Tuesday, July 22, 2014

No Dimond In The Rough




 Few topics cause as much controversy in Traditionalist circles than that of "Baptism of Desire" (BOD) and "Baptism of Blood" (BOB). In reaction to the Modernists who had been trying to apply BOD to just about everyone (e.g. Fr. Karl Rahner and his ilk, calling pagans "anonymous Christians") and reducing the dogma Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus Est (Outside the Church There Is No Salvation) to a meaningless formula, Fr. Leonard Feeney denied BOD and BOB. He claimed that the Church had gotten it wrong, that BOD and BOB (even when properly understood) were heretical. Ultimately, Fr. Feeney was excommunicated in 1953 by Pope Pius XII. He was reconciled to the Vatican II sect in 1972 by Montini (Antipope Paul VI) without having to abjure his heresy.

 Good people were unfortunately taken in by Feeney, including Fr. James Wathen, whose book The Great Sacrilege was one of the first and best refutations of the invalid Vatican II bread and wine service. (See my last post of  7/17/14 "An Even Greater Sacrilege"). My last post discussed the Feeneyite heresy, and I received a  comment that those who uphold the Church's teaching (e.g. Fr. Cekada and Bishop Dolan) should debate the most prolific Feenyites today; the so-called "Dimond Brothers" of Most Holy Family Monastery in New York. They are self-proclaimed "Benedictines" whose major work is a book entitled Outside of the Catholic Church There is Absolutely No Salvation which anyone can view and download for free on their website.

 I responded in the comments section of my last post that I would present the case that Fr. Feeney and his followers are heretics. As Fr. Cekada has pointed out, Feeneyites have, at the root of their error, the rejection of legitimate Church authority. I will make but one argument in this post to show how even the most rabid Feeneyites (Dimonds) got it all wrong.

 Feeneyites are of the opinion that Catholics need only to accept ex cathedra pronouncements of the popes and Ecumenical Councils, while everything else is basically "up for grabs" and subject to error. If their private interpretation of an ex cathedra statement is alleged to "conflict" with any doctrine not so defined, then it is an error. Since BOD and BOB have not been the subjects of an ex cathedra pronouncement, and it (allegedly) conflicts with ex cathedra pronouncements on Baptism and the necessity of belonging to the Church for salvation, they argue that BOD and BOB are heretical.

 I will now set out the case of how wrong they are in this matter.

I) What Catholics Must Believe

 Catholics are BOUND to believe everything proposed by the extraordinary and ordinary Magisterium of the Church. The Feeneyites would like us to forget the latter and only accept the former. In what does the Ordinary Magisterium consist?

 According to theologian Ott: The promulgation by the Church (of dogma)may be made either in an extraordinary manner through a solemn decision of faith made by the Pope or a General Council (Iudicium solemne) or through the ordinary and general teaching power of the Church (Magisterium ordinarium et universale). The latter may be found easily in the catechisms issued by the Bishops." (See Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, TAN reprint from 1955, pg. 4--Emphasis mine).

 According to theologian Van Noort: "Clearly if a truth is capable of being declared an object of divine-catholic faith through the force of this ordinary and universal teaching, there is required such a proposal is unmistakably definitive........The major signs of such a proposal are these: that the truth be taught throughout the world in popular catechisms, or even more importantly, be taught by the universal and constant agreement of theologians as belonging to faith." (See Van Noort, Dogmatic Theology, Newman Press, 3:222, 1960--first emphasis in original; emphasis after ellipsis mine).

According to theologian Tanquerey: "B. The Ordinary and Universal Magisterium of the Church......
I. The Morally Unanimous Preaching (Teaching) of the Bishops
Bishops teach the flock entrusted and subject to them by means of catechisms, by synodal directives, mandates , and in public sermons. If it is evident from these documents that some doctrine is being set forth universally as an object of faith, then nothing else is required for this doctrine to be accepted de fide. Bishops spread throughout the world, but with the Roman Pontiff forming one Corporate Body, are infallible when declaring a teaching on faith or morals." (See Tanquerey, Manual of Dogmatic Theology I:177, 1959--Emphasis in original).

