There has been the claim that the Church has never taught any such thing as Baptism of Desire (Desire for Baptism) as a means to Salvation and a remedy to Original Sin.

Ian and Emerald, read 'em and weep.

Here is just some of the ANCIENT (pre-Vatican II) teachings (emphasis added):

Pope Innocent II (1130-1143, exact date uncertain): "We affirm without hesitation that the old man who, according to the information received from you, died without having received the baptism of water, has been relieved of original sin and granted the joy of the heavenly home, because he has persevered in the faith of the holy Mother the Church and in the confession of Christ's name. [...] And read over again the book of St. Ambrose 'On the Death of Valentianus' which affirms the same doctrine." (This same doctrine is taught by Pope Innocent III in a letter to the Bishop of Metz, 1206.)

Here's the clincher, it is your own (and ours I may add) beloved Trent:

The General Council of Trent, Sixth Session, Decree on Justification (1547); Chapter IV: A brief description of the sinner's justification: its manner under the dispensation of grace - "In these words a description is outlined of the justification of the sinner as being a transition from the state in which one is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace and adoption as children of God through the second Adma, Jesus Christ our Saviour. After the promulgation of the Gospel, this transition cannot take place without the bath of regeneration or the desire for it as it is written: 'Unless one is born of water and the Spirit, one cannot enter the kingdom of God.'"

Doesn't look like both to me fellas, it says baptism or "the desire for it". No double negatives, just a simple "or".

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

--

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

Jesus wept. But traditionalist heretics?

-- (dunno@...), March 05, 2005.

Father Paul has given the YELLOW card tonight; to our comrades of little faith--------- Hoping it makes clear once more:

God's mercy is everlasting and unreserved. It is we who have never deserved it!

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

Sorry, you still Canons 2 and 5 of session 7 of the Council of Trent to contend with.

Canon 2: 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."

Canon 5: If anyone says that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation, let him be anathema.

You would reference a private letter, which does not and could not constitute the pope excercising the infallibility of the Supreme Magisterium of the Catholic Church. One letter, supposedly, and a couple quotes out of context from Pius IX and XII, and some bad latin translations of certain canons from the Council of Trent. That's all you got.

There's nothing here that would be near enough to compel anyone who cared to go contrary to their Catholic faith and claim that Baptism is not necessary for salvation, or that water is not the necessary matter of the Sacrament of Baptism.

I've read this quote before. In fact, if you need help in finding others which you might wish to try to use against Catholic doctrine, let me know. I've got the list, as well as reasons why they fall flat in attempting to negate or dilute the clear command of our Savior in regards to the sacrament of Baptism.

In fact, there's this letter about "...a priest not baptised..." Did you google up that one yet? It's funny; I was kind of hoping you'd come across that one and try to use it. Let me know if you seen it.

Baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation. Water is the necessary matter of the sacrament of Baptism.

Private correspondence cannot change this truth.

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

Sorry, you still Canons 2 and 5 of session 7 of the Council of Trent to contend with.

No, we do not, sir or madam. Instead, you have to contend with what was quoted above, from Trent and otherwise. You cannot successfully contend with it.

Canon 2: 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 Council Fathers' intended understanding of the above words was that, if Baptism is to be administered in the ordinary, ritual fashion, "true and natural water" must be used, rather than some substitute. Thus, Canon 2 is not relevant to reception of Baptism by Desire.

Canon 5: If anyone says that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation, let him be anathema.

Amen! Baptism by Water or Baptism by Desire, as noted in Fr. Paul's quotation from Trent.

You would reference a private letter, which does not and could not constitute the pope excercising the infallibility of the Supreme Magisterium of the Catholic Church.

How typical of heretics to read sloppily! The text from Pope Innocent II was not referred to as coming from a "private letter." Moreover, the text refers to Baptism of Desire as a "doctrine" (a teaching of Holy Mother Church that was already being mentioned by St. Ambrose, archbishop of Milan, in the 4th Century).

One letter, supposedly, and a couple quotes out of context from Pius IX and XII, and some bad latin translations of certain canons from the Council of Trent. That's all you got.

Most assuredly not, o flaming Feeneyite heretic!

First, measured by all available translations on the Internet, Fr. Paul's quotation from Trent was an accurate translation. We can ignore your contrary claim unless and until you produce the Latin text of the Decree on Justification Chapter IV to PROVE your contention about the translation.

Second, the quotations from Bl. Pius IX and Pope Pius XII are not taken out of context. Third, Vatican II affirms the two-millenia old teaching on Baptism of Desire. Fourth, the Catechism of the Catholic Church affirms the teaching. Fifth, Pope John Paul II affirms the teaching. All of these, and each individually, bind you, under pain of mortal sin and self-excommunication.

I've read this quote before. In fact, if you need help in finding others which you might wish to try to use against Catholic doctrine, let me know.
In fact, there's this letter about "...a priest not baptised..." Did you google up that one yet? It's funny; I was kind of hoping you'd come across that one and try to use it. Let me know if you seen it.

Your putrid sarcasm toward a priest, o heretic, will alone get you tremendous suffering in Purgatory, if you somehow escape the eternal flames that you have thus far merited.

Since you do not affirm the Catholic Church's infallible teaching, "Anathema Esmeralda Sit."

-- Kenny (KGreene@eireworld.com), March 06, 2005.

sheesh Kenny. you sound really riled.

i'll tell you though: i cannot find these words anywhere in Trent: " in the ordinary, ritual fashion"

have you added these words?!?!?! ie are you re-writing Trent?!?!?!

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

nope, i've checked. you've added those words.

furthermore, there's NOTHING whatsoever that contemplates baptism in the "extra-ordinary" fashion.

why's that?

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

"No, we do not, sir or madam. Instead, you have to contend with what was quoted above, from Trent and otherwise. You cannot successfully contend with it."

It's sir. I just did contend with it successfully, or I should actually say, Trent contends with it. It being of course your own private interpretation. A little more than private, though. More like public opinion at this juncture.

Common experience bears this out very efficiently, in that those who promote your view have twisted it into a metaphor so badly that now just about everyone qualifies for some mysterious ecumenical union with the Church, even those people who wage war against the Church itself.

"The Council Fathers' intended understanding of the above words was that, if Baptism is to be administered in the ordinary, ritual fashion, "true and natural water" must be used, rather than some substitute. Thus, Canon 2 is not relevant to reception of Baptism by Desire."

I've heard that one before. You can't use beer or olive oil or something. This is one of those sophistical "let's take a part of the truth and call it the whole thing" gadgets. Yes, the truth of the declaration does in fact disallow the using of something other than water. Because the other stuff isn't water. Because water is the necessary matter of the sacrament of Baptism. Of course, because that's what the canon is saying.

Note that the devices used by opponents of Catholic doctrine such as yourself are relatively simplistic, consisting of, for instance, stating part of the truth as if it were the whole truth, or check this out: shifting the meaning of statements in the midst of translating them from negative to positive or positive to negative. There is a lot of that as well.

An example: take the statement "there is no salvation outside the Church. Convert to positive: "there is salvation inside the Church". Using this truth, proceed then to tell people where else salvation can also be found. Simple. Dumb, too.

As if the most pressing danger against the Catholic Faith at the time of Trent was people using orange juice to baptise people. So much of a problem, and beerbaptisms also, that it had to be dealt with in... in a dogmatic council?

Yeah. Sure. Or was it that people at the time were inclined in their expanding protestantism to believe that water was not really the necessary matter of the sacrament of Baptism? That's it. Because one of the greater errors of protestantism is the separation of matter and form as it pertains to the sacraments, or get this: the de-Incarnation of the Catholic faith.

Sorry. The canon states very clearly that no one can say that water is not necessary. You're private interpretation is anathema. It twists the words of Christ to a metaphor.

"Canon 5: If anyone says that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation, let him be anathema. Amen! Baptism by Water or Baptism by Desire, as noted in Fr. Paul's quotation from Trent.

Trent does not say what Fr. Paul twists it to say. In doing so, he runs squarely against the rest of Trent. The original latin is pretty clear on the point, when properly translated, that both the sacrament and the desire are necessary.

"How typical of heretics to read sloppily!"

I suppose you're aquainted with enough of them to know, so I won't argue with you on this point.

"Moreover, the text refers to Baptism of Desire as a "doctrine" (a teaching of Holy Mother Church that was already being mentioned by St. Ambrose, archbishop of Milan, in the 4th Century)."

Please don't be dishonest. St. Ambrose of Milan:

"You have read that the three witnesses in baptism - the water, the blood and the Spirit - are one. This means that if you take away one of these the sacrament is not conferred. What is water without the cross of Christ? Only an ordinary element without sacramental effect. Again, without water there is no sacrament of rebirth: Unless a man is born again of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. The catechumen believes in the cross of the Lord with which he too is signed, but unless he is baptised in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit he cannot receive the forgiveness of sins or the gift of spiritual grace."

Nice try.

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

Traditionalist heretics (Ian, Emerald) refuse to be corrected from their errors.

-- (m@r.k), March 06, 2005.

Even the Catechism of Trent confirms Baptism of Desire.

"For catechumens who die before their Baptism, their explicit desire to receive it, together with repentance for their sins, and charity, assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive through the sacrament."

-- DJ (newfiedufie@msn.com), March 06, 2005.

Basta, basta! ''Baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation. Water is the necessary matter of the sacrament of Baptism.'' ..............

Undoubtedly true. But the words here are in contextual reference to the RITE; not just the sacrament.

And BTW; when will Ian finally explain HOW Almighty God is not perfectly Just? Does God love one soul and not another?

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

Emerald,

You call Denzinger-Schonmetzer "bad latin translations of certain canons from the Council of Trent". You are a proud one aren't you.

"In fact, there's this letter about "...a priest not baptised..." Did you google up that one yet? It's funny; I was kind of hoping you'd come across that one and try to use it. Let me know if you seen it."

Unlike yourself, I do not "google up" my responses. I use texts on page of the paper sort - from books, ever heard of them?

As to "a priest not baptised", very simply he would not be a priest because Baptism is necessary before the reception of any other Sacrament.

But alas, you call Pope Innocent II a heretic, him and me liars, and claiming yourself all along to be the authority on the interpretation of Church documents WHEN IT IS CRYSTAL CLEAR THAT THE CHURCH HERSELF RESERVES THAT AUTHORITY TO HERSELF ALONE - not to armchair theologians, theologians, priests, bishops, or even entire conferences of bishops, but to Her alone in Her Magisterium = the bishops in union with the Supreme Pontiff. What part of this do you not understand?

I direct you to the words of Our Lord in today's Gospel: "If you were blind, you would have no sin. But now that you say, 'We see,' your sin remains."

You claim to have the sight needed to interpret the Church's documents yet are still blind to the fact that She alone has that sight. Thus your sin remains whereas those in invincible ignorance are without it because they are blind and truly so.

-- Fr. Paul (pjdoucet@hotmail.com), March 06, 2005.

From my last post: First, measured by all available translations on the Internet, Fr. Paul's quotation from Trent was an accurate translation. We can ignore your contrary claim unless and until you produce the Latin text of the Decree on Justification Chapter IV to PROVE your contention about the translation.

From Emerald's failed attempt at a reply: Trent does not say what Fr. Paul twists it to say. In doing so, he runs squarely against the rest of Trent. The original latin is pretty clear on the point, when properly translated, that both the sacrament and the desire are necessary.

Emerald fails to produce the Latin, thereby putting the lie to his claim. He has either never seen the Latin or, despite seeing it, does not know how to translate it. Either way, he has failed to produce it, so his criticism of ALL the translations on the Internet (including Fr. Paul's) is nothing but desperate B.S..

Therefore, I repeat:Since you do not affirm the Catholic Church's infallible teaching, "Anathema Esmeralda Sit." "Esmeralda" is Latin for "Emerald," but of course I see now that he didn't realize that. He only pretends to know something about Latin.

-- Kenny (KGreene@eireworld.com), March 06, 2005.

