. . . thus giving it a 5-Catholic majority:
10) Meat-less Fridays all year round in the Supreme Court cafeteria;
9) Oral arguments in Latin;
8)
The bones of [first] Chief Justice [John Jay] Marshall will be disinterred and placed in a
glass coffin in the center of the Supreme Court bench;7) Collections between each session of oral argument;
6) Supreme Court windows replaced with stained glass;
5)
On close votes, the Justices will consult a statue of St. Thomas More.
If the statue weeps, they affirm; if no tears, then they reverse.4) Incense at the start of each session;
3) Supreme Court opinions will be deemed infallible and unreviewable by any earthly authority [Ed. – Sorry – that does not appear to be a change at all]
2) Catechism of the Catholic Church will now be "persuasive authority";
And, the number one change which a Catholic majority would make to the Supreme Court . . .
1) Wednesday night bingo!
CHT: Southern Appeal.
Well now as every good Catholic knows, Bingo isn’t on Wednesday night. It’s on Friday. 😉
How about “Mandatory one hour fast before any ruling is handed down.”
How about “All decisions will start off with an irrevelant joke, be limited to two minutes, and be written by an online canned-decision writing service.”
A five-person majority would confirm the rumor that Anthony Kennedy is Catholic. I’m having a hard time believing it.
How about the judges have to wear robes that correspond to the feast of the day; red for martyrs (esp for Sts Isaac Jogues and Jean de Brebeuf), white for non-martyrs (esp Americans), green for ordinary days, purple for penance for the anniversaries of their bad decisions and black for the worst ones!
I’ve got one more “Catholicizing” change in mind, but I suspect Mrs. Roberts, Alito, et al wouldn’t be especially appreciative of it!
I think the top one will be: “People who imitate the great David Letterman’s Top 10 will be sentenced to a month’s painting work at his Montana ranch”! (subject to a thorough background check of course)
Wow, what a coincidence. This morning I did my own top ten on a similar subject. (The #1 item is specific to the forum on which it was posted where one of our fellow Catholics happens to be a bounty hunter.)
————
…direct from the home office in Irondale, Alabama…
The Top 10 reasons why a Supreme Court stacked with Catholics will be cool…
10. Ten Commandments display now flanked by Humanae Vitae and Veritatus Splendor displays.
9. Death penalty replaced by life in prison…with required daily sermons by Father John Corapi.
8. The Bible Belt to be renamed The Scripture, Tradition, and Magisterium Belt
7. President Karl Keating’s appointment of Mother Angelica to head Department of Education ruled constitutional
6. Several prominent Senators professing to be Catholic found guilty of false advertising.
5. “Contempt of Court” penalties now involve a strict nun and a metal ruler
4. ACLU files suit against proposed Pope John Paul II memorial on national mall: CASE DISMISSED
3. Right to free speech no longer includes bashing the Church based on stuff you just made up.
2. Landmark ruling in copyright case requires Bible Christians to pay royalties to the Church on a per thump basis.
…and the number one reason why a Supreme Court stacked with Catholics will be cool……
1. Buflineks gets opportunities to track down a whole new class of bail jumpers
This assumes that all the ‘catholics’ are ‘catholic’.
Hey! What about Knights of Columbus 4th degree honor guards or bailiffs? (Assuming that the Supreme Court has bailiffs…)
Top ten reasons a Catholic monarchy should be established in America
1.) The inquisition is revived for heretics.
2.) Baptism of Desire is condemned as a heresy..
3.) The promotion of deviancy is a capital crime.
4.) Catholic school teachers who teach heresy sent to Alaska.
5.)All Catholic schools are free.
6.)Masonic lodges are outlawed.
7.)Birth control is outlawed.
8.)Abortion is outlawed
9.)School prayer is mandatory and consists of the Our Father and Creed.
10.) Insulting any Catholic is a hate crime.
But the number one reason America should be a Catholic Monarchy… Catholicism would be the only religion !
You have a very weird view of Catholicism, NeoConSpy.
make that ‘King Neoconspy’.
You have a very weird view of Catholicism, NeoConSpy.
I would have said “bizarre”, but I suppose “weird” works equally well.
I think Lot was considered a odd ball in his time. Same for Noah.
And now you compare yourself to Lot and Noah.
Interesting fantasy world you live in.
I think we should lock NeoConSpy in a room with Realist. Best guess: we’ll get an annihilating matter-antimatter reaction… 🙂
Historian’s Quibble:
John Jay, one of the Founders and the third author of The Federalist Papers, was the first CJ.
John Marshall was someone different, the youngest-appointed, longest-serving, and probably most influential CJ. His opinion in Marbury v. Madison formalized the doctrine of judicial review for constitutionality that now forms the basis of all US constitutional jurisprudence.
Umm, isn’t calling neoconspy weird or bizarre kind of hypocritical considering many of the readers on this blog have an inordinate knowledge/preoccupation with science fiction? Right now I’m thinking of that Star Trek Convention skit on SNL. Geesh!
Umm, isn’t calling neoconspy weird or bizarre kind of hypocritical considering many of the readers on this blog have an inordinate knowledge/preoccupation with science fiction?
No.
I think once the consecration of Russia is done, as Our Lady of Fatima requested it be done , then the world will once again be Catholic.
I would love it if it were Benedict the 16th, but it will be the Pontiff after Benedict the 16th.
Our Lady of Fatima, pray of us.
I think that if NeoConSpy includes a reference to Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus, he will complete the trifecta.
NeoConSpy,
You mean as soon as the consecration of Russia is done according to you or whoever you consider more Catholic than the pope. You are starting to sound more like a NeoPhariseeSpy.
Heterodox catholics thought that the pope after JPII would change everything. Now it will be the pope after Benedict XVI? We should just be thankful that the Lord founded His Church upon the Rock.
I have heard it said that “the faithful get the clergy they deserve”. With that in mind we should strive to be as holy, humble and obedient as possible for the greater glory of God.
J+M+J
Inocencio, you don’t understand, because you are limited by mere facts; NeoConSpy is privy to “higher truth”.
Taking a cue from Letterman
Jimmy Akin: Top 10 Changes to the Court if Alito is Confirmed
…
John Paul II consecrated the world to the Immaculate Heart, without any participation by other bishops.
That was nice, but it is not what Our Lady of Fatima requested.
Here is a Russian update; There are two abortions for every live birth and clergy continmue to be expelled.
Catholic shrines churches and clergy in the compound of Israel continue to be taken over, desecrated and expelled.
Catholic priests find it impossible to get visas renewed.
The Catholic presence in the compound of Israel is 25 % of what is was 20 years ago. Less than 2% of the population is Christian as expulsions continue.
This is not a sign of world peace, but a war of the infidels who deny Jesus, persecuting the followers of Jesus.
Unless you have lived there for 10 years, dont even think about arguing against the facts.
NeoConSpy:
You might want to read the review about the Fatima prophecies at http://paranormal.about.com/library/weekly/aa070300a.htm-
An excerpt: “Since the revelation, the Vatican has been quick to downplay the significance of the prophecy. For one thing, Catholics are under no obligation to believe in the events at Fatima – they can take them or leave them since they are not part of church doctrine. Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, a prefect for the Doctrine of Faith, said about the prophecy: “Those who expected exciting apocalyptic revelations about the end of the world or the future course of history are bound to be disappointed. Fatima does not satisfy our curiosity in this way, just as Christian faith cannot be reduced to an object of mere curiosity. There is no immutable destiny. In the end, prayer is more powerful than bullets and faith more powerful than armies.”
