As a new person at this forum (two months), and a new Catholic convert (two years), I am now getting a great sense of confusion...as to which person’s post is reliable in their information and which person’s isn't. (Moderator Paul, excluded…of course.)

How am I supposed to tell which one of you is telling the truth? As a new convert, I came here to learn things, but now it seems that I can't really learn anything because once someone says something, someone else refutes it, and then someone else refutes THAT person.

Of course, I continue to study the Early Church Fathers, the Bible, the Catechism, watch EWTN, and have attended RCIA to try to learn more about my Catholic Faith. However, how am I supposed to know on this forum whom to believe or ignore?

Obviously, I CAN disbelieve anything that a non-Catholic, or anti-Catholic has to offer, and even refute it, but the thing that attracted me to the One True Church in the first place, was the UNITY. Where IS it?

My brain is getting a "swirlie". How can I tell WHO'S RIGHT on any given subject? AND, if it's all so subjective that I must double-check everything that anyone says, then why even go to the forum in the first place? If I have to research everything on here, shouldn't I just stick to researching Catholic documents and leave the mixed bag of opinions out of the mix?

Don't get me wrong...I appreciate everyone's opinion on this forum...free speech and all...but it does get confusing for newbies, converts, and lurking non-Catholics.

Paul, are you listening to this?

-- Victoria (tecdork99@pvfnet.com), July 16, 2003

Answers

Hi, Victoria.
Because of your last sentence, I'll defer to Paul to give the first reply. (Ironically, you may find Catholics disagreeing about how to answer you!)
God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), July 16, 2003.

Victoria.

It is very simple for a Catholic. Your Church is the truth. Listen to the words of the Pope. What is debated here is very interesting, but the final word is what you perceive from the Church.

Rodrigo.. .. ... .

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), July 16, 2003.

Dear Victoria,

You say "the thing that attracted me to the One True Church in the first place, was the UNITY. Where IS it?"

A: Well, I would say it is right where you just said it is - in the One True Church. However, an online forum is not the One True Church! This is a moderated but nevertheless open forum where anyone in the world can express their views, provided they respect the rather minimal rules for posting. The designated topic of the forum is Catholicism, but obviously not all views of Catholicism, even among those who call themselves Catholic, are identical, and many of those views and beliefs are just plain wrong.

So, how do you tell which posters are orthodox and which are not? It sounds to me like you are building a pretty firm foundation with the Church Fathers, the Bible, the Catechism, EWTN, and RCIA. The more we learn, the better position we are in to evaluate ideas about the faith that are expressed by others. There is no magic formula for classifying such ideas as orthodox or heterodox, except comparison to reliable objective standards. The teaching of the Church is the most reliable standard of truth. This of course includes the Bible (correctly interpreted) and the Catechism. The Fathers, while tremendously valuable in understanding the development of doctrine and the thinking of the early Church, may express some ideas which would not be considered entirely orthodox by current Church teaching. EWTN likewise is a consistently orthodox source, but is certainly not infallible. The least reliable source you are currently relating to is this forum. The only way to identify a given idea as orthodox is to compare it to more reliable sources. The only way to identify a given poster to the forum as consistently orthodox is to read what that person writes on a variety of topics, over time, and to check those ideas against reliable sources. But even then, don't make the mistake of identifying any individual as infallible (assuming that John Paul II doesn't start posting here).

I must agree with you on one point - misinformation offered by self- proclaimed "faithful Catholics" is far more insidious than misinformation from overtly hostile anti-Catholic sources.

I know that double-checking what you hear against known sources of truth can be time-consuming. But look at it this way. Verifying a fact is a one-time act. Every time you do it, you add to your "data base" of truth, one fact at a time. And every time you verify a fact from reliable sources, that's one less fact you will ever have to verify again. As time goes on, your stockpile of verified information grows, and your need to seek such verification shrinks. In other words, it gets easier as time goes on. In the meantime you will probably identify reliable (but not infallible) individuals who can help you cut through the bookwork by offering you guidance and direct information. Hopefully, some such folks in real life. Maybe even a few online. But it takes time and experience to develop trust in such an individual. Anyway, I'm starting to ramble, so let me wrap this up by saying ... keep doing what you are doing, don't rush yourself, and pray for guidance. God will provide. It is He Who brought you to where you are. It is you who followed Him here. He isn't about to abandon you now. He will continue to lead. Just continue to follow and your growth in the faith will be assured.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), July 16, 2003.

Catherine, it's not so one sided as portrayed, especially when both sides are saying the same thing.

Here's what I mean:

Emerald says about certain others, that they "...reject parts of the faith, and it gets annoying. Especially when they insist that they are the Catholics, and then label you as something else."

Likewise, Certain others say about Emerald and others that they "...reject parts of the faith, and it gets annoying. Especially when they insist that they are the Catholics, and then label you as something else."

So it does get complicated, and no, it isn't all me, even if I'm in it by myself or in agreement with other traditionalist of like mind.

People ought to know something, and I'm being very honest here. Not all traditionalist Catholics agree on everything, but from what I have seen, there is a great deal of charity among them, and this is a real comfort.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), July 16, 2003.

With all due respect, there is also a lot of charity among mormons, Jews, and many pagans. It is not charity that Jesus said would set us free, but truth. And while charity can exist among those of conflicting beliefs, truth cannot.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), July 16, 2003.

But Paul, do you realize how many places in the Saint's writings that clearly explain how true charity is inseparable from truth?

Just a thought.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), July 16, 2003.

Actually John for once the imposter has got it dead right "poor" Victoria.

Dear Paul with the greatest of respect: "misinfomation" offered by those claiming to be "faithful" Catholics is "insidious". What the heck?????

Were trying our best to learn and grow, yet we are human-we make mistakes! I think (correct me if Im wrong as you surely will!) but even you have erred before in your life on teachings of the Church. Its only "insidious" if the INTENT is to mislead. A few of us have some rather pecuilar personality traits , a few like Rod and I are doubting Thomas types, a few could eat a banana sideways and tend to rattle on but by God it would be a boring little place if we were all always correct!

internet discussion boards do not equal offical Church teachings, nor are they meant to0. Everything, even Pauls advice needs to be taken with a grain of salt, if poor Victoria cant work her way through different opinons and verify information ..if its all "too hard", then the poor little petal would be better spending her time elsewhere.

BTW did anyone mention www.newadvent.org and the Catholic encylopedia for Victoria ? EWTN sounds too similar to ESPN for my liking :-).

God Bless you Victoria but really sweetheart "get with the program!"

-- kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), July 17, 2003.

I posted this on another thread but I believe it is very appropriate here:

I am currently reading "Conclave" by Greg Tobin Copyright 2001 by Greg Tobin, in which one of the characters, Cardinal Vennholme is speaking to the protagonist, Cardinal Mulrennan.

Vennholme states, "Within Mother Church we love our little disputes and Curial intrigues. But they are disputes of brethren-of family. We are not so very far apart, you and I, not when compared to the gulf that exists between both of us and most of the world beyond these walls."

This could be said for a lot of us, brethren.

I think we, as Roman Catholics on the forum, fall into four categories:

Pre-Vatican IIs --who are the most conservative and would like to return to pre-Vatican II liturgy.

Orthodox who strive to remain true to the current teachings of the Church.

Progressives, who love the Church, but would like to see some changes.

Liberals, who would like to see wholesale changes.

Bottomline, we are all CATHOLICS. We all have faith and in our own ways are trying to do what is right.

We may disagree, we may fuss, but we love our God.

When in doubt on an issue, read what the Church teachs, then read why it teaches it.

I, for one, as I have learned more, have changed my views on certain issues, as I have learned why the Church teaches what it does.

For example, recently, I questioned views on artifical birth control. An article in Columbia magazine, the official publication of the Knights of Columbus, was an excellent source in explaining the Church teachings and the papal encyclical (Pope's teaching letter) on the subject.

I continue to learn.

Hope this helps, God bless,

-- john placette (jplacette@catholic.org), July 17, 2003.

Jmj
Hello, Victoria.

I hope that you have found helpful the responses you have received.
I just want to say how glad I was to have kept silent initially -- to let Paul speak first -- because when I reached the end of his message, I knew that I could endorse every single thing he told you (and could not have written it as well as he did).

Although some things were said by others with which I could not fully agree, I don't want to use this thread as a place to debate them. There will be other times and places ...

Victoria, Paul told you, "I know that double-checking what you hear against known sources of truth can be time-consuming." If I can give you just one bit of advice, it would be to avoid letting the forum overwhelm you. If it begins to take up an inordinate amount of time or energy, please take a break. (Early in my first year here, I left for several days, to "catch my breath.") I enjoy your contributions a lot, and I don't want you to become discouraged. If you're at all like me, you'll enjoy some days here a lot more than others -- and you will even be tempted to go away. I just hope that you'll be able to fight off that temptation.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), July 17, 2003.

Hi Victoria,

From convert-to-convert, I understand -- REALLY I Do! But we live on the "information highway" with high speed Internet to so much -- sometimes tooo much information.

I get information overload too and have to take breaks like John suggested. Sometimes I steer away from threads that are getting too heated, because oftentimes they are WAY over my head anyway. If you agree with one side, you get landbasted. If you agree with the other side ON EVEN THE MOST MINUTE POINT, you get your head blown off.

Stick to your resources, then pop in and see what's happening. If it looks like there's a food fight going on --- DUCK!!

Love,

Gail

P.S. Like me, you joined the Church at a very tumultuous time. You're strong though, Victoria, and God intends to use you. So hang in there! We are a very odd bunch on this forum, the Motley Crew so to speak, but hey we rub each other the right way too! "Iron sharpens iron so one man sharpens another." (Proverbs I think)

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), July 17, 2003.

Hi All,

As a new user of this forum (Born, Raised & Practicing Catholic), I would like to add that one of the great joys of being Catholic is that we don't have to work it out for ourselves!!! It doesn't really matter what we think, it's what the Church teaches that is important.

When Jesus told the Apostles that they must eat His Flesh and drink His Blood they were horrified. Many left because of their opinions on the matter. When Peter was asked "Are you going to leave also?" He replied "To whom shall we go?". He and the others stayed. Even though they must have been as horrified as those that left, it didn't matter what they thought. The truth is what matters.

Many times a Baptist will leave one church and look for another because they don't agree with the current pastor. What a joy in being Catholic .... All we have to do is look to the Holy Roman Catholic Church for our guidance. To whom shall we go indeed.

Victoria, when in doubt, look at what the Church teaches. It doesn't matter what anyone else says or thinks, the Truth is in the Church.

God Bless You.

-- Steve (Steve@MTEP.com), July 18, 2003.

Hi Steve, you are so very right. As a Protestant you almost have to be a theologian in order to "find the right church."

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), July 18, 2003.

Hi Gail,

Just to be cute .... If a protestant found the right Church ..... They wouldn't be protestant anymore. :)

God Bless You

-- Steve (Steve@MTEP.com), July 18, 2003.

Steve...that IS exactly what happened to me. I was a Protestant looking for the right church...and I DID find it. :0) (Well, actually the Holy Spirit whispered into my rebellious ear... and had to drag my brain--kicking and screaming--through the door.) Now, it is the greatest joy of my life...completeness and peace I never had before. I actually look forward to Sunday because I get the privilege of going to Mass. It's the highlight of my week. How blessed you are to have been born into the faith.

Gail, John, Paul and Eugene…you guys are the best!

The rest of you Motley Crew...thanks for the advice.

Kiwi...would you have spoken down to me the same way if I were a man? I am NOT a feminist, but I AM a scholar, an author, and my favorite reads are C.S. Lewis, Chesterton, and Belloc. I am no petal. Besides, even if I wanted to be, I'm forty now...no petals here...just potpourri....ha ha ha ha LOL!!!

-- Victoria (tecdork99@pvfnet.com), July 20, 2003.

I hate to break it to you Victoria, but Hilaire Belloc was... a traditionalist.

Doh!

Did you read The Great Heresies?

"Heresy is the dislocation of some complete and self-supporting scheme by the introduction of a novel denial of some essential part therein."

"...heresy means, then, the warping of a system by "Exception": by "Picking out" one part of the structure[1] and implies that the scheme is marred by taking away one part of it, denying one part of it, and either leaving the void unfilled or filling it with some new affirmation."

"...the reason that men combat heresy is not only, or principally, conservatism_a devotion to routine, a dislike of disturbance in their habits of thought_it is much more a perception that the heresy, in so far as it gains ground, will produce a way of living and a social character at issue with, irritating, and perhaps mortal to, the way of living and the social character produced by the old orthodox scheme."

It's a good book; it's all traditional, all the way.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), July 20, 2003.

Jmj

Hi, Victoria.
My words to you above indicated that I intended not to get involved in any kind of debate on this thread. However, much to my surprise, a certain key term in our Catholic vocabulary has been misused three times. So I thought I had better speak up, lest you be led astray. The root word of which I am speaking is "tradition," and a form of it that is oft misused these days is "traditionalist."

You probably learned the following in RCIA or in private reading, but I want to mention it at least for the benefit of "lurkers."
In Catholicism, we distinguish between two kinds of "tradition," one of which is usually spelled with an upper-case "T" because it represents one of the two fonts of Divine Revelation (the other being Scripture).

"Big-T Tradition" is also called Apostolic Tradition or Sacred Tradition." It is the "deposit of the Christian faith," handed down, through word of mouth by Jesus to the Apostles -- and from them (through the generations) to us. In fact, it is of Apostolic Tradition -- the fullness of the Good News, which was taught only orally for a decade or more -- that the written Word of God forming the New Testament is an excerpt.

"Small-t tradition," by great contrast, is that body of customs and practices, varying from place to place and era to era, that are associated with Catholic life and worship. The Church must guard against the proliferation of any such custom that would be of the kind that Jesus condemned as "mere human tradition" (particularly unreasonable and overly burdensome regulations).

Rather than go farther with this in my own words, I want to quote the Catechism:

11. "This catechism aims at presenting an organic synthesis of the essential and fundamental contents of Catholic doctrine, as regards both faith and morals, in the light of the Second Vatican Council and the whole of the Church's Tradition. Its principal sources are the Sacred Scriptures, the Fathers of the Church, the liturgy, and the Church's Magisterium [teaching authority]. It is intended to serve 'as a point of reference for the catechisms or compendia that are composed in the various countries'. [Extraordinary Synod of Bishops 1985, Final Report II B a, 4.]"

77. "'In order that the full and living Gospel might always be preserved in the Church the apostles left bishops as their successors. They gave them their own position of teaching authority.' Indeed, 'the apostolic preaching, which is expressed in a special way in the inspired books, was to be preserved in a continuous line of succession until the end of time.'"

78. "This living transmission, accomplished in the Holy Spirit, is called Tradition, since it is distinct from Sacred Scripture, though closely connected to it. Through Tradition, 'the Church, in her doctrine, life and worship, perpetuates and transmits to every generation all that she herself is, all that she believes.' 'The sayings of the holy Fathers [i.e, the Early Church Fathers] are a witness to the life-giving presence of this Tradition, showing how its riches are poured out in the practice and life of the Church, in her belief and her prayer.'"

81. "'Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit.' 'And (Holy) Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound and spread it abroad by their preaching.'"

82. "As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of revelation is entrusted, 'does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence.'"

83. "The Tradition here in question comes from the apostles and hands on what they received from Jesus' teaching and example and what they learned from the Holy Spirit. The first generation of Christians did not yet have a written New Testament, and the New Testament itself demonstrates the process of living Tradition. Tradition is to be distinguished from the various theological, disciplinary, liturgical or devotional traditions, born in the local churches over time. These are the particular forms, adapted to different places and times, in which the great Tradition is expressed. In the light of Tradition, these traditions can be retained, modified or even abandoned under the guidance of the Church's Magisterium. The heritage of faith entrusted to the whole of the Church."

When article #83 refers to "local churches" [in "traditions born in local churches"], it is referring especially to the legitimate diversity of ways of celebrating sacramental rites and ways of expressing theological truths that exists in the worldwide Church. That is why you will come across such expressions as "Eastern tradition" and "Western tradition" -- or "Latin tradition" and "Byzantine tradition".

Now, after having made my message already too long, I should get to the bottom of the problem here, shoudn't I?
As you may or may not know, Victoria, an unfortunate "schism" began in the Catholic Church not long after the year 1969, when Pope Paul VI approved (for use througout the Latin/Western church, which includes about 98% of Catholics) a revised rite of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Although this was not the first such revision in the Church's history, there was a small rebellion against the revised rite, resulting in a schism, with the excommunication of a French archbishop and many of his followers (the Society of St. Pius X [SSPX]). The archbishop was excommunicated for having ordained several bishops without the pope's permission, while the rest left the Church by attaching themselves to the archbishop, rather than to the pope. [In a schism, those who leave the Church are unwilling to fully (if at all) recognize the pastoral and disciplinary authority of the pope over them. This is what happened, in a major way, around 1054 A.D., when what we now call the Eastern Orthodox churches chose to regard the pope as only an equal to their bishops and patriarchs.]

Those who began to go into "de iure" schism in the 1970s -- and others (sympathizers) who are in "de facto" schism (including some visitors to this forum) -- tend to refer to themselves as "Traditional Catholics" or "Traditionalists." However, don't let that fool you. Some reflection reveals that those terms are inappropriate, but are being used for an aura of legitimacy (to attract followers) and as "defense mechanisms" (self-assuring "security blankets").

In fact, these people are no longer really "Catholics" nor "Traditional." Why not? Key elements in "Catholicism" and "Tradition" are obedience to the pope as chief visible pastor/shepherd of the Church and assent to doctrinal formulations approved by the pope as chief visible teacher of the Church. Compounding their schismatic actions, many of the afore-mentioned people -- after effectively appointing themselves (or their "leaders") as higher-ranking shepherds than the pope -- have gradually slipped into doctrinal dissent or even heresy. Including those who come to this forum, they have rejected some of what is taught in papal addresses and documents since 1960, some of what is taught in the documents of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council (1962-65), and some of what is taught in the new Catechism. (In an unofficial way, I go so far as to consider our local schismatics as "heretics," because they attempt to propagate a false understanding of a Catholic dogma concerning salvation.)

