Catholic Faction?

[HartfordWhalers]

[quote name='jasJis' date='Sep 7 2004, 09:47 AM'] And another thing. We are baptised by the Holy Spirit. Water is the normal means that God uses to communcate the Baptizing of the Spirit to us, but God Baptizes with the Holy Spirit as He sees fit. (Mary, for instance.) [/quote]
What you are saying here seems to discount the necessity for Baptism of water, which the Church has constantly taught. Are you saying that Our Lady was baptized other than by water? She didn't need to be baptized because she did not have Original Sin. The necessity of Baptism began at Pentecost. Anyone before that did not need to be baptized to be saved, but everyone after Pentecost MUST be baptized to be saved.

[jasJis]

[quote]V. WHO CAN BAPTIZE?

1256 The ordinary ministers of Baptism are the bishop and priest and, in the Latin Church, also the deacon.57 In case of necessity, anyone, even a non-baptized person, with the required intention, can baptize58 , by using the Trinitarian baptismal formula. The intention required is to will to do what the Church does when she baptizes. The Church finds the reason for this possibility in the universal saving will of God and the necessity of Baptism for salvation.59

VI. THE NECESSITY OF BAPTISM

1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation.60 He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them.61 Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament.62 The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are "reborn of water and the Spirit." God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.

1258 The Church has always held the firm conviction that those who suffer death for the sake of the faith without having received Baptism are baptized by their death for and with Christ. This Baptism of blood, like the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament.

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

1260 "Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery."63 Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.

1261 As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,"64 allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism. [/quote]
Hartford,
This is why you have the "I do not rep the Church" label. You are going directly against the Catechism which was promulgated, reviewed, and approved by the Magesterium of the Catholic Church. You are giving a simplistic answer to a complex question, thusly, you are misleading others and confusing them. If one is graced with the opportunity for Baptism, yes, they MUST not reject it. If one has not been graced with the opportunity for Baptistms, they have still always been graced to know right from wrong and must choose to do what's Good. We can do no Good without honoring God who is all Good.

[HartfordWhalers]

[color=red][Edited by dUSt: Criticism of the current magisterium][/color]

[HartfordWhalers]

"The ordinary ministers of Baptism are the bishop and priest and, in the Latin Church, also the deacon"

St. Thomas Aquinas says that a Deacon is not an ordinary minister of Baptism in the Summa.

[HartfordWhalers]

[color=red][Edited by dUSt: See you in 3 days. Go here and read before coming back: [url="http://phorum.phatmass.com/index.php?act=boardrules"]http://phorum.phatmass.com/index.php?act=boardrules[/url]][/color]

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

This has everything you need:
[url="http://www.cathworld.org/worlds/bible/thedude/againstfeeneyism.html"]http://www.cathworld.org/worlds/bible/thed...tfeeneyism.html[/url]

Rigorist Feeneyites oppose:
The Council of Trent
The Current Catechism
All Prior Catechisms
The Summa Theologica
The Early Church Fathers
The Holy Office
And the Roman Pontiffs themselves

[megamattman1]

i still say dairy has a point.

thedude, I checked that link dairy gave that I thought might have rectified using Aquinis in general (though not in the sense that thedude cited) but now I don't see what she was looking at!

Look at your link thedude. It shows some of the early fathers who believed outside can be saved. But you'll find fathers who believed no salvation in the strict sense. My point being that the ECF were heterogeneous in that belief. This is not necessarily help the Church prove that it did not contradict in this circumstance. But it doesn't hurt it because we can cite development.

Now look at Trent Aquinas, and Augustine. If you read all the quotes, they talk about or could be read that only people who expressly desired baptism could be saved by desire without the actual baptism. You yourself set the premise in green when you said people were saying Catechumins (in some of the quotes) could not be saved and then quotes from the Aq and Au that said they the Cate could be saved by desire. only the catechumens who wanted baptism it might seem.

And you showed how the modern Church believes as you say. Score one for that.


Now, even if you showed consistency through the ages not counting when they promulgated the controversial "no salvation", you have to show that that controverisal decree did not contradict all the other ages. (this is where no one is looking into)

I looked I think I have something. People say the Church did not contradict itself because the context of the "no salvation" was in reference to people who were already Catholic but were wondering about leaving. France was doing a number on the Church. It could be interpreted as if you know you can't leave. They weren't talking about in general that it is necessary to be saved by the Church, that's why they used the terms "absolutely" "no one at all" "even to shed blood in the name of Christ".

It all depends on that context either way.

Edited September 8, 2004 by megamattman1

[megamattman1]

though ya know, if you premise is that Feeny is wrong as a Catholic, looking at all the rest of history other than when the controversial "no salvations" were put out, then that's a good point because if the Church always taught that non's could be saved, then to say that they changed can not be so for a Catholic such as Feeny. And thedude and dairy was just arguing over different premises.

But this is assuming that you have proven aquinas and augustine and company.


