Post-Conciliar Chaos in the Church, from a Saintly Perspective

Fred Pansing, Frigate USS United States conquers HMS Macedonian (1880)
Fred Pansing, Frigate USS United States Conquers HMS Macedonian (1880)

A particular theologian, of undeniable holiness, had some rather strong words about the chaotic state of the post-Conciliar Church. He began his remarks on the subject by conjuring up a colorful image of a perilous naval battle:

To what then shall I liken our present condition? It may be compared, I think, to some naval battle which has arisen out of time old quarrels, and is fought by men who cherish a deadly hate against one another, of long experience in naval warfare, and eager for the fight. Look, I beg you, at the picture thus raised before your eyes. See the rival fleets rushing in dread array to the attack. With a burst of uncontrollable fury they engage and fight it out. Fancy, if you like, the ships driven to and fro by a raging tempest, while thick darkness falls from the clouds and blackens all the scenes so that watchwords are indistinguishable in the confusion, and all distinction between friend and foe is lost. To fill up the details of the imaginary picture, suppose the sea swollen with billows and whirled up from the deep, while a vehement torrent of rain pours down from the clouds and the terrible waves rise high. From every quarter of heaven the winds beat upon one point, where both the fleets are dashed one against the other.

Of the combatants some are turning traitors; some are deserting in the very thick of the fight; some have at one and the same moment to urge on their boats, all beaten by the gale, and to advance against their assailants. Jealousy of authority and the lust of individual mastery splits the sailors into parties which deal mutual death to one another. Think, besides all this, of the confused and unmeaning roar sounding over all the sea, from howling winds, from crashing vessels, from boiling surf, from the yells of the combatants as they express their varying emotions in every kind of noise, so that not a word from admiral or pilot can be heard. The disorder and confusion is tremendous, for the extremity of misfortune, when life is despaired of, gives men license for every kind of wickedness. Suppose, too, that the men are all smitten with the incurable plague of mad love of glory, so that they do not cease from their struggle each to get the better of the other, while their ship is actually settling down into the deep.

He then turns “from this figurative description to the unhappy reality” of the state of the post-Conciliar Church:

Did it not at one time appear that the Arian schism, after its separation into a sect opposed to the Church of God, stood itself alone in hostile array? But when the attitude of our foes against us was changed from one of long standing and bitter strife to one of open warfare, then, as is well known, the war was split up in more ways than I can tell into many subdivisions, so that all men were stirred to a state of inveterate hatred alike by common party spirit and individual suspicion. But what storm at sea was ever so fierce and wild as this tempest of the Churches? In it every landmark of the Fathers has been moved; every foundation, every bulwark of opinion has been shaken: everything buoyed up on the unsound is dashed about and shaken down. We attack one another. We are overthrown by one another. If our enemy is not the first to strike us, we are wounded by the comrade at our side. If a foeman is stricken and falls, his fellow soldier tramples him down. There is at least this bond of union between us that we hate our common foes, but no sooner have the enemy gone by than we find enemies in one another.

Bad enough that we should have to face down schismatics and secular opponents from without; it’s worse when we Catholics tear one another to shreds (while tearing to shreds the foundations of our faith, and ignoring the Church Fathers). Of course, such a state of affairs is deadly for souls:

And who could make a complete list of all the wrecks? Some have gone to the bottom on the attack of the enemy, some through the unsuspected treachery of their allies, some from the blundering of their own officers. We see, as it were, whole churches, crews and all, dashed and shattered upon the sunken reefs of disingenuous heresy, while others of the enemies of the Spirit of Salvation have seized the helm and made shipwreck of the faith [1 Timothy 1:19]. […]

Harsh rises the cry of the combatants encountering one another in dispute; already all the Church is almost full of the inarticulate screams, the unintelligible noises, rising from the ceaseless agitations that divert the right rule of the doctrine of true religion, now in the direction of excess, now in that of defect. […]

Plain speaking is fatal to friendship, and disagreement in opinion all the ground that is wanted for a quarrel. No oaths of confederacy are so efficacious in keeping men true to sedition as their likeness in error. Every one is a theologue though he have his soul branded with more spots than can be counted. The result is that innovators find a plentiful supply of men ripe for faction, while self-appointed scions of the house of place-hunters reject the government of the Holy Spirit and divide the chief dignities of the Churches. The institutions of the Gospel have now everywhere been thrown into confusion by want of discipline; there is an indescribable pushing for the chief places while every self-advertiser tries to force himself into high office. The result of this lust for ordering is that our people are in a state of wild confusion for lack of being ordered; the exhortations of those in authority are rendered wholly purposeless and void, because there is not a man but, out of his ignorant impudence, thinks that it is just as much his duty to give orders to other people, as it is to obey any one else.

So who penned these shocking words? St. Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.), writing about the chaos in the decades following… the Council of Nicaea (321 A.D.). It’s worth remembering that, while the Council of Nicaea is widely regarded as one of the (if not the) greatest Councils of all time, its salutary effects were not always felt immediately.

Another saintly theologian, Pope Benedict XVI, pointed to these words from St. Basil in his own analysis of the aftermath of the Second Vatican Council (1962-65 A.D.):

The last event of this year on which I wish to reflect here is the celebration of the conclusion of the Second Vatican Council 40 years ago. This memory prompts the question: What has been the result of the Council? Was it well received? What, in the acceptance of the Council, was good and what was inadequate or mistaken? What still remains to be done? No one can deny that in vast areas of the Church the implementation of the Council has been somewhat difficult, even without wishing to apply to what occurred in these years the description that St Basil, the great Doctor of the Church, made of the Church’s situation after the Council of Nicea:  he compares her situation to a naval battle in the darkness of the storm, saying among other things:  “The raucous shouting of those who through disagreement rise up against one another, the incomprehensible chatter, the confused din of uninterrupted clamouring, has now filled almost the whole of the Church, falsifying through excess or failure the right doctrine of the faith…” (De Spiritu Sancto, XXX, 77; PG 32, 213 A; SCh 17 ff., p. 524).

We do not want to apply precisely this dramatic description to the situation of the post-conciliar period, yet something from all that occurred is nevertheless reflected in it. The question arises:  Why has the implementation of the Council, in large parts of the Church, thus far been so difficult?

That’s from his Christmas greeting for 2005, and Benedict answers his own question in this way:

Well, it all depends on the correct interpretation of the Council or – as we would say today – on its proper hermeneutics, the correct key to its interpretation and application. The problems in its implementation arose from the fact that two contrary hermeneutics came face to face and quarrelled with each other. One caused confusion, the other, silently but more and more visibly, bore and is bearing fruit.

The first of these interpretations, the disastrous way to understand Vatican II, is through “a hermeneutic of discontinuity and rupture.” Pope Benedict warns that it “risks ending in a split between the pre-conciliar Church and the post-conciliar Church.” Benedict points to those who elevate the “Spirit of Vatican II” over and against the actual Conciliar texts as being guilty of holding to this flawed hermeneutic. Read in this view, Vatican II abolished the old Church in favor of a new Church, a view tantamount to a repudiation of Christ’s plain words in Matthew 16:17-19 about the indestructibility of the Church.

The other approach is often called the “hermeneutic of continuity,” but that’s not actually what Benedict calls it. He prefers the term “hermeneutic of reform,” which recognizes that the Church is “a subject which increases in time and develops, yet always remaining the same, the one subject of the journeying People of God.” G.K. Chesteron put the matter wittily: “When we say that a puppy develops into a dog, we do not mean that his growth is a gradual compromise with a cat; we mean that he becomes more doggy and not less.” The hermeneutic of rupture has the pre-Conciliar puppy compromising with a cat. The hermeneutic of reform sees the pre-Conciliar puppy growing into a dog.

The Church doesn’t — and can’t — just shed her sacred doctrines like old clothes, and nothing in the Council called for her to do so. Rather, the Council — like the Council of Nicaea before it — should be seen as a moment of growth and maturation in one and the same Church. To be sure, there are growing pains, and I think that we can plainly see those growing pains all around us. But Benedict’s words, and Basil’s, remind us to keep our present worries in perspective. As a Church, we’ve been through worse, and the Holy Spirit has always gotten us through.

147 Comments

    1. I.e. when the present pope is a manifest heretic Catholics suddenly turn to private interpretation of documents. In their case not just the Bible but also writings of previous popes, but one can reasonably call those ‘scriptures’ in comparison to the living teachers and rejected modern councils and their new documents (one can reasonably call those apocryphal books). All of the sudden the cries that following the pope is a way past the chaos of sola scriptura give way to sola scriptura as a way to remain faithful under faithless heretical popes and bishops, and private interpretation of ‘scriptures’ now constitues orthodoxy.

      1. Even as each of the apostles had his own particular charism and personality, every Christian has their own particular gifts and charism also, and this includes Pope Francis. His charism is markedly Franciscan, and His papal name signifies this. So, it should be expected that his views might differ from a pope such as Benedict XVI. So, I think the current Popes judgements must be considered in light of the particular charism and personality that he was provided with by God, even as St. Paul said:

        For the body also is not one member, but many. If the foot should say, because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body? And if the ear should say, because I am not the eye, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body? If the whole body were the eye, where would be the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where would be the smelling? But now God hath set the members every one of them in the body as it hath pleased him. And if they all were one member, where would be the body? But now there are many members indeed, yet one body.” (1 Cor. 12:14)

        Heresy, on the other hand, should be proven not generally but specifically, and point by point, and with strong evidence.

    2. Sola Scriptura works better at creating Church unity? Are you serious?

      1. How many different competing theological schools, movements, and denominations are there that each hold to sola Scriptura while disagreeing with one another? That fact alone debunks your outlandish claim.

      2. Notice that the crises Basil is discussing were eventually resolved, and the glory of Nicaea is recognised today even by many Protestants. What major theological disputes within Protestantism have ever been solved? Or do the schisms and infighting just rage interminably?

      1. In actuality though there is more unity between the various Prot denominations doctrinally despite the differences in name and organization than there presently is between traditional Catholics and neoCatholics thanks to sn ‘infallible’ Vatican II council and a succesion of ‘infallible’ post Vat II popes who can’t seem to agree on anything. Not to mention two popes living at once, one exiled or forcibly retired by yhe gay moffia in the Vatican to make room for their own pope. Evangelicalism has forged a more coherent union of denominations than the RCC can of what is supposed to be one denomination.

        1. Having spent 32 years in various Protestant denominations and churches each with it’s distinctive teachings, I returned home to the Church of my youth on Holy Saturday in 2005.

          These Protestants could not even agree on the most basic of doctrines.

          Did Jesus die for the sins of all humanity or only the elect?

          What is the true meaning of the Lord’s Supper?

          What is the correct mode and meaning of baptism?

          Can a believer in Christ lose their salvation?

          These is basic stuff and there is much disagreement.

        2. I’m also a Roman Catholic who was a former Evangelical.

          The amount of disagreement over the basic gospel message within Evangelicalism is insane. “Non-denominational” Evangelicalism has been about as effective as a singular, unified movement as Anglicanism, if not worse.

    3. This is madness.

      Calvinists say grace is irresistible, while Wesleyans say grace is chosen.
      Lutherans say baptism is necessary and conveys grace, while Baptists say baptism is merely symbolic.
      Presbyterians say salvation cannot be lost, while Pentacostals say salvation can be lost and gained again.

      If Sola Scriptura really is how God intended to convey the Gospel, then God is either forgetful or deceitful. Which is it?

      On the other hand, if Sola Scriptura is false, then Protestantism is *exactly* what I expect Sola Scriptura to produce: A cacophonous trainwreck of contradicting scriptural interpretations, each one defended with the Protestant mantra, “MY interpretation is exactly correct. If you disagree with me, it’s because YOUR interpretation is skewed by extra-biblical influences.” And so the Calvinists fight with Wesleyans and Aminianists over grace, each side insisting there’s no infallible interpreter, but those other guys are OBJECTIVELY wrong in their interpretation. Just ridiculous.

      Sola Scriptura is nothing more than a pretext for rejecting authority while clinging desperately to an obviously failed rule of faith.