It was stated above that "Hilaire Belloc was a traditionalist." This should come as no surprise to anyone, because Belloc really was a "traditionist," just like all of us orthodox Catholics today -- but unlike the schismatics/heretics I just mentioned. Belloc followed Catholic Tradition by being fully obedient to, and giving doctrinal assent to, the popes of his lifetime. He did not go into schism or heresy. If he were alive today, he would stand beside us, with Pope John Paul II -- advising our forum's wanderers ("Emerald," Jake Pngusa, et al) to return to the Catholic faith.

[I should mention that there is a small group of orthodox Catholics today that sometimes call themselves "traditionalists." These are folks who wisely assent to papal, conciliar, and catechism teachings ... who obey papal disciplines ... and who do not disparage the revised rite of the Mass ... but who continue to attend Mass (where celebrated with papal and episcopal approval) according to the older (pre-1969) rite. Though the potential for confusion of these folks with schismatics exists (because of the shared name), it is not inappropriate to call these folks both "Traditionalists" and "traditionalists," because they do adhere fully to Catholic Apostolic "Tradition" and they have a special attachment to what are "traditions" -- long-used, customary, sacramental rites and devotions.]

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), July 20, 2003.

And what is so grievious to me is that this schism seems to be more about Latin than anything else. I am sure there are some peripheral issues, but Latin seems to be the centerpiece of this schism. In Protestantism churches can split over "style of worship" the "color of the carpet," "serving coffee in the foyer," and on and on. I really really HATE SCHISM!! I bet Victoria has had her fill of it too! That's why we came HOME to the Catholic Church -- the Ancient Church -- the Church of our forefathers.

So the [t]radition of Latin being used at Mass NO MORE seems to be the proverbial "splitting of the hair". Am I right?

Love,

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), July 20, 2003.

I would say no, that it would actually be more of a doctrinal nature.

My main attraction to the Mass of Trent is that it is doctrinally accurate and rich; it clearly lays out the true condition of man before God, and clearly lays out the remedy that is the way of Salvation.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), July 20, 2003.

Thank goodness we have self-appointed laymen watchdogs to safeguard the doctrine of the Church against the ravages of the Pope and the Magisterium!

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), July 20, 2003.

Oh boy, here we go again . . .

Can we just keep this simple for a change, and not throw sarcasms at each other?

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), July 20, 2003.

Mmmmeraldo,

''. . . it's doctrinally accurate and rich; it clearly lays out the true condition of man before God, and clearly lays out the remedy that is the way of salvation.''

Perfect description of Holy Mass in our parishes; celebrating in English with prayer, adoration, praise and thanksgiving, amidst the saints and angels; with God given glory and worship as Christ His Son is made present on our holy altars, together with us, the Communion of Saints. No deficiency, no schism, no doubt or unhappiness. The Mass in our day, for all days to the end of the world. Glory to Jesus Christ Our Redeemer! Amen--!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), July 20, 2003.

...and when I see the tabernacle moved over to side and out of sight in our times, I think of Gethsemane, and I remember Peter's denials. Which, of course, he was forgiven for in God's mercy. I remember the crowds of Palm Sunday.

And only you will understand this, but when you hike to the cross on top Mt. Helix, you pass all the rich people's houses that are camped out below the theatre enjoying the view. You know what I'm talking about; only you would.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), July 21, 2003.

Hi Victoria, yes I would have spoken to you the same if you were a man not that justifies the sexist putdown.I guess i felt you misunderstood what a DISCUSSION board is all about, its purpose. ANyway I should have tried a bit more empathy and put myself in your shoes. Unlike you Im not a scholar in theology, just big boofhead mouthing off, I can tend to be a bit blunt or direct... just tell me to pull my head in. I am building up a better understanding of some specific Church teachings but the gaps are so big its just not funny.

Anyway i thought life begins at 40????? God Bless!

ps The old moderators words:

"note that this is not an official Catholic forum. The opinions you read here are those of the people who post them and may not represent official church opinion."

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), July 21, 2003.

From The Great Heresies by Hilaire Belloc, Chapter Seven entitled "The Modern Phase":

"We approach the greatest moment of all. The Faith is now in the presence not of a particular heresy as in the past the Arian, the Manichean, the Albigensian, the Mohammedan nor is it in the presence of a sort of generalized heresy as it was when it had to meet the Protestant revolution from three to four hundred years ago.

The enemy which the Faith now has to meet, and which may be called "The Modern Attack," is a wholesale assault upon the fundamentals of the Faith, upon the very existence of the Faith. And the enemy now advancing against us is increasingly conscious of the fact that there can be no question of neutrality. The forces now opposed to the Faith design to destroy. The battle is henceforward engaged upon a definite line of cleavage, involving the survival or destruction of the Catholic Church. And all, not a portion, of its philosophy.

We know, of course, that the Catholic Church cannot be destroyed. But what we do not know is the extent of the area over which it will survive; its power of revival or the power of the enemy to push it further and further back on to its last defences until it may seem as though anti-Christ had come and the final issue was about to be decided. Of such moment is the struggle immediately before the world."

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), July 21, 2003.

Hey Kiwi, you said "Unlike you Im not a scholar in theology, just big boofhead mouthing off, I can tend to be a bit blunt or direct." FINALLY, WE AGREE ON SOMETHING!!!! Ha, ha, ha . . . !

Love you Kiwi,

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), July 21, 2003.

Hey, Kiwi, what's a "boofhead?"
Does that mean you have a bouffant hair-do?

(I think your talkin' New Zealand slang!)
JFG

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), July 21, 2003.

Somebody back there said Belloc was a traditionalist...yeah...and your point?

I came from a watered down, half-truth, whatever I want at the time, kind of heresy...Protestantism. Therefore, speaking for many converts, we are looking for the TRUE Church and find it in the 2000 year history of the Catholic church. Since we've been "rescued" out of lies and heresies that were invented and built upon, we are usually not anxious to start changing everything around...we already know the complete and utter danger of doing that! It's starts with one little thing and then it grows, like a cancer until nobody even knows the original idea anymore.

I guess I'm saying that I'm a traditionist and a Traditionalist.

(BTW...Belloc didn't always use politically correct, touchy-feely, language...even for HIS day. I like that in a person. Fr. Corapi, Eugene...John... :0)

-- Victoria (tecdork99@pvfnet.com), July 21, 2003.

God love you, Victoria!

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), July 21, 2003.

Somebody back there said Belloc was a traditionalist...yeah...and your point?

That was me... just, I don't know, scroll back and look? Yeah... alright. My point was that Belloc was a traditionalist. What's yours?

"Since we've been "rescued" out of lies and heresies that were invented and built upon, we are usually not anxious to start changing everything around...we already know the complete and utter danger of doing that! It's starts with one little thing and then it grows, like a cancer until nobody even knows the original idea anymore."

That's great to hear! I wish more Catholics thought this way.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), July 21, 2003.

Yeah, but Emerald, Victoria and I are POST Vatican II converts. So if the Church went back to the Trent Mass, then we would be screaming "Hey don't change that!!"

But I do echo Victoria's sentiments. They are mine exactly. After having been SPUN from Protestant circle to Protestant circle and their various notions and ideas the idea of stability is OH, SO VERY APPEALING!!!

Love,

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), July 21, 2003.

"So if the Church went back to the Trent Mass, then we would be screaming "Hey don't change that!!"..."

For some probably, but for others, I think you might be surprised. Yesterday afternoon I met this Catholic lady, a convert from the Protestantism and I'm guessing maybe in her late 50's, who was disillusioned by seeing so much of what she had left behind in the post conciliar format. She found her resting place in the Mass of Trent and in what today people call traditional Catholicism. I have met many people with the same story.

The term Traditional Catholicism did not come about because it is a new thing or a deviation, but as an unfortunate temporary necessity in order to distinguish between what always was and what are consider new proposals and deviations. It's kind of like when the Protestants call us the RCC so as to enable them to perpetrate this notion that there's Christianity, and then there's the RCC. Obviously a false distinction.

In the case of the term "Traditional Catholic" or "Traditionalist", no harm is done imho because part of Catholicism is tradition.

As for John's layout of the situation as he sees it... obviously I think it is a gross misrepresentation.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), July 21, 2003.

I do love the Mass as I know it, though, Em, and from my perspective, it is THE most holy, reverent service I have ever attended. I never fail to feel like I've been lifted up to heaven. It is exhilarating. I would love to attend a Trent Mass some time, and if I get a chance I will. But I'm content, very content with the "modern day" Mass.

The last Protestant church I attended was a Wesleyan Church, which is usually very devout and reverent. I recently heard, however, that in an effort to be seeker sensitive they have adopted Motorcycle Madness as their centerpiece (enlisting all its members in it's motorcycle gang), and during one Sunday morning service, rather than engaging in prayer or adoration, they played Ted Nugent's Motor City Madness blaringly loud while showing a big screen videotape of its parishioners on their respective "hogs" blazing new paths (for Jesus of course). Hah! Can you imagine THAT!

Love,

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), July 21, 2003.

Just for fun sometime, google the liturgy of the Tridentine Mass and see if you can't get one of those side-by-side deals with the Latin on the left and the English translation on the right. Then just read it and think about it. It's actually a prayer, really, and the highest of all prayers. Pope St. Pius X told the laity to pray the Mass and encouraged everyone to deeply set their mind and heart into it.

There's so much incredible richness there, it's really incredible. Every time I go I see something new that I hadn't noticed before. So much more than the smells 'n bells that everyone supposes it to be. It's like a raw download of Catholic truth.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), July 21, 2003.

Indeed it is! As is every Mass! As for "the highest of all prayers", that would be the prayer Jesus Himself gave us, which is an integral part of every Mass - though more meaningful when I say it in my own language.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), July 21, 2003.

"If you are on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road; and in that case the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive man... Going back is the quickest way on."

- C.S.Lewis

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), July 22, 2003.

Any road which the Pope and the Magisterium are not walking is the wrong road.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), July 22, 2003.

Gail said, "And what is so grievious to me is that this schism seems to be more about Latin than anything else."

It probably comes down to that :-), but more serious concerns need to be declared to cause a schism. Actually the Novus Ordo Mass could be said partly or entirely in Latin.

The traditionalists complain particularly about changes in the words of the consecration, e.g., the Tridentine Mass just has "This is my body", [Matt.26:26, Mk.14:22] as opposed to the Novus Ordo "This is my body, which will be given up for you." [Luke 22:19]

The English translation of the Novus Ordo Mass is also not literal, which excites much complaint from the traditionalists. For example, "et cum spiritu tuo" (and with thy spirit) gets translated to "and also with you". And especially, in the consecration of the chalice "et pro multis" (.. and for many ..)[Matt.26:28, Mk.14:24] gets translated to "and for all men."

Here is the text of the Mass in Latin and English.

-- Stephen (StephenLynn999@msn.com), July 22, 2003.

lol!

Look at the English translation of the Tridentine Rite is what I said; not a Latin translation of the Novus Ordo. The latter is kind of a self fulfilling prophecy, is it not? In the latter case, it really would be just about Latin and nothing more.

I mean, that's pointless. There's a ton of substance in the Tridentine Mass that have been omitted from the Novus Ordo; it's not that hard to find. Just look for it.

No, it's not just about Latin. Do her justice, Stephen, and find an English translation of the Tridentine Mass. =)

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), July 22, 2003.

I'm talking about things such as this:

"Accept, O Holy Father, Almighty and eternal God, this spotless host, which I, Thine unworthy servant, offer to Thee, my living and true God, to atone for my numberless sins, offenses and negligences; on behalf of all here present and likewise for all faithful Christians living and dead, that it may profit me and them as a means of salvation to life everlasting. Amen."

And this:

"We offer unto Thee, O Lord, the chalice of salvation, humbly begging of Thy mercy that it may arise before Thy divine Majesty, with a pleasing fragrance, for our salvation and for that of the whole world."

It starts out this way:

"In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, + and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.

I will go to the altar of God.

S: To God, the joy of my youth.

Do me justice, O God, and fight my fight against an unholy people, rescue me from the wicked and deceitful man. For Thou, O God, art my strength, why hast Thou forsaken me? And why do I go about in sadness, while the enemy harasses me? Send forth Thy light and thy truth: for they have led me and brought me to thy holy hill and Thy dwelling place. And I will go to the altar of god, to God, the joy of my youth. I shall yet praise Thee upon the harp, O God, my God. Why art thou sad, my soul, and why art thou downcast? Trust in God, for I shall yet praise Him, my Savior, and my God..."

It really does deserve a serious look.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), July 22, 2003.

Here is a good response to some traditionalist complaints about the Mass.

In Defense of the Pauline Mass

-- Stephen (StephenLynn999@msn.com), July 22, 2003.

Here's a link to the Tridentine Mass with parallel English translation.

-- Stephen (StephenLynn999@msn.com), July 22, 2003.

There you go, that one's pretty decent. I saw that one, but was looking for something with a format that was a little easier to follow. It works, though.

In all honesty, I never went through a process where I was reading comparisons, arguments for and against, and so forth. I just decided to go there exclusively every Sunday, and what I learned, I learned when I got there. I saw a little more every Sunday, and it's still happening.

People seem to think one reads what is deemed questionable material on these matters, and then runs off and foolishly acts upon it, and takes on a certain supposed deviant ways of thinking. I'm not sure who is supposed to be doing that, but I know it's not me. Do you understand what I getting at?

About Matt1618, I don't think it would be any big matter to dice through a lot of his machinations, except for one big consideration, which is the sheer volume of text. Like a lot of what post conciliar presents us with, the sheer load of words makes the task of combing through it a virtual headache. And Eugene thought I was bad...

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), July 22, 2003.

Hi Emerald,

Bottom line is .... If you want to be a Catholic, you have to be obedient to the Church and it's teaching.

If I said "I didn't read a lot of pros & cons, I just went exclusively to the synagogue every week and learned everything I know there" Would that make me a Catholic? I have no problem with the form of the Tridentine Mass other than those who celebrate it are in opposition to the Pope and therefore the True Church.

-- Steve (Steve@MTEP.com), July 22, 2003.

Jmj

Hello, Stephen(Lynn). You wrote:
"The traditionalists complain particularly about changes in the words of the consecration ..."

That was the first of your three misuses of the term "traditionalist." As I carefully and painstakingly explained, above, these people are NOT "traditionalists." They are schismatics, excommunicated from the Church. They are no longer Catholics. Only Catholics can be "traditionalists" (whichever rite of the Mass they prefer).

Be extremely careful in your discussions with "Emerald" (who has repeatedly forfeited his right to post at the forum). He is here to deceive you. He was half the reason that one good Catholic got fooled into schism (a few months ago). The sickest thing about Emerald is that he is a "termite" (just like the radical feminist dissenters who "work" in the Church's bureaucracy). He continues to attend Mass [indult old rite] at a legitimate Catholic Church, but he works against Catholicism from within (like a termite eating away at the beams of the Bark of Peter). He says that one Mass rite is better than the other -- and that errors are taught by our pope, in Vatican II, and in the Catechism. He writes heretically at least on one dogma concerning salvation. If you must speak to him (which no one really should), please be incredibly careful, for he is as devious as they come. The devil is overjoyed that he is here and is permitted to continue to post.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), July 22, 2003.

More of the same false accusations.

Each and every accusation can be taken apart in light of the Catholic Faith of the ages, using all that is in the Deposit of the Faith, the past dogmatic councils, the works of the Doctors of the Church, and the works of the Saints.

Steve:

"Bottom line is .... If you want to be a Catholic, you have to be obedient to the Church and it's teaching."

I am fully obedient to the Church and it's teachings. People would like to make the case that I'm not, but the case can't be made because it isn't the truth. I give my entire consent of will and intellect to all the doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), July 22, 2003.

John:

Your point is well taken. Perhaps a better term may be sola- tradition-ists, which may better convey why the position deviates from Catholic teaching. There are also fully loyal Catholics who may question some of ICEL's translation decisions, without being irreverent towards the Novus Ordo Mass. They should be distinguished from the sola-traditionists.

I revere the Novus Ordo Mass and there is no fear of my being drawn into schism on this issue. But the warning is appreciated.

The impersonator has posted an offensive comment directed at you in my name on another thread. If you unfortunately see it, please realize that it is not from me.

Emerald:

You mentioned a Latin translation of the Novus Ordo. The Latin text is the original. The English is the translation.

-- Stephen (StephenLynn999@msn.com), July 22, 2003.

If you say so, Emerald, but you keep making comments that sound wishy- washy.

For instance, hinting that the teaching concerning the Baptism of desire and Baptism of blood is contrary to the teaching that there is no salvation outside the Church. Do you accept the faith as it is put forth in the Catechism?

Also, hinting that reason is contrary to faith. Martin Luther started off in the same way; a great example of how faith without reason becomes superstition.

Finally, hinting that the "perennial philosophy" approved by the Church may be at fault- even heretical.

I'd like you to clear up your stand in these areas.

-- Catherine Ann (catfishbird@yahoo.ca), July 22, 2003.

And as an exhibit of beauty in the liturgy, here's something from the Novus Ordo Mass for July 22nd:

R (1b) Let us sing to the Lord; he has covered himself in glory.

At the breath of your anger the waters piled up,

the flowing waters stood like a mound,

the flood waters congealed in the midst of the sea.

The enemy boasted, "I will pursue and overtake them;

I will divide the spoils and have my fill of them;

I will draw my sword; my hand shall despoil them!"

R Let us sing to the Lord; he has covered himself in glory.

When your wind blew, the sea covered them;

like lead they sank in the mighty waters.

When you stretched out your right hand, the earth swallowed them!

R Let us sing to the Lord; he has covered himself in glory.

And you brought them in and planted them on the mountain of your inheritance–

the place where you made your seat, O LORD,

the sanctuary, O LORD, which your hands established.

