membership of the Church is necessary for all men for salvation,” Ott’s compendium states:
As against modern religious indifferentism, Pius IX declared: “By Faith it is to be firmly held that outside the Apostolic Roman Church none can achieve salvation. This is the only ark of salvation. He who does not enter into it, will perish in the flood.” (D 1647)
In order for a Church to be considered “Apostolic,” its bishops must enjoy Apostolic succession, something to which the heretics most certainly cannot lay claim. As for the appellation “Roman,” this applies only to those churches that recognize the primacy of the See of Rome and the Roman Pontiff, something the schismatics flatly reject.
Fr. Ott went on to make certain that his readers would understand that both of these communities are considered to be outside of the only ark of salvation:
It is the unanimous conviction of the Fathers that salvation cannot be achieved outside the Church. This principle was extended not only to pagans but to heretics and schismatics as well.
Even as Fr. Ott wrote in 1949, the Holy Office under Pope Pius XII was compelled to issue a Monitum (or Warning) and a separate explanatory Instruction forbidding Catholic participation in ecumenical gatherings; this coming on the heels of the formal establishment of the World Council of Churches in the previous year.
At the time, self-proclaimed Catholic champions of the ecumenical movement were promoting the idea that the Spirit of Christ is actively working unto salvation even within the Protestant sects. Fr. Ott directly addressed this error as well, writing:
St. Irenaeus teaches that: in the efficacy of the spirit all those have no part, who do not hasten to the Church; rather they, by their evil teaching and their evil deeds, rob themselves of life. For where the Church is, there is also the spirit of God, and where the spirit of God is, there is the Church and all grace” (Adv. haer. III 24, I).
The Decree on Ecumenism of Vatican II systematically rejected each of these doctrines:
It follows that the separated Churches [schismatic] and Communities [heretical] as such, though we believe them to be deficient in some respects, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church. (UR 3)
In just two sentences, the Council directly contradicted – in order, no less – the true doctrine as presented so clearly by Fr. Ott. This it does, firstly, by plainly asserting that the schismatic and heretical sects, as communities, are a “means of salvation;” i.e., the Council insists that they too are arks of salvation.
Secondly, the conciliar text attributes the salvific nature of these “separated” communities to the Spirit of Christ, aka the Holy Spirit.
Note, however, that the ecumenists were clever enough to suggest that the “efficacy” of the Spirit’s action in this case is derived indirectly, as from “the Church.” This maneuver was apparently enough to placate most of the traditional bishops, who in their naiveté evidently failed to notice that “the Church” had also undergone a redefinition.
Both the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church (Lumen Gentium) and the Decree on Ecumenism were deliberated and approved during session three of the Council and promulgated on the same date, November 21, 1964.
The former text was at pains to make certain that the Church of Christ would no longer be considered synonymous with “the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church” as it had been prior to the Council (e.g., see Mystici Coporis – 13), stating instead that it merely subsists in the Catholic Church (LG 8).
This allows the post-conciliar ecumenist to maintain that the schismatic and heretical communities are used by God as a means of salvation thanks to their share, not in what is specifically Catholic per se, but in what pertains to the Church of Christ. As Lumen Gentium plainly stated:
Many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of its [the Catholic Church’s] visible structure. These elements, as gifts belonging to the Church of Christ… (ibid.)
So, did the Council progressives actually consult Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma for guidance in order to formulate their attack against the true doctrine of the Church?
It sure looks that way, though I suppose we cannot know for certain.
Be that as it may, what is beyond the shadow of any doubt whatsoever is that the spirit of Vatican II did not more or less renege on the Catholic Church’s own claim to be the sole means of salvation, as certain Big Tent, Low-T “traditional” media moguls will tell you.
Rather, the Second Vatican Council, on the most crucial question of all – the salvation of humankind – plainly set forth propositions that directly contradict the de fide teachings of the Holy Catholic Church and her exclusive claim as the only ark of salvation.
Bishop Wojtyła took part in the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965) and made a significant contribution to the drafting of the Constitution Gaudium et Spes. I believe that his influence on the “council” has been greatly underestimated. SO much of what has been wrought in God’s vinyard can be laid at his front door.
That is an amazing thesis.
I am going to buy this book and read it from the author’s intended use toward comprehensive theological fidelity but now also your perspective that it serves as a measuring stick against Conciliarism. That has the ring of truth to it.
What must come first, as in which being had its nascent genesis first, the false Church of Antichrist, or that same false church’s teachings, as from its council, the false council of vatican 2? In an analogical understanding then, what must come first, the chicken, or the egg?
My take on it is that the “false Church of Antichrist” began taking substantive form with the advent of the Talmudic teachings of those who hated Christ and who murdered Him, the Blessed One who had come to help them. In that sense, then, the Talmudic chicken laid a rotten egg at “Vatican II.”
Think about this question more carefully, as the Church thinks, which is, all things prophetic occur in time and space only, as in exclusively, in their prophesied time. Amen. Not a moment too soon nor too late. The question is not about types but specifics. Don’t be afraid to acknowledge, that as this creature beast thing from Hell itself, dressed as the Catholic Church in all Her former metaphysical accidental forms, since October, 1958, simply cannot be the Catholic Church, firstly, thus it has to be something else, simply because it exists, it is, it has metaphysical being but its metaphysical substance, its substantial form, is not The Christ, as it is not His Mystical Body.
As Lucifer can only mock and mimic God, invert His Truth thus, think of what was just written before this sentence, this way. As the true Transubstantiation was known in the sentient understanding as, “bread and wine”, while in its Substantial Form, those metaphysical accidental forms of, “bread and wine”, were actually united with the Substantial Form, the very Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus the Christ. Not truly, “bread and wine”, thus after Transubstantiation, only accidentally as metaphysically speaking, as in physical appearance, whereby in reality as it is, the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus the Christ. Amen. Alleluia. As the inversion of that specific truth, the thing now that calls itself the Catholic Church since Oct, 1958, appears to be the Catholic Church in the sentient understanding, but in its substantial form, that which is invisible thus, it is the church of Antichrist, perfectly desolate of all things Christ Jesus, as His holy Sacraments and His Vicar on this earth. Amen. Do you see the inversion of truth there, mmf ? Which is, in the first case–looks like bread and wine but in reality as it is, this is Jesus the Christ, and in the second case–looks like the Catholic Church but in reality as it is, this is the church of Antichrist, Lucifer’s church thus. Amen. Then why is this true, with the certitude of metaphysics, that it cannot be the Catholic Church? Simply because it preaches a false gospel, perfectly inverted as to the Gospel of Jesus the Christ in its heresy as apostasy, and it cannot defy the law of non-contradiction, whereby a thing cannot both be and not be, at the same time and under the same respect. The, “respect”, here is what the Catholic Church actually is in reality, as it is, truth thus. Amen.