  1. The Church has shed her doctrines with no complaints as done by Pope John Paul:Pope John-Paul II General Audience May 31, 1995
    4. Since Christ brings about salvation through his Mystical Body, which is the Church, the way of salvation is connected essentially with the Church. The axiom extra Ecclesiam nulla salus—”outside the Church there is no salvation”—stated by St. Cyprian (Epist. 73, 21; PL 1123 AB), belongs to the Christian tradition and was included in the Fourth Lateran Council (DS 802), in the Bull Unam sanctam of Boniface VIII (DS 870) and in the Council of Florence (Decretum pro jacobitis, DS 1351).
    The axiom means that for those who are not ignorant of the fact that the Church has been established as necessary by God through Jesus Christ, there is an obligation to enter the Church and remain in her in order to attain salvation (cf. Lumen gentium, n. 14). For those, however, who have not received the Gospel proclamation, as I wrote in the Encyclical Redemptoris missio, salvation is accessible in mysterious ways, inasmuch as divine grace is granted to them by virtue of Christ’s redeeming sacrifice, without external membership in the Church, but nonetheless always in relation to her (cf. n. 10).
    It is a “mysterious relationship”: mysterious for those who receive the grace, because they do not know the Church and sometimes even outwardly reject her; it is also mysterious in itself, because it is linked to the saving mystery of grace, which includes an essential reference to the Church founded by the Saviour.
    In order to take effect, saving grace requires acceptance, co-operation, a yes to the divine gift: and this acceptance is, at least implicitly, oriented to Christ and the Church. Thus it can also be said that sine Ecclesia nulla salus—”without the Church there is no salvation”: belonging to the Church, the Mystical Body of Christ, however implicitly and indeed mysteriously, is an essential condition for salvation.

        1. Moses and Elias were “outside the church”, as the ‘church’ didn’t exist at the time that they lived. And yet, we read, they are up on Mount Tabor resplendent in glory, conversing with Jesus:

          “And whilst he prayed, the shape of his countenance was altered, and his raiment became white and glittering. And behold two men were talking with him. And they were Moses and Elias, APPEARING IN MAGISTY.” ( Luke 9:29)

          And, one week before this event, Jesus said to His Apostles:

          “…he that shall be ashamed of me and of my words, of him the Son of man shall be ashamed, when he shall come in his MAGISTY, and that of his Father, and of the holy angels. But I tell you of a truth: There are some standing here that shall not taste death, till they SEE THE KINGDOM OF GOD.”

          So, clearly, Moses and Elias were in “the kingdom of God” at the time of the Transfiguration. Yet they were outside of the Church at the same time, considering the earlier centuries that they lived in.

          Maybe their very evident ‘salvation’ is one type of ‘mystery’ that St. John Paul II is trying to convey, and for which you term him a heretic?

          There are mysteries regarding the Kingdom of God that we cannot understand clearly due to the ‘splinters’ and ‘beams in our own eyes’. Therefore, it’s good to take care when throwing around the term ‘heretic’…lest we, in our excess zeal, actually become one in doing so.

          1. Of course Moses and Elias were old dispensation justified (changed from children of Adam to children of God). In the new dispensation, they would have to be water Baptism justified (John 3:5). There is the mystery of faith (Eucharist), the sacrament of faith ( Baptism) and the dogma of faith ( Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salis). Dogmas must be believed as stated.To change their meaning is an act of heresy.

          2. Warren,

            Are you honestly claiming (on zero evidence!) that everyone in the New Dispensation, without exception, goes to hell if they never received water baptism? How does that apply for:

            1. Catechumens?
            2. Infants?
            3. Martyrs who never received water baptism?
            4. Those who never heard of the requirements for baptism, through no fault of their own?

            In Christ,

            Joe

  2. I appreciate your post because you brought forth words from the past and let them shine on their own to reveal some truth for us today. As a nice twist, you revealed these words to be from the sterling early church father, St. Basil the Great. As I was reading your post, I was growing more and more curious about who said these words. It was clear that you wanted to paint the full picture of these words before showing the source, so I had to be patient until I got to your big reveal. It should give hope given how history has viewed the work of the First Council of Nicaea.

    I am concerned when so many comments on here are trying to tear down St. Pope John Paul II, as if he was not Catholic or faithful enough for them. With Catholic brothers and sisters like these, who needs heretical Protestants?!?!?!? Grace and PEACE be to you all from our father in heaven!

    1. Rev. Dark Hans,

      This is “news” to me, too. I’ve been coming here once in a while, and seeing that the tide of Protestant (mostly Calvinist/Baptist/Born Again) influx has ebbed, I see folks like Warren and David putting forth preposterous confabulations about the present “heretic” pope.

      I, for myself, a long time ago, just resigned and gladly accepted being called a “heretic” Catholic, and now a “heretic” nominal faithless Catholic. It makes things easier, I guess, for me and for those goons (Protestant gangs, pseudo-intellectual lone wolves, and herd-cattle-zombies, all included). It just makes it easier to riposte and label them with befitting epithets. One cannot argue with people who think a Coke analogy debunks evolution, who cry out that “what you think doesn’t matter, just accept”, who think women in short clothes are not Christians, and also those who believe in a literal Exodus, a literal Flood, and so on, and those who believe that contraceptives are sinful (90% of Catholics don’t). The list goes on.

      Now I just watch in amazement, at a distance, all those amateur historians-cum-theologians from both sides engage in virtual acrobatic fistfights. Sometimes I puke. But that’s all. They are all despicable.

      For the better or for the worse, those invisible bullies have just helped me jump out of the boat of belief — fortunately to discover that there was no ocean outside to drown: on the contrary, I breathe better.

      1. KO,

        All of this is really pretty simple. God designed salvation to be accessible to all, understandable to all, so that even retarded folks, little children, and thieves upon crosses, might attain His kingdom and salvation. On the contrary, it was the Pharisees who made everything difficult, everything complicated, everything so sophisticated that only a certain type might be considered ‘righteous’. Jesus said of these philosophers, who value gnosis or philosophical logic over the Holy Gospel that He gave to us:

        “Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; because you go round about the sea and the land to make one proselyte; and when he is made, you make him the child of hell twofold more than yourselves.”

        And , He also taught:

        ” Amen I say to you, unless you be converted, and become as little children, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 18:3)

        and

        “For my yoke is sweet and my burden light.” (Matthew 11:30)

        What is really essential for all people is to listen to Christ Himself when He teaches. We need to ‘keep His word’ as He Himself admonishes us :

        “Amen, amen I say to you: If any man keep my word he shall not see death forever.” And:

        “If any one love me he will keep my word. And my father will love him. And we will come to him and will make our abode with him. He that loveth me not keep not my words. And the word which you have heard is not mine, but the Father’s who sent me.’ And:

        “If you continue in my word you shall be my disciples indeed. And you shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free.”

        So, what ever anyone does with apologetics, it’s not worth getting frustrated over. The only thing important is to obey Christ when He says over and over again to ‘keep His word’. This doesn’t take a lot of study. The Gospels in the NT are short in length. The daily Gospel readings at Mass are also short.
        And understanding of the ‘Summa’ is not necessary, nor is a knowledge of any of the ecumenical councils. Keeping the words of Christ and putting them into practice ARE NECESSARY.

        So, I wouldn’t get upset about anything anyone else does or says.

        We have a great teacher, Christ the Lord. Let’s just follow Him in all love and peace. And then share that peace of Christ with others. This is what He taught His disciples to do:

        “Into whatsoever house you enter, first say: Peace be to this house.” (Luke 10:5)

        Best to you. You have made multitudes of great comments in the past, and provided many valuable citations and resources from Church history, which I’m sure many have greatly benefitted by…and myself especially. Keep up the good faith in all humility, peace and brotherly charity. It’s a simple recipe for a holy and joy filled life in the Holy Church.

        – Al

  3. Warren Goddard,

    Regarding the Bull “Unam sanctum”, Catholic apologist Mark Shea (on his site Mark-Shea.com) has a good commentary. He gives an example from the Gospel of Mark 9:38-40 :

    ” ……’John said to him, “Teacher, we saw a man casting out demons in your name, and we forbade him, because he was not following us.” But Jesus said, “Do not forbid him; for no one who does a mighty work in my name will be able soon after to speak evil of me. For he that is not against us is for us.’

    Jesus’ point is that, in following Him, both the man casting out demons and the apostles were, whether the man or the apostles realized it or not, brought into some kind of union with one another through Him. It didn’t matter whether the apostles or the man were conscious of it. Their mutual obedience to Him put them in relationship to each other, just as the right alignment of spokes to a hub necessarily put the spokes in right alignment to one another. The fact is, it is His Spirit, not us, who is the principle of unity holding His Body together and drawing its members into ever more perfect union with each other. But that does not mean (as I had long believed as an Evangelical) that unity with the Body of Christ doesn’t matter so long as one is “spiritual”. For to be brought into union with the Body of Christ at all is to brought into the order that Christ has established for that Body since

    his gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ. (Ephesians 4:11-13).

    Or, to put it into the simplest form, if A=B, then B=A. That is, if one is a Christian at all, one is, as Lumen Gentium says, in some kind of union with the Church, the Body of Christ. This is why the Church teaches and has always taught that “outside the Church, there is no salvation”. For the Church is the company of the saved. To talk about salvation “outside the Church” is like talking about swimming outside the water. It is the logical consequence of Jesus’ statement, “He who is not with me is against me” (Matthew 12:30).

    It therefore follows that to be subject to the gospel to any degree is to be in union, to that degree, with the office of Peter since the office of Peter was created by Christ for one purpose only, to help bring people into subjection to Christ. It is therefore impossible to accept Christ without accepting the authority of Peter’s office to some degree or other. If you say to Jesus, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God” you are submitting to the judgment of Peter, who said it first (Matthew 16:16). If you declare that salvation is by grace through Christ, you are again subjecting yourself to Peter, who was the first to say that by the Holy Spirit (Acts 15:11). If you teach that Jesus is the second person of the Blessed Trinity, God from God, light from Light, true God from true God, you are simply agreeing with what the Church in council and in union with the office of Peter has always taught. If you acknowledge the canonicity of the New Testament books, you are likewise submitting to the judgment of the Petrine office, which made that call in the fourth century and ratified it in the sixteenth. In short, it is not possible to be a Christian at all without already submitting (whether you realize it or not and whether you like it or not) to Peter in precisely the sense that Unam Sanctam speaks of…..”

  4. Joe: In response to your “zero evidence” questions:

    See Denzinger’s Sources of Catholic Dogma.

    Pope Innocent III Fourth Lateran Council- There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which no one at all is saved. Denz 430.

    Pope Boniface VIII – It is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff. Denz 469

    Pope Gregory X Council of Lyon II- The souls of those who die in original sin descend to hell. Denz 464.

    Pope Eugenius IV Council of Florence- Those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews  and heretics and schismatics, will go into eternal fire unless before death they are joined to her…No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church. Denz 714

    Pope Paul III Council of Trent- If anyone says that water Baptism is not necessary for salvation, let him be anathema, Denz 858 and 861. 

    1. Wouldn’t you agree that those same people you quoted made allowances for baptism by desire and the like? So, you appear to be taking their views out of context. They would have placed me among the damned, but not those with perfect contrition and the like.

      1. Craig: No, they didn’t because baptism of desire is a theory, not doctrine. I gave Denzinger sources for the dogmatic papal statements.

    2. Warren,

      Does God desire the salvation of all?

      You must answer no. Because under your understanding, which is not the Catholic Church’s, God did not desire the salvation of any of the natives of the Americas before the end of the fifteenth century. Your view contradicts this verse though:

      First of all, then, I ask that supplications, prayers, petitions, and thanksgivings be offered for everyone,
      2 for kings and for all in authority, that we may lead a quiet and tranquil life in all devotion and dignity.
      3 This is good and pleasing to God our savior,
      4who wills everyone to be saved and to come to knowledge of the truth.

      1. Duane: I answer YES! God wills that all come to the knowledge of the truth so they can be saved. 1Tim 2:4. “under your understanding” you say. Not so, for I merely provided dogmatic Church teachings which you must believe as stated in order to remain a Catholic.