R Let us sing to the Lord; he has covered himself in glory.

-- Stephen (StephenLynn999@msn.com), July 22, 2003.

Baptism of Blood and Desire are not defined doctrines, but are what's called theological speculations. They are not contained in the Deposit of the Faith.

To be up front, even traditionalist friends of mine disagree over this matter, however, they do not at all disagree over the fact that the path of salvation is narrow.

Some Catechisms, even the Catechism of Pius X, admit of Baptism of Blood and Desire; others don't.

St. Augustine held one opinion of it similiar to the common opinion today, but later in his life and career took on the "no exception" position, stating that we ought not monkey around with the precepts that Christ laid out.

At any rate, it is nowhere defined as doctrine. What is? That water baptism is required... Scripture, Council of Trent, Doctors of the Church, Saints, etc. The issue is not merely from this last century but the debate can be traced back for hundreds of years.

As a point of fact, while a catechism of the Church is by no means to be blown off or held in little esteem, on the other hand they are not infallible documents and can indeed contain error. To say as much is not at all out of line with Catholic belief.

Obviously, anything in any catechism that restates that which is in the Deposit of the Faith sealed at the time of Pentecost, or that which is a defined doctrine of the Catholic Church, demands our assent. In fact, that's exactly what they were meant to be used for; they weren't meant to be laying out all kinds of new understandings of things.

Now as for the matter of me being a heretic for holding this position, they've tried that before and it ended up in the priest being vindicated in his holding of the doctrine Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus. Because it's the truth. It's been dogmatically defined.

Besides that, it's kind of ridiculous to go to Hell for saying that the Catholic Church is the only way of salvation. If not, then I don't know what He was thinking of when He allowed Himself to be crucified like that...

About the Mercy of God and people who supposedly can't possibly receive Baptism due to circumstance such as location and whatnot? I don't believe God is limited by these simplistic things. I think the incredible majesty of God will find a way to get that person the Baptism that he is so desiring.

We can't assume anything else, because our doctrines state that it is absolutely necessary.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), July 22, 2003.

Okay, I think I see your stand on ONE point. Continue?

-- Catherine Ann (catfishbird@yahoo.ca), July 22, 2003.

About philosophical handmaidens to the Faith?

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), July 22, 2003.

All philosophical handmaidens to the Faith are going to fall down at some point in the attempt to come to a greater understanding of the principles of Divine Revelation because they are the efforts of fallen humans. Platonism is going to fall down and some point, and so will Aristotle. I like Platonism better, and it served the Church quite well for over a thousand years; Aristotle is alright, and the Church accepts it as a useful handmaiden.

But the minute any philosophical handmaiden to the Faith causes one to bring a principle of Divine Revelation into compromise, it becomes obviously more damaging than helpful. If there's a way to tweak something out of line and produce damaging effects on down the line, I'm sure the evil one will find a way to do it.

Here's the problem right now though; what we've been using as a handmaiden to the Faith is something along the lines of Existentialism; and that's a formula for disaster. There's no way in the world to keep intact any semblence of immutable reality and essences. Once that's gone, the Faith suffers intensely because very quickly the awareness in the Faithful's mind about things eternal beyond the flesh and beyond our current worldly existence begin to relax and disappear.

The Faith though is always there; it's the truth and no human ideas can impact it.

In all of this though, it sounds like a person has to know a bunch of junk in order to be saved, and that's the furthest thing from the truth that could possibly be. When it comes to the intellect, the demon can put you in a chokehold in an instant; the only thing he can't touch is humility because he absolutely cannot understand it. Enter the humble Virgin, who will strike at his head and defeat him. You can only really learn that from the Blessed Mother, since she is the dispenser of all the graces.

People think it's insane, but it's true: Say your Rosary, run to the Blessed Mother. Run to the Eucharist; the Sacraments.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), July 22, 2003.

Hmm...

while a catechism of the Church is by no means to be blown off or held in little esteem, on the other hand they are not infallible documents and can indeed contain error.

Can you give a single example of a statement in an earlier Catechism that was later found to be an error?

-- Stephen (StephenLynn999@msn.com), July 22, 2003.

I heard they were revising a few things, but I don't know what they are or if they did it yet.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), July 22, 2003.

I got your question wrong, sorry. No, I don't know any offhand.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), July 22, 2003.

What I was getting at was about the catechism is actually a part of a bigger thing.

People get the impression that traditional Catholicism (that which has been throughout the history of the Church) takes only the defined doctrines of the Catholic Church and wipes everything else clean off the table and disregards them. That's not the case at all, not even close; there are all sorts of things that aren't in the category of the infallible that demand a pious assent.

For instance, the message of Fatima is not declared as something of an infallible nature, but to say that because of this fact it can be ignored... I say, no it can't; not at all for a variety of reasons. There's so many things of this nature.

It's in matters where a proposal contradicts known doctrine that we are not required to lend our assent, and in fact must withhold our assent in order to keep our Faith whole and undefiled.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), July 22, 2003.

The issue is not merely from this last century but the debate can be traced back for hundreds of years.

Perhaps a good example of what I called "sola-traditionism". Support can be found in tradition for both the rigorist and the "invincible ignorance" position, so we can choose whichever one we prefer.

Logical, except that the Catholic faith is not based solely on tradition. And in this case, the magisterium has ruled quite clearly and unambiguously for the position that you don't like.

There is no conflict between "extra ecclesiam nulla salus" and "baptism of desire" as the Catechism makes clear.

-- Stephen (StephenLynn999@msn.com), July 22, 2003.

Here's the problem right now though; what we've been using as a handmaiden to the Faith is something along the lines of Existentialism; and that's a formula for disaster.

Rather sweeping, wouldn't you say? Existentialism?! Any examples?

The thing I liked most about the Catechism when I first looked at it was that it strongly reminded me of an old book of my grandmother's called "My way of Life". This book was kind of a layperson's approach to Thomism.

-- Stephen (StephenLynn999@msn.com), July 22, 2003.

"There is no conflict between "extra ecclesiam nulla salus" and "baptism of desire" as the Catechism makes clear."

Oh sure there is. lol! That's the matter at hand, though. Granted, this can be an extremely confusing topic. Yes, you do have the magisterium of the Church promoting it now, yet under a non-dogmatic format. But then you have the magisterium ruling it out within a clearly dogmatic format.

On top of that, you have the understandings of the Saints. Arriving at a conclusion by this means is inductive... just read and read and grab tons of quotes all saying the same thing. Less exact, but in a way, more convincing.

What's the big deal though? The big deal, or the big danger, is the inevitable and almost immediate lapse in into Universalism and Synchretism. Suddenly everyone's saved, and then comes lukewarmness, then worldliness and materials, then damnation because no one picks up the Cross of Christ. The Cross of Christ is rendered void because it is no longer a necessity... that's the big deal.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), July 22, 2003.

There are many teachings that are not defined dogma, but which Catholics should still regard as infallible. Matters of "private revelation" however, like Fatima, do not fall in that category. No Catholic is obliged to accept or believe anything connected with any purpoted apparition, including approved apparitions.

It is true that we must withhold our assent if someone, such as a parish priest, says something contrary to the teaching of the Church. However, it is NOT true that individuals are free to judge the teaching of the Church itself as valid or invalid. The Church CANNOT officially teach anything false, so its official teaching is the criterion of truth against which everything else must be judged. In fact though, many of the points over which so- called "traditionalists" make the biggest fuss - such as the format of the Mass - are not doctrinal issues at all. Therefore the question of "right" vs "wrong" isn't even applicable. It is strictly a matter of some people just fearing change, and clinging to what they are used to. And that's a pretty shallow platform from which to launch charges of heresy and schism against the Church of God itself.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), July 22, 2003.

People think it's insane, but it's true: Say your Rosary, run to the Blessed Mother. Run to the Eucharist; the Sacraments.

Agreed and not insane at all.

The big deal, or the big danger, is the inevitable and almost immediate lapse in into Universalism and Synchretism.

Really? Why is this inevitable? You don't trust the Holy Spirit? "Immediate" it definitely is not, since the idea has been around forever, as you yourself mentioned, but the lapse hasn't yet occurred.

On top of that, you have the understandings of the Saints. Arriving at a conclusion by this means is inductive... just read and read and grab tons of quotes all saying the same thing. Less exact, but in a way, more convincing.

Sola tradition again.

Yes, you do have the magisterium of the Church promoting it now, yet under a non-dogmatic format. But then you have the magisterium ruling it out within a clearly dogmatic format.

This is a claim that the Catechism contradicts itself. I'll let somebody else field it. Paul or someone can handle it better.

By the way, talking of universalism, why don't you post something on the "Is Hell empty" thread I started. You'd (probably) be on the side of the angels there. :-)

-- Stephen (StephenLynn999@msn.com), July 23, 2003.

"There are many teachings that are not defined dogma, but which Catholics should still regard as infallible."

I know what you are talking about, and agree except I would change that last word in the sentence, "infallible", and say "should still lend our assent". Infallible has a very specific meaning, and does not apply to this category of things, but to those cases where the Church officially intends to define a point of doctrine or morality. You know when they are doing it because they preface it with words such as "we hereby define, profess, declare...' etc. There's no mincing words and no ambiguities in these declarations.

"Matters of "private revelation" however, like Fatima, do not fall in that category. No Catholic is obliged to accept or believe anything connected with any purpoted apparition, including approved apparitions."

That's true in the strictest sense, but like your first statement, we are not free to merely wipe them aside either. They have Church approval, and in that regard and in regards to their content, the implications for the Church are huge. "It is true that we must withhold our assent if someone, such as a parish priest, says something contrary to the teaching of the Church. However, it is NOT true that individuals are free to judge the teaching of the Church itself as valid or invalid."

I agree, except sometimes people take that word "teachings" and make it inclusive of so much more than what is actually "teachings of the Church". Technically speaking, and in reference back to the Deposit of the Faith, there's not a lot of wiggle room there.

"The Church CANNOT officially teach anything false, so its official teaching is the criterion of truth against which everything else must be judged."

Prelates in the Church can promulgate falsities, and it has happened, even to Popes in the past. When they do so, they speak their opinions but it always happens outside the context of their office. What you say is true in that a pontiff, for instance, can never get up and attempt to make a dogmatic definition of something that is in contradiction to the Faith. This is where the Holy Ghost's protection of the Church comes into play. It's passive in mode, and not so much like today's idea of an active Holy Spirit that speaks in realtime, so to speak. It's passive in nature; that's what "The Gates of Hell will not prevail" means.

"In fact though, many of the points over which so- called "traditionalists" make the biggest fuss - such as the format of the Mass - are not doctrinal issues at all."

The format of the Mass is highly doctrinal; very much so.

"It is strictly a matter of some people just fearing change, and clinging to what they are used to."

I believe in a "fear of change" factor, but it's a lot different. Imho, the fear factor is that if one takes on traditional Catholicism, their whole life, their whole way of thinking will be radically altered. It's about sacrifice and penance and icky stuff, and in a way, I don't blame them for the fear; scares the Hell out of me too.

"And that's a pretty shallow platform from which to launch charges of heresy and schism against the Church of God itself."

If and when I would level it, it wouldn't be against the Catholic Church itself, but against bad people in it... something that we were told in Scripture is not only a possibility but that it will happen.

That being said, I stop short of leveling the accusation, since it isn't my place. My job is the pray for these prelates. If I fail in that duty, it's my buns that gets toasted.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), July 23, 2003.

"Really? Why is this inevitable? You don't trust the Holy Spirit?"

Sure I trust the Holy Ghost... the question is, what's He saying and who'd saying He is saying what? He won't be saying anything other than what He has always said. Who said He said something to them, and what did He say?

Do you mean is the Church guided by the Holy Spirit? Yes, absolutely. He isn't downloading new ideas into anyone though, if you get my drift.

"Immediate" it definitely is not, since the idea has been around forever, as you yourself mentioned, but the lapse hasn't yet occurred.

You're right; my bad. Eventually or inevitably.

"Sola traditio" again.

I think that's a bogus concept. lol! I'm not trying to be being rude, but it's kind of like "integrist" term they came up with, which means heaven knows what, I don't know. It's got a trendy kick to it, but that seems about it. It's no official Church terminolgy that I'm aware of, this sola traditio. It would be the equivalent of the use of the term Nuvo-Catholic being pushed from the other direction, which I'm not against using... but I can see how it would irritate someone.

"This is a claim that the Catechism contradicts itself."

Not so much that it contradicts itself, but that it contradicts previously defined doctrines of the Catholic Church in some places. I'm not saying that everything in the CCC is a lie, far from it; I'm saying that whatever is in there that is an accurate re-affirmation of existing doctrine I must lend my assent to.

But there's a TON of stuff in there, about all kinds of stuff that doesn't even really deal directly with the Deposit of the Faith. The book is HUGE.

"By the way, talking of universalism, why don't you post something on the "Is Hell empty" thread I started. You'd (probably) be on the side of the angels there. :-)"

I think I did early, right? About the narrow path?

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), July 23, 2003.

Emerald: Nope I can't find your post. You may want to switch to that thread.

I thought I coined the sola traditio word, but when I google it, I get over 1400 hits. :-) Anyway, I will continue to use it to refer to your position, since "traditionalist" could be inappropriate as JFG pointed out. Feel free to call me anything you want. :-)

-- Stephen (StephenLynn999@msn.com), July 23, 2003.

Can I call you... stephen? lol. You're right, I didn't post there.

You know what's one thing at the core of these issues is that people don't want to think that things can get real, real bad in the Catholic Church, even though history contradicts this idea. There have been times when most of Rome was in contradiction to the Faith with the exception of only a handful of the faithful. It wouldn't be a novel concept at all.

Who knows where this concept has originated that these conditions cannot occur, but it's like a lot in modern life where we demand all sorts of guarantees and certainties and insurances which hardly any other age in history had access to. I think in a way, this idea carries over to how people perceive it that the Holy Ghost protects His Church in the modern age. People want that security of believing that things won't drop below a comfortable level of confusion, let alone lapse into catastrophe and chaos.

So they attach to the truth that the Gates of Hell will not prevail against it a meaning well beyond the scope of it's true meaning. They take it as meaning "nothing can go wrong". Think about it: within the phrase itself is the very concept of the gates of Hell pressing in upon the Church. This means something.

By analogy, take us who are in the United States. The concept of an invading army marching down are streets randomly executing civilians and raping our wives and daughters is unfathomable to us. It's way outside the scope of our experience, and so we muse to ourselves that it is a virtual impossibility. We like that "insured" side of our existence and are quite comfortable in it. But that's not the common experience of human history; in fact, it's opposite is highly likely. Place yourself as a civilian in France or Germany in the Second World War (prophesied at Fatima btw) and your whole concept of reality, and what's possible and what's not, will change.

The truth of the matter is that it is very possible indeed that the forces of Satan can make huge inroads into the Catholic Church, and it is in fact part of the Scriptural layout of the future of the Church that this can and will happen. The guarantee is that Satan won't prevail, not that he won't exact untold damage.

This in no way brings our Faith to compromise; the Faith endures through furnaces and comes out more purified and even finer than ever; it always triumphs.

This is one root of difference, among many, between the traditionalist Catholics and what one might call the post-conciliar Catholic. A lot of it has to do with how the Holy Ghost acts upon His Church to protect it; a lot has to do with philosophical handmaidens for the Faith. A lot of things have to do with a lot of other things. It isn't simple, the path to salvation.

What do we do? Pray, do penance; knowledge won't save us. That's yet another area of disagreement.

Only saints will renew the Church. Let's make some saints.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), July 23, 2003.

So they attach to the truth that the Gates of Hell will not prevail against it a meaning well beyond the scope of it's true meaning. They take it as meaning "nothing can go wrong". Think about it: within the phrase itself is the very concept of the gates of Hell pressing in upon the Church. This means something.

Sure, but don't we turn trusting eyes towards God rather than fearful eyes towards Hell? The fear of God is quite different from the fear of Satan. (or is that Satin?)

What do we do? Pray, do penance; knowledge won't save us. That's yet another area of disagreement.

Really? I see no disagreement at all on that prescription. The "post-conciliar Catholic" doesn't pray or do penance? The "post-conciliar Catholic" is a neo-gnostic?!

-- Stephen (StephenLynn999@msn.com), July 23, 2003.

"Sure, but don't we turn trusting eyes towards God rather than fearful eyes towards Hell?"

I'd say both are absolutely necessary, and both work hand in hand. The only reason I say that is because in all the books of the Saints, that's all I've ever heard. It really is true, in a sense, that you don't really want to allow yourself to fall victim to your own private interpretation, in the sense that when one has the works of the saints to fall back on, it's almost complete foolishness not to stand on their shoulders. Everbody needs a coach, and every member needs the other member in the Mystical Body of Christ; there's absolutely no place for the sovereigntist type of spirituality. I used to think something dumb like that. There's this big thing about the Church militant and suffering and triumphant, all members being needed by the others in charity. It really is about Heaven and Hell, the four last things, and all have to be considered.

"The "post-conciliar Catholic" doesn't pray or do penance? The "post-conciliar Catholic" is a neo-gnostic?!"

I would never be able to make that claim with any credibility because I simply don't know and never will, but it's suspect to me because I rarely see it promoted beyond casual mention, and it seems like it's never something pounded in and driven home, or regularly proposed as absolutely necessary. I don't mean the prayer so much as the penance, and when it comes to prayer, it seems more like this personal talky thing instead of any sort of genuine meditation that's practice. That statement will no doubt enrage some people, but all I'm saying is that's my observation locally; I have no idea what happens elsewhere; I can only go based on what I see around me.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), July 23, 2003.

Well you might enjoy Paenitentiam Agere written by the man who started it all.

-- Stephen (StephenLynn999@msn.com), July 23, 2003.

Okay Emerald, so far you've said:

1) On Baptism:

Baptism of Blood and Desire are not defined doctrines... water baptism is required.

"There is no conflict between "extra ecclesiam nulla salus" and "baptism of desire" as the Catechism makes clear." Oh sure there is.