Then, who started it? Indeed it is a place of worship, where people of many false faiths gather, each with his own understanding of church, which is contrary to authentic Catholic teaching, as of course. Just ask the members of that church in the pews or seats. They’ll each tell you a different story about what each believes and why they bother to come, none of the gibberish will be authentically Catholic though, as the Holy Ghost is not found there, to enlighten their intellects as, one in the Faith. Amen. I pray this helps. In caritas.
“Do you see the inversion of truth there, mmf ?”
Without question. Do you see that it is God’s enemies, the Talmudic Jews, who are, when all is said and done, in league with Satan—their Commander—and at the bottom of this?
From “Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma,” Ludwig Ott. (pp. 125-126):
“The Jewish writer, Flavius Josephus, mentions in his “ Antiquitates ” (completed 93-94), that the High Priest Ananus 44 had the brother of Jesus who was called Christ, named Jacobus, and some others, accused of transgression of the laws, and stoned ” (Ant. XX 9, 1). Clearer still, but of very doubtful genuineness, is another passage : 44 At this time Jesus, a wise man, appeared, if one may call him a man at all; for he was a worker of extraordinary deeds, a teacher of men who joyfully accept the truth ; and he attracted to himself many Jews as well as many of die Greek people. This was the Christ (6 Xpurrls ovtos ^v). And when Pilate, on the accusation of the chief men among us, had punished him with the cross, still those who had first loved him did not desert him, for he re-appeared alive to them on the third day. Indeed the Prophets had foretold this and many other wonderful things about him. Up to to-day, the race of Christians, who derive their name from him, have not yet ceased to follow him ” (Ant. XVIII 3, 3). It is probable that this passage is basically authentic, but it seems to have been embellished under Christian influence. The ancient Slav version of the work “ De Bello Judaico ” (also by Flavius Josephus) contains a testimony concerning Christ which is in some respects similar to the foregoing. In the Greek and Latin versions, however, it is missing. Probably it is an interpolation. The theory built up on this by Robert Eisler, that Jesus watf the leader of a revolutionary national movement, and as such had been executed by the Roman Civil Authorities, has not found favour, b) Again the occasional mention of the Person of Jesus in the Talmud presupposes His historical existence. Judaism, indeed hatefully distorted the picture of Christ by representing Him as the son of an adulteress, a traitor, and the founder of a godless sect, but it has never doubted His historical existence. Cf. the Talmudic Tract Bab. Sanhedrin f. 43 a ; f. 67a. St. Justin, Dial. iy ; 108.”
“It follows that the separated Churches [schismatic] and Communities [heretical] as such, though we believe them to be deficient in some respects, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church. (UR 3)
“In just two sentences, the Council directly contradicted – in order, no less – the true doctrine as presented so clearly by Fr. Ott. This it does, firstly, by plainly asserting that the schismatic and heretical sects, as communities, are a “means of salvation;” i.e., the Council insists that they too are arks of salvation.” (Akacatholic)
While I’m not one to defend Vatican II, this teaching is not in contradiction to Ott, nor is it contrary to the truth. Countless souls have been saved by being baptized in heretical and schismatics sects and then dying before they reached the age of reason. Understood in that sense, it is true that God did not refrain from using these sects in “the mystery of salvation,” and its ministers as the instrumental cause (“means by which”) grace was infused into the soul.
Hello again mmf,
While not to detract from what you are writing in response at all, yet the question is specific to now as today, this time, and not the broader understanding as you are edifying. Not the types, as Abraham and Jacob, but the specifics, as the Incarnation of the Christ. Who started this church of Antichrist, as this thing that calls itself Catholic since October, 1958 is, with certitude, Antichrist, yes? As it teaches a false gospel of heresy as apostasy, whose council is called, “vatican 2”. It is a church, yes? It does have members who worship there, yes? Who started it? God bless you, mothermostforgiving. In caritas.
Vatican II should be renamed the “Non Serviam” Council in honor of its head.
Okay In caritas, so I’m not sure if you are saying that Roncalli was the Antichrist who opened VII or if Montini was who closed the council and I’m not sure why you wouldn’t just say the name when you say this is not a game to you. You know that we would find this difficult to believe as we expected the Antichrist to be climactic, at least I did. Not he comes, replaces our CHURCH and then life goes on. Satan has a Church and Christ just doesn’t. Generations just go forward teaching their children about a Church that used to be and saying the Rosary. GENERATIONS?! So is the climax there is none? The Catholic Church just fades into legend, Jesus returns someday and looks around to see nobody has the Faith? This concept is crazy, that God would allow this and then just say, wow everyone lost their faith. It’s like if I blindfold someone and then watch them fall into a pit of lava and then go, wow, they just walked right into that pit of lava. YES, OF COURSE. I think that you must be wrong.
“Countless souls have been saved by being baptized in heretical and schismatics sects…”
So what? Who is denying THAT? An atheist can validly baptize. It’s a leap to then include such non-Catholic entities in the “…significance and importance [of] the mystery of salvation.”
“For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church. (UR 3)”
The “Spirit of Christ” unequivocally condemns “them” as an abomination and consigns obdurate members of those entities to hell.
“Generations just go forward teaching their children about a Church that used to be and saying the Rosary. GENERATIONS?! So is the climax there is none? The Catholic Church just fades into legend, Jesus returns someday and looks around to see nobody has the Faith?”
Now you’re seeing where sedevacantism ends when the errors are followed to their logical conclusion.
Sedevacantism begins by presenting itself as noting more than an opinion, when it is really a schism that ends in heresy.
The devil is clever, and quite adept at using the crisis in “the upper hierarchy” to leads souls out of the Church and into perdition.
Most people who leave the Church for sedevacantism have an initial bout of enthusiasm and zeal, which soon fades away, only to be replaced by depression and a loss of hope. Only a fortunate few find their way back to the Church.
“The “Spirit of Christ” unequivocally condemns “them” as an abomination and consigns obdurate members of those entities to hell.” (mothermostforgiving)
The Spirit of Christ condemns the sects as an abomination, but that doesn’t change the fact that they have been used “in the mystery of salvation.”
God could even use a sedevacantist sect to save an infant, even though the Spirit of Christ unequivocally condemns them an abomination and consigns obdurate members of those entities to hell.
By the way, which abominable sedevacantist sect are you an obdurate member of?