I thought of all of you at Mass today..how many of you seem to take such delight in tossing barbed words at one another, followed by quotes from Holy men of the Church. Even those of you who are correct in your words do not need to offer them in a spirit devoid of charity. How sad to read such bickering back and forth, such posturing. Indeed, in today's gospel, we heard of those who are blind.

Yet there are other kinds of "blindness" as well. One can have all of the truths of the teachings of the Church and STILL be very blind..blind to the sin of pride..blind to the lack of charity, blind to the warning that we will all be held to account for every word that has come out of our mouths someday before God.

The gospel of Matthew tells us to learn the Faith and also to expose falsehoods when we find them. If someone truly believes with all of his heart and soul that he IS standing fast to his faith, and not simply banging on the keyboard to "hear his own voice", how is that person any different from any other human being who has a NEED to hear the truth? And how is the Truth to be shared? By name calling and in a spirit of disgust? The Vicar of Christ on earth, John Paul II doesn't do it that way. Neither should we.

I will continue to pray that above all, we will evidence charity.

-- Lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), March 06, 2005.

I decided not to wait for the pokey heretic to produce the Latin from "Chapter IV of the General Council of Trent, Sixth Session, Decree on Justification (1547)." Here it is, followed by a comment of mine on it and three key paragraphs from the binding teaching of the Catholic Church, as related in the "Catechism."

“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.”

The words in bold were accurately translated in Father's copy of Denzinger (an official compilation of doctrines) as "without the bath of regeneration or the desire for it." Now I could say that I relied on my nine years' study of Latin to verify this translation, but I would much rather rely on St. Alphonsus Liguori, who wrote (in his "Moral Theology"), "Now it is de fide that men are also saved by Baptism of desire, by virtue of the Canon 'Apostolicam De Presbytero Non Baptizato' and the Council of Trent, Session 6, Chapter 4, where it is said that no one can be saved 'without the laver of regeneration or the desire for it.'"

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.

1259 For catechumens who die before their Baptism, their explicit desire to receive it, together with repentance for their sins, and charity, assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive through the sacrament.

1260 "Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery." Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.

-- (KGreene@eireworld.com), March 06, 2005.

Good for you, Lesley. Just hope you realise that SOME faithful Catholics try never to look bad, trying instead to look just like those little putti decorating the images of the Immaculate Conception Murillo painted. It's so nice to be sweet all the time. Some of us don't act angelic at all. We rarely FEEL that way.

Did you know that Jesus was known to explode sometimes; and let the Scribes and Pharisees know He wasn't somebody they could intimidate? Talk about bad- mouthing the opponent; Jesus was no Pansy. Although He treated unfortunate people with great care, even a leper;

-----------He lashed out at proud and presumptuous men. I don't have to quote those hard words; you surely have read them in the gospel narratives.

Please try to read between the lines in our more contentious threads, Lesley. There's a lot of hidden love at work when these Catholics speak about God and His Church and His saints. Even when we're raising the roof! It's what's in our HEARTS that either pleases or offends God. God loves you as the gentle soul you are. He might not always love the others as much as He loves you; but I can take a chance on God. I hope He understands.

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

My opinion on this recurring and what I consider modernist debate:

There is NO Baptism of desire or Baptism by desire. Baptism is one thing ONLY -a Sacrament as the Church teaches. To avoid error and confusion it is best to stick with what the Church teaches and the terminology the Church uses specifically UNLESS there is some other agenda or confusion is desired... It is best to save theological theory for the theological domain. As to Church teaching, the most current documents are required as Church teaching may and has developed over time as understanding has been authentically gained.

In understanding, Baptism and the the fruits of Baptism (Sanctification) are two seperate things. Desire does NOT Baptize although it MAY yield Sanctification

Catech ism of the Catholic Church - The sacrament of Baptism

VI. THE NECESSITY OF BAPTISM

1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation. He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them. 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. 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.

1259 For catechumens who die before their Baptism, their explicit desire to receive it, together with repentance for their sins, and charity, assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive through the sacrament.

1260 "Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery." Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.

1261 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," 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.

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), March 06, 2005.

Kenny,

Take a hike.

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), March 06, 2005.

Ken Greene doesn't have to persuade me. And, if I sound cynical, forgive me;

But why am I expecting Ian and Emerald et al, --to return his green fire with gusto; as faithful opponents of Vatican II, Neos, Novus et ''modernisomnibus''-- ? ? ? ! ! They are so attached to their fetishes. What's an unknown Latin scholar going to teach them??? They have the POPES! They have the Saints! --Ha Ha ha!

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

Oh Eugene..no no no..God loves each and every one of us..that's the point..not one more than another..we must all be respectful of one another, in Charity. It is love which brings people to Christ, not harsh words.

I'll step out of the dialogue..and continue to pray.

-- Lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), March 06, 2005.

''In --[my?] understanding, Baptism and the the fruits of Baptism (Sanctification) are two seperate things. Desire does NOT Baptize although it MAY yield Sanctification.''

This is double-talk. Unless you just DON'T understand; but it would seem you intuit very well.

Baptism is the sacrament that gives souls re-birth in Christ. (We know all about Matter & Form) Sanctifying grace is the element we receive from Christ to effect our sacramental re-birth. Both in the Rite of Holy Baptism, and in the invisible action of all alternatives which bring us salvation. In other words, Baptism by Desire or Blood.

The terminology wouldn't change our salvation. Either way souls are saved BY CHRIST. Either way is by sanctifying grace! We argue about naming the ways, but they are Catholic doctrine nonetheless.

Could you explain why you tell KGreene to TAKE A HIKE, now? I saw only the same Catholic doctrine being referred to in his post. What happened to you?

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

But why am I expecting Ian and Emerald et al, --to return his green fire with gusto. What's an unknown Latin scholar going to teach them??? They have the POPES! They have the Saints! --Ha Ha ha!

Don't laugh. Their very salvation is at stake. They must renounce their heresy before death. My message was not just for them, but even more for lurkers who need to see just how wrong the Esmeraldas of the world are. And as you can see, mon ami, the do not really have any popes or saints on their side. The Innocents and Piuses (and, in my post, Alphonsus Liguori) show that they are heretics. Not to mention John Paul II the Great.

Daniel H, I will gladly "take a hike," if you will go and fetch your leash.

-- (KGreene@eireworld.com), March 06, 2005.

Eugene

Daniel is a lot closer to you in beliefs than anyone else posting here. moreover he has helpfully provided his authority for his views - by citing the Catechism.

...yet you may not have realised it, but Kenny, to whom you are buddying up, has already closed the doors to one of yr more wilder beliefs - that ignorance saves. Trent: "But, though He died for all, yet do not all receive the benefit of His death, but those only unto whom the merit of His passion is communicated."

Kenny at least accepts that one must be baptised or "desire" baptism; whereas Daniel posts that - "Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.".

Kenny is aligned with St Thomas [and the SSPX] - the Baptism of Desire being limited exclusively to the Catuchumen.

of course [to close the loop], imho, that's wrong, because Baptism is necessary for salvation, and water is necessary for baptism: so water is necessary for salvation. Trent.

as for the "sine X aut Y" discussion.....

well this expression would be clearer if it said:

sine X et Y [need both X & Y]

or sine aut X aut Y [need either X or Y]

it doesn't sadly.

maybe we can discuss that more?

suffice it to say, hough, that without the tiredness OR the nice comfortable bed, i won't get a good night's sleep tonight. equally, without the tiredness AND the nice comfortable bed, i won't get a good night's sleep tonight.

these two sentences say the same thing.

..but maybe all i need is to be is an insomniac with a nice comfortable bed?!?!?!

i could also, of course, say that, without the Mercedes OR the BMW, i won't get to work tomorrow.

or maybe that should be without the Mercedes OR the will to get to work tomorrow, i won't get to work tomorrow.

goodness.

anyways, my parting thought is this:

"(A) And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof,

(B) as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God."

i wonder just how (B) can be said ["as it is written"] to follow from (A) -- if (A) accepts that a desire for baptism is enough -- because the the person is clearly not born again of water but the mere desire of water. we step outside Scripture.

night Your Eminence.

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

Kenny

"Alphonsus Liguori"

do you know that St Augustine wrote his retractions[errors]. or that St Thomas got it wrong on the Immaculate Conception - and Baptism of Desire.

you merit the respect that Eugene doesn't because you post the sources that show that you are not peddling yr personal opinions. i am happy to say that.

however, we need to distinguish between theological opinions by Popes or scholars and de fide definitions by Poes or Councils.

otherwise we may all end up quoting from some old pamphlett written by Bishop Sheen.

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

"Don't laugh. Their very salvation is at stake."

When has that not been the case?

"They must renounce their heresy before death."

What heresy? The one that states that baptism is necessary for salvation, and that water is the necessary matter of the sacrament of Baptism, and also the one that states that there is absolutely no salvation outside the Church?

Um... those aren't heresies. If that's not what you were referring to, pray tell... what were you referring to?

"My message was not just for them, but even more for lurkers who need to see just how wrong the Esmeraldas of the world are."

I have absolutely no doubt that people are watching, and that some of them are indeed discerning the truth here. I believe that the outrage and abuse directed against anyone who attempts to uphold traditional Catholic doctrine and practice serves as a catalyst to them, assisting them in making up their minds which direction is the right direction to proceed with. I believe the bitterness directed against traditional Catholics and traditional Catholicism is an objective evil which eventually is always, in turn, is bent around by hand of God Himself to His own purposed... that these evils are ultimately subjected to His dominion, such that He causes a great good to arise in spite of the attacks on His Church, His bride. He's preparing His bride for the wedding feast. In that sense, you're helping people. Helping them to discern the truth. That truth is the Catholicism of traditional dogma and practice.

"And as you can see, mon ami, the do not really have any popes or saints on their side. The Innocents and Piuses (and, in my post, Alphonsus Liguori) show that they are heretics. Not to mention John Paul II the Great."

Traditional Catholics are guarded by the entire Heavenly Court. You'll never break them.

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

First volley; answer Ian:
''has already closed the doors to one of yr more wilder beliefs - that ignorance saves.'' I never claimed ignorance SAVES. Ignorance mitigates the guilt of not having a set of Christian beliefs. GOD SAVES, if he perceives good will, charity, contrition and EVERYTHING ELSE but Christianity-- in a soul.

Ignorance doesn't save a SINNER. Nor does any sacrament except for God's GRACE. Without GOD, it's just an empty ritual! If Baptism didn't infuse God's grace in a soul, what would save it? Ignorance? Nothing. Trent: "But, though He died for all, yet do not all receive the benefit of His death, but those only unto whom the merit of His passion is communicated." ----------->>> Correct! The merit of Christs passion and death is grace, for those who believe in Him. He died for ALL, yet not all will come to believe in Him. But God will not damn a repentent soul who loves Him; because God is JUST. Christ's grace is nevertheless COMMUNICATED to a soul whom God forgives and loves. --Same grace, same Saviour, different way of communicating the sanctifying grace of Jesus Christ. The gamut of sacramental grace is MYSTERY; what we know only by faith. Baptism of Desire is God acting HIMSELF, within the sphere of that mystery, for the Church.

Your quote above, Trent-- merely says we can't be saved by anything except the merits of Our Saviour. That means sanctifying grace. I can only say, AMEN!

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

//

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

''The usual self-serving mock piety: ''I believe the bitterness directed against traditional Catholics and traditional Catholicism is an objective evil,'' Emerald looking up to the clouds.

We aren't bitter toward you, Emmie. We just DISAGREE with your elitist sickness. For instance your redundant use of the term ''Traditional Catholics''-- as opposed to anybody who doesn't listen too your siren song. I was traditional from baptism onward; and will always be so. This is NOT your own religion. IT'S OURS-- each of us, because we follow Jesus Christ faithfully. And bitterness wouldn't creep in if you weren't being the Pharisee here every day. You and the pseudo-theolog-Ian. But actually you're a lot of laughs. We don't take you as seriously as you take yourselves. (I mean speaking for myself.) Want to know WHY? Because we trust in God! Imagine that? Isn't that Traditional, Emmie? which eventually is always, in turn, is bent around by hand of God Himself to His own purposed... that these evils are ultimately subjected to His dominion, such that He causes a great good to arise in spite of the attacks on His Church, His bride. He's preparing His bride for the wedding feast. In that sense, you're helping people. Helping them to discern the truth. That truth is the Catholicism of traditional dogma and practice.