I don't believe God is limited by these simplistic things. I think the incredible majesty of God will find a way to get that person the Baptism that he is so desiring.

2) On the Church's Perennial Philosophy:

I like Platonism better.

What we've been using as a handmaiden to the Faith is something along the lines of Existentialism; and that's a formula for disaster.

3) On Faith and Reason: Nothing.

4) Another one: Where in Gaudium et Spes does it "clearly admit of a way of salvation outside the Church"? I've read it and can't find that.

Stephen: The thing I liked most about the Catechism when I first looked at it was that it strongly reminded me of an old book of my grandmother's called "My way of Life". This book was kind of a layperson's approach to Thomism. Hey, I've got that! I really like it, too.

-- Catherine Ann (catfishbird@yahoo.ca), July 23, 2003.

#3 is the same topic as #2.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), July 23, 2003.

Lumen Gentium would be the one where you could see it most clearly regarding matters of inside/outside the Church; Gaudium et Spes is the one that has the City of Man tone to it. Remember, these are pastoral in nature. They are not of a dogmatic character, despite the choice of wording in the title (Lumen Gentium). Our charge: keep the Faith.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), July 23, 2003.

Oh, sorry. Where in Lumen Gentium does it "clearly admit of a way of salvation outside of the Church"?

You know, I'm really getting intrigued by your statement:

What we've been using as a handmaiden to the Faith is something along the lines of Existentialism; and that's a formula for disaster.

I can assume two possibilities.

Either we have been using Thomistic Aristotelianism, and you claim that it is "along the lines of" Kierkegaarde's and/or Sartre's philosophy, or

We have switched over sometime in the early 1900's to a completely different philosophy which is "along the lines of" Kierkegaarde's and/or Sartre's philosophy.

Interesting, also, is your comment that equates *faith and reason* to the Church's perennial philosophy. Are you saying that as the Church recommends but does not insist on a Thomistic outlook on life, it recommends but does not insist on rational thought? And, as you prefer not to follow the Church's recommended philosophy, you prefer an irrational faith?

Hmmm... the existentialist Kierkegaard also insisted that irrational faith was the only end to man's life.

-- Catherine Ann (catfishbird@yahoo.ca), July 23, 2003.

Emmanuel Kant.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), July 23, 2003.

Yes?

-- Catherine Ann (catfishbird@yahoo.ca), July 23, 2003.

While you're at it, could you explain your statement:

"There is no conflict between "extra ecclesiam nulla salus" and "baptism of desire" as the Catechism makes clear." Oh sure there is.

A logical syllogism would be nice.

-- Catherine Ann (catfishbird@yahoo.ca), July 23, 2003.

Way to go, Catherine Ann! :-) That's a great book, I don't have a copy myself currently, but I'll probably look to acquire one soon.

-- Stephen (StephenLynn999@msn.com), July 23, 2003.

It wouldn't be a matter of the syllogism; syllogisms are the easy part because for the most part they are just plug and play.

It's a matter of the premises, which in this case is not just any premise derived from human reasoning but from Divine Revelation. That's what makes Theology Theology and not philosophy, because it takes its premises from Divine Revelation and then syllogizes from there to new conlusions. The new conclusions are subject to error, but never, ever the principles.

The premise in this case is taken from Scripture:

Amen, amen I say to you, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.

Then of course at Trent, Canon 2 we have it re-affirmed quite clearly:

If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary in Baptism, and therefore interprets metaphorically the words of Our Lord Jesus Christ: "Unless one be born agin of water and the Holy Ghost": let him be anathema.

So it's really not a matter of syllogism, but of principles; and not just any principle but a Principle of Faith, and a principle of faith which has been re-affirmed with anathemas attached. It's pretty clear; it's amazing people take issue with these things because someone in the hierarchy said it was ok. If someone in the hierarchy suddenly said homosexuality was ok in certain circumstances, would you listen to them?

It isn't a matter of me rejecting Lumen Gentium in Vatican II. It's a matter of not lying to myself about the nature of this document and about the nature of the entire Council itself. It don't pretend it's something it is not: I don't try to pretend it was a dogmatic council when it wasn't, since it was pastoral. I don't try to pretend that Lumen Gentium was binding in it's entirety when it was not. Anything in Lumen Gentium which was known as existing doctrine requires my assent, but not through it's appearance in Lumen Gentium. Lumen Gentium defined no new doctrines.

Here's the part you're looking for from Lumen Gentium:

But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Mohamedans, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind. Nor is God far distant from those who in shadows and images seek the unknown God, for it is He who gives to all men life and breath and all things, and as Saviour wills that all men be saved. Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience. Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life.

It's unfortunate, though, that this issue gets narrowed down to just Baptism, because it's denial really attacks, in some way, all the Sacraments. And the source problem that is allowing for this attacking strategy is a denial of real-ness of things.

It attacks each and every one of the Sacraments, even marriage, because marriage itself is an analogy of the Bride of Christ the Church and Christ the Bridegroom. Human marriage is a shadow that partakes in that analogy somehow, and it's clear from Scripture that the Bride is to have One love only (Canticles). Any degredation to this analogy results in any number of types of "marital infidelity" in the likeness. Any the Holy Orders, too, and so on.

But most particularly, it attacks Baptism and then next, the Eucharist; which is interesting because in the salvific act, it was water and blood that flows from the side of Christ.

To cut to the core of it though... what is being lost? The Faith in unseen realities and essences which we are more "real" than what we see in the Flesh. These Sacraments are realities, and desire does not make for a reality. It spurs one on to the aquisition of the reality, but it is not the reality itself.

Look, basically we've been openly saying that one can be saved without these Sacraments. Think about it; then, scroll up and see what Belloc said about ...by 'Exception'; he was truly on to something.

Again, if we have technical difficulties in our heads about the fairness of certain situations where it seems impossible for one to obtain a Sacrament, we are not because of this allowed in any way to make an exception to a precept laid out by God Almighty Himself in simple language. To do so is to deny an article of Faith, simply because we don't understand it. I can see the temptation to do so, but that doesn't make it right.

None of this puts one at odds with the teaching of the Church, because while the some in the Church have speculated and promulgated speculations regarding these things, none of these speculations have been defined as doctrine.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), July 23, 2003.

Here's another way to look at it: if God can pull off the Virgin Birth, then... why does he need us to come up with solutions to explain sticky situations where the obtaining of a Sacrament is concerned?

When we do so, and then say that we are obliged think these deviations because to do otherwise would be to be in opposition to the magisterium, we do so with a false understanding of real obedience to the magisterium of the Church; since the magisterium's real job is to uphold the dogma of the Faith.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), July 23, 2003.

Emerald:

Here's a good response to your stuff: Trent versus Baptism of Desire?

Unfortunately the link at the bottom of the page doesn't work. But it still presents pretty strong arguments.

I'll quote this:

Fr. Cekada demonstrates that Vatican I and the Roman Pontiff have unambiguously specified the type of teaching that the Catholic must believe and adhere to:

1. Solemn pronouncements of the extraordinary Magisterium.
2. Teachings of the universal ordinary Magisterium.
3. Teachings held by theologians to belong to the faith.
4. Doctrinal decisions of the Vatican congregations.
5. Theological truths and conclusions so certain that opposition to them merits some theological censure short of heresy.

Notice that 2. requires assent to the Catechism in its entirety.

-- Stephen (StephenLynn999@msn.com), July 23, 2003.

And here's what the broken link at the bottom of that page was likely pointing to:

TRENT DECLARATIONS ON THE BAPTISM OF DESIRE!

-- Stephen (StephenLynn999@msn.com), July 23, 2003.

Emerald:

I suggest that you do some serious introspection about this, since Fr. Anthony Cekada argues forcefully that your position both puts you in a state of mortal sin and is clearly heretical.

Here is the link.

Here is a relevant quote.

The Church’s requirements are a package. You accept and submit to them all, or you can’t honestly call yourself a Catholic.

And no matter what category theologians may attach to baptism of desire or baptism of blood — de fide, Catholic doctrine, or just “theologically certain” — to refuse adherence to a teaching in any of these categories is still a mortal sin against the faith..

Fr. Feeney’s adherents spill oceans of ink answering the question “who shall ascend.” Better they should first accept Vatican I and Pius IX’s answer to the question “what must I believe.”

Instead, they proclaim that the universal ordinary magisterium taught errors for centuries, and that Catholics have no duty to submit to it.

This is heresy pure and simple, putting them firmly extra Ecclesiam — where there is, as we know, nulla salus.

Think about it, Emerald. At the very least, you probably want to stop advocating this position on the forum.

-- Stephen (StephenLynn999@msn.com), July 23, 2003.

I know, it's tempting, isn't it, Stephen. But as you can see from Lumen Gentium above, your threat contains contains oh so very little power to convince. You see in the that text that just about anyone can make it... and so why not I? =)

You propose a circular argument. I claim that the Church claims that "outside the Church there is no salvation". By exception, you posit that it does not. You provide apparent proof of such, and by providing it, claim that I am outside the Church. Being outside the Church, I will go to Hell if I die in this state.

You are using my conclusion to support your premises with contradict my conclusion. I know it's tempting, though. Do you think I haven't heard the laver of regeneration angle on things, and that I have not mulled over this too? Very tempting.

Tempting enough for even Saint Augustine, who once held one position, then later and lastly came to another conclusion:

Before: "That the place of baptism is sometimes supplied by martyrdom is supported by an argument by no means trivial, which the blessed Cyprian adduces from the thief, to whom, though he was not baptized, it was yet said, “To-day shall thou be with me in Paradise.�� --From On Baptism Against the Donatists 4, 22 After: "Besides all this, there is the circumstance, which is not incredibly reported, that the thief who then believed as he hung by the side of the crucified Lord was sprinkled, as in a most sacred baptism, with the water which issued from the wound of the Saviour's side. I say nothing of the fact that nobody can prove, since none of us knows that he had not been baptized previous to his condemnation. However, let every man take this in the sense he may prefer; only let no rule about baptism affecting the Saviour's own precept be taken from this example of the thief.� --From On the Soul and Its Origin 1, 11

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), July 23, 2003.

Stephen:

Show me where the baptisms of blood and desire are explicit laid out as doctrine.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), July 23, 2003.

Emerald:

There is no circular logic here at all. You can hardly be accused of invincible ignorance. :-)

Why don't you move to a less controversial topic on another thread?

-- Stephen (StephenLynn999@msn.com), July 24, 2003.

"The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church."

I'm sure you know this one well; Pope Eugene IV in the Bull Cantate Domino.

Would you say that this Ex Cathedra statement rules out Baptism by Blood?

The reason I ask is to see if we can narrow it down to just a discussion of Baptism of Desire or not.

Yes/no?

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), July 24, 2003.

Hmm... Fr. Cekada appears to belong to a sola traditio group. I did not realize that when I posted the link. His arguments are sound enough though.

CCC#1271 (or thereabouts, going by memory) is good enough for me.

-- Stephen (StephenLynn999@msn.com), July 24, 2003.

I would certainly not agree that that rules out baptism of blood. It says nothing about baptism at all. For instance, it covers somebody who is baptised by water as a Catholic but turns Jehovah's Witness and then is killed as a JW missionary.

-- Stephen (StephenLynn999@msn.com), July 24, 2003.

"There is no circular logic here at all. You can hardly be accused of invincible ignorance. :-) Why don't you move to a less controversial topic on another thread?"

Because you post a link to another person's work without clearly laying out the case yourself as if you understood it. =)

Again, do you think I haven't picked through all these things?

And furthermore, can you explain how, even if one were to make the exceptions of Baptisms of Blood and Desire have blossomed into Universal Salvation that we see being promulgated in the Church today?

I believe that the excerpts I have provided vastly outweight what you think you see in Trent about desire.

Can you make the case in your own words?

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), July 24, 2003.

"Hmm... Fr. Cekada appears to belong to a sola traditio group."

Well sure, I mentioned that earlier upthread, that not all traditionalist agree on this topic.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), July 24, 2003.

Italics by desire... lol!

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), July 24, 2003.

you post a link to another person's work without clearly laying out the case yourself as if you understood it. =)

Why should it matter who makes the case, as long as the case is made?

-- Stephen (StephenLynn999@msn.com), July 24, 2003.

And furthermore, can you explain how, even if one were to make the exceptions of Baptisms of Blood and Desire have blossomed into Universal Salvation that we see being promulgated in the Church today?

Heaven help us! Yesterday, the slide into Universalism was only inevitable and immediate, but today it's already happened! :-)

-- Stephen (StephenLynn999@msn.com), July 24, 2003.

"Why should it matter who makes the case, as long as the case is made?"

Here's why: because you have to understand the ultimate objective of taking the course you're taking here. You've got one little line here or there in Trent which is being used to nullify this one:

"If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary in Baptism, and therefore interprets metaphorically the words of Our Lord Jesus Christ: "Unless one be born agin of water and the Holy Ghost": let him be anathema."

Congrats! lol. Now you are free to ignore the above, correct? Then on down the line, everyone can be saved by these exceptions, as we can clearly see from the quote from Lumen Gentium which I posted upthread.

It might help to know that "desire" is a bad translation. The latin word is Votum, which means vow.

At any rate, then, let me ask you... how does this now exclude the necessity of water baptism? Would you make an analogy, for instance, to a couple just married that had not consumated the marriage yet?

It's not as simplistic as honing in on the canon about the laver of regeneration when you have to face the fact the water and the spirit are both in the formula. This would be the equivalent of "wresting it to a metaphor". The act has to be completed, like the marriage act does. Do you see the similiarities between the one Sacrament and the other? I do.

No, you haven't made your case by pointing out the canon which uses the term "votum".

I would posit that what you are trying to do is to weasel out of the necessity of Baptism.

The ecumenists, in turn, will use this quite successfully in their Synchretist agenda; and they are doing it now.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), July 24, 2003.

"Heaven help us! Yesterday, the slide into Universalism was only inevitable and immediate, but today it's already happened! :-)"

That's absolutely, 100%, positively a correct statement. You rule! lol. That's exactly what I'm getting at.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), July 24, 2003.

"There is no circular logic here at all."

Let me try again. Here's the circular argument:

I say, like the Church, that there is no salvation outside it.

You say by desire and blood, there are exceptions.

In saying as much, you say that if I do not accept such exceptions, that I am "outside the Church".

You conclude that I will be damned if I remain in such a state.

Why?

Because I am outside the Church.

In other words, by using the statement that I hold to that you reject.

Wallah! lol!

But of course, you say that I am not invincibly ignorant, whereas those "exceptional" people are. Right?

Then I would conclude that you hold this position:

Only Catholics can be damned.

Oops! Think about it.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), July 24, 2003.

The geocities page I posted belongs to a sedevacantist. I should have checked more carefully.

Moderator is requested to delete my earlier posts if he considers the links inappropriate.

-- Stephen (StephenLynn999@msn.com), July 24, 2003.

Emerald:

There is no circular logic.

Someone who is baptised by blood or desire is part of the Church by virtue of that baptism.

Someone who rejects a portion of the Church's teachings is therefore outside the Church, even if he has been baptized previously.

Extra ecclesiam ... is always true.

-- Stephen (StephenLynn999@msn.com), July 24, 2003.

Nah, don't worry about it.

All in all, I'm enjoying this. I somehow get the impression that you really do care what the truth is. So refreshing! Listen, Stephen, this is a tough, tough question. It's not so easy at all, but it is important none the less. I labored over this issue... but one thing for certain that I know: God himself knows what my intentions are, and if I end up in Hell, it won't be over this matter but for my many sins in the more common arenas we are all familiar with.

Truth is what I am after, and exclusively, Catholic Truth. This you'll just have to trust me on, or deny your trust to me on. There's lots of truth lovers, and I love them all, and I believe they will all get what they are after, I really do.

And guess what? Obedience is really, really important. To the magisterium; I do not deny it. It seems contradictory, but I do not deny it.

But... Baptism is real. It's necessary; I hate to see the things of the Divine beyond the senses brought to a mere symbol; it pains me if you know what I mean.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), July 24, 2003.

That's absolutely, 100%, positively a correct statement. You rule! lol. That's exactly what I'm getting at.

Really? The statement in question being that the believes in Universal salvation? :-) What's your proof text for this one? Lumen Gentium 16? :) Look at the preceding paragraphs.

-- Stephen (StephenLynn999@msn.com), July 24, 2003.

Here you go. Lumen Gentium 14

----------

14. This Sacred Council wishes to turn its attention firstly to the Catholic faithful. Basing itself upon Sacred Scripture and Tradition, it teaches that the Church, now sojourning on earth as an exile, is necessary for salvation. Christ, present to us in His Body, which is the Church, is the one Mediator and the unique way of salvation. In explicit terms He Himself affirmed the necessity of faith and baptism(124) and thereby affirmed also the necessity of the Church, for through baptism as through a door men enter the Church. Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved.

-- Stephen (StephenLynn999@msn.com), July 24, 2003.

"Someone who is baptised by blood or desire is part of the Church by virtue of that baptism."

I would say, someone that had a vow (votum) will get their Baptism, since God will see to it. That's the kind of God He is, and He won't leave that person hanging. Like in the parable of the prodigal son, He rushes out to meet His son while he is yet on the horizon.

In other words, there are no such people as people of good will who trip and fall and die on their way to the Baptismal font. !

"Someone who rejects a portion of the Church's teachings is therefore outside the Church, even if he has been baptized previously."

Completely, totally, absolutely true.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), July 24, 2003.

Exactly! That quote from Lumen Gentium starting with the 14 you post above. There it is; now that is a complete restatement of Catholic Truth to which we must lend our assent. That's a good example.

But beware the ambiguous language in other places, which allows for two interpretations... one being the age-old "Ark of Salvation outside which all perished", and the other being the "Waters of Salvation" angle... ooops. In other words, the concept of subsistence. It's a lousy and nasty concept, and it is not the perenial teaching of the Church that everyone somehow "subsists" in the Catholic Church and is therefore saved through this "mysterious relationship". Nope.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), July 24, 2003.