        1. Yes, you have provided Church teachings, but you twist them to fit your interpretation. But your interpretation is not the Catholic Church’s interpretation.

  5. A current dose of Church ‘chaos’ is the controversy surrounding the recent Apostolic Exhortation “Amoris laetitia” regarding the question as to whether those who are divorced and remarried should be permitted to receive the Holy Eucharist at Mass. Many are confused over the issue because various prominent cardinals and bishops support a relaxation of the age old prohibition of Holy Communion under such circumstances, unless the couple live together strictly as ‘brother and sister’ in a state of celibacy; or, until an annulment of the previous marriages is provided.

    However, underlying the entire controversy is the general carelessness with which the sacrament of Marriage is provided to Catholics who show little interest in actually practicing the Catholic faith. Many young couples ignore the lessons taught in their marriage prep classes and actually live together while taking the same instructions. Basically, there is a culture in the Church of overlooking serious catechesis in almost all areas of faith instruction, and so when young Catholics decide to marry, they often do so with more importance being paid to church photos, video’s and wedding parties, than is to the actual sacrament itself.

    So, when a Catholic marriage ends badly, it is because it probably should not have been allowed ‘sacramentally’ in the first place, due to the grossly inadequate catechesis that many are receiving in the Church today. That is, do to a lack of serious study of the faith, they really know the Lord Jesus Christ, His teachings and His Church, in a very shallow and superficial way. Many don’t even know what a ‘sacrament’ really is, and that includes what the Eucharist actually is. And most young Catholic couples already practice one form of birth control or another, against Church teachings, and many are even addicted to pornography, as is revealed through Pew polls regarding religious practices in the U.S. So, there is a big ‘disconnect’ in what is expected when seeking to be sacramentally married in the Catholic Church.

    So, the way I see it, is that this problem can be rectified not by relaxing the Church’s centuries old discipline regarding marriage, but rather by just requiring that those who wish a sacramental marriage to confirm their true faith in Jesus Christ, and demonstrate a competent understanding of all the sacraments that the Church provides. First of all they should demonstrate that they truly Love Jesus Christ and all of His teachings… as this is the Gospel message that underlies everything that the Church was founded on. And then they should be married with this same faith in mind, and that it is Jesus Himself is in the midst of their marriage. They should also be taught to pray together every day, as this will defend the union between spouses in the future.

    It the Church does this, they certainly will lose many of the nominal Catholics who really only want some beautiful pictures of their marriage ceremonies and lavish receptions. But, will then be living up to the standards of truth that the Church was mandated to protect throughout all times. Most of the ‘chaos’, therefore, is really caused by the carelessness of the parishes themselves. Because, they are letting these nominal, ignorant, Catholics to define the conditions for their marriages. And when they get divorced due to this inadequate catechesis and ‘faith foundation’, the Church is tasked with the great difficulty of straightening out all of the issues that are raised for the couple in the future.

    Really, it is a great disservice to any couple for the Church to ‘ignorantly’ marry them sacramentally; when it would be obvious after only 10 minutes of serious questioning that they really don’t know what they’re doing before receiving a sacrament from the Church. So, I hold the pastors and Bishops responsible for the current mess. All they need to do is find out if these young Catholics actually know anything about what they are doing, and then to only allow marriages for those that are really serious about the Holy Faith, and not just out to get some good selfies, wedding pictures and videos with their friends and family.

    That’s my opinion on the current ‘Church chaos’ that’s making some worldwide headlines these days.

  6. Correction: In the first paragraph above, the word “unless” should be replaced with “and other prominent bishops mandating that…”

  7. Duane: I answer YES! God wills that all come to the knowledge of the truth so they can be saved. 1Tim 2:4. “under your understanding” you say. Not so, for I merely provided dogmatic Church teachings which you must believe as stated in order to remain a Catholic.

    1. Warren, if I were an Inca in the tenth century, how did God provide me to come to the knowledge of the truth? What could I possibly do to be saved?

      1. Warren,

        The Council of Trent, which all Catholics must believe, in it’s sixth session, chapter four, and the Code of Canon Law, which is also binding on all Catholics, clearly view Baptism of Desire as established doctrine.

    1. Warren,

      You’re literally referencing the verse that disproves your claim. St. Dismas’ death is mentioned in John 19:18. And you’d have us believe he died before Jesus’ baptismal instructions in… John 3:5? How is this argument not just self-refuting?

  8. Duane: There is no baptism of desire  in Trent. In context, Session 6 Chapter 4 says that without the water of regeneration (born again of water baptism) or the (Holy Ghost inspired) vow to receive it justification (remission of original sin) doesn’t happen and it goes on saying that its as the Gospel says “Unless a man is born again of water and the Holy Ghost he cannot enter the kingdom of heaven. Session 7 says that without the sacrament of baptism no one is justified. Session 5 Decree 3 says we are justified, sanctified and redeemed by Christ’s merited graces communicated to us in the sacrament of baptism.

    1. Duane: Verification of my above statement on Trent 6:4.
      Council of Trent Session 6 Chapter 4.
      Insinuatur descriptio iustificationis impii, et modus ejus sub lege gratiae.
      Quibus verbis iustificationis impii descriptio ostendit, quod sit translatio ab eo statu in quo homo nascitur filius primi Adae, in statum gratiae et adoptionis filiorum Dei per secundum Adam Iesum Christum Salvatorem nostrum. Quae quidem translatio post evangelium promulgatum, fieri non potest sine [without] lavacro [washing] regenerationis aut eius voto [vow], sicut scriptum est: Nisi quis renatus fuerit ex aqua et Spiritu non potest introire in regnum Dei.

      A description is introduced of the justification of the impious, and of the manner thereof under the law of grace. By which words, a description of the justification of the impious is indicated, as being a translation, from that state wherein man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace, and of the adoption of the sons of God, through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Savior. And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the washing of regeneration, or the vow thereof, as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.

      1. Warren,

        You are wrong. The Catechism of Trent affirms Baptism of Desire.

        Catechism of the Council of Trent (16th century): The Sacraments, Baptism: “…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.”

        1. Duanne:On the First English edition of the Trent Catechism says:

          But though these things are so, yet the Church has not been used to presently or hastily to bestow the Sacrament of Baptism upon this sort of men, but has decreed that it should be deferred for a certain time. For this delay as not joined with it the same danger, as was noted before to impend over infants because the purpose and resolution, that they, who are imbued with the life of reason, have of receiving Baptism, and their Penance for their forepast evil life, will be available for Grace and Righteousness to them, if any sudden accident should happen to hinder them from being Baptized. But on the contrary, this delay seems to be somewhat advantageous…

          In other words, these properly disposed adults are available for the grace of Justification when God decides to bestow it. The purpose, resolution, and penance for their forepast evil life do not have the power to justify; these signs only indicate

          1. Warren,

            You misread the text. Trent says the delay does not hold the same danger as delaying baptism for infants:

            For this delay as not joined with it the same danger, as was noted before to impend over infants

            And they make it clear by the word impend that the delay is much more serious for infants than the catechumens. How can this be? In your reading those catechumens who delay and die before baptism are damned. Yet Trent says the danger is different.

            Trent gives the why here, and totally contradicts what you have put forth:

            that they, who are imbued with the life of reason, have of receiving Baptism, and their Penance for their forepast evil life, will be available for Grace and Righteousness to them, if any sudden accident should happen to hinder them from being Baptized.

            Notice, Trent says the Grace and Righteousness WILL be available, not might be available, to those who had the desire but did not become baptized. And Trent clearly says it is available to those unbaptized because of the Penance they did for their past evil life.

            If, as you say, Baptism of Desire is not taught by Trent, what possible reasons could any delay ever be as Trent says, “ADVANTAGEOUS”?

      2. Warren,

        In context:

        By which words, a description of the Justification of the impious is indicated,-as being a translation, from that state wherein man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace, and of the adoption of the sons of God, through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Saviour. And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God” (Council of Trent, Sixth Session, Fourth Chapter, A description is introduced of the Justification of the impious, and of the Manner thereof under the law of grace.)

        Trent quite clearly says either water, or the desire of.

        And session VIII reaffirms the same in desire of the sacraments.

        1. Duanne The Latin is voto not desiderio. The conjunction or (aut) can also mean and as determined by the text. Session VII canon 4 affirms this with or meaning and:
          “Et sine eis aut eorum voto” (without them or without the vow thereof).

          Canon 4 here provides the truth that the sacraments of the New Law are necessary unto salvation, although all (the sacraments) are not necessary for every individual, necessarily implying that if not all the sacraments are necessary for every individual, there is at least one sacrament which is necessary for every individual—the Sacrament of Baptism, without which sacrament (the gateway to the sacramental life) none of the other sacraments, or even the grace of these sacraments, are remotely possible. Note that “without them” or “without the desire of them” the “or” must mean “and,” countering Martin Luther’s “salvation by faith alone” heresy.

    2. I would refer you to the Summa question 66, article 12. Not only is Baptism of water not the only form of Baptism, Baptism of blood is a greater form, and St. Thomas explicitly acknowledges and treats as an established dogma Baptism of desire.

      Also, we have St. Augustine, Doctor of Grace (Donatists, Book IV, Ch. 23):

      “But as in the thief, to whom the material administration of the sacrament was necessarily wanting, the salvation was complete, because it was spiritually present through his piety, so, when the sacrament itself is present, salvation is complete, if what the thief possessed be unavoidably wanting”

      Here are more citations of the Church fathers concerning the threefold nature of the Sacrament (which was also taught in the Baltimore Cathecism):

      http://www.baptismofdesire.com/

      From this evidence, it’s safe to conclude that the threefold character of Baptism (Baptism of Water, Blood, and Desire) is a teaching of the Ordinary and Universal Magesterium of the Church.

      1. I might also add that I firmly believe the doctrine of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus, fully receive the Council of Trent, the Bull Unam Sanctam, the teaching of the church prior to the Vatican II Ecumenical council, and would be able to recite the Oath against Modernism without reserve.

        I however, do not think that a Catholic in good conscience can believe Baptism of water is the only form of Baptism, on account of the consistent and universal promulgation of the doctrine concerning its three forms.

      2. Alexander: The Council of Trent Decrees are dogmatic to be believed as stated or leave the Church. The Summa statements are St. Thomas’s opinions; corrected by the infallible Council of Trent He was also wrong on Our Lady’s Immaculate Conception.

        1. Alexander: The Church had never heard of baptism of desire until St. Augustine proposed it in taking on the Dodatists. He abandoned it and has publicly rejected it when he took on the Pelagians.

          1. So you ignore the citations of St. Cyprian, Tertullian, St. Hippolytus of Rome, St. John Chrystostom, St. Basil, Eusebius, St. Victor of Braga, St. Genesius of Arles, Rufinus, St. Gregory Nazianzen, St. Pope Siricius, St. Ambrose, and St. Cyrill in the link I posted? They cite where they got this information as well.

          2. Alexander: For now, scratch Cyprian, Tertullian, Chrystostom, Bazil, Victor, Nazianzen, Pope Siricus, Ambrose and Cyril as being baptism of desire promoters. Stick with dogma vice opinions.

  9. Alexander: The Baltimore Catechism was never approved by the Vatican and, in terms of catechisms, it was considered a “minor” catechism. Furthermore, the three form baptism is not in St. John Neuman’s catechism, and it would not be in the 1884 Baltimore had he not died at 46 in 1860. St. Neuman was from Bohemia and, as Bishop of Philadelphia, he, in the First Council of Baltimore 1852, opposed one baptism being changed to one baptism in three forms when Cardinal Gibbons first proposed it.
    The three testimonies in Baptism are the water and the blood and the Spirit. All three, namely, the Holy Spirit, the blood of Christ, and water are one, and there are three who give testimony in heaven the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit. And these three are one. (1 John 5:4-8). Consequently, no one can be justified and saved if one of the three is missing. “The Spirit of sanctification and the blood of redemption and the water of Baptism are one, and remain indivisible, none of them is separable from its link with the others.” Pope St. Leo the Great, Dogmatic Council of Chalcedon.