The order of the controversials and Aquinas might be important. And just to be sure, these are the writings in question in order with Aquinas:

Innocent III
[quote]"There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which no one at all can be saved" Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council finished 1215[/quote]

Aquinas life: 1225 - 1274 Summa Theologica, 1266-1273 Aquinas's teachings fit in right here somwhere. His teachings then are very important. The teachings used by the dude might work, but they probably need elaborated on to prove a point. And if the point had been made then these next two guys need put into historical context.

BonifaceVIII
[quote]"We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff" Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam published 1302[/quote]

Eugene IV
[quote]"The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes, and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgiving, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church" Pope Eugene IV, Cantate Domino published  1441[/quote]

Edited September 8, 2004 by megamattman1

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

[quote]Look at your link thedude. It shows some of the early fathers who believed outside can be saved. But you'll find fathers who believed no salvation in the strict sense. My point being that the ECF were heterogeneous in that belief. This is not necessarily help the Church prove that it did not contradict in this circumstance. But it doesn't hurt it because we can cite development.[/quote]
I tried to make the point in green below my ECF quotes that the strict quotes of the Fathers (being quoted by Feeneyites) were out of proper context and didn't actually contradict the New Catechism. Many of the same Fathers are quoted by Feeneyites that I quoted, and I tried to make the point that they wouldn't contradict themselves. I think the Feeneyite quotes fall into the same context as your Papal quotes above; or as you put it:
[quote]..."no salvation" was in reference to people who were already Catholic but were wondering about leaving.[/quote]
So I don't think the Church Fathers as a whole contradict each other on this issue. The strict quotes were intended for heretics (which the Church agrees cannot be saved [CCC 846]) and the broad quotes for the invincibly ignorant (which the Church agrees can be saved [CCC 847], however Feeneyites do not agree with this position).



[quote]Now look at Trent Aquinas, and Augustine. If you read all the quotes, they talk about or could be read that only people who expressly desired baptism could be saved by desire without the actual baptism. You yourself set the premise in green when you said people were saying Catechumins (in some of the quotes) could not be saved and then quotes from the Aq and Au that said they the Cate could be saved by desire. only the catechumens who wanted baptism it might seem.[/quote]
The two quotes in my article you are talking about were not specifically intended to prove that all non-physical members of the Church could be saved (for that is the purpose of the article as a whole). I was just quoting them to refute the specific Feeneyite position that all [i]Catechumens[/i] could not be saved.

God Bless!

Edited September 8, 2004 by thedude

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]I looked I think I have something. People say the Church did not contradict itself because the context of the "no salvation" was in reference to people who were already Catholic but were wondering about leaving. France was doing a number on the Church. It could be interpreted as if you know you can't leave. They weren't talking about in general that it is necessary to be saved by the Church, that's why they used the terms "absolutely" "no one at all" "even to shed blood in the name of Christ".[/quote]

This needs elaborated on mega or somebody. Actually I just want to see how you explain the two notions that are given often times to say the "no salvation"s were not rigorist.

Often times people say the popes were talking about in the general sense you do need to be Catholic and that's what those quotes mean. Other times, like what you just said, people say they were talking to Catholics, and for them it applies. That is a good point.

So why does everyone always say the controversials meant in the general sense that if you're saved, then you're saved by the Church? It seems like this latter argument is how nons can be saved as doctrine that was finally established to put an end to thinking otherwise, but it's not an explanation to the "controversials".

We could say it's both that they meant, but I doubt they had these two notions in mind. Maybe both notions were there, but not thought of clearly or expressed explicitly. This is where nons who don't want to become Catholic might say the apologists contradict themselves it might seem. I realize that don't mean the Catholic Church is wrong but just saying. So your thoughts please.

Edited September 9, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

[quote]So why does everyone always say the controversials meant in the general sense that if you're saved, then you're saved by the Church? It seems like this latter argument is how nons can be saved as doctrine that was finally established to put an end to thinking otherwise, [b]but it's not an explanation to the "controversials"[/b].[/quote]
Oh, but it is. All of the Extra Ecclesium Nulla Salus texts communicate the same doctrine, however, the broad texts go into more detail on it. The strict EENS texts are to be understood as the New Catechism, in paragraph 846, puts it. The broad texts compliment the strict texts by going into more detail and clarifying the issue of the invincibly ignorant. This is explained in paragraph 847 of the New Catechism.

Edited September 9, 2004 by thedude

[dairygirl4u2c]

or phatcatholics could explain how the context of what Boniface had in mind doesn't matter as he was saying in that old thread of yore sorry, phat

Maybe to a Catholic it doesn't matter since an argument can be made to defend the Catholic Church? And to think beyond that is just speculation? This is the only way I could ever reconcile phats arguments. Would I just have to say we don't know what can be said of the situation?

Or I guess he musta been saying intent doesn't matter when there's development? I still can't see that being the case. I don't know. It's all about intent and to say otherwise doesn't make sense to me. Unless he was saying intent doesn't matter if you can't really know the intent?? maybe that's what it was. WHO KNOWS LOL

Edited September 9, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]The strict EENS texts are to be understood as the New Catechism, in paragraph 846, puts it. The broad texts compliment the strict texts by going into more detail and clarifying the issue of the invincibly ignorant. This is explained in paragraph 847 of the New Catechism. [/quote]

You've explained how the texts can be reconciled on a textual level. I am asking about the intent of the texts of the controversials. You have not provided me with anything on this matter. I do not settle for it works on a textual level, it needs to be an intent level.

so far the only explanation is the france and already catholic explanation.