You have to understand where this is heading:

To a denial of the Sacraments, and to a universalist concept of salvation.

Why? Because it's easier and happier. It renders the Cross of Christ void. We don't have to suffer this way. We don't have to be in the world and not of it this way. We can have our cake and eat it too, by desiring as much. We love God, right? We desire salvation, right?

"Not all who cry Lord, Lord will enter the Kingdom of God."

People don't like this, so they look for loopholes.

Listen to me, Stephen... I could make the case that even if I were to accept Baptism of Blood and Desire that no one except perhaps one in a million would qualify for it. It would be so easy to do.

If I did as much, we would still be left with the awesome reality of the narrow way of salvation...

...and our obligations and responsibilities, and the cost of not fulfilling them would be roughly, exactly, the same.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), July 24, 2003.

Btw Stephen, thanks for actually taking the time to get into this issue.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), July 24, 2003.

Emerald:

Okay, let me put it in my own words (mostly). Since this involves a bit of personal interpretation, standard disclaimers apply.

I'll use an analogy, comparing baptism to another sacrament, the Eucharist.

Now we ALL believe that water is LITERALLY ESSENTIAL for Baptism. Original sin is LITERALLY washed away by the water used. The view that the water is merely symbolic is a Protestant idea. Thus we all fully affirm with Trent that the water of baptism is not a symbolic thing, and it is essential. There is no valid baptism without it.

An analogy could be made to the bread and wine in the Eucharist. We literally need bread and wine to celebrate the Eucharist. Grape juice will not work.

Now talking about the Eucharist, let's say for some reason, I can't receive it. In that case, I may make a spiritual communion. In the words of Uniate rite Bishop Danylak taken from this page,

"Those that desire to receive Him in the Eucharist and cannot do so sacramentally, all they need do is to ask Jesus to enter their hearts in spiritual communion, and He comes with the same graces that the sacramental Eucharist confers."

With spiritual communion, I don't receive the bread and wine physically, but the consecrated bread and wine is still absolutely necessary. Spiritual communion is nothing like the Protestant version of "receiving Jesus as your Lord and Savior".

You see where I'm going with this? Water is absolutely necessary for baptism. But Our Lord can use the water in the baptismal font at St. Peter's to baptize a person on a desert island thousands of miles away. [Of course, this person is one of ..

those who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience.]

And He doesn't need to physically transport the water there and physically sprinkle it on the person. In fact, nothing visible need occur at all (like the spraying of the water from Jesus's side on Dismas, which is pure speculation on St. Augustine's part)

So tell me. Doesn't this position fully affirm not just Lumen Gentiumn and the Catechism but all the ex cathedra pronouncements you've been throwing around? Feeney's position on the other hand does not.

-- Stephen (StephenLynn999@msn.com), July 24, 2003.

... no one except perhaps one in a million would qualify for [baptism of desire]

Agreed, perhaps vastly less. It is just affirmed as a possibility, since nothing is impossible with God. Which would put it in the camel-passing-through-the-eye-of-a-needle category.

-- Stephen (StephenLynn999@msn.com), July 24, 2003.

You have to understand where this is heading: To a denial of the Sacraments, and to a universalist concept of salvation. Why? Because it's easier and happier. It renders the Cross of Christ void. We don't have to suffer this way. We don't have to be in the world and not of it this way. We can have our cake and eat it too, by desiring as much. We love God, right? We desire salvation, right? Only if you don't understand what's being talked about.

Christ's suffering and death opened heaven for us.

Christ instituted the Church, through which alone we can reach heaven.

One effect of Baptism is integration (choice of words??) into the Church.

In the case of someone being desirous to follow God's will and unable to receive Baptism in the ordinary way, Christ can supply the effects of Baptism, one of which is integration into the Church. No one is denying that outside the Church there is no salvation. I don't know where you are getting that.

-- Catherine Ann (catfishbird@yahoo.ca), July 24, 2003.

But beware the ambiguous language in other places, which allows for two interpretations... one being the age-old "Ark of Salvation outside which all perished", and the other being the "Waters of Salvation" angle... ooops. In other words, the concept of subsistence. It's a lousy and nasty concept, and it is not the perenial teaching of the Church that everyone somehow "subsists" in the Catholic Church and is therefore saved through this "mysterious relationship". Nope.

You know, that really reminds me of a picture in one of my grade school Catechisms.

St. Peter rowing a boat loaded with Christians baptized normally, and a couple people hanging on to lifelines labeled "Baptism of Desire" and "Baptism of Blood".

-- Catherine Ann (catfishbird@yahoo.ca), July 24, 2003.

"No one is denying that outside the Church there is no salvation. I don't know where you are getting that."

Common experience. Ask any average Catholic if their good non- Catholic neighbor will be saved, and they will say yes.

Ask them if their good religious friends from other demoninations will be saved and they will say yes. Because they now have that picture in their heads not of an Ark of Salvation but of the Waters of Subsistence, which all people partake in through some mysterious relationship. At this point they have slaughtered any motive to enter the Catholic Church... and it's showing common experience; look around you and see. We really have wrested our Sacraments to a metaphor in practice because we first wrested them so in our minds by exceptions, like Belloc talked about in The Great Heresies.

What started out as a bizarre or rare exception is now the rule; it's undeniable.

Take for instance, that picture Catherine, that you saw in your catechism that you mentioned above. It seems in compromise with this 'picture' of things laid out by Boniface VIII:

"In Her [The Catholic Church] there is one faith, one baptism. There eas indeed at the time of the Deluge, only one ark of Noah, prefiguring the One Church, which Ark, having been finished to a single cubit, had only one pilot and guide, i.e. Noah outside which, as we read, all that subsisted on the earth was destroyed..."

That's in Unam Sanctam. Check out the word subsistence above... it's ruled out.

"You see where I'm going with this? Water is absolutely necessary for baptism. But Our Lord can use the water in the baptismal font at St. Peter's to baptize a person on a desert island thousands of miles away."

I think I see it; yes... that one doesn't ultimately need a real Baptism... lol! This concept manifests itself openly in the quote from Lumen Gentium. That quote covers just about everyone on the face of the earth. So did the waters at the time of the flood.

Like I said, even if I were to accept your likeness to Spiritual Communion... hey, let me hand you another one, about the man who dies on the way to confession who had "perfect contrition"... No, I don't know if that's the way things work, getting water from here on the earth to there on the earth, and I don't know that a spiritual Communion is exactly the same as the real thing. What I do know is that the rules about baptism and the Eucharist as being necessary for eternal life are donctrinal. These other things are in nebulous realms to be sure, but they are being made more concrete than the actual Sacraments themselves. We are placing all our assurances on the wrong things.

In doing as much, here's what is being lost, this reality:

"All people and each individual man is called to come to the Church". Pope Pius XII

How is this call answered? Not by some idea of subsistence, but by actually entered the Church. The answer is unmistakable:

"What is the road which opens for us the way to Jesus Christ? The answer, valid yesterday as it is today and for all time to come is: The Church. The Church alone is the entrance to salvation."

Why the Hell do I keep dragging this issue through the valley of mud like I do? Why don't I just give it a flippin rest? lol!

Because people don't really believe this anymore, with an assent of the mind and heart, and worse yet, in practice.

Just ask anyone; grab them and pull them aside and ask them. What you (not you Stephen, but the universal 'you modern Catholic') have made an exception for in an out-of-the-way case is now the general principle and rule for all men. It's undeniable; it's even in the Pope's writings, and it is different and new, not ancient and always-held.

They are more concerned with what they call manifestations of the Holy Spirit in charismatic interreligious prayer groups. It feels good, not like the Cross which you'll find in the true Mystical Body.

But see, I'm not evil. These are all extremely worthy considerations; if my sin is to promote the One True Church, I figure the punishment might hopefully be Heaven... hopefully. I wouldn't want to subsist in Hell if you know what I mean. =0

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), July 24, 2003.

As a sidenote, Stephen, do you see a similarity between the way some people rush over and isolate that one canon in Trent to make a case for a baptism of desire, while seemingly ignoring the entire thrust of whole section in Trent on baptism, which is that baptism is absolutely required for salvation?

It's the exact same process as the Protestants use when they isolate a Scripture here and there to make a case for something that we Catholics don't believe in.

It is a process, in fact. Look and listen for the term "The Process"; it's out there and it's a strategy of the enemy of the Church.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), July 24, 2003.

Okay, let's broaden the scope.

What about the Old Testament patriarchs, prophets, etc?

-- Catherine Ann (catfishbird@yahoo.ca), July 24, 2003.

Emerald, in another thread, re: the necessity of partaking in the body and blood of Christ:

You can say that God fulfills the prerequisite that He Himself laid out for us as revealed truth. In other words, that my daughter would partake in the Blood of Christ before entrance into the Beatific Vision. How? Who knows.

Emerald, in this thread, re: the necessity of Baptism:

In other words, there are no such people as people of good will who trip and fall and die on their way to the Baptismal font.

Anyone else smell a discrepancy?

-- Catherine Ann (catfishbird@yahoo.ca), July 24, 2003.

No, I don't know if that's the way things work, getting water from here on the earth to there on the earth, and I don't know that a spiritual Communion is exactly the same as the real thing.

Good, neither do I or anybody else. That's why sacramental Communion is always preferred (or formal ritual Baptism). The problem with your position, captured by the second quote that Catherine Ann posted above, is that you presume that you do know.

According to your theory, if somebody really had an in voto desire to join the Church, then God would make sure they were baptised according to the rules. Therefore, if a catechumen dies before baptism, we can infer from that fact that the catechumen did NOT have such a desire, and is therefore in Hell. This is a bit like the Calvinist doctrine of "perseverance of the saints", which was sternly anathemised by Trent.

-- Stephen (StephenLynn999@msn.com), July 24, 2003.

Yes, Stephen, you are right. I was thinking that exact same thing earlier today. The crass system of Calvinism is merciless, as is the notion that God would reject those who, through no fault of their own, were not able to receive baptism, which of course would exclude infants, disabled folk, and millions of other innocent people.

To think a child would stand before God and God would say "Whoops, I see you've not been baptized. To hell with YOU! The proper formula was not performed. Next?"

God did not give us the teachings of the Church to BIND HIM and hold HIM to a legal system HE gave. HE is King of the laws of our Church and the teachings He gives.

The notion that baptism is an absolute requirement WITH NO EXCEPTION flies in the face of MERCY!

Lots of Love,

Gail

P.S. That's my story and I'm stickin' to it!

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), July 24, 2003.

"The problem with your position, captured by the second quote that Catherine Ann posted above, is that you presume that you do know."

No no. I don't presume to know; I myself speculate in both those sentences; make sure you call it what it is. When I make those two statements, it is in fact my opinion, but it revolves around a commitment to holding that both the Eucharist and Baptism are required for salvation, as stated in Divine Revelation. Surely no one can fault me for this.

My whole objective is to not put Divine Revelation in compromise. In other words, to always stick to this: it is divinely revealed truth, and certainly not my opinion, that both baptism in water and spirit, and the necessity of partaking in the Eucharist are necessary for salvation. This is hardcore doctrine.

What I'm against is making exceptions to these in such a way as to render the Sacraments as a sign, or a symbol or mere ceremony, or not of their own unique essence. Now for waterever reason, and I certainly do not understand it, water is deemed absolutely necessary not only by the Christ but reaffirmed at Trent. Do I understand why? Of course not. But this is part of the Sacrament, and I am not at all willing to dismiss it or assume the Sacrament to be administered in any other way. I believe that to assume any such thing is to assume at great peril.

You might find that I will answer "I don't know" to a lot of things if we pursue this, because in truth, of course I don't know the inner workings of all these things. I do believe the two doctrines regarding baptism and the Eucharist though, and hold them without compromise.

What we have here is a theological question, with speculative proposals (the three baptisms) which have NOT been rendered as doctrines. Debates over these special cases go back to at least the time of Augustine. It is not at all a matter of a clear cut "Church says so" situation when it comes to blood and desire.

In the mean time, notice how far away from the original question we are of the more general topic of "outside the Church there is no salvation". This always happens... the conversation gets shoved down to a pinpoint of a topic, and what happens behind your back while your discussing it is that the general Catholic populace begins to assume that all good people can be saved.

If it makes this conversation easier and more helpful, I will state this: if ever the Catholic Church defines baptism of blood and desire as doctrines, then I will immediately throw in the towel and profess allegiance to the doctrines. Does that help? At least I would want you to know you are not discussing this matter with someone who is being willfully obstinate just for the hell of it. =)

Until then, I'm not going to allow myself to fall victim to the use of exceptions and special cases to become party to Universal Salvation heresies and Synchretism. By doing as much, I am holding the Faith, not rejecting it in any way whatsoever.

"According to your theory, if somebody really had an in voto desire to join the Church, then God would make sure they were baptised according to the rules. Therefore, if a catechumen dies before baptism, we can infer from that fact that the catechumen did NOT have such a desire, and is therefore in Hell."

If my opinion is anywhere close to the truth in these situations (are there any examples?), then something like what you say above would indeed follow. I'm not sure if that's the way it really is or not, but if the assumption is correct, then yes the conclusion seems appropriate.

However, then moving to on to Calvinism such as Gail and you suggest, while I understand you doing it, I think is a big leap, as it in itself also carries the hidden assumption that you both know how it is that God slices through the judgement and sends them up or down. Remember, the Eucharist and Baptism, these are God's rules. We can't simply posit that He is making exceptions to them to make us feel better.

Do you see what I am getting at in any of this?

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), July 24, 2003.

I agree with you, Gail! You may receive a diatribe from Emerald based on the Canon of Trent that says that baptism IS necessary, but I think it's clear that you are simply referring to the outward ritual while Trent is not.

The Church (now or at Trent) does NOT equate a sacrament with the outward ritual, but views it as a mysterious outpouring of God's grace. 'Nuff said on baptism of desire.

Emerald: Re the "ark" vs. "waters of salvation" thing, it seems a bit ridiculous to fault a metaphor because it's different from another metaphor. Would you fault Jesus because he called himself both a shepherd and a lamb? Think about it.

Re the "mysterious relationship" of all humans to the Church, it's not mysterious at all. It's very straightforward and has been consistently taught by the Church since its earliest days.

1. Most Protestants and all Eastern Orthodox are related to the Church by virtue of their valid Baptism. Baptism makes one members of the Church as Catherine Ann pointed out to you..

   Of course, their failure to assent to all Church teachings may then put them extra ecclesiam, but assent or dissent is in the mind, and so only God can be the judge.

2. Anybody else can enter the Church if they want to. There is no restriction at all on entry. Thus every living person has the potential to become a member of the Church.

   However, it is God who calls one to the Church and as your quote from Pius XII pointed out, he calls all people in all ages. It is quite possible that somebody who responds mysteriously to that mysterious call is mysteriously granted the graces necessary to fulfil it, even though this seems impossible to our limited minds.

-- Stephen (StephenLynn999@msn.com), July 24, 2003.

"You may receive a diatribe from Emerald..."

I would hardly call the discussion a diatribe when the saints and doctors of the Church thought is was a worthy matter of discussion. This puts the twist into the conversation that implies that I am not willing to know the truth.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), July 24, 2003.

Until then, I'm not going to allow myself to fall victim to the use of exceptions and special cases to become party to Universal Salvation heresies and Synchretism.

I don't know about "Synchretism" whatever that is, but "Universalism" was condemned long ago (552?), so your fears appear unfounded, and reflect a lack of faith in the Holy Spirit's guidance of the magisterium.

You're possibly referring to the weaker idea suggested by Niehaus. But this is hardly something Catholics are embracing with wild abandon. :-) He's much more isolated in his corner than Fr. Feeney ever was in his.

-- Stephen (StephenLynn999@msn.com), July 24, 2003.

This puts the twist into the conversation ....

No twist intended. I was just heading off the possibility of your going over ground already covered.

-- Stephen (StephenLynn999@msn.com), July 24, 2003.

"The Church (now or at Trent) does NOT equate a sacrament with the outward ritual, but views it as a mysterious outpouring of God's grace. 'Nuff said on baptism of desire."

I doesn't? You posit this, but based on what... do you have any backup for this statement?

"Emerald: Re the "ark" vs. "waters of salvation" thing, it seems a bit ridiculous to fault a metaphor because it's different from another metaphor. Would you fault Jesus because he called himself both a shepherd and a lamb? Think about it."

Because "The Ark" is the perenial understanding of the Church, whereas "The waters of salvation" is not, and is new. They propose two vastly and even opposing concepts. Not at all so with the lamb and the shepherd, because in the Incarnation, He became one like us.

"Re the "mysterious relationship" of all humans to the Church, it's not mysterious at all. It's very straightforward and has been consistently taught by the Church since its earliest days."

That's right: it's called the Mystical Body, which is the Catholic Church itself. Very, very straight forward for sure. I forget which pontiff laid that out, but it has been in fact made clear that the Mystical Body of Christ and the Catholic Church are in fact one in the same.

But no, it's not at all straight forward anymore though when we are being told now that other religions subsist in the Catholic Church by some mysterious relationship. That's in fact what are being told; we have this new concept of being the fullness of the truth instead of the the truth.

This is what Pope Pius XII was talking about in Humani Generis when he said:

"Some reduce to a meaningless formula the necessity of belonging to the True Church in order to gain salvation... these and like errors, it is clear, have crept in among certain of ours sons who are decieved by imprudent zeal for souls or by false science. To them We are complelled with grief to repeat once again truths already well known and to point out with solicitude clear errors and dangers of errors."

This what we are witnessing now. People are openly claiming that those outside the Church can be saved. If pressed, they want to cite baptism of blood and desire. Even if these speculations were actually dogmatically defined, it would be no means allow them the leverage they are looking for, because it would be of these condemned errors from the Syllabus of Errors:

Error: 16. Man may, in the observance of any religion whatever, find the way of eternal salvation, and arrive at eternal salvation.— Encyclical "Qui pluribus," Nov. 9, 1846.