    1. Warren,

      You’re just completely wrong about this, and I don’t know how to make that clearer. You persist in waving away numerous Catholic authorities (pre-Vatican II ones, incidentally) while making your ridiculous claim. To my knowledge, not a single Catholic theologian holds your position, since it would involve denying both baptism of desire and baptism of blood (martyrdom), since they don’t physically involve water.

      And as has been shown to you above, you claim that (1) Christ instituted Baptism as an absolute requirement in John 3:5 and (2) that when the good thief died in John 19 without Baptism, that was okay because it wasn’t an absolute requirement yet. Doesn’t the principle of non-contradiction mean anything?

      1. Joe: For justification, going from being a son of Adam to being a son of God, in the Old Covenant the law required Circumcision and trust in the coming of a redeemer. New Covenant law, since Pentecost, requires the sacrament of baptism.

  10. Amatuer: The Popes have spoken definitively: See Denzinger’s Sources of Catholic Dogma.
    Pope Innocent III Fourth Lateran Council- There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which no one at all is saved. Denz 430.
    Pope Boniface VIII – It is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff. Denz 469

    Pope Gregory X Council of Lyon II- The souls of those who die in original sin descend to hell. Denz 464.

    Pope Clement V Council Of Vienne- All the faithfully must profess only one baptism, which regenerates in Christ all the baptized, just as there is one God and one faith. We believe that this sacrament celebrated in water and in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, is necessary for children and grown up people alike for the perfect remedy of salvation. Denz 482

    Pope Eugenius IV Council of Florence- Those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews  and heretics and schismatics, will go into eternal fire unless before death they are joined to her…No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church. Denz 714
    Pope Paul III Council of Trent- If anyone says that water Baptism is not necessary for salvation, let him be anathema. Denz 858 and 861. 
    Pope Leo I Council of Chalcedon- The three testimonies in Baptism are the water and the blood and the Spirit. All three, namely, the Holy Spirit, the blood of Christ, and water are one, and there are three who give testimony in heaven the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit. And these three are one. Consequently, no one can be justified and saved if one of the three is missing. The Spirit of sanctification and the blood of redemption and the water of Baptism are one, and remain indivisible, none of them is separable from its link with the others.

  11. I’ll see your Denzingers and raise you two Denzingers

    Baptism of Desire (an unbaptized priest) *

    388    [From the letter “Apostolicam Sedem” to the Bishop

    of Cremona, of uncertain time]

     To your inquiry we respond thus: We assert without hesitation (on the authority of the holy Fathers Augustine and Ambrose) that the priest whom you indicated (in your letter) had died without the water of baptism, because he persevered in the faith of holy mother the Church and in the confession of the name of Christ, was freed from original sin and attained the joy of the heavenly fatherland. Read (brother) in the eighth book of Augustine’s “City of God” * where among other things it is written, “Baptism is ministered invisibly to one whom not contempt of religion but death excludes.” Read again the book also of the blessed Ambrose concerning the death of Valentinian * where he says the same thing. Therefore, to questions concerning the dead, you should hold the opinions of the learned Fathers’ and in your church you should join in prayers and you should have sacrifices offered to God for the priest mentioned.

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    The Minister of Baptism and the Baptism of Spirit*

    [From the letter “Debitum pastoralis officii” to Berthold,

    the Bishop of Metz, August 28, 1206]

    413 You have, to be sure, intimated that a certain Jew, when at the point of death, since he lived only among Jews, immersed himself in water while saying: “I baptize myself in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, Amen.”

    We respond that, since there should be a distinction between the one baptizing and the one baptized, as is clearly gathered from the words of the Lord, when he says to the Apostles: “Go baptize all nations in the name etc.” [cf. Matt. 28:19], the Jew mentioned must be baptized again by another, that it may be shown that he who is baptized is one person, and he who baptizes another. . . . If, however, such a one had died immediately, he would have rushed to his heavenly home without delay because of the faith of the sacrament, although not because of the sacrament of faith.

    1. Amayeur:When St. Ambrose wrote the funeral oration upon the death of Emperor Valentinian (375), baptism of desire was unheard of. He merely told the mourners not to be distressed, for Valentinian got what he asked for—the Sacrament of Baptism.

      St. Ambrose did not say that Emperor Valentinian II received “the effects of the sacrament through his desire,” and distortions of Ambrose’s oration such as this are expressly contested. Father Jacques-Paul Minge, one of the great, if not the greatest authority on patristic teaching, doesn’t see a warrant for this optimism in the writings of the doctor from Milan: “From among the Catholic Fathers perhaps no one insists more than Ambrose on the absolute necessity of receiving Baptism, in various places, but especially in Book II De Abraham; Sermon 2 In Psalm.; and the book De Mysteriis.” Migne. Patrologia Latina. 16, 394. Translated in Nicene Fathers. Vol 10, p 319.

      Writing about the sacrament of baptism in his book De Mysteriis, Ambrose affirms:

      You have read, therefore, that the three witnesses in Baptism are one: water.. blood, and spirit; and if you withdraw any one of these, the Sacrament of Baptism is not valid. For what is water without the cross of Christ? A common element without any sacramental effect. Nor on the other hand is there any mystery of regeneration without the water: for ‘unless a man be born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God’. Now, even the catechumen believes in the cross of the Lord Jesus, with which he also signs himself; but, unless he be baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, he cannot receive remission of his sins nor the gift of spiritual grace.”This is the case of a letter written by either Innocent II or Innocent III in reply to an unknown bishop of Cremona’s inquiry about the salvation of a priest who died unbaptized. So we are to believe that Pope Innocent III’s, Pope Boniface VIII’s and Pope Eugene IV’s solemn definitions on the absolute necessity of the Sacrament of Baptism for Salvation must be read in light of an unofficial private letter from author and time unknown? Mark this one as “dubious” and of “unknown origin.”This is the case of a letter written by either Innocent II or Innocent III in reply to an unknown bishop of Cremona’s inquiry about the salvation of a priest who died unbaptized. So we are to believe that Pope Innocent III’s, Pope Boniface VIII’s and Pope Eugene IV’s solemn definitions on the absolute necessity of the Sacrament of Baptism for Salvation must be read in light of an unofficial private letter from author and time unknown? Mark this one as “dubious” and of “unknown origin.”

      Letter to Bishop of Cremona
      This is the case of a letter written by either Innocent II or Innocent III in reply to an unknown bishop of Cremona’s inquiry about the salvation of a priest who died unbaptized. So we are to believe that Pope Innocent III’s, Pope Boniface VIII’s and Pope Eugene IV’s solemn definitions on the absolute necessity of the Sacrament of Baptism for Salvation must be read in light of an unofficial private letter from author and time unknown? Mark this one as “dubious” and of “unknown origin.”

      Letter to Bishop of Metz
      This is the case of another private letter written by Innocent III in reply to the Bishop of Metz’s inquiry about a Jew who baptized himself. Can a Catholic bishop in the Ages of Faith not know how baptism is conferred? Mark this one “odd.”

      1. Warren,

        You said:

        When St. Ambrose wrote the funeral oration upon the death of Emperor Valentinian (375), baptism of desire was unheard of. He merely told the mourners not to be distressed, for Valentinian got what he asked for—the Sacrament of Baptism.

        Since Valentinian was murdered before he was baptized, how did he get what he asked for?

        You said:

        ”This is the case of a letter written by either Innocent II or Innocent III in reply to an unknown bishop of Cremona’s inquiry about the salvation of a priest who died unbaptized. So we are to believe that Pope Innocent III’s, Pope Boniface VIII’s and Pope Eugene IV’s solemn definitions on the absolute necessity of the Sacrament of Baptism for Salvation must be read in light of an unofficial private letter from author and time unknown? Mark this one as “dubious” and of “unknown origin.”

        But it’s not dubious. Most historians admit that it is genuine and that the author is either Innocent II or Innocent III. So the origin is known. It just does not fit what you want to believe, so you try to cast doubt. I see many Protestants do the same thing with the Decree of Damasus.

        You said:

        This is the case of another private letter written by Innocent III in reply to the Bishop of Metz’s inquiry about a Jew who baptized himself. Can a Catholic bishop in the Ages of Faith not know how baptism is conferred? Mark this one “odd.”

        The letter is odd, but again it’s authenticity is not in question by serious historians.

        You quoted:

        Pope Innocent III Fourth Lateran Council- There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which no one at all is saved. Denz 430.

        We all agree, but this does not answer the questions of invincible ignorance, Baptism of Desire, or if one who has not heard the gospel can be saved by a desire to know of God. Jesus’ own words seem to say yes:<blockquoteIf I had not come and spoken* to them, they would have no sin; but as it is they have no excuse for their sin.

        You quoted:

        Pope Boniface VIII – It is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.,/I. Denz 469

        Agreed. But if you read the full letter, and know who it is being addressed to, he is talking to ones who had left the church. But this does not answer the question if someone who has no idea who the Roman Pontiff is, would reject being subject to the Pontiff if they heard the message of the Gospel.

        Now you have said when I asked that God desires all to come to the knowledge of the truth so they can be saved. You seem to hold to the view that anyone who is not baptized since Christ came will be damned. When I asked how you can reconcile that view with someone who had no possible way of hearing the message, or being baptized, with your stating that God desires they know the truth so that they can be saved, you refused to answer.

        You quoted:

        Pope Gregory X Council of Lyon II- The souls of those who die in original sin descend to hell. Denz 464.

        No one disputes this, but this statement in no way answers the Baptism of Desire question.

        You quoted:

        Pope Clement V Council Of Vienne- All the faithfully must profess only one baptism, which regenerates in Christ all the baptized, just as there is one God and one faith. We believe that this sacrament celebrated in water and in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, is necessary for children and grown up people alike for the perfect remedy of salvation. Denz 482

        What he states is the normal way one enters into Christ’s family. Does not address if abnormal ways are a possibility

        You quoted:

        Pope Eugenius IV Council of Florence- Those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, will go into eternal fire unless before death they are joined to her…No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.</i. Denz 714

        He is talking about two sets of people here:

        1.) Those who worship false Gods.
        2.) And those who left the Church. That is why he uses the word remain.

        Again, does not address people who have never heard the message, but are striving to know God as He really is.

        You quoted:

        Pope Leo I Council of Chalcedon- The three testimonies in Baptism are the water and the blood and the Spirit. All three, namely, the Holy Spirit, the blood of Christ, and water are one, and there are three who give testimony in heaven the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit. And these three are one. Consequently, no one can be justified and saved if one of the three is missing. The Spirit of sanctification and the blood of redemption and the water of Baptism are one, and remain indivisible, none of them is separable from its link with the others.

        All these quotes you have given address normal situations for baptism. What happens in an abnormal situation?

        You quoted:

        Pope Paul III Council of Trent- If anyone says that water Baptism is not necessary for salvation, let him be anathema. Denz 858 and 861.

        I saved this one for last. He was addressing the Reformers, who were saying it was not necessary. He is not addressing the subject of Baptism of Desire. One must reconcile this statement of Paul III, with this from the Council of Trent:

        For this delay as not joined with it the same danger, as was noted before to impend over infants that they, who are imbued with the life of reason, have of receiving Baptism, and their Penance for their forepast evil life, will be available for Grace and Righteousness to them, if any sudden accident should happen to hinder them from being Baptized. But on the contrary, this delay seems to be somewhat advantageous…

        I asked you this before, and you did not answer. Now I ask you again.

        If, as you say, Baptism of Desire is not taught by Trent, what possible reasons could any delay ever be as Trent says, “ADVANTAGEOUS”?

      2. Well then, Warren, one can see that Denzinger’s is dispositive for you IF it agrees with your ideology but it is not dispositive if it proves your ideology herertical.

        ABS does not know a lot but he knows that he can not disabuse an ideologue of his heretical errors anymore than ABS can correct a psychotic’s delusions.

        Have fun trying to set Jesus right when you are standing before His Judgment Seat.

        1. ABS: Denzinger merely lists Church teachings but has no teaching authority. And I merely provided dogmatic Church teachings which you must believe as stated to remain a member of the Church.

          1. You deny even one point of Catholic Doctrine (BOD BOB) , you deny it all.

            Of course, that is just your own example of the misuse of free will but you own it nonetheless.

