I was at the other Catholic Forum and an orthodox christian said that the Church is trying to change an already defined Doctrine, concerning babies who die unbaptised.

It was stated at the Ecumenical Council of Florence (1438-1445) and goes like this:

"We define......Also, the souls of those who have incurred no stain of sin whatsoever after baptism, as well as souls who after incurring the stain of sin have been cleansed whether in their bodies or outside their bodies, as was stated above, are straightaway received into heaven and clearly behold the triune God as he is, yet one person more perfectly than another according to the difference of their merits. But the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin or in original sin alone, go down straightaway to hell to be punished, but with unequal pains.

Is this in fact a solemn definition? I'm confused.

-- DJ (newfiedufie@msn.com), November 25, 2004

Answers

bump

-- D Joseph (newfiedufie@msn.com), November 25, 2004.

http://www.ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/ORIGSIN.TXT

Hi DJ hope this helps.

Peace!

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), November 26, 2004.

Hey Kiwi. Even though it may mean the infants will have a penalty in not getting to see the vision of God nor will they suffer, it still is defined at a council. How can they then say that God may find a way out for them to get to Heaven if at that council they said they will not get to heaven? It just seems contradicting, and i'm trying to find out how to reconcile both teachings.

-- D Joseph (newfiedufie@msn.com), November 26, 2004.

You don't have to reconcile both teachings. The underlying teaching remains exactly the same - Baptism is the means by which we become children of God and heirs of heaven. The Church's earlier interpretation of this truth, like its interpretations of many doctrinal matters, was excessively rigid and legalistic, which set up many troubling inconsistencies with the nature of God as He has revealed it. Today the Church, through additional centuries of theological scholarship and divine guidance, has come to a fuller understanding of many doctrinal truths, which brings them more fully into union with all that God has revealed about Himself and his nature. Doctrinal truths, while never changing in essence, are now more easily appreciated within the context of the love and justice of God, and not merely as authoritarian edicts imposed on His people. Baptism however, remains the means God has provided for becoming children of God and heirs of heaven. All that is different is our fuller understanding of how the graces of that sacrament may be applied.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 27, 2004.

The Church's earlier interpretation of this truth, like its interpretations of many doctrinal matters, was excessively rigid and legalistic, which set up many troubling inconsistencies with the nature of God as He has revealed it.

But Paul, correct me if i'm wrong, but at an Ecumenical Council, especially when a statement is started off with "we define", doesn't that make it "infallible" and we can be assured that the Holy Spirit Himself is saying this? We are not talking about gradual Church teachings through the centuries apart from the Ecumenical Councils here. How can doctrinal matters be excessively rigid and legalistic and set up many troubling inconsisencies with the nature of God as He has revealed it, especially when He Himself is saying this? Again, at this Council it was defined "But the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin or in original sin alone, go down straightaway to hell to be punished, but with unequal pains." Why would the Holy Spirit allow this to be said in the first place if there was a possible way out for the unbaptised? And it does sound like a contradiction to me when at first they say that those with original sin alone will have unequal pain(no suffering but still not able to see the vision of God) and now say: we leave in the Mercyful Hands of God those babies that die in Original Sin.

-- DJ (newfiedufie@msn.com), November 27, 2004.

I have aways been taught that no one gets to Heaven without baptism. They say that children in that state go to limbo.

I personally believe that doctrine is static and does not evolve.

-- Ossie (oscar@aol.com), November 27, 2004.

A doctrine of itself - the essential statement which identifies a basic belief - is static and does not evolve. However, the Church's understanding of its doctrine most certainly does evolve. Otherwise, any understanding of any doctrine that was not specifically held by the Apostles would be invalid, including the writings of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church, who are primarily responsible for our current understanding of doctrinal matters. Could anyone deny that our understanding of Catholic doctrine increased exponentially in the 4th century, through the writings of Augustine? Or in the 13th century, through the writings of Aquinas? Or in every age since then, through ongoing study of their writings? These of course were the theological giants, who contributed to the understanding of doctrine in quantum leaps. However, such doctrinal understanding has also gradually increased in every century since the founding of the Church, through the studies and writings of lesser Doctors and theologians. The Church of the 5'th Century understood its doctrine far better than the Church of the 2'nd Century, even though it taught the same doctrines. The Church of the 10'th Century understood doctrinal issues far better then the Church of the 5'th. The Church of the 15'th Century had still deeper appreciation and understanding of those same doctrines than the 10'th Century Church. And it is therefore only reasonable to recognize that the Church of the 21'st Century has far greater insights into the depths of its doctrines than the Church of 500 years ago, even though it still teaches the same doctrines.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 27, 2004.

So, in plain English please..do unbaptized babies go to heaven or not? A simple yes or no will suffice..or are you saying the Doctrine NOW has some kind of qualifier?????

-- Lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), November 27, 2004.

The Church cannot provide a definitive answer to that question, because it has not been revealed by God. The Church teaches, as it has always taught, that the graces of Baptism are essential for salvation. But the Church also teaches, as it has always taught, that God is all-loving, all-merciful, and all-just. Since condemnation of the most innocent of all people to everlasting punishment appears so inconsistent with these revealed and dogmatically defined characteristics of God, the Church, even though it cannot make a definitive statement on the matter, acknowledges the possibility that God, in His infinite love, mercy, justice and wisdom, may if He so chooses, apply the essential graces of Baptism in an alternate manner when special circumstances warrant. No, there is no "qualifier". Just a fuller and richer comprehension of the underlying, unchanging doctrinal truth.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 27, 2004.

Ok, so correct me if i'm wrong here. In the Counsil of Florence they definitively said that if one dies in Mortal Sin there would be unequal pains and when understood in their language of the time they meant no pain and no awareness of the loss of the Beatific Vision. But again it was only speaking of ones dying with origianl sin alone.

Now they are saying that when babies do indeed die unbaptised, there could be a way out for them, and we can only place hope in God's mercy and His wanting us all to be saved to consider such a thing. And in order for God to assist them, He would have to wipe out their original sin before they "depart" so to speak. Which means in reality, they did not die with original sin on their souls so it would not affect what the Counsil initially said.

Does that sound right?

-- DJ (newfiedufie@msn.com), November 27, 2004.

the statement in Florence is clear, no matter how hard it is to swallow: "But the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin or in original sin alone, go down straightaway to hell to be punished, but with unequal pains."

perhaps, one hopes, this means **NO** pain at all for someone who died in Original Sin, but otherwise without actual sin. one should pray that it does. i have an example in my life.

however, whilst it might be the case that such a person **could be** in a state of natural happiness [no punishment], if we have been INFALLIBLY told that such person in not in Heaven, he/she cannot be in Heaven -- and is separated from the Beatific Vision.

to believe that he/she is in Heaven is to refuse to accept an infallible teaching of the Church. Florence did not mention this "escape clause". how can there be one?

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), November 28, 2004.

Your understanding, DJ, is now correct and was very well stated!

The Church's earlier interpretation of this truth, like its interpretations of many doctrinal matters, was excessively rigid and legalistic

However, the above comment, made by another contributor, is not correct. It was not "the Church" (the spotless and infallible Bride of Christ) that made "excessively rigid and legalistic" "interpretation(s) of" the "truth." Rather, it was individual theologians (even sometimes famous saints) who expressed excessively rigid opinions.

An example of how that can happen is found in Ian's "rigid and legalistic" words, above. He almost seems to long for people to be damned, and he interprets the words of Florence accordingly. However, the words of Florence are not so clear-cut as he would like. Here they are again:
But the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin or in original sin alone, go down straightaway to hell to be punished, but with unequal pains.

Notice that those words do not say "the souls of those who depart this life without water-Baptism go down straightaway to hell to be punished." Instead they refer to "the souls of those who depart ... in original sin". Neither the Ians of our time nor certain "rigid" theologians of the first Christian millennium are capable of tying God's hands and forcing him to free a soul from original sin only by Baptism in water. God gave the sacraments, and He can operate outside them, if He wishes, even freeing souls from original sin (i.e., infusing them with sanctifying grace).

-- Chrysty (cboyer@archnet.net), November 28, 2004.

Ian,

It is impossible that a person could be in hell and experience any happiness whatsoever, or avoid tremendous pain. God is the fullness of all love, goodness, peace, joy, hope, happiness, and every virtue. Hell is absolute separation from God, and therefore absolute separation from all love, goodness, peace, joy, happiness, and virtue. Hell is by definition total immersion in hatred, evil, despair, and unhappiness, the greatest pain which could befall a human being. A perfectly loving, merciful and just God could not inflict such endless torment upon one of His children who has done absolutely nothing to be deserving of such punishment. Therefore it must be possible for the graces of Baptism to be conferred upon the innocent when no human fault or failing is involved. The unavoidable alternative is the heresy of predestination. Proposed explanations of existing doctrine are not infallible teaching. Otherwise our understanding of doctrine could not evolve and increase over time, as we clearly see that it does. It would simply be a case of "whoever offers the first explanation is necessarily 100% correct, and all theologians from then on can please be quiet". Obviously such an idea is untenable since one Council does not have greater authority than another, and the Holy Spirit speaks continuously, through every Council.

Chrysty,

All doctrinal insights begin as proposals by individual theologians; however, once an Ecumenical Council of the Church considers such proposals and issues an official statement in agreement with them, it is then accurate to say that the Church at that time "taught excessively rigid and legalistic interpretations of the truth". An individual theologian does not speak for the Church, which I assume was your point; but an Ecumenical Council does.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 28, 2004.

Paul M & Chrysty

a Catholic is identified by certain indicia, including absolute adherence to Catholic Dogma.

however "unpleasant" any given Catholic might find said Dogma, adherence is key.

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

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), November 28, 2004.

"An example of how that can happen is found in Ian's "rigid and legalistic" words, above. He almost seems to long for people to be damned, and he interprets the words of Florence accordingly."

No he doesn't. That's just the impression you're getting apparently, and I'd be more than willing to be the first to stand up and say, hey, your impression is wrong. And it is wrong. Ian in no way longs for people to damned.

You can't approach an intelligent discussion in this manner and expect the participants to gain any further insight; at the root, it sentimentalizes a perfectly legitimate theologcial topic. You'll only find yourself left holding the bag on a rather nasty accusation of your own making.