 Therefore, a truth declared in catechisms, is as certain as dogmas proclaimed ex cathedra. Since God is the Author of all Truths of Faith any alleged contradiction between Truths stems from ignorance (culpable or inculpable).

II) BOD AND BOB ARE CLEARLY TAUGHT IN ALL PRE-VATICAN II CATECHISMS

 The popular Baltimore Catechism, the Catechism of Pope St. Pius X, and the Catechism of the Council of Trent (approved by none less than Pope St. Pius V), all teach BOB and BOD. They are therefore to be accepted de fide (of Faith). But, wait! In Outside of the Catholic Church There is Absolutely No Salvation (hereinafter OCC), the Diamonds try to impeach the Catechism of the Council of Trent (CCT)!

On pgs. 135-139 of OCC, we read:
"The Catechism of the Council of Trent is not infallible. Fathers John A.McHugh, O.P. and Charles J. Callan, O.P. wrote the introduction for a common English translation of the Catechism of the Council of Trent. Their introduction contains the following interesting quote from Dr. John Hagan, Rector of the Irish College in Rome,about the Catechism’s authority.Catechism of the Council of Trent‐ Fifteenth printing, TAN Books,Introduction XXXVI: “Official documents have occasionally been issued by Popes to explain certain points of Catholic teaching to individuals, or to local Christian communities; whereas the Roman Catechism comprises practically the whole body of Christian doctrine,and is addressed to the whole Church. Its teaching is not infallible; but it holds a place between approved catechisms and what is de fide.”

 The Diamonds omitted this line from Dr. Hagan:  “At the very least it has the same authority as a dogmatic Encyclical.” Catholics MUST accept this because as Pope Pius XII stated: “It is not to be thought that what is set down in Encyclical Letters does not demand assent in itself, because in these the popes do not exercise the supreme powers of their magisterium. For these matters are taught by the ordinary magisterium, regarding which the following is pertinent ‘He who heareth you, heareth me.’; and usually what is set forth and inculcated in Encyclical Letters, already pertains to Catholic doctrine.” Humani Generis (1950), D 2313. Emphasis mine.

 This leads us right back to what the theologians have taught about catechisms and the Ordinary Magisterium! In the next few sections, Dimond attempts to show where and why he thinks the Roman Catechism is in conflict with the Council of Trent and other papal documents. His purpose is to demonstrate that if the Catechism is erroneous on other points of doctrine, he can logically argue against the pertinent phrase -- the one that clearly teaches BOD for adults--- to the absolute necessity of Baptism under all conditions. His argument, then, will be that the Roman Catechism is outright heretical through implication.

He continues:“The fact that the Catechism of Trent is not infallible is proven by the fact that small errors can be detected within its text. For example:

Catechism of the Council of Trent, Tan Books, p. 243: “For the Eucharist is the end of all the Sacraments, and the symbol of unity and brotherhood in the Church, outside of which none can attain grace.”

Here the Catechism teaches that outside the Church none can attain grace. This is not true. Predisposing or prevenient graces are given to those outside the Church so that they can turn to God, change their lives and enter the Church. Without these graces no one would ever convert. Pope Clement XI in the dogmatic constitution Unigenitus (Sept. 8, 1713) condemned the proposition that, “Outside the Church, no grace is granted.” Thus, what we have here is an error in the Catechism of Trent. The Catechism probably intended to teach that outside the Church no sinner can attain sanctifying grace, which is true, since outside the Catholic Church there is no remission of sins (Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, 1302, ex cathedra). Nevertheless, God allowed the Catechism to err in this manner because it is not infallible in everything it teaches.”

Dimond omits the context of the Catechism that implied sanctifying grace. Dimond is going out of his way in an attempt to find an error that’s not really there. He needs to find that error to demonstrate that the Catechism is faulty which he thinks gives him the right to question those paragraphs that clearly teach Baptism of Desire.

Notice also that Pope Clement XI didn't specify what grace he was speaking about either. He didn't say “actual”, “predisposing or prevenient” grace. Dimond would have to conclude that Pope Clement XI erred too, since outside the Church no sanctifying grace is granted. He claims the CCT  to be heretical on this point while clearly taking sources out of context and ascribing error where none exists.

Next he states:

“Furthermore, in the entire Catechism of the Council of Trent there is no mention at all of the so‐called “three baptisms,” nor is there any mention of “baptism of desire” or “baptism of blood,” nor is there any clear statement that one can be saved without the Sacrament of Baptism. What we find, rather, is one ambiguous paragraph which seems to teach that one can achieve grace and righteousness without baptism."
The Catechism says baptism for infants should not be delayed “Since infant children have no other means of salvation except Baptism…”

This statement clearly implies that there is another means of salvation besides Baptism for those above the age of reason. Then the Catechism concludes what it is:

“The delay is not attended the same danger as in the case of infants, which we have already mentioned; should any foreseen 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.”---In other words, BOD!!

Now come two "whoppers":
“Even though the Catechism of Trent is not infallible in every sentence, as just proven, taken as a whole it is an excellent catechism which expresses the Catholic Faith accurately and effectively.”

So a catechism that teaches rank heresy can nevertheless express the Catholic Faith "accurately and effectively?"

Then:
"But most importantly, the Catechism of Trent makes statement after statement clearly and unambiguously teaching that the Sacrament of Baptism is absolutely necessary for all for salvation with no exceptions, thereby repeatedly excluding any idea of salvation without water baptism.”

So the CCT contradicts itself! Why attack it if the CCT supposedly proves your interpretation of BOD and BOB? Didn't he say there was one  "ambiguous paragraph," yet the CCT " makes statement after statement clearly and unambiguously" against BOD. Which is it? Completely unambiguous or ambiguous in part? It teaches heresy concerning grace, yet that's ok as long as it's good "taken as a whole."

 I could go on but I feel no need to belabor the obvious. BOD and BOB by inclusion in catechisms as well as being taught by all pre-Vatican II theologians is infallibly certain through the teaching of the universal and ordinary Magisterium. I'd put the Dimonds publication OCC right in the trash can with their DVD on UFOs.
The only thing Most Holy Family Monastery produces are flawed Dimonds teaching 24 carat heresy.  

27 comments:

  1. Does baptism of desire provide both remission of guilt of sin and remission of temporal punishment due to sin, i.e. the grace of spiritual rebirth, i.e. the grace of baptism?

    ReplyDelete
  2. According to theologian OTT: "Baptism of desire works ex opere operantis. It bestows sanctifying grace, which remits Original Sin, all actual sins,and the eternal punishment for sin. Venial sins and temporal punishments for sin are remitted according to the intensity of the subjective disposition. The baptismal character is not imprinted, nor is it the gateway to the other sacraments." (Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, TAN Books, reprint from 1955, pg. 357).
    ---Introibo

    ReplyDelete
  3. Good post!

    Here is a a collection of over 100 pre-VII sources, including Fathers and Doctors of the Church, Saints, Catechisms, and more that teach the doctrines of baptism of blood and baptism of desire:

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/211357956/Sources-of-Baptism-of-Blood-Baptism-of-Desire

    ReplyDelete
  4. Thank you for the excellent resource!
    Introibo

    ReplyDelete
  5. you see that is the problem.
    "ita, nisi in Christo renascerentur, nunquam justificarentur" from chap 3 on justification. spiritual rebirth by which man renasceretur has effects of removing guilt of original and actual sin and temporal punishment for sin. this is the effect of sacrament baptism, and we know that because Trent teaches us in sess. 5, chap 5.:

    „If any one denies, that, by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is conferred in baptism, the guilt of original sin is remitted; or even asserts that the whole of that which has the true and proper nature of sin is not taken away; but says that it is only erased, or not imputed; let him be anathema. For, in those who are born again, there is nothing that God hates; because, There is no condemnation to those who are truly buried together with Christ by baptism into death; who walk not according to the flesh, but, putting off the old man, and putting on the new who is created according to God, are made innocent, immaculate, pure, harmless, and beloved of God, heirs indeed of God, but joint heirs with Christ; so that there is nothing whatever to retard their entrance into heaven.“, and also Florence: „The effect of this sacrament is the remission of all original and actual guilt, also of all penalty that is owed for that guilt. Hence no satisfaction for past sins is to be imposed on the baptized, but those who die before they incur any guilt go straight to the kingdom of heaven and the vision of God.“.

    So, effect of baptism is spiritual rebirth, i.e. being born again. But, ita, nisi in Christo renascerentur, nunquam justificarentur, i.e. if they aren't born again in Christ, they would never be justified, i.e., if they don't have both guilt of sin and temporal punishment which is due to sin remitted, they would not be justified, i.e. if they didn't receive the grace of spiritual rebirth they would never be justified. but those who teach baptism of desire(bod), among whom st. Thomas Aquinas and st. Alphonsus Liguori are most prominent(and also Ludwig Ott - as you cited), say that bod remits only guilt of sin and not the temporal punishment and that such person would have to endure purgatory upon death. that means that bod doesn't provide the grace of spiritual rebirth, which means that it cannot even justify it's recipients. it doesn't render them born again in Christ, and therefore it doesn't justify them and therefore it doesn't save them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Marko,
      Your argument is based on the mistaken notion that BOD is the same as the sacrament of Baptism. It is not. If I go to confession and have attrition, I'm justified (and can be saved)even though I still have temporal debt to pay.

      Remember that St. Alphonsus, whom you cite, is a Doctor of the Church, who lived only one century removed from Trent. He knew the teachings of Trent and taught BOD and BOB. If Trent meant what you THINK it means then, Alphonsus was a heretic and could never be infallibly canonized a saint.

      All pre-Vatican II catechisms teach BOB and BOD, making it part of the teaching of the ordinary and universal Magisterium which we MUST accept, or we are no longer Catholic.

      Delete
    2. I'm talking about first justification.
      One cannot be justified if one is not made a new creature in Christ. This obviously doesn't happen with bod.

      Delete
    3. You make it sound that the regeneration of sacramental Baptism is the ONLY way of being justified, and this is simply NOT the teaching of the Church. The post-Tridentine theologians understood Trent's decrees as the Church did at the time it was promulgated (some of them being only a few short years removed from that Council) and saw nothing incompatible with Trent's teaching on sacramental Baptism and BOD

      Delete
    4. i repeat. i talk about first justification, i.e. rebirth. rebirth doesn't happen in sacrament of penance.
      one who is not reborn cannot be justified for the first time. that's it.
      also Church has always interpreted John 3,5 literally and with no exceptions.

      Florence: "Holy baptism holds the first place among all the sacraments, for it is the gate of the spiritual life; through it we become members of Christ and of the body of the church. Since death came into the world through one person, unless we are born again of water and the spirit, we cannot, as Truth says, enter the kingdom of heaven. The matter of this sacrament is true and natural water, either hot or cold. The form is: I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy Spirit."

      Trent on baptism:
      "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."

      "CANON V.-If any one saith, that baptism is free, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema."

      also, before baptism one has not supernatural, saving and justifying faith but as trent says in decree on justification: "Now they (adults) are disposed unto the said justice, when, excited and assisted by divine grace, conceiving faith by hearing". supernatural, justifying and saving faith is given by baptism.
      That is visible from the rite of baptism where the priest asks the one who is to be baptized what he asks from the Church, and he answers "faith". he is then again asked "what does faith give you", to which he answers "life everlasting".

      Delete
    5. Your error is the refusal to submit to the Ordinary Magisterium. Fr Feeney, two sad sack "Benedictines" upstate NY, and you, all know better than the unanimous teaching of the approved theologians and catechisms.
      Trent in Session 6, Chapter 4 states that after the promulgation of the Gospel, man cannot pass to the state of grace without the "water of regeneration OR THE DESIRE FOR IT.."
      Likewise, Session 7, Canon 4 states the sacraments of the New Law are necessary for salvation ".....without the sacraments OR THE DESIRE OF THEM.."

      The canon you cite on baptism (Canon 2) was formulated against Luther who taught that beer or milk could substitute for natural water. It was clearly not meant to repudiate the very doctrine taught by the same Council.

      Unfortunately, all of this will not even register with you because of your refusal to submit to the Ordinary Magisterium. Sad. I'll be praying for your conversion
      -- Introibo

      Delete
    6. And your problem is not addressing the arguments.
      I already know about the said passage and that passage is to counter luther who said that adult needs only faith and not the desire for the actual sacrament to receive it.

      but more on that point you can read from mhfm's book. they elaborate it better than i do and i don't feel like writing what is already written.

      Delete
    7. My final word to you (at least for this post):

      I don't feel like writing all that has been written by ALL the greatest theologians of the Church (including a canonized saint and Doctor of the Church) as well as ALL catechisms pre-Vatican II which affirm BOD and BOB. This makes it part of the universal and Ordinary Magisterium, to which all true Catholics MUST submit.

      I will take that teaching over the sophistical reasoning of an excommunicated Jesuit priest from Boston and two pseudo-educated men who like to dress up and play "Benedictine Brothers" in upstate New York.
      --Introibo

      Delete
  6. Introibo,
    You make some interesting points, but you yourself also illustrate the problem with your own position. You admit that there's no sanctifying grace outside the Catholic Church. However, one can't be a member of the Church without baptism, as taught by Pius XII in Mystici Corporis. So if BOD confers sanctifying grace, as you claim, it does so outside the Church. But it is impossible to receive sanctifying grace outside the Church. Therefore, BOD does not confer sanctifying grace.

    Also, you claim that the Catechism of Trent teaches BOD, and it certainly seems to. However, nowhere does it expressly say that one can receive sanctifying grace without baptism, nor does it expressly say that one can be saved without baptism. The most that can be said is that these things are implied, which would be good enough, if it is in fact true that they are implied... and when I say 'implied' I mean that they necessarily follow from what is said.

    So let's look at the passage in question:

    The delay is not attended the same danger as in the case of infants, which we have already mentioned; should any [un]foreseen 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.

    Hmm, that does seem to necessarily imply BOD. Let's see if it really does.

    It mentions an "unforeseen accident" making it "impossible" to receive baptism. Now it has to be asked: are these terms used in an absolute sense or a qualified sense? Well, it would seem that it can't be in the former sense, because no accidents are unforeseen by God, and nothing is impossible for God. So it would seem that they might be being used in a qualified sense. Add to this the possibility (and I don't say dogma, but the mere possibility) that God desires that ALL his elect to receive the waters of regeneration, which seems quite plausible, and the entire passage takes on a possible sense that does not at all necessarily imply BOD at all. It merely describes a case that is "unforeseen" and "impossible" -- to human eyes, but easily foreseen and possible for God. Therefore, the thesis that the Catechism of Trent teaches BOD is not demonstrated.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Sorry George, your argument does not hold up upon inspection.

    Remember what I wrote about BOD and BOB; they are contained in the pre-Vatican II catechisms which show that they MUST be believed as they are taught by the ordinary and universal Magistreium. Consider the Catechism of Pope ST. Pius X:

    "Question: Can the absence of baptism be supplied in any way?
    Answer: The absence of Baptism can be supplied by martyrdom, which is called the Baptism of Blood, or by an act of perfect love of God, or of contrition, along with the desire, at least implicit, of Baptism, and this is called Baptism of Desire." (Catechism of St Pius X, pg. 71)

    Doesn't leave much wiggle room for claiming it doesn't teach BOD or BOB. Since Pope St. Pius X was aware of the decrees of Trent and the thrice defined Dogma of the necessity of belonging to the Church, we must conclude: (a) BOB and BOD are compatible with those teachings OR (b) St. Pius X was a heretic and could not have been pope. Is this the position you really want to take?

    ReplyDelete

  8. Getting back to the Catechism of Trent (CCT), the Dimonds make the same assertion regarding "impossibilities":

    “But even in this paragraph we find errors. For instance, the passage says that “should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for an adult to receive baptism, his intention and determination to receive baptism will avail him to grace and righteousness.”

    There is no such thing as an “unforeseen accident” which could make it “impossible”to receive baptism. This is clearly erroneous.

    Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, Sess. 3, Chap. 1, On God the creator of all things: “EVERYTHING THAT GOD HAS BROUGHT INTO BEING HE PROTECTS AND GOVERNS BY HIS PROVIDENCE, which reaches from one end of the earth to the other and orders all things well. All things are open and laid bare before His eyes,even those which will be brought about by the free activity of creatures.”

    God has commanded all men to receive baptism, and He does not command impossibilities.

    Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Session 6, Chap. 11 on Justification, ex cathedra: “… no one should make use of that rash statement forbidden under anathema by the Fathers, that the commandments of God are impossible to observe for a man who is justified. ‘FOR GOD DOES NOT COMMAND IMPOSSIBILITIES, but by commanding admonishes you both to do what you can do, and to pray for what you cannot do…”

    Therefore, the reference to the unforeseen and impossible to avoid accident in the Catechism demonstrates, once again, that not everything it says is infallible. An infallible document could not assert that accidents are unforeseen or impossible to avoid.” (Emphasis in original)

    Trent’s statement is speaking about, “a man who is justified” obeying the commandments of God. It’s addressing those who would argue that, “the just man sins at least venially in every good work [can. 25], (what is more intolerable) that he merits eternal punishments; and that they also who declare that the just sin in all works, if in those works, in order to stimulate their own sloth and to encourage themselves to run in the race, with this (in view), that above all God may be glorified, they have in view also the eternal reward [can. 26, 31], since it is written: “I have inclined my heart to do thy justifications on account of the reward” [Ps. 118:112], and of Moses the Apostle says, that he “looked to the reward” [Heb. 11:26].” (Trent, Session 6, Ch. 11)

    For the sake of the argument, let’s presume that the phrase applied to the sacrament of Baptism. Since Christ cannot command impossibilities, if the Sacrament of Baptism is made impossible, then Christ’s command to be baptized by water wouldn't apply, thus faith, desire, and contrition suffices.

    Trent’s statement wouldn't be contradicted at all by Baptism of Desire. Rather, it would support it.

    As far as Pope Pius XII declaring Baptism necessary for Church membership, and sanctifying grace can only come from belonging to the Church, the following must be said:
    As taught by Aquinas, "in actu" (in act) with Christ is accomplished by sanctifying grace with faith, hope and charity (ST, III, Q.8) BOD is precisely the direct gift of sanctifying grace with faith, hope, and charity. these souls are united in actu with Christ and His One True Church, although the bond is not perfected. Notice too, that Pope Pius XII excludes the unbaptised--he did NOT say "unbaptized by water."

    BOD is taught by all pre-Vatican II catechisms and must be accepted as part of the Catholic Faith.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Introibo,
    Just for the record, I don't consider BOD and BOB to be heretical per se, although I think they're erroneous. However, the explicit belief that people who die outside the Church can be saved is definitely heretical.

    I'm not sure if you're aware, but Fr. Feeney was not persecuted for denying the BOD but for denying that people can be saved in outside the Church if they were invincibly ignorant. In fact, the official position paper put out by the St. Benedict Center during the crisis positively affirmed BOB and BOD! Here is a link to the relevant section:

    http://catholicism.org/rptal-part3.html#/(c)


    It was invincible ignorance that was the real sticking point. BOB and BOD had nothing to do with it. So even if you argue that BOB and BOD were held by some of the Fathers and some of the great saints, none of these ever held that those who denied the true faith could ever be save. But that's exactly what just about the entire institutional Church believed at the time of the Boston Heresy Case. In fact, the Holy Office (sort of) put out a protocol condemning the Feeneyites for denying invincible ignorance.

    Another thing I'd like to say about BOD and BOB is that, although they are erroneous, they are also attempts to affirm things that are true. For example, although there are no unbaptized martyrs in heaven, neither was there ever a person who died for the true faith who was lost. BOB was attempt to explain how the latter could be true, but it failed in that it denied the absolutely necessity of water baptism.

    ReplyDelete
  10. George,
    There is no difference between holding BOD and BOB to be either erroneous or heretical. The end result is the same.. You sin mortally against the Faith, placing yourself in danger of damnation. BOD and BOB are taught as an part of the integral Catholic Faith by the universal and ordinary Magisterium. What would you say to someone who said, "I don't think transubstantiation is heretical, but I do think it is erroneous"?

    I will go into invincible ignorance at another time. Please rethink your position. To borrow a line from Fr. Cekada, those who deny BOD and BOB will place themselves extra ecclesiam, where we all know there is nulla salus.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh so those who deny bod and bob will not be saved but jews who even reject Christ have some hope of salvation, "cuz we can't judge" - as Cekada and also CMRI guys say...
      nice. prime hypocrisy.

      Delete
    2. If you reject the Integral Catholic Faith, you cannot be saved. A Jew who receives BOD is no longer a Jew but a member of the One True Church.

      Think of this: if having evil thoughts and desires are mortal sins that can damn you, couldn't God allow salutary thoughts and desires to save a soul under the right conditions?

      Delete
    3. Well Benedict Hughes, others from CMRI, SSPV, other sedes and SSPXers said that even Jews who rejects Christ could receive bod...and even pagans...cuz invihncuhble ignorence herp derp...go figure...
      if that is the case than it is better not to preach the Gospel.

      Delete
  11. Introibo,
    Even assuming that BOD is part of the ordinary magisterium, the opinion that anyone who denies it is ipso facto outside the Church is objectively false. The reason for this is that even though everything in the ordinary magisterium is to be believed by faith, that which constitutes the OM is often unclear to some and open to objections. Consider, for example, the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. It is for this reason that nobody, as far as I can tell, has ever been considered by the Church as being outside the Church for denying a truth of the OM unless or until either a) the doctrine is dogmatically defined, b) the error is condemned as contrary to the faith by an ecclesiastical authority, c) the person is knowingly contradicting the OM. "A" and "B" clearly do not apply here (unless you want to try to trot out Suprema Haec Sacra as having some authority); and "C" would involve judging the internal forum, which is quite beyond the capacities of even the talented Fr. Cekada. So even assuming BOD is true, Fr. Cekada and Bishop Dolan are in no way justified in calling those who deny it heretics.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Denying BOD would have to be considered proximate to heresy, at the very least.

      The Creed Explained (1897) - Arthur Devine
      "The ordinary Magisterium is that authority which is daily used by her pastors and doctors. By virtue of this second Magisterium, a truth can be proposed as Catholic, or such a truth remaining in a state of truths of faith purely divine, may so far progress as to attain almost to the state of defined truths, and then it may be said to be a truth proximate to divine-Catholic faith. A person denying such a truth would not thereby be a heretic, but he would be proximate to heresy; thus, for example, the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, before its definition in 1854, and the dogma of Papal Infallibility, before the definition of the Vatican Council (1870), were truths to be believed by divine faith; but by the special Magisterium of the Church, they are now defined and to be believed by all, so that he would be a heretic who should deny either of them." (pp.326-327)

      Although, considering many Catholic theologians have affirmed that Trent was indeed teaching BOD, that would seem to make it's denial heresy.

      Delete
  12. Good point! All pre-Vatican II theologians teach that something is taught by the OM if it is included in the catechisms and held by the unanimous consent of the theologians. BOD and BOB meet BOTH requirements.

    If they are not taught by the OM, then nothing is so taught. Going further, even if they are not dogmatic, they would have to be held as AT LEAST "Theologically Certain" which makes denial a MORTAL SIN indirectly against the Faith. And even a member of the Church who dies in mortal sin will end up damned; the same as non-Catholics.

    ReplyDelete
  13. "He who believes AND is baptized will be saved. He who does not believe will be condemned." --JC.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Yes! BOD is just that--the infusion of sanctifying grace, or the grace of baptism in a special way. Do you really think the theologians--including St. Alphonsus didn't know about Our Lord's words? So now do we accept the Magisterial teaching of the Church as good Traditionalist Catholics, or do we accept your private interpretation of Scripture like Protestants?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. sanctifying grace is not grace of baptism properly so called.
      grace of baptism is remission of guilt of sin and remission of punishment due to sin.

      Delete
  15. With the qualifying phrase "properly so-called" I agree since we are not talking about sacramental Baptism. It does however, make one a member of the Church with the remission of Original and actual sin along with the infusion of sanctifying grace that makes one worthy of Heaven.

    ReplyDelete