Which does the rigorist texts mean? Were they talking about "catholic church" in the general sense? Or were they talking about catholic church in the visisble church sense because they were talking to already Catholics?

Edited September 9, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

They were talking to heretics, that is people who knew the Church and rejected her. The strict texts were not refering to invincebly ignorant persons. That is what the broad texts were for.

Edited September 9, 2004 by thedude

[dairygirl4u2c]

Did I overlook that in your link thedude?

So is it wrong when people often say the controversials were talking about the church in a general sense?

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

Hmm... I dont under stand what you mean by church in the "general sense". All the EENS texts were specifically refering to the Catholic Church. Look at it this way: The main two points of Extra Ecclessium Nulla Salus, oversimplified (as understood by the magisterium):
1. All who are saved are saved through the Catholic Church. Outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation.
2. Invincibly ignorant non-Catholics can attain salvation by following the natural law. Even if one isn't a physical member is saved by God, they are still saved THROUGH the Catholic Church (thus, they weren't saved outside of it).

EENS is one doctrine that I have simplified into two parts. The strict texts are refering to the first part of EENS, while the broad texts refer to the second part. It is still one doctrine, and one part cannot be complete without the other.

Is that more clear?

Edited September 10, 2004 by thedude

[HartfordWhalers]

[quote name='thedude' date='Sep 10 2004, 04:15 PM'] Hmm... I dont under stand what you mean by church in the "general sense". All the EENS texts were specifically refering to the Catholic Church. Look at it this way: The main two points of Extra Ecclessium Nulla Salus, oversimplified (as understood by the magisterium):
1. All who are saved are saved through the Catholic Church. Outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation.
2. Invincibly ignorant non-Catholics can attain salvation by following the natural law. Even if one isn't a physical member is saved by God, they are still saved THROUGH the Catholic Church (thus, they weren't saved outside of it).

EENS is one doctrine that I have simplified into two parts. The strict texts are refering to the first part of EENS, while the broad texts refer to the second part. It is still one doctrine, and one part cannot be complete without the other.

Is that more clear? [/quote]
This seems pretty ridiculous to me: "All the EENS texts"

1) You are self-interpreting EVERY text ever written, be it by the Church, the Fathers, etc., which is simply absurd...

2) You have not read every text, so even if you were to misinterpret all the ones youve read, that still would leave all the ones you haven't to possiblymean something else, which you could not know without reading them.

3) It is ridiculous to make a blanket statement like that, especially when that idea of "general" Church membership, partial unity, whatever the latest term for false ecumenism is, was never stated in ANY of the times the Church defined this ex Cathedra...

[HartfordWhalers]

[quote name='jasJis' date='Sep 6 2004, 09:10 PM'] Hartford and dairy,
I suggest you both read (in it's ENTIRETY) Encyclical of Pope Pius XII [url="http://www.catholic.net/Catholic Church/documents/PiusXII/mystici.html"]On the Mystical Body of Christ[/url] The following is an excerpt, near the conclusion. You MUST read it in it's entirety to comprehend it in the proper context. [/quote]
You neglect the fact that prior to this he defines the Mystical Body of Christ as the visible Roman Church!

[jasJis]

[quote name='HartfordWhalers' date='Sep 13 2004, 12:58 PM'] You neglect the fact that prior to this he defines the Mystical Body of Christ as the visible Roman Church! [/quote]
Of course you did not read the entire thing and are misrepresenting it out of context. It [b]includes[/b] the visible Church as well as others.

[HartfordWhalers]

[quote name='jasJis' date='Sep 13 2004, 02:01 PM'] Of course you did not read the entire thing and are misrepresenting it out of context. It [b]includes[/b] the visible Church as well as others. [/quote]
I would like to know if you have read it in its entirety and maybe [i]you[/i] are the one taking it out of context....

"64. From what We have thus far written and explained, Venerable Brethren, it is clear, We think, [i]how grievously they err who arbitrarily claim that the Church is something hidden and invisible[/i], as they also do who look upon her as a mere human institution possessing a certain disciplinary code and external ritual, but lacking power to communicate supernatural life.[120] On the contrary, as Christ, Head and Exemplar of the Church "is not complete, if only His visible human nature is considered…, or if only His divine, invisible nature…, [b]but He is one through the union of both and [i]one[/i] in both [/b]… [u]so is it with His Mystical Body[/u]"[121] since the Word of God took unto Himself a human nature liable to sufferings, so that He might consecrate in His blood the visible Society founded by Him and "lead man back to things invisible under a visible rule."[122]"

That seems to be quite contrary to what you are saying. Read throughout how he constantly says that the Church is visible and how She, the visible Church, is the Mystical Body of Christ.