"However, the words of Florence are not so clear-cut as he would like. Here they are again: But the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin or in original sin alone, go down straightaway to hell to be punished, but with unequal pains."

But they are clear cut. Only a modernist would posit otherwise.

"Notice that those words do not say "the souls of those who depart this life without water-Baptism go down straightaway to hell to be punished." Instead they refer to "the souls of those who depart ... in original sin"."

Basically you want a way out. There isn't one, because Baptism is the sacrament that remedies the state of Original Sin, and no other, and it is prior in sequence to the remainder of the seven Sacraments. There's no getting out of it. Christ said so, the Church has always and everywhere said so.

"Neither the Ians of our time nor certain "rigid" theologians of the first Christian millennium are capable of tying God's hands and forcing him to free a soul from original sin only by Baptism in water."

The truth is this: Neither the liberals of our time nor their liberal revision of so called "rigid" theologians of the previous centuries of Church history are capable of saying that there is any other way of salvation than the what God has instituted by which a soul may be freed from the state of Original Sin.

That's the blunt truth.

"God gave the sacraments, and He can operate outside them, if He wishes, even freeing souls from original sin (i.e., infusing them with sanctifying grace)."

You don't know this, and believe it or not, theologically, no He can't.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), November 28, 2004.

Man, don't you hate it when that happens? Sorry.

Trying again:

"An example of how that can happen is found in Ian's "rigid and legalistic" words, above. He almost seems to long for people to be damned, and he interprets the words of Florence accordingly."

No he doesn't. That's just the impression you're getting apparently, and I'd be more than willing to be the first to stand up and say, hey, your impression is wrong. And it is wrong. Ian in no way longs for people to damned.

You can't approach an intelligent discussion in this manner and expect the participants to gain any further insight; at the root, it sentimentalizes a perfectly legitimate theologcial topic. You'll only find yourself left holding the bag on a rather nasty accusation of your own making.

"However, the words of Florence are not so clear-cut as he would like. Here they are again: But the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin or in original sin alone, go down straightaway to hell to be punished, but with unequal pains."

But they are clear cut. Only a modernist would posit otherwise.

"Notice that those words do not say "the souls of those who depart this life without water-Baptism go down straightaway to hell to be punished." Instead they refer to "the souls of those who depart ... in original sin"."

Basically you want a way out. There isn't one, because Baptism is the sacrament that remedies the state of Original Sin, and no other, and it is prior in sequence to the remainder of the seven Sacraments. There's no getting out of it. Christ said so, the Church has always and everywhere said so.

"Neither the Ians of our time nor certain "rigid" theologians of the first Christian millennium are capable of tying God's hands and forcing him to free a soul from original sin only by Baptism in water."

The truth is this: Neither the liberals of our time nor their liberal revision of so called "rigid" theologians of the previous centuries of Church history are capable of saying that there is any other way of salvation than the what God has instituted by which a soul may be freed from the state of Original Sin.

That's the blunt truth.

"God gave the sacraments, and He can operate outside them, if He wishes, even freeing souls from original sin (i.e., infusing them with sanctifying grace)."

You don't know this, and believe it or not, theologically, no He can't.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), November 28, 2004.

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

A: No, "we" are NOT instructed to believe that! Catholics of the 15'th Century were instructed to believe that. "We" in fact are instructed NOT to believe that, since "we" are instructed today, by the SAME authority of the SAME Magisterium of the SAME Church to accept and believe what the Church NOW teaches in regard to the infallible dogma regarding the necessity of baptismal grace. The statement "Baptism is necessary for salvation" is a dogmatic truth. Both Catholics of the 15th Century and Catholics of today are required to accept that dogmatic statement. However, further theological ideas offered in an effort to explore and explan that dogmatic truth on a deeper level are NOT in themselves dogmatic. You don't seem to appreciate the difference. The dogmatic fact that "God is Triune in nature" doesn't mean that every statement the Church thereafter issues in its ongoing effort to understand the meaning of the Trinity in increasingly greater depth is thereby automatically dogma. This is what the Church means when it teaches that dogma does not evolve, but the Church's understanding of its dogma evolves constantly, through continuous study under ongoing divine guidance. To limit onesself to a 15'th century level of understanding of dogma is to sweep aside 5 centuries of intense theological scholarship, 5 centuries of continuous growth in doctrinal understanding, 5 centuries of guidance of the Magisterium by the Holy Spirit. It means telling the Holy Spirit, "I'll accept all that you revealed to the Church up until the 15'th Century, but nothing you have revealed since then". But wait! If you don't accept the increased depth of understanding between the 15'th and 21'st Centuries, why would you accept the immense growth in such understanding between the 10'th and 15'th Centuries? Why don't you throw out Florence because it made explanatory doctrinal proposals which were never accepted or even thought of by the 10'th Century Magisterium? You either allow your faith to grow with the faith of the Church or you simply get left behind.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 28, 2004.

Pope Pius IX, Gravissimas Inter, Dec. 11, 1862: “The very definition of a dogma must be held to be by itself a sufficient demonstration, very sure and adapted to all the faithful. Moreover, this is why such dogmatic definitions have always been and are necessarily an unchangeable rule of faith.”

Vatican Council, 1870: “For, the doctrine of faith which God revealed has not been handed down as a philosophic invention to the human mind to be perfected, but has been entrusted as a divine deposit to the Spouse of Christ, to be faithfully guarded and infallibly interpreted. Hence, also, that understanding of its sacred dogmas must be perpetually retained, which Holy Mother Church has once declared and there must never be recession from that meaning under the specious name of a deeper understanding.” VC, Sess. 3, cap. 4; D. 1800

Vatican Council, 1870: “3. If anyone says that it is possible that at some time, given the advancement of knowledge, a sense may be assigned to the dogmas propounded by the Church which is different from that which the Church has understood and understands: let him be anathema.” VC, Sess. 3, Canons of Faith, Faith and Reason, Canon 3; D. 1818.

St. Pope Pius X, Lamentabili Sane, Condemned proposition: “59. Christ did not teach a determined body of doctrine applicable to all times and all men, but rather inaugurated a religious movement adapted or to be adapted to different times and places. (Syllabus Condemning the Errors of the Modernist), July 3, 1907.

St.Pope Pius X, The Oath Against the Modernist, 1910: “Fourthly, I accept sincerely the doctrine of faith transmitted from the apostles through the orthodox fathers, always in the same sense and interpretation, even to us; and so I reject the heretical invention of the evolution of dogmas, passing from one meaning to another, different from that which the Church first had..." Sacrorum antistitum (The Oath Against the Modernist), September 1, 1910; D. 2145

THE SYLLABUS OF ERRORS CONDEMNED BY PIUS IX

5. Divine revelation is imperfect, and therefore subject to a continual and indefinite progress, corresponding with the advancement of human reason.

21. The Church has not the power of defining dogmatically that the religion of the Catholic Church is the only true religion. -- Damnatio "Multiplices inter," June 10, 1851.

80. The Roman Pontiff can, and ought to, reconcile himself, and come to terms with progress, liberalism and modern civilization.- - Allocution "Jamdudum cernimus," March 18, 1861.

‘There is a way,that seemeth right to a man, but the ends thereof lead to death.' (Prov. xiv. 10.)

"Extra Ecclesiam Nullus omnino Salvatur." "Out of the Church there is positively no Salvation." - Fourth Lateran Council, 1015

"Error, cui non resistur, approbatur; et Veritas, cum minime defensatur." "Not to oppose erroneous Doctrine is to approve of it, and not to defend at all true Doctrine is to suppress it." - Innocent III.

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9), June 29, 1896 "The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative magesterium.

IV Lateran Council: “We decree that those who give credence to the teachings of heretics, as well as those who receive, defend, or patronize them, are excommunicated.”

All Catholics believe the above, modernists are not Catholics.

Yours sinc. Bernard

-- Bernard (bluyben@telusplanet.net), November 29, 2004.

"No, "we" are NOT instructed to believe that! Catholics of the 15'th Century were instructed to believe that."

If they were so instructed, then we are as well. If we are, then they were.

""We" in fact are instructed NOT to believe that, since "we" are instructed today, by the SAME authority of the SAME Magisterium of the SAME Church to accept and believe what the Church NOW teaches in regard to the infallible dogma regarding the necessity of baptismal grace."

Wrong. This is so very and completely wrong. This is generic modernism.

"The statement "Baptism is necessary for salvation" is a dogmatic truth. Both Catholics of the 15th Century and Catholics of today are required to accept that dogmatic statement."

Right.

"However, further theological ideas offered in an effort to explore and explan that dogmatic truth on a deeper level are NOT in themselves dogmatic."

Right.

"This is what the Church means when it teaches that dogma does not evolve, but the Church's understanding of its dogma evolves constantly, through continuous study under ongoing divine guidance."

But the Church doesn't teach that, Paul. And if you say that understanding of dogma evolves, it's the same as if the dogma evolves. What you are really doing here is attempting to posit two contradictory propositions in the same breath. If people don't get it, you're not going to be able to cite their lack of insight, ignorance or lack of brilliance as the culprit. I'm not an idiot, nor are the balance of posters in these forums. It's as simple as saying hey, that's a contradiction. It isn't a paradox. A paradox is not a contradiction.

"To limit onesself to a 15'th century level of understanding of dogma is to sweep aside 5 centuries of intense theological scholarship, 5 centuries of continuous growth in doctrinal understanding..."

Our Catholic Faith, the Deposit of Faith, does not derive from scholarship. This can't be said enough. There is no "growth in doctrinal understanding" which is the product of the effort of human reason. One of the best short explanations of the role of philosophy and scholarship in service to the Faith I've ever seen is found in Leo XIII's Aeterni Patris:

"Lastly, the duty of religiously defending the truths divinely delivered, and of resisting those who dare oppose them, pertains to philosophic pursuits. Wherefore, it is the glory of philosophy to be esteemed as the bulwark of faith and the strong defense of religion. As Clement of Alexandria testifies, the doctrine of the Savior is indeed perfect in itself and wanteth naught, since it is the power and wisdom of God. And the assistance of the Greek philosophy maketh not the truth more powerful; but, inasmuch as it weakens the contrary arguments of the sophists and repels the veiled attacks against the truth, it has been fitly called the hedge and fence of the vine. For, as the enemies of the Catholic name, when about to attack religion, are in the habit of borrowing their weapons from the arguments of philosophers, so the defenders of sacred science draw many arguments from the store of philosophy which may serve to uphold revealed dogmas."