“I think that if NeoConSpy includes a reference to Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus, he will complete the trifecta.”
LOL That made my day.
As a Cardinal, Ratzinger also said Protestantism is NO LONGER A HERESY.
That is well documneted. But could it be true ?
Of course not.
The fact Ratzinger sees fit to debunk Fatima as though it was a run of the mill event is a grave scandal to every Catholic.
the miracle of Fatima was predicted as to time and place well in advance of the event. It was witnessed by 70,000 people who were soaking wet and full of mud before the miracle. After it happened, their clothes were clean and dry.
This was the greatest miracle since the resurrection of Jesus.
Do Catholics have a obligation to believe such a miracle ?
They most certainly do. The Catholic church
celebrates Fatima with a feast day.
The message of Fatima was addressed to every Catholic in the world. Those who debunk such a heavenly message have no defense at the awesome tribunal of God. How does one tell Jesus, I decided the message and miracle your Mother delivered to the world was not good enough for me.
By the way, the Fatima message clearly affirmed
there is no salvation outside the Catholic church.
So much for the promoters of the desire of Baptism idea.
By the way, if desire of Baptism was effective, then surely using the same theory, one could be convited of theft for desiring to steal something, no ?
Well, I think you are guilty of sin if you intend to steal something, yes. But that is not the point.
I don’t know all the details of the “baptism of desire” issue, but are you saying that God can NOT bring someone to heaven unless they have followed the earthly forms? What about the thief on the cross?
It seems like an issue like this would be better argued on your opinion of how frequently it happens, not whether or not God could ever do it.
NeoConSpy, you noted:
“The miracle of Fatima was predicted as to time and place well in advance of the event. It was witnessed by 70,000 people who were soaking wet and full of mud before the miracle. After it happened, their clothes were clean and dry.”
References please!! Preferably from Vatican sources. The “locals” would be classified as enablers based on the money made from the “apparitions” and therefore not reliable sources. Ditto for movies.
Dear Realist,
You could search on google for many sources or you could search on ebay for books on Fatima.
One book I suggest is titled: Meet the witnesses.
I have no idea as to how many of the 70,000 were Catholics or non believers.
The miracle was that the sun began to spin and fell out of orbit and each person who watched it, said the sun was falling to the earth.
most were terrified, and began to publicly repent of their sins.
During the 6 appearances of the Blessed Virgin Mary, before the October 13,1917 miracle, she revealed many things to the three children selected to hear of the messages.
She showed the children a vision of hell, and told them many go there. It lasted a few seconds and all reported they were terrified of the vision.
She told them the war (WW1) going on at that time, would end, and if the people did not repent, a larger war would follow in the Pontificate of Pius XI. This was the case.
She let them know that almost all of those who were fighting in WW1 went to hell. The children could see the souls of the dead falling into hell and were as numerous as snowflakes.
The Blessed Virgin Mary asked each Catholic to pray the rosary (15 decades, best to skip the luminous) ) each day for peace.
She entrusted a message to one of the children , to have the Pope consecrate Russia to Her Immaculate Heart and when this was done, a era of peace would be granted to the world.
Jhon XXII declined, and John Paul II did two consecrations but to the world and not as instructed by Heaven.
victim souls have said the pope to do the consecration will be the one after B-16.
In the meantime the Church will suffer greatly, and the good will be persecuted.
Hope that helps.
neoConSpy,
While I am 80% (well, 70% at least) in your camp, I have to respectfully disagree with your views on Baptism of Desire and Fatima. St. Ambrose, Bishop of Milan, specifically stated that those entering the Church, who died before entrance (and thus without baptism), were saved by their desire to do so.
In addition, the Church has consistently, explicitly and unambiguously stated that the Faithful are not required to believe matters of private revelation. This would include Fatima and similar items.
One curious question: are you a sedevacantist? It appears that you are not, but given your opinions they would seem to be more consistent with a sedevacantist stance.
Viva Christo Rey,
Orthros
Saint Ambrose might be a Holy Man, but HE is not the voice of the church.
Even Saint Thomas specualted BOD might be salvific for a catechumne, but he refversed himslef.
We stay we with the definitions of the Church, whcih in Trent define that All need Baptism, and Water is the element.
As to Fatima, just remember that NeoConspy told you to follow the devotion on earth.
Sedavacantist.
NO, although I would submit we have had terrible popes since Nov,1958.
Vatican II is valid council, but those decrees which invert the traditional teaching ogf the church as not to be afollowed.
Like Nostra Atete.
If the Jews did not kill Jesus, who did ?
Religious Liberty is a error which inverts church teaching.
If the Jews did not kill Jesus, who did ?
The Roman soldiers.
Neoconspy wrote: “The miracle was that the sun began to spin and fell out of orbit and each person who watched it, said the sun was falling to the earth.”
Just a question: how could the sun fall out of orbit when it’s not _in_ orbit? The Sun moves as it travels through the galaxy, true, but it’s not in orbit around the earth. The earth is in orbit around the Sun.
Neoconspy- how do you feel about the Baltimore Catechism? Do you like it, or is it too liberal?
I would like to ask my liberal Catholic friends a few questions on the subject of Our Lord’s death.
1.) Was it the Romans who came out to seize Him in the Garden of Olives with swords and clubs on the night of His Passion, and who brought Him bound to the High Priest, and then to Pontius Pilate, demanding that He should be killed?
2.) Who it a Roman who betrayed Jesus with a kiss, and was it to Romans He was sold for 30 pieces of silver?
3.) Was the High Priest a Roman, who rent his garments and accused Our Lord of blasphemy when He declared Himself to be the Eternal Son of God ?
4.) Was it a Roman crowd which stood before the Tribunal of Pontius Pilate and shouted ” If this man were not a malefactor we would not have
handed Him over to you…His blood be upon us and our children! ”
5.) Was it the Romans who disowned Jesus as the King of the Jews, and did not want the inscription placed over His head on the Cross when He hung, crowned with thorns, and with nails in His hands and His feet?
6.) Was it God’s judgement in Heaven that the Roman’s had killed Christ, and was that why the Power of the Almighty some 30 years later razed the Temple of Jerusalem to the ground, and left not a stone upon a stone, and has never allowed
it to be rebuilt from that day to this ?
7.) In the prayers of the Mass for Good Friday of Holy Week, the priest refers to the “perfidious Jews”, as the ones who betrayed and crucified Christ. Should he be saying the “perfidious Romans” and has it been wrong for the Church to put it the first way for 2000 years.?
8.) When Our Lord hung upon the Cross His first reported words were, ” Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do”.
Do liberal Catholics think Our Lord was referring to the Jews when He said,” They know not what they do”? Was it the Jewish High Priests, the Scribes and the Ancients, with whom He sat daily teaching in the Temple and who, when He was crucified , wagged their heads and mocked Him and shouted: ” He saved others; himself He cannot save” was it these who knew not what they did, and whom Our Lord asked the Father to forgive?
Saint Luke tells us clearly that Jesus said this of the Roman soldiers who “dividing His garments, cast lots”. And Saint Matthew tells us that these same Romans, after Jesus expired on the Cross, cried out in one voice with their Centurion, ” Indeed this was the Son of God!”
The proponents of Baptism of Desire often refer to the good thief on the Cross, Dismas.
It is a good question.
Here is the answer.
Baptism was not a requirment at that point. It became a requirment on Pentecost.