            So, according to 2 John 9, you do not even have God

      3. From the Catholic encyclopedia:

        In connection with his Imprimerie Catholique were established workshops for the production of religious objects, such as pictures, statues, and organs. In 1868 a great conflagration broke out in the printing house, which extended to the entire Montrouge establishment, destroying almost entirely the work of years, and the valuable stereotype plates of the Patrologia. The loss was over six million francs, but Migne did not lose courage, and began at once to rebuild. But difficulties accumulated. The Archbishop of Paris was averse to the commercial elements in the work, forbade the continuance of the business, and, finally, suspended the publisher from his priestly functions. The Franco-German war of 1870 inflicted great losses; then from Rome came a decree condemning the misuse of Mass stipends for the purchase of books, and Migne was especially named in connection with this abuse. He died without ever having regained his former prosperity, and his business passed into the hands of Garnier Frères.

        Ideologues are forever claiming the personal opinions of others as their own represent the opinions of “perhaps the greatest scholar of patrology” or some such claim.

        The sad thing is, even IF he was the greatest whatever, the ideologue has already (in the case of Aquinas) felt at liberty to dismiss all of Aquinas because of his putative error about the Immaculate Conception.

        One wonders if ideologues ever read how often they contradict their own selves in their audacious attempts to source their heresies as definitive and binding?

        Nah, it is not to be wondered at; it is what ideologues do.

  12. Duanne: You say that all the dogmatic statements that I have posted are but the normal teaching of the Church, The Church doesn’t have abnormal teaching.

    1. Warren,

      You need to read carefully what I stated. I said the statements address modes of baptism for ones entering the Church in normal situations. Never did I say normal teaching or abnormal teaching.

      I take it you cannot give an answer to the questions I have posed to you twice. No matter, I have posed those same questions to others that hold to your position, and they have always walked away without answering.

      1. Duanne: The Church has only one mode of entrance; water Baptism. Scripture John 3:5, Dogma Pope Eugene IV Council of Florence.

          1. Warren,

            LOL.

            You still refuse to answer my questions.

            Like I said before, Eugene IV does not address whether there can be such a thing as Baptism of Desire. He is talking about those who were in the Church and left, or those who never entered by rejecting the message. He does not address those who never heard the message, or who were waiting as catechumenates.

            Like I said before, I’ve seen this refusal to address my questions from those who hold your viewpoint before. The best you have done for an answer is say: ask God. I could get that same answer from a Jack Chick tract.

          2. Duanne: Eugene IV does not address whether there can be such a thing as Baptism of Desire because there is no such thing.

          3. Warren,

            Trent definitively affirmed the doctrine. You can spin this passage any way you want to, but the Church has always viewed it in one manner since Trent decreed it. Here is the passage again:

            And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, as it is written;

            Even if you say the word should be the vow thereof, it was the vow to become baptized. And Trent says it was that way from the beginning. Either the laver, which is water baptism, or something else that can effect regeneration. Trent is clear on that point. So simple.

          4. Duanne: “And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, as it is written” Putting this part o f Session 6 Chapter 4 in context we have:

            The Fathers of Trent defined that, for justification, it is necessary to receive the sacrament of Baptism.
            To have Baptism both WATER and FAITH (vow, intention, promise desire resulting from the Holy Ghost led profession and proof of faith) are required for the sacrament; as now said, unless a man be baptized of Water and the Holy Ghost inspired Faith, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.

            COUNCIL OF TRENT SESSION VI CHAPTER V Justification the manner of preparation:
            Now they (adults) are disposed unto the said justice, when, excited and assisted by divine grace,
            conceiving faith by hearing, they are freely moved towards God, believing those things to be true which God has revealed and promised, and this especially, that God justifies the impious by His grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus;
            and when, understanding themselves to be sinners, they, by turning themselves, from the fear of divine justice whereby they are profitably agitated, to consider the mercy of God, are raised unto hope, confiding that God will be propitious to them for Christ’s sake;
            and they begin to love Him as the fountain of all justice;
            and are therefore moved against sins by a certain hatred and detestation, to wit, by that penitence which must be performed before baptism:
            lastly, when they purpose to receive baptism, to begin a new life, and to keep the commandments of God.
            Concerning this disposition it is written; He that cometh to God, must believe that he is, and is a rewarder to them that seek him; and, Be of good faith, son, thy sins are forgiven thee; and, The fear of the Lord driveth out sin; and, Do penance, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost; and, Going, therefore, teach ye all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; finally, Prepare your hearts unto the Lord.

          5. Warren,

            Wrong again.

            Trent clearly says:

            And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, as it is written;

            You have to reconcile this passage with what Trent says here:

            For this delay as not joined with it the same danger, as was noted before to impend over infants that they, who are imbued with the life of reason, have of receiving Baptism, and their Penance for their forepast evil life, will be available for Grace and Righteousness to them, if any sudden accident should happen to hinder them from being Baptized. But on the contrary, this delay seems to be somewhat advantageous…

            So in the first passage Trent says we enter into the justified state through baptism, OR THE DESIRE OF

            Now look at the next passage. Trent says the impending danger for infants who die without baptism is greater than for the catechumens. How can this be? In your reasoning, the danger must be equal. But Trent clearly says your wrong. In fact Trent says delaying baptism for the catechumens is <i.advantageous.

            There can only be one possibility for the delay to be advantageous, and that is if Trent recognizes Baptism of Desire, which they clearly do in the first passage.

            Warren, until you can coherently address how Trent can say it is advantageous to delay baptism, your argument fails. And you know this to be true, as you have refused to answer the two questions that I have posed to you. This you cannot do, because fine minds that have held your position have not been able to, and they have refused to answer also.

          6. Duanne: Trent Session 6 Chapter 7 says without the Sacrament of Baptism no one is ever justified.

          7. Warren,

            Which brings us full circle to Trent saying the desire for the sacrament of baptism, when one could not be baptized in the normal manner, enables one to enter into the state of justification, as stated here:

            And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, as it is written;

            Now Warren, if one cannot ever in any circumstance enter into the justified state unless undergoing water baptism, as you claim, how can Trent ever say to a catechumen that it is to delay their baptism? Yet Trent says specifically that.

            Can you answer that question?

            If not, then you will never convince anyone who has a little knowledge of Church history of your position.

          8. Warren,

            Which brings us full circle to Trent saying the desire for the sacrament of baptism, when one could not be baptized in the normal manner, enables one to enter into the state of justification, as stated here:

            And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, as it is written;

            Now Warren, if one cannot ever in any circumstance enter into the justified state unless undergoing water baptism, as you claim, how can Trent ever say to a catechumen that it is advantageous to delay their baptism? Yet Trent says specifically that.

            Can you answer that question?

            If not, then you will never convince anyone who has a little knowledge of Church history of your position.

    1. I was wondering which site he was using, because he posts the exact same things over and over again. When one poses a question to him that that site does not touch on, he makes no attempt to answer, because that site cannot answer them.

  13. Duane: I repeat:Warren Goddard says:
    January 23, 2017 at 10:16 pm

    Duanne:On the First English edition of the Trent Catechism says:

    But though these things are so, yet the Church has not been used to presently or hastily to bestow the Sacrament of Baptism upon this sort of men, but has decreed that it should be deferred for a certain time. For this delay as not joined with it the same danger, as was noted before to impend over infants because the purpose and resolution, that they, who are imbued with the life of reason, have of receiving Baptism, and their Penance for their forepast evil life, will be available for Grace and Righteousness to them, if any sudden accident should happen to hinder them from being Baptized. But on the contrary, this delay seems to be somewhat advantageous…

    In other words, these properly disposed adults are available for the grace of Justification when God decides to bestow it. The purpose, resolution, and penance for their forepast evil life do not have the power to justify; these signs only indicate
    Reply

    1. Warren,

      That in no way answers the question of how it is advantageous for a catechumen to delay water baptism, as Trent clearly says.

      Why delay something that justifies you right now, as water baptism does?

      There can only be one answer, and that is if Trent believes that Baptism of Desire has long been the tradition of the Church.

      Warren, to show you how weak your argument is, Bellarmine and Alphonsus, both faithful doctors of the Church, felt Trent clearly taught Baptism of Desire. Now you, an obvious dissenter think you, and your no valid bishop cronies, interpret it better than they? That is laughable. The following was taken from this site: Baptismofdesire.com

      St. Robert Bellarmine, Doctor of the Church (16th century):

      De Sacramento Baptismi, cap. 6: “…among the ancients this proposition was not so certain at first as later on: that perfect conversion and repentance is rightly called the Baptism of Desire and supplies for Baptism of water, at least in case of necessity”…..”it is certainly to be believed that true conversion supplies for Baptism of water when it is not from contempt but through necessity that persons die without Baptism of water.”

      The Church Militant (De Ecclesia Militante), c. 3: “I answer therefore that, when it is said outside the Church no one is saved, it must be understood of those who belong to her neither in actual fact nor in desire [desiderio], as theologians commonly speak on baptism. Because the catechumens are in the Church, though not in actual fact, yet at least in resolution [voto], therefore they can be saved.”

      The Church Militant De Ecclesia Militante, c. 3: “Concerning catechumens there is a greater difficulty, because they are faithful [have the faith] and can be saved if they die in this state, and yet outside the Church no one is saved, as outside the ark of Noah…”

      The Church Militant (De Ecclesia Militante), c. 2: “Others, however, are of the soul but not of the body (of the Church), as Catechumens and those who have been excommunicated, who may have faith and charity which is possible.”

      De Controversiis, “De Baptismo,” Lib. I, Cap. VI: “But without doubt it must be believed that true conversion supplies for Baptism of water when one dies without Baptism of water not out of contempt but out of necessity… For it is expressly said in Ezechiel: If the wicked shall do penance from his sins, I will no more remember his iniquities…Thus also the Council of Trent, Session 6, Chapter 4, says that Baptism is necessary in fact or in desire (in re vel in voto)”.

      This great doctor flat out contradicts you, and says it is Trent that teaches baptism of desire.

      St. Alphonsus Liguori, Doctor of the Church (18th century):

      Moral Theology, Book 6, Section II (About Baptism and Confirmation), Chapter 1 (On Baptism), page 310, no. 96: “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 of the Council of Trent, session 6, Chapter 4 where it is said that no one can be saved ‘without the laver of regeneration or the desire for it.'”

      Moral Theology, Bk. 6, nn. 95-97: “Baptism of blood is the shedding of one’s blood, i.e. death, suffered for the faith or for some other Christian virtue. Now this Baptism is comparable to true baptism because, like true Baptism, it remits both guilt and punishment as it were ex opere operato… Hence martyrdom avails also for infants seeing that the Church venerates the Holy Innocents as true martyrs. That is why Suarez rightly teaches that the opposing view is at least temerarious.”

      On the Council of Trent, 1846, Pg. 128-129 (Duffy): “Who can deny that the act of perfect love of God, which is sufficient for justification, includes an implicit desire of Baptism, of Penance, and of the Eucharist. He who wishes the whole wishes the every part of that whole and all the means necessary for its attainment. In order to be justified without baptism, an infidel must love God above all things, and must have an universal will to observe all the divine precepts, among which the first is to receive baptism: and therefore in order to be justified it is necessary for him to have at least an implicit desire of that sacrament.”

      This great doctor of the Church also contradicts your reading of Trent.

      Finally:

      In the Summa Theologica in the 13th century, St. Thomas Aquinas is seen teaching baptism of desire and blood numerous times. A century later, in the 14th century, St. Thomas’ writings were thoroughly scrutinized during his canonization process, and he was not shown to be in error on this teaching, and Pope John XXII still chose to canonize him. Two centuries after this, in the 16th century, St. Thomas’ writings were again thoroughly scrutinized during the process to make him a Doctor of the Church. Again, St. Thomas was not found to be in error on this teaching, and Pope St. Pius V chose to make him a Doctor of the Church. These processes never would have completed if St. Thomas were teaching heresy. In addition, since the days of St. Thomas Aquinas, there have since been roughly 70 Popes and countless bishops that have certainly read the Summa Theologica, as it is one of the most trusted references in the history of the Catholic Church next to Scripture itself. None of those 70+ Popes and countless bishops ever declared St. Thomas to be in error on this teaching, and none of them have ever challenged his canonization or Doctor of the Church status, nor have any of them ever declared St. Thomas to be a heretic.