This was written a little over a hundred years ago. In the Church's memory, that's pretty much yesterday.

"...5 centuries of guidance of the Magisterium by the Holy Spirit. It means telling the Holy Spirit, "I'll accept all that you revealed to the Church up until the 15'th Century, but nothing you have revealed since then"."

I wouldn't accept any revelations whatsoever, whether between 10 to 15, or 15 to 20. That's because there really is no new revelation. That, too, is de fide, that there are no new revelations. The Immaculate Conception is not a new revelation; merely a clarification of what has always been believed, yet not specifically previously definitively clarified, by Holy Mother Church. But it is by no means a product of scholarship. It is not a development! It is not the product of theological effort!

"But wait! If you don't accept the increased depth of understanding between the 15'th and 21'st Centuries, why would you accept the immense growth in such understanding between the 10'th and 15'th Centuries?"

That's easy. There wasn't any growth in understanding between 10 and 15 either, that "contributed" in any way to the Deposit of the Faith.

"Why don't you throw out Florence because it made explanatory doctrinal proposals which were never accepted or even thought of by the 10'th Century Magisterium?"

Because we're Catholics, and we don't throw anything out? We must be the ultimate theological environmentalists.

"You either allow your faith to grow with the faith of the Church or you simply get left behind."

Getting left behind isn't a bad thing in a hellbent world. Read the red flags: if belief is "moving in a direction", if it is dynamic and not static, if it is transitory in any respect whatsoever, then it is not of the immutable Deposit of Faith which we Catholics are supposed to hold whole and entire until Christ returns in glory and majesty.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), November 29, 2004.

Thanks Bernard. This bears repeating... Dogmatic Vatican Council One:

"Hence, also, that understanding of its sacred dogmas must be perpetually retained, which Holy Mother Church has once declared and there must never be recession from that meaning under the specious name of a deeper understanding."

Roma locuta... causa finita est.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), November 29, 2004.

Emerald and Bernard,

The First Vatican Council also says this:

God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever be in opposition to truth. The appearance of this kind of specious contradiction is chiefly due to the fact that either the dogmas of faith are not understood and explained in accordance with the mind of the church, or unsound views are mistaken for the conclusions of reason.

Therefore we define that every assertion contrary to the truth of enlightened faith is totally false.

Furthermore the church which, together with its apostolic office of teaching, has received the charge of preserving the deposit of faith, has by divine appointment the right and duty of condemning what wrongly passes for knowledge, lest anyone be led astray by philosophy and empty deceit. - Session 3: 24 April 1870 Dogmatic constitution on the Catholic faith, Chapter 4: On faith and reason, paras 6-8 (Reference)

So how do Catholics discern the truth and ensure our understanding of dogmas "are understood and explained in accordance with the mind of the church?"

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), November 29, 2004.

And who or what exactly is "the mind of the church" for us here and now?

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), November 29, 2004.

Ian, I have explained to you that I totally adhere to the quoted definition from Florence, and I have carefully shown you how it does not contradict more recent Church teaching (development of doctrine). I suggest that you go back and read my message again until you understand it and accept it. Your non-sequitur comment to me shows that my words must have gone right over your head (or in one ear and out the other). Please try harder this time.

Paul, your comment to me was terribly wrong, because it is unjustly critical of the Council Fathers of Florence and it accuses them of defining a doctrine of the faith containing an error (All doctrinal insights begin as proposals by individual theologians; however, once an Ecumenical Council of the Church considers such proposals and issues an official statement in agreement with them, it is then accurate to say that the Church at that time "taught excessively rigid and legalistic interpretations of the truth.")

There is nothing at all "rigid" or "legalistic" in the quotation from the Council of Florence. Properly understood, it is perfectly good and proper. I showed last time how the Council Fathers' words easily coincide with more recent teachings. Since you wrongly find the words of Florence to be "rigid and legalistic," it can only follow that your theology must be "flabby and anarchical."

Paul, you said another huge whopper to different person (No, "we" are NOT instructed to believe that! Catholics of the 15'th Century were instructed to believe that. "We" in fact are instructed NOT to believe that, since "we" are instructed today, by the SAME authority of the SAME Magisterium of the SAME Church to accept and believe what the Church NOW teaches in regard to the infallible dogma regarding the necessity of baptismal grace).

Wow, man! If, as someone has said, you are a deacon, then your bishop needs to know that you are poorly instructed and a teacher of protestant-like falsehoods. Another woman (Emerald), who herself believes wrongly in the opposite extreme, was at least right to correct you in two ways (If Catholics of the 15th Century were so instructed, then we are as well. If we are, then they were.) (To say that we are instructed NOT to believe the words of Florence is Wrong. This is so very and completely wrong.)

Paul and Emerald, it is painful to find myself and DJ in the middle between you two mistaken souls (with Ian also off the map), to find myself with DJ as the only two who believe as Pope John Paul II believes and as the Catholic Church teaches.

Paul, you appear to be a very dangerous clergyman, placing your soul in peril and teaching unsuspecting and trusting Catholics wrongly. I am praying that the Holy Spirit will lead you into the truth.

-- Chrysty (cboyer@archnet.net), November 29, 2004.

Hi Chrysty,

Our friend Emerald here is a loving husband and father. That's just the handle he uses.

Good to have you in on this discussion.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), November 29, 2004.

I thank you, Andy.

There is a terribly important thing that I forgot to mention about what Emerald believes. I said that he (?) was right to correct Paul by saying something very true. (If Catholics of the 15th Century were so instructed, then we are as well. If we are, then they were.)

Now what Emerald must do is take that truth and apply it to himself and to what the Church teaches in our time. Just as he is perfectly willing to accept the Church's teachings given in the 15th Century, he must accept those given in the 20th and 21st Centuries. That means ALL magisterial teachings, whether conciliar statements or definitions, papally pronounced dogmas, or ordinary teachings of popes.

True Catholics ignore Emerald's false charge of "modernism," seeing instead that he is guilty of something that could be called "archaism," a quasi-catholic kind of protestantism in which only what was taught long ago is deemed reliable. If he will not be consistent, accepting the Catholic Church's instruction from any and all eras, then he is no Catholic.

Non-believers are fond of trying to show internal inconsistencies or self-contradictions within the Bible. As Catholic apologists, we know how to combat these false claims. Not yet an apoligist? No problem. A Catholic who is not a strong apologist nevertheless knows by faith that the Church teaches reliably that there are no inconsistencies in Scripture.

The exact same principles hold true for the official teachings of the Church, from every era. Non-believers and "incomplete believers" like Paul and Emerald imagine that they see internal inconsistencies or self-contradictions within two Church documents. Then they wrongly think that they can reject the older of the two (Paul) or the newer of the two (Emerald). BOTH guys are wrong, because BOTH documents are free of error. The Church does not err in her teachings, so the Church does not need to change her teachings. As Catholic apologists, we need to work hard, to learn how to understand the meanings of the older and the newer documents, so that we can see that they are ALWAYS reconcilable. Not yet an apologist? No problem. A Catholic who is not an apologist knows by faith that the Church teaches reliably and does not place inconsistencies in her official documents.

-- Chrysty (cboyer@archnet.net), November 29, 2004.

The key word of the council of Florence's definition is "baptism" - thus we need to qualify that term and see if there are more than one type of baptism. To wit, the ordinary economy of salvation (sacraments) and the extraordinary economy of salvation (known to God alone) by which some souls may be saved in virtue of a grace which only God knows.

The syllogism is as follows:

Heaven is a state beyond the natural powers of the human soul to attain - souls thus need a special grace of God to enter.

Ordinarily the sure means of extending this grace to souls is water baptism.

But since the author of the grace is God and God as told us that he wills all men to be saved, it would seem to be true - or at least not impossible - for God to extend this grace to those children who die without the benefit of some other human agent baptising them.

Miscarriages and abortions come to mind. Both are cases of children dying before baptism is possible - and the numbers are staggering - but while none are guilty of any sin, none have the supernatural grace of justification either (by definition as it is a supernatural not natural gift).

We don't know for sure that they are saved but neither do we know for sure that God DOESN'T baptise them by his own means. Grace being supernatural, it does not allow for physical observation - even in the sacraments - which is why the signs are used.

Just as man was not made for the Sabbath, one could intuit that man wasn't made for the sacraments either - and thus just as a man under the old law could break a law *such as work or the fast for the sake of human life, shall we not suppose that God would allow those souls to see his face since they died through no fault of their own?

God is just - but also merciful.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), November 29, 2004.

Yes, this is precisely what the Catholic Church currently teaches. What must be recognized is that if this teaching is now valid, and we know it is because the Church teaches it, then it was also valid before the Church formulated this aspect of its salvific teaching. In other words, it was true before the Church declared it to be true, before the Church was guided by the Holy Spirit to recognize it as true. Chrysty's statement that I see contradictions between former doctrinal statements and current statements is not correct. What I do recognize is the incompleteness of earlier teaching, which is to be expected since the Holy Spirit gradually reveals ever greater depth of understanding to the Church regarding its articles of faith. This doesn't mean that our understanding of doctrinal issues is now complete. In the future, additional details will undoubtedly be revealed to the Magisterium, and through the Magisterium to us. What we are called to accept and believe today is what the Magisterium teaches today. That is the fullness of the Catholic faith as it now exists.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 29, 2004.

Chrysty

"I have explained to you that I totally adhere to the quoted definition from Florence, and I have carefully shown you how it does not contradict more recent Church teaching (development of doctrine)."

what you have posited Chrysty is a ***theoretical*** escape clause -- that there is baptism other than by water (or, for that matter, by blood or desire, neither of which forms of baptism is actually dogmatic - and therefore remains theories in themselves).

perhaps the baptism you describe is a "supernatural baptism" [best explanation i can think of), a fourth kind of baptism.

i must also add that Limbo is another such theory. it is, however, a considerably older theory. and my post above does not conflict with the very old and much approved theory of Limbo.

now, the CCC says this: "As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,"64 allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism."

where does that leave us?

well, perhaps we need to explore the necessity of Baptism? look at the Dogma, as opposed to the theory? does your "theory" conflict with Dogma?

shall we have that conversation?