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

-------''Which eventually is always, in turn, is bent around by hand of God Himself to His own purpose... that these evils are ultimately subjected to His dominion, such that He causes a great good to arise in spite of the attacks on His Church, His bride.''

OUR Catholic Church, you mean? And whose ''attacks'' would you be calling evils? Against OUR Church?

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

Catholicism is a Gift from God.
Traditionalist heresy is NOT a Gift from God.

-- (m@r.k), March 06, 2005.

"29. CHRIST AS THE DOOR AND AS THE SHEPHERD. "But as one cannot be in the Father or with the Father except by ascending from below upwards and coming first to the divinity of the Son, through which one may be led by the hand and brought to the blessedness of the Father Himself, so the Saviour has the inscription "The Door." And as He is a lover of men, and approves the impulse of human souls to better things, even of those who do not hasten to reason (the Logos), but like sheep have a weakness and gentleness apart from all accuracy and reason, so He is the Shepherd. For the Lord saves men and beasts, and Israel and Juda are sowed with the seed not of men only but also of beasts." (Origen on the Gospel of St, John)"

Well I see not much has changed this week. HOWEVER in all fairness to Ian and Emerald, I believe that those who oppose them need to answer a very serious question regarding the ANATHEMAS of Trent.

Did the Pope perform the rituals for anathema's based on Trent canon's?

Recap of it "In pronouncing the anathema, the Pope wears special vestments. He is assisted by twelve priests holding lighted candles. Calling on the name of God, the Pope pronounces a solemn ecclesiastical curse. He ends by pronouncing sentence and declaring that the **anathematized person is condemned to hell with Satan.** The priests reply, "Fiat!" (Let it be done!) and throw down their candles"

IF the Pope did, then what possible remedy do you or the Church suggest to offset this NON-Revokable condemnation?

If the Pope did not, then since the Council can be declared infallable did the council enact some formal Ritual?

If neither of these occured then I suppose the issue is mute other then being another intimidation, If they were then what the Church Binds on Earth will be bound into (Hell) I guess in this case. So perhaps our our own Church may in fact have aided to our future condemnation, except for Ian and Emerald.

So now the Real Questions are What are the answers to the Above.

For a recap refer to

http://www.catholicconcerns.com/Trent.html

-- Michael G. (NoEmail@Nowhere.no), March 06, 2005.

Make sure you read the whole thing, though.

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

Oops. Link here. The whole thing.

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

Kenny, to whom you are buddying up, has already closed the doors to one of yr more wilder beliefs - that ignorance saves.

Nonsense. No one (including Eugene) believes that "ignorace" itself "saves." Rather, everyone, including Eugene, knows that St. Peter wrote, "this baptism now saves you" (meaning, actually, that Jesus saves through the grace that he imparts via baptism). What Eugene correctly realizes (and what Ian wrongly rejects) is that baptism can be received not just through water in a sacramental ritual.

Kenny at least accepts that one must be baptised or "desire" baptism

True, but Ian mistakenly assumes that I claim that the desire must be "explicit." If I were to claim that, I would join Ian in the ranks of the heretics. In fact, the Church infallibly teaches that the desire may be "implicit," not necessarily "explicit."

Kenny is aligned with St Thomas [and the SSPX] - the Baptism of Desire being limited exclusively to the Catuchumen.

False. Don't put words in my mouth. I totally reject the SSPX's position on this and in every other area that is rejected by Pope John Paul II.

Traditional Catholics are guarded by the entire Heavenly Court. You'll never break them.

I don't want to break "traditional Catholics" (i.e., Eugene and yours truly). I don't even want to "break" the heretical P-T's (pseudo- trads, Ian and Esmeralda), but only to expose them to lurkers and to expose the truth to all. I will leave the attempted "breaking" of the P-T's to the Holy Spirit. But even the Holy Spirit cannot force them, against their free will, to accept the truth.

-- (KGreene@eireworld.com), March 07, 2005.

''Ian mistakenly assumes that I claim that the desire must be "explicit." If I were to claim that, I would join Ian in the ranks of the heretics. In fact, the Church infallibly teaches that the desire may be "implicit," not necessarily "explicit."

Infallibly, Ian; take notice. That's what THE CHURCH, not I, nor K Greene or anybody else teaches. Oh, and let's not leave out His Excellency the Irish archbishop. He speaks for the Church.

As for the catachumens and saint Thomas; waht of it? The precedence is there; Saint Thomas taught the same thing, Baptism of Desire.

Let me say one final thing: as to explicit and then ''implicit''-- desire. Nothing in all Creation is ever ''implicit'' as God sees it; He sees EXPLICITLY whatever is true. If a DESIRE has ever existed alongside every other necessary condition for salvation; God sees it as a definite Desire for Baptism. God knows even our ''subconscious'' thought. Because nothing is a mystery to Almighty God.

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

Kenny

"In fact, the Church ***infallibly*** teaches that the desire may be "implicit," not necessarily "explicit." "

where?!?!

show me!

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 07, 2005.

Ian,

You ask Kenny where, and he already quoted the Catechism showing where. In fact he quoted it (#1260 of the Catechism) before Daniel did. But you missed it somehow - "It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity." "would have desired" = implicit.

Emerald,

You really must stop relying on Google for information on the Church, if it is not from a reputable Church source (like the Vatican site), then stay away from it; your trad sites will say whatever they want to say.

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

Lesley,

The closer the child gets to the burning pit, the more forceful one must be in trying to draw him/her back. After all, using your thoughts on this, answer the following: how charitable of the Church is it to say anathema sit?

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

"You really must stop relying on Google for information on the Church, if it is not from a reputable Church source (like the Vatican site), then stay away from it; your trad sites will say whatever they want to say."

I don't rely on trad sites. I've only ever formulated my own arguments based on the documents of the Church, for the three of four whatever years I've been here.

I've got real books here, on my shelf and on my desk. Sorry to dissappoint.

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

The disappointment comes from your claim to authority. The Church can no longer interpret Her teachings, you must do it.

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

"The disappointment comes from your claim to authority. The Church can no longer interpret Her teachings, you must do it."

Of course, I never once claimed I had any authority, did I?

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

I will gladly "take a hike," if you will go and fetch your leash.

Kenny,

Don't presume I wish to walk you as you are a hard case -you alone must reconcile your path -your path is not relative to other men -- nor your misplaced esteem of self...

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), March 08, 2005.

Fr Paul

the Catechism is infallible? goodness Father. have you ever traced these sections of the Catechism back to source?

you should try.

let's start at the start:

1257 says:

"The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation."

###indeed - this is cross referenced to St John 3:5 - "Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit.

"He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them."

#####indeed He did. Scriptural reference confirms this.

"Baptism is necessary for salvation..."

#### truly

"...for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament."

#### hang on!!!!

the source for this? St Mark 16- "15. He said to them, "Go into the whole world and proclaim the gospel to every creature. 16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved; whoever does not believe will be condemned."

these verses do not mention the fate of those that have never heard the Gospel.

Jesus placed baptism in water and the Spirit as the sine qua non in St John 3:5.

so does Trent -- baptism absolutely necessary, water absolutely necessary. so does Florence. the Church knows of no other remedy but Water Baptism for Original Sin. Dogmatic.

this is wrong.

"The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude"

###this is important! truly she does not.

"...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.""

### mmm.

"God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments."

this is the start of the exception.

then follows 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."

###Nope. read Trent.

"This Baptism of blood, like the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament."

####nope. read Trent.

the CC does not back this up save for a ref to that letter from St Ignatius.

already, however, we see the contradiction in the CCC: (A) "The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude" BUT (B) also "This Baptism of blood, like the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament"?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

then 1259

"For catechumens who die before their Baptism, their explicit desire to receive it, together with repentance for their sins, and charity, assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive through the sacrament."

#### not according to Trent.

the sources for this assertion in the CCC? Ad Gentes and Lumen Gentium.

this is taken from the referenced Lumen Gentium - "The bonds which bind men to the Church in a visible way are profession of faith, the sacraments, and ecclesiastical government and communion." one paragraph later, LG states that "Catechumens who, moved by the Holy Spirit, seek with explicit intention to be incorporated into the Church are by that very intention joined with her. With love and solicitude Mother Church already embraces them as her own."

bear one thing in mind -- the Church denies these people the Sacraments. it used to chuck them out of the Mass before the Mass of the Faithful.

see also this from the same section in LG "In explicit terms He Himself affirmed the necessity of faith and baptism(124) and thereby affirmed also the necessity of the Church, for through baptism as through a door men enter the Church."

so Catuchumens do not have the Sacraments, and have not entered the door, but are inside the Church -- according to Vatican II.

well, according to Trent, they have not received the Instrumental cause of Justification, viz the Sacrament of Baptism.

...and, in CCC 1257 we have just been told that "The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude..". well, if that is true, the catuchumens have not been baptised.

1260 "Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery." Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.

next up, 1260

"Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery."

###i sincerely hope so.

"Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved."

##### **can be** saved??? Original Sin? Florence: the Church knows of no other remedy?

just a few paras up in the CCC: "The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude..."

but now baptism in water and the Spirit is no longer necessary?!?!

the CC relies upon AG7. here are extracts from AG7:

"For Christ Himself "by stressing in express language the necessity of faith and baptism (cf. Mark 16:16; John 3:5), at the same time confirmed the necessity of the Church, into which men enter by baptism, as by a door. "

the non-sequitur in AG7 then follows:

"Therefore those men cannot be saved, who though aware that God, through Jesus Christ founded the Church as something necessary, still do not wish to enter into it, or to persevere in it.""

"It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity."

##### ***It may be supposed ***. really? what happened to this: "The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude"

what happened to original sin?

these partos of the CCC you consider to represent infallible teaching of the Church draw totally from fallible teachings of Vat II, with its fuzzy contradictions and non-sequiturs, and cut across the fallible teachings of the Church.

were i a better typist, i could have provided many more contradictions and non-sequiturs.

this is by no means infallible.

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

the last piece of this section from the CCC, no 1261, reads as follows:

1261 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

but here's the infallible teaching of Florence:

"With regard to children, since the danger of death is often present and ***the only remedy available*** to them is the sacrament of baptism..., it admonishes that sacred baptism is not to be deferred..., but it should be conferred as soon as it conveniently can; and if there is imminent danger of death, the child should be baptized straightaway without any delay..."

ergo, a ruling out of "any other remedy" - which is quite different to the lithe addition in Vat II of this: "***The Church does not know*** of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude". Florence says there is no other remedy.

of course, Florence does not necessarily rule out BoD (implicit/ explicit) because it addresses specifically the unbaptised child. on emight argue therefore that this does not rule out BoD for adults.

more from Florence, therefore, on "Baptism" itself: "There are seven sacraments of the new Law, namely baptism, etc ..."

All these sacraments are made up of three elements: namely, things as the matter, words as the form, and the person of the minister who confers the sacrament with the intention of doing what the church does.

***If any of these is lacking, the sacrament is not effected***...

Holy baptism holds the first place among all the sacraments, for it is the gate of the spiritual life; through it we become members of Christ and **of the body of the church**.

Since death came into the world through one person, unless we are born again of water and the spirit, we cannot, as Truth says, enter the kingdom of heaven. The matter of this sacrament is true and natural water, either hot or cold. ....The effect of this sacrament is the remission of all original and actual guilt, also of all penalty that is owed for that guilt."

NB no mention whatsoever of any type of non-sacramental baptism, just a description of water baptism. and the bold statement, oft repeated in Trent, that "Since death came into the world through one person, unless we are born again of water and the spirit, we cannot, as Truth says, enter the kingdom of heaven."

"unless".

again, we go back to that syllogism from Trent: no baptism - no salvation; no water - no baptism.

we see the need for the instrumental cause of the Sacrament.

therefore, i query the expression "allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism".

does this run contrary to Florence?

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

Now I'm really confused..on another thread, "No meat on Fridays", Paul M. in refuting a non-Catholic, stated that Jesus himself said that baptism with water and of spirit BOTH were essential for salvation. Since Jesus said this, how can it then be possible to have salvation by baptism of "desire" only? That would appear to directly contradict the very words of Jesus.

-- Lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), March 08, 2005.

"That would appear to directly contradict the very words of Jesus. "

.....and several Holy Ecumenical Councils of the Church which ascribe to that verse in the Bible a very, very literal meaning.

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

What is necessary for salvation is the GRACES of baptism. Clearly the sacrament is only the channel through which the graces are bestowed. The form and matter in the absence of the grace (if that were possible) would accomplish nothing. So the essential question is whether God has the authority to bestow those same saving graces in the absence of the actual sacrament or not. Some would deny Him that authority. Some would tell Him "you either do it through the pouring of water or you don't do it at all". Some would tell the Holy Spirit "You revealed enough to the Church prior to the 15th century. Don't bother me with any further understanding of doctrinal matters".

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), March 08, 2005.

Lesley,
Paul M. is defining the Holy Rite of Baptism in the Church when he says only water and the spirit.

In fact, theologians have stated before that ''the spirit'' is reference to Baptism of Desire.

It won't change the sense of Baptism of Desire in cases like anon's. In order for that form of salvation to take place the soul has to be in invincible ignorance and be perfectly contrite for all the sins of his life. Anon can't plead ignorance. He is in sin as it is, denying te True faith. Hopefully, in time for his death, he'll be converted to the faith of his blessed ancestors.

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

"What is necessary for salvation is the GRACES of baptism."

########correction, the Graces of the sacraments.

but only baptism by water is a Sacrament, the other so-called baptisms not being sacramental: you'll find this in the CCC and in Vat II, if you look.

"Clearly, the sacrament is only the channel through which the graces are bestowed."

#######what is a Sacrament? a channel? according to St Thomas -- a corporeal sign containing a certain hidden sanctity [my summary, but check out the Summa and you'll see it's right]. you cannot separate the corporeal sign from the grace it bestows. it's therefore more than "only the channel", i think.

therefore, you cannot dismiss the water "ceremony" as just a ceremony ...and to do so is, in any event, to risk anathema: Trent - "If any one ..wrests, to some sort of metaphor, those words of our Lord Jesus Christ; Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost; let him be anathema."

"The form and matter in the absence of the grace (if that were possible) would accomplish nothing."

######## -- "if that were possible" . try reversing yr statement to get this : "The grace in the absence of the form and matter (if that were possible)....".

from Florence -- "things as the matter, words as the form, and the person of the minister.... If any of these is lacking, the sacrament is not effected."

"So the essential question is whether God has the authority to bestow those same saving graces in the absence of the actual sacrament or not."

#### now for the emotional rhetoric!!

it's not about God's authority: it's about Truth. Tradition tells us that the "usual" yet "only" source of initial sanctifying grace is the grace that we get from Baptism by Water.

God performs Miracles to exert His authority.

therefore, we reverse this assertion by saying that the faithful ought to recognise the limits on its ability to dispense Sanctifying Grace - viz through the Baptism by Water.

leaves the Miracles to God. don't presuppose God's work by predicting Miracles for those caught up in completely unfortunate circumstances. pray for them instead.

"Some would deny Him that authority."

no. as stated above.

"Some would tell Him "you either do it through the pouring of water or you don't do it at all"."

see above. this is how He told us it would happen. we pray that he performs Miracles.

"Some would tell the Holy Spirit "You revealed enough to the Church prior to the 15th century. Don't bother me with any further understanding of doctrinal matters"."

some might say that it was all revealed in the sacred books and in the Tradition given to the Apostles; and the Apostles preserved the Tradition and handed it down to their successors, Church's bishops; and some might say that the Church and its bishops protect the Sacred Tradition and its meaning, without daring to add to or subtract therefrom in a way that would change its sense.

there is a finite supply of Tradition. we can't invent more of it. we can discuss it, and write about it, translate it into different languages, and change its "exterior form" if that helps its promulgation. but it's "sense/ meaning" is fixed at around 95AD when St John died.

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

Ian protests: ''########correction, the Graces of the sacraments.''

The grace in Baptism, sanctifying grace and in the Eucharist and Penance-- also sanctifying grace, are for salvation and communion with God.

But should a soul die after receiving only one sacrament: Baptism-- he/she is saved for all eternity. So, you shouldn't correct Paul M. And, what is this? ######## -- ? All your brain cells? Lol!

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

...and, without wishing to be rude, i bet that this is the last that we'll hear from Paul on this subject. i have noted that Paul is a bit of a "hit 'n' run-er" in these "state of the Church" threads.

Paul, i truly mean no offence in what i said -- it's just an obsrvation -- and would be delighted if you might address some of the issues posted above, especially as they concern the Councils of Florence and Trent as they are reflected in the CCC and Vat II.

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

Maybe another look at Fr Paul's post of March 5 / SEE?

''Here is just some of the ANCIENT (pre-Vatican II) teachings:

Pope Innocent II (1130-1143, exact date uncertain): "We affirm without hesitation that the old man who, according to the information received from you, died without having received the baptism of water, has been relieved of original sin and granted the joy of the heavenly home, because he has persevered in the faith of the holy Mother the Church and in the confession of Christ's name. [...] And read over again the book of St. Ambrose 'On the Death of Valentianus' which affirms the same doctrine." (This same doctrine is taught by Pope Innocent III in a letter to the Bishop of Metz, 1206.)''

''. . . your own (and ours I may add) beloved Trent: The General Council of Trent, Sixth Session, Decree on Justification (1547); Chapter IV: A brief description of the sinner's justification: its manner under the dispensation of grace - "In these words a description is outlined of the justification of the sinner as being a transition from the state in which one is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace and adoption as children of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ our Saviour. After the promulgation of the Gospel this transition cannot take place without the bath of regeneration or the desire for it as it is written: 'Unless one is born of water and the Spirit, one cannot enter the kingdom of God."

Doesn't look like ''both,'' . . . it says baptism or "the desire for it". No double negatives, just a simple "or". --'' -- Fr. Paul (pjdoucet)

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

"And, what is this? ######## -- ? All your brain cells? Lol! "

you are funny, mate! truly a card.

you had me going though, with those quotes -- until it becomes apparent that you have copied and pasted Fr Paul's opening post!!!!

now, let's start with 3 simple points:

1 Trent says this: " After the promulgation of the Gospel this transition cannot take place without the bath of regeneration or the desire for it as it is written: 'Unless one is born of water and the Spirit, one cannot enter the kingdom of God.""

it does not say this: " After the promulgation of the Gospel this transition cannot take place without the bath of regeneration or the desire for it as it is written: 'Unless one is born of water ***OR*** the Spirit, one cannot enter the kingdom of God."

this means that, if the 2 sentences are the same, then one must takeit meaning from the other. well, the second is in the Bible. the first must therefore have a consistent meaning. which leads to point s.

2 you could never make build house without bricks or mortar. of course, you need both but that sentence is true. if one is missing, you fail.

therefore, unless you want to re-write Scripture as has been proposed above, you must see this sentence for what it is -- completely true to Scripture.

3 let's aslo take the interpretation that you follow. its baptism or desire. therefore desire, without water, is enough. therefore, also, water baptism, without desire, is also enough.

this means that you can go round baptising people against their will? of course not.

hence we get to the real reasion why desire is mentioned. the faithful must come voluntarily. that's clear in amny parts of Trent.

that's also why, in the case of children, Trent provides that they are aptised in the faith of the church -- to counter protestant theology that they simply do not have the intellectual capability to assen to baptism before the age of reason.

simple.

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

That's a lot of nuance for very little intellectual honesty, Ian. You're bowdlerizing it all once again. I think Fr Paul plainly gave you the truth.

This is something in you and emerald that generates distrust in others. You will never concede a mistake in your POV when it's impossible to deny. You'll give us a new dishonest approach. Typical Pharisees. You have no shame.

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

Eugene

it's not about shame. it's about opening yr eyes.

the legalists are those that find ONE phrase, in fact one word - "or" - in a Holy Dogmatic Council -- and then try to build a whole new theory upon it.

read it again, sire.

"After the promulgation of the Gospel this transition cannot take place without

A/ the bath of regeneration, or

B/ the desire for it,

for, as it is written:

A/ 'Unless one is born of water AND

B/ the Spirit,

one cannot enter the kingdom of God.""

IOW (A) you need the water, AND (B) you need the Holy Spirit [to drive that prevenient grace that finally results, thanks to the freewill of the baptised [the desire] in a saving grace]. otherwise, the "for as it is written" is a lie.

if you disagree with what i have said, show me why.

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

You leave no choice but to answer you unkindly. The tripe you've been posting is an affront to God and his Holy Church. Anytime you say something true or worthwhile we can agree. Not when you're just blowing smoke. I really wonder why your nonsense would be about opening my eyes. You have never opened anybody's. Not even your own.

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

ever moe diatribe -- and no substance, Eugene.

address the points pls. interested in furthering this discussion.

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

What substance have we seen from you, Mr. Bowdler?

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

Mr. Eugene C. Chavez, I think you are opening your eyes. They seem to be widening to the thought that you cannot provide any proof and cannot sustain your arguement. If you let them open up a bit more, you just might see the whole truth.

John

-- John (Anonymous@who.com), March 08, 2005.

"you could never make build house without bricks or mortar."

That's much better than my example. Thanks.

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

"you could never make build house without bricks or mortar."

What is impossible for mere mortals is not impossible for God.

A, or rather, THE true authority said that.

Ian and Emerald, and any other anti-Vatican II poor soul here, no matter what you say (and you can say nothing that substantiates your claims), you cannot deny that the simple truth that it is Holy Mother Church Herself who has the authority to interprets Her teachings; like it or not, that is the trump card better known as the Holy Spirit. You guys are pathetic; you accuse us of the everything you do ('take a word or a phrase of a teaching out of context'). HELLO McFly!!! Wake up. Within the entire context of the Church's Deposit of Faith your position cannot stand, whereas ours, or rather, the Church's can.

Think about this for at least a moment please: if you continue in your obstinate denial of what the Church is and has been teaching, what makes you think you won't deny the Lord Himself when you face Him? What makes you think that you won't believe it is Satan in disguise trying to deceive you as you claim now is the case with us? You are not up against some people posting in an internet forum, you are up against Holy Mother Church Herself in Her authentic authority, the Holy Teaching Office of the Magisterium.

-- Fr. Paul (pjdoucet@hotmail.com), March 09, 2005.

I have an idea; Emerald, you claim to be in communion with the Holy See, then write a letter to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith asking very simply: "Is it at all possible that those who die without Baptism, or likewise those who are not a physical member of the Catholic Church can enter into eternal glory?"

Since it is within the Congregation's competence alone to defend the Faith against heresy, surely this vital arm of the Church cannot err, or Jesus is made to be a liar.

-- Fr. Paul (pjdoucet@hotmail.com), March 09, 2005.

Father, I'm afraid that you have still not realized the depths to which these depraved individuals have sunk. For example, they believe that Cardinal Ratzinger and the pope themselves are heretics. They have been so taken in by the devil that they believe that the Vatican has been infiltrated, basically, by Protestants and that, therefore, it would be pointless to write to the CDF for a ruling on the kind of thing you mentioned.

-- (KGreene@eireworld.com), March 09, 2005.

Father,
I wonder if Emerald would dredge up what humility the Faith has instilled in him and follow your advice? I wonder if he would persist; and judge only after he walks to the Top for truth's sake? It takes humility. --Nobody really wants him to eat crow. I for one will eat mine, if Emerald can return here with the Church's answer in his own favor. That's a promise.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 09, 2005.

I have an idea; Emerald, you claim to be in communion with the Holy See, then write a letter to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith asking very simply: "Is it at all possible that those who die without Baptism, or likewise those who are not a physical member of the Catholic Church can enter into eternal glory?"

The whole point all along is that, darn it, the Church through the exercise of it's Supreme Magisterium has already declared and defined that this cannot be the case.

However. Since you ask, I do believe that someone I know knows someone who has in their possession a response from the Holy See. The question was slightly different. It asked whether someone could hold that there is no salvation outside the Church in the strictest sense (as if there were actually a strict and a stricter view or a lite version... there's only one truth about this, you know). The answer came back, yes, there's nothing heretical in it.

You have to understand that I would need to make some phone calls and find out who was supposed to have it and how I can obtain a copy of it. I'm not sure about any of this, it's just something I heard in conversation.

Failing that, yes, I will indeed write a letter if that's what people feel they need because for whatever reason they can't seem to think and believe for themselves. And if I get a response, I'll post the results. I've been meaning to do that anyways. Not because I feel the letter is necessary because of some doubt I have. Or necessary for anyone else's doubt, for that matter. It never was my job to be anyone's theological wetnurse since we have prelates out there, but they seem to be too weak to do their daily duty. Why in heaven's name anybody would commit themselves to the difficulties of the priesthood and not preach the Catholic Faith is beyond me.

I don't need to write a letter. I already know what the truth is. But I will for another reason. It's much more banal. I wanted to wave the results around and claim victory. I know that might sound a bit juvenile, but for crying out loud, I'm getting a little sick of this myself. I mean, of course there's no salvation outside the Church, of course the Church teaches this infallibly, of course it's still true, of course everybody's trying to get out of it. Right, that's it... people just want to get out of the truth. It means they would have to change there beliefs, their lifestyles. They aren't real keen on that, so, they take issue with the Church, with traditionals, and with God Himself. What else is new, eh?

You know, I can handle someone being a little weak. Wanting to do the right thing, but falling short. But obstinance stinks. The Church says that there's no salvation outside the Church. That's the truth. Believe it or don't. Get saved or eat it for eternity.

"Since it is within the Congregation's competence alone to defend the Faith against heresy, surely this vital arm of the Church cannot err, or Jesus is made to be a liar."

See, that's the problem with you people. You have absolutely no clue about the nature and exercise of the ordinary and supreme magisterium of the Church, and the nature and character of infallibility. None. You don't know how it operates. You can even be of it, and have to have some layman tell you what you don't know. Unbelievable.

I'm going to bed. We'll argue some more tomorrow. Get your rosary said.

There's no salvation outside the Church. Period.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), March 09, 2005.

"Why in heaven's name anybody would commit themselves to the difficulties of the priesthood and not preach the Catholic Faith is beyond me."

This calumny I take is a charge against me, and I am certain that you will answer to Our Lord and Our Lady for it.

"You know, I can handle someone being a little weak. Wanting to do the right thing, but falling short. But obstinance stinks."

Convicted by your own words.

"The Church says that there's no salvation outside the Church. That's the truth."

A Truth we believe whole heartedly, and you half heartedly. We even understand what the Church means when She teaches this, because She has told us.

"See, that's the problem with you people. You have absolutely no clue about the nature and exercise of the ordinary and supreme magisterium of the Church, and the nature and character of infallibility. None. You don't know how it operates."

Again convicted by your own words; you need to be looking in a mirror when you say this.

"You can even be of it, and have to have some layman tell you what you don't know. Unbelievable."

Pride, especially false pride, is a most serious sin that has drawn one third of heaven into hell.

Find another Teaching of the Church that you wish to leave on the shelf; or would that leave your shopping cart empty?

I sense anger from you my child; that can be good if it leads you to face the truth about yourself. First comes denial, then anger (there is no room for bargaining here). Eventually you will arrive at acceptance of the truth...this is my hope for you and others like you.

I rest my case.

-- Fr. Paul (pjdoucet@hotmail.com), March 09, 2005.

Pay attention, Emerald. Don't try to be a king. Be a faithful Christian.

You won't suffer for believing in your ordained shepherds. God was there when you were saved for a Catholic, and He placed you in the care of His pastors. God gave you no license to preach to His priest. You seem like those Israelites who murmurred about Moses in the desert.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 09, 2005.

Fr Paul

"you cannot deny that the simple truth that it is Holy Mother Church Herself who has the authority to interprets Her teachings; like it or not, that is the trump card better known as the Holy Spirit."

that's already been done when it comes to the Sacraments. it was written down on paper at Trent and Florence before that.

it had to be done at Trent because protestants were allergising the nature of the Sacraments. reducing them to metaphors.

it's like standing on a beach.

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

"allergising"?!?!

i think that's not a word. though they seemed allergic to the Church teaching.

let's try "allegorising".

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

You can't support a position by choosing which teachings of which holy Councils you accept and which you reject. That makes you, not Trent, not Vatican II, not the Church, the final authority. You quote ancient Councils the way Protestents quote ancient Scriptures, attempting to use them to legitimize your own position, while protesting against teachings of the Catholic Church in the process. You base your protests on your interpretations of the writings of Church Councils. They base their protests on their interpretations of Church Scriptures. What's the difference?

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), March 09, 2005.

"it's like standing on a beach."

Interesting; a genuine Scriptural image. See chapter 12 of St. John's Apocalypse, last verse.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), March 09, 2005.

"Eventually you will arrive at acceptance of the truth...this is my hope for you and others like you."

What you call truth is the denial of the Catholic Faith. I will never deny the Catholic Faith, and will never rest my case.

May our lady make you a faithful servant of her Son's Church.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), March 09, 2005.

"You quote ancient Councils the way Protestents quote ancient Scriptures, attempting to use them to legitimize your own position, while protesting against teachings of the Catholic Church in the process."

doctrinal evolution is the real "protestant" thing going on here. chucking the DoF on the bonfire.

how, just how, do you really reconcile Cantate Domino with Dominus Iesus, without changing the sense of CD?

or how do you reconcile the dogmatic teachings:

a that the Sacraments are necessary for Baptism

b that water is necessary for Baptism

c that Baptism is necessary for Salvation

all as per - Trent,

with any of these other non-Sacramental forms of "baptism" - which are not Sacraments, and which involve no water and, therefore, are not even baptism?

IOW, the invincibly ignorant, the baby in the womb, the other unbaptised [Moslems, Jews, pagans etc] receives NO Sacraments and NO Baptism.

if you believe that the Church has "moved on" -- well it CANNOT do that......

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

a that the Sacraments are necessary for Baptism

b that water is necessary for Baptism

c that Baptism is necessary for Salvation

(a) and (b) are still understood precisely as they have been from Apostolic times. (c) is currently understood in the fuller and more accurate sense that the GRACES of baptism are necessary for salvation, but that we do not attempt to prohibit God from granting those graces when appropriate through other than the usual sacramental means. Why is this a problem?

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), March 09, 2005.

Looks like they don't believe God is interested in souls. Only in rites and only in that rite; not contrition for sin, martyrdom for Christ, not love.

Do they even believe God can do what they say is impossible? No, they don't.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 09, 2005.

"(c) is ***currently*** understood in the fuller and more accurate sense that the GRACES of baptism are necessary for salvation...."

so Dogma evolves? a new "understanding"? that cannot happen.

and, btw, (a) was mistyped: it should read "that the Sacraments are necessary for SALVATION".

this was my mistake.

however, once corrected, we see that this must also evolve in yr analysis -- because the only Sacramental Baptism is by Water.

you'll find that in Vat II or the CCC.

therefore, as i have already posted above, these other "baptisms" are non-Sacramental [and not actually baptisms for that matter].

therefore, you have changed the meaning of 2 dogmatic definitions of the Church.

Jesus said that "unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit,....". Trent and Florence quote this repeatedly when expounding the necessity of water baptism for salvation.

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

If you had control over grammar and syntax you'd at least make sense, even when you're in error.

''--these other "baptisms" are non-Sacramental [and not actually baptisms for that matter].''

+ + +

The word ''sacrament'' means mystery. We have no idea how a sacrament imparts grace (re-birth) but we believe so in FAITH, the ''evidence of things unseen.''

If a sacrament is truth wrapped up in MYSTERY, then how does it follow other mysteries are ''non-sacramental?'' You're trying to say ''false,'' but you can't speak plain English. ---------It isn't false. It's a mystery, and God works in mysterious ways, Yancy. He hasn't explained His ways altogether to men. Yet we believe on faith, faith in GOD. You just DENY, because you don't see any mystery about the sacraments. You're that blind.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 09, 2005.

Mary received the grace of justification decades before Good Friday. She wasn't baptized with water.

So your syllogism is faulty. Justification is an UNMERITABLE GIFT. It just so happens that Our Lord commanded us to baptize people. So for us men and our salvation, sacramental baptism is vital. But for God?

For us, in the visible, Church Militant, a sacrament requires physical signs, spoken words, and a human minister. But we all believe in the Church Suffering and the Church Triumphant, and above all that Jesus Christ is the one ultimately at work in the erection of the flock...

Thus, again, beating the dead horse... our economy of salvation requires the sacrament, but this isn't the only economy because human beings aren't the only members of the Church and we aren't the owners of Grace.

We can't go around preaching people to not baptise their infants or not do all that's required of us because duh, such things have been required of us by Our Lord. But neither can we sit back and claim to know for sure what limits Our Lord has on his power and to whom and how he can grant gifts which are after all is said and done, HIS TO GIVE.

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

Eugene

read Vat II and St Thomas. only Baptism by water is Sacramental. the Sacrament is a "sign" with a hidden real/corporeal sanctification. i've told you this 100 times, old boy!!

Joe

"Mary received the grace of justification decades before Good Friday. She wasn't baptized with water. "

as per other thread, Mary had no Original Sin to be forgiven. She never needed Baptism.

She could not have received Baptism at that time anyway -- because the Sacraments only took effect [roughly] after the Passion. this is in Trent/ Florence.

Mary is exempted from the Decree on Original Sin in Trent. Trent does not apply to Her. She's unique; Her's is a special case.

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

Mary was a human soul. All human souls after Adam fell inherited the fallen nature of man.

Jesus Christ is the sole savior of the human race - including Mary. She proclaims in the Magnificat that God is her savior...but according to you, she didn't need baptism because she didn't have original sin, so how could she call God her savior?

She could only because YOU misunderstand the whole point of the discussion, namely, that Mary didn't suffer from original sin because God justified her soul at the moment of its creation in virtue of her future son's atoning sacrifice on the cross which alone paid the price for Adam's fall.

My point is that God is the author of all grace and especially the grace of justification - and Catholic theology conclusively states that this grace was given to Mary IN ADVANCE, and thus, NOT SACRAMENTALLY, proving once again that I'm right when I say there there two economies of salvation - that for us men and that one from God directly and miraculously (i.e. ministered directly by the power of God and not through the ministry of men).

You just miss the whole point as though it wasn't made.

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

Joe

you could be forgiven for thinking that i do because i dwelt, by my own admission, too much on the New Law/ Old Law point - but that's probably a consequence of spending too much time talking with others here that do not have the knolwdge that you do.

... but do i miss the point if i emphasise the uniqueness of Mary? the "absolute" uniquemess of Mary.

that's why i keep going back to Miracles.

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

One exception to the rule still means that the rule isn't a categorical principle, i.e. meaning that it's IMPOSSIBLE for God to act outside of the rule He has revealed as his will FOR US.

By definition then, speculating about what God could do on God's own time and in God's own manner doesn't contradict Papal or Counciliar statements that FOR US baptism is essential and there is no other way...because there ISN'T...FOR US.

That just doesn't mean that there is NO OTHER WAY PERIOD. Because, at least in Mary's case and possibily in John the Baptists case too, human beings were BORN without original sin.

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

"Because, at least in Mary's case and possibily in John the Baptists case too, human beings were BORN without original sin."

dogmatically - as in, de fide - i believe this is only true in the case of Mary. Trent does not exclude anyone else.

from Adam to ALL his progeny [bar Mary] passed the sin.

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

Ian, you didn't read Joe carefully enough. He said "born," not "conceived." There has long been theological speculation that St. John the Baptist was conceived with original sin, but was born without it because Jesus removed it "in utero" at the Visitation when the baby leaped for joy at the presence of his Savior. That is why, some say, the only birthdays of creatures that are celebrated on the Church's calendar are those of Our Lady and St. John the Baptist.

-- (KGreene@eireworld.com), March 09, 2005.

I meant to say, Ian, that your error in reading Joe correctly is a symptom of a condition from which you suffer: ABILITY TO MAKE HUMAN ERRORS.

Knowing that you suffer from this ought to keep you humble enough to realize that you could be wrong about all the other stuff about which you argue ad nauseam here.

All of the orthodox Catholics here know that you are wrong about all the other stuff because of your condition of susceptibility to human error.

-- (KGreene@eireworld.com), March 09, 2005.

So, your interpretation of the situation is that Ian has misinterpreted what Joe was interpreting about the proper interpretations of the Church's interpretation of it's own interpretations of Catholic doctrine?

"All of the orthodox Catholics here know that you are wrong about all the other stuff..."

I wouldn't say that. Greene. I didn't really see a problem with anything Ian said about anything.

What in particular were you refering to? Let's discuss it. You can tell me the problem and what the truth is.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), March 09, 2005.

There it is, KenGreene-- The boy can dance. If anyone calls for Blah-zzay! Emerald is on deck first!

Not much depth, but style to spare.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 10, 2005.

"You are not up against some people posting in an internet forum, you are up against Holy Mother Church Herself in Her authentic authority, the Holy Teaching Office of the Magisterium."

Actually the way they hold to teachings and words of Trent I would say that it is YOU, who is up against Holy Mother Church Herself in Her authentic authority the Holy Teaching Office of the Magisterium.

Perhaps one of the biggest failures to V-II was the failed communication regarding the changes and providing the supporting links for people to gain the fuller understanding of the changes.

At some point the Church may actually need to own up to a few issues, Or continue on the basis that if we wait long enough the problems will die off. But I suspect that the Good Catholics will continue to bear fruit and to multiple.

Perhaps if V-II had happened maybe 15-20 years earlier it would have better avoided the social changes which were already predicted and in the works. The transition could have been less radical and allowed for better training. Instead of allowing a free for all which occured with the social crap at the same time.

Those who choose of their own free will to hold to the tighter standards will be judged accordingly, as will others who choose the broader based standards. And if either set proves to be in error they will be bound tighter to those errors especially since supporting positions have been offered to each to study, and pray for the Knowledge, Understanding and Wisdom to make the correct choice.

-- Michael G. (NoEmail@Nowhere.no), March 10, 2005.

"So, your interpretation of the situation is that Ian has misinterpreted what Joe was interpreting about the proper interpretations of the Church's interpretation of it's own interpretations of Catholic doctrine? "

WOW! I bet you can't say that 3 times in a row quickly, without stumbling.

-- Michael G. (NoEmail@Nowhere.no), March 10, 2005.

Kenny: "All of the orthodox Catholics here know that you are wrong about all the other stuff because of your condition of susceptibility to human error."

####..."orthodox Catholics"?? OK let's ask Emerald if i'm wrong. he's orthodox. i'll take it from him. on the chin. eat my hat. and lot's of humble pie.

btw, in order to conduct a critical assessment of my posts, you might wander right back up to the start of this thread, where you will see 2 supporting quotes for BoD from Fr Paul. [yes, a miserly 2. there are 100's against, btw.]

one of Fr Paul's sources is a letter from a Pope. the other, an amazing attempt to twist the words of a Council to mean something they don't.

read my posts above and show me how "the laver of regeneration OR the desire thereof" can mean "either/or" when (a) the supporting Scripture requires both, and (b) you cannot "baptise" someone by pouring water on them if they do not desire to receive the said water. look at the source Latin "sine ...aut". read the Councils as a whole rather than picking, quite literally, on ONE WORD.

...and whilst we are considering St John the Baptist, haven't you noticed how these "proofs" of extra-Sacramental Baptism seem always involve someone not just very unique, but someone born into the Old Law.

does Mary's case prove anything? no, She's a one-off. a completely, uniquely, special case. She was born without Original Sin. She is spoken about in the first and last books of the Bible.

St Dismas - another favourite. but another creature of the Old Law. the Sacraments did not beome obligatory until after the Passion and possibly sometime thereafter. he would have been circumcised, no? "All are agreed in saying that original sin was remitted in circumcision": St Thomas. furthermore, he was on the cross next to Jesus. Jesus forgave St Dismas. a very unique situation indeed.

St John the Baptist and the visitation. you describe this sanctification as "theological speculation". the Angel Gabriel said he would be full of the Spirit whilst in the womb. that seems to amount to in utero sanctification - right enough. however, wasn't he was a pretty unique man. how many kids' births are foretold by an Angel or predicted in Scripture? how many kids' names are prescribed by God? how many kids grow up to baptise Jesus? ..... and he died before the Sacraments became obligatory and necessary for Salvation. so we are comparing, again, apples and pears.

these are all extraordinary circumstances. in many [all?] cases they amount to Mysteries. but they are called "Mysteries" for a reason.

Kenny: "Knowing that you suffer from this ought to keep you humble enough to realize that you could be wrong about all the other stuff about which you argue ad nauseam here."

####this applies to us all. do you accept that? if you think i'm wrong, prove it.

i am very willing to say that i missed Joe's point. i can be honest about it, no problem. Joe, i'm sorry. i missed yr point. i should have read yr post more closely.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 10, 2005.

If any soul can receive the grace of Justification without water baptism - as we have seen that at least two have, PRIOR TO BIRTH...then I think you have to agree that it's possible for almighty God to grant that grace to human beings in ways OTHER than sacramental baptism.

But again, FOR US, there is the Church and the sacraments. As far as we are concerned and our efforts are concerned, we are bound to the sacramental economy of grace...but GOD isn't.

For all we know - and I think we have good reasons to think so - God could be granting the unmeritable, free gift of Justice to every unborn child killed in the womb via the ministry of each soul's guardian angel. If you think h20 is essential for the coming of the Holy Spirit on a soul (why this is metaphysically so is beyond me), then fine, the amniotic fluid is mostly water, so there....

God appears to the soul, the soul desires God, the angel ministers the words of baptism and viola! the soul is justified and so saved.

Seems pretty straight forward to me.

But all those who are born...well, sure, they ought to be baptised.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), March 10, 2005.

I am really getting tired of repeating myself.

Joe has explained to you over and over again that WE are indeed bound by the Sacraments and to seek them.

Now listen closely because this is the summary of the entire Gospel:

SALVATION COMES THROUGH OBEDIENCE. THAT IS WHAT JESUS TAUGHT, (read the Word Himself in Hebrews if you don't believe me: Heb. 5:7- 9) AND THAT IS WHAT HE DEMANDS. WHAT JOE HAS SAID TIME AND TIME AGAIN AMOUNTS TO OUR BEING OBEDIENT. CONDEMNATION COMES FROM DISOBEDIENCE (such as not listening to the Teaching Authority of the Church). THOSE WHO KNOW IN THEIR HEART WHAT JESUS WANTS, AND REFUSE ARE DISOBEDIENT; THOSE WHO DO NOT KNOW IN THEIR HEARTS ARE NOT DISOBEDIENT.

But alas, this is but a repeat of one of, if not the very first of my posts in this forum where I quoted St. Maximilian Kolbe.

BTW, that's true obedience, not the false kind of the Pharisees and so called Traditional Catholics.

-- Fr. Paul (pjdoucet@hotmail.com), March 10, 2005.

The wonder of it is how little value Ian places on God's love. He still insists a St Dismas can only be saved in the Old Law of Moses! Never deeming it worthwhile to say --Saved by Jesus for LOVE!

The awful truth is, Dismas was condemned to die and fall into everlasting fire, had the Old Law been his only recourse. It didn't matter when Dismas was born. He was a criminal. --But Ian says the observance of the Mosaic Law saved him. There is contorted exegesis if it ever existed! How do you overlook Christ's love?

Ian: once more, for the tenth time: the love and forgiveness of JESUS CHRIST (grace) is what saved St Dismas. And; think now: Jesus Christ is the New Testament in His flesh and blood.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 10, 2005.

Eugene

coming from someone who posted that the New Covenant began at the Incarnation, that's a tad rich!!

the point -- which is very simple -- is that the Sacraments became NECESSARY after the Passion. St Dismas did not need to be baptised to be saved.

therefore whether or not he was baptised is irrelevant.

source: Florence, St Thomas, etc.

Fr Paul

obedience saves? sola oboedientia?

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 10, 2005.

--''whether or not he was baptised is irrelevant.''

Then he must have died in his sins. No other way to be saved.

He confessed clearly he deserved the crucifixion for his crimes.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 10, 2005.

"obedience saves? sola oboedientia?"

Go ahead and deny it...are you that foolish? I hope this foolishness comes from the fact that you have not read Hebrews, for if you have then you are truly blind. I challenge you to find a competent authority who would say I am wrong about obedience. I will be waiting.

-- Fr. Paul (pjdoucet@hotmail.com), March 10, 2005.

I will be waiting, but I won't hold my breath. I'm taking off for a bit; haven't been home for over a month.

-- Fr. Paul (pjdoucet@hotmail.com), March 10, 2005.

Fr Paul: "I will be waiting, but I won't hold my breath. I'm taking off for a bit; haven't been home for over a month."

obedience?

babies aren't obedient. they are innocent. not obedient.

people who have never heard the Gospel cannot be obedient. at best, there is a concurrence.

St Athanasius was disobedient.

even Mother Theresa: "I’ve always said we should help a Hindu become a better Hindu, a Muslim become a better Muslim, a Catholic become a better Catholic." is that what the Pope teaches?

"THOSE WHO KNOW IN THEIR HEART WHAT JESUS WANTS, AND REFUSE ARE DISOBEDIENT; THOSE WHO DO NOT KNOW IN THEIR HEARTS ARE NOT DISOBEDIENT."

doesn't this amount to "go where your conscience leads you".

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 10, 2005.

Fr Paul

"Justification by faith only, thus treated, is an erroneous, and justification by obedience is a defective, view of Christian doctrine."

Lectures on the Doctrine of Justification: John Henry Newman

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 10, 2005.

Yancy said:
--''whether or not he was baptised is irrelevant.''

I said:
Then he must have died in his sins. No other way to be saved. Saint Dismas confessed clearly he deserved the crucifixion for his crimes.

Luke, 23 :41

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 10, 2005.

"I am really getting tired of repeating myself."

Maybe you shouldn't be repeating yourself. Maybe you should have a fresh look at the entire debate with an eye towards Faith- seeking-understanding.

"Joe has explained to you over and over again that WE are indeed bound by the Sacraments and to seek them."

Not really. He makes exceptions to the sacraments, believing that salvation can be attained in a bypass of the sacraments. So no, I wouldn't count this as being bound by the sacraments.

What's more, using the word "bound" infers a necessity of precept only, and does not necessarily include the necessity of means.

"Now listen closely because this is the summary of the entire Gospel:"

"SALVATION COMES THROUGH OBEDIENCE. THAT IS WHAT JESUS TAUGHT, (read the Word Himself in Hebrews if you don't believe me: Heb. 5:7- 9) AND THAT IS WHAT HE DEMANDS. WHAT JOE HAS SAID TIME AND TIME AGAIN AMOUNTS TO OUR BEING OBEDIENT."

The true nature of obedience is often twisted in an attempt to make appear as if traditional Catholics are forced by obedience, to believe things which call their Catholic principles into question. Gladly, no such demand exists. We are not bound to any obedience which would require us to deny an article of Faith. You might refer to St. Thomas Aquinas' treatment of the various kinds of obedience, both true and false.

"CONDEMNATION COMES FROM DISOBEDIENCE (such as not listening to the Teaching Authority of the Church)."

Then perhaps you and Joe ought to listen to the teaching authority of the Supreme Magisterium of the Catholic Church when it has defined and declared that there is no salvation outside the Church, and has repeated this truth countless times over in statements of reiteration of the same. I would say, hey, look in the mirror.

"THOSE WHO KNOW IN THEIR HEART WHAT JESUS WANTS, AND REFUSE ARE DISOBEDIENT; THOSE WHO DO NOT KNOW IN THEIR HEARTS ARE NOT DISOBEDIENT."

Doesn't mean they're saved, though. No one will be punished for things for which they are not guilty. But this is not salvific.

But this angle of approach you take here is the basic modernist deceit that tries to make it look as if those who are in the Church are outside it, and those who are outside of the Church are in some way inside it. It's perverse, really. It's totally upside down. It's tantamount to calling good evil, and evil, good.

"But alas, this is but a repeat of one of, if not the very first of my posts in this forum where I quoted St. Maximilian Kolbe."

Kolbe never meant anything like what you would want his words to mean. He's my confirmation Saint, btw. One of the things I liked about him was that he wasn't under any delusion about the fact that the Freemasons were well at work within the Church. Did you know that? It makes for a really interesting topic. Some other time, maybe.

"BTW, that's true obedience, not the false kind of the Pharisees and so called Traditional Catholics."

Ever stop to think about something key here... in regards to the Pharisees. Weren't they in positions of authority? And lording it over their flock, too? Ringing the bell of their own devotion and loyalty?

Now let's have a look at the trads. You would be the first to admit, they have no authority. Which is true. They're mostly simple laity.

All right. Who fits in better? Us, or people with you?

Don't get all hot under the collar if the finger is pointed in your direction.

After all, you pointed it this way first. Did you not?

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), March 10, 2005.

''Joe has explained to you over and over again that WE are indeed bound by the Sacraments and to seek them.'' Fr Paul. Sophistry from Emerald: ''Not really. He makes exceptions to the sacraments, believing that salvation can be attained in a bypass of the sacraments.'' --GOD makes those exceptions, Sophist.

''So no, I wouldn't count this as being bound by the sacraments.''

Those who have heard and believed the Holy Gospel ARE bound. Joe tells it perfectly plain. But since you defer a look into his posts out of arrogance, it goes over yuour head. Typical of Emerald. He can't be intellectually honest.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 10, 2005.

"Those who have heard and believed the Holy Gospel ARE bound. Joe tells it perfectly plain."

A theological partial truth. All those who have heard the Holy Gospel are bound: true.

But all souls require the sacraments for salvation.

No, the necessity is not limited only to those who have heard. The necessity extends to all souls, because of Original and Actual sin.

That's the reality of the condition of man; that's the reality of the remedy of the holy sacraments.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), March 11, 2005.

"Ever stop to think about something key here... in regards to the Pharisees. Weren't they in positions of authority? And lording it over their flock, too? Ringing the bell of their own devotion and loyalty?

Now let's have a look at the trads. You would be the first to admit, they have no authority. Which is true. They're mostly simple laity.

All right. Who fits in better? Us, or people with you?

Don't get all hot under the collar if the finger is pointed in your direction.

After all, you pointed it this way first. Did you not?"

---------------------------------------------------------

I think this is just a complicated way of saying "I KNOW YOU ARE, BUT WHAT AM I?"

And the Pharisees comparison holds no weight here. Jesus told his followers to follow all the Pharisees said, but not what they did. So, either side calling the other a Pharisee means we should believe that side completely. Not exactly the claim either one wants to make.

As for the argument at hand, considering the Church made it through 1900+ years without diverging from the Truth, it seems preposterous to claim that now the Church has diverged.

Ok, let's say I am a patient who needs a very precise surgery of some kind to save my life. Do I want a non-doctor to prefer to perform surgery or a collection of the world's greatest doctors?

-Tim

-- Tim K. (tk4386@juno.com), March 11, 2005.

The obligation is true. Some would not fulfill it through no fault of their own. Even so, the vast majority then, would die in their sin. Christ came to save them, but they were uable or unwilling to avail themselves. Not because they rejected faith or salvation. But nevertheless, they are damned.

Whoever did NOT die in their sin and somehow died in grace would be saved anyway. God can forgive sin. He will not reject a contrite soul and unjustly condemn him/her to everlasting punishment. This is an article of faith just as pertinent in the Church as any other.

The only thing which bars the way to heaven is sin. Christ said we must be born again precisely because we die to sin in the sacrament. Perfect contrition of the soul calls for God's forgiveness. His forgiveness washes away sin just as surely as His sacrament washes it away.

Not every soul may be given the potential for perfect contrition. But we can be sure that there ARE some. Particularly so if a contrite soul has suffered grievously in this life; in such a way that God's divine compassion is aroused. --In this wonderful compassion and love, God is moved to shower grace upon him or her in abundance, and move him to perfect contrition and love for his Creator. We see this clearly in the book of Job. All of this is clearly revealed in the Bible.

It has to compensate in some cases for the unbending Justice of the Church's dogma. WHY??? Because God is LOVE.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 11, 2005.

Ian,

You totally missed my point on the obedience issue. I will say no more on it, as no more can be said, and you would still not understand. As I said above, take my words exactly as they are and present them to a competent authority who understands the English language. Guaranteed I am not wrong.

-- Fr. Paul (pjdoucet@hotmail.com), March 12, 2005.

You're going to have to come up with something better than concluding that your opponent in the debate is an illiterate and incompetent moron.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), March 12, 2005.

Why would you debate a Catholic priest on the subject of obedience, Emerald? He's right; and you can't read English. And, BTW-- a Moron is relatively easy to teach. You aren't a Moron, since you can't be taught; you are just a fanatic.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 12, 2005.

You're going to have to come up with something better than concluding that your opponent in the debate is an illiterate and incompetent fanatic.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), March 12, 2005.

A conclusion is a conclusion. If I might add, you aren't a real emerald, but a diamond. In the rough.

The trick is cutting you; and having something bright left after all the BS is lopped off. Your good facets are there, under all that affectation.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 12, 2005.

"Look here, by heaven! Have you lost your mind? If you want to be mad, I will make you welcome! Nobody I know is bowled over by your big words, so help me God! Hand me that ax -- I will grant you the gift you beg me to give!"

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), March 13, 2005.

Fr Paul:

"You totally missed my point on the obedience issue. I will say no more on it, as no more can be said, and you would still not understand. As I said above, take my words exactly as they are and present them to a competent authority who understands the English language. Guaranteed I am not wrong."

if you have a point, make it. if not, say so.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 13, 2005.

The Church isn't a competent authority regarding its own teachings?? Not to a schismatic I suppose.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), March 13, 2005.

Ian,

Christ learned obedience through suffering; He was obedient unto death; His Passion was ultimate obedience; He commands us to be obedient; therefore it is our obedience married to His obedience that saves, as it is the obedience of Christ and none other that saves.

What is Faith but obedience to God's promise? What are good works but obedience to Christ's command to love? What is Baptism but the obedience of Faith? What is...? etc.? etc.? etc.?

-- Fr. Paul (pjdoucet@hotmail.com), March 14, 2005.

Where di the bold come from?

-- Fr. Paul (pjdoucet@hotmail.com), March 14, 2005.

Bravo, Father Paul ! ! !

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 14, 2005.

Fr Paul

you originally said this: "THOSE WHO KNOW IN THEIR HEART WHAT JESUS WANTS, AND REFUSE ARE DISOBEDIENT; THOSE WHO DO NOT KNOW IN THEIR HEARTS ARE NOT DISOBEDIENT. "

how does that follow from what you've just posted about the odedience of Our Lord?

you are proposing something along the lines of "follow yr conscience", aren't you? or "sincerity saves"? what is it you are getting at here? i am confused.

i suspect also that we need to differentiate between the Sacrifice of Our Lord and the lives and self-sacrifice of the Martyrs or the Saints.

isn't there a great deal of difference between the death of a martyr - who may well act out of obedience - and the 100% voluntary martyrdom of the Second Person who did so through love for us, and by which act we were all redeemed? both show obedience, but one is far more than an exercise in obedience. apples and pears.

therefore, we ask: to whom or what were the Martyrs and the Saints obedient? how were they obedient?

Cantate Domino talks about Martyrs. their martyrdom is in vain unless they die in the unity and bosom of the Church.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 14, 2005.

The answer should come from Father Paul, since he's being questioned.

I only want to bump this thread up so that he'll see it sooner.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 14, 2005.

Ian,

All are bound to follow their conscience, but it must be an informed conscience.

"isn't there a great deal of difference between the death of a martyr - who may well act out of obedience - and the 100% voluntary martyrdom of the Second Person who did so through love for us, and by which act we were all redeemed? both show obedience, but one is far more than an exercise in obedience. apples and pears."

Apples and apples. Both are acts of love and obedience; more precisely, acts of obedience to Love.

"therefore, we ask: to whom or what were the Martyrs and the Saints obedient? how were they obedient?"

Your kidding aren't you! You need to ask this? Ok maybe you do because your are theologically impaired.

They were obedient first to their conscience which dictated that they be obedient to the Love of God. In as much as we are imaged from God we are obedient to our true dignity when we are obedient to God, and vice versa (when we are obedient to God we are obedient to our true dignity).

"Cantate Domino talks about Martyrs. their martyrdom is in vain unless they die in the unity and bosom of the Church"

Define this unity.

-- Fr. Paul (pjdoucet@hotmail.com), March 14, 2005.

Fr Paul

1. "All are bound to follow their conscience, but it must be an informed conscience."

that is a contradiction.

HYPOTHETICAL example: i reject the Church because of her terrible history. Christ would never have segregated the Jews. Christ would never have launched the Crusades. Christ would never have burnt peole at the stake or imprisoned Galileo. Christ never meant for there to be pervert Popes such as Alexander IV. Christ would never have wanted his Vicar to be carried around on shoulders in such a pompous fashion. Chrits would never have allowed the abuses in the convents of young people. Christ would never have made unmarried teenagers hand their kids over for adoption.

i reject on the basis of an in-depth study of the brutal history of the Church. i do not accept that the Holy Ghost is with the Church because He would never have allowed this to happen.

there's an informed conscience that has led people into protestantism.

is that OK?

2. Cantate Domino - Unity

let's start by seeing what CD says:

"...no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church."

OK, the Unity clearly is not a pan-Christian Unity because it excludes Christian ***martyrs***. that's a powerful condemnation.

read Florence. Unity is acceptance of the Faith. that's very explicit too in Vat I. the Faith, the Sacraments. no mention of invisible membership, or membership by desire, whether explicit or implicit [usually involuntary!!].

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 15, 2005.

"What is Baptism but the obedience of Faith? What is...?"

A sacrament. Which is a reality which is not defined by the phrase "the obedience of Faith". Never has the Church summed up it's existence as such.

Council of Trent, Session 7, Canon 8:

If anyone says that by the sacraments of the New Law grace is not conferred ex opere operato, but that faith alone in the divine promise is sufficient to obtain grace, let him be anathema.

Fr. Paul. Take a step back and look at the way you are approaching this discussion. You may not mean to or see it, but what you are actually doing is questioning and testing the Faith of Catholics.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), March 15, 2005.

"Define this unity."

The Church has already infallibly defined it. Read the bull Unam Sanctam of Pope Boniface VIII in 1302.

-- Emerald (em@cox.net), March 15, 2005.

Sophistry once again from Emerald: What is Baptism but the obedience of Faith? What is...?" ''A sacrament. Which is a reality,''--''

Very deficient theolologically, Emmie. It is obedience to the Word of God; as in John, 3:5) That's ALL.

The word baptism could be inferred as baptism in the Jordan, by water and not the Holy Spirit.

''Sacramentum'' defines mystery, not obedience. Obedience of faith must mean JUST what Father Paul says. --It is followed by the mystery, Baptism. He isn't relying on sophistry, but on the Church's teaching. Fr Paul's been aptly formed in Catholic Theology. Emerald wasn't; not even as well as I. And we all know I invent nothing; I repeat the Church's doctrine in the best way God allows. WITHOUT checking Google.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 15, 2005.

"I repeat the Church's doctrine in the best way God allows. WITHOUT checking Google."

that's at the heart of the problem, old friend. no offence intended.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 15, 2005.

Theologically, I'm secure enough today to see when Satan lays a snare in my way. He does it in your post here. It's an invitation to be proud of my religious foundation and knowledge of the faith. To fall into the sin of self-absorption, as you and Emerald have.

So-- without any hope of self-aggrandizing myself;

I take google for an amatur's resource. My faith was all acquired over 60 years of love for God and his saints. From a family always receptive to god's grace, and the teachings of countless good priests and many nuns, and the reading of scores of holy books, all with the Church's imprimatur.

I don't think St Paul, Thomas Aquinas, Theresa of Avila Chesterton or Belloq needed Google; Google needed them. I learned from them.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 15, 2005.

as i've said before, Eugene, Hans Kungs has 10 years on you and probably read and understood a lot more than you.

so what?

i personally think you need to be careful in how you read Fr Paul's posts. you know you're chucking the Sacraments out with the bathwater here?

go back up to Emerald's post and ask yourself just why the Sacraments work "ex opere operato" if they can be had by desire.

ask yourself: what is the difference between sola fide and the Catholic Faith?

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 15, 2005.

anyways, i'm now totally lost. congrats Eugene!

where was this thread going? what has become its subject?

i think we are talking about the Sacraments -- and "obedience" -- and Salvation?

maybe that's where we go?

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 15, 2005.

Yancy: Hans Kung and you may check Google to your hearts' content. I like my own spiritual providence and it's never failed me. Does yours compare? Not this time.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 15, 2005.

OK Gene

WHY do the Sacraments work "ex opere operato" if they can be had by desire?

use yr "own spiritual providence". or Google. up to you.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 15, 2005.

Because a sacrament actually causes grace; as well as signifying the grace under form and matter in the rite. You confuse the rite for Christ's grace. But the Source of grace is Christ, who instituted the sacraments, and gave them to His faithful in the Church. He can give that same sanctifying grace in any manner He desires; as well as in her rites.

We know it because of the many acts of love, mercy, healing and forgiveness He shows us in the gospels.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 15, 2005.

Gene

***WHY*** do the Sacraments work "ex opere operato" if they can be had by desire?

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 15, 2005.

Baptism can't ''be had by Desire'' God can determine that a soul,

When the soul is in ignorance of the sacrament (invincible ignorance) --yet makes perfect contrition or charity, or dies for Christ,

a soul ''WOULD HAVE DESIRED'' Baptism. And God ought to know!

Nobody says ''the Sacraments work'' all that way. Ex opero is for the Church. ''Desire or Blood'' open supernatural avenues for BAPTISM, not other sacraments. God loves repenetent souls, not only one sacrament.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 15, 2005.

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

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 15, 2005.

"Sophistry once again from Emerald: What is Baptism but the obedience of Faith? What is...?" ''A sacrament. Which is a reality,''- -''"

Sophistry. You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.

"Very deficient theolologically, Emmie."

Sure, Gene. Gene, what's sophistry? Also, what is theology? I would appreciate it if you would answer those two questions.

"It is obedience to the Word of God; as in John, 3:5) That's ALL."

So, all baptism is is obedience to the Word of God? Sorry, that's not correct.

"He isn't relying on sophistry, but on the Church's teaching."

Let me give this a shot, just for fun. Gene: You're a sophist who does not rely on the Church's teaching.

"Fr Paul's been aptly formed in Catholic Theology."

How do you know this? From what I've read so far, this is clearly not bearing itself out.

"Emerald wasn't; not even as well as I."

You're not doing so well either.

"And we all know I invent nothing;"

Yes you do.

"I repeat the Church's doctrine in the best way God allows."

No you don't.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), March 15, 2005.

No longer giving us pat answers, Hmm? Just flat denials. OK; that's much better here than sophistry.

Look up that word. And let me know what it is; in case you can contradict me? Father is a priest of the catholic Church. I stated, ''Fr Paul's been aptly formed in Catholic Theology.''

''How do you know this? From what I've read so far, this is clearly not bearing itself out.------''

That means you're a theologian? I knew you were crazy. Now this! He's qualified to knock a priest's formation and correct him online.

Did you suppose you were being borne out about this whole theology of Baptism? Because you quoted one or two dogmatic declarations (which we don't contradict one bit)--? ? ? Why don't you at least tell what Thomas Aquinas College taught about sanctifying grace? Something YOU can finally 'bear out''.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 15, 2005.

"No longer giving us pat answers, Hmm? Just flat denials."

I thought I'd give your own style a whirl.

"OK; that's much better here than sophistry."

You often accuse people of things they aren't guilty of. Over and over and over. How am I supposed to stop you? Go right ahead and call me a sophist.

"Father is a priest of the catholic Church. I stated, ''Fr Paul's been aptly formed in Catholic Theology.''"

You have this strange idea that it necessarily follows that if one is a Catholic priest, then by the fact alone, it is beyond a shadow of a doubt that they've had a good formation. Talk about sophistry. Especially when the what's offered of formation in many seminaries today is downright horrid, and only those with their eyes wide shut wouldn't know it.

''How do you know this? From what I've read so far, this is clearly not bearing itself out.------'' "That means you're a theologian?"

It seems to have made a theologian out of you...

"I knew you were crazy. Now this! He's qualified to knock a priest's formation and correct him online."

Possibly.

"Did you suppose you were being borne out about this whole theology of Baptism? Because you quoted one or two dogmatic declarations (which we don't contradict one bit)--? ? ? Why don't you at least tell what Thomas Aquinas College taught about sanctifying grace? Something YOU can finally 'bear out''."

You sound angry.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), March 15, 2005.

"I don't think St Paul, Thomas Aquinas, Theresa of Avila Chesterton or Belloq needed Google; Google needed them. I learned from them."

That's cute, Gene.

Hilaire Belloc:

"Terms are used so loosely nowadays; there is such a paralysis in the power of definition, that almost any sentence using current phrases may be misinterpreted."

From "The Great Heresies", the section entitles "The Modern Phase".

You learned from him... are you sure? Read this, from the same section:

"When the Modern Attack was gathering, a couple of lifetimes ago, while it was still confined to a small number of academic men, the first assault upon reason began. It seemed to make but little progress outside a restricted circle. The plain man and his common- sense (which are the strongholds of reason) were not affected. Today they are.

But reason today is everywhere decried. The ancient process of conviction by argument and proof is replaced by reiterated affirmation; and almost all the terms which were the glory of reason carry with them now an atmosphere of contempt.

continued:

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), March 15, 2005.

See what has happened for instance to the word "logic," to the word "controversy"; note such popular phrases as "No one yet was ever convinced by argument," or again, "Anything may be proved," or "That may be all right in logic, but in practice it is very different." The speech of men is becoming saturated with expressions which everywhere connote contempt for the use of the intelligence.

But the Faith and the use of the intelligence are inextricably bound up. The use of reason is a main part_or rather the foundation_of all inquiry into the highest things. It was precisely because reason was given this divine authority that the Church proclaimed mystery_that is, admitted reason to have its limits. It had to be so, lest the absolute powers ascribed to reason should lead to the exclusion of truths which the reason might accept but could not demonstrate. Reason was limited by mystery only more to enhance the sovereignty of reason in its own sphere.

When reason is dethroned, not only is Faith dethroned (the two subversions go together) but every moral and legitimate activity of the human soul is dethroned at the same time. There is no God. So the words "God is Truth" which the mind of Christian Europe used as a postulate in all it did, cease to have meaning. None can analyse the rightful authority of government nor set bounds to it. In the absence of reason, political authority reposing on mere force is boundless. And reason is thus made a victim because Humanity itself is what the Modern Attack is destroying in its false religion of humanity. Reason being the crown of man and at the same time his distinguishing mark, the Anarchs march against reason as their principle enemy."

Gene, this guy punishes your entire approach to all of these discussions.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), March 15, 2005.

Emerald! If I were angry I wouldn't even discuss these things with you. I'd refer to them indirectly speaking of a 3rd party. I find you hard to communicate with, is all. And it is because you resort to sophistry and intellectual dishonesty. Merriam Webster Dictionary:

''Sophism, an argument apparently correct in form but actually invalid; especially: such an argument used to deceive.''

You fall back on this repeatedly; claiming I've disputed dogmas, or quoted only theories. But I haven't. You're intent on deceiving the others who see these posts.

And the most I say about you is you're elitist and a sophist. Sometimes pharisaical. Never have I said you were schismatic. Nor heretical nor even a false Catholic. You're a fine Catholic who is biased against my faith. What is my faith? Catholic.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 16, 2005.

You suppose Belloq denies the faith? I'm sorry for you. You must be sick. this quote: ''Faith and the use of the intelligence are inextricably bound up. The use of reason is a main part_or rather the foundation_of all inquiry into the highest things. It was precisely because reason was given this divine authority that the Church proclaimed mystery_that is, admitted reason to have its limits. It had to be so, lest the absolute powers ascribed to reason should lead to the exclusion of truths which the reason might accept but could not demonstrate. Reason was limited by mystery only more to enhance the sovereignty of reason in its own sphere.'' --This cannot be faulted. Belloque was correct. If reason was allowed supremity, soon only what could be demonstrated would be considered reasonable; excluding what is known by faith! he is defending FAITH. Can't you read? Whereas, by dogmatic authority, reason is no longer given any power over faith, which can't always prove what God reveals, in a laboratory. And instead reason is only supreme in its own sphere-- the human intellect. Not in the realm of the spirit, where faith rules supreme. ,p> This is odd to you? I thought you were brilliant? Didn't Joe say you were somewhat brilliant?

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 16, 2005.

"You suppose Belloq denies the faith?"

No; actually, I like Hilaire Belloc. You got me totally wrong.

Gene, what am I going to do with you, man? I've been trying to help you all this time, and you keep trying to shoot me down. A mistake like this actually makes me feel better... anything to let me know your heart's in the right place is a confort. The personal attacks I can handle without a problem. But wondering if somebody is doing it innocently or purposefully is a whole nuther animal.

If there's anything I'd like to do, it would be to point you in the direction of your real enemies, which are enemies of the Catholic Church. At this rate, I'd have to turn you 180 degrees around.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), March 16, 2005.

"You fall back on this repeatedly; claiming I've disputed dogmas, or quoted only theories. But I haven't. You're intent on deceiving the others who see these posts."

You know what I'd really like to see them do, in all honesty? With the Mother of God as my witness, I wish they would all do two things.

1. Say the Rosary every day, every single day without fail or with as much consistency as is possible, and with as much reflection on the mysteries as possible, and

2. Go visit Christ in the Blessed Sacrament at least once a week.

Is that overly pious? If so, I don't give a rat's whatever. Does that make me holy? No.

Is it the right thing to do, based truth, and in conformity with truth? Yes.

People need to find themselves a traditional Mass to go to as well.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), March 16, 2005.

Dear Emerald;
When you say THEM, it becomes apparent once more you divide the faithful into two camps. You and your '' traditional Mass to go to,'' for the elitist and foolish,

(I assist at the Mass in vernacular and am MORE than satified it is the equal of your preferred liturgy)

And THEM; the poor saps you look down your nose at. Who need YOU to tell us about the Rosary. Need YOU to say ''Visit the Blessed Sacrament,'' Need YOU for any ''based truth, conformity with truth,'' because, of course-- We don't know any truth, do we? We need YOU to show us where to worship, and what not to do or believe.

You slipped the other night and betrayed yourself, admitting you see TWO Churches. Them and You. --You are a divider of the faithful, Sir. I only have one Church. You should know by now which She is. And I don't have to apologise for my Church.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 16, 2005.

You're merely spinning my position.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), March 16, 2005.