      These same arguments we apply to St. Thomas can also be applied to the other references above who taught baptism of desire and/or blood. The fact remains, Baptism of Desire, Blood and Water are CLEARLY a unanimous teaching of the Magisterium of the Church (both Solemn and Ordinary), and therefore we MUST believe them.

      By the way Warren, a little known fact. The council of Trent held Aquinas in such high regard that his Summa was one of three books placed on the altar at the conclave. From calledtocommunion.com:

      In the same way, to understand rightly the meaning and basis of the decrees and canons of the Council of Trent, one must understand the theological and philosophical framework within which the Tridentine bishops were working. The enormous though invisible figure presiding virtually at the Council of Trent was the great Doctor Ecclesiae, St. Thomas Aquinas. It is virtually impossible to understand Trent rightly without understanding the philosophy and theology of St. Thomas Aquinas. Why is that? In 1879, in his encyclical Aeterni Patris (On the Restoration of Christian Philosophy), Pope Leo XIII wrote the following:

      The ecumenical councils, also, where blossoms the flower of all earthly wisdom, have always been careful to hold Thomas Aquinas in singular honor. In the Councils of Lyons [1274], Vienna [1311-1313], Florence [1439], and the Vatican [1869-1870] one might almost say that Thomas took part and presided over the deliberations and decrees of the Fathers, contending against the errors of the Greeks, of heretics and rationalists, with invincible force and with the happiest results. But the chief and special glory of Thomas, one which he has shared with none of the Catholic Doctors, is that the Fathers of Trent [1545-1563] made it part of the order of conclave to lay upon the altar, together with sacred Scripture and the decrees of the supreme Pontiffs, the Summa of Thomas Aquinas, whence to seek counsel, reason, and inspiration. (Aeterni Patris, 22)

      According to Pope Leo XIII, there were three books granted the honor of being placed on the altar at the Council of Trent. One was the Bible, one was the Decretals, and the other was Aquinas’s Summa Theologica. This does not mean that they believed the Summa to be equivalent in authority to Scripture, or that it was to be blindly received as an infallible commentary upon Scripture. Rather, it indicates how much respect the bishops at Trent had for the Summa as summarizing the Church’s organic tradition through which Scripture was to be understood. Keep in mind also that there were no less than twenty-three Dominican bishops in attendance at the Council of Trent, and they also contributed to Aquinas’s role at the Council, because Aquinas was a Dominican. When we read the sixth session of Trent with an understanding of what Aquinas has to say about justification, we see clearly that the bishops at Trent were using Aquinas’s position and arguments in order to formulate and define their own position on this subject. The great Church historian, Philip Hughes, wrote, “Where is the doctrinal definition of this council [i.e. Trent], for comment on which the theological lecturer will not turn for guidance to St. Thomas …?” (The Church in Crisis: A History of the General Councils, 325-1870, p. 324)

      Warren, the whole witness of the Church and all these great saints is against you. That is a terrible place to be.

        1. Warren,

          Is that why the bishops had Aquinas’ Summa on the altar? Is that why Pope Leo said XIII?: But the chief and special glory of Thomas, one which he has shared with none of the Catholic Doctors, is that the Fathers of Trent [1545-1563] made it part of the order of conclave to lay upon the altar, together with sacred Scripture and the decrees of the supreme Pontiffs, the Summa of Thomas Aquinas, whence to seek counsel, reason, and inspiration. (Aeterni Patris, 22)

          Even the popes witness against you.

          1. Warren,

            You’re kidding me. You mean Aquinas did not live to be hundreds of years old?

            Every historian of Trent knows that the council was greatly influenced by Aquinas. But here comes Warren, who has to deny that fact, even though Pope Leo XIII, the historian Philip Hughes, Bellarmine and Alphonsus all testify to the fact that the council was influenced by Aquinas.

          2. Warren,

            What in the world are you talking about, man? The Summa was literally laid upon the altar along the Scriptures and papal proclamations. And Pope Leo XIII said as much. How can you possibly deny this historical fact?

          3. Joe: My claim about Trent is the Church’s claim,that is, Trent is dogmatic, therefore to be accepted as stated. For example:

            CANON II.-If any one saith, that true and natural water is not of necessity for baptism, and, on that account, wrests, to some sort of metaphor, those words of our Lord Jesus Christ; Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost; let him be anathema.

  14. Warren,

    Are you getting your entire argument against the Catholic Church from a single website? Does that not strike you as a bit… silly? Why not have the humility to ask people who have actually studied things if the apparent contradiction you see between one part of Church teaching and the other can be harmonized, instead of just declaring the other part “not Church teaching” despite numerous papal, Conciliar, etc. statements to the contrary?

    I.X.,

    Joe

  15. Mr. Goddard denies that Trent had anything to do with The Angelic Doctor and he makes this bizarre claim why?

    Prolly because he considers Aquinas a semipelagian, a heretic…

    http://www.scripturecatholic.com/feature-articles/Feature%20-%20Salza%20v%20Goddard%20on%20Baptism%20of%20Desire.pdf

    O, and just a few days, in the old calendar, the Feast of Saint Emerentia was celebrated on Jan 23 (This is from memory so maybe that is not the exact date) St Emerentia was martyred; thus an example of the Baptism of Blood repeatedly denied by Mr. Goddard.

    So, if you take away the witness of Catholic Doctrine, Tradition and Canonisations, you would still be wrong Mr. G, but ideology…

  16. Catholic Encyclopedia; Holy Innocents

    The Church venerates these children as martyrs (flores martyrum); they are the first buds of the Church killed by the frost of persecution; they died not only for Christ, but in his stead (St. Aug., “Sermo 10us de sanctis”)

    1. MONDAY, JANUARY 04, 2016

      Liturgical Notes on the Feast of the Holy Innocents

      GREGORY DIPIPPO

      In the Missal of St Pius V, the feast of the Holy Innocents is celebrated in violet vestments, rather than the red used on all the other feasts of Martyrs. It is also the only feast on which the Gloria in excelsis is omitted, and with it, the Te Deum in the Divine Office; furthermore, the Alleluia at Mass is replaced with a Tract, and Benedicamus Domino is said in place of Ite, missa est, as in Advent and Lent. This custom is attested in the 9th century by Amalarius of Metz, who writes in his treatise On the Ecclesiastical Offices, citing a rubric in his copy of the Gradual, “ ‘The day is passed, as it were, in sadness.’ The author of this Mass wishes us to be joined to the souls of the devout women who mourned and wept at the Innocents’ death.” (book 1, 47) He also attests that the feast of the Innocents was kept with an octave, as were those of St Stephen the First Martyr and St John the Evangelist. (book 4, 37 in fine).

      The Massacre of the Innocents, by Tintoretto, 1582-87, from the Scuola Grande di San Rocco in Venice.
      Towards the end of the twelfth century, Bishop Sicard of Cremona notes that in addition, the “festive vestments”, i.e. the dalmatic and tunicle, were not worn on this day, and that these signs of mourning were observed because the Innocents, dying before the Resurrection of Christ had opened the gates of heaven, “went down to hell”, (i.e. the Limbo of the Fathers), but also “to represent the sadness of the mothers.” (Mitrale 9.8) He also says (which Amalarius does not) that the feast was not kept with these signs of mourning if it occurred on a Sunday, “because of their future glorification” in heaven.

      Writing about a century later, William Durandus rejects Sicard’s idea that these customs refer to the Innocents’ descent to the Limbo of the Fathers, since if that were the case, the same would have to be observed with St John the Baptist. He does agree with Amalarius, citing his words very closely, and then explains that “the songs of joy” (i.e. the Gloria, Te Deum and Alleluia) are sung if the feast falls on Sunday, and always sung on its octave, “to signify the joy which they will receive on the eighth day, that is, in the resurrection. Although they did go down to (the Limbo of the Fathers), nevertheless they will rise with us in glory; for the octaves of feasts are celebrated in memory of the general resurrection, which they signify.” This is exactly the custom prescribed by the Missal of St Pius V and its late medieval antecedents. Durandus also knows of the custom “in many churches” that the dalmatic and tunicle were not worn, but this is not followed by the Tridentine Missal. (Rationale Divinorum Officiorum VII, 42, 11-12)

      The Collect of the Innocents traditionally reads as follows: “O God, whose praise the Innocent Martyrs on this day confessed, not by speaking, but by dying, mortify in us all the evils of the vices; that our life also may proclaim in its manners Thy faith, which our tongues profess.” The phrase “mortify in us all the evils of the vices (omnia in nobis vitiorum mala mortifica)”, which has been removed in the Novus Ordo, refers to the traditional interpretation of the last line of Psalm 136 (137), in which the Psalmist curses the “daughter of Babylon” that had sent the children of Israel into exile: “Blessed be he that shall take and dash thy little ones against the rock.” For obvious reasons, this passage was used by the early Church’s critics as an example of evil behavior purportedly sanctioned by the Bible, as also by heretics who rejected the Old Testament, such as the Marcionites and Gnostics.

      The Masses of the Holy Innocents and Pope St Sylvester I, in the Sacramentary of St Denis, (folio 26v), second half of the 9th century; Bibliothèque nationale de France, Département des Manuscrits, Latin 2290
      The 3rd century biblical scholar Origen, whose massive corpus of Scriptural interpretation (now largely lost) was devoted in large measure to answering such critics, explains the meaning of this passage in a spiritual sense as follows.
      (T)he little ones of Babylon (which signifies ‘confusion’) are those troublesome sinful thoughts which arise in the soul, and he who subdues them by striking, as it were, their heads against the firm and solid strength of reason and truth, is the man who dashes the little ones against the stones; and he is therefore truly blessed. God may therefore have commanded men to destroy all their vices utterly, even at their birth, without having enjoined anything contrary to the teaching of Christ.” (Contra Celsum, 7.22)
      This explanation is accepted and elaborated upon by several of the Latin Fathers. St Hilary refers to “vices – vitia” eight times in his Treatise on this Psalm; he would also seem to be the first to associate the rock against which the vices are dashed in their “infancy” with the rock which St Paul says was Christ. (1 Corinthians 10, 4). He is followed in this by St Jerome in his 22nd Epistle, written to his spiritual daughter Eustochium, and by St Augustine (Enarratio in Ps. 136). Hilary and Jerome in particular were quite familiar with the Greek Fathers, and especially the famous Origen. Continuing this tradition, St Gregory the Great writes in his Commentary on the Penitential Psalms, “We dash our little ones upon the rock, when we mortify illicit impulses (or ‘passions’) as they arise, by directing the mind towards the imitation of Christ. For it is written ‘But the rock was Christ.’ ”

      Of course, the actual children who died in Bethlehem at the hands of King Herod’s soldiers do not represent our vices, and their death does not represent the mortification of our vices. The parallel between the Psalm and the Gospel lies in the fact that in both cases, Christ brings redemption and glory out of an event full of horror and sadness, as He will later do with His own death. In the Old Testament, this is realized only in a spiritual and allegorical way; in the New Testament, the story of the Incarnation, it is realized in the very flesh in which Christ is born and dies as a man, and which He shares with the other sons of Bethlehem. The curse of the Psalm becomes an exhortation to virtue, the words that precede it, “blessed shall he be who shall repay thee thy payment which thou hast paid us,” replaced by Christ’s command, “Bless them that curse you.” The murder of the Innocents in Bethlehem, a sin that cries to Heaven for vengeance, will bring them to glory in Heaven, after the murder of another Innocent opens its gates and effects the redemption of the human race.