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), November 29, 2004.

Look, suppose the question was "children aren't born until they leave their mother's womb" and until recently that meant natural (vaginal) birth...but later developments in c-sections openned another way for children to leave the mother's womb, albeit, a non-natural way.

If the question is what is "birth" then certainly the word now has 2 concepts not just one.

In Florence in 1215, there was one reigning concept for the word "Baptism" - the visible sacrament. But while that continues to be true and the main definition, the word can also mean something extraordinary, something entirely invisible, without human intervention... without contradicting the meaning that only baptised souls enter heaven.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), November 29, 2004.

who is that addressed to, Joe?

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), November 29, 2004.

I know this is probably oversimplistic, yet I'm trying to understand the difference here. If all of this is true (and I don't doubt that it is), than why doesn't the same apply to those who die in a state of mortal sin?

I mean, isn't it the dogma of the church that if a person dies in the state of mortal sin they are going to go to hell? Yet if one says that there is a belief that God in his mercy can "baptize" innocent babies and remove original sin, admitting their souls to heaven, then why can't He also in His mercy, without the sacrament of Reconciliation remove mortal sin?

-- Lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), November 29, 2004.

Because mortal sin is a conscious rejection of the will of God and the grace of salvation, an act of free will. God cannot save a person in violation of that person's free choice to reject salvation. If He did so, free will would be meaningless. Granting of the graces of baptism to one who is completely innocent of personal sin doesn't violate the free will of the person who is thereby saved.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 30, 2004.

Great question Lesley! I think the reasoning might go something like this. Someone who dies in the state of mortal sin is culpable for their sin. They willingly chose to commit sin and reject God. Mortal sin by definition means full knowledge. Innocent babies are innocent except for the stain of original sin. They never had the chance to willingly reject God.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), November 30, 2004.

I wrote just as Paul M was posting. He beat me by a second or two. Sorry.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), November 30, 2004.

"True Catholics ignore Emerald's false charge of "modernism," seeing instead that he is guilty of something that could be called "archaism," a quasi-catholic kind of protestantism in which only what was taught long ago is deemed reliable."

Chrysty, could you please provide us with Church documents which refer to this error or heresy of "archaism" of which you speak?

Thanks.

Here's a Church encyclical on the heresy of Modernism.

The internet is a strange place. Very, very strange.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), November 30, 2004.

Lesley

to supplement the answers provided by Paul and Andy, i have heard of an equivalent concept -- which might be called "forgiveness by desire".

the guy who gets run over and killed on the way to the Confessional.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), November 30, 2004.

Joe

i think your example compares apples with pears.

to my knowledge, an infallible teaching is just that: it is infallible, it is true, it cannot deceive or mislead, it is foolproof, without error.

so when i take a look at Trent -- i notice that, not only does it not mention this "supernatural baptism", but it is pretty prescriptive in terms of the need for a baptism - and the form and substance of that baptism.

therefore, if this supernatural baptism is true, Trent is misleading and untrue. it has become fallible.

perhaps a greater concern is this: this appeal to Divine Justice and Mercy can be used just about everywhere as an abrogation of the faith.

eg no-one disagrees that to die in mortal sin is to risk the Inferno. we can limit this through the "confession of desire". we can, however, then further limit it by arguing that - "well, God is All Merciful and, even though the guy had no faith whatsoever, God will forgive him.... He led a good life after all....". bingo, we've got rid of Mortal Sin.

Purgatory -- well perhaps there's a supernatural escape clause for that too.

we can use this argument to undermine just about everything Catholic.

as for the c-section, well the doctor that predicted that babies would only ever be born in a given way, he would be wrong - but then who would have been willing to consider him infallible?

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), November 30, 2004.

..or to put it another way, we all believe in Miracles, but they are not de rigeur.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), November 30, 2004.

All baptism is supernatural. Baptism is an act of God, not a work of men. The necessity of this action of God for salvation is infallible doctrine. The channels through which God dispenses this grace, including Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood, are likewise infallible doctrine. What we don't need is more "cafeteria Catholics" who pick and choose which doctrinal teachings of the Church they like, and which they don't care for. The form and substance of water baptism as defined at Trent have not changed, nor has the necessity of baptismal grace. If the Holy Spirit revealed these realities to the Church through one holy Council, does He not have the right to reveal additional dimensions of the same doctrine to the Church through subsequent holy Councils? The fact that a specific article of the faith was "not mentioned at Trent" doesn't render it invalid. Prior to Trent, many specific doctrinal issues had not been defined. Did the fact that such teachings had not been mentioned at previous Councils render such teachings "off limits" for Trent? Are we in a position to tell the Holy Spirit, "ok that's enough, I'm comfortable with what you revealed prior to the 15th century"? Is it our job to critique His ongoing work in the Church? Is there one among us to whom God said "whatsoever you bind on earth is bound in heaven"? The only ones to whom I recall God making that promise were the bishops of the Church.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 30, 2004.

That is a well stated answer Paul.

-- DJ (newfiedufie@msn.com), December 01, 2004.

here's more from Florence:

“Regarding children, indeed, because of danger of death, which can often take place, when no help can be brought to them by another remedy than through the sacrament of baptism, through which they are snatched from the domination of the Devil and adopted among the sons of God, [the Church] advises that holy baptism ought not to be deferred for forty or eighty days, or any time according to the observance of certain people, but it should be conferred as soon as it can be done conveniently, but so that, when danger of death is imminent, they be baptized in the form of the Church, early without delay, even by a layman or woman, if a priest should be lacking, just as is contained more fully in the decree of the Armenians.”

surely the Baptism that Paul describes would also have been as applicable at the time of Florence; but it seems that the Council of Florence were unaware of that baptism.

doesn't that mean that the infallible statement of Florence is incomplete and misleading - and therefore fallible?

if this "exterior baptism", for want of a better phrase, is true, why the need for early baptism, even by a lay person?

i would also wholeheartedly agree with Paul when he says: "What we don't need is [sic] more "cafeteria Catholics" who pick and choose which doctrinal teachings of the Church they like, and which they don't care for."

"....But he who dissents even onone point from divinely-revealed Truth absolutely rejects all Faith, since he therefore refuses to honor God as the Supreme Truth and formal motive of Faith...." Leo XIII

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), December 01, 2004.

> "surely the Baptism that Paul describes would also have been as applicable at the time of Florence; but it seems that the Council of Florence were unaware of that baptism."

A: Precisely right. It would have been applicable, but that fact had not yet been revealed to the Church by the Holy Spirit. Having something you don't know you have is, for practical purposes, the same as not having it.

> "doesn't that mean that the infallible statement of Florence is incomplete and misleading - and therefore fallible?"

A: Incomplete, yes. Fallible, no. "Infallible" means "true". It does not mean "complete". As soon as we say that the Church has complete understanding of all its doctrines, the ongoing study of theology comes to an abrupt halt, and the Holy Spirit ceases to guide the Church. Why study and seek guidance if you already "have it all"? The Holy Spirit does not reveal new doctrine, so in that sense the deposit of faith is "complete". But our depth of understanding of what comprises the deposit of faith will never be complete.

> "I would also wholeheartedly agree with Paul when he says: "What we don't need is [sic] more "cafeteria Catholics" who pick and choose which doctrinal teachings of the Church they like, and which they don't care for."

A: Than what is your justification for rejecting baptism of desire, which is the teaching of the Church, and is therefore "bound in heaven"?

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), December 01, 2004.

Paul,

Vatican I says this:

"For the holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter ***NOT*** so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles."

whereas you say this:

"It [ie this new baptism] would have been applicable, but that fact ***had not yet been revealed*** to the Church by the Holy Spirit."

but then you say this:

"The Holy Spirit ***does not reveal new doctrine***, so in that sense the deposit of faith is "complete". But our depth of understanding of what comprises the deposit of faith will never be complete."

i find it hard to understand what do you actually believe, Paul. Vatican I says the Church knows it ALL already. period.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), December 01, 2004.

Paul

here's something i've found that expresses this very clealry:

"Infallibility can apply ONLY to those teachings that are part of the Deposit of Faith (taught from the beginning of the Church). The Pope or a Council CANNOT create new dogma. They can only solemnly define that dogma which has already been taught from the beginning. A specific declaration of this sort is not needed unless there is a dispute as to the specific definition of the teaching."

if, therefore, any Pope ever tried to teach that left-handed peole do not go via Purgatory, we would know that to be a false teaching.

is this your understanding?

or would you argue that the Pope [or Council of Bishops] in question was acting under the guidance of the Holy Spirit and had to be believed?

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), December 01, 2004.

Vatican I says that the Church has all of its doctrines in place. Period. Which is why no Pope or Council can ever introduce a new doctrine. But the ongoing interpretation and application of that body of truth is a work in progress. We know that Baptism is the means by which sanctifying grace initially enters the soul. We know that this grace is necessary for salvation. This is dogma. It cannot change, it never has changed, and it never will change. However, it is within the purview of the Church to further define the specifics of sacrament, how and when and where and by whom and to whom it is to be administered. It is likewise within the purview of the Church to define the specific means by which the graces of the sacrament may and may not be transmitted. The Church has done so. We as members of the Church are bound to accept that which the Church has defined - not only the initial general definition of the dogma itself, but all subsequent explanatory definitions relating to the nature, meaning, and application of the dogma as well.

By way of analogy, The Constitution of the United States has been in place for over 200 years. But we still have an official body in place to interpret, define and apply the basic ideas contained therein, on an ongoing basis. Exactly the same thing applies to Church dogma. The dogmatic statements are there, and cannot be changed, but questions inevitably arise. Exactly what does this particular word mean? Does it have alternate meanings? How does our current interpretation of this dogmatic statement relate to our understanding of other dogmatic truth? Is our current, or former, interpretation of this dogma harmonic with all dogmatic truths of the Church, or does it create new theological questions that must be addressed? Our understanding of dogmatic truth gradually increases as Holy Mother Church addresses such issues under the guidance of the Holy Spirit,

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), December 01, 2004.

Paul:

thanks for the response.

- when you say: "How does our ***current*** interpretation of this dogmatic statement relate to our understanding of other dogmatic truth?"

and

- when you say: "Is our ***current***, or ***former***, interpretation of this dogma harmonic with all dogmatic truths of the Church, or does it create new theological questions that must be addressed?"

are you divorcing Dogma from interpretation?

to have "current" and "former" interpretation, surely, is to have "current" and "former" Dogma. seemingly, when the interpretation changes, so does the Dogma. but Dogma is supposed to be immutable. the Church is to guard it and expound it. if its meaning changes, the Church is not doing its job.

the test, surely, is "has it always and everywhere been taught" - since the time of the Apostles.

if this "new baptism" you adhere to is true, why did the theory of Limbo gain prominence for so long? why did Limbo gain some degree of Papal approval?

and where is the preponderance of Church Fathers, Popes and other relevant writings, in support of the "new baptism"?

why no mention - at all - at Trent or Florence - or anywhere else where holy baptism has been discussed by an Ecumenical Council or Pope? in fact, why the insistence for Water Baptism - and the teaching that there is no Salvation without Baptism.

PS the same idea arises here when you say: "Our understanding of dogmatic truth gradually increases as Holy Mother Church addresses such issues under the guidance of the Holy Spirit"

the Church already understands all Dogma perfectly well. that is clear from Trent. am i wrong is thinking that the Apostles will have understood it as well, and in the same detail, as their successors do today.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), December 01, 2004.

> "are you divorcing Dogma from interpretation?"

A: No, I am not "divorcing" one from the other, for neither would be of any value without the other. But I am distinguishing between the two. Is the Constitution the same as the interpretation thereof? Is the Bible itself the same thing as Biblical interpretation? Neither is dogma the same as dogmatic interpretation.

> "to have "current" and "former" interpretation, surely, is to have "current" and "former" Dogma."

A: Do we have a "current" and "former" Bible when the Church authoritatively interprets it? The Bible is the Bible and dogma is dogma, but both must be authoritatively interpreted and explained in order to have practical value. Protestants live their lives according to their own personal guesses regarding the meaning of Scripture. If a Catholic doesn't listen to the ongoing teaching of the Church, he can end up living his life according to his own personal guesses regarding the meaning of defined dogma - or the incomplete meaning perceived by earlier generations.

> "seemingly, when the interpretation changes, so does the Dogma. but Dogma is supposed to be immutable. the Church is to guard it and expound it. if its meaning changes, the Church is not doing its job."

A: The Bible is also immutable. It does not change simply because it is interpreted and explained.

> "the test, surely, is "has it always and everywhere been taught" - since the time of the Apostles"

A: Yes, that is a prerequisite for the formal definition of a dogma. But not for ongoing study into the full significance and meaning of a previously defined dogma. The definition tells us what the dogma IS. The ongoing teaching of the Church allows us to experience an ever greater understanding and appreciation of what the dogma MEANS, and how it operates in the life of the Church.

> "if this "new baptism" you adhere to is true, why did the theory of Limbo gain prominence for so long? why did Limbo gain some degree of Papal approval?"

A: There is only one baptism. The only thing "new" is a fuller understanding of how the graces of that one sacrament operate in the Church. Limbo, while never an official doctrine of the Church, gained prominence precisely because of the obvious conflict between the idea of an all-merciful, all-loving, all-just God and the idea of innocent bablies being cast into hell by that same God - two concepts which had to be reconciled. Now, through the wisdom of the Church and the guidance of the Holy Spirit, we do have official teaching from the Church which at least tentatively addresses this conflict.

"in fact, why the insistence for Water Baptism - and the teaching that there is no Salvation without Baptism."

A: That teaching has not changed. The fuller explanation of that teaching which the Holy Spirit has now led the Church to was not yet recognized 500 years ago.

> "the Church already understands all Dogma perfectly well. that is clear from Trent. am i wrong is thinking that the Apostles will have understood it as well, and in the same detail, as their successors do today."

A: If the Church already understood dogma perfectly well, why was Trent convened?? Why do we study the writings of the Doctors of the Church - in fact, why did they write at all, if they were simply repeating what the Church already understood perfectly well? In fact, the understanding of doctrine which the Apostles possessed was primitive and simplistic compared to all that the Holy Spirit has revealed to the Church during the intervening centuries. That doesn't mean that anything they believed was incorrect. But it was most certainly incomplete, as our understanding still is today, and will be until the end of time.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), December 01, 2004.

Paul

"Limbo, while never an official doctrine of the Church, gained prominence precisely because of the obvious conflict between the idea of an all-merciful, all-loving, all-just God and the idea of innocent bablies being cast into hell by that same God - two concepts which had to be reconciled. Now, through the wisdom of the Church and the guidance of the Holy Spirit, we do have official teaching from the Church which at least tentatively addresses this conflict."

do you accept, therefore, that your "new baptism" can never be Dogmatic because it is a relatively new invention? [invented c.1970; never heard of before then]

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), December 01, 2004.

Baptism of desire is not a dogma because it is not a separate doctrine. It is an interpretation of a pre-existing doctrine, and is currently the teaching of the infallible Church.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), December 01, 2004.

Paul:

you said: "The channels through which God dispenses this grace, including Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood, are likewise infallible doctrine"

then you said: "Baptism of desire is not a dogma because it is not a separate doctrine."

then you say: "It [Baptism of desire] is ***an interpretation*** of a ***pre-existing*** doctrine, and is ***currently*** the teaching of the infallible Church."

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), December 01, 2004.

...all after you said that:

"Vatican I says that the Church has all of its doctrines in place. Period. Which is why no Pope or Council can ever introduce a new doctrine."

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), December 01, 2004.

ALL the doctrinal teaching of the Church is infallible, not just formally defined dogma. What the Church teaches ABOUT a dogma by way of explanation must be accepted, just as the dogmatic statement itself must be. But such expository teaching about a dogma does not constitute dogma in and of itself.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), December 01, 2004.

(1) "ALL the doctrinal teaching of the Church is infallible, not just formally defined dogma."

(2) "What the Church teaches ABOUT a dogma by way of explanation must be accepted, just as the dogmatic statement itself must be."

(3) "But such expository teaching about a dogma does not constitute dogma in and of itself."

three distinct statements, Paul. i have separated them out.

observations:

-- (2) is incorrect for the reasons given in (3).

-- (1) contradicts Vatican I.

-- (1), (2) & (3) amount to a mass contradiction.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), December 01, 2004.

which brings me back to this:

"Infallibility can apply ONLY to those teachings that are part of the Deposit of Faith (taught from the beginning of the Church). The Pope or a Council CANNOT create new dogma. They can only solemnly define that dogma which has already been taught from the beginning. A specific declaration of this sort is not needed unless there is a dispute as to the specific definition of the teaching."

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), December 01, 2004.

With which I agree 100%. However, the principle subject of our current exchange is not solemn definition of dogma, but ongoing explanation of dogma after the fact of solemn definition. Creation of new dogma, though you keep bringing up the idea, is irrelevant to the discussion. We are in full agreement that it CANNOT happen. What more needs to be said about it?

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), December 02, 2004.

Paul

"What more needs to be said about it?"

well, maybe we can use it to analyse this.

it is fair to say that we must accept (a) the Dogmatic necessity of Baptism for Salvation; and (b) the Dogmatic necessity of Water in said Baptism.

per Trent:

-- "If anyone says that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation, let him be anathema."

-- "If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism, let him be anathema."

doesn't it follow, then, that the notion that you can dispense with the Dogmatic Water Baptism (per Trent) cannot ever be a "fuller explanation" of Dogma, or a clarification of Dogma, and can never, ever itself be Dogma because:

(1) it contradicts Dogma Baptism (see above), and

(2) it is a relatively modern invention ("They can only solemnly define that dogma which has already been taught from the beginning").

---- and doesn't this apply equally to:

(I) Baptism of Desire (both the Catuchumens and those Invincibly Ignorant),

(II) Baptism of Blood, and

(III) this further form of Baptism that you have described above - the "Justice and Mercy Baptism" for want of a better term - that was first mooted at (pastoral) Vatican II.

surely this is important?

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), December 02, 2004.

"If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism, let him be anathema." <\i>

But how do we not know that at that Council, they are not speaking of natural water only when one is to be baptised properly, especially when in the same sentence they say "and thus twists into some metaphor the words of our Lord Jesus Christ." Don't forget, this Council came about because of the recent Protestant Reformation that had taken place. It seems they were speaking about the Proper way baptism should be preformed rather than limiting it's power.

it is fair to say that we must accept (a) the Dogmatic necessity of Baptism for Salvation; and (b) the Dogmatic necessity of Water in said Baptism. per Trent: -- "If anyone says that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation, let him be anathema." -- "If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism, let him be anathema."

But if you read just prior to that statement on water baptism you will see this: "Canon 4. If anyone says that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation but are superfluous, and that without them or without the desire of them men obtain from God through faith alone the grace of justification,[2] though all are not necessary for each one, let him be anathema."

Notice they mention the words "the desire of them" in that canon. This just shows how things can easily be taken out of context if not read entirely.

-- DJ (newfiedufie@msn.com), December 26, 2004.

italics off. Just do the /i thing (with the chevron things on either side) one or two times.

-- Emerald (em@cox.net), December 26, 2004.

I did do that. They even stayed on in the post immediately after.

-- DJ (newfiedufie@msn.com), December 26, 2004.

Ah, I see it. See the source code... you put a \ instead of a /.

-- Emerald (em@cox.net), December 27, 2004.

"..men obtain from God through faith alone the grace of justification.."

so **justification** by **faith alone** is anathemised.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), December 27, 2004.

Ah, I see it. See the source code... you put a \ instead of a /.

Yeah, i noticed. I still cant understand how i pressed \ especially when it is near the top of the keyboard and i had to look to find it. Also, why did the italics stay on in the next post?

..men obtain from God through faith alone the grace of justification.." so **justification** by **faith alone** is anathemised.

COUNCIL OF TRENT

HOW THE GRATUITOUS JUSTIFICATION OF THE SINNER BY FAITH IS TO BE UNDERSTOOD

"But when the Apostle says that man is justified by faith and freely, [44] these words are to be understood in that sense in which the uninterrupted unanimity of the Catholic Church has held and expressed them, namely, that we are therefore said to be justified by faith, because faith is the beginning of human salvation, the foundation and root of all justification, without which it is impossible to please God[45] and to come to the fellowship of His sons; and we are therefore said to be justified gratuitously, because none of those things that precede justification, whether faith or works, merit the grace of justification. For, if by grace, it is not now by works, otherwise, as the Apostle says, grace is no more grace."

Canon 9. "If anyone says that the sinner is justified by faith alone, [114] meaning that nothing else is required to cooperate in order to obtain the grace of justification, and that it is not in any way necessary that he be prepared and disposed by the action of his own will, let him be anathema."

I'm beginning to notice how easy it is to take infallible statements out of context, in the same manner protestants do with their Bible.

-- DJ (newfiedufie@msn.com), December 27, 2004.

Ok, lets try this again.

"If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism, let him be anathema."

I will have to say that at that Council, they are speaking of natural water only when one is to be baptised properly, especially when in the same sentence they say "and thus twists into some metaphor the words of our Lord Jesus Christ." Don't forget, this Council came about because of the recent Protestant Reformation that had taken place. It seems they were speaking about the proper way baptism should be preformed rather than limiting it's power to only water.

it is fair to say that we must accept (a) the Dogmatic necessity of Baptism for Salvation; and (b) the Dogmatic necessity of Water in said Baptism. per Trent: -- "If anyone says that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation, let him be anathema." -- "If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism, let him be anathema."

But if you read just prior to that statement on water baptism you will see this: "Canon 4. If anyone says that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation but are superfluous, and that without them or without the desire of them men obtain from God through faith alone the grace of justification,[2] though all are not necessary for each one, let him be anathema."

Notice they mention the words "the desire of them" in that canon.

-- DJ (newfiedufie@msn.com), December 27, 2004.

Notice they mention the words "the desire of them" in that canon.

Ever notice that the Church has always condemned forced baptisms? Try reasoning in the direction; it works.

You'd want to be careful not to take that portion of a sentence out of context. If the end result is that you have nixed the matter of a Sacrament, nothing could be more Protestant in consequence.

It would be uniquely Protestant to take that one part of a sentence out of context and place it in conflict with the entire section of Trent on Baptism in a vain attempt to make it appear as if the matter of a Sacrament was optional. This approach is far too easy to dismantle.

Again, using the knowledge of the Church's opposition of forced Baptism as a clue, move otherwards to an understanding of what role the witness of desire plays in the one Baptism.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), December 27, 2004.

Emerald: "Ever notice that the Church has always condemned forced baptisms? Try reasoning in the direction; it works. "

sure does.

DJ: "It seems they were speaking about the proper way baptism should be preformed rather than limiting it's power to only water. "

the word "necessary" is used. qv essential, sine qua non, indispensible,... --->>> no water, no Baptism, no Salvation.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), December 27, 2004.

(sigh) again we are talking about two different things: the ordinary economy of salvation (i.e. sacramental) and the extraordinary economy of salvation - which is totally God's to decide whom and when to give.

The first way is the normal way - hence we are duty bound to it and to spreading it to the corners of the globe. But the second way is a theoretical possibility that must temper our theological conclusions as to who is and is not saved.

The author of salvation is God. But he has chosen to work through his creatures, ordinarily meaning us human members of the Church. But we do know of exceptional cases when he worked on souls directly, with little or no outside intervention.

Yes, the early apostles had to preach and teach and make disciples of all the nations - that was their mission and still is that of the bishops. But who evangelized Saul? Our Lord, personally.

Who evangelized the centurion who sent people to Peter? An Angel.

Yes, both Saul and the Centurion sought water baptism. But the gift of conversion came straight from God without human intervention.

When faced with untold billions of human beings who have been conceived, born and died in youth from the days of Abel to the present, what are we to assume? That all are in hell solely because they didn't receive the grace of God mediated through the worship of Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, and later the Church?

What does one make of the Book of Wisdom and Romans with respect to the natural law if salvation is categorically entered via sacrament and no other way?

One group apparently thinks that God is bound by his own sacraments and so for all those who never heard of Christ, the Gospel or need to be baptised.... Tough luck, that's why we urgently need to evangelize.

Still another group thinks all are saved regardless of what they actually do because they think God is only Mercy and not Justice. For them we shouldn't evangelize at all since pagans and even atheists are saved by God directly irrespective of what they choose in life.

Still yet a third group thinks, since God is Just and Merciful, that some fate less than hell must apply for those souls who through no fault of their own died prior to actual sin but after being conceived with the supernatural loss of Adam and Eve's original grace.

In our days untold millions of children die in abortion. Killed actually. They float there in the "waters" of their mother's womb until dismembered in a hellish way. Are they lost?

What principle of justice would this belief uphold? An arbitrary one.

Our God is not arbitrary and neither is Justice or Mercy. Yes, sacramental baptism is the norm and there's a good reason for it and the communal nature of the family and Church leading us to the communion of persons in Heaven.

But surely some other way must exist if God is to be faithful to his own word and the concepts we know of his mercy, love, and justice.

I'm not suggesting as group #2 does that this mercy is so probable that we ought to be lazy and just let God save them. That would be to positively disobey his direct command to evangelize and make disciples of all nations. But I am suggesting that while we go about it we don't go around spreading the Bad News that 2/3 of the human race is hell bound and that the vast majority of human souls ever conceived are also in hell regardless of what they did or didn't do but merely because no one poured water on them while invoking the Trinity.

Our God isn't that of Islam - a deity that will kill you for arbitrary reasons. The Good News is good - not arbitrary, not our opinion, but built into the very fabric of reality.

As St Thomas mentioned, you may very well by the power of natural reason come to know much about God, but to help man further, God sent his prophets and Son so the probability of people being confused and lost would be less.

It's all a bell curve here. If we suppose absolutely no one, zero souls are saved by God in ways known only to himself, then we are constructing an arbitrary deity (and making our task no less vital but awfully like judges).

If we suppose that theoretically souls may be saved who die before the age of consent and statistically fewer after, we at least leave open the hope and idea of praying for the dead.

How many people who have converted will know of saintly aunts or uncles or some one who did acts of heroism, only to die before the Gospel was preached to them? Are we to say, yeah, well they're just as lost as those evil-doers?

I don't think so.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), December 27, 2004.

Emerald, i never said that the mere desire of the Sacraments was optional, i was speaking of the desire to have the Sacraments when receiving them properly was impossible.

Ian, these two statements are from the same Council of Trent.

"Canon 4. If anyone says that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation but are superfluous, and that without them or without the desire of them men obtain from God through faith alone the grace of justification,[2] though all are not necessary for each one, let him be anathema."

Canon 2. If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism[9] and thus twists into some metaphor the words of our Lord Jesus Christ: Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost,[10] let him be anathema.

So A)The Holy Spirit forgot He allowed the Magisterium say the first statement thereby contradicting Himself in the same Council and your fallible interpretation of it is correct.

B)The Holy Spirit allowed both to be said because the Magisterium knew the exact context of both satements, of which one of them happens to be in disagreement with yours.

I think i'll take my chances and remain with the Church's more explicit teachings about Baptism and Salvation in today's world.

-- DJ (newfiedufie@msn.com), December 27, 2004.

Somewhat off the subject, but why did the Catholic Church stop the Leonine prayers for Russia. I was informed that it was because of a Metz pact in 1962 not to mention Russia at the council.

Very strange when Communism was the enemy of the church for all those years.

-- Nigel (Hollingsworth3@AOL.com), December 27, 2004.

In effect, the Metz pact was the gagging of the Church from speaking out against the evils of Communism because by 1962 the fifth columnists had successful penetrated the curial levels and were in charge of the destiny of the Barque of Peter. It was a fulfillment of what Vladimir Lenin had planned and, with the help of the Freemasons, orchestrated quite successfully .

Difficult as this seems can anyone supply another cogent answer.

Why would Communism so loudly condemned by the TV personality Bishop Fulton Sheen just a few years before be so silently treated at the Council.

Communism was, and is, the mortal enemy of the Church.

-- Kit (Alexanderj@yahoo.com), December 27, 2004.

DJ:

the "..or the desire thereof.." of Canon 4 applies to ***ALL*** the Sacraments, not just Baptism. it's in the "ON THE SACRAMENTS IN GENERAL" section.

this means, in my case, and by your interpretation, that i am damned just because i am not a priest, nor do i desire to be a priest. i can't desire it because i am not one.

maybe the correct thing to do is to start by reading the Canons on Baptism -- in the context of the Sacrament of Baptism? they say that (A) Water is necessary for Baptism and that (B) Baptism is necessary for Salvation.

they also, incidentally, say that "If any one saith, that in the Roman church, which is the mother and mistress of all churches, there is not the true doctrine concerning the sacrament of baptism; let him be anathema."

Joe said: "Yes, both Saul and the Centurion sought water baptism. But the gift of conversion came straight from God without human intervention. "

.... but they were both baptised, Joe!

...and, moreover, this is a common **protestant** argument - ie that St Paul and Cornelius were both saved BEFORE Baptism; such that their respective Baptisms were optional and unnecessary for Salvation - Faith Alone, albeit [perhaps] that Faith being a Gift, a Grace. but isn't that, perhaps, why these anathemas were issued at Trent?!?!

i agree, indeed, it seems so primitive to believe that a physical act - the use of water - can have a part to play in the Salvation of a soul. but the Salvific plan began with the most awesome physical act - God became man, yes a baby, when he could have thrown a thunderbolt at us --- and wiped us out and created a more worthy bunch of people.

modern logic - and modern rules of moral engagement - are, surely, irrelevant?

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), December 27, 2004.

the "..or the desire thereof.." of Canon 4 applies to ***ALL*** the Sacraments, not just Baptism. it's in the "ON THE SACRAMENTS IN GENERAL" section. this means, in my case, and by your interpretation, that i am damned just because i am not a priest, nor do i desire to be a priest. i can't desire it because i am not one.

I'm not saying that at all. It is understandable to say that at first it refers to "all" the Sacrements, even Holy Orders since of course though not all of us recieve them, they are are still necessary for the rest of our salvation. But in the latter part of the statement we have to conclude obviously "the desire" didn't refer to Holy Orders since these are only given to ones who are "Called" to the Priesthood. It must therefore refer to certain Sacrements of desire which have been touched upon throughout the History of the Church.

-- DJ (newfiedufie@msn.com), December 27, 2004.

"I think i'll take my chances and remain with the Church's more explicit teachings about Baptism and Salvation in today's world."

That would be that Baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation, and that water is the necessary matter for the Sacrament of Baptism. Right?

Think about this. If for whatever reason, in any given situation, a priest lacked bread and wine with which to say the words of the consecration over. Is there any way in which he could confect the Blessed Sacrament without the bread and wine?

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), December 27, 2004.

No. But there is a way the graces of the Sacrament could be received without receiving the physical Sacrament, when reception of the physical Sacrament is not possible. It's called "a spiritual Communion". I suppose it could just as well be called "Communion of Desire".

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), December 27, 2004.

That would be that Baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation, and that water is the necessary matter for the Sacrament of Baptism. Right?

Baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation. The physical properties of water is necessary when preforming the Sacrament of Baptism. However, the Graces of Baptism can be conferred to others when the proper procedure of Baptism with water is impossible to be met, but only by desire, blood, or invincible ignorance.

1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation.[59] He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them.[60] Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament.[61] The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are "reborn of water and the Spirit." God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments. 1258 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. This Baptism of blood, like the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament.

Think about this. If for whatever reason, in any given situation, a priest lacked bread and wine with which to say the words of the consecration over. Is there any way in which he could confect the Blessed Sacrament without the bread and wine?

Emerald, you seem to try to equate all the Sacraments equally. The Eucharist can in no way be compared to Baptism and a scenario such as the one you just gave is irrelevant. The next example your gonna give me to try to dismantle this teaching of Baptism of Desire is one who is a priest through desire, or a couple married through desire. Don't bother.

-- DJ (newfiedufie@msn.com), December 27, 2004.

But begging your pardon if I do bother.

Do you know of any such cases?

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), December 27, 2004.

You're quoting the CCC, DJ. It's probably in good form to cite the source.

I dismiss the charge of dismantling a teaching of the Church for very clear reasons: it is not a doctrine of the Catholic Church. It has in no way ever been declared or defined as such. It's opposite, in fact, has been. It has always been the constant dogmatic teaching of the Catholic Church that baptism is necessary for salvation, and that water is the necessary matter of this sacrament. Only the proponents of syncretism and univeralism would have it in their hearts to take issue with these dogmas of the Church.

If you wish to make your case, be prepared to state that the matter of the sacrament of Baptism, water, is not necessary. Because that's what it will end up boiling down to on your end. There's no way around it.

All else than the restatement of the clear dogma of the Church is sophistry. But in this case, not just any sophistry. The undermining and blurring of the borders and limits of the Catholic Church, the enclosed garden, the Ark of Salvation, is the sophistry that undermines the unity of Holy Mother Church in our age, and which is the crown jewel of Modernism.

Pull this all-important, single bolt of Modernism, and the whole synthesis of heresies crumbles to the ground. Then more souls are saved; then people begin to undertake prayer and sacrifice, then people see the restoration of valid and reverent liturgies, then the glory of the Church is restored, then Ut Unum Sint will be a reality instead of a pipe dream.

Make your case. But make sure not to come into conflict with the doctrines of the Church. People like me don't handle these things so well.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), December 27, 2004.

Emerald, trying to argue with traditionalists and their interpretations of Dogmatic Statements issued by Eucenimical councils is like trying to argue with protestants and thier Bibles. While the Chruch moves ahead, you guys will be left behind. You see Contradictions I don't. I will leave you with this.

Council of Trent

CHAPTER IV

A BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE JUSTIFICATION OF THE SINNER AND ITS MODE IN THE STATE OF GRACE

In which words is given a brief description of the justification of the sinner, as being a translation from that state in which man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace and of the adoption of the sons of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Savior. This translation however cannot, since promulgation of the Gospel, be effected except through the laver of regeneration or its desire, as it is written: Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. [18]

-- DJ (newfiedufie@msn.com), December 27, 2004.

Go back to the Latin, as I indicated in other corners of the interntet. The proper translation expresses the fact that both the laver of regeneration and its desire are necessary.

"Emerald, trying to argue with traditionalists and their interpretations of Dogmatic Statements issued by Eucenimical councils is like trying to argue with protestants and thier Bibles."

No sir. What is uniquely Protestant is to take the one, tiny little phrase out of one sentence, extract it from the dogmatic Council of Trent, and twist it out of context to mean something that it does not.

"While the Chruch moves ahead, you guys will be left behind. You see Contradictions I don't. I will leave you with this."

Aaah. The very essence of Modernism itself. It's telltale imprint: a Church "moving in a direction", while those who hold fast in loyalty to the doctrines and precepts of the Savior Himself "left behind". All of which can be torturously and painfully shown any number of ways to be in violent conflict with Holy Mother Church.

Most particular, using the encyclical Pascendi Dominici Gregis.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), December 27, 2004.

Let's be clear.

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Session 8, Nov. 22, 1439, Exultate Deo:

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

The clear teaching of the Church... there you have it.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), December 28, 2004.

I would tend to stay with the teachings of the pre Vatican II popes and councils.

the Vatican bestows honors on abortion advocates. On June 27, 2000, the day after the Vatican press conference at which the Message of Fatima was consigned to oblivion, there was another Vatican press conference at which one of the world’s leading pro- aborts, none other than Mikhail Gorbachev, was given a seat of honor between Vatican Secretary of State Cardinal Angelo Sodano (who spearheads the persecution of Father Nicholas Gruner) and Cardinal Achille Silvestrini. The subject of this "press conference" (at which no questions were permitted) was the Ostpolitik of the late Cardinal Casaroli, another Vatican Secretary of State. The Vatican’s policy of refusing to condemn communist repression of Catholics during the Cold War (and even now in still-very-Red China) was lauded by Gorbachev and the two cardinals. Wht has come out of the current church leaders is not Catholic in the manner in which it has always been understood.

What they are doing and teaching would be comdemned by past popes and coouncils.

-- Nigel (Hollingsworth3@aol.com), December 28, 2004.

"I would tend to stay with the teachings of the pre Vatican II popes and councils"

Either Popes and Councils have authority or they don't. If they do, then Vatican II and the current Pope and Magisterium obviously hold the same authority as previous Councils, Popes and Magisterii. If the current Pope and Magisterium, and the most recent Council do not have authority which commands submission, then there is no reason to believe that any earlier ones did either. The cafeteria Catholic approach of picking and choosing which Magisterial teachings, which holy Councils and which Vicars of Christ you prefer is in direct conflict with Sacred Tradition and with the words of Christ Himself.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), December 28, 2004.

Even to honoring avowed abortionists and communists?

-- Nigel (Hollingsworth3@aol.com), December 28, 2004.

Emerald. Where did you get the Latin Translation from Trent? Do you have a link?

I got a partial translation off of a website. Not sure how accurate it is but i'll quote it anyways.

The English:

“This translation however cannot, since the promulgation of the Gospel, be effected except through the laver of regeneration or its desire, as it is written: Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” John 3:5

The Latin:

“Quae quidem translatio post evangelium promulgatum sine lavacro regenerationis aut eius voto fieri non potest, sicut scriptum est: Nisi quis renatus fuerit ex aqua et Spiirtu Sancto, non potest introire in regnum Dei.” John. 3:5

Also the Council of Trent’s Catechism, which had the approval of the Sainted Pius V:

“On adults, however, the Church has not been accustomed to confer the Sacrament of baptism at once, but has ordained that it be deferred for a certain time. The delay is not attended with the same danger as in the case of infants, which we have already mentioned; should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness.”

-- DJ (newfiedufie@msn.com), December 28, 2004.

Emerald insists:
''If you wish to make your case, be prepared to state that the matter of the sacrament of Baptism, water, is not necessary. Because that's what it will end up boiling down to on your end. There's no way around it.

''All else than the restatement of the clear dogma of the Church is sophistry.''

''There is no way around it.'' Unless we see it from this perspective, Emmie-- ''. . . the matter of the sacrament of Baptism, water, is not necessary-- To the Church--. But to God, it doesn't seem necessary. With God all things are possible, remember? The Church says so emphatically.

''All else than the restatement of the clear dogma of the Church is sophistry is a mystery; God works in mysterious ways, and sacraments by definition are mysteries. Dogma is not a mystery. It is authority, a definition of something apostolic revealed to the Church. God didn't reveal His divine Will for us. He still has higher authority, Emerald, than the Pecksniffian monopoly you call faith. When He will save a soul, dogma won't limit His Divine Will. If you think this is sophistry, I feel sorry for you.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 28, 2004.

"Emerald, than the Pecksniffian monopoly you call faith. When He will save a soul, dogma won't limit His Divine Will. If you think this is sophistry, I feel sorry for you."

Gene, if you're going to insist on approaching this subject from an emotional angle, it would probably be best for me to go ahead and let you proceed with feeling sorry for me. It is unclear, however, what good result your course of action will produce. Let me know how it goes.

DJ, in the translation you provide, it uses "except through" for sine. "Sine" is properly translated as "without". The meaning as laid out in the sentence should be something like this:

Z is not possible without X or Y.

In other words, both X and Y are necessary. In this case, both the laver of regeneration and it's desire are necessary. Translating properly will make instant sense of this and other various other texts of Trent, and will 100% jive with the rest of what is clearly spelled out in Trent, for instance, it will jive with this:

S7, C2: If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism and thus twists into some metaphor the words of our Lord Jesus Christ: 'Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost,' let him be anathema.

If improperly translated to mean that not both are necessary, but one or the other only, then the translation comes into conflict with both the above canon Trent, the further-upthread text provided from the council of Florence, as well as the understanding of this, for instance, from St. Ambrose of Milan:

"The three witness 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 a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter the Kingdom of heaven"

The real meaning, and the only one which is seamless logic-wise and coherent, and which produces no contradiction whatsoever, is the proper translation that both are necessary, not just one or the other.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), December 28, 2004.

'' --if you're going to insist on approaching this subject from an emotional angle, it would probably be best for me to go ahead and let you proceed with feeling sorry for me.''

''When He will save a soul, dogma won't limit His Divine Will. If you think this is sophistry, I feel sorry for you.'' was my point. Is this an ''emotional'' angle? Or did you say so in order not to face the simple fact God might not require form and matter having once decreed his divine Will--? I ask this unemotionally.

I conceded beforehand, yes-- we always knew baptism is a requirement for salvation. That isn't in question. You believe all else is sophistry? It's not sophistry to acknowledge God gives us the sacrament, but He isn't bound by form and/or matter; we the Church are. What you believe (or not) is irrelevant if God intervenes. That's a fact.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 28, 2004.

of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews. 2 This man came to Jesus by night, and said to him: Rabbi, we know that thou art come a teacher from God; for no man can do these signs which thou dost, unless God be with him. 3 Jesus answered, and said to him: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. 4 Nicodemus saith to him: How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter a second time into his mother's womb, and be born again? 5 Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of WATER and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

5 "Unless a man be born again"... By these words our Saviour hath declared the necessity of baptism; and by the word water it is evident that the application of it is necessary with the words. Matt. 28. 19

God is not bound by His sacraments; Oh no!

God cannot deceive nor be deceived. His word is forever.

-- Nigel (Hollingsworth3@aol.com), December 28, 2004.

"Or did you say so in order not to face the simple fact God might not require form and matter having once decreed his divine Will--? I ask this unemotionally."

Here's the thing, though, Gene. It's written all up and down the Council of Trent, let alone in many other texts throughout the Church's history for that matter, that no... you absolutely cannot separate out matter and form from a sacrament of the Church and still call it a sacrament. It is simply a theological impossibility. It really isn't a mere matter of someone's supposedly stilted idea of Catholic doctrine. It is merely a reality, that's all.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), December 28, 2004.

DJ, in the translation you provide, it uses "except through" for sine. "Sine" is properly translated as "without". The meaning as laid out in the sentence should be something like this: Even with the word "without" thrown in there it will still read:

“This translation however cannot, since the promulgation of the Gospel, be effected without the laver of regeneration or its desire, as it is written: Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” John 3:5

If this passage is saying what you say it is: then infants who are Baptised (Regenerated) without desire are in trouble. So it still seems to me it is speaking of desire apart from the regeneration. A or B = C and not A + B = C.

S7, C2: If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism and thus twists into some metaphor the words of our Lord Jesus Christ: 'Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost,' let him be anathema.

"The three witness 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 a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter the Kingdom of heaven"

The rest of your quotes still seem to be from a very Conservative Trent because of the recent Protestant Movement that had just taken place and rightly so. They speak of the Proper element of water when Baptism is performed and only through water, when it is performed.

Your quotes also confirm the Church's teachings today on the necessity of true water when one is Baptised. Even the Church will Baptise a person who was Baptised with oil,(Baptism of Desire). It is the proper thing to do. We know one cannot get Baptised twice but we also know that it has to be correctly performed when possible and at the first chance you get. Therefore the Church is not insulting the Holy Spirit by doing this but pleasing Him with obedience.

You also passed over the quote from the Catechism which was ordered by the Council of Trent and was approved by St. Pius V, which is universally recognized as the most authoritative Catechism ever written. It has been praised by Popes, theologians, cardinals, and saints. In it, it talks more explicitly of the Desire we are speaking of.

“On adults, however, the Church has not been accustomed to confer the Sacrament of baptism at once, but has ordained that it be deferred for a certain time. The delay is not attended with the same danger as in the case of infants, which we have already mentioned; should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness."

-- DJ (newfiedufie@msn.com), December 29, 2004.

"If this passage is saying what you say it is: then infants who are Baptised (Regenerated) without desire are in trouble."

No. They have sponsors.

Priest: N., what do you ask of the Church of God?
Sponsor: Faith.
Priest: What does Faith offer you?
Sponsor: Life everlasting.
Priest: If then you desire to enter into life, keep the commandments. ‘Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart and with thy whole soul and with thy whole mind; and thy neighbour as thyself.'

Also, in Session 7, Canon 13 of Trent:

"If anyone says that because infants do not make an act of faith, they are not to be numbered among the faithful after they receive baptism and, moreover, that they are to be rebaptized when they come to the use of reason; or if anyone says that is is better to omit the baptism of infants rather than to baptize, merely in the faith of the Church, those who do not believe by and act of their own: let him be anathema."

So it still seems to me it is speaking of desire apart from the regeneration."

It can't be, though. It would run into severe conflict with the rest of the canons on the Sacraments in general, plus the canons from the section on Baptism in particular.

"...will avail them to grace and righteousness"

Can we say that this is Heaven? I mean that in all seriousness... whatever this may refer to, does this allow anyone the opportunity to conclude that the sacrament itself, or its matter, is optional? Clearly not, because such a conclusions would be ruled out be the canons of Trent itself, and very clearly so.

But again, when zoning in on what is, and what is not, doctrine, it is important to remember that doctrines do not receive any extra boost of authoritativeness as a result of having issued forth from a saint. Saints have made many identifyable errors in regard to Catholic doctrine. Clearly not intentionally. If this were not the case, then St. Augustine would never have written his work Retractions, where he demonstrated his honesty and sincerity by reworking through his own past theological mistakes.

As to authoritativeness of sources go, catechisms are meant to reflect Catholic doctrine as accurately as possible, but they themselves are not the origin or Catholic doctrine. They cannot be pointed to as if they contained declarations or definitions. If this were the case, they would not be sent back for revisions, as many have, and the CCC many times.

It is, though, a valid question, as what to make of passages such as from Trent, or more recently in versions of the Baltimore Catechism and so forth. The theological speculation of a baptism by desire alone has been around a very long time, and has been argued for and argued against, but never has it been exploited as it has now in our age as the basis of a universalist and syncretist theology concerning salvation.

Never, though, has it been defined as doctrine.

Regarding catechisms, interestingly enough the new CCC is actually pretty accurate in its section related to fate of unbaptised babies, excepting that it leaves a nebulous door of hope wide open for anyone to walk through with just about any theory of their own.

But this fact will never be toppled: it has always been the position of the Church that baptism is an absolute necessity for salvation, and that water is the necessary matter of the sacrament. Look at any text that anyone pulls from anywhere. If it negates either of these, then it can be shown to be in direct violation of any number of dogmatic declarations of the Church throughout the ages which will declare that, yes, baptism is an absolute necessity for salvation, and yes, water is the necessary matter of the sacrament. This cannot be effectively sidestepped.

In addition to this, there is not one declaration or definition in the entire history of the Church which has asserted that the desire of baptism alone effects a sacramental baptism; nor is there one which declares that anything calling itself "baptism" can lack either the matter or the form proper to baptism.

Anyone who would say that even infants who pass from this life without participation in the Sacrament of Baptism shall be made alive in Christ goes counter to the preaching of the Apostle and condemns the whole Church, because it is believed without doubt that there is no other way at all in which they can be made alive in Christ' --St. Augustine

We can assume nothing, we can presume nothing, but rather we must hold the doctrines of the Faith complete and entirely.

It helps to look down the road a ways. What happens if we do let slip on hard doctrine in favor exceptions, in favor of loopholes, in favor of alternate paths. What happens when matter and form part company? Answer: Protestant ideas, Protestant concepts. You are correct: Trent was hardcore response to Protestantism. If someone were to ask me my opinion of what makes Protestantism what it is, I would have say it has something to do with a driving effort to separate matter and form. I realize there are many things that go into making "Protestant" what it is... rejection of papal authority being a biggie no doubt. But at the root, and what seems to permeate all their points of dissent, is that they love to separate the form and the matter. For-instance: they way they speak of being "covered by the Blood of Jesus"; a mere etherial and foggy concept which no one can pin down, which no one is quite sure what it means. But we as Catholics, we have that salvific Blood on our altars as a hardcore, matter/form composite reality. See the sections of Trent on The Holy Eucharist; see how it fights the attempted separation of matter and form:

Session 8: If anyone says that Christ present in the Eucharist is only spiritually eaten and not sacramentally and really as well: let him be anathema.

Read all the canons and see the absolute retention of matter and form throughout, not yielding even an inch. Theologically, it is absolutely necessary to retain both matter and form intact. Sacraments are Realities consisting of matter and form. Lose one or the other, then philosophically and theologically, you lose the Reality.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), December 29, 2004.

God decrees who is saved. He forgives.

You've confused salvation excluslively as the sacrament of baptism. There can be no sacrament nor even the baptism of Desire-- without God's sanctifying grace. And He bestows it as He wills. The Church is given it as form and matter for those souls who are evangelized.

When Christ instituted the sacrament of baptism it was for His Church; synonymous with the ''kingdom of heaven'' (John 3 :3). Yet surely God's prophets and patriarchs of the Old Testament have been saved, as has Our Lady. --They would have desired baptism; and this is why they're members of the Church Triumphant. Grace is theirs directly from Christ; equal to the sacrament though not as the Church administers it. They are members instead of the Church Triumphant in heaven admitted through grace.

Sanctifying grace effects BAPTISM of Desire; which has made them Catholics in the next life. Catholic dogma isn't circumvented. God doesn't answer to dogma, only His faithful do.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 29, 2004.

Mom and dad had an unbaptized child die. I was told this little one went to limbo. The geography of the place was distinctly described to me by a teacher/nun. The monsiengnor confirmed my brother's eternal dwelling.

I wished you folks were as sure about this stuf as these holy people were.

-- Chris Coose (ccoose@maine.rr.com), December 31, 2004.

Chris,

Fifty or sixty years ago most priests would have expressed the same opinion, even though it was not official doctrinal teaching of the Church. The concept of Limbo was a theological proposition intended to provide a possible solution to the obvious conflict between the fact of a perfectly loving, just and merciful God, vs. the idea of innocent children being sent into hellfire for all eternity. As such it gained in general popularity and was personally held by most Catholics of the time. Today, just as back then, the Church does not formally teach that Limbo is real, but allows Catholics to accept such a proposition if they wish. Today the popular acceptance of Limbo is not as widespread, and the Church formally teaches, as it did then, that we really do not know with certainty what happens to children in this circumstance, but that we commend such children to God's mercy. Perhaps there is a place or state similar to the concept of Limbo, or perhaps God in His infinite love and mercy accepts such innocent souls into heaven. Maybe we will find out when we get there.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), December 31, 2004.