But let me add one more item. You are assuming the good thief was never baptized, but scripture never says if he was baptized. One can make a case he was already baptized. But reagrdless, the law was not in effect at that time.
Man is bound by the laws and commandments of God. God is not, But there is no evidence in the Sciptures to demonstate God does not keep His word.
However, to assume God is NOT going to follow through on his commandments is, first off, a grave sin since it presupposes God is not truthful when He gives a command to His subjects that they must do certain things and follow certain laws to enter heaven.
If someone believed God will ignore the requirements for entry into Heaven, for a large number of people, would be to accuse God of deception and being a liar since that would contradict His words.
The earth is at the center of the Universe, it is stationary and the sun and other planets revolve around it.
The word ORBIT might not be the right term, but
the fact is the witnesses saw the sun plunging towards earth. And then return to its place in the universe.
As to the Baltimore Catechism, the issue is that Cardinal Gibbons, being a Americanist, inserted three baptisms into the catechism in order to avoid the wrath of the grerat majority of Americans who were not only not Catholic, but very hostile to the Church.
Study the words of Bishop Fulton Sheen sometime.
He preached often on TV, but NEVER preached the Catholic faith.
He was a popular personality, but would tell a Jew to be a good Jew and a Protestant to be a good Protestant.
Bishps Sheen never preached Christ crucified.
He once said, there is nothing in my talks that Aristole could not have said.
The first time he would have said one needs to be a Baptized Catholic to be saved, is the day he would have been off the air.
+J.M.J+
I don’t think this will convince NeoConSpy, but the Council of Trent teaches Baptism of Desire in Session 6 chapter 4V:
“By which words a description of the Justification of the impious is indicated—as being a translation, from that state wherein man is born a child of Adam, to the state of grace, and of the adoption of the sons of God, through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Saviour. And this translation, since the promulgation of the the Gospel, can not be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, as it is written: unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he can not enter into the Kingdom of God.”
Note that Justification is defined as the “translation” of a person in a state of original sin into a state of grace and adoption as a son of God. It then says that this “translation” occurs with “the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof” Thus the desire for baptism can make someone a child of God, according to the Council of Trent.
This pronouncement is infallible, BTW.
I have a set of Lenten talks by Fulton J. Sheen on tape, and he most certainly did preach Christ crucified.
Also, as Orthros said above, private revelations are not binding on the faithful. Not even Fatima. They can be believed with human faith but not Catholic faith.
I know this won’t convince anyone who thinks they have the Catholic Faith folded neatly in their pocket. Just setting the record straight for those who have ears to hear.
In Jesu et Maria,
NeoCon-
Are you really saying that God cannot save anyone he wants, any WAY he wants?
I grant that anyone outside the visible Catholic church would certainly be at a colossal disadvantage, being without the Magisterium and the sacraments, especially considering that even being a baptized Catholic in itself isn’t a sure guarantee of final salvation. We have a sacred obligation to witness to Christ at all times and to all people, if for no other reason than that Christ has commanded it.
But God is sovereign. I will allow Him to save who he wants. If he decides to pluck some ignorant pagans right off the earth and send them to heaven, does He not have the right to do so?
Rosemarie and Tim J are my heroes. ^_^
Taking a page from St. Therese, we need to recall that God’s mercy is his supreme attribute, and the source of his gift of the sacraments in the first place. God created the sacraments for man, not man for the sacraments. Is God bound by what he has created? By no means – Jesus’s love for the human soul knows no bounds, and can supersede the normative rites of the sacraments if he, the Lord, choses – as is the case with baptism of desire (or baptism of blood, for that matter) or acts of perfect contrition.
The english translation of Trent which folks use to defend BOD does not contain the double negative in the Latin, which clearly implies one needs both elements.
The sacraments are visible outwards signs instituted by Christ to give grace.
Why bother telling people to be baptized if they can will it on themselves. That is not defined dogma. Baptism is.
As to what God can or can’t do, that is not the issue.
It is like saying, prove to me a dog , if pushed off a 50 ft wall will die every time. It is impossible to prove a negative.
There is no basis in Scripture, Tradition or
church teaching that has ever referred to a person begin saved who was a pagan etc..without being baptized.
Can I prove beyond every doubt that Hitler is in hell. No, but the church teaches those who die outside the Catholic church, without any VISIBLE sign that they repented before death, are not to be presummed saved, and may not be prayed for publicly.
By the way, for those Catholics who read the lives of Saints, there are many cases of a saint raising a person from the dead in ORDER to baptize them since they had died in this life without water baptism.
The english translation of Trent which folks use to defend BOD does not contain the double negative in the Latin, which clearly implies one needs both elements.
Would you kindly post the Latin version of the text quoted and either a web link or the title, editor, year, ISBN, etc of the book you found it in?
The ground keeps shifting here. Have we resolved the issue of who killed Our Lord Jesus Christ.
But proving a negative is what you are presuming to do, NeoCon. You are saying that there is NO CIRCUMSTANCE in which a non-Catholic can be saved. If you assert a negative, you are expected to prove it.
What God can or can’t do IS the issue. We are bound by the sacraments, but God is not.
This does not change our obligation to preach the gospel to every creature, even when that is unpopular or politically incorrect. We should always work for the conversion of all to the Catholic faith.
As I said, even baptism does not guarantee salvation, in the end. It would be presumptuous for ANY to assume that they will persevere, and so we work out our salvation in fear and trembling.
How much harder it would be for anyone outside the Catholic church! If we love them, we will evangelize them.
I think all could agree that, even if Fido might survive jumping off a fifty-foot wall, he would be better off not to.
+J.M.J+
>>>The english translation of Trent which folks use to defend BOD does not contain the double negative in the Latin, which clearly implies one needs both elements.
If that’s so, then why did St. Alphonsus de Liguori, who read the original Latin of the Council of Trent, state that the passage I quoted meant that Baptism by Desire is a de fide teaching.
I guess you’ll probably retort “St. Alphonsus de Liguori wasn’t infallible.” Well, I’m not saying he was personally infallible, just that he read the Latin and understood clearly what it meant.
If you are right about BOD, then St. Alphonsus was a heretic for believing it and teaching that it was a dogma. So why was he canonized? Surely you know that the writings of a candidate for sainthood are gone over with a proverbial fine-tooth comb.
Ah, but the Church didn’t just canonize him – he was also declared a Doctor of the Church by Pope Pius IX in 1871. When the Church considers someone for that honor, his writings come under even more intense scrutiny! Yet evidently no one at the Vatican had a problem with his belief in BOD. How strange, if that were a heresy.
In Jesu et Maria,
+J.M.J+
>>>Why bother telling people to be baptized if they can will it on themselves.
A misunderstanding of what BOD is. We can’t and don’t will baptism on ourselves. BOD is when someone who wants to be baptized dies before he can be baptized, and God applies sanctifying grace to his soul in view of his desire for the Sacrament. It’s not something mandoes, but what God sovereignly does to man out of sheer grace.
>>>There is no basis in Scripture, Tradition or
church teaching that has ever referred to a person begin saved who was a pagan etc..without being baptized.
Then how do you explain the inclusion as saints of the Roman Calendar of pagans who, on witnessing a Christian martyr’s death, proclaimed their belief in Christ and were killed on the spot. They were never baptized with water, yet the Church considers them saints.
(I know that is Baptism of Blood, not BOD, but it fits NeoConSpy’s qualification: “a person begin saved who was a pagan etc..without being baptized.”)
If God can infuse such souls with sanctifying grace, apart from the Sacrament of Baptism, then surely he can do it in the case of BOD.
In Jesu et Maria,
+J.M.J+
I know someone will say “What are your sources for the assertion about unbaptized martyrs?” I will look for the book so I can give you exact names and feast dates, but I did see these saints listed in the Roman Martyrology, so they are official saints.
One more thing regarding:
>>>The english translation of Trent which folks use to defend BOD does not contain the double negative in the Latin, which clearly implies one needs both elements.
Does “one needs both elements” mean that one needs both water baptism and the desire for it in order to be saved? What then of infants who cannot desire Baptism?
In Jesu et Maria
+J.M.J+
Ah, here we go, two saints from the Roman Martyrology:
23 January: …At Rome, the holy virgin and martyr, St. Emerentiana. Being yet a catechumen, she was stoned by the heathens while praying at the tomb of St. Agnes, her foster-sister…. (pp. 18-19)
12 April: …At Braga in Portugal, the martyr St. Victor. Although only a catechumen, he refused to adore an idol, and confessed Christ Jesus with great constancy. After suffering many tortures, he was beheaded and thus merited to be baptized in his own blood… (p. 76)
This is from the Church’s official Roman Martyrology, “Published by Order of Gregory XIII, Revised by Authority of Urban VIII and Clement X, Augmented and Corrected in 1749 by Benedict XII.” (I’m using the Loreto Publications edition, a reprint of the Third Turin edition)
Also, here is the relevant quote from St. Alphonsus:
“But baptism of desire is perfect conversion to God by contrition or love of God above all things accompanied by an explicit or implicit desire for true Baptism of water, the place of which it takes as to the remission of guilt, but not as to the impression of the (baptismal) character or as to the removal of all debt of punishment. It is called “of wind” (“flaminis”) because it takes place by the impulse of the Holy Ghost Who is called a wind (“flamen”). Now it is de fide that men are also saved by Baptism of desire, by virtue of the Canon “Apostolicam De Presbytero Non Baptizato” and the Council of Trent, Session 6, Chapter 4, where it is said that no one can be saved “without the laver of regeneration or the desire for it.” (Moral Theology, Bk. 6)
In Jesu et Maria,
That’s some awesome stuff Rosemarie. I need to put Ligouri on my reading list post haste.
NeoConSpy,
I’m still waiting for the Latin text of the Council of Trent and its source. Or do you retract your linguistic claim?
Rosemarie.
You bring up good points.
A few reminders about your so called unbaptized saints.
First, it was a common practice in ancient times that catechumens did receive Baptism before they entered the church. So the young girl at the tomb of saint ASgnes could have already been baptized.
It is also possible to baptize someone in their last moments or seconds of life.
Lots of Saints make lots of statments during life. One can assume they repent of any errors they made in life before dying.
Please keep in mind the local community and NOT the magisterium named Saints in the early church.
It was only formalized in later years.
As a result thousands of names of so called saints were removed from the list of Saints.
Most agree the real test is the miracles perfomred by a saint.
Speaking of papal power….
What do you think about the Vatican, i.e JP II, establishing diplomatic relations with the state of israel?
The pope visiting a synagogue ?
appointing heretics as cardinals ?
spending 26 years as pope but excommunicating only one bishop, the one who tried to maintain the traditional teachings?
Visiting voodoo practionaires and witch doctors
and telling them there is some truth in their religion.
allowing the liberals to dismantle hundreds of beautiful churches in the name of a renewal which was never a part of Vatican -2 .
And refusing to consecrate russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, thus bringing peace to the world.
I fail to see how one could be so grateful for a Pontificate like that.
+J.M.J+
>>>First, it was a common practice in ancient times that catechumens did receive Baptism before they entered the church.
At which point they ceased to be catechumens and became Christians! A catechumen is by the ancient definition an unbaptized person who is studying to become a Christian. He is not one yet because he has not yet been “Christened,” or made a Christian.
In modern times, Protestants who are entering the Church are sometimes erroneously called “catechumens” and made to go through RCIA. This is incorrect; if they were validly baptized they are not catechumens. No ancient source would have made such an mistake.
>>>So the young girl at the tomb of saint ASgnes could have already been baptized.
The phrases: “Being yet a catechumen… Although only a catechumen” clearly mean that they had not yet been baptized. And note the statement about St. Victor being “baptized in his own blood.” Why would he need that if he were already water baptized.
Also, the following entry from the Roman Breviary mentions a pagan who converted but was martyred before baptism, yet is considered a saint:
November 10: During the reign of the emperor Decius, as Tryphon was preaching the faith of Jesus Christ and striving to persuade all men to worship the Lord, he was arrested by the henchmen of Decius. First, he was tortured on the rack, his flesh torn with iron hooks, then hung head downward, his feet pierced with red hot nails. He was beaten by clubs, scorched by burning torches held against his body. As a result of seeing him endure all these tortures so courageously, the tribune Respicius was converted to the faith of Christ the Lord. Upon the spot he publicly declared himself to be a Christian. Respicius was then tortured in various ways, and together with Tryphon, dragged to a statue of Jupiter. As Tryphon prayed, the statue fell down. After this occurred both were mercilessly beaten with leaden tipped whips and thus attained to glorious martyrdom.
Sts. Typhon and Respicius are celebrated as saints on November 10, yet Respicius was clearly not baptized in the middle of a public torture session. Yet he received BOB.
>>>It is also possible to baptize someone in their last moments or seconds of life.
Not if they’re in the Colosseum about to be beheaded! Again, “only a catechumen” means not baptized with water, and “received a baptism of blood” means instead of water baptism.
>>>Lots of Saints make lots of statments during life. One can assume they repent of any errors they made in life before dying.
There is no evidence that St. Alphonsus ever “repented” of his writing about BOD, or that he was ever required to do so, or of any Vatican official saying he was wrong about that. Nor were any footnotes added to his work to say “This is in error…” (as is often done with St. Thomas Aquinas’ denial of the Immaculate Conception in the Summa Theologica).
If BOD is a heresy, the Church has been strangely silent over the past two hundred years about St. Alphonsus’ advocacy of it. Yet his writings on Moral Theology were held in high esteem by the Church, including the one with his BOD statement.
>>>Please keep in mind the local community and NOT the magisterium named Saints in the early church.
It was only formalized in later years.
True but irrelevant; the Roman Martyrology was officially approved by numerous popes: “Published by Order of Gregory XIII, Revised by Authority of Urban VIII and Clement X, Augmented and Corrected in 1749 by Benedict XII.” And none of them removed the references to catechumens who received BOB; not even in the 1749 “corrections”.
>>>As a result thousands of names of so called saints were removed from the list of Saints.
Actually, the commemorations of certain saints were very recently removed from the Church’s liturgy, not from the Roman Martyrology. This was done, not because they weren’t water baptized (many, in fact, were) but because we know little about their lives, and the saints we celebrate in the liturgy are intended as examples of the Christian life.
So St. Christopher, for instance, is still considered a saint and martyr. We just don’t celebrate his feast anymore during the liturgy because little is known about his real life before his martyrdom (the story that he was a giant who carried the Christ Child across a river was a medieval myth.)
>>>Most agree the real test is the miracles perfomred by a saint.
And how do you know that these saints haven’t performed miracles by their intercession? Are you going to try to prove another negative?
Of course, that’s the test for modern canonization, not for saints who came before.
In Jesu et Maria,
+J.M.J+
>>>That’s some awesome stuff Rosemarie. I need to put Ligouri on my reading list post haste.
I highly recommend St. Alphonsus de Liguori. I acquired a bunch of his writings at a church rummage sale two years ago, and they are great spiritual reading! I’ve found them immensely helpful.
In Jesu et Maria,
Rosemarie rocks!
+J.M.J+
Sorry for posting so much, but someone asked for the original Latin text of the relevant passage of the Council of Trent, Session 6 Chapter 4. Here it is:
“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 Spiritu Sancto, non potest introire in regnum Dei.” John. 3:5
In Jesu et Maria,
I’d just thought I’d mention this idea that BOD is a “heresy” is itslef a pure novelty. It was never taught by ANY SAINT, POPE or DOCTOR OF THE CHURCH in fact it didn’t exist till
after the death of Fr. Feeney. A traditionalist I know of named Brian Mershon has claimed that Fr. Feeney himself NEVER denied BOD or BOB. This denial of BOD being a leter extremist novelty by his over zelous followers.
One can be a rigorist in terms of EENS yet affirm BOD. One simply has to admit formal Catachuems can be saved if they die before baptism.
Sorry for the spelling mistakes but I was rushed I have to get off the Computer & watch the kids.
The brief note about Recipicious is strangely silent when it comes to the BOD issue.
There are all sorts of possibilties involved here, and since not one word is made of baptism, who can state he was not. It is incumbent upon you to prove he was not. Not the other way around.
By the way, it has been infallibly defined by Pope Eugene IV,( 1441 Cantate Domino ), that even if a person were to shed his blood for Christ, if he is not a member of the Catholic church, he will not be saved.
Catechumnes were OFTEN baptized before formally making a profession of faith because of the persecusions in the era.
We call baptized persons seeking full membership in the church today catechumens ( some baptized some not) just like in ancient times.
So all these stories you offer, are at best a incomplete picture. You are making broad assumptions to fit your theory these folks did not have baptism.
The fact is, we must assume they DID have baptism. It is up to you to prove otherwise, which you cannot do.
It is a point of dogmatic theology that those making the claim, have the burden of proof. Not the other way around.
You need to prove beyond any doubt such persons had not received water baptism. You cannot.
As to Ligiouri, if he had last rites, his sins both confessed and unconfessed were forgiven.
The church does not rely on one saint to clarify its doctrinal positions.
The number of Church Fathers who speculated on BOD was always a small number.
and their speculation was limited to a catechumen who sought Baptism but could not get it.
As if God is not capable of getting the waters of Baptisms to his deserving elect.
Give me a break.
Let me prove this poster here, Benyachovjimscott is 100% wrong.
From the Bread of Life Page 25, Father Feeney said:
Baptism of Water or damnation. If you do not desire that water, you cannot be justified. And if you do not get it, you cannot be saved.
Page 40.
“I have said a Baptism of Desire Catholic is NOT a member of the Church. He cannot be prayed for after death as one of the faithful departed.”
Even John the Baptist, who was sanctified in his mothers womb, needed to be Baptized.
But our Baptism of Desire Catholics do not see the need for the sea of humanity to enter the One Ark of Salvation in order to save their souls. But rather want to preach a dry substitute. That is not what Jesus taught or preached.
Didn’t this start out as a joke?? Just curious…..
Didn’t this start out as a joke?? Just curious…..
Yes, alas. This is a case of thread-hijacking.
+J.M.J+ (AAS, Vol. 35, an. 1943, p. 193 ff.). For in this letter the Sovereign Pontiff clearly distinguishes between those who are actually incorporated into the Church as members, and those who are united to the Church only by desire.”
>>The brief note about Recipicious is strangely silent when it comes to the BOD issue.
Actually it would be BOB, not BOD, since he died a martyr.
>>>There are all sorts of possibilties involved here, and since not one word is made of baptism, who can state he was not.
Arguments from silence are not very convincing.
>>>It is incumbent upon you to prove he was not. Not the other way around.
It does say that he professed his faith in Christ “upon the spot,” indicating that it was a spur of the moment thing, not something that happened after a baptism. That would indicate that he was not baptized.
>>>By the way, it has been infallibly defined by Pope Eugene IV,( 1441 Cantate Domino ), that even if a person were to shed his blood for Christ, if he is not a member of the Catholic church, he will not be saved.
In context, the Holy Father was talking about heretics and schismatics. He was talking about people who were in the Church once (ie. baptized) but have left it, saying they could not benefit from martyrdom. He was not talking about BOB, because that occurs for someone who was not previously baptized.
Look, here is what this whole discussion boils down to. If BOD is a heresy condemned by the Council of Trent…
…then the Roman Catechism (Catechism of the Council of Trent), teaches heresy when it says:
“On adults, however, the Church has not been accustomed to confer the Sacrament of baptism at once, but has ordained that it be deferred for a certain time. The delay is not attended with the same danger as in the case of infants, which we have already mentioned; should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness.”
…then the 1582 Douay-Rheims New Testament taught heresy in its commentary, which states:
“Though in this case, God which hath not bound his grace, in respect of his own freedom, to any Sacrament, may and doth accept them as baptized, which either are martyred before they could be baptized, or else depart this life with vow and desire to have that Sacrament, but by some remediless necessity could not obtain it.”
…then St. Alphonsus Maria Liguori, Doctor of the Church, was a heretic for what he wrote above and for the following:
“With regard to its necessity, it should be known that baptism is not only the first, but also the most necessary of all the sacraments. Without baptism no one can enter heaven. ‘Unless a man be born again, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.’ (John 3:5) Is it impossible for a person who does not actually receive baptism to be saved? I answer, he can be saved, if he receives it in desire, that is by desiring to be baptized, and by believing in Jesus Christ; as has happened to many who, when unable to receive baptism actually, have received it in desire.” (Instruction on the Commandments and Sacraments, 2.2.1-2, 5)
…then Pope Pius IX was a heretic, since he wrote:
“We know and you know, that those who are invincibly ignorant of our most holy religion, and who, carefully observing the natural law and its precepts place by God into the hearts of all men, and being disposed to obey God, lead an honest and upright life, can, with the help of Divine Light and Grace, merit eternal life; for God, who has perfect knowledge, examines and judges the minds, souls, and thoughts and the deeds of all men and He does not permit, in His sovereign goodness and mercy any man not culpable of willful sin to be punished with eternal torment.” (Encyclical Quanto conficiamur moerore 1863)
…then the Catechism of Pope St. Pius X taught heresy when it said:
17 Q. Can the absence of Baptism be supplied in any other way?
A. The absence of Baptism can be supplied by martyrdom, which is called Baptism of Blood, or by an act of perfect love of God, or of contrition, along with the desire, at least implicit, of Baptism, and this is called Baptism of Desire.
…then the 1917 Code of Canon Law is heretical when it states:
Canon 737: Baptism, the door and foundation of the Sacraments, in fact or at least in desire necessary unto salvation for all, is not validly conferred except through the ablution of true and natural water with the prescribed form of words.”
Canon 1239: Those who have died without baptism are not to be given ecclesiastical burial. Catechumens who die without baptism through no fault of their own are to be counted among the baptized.
…then the Holy Office taught heresy in 1949 when it condemned Fr. Leonard Feeney’s extreme interpretation of EENS, which, among other things, stated the following:
Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member, but it is necessary that at least he be united to her by desire and longing.
However, this desire need not always be explicit, as it is in catechumens; but when a person is involved in invincible ignorance God accepts also an implicit desire, so called because it is included in that good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God.
These things are clearly taught in that dogmatic letter which was issued by the Sovereign Pontiff, Pope Pius XII, on June 29, 1943,
(Read the whole thing here: http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFFEENY.HTM)
Wow, all those heretical documents, going back to the sixteenth century. Only those who agree with NeoConSpy are fully orthodox Catholics – unlike Pius XI and other such heretics.
I know that won’t prove anything to you, NeoConSpy. As I said at the beginning, you won’t be convinced, and I was right. But let him who has ears to hear, hear.
I apologize to all for the long post. Since I am probably already breaking a rule or two on this board, I will not post anymore.
In Jesu et Maria,
Brian Mershon told me Fr. Feeney never denied BOD. So if Neoconspy is correct I thank him for stick I can hit him over the head with.
>Let me prove this poster here, Benyachovjimscott is 100% wrong.
I reply: You mean Mr. Mershon. I only cited him I never said I agreed with him. Try reading more carefully next time. there is a good fellow.
Still saying BOD is a heresy is CLEARLY a historical & theological novelty invented by Feeney if we believe you or Feeney’s followers if we believe Mershon. I could care less either way.
>From the Bread of Life Page 25, Father Feeney said:
Baptism of Water or damnation. If you do not desire that water, you cannot be justified. And if you do not get it, you cannot be saved.
I reply: The novelty that a Justified person can be damned sounds like a form of reverse Lutheranism. Luther believe you could be justified without being made Holy (i.e. his Legal fiction error). It seems Feeney believes you can objectively be made Holy & a Child of God AND STILL be thrown into Hell. What ugly Satanic trash! No Church Father or Pope ever taught such garbage.
>Page 40.
>”I have said a Baptism of Desire Catholic is NOT a member of the Church.
I reply: Not a member of the visible church on Earth. St Pius X said he would belong to the soul of the Church. I think St. Pius X knows better. Besides your contradicting yourself here saying there are “Catholics” who are not part of the Church. Don’t feel bad my Grammer sucks too.
>Even John the Baptist, who was sanctified in his mothers womb, needed to be Baptized.
I reply: Yet where does the Bible or Tradition say John the Baptist was himself Baptised?
>But our Baptism of Desire Catholics do not see the need for the sea of humanity to enter the One Ark of Salvation in order to save their souls. But rather want to preach a dry substitute. That is not what Jesus taught or preached.
I reply: Your confused. Your confusing the heresy of religous indifference with BOD. My wife explained it already.
That last one was me. Stupid FOXFIRE web brouser!
Rosemarie,
First off, let me say YOU ARE AWESOME. Why aren’t you on the payroll at Catholic Answers?
Secondly, could you please cite where St. Thomas Aquinas questions/denies the Immaculate Conception? Is it in the Summa here in his response to Objection 3? I was just a little surprised when I saw you say that, so I was looking for clarification.
Thanks and God bless!
Theologians do not speak for the church. Period.
Catechisms are not infallible and the three baptisms placed into the Baltimore Catechism by Cardinal Gibbons, that was his invention.
The fact a catechumen is allow to be buried in a Catholic cemetary, means little.
Pius IX may have made some whisperings about BOD it in a private letter, again, that is a private opinion.
Again, you need to PRIVe a person clearly and definiteltively was not ever given water baptism.
to demostate your case.
Lastly, there is debate over the issue of whthere canoizatons are in fact infallible.
A case in point is Mother Teresa ,who jumped in to the beautification slot on fradulent medical reports, thanks to her order nuns who stole the medical documents that would have proved the so call cure, was based on a medical treatment, and was not a miracle.
Pius XII sided with Fr. Fenney in a document.
It was cardinla Cushing and Bishop Wright who
issued a unofficial document ( no stamp and no entry into the log of official letters) known as the protocol letter of 1949, which arch heretic Karl Rahner, then slipped into Denzingers, since he was its editor.
So even Denzingers is now a faulty text.
I rest my case, noting there is not one clear cut example of a Catholic Saint dying without Water Baptism.
As it should be, God will get the waters of Baptism to His elect, even if he need send a angel from Heaven to deliver it.
By 1949 you only needed to be united to the Catholic church by DESIRE and LONGING.
Those are the words dreamed up by Cardinal Cushing and Bishop Wright as they took a cruise together in 1949 to Rome.
Forget Sacraments, forget the Faith and forget Works of any kind.
Desire and Longing are the new benchmarks. And none dare call Cushing and Wright heretics.
Boston was their stomping ground, today it is
ground zero for the biggest sex abuse scandal in the Church. The fruits of their labors certainly turned out as rotten as it gets.
The bible says we should judge a tree by its fruit.
Rosemarie and Tim J are my heroes. ^_^
Rosemarie rocks!
I often particularly enjoy their comments too. And I don’t want to embarrass Rosemarie but she seems to me like a living breathing index of information, and she’s a good, succinct writer to boot. She ought to have her own blog, or guest blog here once in a while.
>Theologians do not speak for the church. Period.
I reply: Unless that “theologian” is named Fr. Feeney then HE can MAKE UP any novelty he wants & throw out the OFFICAL teachings of the Popes & the ordinary magesterium.
>Pius IX may have made some whisperings about BOD it in a private letter, again, that is a private opinion.
I reply: Excuse me? Try PAPAL ENCYCLICAL! Vatican One said CLEARLY Catholics MUST GIVE ASSENT to even the none infallible teachings put forth by the Church. Vatican One condemned as error the MODERNIST LIBERAL idea you can dismiss the ordinary teachings of the Pope just because he is not speaking Ex Cathedra.
You are clearly ignorant of Catholic theology Neoconspy. You are no match for my wife.
Sounds to me like Neoconspy has an acute case of the Protestant either/or mentality. For example Protestants say either you approach God the Father thru Jesus or you approach Him thru Mary apart from Jesus. It never occurs to them the true theology is BECAUSE Jesus is the One Mediator & we (including Mary) are part of the Body of Christ we can all be prayer advocates for each other.
In a manner similar to the misunderstandings of the Protestants, Neoconspy believes you either believe Fr. Feeney’s theological novelty or you deny the Church’s teachings regarding the necessity of receiving water baptism.
A few points: ONE: The Church HAS NEVER taught the absolute necessity of receiving water baptism BUT ONLY THE NORMATIVE NECESSITY. That is a person MAY NOT SEEK BOD but must only seek water Baptism. Here is an example. St Dimas the Holy Thief. He had BOD. Why because he was tied to a freakin cross & couldn’t get off of it to go seek out an apostle to be baptized. So he has an air tight excuse for not being water baptized and per the teachings of the Council of Trent he was saved anyway. NOW IF St Dimas had not died on his cross and survived his crucifixion, Divine Law (as sson as someone made him aware of it) given by Christ to his Church would require him to find the nearest Apostle or whatever & be WATER BAPTIZED into the One True Church. If he obstinately and maliciously refused then he would have gone the way of the Bad Thief.
Additionally based on the writings of St Augustine (& the ordinary binding doctrinal teachings of Pius IX) the Catholic Church makes a distinction between persons who are non-Catholics by Opposition Vs. those who are non-Catholics by negation (i.e. invincibly ignorant types). CBO’s if they die before converting to the Church will go straight to Hell. Even if they as Pope Urban said, they shed their blood for Christ they can not be saved. Unbelievers by Opposition are defined as those persons who resist the truth or resist clear opportunities to learn the truth out of a mortally sinful malice. The invincibly ignorant types OTOH are persons WHO CAN’T thru no fault of their own know the Divine Truth & thus are not held accountable for their failure to believe the Gospel & join the True Church.
Pius IX clearly taught this to the Catholic faithful. He also taught WE CATHOLICS CANNOT KNOW who among the non-Catholics is either invincibly ignorant or a non-believer by opposition. We are forbidden by Pius IX to even try to find out especially if such attempts at finding out are used as a pretense for not preaching the Gospel.
So if you stick with Pius IX & the REST of the teachings of the Church the objections of Fr. Feeney & His fellow travelers are meaningless. Indeed as faithful Catholics you are required to believe Pius IX, St Pius X and Pius XII over & against a mere Priest. Be he Fr. Feeney or Fr. Martin Luther.
Additionally Pius XII taught EVEN IF you could somehow figure out who among the non-Catholics qualified as invincibly ignorant and saved we Catholics are STILL bound by Divine Law to preach the Gospel to such individuals & invite them to join the True Church. Otherwise we cheat them out of the may spiritual gifts & Graces that are available to members of the One True Church.
One last thing invincible ignorance BY ITSELF cannot save a man. If you read what Pius IX actually said it’s invincible ignorance plus extra-ordinary saving Graces given to the non-Catholic by God that saves him. Mere invincible ignorance by itself would simply mean the non-Catholic’s failure to join the Church won’t be held against him as mortal sin. However any & all OTHER unrepentant mortal sins on their soul will be enough to damn them.
>Pius XII sided with Fr. Fenney in a document.
It was cardinla Cushing and Bishop Wright who
issued a unofficial document ( no stamp and no entry into the log of official letters) known as the protocol letter of 1949, which arch heretic Karl Rahner, then slipped into Denzingers, since he was its editor.
I reply: Next maybe Neoconspy can tell us how the UFO’s at Roswell fit into all this.
Pius XII approved of the condemnation of Feeney’s heterodox understanding of EENS. People who deny it based on unproven conspiracy theories are on the same intellectual level as UFO freaks. They will believe ANYTHING no matter how silly.
Though technically speaking Fr Feeney was excomunicated for disobedience not heresy. He was ORDERED not to teach his novel understanding of EENS & he refused so he was excomunicated. But the Holy Office offically found His understanding of EENS to be in error.
James scott is once again in error.
The good thief Dismas, did not require Baptism of Water, since that law was not yet in effect.
However, there is no way to prove he did not receive it before being crucified, so this dog will not walk. Are you borrowing someone’s notes? I already covered this.
As to Pius IX , he spoke from both sides of this issue. On the one hand, he ONCE referred to
BOD, and you very wisely FORGET to add, he blasted those who later on used this sentence of his to drive the stakes of BOD deep into Catholic Theology. He then reversed himself on the issue. Something you will not include because it undermines your position.
In that regard, Pius IX is like St. Thomas. St. Thomas took both sides of the issue.
But they are not the magisterium, and besides,
three infallible definitions cannot be overturned by one letter a pope writes.
Pope Eugene IV said in 1441, infallibly, NO ONE not a Jew not a pagan, not a heretic, not a schizmatic, can be saved, EVEN IF HE SHED HIS BLOOD for Jesus unless he is a member of the Catholic Church.
As to Fr. Fenney, that is the only point you are correct about.
He was ex-communicated for dis-obedience. Not heresy. And I am the first to say, when he was summoned to Rome, he should have gone. He did not.
However, the fact is, the protocol letter of 1949 was NEVER registed in the ACTA.
That means it is not official.
Like someone drawing up a house deed and saying it is valid.
No, it has to be recorded in the office of theregister of deeds, or county recorders office.
The Boston Globe in 1949, was give copy of the fraudulent document, mostly likely by Cushing or Wright, before the ink was even dry on the forgery.
why ?
Cushing and Wright were under pressure from the Jews and Protestants in Boston to shut up Feeney.
Feeney was exposing the subversive activites of the Jews in Boston and other places and converting many Protestants to the Faith.
His actions angered the Protestants and the Jews of Boston, both groups were big contributors to the Catholic fund raising campaigns of Cushing, who was a big fund raiser.
It is that simple.
>The good thief Dismas, did not require Baptism of Water, since that law was not yet in effect.
However, there is no way to prove he did not receive it before being crucified, so this dog will not walk. Are you borrowing someone’s notes? I already covered this.
I reply: Your argument is one of silence & special pleading. My example is valid regardless. Your view OTOH is Fr. Feeney’s ahistorical novelty nothing more.
>As to Pius IX , he spoke from both sides of this issue. On the one hand, he ONCE referred to
BOD, and you very wisely FORGET to add, he blasted those who later on used this sentence of his to drive the stakes of BOD deep into Catholic Theology.
I reply: Excuse me? I said rather clearly “[Pius XI] also taught WE CATHOLICS CANNOT KNOW who among the non-Catholics is either invincibly ignorant or a non-believer by opposition. We are forbidden by Pius IX to even try to find out especially if such attempts at finding out are used as a pretense for not preaching the Gospel.”
Pius IX believed & taught that the invincibly ignorant with special graces from God could be saved. But that the teaching of Invincible Ignorance COULD NOT be used to justify the heresy of Religious Indifference.
If your reading comprehension skills are so poor Neoconspy then it is little wonder you ignore the VAST patristic, Papal & theological teaching in regards to BOD & believe the nonsense Fr. Feeney made up off the top of his head.
>He then reversed himself on the issue. Something you will not include because it undermines your position.
I reply: Pius IX did no such thing. If he did you would have included the quote where he clearly said “BOD is a heresy & there is no such thing as invincible ignorance & even invincibly ignorant persons can’t be saved under ANY circumstances.”
Your novelty is the old Janenist heresy condemned by Pope Alexander VIII.
I can quote Pius IX up the wazzoo stating that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church. Just as I can quote Paul in Romans 3:28 about us being justified by Faith. But I can’t interpret Justification by Faith properly without an appeal to James 2:24 (thus there is no justification for Luther to say we are saved by FAITH ALONE) AND in a like manner I can’t understand Pius IX’s statements in regard to EENS without an appeal to Quanto conficiamur moerore.
EENS in the true Catholic sense DOES NOT equal the errors of Fr. Feeney.
EENS,and the teaching of Pope Urban MUST be interpreted in light of what Alexander VIII, Pius IX, St Pius X, Pius XII, Paul VI, John Paul II and Benedict XVI have to say on the matter. Not Fr. Feeney, not Martin Luther & certainly not you.
>The good thief Dismas, did not require Baptism of Water, since that law was not yet in effect.
However, there is no way to prove he did not receive it before being crucified, so this dog will not walk. Are you borrowing someone’s notes? I already covered this.
I reply: Your argument is one of silence & special pleading. My example is valid regardless. Your view OTOH is Fr. Feeney’s ahistorical novelty nothing more.
>As to Pius IX , he spoke from both sides of this issue. On the one hand, he ONCE referred to
BOD, and you very wisely FORGET to add, he blasted those who later on used this sentence of his to drive the stakes of BOD deep into Catholic Theology.
I reply: Excuse me? I said rather clearly “[Pius XI] also taught WE CATHOLICS CANNOT KNOW who among the non-Catholics is either invincibly ignorant or a non-believer by opposition. We are forbidden by Pius IX to even try to find out especially if such attempts at finding out are used as a pretense for not preaching the Gospel.”
Pius IX believed & taught that the invincibly ignorant with special graces from God could be saved. But that the teaching of Invincible Ignorance COULD NOT be used to justify the heresy of Religious Indifference.
If your reading comprehension skills are so poor Neoconspy then it is little wonder you ignore the VAST patristic, Papal & theological teaching in regards to BOD & believe the nonsense Fr. Feeney made up off the top of his head.
>He then reversed himself on the issue. Something you will not include because it undermines your position.
I reply: Pius IX did no such thing. If he did you would have included the quote where he clearly said “BOD is a heresy & there is no such thing as invincible ignorance & even invincibly ignorant persons can’t be saved under ANY circumstances.”
Your novelty is the old Janenist heresy condemned by Pope Alexander VIII.
I can quote Pius IX up the wazzoo stating that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church. Just as I can quote Paul in Romans 3:28 about us being justified by Faith. But I can’t interpret Justification by Faith properly without an appeal to James 2:24 (thus there is no justification for Luther to say we are saved by FAITH ALONE) AND in a like manner I can’t understand Pius IX’s statements in regard to EENS without an appeal to Quanto conficiamur moerore.
EENS in the true Catholic sense DOES NOT equal the errors of Fr. Feeney.
EENS,and the teaching of Pope Urban MUST be interpreted in light of what Alexander VIII, Pius IX, St Pius X, Pius XII, Paul VI, John Paul II and Benedict XVI have to say on the matter. Not Fr. Feeney, not Martin Luther & certainly not you.
Any more psotings to you on this matter would be futile since you WANT to believe Feeney & not the Catholic Church.
This post has got to be a record setter for comments. I agree that Cushing was definately under immense pressure to shut Feeney up (btw, Feeney was eventually reconciled with the church). He was the people’s cardinal, and I don’t mean that in a good way. He was too swayed by public opinion, and unfortunately a model for too many bishops today. On the issue of legal contraception in MA, he took what is essentialy the “pro-choice” stance,you know, we as Catholics are personally opposed but we shouldn’t let our opposition influence law, which is completely bogus. Now of course today huge numbers of Catholics are contracepting and aborting.
In terms of the BOD, I haven’t been totally convinced by the arguments made by either side, however, I think that if one was not baptized due to some miscommunication or ambiguity by the church, they will be protected by the shield of the church, which God himself founded.
>In terms of the BOD, I haven’t been totally convinced by the arguments made by either side, however, I think that if one was not baptized due to some miscommunication or ambiguity by the church, they will be protected by the shield of the church, which God himself founded.
I reply: Then you in effect believe in BOD.
Actually, I remember making the 100th comment on another thread, so we are still well shy of that.
I do think we ought to let this one die with dignity, though.
Jim scot needs to first address St. Dismas which he passes over, because I guess his notes say St. Dismas did not get Baptized.
Fr. Feenney invented no doctrine at all.
He came to realize that by 1942, the jesuits, and the diocese under Wright and Cushing were promoting a new religion. It was based on a model of BOD which made provisions for Jews and Protestants to get into Heaven, even if they had not been Baptized, even if would not be subject to the Roman Pontiff, even if they denied the Trinity and even if they saw the Catholic church as the anti Christ.
How ?
simple. They had something called desire. A desire to be good, or a desire to implicitly want baptism even if they did not know it was needed for salvation, was enough to merit a dispensation from Almighty God on judgment day.
Who would doubt a Catholic cardinal on this?
Desire was so powerful, it could even wash away those sins that were never confessed.
So, with this diobolical doctrine in hand, the Catholic leadership in Boston held out hope for ALL of God’s creatures, no matter what religion they professed.
In other words, borrowing from a famous TV priests, one could NOW say, ” ignorance is worth having.
Forget the words of Our Lord in the gospel:
“Unless a man be born again of WATER and the HOLY GHOST, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God”. John 3:5
Oh, say the liberal Catholics, you must understand THAT as the CHURCH understands it.
Gee, I thought Jesus made it very simple.
Oh no, say the liberal Catholics, who need to find a opening for all non Catholics, Jesus just meant that was one way, not the ONLY way.
The other way is by Desire.
Curious this is never mentioned in Scripture or is it a defined Dogma.
We can desire our way into Heaven?
The fact is the Creatures of god are made membersof the Catholic Church via Water Baptism. And the church has defined it dozens of times that ALL who die outside the Catholic Church cannot be saved.
Sorry there is no other entrance allowed by God into the Catholic Church than WATER BAPTISM
If there was Jesus would have told us, the Church would have defined it as such.
Jesus told us we need water Baptism and the Church has said the same.
Trent did not condone Baptism of Desire. The english translation which uses two negatives , even though desire is included, by definition means both water and the desire for it are required.
BOD is the modern day excuse Catholics offer up to the god of indifferenc as the reason they see no need to convert their non Catholic neighbor or relative.
No need to tell aunt martha one word about the Catholic faith, since as a mormon she is capable of meriting heaven via Baptism of desire and far be it for me to ever judge HER.
“Then you in effect believe in BOD.”
Yes, but not because of the arguments that have been made.
Neoconspy should change his posting name to Protestantspy. The Popes, the Church Fathers, the doctors of the Church, all the great theologians, taught with virtually one voice taught BOD.
Fr. Feeney like Fr. Luther invented a novelty.
At this point Neoconspy’s whole additude is to stick his fingers in his ears & say “LALALALALLALALA..BOD is a heresy! LALALALALALALALALA!”.
I mean when you start refering to an obvious Papal Encyclical as a “private letter” you are pretty much at a “Roswell was real level of thinking”.
You may have the last word Neoconspy. I’m sure we will all be entertained by your latest conspiracy theory of how Hans Kung went back in time to alter Pius IX’s writings.
Mr. X wrote:
Yes, but not because of the arguments that have been made.
I reply: Whatever. As long as you are orthodox who cares why you are.
It is my observation today that converting to Catholicsim is happening on a more frequent basis than 15 years ago or so.
And what happens when a non Catholic converts after spending 20 or 40 years as a non Catholic?
They still have all those non Catholic relatives, co workers, friends and neighbors who have been a important part of their life.
Well, gee, just because one converts to Catholicism, does not mean we cannot show
respect and love to non Catholics!
True.
But the dynamic suddenly changes for the convert.
Either he is forced to realize his friends are outside the ARK of Salvation, OR …………
he learns of Baptism of Desire and can take a deep breathe.
And wipe his brow.
Just when he thoght he might have to tell the non Catholics they are on the wide road to hell, BOD saved him from the task.
Now, he can sit back, share a beer or coffee with uncle bob, and never utter a single Roman Catholic doctine, about No Salvation Outside the Church, because first off, that definition does not mean what it says. It might look like you have to be Catholic to be saved, but the fact remains the word church is bigger than just the Catholic church. The word, outside needs to be unbderstood properly, is means a person was presented with the Faith and after careful study rejcted it, even though they knew it was real,
so only those few folks are termed outisde the church.
Why a person would reject the true faith if they knew it was the true faith is never made clear.
But, inthe case of uncle bob, for example he looked at being Catholic and thoght the idea of following a Celebate Pope was a odd idea so he rejected the Faith in good will.
Unclle bob is absolved from any culpabilty when he dies becasue he acted in good faith.
He is saved by desire because if if he had been better convinced he would have become a Catholic.
Bob was given a dispensation from ever being baptized, receiving the sacraments or doing any good works in life, from his nephew the recent convert, who assured him desire is just as effective.
end of story.
Here lies the remains of this thread.
November 3, 2005 – November 8, 2005
+RIP+