WCM provides
Pope Benedict XV, Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum, Nov. 1, 1914: “For the whole of mankind was freed from the slavery of sin by the shedding of the blood of Jesus Christ as their ransom, and there is no one who is excluded from the benefit of this Redemption”
This is supposedly contradictory to the following :
St. John 8:34: "Jesus answered them: Amen, amen I say unto you: that whosoever committeth sin, is the servant of sin"
Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Chapter 3, Who are justified through Christ, Jan. 13, 1547: “But, though He died for all, yet do not all receive the benefit of His death, but those only unto whom the merit of His passion is communicated. For as in truth men, if they were not born propagated of the seed of Adam, would not be born unjust,-seeing that, by that propagation, they contract through him, when they are conceived, injustice as their own,-so, if they were not born again in Christ, they never would be justified; seeing that, in that new birth, there is bestowed upon them, through the merit of His passion, the grace whereby they are made just.”
If such a contradiction exists, I would provide the following:
(Epistle of Pope St. Clement to the Corinthians) Let us fix our eyes on the blood of Christ and understand how precious it is unto His Father, because being shed for our salvation it won for the whole world the grace of repentance.
No contradiction exists, save in the minds of those seeking a fallen church that does not, and will never, exist.
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Monday, June 22, 2009
Sedevacantism denies the 4th mark, Apostolicity
Sedevacantist theology attributes the liturgical abuse and decline in authentic catholicity to the string of supposed anti-popes and heretics holding office in the Catholic Church. It is based off of the theological position that, should a Pope hold or teach a heresy, he would lose his office, and would in fact never have been a valid pope. (This is by no means a complete synopsis of the Sedevacantist standpoint. There are many different standpoints within Sedevacantism, with several groups electing their own pope, or claiming a true pope is elected but just in hiding or just holding the position that the chair of Peter has been empty for over a century. If your looking for a more in depth analysis of the Sedevacantist position, I suggest google'ing it for some more information.)
My focus will lie on the Apostolic Succession of the church, and how it relates to the Sedevacantist position of a vacant chair, that is, of there being no validly elected pope for 50, 70, 100 years.
Firstly, the mark Apostolic requires several things.
Apostolicity of doctrine and mission is necessary. Apostolicity of doctrine requires that the deposit of faith committed to the Apostles shall remain unchanged.
At this point, no issue can be raised against Sedevacantism. In fact, it could easily be used in the defense of their theology, as they claim to authentically maintain the truth which the apostles and early church consistently taught. Of course, this is of no difficulty to protestants either, as they can provide proof they do the same, using selective biblical verses and church fathers.
To be apostolic does not end with that however.
In explaining the concept of Apostolicity, then, special attention must be given to Apostolicity of mission, or Apostolic succession . Apostolicity of mission means that the Church is one moral body, possessing the mission entrusted by Jesus Christ to the Apostles, and transmitted through them and their lawful successors in an unbroken chain to the present representatives of Christ upon earth.
We hit our first snag with the theological position of Sedevacantism here. Transmission of the mission entrusted by Jesus through lawful succession has all but ended in a church without a valid, visible hierarchy. What is required for lawful succession? Let's continue...
This authoritative transmission of power in the Church constitutes Apostolic succession. This Apostolic succession must be both material and formal; the material consisting in the actual succession in the Church, through a series of persons from the Apostolic age to the present; the formal adding the element of authority in the transmission of power.
This alone should rule out individuals who believe they are preserving the one Catholic Church. If I am to discover the true teaching of the Catholic Church that had fallen away and into heresy, I would in no way, shape or form possess a material or formal succession. Hence, the mark of Apostolicity would not exist, and verily, this man would not be part of the true church.
No one can give a power which he does not possess. Hence in tracing the mission of the Church back to the Apostles, no lacuna can be allowed, no new mission can arise; but the mission conferred by Christ must pass from generation to generation through an uninterrupted lawful succession. The Apostles received it from Christ and gave it in turn to those legitimately appointed by them, and these again selected others to continue the work of the ministry.
We see from above that, to be Apostolic, one must contain not only the same truth that the apostles taught, but also a valid, formal and material succession. This is quite possibly why many Sedevacantist groups maintain they have valid religious consecrations, to maintain the claim of Apostolicity, and therefore, the 4th and chief mark of the true catholic church.
All info in above taken from the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia
My focus will lie on the Apostolic Succession of the church, and how it relates to the Sedevacantist position of a vacant chair, that is, of there being no validly elected pope for 50, 70, 100 years.
Firstly, the mark Apostolic requires several things.
Apostolicity of doctrine and mission is necessary. Apostolicity of doctrine requires that the deposit of faith committed to the Apostles shall remain unchanged.
At this point, no issue can be raised against Sedevacantism. In fact, it could easily be used in the defense of their theology, as they claim to authentically maintain the truth which the apostles and early church consistently taught. Of course, this is of no difficulty to protestants either, as they can provide proof they do the same, using selective biblical verses and church fathers.
To be apostolic does not end with that however.
In explaining the concept of Apostolicity, then, special attention must be given to Apostolicity of mission, or Apostolic succession . Apostolicity of mission means that the Church is one moral body, possessing the mission entrusted by Jesus Christ to the Apostles, and transmitted through them and their lawful successors in an unbroken chain to the present representatives of Christ upon earth.
We hit our first snag with the theological position of Sedevacantism here. Transmission of the mission entrusted by Jesus through lawful succession has all but ended in a church without a valid, visible hierarchy. What is required for lawful succession? Let's continue...
This authoritative transmission of power in the Church constitutes Apostolic succession. This Apostolic succession must be both material and formal; the material consisting in the actual succession in the Church, through a series of persons from the Apostolic age to the present; the formal adding the element of authority in the transmission of power.
This alone should rule out individuals who believe they are preserving the one Catholic Church. If I am to discover the true teaching of the Catholic Church that had fallen away and into heresy, I would in no way, shape or form possess a material or formal succession. Hence, the mark of Apostolicity would not exist, and verily, this man would not be part of the true church.
No one can give a power which he does not possess. Hence in tracing the mission of the Church back to the Apostles, no lacuna can be allowed, no new mission can arise; but the mission conferred by Christ must pass from generation to generation through an uninterrupted lawful succession. The Apostles received it from Christ and gave it in turn to those legitimately appointed by them, and these again selected others to continue the work of the ministry.
We see from above that, to be Apostolic, one must contain not only the same truth that the apostles taught, but also a valid, formal and material succession. This is quite possibly why many Sedevacantist groups maintain they have valid religious consecrations, to maintain the claim of Apostolicity, and therefore, the 4th and chief mark of the true catholic church.
All info in above taken from the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Sedevecantism and the Interregnum
Find below and excellent article by the late Michael Davies.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Claims have been made that one or more of the "conciliar popes", that is to say Pope John XXIII and his successors, were heretics and therefore forfeited the papacy. Those who include Pope John Paul II in this category claim that we have no pope and that therefore the Holy See is vacant, sedes vacante, which is why such people are referred to as "sedevacantists". They claim that this poses no theological problem as the Holy See is vacant during the interregnum between pontificates. Some of these interregna have been very long, the longest being a vacancy of two years nine months between the death of Clement IV in 1268 and the election of Gregory X in 1271. In such cases the visibility of the Church is not impaired in any way as the Holy See is administered by the Cardinal Camerlengo until a new pope is elected. The Camerlengo, or Chamberlain of the papal court, administers the properties and revenues of the Holy See, and during a vacancy those of the entire Church. Among his responsibilities during a vacancy are those of verifying the death of the Pope and organizing and directing the conclave.
Thus, even when the Chair of Peter is not occupied, the visible, hierarchical nature of the Church is maintained.(1) Thus the situation during such an interregnum cannot be compared to the situation that the Church would be in if Pope John Paul II is not the legitimately reigning pontiff as there would be no visible source of authority capable of convoking a conclave to elect a new pope.
The theological weakness of sedevacantism is an inadequate concept of the nature of the Church. Without realizing it, they believe in a Church which can fail -- and such a Church is not the Church founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ. The Church that He founded cannot fail, for it is indefectible (i.e. it cannot fail). It will continue to exist until the Second Coming as a visible, hierarchically governed body, teaching the truth and sanctifying its members with indubitably valid sacraments. To state that we have no pope is to claim that the Church is no longer visible and hierarchically governed, which, in effect, means that it has ceased to exist. Catholic theologians accept that a pope could lose his office through heresy, but it would have to be such notorious heresy that no doubt concerning the matter could exist in the minds of the faithful, and a statement that the Pope had deposed himself would need to come from a high level in the Church, most probably a general Council. Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre warned in 1979:
"The visibility of the Church is too necessary to its existence for it to be possible that God would allow that visibility to disappear for decades. The reasoning of those who deny that we have a pope puts the Church into an inextricable situation. Who will tell us who the future pope is to be? How, as there are no cardinals, is he to be chosen? The spirit is a schismatical one. . . And so, far from refusing to pray for the Pope, we redouble our prayers and supplications that the Holy Ghost will grant him the light and strength in his affirmations and defense of the Faith."
Documentation
The question of whether the Holy See is vacant must be considered from three aspects, that is whether a pope could become an heretic and forfeit his office; what constitutes heresy; and whether any of the conciliar popes can be considered to be heretics within the context of this definition.
1. Can a pope forfeit his office through heresy?
The problem which would face the Church if a legitimately reigning pope became an heretic has been discussed in numerous standard works of reference. The solution is provided in the 1913 edition of The Catholic Encyclopedia: "The Pope himself, if notoriously guilty of heresy, would cease to be pope because he would cease to be a member of the Church."(2) Many theologians have discussed the possibility of a pope falling into heresy, and the consensus of their opinion concurs with that of The Catholic Encyclopedia. The Pope must evidently be a Catholic, and if he ceased to be a Catholic he could hardly remain the Vicar of Christ, the head of the Mystical Body. St. Robert Bellarmine taught: "The manifestly heretical pope ceases per se to be pope and head as he ceases per se to be a Christian and member of the Church, and therefore he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the teaching of all the early Fathers."(3) Saint Robert was, of course, discussing a theoretical possibility, and believed that a pope could not become an heretic and thus could not be deposed, but he also acknowledged that the more common opinion was that the pope could become an heretic, and he was thus willing to discuss what would need to be done if, per impossible, this should happen: "This opinion (that the Pope could not become an heretic) is probable and easily defended . . . Nonetheless, in view of the fact that this is not certain, and that the common opinion is the opposite one, it is useful to examine the solution to this question, within the hypothesis that the Pope can be an heretic."(4)
The great Jesuit theologian, Francisco de Suarez (1548-1617) was also sure that God’s "sweet providence" would never allow the one who could not teach error to fall into error, and that this was guaranteed by the promise Ego autem rogavi pro te . . . (Luke 22: 32). But, like Bellarmine, Suarez was willing to consider the possibility of an heretical pope as an hypothesis, particularly in view of the fact, he claimed, that several "general councils had admitted the hypothesis in question".(5) Saint Alphonsus Liguori (1696-1787) did not believe that God would ever permit a Roman Pontiff to become a public or an occult heretic, even as a private person: "We ought rightly to presume as Cardinal Bellarmine declares, that God will never let it happen that a Roman Pontiff, even as a private person, becomes a public heretic or an occult heretic."(6)
If, per impossible, a pope became a formal heretic through pertinaciously denying a de fide doctrine, how would the faithful know that he had forfeited his office as he had ceased to be a Catholic? It must be remembered that no one in the Church, including a General Council, has the authority to judge the Popes. Reputable authorities teach that if a pope did pertinaciously deny a truth which must be believed by divine and Catholic faith, after this had been brought to his attention by responsible members of the hierarchy (just as St. Paul reproved St. Peter to his face), a General Council could announce to the Church that the Pope, as a notorious heretic, had ceased to be a Catholic and hence had ceased to be Pope. It is important to note that the Council would neither be judging nor deposing the Pope, since it would not possess the authority for such an act. It would simply be making a declaratory sentence, i.e. declaring to the Church what had already become manifest from the Pope’s own actions. This is the view taken in the classic manual on Canon Law by Father F.X. Wernz, Rector of the Gregorian University and Jesuit General from 1906 to 1914. This work was revised by Father P. Vidal and was last republished in 1952. It states clearly that an heretical Pope is not deposed in virtue of the sentence of the Council, but "the General Council declares the fact of the crime by which the heretical pope has separated himself from the Church and deprived himself of his dignity."(7) Other authorities believe that such a declaration could come from the College of Cardinals or from a representative group of bishop, while others maintain that such a declaration would not be necessary. What all those who accept the hypothesis of an heretical pope are agreed upon is that for such a pope to forfeit the papacy his heresy would have to be "manifest", as Saint Robert Bellarmine expressed it, that is notorious and public (notorium et palam divulgata).(8) A notorious offence can be defined as one for which the evidence is so certain that it can in no way be either hidden or excused.(9) A pope who, while not being guilty of formal heresy in the strict sense, has allowed heresy to undermine the Church through compromise, weakness, ambiguous or even gravely imprudent teaching remains Pope, but can be judged by his successors, and condemned as was the case with Honorius I.
2. What is heresy?
There has never been a case of a pope who was undoubtedly a formal heretic, and it is unlikely in the extreme that there ever will be one. This will become evident if some consideration is given to examining precisely what constitutes formal heresy. The Code of Canon Law defines an heretic as one who after baptism, while remaining nominally a Catholic, pertinaciously doubts or denies one of the truths which must be believed by divine and Catholic faith.(10) It teaches us that by divine and Catholic faith must be believed all that is contained in the written word of God or in tradition, that is, the one deposit of faith entrusted to the Church and proposed as divinely revealed either by the solemn Magisterium of the Church or by its Ordinary Universal Magisterium.(11) No teaching is to be considered as dogmatically defined unless this is evidently proved.(12)
A doctrine is de fide divina et catholica only when it has been infallibly declared by the Church to be revealed by God. Hence this term does not apply to doctrines which one knows to have been revealed by God, but which have not been declared by the Church to have been so revealed (de fide divina); nor to those which the Church has infallibly declared, but which she does not present formally as having been revealed (de fide ecclesiastica); nor to those which the Church teaches without exercising her infallible authority upon them. If a doctrine is not de fide divina et catholica, a person is not an heretic for denying or doubting it, though such a denial or doubt may be grave sin.(13)
3. The Conciliar Popes
It should now be apparent that there is no case whatsoever for claiming that any of the conciliar popes have lost their office as a result of heresy. Anyone wishing to dispute this assertion would need to state the doctrines de fide divina et catholica which any of these popes are alleged to have rejected pertinaciously. There is not one instance which comes remotely within this category. The nearest one can come to a formal contradiction between preconciliar and post-conciliar teaching is the subject of religious liberty. It has yet to be shown how they can be reconciled.(14) It is possible that the Magisterium will eventually have to present either a correction or at least a clarification of the teaching of Vatican II on this subject. Neither the pre-conciliar teaching nor that of the Council on religious liberty comes within the category of de fide divina et catholica, and so the question of formal heresy does not arise.
Endnotes
1. Catholic Encyclopedia (New York, 1917), vol. III, p. 217.
2. CE, vol. VII, p. 261.
3. Saint Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice (Milan, 1857), vol. II, chap. 30, p. 420.
4. Ibid., p. 418.
5. F. Suarez, De legibus (Paris, 1856), vol. IV, chap. 7, no. 10, p. 361.
6. Dogmatic Works of St. Alphonsus Maria de Ligouri (Turin, 1848), vol. VIII, p. 720.
7. Wernz-Vidal, Jus Canonicum (Rome, 1942), vol II, p. 518.
8. Ibid., p. 433.
9. Op. cit., note 92, Wernz-Vidal, (Rome, 1937), vol VII, pp. 46-47.
10. Code of Canon Law: Old Code, Canon 1325; New Code, Canon 751.
11. Denzinger, 1792; CCL: Old Code, Canon 1323; New Code, Canon 750.
12. CCL, Old Code, 1323, §3; New Code, 749, §3.
13. T. Bouscaren & A. Ellis, Canon Law, A Text & Commentary (Milwaukee, 1958), p. 724.
14. M. Davies, The Second Vatican Council and Religious Liberty (The Neumann Press, Minnesota, 1992).
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Claims have been made that one or more of the "conciliar popes", that is to say Pope John XXIII and his successors, were heretics and therefore forfeited the papacy. Those who include Pope John Paul II in this category claim that we have no pope and that therefore the Holy See is vacant, sedes vacante, which is why such people are referred to as "sedevacantists". They claim that this poses no theological problem as the Holy See is vacant during the interregnum between pontificates. Some of these interregna have been very long, the longest being a vacancy of two years nine months between the death of Clement IV in 1268 and the election of Gregory X in 1271. In such cases the visibility of the Church is not impaired in any way as the Holy See is administered by the Cardinal Camerlengo until a new pope is elected. The Camerlengo, or Chamberlain of the papal court, administers the properties and revenues of the Holy See, and during a vacancy those of the entire Church. Among his responsibilities during a vacancy are those of verifying the death of the Pope and organizing and directing the conclave.
Thus, even when the Chair of Peter is not occupied, the visible, hierarchical nature of the Church is maintained.(1) Thus the situation during such an interregnum cannot be compared to the situation that the Church would be in if Pope John Paul II is not the legitimately reigning pontiff as there would be no visible source of authority capable of convoking a conclave to elect a new pope.
The theological weakness of sedevacantism is an inadequate concept of the nature of the Church. Without realizing it, they believe in a Church which can fail -- and such a Church is not the Church founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ. The Church that He founded cannot fail, for it is indefectible (i.e. it cannot fail). It will continue to exist until the Second Coming as a visible, hierarchically governed body, teaching the truth and sanctifying its members with indubitably valid sacraments. To state that we have no pope is to claim that the Church is no longer visible and hierarchically governed, which, in effect, means that it has ceased to exist. Catholic theologians accept that a pope could lose his office through heresy, but it would have to be such notorious heresy that no doubt concerning the matter could exist in the minds of the faithful, and a statement that the Pope had deposed himself would need to come from a high level in the Church, most probably a general Council. Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre warned in 1979:
"The visibility of the Church is too necessary to its existence for it to be possible that God would allow that visibility to disappear for decades. The reasoning of those who deny that we have a pope puts the Church into an inextricable situation. Who will tell us who the future pope is to be? How, as there are no cardinals, is he to be chosen? The spirit is a schismatical one. . . And so, far from refusing to pray for the Pope, we redouble our prayers and supplications that the Holy Ghost will grant him the light and strength in his affirmations and defense of the Faith."
Documentation
The question of whether the Holy See is vacant must be considered from three aspects, that is whether a pope could become an heretic and forfeit his office; what constitutes heresy; and whether any of the conciliar popes can be considered to be heretics within the context of this definition.
1. Can a pope forfeit his office through heresy?
The problem which would face the Church if a legitimately reigning pope became an heretic has been discussed in numerous standard works of reference. The solution is provided in the 1913 edition of The Catholic Encyclopedia: "The Pope himself, if notoriously guilty of heresy, would cease to be pope because he would cease to be a member of the Church."(2) Many theologians have discussed the possibility of a pope falling into heresy, and the consensus of their opinion concurs with that of The Catholic Encyclopedia. The Pope must evidently be a Catholic, and if he ceased to be a Catholic he could hardly remain the Vicar of Christ, the head of the Mystical Body. St. Robert Bellarmine taught: "The manifestly heretical pope ceases per se to be pope and head as he ceases per se to be a Christian and member of the Church, and therefore he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the teaching of all the early Fathers."(3) Saint Robert was, of course, discussing a theoretical possibility, and believed that a pope could not become an heretic and thus could not be deposed, but he also acknowledged that the more common opinion was that the pope could become an heretic, and he was thus willing to discuss what would need to be done if, per impossible, this should happen: "This opinion (that the Pope could not become an heretic) is probable and easily defended . . . Nonetheless, in view of the fact that this is not certain, and that the common opinion is the opposite one, it is useful to examine the solution to this question, within the hypothesis that the Pope can be an heretic."(4)
The great Jesuit theologian, Francisco de Suarez (1548-1617) was also sure that God’s "sweet providence" would never allow the one who could not teach error to fall into error, and that this was guaranteed by the promise Ego autem rogavi pro te . . . (Luke 22: 32). But, like Bellarmine, Suarez was willing to consider the possibility of an heretical pope as an hypothesis, particularly in view of the fact, he claimed, that several "general councils had admitted the hypothesis in question".(5) Saint Alphonsus Liguori (1696-1787) did not believe that God would ever permit a Roman Pontiff to become a public or an occult heretic, even as a private person: "We ought rightly to presume as Cardinal Bellarmine declares, that God will never let it happen that a Roman Pontiff, even as a private person, becomes a public heretic or an occult heretic."(6)
If, per impossible, a pope became a formal heretic through pertinaciously denying a de fide doctrine, how would the faithful know that he had forfeited his office as he had ceased to be a Catholic? It must be remembered that no one in the Church, including a General Council, has the authority to judge the Popes. Reputable authorities teach that if a pope did pertinaciously deny a truth which must be believed by divine and Catholic faith, after this had been brought to his attention by responsible members of the hierarchy (just as St. Paul reproved St. Peter to his face), a General Council could announce to the Church that the Pope, as a notorious heretic, had ceased to be a Catholic and hence had ceased to be Pope. It is important to note that the Council would neither be judging nor deposing the Pope, since it would not possess the authority for such an act. It would simply be making a declaratory sentence, i.e. declaring to the Church what had already become manifest from the Pope’s own actions. This is the view taken in the classic manual on Canon Law by Father F.X. Wernz, Rector of the Gregorian University and Jesuit General from 1906 to 1914. This work was revised by Father P. Vidal and was last republished in 1952. It states clearly that an heretical Pope is not deposed in virtue of the sentence of the Council, but "the General Council declares the fact of the crime by which the heretical pope has separated himself from the Church and deprived himself of his dignity."(7) Other authorities believe that such a declaration could come from the College of Cardinals or from a representative group of bishop, while others maintain that such a declaration would not be necessary. What all those who accept the hypothesis of an heretical pope are agreed upon is that for such a pope to forfeit the papacy his heresy would have to be "manifest", as Saint Robert Bellarmine expressed it, that is notorious and public (notorium et palam divulgata).(8) A notorious offence can be defined as one for which the evidence is so certain that it can in no way be either hidden or excused.(9) A pope who, while not being guilty of formal heresy in the strict sense, has allowed heresy to undermine the Church through compromise, weakness, ambiguous or even gravely imprudent teaching remains Pope, but can be judged by his successors, and condemned as was the case with Honorius I.
2. What is heresy?
There has never been a case of a pope who was undoubtedly a formal heretic, and it is unlikely in the extreme that there ever will be one. This will become evident if some consideration is given to examining precisely what constitutes formal heresy. The Code of Canon Law defines an heretic as one who after baptism, while remaining nominally a Catholic, pertinaciously doubts or denies one of the truths which must be believed by divine and Catholic faith.(10) It teaches us that by divine and Catholic faith must be believed all that is contained in the written word of God or in tradition, that is, the one deposit of faith entrusted to the Church and proposed as divinely revealed either by the solemn Magisterium of the Church or by its Ordinary Universal Magisterium.(11) No teaching is to be considered as dogmatically defined unless this is evidently proved.(12)
A doctrine is de fide divina et catholica only when it has been infallibly declared by the Church to be revealed by God. Hence this term does not apply to doctrines which one knows to have been revealed by God, but which have not been declared by the Church to have been so revealed (de fide divina); nor to those which the Church has infallibly declared, but which she does not present formally as having been revealed (de fide ecclesiastica); nor to those which the Church teaches without exercising her infallible authority upon them. If a doctrine is not de fide divina et catholica, a person is not an heretic for denying or doubting it, though such a denial or doubt may be grave sin.(13)
3. The Conciliar Popes
It should now be apparent that there is no case whatsoever for claiming that any of the conciliar popes have lost their office as a result of heresy. Anyone wishing to dispute this assertion would need to state the doctrines de fide divina et catholica which any of these popes are alleged to have rejected pertinaciously. There is not one instance which comes remotely within this category. The nearest one can come to a formal contradiction between preconciliar and post-conciliar teaching is the subject of religious liberty. It has yet to be shown how they can be reconciled.(14) It is possible that the Magisterium will eventually have to present either a correction or at least a clarification of the teaching of Vatican II on this subject. Neither the pre-conciliar teaching nor that of the Council on religious liberty comes within the category of de fide divina et catholica, and so the question of formal heresy does not arise.
Endnotes
1. Catholic Encyclopedia (New York, 1917), vol. III, p. 217.
2. CE, vol. VII, p. 261.
3. Saint Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice (Milan, 1857), vol. II, chap. 30, p. 420.
4. Ibid., p. 418.
5. F. Suarez, De legibus (Paris, 1856), vol. IV, chap. 7, no. 10, p. 361.
6. Dogmatic Works of St. Alphonsus Maria de Ligouri (Turin, 1848), vol. VIII, p. 720.
7. Wernz-Vidal, Jus Canonicum (Rome, 1942), vol II, p. 518.
8. Ibid., p. 433.
9. Op. cit., note 92, Wernz-Vidal, (Rome, 1937), vol VII, pp. 46-47.
10. Code of Canon Law: Old Code, Canon 1325; New Code, Canon 751.
11. Denzinger, 1792; CCL: Old Code, Canon 1323; New Code, Canon 750.
12. CCL, Old Code, 1323, §3; New Code, 749, §3.
13. T. Bouscaren & A. Ellis, Canon Law, A Text & Commentary (Milwaukee, 1958), p. 724.
14. M. Davies, The Second Vatican Council and Religious Liberty (The Neumann Press, Minnesota, 1992).
Friday, April 24, 2009
Blue Jell-O and Whipped Cream
"The sky is blue. It also has white areas."
Therefore, I can safely say that the sky is made of blue Jell-O, and also has whipped cream on it.
Now, I challenge anyone to prove me wrong. You are not allowed to use any outside information. The only information you can use is the above quoted statement.
The above quoted statement is completely accurate. It is not misleading in any way, nor is it ambiguous. It is 100% true.
Simply put, you can not prove me wrong with just that information. It's impossible. However, you can propose an alternate interpretation.
For example, you could propose "The sky is therefore made of blueberry ice cream swirled with vanilla ice cream."
And this would also be 100% accurate, given only the above quotation. However, now we come to a conflict, as the sky can not be made of "blue Jell-O and whipped cream" if it is made of "blueberry ice cream swirled with vanilla ice cream".
Let us examine something more relevant to Vatican II and Sedevacantists, or any who oppose Vatican II for that matter.
The Sedevacantist will provide...
Second Council of Constantinople, can. 10, 553 AD: “If anyone does not
confess his belief that our lord Jesus Christ, who was crucified in his
human flesh, is truly God and the Lord of glory and one of the members
of the holy Trinity: let him be anathema (cursed).”
Now, let us examine this statement, as a Sedevacantist would...
Jews, as a whole, do not accept Jesus Christ as the Son of God, or as God. Therefore, Jews, as a whole, are accursed.
Can I prove this statement wrong? No. Given what he has provided, he is
100% accurate, and his statement can not be refuted. Much like my
statement above, where one can not refute my reasoning on the sky, given
the provided info.
I could provide an alternate interpretation though.
All mankind who believes Jesus Christ is truly God, but never is given opportunity to confess the following statement "our lord Jesus Christ, who was crucified in his human flesh, is truly God and the Lord of glory and one of the members of the holy Trinity", let them be anathema.
Or...
Children to young to understand who do not confess "our lord Jesus Christ, who was crucified in his human flesh, is truly God and the Lord of glory and one of the members of the holy Trinity" are cursed.
All statements can be seen as accurate, given what we have been provided.
How do we settle disputes? I could say that, though the above statement provided by the sedevacantist is possibly correct, my statement is what was actually meant by the council. Clearly, more information from a valid source is needed to determine who is on the right track.
Intelligent interpretation requires many things. First off, it requires
careful examination. Secondly, it requires sufficient information. We
also need to be prepared to accept our reasoning was incorrect when
shown that we have not fully examined, nor accepted valid information.
Careful examination consists of several things. First, is the source
reliable? The information you are examining, is it accurate? Is it
complete? Does it contain subtle changes or special formatting to lead
you to believe something other than what is said? Does it paraphrase?
Does it insert inaccurate interpretation?
If possible, read the information in it's original context. Find an
approved source, and than, double check the source, which is approved,
is accurate. In this case, one can not be too thorough.
Sufficient information. Perhaps the most difficult part. You can never
have too much information, however, for each piece of information, you
need, again, careful examination. Therefore, the more information you
gather, the more examination required, the more time consumed. For
people truly diligent and interested, this usually raises no issue.
Willing to change. No one is impartial, it is an impossibility. We all
have our biases, and we will, depending on the circumstances, view our
information and interpret things in favor of our bias. The best we can
do is keep an open mind as much as possible, with a willingness to
adjust our opinion if we feel we can not adequately respond or address
information provided, or a dedication to continue our research and
obtain the knowledge so we can adequately respond.
Ultimately, it is impossible to completely refute or 'prove' anything.
Jesus Christ did not prove, beyond a doubt, to certain people he was the
Son of God. I believe he is, there is enough proof for me, but those who
do not are a perfect example of people who have not gathered
information, carefully examined and thrown aside their personal bias.
And it follows, one can not completely refute a sedevacantist. It is an
impossibility, just as one can not completely refute a novus ordite.
Each side has a valid information, has carefully examined, and, I
believe, been willing to change (though this would a personal choice,
and I can attest to myself, but not others). The only factor left to
decide is a valid authority, and according to one side, it does not
exist, and the other side, it is the Vicar of Christ.
“Reason and faith cannot be separated without diminishing the capacity
of men and women to know themselves, the world and God in an appropriate
way.” - Pope John Paul II
Let us not abandon our faith in the Lord to maintain his Church because
our reason says it must be so. We should fully examine everything, and
not just that which we see.
I may say that "I hate Pancakes", which is true, but it is also true
that "I love Pancakes with Maple Syrup.
“Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to
the contemplation of truth; and God has placed in the human heart a
desire to know the truth - in a word, to know himself - so that, by
knowing and loving God, men and women may also come to the fullness of
truth about themselves.” - Pope John Paul II
Therefore, I can safely say that the sky is made of blue Jell-O, and also has whipped cream on it.
Now, I challenge anyone to prove me wrong. You are not allowed to use any outside information. The only information you can use is the above quoted statement.
The above quoted statement is completely accurate. It is not misleading in any way, nor is it ambiguous. It is 100% true.
Simply put, you can not prove me wrong with just that information. It's impossible. However, you can propose an alternate interpretation.
For example, you could propose "The sky is therefore made of blueberry ice cream swirled with vanilla ice cream."
And this would also be 100% accurate, given only the above quotation. However, now we come to a conflict, as the sky can not be made of "blue Jell-O and whipped cream" if it is made of "blueberry ice cream swirled with vanilla ice cream".
Let us examine something more relevant to Vatican II and Sedevacantists, or any who oppose Vatican II for that matter.
The Sedevacantist will provide...
Second Council of Constantinople, can. 10, 553 AD: “If anyone does not
confess his belief that our lord Jesus Christ, who was crucified in his
human flesh, is truly God and the Lord of glory and one of the members
of the holy Trinity: let him be anathema (cursed).”
Now, let us examine this statement, as a Sedevacantist would...
Jews, as a whole, do not accept Jesus Christ as the Son of God, or as God. Therefore, Jews, as a whole, are accursed.
Can I prove this statement wrong? No. Given what he has provided, he is
100% accurate, and his statement can not be refuted. Much like my
statement above, where one can not refute my reasoning on the sky, given
the provided info.
I could provide an alternate interpretation though.
All mankind who believes Jesus Christ is truly God, but never is given opportunity to confess the following statement "our lord Jesus Christ, who was crucified in his human flesh, is truly God and the Lord of glory and one of the members of the holy Trinity", let them be anathema.
Or...
Children to young to understand who do not confess "our lord Jesus Christ, who was crucified in his human flesh, is truly God and the Lord of glory and one of the members of the holy Trinity" are cursed.
All statements can be seen as accurate, given what we have been provided.
How do we settle disputes? I could say that, though the above statement provided by the sedevacantist is possibly correct, my statement is what was actually meant by the council. Clearly, more information from a valid source is needed to determine who is on the right track.
Intelligent interpretation requires many things. First off, it requires
careful examination. Secondly, it requires sufficient information. We
also need to be prepared to accept our reasoning was incorrect when
shown that we have not fully examined, nor accepted valid information.
Careful examination consists of several things. First, is the source
reliable? The information you are examining, is it accurate? Is it
complete? Does it contain subtle changes or special formatting to lead
you to believe something other than what is said? Does it paraphrase?
Does it insert inaccurate interpretation?
If possible, read the information in it's original context. Find an
approved source, and than, double check the source, which is approved,
is accurate. In this case, one can not be too thorough.
Sufficient information. Perhaps the most difficult part. You can never
have too much information, however, for each piece of information, you
need, again, careful examination. Therefore, the more information you
gather, the more examination required, the more time consumed. For
people truly diligent and interested, this usually raises no issue.
Willing to change. No one is impartial, it is an impossibility. We all
have our biases, and we will, depending on the circumstances, view our
information and interpret things in favor of our bias. The best we can
do is keep an open mind as much as possible, with a willingness to
adjust our opinion if we feel we can not adequately respond or address
information provided, or a dedication to continue our research and
obtain the knowledge so we can adequately respond.
Ultimately, it is impossible to completely refute or 'prove' anything.
Jesus Christ did not prove, beyond a doubt, to certain people he was the
Son of God. I believe he is, there is enough proof for me, but those who
do not are a perfect example of people who have not gathered
information, carefully examined and thrown aside their personal bias.
And it follows, one can not completely refute a sedevacantist. It is an
impossibility, just as one can not completely refute a novus ordite.
Each side has a valid information, has carefully examined, and, I
believe, been willing to change (though this would a personal choice,
and I can attest to myself, but not others). The only factor left to
decide is a valid authority, and according to one side, it does not
exist, and the other side, it is the Vicar of Christ.
“Reason and faith cannot be separated without diminishing the capacity
of men and women to know themselves, the world and God in an appropriate
way.” - Pope John Paul II
Let us not abandon our faith in the Lord to maintain his Church because
our reason says it must be so. We should fully examine everything, and
not just that which we see.
I may say that "I hate Pancakes", which is true, but it is also true
that "I love Pancakes with Maple Syrup.
“Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to
the contemplation of truth; and God has placed in the human heart a
desire to know the truth - in a word, to know himself - so that, by
knowing and loving God, men and women may also come to the fullness of
truth about themselves.” - Pope John Paul II
Thursday, April 9, 2009
The Major Heresies (Revisited) (Part 2)
The Major Heresies of the Novus Ordo Sect, as Taught by the Apostate Second
with some modification
The Novus Ordo sect officially teaches that Jews are not rejected by God, denies that the Scriptures clearly indicate that they are cursed.
Antipope Giovanni “Paul VI” Montini, Second Vatican Council, Nostrae Aetate, 1965: “Although the Church is the new people of God, the Jews should not be presented as rejected or accursed by God, as if this followed from the Holy Scriptures.”
Note: If you read this in context with the rest of Nostra Aetate, you will see that Vatican II condemns the social mistreating of Jews(Anti-Semitism, Holocaust, etc). Certainly, all who do not recognize the Catholic religion and Jesus Christ are accursed, but this give's us no right to socially treat them as such.
The Catholic Church teaches that Jews are rejected by God, and that Scripture teaches they are cursed.
Perhaps the most laughable proof provided in this document. All of that which is provided is not pointed solely at the Jews at all, save for one papal quote.
St. Matthew 10:33 But he that shall deny me before men, I will also deny before my Father who is in heaven.
Applies to any who shall deny Jesus Christ, not just the Jews.
1 Corinthians 16:22 If any man love not our Lord Jesus Christ, let him be anathema (cursed)…
Applies to any who do not love Jesus Christ, not just the Jews.
St. Matthew 27:25 And the whole people answering, said: His blood be upon us and our children.
Why does this apply to the entirety of the Jewish people, and not just those who were present and condemned our Lord? Clearly the entirety of Judaism was not present at this gathering
Second Council of Constantinople, can. 10, 553 AD: “If anyone does not confess his belief that our lord Jesus Christ, who was crucified in his human flesh, is truly God and the Lord of glory and one of the members of the holy Trinity: let him be anathema (cursed).”
Again, does not apply solely to the Jews, but to any who does not confess the above.
Pope Clement VIII, 1605: “The Bible itself says that the Jews are an accursed people.”
First off, this is not infallible, if we are to use the sedevecantist theology against themselves. We can not 'assume' it is an infallible statement. When we 'assume', it makes an ass out of u and me. Unless otherwise proven, we should take this as personal papal opinion, and not infallible doctrine. It could easily be addressed if it was infallible, however.
For example, is he speaking of the Jews who make a firm stance in defense of Judaism, Jews who are ignorant of the gospel, Jews who are still children and lack sufficient reason to understand? Jews in a social or religious aspect? Even if this is infallible, it does not in any way address those ignorant through no fault of there own (though I myself doubt very few invincibly ignorant Jews exist.).
1 Thessalonians 2:14 For you, brethren, are become followers of the churches of God which are in Judea, in Christ Jesus: for you also have suffered the same things from your own coutrymen, even as they have from the Jews, 15 Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and the prophets, and have persecuted us, and please not God, and are adversaries to all men;
I please not God when I throw my McDonalds Happy Meal bag out the side of my car window, and show disrespect to the earth He created. This does not mean I am accursed. It means I have sinned.
The Novus Ordo sect officially teaches that the god of the Mohammedans, who is not the Triune God, is the one true God.
Antipope Giovanni “Paul VI” Montini, Second Vatican Council, Nostrae Aetate, 1965: “The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all- powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth…”
The Catholic Church teaches that the One True God is the Holy Trinity and that anyone who denies the Holy Trinity denies God.
1 St. John 2:22 Who is a liar, but he who denieth that Jesus is the Christ? This is Antichrist, who denieth the Father, and the Son. 23 Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father.”
Athanasian Creed: “And the Catholic Faith is this, that we worship one God in Trinity and Trinity in Unity…So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet they are not Three Gods, but One God…the whole Three Persons are Co-eternal together, and Co-equal.”
Pope Sixtus III, Council of Ephesus, 431 AD: “If anyone dares to say that Christ was a God-bearing man and not rather God in truth…let him be anathema.”
Pope St. Leo IX, Congratulamur Vehementer, 1053: “For I firmly believe that the Holy Trinity, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, is one omnipotent God, and in the Trinity the whole Godhead is co-essential and consubstantial, co-eternal and co-omnipotent, all things, through whom all things, in whom all things [Rom. 11:36] which are in heaven or on earth, visible or invisible. Likewise I believe that each person in the Holy Trinity is the one true God, complete and perfect.”
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Cantate Domino, 1442: “First, then, the holy Roman church, founded on the words of our Lord and Saviour, firmly believes, professes and preaches one true God, almighty, immutable and eternal, Father, Son and holy Spirit…Most firmly it believes, professes and preaches that the one true God, Father, Son and holy Spirit, is the creator of all things that are, visible and invisible…It professes that one and the same God is the author of the old and the new Testament…since the saints of both testaments spoke under the inspiration of the same Spirit.”
Exodus 20:2 I am the Lord thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. 3 Thou shalt not have strange gods before me.
None of these directly address Islam. They all address the Trinity and Jesus' full divinity. The quote below does directly address Islam. Take note the date. Clearly, this has been a teaching in the Church for quite some time, or Pope Gregory spouted his heresy quite plainly.
‘Almighty God, who wishes that all should be saved and none lost, approves nothing in so much as that after loving Him one should love his fellow man, and that one should not do to others, what one does not want done to oneself. You and we owe this charity to ourselves especially because we believe in and confess one God, admittedly, in a different way, and daily praise and venerate him, the creator of the world and ruler of this world.’ Pope Gregory VII, letter to Al-Nasir, the Muslim Ruler of Bijaya, present day Algeria., circa 1076.
I would also suggest reading the following article, which explains it in a biblical sense, which, I feel, is an adequate explanation for the bible verses provided.
http://the-supplement.blogspot.com/2008/03/observations-for-those-who-deny-that.html
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
The Major Heresies (Revisited)
The Major Heresies of the Novus Ordo Sect, as Taught by the Apostate Second
with some modification
The Novus Ordo sect officially teaches religious liberty.
Antipope Giovanni “Paul VI” Montini, Second Vatican Council, Dignitatis Humanae, 1965: “This Vatican Council declares that everyone has the right to religious LIBERTY…The council further declares that the right to religious freedom has its foundation in the very dignity of the human person as this dignity is known through the revealed word of God and by reason itself.”
I have bolded, capitalized, and underlined the word liberty because this has been changed from the original. Most likely in an attempt to prove a point. You will find this quote no where else on the internet with the word liberty.
*****(Note: At this point, the source article has been changed since I brought this to the attention of the source. The Author has recognized his error on this part, and revised the word Liberty to Freedom.) *****
The quote in it's entirety...
This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits.
The council further declares that the right to religious freedom has its foundation in the very dignity of the human person as this dignity is known through the revealed word of God and by reason itself.(2)
2. Cf. John XXIII, encycL "Pacem in Terris", April 11, 1963: AAS 55 (1963), pp. 260-261; Pius XII, radio message, Dec. 24, 1942: AAS 35 (1943), p. 19; Pius XI, encycl. "Mit Brennender Sorge", March 14, 1937: AAS 29 (1937), p. 160; Leo XIII, encycl. "Libertas Praestantissimum", June 20, 1888: Acts of Leo XIII 8 (1888), p. 237-238.
Here, Vatican II clearly explains what it means by religious freedom, which in no way contradicts that which has been taught by the Catholic Church. Let's examine the quotes provided
The Catholic Church condemns religious liberty.
False. No where will you find a quote stating such. You will find quotes which 'seemingly' prove it, but only when taken out of context and applied to a scenario they were never meant to be applied to.
According to Syllabus Errorum, the Catholic Church condemns INDIFFERENTISM (indifferentism is a condemned heresy that holds that one religion is as good as another, and that all religions are equally valid paths to salvation.), and LATITUDINARIANISM (the belief that, while Christianity generally is superior to other faiths, it makes no difference which of the several Christian denominations the believer chooses to join. Catholicism condemns Protestantism specifically for this sort of indifferentism, noting that many Protestant denominations do not claim that they exclusively possess the truth of the Christian gospel, and that various forms of worship may be equally pleasing to God: a latitudinarian position.)
Pope Pius IX, Syllabus Errorum, 1864: “Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true.” -- CONDEMNED
Pope Leo XIII in Immortale Dei (November 1, 1885) taught:
“The Church is wont to take earnest heed that no one shall be forced to embrace the Catholic Faith against his will, for, as
Let us reconcile this encyclical with Syllabus Errorum.
Again, unless Leo was heretical in this Encyclical, we can see the continuous teaching of the catholic church, man does not have the right in a 'spiritual' sense to choose a faith contrary to Catholicism, however, man does have the right to choose, in a 'physical' sense, what he is to believe.
Pope Pius IX, Syllabus Errorum, 1864: “In the present day it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship.” -- CONDEMNED
This in no way applies to religious liberty whatsoever. Is it expedient (suitable) that the catholic religion should be held as the only religion? Certainly! It alone contains the full truth! Is it possible? Only if the state is not forced to do so, as 'Man cannot believe otherwise than of his own free will."
In Etsi Multa, state and church are clearly distinguished as separate entities. Pius wrote...
"...Nevertheless the faith teaches and human reason demonstrates that there is a twofold order of things. Two kinds of powers must be distinguished on earth-one natural that looks to the tranquility and secular business of human society; the other, whose origin is above nature, which is in charge of the Church of Christ, divinely instituted for the salvation and peace of souls."
Pope Pius IX, Syllabus Errorum, 1864: “The Church ought to be separated from the State, and the State from the Church.” -- CONDEMNED
Again, not condemned because the State and the Church should be a singular unit, but the state should rely on the Church for her social teaching and truth. For, how would the state know what Truth is, without the Church, where all truth is given from?
Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos, 1832: "This shameful font of indifferentism gives rise to that absurd and erroneous proposition which claims that liberty of conscience must be maintained for everyone."
Comment Provided by http://the-hermeneutic-of-continuity.blogspot.com/2009/02/hermeneutic-of-continuity-and-freedom.html
So how can we reconcile such coercion with Vatican II? Clearly we must read Vatican II in the light of tradition, interpret it in accord with the constant teaching of the Church: we must apply the "hermeneutic of continuity."
In fact, we can find some hints even in Dignitatis Humanae itself to support such a reading. Earlier on, the Declaration affirmed that:
On their part, all men are bound to seek the truth, especially in what concerns God and His Church, and to embrace the truth they come to know, and to hold fast to it. (n.1)
This principle is prior to the principle of freedom of conscience. A further restraint on liberty of conscience is provided by the test of "public order." Speaking of religious freedom (although the principle also applies to freedom of conscience) Dignitatis Humanae says that a person should have immunity from coercion but adds an important proviso:
In consequence, the right to this immunity continues to exist even in those who do not live up to their obligation of seeking the truth and adhering to it and the exercise of this right is not to be impeded, provided that just public order be observed. (n.2 - my empahsis)
In some states, denial of the holocaust is a criminal offence - the state intervenes for the sake of the public order to prevent the encouragement of neo-nazism. Such states recognise that liberty of conscience has its limits. Most people also think that the truth about the holocaust is an important matter - whether or not holocaust denial is punishable in civil law. As far as the holocaust is concerned, "error has no rights" and the world concords with Blessed Pope Pius IX in seeing the absolute liberty of conscience as an insanity.
Indeed the world's press agrees with Pope Gregory XVI in being horrified at the "monstrous doctrines and prodigious errors" that are proclaimed when the liberty of conscience is unrestrained by the obligation of seeking the truth and the duty to preserve public order and recognises that the idea that liberty of conscience should be proclaimed for everyone is "an absurd and erroneous proposition."
The media furore over Bishop Williamson thus neatly demonstrates that it is perfectly reasonable to interpret Dignitatis Humanae in the light of Mirari Vos and Quanta Cura.
Pope Pius VII, Post Tam Diuturnas, 1814: “But a much more grave, and indeed very bitter, sorrow increased in Our heart - a sorrow by which We confess that We were crushed, overwhelmed and torn in two - from the twenty-second article of the constitution in which We saw, not only that "liberty of religion and of conscience" (to use the same words found in the article) were permitted by the force of the constitution, but also that assistance and patronage were promised both to this liberty and also to the ministers of these different forms of "religion". There is certainly no need of many words, in addressing you, to make you fully recognize by how lethal a wound the Catholic religion in
What is the wound struck by this article? It is not "liberty of religion and of conscience", but rather "For when the liberty of all "religions" is indiscriminately asserted, by this very fact truth is confounded with error and the holy and immaculate Spouse of Christ, the Church, outside of which there can be no salvation, is set on a par with the sects of heretics and with Judaic perfidy itself. For when favour and patronage is promised even to the sects of heretics and their ministers, not only their persons, but also their very errors, are tolerated and fostered: a system of errors in which is contained that fatal and never sufficiently to be deplored heresy which, as St. Augustine says (de Haeresibus, no.72), "asserts that all heretics proceed correctly and tell the truth: which is so absurd that it seems incredible to me."
The error is not liberty of religion and of conscience. The error is that all religions are on par with Catholicism. Again, the error is indifferentism.
The Novus Ordo sect officially teaches collegiality.
Antipope Giovanni “Paul VI” Montini, Second Vatican Council, Lumen Gentium, 1964: “The order of bishops, which succeeds to the college of apostles and gives this apostolic body continued existence, is also the subject of supreme and full power over the universal Church, provided we understand this body together with its head the Roman Pontiff and never without this head.”
Key part left out. Just prior to the quote provided, we read...
"But the college or body of bishops has no authority unless it is understood together with the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter as its head. The pope's power of primacy over all, both pastors and faithful, remains whole and intact. In virtue of his office, that is as Vicar of Christ and pastor of the whole Church, the Roman Pontiff has full, supreme and universal power over the Church. And he is always free to exercise this power."
Vatican II does not teach collegiality, as is clearly demonstrated above. There is no need to address the proof provided, as Lumen Gentium clearly shows on it's own it is no official teaching on collegiality.
(To Be Continued)
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Chesterton was no fool...
If you argue with a madman, it is extremely probable that you will get the worst of it; for in many ways his mind moves all the quicker for not being delayed by the things that go with good judgment. He is not hampered by a sense of humor or by charity, or by the dumb certainties of experience. He is the more logical for losing sane affections. Indeed, the common phrase for insanity is in this respect a misleading one. The madman is not the man who has lost his reason. The madman is the man who has lost everything except his reason.
-G.K. Chesterton
-G.K. Chesterton
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Baptism of Desire/Blood and Trent
I in no way fancy myself a theologian of any kind. Most of what I provide is, what I would like to believe, common sense mixed with a bit of religious thought. True theology and the likes should be left with those who have pursued that goal for many, many years.
That being said, I still feel that I have a duty to defend the Catholic faith as best as I can. So it is that I will continue to write, and provide what I feel demonstrates a consistent truth, held pre and post Vatican II.
WillingCatholicMartyr was kind enough to have addressed my last post on Dogma. I encourage those with an interest to read his article fully. I will not reproduce the entirety of his article to refute, so to fully understand, it would be best to read what he has wrote on his blog. I will use parts of his article to clarify within my own.
First, we have WCM admitting that certain controversies may arise that need Papal intervention. Curiously, Baptism of Blood or Desire (BoB/BoD) do not fall into that category. As we continue, we will see how WCM attempts to prove that the popes have already infallibly settled the subject, but I will show how, rather than infallibly condemning the theological position, they do not address it at all.
Originally, I commented that sedevecantists hold a certain 'double standard'. If they are to support what they believe with quotes from infallible councils and documents, saints, and church fathers, they have every right to do so. However, if, in Vatican II's defense, the catholic is to do the same thing, they are condemned as heretical, based upon an individual assessment of which interpretation is accurate.
At this, WCM accuses me of 'double speak'. I encourage you to read the article previous, and judge yourself if I have double spoke. I said plainly what happens. Let us see if WCM does just as I say he would, defending with his infallible position against what I have defended infallibly previously.
WCM states quite plainly here I am ignoring papal authority. Yet, the entire sedevecantist position rests upon infallible documents which they interpret, not in light of papal authority, but with their own power and understanding. The pope is the final authority, UNLESS the sedevecantist deems what has been spoken to be a contradiction, and henceforth, THEY become the final authority.
As we continue, we'll see if WCM can bring any clarity to this situation. I will provide portions of his article, with my questions and answers located directly within the body.
(First point of hypocrisy. This Canon is an infallible source. The traditionalist, as I stated earlier, and was thusly condemned of 'double speak' for pointing out, will now use another infallible document to prove that the typical interpretation, (desire is sufficient in certain circumstances), is false.)
(This is the second infallible text provided to prove that desire alone cannot be sufficient. This text does not even mention desire, yet it is assumed that it condemns the idea that desire is sufficient. Now, my understanding of English could be quite poor, but I believe it in no way denies BoB and BoD.
Furthermore, why would the canon specifically point out that true and natural water was necessary, and not the Holy Ghost? Let's look at a practical example:
If any one saith, that true and natural water and the Holy Spirit are not of necessity for baptism, and, on that account, wrests, to some sort of lie, those words of our Lord Jesus Christ; Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost (St. John 3:5, added); let him be anathema.
To say that water and the Holy Spirit are not necessary would be to outright deny the words of our Lord, but would not be to take them metaphorically. Yet, the council did not word it like this. They specifically spoke of water. Had the council wanted to stick to an entirely literal interpretation of our Lords words, why not decree...
If any man attempts to deny those words of our Lord Jesus Christ; Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, , (St. John 3:5, added); and state that both water and the Holy Ghost are not necessary, let him be anathema
This metaphor that the Canon is addressing could be principally addressed in the following when referred to true and natural water:
“... Besides, the Word is the principal part of baptism. If in an emergency there’s no water at hand, it doesn’t matter whether water or beer is used.” ~ Martin Luther
Note that Trent was convened to address the growing protestant heresy. It makes more sense from a literary (and historical, quotes available upon request) standpoint to approach the Canon from this angle But, WCM will hold firm to his belief, despite what the English language, Church history, and the Popes, (whom he claims invalid), declare. Under the sedevecantist theology: If we personally cannot agree, simply declare them anti-popes and create our own church.)
(WCM dodges the question almost completely, diverting our attention to the necessity of Baptism. The argument is not whether baptism is necessary for salvation. The argument is whether water baptism is necessary. This does not address BoB/BoD in any way, as they would provide the sacramental effect of Baptism by Water. Thomas Aquinas' Summa explains quite clearly as much. And although not infallible, it has yet to be condemned after 700 years of valid popes. )
(The English language has many words, and metaphor is a very poor word to use to plainly state what you are stating.
met⋅a⋅phor /ˈmɛtəˌfɔr, -fər/ –noun 1.
a figure of speech in which a term or phrase is applied to something to which it is not literally applicable in order to suggest a resemblance, as in “A mighty fortress is our God.” Compare mixed metaphor, simile (def. 1).
2. something used, or regarded as being used, to represent something else; emblem; symbol. (In this case, water and beer.)
To support the meaning WCM deduces from the text, the council would have used a more appropriate word, such as...
lie /laɪ/ –noun 1.
a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.
2. something intended or serving to convey a false impression; imposture: His flashy car was a lie that deceived no one.
3. an inaccurate or false statement.
4. the charge or accusation of lying: He flung the lie back at his accusers. –verb (used without object)
5. to speak falsely or utter untruth knowingly, as with intent to deceive.
6. to express what is false; convey a false impression. –verb (used with object)
7. to bring about or affect by lying (often used reflexively): to lie oneself out of a difficulty; accustomed to lying his way out of difficulties. —Idioms
8. give the lie to, a. to accuse of lying; contradict. b. to prove or imply the falsity of; belie: His poor work gives the lie to his claims of experience.
9. lie in one's throat or teeth, to lie grossly or maliciously: If she told you exactly the opposite of what she told me, she must be lying in her teeth. Also, lie through one's teeth.
What WCM provides as the conclusion of the prior two quotes is a ridiculous stretch. The two provided articles do NOTHING to deter the belief of Baptism of Blood or Desire. Only if we are to understand it as supplied by WCM, is it detrimental to the BoB/BoD theology. As I have pointed out, had the council intended to quash BoB/BoD unequivocally, it would have done so, and with no ambiguity, as this theology was not a new concept.)
(The 'laver of regeneration' is sacramental baptism. I do not think WCM would dispute that. Now, let us examine ...
To receive the scarament of baptism, desire is necessary. To receive the 'laver of regeneration', desire is necessary (except in the case of children, or adults without the mental faculties). I do not dispute that. But, that being said, when Trent proclaims ".. without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof,..." we must assume the Trent is making explicit mention to the necessity of desire only, while ignoring what else is necessary for a valid baptism. Like true and natural water, the trinitarian formula, etc, etc. What WCM is stating would mean that, to be more accurate, the quote would appear more like this...
By which words, a description of the Justification of the impious is indicated,-as being a translation, from that state wherein man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace, and of the adoption of the sons of God, through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Saviour. And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, not withholding true and natural water, nor the trinitarian formula, as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.
Trent does not need to make these declarations for the simple reason that, for a valid Baptism, all those things are necessary, and folded in. And Trent is stating that a valid baptism, which would need all of those things, or the desire for a valid baptism, is sufficient.)
I will continue to address the rest of the article as time permits. Though the bulk of what needed to be clarified is done so here.
That being said, I still feel that I have a duty to defend the Catholic faith as best as I can. So it is that I will continue to write, and provide what I feel demonstrates a consistent truth, held pre and post Vatican II.
WillingCatholicMartyr was kind enough to have addressed my last post on Dogma. I encourage those with an interest to read his article fully. I will not reproduce the entirety of his article to refute, so to fully understand, it would be best to read what he has wrote on his blog. I will use parts of his article to clarify within my own.
I answer that dogmas which are to be believed are truths of the faith that have been divinely revealed through Scripture and Tradition, and which the sovereign Pontiffs have infallibly defined. It is these definitions that are irreformable and dogmatic. The truth is no less the truth before it's definition, however there may arise certain controversies that cannot be readily resolved without Papal intervention.
First, we have WCM admitting that certain controversies may arise that need Papal intervention. Curiously, Baptism of Blood or Desire (BoB/BoD) do not fall into that category. As we continue, we will see how WCM attempts to prove that the popes have already infallibly settled the subject, but I will show how, rather than infallibly condemning the theological position, they do not address it at all.
Originally, I commented that sedevecantists hold a certain 'double standard'. If they are to support what they believe with quotes from infallible councils and documents, saints, and church fathers, they have every right to do so. However, if, in Vatican II's defense, the catholic is to do the same thing, they are condemned as heretical, based upon an individual assessment of which interpretation is accurate.
At this, WCM accuses me of 'double speak'. I encourage you to read the article previous, and judge yourself if I have double spoke. I said plainly what happens. Let us see if WCM does just as I say he would, defending with his infallible position against what I have defended infallibly previously.
I answer that you have yet again spoken out of both sides of your mouth. You realize that the Popes, speaking in their infallible teaching capacity, are the FINAL authority, and thus the declarations they make in this regard are indeed infallible, yet you still refuse to connect the dots
WCM states quite plainly here I am ignoring papal authority. Yet, the entire sedevecantist position rests upon infallible documents which they interpret, not in light of papal authority, but with their own power and understanding. The pope is the final authority, UNLESS the sedevecantist deems what has been spoken to be a contradiction, and henceforth, THEY become the final authority.
As we continue, we'll see if WCM can bring any clarity to this situation. I will provide portions of his article, with my questions and answers located directly within the body.
The dogma regarding Baptism of water
Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Session CANON IV.-If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous; and that, without them, or without the desire thereof, men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification;-though all (the sacraments) are not indeed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema.
Oh he said desire! Baptism of desire is allowed!!! Sorry, but this is not possible, as we will see.
Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Session CANON IV.-If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous; and that, without them, or without the desire thereof, men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification;-though all (the sacraments) are not indeed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema.
Oh he said desire! Baptism of desire is allowed!!! Sorry, but this is not possible, as we will see.
(First point of hypocrisy. This Canon is an infallible source. The traditionalist, as I stated earlier, and was thusly condemned of 'double speak' for pointing out, will now use another infallible document to prove that the typical interpretation, (desire is sufficient in certain circumstances), is false.)
Council of Trent, Canons 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 (St. John 3:5, added); let him be anathema.
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 (St. John 3:5, added); let him be anathema.
(This is the second infallible text provided to prove that desire alone cannot be sufficient. This text does not even mention desire, yet it is assumed that it condemns the idea that desire is sufficient. Now, my understanding of English could be quite poor, but I believe it in no way denies BoB and BoD.
Furthermore, why would the canon specifically point out that true and natural water was necessary, and not the Holy Ghost? Let's look at a practical example:
If any one saith, that true and natural water and the Holy Spirit are not of necessity for baptism, and, on that account, wrests, to some sort of lie, those words of our Lord Jesus Christ; Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost (St. John 3:5, added); let him be anathema.
To say that water and the Holy Spirit are not necessary would be to outright deny the words of our Lord, but would not be to take them metaphorically. Yet, the council did not word it like this. They specifically spoke of water. Had the council wanted to stick to an entirely literal interpretation of our Lords words, why not decree...
If any man attempts to deny those words of our Lord Jesus Christ; Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, , (St. John 3:5, added); and state that both water and the Holy Ghost are not necessary, let him be anathema
This metaphor that the Canon is addressing could be principally addressed in the following when referred to true and natural water:
“... Besides, the Word is the principal part of baptism. If in an emergency there’s no water at hand, it doesn’t matter whether water or beer is used.” ~ Martin Luther
Note that Trent was convened to address the growing protestant heresy. It makes more sense from a literary (and historical, quotes available upon request) standpoint to approach the Canon from this angle But, WCM will hold firm to his belief, despite what the English language, Church history, and the Popes, (whom he claims invalid), declare. Under the sedevecantist theology: If we personally cannot agree, simply declare them anti-popes and create our own church.)
CANON V.-If any one saith, that baptism is free, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema.
(WCM dodges the question almost completely, diverting our attention to the necessity of Baptism. The argument is not whether baptism is necessary for salvation. The argument is whether water baptism is necessary. This does not address BoB/BoD in any way, as they would provide the sacramental effect of Baptism by Water. Thomas Aquinas' Summa explains quite clearly as much. And although not infallible, it has yet to be condemned after 700 years of valid popes. )
So far if a person wants to play with the theory of Baptism by blood or desire, they have to do what? That's right, they have to refer to the highest authority on the subject. The two canons above, which specifically treat on baptism require no interpretation, and even condemns the very notion of interpreting the Scripture of St. John chapter 3 verse 5 in any way other than what the words plainly say.
(The English language has many words, and metaphor is a very poor word to use to plainly state what you are stating.
met⋅a⋅phor /ˈmɛtəˌfɔr, -fər/ –noun 1.
a figure of speech in which a term or phrase is applied to something to which it is not literally applicable in order to suggest a resemblance, as in “A mighty fortress is our God.” Compare mixed metaphor, simile (def. 1).
2. something used, or regarded as being used, to represent something else; emblem; symbol. (In this case, water and beer.)
To support the meaning WCM deduces from the text, the council would have used a more appropriate word, such as...
lie /laɪ/ –noun 1.
a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.
2. something intended or serving to convey a false impression; imposture: His flashy car was a lie that deceived no one.
3. an inaccurate or false statement.
4. the charge or accusation of lying: He flung the lie back at his accusers. –verb (used without object)
5. to speak falsely or utter untruth knowingly, as with intent to deceive.
6. to express what is false; convey a false impression. –verb (used with object)
7. to bring about or affect by lying (often used reflexively): to lie oneself out of a difficulty; accustomed to lying his way out of difficulties. —Idioms
8. give the lie to, a. to accuse of lying; contradict. b. to prove or imply the falsity of; belie: His poor work gives the lie to his claims of experience.
9. lie in one's throat or teeth, to lie grossly or maliciously: If she told you exactly the opposite of what she told me, she must be lying in her teeth. Also, lie through one's teeth.
What WCM provides as the conclusion of the prior two quotes is a ridiculous stretch. The two provided articles do NOTHING to deter the belief of Baptism of Blood or Desire. Only if we are to understand it as supplied by WCM, is it detrimental to the BoB/BoD theology. As I have pointed out, had the council intended to quash BoB/BoD unequivocally, it would have done so, and with no ambiguity, as this theology was not a new concept.)
By which words, a description of the Justification of the impious is indicated,-as being a translation, from that state wherein man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace, and of the adoption of the sons of God, through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Saviour. 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.
This is the only infallible quote that anybody has ever brought forward in an attempt to prove baptism by desire or blood. How can we take this passage in order that it does not contradict the canons on baptism? We read it logically, of course. If a man desires NOT to be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, is he born again of water and the Holy Ghost? Of course not. What if he receives the laver of regeneration against his will, is he born again of water and the Holy Ghost? Of course not. It cannot take place without the desire for the sacrament. Can it take place before the sacrament is received, or even if the sacrament is never received? No. The canons on baptism, which were written after the decree on justification, make this fact very clear, and allow for no exceptions whatsoever.
This is the only infallible quote that anybody has ever brought forward in an attempt to prove baptism by desire or blood. How can we take this passage in order that it does not contradict the canons on baptism? We read it logically, of course. If a man desires NOT to be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, is he born again of water and the Holy Ghost? Of course not. What if he receives the laver of regeneration against his will, is he born again of water and the Holy Ghost? Of course not. It cannot take place without the desire for the sacrament. Can it take place before the sacrament is received, or even if the sacrament is never received? No. The canons on baptism, which were written after the decree on justification, make this fact very clear, and allow for no exceptions whatsoever.
(The 'laver of regeneration' is sacramental baptism. I do not think WCM would dispute that. Now, let us examine ...
“since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration (sacrament of Baptism), or the desire thereof,"
To receive the scarament of baptism, desire is necessary. To receive the 'laver of regeneration', desire is necessary (except in the case of children, or adults without the mental faculties). I do not dispute that. But, that being said, when Trent proclaims ".. without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof,..." we must assume the Trent is making explicit mention to the necessity of desire only, while ignoring what else is necessary for a valid baptism. Like true and natural water, the trinitarian formula, etc, etc. What WCM is stating would mean that, to be more accurate, the quote would appear more like this...
By which words, a description of the Justification of the impious is indicated,-as being a translation, from that state wherein man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace, and of the adoption of the sons of God, through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Saviour. And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, not withholding true and natural water, nor the trinitarian formula, as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.
Trent does not need to make these declarations for the simple reason that, for a valid Baptism, all those things are necessary, and folded in. And Trent is stating that a valid baptism, which would need all of those things, or the desire for a valid baptism, is sufficient.)
I will continue to address the rest of the article as time permits. Though the bulk of what needed to be clarified is done so here.
Sunday, March 15, 2009
Dogma: Black and White?
The issue of Dogma
It has been continually brought to my attention that Dogma is not free to be interpreted. In fact, all Dogma is worded in such a way that no interpretation is necessary.
First off, I would be interested in finding a reliable, concise list of Dogma's. I found a list, but I am unsure of the reliability. I will use it at this point, but if it can be shown to be invalid, I will certainly use a more appropriate version.
Now, several of the Dogma's that appear to not need interpretation would be as follows.
Taken from http://www.davidmacd.com/catholic/dogma.htm
"Baptism by water (Baptismus fluminis) is, since the promulgation of the Gospel, necessary for all men without exception for salvation."
"Membership of the Catholic Church is necessary for all men for salvation."
Indeed, this is a eye opener, if Dogmas are to be taken completely literally, and need no higher authority to teach and maintain what they have always been meant to say. This alone could easily destroy any arguments that would attempt to resolve Vatican II and her predecessors. Many traditionalists will be quick to throw these in our faces when we attempt to defend Vatican II, and provide us with quotes which, quite frankly, do seem to be in contradiction.
Now, if a Dogma is to be taken just as it is written, with no need for a final authority to defend what has always been taught, why do certain people completely disregard other Dogmas? Dogmas like...
"According to Christ's ordinance, Peter is to have successors in his Primacy over the whole Catholic Church and for all time."
"The Sacrament of Penance is necessary for salvation to those who, after Baptism, fall into grievous sin."
"In the final decision on doctrines concerning faith and morals, the Catholic Church is infallible."
The traditionalist will give a list of quotes from popes, or saints, explaining why these Dogmas are not exactly as they appear. For example, Trent states the desire of reconciliation is sufficient, should it be impossible to obtain a true reconciliation from a priest. Therefore, this Dogma need's to be interpreted in light of an infallible council.
They can use Saints, Papal encyclicals, Councils and Church Fathers to defend there belief in what a Dogma is or means, but when we defend what the Catholic Church teaches today with Papal Encyclicals, Councils, Saints and Church Fathers, we are instantly condemned as changing the Dogma from what it has always been.
This is why it is the responsibility of the Pope and Magisterium, and not the lay person, to defend the truth that always has been.
It has been continually brought to my attention that Dogma is not free to be interpreted. In fact, all Dogma is worded in such a way that no interpretation is necessary.
First off, I would be interested in finding a reliable, concise list of Dogma's. I found a list, but I am unsure of the reliability. I will use it at this point, but if it can be shown to be invalid, I will certainly use a more appropriate version.
Now, several of the Dogma's that appear to not need interpretation would be as follows.
Taken from http://www.davidmacd.com/catholic/dogma.htm
"Baptism by water (Baptismus fluminis) is, since the promulgation of the Gospel, necessary for all men without exception for salvation."
"Membership of the Catholic Church is necessary for all men for salvation."
Indeed, this is a eye opener, if Dogmas are to be taken completely literally, and need no higher authority to teach and maintain what they have always been meant to say. This alone could easily destroy any arguments that would attempt to resolve Vatican II and her predecessors. Many traditionalists will be quick to throw these in our faces when we attempt to defend Vatican II, and provide us with quotes which, quite frankly, do seem to be in contradiction.
Now, if a Dogma is to be taken just as it is written, with no need for a final authority to defend what has always been taught, why do certain people completely disregard other Dogmas? Dogmas like...
"According to Christ's ordinance, Peter is to have successors in his Primacy over the whole Catholic Church and for all time."
"The Sacrament of Penance is necessary for salvation to those who, after Baptism, fall into grievous sin."
"In the final decision on doctrines concerning faith and morals, the Catholic Church is infallible."
The traditionalist will give a list of quotes from popes, or saints, explaining why these Dogmas are not exactly as they appear. For example, Trent states the desire of reconciliation is sufficient, should it be impossible to obtain a true reconciliation from a priest. Therefore, this Dogma need's to be interpreted in light of an infallible council.
They can use Saints, Papal encyclicals, Councils and Church Fathers to defend there belief in what a Dogma is or means, but when we defend what the Catholic Church teaches today with Papal Encyclicals, Councils, Saints and Church Fathers, we are instantly condemned as changing the Dogma from what it has always been.
This is why it is the responsibility of the Pope and Magisterium, and not the lay person, to defend the truth that always has been.
Continuing upon the topic of 'The Great Apostasy', Part 2
Continuing upon the topic of 'The Great Apostasy', the brochure I had received previously, we come upon the next heading, which states that Vatican II teaches Moslems worship the true God, however the past catholic Church did no such thing, and in fact, condemns it. This contradiction is proof of the invalidity of Vatican II, and the current apostasy.
We are provided with 2 quotes. The first, from the first letter of John.
'Whosoever denieth the Son the same hath not the Father.' (1 Jn 2:22-23)
They also provide a portion of the Nicene Creed.
'I believe in one God, the Father Almighty... and in one Lord Jesus Christ... who was incarnate by the Holy Ghost... and I believe in the Holy Ghost... and in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church...'
In a quick passing, we so no condemnation of the Vatican II statement. Let's review what Vatican II said.
"The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all- powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth."
This quote varies slightly from the one provided on the pamphlet, however, this comes directly from the Vatican website, so I am inclined to believe it accurate over what I was provided.
In quick rebuttal to the scripture verse provided, I respond with Romans 10:2
'For I bear them witness, that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge.'
Paul, in this verse, speaks of Isreal, or, more pointedly, the Jews. Now, it would not be entirely inaccurate to place the Jews on the same level as the Moslems. Both do not recognize Jesus Christ, or the Holy Spirit. Yet here, Paul clearly states that they possess a 'zeal' of God.
zeal
1. a feeling of strong eagerness (usually in favor of a person or cause); "they were imbued with a revolutionary ardor"; "he felt a kind of religious zeal" [syn: ardor]
2. excessive fervor to do something or accomplish some end; "he had an absolute zeal for litigation"
3. prompt willingness; "readiness to continue discussions"; "they showed no eagerness to spread the gospel"; "they disliked his zeal in demonstrating his superiority"; "he tried to explain his forwardness in battle" [syn: readiness]
Now, whichever definition of zeal we choose, it is not important. The important fact is, that even though the Jew's did not recognize Jesus, or the Holy Spirit, they still possessed something for God. They may not have grasped the full truth of our Lord, yet they still they worked for God the Father. If such can be said of the Jews, how can the same not be said of the Moslems, who worship the God of Abraham?
Secondly, the Nicene Creed.
We believe (I believe) in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, and born of the Father before all ages. (God of God) light of light, true God of true God. Begotten not made, consubstantial to the Father, by whom all things were made. Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven. And was incarnate of the Holy Ghost and of the Virgin Mary and was made man; was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate, suffered and was buried; and the third day rose again according to the Scriptures. And ascended into heaven, sits at the right hand of the Father, and shall come again with glory to judge the living and the dead, of whose Kingdom there shall be no end.
And (I believe) in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceeds from the Father (and the Son), who together with the Father and the Son is to be adored and glorified, who spoke by the Prophets. And one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. We confess (I confess) one baptism for the remission of sins. And we look for (I look for) the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen.
I see nothing in the Nicene Creed which states that the Muslims can not worship the one, true God. They may not understand him fully, understand his Son, our Lord, but they may certainly recognize and worship the person of God the Father.
We are provided with 2 quotes. The first, from the first letter of John.
'Whosoever denieth the Son the same hath not the Father.' (1 Jn 2:22-23)
They also provide a portion of the Nicene Creed.
'I believe in one God, the Father Almighty... and in one Lord Jesus Christ... who was incarnate by the Holy Ghost... and I believe in the Holy Ghost... and in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church...'
In a quick passing, we so no condemnation of the Vatican II statement. Let's review what Vatican II said.
"The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all- powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth."
This quote varies slightly from the one provided on the pamphlet, however, this comes directly from the Vatican website, so I am inclined to believe it accurate over what I was provided.
In quick rebuttal to the scripture verse provided, I respond with Romans 10:2
'For I bear them witness, that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge.'
Paul, in this verse, speaks of Isreal, or, more pointedly, the Jews. Now, it would not be entirely inaccurate to place the Jews on the same level as the Moslems. Both do not recognize Jesus Christ, or the Holy Spirit. Yet here, Paul clearly states that they possess a 'zeal' of God.
zeal
1. a feeling of strong eagerness (usually in favor of a person or cause); "they were imbued with a revolutionary ardor"; "he felt a kind of religious zeal" [syn: ardor]
2. excessive fervor to do something or accomplish some end; "he had an absolute zeal for litigation"
3. prompt willingness; "readiness to continue discussions"; "they showed no eagerness to spread the gospel"; "they disliked his zeal in demonstrating his superiority"; "he tried to explain his forwardness in battle" [syn: readiness]
Now, whichever definition of zeal we choose, it is not important. The important fact is, that even though the Jew's did not recognize Jesus, or the Holy Spirit, they still possessed something for God. They may not have grasped the full truth of our Lord, yet they still they worked for God the Father. If such can be said of the Jews, how can the same not be said of the Moslems, who worship the God of Abraham?
Secondly, the Nicene Creed.
We believe (I believe) in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, and born of the Father before all ages. (God of God) light of light, true God of true God. Begotten not made, consubstantial to the Father, by whom all things were made. Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven. And was incarnate of the Holy Ghost and of the Virgin Mary and was made man; was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate, suffered and was buried; and the third day rose again according to the Scriptures. And ascended into heaven, sits at the right hand of the Father, and shall come again with glory to judge the living and the dead, of whose Kingdom there shall be no end.
And (I believe) in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceeds from the Father (and the Son), who together with the Father and the Son is to be adored and glorified, who spoke by the Prophets. And one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. We confess (I confess) one baptism for the remission of sins. And we look for (I look for) the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen.
I see nothing in the Nicene Creed which states that the Muslims can not worship the one, true God. They may not understand him fully, understand his Son, our Lord, but they may certainly recognize and worship the person of God the Father.
Monday, March 9, 2009
The Great Apostasy Brochure, Part 1
Recently, I received a pamphlet after mass regarding the validity of Vatican II and the Popes who called and followed that council. The gentlemen handing them out in front of the main doors calmly said "Did you know Vatican II has been condemned by the Catholic Church?" and walked away.
Below, I will address the points made in the brochure, and hopefully maintain the truth that has always been constant in the Catholic Church.
Non-Catholic Religions are a means to Salvation.
The quotes provided, unfortunately, are blatantly taken out of context. It's unfortunate, in continued attempts to show how contradictory Vatican II and the popes are, quotes are skewed, paraphrased, underlined, capitalized and bolded as if the true meaning is hidden, and unless this is shown through special formatting, we cannot see it.
For example...
Pope Leo XII, Satis Cognitum: "9. The Church alone...supplies those means of salvation"
What means of salvation? All means of salvation? Why would we not be provided the entirety of the quote? Let's assume it was for the purpose of saving space, as there is only so much room on the pamphlet.
The quote in its entirety is as follows:
It is then undoubtedly the office of the church to guard Christian doctrine and to propagate it in its integrity and purity. But this is not all: the object for which the Church has been instituted is not wholly attained by the performance of this duty. For, since Jesus Christ delivered Himself up for the salvation of the human race, and to this end directed all His teaching and commands, so He ordered the Church to strive, by the truth of its doctrine, to sanctify and to save mankind. But faith alone cannot compass so great, excellent, and important an end. There must needs be also the fitting and devout worship of God, which is to be found chiefly in the divine Sacrifice (The Mass) and in the dispensation of the Sacraments, as well as salutary laws and discipline. All these must be found in the Church, since it continues the mission of the Saviour forever. The Church alone offers to the human race that religion - that state of absolute perfection - which He wished, as it were, to be incorporated in it. And it alone supplies those means of salvation which accord with the ordinary counsels of Providence.
I will allow the reader to read the quote un-cut and unformatted, save for my insertion of "The Mass", as some readers may not know what the divine Sacrifice is.
Now, should we assume that all means of salvation are only present in the Church, or that the ones provided in the context of the paragraph are the ones that the church provides? In either case, this does not contradict Vatican II and its statement that 'the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as a means of salvation.'
Satis Cognitum in no place declares that the only place a means of salvation could exist is the Catholic Church. It does not state the Church contains 'all' and 'exclusively' every means of salvation.
Let us look at a practical example:
A Protestant church uses a billboard sign to say that 'Jesus Saves', with the picture of Jesus as a goalie. Now, Joe Blow drives by in his automobile and sees said sign. After reading said sign, he goes to his Islam friend and asks what this means. This man states, ' In Christianity, the prime belief is that faith in Jesus Christ brings eternal salvation, and no other way for eternal life is possible. We revere Jesus as a great prophet, but nothing more'. Joe Blow thanks his friend, and carries on. In turn, he meets an Atheist who runs a book store, and buys a book written by a Baptist pastor... etc. etc....
Finally, Joe Blow asks his father, a staunch traditional catholic, who promptly points him to a catholic priest who in turn teaches him how to obtain salvation. Joe Blow carries on to be brought into the Catholic fold.
What means of salvation are there in this story, and are they all Catholic sources? First off, what is a 'means'?
Means
1. Usually, means. (used with a singular or plural verb) an agency, instrument, or method used to attain an end: The telephone is a means of communication. There are several means of solving the problem.
2. means,
a. available resources, esp. money: They lived beyond their means.
b. considerable financial resources; riches: a man of means.
www.dictionary.com
I would say than, for the salvation of this man, should he continue in good faith and practice wholeheartedly his faith, several things were instrumental, and could be considered a 'means'.
First, the Protestant Sign.
Secondly, the Islam and his explanation.
The Atheist, and the book he sold.
Would these not be means by which a man came to salvation? Singularly, they are not enough, no one would deny that. However, they began the journey, and to say they had no importance would be ingnorant.
Now, those who would attempt to convince us of the contradiction of Vatican II and Satis Cognitum would have us believe that the Catholic church alone supplies those means. Indeed, the quote they provided say's as much.
Pope Leo XII, Satis Cognitum: "9. The Church alone...supplies those means of salvation"
But, in context, what means is Satis Cognitum speaking about? The encyclical clearly points to several things. They are the divine Sacrifice, the Sacraments, as well as salutary laws and discipline. It could allude to more, but says nothing definite, and if the document meant more, we have no way of truly knowing, save for the interpretation of a continuing, valid church.
Now, if my understanding is invalid, and I am wrong on some point, who is there to make the final call. Who has the final decision?
I would think, theologically, my reasoning is sound. It reconciles the Council with the Encyclical, and maintains the truth the catholic church has taught.
Below, I will address the points made in the brochure, and hopefully maintain the truth that has always been constant in the Catholic Church.
Non-Catholic Religions are a means to Salvation.
The quotes provided, unfortunately, are blatantly taken out of context. It's unfortunate, in continued attempts to show how contradictory Vatican II and the popes are, quotes are skewed, paraphrased, underlined, capitalized and bolded as if the true meaning is hidden, and unless this is shown through special formatting, we cannot see it.
For example...
Pope Leo XII, Satis Cognitum: "9. The Church alone...supplies those means of salvation"
What means of salvation? All means of salvation? Why would we not be provided the entirety of the quote? Let's assume it was for the purpose of saving space, as there is only so much room on the pamphlet.
The quote in its entirety is as follows:
It is then undoubtedly the office of the church to guard Christian doctrine and to propagate it in its integrity and purity. But this is not all: the object for which the Church has been instituted is not wholly attained by the performance of this duty. For, since Jesus Christ delivered Himself up for the salvation of the human race, and to this end directed all His teaching and commands, so He ordered the Church to strive, by the truth of its doctrine, to sanctify and to save mankind. But faith alone cannot compass so great, excellent, and important an end. There must needs be also the fitting and devout worship of God, which is to be found chiefly in the divine Sacrifice (The Mass) and in the dispensation of the Sacraments, as well as salutary laws and discipline. All these must be found in the Church, since it continues the mission of the Saviour forever. The Church alone offers to the human race that religion - that state of absolute perfection - which He wished, as it were, to be incorporated in it. And it alone supplies those means of salvation which accord with the ordinary counsels of Providence.
I will allow the reader to read the quote un-cut and unformatted, save for my insertion of "The Mass", as some readers may not know what the divine Sacrifice is.
Now, should we assume that all means of salvation are only present in the Church, or that the ones provided in the context of the paragraph are the ones that the church provides? In either case, this does not contradict Vatican II and its statement that 'the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as a means of salvation.'
Satis Cognitum in no place declares that the only place a means of salvation could exist is the Catholic Church. It does not state the Church contains 'all' and 'exclusively' every means of salvation.
Let us look at a practical example:
A Protestant church uses a billboard sign to say that 'Jesus Saves', with the picture of Jesus as a goalie. Now, Joe Blow drives by in his automobile and sees said sign. After reading said sign, he goes to his Islam friend and asks what this means. This man states, ' In Christianity, the prime belief is that faith in Jesus Christ brings eternal salvation, and no other way for eternal life is possible. We revere Jesus as a great prophet, but nothing more'. Joe Blow thanks his friend, and carries on. In turn, he meets an Atheist who runs a book store, and buys a book written by a Baptist pastor... etc. etc....
Finally, Joe Blow asks his father, a staunch traditional catholic, who promptly points him to a catholic priest who in turn teaches him how to obtain salvation. Joe Blow carries on to be brought into the Catholic fold.
What means of salvation are there in this story, and are they all Catholic sources? First off, what is a 'means'?
Means
1. Usually, means. (used with a singular or plural verb) an agency, instrument, or method used to attain an end: The telephone is a means of communication. There are several means of solving the problem.
2. means,
a. available resources, esp. money: They lived beyond their means.
b. considerable financial resources; riches: a man of means.
www.dictionary.com
I would say than, for the salvation of this man, should he continue in good faith and practice wholeheartedly his faith, several things were instrumental, and could be considered a 'means'.
First, the Protestant Sign.
Secondly, the Islam and his explanation.
The Atheist, and the book he sold.
Would these not be means by which a man came to salvation? Singularly, they are not enough, no one would deny that. However, they began the journey, and to say they had no importance would be ingnorant.
Now, those who would attempt to convince us of the contradiction of Vatican II and Satis Cognitum would have us believe that the Catholic church alone supplies those means. Indeed, the quote they provided say's as much.
Pope Leo XII, Satis Cognitum: "9. The Church alone...supplies those means of salvation"
But, in context, what means is Satis Cognitum speaking about? The encyclical clearly points to several things. They are the divine Sacrifice, the Sacraments, as well as salutary laws and discipline. It could allude to more, but says nothing definite, and if the document meant more, we have no way of truly knowing, save for the interpretation of a continuing, valid church.
Now, if my understanding is invalid, and I am wrong on some point, who is there to make the final call. Who has the final decision?
I would think, theologically, my reasoning is sound. It reconciles the Council with the Encyclical, and maintains the truth the catholic church has taught.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
BoB/BoD by WillingCatholicMarty
In Response to http://willingcatholicmartyr.blogspot.com/2009/02/no-salvation-outside-church-not-even-by.html
**
From this point, WCM will provide a selection of quotes with which he wishes to demonstrate the 'proof' that Baptism of Desire and Blood are purely heretical concepts. I find it mildly amusing that none of these quote come forth and blatantly say that BoD/BoB are condemned. In fact, it's even more amusing when one considers the quotes are taken after 1274, when the 'Summa Theologica' was finished. It is quite likely the Popes and Magisterium, after this date, had a knowledge of Thomas' view and theology.
**
**
There is but one Baptism into Christ, yet there are three forms. Let us assume that, for the moment, Thomas Aquinas is correct. He states...
Objection 1. It seems that the three kinds of Baptism are not fittingly described as Baptism of Water, of Blood, and of the Spirit, i.e. of the Holy Ghost. Because the Apostle says (Ephesians 4:5): "One Faith, one Baptism." Now there is but one Faith. Therefore there should not be three Baptisms.
Reply to Objection 1. The other two Baptisms are included in the Baptism of Water, which derives its efficacy, both from Christ's Passion and from the Holy Ghost. Consequently for this reason the unity of Baptism is not destroyed.
If the Angelic Doctor is accurate in his Summa Theologica, to separate the baptisms would be error. It flows along the same lines as the Trinity, in that there are 3, yet they are one.
**
**
This does not address the issue of BoD/BoB whatsoever, as they would be a removal of all Mortal and Original Sin
Objection 1. It seems that not all sins are taken away by Baptism. For Baptism is a spiritual regeneration, which corresponds to carnal generation. But by carnal generation man contracts none but original sin. Therefore none but original sin is taken away by Baptism.
Reply to Objection 1. As the Apostle says (Romans 5:15-16), the sin of Adam was not so far-reaching as the gift of Christ, which is bestowed in Baptism: "for judgment was by one unto condemnation; but grace is of many offenses, unto justification." Wherefore Augustine says in his book on Infant Baptism (De Pecc. Merit. et Remiss. i), that "in carnal generation, original sin alone is contracted; but when we are born again of the Spirit, not only original sin but also wilful sin is forgiven."
**
**
I find no difficulty in the above quote. Perhaps if we were to nitpick and consider "The matter of this sacrament is real and natural water.", we could find reason to say that BoD/BoB is impossible, as they do not possess part of the valid matter required for baptism, that is, water. However, again, this poses no problem if we realize that BoD/BoB are part of Baptism of Water, as stated above. The effect of Baptism of Water can be supplied by a true BoD/BoB.
**
**
To be quite blunt, I'm not sure how to address this. Not because it causes a difficulty in accepting BoD/BoB, but because I can find no translation of this particular passage outside of the material provided by MHFM.
I can find the document easy enough.
http://catholicism.org/cantate-domino.html
It firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart “into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels” [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.
I would offer the following.
'It firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart “into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels” [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock;'
Joined to the Church = Enter into the flock. However, one is joined to the church through a Valid Baptism, which requires 3 things.
For Baptism to be valid it must be administered with the proper 1) form; 2) matter, and 3) intention. Unless we can prove that BoD/BoB are invalid, as has yet to be done, we can not state with certainty that a Valid BoD/BoB prior to the death and judgment of any individual is impossible.
'and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.'
To which I respond...
'...unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.'
'...unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.'
Only those who have entered into the church can 'persevere' or 'remain' in her bosom. These two verbs clearly relate to having been part of the Church and then leaving. Earlier in the quote..
'and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation'
Again, 'remaining' is used. I am not so foolish as to think that the Scholars of Florence would be so careless as to allow such grammar to be used if it was without purpose.
**
**
This is an address to Catechumens. It has no bearing on a individual who has no knowledge of the Catholic Church, and is in Invincible Ignorance. However, I will delve deeper...
Chapter 5 addresses 'necessity, in adults, of preparation for Justification, and whence it proceeds.' We can assume that it therefore is in response to adults, but not necessarily those with no knowledge of Catholicism. In fact, this chapter provides no difficulty to BoD/BoB. It is only in the context provided it seems to offer difficulty.
Chapter 6 addresses 'The manner of Preparation.' Clearly intended for people seeking and coming to the truth, that is, Catholicism. Again, still does not address BoD/BoB.
Chapter 7 addresses ' What the justification of the impious is, and what are the causes thereof.'
This could possibly be the end of BoD, as the final part is "From apostolic tradition, catechumens seek this faith from the church before the sacrament of baptism when they ask for the faith that gives eternal life; and this, without hope and charity, faith cannot give."
But Trent provides a 'backdoor' in saying that Faith, without Hope and Charity, can not provide eternal life. So, are we to assume that Faith, with Hope and Charity, can? And if so, does this support BoD/BoB, which would have all 3 of those?
**
**
met⋅a⋅phor
/ˈmɛtəˌfɔr, -fər/ [met-uh-fawr, -fer]–noun
1. a figure of speech in which a term or phrase is applied to something to which it is not literally applicable in order to suggest a resemblance, as in “A mighty fortress is our God.” Compare mixed metaphor, simile (def. 1).
2. something used, or regarded as being used, to represent something else; emblem; symbol.
Jesus says unless a Man be born again of 'Water' and 'The Spirit'. A man can not be born of ashes and the spirit, nor cooking oil and the spirit, nor saliva and the spirit. It requires 'True and Natural Water'. It is a question of Valid Matter, exactly why women can not become priests, and the Eucharist can not be consecrated from Gold Fish.
If this is the case, this quote would clearly be pointed at addressing the protestant notion of Baptism with other items.
“... Besides, the Word is the principal part of baptism. If in an emergency there’s no water at hand, it doesn’t matter whether water or beer is used.” ~ Martin Luther
BoD/BoB do not distort baptism into a metaphor, as they are one in the same.
**
**
Self explanatory, we have yet to prove BoD/BoB is not a valid baptism.
**
**
If we are to be honest, we still have provided no Infallible Declaration that BoD/BoB are heretical. We have given many declarations which, when interpreted fallibly by ourselves, could prove it to be.
I would dub these interpretations "The Protestant Condition', as what we are doing with Dogmatic Proclamations by Popes and Councils are no different than what Luther did with the Bible. If I am to interpret the Bible in light of nothing but the Bible, I can clearly support many of Luther's views. However, we must interpret the Bible in Light of Church Fathers and Apostolic Tradition, and submit to that truth which is protected by the Church. The same is true of Councils and Encyclicals. If we are to rely on the these by themselves, we can twist them to what we want them to mean, for our own reasons, whether they be pure or not.
**
**
I believe we could call this 'Poisoning the Well', as the author, although taking great steps to attempt to support there point, has yet to truly do so without any room of doubt. His accusations are therefore all false, as we have yet to address whether Muslims and Jews worship the same God, whether Christianity can exist outside the Catholic church, etc, etc, and until such proof is provided, it is unfair to make such accusations and presume them heretical.
**
**
A small point, if these texts can be fallible, how much more could one's own interpretation?
**
**
Yet to be proven without dispute.
**
**
Any fallible writing would fall into this category, whether it support or deny BoD/BoB. No quotation provided has unequivocally stated BoD/BoB heretical.
**
**
Still no sufficiently addressed to prove BoD/BoB are unanimously condemned by the popes. The quotes provided, when understood in context, do not condemn the theological teaching. On a personal note, which I have tried to avoid, I find it comical the author condemns and praises Bellarmine in the same work. See below.
**
**
A great step must be made here. First, we must assume that the current authors explanation of Trent is more accurate the St. Alphonsus'. Secondly, we must assume that Alphonsus was never condemned by as many as or more than 15 popes, all of whom were too negligent, to lazy or insufficiently informed to rectify this error in the Catholic Church which was the source of much division.
Additionally, we have to great take steps to build something from that which does not exist. Not only that, there is no necessity for the part in the square brackets, as it does not exist in the original.
"Of this Justification the causes are these: the final cause indeed is the glory of God and of Jesus Christ, and life everlasting; while the efficient cause is a merciful God who washes and sanctifies gratuitously, signing, and anointing with the holy Spirit of promise, who is the pledge of our inheritance; but the meritorious cause is His most beloved only-begotten, our Lord Jesus Christ, who, when we were enemies, for the exceeding charity wherewith he loved us, merited Justification for us by His most holy Passion on the wood of the cross, and made satisfaction for us unto God the Father; the instrumental cause is the sacrament of baptism, which is the sacrament of faith, without which (faith) no man was ever justified; lastly, the alone formal cause is the justice of God, not that whereby He Himself is just, but that whereby He maketh us just, that, to wit, with which we being endowed by Him, are renewed in the spirit of our mind, and we are not only reputed, but are truly called, and are, just, receiving justice within us, each one according to his own measure, which the Holy Ghost distributes to every one as He wills, and according to each one's proper disposition and co-operation. For, although no one can be just, but he to whom the merits of the Passion of our Lord Jesus Christ are communicated, yet is this done in the said justification of the impious, when by the merit of that same most holy Passion, the charity of God is poured forth, by the Holy Spirit, in the hearts of those that are justified, and is inherent therein: whence, man, through Jesus Christ, in whom he is ingrafted, receives, in the said justification, together with the remission of sins, all these (gifts) infused at once, faith, hope, and charity. For faith, unless hope and charity be added thereto, neither unites man perfectly with Christ, nor makes him a living member of His body. For which reason it is most truly said, that Faith without works is dead and profitless; and, In Christ Jesus neither circumcision, availeth anything, nor uncircumcision, but faith which worketh by charity. This faith, Catechumen's beg of the Church-agreeably to a tradition of the apostles-previously to the sacrament of Baptism; when they beg for the faith which bestows life everlasting, which, without hope and charity, faith cannot bestow: whence also do they immediately hear that word of Christ; If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. Wherefore, when receiving true and Christian justice, they are bidden, immediately on being born again, to preserve it pure and spotless, as the first robe given them through Jesus Christ in lieu of that which [Page 36] Adam, by his disobedience, lost for himself and for us, that so they may bear it before the judgment-seat of our Lord Jesus Christ, and may have life everlasting."
We see that baptism is the instrumental cause, but unless we parse and re-assemble that which we wish, we can not say that BoD/BoB are invalid. We have yet to prove Thomas Aquinas was Heretical in teaching the BoD/BoB are the same yet different from Baptism of Water. Until it is infallibly proven they are heretical, this is moot, as they could easily supply the requirement for Baptism.
**
**
The provided interpretation errs in the following sense. The council does confirm that faith does not provide eternal life, not without Hope and Charity. These are in fact provided by many things, the most instrumental being Baptism. However, until, again, BoD/BoB is proven heretical beyond doubt, this causes no scandal, as they would provide this infusion.
**
**
It is very easy to assume that the Doctors of the Church were confused and ignorant. But I would offer, rather, they were not, and we ourselves are being facetious in our assumption that we, 400 years or more after the councils, have a more intimate understanding of the churches doctrine than the Doctors of our Faith.
**
**
As stated prior by the author, Canon Law is not infallible. He has no place using this in his defense, by his own admittance.
**
**
Self Interpretation, with no backing, just purely hypothetical on the authors part. As well as fallible. Until the arguments provided are adequately addressed, he has no place in passing judgment, nor in assuring damnation to all those who would trust God's Church.
As concerns the theory of baptism of blood and desire, It is a dogmatic fact that the only allowable exceptions to an ex cathedra dogma are those doctrines that (i) were previously defined by an ex cathedra decree or (ii) taught by a unanimous consensus of popes or Church Fathers. In other words, the only exceptions to a dogma are those teachings that previously existed in the Extraordinary Magisterium or were always part of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium.
This fact alone, all by itself, is enough to end the debate forever. I could immediately end this proof right here, because with the dogmatic fact that the only allowable exceptions to an ex cathedra decree are previously defined as dogmas or teachings promulgated by a unanimous consensus of the Church Fathers, "baptism of desire" and "baptism of blood" heretics have no ground to stand on. They have no means or argument for inserting their man-made teachings into the Church's infallible and irreformable dogmas. Neither "baptism of desire" nor "baptism of blood" belong to the Extraordinary or the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium, and therefore, they cannot be exceptions to the following dogmatic decrees. In other words, they are heresies, non-allowable opinions which contradict multiple infallible Magisterial teachings of the Catholic Church.
This fact alone, all by itself, is enough to end the debate forever. I could immediately end this proof right here, because with the dogmatic fact that the only allowable exceptions to an ex cathedra decree are previously defined as dogmas or teachings promulgated by a unanimous consensus of the Church Fathers, "baptism of desire" and "baptism of blood" heretics have no ground to stand on. They have no means or argument for inserting their man-made teachings into the Church's infallible and irreformable dogmas. Neither "baptism of desire" nor "baptism of blood" belong to the Extraordinary or the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium, and therefore, they cannot be exceptions to the following dogmatic decrees. In other words, they are heresies, non-allowable opinions which contradict multiple infallible Magisterial teachings of the Catholic Church.
**
From this point, WCM will provide a selection of quotes with which he wishes to demonstrate the 'proof' that Baptism of Desire and Blood are purely heretical concepts. I find it mildly amusing that none of these quote come forth and blatantly say that BoD/BoB are condemned. In fact, it's even more amusing when one considers the quotes are taken after 1274, when the 'Summa Theologica' was finished. It is quite likely the Popes and Magisterium, after this date, had a knowledge of Thomas' view and theology.
**
Pope Pope ClementV, Council of Vienne, 1311-1312, ex cathedra: "Besides, one baptism which regenerates all who are baptized in Christ must be faithfully confessed by all just as 'one God and one faith' [Eph. 4:5], which celebrated in water in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit we believe to be commonly the perfect remedy for salvation for adults as for children."
**
There is but one Baptism into Christ, yet there are three forms. Let us assume that, for the moment, Thomas Aquinas is correct. He states...
Objection 1. It seems that the three kinds of Baptism are not fittingly described as Baptism of Water, of Blood, and of the Spirit, i.e. of the Holy Ghost. Because the Apostle says (Ephesians 4:5): "One Faith, one Baptism." Now there is but one Faith. Therefore there should not be three Baptisms.
Reply to Objection 1. The other two Baptisms are included in the Baptism of Water, which derives its efficacy, both from Christ's Passion and from the Holy Ghost. Consequently for this reason the unity of Baptism is not destroyed.
If the Angelic Doctor is accurate in his Summa Theologica, to separate the baptisms would be error. It flows along the same lines as the Trinity, in that there are 3, yet they are one.
**
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Sess. 6, July 6, 1439, ex cathedra: "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."
**
This does not address the issue of BoD/BoB whatsoever, as they would be a removal of all Mortal and Original Sin
Objection 1. It seems that not all sins are taken away by Baptism. For Baptism is a spiritual regeneration, which corresponds to carnal generation. But by carnal generation man contracts none but original sin. Therefore none but original sin is taken away by Baptism.
Reply to Objection 1. As the Apostle says (Romans 5:15-16), the sin of Adam was not so far-reaching as the gift of Christ, which is bestowed in Baptism: "for judgment was by one unto condemnation; but grace is of many offenses, unto justification." Wherefore Augustine says in his book on Infant Baptism (De Pecc. Merit. et Remiss. i), that "in carnal generation, original sin alone is contracted; but when we are born again of the Spirit, not only original sin but also wilful sin is forgiven."
**
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, "Exultate Deo", Sess. 8, 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 find no difficulty in the above quote. Perhaps if we were to nitpick and consider "The matter of this sacrament is real and natural water.", we could find reason to say that BoD/BoB is impossible, as they do not possess part of the valid matter required for baptism, that is, water. However, again, this poses no problem if we realize that BoD/BoB are part of Baptism of Water, as stated above. The effect of Baptism of Water can be supplied by a true BoD/BoB.
**
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, "Cantate Domino," 1441, ex cathedra: "The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives; ... and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church."
**
To be quite blunt, I'm not sure how to address this. Not because it causes a difficulty in accepting BoD/BoB, but because I can find no translation of this particular passage outside of the material provided by MHFM.
I can find the document easy enough.
http://catholicism.org/cantate-domino.html
It firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart “into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels” [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.
I would offer the following.
'It firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart “into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels” [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock;'
Joined to the Church = Enter into the flock. However, one is joined to the church through a Valid Baptism, which requires 3 things.
For Baptism to be valid it must be administered with the proper 1) form; 2) matter, and 3) intention. Unless we can prove that BoD/BoB are invalid, as has yet to be done, we can not state with certainty that a Valid BoD/BoB prior to the death and judgment of any individual is impossible.
'and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.'
To which I respond...
'...unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.'
'...unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.'
Only those who have entered into the church can 'persevere' or 'remain' in her bosom. These two verbs clearly relate to having been part of the Church and then leaving. Earlier in the quote..
'and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation'
Again, 'remaining' is used. I am not so foolish as to think that the Scholars of Florence would be so careless as to allow such grammar to be used if it was without purpose.
**
Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Sess. 6, "Decree on Justification", Ch. 5-7, 1565, ex cathedra: "People are disposed for that justice when, by that repentance ... they are proposing to receive baptism ... This disposition and preparation precede [do not result in] the actual justification ... The causes of this justification are: ... the instrumental cause, the sacrament of baptism, which is the sacrament of faith, without which justification comes to no one. ... Consequently, in the process of justification, ... all these are infused at the same time: faith, hope, and charity. For faith, unless hope is added to it, and charity too, neither unites him perfectly with Christ nor makes him a living member of his body. ... From apostolic tradition, catechumens seek this faith from the church before the sacrament of baptism when they ask for the faith that gives eternal life; and this, without hope and charity, faith cannot give."
**
This is an address to Catechumens. It has no bearing on a individual who has no knowledge of the Catholic Church, and is in Invincible Ignorance. However, I will delve deeper...
Chapter 5 addresses 'necessity, in adults, of preparation for Justification, and whence it proceeds.' We can assume that it therefore is in response to adults, but not necessarily those with no knowledge of Catholicism. In fact, this chapter provides no difficulty to BoD/BoB. It is only in the context provided it seems to offer difficulty.
Chapter 6 addresses 'The manner of Preparation.' Clearly intended for people seeking and coming to the truth, that is, Catholicism. Again, still does not address BoD/BoB.
Chapter 7 addresses ' What the justification of the impious is, and what are the causes thereof.'
This could possibly be the end of BoD, as the final part is "From apostolic tradition, catechumens seek this faith from the church before the sacrament of baptism when they ask for the faith that gives eternal life; and this, without hope and charity, faith cannot give."
But Trent provides a 'backdoor' in saying that Faith, without Hope and Charity, can not provide eternal life. So, are we to assume that Faith, with Hope and Charity, can? And if so, does this support BoD/BoB, which would have all 3 of those?
**
Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Sess. 7, Can. 2, "On the Sacrament of Baptism", 1565, ex cathedra: "If anyone shall say that real and natural water is not necessary for [the sacrament of] 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."
**
met⋅a⋅phor
/ˈmɛtəˌfɔr, -fər/ [met-uh-fawr, -fer]–noun
1. a figure of speech in which a term or phrase is applied to something to which it is not literally applicable in order to suggest a resemblance, as in “A mighty fortress is our God.” Compare mixed metaphor, simile (def. 1).
2. something used, or regarded as being used, to represent something else; emblem; symbol.
Jesus says unless a Man be born again of 'Water' and 'The Spirit'. A man can not be born of ashes and the spirit, nor cooking oil and the spirit, nor saliva and the spirit. It requires 'True and Natural Water'. It is a question of Valid Matter, exactly why women can not become priests, and the Eucharist can not be consecrated from Gold Fish.
If this is the case, this quote would clearly be pointed at addressing the protestant notion of Baptism with other items.
“... Besides, the Word is the principal part of baptism. If in an emergency there’s no water at hand, it doesn’t matter whether water or beer is used.” ~ Martin Luther
BoD/BoB do not distort baptism into a metaphor, as they are one in the same.
**
Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Sess. 7, Can. 5, "On the Sacrament of Baptism", 1565, ex cathedra: "If anyone saith that [the sacrament of] baptism is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation; let him be anathema."
**
Self explanatory, we have yet to prove BoD/BoB is not a valid baptism.
**
Let's be honest. The dogmas are clear. They unequivocally teach that there is one baptism, celebrated in water, in the name of The Father, of The Son, and of The Holy Ghost, which is absolutely necessary for justification and salvation. The dogmas, in conjunction with the dogmatic fact that the only exceptions to a dogma are those teachings that previously existed in the Extraordinary or the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium, make it impossible to believe or teach that "baptism of desire" and "baptism of blood" are allowable opinions.
**
If we are to be honest, we still have provided no Infallible Declaration that BoD/BoB are heretical. We have given many declarations which, when interpreted fallibly by ourselves, could prove it to be.
I would dub these interpretations "The Protestant Condition', as what we are doing with Dogmatic Proclamations by Popes and Councils are no different than what Luther did with the Bible. If I am to interpret the Bible in light of nothing but the Bible, I can clearly support many of Luther's views. However, we must interpret the Bible in Light of Church Fathers and Apostolic Tradition, and submit to that truth which is protected by the Church. The same is true of Councils and Encyclicals. If we are to rely on the these by themselves, we can twist them to what we want them to mean, for our own reasons, whether they be pure or not.
**
Why? Because there are no allowable exceptions to these dogmas. "Baptism of desire" and "baptism of blood" are the mother of all heresies, which logically gave the salvation-outside-the-Catholic Church heretics the little wiggle room they needed to begin spreading their spiritual vemon, including the lies that non-Catholics worship the same God as Catholics, the Church of Christ exists outside the Catholic Church, Catholics can pray in communion with non-Catholics, spiritiual convergence instead of conversion, etc. The world is headed to hell fast, and it's all thanks to these two baptism heresies, which have been repeatedly condemned by Ecumenical Council after Ecumenical Council.
**
I believe we could call this 'Poisoning the Well', as the author, although taking great steps to attempt to support there point, has yet to truly do so without any room of doubt. His accusations are therefore all false, as we have yet to address whether Muslims and Jews worship the same God, whether Christianity can exist outside the Catholic church, etc, etc, and until such proof is provided, it is unfair to make such accusations and presume them heretical.
**
So what's the hang-up? Why the persistent belief in "baptism of desire" and "baptism of blood"? Two reasons: (1) fallible texts exist that teach the "baptism of desire" and "baptism of blood" heresies, and (2) some saints taught the "baptism of desire" and "baptism of blood" heresies.
While God the Holy Ghost is the author of the Magisterial teachings, He is not the author of Roman Martyrology, The Catechism of the Council of Trent, and The 1917 Code of Canon Law. While these texts are for the most part reliable sources of Catholic doctrine, they are not infallible. They have men as their authors and, as such, contain error, bad teachings, and outright heresy.
While God the Holy Ghost is the author of the Magisterial teachings, He is not the author of Roman Martyrology, The Catechism of the Council of Trent, and The 1917 Code of Canon Law. While these texts are for the most part reliable sources of Catholic doctrine, they are not infallible. They have men as their authors and, as such, contain error, bad teachings, and outright heresy.
**
A small point, if these texts can be fallible, how much more could one's own interpretation?
**
It's very simple. There is a hierarchy to Catholic teaching authority. The teachings of the Extraordinary Magisterium are the highest, most solemn pronouncements of the Catholic Church. They unequivocally teach that sacramental water baptism is abolutely necessary for salvation.
**
Yet to be proven without dispute.
**
This is especially true since it is a dogmatic fact that a fallible text, authored by man, cannot insert an exception into a dogmatic decree, authored by God. So stack up one million quotations from man against a single quotation from God, and a Catholic is obligated to believe God's teachings, even though a million other quotations may tell the Catholic not to listen to God.
**
Any fallible writing would fall into this category, whether it support or deny BoD/BoB. No quotation provided has unequivocally stated BoD/BoB heretical.
**
But all this is well-known, amazingly even to the "baptism of desire" and "baptism of blood" heretics. They all know that they are supposed to obey God over men, but they don't understand why. They don't understand why there are three books out there, admittedly all fallible, admittedly all written by men, that haven't been condemned by popes. Very simply, it is a dogma that popes can be evil men, as wicked as the devil, himself, and still remain pope, so long as they don't become a public heretic.
Pope Martin V, Council of Constance, Sess. 15, July 6, 1415, "Condemned Articles of J. Hus", ex cathedra: “If the pope is wicked, and especially if he is foreknown to damnation, then he is a devil like Judas the apostle, a thief and a son of perdition and is not the head of the holy church militant since he is not even a member of it.” -- CONDEMNED
And there have been evil popes, lazy popes, non-diligent popes, who let these texts be promulgated, some for hundreds of years. And most certainly, Catholic doctrine instructs us to resist and not obey the evil pope in his wicked commands.
St. Robert Bellarmine (1542-1621): "Just as it is lawful to resist the pope that attacks the body, it is also lawful to resist the one who attacks the souls or who disturbs civil order, or, above all, who attempts to destroy the Church. I say that it is lawful to resist him by not doing what he orders and preventing his will from being executed."
St. Catherine of Siena († 1380): “Alas, Most Holy Father! At times, obedience to you leads to eternal damnation.”
You see a pope doesn't lose his office and become an antipope until he becomes a public heretic.
The 1917 Code of Canon Law, Canon 188: "Through tacit resignation, accepted by the law itself, all offices become vacant ipso facto and without any declaration if a cleric ... [h]as publicly defected from the Catholic Faith."
Therefore, a pope can promulgate a book containing a heresy or two and still remain a pope, so long as he doesn't pen the text nor promulgate the book in forma specifica. And people guess what. Not Roman Martyrology, not The Catechism of the Council of Trent, and not The 1917 Code of Canon Law were ever promulgated by any pope in forma specifica. They were all promulgated in forma communi, which means that the pope simply approved others' work and did not review it so closely as to claim authorship to the documents. It's that simple. Popes are busy people. But through laziness, honest mistakes, or evil intention, popes have over looked these heresies. However, when it really mattered, these same popes unanimously condemned "baptism of desire" and "baptism of blood" through their ex cathedra decrees and never once taught these heresies as part of the Extraordinary Magisterium. Since "baptism of desire" and "baptism of blood" are contrary to the infallible dogmas, they are NOT allowable opinions. They are pardonable opinions, as material heresy may excuse one for the mortal sin of heresy, but make no mistake, heresy, even material heresy, is NOT allowable.
Pope Martin V, Council of Constance, Sess. 15, July 6, 1415, "Condemned Articles of J. Hus", ex cathedra: “If the pope is wicked, and especially if he is foreknown to damnation, then he is a devil like Judas the apostle, a thief and a son of perdition and is not the head of the holy church militant since he is not even a member of it.” -- CONDEMNED
And there have been evil popes, lazy popes, non-diligent popes, who let these texts be promulgated, some for hundreds of years. And most certainly, Catholic doctrine instructs us to resist and not obey the evil pope in his wicked commands.
St. Robert Bellarmine (1542-1621): "Just as it is lawful to resist the pope that attacks the body, it is also lawful to resist the one who attacks the souls or who disturbs civil order, or, above all, who attempts to destroy the Church. I say that it is lawful to resist him by not doing what he orders and preventing his will from being executed."
St. Catherine of Siena († 1380): “Alas, Most Holy Father! At times, obedience to you leads to eternal damnation.”
You see a pope doesn't lose his office and become an antipope until he becomes a public heretic.
The 1917 Code of Canon Law, Canon 188: "Through tacit resignation, accepted by the law itself, all offices become vacant ipso facto and without any declaration if a cleric ... [h]as publicly defected from the Catholic Faith."
Therefore, a pope can promulgate a book containing a heresy or two and still remain a pope, so long as he doesn't pen the text nor promulgate the book in forma specifica. And people guess what. Not Roman Martyrology, not The Catechism of the Council of Trent, and not The 1917 Code of Canon Law were ever promulgated by any pope in forma specifica. They were all promulgated in forma communi, which means that the pope simply approved others' work and did not review it so closely as to claim authorship to the documents. It's that simple. Popes are busy people. But through laziness, honest mistakes, or evil intention, popes have over looked these heresies. However, when it really mattered, these same popes unanimously condemned "baptism of desire" and "baptism of blood" through their ex cathedra decrees and never once taught these heresies as part of the Extraordinary Magisterium. Since "baptism of desire" and "baptism of blood" are contrary to the infallible dogmas, they are NOT allowable opinions. They are pardonable opinions, as material heresy may excuse one for the mortal sin of heresy, but make no mistake, heresy, even material heresy, is NOT allowable.
**
Still no sufficiently addressed to prove BoD/BoB are unanimously condemned by the popes. The quotes provided, when understood in context, do not condemn the theological teaching. On a personal note, which I have tried to avoid, I find it comical the author condemns and praises Bellarmine in the same work. See below.
**
But then why are there canonized saints who taught "baptism of desire" and "baptism of blood"? A few reasons. First, all but two of these saints lived before the dogma that there is "one baptism which regenerates all who are baptized in Christ must be faithfully confessed by all just as 'one God and one faith' [Eph. 4:5], which celebrated in water in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." So all but one of these saints lived and died before the dogmas were defined that condemned "baptism of desire" and "baptism of blood".
But what about St. Alphonsus Liguori and St. Robert Bellarmine, who both lived after all these dogmas condemning "baptism of desire" and "baptism of blood"? Doesn't his canonization prove that these heresies are allowable opinions? No, absolutely not! Their canonizations prove that they are pardonable, that you can still get to Heaven if you are a material heretic. Their fallible canonizations certainly doesn't disprove the infallible dogmas. Yes, folks that's right. Canonziations are not infallible. Please read Are Canonizations Infallible?
People, understand that I am not saying St. Alphonsus Liguori and St. Robert Bellarmine are not saints in Heaven. I believe they are. But all the "baptism of desire" and "baptism of blood" heretics keep making the same mistake. They continually put the works of men, ahead of the words of God. Roman Martyrology, The Catechism of the Council of Trent, and The 1917 Code of Canon Law are all fallible texts that contain multiple heresies. And canonizations, too, are fallible and can be reversed by the Church. Don't let fallible works of man determine what your faith will be. The guaranteed-to-be-perfect infallible dogmas is where you want to lay your spiritual foundation. And this is especially true since it is a dogmatic fact that the only exceptions to a dogma are those teachings that previously existed in the Extraordinary or the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium. No other exceptions allowed, people, and "baptism of desire" and "baptism of blood" are neither part of the Extraordinary nor the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium.
Again so while a person may escape God's wrath and be pardoned for material heresy, it most certainly does not mean that the heresy believed is now allowable. It may be pardonable, but never allowable. There are four excuses that make heresy pardonable: (1) insanity, (2) ignorance/confusion, (3) retraction before death, and (4) mistranslation. So until you get all of the canonization papers of St. Alphonsus Liguori and St. Robert Bellarmine, you just can't say, "Well, none of these apply." Again, such a person who relied more heavily on their canonizations than the dogmas would be giving more credence to the fallible works of men, than they would be giving credence to the infallible words of God. And that is NOT allowable.
Morever, St. Alphonsus was clearly confused about what the Council of Trent taught. From his writings, it can be seen that St. Alphonsus wrongly believed that Session 6, Chapter 4 was teaching desire alone is sufficient for justification, when in fact Session 6, Chapter 4 teaches the absence of desire will not result in justification. Yes, even Doctors of the Church make mistakes.
St. Alphonsus Liguori, Moral Theology, Bk. 6, nn. 95-7: "Now it is de fide that men are also saved by Baptism of desire, by virtue of the Canon Apostolicam, 'de presbytero non baptizato' and of the Council of Trent, session 6, Chapter 4 where it is said that no one can be saved 'without the laver of regeneration or the desire for it.'"
Reading the Council of Trent in context, clearly we can see that what is being taught is that the desire for baptism before reception of the sacrament is not sufficient for justification. St. Alphonsus took Session 6, Chapter 4 out of context and missed the true meaning of the Council's teaching.
Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Sess. 6, Ch. 4-7, "Decree on Justification", 1547, ex cathedra: "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 [John 3:5]. ... People are disposed for that justice when, by that repentance ... they are proposing to receive baptism ... This disposition and preparation precede [do not result in] the actual justification ... The causes of this justification are: ... the instrumental cause, the sacrament of baptism ..."
Clearly, St. Alphonsus was confused about what was "de fide" and what was not. The Council of Trent is teaching that either without water or without desire, then no justification, meaning both water and desire are necessary, as John 3:5 teaches. I mean look at the words, "This disposition and preparation precede the actual justification". Case closed. The Council Fathers are clearly teaching that repentance and desire for baptism, referred to as "[t]his disposition and preparation", only precede justification and do not result in it. Since God the Holy Ghost does not lie, "baptism of desire" is not being taught in Session 6's "Decree on Justification".
But what about St. Alphonsus Liguori and St. Robert Bellarmine, who both lived after all these dogmas condemning "baptism of desire" and "baptism of blood"? Doesn't his canonization prove that these heresies are allowable opinions? No, absolutely not! Their canonizations prove that they are pardonable, that you can still get to Heaven if you are a material heretic. Their fallible canonizations certainly doesn't disprove the infallible dogmas. Yes, folks that's right. Canonziations are not infallible. Please read Are Canonizations Infallible?
People, understand that I am not saying St. Alphonsus Liguori and St. Robert Bellarmine are not saints in Heaven. I believe they are. But all the "baptism of desire" and "baptism of blood" heretics keep making the same mistake. They continually put the works of men, ahead of the words of God. Roman Martyrology, The Catechism of the Council of Trent, and The 1917 Code of Canon Law are all fallible texts that contain multiple heresies. And canonizations, too, are fallible and can be reversed by the Church. Don't let fallible works of man determine what your faith will be. The guaranteed-to-be-perfect infallible dogmas is where you want to lay your spiritual foundation. And this is especially true since it is a dogmatic fact that the only exceptions to a dogma are those teachings that previously existed in the Extraordinary or the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium. No other exceptions allowed, people, and "baptism of desire" and "baptism of blood" are neither part of the Extraordinary nor the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium.
Again so while a person may escape God's wrath and be pardoned for material heresy, it most certainly does not mean that the heresy believed is now allowable. It may be pardonable, but never allowable. There are four excuses that make heresy pardonable: (1) insanity, (2) ignorance/confusion, (3) retraction before death, and (4) mistranslation. So until you get all of the canonization papers of St. Alphonsus Liguori and St. Robert Bellarmine, you just can't say, "Well, none of these apply." Again, such a person who relied more heavily on their canonizations than the dogmas would be giving more credence to the fallible works of men, than they would be giving credence to the infallible words of God. And that is NOT allowable.
Morever, St. Alphonsus was clearly confused about what the Council of Trent taught. From his writings, it can be seen that St. Alphonsus wrongly believed that Session 6, Chapter 4 was teaching desire alone is sufficient for justification, when in fact Session 6, Chapter 4 teaches the absence of desire will not result in justification. Yes, even Doctors of the Church make mistakes.
St. Alphonsus Liguori, Moral Theology, Bk. 6, nn. 95-7: "Now it is de fide that men are also saved by Baptism of desire, by virtue of the Canon Apostolicam, 'de presbytero non baptizato' and of the Council of Trent, session 6, Chapter 4 where it is said that no one can be saved 'without the laver of regeneration or the desire for it.'"
Reading the Council of Trent in context, clearly we can see that what is being taught is that the desire for baptism before reception of the sacrament is not sufficient for justification. St. Alphonsus took Session 6, Chapter 4 out of context and missed the true meaning of the Council's teaching.
Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Sess. 6, Ch. 4-7, "Decree on Justification", 1547, ex cathedra: "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 [John 3:5]. ... People are disposed for that justice when, by that repentance ... they are proposing to receive baptism ... This disposition and preparation precede [do not result in] the actual justification ... The causes of this justification are: ... the instrumental cause, the sacrament of baptism ..."
Clearly, St. Alphonsus was confused about what was "de fide" and what was not. The Council of Trent is teaching that either without water or without desire, then no justification, meaning both water and desire are necessary, as John 3:5 teaches. I mean look at the words, "This disposition and preparation precede the actual justification". Case closed. The Council Fathers are clearly teaching that repentance and desire for baptism, referred to as "[t]his disposition and preparation", only precede justification and do not result in it. Since God the Holy Ghost does not lie, "baptism of desire" is not being taught in Session 6's "Decree on Justification".
**
A great step must be made here. First, we must assume that the current authors explanation of Trent is more accurate the St. Alphonsus'. Secondly, we must assume that Alphonsus was never condemned by as many as or more than 15 popes, all of whom were too negligent, to lazy or insufficiently informed to rectify this error in the Catholic Church which was the source of much division.
Additionally, we have to great take steps to build something from that which does not exist. Not only that, there is no necessity for the part in the square brackets, as it does not exist in the original.
"Of this Justification the causes are these: the final cause indeed is the glory of God and of Jesus Christ, and life everlasting; while the efficient cause is a merciful God who washes and sanctifies gratuitously, signing, and anointing with the holy Spirit of promise, who is the pledge of our inheritance; but the meritorious cause is His most beloved only-begotten, our Lord Jesus Christ, who, when we were enemies, for the exceeding charity wherewith he loved us, merited Justification for us by His most holy Passion on the wood of the cross, and made satisfaction for us unto God the Father; the instrumental cause is the sacrament of baptism, which is the sacrament of faith, without which (faith) no man was ever justified; lastly, the alone formal cause is the justice of God, not that whereby He Himself is just, but that whereby He maketh us just, that, to wit, with which we being endowed by Him, are renewed in the spirit of our mind, and we are not only reputed, but are truly called, and are, just, receiving justice within us, each one according to his own measure, which the Holy Ghost distributes to every one as He wills, and according to each one's proper disposition and co-operation. For, although no one can be just, but he to whom the merits of the Passion of our Lord Jesus Christ are communicated, yet is this done in the said justification of the impious, when by the merit of that same most holy Passion, the charity of God is poured forth, by the Holy Spirit, in the hearts of those that are justified, and is inherent therein: whence, man, through Jesus Christ, in whom he is ingrafted, receives, in the said justification, together with the remission of sins, all these (gifts) infused at once, faith, hope, and charity. For faith, unless hope and charity be added thereto, neither unites man perfectly with Christ, nor makes him a living member of His body. For which reason it is most truly said, that Faith without works is dead and profitless; and, In Christ Jesus neither circumcision, availeth anything, nor uncircumcision, but faith which worketh by charity. This faith, Catechumen's beg of the Church-agreeably to a tradition of the apostles-previously to the sacrament of Baptism; when they beg for the faith which bestows life everlasting, which, without hope and charity, faith cannot bestow: whence also do they immediately hear that word of Christ; If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. Wherefore, when receiving true and Christian justice, they are bidden, immediately on being born again, to preserve it pure and spotless, as the first robe given them through Jesus Christ in lieu of that which [Page 36] Adam, by his disobedience, lost for himself and for us, that so they may bear it before the judgment-seat of our Lord Jesus Christ, and may have life everlasting."
We see that baptism is the instrumental cause, but unless we parse and re-assemble that which we wish, we can not say that BoD/BoB are invalid. We have yet to prove Thomas Aquinas was Heretical in teaching the BoD/BoB are the same yet different from Baptism of Water. Until it is infallibly proven they are heretical, this is moot, as they could easily supply the requirement for Baptism.
**
Likewise, St. Robert Bellarmine was similarly mistaken in his understanding of the Council of Trent. St. Robert Bellarmine in his work De Ecclesia Militante states "there are those who belong to the soul [of the Church] and not the body, as catechumens or the excommunicated, if indeed they have charity, which can happen." Wow, this is a word for word contradiction of the Council of Trent.
Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Sess. 6, "Decree on Justification", Ch. 7, 1565, ex cathedra: "The causes of this justification are: ... the instrumental cause, the sacrament of baptism, which is the sacrament of faith, without which justification comes to no one. ... Consequently, in the process of justification, ... all these are infused at the same time: faith, hope, and charity. For faith, unless hope is added to it, and charity too, neither unites him perfectly with Christ nor makes him a living member of his body. ... From apostolic tradition, catechumens seek this faith from the church before the sacrament of baptism when they ask for the faith that gives eternal life; and this, without hope and charity, faith cannot give."
Clearly the Council of Trent is teaching that the faith of the catechumen does not save, as the catechumens "ask for the faith that gives eternal life" before the sacrament of baptism. Also, the Council Fathers are clear, the faith of the catechumen does not have the charity, which is infused into the soul of the catechumen at the sacrament of baptism, a charity that St. Robert Bellarmine says is necessary for him to be a living member of the Church.
Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Sess. 6, "Decree on Justification", Ch. 7, 1565, ex cathedra: "The causes of this justification are: ... the instrumental cause, the sacrament of baptism, which is the sacrament of faith, without which justification comes to no one. ... Consequently, in the process of justification, ... all these are infused at the same time: faith, hope, and charity. For faith, unless hope is added to it, and charity too, neither unites him perfectly with Christ nor makes him a living member of his body. ... From apostolic tradition, catechumens seek this faith from the church before the sacrament of baptism when they ask for the faith that gives eternal life; and this, without hope and charity, faith cannot give."
Clearly the Council of Trent is teaching that the faith of the catechumen does not save, as the catechumens "ask for the faith that gives eternal life" before the sacrament of baptism. Also, the Council Fathers are clear, the faith of the catechumen does not have the charity, which is infused into the soul of the catechumen at the sacrament of baptism, a charity that St. Robert Bellarmine says is necessary for him to be a living member of the Church.
**
The provided interpretation errs in the following sense. The council does confirm that faith does not provide eternal life, not without Hope and Charity. These are in fact provided by many things, the most instrumental being Baptism. However, until, again, BoD/BoB is proven heretical beyond doubt, this causes no scandal, as they would provide this infusion.
**
Clearly St. Alphonsus was confused and St. Robert Bellarmine was ignorant of the Council of Trent's dogmas, and the "ignorance/confusion" excuse works to pardon their material heresies. But again material heresy can never be said to be allowable. Is it pardonable under some circumstances? Yes. Is it allowable? Never! Heresy is never allowable. You just don't have access to his papers of canonization, so you can't say none of the excuses for material heresy would apply to him, especially since the written evidence shows of his confusion regarding the Council of Trent, Session 6, Chapter 4. Moreover, canonization are fallible. His canonization may someday be revoked. We just don't know. His canonization is a disciplinary teaching. I believe him to be a saint in Heaven, but am I absolutely sure of it? No. Why? Because canonizations are not infallible. Am I absolutely sure that sacramental water baptism is necessary for salvation? Yes, because God the Holy Ghost doesn't lie.
**
It is very easy to assume that the Doctors of the Church were confused and ignorant. But I would offer, rather, they were not, and we ourselves are being facetious in our assumption that we, 400 years or more after the councils, have a more intimate understanding of the churches doctrine than the Doctors of our Faith.
**
One additional point for all the heretics, who like to presume that their own "alleged" confusion will forgive them for their heretical denial of Church dogma, is that Canon Law tells us confusion isn't to be presumed. Instead, Canon Law tells us that the evil will is to be presumed. That is, God through Canon 2200 §2 is telling you heretics that on judgment day you are going to carry the burden of proof. Is this what you want to bet your salvation on?
The 1917 Code of Canon Law, Canon 2200 §2: "Positing an external violation of the law, dolus [evil will] in the external forum is presumed until the contrary is proven."
The 1917 Code of Canon Law, Canon 2200 §2: "Positing an external violation of the law, dolus [evil will] in the external forum is presumed until the contrary is proven."
**
As stated prior by the author, Canon Law is not infallible. He has no place using this in his defense, by his own admittance.
**
We can presume St. Alphonsus was innocent because his presumption of guilt was removed in the external forum by his canonization. Notice the words "until the contrary is proven" in the canon above. One can no longer presume St. Alphonsus' evil will because the Church has told us through the fallible, disciplinary teaching of his canonization that he is innocent. So until you "baptism of desire" and "baptism of blood" heretics get a similar statement made about you from a valid pope, all us Catholics are going to denounce you as heretics, because Canon 2200 tells us to do so. At this time, you have no excuse. Your claim of ignorance or confusion won't suffice. Your allowance for these man-made teachings, even if you personally don't believe in them, is a outright denial of the dogmas. As such, your guilt and evil will is presumed, and God will perform the ultimate and final judgment, a judgment in which you carry the burden of proving your innocence. Good luck.
It's this simple. Dogmas are infallible and written by God the Holy Ghost. The dogmas teach sacramental water baptism is absolutely necessary for justification and salvation. Amazingly, nobody disputes this. Moreover, it is a dogmatic fact that a less-than-unanimous consensus of the Church Fathers, which is all that "baptism of desire" and "baptism of blood" were taught by, does not allow for an exception to a dogma. Do you hear that? No plausible exception here. Moreover, no post-Council of Vienne pope ever penned or promulgated in forma specifica any written document supporting "baptism of desire" and "baptism of blood". But several popes did pen dogmas condemning these heresies. Only one post-Council of Vienne saint lived and died what looks to be teaching "baptism of desire" and "baptism of blood". His canonization is NOT infallible, and the Church tells us his guilt was pardoned for one of the four reasons previously listed. Get it, he was pardoned for his heresy, but that doesn't make his heresy an allowable opinion for you.
God the Holy Ghost teaches that "baptism of desire" and "baptism of blood" are condemned heretical beliefs, not allowable opinions. It would be foolish to the highest degree to wager your salvation, and the salvation of your chidren, on fallible sources of Catholic teaching, hoping for God's pardon, when clearly the infallible sources, to which NO exceptions can apply, show you to be heretical and outside the Catholic Church.
This much is certain: There is no salvation Outside the Catholic Church.
It's this simple. Dogmas are infallible and written by God the Holy Ghost. The dogmas teach sacramental water baptism is absolutely necessary for justification and salvation. Amazingly, nobody disputes this. Moreover, it is a dogmatic fact that a less-than-unanimous consensus of the Church Fathers, which is all that "baptism of desire" and "baptism of blood" were taught by, does not allow for an exception to a dogma. Do you hear that? No plausible exception here. Moreover, no post-Council of Vienne pope ever penned or promulgated in forma specifica any written document supporting "baptism of desire" and "baptism of blood". But several popes did pen dogmas condemning these heresies. Only one post-Council of Vienne saint lived and died what looks to be teaching "baptism of desire" and "baptism of blood". His canonization is NOT infallible, and the Church tells us his guilt was pardoned for one of the four reasons previously listed. Get it, he was pardoned for his heresy, but that doesn't make his heresy an allowable opinion for you.
God the Holy Ghost teaches that "baptism of desire" and "baptism of blood" are condemned heretical beliefs, not allowable opinions. It would be foolish to the highest degree to wager your salvation, and the salvation of your chidren, on fallible sources of Catholic teaching, hoping for God's pardon, when clearly the infallible sources, to which NO exceptions can apply, show you to be heretical and outside the Catholic Church.
This much is certain: There is no salvation Outside the Catholic Church.
**
Self Interpretation, with no backing, just purely hypothetical on the authors part. As well as fallible. Until the arguments provided are adequately addressed, he has no place in passing judgment, nor in assuring damnation to all those who would trust God's Church.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)