      This may also be the reason why the Roman Rite developed the custom, which is unique to it, of referring to these children as “the Holy Innocents”, since they did not live long enough to commit any sin, and never lost or struggled to keep the innocence which adults must preserve or regain by the mortification of the vices. In other rites, they are referred to simply as a “children” or “infants.” In the Epistle of their Mass, Apocalypse 14, 1-5, St John the Evangelist, whose feast is kept the previous day, sees that “a Lamb (also a symbol of innocence) stood upon Mount Sion, and with him an hundred forty-four thousand, having his name, and the name of his Father, written on their foreheads. … these were purchased from among men, the firstfruits to God and to the Lamb: And in their mouth there was found no lie; for they are without spot before the throne of God.” Medieval authors in the West, having no idea of the true size of Bethlehem at the time of Christ’s birth, often assumed on the basis of this reading that their number must have been 144,000, but the Byzantine tradition says they were 14,000. (The whole population of the city today is just over 25,000.)

      A Greek icon of the Massacre of the Innocents, ca. 1580
      Various liturgical scholars, including Fr Frederick Holweck, the author of the Catholic Encyclopedia article on the Holy Innocents, have noted that before the reform of St Pius V, their feast was kept at the middle rank of “Semidouble” in the Use of Rome, rather than the highest rank of Double. None of them, as far as I can tell, has noted that it was the only Semidouble feast kept with an octave. These terms derive from the custom of semidoubling the antiphons in the Office, i.e., not singing them in full, but only intoning them before each psalm or canticle. This may seem rather odd to us now, but was historically far more common than doubling, which became the norm less than 60 years ago. Since both doubling and the keeping of octaves were traditionally reserved for the greatest solemnities, this anomaly may also have been thought of as a sign of mourning.

      Holweck also states, incorrectly, that the pre-Tridentine Breviary sang the hymns of Christmas at the Office of the Innocents; in point of fact, the Common hymns of Several Martyrs were used. The Pian Breviary, which is in most regards extremely conservative, introduced two new proper hymns for the feast, stanzas from the Epiphany hymn of the 5th century poet Prudentius; the first three of these are sung at Matins, and the other two at Lauds, to be repeated at Vespers. The latter hymn has become famous in connection with a story about St Philip Neri. He lived for many years at the Roman church of San Girolamo della Carità, right across the street from the Venerable English College, many of whose young students died as martyrs in England under Queen Elizabeth I. He used therefore to greet them with the first line of the hymn “Salvete, flores Martyrum! – Hail ye flowers of the martyrs!”

      +++++++++++ end of quote+++++++++++

      Dear Mr. Goddard. You are an autocephalic heretic who rejects the One True Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church Jesus established; you reject its Tradition, Its Magisterium, Its Historical Liturgy, and just in this instance alone you are, by your absurd ideology, constrained to consider Pope Saint Pius V a heretic.

      ABS is doen with you as an irrational ideological heretic who refused to hear the Church.

      ABS considers you a publican.

      Adios

  17. Awims. The end is as incontestable as it was ineluctable.

    Mr. G has been spreading this manure for many many years and he simply will not hear the Church. Having been blowed-up in here, he will take his new gospel to another blog and do there what he has done here.

    There are not a few like him who have been permanently banned from blogs owing to their ideology. There is no virtue in tolerating such evil because men like W.G. confuse the faithful and the good book tells us to mark them as heretics and avoid them.

  18. ABM: I stand by Church dogmatic teaching. Your failure to accept it as stated puts you out of the way of salvation. Sorry about that.

  19. For lurkers. Those in opposition to BOB/BOD have to go back prior to Saint Augustine to try in vain to locate a Pope who has a similarly warped ideology and so the absurd state they would have us to return to ( an undeniably neo- puritan movement) would mean they would not be able to identify a single Pope who ever denied BOB/BOD for as Jesus taught (Luke 9;24 ..he that lose his life for my sake, shall save it). He prophesies, in effect, Saint Emerentiana and others.

    So, contravening Popes, Saints, Tradition, Magisterium, and multimillenial year Liturgy is no biggie once one realises the ideologue is also specifically rejecting the teaching of Our Lord and Saviour.

    http://traditionalcatholic.net/Tradition/Information/Baptism_of_Desire.html

    Once one begins rejecting the One True Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church, one makes of his faith a shipwreck and one is then doomed to wailing like a wraith, shaking his angry fists at truth, and trying to convince others to throw their lot in with him as they end-up identifying as a heretic, Saint Thomas Aquinas.

  20. Feeney adherents sometimes claim that this decision and that of Innocent II have no binding force for Catholics because they are “mere private letters.” This is false. The documents are Epistolae, which in Canon Law are classed among official Pontifical Acts. Both documents were  included in the Corpus Juris Canonici, the official collection of church laws which preceded the 1917 Code of Canon Law. It is worth noting that the 1206 decree is the work of Innocent III, who also approved the 1215 decree of Lateran IV containing the phrase: “One indeed is the universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved” — the axiom Feeney adherents try to cite against baptism of desire. Innocent III, it seems, saw no contradiction between one teaching and the other. It would be 700 years until his error would finally be discovered and corrected in Boston.

    http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=28

  21. ABS: Pope Innocent III Fourth Lateran Council decree:“One indeed is the universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved” Is dogma not axiom.
    Doctrine:
    Liberal theologians of our day keep on saying that all you need to do to be saved is to be justified, and you can be justified without the waters of Redemption which the Babe of Bethlehem was born to bring. Fr Leonard Feeney.

    Dogma:
    We are justified by the water of regeneration and faith inspired of the Holy Ghost. Council of Trent 6:4.

    Scripture:
    Jesus saves us by the water of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Ghost. Titus 3:5.

    1. ABS: The SSPX is gut-linked to it’s founder who told Muslims who wished to convert, thus loose their heads, that their wish was sufficient. For it’s first 400 years the Church never heard of “baptism of desire”. St. Augustine first proposed this theory against the Donatists and later rejected it when he took on the Pelagian original sin heretics. We must believe that we were conceived in original sin and that the only remedy for it is the Sacrament of Baptism. Trent Session 6 Chapter 7.

      The SSPX promotes the three forms of baptism theory for Church membership rendering the Church’s No Salvation Outside The Church dogma useless. Only water Baptism remits original sin. Therefore, when reciting the Creed at Mass, the three baptisms people must be silent for the “We believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins” part.

    1. ABS:Modernists are really linguistic deconstructionalists. They begin by transferring dogmatic truths from the order of truth-falsehood to the order of authority-obedience and then use authority as a weapon against truth. They end up denying the intentionality of language and then the meaning begins to change with the wind.

      This novel doctrine of ‘salvation by implicity’ was formulated in the 1949 Letter sent from Cardinal Marchetti-Selvaggiani in the Holy Office to Cardinal Richard Cushing of Boston (Protocol No. 122/49) condemning Fr. Leonard Feeney’s defense of the traditional teaching on the necessity of the Church membership for salvation.

      This 1949 Letter, first published in 1952, has come to be the doctrinal foundation for new Ecumenical Ecclesiology that has entirely replaced St. Robert Bellarmine’s definition that the Catholic Church “is the society of Christian believers united in the profession of the one Christian faith and the participation in the one sacramental system under the government of the Roman Pontiff.” It is this Ecumenical Ecclesiology that is the underpinning for the destruction of nearly every Ecclesiastical Tradition in the Latin rite since Vatican II, the most important of which is the traditional Roman rite of the Mass.

      This Letter of the Holy Office is heretical. But before addressing that question, it should be remembered that this Letter was never entered formally in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis and therefore it has no greater authority than a private letter from one bishop to another. The Letter was included in the 1962 edition of Denzinger’s, not by virtue of the authority of the document, but rather by the modernist agenda of the editor, Rev. Karl Rahner. This Denzinger entry was then referenced in a footnote in the Vatican II document, Lumen Gentium.

      The 1949 Letter was written to address Fr. Feeney’s defense of the dogma that there is “no salvation outside of the Catholic Church.” Fr. Feeney did not formulate his theological teaching on ‘baptism of desire’ until several years after this Letter was written. So it is an error to say as some have said that the 1949 Letter “condemns Fr. Feeney’s teaching on Baptism.”

      The 1949 Letter says that people can gain salvation by an “implicit” membership in the Catholic Church. The material cause of this “membership” and salvation is the “good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God.” This is a form of Pelagianism. The 1949 Letter denies the defined dogmas of the Catholic Church that an explicit Faith is necessary for salvation, that the sacrament of Baptism is necessary for salvation, and that being subject to the Roman Pontiff is necessary for salvation. No quote from Scripture, father, doctor, saint, council, magisterial document or accepted tradition affirms this belief of ‘salvation by implicity’. Since supernatural Faith is believing “what God has revealed on the authority of God,” there is no explanation provided how there can be “supernatural faith” if someone does not know if God has revealed anything or what, if anything, God has revealed. The people who think this Letter is orthodox should be asked to try their hand at writing a Credo of implicit Catholic Faith.

      The 1949 Letter further undermines all dogma by its modernist affirmation that, “dogma must be understood in that sense in which the Church herself understands it. For, it was not to private judgments that Our Savior gave for explanation those things that are contained in the deposit of faith, but to the teaching authority of the Church.” The truth of the matter is that the dogmatic formulation is the “sense in which the Church herself understands” divinely revealed truth. It is the Church giving “explanation (to) those things that are contained in the deposit of faith” It is the dogma itself that is infallible and dogma is not subject to theological refinement but itself is the formal object of Divine and Catholic Faith. To say, “dogma must be understood in that sense in which the Church herself understands it,” is to claim for the theologian an authority that belongs to the dogma itself. When this modernist proposition is accepted, there is no dogmatic declaration that can be taken as a definitive expression of our faith for it will always be open to theological refinement.

      On September 1, 1910 St. Pius X published his Motu Proprio, Sacrocrum Antistitum, containing the Oath Against Modernism which was made both by the author and the recipient of the 1949 Letter. In that oath they swore to almighty God, that they would “wholly reject the heretical notion of the evolution of dogmas, which pass from one sense to another alien to that the Church held from the start” and that they “likewise condemn every error whereby is substituted for divine deposit, entrusted by Christ to His spouse and by her to be faithfully guarded, a philosophic system or a creation of the human conscience, gradually refined by the striving of men and finally to be perfected hereafter by indefinite progress.”

      The 1949 Letter as published also contained a critical mistranslation of a passage from the encyclical, Mystici Corporis, by saying that non-Catholics “are related to the Mystical Body of the Redeemer by a certain unconscious yearning and desire,” The words “related to” are a mistranslation of the Latin which should read “ordained toward.” Also the Latin original is in the subjunctive mood expressing a wish or desire, and not a condition of fact. It is properly translated as “may be ordained towards” and not, as was done, in the indicative mood as “related to.” It is evident that this mistranslation entirely changes the meaning of what Pius XII said.

  22. For Lurkers. Those anchored to the Fenney ideology are weighted down with error and they are in danger of being dragged down into Hell even as they evince the classic psychological signs of projection in telling all others still free of the feeney heresy that they are trapped in error.

    It is mind-boggling to many but we have a Church that tells us what is and is not truth and what the feenyite ideology offers is an anchor to the soul with eventual eternal self-condemnation whereas the Magisterium of the Church is liberating and salvific.

    +++++++++++++++++++=

    Quanto Conficiamur Moerore

    by Pope Pius IX

    7. Here, too, our beloved sons and venerable brothers, it is again necessary to mention and censure a very grave error entrapping some Catholics who believe that it is possible to arrive at eternal salvation although living in error and alienated from the true faith and Catholic unity. Such belief is certainly opposed to Catholic teaching. There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments.

    8. Also well known is the Catholic teaching that no one can be saved outside the Catholic Church. Eternal salvation cannot be obtained by those who oppose the authority and statements of the same Church and are stubbornly separated from the unity of the Church and also from the successor of Peter, the Roman Pontiff, to whom “the custody of the vineyard has been committed by the Savior.”4 The words of Christ are clear enough: “If he refuses to listen even to the Church, let him be to you a Gentile and a tax collector;”5 “He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you, rejects me, and he who rejects me, rejects him who sent me;”6 “He who does not believe will be condemned;”7 “He who does not believe is already condemned;”8 “He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters.”9 The Apostle Paul says that such persons are “perverted and self-condemned;”10 the Prince of the Apostles calls them “false teachers . . . who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master. . . bringing upon themselves swift destruction.”