Error: 17. Good hope at least is to be entertained of the eternal salvation of all those who are not at all in the true Church of Christ.—Encyclical "Quanto conficiamur," Aug. 10, 1863, etc.

Error: 18. Protestantism is nothing more than another form of the same true Christian religion, in which form it is given to please God equally as in the Catholic Church.—Encyclical "Noscitis," Dec. 8, 1849.

It's this damn new philosophy, this existencial stuff of Rahner we are using now that's allowing the above error to be revived under a new guise. It allows for Universal Salvation and tries to pass it off as consistant with the doctrine of the Faith, which was warned about in Vatican I:

The doctrine of faith which God has revealed has not been proposed like a theory of philosophy to be elaborated upon by the human understanding , but as a divine deposit entrusted to the Spouse of Christ to be faithfully guarded and infallibly declard.

There is no doubt though, that the modern Catholic is in opposition to this, however innocently, in that most all of them believe in a Universalist notion that good Muslims can be saved, good Protestants can be saved, good pagans can be saved, etc. That's all condemned heresy.

"Most Protestants and all Eastern Orthodox are related to the Church by virtue of their valid Baptism. Baptism makes one members of the Church as Catherine Ann pointed out to you..."

True.

"Of course, their failure to assent to all Church teachings may then put them extra ecclesiam, but assent or dissent is in the mind, and so only God can be the judge."

True; to the best of my understanding, and assuming there aren't any other doctrinal differences, all they need to do is render their own consent to the Roman Pontiff. I don't know a whole lot about the details of the Eastern Churches, so I don't know if they hold any significant doctrinal deviations from us.

"Anybody else can enter the Church if they want to. There is no restriction at all on entry. Thus every living person has the potential to become a member of the Church."

True.

"However, it is God who calls one to the Church and as your quote from Pius XII pointed out, he calls all people in all ages."

True, but here's where it gets dangerous:

"It is quite possible that somebody who responds mysteriously to that mysterious call is mysteriously granted the graces necessary to fulfil it, even though this seems impossible to our limited minds."

Far beit from us to claim that this can be done by any other means than that which we know by Divine Revelation.

What I'm saying is, still to the doctrines, and if there are sticky intellectual issues, be sure not to compromise your doctrines.

What most seem to put into practice is this: "These are doctrines, but it makes no sense here in this situation, or there in that situation, but these are really great people, these Muslims, those pagans... my next door neighbor... his dog... so, obviously, there's a way around this things."

What I'm saying is, there's no way around the way that God laid out for the salvation of mankind. Remember, we don't deserved to be saved in the first place; it is pure gift of God. If He never did a thing for us, we wouldn't have any "right" to complain about it!

People are using theological speculations to conjure up Universal Salvation.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), July 24, 2003.

As a sidenote to Gail, in no way do I imagine a God that does these seemingly arbitrary and unjust things based on technicalities.

I see Him as an all just and all good God that knows why each and everything is in it's place and for what reason. In His mind, everything is in the proper place for the most beautiful of reasons.

If anything I say seems to lead another conclusion, then trust me it's being misunderstood. =)

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), July 25, 2003.

Stephen: "He's much more isolated in his corner than Fr. Feeney ever was in his."

He's not really isolated in a corner; they never were able to make a case against him.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), July 25, 2003.

From the Catechism of Trent (emphasis added):

But by the Latin Fathers who have written on theological subjects, the word sacrament is used to signify a sacred thing which lies concealed. The Greeks, to express the same idea, made use of the word mystery. This we understand to be the meaning of the word, when, in the Epistle to the Ephesians, it is said: That he might make known to us the mystery (sacramentum) of his will; and to Timothy: great is the mystery (sacramentum) of godliness; and in the Book of Wisdom: They knew not the secrets (sacramenta) of God. In these and many other passages the word sacrament,­ it will be perceived, signifies nothing more than a holy thing that lies concealed and hidden.

The Latin Doctors, therefore, deemed the word a very appropriate term to express certain sensible signs which at once communicate grace, declare it, and, as it were, place it before the eyes. St. Gregory, however, is of the opinion that such a sign is called a Sacrament, because the divine power secretly operates our salvation under the veil of sensible things.

-- Stephen (StephenLynn999@msn.com), July 25, 2003.

"The Church (now or at Trent) does NOT equate a sacrament with the outward ritual, but views it as a mysterious outpouring of God's grace. 'Nuff said on baptism of desire."

The passage from Trent above does not at all seem to be indicating that you can separate out that "mysterious underlying element" from the sensible substrate. I'm not so sure you can, in the same way that a man is body and soul and must always be treated as a composite.

In other words, it isn't clear from that passage that you can isolate the action of God's grace from the matter of the Sacrament. I'm not sure you can isolate the two distinctions and deal with them separately as two realities. Do you know what I mean?

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), July 25, 2003.

True enough. However what matters is the mysterious underlying grace. A man without a soul is not a man. A soul without a body OTOH.... ?

Anyway, I fully affirmed the necessity of water (or bread, etc.) in my earlier post.

-- Stephen (StephenLynn999@msn.com), July 25, 2003.

"A soul without a body OTOH.... ?" Can't. I think that even in death before the glorified body there's still some sort of a substrate there of some kind.

Bingo and a Catholic Church also cannot exist separately.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), July 25, 2003.

What about the fact that a person cannot baptise himself.

How does this play out in a proposed baptism of blood or desire situation?

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), July 25, 2003.

hmm.. I dunno. I don't think a minister is as essential as water. What about "Dismas" in St. Augustine's story? Who was the minister there?

-- Stephen (StephenLynn999@msn.com), July 25, 2003.

A minister is absolutely essential in order for water baptism to occur. However, "baptism of blood" and "baptism of desire" refer specifically to situations where circumstances preclude the possibility of either a minister or water baptism. It might be helpful not to think of "baptism of blood" and "baptism of desire" as "waterless forms of baptism", but rather as "circumstances wherein God, in His mercy, may grant an individual the graces of baptism even though the usual channel of such graces is unavailable".

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), July 25, 2003.

But it could be asked, "why then does the Savior say ‘water and the Holy Ghost"? In answer, we say that in this verse Christ refers to the sacrament of Baptism as it is conferred in the Church. Every sacrament employs matter to confer grace. The grace of baptism (res sacramenti) is absolutely necessary for salvation whereas the application of water (sacramentum tantum) is necessary ‘in fact or in desire’ (in re aut in voto) as defined by Trent.

From: http://web2.iadfw.net/~carlsch/MaterDei/Homilies/homily030216.htm

-- Stephen (StephenLynn999@msn.com), July 25, 2003.

More stuff from the same sermon:

In thinking upon baptism of desire - and like doctrines of the Church - we must ever keep in mind it is God’s prerogative to do as He pleases. And in ‘putting on the mind of God’, we must ever be ready to shed personal whim and submit to the authority of the Church which ALONE knows the mind of God. The concept of ‘baptism by desire’ so rankles some that when the subject comes up they repine as if personally offended. This should not be. Whatever number are saved this way, and the number is far fewer compared with the sacrament of baptism, should not make us sad but happy. For when it is written of the Savior of all mankind, “Everyone who believes in Me shall not be confounded (Rm 9:33); and, “whosoever shall invoke the name of the Lord shall be saved (Acts 2:21); and again, “he who loves Me shall be loved by My Father (Jn 14:21)... REALLY meant what He said and we should hold these same sentiments; we should hope all may attain what we too hope for whether by hook or by crook,... by water, blood, or desire.

-- Stephen (StephenLynn999@msn.com), July 25, 2003.

Stephen wrote: "It is quite possible that somebody who responds mysteriously to that mysterious call is mysteriously granted the graces necessary to fulfil it, even though this seems impossible to our limited minds."

Emerald responded: "Far beit from us to claim that this can be done by any other means than that which we know by Divine Revelation."

But I say also far beit from us to claim that God CANNOT offer salvation in ways that seem by our human reason to be contradictory but are not.

Analogy: The sacraments are most excellent mysteries - earthly manifestations of heavenly realities. And the Eucharist is the sacrament supreme - the creator of heaven itself allows Himself (somehow!) to be present under the appearance of mere bread and wine! Yet even this most holy sacrament cannot "trap" God. While God can (and does) make Himself fully present in the Eucharist, the sacrament cannot limit Him; cannot box Him in. How can both of these statements be true? It's a mystery. This question of salvation seems similarly mysterious (though, like the mystery of the Eucharist, some facts HAVE been divinely revealed). We simply cannot understand God's ways....

Of course, Emerald is wise to give more confidence to the trustworthy, verifiable, long-standing, "normal" means of salvation. We can put our confidence in them precisely BECAUSE of Divine Revelation.

I'll do my best not to "roll the dice" in the hopes that God will somehow save me through some extraordinary means that I cannot understand. And it pains me sharply that some people foster such false assurance of their salvation while flaunting God's directives. But I do hold out hope that God can - and somehow MIGHT - grant salvation to someone in ways that WE in our human thinking can't square up with Divine Revelation. I think it would be prideful of me to do otherwise.

Emerald said: "What I'm saying is, stick to the doctrines, and if there are sticky intellectual issues, be sure not to compromise your doctrines."

Fair enough. And I'd add another thing: hold fast to faith. The whole question is so complicated we should all recognize that only God can adequately sort it out (but which shouldn't stop us from trying).

P.S. Christopher West, who likes to use analogies, wisely cautions us to recognize that, when trying to explain God, our analogies (no matter how spot-on) will always have more dissimmilarities with the reality than similarities.

-- Greg Adas (GAdas@Familink.com), July 25, 2003.

"What about "Dismas" in St. Augustine's story? Who was the minister there?"

Here it is again without the html goofups:

St. Augustine's early position:

"That the place of baptism is sometimes supplied by martyrdom is supported by an argument by no means trivial, which the blessed Cyprian adduces from the thief, to whom, though he was not baptized, it was yet said, To-day shall thou be with me in Paradise." --From On Baptism Against the Donatists 4, 22

St. Augustine's position later:

"Besides all this, there is the circumstance, which is not incredibly reported, that the thief who then believed as he hung by the side of the crucified Lord was sprinkled, as in a most sacred baptism, with the water which issued from the wound of the Saviour's side. I say nothing of the fact that nobody can prove, since none of us knows that he had not been baptized previous to his condemnation. However, let every man take this in the sense he may prefer; only let no rule about baptism affecting the Saviour's own precept be taken from this example of the thief. --From On the Soul and Its Origin 1, 11

Ok, there's a ton there that directly relates to this discussion. First, it seems Christ Himself would be the minister if that's actually the way it happened, but Augustine admits himself that he/we don't know the facts. Look at the first position, the part I bolded: it's super clear here, totally clear, that it (the blood or desire proposal) is a speculation and not a doctrine; no doubt at all. He calls it an argument, not a trivial one to be sure he says, but nonetheless an argument, a theory, a speculation and not a doctrine.

See, this has been my whole point all along. That last line which a killer. It says exactly what needs to be said that most people are not paying attention to:

"...only let no rule about baptism affecting the Saviour's own precept be taken from this example of the thief."

That's an powerful admonition against proposing that there's any other way to figure that the demands of the sacrament have been met any other way than the way that Christ declared it: "Unless you be baptised in the water and the spirit, etc."

St. Augustine was very honest in the way he went about trying to find God's truth and wrote something called the book of retractions. It seems to me in that last sentence that he is well aware of the danger of speculation on the matter (pun intended) being capable of bringing the precept to not, or, wresting it to a metaphor.

What's clear is this: he sees anything other than what the Savior prescribed as theological speculation and not as doctrine.

Again, to bend it around to make sense in the larger picture: we now brandish blood and desire as if they were doctrine, and in turn, we allow ourselves to justify the existence of a Mystical Body that is far more encompassing than the Catholic Church, and goes on to include mysterious relationships with Muslims, with Protestants, with Jews, with anyone for that matter.

In that way, the exception, being taken out of it's context as a speculation over a sticky situation, because assumed to be a doctrine and in the Deposit of the Faith when it's really not, and in turn, being liberally applied everywhere until everybody's saved somehow. Or in other words, Universal Salvation.

People claim they don't partake in any error of universal salvation, but they turn around and live it out anyways, I think.

What I'm seeing is this: there's always going to be someone looking for a legal loophole, and for each legal loophole they think they have found, there's about a 1,000 people ready to take it and run with it in order to get out of something.

My contention is that is that in such cases what you really have is 1,001 people who don't actually qualify for it.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), July 25, 2003.

Greg writes:

Stephen wrote: "It is quite possible that somebody who responds mysteriously to that mysterious call is mysteriously granted the graces necessary to fulfil it, even though this seems impossible to our limited minds." Emerald responded: "Far beit from us to claim that this can be done by any other means than that which we know by Divine Revelation."

But I say also far beit from us to claim that God CANNOT offer salvation in ways that seem by our human reason to be contradictory but are not.

Again I would say, far be it from us to claim that we can think it's ok to think that God can do it any other way... lol!

Overall, I'm pretty much agree with most your post Greg, except maybe this line:

"Yet even this most holy sacrament cannot "trap" God. While God can (and does) make Himself fully present in the Eucharist, the sacrament cannot limit Him; cannot box Him in."

I'm not sure that's right; He humbled Himself to become one of us, and we know that Christ existed from all eternity, so it's real hard to say that somehow He is not bound to it. If He IS from all eternal, that sounds like being bound up to me.

I think we all have this foggy notion that God can do anything, and I don't think that's real precise. He can't do evil, He can't contradict Himself. The CCC does state somewhere that "God is not bound by His own sacraments", and that's not at all a precise reflection on the Deposit of the Faith. In a sense, He is bound by them. The New and Eternal Testament... I think there's an ambiguity loophole there.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), July 25, 2003.

Paul says: "A minister is absolutely essential in order for water baptism to occur. However, "baptism of blood" and "baptism of desire" refer specifically to situations where circumstances preclude the possibility of either a minister or water baptism."

The existence of "situations where circumstances preclude" is doubtful to me, whereas the necessity of the matter of the sacrament is certain to me.

For instance, I could imagine God responding to me if I could ask Him the question face to face (and lived to tell about it): "You Emerald of little faith... it was you who thought that such impediments existed that would preclude my satisfying the demands of My sacrament, but I in fact had arranged all things in perfect order".

That's not the same at all as to say that God ditched the normal formula in a certain case; it's to question whether there were impediments to begin with.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), July 25, 2003.

If a friend owed you some money, but was struck and killed by a car before he could repay you, would you hold that against him? Would you say that God is at least as compassionate and rational as you are? If a person were taking instruction with the intent of being baptized, but was killed before he could receive the sacrament, would God treat that person the same as someone who had outright rejected Him and His Church? Not the God I know.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), July 25, 2003.

Paul that's a good reductio argument which would seem to show that, if the premises are held, then it produces an absurd conclusion i.e. that God is nasty. Since you and I both hold that God is not nasty, then at least one of the premises has to be wrong.

That is unless one of the premises or more of the premises are understood:

"If a friend owed you some money, but was struck and killed by a car before he could repay you, would you hold that against him?"

If he never intended to pay me back, then in the strictest sense yes (if I do it by the law and not by the gospel, which says don't expect or demand your money back... but that's the human-to-human arena).

Now if he did intend to pay me back and I knew this for a fact, and I had the foresight and knowledge and omnipotence of God... I would have pushed him out of the way of the car.

In that sense, I would say that God is not bound by these things people think are impossible physical circumstances. I am bound this way, and tend to think of God in the same terms only because I am bound to circumstances beyond me control, but God isn't and sees all ends; all lands in the proper place.

In sales, they say "don't think with your own pocketbook", meaning to say don't think the client can't afford something because you know you can't. In the same way, we tend to do the same with God.

But this is a two edge sword Paul and cuts both ways: one person takes it as a good excuse for exceptions to the rules, based on the omnipotence of God. Another person takes this as the denial of exceptions, based upon the omnipotence of God. The same reason!

That's why this is such a test; I think it's one of those "let those who have ears, hear" deals. One person is going to use it to bind himself to God's immutable truth, while the other is going to look for an exception to it. In that sense, one will conform to God's truth and the other will condemn himself.

I think it's a test of the resolve of Faith, the whole question, and all the other questions that are like this one. There's a line out of the Litany to the Holy Ghost:

Holy Ghost, grant us the only necessary knowledge

It's even cooler in context, because it comes right after Holy Ghost, lead us in the way of salvation and right before Holy Ghost, inspire in us the practice of good.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), July 25, 2003.

Emerald wrote: "Again I would say, far be it from us to claim that we can think it's ok to think that God can do it any other way... lol!"

Just following that train of a thought is a mystery! ;-)

But I do see your point, Emerald... It *could* be ill-advised to "think that God can do it any other way" - the obvious danger is that we'll EXPECT that He'll do it some other way and then we'll actually RELY on Him doing it some other way. Dangerous territory, indeed. As I said, I'm extraordinarily thankful; I've been baptised Catholic and will never roll the dice by leaving.

Of course, you should also see the trouble with the "other extreme" - claiming that God CANNOT do it any other way. The obvious danger is that we deny that God is omnipotent (which is to deny a Divine Revelation). We might try to "box God in" to merely formulaic demands of His salvific covenant promise... reminiscent of the Pharisees whom Jesus condemned so harshly. They, too, thought they were perfectly following tradition, but Jesus didn't see it that way.

So again I say, please don't claim that God CANNOT do it any other way... He can. Understand it or not (I'm sure I don't), but He can. Because He can do ANYTHING. The CCC (para 268) says it this way: "Of all the divine attributes, only God's omnipotence is named in the Creed... We believe that his might is universal, for God who created everything also rules everything and can do everything."

Take great care not to deny God's ability to do anything... the truth of God's omnipotence is as solid and unequivocal a divine revelation as they come. You'll find it in the Creed (I believe in God, the Father ALMIGHTY...), scripture ("For God all things are possible" Mt. 19:26), etc. Interestingly, when Jesus says this in Matthew's gospel, He's answering the disciple's question, "Then who can be saved?!"

Emerald, you may have to just faithfully believe what your (and my) faulty human reasoning cannot yet see... God can save whom He pleases. And contrary to how it might look, the Church's infallible teaching does not (simply cannot) demand - without exception - water baptism as an absolute requirement for salvation. That would be a box that can't hold God. Ultimately we must recognize that because it is intimately tied up with salvation of souls, God decides who is within (and who is without) His Church.

You may think this makes the Church "soft" but: She's never declared someone bound to hell. Therefore, straight logic dictates that She's never declared someone irreversibly outside the Church (whether they be water baptised or not)... because to do so would logically be to declare them hell-bound - something not found in the Church's job description. Rather, the Church is our sure, steady, ark of salvation and she invites us in through the door we call water baptism. By all means let us enter and spend our time inviting others in - instead of trying to argue away the possibility of ANY other doors, miraculous or otherwise.

By the way, my compliments to you and Stephen for carrying on this complicated (and potentially devisive) thread without sniping, name- calling, and finger-wagging. Compliments too, to Gail, Catherine Ann, Paul, and others who've contributed valuable perspectives charitably.

-- Greg Adas (GAdas@Familink.com), July 25, 2003.

Amen, Greg!!

Emerald, I think a problem with your position is that you are taking (part of) the answer to the question, "Master, what must I do to be saved?" and using it to answer the COMPLETELY DIFFERENT question, "Who then can be saved?"

Your fallacy lies in expecting that both questions should have mutually consistent answers. This is not necessarily true when the saver is somebody who can whistle up a Universe ex nihilo.

The answer to the second question must always be, "We have no idea, and we can rule out NOTHING.

-- Stephen (StephenLynn999@msn.com), July 26, 2003.

again.

-- Stephen (StephenLynn999@msn.com), July 26, 2003.

I took a night off. My wife was about ready to disembowel me. In the morning! lol.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), July 26, 2003.

Good Morning Emerald!!

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), July 26, 2003.

I was thinking about this question yesterday, and I thought I'd confuse everyone here by posting my conclusions.

Men of the Old Testament were saved. Men of the Old Testament were not Baptised by water. .:Baptism by water is not absolutely necessary for salvation.

Outside the Church there is no salvation. Baptism by water is not absolutely necessary for salvation. .:Baptism by water is not absolutely necessary for entry into the Church.

Exceptions have been made for men who were separated by time from receiving the sacrament of Baptism, why not for men who are separated by space?

---

The teachings of *Baptism of blood and Baptism of desire* in no way contradict the teaching *outside the Church there is no salvation,* since Baptism of desire is simply a way through which enter the Church, and through it, salvation.

---

As for the oft-repeated "fact" that Augustine held this point of view and later rejected it:

In the quoted paragraph, he does not condemn the idea of Baptism of desire, but only points out that using Dismas as an example is faulty and open to criticism.

If he has condemned the idea of Baptism of desire in some other writing, that does not mean that he was right to take that stand. Saints are not infallible.

Also, simply if later in life he had changed his mind, it does not necessarily follow that his original idea was false and his later opinion correct. Read the life of Origen.

---

Emerald:

I don't presume to know; I myself speculate in both those sentences; make sure you call it what it is. When I make those two statements, it is in fact my opinion...

Man, oh man. You mean that you've dumped the Catechism and all the non-dogmatic teachings of the Church just to speculate? And then you say that people who disagree with your speculations "reject parts of the faith"???

You know, I'm getting the idea that you are saying "as long as you believe the Church's dogma, you can speculate all you want with what's left over."

Sort of like the guy who fulfils the precepts of the Church, confessing and receiving Communion during the Easter season, and then digs his own "pathway to holiness" during his spare time.

---

Your argument that "people don't believe what the Church teaches" is irrelevant. It's not the fault of the Church's teachings, but of the people themselves. If someone is using contraception in marriage, for example, they will rationalize it, despite the clarity of Church teaching in that area.

---

The paragraph you brought up from Lumen Gentium does not "clearly admit of a way of salvation outside of the Church."

Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church.

Again, a case for "Baptism of Desire," in which a person is united to the Church even while unconscious of its existence.

---

I agree with you on one point; the picture I described from my Catechism is rather misleading if you use it to explain the analogy of the Church as the Ark, outside of which no one will live. I wasn't; it was simply an off-topic reminiscence. A better illustration in this case would show those baptised by desire and blood as stowaways, people who didn't board the ship as passengers, but were given special help by God in order to enter His Church.

-- Catherine Ann (catfishbird@yahoo.ca), July 26, 2003.

Why did I never use these

---

horizontal rules

---

before?

-- Catherine Ann (catfishbird@yahoo.ca), July 26, 2003.

Man, I've barely had my coffee yet, and Catherine Ann is already doing lines!

Just teasing, Catherine!

It's getting increasingly clear that baptism of desire and blood are not doctrines, the more you look that is, but that they are theological speculations.

As a matter of course, again come the claims of disobedience out of a newly-forged concept of what obedience actually consists of.

Actually, this whole thread actually makes it a little clearer for me, especially the certain things that Stephen posted about the matter of the Sacrament, and the relationship between a body and soul and how they are inseparable.

It's pretty clear that this issue is a matter/form, and one of distinction. Like Stephen said upthread, a man is body and soul, a composite, and each the body and the soul really can't exist separately apart from the other.

However, you can certainly make a distinction and can consider them separately.

St. Ambrose makes these very distinctions, but shows how they can't be isolated and treated separately but remain one:

"Therefore, the three witnesses in Baptism are one: the water, the blood, and the Spirit; for if you take away one of these, the Sacrament of Baptism does not exist. For what is water without the cross of Christ? A common element without any sacramental effect. Nor does the mystery of regeneration exist at all without water: "For except one be born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom" (John 3:5). Now, even the catechumen believes in the cross of the Lord Jesus, wherewith he also signs himself; but unless he be baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, he cannot receive remission of his sins nor the gift of spiritual grace.

A very powerful statement from a Doctor of the Church, and very clear. At the same time, it allows for the distinctions the modern Catholic is looking for. Problem is, these distinctions cannot be isolated and treated separately.

That, however, is exactly what, in practice, we have been doing.

Here's what seems pretty clear so far: baptism of desire can clearly be shown for what it is... not a doctrine, but a theological speculation. The deeper you dig, the more this will manifest itself.

At the same time though, the concept of votum, or desire, manifests itself clearly. That's what you see in Trent in particular canons Stephen brought up (see upthread) that are supposed to be arguing for baptism of desire... what they are really doing is making the distinction of votum, such as one might make the distinction of the soul from the man.

In all ways, though, Trent rules out the isolation of votum to be treated as a separate and stand-alone entity instead of the distinction which it is, which cannot exist separately from the matter of the sacrament.

The Incarnation seems to be a similiar situation; the Word existed from all eternity, but our salvation came when the Word became flesh and walked among us.

Here's what's clearly really happening. We've been walking up to Trent, digging into a particular canon, ripping out the distinction of votum and proceeding to treat it as a separate stand alone baptism, all in the face of the clear anathema:

"If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary in Baptism, and therefore interprets metaphorically the words of Our Lord Jesus Christ: "Unless one be born agin of water and the Holy Ghost": let him be anathema."

If Trent had intended to teach baptism of desire, it would have said some like this:

"If anyone says that true and natural water are necessary in certain really sticky situations, and says that there be not a baptism of blood and one of desire, and therefore wrests the omnipotence of God to a metaphor: let him be anathema."

It didn't make anything like that clear anywhere whatsoever. We have pro-desire people, in a way not unlike Protestants, ripping phrases out of the middle of sentences in order to promote their agenda.

The horizontal lines are the exact enemy I wish to fight; the horizontal god vs. the vertical God, the monarchical God. My contention is that that horizontal, broader view of things is a broad path, a wide highway.

What they (not you personally, Stephen) are doing is trying to get out of the truth, a truth pertaining to the God-ordained way of salvation. They are deceiving themselves, and others.

The objective? A horizontal Church, of all things (Catherine!)... a universalist concept of salvation. This nullifies a very particular aspect of one of St. Ambrose's distinction within baptism: The Cross.

These people are the Palm Sunday crowd, nowhere to be found on Golgotha, and are proposing a different path to salvation than the one that Christ proposed.

In that sense, you may ask yourself, where does that highway go to; you may ask yourself, am I right? Am I wrong? And you may say to yourself: "My God, what have I done?!?" lol!

Same as it ever was; there is absolutely no new thing under the sun and nothing changes regarding the way of salvation. The Church's understanding of truth will never change or evolve; unless you are born of water and the Spirit, etc...

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), July 26, 2003.

Water is necessary for the Sacrament of Baptism to be administered. It is not necessary for the graces of the Sacrament to be directly bestowed by God when the Sacrament is desired but unattainable. God can bestow grace any way He chooses. He is not bound by the rites of the Church, not even by those which are divinely ordained.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, a book of Catholic doctrine, not a book of theological speculation, states: "For catechumens who die before their baptism, their explicit desire to receive it, together for repentence for their sins, and charity, ASSURES THEM THE SALVATION they were not able to receive through the sacrament". Does "ASSURES THEM" sound speculative to you?

The Catechism states: "The Church HAS ALWAYS HELD THE FIRM CONVICTION that those who suffer death for the sake of the faith without having received Baptism ARE BAPTIZED by their death for and with Christ". Does "HAS ALWAYS HELD THE FIRM CONVICTION ... ARE BAPTIZED" sound speculative to you?

This is nothing less than the teaching of the Church, binding on Catholics and bound in heaven. To reject such teaching while claiming to be Catholic is a contradiction.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), July 26, 2003.

"Man, oh man. You mean that you've dumped the Catechism and all the non-dogmatic teachings of the Church just to speculate? And then you say that people who disagree with your speculations "reject parts of the faith"???"

No no; make sure you deal with it for what it honestly is. What I am doing is making sure that I absolutely hold to the doctrine of Faith regarding baptism in it's entirety and purity, whole and undefiled, and then, like others: speculating about how certain out-of-the-way situations, with seemingly impossible precluding circumstances, may be found to be consistant with the Doctrine.

The key factor, and what is opposite from what you might claim I am doing, is that when I speculate I wish to do so without compromising the precept, the doctrine, in any way whatsoever. That's acceptable.

What isn't, and what I'm saying that the greater portion of modern Catholics are in fact doing, is speculating in such a way as to bring the precepts of Christ into compromise. They consider their theological speculations to be of more weight than Christ's own words. "You know, I'm getting the idea that you are saying "as long as you believe the Church's dogma, you can speculate all you want with what's left over.""

We can, in fact, we certainly can this as long as we don't contradict the principles of Faith. Sure! What we cannot do is speculate and derive conclusions that are contrary to the Faith. Saying that a person can enter the Kingdom of God without a baptism involving real and true water, according to Trent, is a violation of the Savior's precepts. Augustine makes this clear in the quote upthread.

Whether this tweaks our brains and causes us confusion doesn't matter; it's a matter of Faith. You believe it, or you deny it.

The claim that I am ignoring the teaching of the Church and using my own private judgement will never stand because it isn't the case; but, what seems to be is that those making the accusations (not pointed at you personally, Catherine) are the ones who actually are ignoring the teachings of the Church and drawing their own private judgements, in thinking that there can be salvation outside the Church when the Church clearly and repeatedly says over and over again that there can't be. They use a "new and improved" interpretation of "outside.

When you make the statement as above:

"Baptism by water is not absolutely necessary for salvation."

The statement contradicts this:

"If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary in Baptism, and therefore interprets metaphorically the words of Our Lord Jesus Christ: "Unless one be born agin of water and the Holy Ghost": let him be anathema."

Right?

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), July 26, 2003.

But Emerald, all of the quotes you use from Trent, Ambrose, etc. are NOT addressing the issue of the INVINCIBLY (unconquerable; cannot be overcome) IGNORANT (lack of knowledge), so you really cannot apply them here.

That is the core issue, and NO ONE knows who may be invincibly ignorant but God alone. He knows the what, the why, the how. He is the judge of men's heart. That is why the Church can ONLY speculate as to who might fall into that category, because she rightfully knows she has not been given that attribute.

There are lovers of God who do not know His name. Lovers of God WILL PRODUCE FRUIT in accordance with righteousness. Lovers of God do not commit unrepentent sin. Lovers of God do not live in gross sexual promiscuity. Lovers of God do not commit murder. Lovers of God LOVE!! There are lovers of God who even produce more fruit that Christians (unfortunately). Will He reject them because they were not properly theologically catechized? Will He reject them because they had the misfortune to be born into a Muslim home and never HEARD the gospel? I don't THINK so. Why? Because Mercy TRIUMPHS over Judgment?

According to your thinking, it would be easier to be saved under Old Testament Judaism than New Testament Christianity. Was not Rahab the Harlot accepted by God because of her righteous obedience? She allowed herself to BE CONVERTED without proper instruction. I'm sure there are many other Old Testament examples.

You surely know that baptism does not guaranty salvation, so just using simple logic it follows that lack of baptism does not preclude salvation.

Okay, I've got get off of here. This is an interesting topic. Have a wonderful weekend. I promised myself not to get 'hooked' this weekend. Enjoy your coffee Comrad!

Love,

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), July 26, 2003.

Paul, you've just made the case for me in your last post about the catechism no being an infallible document.

But your last sentence:

"This is nothing less than the teaching of the Church, binding on Catholics and bound in heaven. To reject such teaching while claiming to be Catholic is a contradiction."

I do not agree with this not because I wish to reject the Catholic Faith, but quite it's opposite... because I need to adhere to the Catholic Faith. It isn't a matter of private interpretation at all, but a rejection of your hidden premise that a catchism is infallible.

No where is it the teaching of the Church that a catechism is in and of itself an infallible document. Those things in the catechism which are restatements of what is of the Deposit of the Faith are infallible.

But this notion that the CCC demands absolute assent in every single line is not supportable by any Catholic beliefs concerning assent to the magisterium of the Church, or any Catholic beliefs concerning the nature of true obedience.

Saint Thomas Aquinas lays out the various true and false types of obedience; I'll see if I can post those up tonight.

Many modern Catholics are bludgeoning traditional Catholics with this "obedience mallet" which does not at all reflect the true and real nature of obedience, but actually is something quite deviant.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), July 26, 2003.

"You surely know that baptism does not guaranty salvation..."

True!

"...so just using simple logic it follows that lack of baptism does not preclude salvation."

Aha! We are using simple logic! Our own private interpretations. Thankfully, though, we have Divine Revelation from our Savior to whack our intellects out of the equation and supply us with Faith:

"Unless you be born of water and the Spirit..."

See my point? It's not me that's rationalizing. It's everyone else! lol.

Gail, have a great weekend; love ya. I've got to quit this eventually myself... I have to work today and also cut branches off trees in the backyard.

My wife is coming at me with the chainsaw right now...

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), July 26, 2003.

The Catechism is not "an infallible document". It is a compilation of the infallible teaching of the Church. To claim that you are Catholic while picking and choosing the teachings of the Church which are included in the Catechism is ludicrous.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), July 26, 2003.

I'm not doing that Paul; I do believe that the modern Catholic is.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), July 26, 2003.

You ARE doing that. You have rejected both of the official Church teachings I quoted to you above, taken directly from the Church's own official compilation of its teaching. These teachings are stated in the Catechism as facts. That means the Church accepts them as facts, and officially teaches them as facts. Persons who accept some of the Church's teaching while rejecting others are called Protestants. How are you any different?

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), July 26, 2003.

Hey Emerald, Well if you don't show up here soon, we will assume your wife gotcha! OUCH, Those chainsaws HURT! LOL!!

Okay, you think you got me, but you didn't.

I said, "...so just using simple logic it follows that lack of baptism does not preclude salvation." The Church isn't right because I happen to find their logic palpable and on par with my limited ability to reason; No, the Church is right because she bases her teaching on divine revelation revealed in scripture.

Then you said,

"Aha! We are using simple logic! Our own private interpretations." No, again I am submitting to the Church's authority on this issue. Her position, however, is not only right just because she says so, but because her position is REASONABLE, MERCIFUL, JUST and in line with scripture! (Can I help it that I have the gift of logic?) Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha!!

Then you said,

"Unless you be born of water and the Spirit..." Did you know that many other NON-Christian religions practice submersion in water to cleanse away spiritual filth? (I just happened to read that in a religion book yesterday I just find that fascinating). Of course, they do not fully understand what they are doing, but it is interesting that the SPIRIT OF GOD has prompted them into this truth - - veiled though it may be -- and that these precious people have just a tiny glimpse of the mystery of all ages. God's spirit speaks to ALL MEN in spite of their nationality, position at birth, etc., education! Sure, they may not have a conscious intellectual understanding, but they get it where it counts . . . in the heart!

Okay, so enough of that. None of what we have talked about above is what Universalism teaches; i.e., that ALL MEN WILL BE SAVED! Hell is empty, etc., etc.

Love,

Gail

P.S. I just read somewhere in the Catechism that to reject the Church KNOWINGLY is a BIG-TIME NO-NO!!! Can't remember where! I have to go pick some blackberries.

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), July 26, 2003.

"I have to go pick some blackberries."

Somewhat related:

"Shall we all be saved? Alas, my children, we do not know at all! But I tremble when I see so many souls lost these days. The number of the saved is as few as the number of grapes left after vineyard-pickers have passed." --St. John Marie Vianney, Spirit of the Cure D'Ars

lol Gail! Need to borrow my chainsaw? =)

Paul writes:

"You ARE doing that. You have rejected both of the official Church teachings I quoted to you above, taken directly from the Church's own official compilation of its teaching."

The above is why I say that the modern Catholic has a lapsed understanding of what the true nature of obedience is when it comes assent to the doctrines of the faith as well as the ordinary and supreme magisterium of the Catholic Church.

In a way, I can't blame these people, since the drive for obedience is a completely healthy and necessary thing for any Catholic, and it's integral to our Faith. It's unfortunate to see how good people's good intentions and desires of being obedient are being used against them by bad people in the Church.

Problem is, people are stubborn in this belief that bad people and pastors can't be in the Church. If that's the case, I don't know what the heck Pope Leo XIII was all worked up about, or Pope St. Pius X as well, when they bitterly complained about forces within the Church... prelates... modernists... trying to cause damage to the Church from within.

Pascendi, the encyclical by Pius X is a must-read document; it's hard to walk away from that document and not be forced to admit the crisis we are going through unless one is really, really blind.

But that's a whole new discussion. In the long run, no matter what topic you pick in traditional vs. modern Catholic discussions, it will usually always come down a discussion of the true nature of loyalty to the magisterium, and it's relation to doctrinal matters.

Just to make it simple, I believe it is required of me to be obedient to both the ordinary and universal magisterium of the Church. But when this magisterium contradicts known doctrine, I must withold my assent and wait til the storm blows over. The fact of the matter is the deviations actually can be promulgated... the action of the protection of the Holy Ghost does not necessarily preclude this on the non-infallible, non-declaring, non-defining side of the equation. He may allow us to suffer this as a test of Faith, and you might guess, that's what I think He might be doing in many ways right now.

I do sincerely believe that if I were take on the post conciliar mindset and way of worshipping, that I would be in denial of my Faith on one or more items.

Traditionalist Catholics remind me if what St. Augustine said:

"Often, too, Divine Providence permits even good men to be driven from the congregation of Christ by the turbulent seditions of carnal men. When for the sake of the peace of the Church, they patiently endure that insult or injury, and attempt no novelties in the way of heresy or schism. They will teach men how God is to be served with a true disposition and with great and sincere charity. The intention of such men is to return when the tumult has subsided. But if that is not permitted because the storm continues or because a fiercer one might be stirred up by their return, they hold fast to their purpose to look to the good even of those responsible for the tumults and commotions that drove them out. They form no separate sects of their own, but defend to the death and assist by their testimony the faith which they know is preached in the Catholic Church. These the Father who seeth in secret crowns secretly. It appears that this is a rare kind of Christian, but examples are not lacking. So Divine Providence uses all kinds of men as examples for the oversight of souls and for the building up of his spiritual people."

Fortunately, the more I look at the Church's own teachings throughout the ages, and especially in the writings of the saints, the traditionalist Catholic's position is always and ever found to be vindicated.

"Persons who accept some of the Church's teaching while rejecting others are called Protestants."

Actually, they're called heretics. Protestants then, are heretics, which seems pretty clear. But I'm not a heretic, because I do not deny any of the doctrines of the Roman Catholic Faith.

It is clear at this time, that the baptisms of blood and desire are not doctrines, but theological speculations, and are treated as such by the doctors of the Church such as Augustine and others.

I have to do what I know is right, and hold to the doctrines of the Faith.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), July 26, 2003.

Think of the distinction between the body and the blood. I hope you and Fr. Feeney don't advocate that communion under both species is necessary for the effects of the sacrament to occur.

-- Stephen (StephenLynn999@msn.com), July 26, 2003.

ugh.

-- Stephen (StephenLynn999@msn.com), July 26, 2003.

When you make the statement as above:

"Baptism by water is not absolutely necessary for salvation."

The statement contradicts this:

"If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary in Baptism, and therefore interprets metaphorically the words of Our Lord Jesus Christ: "Unless one be born agin of water and the Holy Ghost": let him be anathema."

Right?

Not at all! I was simply using the phrase "Baptism by water" to distinguish it from the desire for Baptism and the Baptism of blood. Since neither of these exceptions are sacraments, I could just as easily have said:

The sacrament of Baptism is not absolutely necessary for salvation.

Do you believe that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob went to hell?

Saint Thomas Aquinas lays out the various true and false types of obedience; I'll see if I can post those up tonight.

Good idea. Check this out at the same time.

-- Catherine Ann (catfishbird@yahoo.ca), July 26, 2003.

The link to St. Thomas Aquinas' proof on the matter actually emboldens my position that the matter of blood and desire are speculations and not doctrine.

Here's how so: Thomas' Summa is theology... it is what is called the Divine Science. It takes it's principles from Divine Revelation, or doctrines, and moves to further conclusions from there. Thomas admits himself that while the principles, the premises are absolute truth, in that they are Divinely Revealed, that the conclusions derived thereafter through human reasoning (as in the proof you linked to) are subject to error, because human reasoning is in error.

In other words, the very fact that he has a proof on the matter is an admission that it lies not in the realm of doctrine, but in the realm of human reasoning.

If it were Divine Revelation, he wouldn't have needed a proof for it. Do you see what I mean?

So the Catholic person such as myself, while I love this guy St. Thomas, knows that as he writes up this proof, he is using his human reason.

Again, baptism of blood and desire are not Divine Revelation or in the Deposit of the Faith, but are the subjects of reasoning and speculation within Theology, which is what St. Thomas is doing there. In other words, he may or may not be correct. Such as the case of the Immaculate Conception.

As a sidenote, St. Thomas was not a Saint because of his Summa Theologica or his other better works. He was a saint because... he picked up the Cross of Christ and prayed, and did penance, and forsook this life for the next. That's probably why he thought his Summa was "straw".

Do you see what I'm getting at?

Do you believe that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob went to hell?

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), July 26, 2003.

Italics off

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), July 26, 2003.

Oops on Isaac and Jacob above.

The patriarchs: they had that votum deal and were justified, but guess what! They could not yet enter Heaven and the Beatific Vision, and had to wait. They had to wait somewhere just outside the regions of hell, from what I gather, until Christ shed His Blood and effected salvation.

That's what's meant by "He decended into Hell..." in the Creed. I think it was Venerable Mary of Agreda, I'm not sure though, that describes this event, with the angels parting the demons before Christ as He entered into Hell to grab these patriarchs and bring them into Heaven.

"The Bosom of Abraham" has a very unique meaning and context, as does the use of the word "Paradise" in reference to Dismus the good thief.

Note that in all these cases, a sort of "consumation", or a completing act, is found to be necessary.

As a sidenote, in that second film "Lord of the Rings", did you see that scene with Gandolf chasing the Bal Rog down the shaft in the cave? Tolkien was a traditionalist Catholic; I think that's what this scene was meant to portray... Christ decending into Hell per the creed. After making a stand at the narrow bridge, mind you!

That's just an imho sidenote thingy.

In no way whatsoever, though, does God's precept on baptism rule out the justified patriarchs of the Old Testament and their eventually being brought into Heaven. If you really pursue it, on the contrary you will find that a study of it will embolden the realness of the sacrament of baptism instead of weaken it.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), July 26, 2003.

I'm backing away for a while; there's too much stuff around here to do, and besides I'm probably giving myself and other people hemorrhoids on the brain and pinwheel eyes. Til some other time.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), July 27, 2003.

This is just to reach #150. :-) Glad you're taking a break, Emerald.

The emperor Valentinian was murdered while on his way to Milan to get baptized, and St. Ambrose opined that he was saved by virtue of his desire. So here we have both a catechumen dying en route to the font, and an endorsement by St. Ambrose of in voto baptism.

-- Stephen (StephenLynn999@msn.com), July 27, 2003.

Emerald quoted Augustine to describe the sola traditio group:

Often, too, Divine Providence permits even good men to be driven from the congregation of Christ by the turbulent seditions of carnal men. When for the sake of the peace of the Church, they patiently endure that insult or injury, and attempt no novelties in the way of heresy or schism. They will teach men how God is to be served with a true disposition and with great and sincere charity. The intention of such men is to return when the tumult has subsided.

A good description of John Gecik and Eugene Chavez, would you say? :-) I wonder if they can return now.

-- Stephen (StephenLynn999@msn.com), July 27, 2003.

"They will teach men how God is to be served with a true disposition and with great and sincere charity."

Let's hope so.

I have no problem 'getting lost' and leaving everyone alone, but it's my sincere hope that traditionalist Catholics will no longer be falsely accused in deed and intent, and be called the sons of Satan.

I think this is a fair request.

Adios for now.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), July 27, 2003.

Emerald wrote: "If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary in Baptism, and therefore interprets metaphorically the words of Our Lord Jesus Christ: 'Unless one be born agin of water and the Holy Ghost': let him be anathema."

Emerald, This seems to be your last remaining pillar... your last logical, infallible leg to stand on. Of course you have a lot of "speculative" reasons you like to dismiss the teachings of the Catechism, but your core response is that you think the teachings that you don't like contradict the above from Trent. Let me propose a way to reconcile what you think are "contradictory" teachings.

First we should understand that our salvation is not (cannot be) fully "applied" to us until our death and personal judgement. [See St. Paul's teachings vis-a-vis "finishing the race."] Like the workers hired from the town square, we hope to work all day (receive the sacraments, pray, fast, give alms, do good works, love God and neighbor...) But even for those who have loitered around all day, we know there is a *chance* (no matter how small we might think it, and no matter how much we may resent God's generosity) RIGHT UP UNTIL THAT PERSONAL JUDGEMENT (which happens after death); there's still hope for salvation.

I think the totality of what you presume are "new" (and to you conflicting) teachings can be summed up as follows: because salvation is decided by GOD (for whom all things are possible), there may be other ways to enter the Church (and hope to obtain salvation) than the ones we know with certainty (e.g. from Trent), namely natural water baptism *here on earth*.

Notice that I am here proposing a nuance to understanding Trent. When Trent spoke of baptism in natural water, many have assumed that such a baptism had to take place during the person's earthly life. This leads some (such as Emerald) to claim that those who die without an earthly natural water baptism have "missed the boat" (get it?) on salvation.

But what, we wonder, if someone dies without having had an earthly, natural water baptism, but fervently desiring salvation? One might even demonstrate such a fervent desire by laying down one's life for Christ. What can the Church say of such a person's salvation?

The Church offers that with sincere desire, or with demonstrable acts (such as martyrdom), such a person can have assurance that salvation is attainable, despite not receiving a visible, earthly, natural water baptism. Attainable, mind you... not guaranteed (we all recognize that baptism by itself is not a guarantee of salvation). So recognizing God's omnipotence, the Church teaches that some people can (at God's discretion) be saved despite our human judgement to the contrary.

Perhaps the natural water baptism that Trent discusses is administered somehow after death (where our human eyes cannot see) and because of his desire the person is ushered into the Church before his personal judgement. Couldn't such an understanding reconcile the seemingly "contradictory" teachings? I being Catholic, firmly trust that both ways of understanding the issue (while seemingly at odds to some) are true.

Dismissing natural water baptism as a necessity would be foolish, and the Church doesn't do it. But demanding that God absolutely cannot offer His salvation without a visible, earthly, natural water baptism is equally foolish (and, strictly speaking, is not what Trent declared). It is this second class of foolish into which you're falling, Emerald. If you insist on believing that God cannot offer His salvation in some way (unknown - maybe even unknowable? - to you or I) that meets the demands of Trent but still offers the possibility of salvation to all people, you're not believing the truth.

-- Greg Adas (GAdas@Familink.com), July 28, 2003.

"Emerald wrote: "If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary in Baptism, and therefore interprets metaphorically the words of Our Lord Jesus Christ: 'Unless one be born agin of water and the Holy Ghost': let him be anathema." Emerald, This seems to be your last remaining pillar... your last logical, infallible leg to stand on."

Correct. Of course, Trent is a re-affirmation of Scripture which as a Catholic I obviously accept as well, and it's always been the teaching of the Church, which I accept as well.

It's not logical though as stated above. It's a matter of Faith... there's no logic in it. It's a principle of Divine Revelation.

"Perhaps the natural water baptism that Trent discusses is administered somehow after death (where our human eyes cannot see) and because of his desire the person is ushered into the Church before his personal judgement. Couldn't such an understanding reconcile the seemingly "contradictory" teachings?"

Nope.

Dismissing natural water baptism as a necessity would be foolish, and the Church doesn't do it."

Correct.

"But demanding that God absolutely cannot offer His salvation without a visible, earthly, natural water baptism is equally foolish (and, strictly speaking, is not what Trent declared). It is this second class of foolish into which you're falling, Emerald."

Nope. It's called holding the Faith. =)

"If you insist on believing that God cannot offer His salvation in some way (unknown - maybe even unknowable? - to you or I) that meets the demands of Trent but still offers the possibility of salvation to all people, you're not believing the truth."

Non sequitur. Really... lol! That's doesn't follow.

What about these people in question? I don't know any details, don't need to know any details. I must hold the Faith. The Faith says Baptism, and says what it is and how to do it.

I don't have the luxury of speculating, and then lending my opinion to others that they'll be just fine without the Sacraments. This is would be a denial of my Faith... for what? To satisfy a curiosity? So I'll feel better about things? To take the heat of our predicament?

I'm sorry, I can't do that, and must hold to the Faith.

The way is narrow, my friend. Very, very narrow and very difficult. The Rosary... devotion to the Mother of God, the Blessed Sacrament, prayer and penance...

What more can I say? What more could I possibly add to what we already know we need to do to be saved and to help others along the way? We have everything at our fingertips, at least for a while.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), July 28, 2003.

But that's it for me for a while; thanks Greg.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), July 28, 2003.

Well, I need to back off from this too. But let me just say that a miraculous baptism after death is not necessary. The waters of baptism can be present in voto rather than in re analogous to the case of spiritual communion. Valentinian died while he had a firm intention to receive baptism by water, manifested by his dangerous journey to Milan.

Of course the problem with in voto anything is that only God knows the state of one's mind, so only God can judge tbe quality of the votum. However, we are perfectly justified in giving Valentinian a Christian burial, and commending his soul to God (as Ambrose did).

How about the non-catechumen who has never heard of Christianity? (invincible ignorance). I don't think we can rule out a private revelation in such a case, which again could lead to the waters of baptism in voto. To make his case, Feeney needs to rule out this possibility.

As I mentioned before, the answer to the question "Who then can be saved?" can only have the answer, "We don't know and we can rule out NOBODY. Nothing is impossible with God.

At the same time, the question "Master, what must I do to be saved?" also has a clear, unambiguous and uncompromising answer. And let there be no mistake, it is the ONLY answer to this question, and it leads inexorably to the narrow via crucis.

This is just one of those paradoxes that Chesterton so loved in Catholic Christianity.

-- Stephen (StephenLynn999@msn.com), July 28, 2003.

I'd also like to disagree with the idea that the magisterium has been taken over by a bunch of sixties radicals whose view of salvation is some kind of new-agey interfaith bingo parlor in the sky. :-)

Cardinal Ratzinger particularly, the man behind the New Catechism, does not quite fit that profile. (No doubt there may be people that do, but I doubt they are very influential).

Also, was it Bertrand Russell who said that "new" in a context like this, really means "old"? Our Catechism reflects a 2000 year-old tradition, while the Catechisms of Augustine's day were less than 400 years old. The Catechism is new because it is old, a compendium and summary of a very old tradition, not a superstitio nova et prava as Christianity was perceived to be when it was younger.

-- Stephen (StephenLynn999@msn.com), July 28, 2003.

"We don't know and we can rule out NOBODY. Nothing is impossible with God."

I say let's not rule in anybody when that's not our job, especially not at the expense of our underlying principles. Let's know that nothing is impossible with God, but let's do what we know we ought to be doing to help people escape the results of denying reality and attain the good that results from conforming to it.

Bertrand Russell? Burn it. =)

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), July 28, 2003.

"I'd also like to disagree with the idea that the magisterium has been taken over by a bunch of sixties radicals whose view of salvation is some kind of new-agey interfaith bingo parlor in the sky. :-)"

Y.. you... no. No way. You're one of those flat-earth people aren't you?

lol! Just teasing. Ok, I'm really quitting now...

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), July 28, 2003.

Heh, you bet I am (flat-earther). But that's another thread. :=)

I'm outta here then. The last word is up for grabs. Victoria?

-- Stephen (StephenLynn999@msn.com), July 29, 2003.

Hail, holy Queen, Mother of Mercy.

Our life, our sweetness, and our hope.

To thee do we cry, poor banished children of Eve, to thee do we send up our sighs, mourning and weeping in this valley, of tears.

Turn, then, most gracious advocate, thine eyes of mercy toward us; and after this our exile show unto us the blessed fruit of thy womb Jesus; O clement, O loving, O sweet virgin Mary.

Pray for us, O holy Mother of God That we may be made worthy of the promises of Christ.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), July 29, 2003.

Greg wrote:

>"But demanding that God absolutely cannot offer His salvation without a visible, earthly, natural water baptism is equally foolish (and, strictly speaking, is not what Trent declared)."

Emerald responded: >Nope. It's called holding the Faith. =)

But Emerald, you're missing (or perhaps ignoring) my main point here... that what Trent declared as true does NOT rule out some other ways of baptising (so long as it's natural water). Trent doesn't demand, for instance, that we must SEE it take place. As Stephen points out, Trent doesn't demand that this natural water baptism can't take place in a mysterious way that we don't understand (but carries the same votum weight). That interpretation of what Trent demands belongs to Emerald, but the i correct interpretation belongs to the Church. i You continue to see a conflict when the i Church Herself (in universally promulgated decrees and documents, mind you) interprets otherwise. Yet you claim obedience.... crazy.

It reminds me of the Jews who - knowing and believing the traditional teaching - expected the messiah to be a great king. And so He was. But in their misunderstanding of that traditional teaching, they couldn't see it. So they defied the King of Kings, in favor of their own limited, misunderstanding... and favored His torture and execution.

Of course, you're not at all wrong to encourage (press for) people to be baptised - in fact, you're all right! That's EXACTLY what the Church does (and we should all do much more of)! And your encouragement can help remind us all how critically important our ecumenical efforts are to save souls and further God's Kingdom. Thank you for that. Stick to that (without claiming that the official Church teaching on baptism is fatally flawed, because it's not) and you'll be not only helping the Kingdom you'll also steer clear of the negative labels you seek to avoid.

Now I'm out on this one, too.

May Christ give you His peace...

-- Greg Adas (GAdas@Familink.com), July 30, 2003.

Novissima!

God bless you all.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), July 30, 2003.