Please see the back and forth between, “The Papal Subject” and me in the combox of, “Our Church Roundtable in Rome..”, near the bottom of the thread. The Truth simply IS, as the Angelic Doctor taught. Our intellects must conform to it, AS IT IS, or we are perfectly deceived. Amen. The Christ commanded: “If any man is to come after Me, he must first deny himself, take up his cross, and follow Me.” Amen. The greatest part, as the most difficult part, of denying one’s self, is to deny all that you thought was true, as you have now then come to know that you were deceived. This denial then, is the cross, as it is exquisitely painful, as it is utterly repugnant to the flesh. In reading all the words that you write, it is apparent, that you have a yearning for truth as Truth. Amen. You must now deny self as anyone has had to do, to be cleansed of the deception, as though it was truth, and then to be given as the most precious Gift in the Heavens and on the earth–the One and only true Faith as Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic. Amen. Alleluia.
Melanie, know that of course that it is impossible for the divine Society of Heaven on earth, the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church to fail. God Willing, the following copied and pasted from, “Satis Cognitum”, will help you see this truth. It is from par 15, “Bishops Separated from Peter and His Successors, Lose all Jurisdiction:
“But it is opposed to the truth, and in evident contradiction with the divine constitution of the Church, to hold that while each Bishop is individually bound to obey the authority of the Roman Pontiffs, taken collectively the Bishops are not so bound. For it is the nature and object of a foundation to support the unity of the whole edifice and to give stability to it, rather than to each component part; and in the present case this is much more applicable, since Christ the Lord wished that by the strength and solidity of the foundation the gates of hell should be prevented from prevailing against the Church. All are agreed that the divine promise must be understood of the Church as a whole, and not of any certain portions of it. These can indeed be overcome by the assaults of the powers of hell, as in point of fact has befallen some of them.”
And for your edification, the key aspect, demonstrating as infallibly, that aspects of the true Church, while they can be conquered by Satan, the Church as a whole remains inviolable as indestructible. Amen.
“All are agreed that the divine promise must be understood of the Church as a whole, and not of any certain portions of it. These can indeed be overcome by the assaults of the powers of hell, as in point of fact has befallen some of them.”
The visible unity of Holy Church is twofold as taught in, “Satis Cognitum”. The Unity of Faith and the Unity of Communion, which is the visible Jurisdictional Authority of Peter. The Unity of Faith is the visible Church as evidenced by the unity of all those persons who visibly hold the One true Faith. Amen.
The Magisterium has never taught that Blessed Peter in his Successors would not be lost to the world, as if it did, it would contradict the unanimity of belief of the Early Church Fathers, and that is impossible, as contradiction cannot occur in the Magisterium. Amen. What Pope Leo XIII infallibly taught in, “Satis Cognitum”, is that, and to quote the Pope,
“The Magisterium (or Teaching Authority) of the Church to be Perpetual”. Which means of course, as is existentially evident and true today, that even though Blessed Peter in his Successors has been gone from the face of the earth since the death of Pius XII, the infallible and binding Authority remains unto the Last Day, for all eyes to see and to know. If that wasn’t true, I for one, could not possibly understand what I do. Amen. Alleluia. Faith and proper reason must be had as the Church teaches, to save our souls. Proper reason to Truth, such that we cannot be deceived by the wolves in sheep’s clothing and other charlatans, as, “FormerSede”, for instance. Do not fall into the utter despair which he objectively evidences. Amen.
When the Pope commanded, “TO BE”, perpetual, (the Magisterium) that is definitive in context without distinction, therefore without exception. If he would have commanded, “should be”, perpetual, then it would be understood as the Vatican Council’s infallible proclamation of the Will of Christ as to His desire to have Peter present in the world unto His Second Coming. Amen. I pray this helps and it is always gratifying to respond to your questions. In caritas.
And again FormerSede,
You indeed manifest as objectively evident, the despair of one who simply cannot hold the Catholic Faith, that gift both freely given and completely as utterly undeserved by any and all. Amen. You pervert the teaching of Holy Church as anyone who indeed hates The Christ, while masquerading as a Christian, and doesn’t even know that he does, as this thing itself does speak, in your words over and again.
You just wrote this:
“The Spirit of Christ condemns the sects as an abomination, but that doesn’t change the fact that they have been used “in the mystery of salvation.”
What you assent to in this very comment is the heresy of “Dualism”, whereby you intone in what you write, that those who are literally as actually banished from the Church and thus from any potential for eternal salvation, are in some way helpful in themselves, as to offer some remedy for the salvation of souls who actually are in the One, True, Church. Amen. This is an utter absurdity as it is a blasphemy, as it is an heresy, and as formally known. Your vitriol for the Bride of Christ precedes you, FormerSede. May God have mercy on your soul. In caritas.
I find it curious that you are only too eager to point out such things as the utility of non-Catholic sects “in the mystery of salvation.” What I don’t find you pointing out is their “utility” is only accidental, and that attempts to extrapolate such utility into evidence of their inclusion into the Body of Christ is futile because they will be condemned to hell if they do not accept the Catholic faith. A Catholic WOULD point that out because it is the charitable thing to do. Catholics want no one to be lost to everlasting hell. People such as yourself are not doing non-Catholics any favors by exalting the utility of their sects at the expense of showing them the urgency of abandoning those sects.
BTW, I’m not a member of any sedevacantist sect.
>>>Countless souls have been saved by being baptized in heretical and schismatics sects and then dying before they reached the age of reason.<<<
Do you REALLY think the V2 document being discussed here is addressing BABIES & TODDLERS?
You're wordsmithing here. Just like they do.
V2 and all its rotten fruit has one mission: to eclipse the Church. Don't make their job easier.
>>>the Spirit of Christ unequivocally condemns them [a Sedevacantist sect] an abomination and consigns obdurate members of those entities to hell.<<<
There you have it, Folks.
Half of us here are condemned to hell then.
But as for me and my house, I'm gonna need some scripture, Canon Law, Bulls, dogmatic decrees to back that up.
Just a question: “Outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation”. Therefore, the only souls in Heaven are baptized Catholics who died in the State of Grace.
Did I get that right? If anyone cares to comment, please be brief and to the point in very clear language. I’m a very simple person. God bless.
“While I’m not one to defend Vatican II…”
Are you one to condemn it (just curious)?
The use of brackets “[ ]” within quoted text is done to further elucidate what the author of that text was attempting to communicate. I am the author of that text, and I was NOT my intent to imply that membefs of “a Sedevacantist sect” will be consigned to hell. That may be YOUR position (I did not say “That IS your position,” DID I? No, that would be putting words in your mouth), but it’s not mine. BTW, you can easily learn what the proper usage of brackets is by consulting a number of English grammar sites on the net.
And for reference,
 But as many as received him, he gave them power to be made the sons of God, to them that believe in his name.  Who are born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh, is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit, is spirit.  Wonder not, that I said to thee, you must be born again.
Objectively speaking, yes. However we are not God:
Pope Pius IX 1846-1878
Singulari Quadam, 1854:
174. “It must, of course, be held as a matter of faith that outside the apostolic Roman Church no one can be saved, that the Church is the only ark of salvation, and that whoever does not enter it will perish in the flood. On the other hand, it must likewise be held as certain that those who are affected by ignorance of the true religion, if it is invincible ignorance, are not subject to any guilt in this matter before the eyes of the Lord. Now, then, who could presume in himself an ability to set the boundaries of such ignorance, taking into consideration the natural differences of peoples, lands, native talents, and so many other factors? Only when we have been released from the bonds of this body and see God just as He is (see John 3:2) shall we really understand how close and beautiful a bond joins Divine mercy with Divine justice.”
Quanto Conficiamur Moerore, 1863:
“…We all know that those who are afflicted with invincible ignorance with regard to our holy religion, if they carefully keep the precepts of the natural law that have been written by God in the hearts of men, if they are prepared to obey God, and if they lead a virtuous and dutiful life, can attain eternal life by the power of divine light and grace.”
Pope Pius XII 1939-1958
Mystical Body of Christ, June 29, 1943:
“As you know, Venerable Brethren, from the very beginning of Our Pontificate We have committed to the protection and guidance of heaven those who do not belong to the visible organization of the Catholic Church, solemnly declaring that after the example of the Good Shepherd We desire nothing more ardently than that they may have life and have it more abundantly… For even though unsuspectingly they are related to the Mystical Body of the Redeemer in desire and resolution, they still remain deprived of so many precious gifts and hel
Technically, only those who die in a State of Grace go to Heaven. It is redundant to place the qualifier of baptism and membership alongside State of Grace. No one can achieve a State of Grace without a baptism nor can one be in a State of Grace if they are outside the Catholic Church.
Formersede, what you quote from me applies doubly to the New Order. I couldn’t even venture a guess what you believe but I know that the head of your New Order sect doesn’t even believe that Jesus Christ was God. So few go from sedevacantism back to the New Order bc that would be stupid. I do hope that if this is the Apocalypse that God does help us out here a little..something …a sign….a Saint…an AntiChrist…idk, but yeah I can understand Catholics getting depressed and losing hope and I don’t gloat over them, I just pray not to join them. I guess you can be happy but I am not your religion if you’re a formersede New Order, that’s so weird it sounds madeup.
The Lord Jesus Christ is God, and He spoke those words quoted (John 3:5), with no exception. I do not understand your positing “we are not God”.
Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, Sess. 7, Can. 5 on the Sacrament of Baptism, ex cathedra: “If anyone says that baptism [the Sacrament] is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation (cf. Jn. 3:5): let him be anathema.”
Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, Can. 2 on the Sacrament of Baptism, Sess. 7, 1547, ex cathedra: “If anyone shall say that real and natural water is not necessary for baptism, and on that account those words of Our Lord Jesus Christ: ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit’ [John 3:5], are distorted into some sort of metaphor: let him be anathema.”
Be very careful, A Simple Beggar, when reading the quotes you provided, because they cannot contradict Catholic dogma, ex cathedra pronouncements.
Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, Constitution 1, 1215, ex cathedra: “THERE IS INDEED ONE UNIVERSAL CHURCH OF THE FAITHFUL, outside of which nobody at all is saved, in which Jesus Christ is both priest and sacrifice.”
Pope Eugene IV, The Council of Florence, “Exultate Deo,” Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra: “Holy baptism, which is the gateway to the spiritual life, holds the first place among all the sacraments; through it we are made members of Christ and of the body of the Church. And since death entered the universe through the first man, ‘unless we are born again of water and the Spirit, we cannot,’ as the Truth says, ‘enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:5]. The matter of this sacrament is real and natural water.”
I just now got it. You were replying to FormerSede, aka “FS,” not me. Forgive my blunder. I have to say, reading your other comments/replies made me wonder why you were taking me to task (or so I thought at the time). God bless you.
A true Pope cannot contradict Dogma and they have spoken above about (albeit very rare) circumstances in which a non-Catholic may be saved. It is a common and dangerous misconception and lie that is believed by many today that only Ex Cathedra pronouncements are infallible. Rejecting Baptism of Desire, especially after reading the following samples, will place one outside of the Church:
Council of Trent 1545-1563
Canons on the Sacraments in General: – (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 (sine eis aut eorum voto), through faith alone men obtain from God the grace of justification; let him be anathema.”
Decree on Justification – (Session 6, Chapter 4):
“In these words a description of the justification of a sinner is given as being a translation from that state in which man is born a child of the first Adam to the state of grace and of the ‘adoption of the Sons’ (Rom. 8:15) of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Savior and this translation after the promulgation of the Gospel cannot be effected except through the laver of regeneration or a desire for it, (sine lavacro regenerationis aut eius voto) as it is written: “Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter in the kingdom of God” (John 3:5).
St. Alphonsus Liguori 1691-1787
Moral Theology – (Bk. 6):
“But baptism of desire is perfect conversion to God by contrition or love of God above all things accompanied by an explicit or implicit desire for true Baptism of water, the place of which it takes as to the remission of guilt, but not as to the impression of the [baptismal] character or as to the removal of all debt of punishment. It is called ‘of wind’ [‘flaminis’] because it takes place by the impulse of the Holy Ghost Who is called a wind [‘flamen’]. Now it is de fide that men are also saved by Baptism of desire, by virtue of the Canon ‘Apostolicam De Presbytero Non Baptizato’ and the Council of Trent, Session 6, Chapter 4, where it is said that no one can be saved ‘without the laver of regeneration or the desire for it.'”
1917 Code of Canon Law
On Ecclesiastical Burial – (Canon 1239. 2)
“Catechumens who, through no fault of their own, die without Baptism, are to be treated as baptized.”
The Sacred Canons by Rev. John A. Abbo. St.T.L., J.C.D., and Rev. Jerome D. Hannan, A.M., LL.B., S.T.D., J.C.D.
Commentary on the Code:
“The reason for this rule is that they are justly supposed to have met death united to Christ through Baptism of Desire.”
Pope Innocent III
To your inquiry we respond thus: We assert without hesitation (on the authority of the holy Fathers Augustine and Ambrose) that the priest whom you indicated (in your letter) had died without the water of baptism, because he persevered in the faith of Holy Mother the Church and in the confession of the name of Christ, was freed from original sin and attained the joy of the heavenly fatherland. Read (brother) in the eighth book of Augustine’s City of God where among other things it is written, “Baptism is ministered invisibly to one whom not contempt of religion but death excludes.” Read again the book also of the blessed Ambrose concerning the death of Valentinian where he says the same thing. Therefore, to questions concerning the dead, you should hold the opinions of the learned Fathers, and in your church you should join in prayers and you should have sacrifices offered to God for the priest mentioned. (Denzinger 388)
Debitum pastoralis officii, August 28, 1206:
You have, to be sure, intimated that a certain Jew, when at the point of death, since he lived only among Jews, immersed himself in water while saying: “I baptize myself in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.”
We respond that, since there should be a distinction between the one baptizing and the one baptized, as is clearly gathered from the words of the Lord, when He says to the Apostles: “Go baptize all nations in the name etc.” (cf. Matt. 28:19), the Jew mentioned must be baptized again by another, that it may be shown that he who is baptized is one person, and he who baptizes another… If, however, such a one had died immediately, he would have rushed off to his heavenly home without delay because of the faith of the sacrament, although not because of the sacrament of faith. (Denzinger 413)
That sure does sound weird and madeup, Melanie. It also sounds like he needs to read this:
“…lest it may befall Us to see the abomination of desolation*, which was spoken of by the prophet Daniel*, in the holy place*… We ENACT, DETERMINE, DECREE and DEFINE that if EVER at ANY time it shall APPEAR that ANY Bishop… prior to his promotion or his elevation as Cardinal or ROMAN PONTIFF, has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some HERESY… the promotion or elevation, even if it shall have been uncontested and by the unanimous assent of ALL of the Cardinals, SHALL be NULL, VOID and WORTHLESS…”
“…those this promoted or elevated SHALL be DEPRIVED AUTOMATICALLY, and WITHOUT NEED for any further DECLARATION, of ALL dignity, position, honour, title, authority, OFFICE AND POWER… the laity…SHALL be permitted AT ANY TIME to WITHDRAW WITH IMPUNITY FROM OBEDIENCE AND DEVOTION to those thus promoted or elevated and to AVOID them as WARLOCKS, heathens, publicans, and HERESIARCHS. NO ONE AT ALL…may infringe this document…or by RASH PRESUMPTION contradict it. IF anyone, however, should PRESUME to attempt this, let him know that HE IS DESTINED to incur the WRATH of Almighty GOD and of the blessed Apostles, Peter and Paul.
-POPE Paul IV, Cum ex Apostolatus Officio
Each and EVERY ONE of the actors playing “Pope” since Oct 9, 1958 has very publicly deviated from the Faith PRIOR to their so-called “elevation”. Anyone at all who says otherwise is A LIAR.
“It is a common and dangerous misconception and lie that is believed by many today that only Ex Cathedra pronouncements are infallible.”
Yes it is, and I wasn’t suggesting it. However “the ordinary Magisterium” can never contradict the “extraordinary Magisterium” either. I put forward only universal teaching from Popes/Councils.
You cannot simultaneously believe “outside the Church there is no salvation”, but “outside the Church there is salvation”. We would have a contradiction. If there are exceptions after all, then “extra ecclesiam nulla salus” would not be true, and not dogma at all. Ignorance would save us, and our own blood & desire would save us as well.
Modern eccumenism was born after, and from the destruction of, “extra ecclesiam nulla salus”. I’m not going to get into those quotes you have put forward to the contrary, as to their meaning in this short space. They have been well covered elsewhere.
We cannot “quote” the Church against herself.
“You cannot simultaneously believe “outside the Church there is no salvation”, but “outside the Church there is salvation”. We would have a contradiction.”
That statement alone is enough to pop the Vatican II balloon. So, why do people continue to attend VII heretical “masses”? Where are the faithful bishops (are there any?) to trumpet this glaring truth?
Good Thursday morning james__o,
What we may never do is place any affront to Authoritative Papal teaching, as within the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium, period and end. Faith first as the divine and Supernatural gift, and then proper reason, the natural power given to reach truth. In truth, one cannot contradict the other. We must never forget that proper reason is only possible through the reception of grace, as the Angelic Doctor taught. When an apparent contradiction exists, it must fall upon the reality, as it is, that the reasoning has faltered, as natural reasoning accomplished properly as correctly, must be fortified by divine Light from the Holy Ghost, as Saint Thomas taught. Amen. Only then can the will choose the good over the privation of the good which is due, in the faithful or moral assent of the will. The Faith, as the Supernatural part of salvation is of course, inviolable as impregnable. Amen. There simply cannot be, in reality as it is, one truth taught which somehow trumps another truth taught, as though Jesus the Christ can be divided. Amen. That is not only impossible, it is blasphemy. There are no weights to Truth, as to suggest so, suggests that Jesus the Christ, Who simply Is the Truth, He Himself, has various, “weights”, that He is not Union Himself thus, as perfect and infinite Simplicity Himself, as Being Himself. Amen. Alleluia.
The power of the, “Extra-Ordinary Magisterium”, is one of the, “gifts”, as taught in, “Satis Cognitum”, that only Blessed Peter received, as apart from the rest of the Apostles. That power allows Peter in his Successors, to define dogma as a, as the, singular Authority in the cosmos to do so. No one else has this power with metaphysical certitude. Amen. This power which Peter alone possesses, as Extraordinary, does not somehow cause nor imply distinction within the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium, as to somehow provide a, “weighting”, of Truth. This has been taught definitively in the Magisterium, that all its teaching must be assented to equally. Amen. To suggest as is done everywhere today in the false sects, that one truth in the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium has more weight as to be believed than another, places a very contradiction into the word, “Universal”, as though universal is both universal and not universal, at the same time, and under the respect of what universal means, as one and total. Amen. As again, Jesus the Christ is the Truth and He simply cannot be somehow, “weighted”. This belief, as A Simple Beggar alluded to, is a diabolical distortion of reality as it actually is. As we bear witness to the, “operation of error to believe lying”, everywhere in this time, as in all aspects of daily life, the sorrow would be indeed unquenchable without the reception of the soothing balm of God’s grace. Amen. Alleluia. Witnessing the pernicious as vitriolic behavior even here, as Truth is attacked, as proffered from this very same Universal and Ordinary Magisterium, can remain only, while at once, utterly expected and frightening for those souls. God bless you james__o. In caritas.
Thank you to all who responded. It is distressing to think that the vast majority of souls are lost. I tend to agree with A Simple Beggar that we cannot know the mind of God nor can we fathom His Infinite Mercy. Our Lady gave the visionaries of Fatima a beautiful prayer which I believe includes all mankind. “O my Jesus, forgive us our sins and save us from the fires of Hell, lead all souls to Heaven, especially those most in need of your Mercy.” As Catholics, we are obligated to pray for all the deceased leaving judgement to God and God alone. WITHOUT the Catholic Church, there is no salvation. All who attain Heaven are saved through the graces of the Catholic Church. They will know this in Heaven. A number of you will disagree with this. That’s OK. God bless and thank you again.
You are welcome, My2cents. If I may, the Fatima prayer has also been distorted. There is a mistranslation. As even our Lord said “many” and not “all”, the real translation of the prayer speaks to the Holy Souls in Purgatory: “lead all souls to heaven, especially those who are most in need. Period.” In this way, they’ve been deprived over and over again of what were designed to be prayers for their release.
That is an excellent way of putting it, thank you for taking the time to explain that.
“I tend to agree with A Simple Beggar that we cannot know the mind of God”
Yes we can. That is the very definition of divine Revelation – God revealing His Mind to us. Divine absolute truth. That’s what the teaching of the Catholic Church is all about and for!
It’s modernism that denies that we can know Truth, and the mind of God, and that it even changes over time.
Are you saying that the Popes quoted above spoke heresy? As you can see with baptism by water OR desire, one truth does not necessarily exclude another.
“Your ways are not My ways” could also be expressed as “Your mind is not My mind”.
Upon death, there are only 3 destinations: Heaven, Hell, or Purgatory which leads to Heaven. Every soul is where he/she belongs. God does not make mistakes. “Your ways are not My ways” could also be expressed as “Your mind is not My mind.” Yes!
Thanks and praise be to God, The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, in His perfect as infinite Majesty. The First Cause uncaused, the Primemover, unmoved, the uncreated Creator of all else to which He alone has given being, and as thus the Reason, the Logos for it all. Amen. Alleluia. In caritas.
FS said, “Sedevacantism begins by presenting itself as noting more than an opinion, when it is really a schism that ends in heresy.”
In the book “To deceive the elect,” Fr. Kramer says the belief that a pope can become a formal heretic is “proximate to heresy.”
Proximate to Heresy: A proposition whose opposition to a revealed and defined dogma is not certain, or more appropriately the truth contradicted, though commonly accepted as revealed, has yet never been the object of a definition (proxima fidei).
I’m not sure that would apply to the position taken by SSPV?
But to be fair, some questions have to be answered:
Why wouldn’t the 2 quotes in the 2 paragraphs below be enough to conclude that neither of those popes are or were Catholic or popes?
John Paul II supported dual-covenant theology. On November 17, 1980, Pope John Paul II delivered a speech to the Jews of Berlin in which he discussed his views of Catholic-Jewish relations. In it, John Paul II asserted that God’s Old Covenant with the Jewish people was never revoked which meant, as Darcy O’Brien wrote, that the pope had indicated that the Catholic Church had abandoned its mission to proselytize the Jews and has embraced the Jews’ salvation.
“We are in agreement that a Jew, and this is true for believers of other religions, does not need to know or acknowledge Christ as the Son of God in order to be saved…” [Cardinal Ratzinger (Benedict XVI), Zenit News, September 5, 2000.]
Maybe it’s not prudent to go off a couple media statements alone, but if these two media statements stand alone as true, it would be enough to conclude they are neither Catholic, or popes, wouldn’t it? So how do we have to see this, they basically said that, but then tried to cover their tracks and that creates doubt that they actually denied the dogma of EENS? (EENS as Catholics have always interpreted it, not as Fr. Feeney and his followers interpret it). The fact that they ruled on or had dealings with the followers of Fr. Feeney proves they were not ignorant of the dogma (Pope John Paul II and Cardinal Ratzinger as head of the CDF)!
Another question, if the Novus Ordo Mass is illicit and schismatic, according to the dogma of Trent and the doctrine of Constance, then why wouldn’t Pope Paul VI have automatically excommunicated himself when he recommended it? I suppose the answer is he was not aware that he acted against the dogma of Trent defining such actions as schismatic. So if Pope Benedict XVI is pope and someone points this out to him, would he not have a moral obligation to condemn the Novus Ordo, or he would automatically excommunicate himself?
I would prefer that Fr. Kramer or at least Mr.Verrecchio answer these questions.
No, what I’m saying is it’s your faulty reading/understanding of them. It could be turned the other way as well, are you saying the Popes I quoted spoke heresy?
I think you should make a full study on the topic and look deeper. For example, you are going with a common misreading of Session. 6, Chap. 4 of The Council of Trent and making it an either/or proposition, and that’s not what it’s saying. The Church has always taught that you need the desire to be baptized as an adult. You need both. There is also a mistranslation in the English version to “except through” when the latin word is “aut” which should be “without”.
If Trent was teaching BoD as a doctrine of it’s own, they would have formally taught and explained it in the section under baptism. They didn’t do that because it’s not an official doctrine of the Church.
I ask you to do your own study into the matter. I will say no more.
Hello again james__o,
You seem to be of good will as objectively witnessed. You can rest assured that A Simple Beggar is of good will, as for one miserable creature that I am and can only ever be this side the veil, I have borne witness to ASB’s writing now for a couple of years, here. If I may, and ASB will correct me if I’m wrong here, firstly, I don’t think ASB wrote, “we cannot know the Mind of God.” ASB wrote: “However we are not God.” To address the question though of, “knowing the Mind of God”, yes of course you are correct james__o, as you are consistent in your stated belief with that of the Angelic Doctor, who taught that the miserable human person, when he, “rightly reasons”, does so only by virtue of his, “participation in the Mind of God”. Amen. Almighty God is both infinitely knowable and yet infinitely known, only as exclusively unto Himself. Amen. In caritas.
Yeah, I quoted my2cents.
Please see my response to you above, as it relates ASB, etc. The holy Council of Trent did in fact, in Her canons on the Sacraments, infallibly teach that the reception of the Sacraments is necessary for salvation or at least the desire to receive them. There is a distinction there in that dictum and thus the exception is given. The proper reading there of, “desire”, is not exclusive to the will of the potential receiver of the Sacrament. Of course the freely willed assent to desire must be there but then the Church in Her ministers must be able to provide the external signs of grace, as proper Rites, to the one who indeed has authentic as true and freely willful desire. Amen. Many applications of this dilemma have been witnessed in the 20th century, as before the assent of the church of Antichrist, masquerading as the Catholic Church, while at once it is the abomination of desolation, desolate of all things Christ Jesus, as His Sacraments, His Vicar, and His Gospel. Amen. These were the analogical types given us in the Divine Providence such that we would know how to recognize the lies, deny and reject them, and rest assured that we would in that rejection of perceived sacraments, actually be the members of the One, True Church, rendered not invisible per se, as the visible unity is two-fold, as infallibly taught in, “Satis Cognitum”. The Unity of Faith in all those who hold it, and in the Unity of Communion by virtue of the Blessed Vicar of Christ, now lost to the world. The Blessed Virgin did not use the word, “invisible”, at LaSalette thus, rather, “in eclipse”. Amen. I pray this helps. In caritas.
Thank you, IC, for the clarification on knowing the Mind of God. After I hit post my comment, “Your mind is not My Mind”, troubled me because I didn’t/couldn’t expound upon it. I was speaking of those not using right reason (participating in the Mind of God) with respect to any particular subject.
Of course not, because one Truth addressed and spoken does not necessarily exclude another. Perhaps IC can expound on that as I cannot right now and wouldnt do it nearly as well.
Ratio “In the book “To deceive the elect,” Fr. Kramer says the belief that a pope can become a formal heretic is “proximate to heresy.”
Proximate to heresy? If it is proximate to heresy why is the possibility admitted by every theologian, without exception? Even those who believe it will never happen do not rule it out entirely.
Ok, so let let me now get this straight in summary:
Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
Are you saying is that the above should not be taken literally, “as it is written”? And that a man can enter heaven after all without actually “being born again of water and the Holy Ghost”, by his desire alone? And that this is taught by Trent?
Good evening james__o,
As was already written, Trent infallibly teaches that the Sacraments are necessary for salvation or at least the desire to receive them. That is within the Providence and mercy of God, yes? You cannot receive that which you cannot be given. Thanks be to God that is true. No ministers in the world, no Sacraments in their external signs as Rites to receive, but for the most important, Holy Baptism, not requiring a sacerdotal minister. Amen. Jesus the Christ established His Church such that even in the epoch of the, “end of time”, during the desolation of Antichrist, when the Vicar of Christ is gone from this world and the vicars of Antichrist reign as faux kings, anyone as everyone can yet enter His Holy Church and save their soul. Rejoice in the Truth. Amen. Alleluia. Look for yourself to the canons of Trent on the holy Sacraments. You will find it there. I do pray james__o that this helps. Please know that I do know your anguish in arriving into the proper understandings. For me, a 12 year journey and counting. Amen . In caritas.
Yes, good points. “You cannot receive that which you cannot be given”.
Baptism would be the only exception, a Sacrament that is absolutely essential, because it is the “door” by which all enter the ark, the Church, so that we may be able to receive other Sacraments. Because of that, it was given the widest possible latitude in that it did not absolutely require a priest to administer. Of course, in these times we cannot receive other Sacraments.
Which is the main and only point I’ve been trying to make all along “unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” Baptism is absolutely essential, because it’s the only way to become a member of the Church.
Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis (# 22), June 29, 1943: “Actually only those are to be numbered among the members of the Church who have received the laver of regeneration [water baptism] and profess the true faith.”
And there is, of course, no salvation outside the Church.
Good Thursday evening james__o,
Be very careful though. The Holy Council of Trent did not make any distinction in their infallible canon. Where there is no distinction there cannot be any exception. Baptism is included in the, “or at least the desire to receive them”, proclamation on the Sacraments. Anyone beneath the age of reason and anyone above that age who freely wills to be Baptized, is the proper ontological matter for the Sacrament of entry into the Church. Amen. Alleluia. In caritas.
A Simple Beggar: Thank you for pointing out the truth that there is NO salvation outside the True Catholic Church (and the Church means just that); but this truth in no way contradicts the other truth of the existence of Baptism of Desire.
In caritas: I know you were asked this earlier, but as a sort of criticism of you; however, I ask because I would read your writings regularly. Have you ever considered creating your own blog?
For sure, adults must have a desire for Baptism to receive it properly. That has always been.
However, what “desire” alone and of itself cannot give you, is that indelible mark of Water Baptism, which removes the guilt of original sin, grants forgiveness of all sins and the punishment due to sin, and regeneration on the recipient. If it could do all this, alone and of itself, then “desire” would be just another fancy term for “salvation by faith alone”, which was a concept condemned by Trent.
You cannot receive that, or be granted that, which was not given.
Desire alone cannot grant you that indelible mark of Baptism, any more than “desire” could grant Holy Orders and the indelible mark of the Priesthood.
Dear James o,
You seem to be obstinate in your denial of the teaching of the Holy and Authoritative Council of Trent, and the Catholic Church. There are canonized Saints who as catechumens or otherwise displaying unquestionably heroic and Catholic Faith died without water baptism as martyrs. True canonizations are infallible. You are in great danger, James, because perhaps you could be taken today:
Pope St. Pius X’s [Pope Approved] CATECHISM of the Catholic Church
17: Q. Can the absence of Baptism be supplied in any other way?
A. The absence of Baptism can be supplied by martyrdom, which is called Baptism of Blood, or by an act of perfect love of God, or of contrition, along with the desire, at least implicit, of Baptism, and this is called Baptism of Desire.
Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Sess. 6, Chap. 4: “In these words there is suggested a description of the justification of the impious, how there is a transition from that state in which a person is born as a child of the first Adam to the state of grace and of adoption as sons of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ our saviour; indeed, this transition, once the gospel has been promulgated, cannot take place without the laver of regeneration or a desire for it, as it is written: Unless a man is born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God (John 3:5).”277
Furthermore, and as if it’s even necessary after such evidence, the Church teaches this in the annotations of the ONLY official Bible of the Holy Roman Catholic Church, the only TRUE Douay Rheims Bible of 1582:
Baptism in water necessary to salvation
Annotations (1582 A.D. version of the Douay Rheims Bible)
5. Born again of Water.] As no man can enter into this world nor have his life and being in the same, except he be born of his carnal parents: no more can a man enter into the life and state of grace which is in Christ, or attain to life everlasting, unless he be born and baptized of water and the Holy Ghost. Whereby we see first, this Sacrament to be called our regeneration or second birth, in respect of our natural and carnal which was before. Secondly, that this sacrament consisteth of an external element of water, and internal virtue of the Holy Spirit: Wherein it excelleth John’s baptism, which had the external element, but not the spiritual grace. Thirdly, that no man can enter into the Kingdom of God, nor into the fellowship of Holy Church, without it.
Whereby the *Pelagians, and Calvinists be condemned, that promise life everlasting to young children that die without baptism, and all other that think only their faith to serve, or the external element of water superfluous or not necessary: our Saviour’s words being plain and general.
Though in this case, God which hath not bound his grace, in respect of his own freedom, to any Sacrament, may and doth accept them as baptized, which either are martyred before they could be baptized, or else depart this life with vow and desire to have that Sacrament, but by some remediless necessity could not obtain it. Lastly, it is proved that this Sacrament giveth grace ex opere operator, that is, of the work itself (which all Protestants deny) because it so breedeth our spiritual life in God, as our carnal birth giveth the life of the world.
18. Is judged already.] He that believeth in Christ with faith which worketh by charity (as the Apostle speaketh) shall not be condemned at the later day nor at the hour of his death. But the Infidel, be he Jew, Pagan, or Heretic, is already (if he die in his incredulity) by his own profession and sentence condemned, and shall not come to judgment either particular or general, to be discussed according to his works of mercy done or omitted. In which sense St. Paul saith that the obstinate Heretic is condemned by his own judgment, preventing in himself, of his own free will, the sentence both of Christ and of the Church.
Your quick with your condemnation. I’m still a quite recent convert who has has to squeeze a much of everything I know, on my own in the last 7 years, and still seeking, but not I think, as you say “obstinate”. And the truth is, you have not directly addressed any of my points, nor shown any consideration to my words, to show me where I’m wrong.
So then you would say that “desire” would give you the indelible mark of Baptism?
Yes or no?
James_o, it is a fact that Holy Mother Church lists as martyrs catechumens who were not yet baptized by the ordinary means of water. Since the earliest days of the Church, She has recognized and taught Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood.
I don’t condemn you, the words spoken by the Church condemn your current position. It’s right there in black and white, James. Are you saying that you know better than the Council of Trent, the holy St.Pius X Catechism, infallible Canonizations, and the interpretation of Scripture and the Truth of the matter as set forth by Holy Mother Church in her official Scripture annotations?
Please don’t follow the blind into the pit. It is indeed a journey, James. For a short moment I, too, explored this subject, but once I discovered the actual Church teaching on the matter I assented to it immediately. Look up, meditate on, and pray the Act of Faith every day. You must assent with your entire being to the answers I posted which are no mere man’s opinion. That is all I will say about this. It’s right there for you. You speak a lie to yourself, to me and to every reader when you state that I didn’t address your points. The case was closed long ago. You position is heretical.
Please post the exact quote from my above writings that you claim is heretical, so I can figure out what exactly it is that you are talking about.
Because it sounds to me that your saying the Sacrament of Baptism is not absolutely necessary for salvation. And that’s all I’ve been claiming so far.
And no, I didn’t lie, the main point and gist of my post above was about the indelible mark of Baptism, and whether (or not) “desire” would grant it without Baptism. I think not, because you cannot have something and simultaneously not have it at the same time. Now show me an authoritative Church Teaching on that particular subject, so we can clear it up, and show me whether I’m right or wrong.
You did not even mention that point even once, never mind “address” it.
If (per the Holy Roman Catholic Church) desire and/or blood can take the place of water and save a soul, then yes, it must also supply the mark, obviously. God is not limited by His Own Sacraments. It’s the GOOD WILL of a person that He alone can see and treats with perfect Justice. Now, do you still reject what the Church teaches as far as Baptism of Desire and Blood?
I will not, and do not reject anything that the Church teaches. But still, I want to make sure, that the Church does indeed teach it in the first place. I don’t just pick and choose what I want to believe, but I’m for sure going to seek & test all things, for prudence sake.
From what source did you read/learn this statement that “desire and/or blood can take the place of water and save a soul, then yes, it must also supply the mark”? Because there are, you know, papal statements to the contrary:
Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, canons on the Sacrament of Baptism, Session 7, canon 2, ex cathedra: “If anyone shall say that real and natural water is not necessary for baptism, and on that account those words of Our Lord Jesus Christ: ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit’ [John 3:5], are distorted into some sort of metaphor: let him be anathema.”
Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, canons on the Sacrament of Baptism, canon 5, ex cathedra: “If anyone says that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation (cf. Jn. 3:5): let him be anathema.”
Or am I just going to anger more people for asking?
Pardon the expression and I really mean no disrespect but are you for real? I gave you quotes and their sources: the Council of Trent, the Catechism of St Pius X, and the annotations from the REAL Douay Rheims Bible (1584). What more do you need? Did you fail to READ? Please go back to each of my replies and READ, slowly, word-for-word. Good night, James.
Council of Trent: Decree on Justification, Session VI, Chapter 4: “And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration,OR THE DESIRE THEREOF, as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.”
I don’t think you’re angering anyone and you’re doing the right thing, it just seems that you’re not paying attention to what you’re reading, or perhaps reading too quickly.
As for a source on the mark supplied without water, I don’t have one. I’m using logic and my God-given ability to reason that it must be so, per the teaching of the Council of Trent a quote from which Tom has also provided.
James, According to the Catholic Encyclopedia,
“The Fathers and theologians frequently divide baptism into three kinds: the baptism of water (aquæ or fluminis), the baptism of desire (flaminis), and the baptism of blood (sanguinis). However, only the first is a real sacrament. The latter two are denominated baptism only analogically, inasmuch as they supply the principal effect of baptism, namely, the grace which remits sins. It is the teaching of the Catholic Church that when the baptism of water becomes a physical or moral impossibility, eternal life may be obtained by the baptism of desire or the baptism of blood. ”
I think you are correct in thinking that only water baptism impresses an indelible mark on the soul because it is the only one that is a sacrament.
James: “However, what “desire” alone and of itself cannot give you, is that indelible mark of Water Baptism, which removes the guilt of original sin, grants forgiveness of all sins and the punishment due to sin, and regeneration on the recipient.”
James, in case you didn’t see my other post. You are correct that water baptism is the only one to impress the indelible mark because it is the only one that is a “sacrament”. However, it is not the only way to remove original sin. Per the Catholic Encyclopedia:
“The latter two [baptisms of desire and blood] are denominated baptism only analogically, inasmuch as they supply the principal effect of baptism, namely, the grace which remits sins.”
Yes, it could only be so, because we say in the Creed… I confess one Baptism…
I agree totally with that quote from Trent. But here’s the problem; I’m reading it as an entirely inclusive, absolute statement, but others seem to be making it into an exclusive, either/or proposition, a choice.
The reason why we know it’s inclusive is because they quoted the Lord’s very own words at the end to make their position clear “as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.” These words are absolutely clear without any exception.
This canon “since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration,or the desire thereof”… is saying that you require both. Baptism and the proper disposition in receiving it. Justification cannot be effected without both. The Church always taught that you require the proper disposition for the Sacrament of Baptism to receive it validly.
You cannot make beer ” without malt or hops”. You cannot make flour “without grain or a mill”.
Simply put, justification cannot be effected without Baptism and the desire thereof.
At the end….”or” the desire thereof, (not “and’), sorry.
James, if BoD and BoB were wrong, don’t you think they would have been condemned by the Church? The Good Thief was not baptized by water, many martyrs were not baptized by water, the Holy Innocents were not baptized by water, the OT prophets were not baptized by water. There are numerous souls in the Gospel whom Christ proclaims are saved by their faith, yet we have no record of them being baptized by water. That said, we should never assume that this gives a free pass to all those “good” pagans out there. We need to heed Christ’s word to make disciples, baptizing them in the Name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen. Baptism of Water is the ordinary means of administering this Sacrament. Leave BoD and BoB to God’s wisdom. Someday a true Pope may more clearly define this thorny issue and settle it once and for all. But there will always be Feeneyites and Gallicans who think they know better than the Pope and “resist.”
It’s a little like Ephesians 2:8 and the Protestants, James. They take that scripture by itself and say, “See! We don’t need works (also), we are saved by faith alone!”