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    For most lurkers, the question is easy-peasy:

    Who did Jesus grace with the authority to explicate the meaning of His Doctrine and the Original Deposit of Faith, His Church or laymen who oppose His Church and label it heretical?

    Try to identify a single heresy since Pentecost that did not feature at least one haughty man who declared that the Church was wrong and that he was right and that if the members of the One True Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church did not leave it and follow him they would go to hell.

  23. ABS:Pope Pius IX responded to sophistical “invincible ignorance” inquiries of his day by distinguishing between those lost due indifferentism (having and dismissing knowledge of Christ and His Church) and those lost due to invincible ignorance (knowledge of Christ and His Church never being available). He then said the latter are not punished for being ignorant as are the indifferent.

    The given text is mistranslated as: suffer eternal punishment rather than punished with eternal torments. If God cannot punish a human being who has not incurred the guilt of voluntary sin, how then, for example, can He punish eternally babies who die unbaptized? Did these babied incur the guilt of voluntary sin? What is due in justice to original sin is punishment and not reward, but it is the punishment of loss, the loss of the Beatific vision, and what is due to personal sin is the torment of the senses. Thus, Pope Pius IX here affirms the Council of Florence’s infallible teaching: “Moreover, the souls of those who depart in actual mortal sin or in original sin only, descend immediately into hell but to undergo punishments of different kinds.”

    Note that there are only four sentences in this passage from Pope Pius IX’s encyclical:

    1.Censures Catholics who believe that men can attain salvation from outside the Church.
    2.This “very grave error in which some Catholics are unhappily engaged” is quite contrary to Catholic teaching.
    3.An invincibly ignorant man can, by the operating power of divine light and grace, attain eternal life.
    4.No one can be saved outside the Catholic Church, and those who obstinately and persistently separate themselves from the Church cannot

    A “Feeneyite” would be one who follows the philosophical ortheological tenents of Feeneyism. And there is no such thing as Feeneyism. Father Leonard Feeney never adopted a theological speculation or
    interpretation of Church dogma. He championed a simple submission to the clear and literal teachings of the Church as found in infallible ex cathedra dogmatic proclamations on the necessity of true faith, water Baptism and union with the Holy Father for one’s salvation. One who does this should just be called a Catholic, not a “Feeneyite”.

    Doctrine:
    Liberal theologians of our day keep on saying that all you need to do to be saved is to be justified, and you can be justified without the waters of Redemption which the Babe of Bethlehem was born to bring. Fr Leonard Feeney.

    Dogma:
    We are justified by the water of regeneration and faith inspired of the Holy Ghost. Council of Trent 6:4.

    Scripture:
    Jesus saves us by the water of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Ghost. Titus 3:5.

    1. Warren,

      We are justified by the water of regeneration and faith inspired of the Holy Ghost. Council of Trent 6:4.

      This is true. And Trent was responding to the claim that the waters of baptism do not justify.

      I will add this. Having read Augustine against the Pelagians he did not retract his view of Baptism of Desire. But let’s for argument’s sake say he did.

      Now Warren, you are stating that anyone who has the desire to be baptized, but is not baptized, will not be saved, such as a catechumen who is murdered before he can be baptized. And you state that this is what Augustine and Leo, and many other early church fathers believed.

      Some questions for you Warren. If your opinion is true, will not God judge Augustine, and Leo, harshly for making people go through the catechumen process, where if they die they will be damned, when they could have been baptized immediately, and saved?

      Is not the damnation of any catechumen’s soul for lack of water baptism squarely on Leo and Augustine for making them wait?

      And again I will ask you this question, one that you have refused to answer numerous times. How can Trent say it is better to delay a catechumen’s baptism, when if they die without baptism, they are damned?

      1. Duane: Trent was responding to Luther’s Justification by faith alone. Claiming that a catechumen, in full cooperation with the Holy Spirit leading him to Baptism can be murdered before he was about to be baptized denies Divine Providence. “None of the Elect will die without Baptism.  God does not give man desire for nothing.  If God instilled the desire in him, He wanted him to be baptized.  And baptized he would have been before he died: ‘Perish the thought that a person predestined to eternal life could be allowed to end life without the sacrament of the mediator'”.  The opinion of St. Augustine, the Doctor of Grace, is the Church’s own.

        1. Warren,

          Trent was also responding to Anabaptists who said baptism did nothing. I suggest you read Jedin’s definitive work on the council.

          You realize that this quote:

          ‘Perish the thought that a person predestined to eternal life could be allowed to end life without the sacrament of the mediator’”.

          does not go against the doctrine of Baptism of Desire in any way. All it is saying is that none of the elect will die before having the desire to be baptized. Period.

          If you want people to believe that Augustine changed his view’s, show me where he says I used to believe this, but that was wrong, now I believe this. I see Reformed who take the same view, saying in his Retractationum that Augustine clearly changed his view on the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

          You said:

          Claiming that a catechumen, in full cooperation with the Holy Spirit leading him to Baptism can be murdered before he was about to be baptized denies Divine Providence.

          Not at all, it simply means that God does recognize Baptism of Desire.

          It all boils down to this in reality. You admitted that Jesus desired all to come to the knowledge of Him and be saved. You also say that none can be saved without water baptism. But you cannot answer how Jesus desired someone who has no way of ever hearing of His message, to come to knowledge of Him and be saved.

          1. Duane: Jesus said that unless a man be born be born again of water he cannot enter heaven. Ask Him your question.

  24. Warren,

    Trent says you’re wrong here:

    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.”

    Notice it says will avail, not might.

    I find it interesting that you still say Trent did not teach Baptism of Desire, when two great doctors of the Church, both say Trent did.

    De Controversiis, “De Baptismo,” Lib. I, Cap. VI: “But without doubt it must be believed that true conversion supplies for Baptism of water when one dies without Baptism of water not out of contempt but out of necessity… For it is expressly said in Ezechiel: If the wicked shall do penance from his sins, I will no more remember his iniquities…Thus also the Council of Trent, Session 6, Chapter 4, says that Baptism is necessary in fact or in desire (in re vel in voto)”.-Bellarmine

    Moral Theology, Book 6, Section II (About Baptism and Confirmation), Chapter 1 (On Baptism), page 310, no. 96: “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 of the Council of Trent, session 6, Chapter 4 where it is said that no one can be saved ‘without the laver of regeneration or the desire for it.’”-Alphonsus

    How could St. Bellarmine, who lived in the shadow of Trent, and most likely knew some of the bishops who were there, totally believe that Trent teaches something different than you?

    Or St. Alphonsus?

    You know the more I read you, the more you remind me of Martin Luther.

  25. Duane: The statement “Baptism is necessary in fact or in desire (in re vel in voto)” is the crux of the entire “baptism of desire” issue. It cannot be true, because “re” cannot be without “voto.” No more need be said, since no other defined Church document has ever been used or can be used to prove that there is such a thing as “baptism of desire.”

    Session 6, Chapter 4 of the Council of Trent says that Justification (the effect of Baptism) cannot happen without the water of regeneration or its vow (will, intention, purpose); i.e., the willing cooperation with the Holy Spirit leading one in purposing to receive the Sacrament of Baptism. Rejecting the vow of regeneration is condemned by Canon 9 of Session 6:

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

    On the Manner of Preparation for Justification the Council of Trent declares:

    Now they (adults) are disposed unto the said justice, when, excited and assisted by divine grace, conceiving faith by hearing, they are freely moved towards God, believing those things to be true which God has revealed and promised, and this especially, that God justifies the impious by His grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus; and when, understanding themselves to be sinners, they, by turning themselves, from the fear of divine justice whereby they are profitably agitated, to consider the mercy of God, are raised unto hope, confiding that God will be propitious to them for Christ’s sake; and they begin to love Him as the fountain of all justice; and are therefore moved against sins by a certain hatred and detestation, to wit, by that penitence which must be performed before baptism: lastly, when they purpose to receive baptism, to begin a new life, and to keep the commandments of God. Session 6. Chapter 6.

    Then, Chapter 7 of the Session goes on to declare that Justification cannot happen without the Sacrament of Baptism. Moreover, Session7, Canon 5 declares that Baptism of water is absolutely required for salvation: “If anyone says that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation, let him be anathema.”

    1. Warren,

      You misread Trent, as attested to by Bellarmine and Alphonsus. They both take vow to mean the intention of the one to be baptized. And nothing you have quoted from Trent contradicts this.

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

      This statement of Trent’s is true, but it in no way contradicts Baptism of Desire, as the one desiring baptism will, will be disposed.

      Then, Chapter 7 of the Session goes on to declare that Justification cannot happen without the Sacrament of Baptism. Moreover, Session7, Canon 5 declares that Baptism of water is absolutely required for salvation: “If anyone says that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation, let him be anathema.”

      Actually, nowhere in this quote does Trent say that water is necessary. It just says baptism is necessary. But Baptism of Desire would fulfill the requirement.

      Warren, can you answer me how both Bellarmine and Alphonsus teach that Trent does teach Baptism of Desire?

      Now this perhaps is the dumbest thing you have said, where you contradict directly what Trent says, and if you think about what Trent says elsewhere, the fact that you said it becomes a real laugher:

      Claiming that a catechumen, in full cooperation with the Holy Spirit leading him to Baptism can be murdered before he was about to be baptized denies Divine Providence.

      And yet Trent acknowledges that there are those who desire baptism that have died, before they can receive the water. But Trent says don’t worry about it.

      Now the laugher part this. If what you say is true, that Divine Providence will not allow one to die who is elect before water baptism, then why baptize infants at all? Surely God will not let any of the ones who later in life will desire baptism, die in infancy. So, quite clearly in your paradigm, there can be no urgency to ever baptize anyone. God will not let them die.

      But Trent contradicts you. Trent says:

      :<blockquoteFor this delay as not joined with it the same danger, as was noted before to impend over infants that they, who are imbued with the life of reason, have of receiving Baptism

      Trent says there is a real danger to not baptizing infants. Does Divine Providence not exist for infants?

      1. Duane. You persist in this, literally, mission impossible and it is not even Lent yet 🙂

        Why can’t you realise that he is an ideologue and, thus, impossible to set right?

    1. Warren,

      Not in every circumstance.

      Once again you refuse to answer questions that I put to you.

      How is it that both Bellarmine and Alphonsus say Trent teaches Baptism of Desire, while you deny it? How are they considered saints, when what they teach, you consider heresy?

      If God does not allow the elect to die before water baptism, why does Trent say that baptism of infants is urgent?

        1. Warren,

          One more thing, if you read the quote I posted from St. Alphonsus, he states that Trent does teach Baptism of Desire dogmatically.

          So in reality, you only stand with dogmas you agree with, that is why you are no different than any Protestant.

  26. Warren,

    But obviously if these two great saints felt that Trent taught Baptism of Desire, which it quite clearly does, than in all actuality you stand with your own opinion, and not with dogma. I see no principled difference between you and a myriad of Protestants that I meet and converse with every day.

  27. Duane:St. Alphonsus Liguori is the only Saint or Doctor of the Church to have made his statement on baptism of desire “de Fide.” No Pope or other Doctor or saint has ever corroborated his “de fide” doctrine of the Church. De fide teachings are defined truths revealed by God or at least infallibly decreed by the Magisterium mandating belief. There is not a scintilla of evidence which suggests that baptism of desire is a truth of Revelation; neither is there evidence that it is a truth believed always, in every age, by all men.

    1. Warren,

      St. Alphonsus said it was de fide because as he says, it is clear in the Apostolic canons, and in the Council of Trent. Bellarmine also says it is clear in the council of Trent, as does just about anyone who is literate.

      Warren be logical.

      You said Trent says there is no rush to have the catechumens baptized, because as you say if they are really among the elect God will not allow them to die before water baptism. The same must hold true for infants. Yet Trent says the danger for infants not being baptized is greater than catechumens who are not baptized.

      How can that possibly be? In your world anyone who dies without water baptism is damned.

      Please explain how Trent can say the danger for one group not being baptized is greater than for another group not being baptized. There can only be one logical answer. Trent clearly teaches Baptism of Desire.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *