I am moving the discussion from This place Here.

Try not to post there anymore. The thread is getting too long.

Assistant Moderator

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), November 08, 2004

Answers

bump

-- (bump@bump.bump), November 08, 2004.

Paul;

As you must know, this council has never claimed to be a dogmatic council. It has never called on the Holy Ghost, because it was declared a pastoral council. This was the only council declared as such. New convert; As for getting the run around from the priests, just do the best that you can, wear the brown scapular . pray the rosary. If you are sincere about being a Catholic, the Lord will see to it that somehow you will become one.

The clergy that is delaying you, will have to answer for their behaviour.

God bless you.

-- TC (Treadmill234@south.com), November 08, 2004.

TC said: The clergy that is delaying you, will have to answer for their behaviour.

So it didn't used to be this way, that would would have to wait until Easter to be confirmed? I thought that was the traditional teaching over the centuries, the time when people are normally received? Please explain what you mean by them delaying me?

Emerald, so it's someone's baptism that is the turning point, even a Protestant baptism? What I don't understand is why a Catholic priest only can perform baptisms (except in cases of emergency), but then Protestant pastors' baptisms (invalid orders) are accepted. Why is this?

What about my fellow RCIA class members who are not yet baptized? Do they have a chance at heaven still, if they died right now?

-- Emily ("jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), November 08, 2004.

P.S. Thank you for your answers!

-- Emily ("jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), November 08, 2004.

"What about my fellow RCIA class members who are not yet baptized? Do they have a chance at heaven still, if they died right now?"

Two part answer: Baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation. Christ Himself says so in Scripture and Church says so. It's real; it really does something, something necessary. It is a positive reality instituted by Christ to negate the inescapable reality of the damnable state of Original Sin. If not, the existence of it, the institution of it, the command to perform it... it's all meaningless. If sin isn't real, both Original and Actual, then the whole redemption story of the life of Christ is a joke, a waste, a superfluous, meaningless sideshow. But we know its not. Therefore, what Christ has instituted is necessary. Part 2:

"What about my fellow RCIA class members who are not yet baptized? Do they have a chance at heaven still, if they died right now?"

Do you think that if these people are of good will, that God, being the author of life and having supreme command over death, would really let an untimely death happen? Or would He see what He has begun through to His intended conclusion...

Not in any way to implicate you, whose intentions in asking I believe are sincere... but, the general unbelieving populace would pose such a question in order to draw up what they imagine to be an absurdity with intent to wreck belief in the divine, and in divine assistance. In its simplest form, it goes something like this: only some heartless, cold and unloving God would allow a person to die without the ability to meet a technical demand on His part. In this case, Baptism. That's the threat situation they pose.

They're looking to draw up one, and then another, of two conclusions: Either 1. that the God portrayed is heartless, cruel and legalistic, so as to paint such a picture of God as to effectively negate the necessity of one of his demands/commands. In this case, Baptism. Certainly we can't have a God, they would say, who is all technicality and not heart. This then renders conclusion #2 more readily acceptable and palatable to them: the conclusion that, well, Baptism isn't really necessary in some respect or for some reason, or, in some cases. Why? Well, because God's not mean per conclusion #1. After having dreamed up a false conclusion in regards to item #1, consequently, item #2 seems an convenient and acceptable conclusion: that the things God demands aren't as necessary as they might seem.

The net profit after tax? A clean denial of the immutable law of God.

But they're missing an essential answer to an essential question: would God really allow the good-willed soul to die prematurely without the means of salvation which that soul had been honestly pursuing?

I say, of course not.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), November 09, 2004.

Andy:

"The problem I have is calling Lumen Gentium heretical when the heresy lies in misinterpreting the document."

I think that in a way, you're absolutely right. You can't really call someone or something (either the writers, or the document itself that is) onto the carpet when non-upfront methods of speaking or writing are used. That's the chief complaint against ambiguity, and other forms of communication that allow ample room for more than one conclusion... some conclusions which may even contradict each other.

It's impossible to lower the boom on anyone using this sort of language. As long as I or you or anyone else can walk up to a document and pull the interpretation which most conveniently fits our personal, preferred view of reality, then the document is failing in the clarity department. In regards to truths of such a high order and of such great import in that they deal in concepts touching on the salvation of souls, we shouldn't have that situation.

The Church is supposed to function in such a manner as to clarify these things... to put rest to confusion and to settle disagreement regarding matters of Faith and morals. To define, to profess in the positive. In the negative, to negate or cut off all false opinion in contradiction to Catholic truth and reality.

The Church by the institution of Christ and by the grant of the Holy Ghost, is authorized to clarify these things; to define positive reality and to cut off, in a definitive matter, all error.

We're going through this as a Church for a reason, I have no doubt. We are supposed to be learning something from what we are experiencing, even the bad and the negative. What are we supposed to be gleaning from what's happening. What are we supposed to be doing, how do we react?

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), November 09, 2004.

Emily;

A person can enter the Catholic church anytime the instructing priet thinks that they are fully understanding and ready for it. It does not have to be a group thing just at Easter time. As for Baptism, Emerald is certainly correct. No one enters Heaven without water baptism.

Baptism is a Catholic sacrament, but anyone can perform it. People in my family baptize their babies as soon after birth as possible and then have them conditionally baptized by the priest a while later. When they ask why, they usually say, "Was the baby in danger of death"?. A foolish question. Are we not all in that condition at any moment? We canot guarantee the next moment.

Even a Protestant baby who is baptized is a Catholic until the age of reason. Then, if they reject the catholic church they are on their own.

-- TC (Treadmill234@south.com), November 09, 2004.

People in your family don't understand, or don't accept, the teaching of the Church. If they did, they would realize that their baby, if they have made definite plans for his/her baptism, and if he/she should suddenly die before the actual sacrament is received, would receive the full graces and benefits of the sacrament. A just God would not have it otherwise. The Church would not allow for a situation which would necessitate illicit acts on the part of its members.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 09, 2004.

Emerald,

thanks for putting the hard work in. i am reading you loud and clear, and making quite some progress.

indeed thanks to everyone who is putting in the hours on this thread.

a little while ago, i stumbled across the story of Jephte the Galaadite (Judges c.11).

how many people nowadays who, if unfamiliar with the events, could guess how they panned out?

not me.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), November 09, 2004.

Paul

i don't release any personal infor on the net but let me tell you that i was born in the late 60's and i was baptised at 2 days old. that was as fast as humanly possible. i did not have any ailment - in fact i was perfectly healty. this practice, in a very Catholic tradition, was just the norm. the next door neighbour rushed me to the priest as soon as the doctors would release me. i was baptised with water. i was returned to hospital to my mother.

where was this "baptism of desire" (assuming that this is what you are describing) in those days?

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), November 09, 2004.

When they ask why, they usually say, "Was the baby in danger of death"?. A foolish question. Are we not all in that condition at any moment? We canot guarantee the next moment.

This seems to me to be an abuse of the Church's provisions.

-- jake (j@k.e), November 09, 2004.

My father baptized me. They didn't think I would survive the following hours after my birth. I was later baptized in the Church by the priest.

I would imagine that such a situation happened a lot during the 60's. I'm guessing.

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

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 09, 2004.

Ian, Baptism as you described it is overscrupulous but it is not illicit since it was performed by a priest. Lay persons may baptize licitly ONLY when there is "imminent danger of death".

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 09, 2004.

"overscrupulous"

that's why you are a liberal.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), November 09, 2004.

my apologies Paul.

you could be forgiven for taking that last post as offensive.

i do not, however, consider living every day as your last as being overscrupulous [not that i always do because i am a sinner]

nor do i see wrong in a devout Catholic practice, before it begun to rely upon theories that, so it must appear, are just theories.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), November 09, 2004.

Paul M said: Lay persons may baptize licitly ONLY when there is "imminent danger of death".

So then why are Protestant baptisms valid, assuming no imminent danger of death?

Emerald, thank you for that explanation. I guess you are looking at it from a different perspective than me. I believe in "baptism by desire" because it makes sense to me that God would have mercy on their situation if someone desires baptism and is fully following God, but is somehow prevented from receiving it until a certain point.

You agree with me that God would show the mercy, but in a different way, that being allowing them to remain alive at least until the time of baptism. I suppose that my problem with worrying about things relates to this, but it does make sense that if God required something, He would provide the means for sincere followers. The question remains whether he would require it absolutely and make provisions for us to obtain it, or require it conditionally (assuming we don't die) and make provisions if it's impossible to obtain (ie. let us into heaven through our intent).

This raises the question, though, about the family and friends. Assume that they did not understand this theology, and someone died before baptism. Under your argument we would say, well this person cannot be saved because they were never baptized and God never allowed them the chance, since they were not sincere in their faith.

Now say the person was faithful in attending church and for all outside appearances seemed to be a genuine Christian. But perhaps they continued in mortal sin that no one knew about. Would the family not be unnecessarily harmed by this theology that their relative has no chance at salvation due to lack of baptism? It was my understanding that the Catholic Church makes no statement about the eternal state of individual souls, except for those who are Blesseds or Saints. So how in this case would they be declaring that someone went to hell?

For the peace of mind of those left here on earth, I think it's better to say that we aren't sure, and to pray for them, hoping in God's mercy. I have thought before about those who died and are in hell. On Earth we don't know who they are, but I suppose in heaven we will know. I have a sense that in heaven it will be an easier idea for us to deal with than while on earth. If there is no suffering in heaven, then will we not suffer and feel compassion for the souls in hell? I don't know.

I would hate to think that all of my Protestant friends who seemed to sincerely follow Christ are going to hell simply due to lack of baptism or lack of membership in the Catholic Church. I cannot know their hearts, so I can't say whether God was leading them there and they chose to ignore it. But I guess I think of myself and my life situations. I was seeking to follow God, but unaware of some things that the Catholic Church considers sinful. Likely so are these other people.

There was a time when if I had heard about truth within the Catholic Church, I would not have believed it, because of all that I was told from Protestant teachers that misrepresented Catholic doctrines. I think many to most of them are well meaning and seeking to preserve people from error. I had several friends who are committed Christians who really believed that I was making a huge mistake, and tried to talk me out of becoming Catholic. They believed that if I held to Catholic beliefs I was likely headed for hell. Maybe they were insincere or unwilling to make the change themselves, and I did not know it? I know myself, that I was sincere and seeking, but then maybe that's why God led me here.

Sorry for rambling on so much. I hope something can be gained from this. I do at least understand your position on baptism a bit better -- it's not as cold as I had initially thought. God bless,

-- Emily ("jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), November 09, 2004.

TC said: A person can enter the Catholic church anytime the instructing priet thinks that they are fully understanding and ready for it. It does not have to be a group thing just at Easter time.

So you're saying that assuming my "readiness", I could have entered last Easter, since I was ready in February? How old is RCIA, and what was the process before that? Has it always taken this long?

-- Emily ("jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), November 09, 2004.

Bishop Fulton Sheen used to instruct people like Claire Booth Luce, Louis Budenz, and Bella Dodd in the faith, and brought them into to Church when they were ready. There was no need to wait for a special time.

-- TC (Treadmill234@south.com), November 09, 2004.

Emerald,

Thanks for your reply. I agree with what you said, especially this part:

We're going through this as a Church for a reason, I have no doubt. We are supposed to be learning something from what we are experiencing, even the bad and the negative. What are we supposed to be gleaning from what's happening. What are we supposed to be doing, how do we react?

That seems to be the big question of the day. I do think we can learn from Church history. There were some dark and confusing times in the past. Times that I think put what is happening today to shame. As I said before, I wonder what I would have done in those times.

I do appreciate the subject that Emily has brought up, and everyone's replies. I'll hold off my other questions/comments regarding papal writings until this current discussion has played itself out. I've had the same questions that Emily is asking. I still have a lot to learn about "baptism by desire."

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), November 09, 2004.

Roman Catholic "pouring" is not a tradition handed down from the Apostles.

Eastern Orthodoxy still practices immersion (Apostolic Tradition) - for infants and adults.

Are there any other churches that immerse infants other than Orthodoxy? I hear some Roman Catholics are returning to the Apostolic Tradition and immersing again.

-- ArrowTouch (arrowtouch@yahoo.com), November 09, 2004.

On what basis do you presume that baptism by immersion is part of Apostolic Tradition? Why is it not mentioned in the writings of any Apostle? How did the Apostles manage to baptize everyone by immersion in a desert land where many towns were built on an oasis and the town well was the only source of water for many miles? How do you account for the many early Christian writings that specifically mention baptism by pouring> To mention a few ...

... The Didache, about A.D. 70 - "If there is no living water, baptize in other water; and, if you are not able to use cold water, use warm. If you have neither, pour water three times upon the head in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit."

... Pope Cornelius I, 251 A.D. - "he received baptism in the bed where he lay, by pouring"

... Cyprian, 255 A.D. - "no one should be disturbed because the sick are poured upon or sprinkled when they receive the Lords grace"

Tertullian, 203 A.D. - "a man is baptized in water, and amid the utterance of some few words, is sprinkled, and then rises again, not much the cleaner"

Add to such written records the fact that virtually all early mosaics and other artwork depicting baptism, including the baptism of Jesus, portray baptism by pouring.

If immersion was originally part of Apostolic Tradition, it didn't take the Church long to depart from it. But wait! the Church cannot depart from Apostolic Tradition, as it is the Word of God!

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 09, 2004.

Emily

"I believe in "baptism by desire" because it makes sense to me that God would have mercy on their situation if someone desires baptism and is fully following God, but is somehow prevented from receiving it until a certain point."

this is what make sense to me, too. however, what i also understand is that, just because it "makes sense to me", that does not make it right.

you made a further point earlier to the effect that being in the Church means that you are no longer pursuing your own personal solution. there is an objective provider of Truth.

that's what makes this thread so important.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), November 10, 2004.

Does this amount to the difference between "ordinary" and "extraordinary" means of sanctifying grace?

I'm a little fuzzy on the difference between the two.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), November 10, 2004.

Or is that theological speculation?

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), November 10, 2004.

"Wrong is wrong even if everyone is doing it. Right is right even if no one is doing it."

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), November 10, 2004.

Sitting on the fence and not knowing which way to cross can cause severe saddle sore.

(I just thought I'd add that little bit of experience....uh, wisdom.)

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

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 10, 2004.

yeah Rod but if you get off the fence either

a/ your knees are really gonna hurt or

b/ you'll end up with a sore throat and sore hands.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), November 10, 2004.

Emily

i am getting real confused again.

look at Chapter 4 of the 6th Session of Trent.

maybe TC has a take on that?

this is what it says:

"CHAPTER IV. 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 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."

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), November 10, 2004.

It's also mentioned here Ian:

Canon 4, Sacraments in General: "If anyone saith that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous; and that without them, or without the desire thereof men obtain of God through faith alone the grace of justification; though all (the sacraments) are not necessary for every individual; let him be anathema."

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), November 10, 2004.

The "desire" part is important in Confession. If one is truly sorry for their sins, with the intention to never sin again, but dies before they have the opportunity to confess their sins to a priest in the sacrament, they are still forgiven.

Wouldn't similar conditions apply for Baptism?

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), November 10, 2004.

When trent said that water was necessaryit meant that, with no exception. "Or the desire thereof", seems to contradict the first statement. It dos not. The newborn baby can be baptized without desire because it is unable to do so.... However an adult does have that capability to do so and must do so. You cannot baptize an adult against their will. It would not be valid. Intention and performance are both required. Any way in the latin it reads "The vow to do so.

-- TC (Treadmill234@south.com), November 10, 2004.

T-C,

If what you say is true, then shouldn't the document read:

"...And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, AND the desire thereof [the vow to do so], ..." ?

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), November 10, 2004.

TC

the Latin (esp "aut") reads OR the desire to do so.

the words "fieri non potest" follow the words "sine lavacro regenerationis AUT eius voto" equating the desire ("voto") with the washing of regeneration.

a child cannot possibly desire anything other than its mother's milk and other such needs.

however, a Catechumen can.

again, i feel compelled to add that there is nothing here about invincible ignorance (the broad strand #2 of baptism by desire) or religious equivalence or ecumenism or universalism.

its about Catechumens and no-one else.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), November 10, 2004.

Ian,

I haven't read the whole thing. Does the document say it is only in reference to Catechumens?

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), November 10, 2004.

================================================

Let's take another look at that "grammar"...in the original Latin rather than the english translation:

Now we shall consider the next claim in defense of baptism of desire: the use of the word "or" (Latin: aut) in the above passage means that justification can take place by the water of baptism or the desire for it. A careful look at the correct translation of this passage shows this claim to be false. Suppose one were to say, "A bath cannot take place without water or the desire to take one." Does this mean that a bath can take place by the desire to take a bath? On the contrary, it means that both (water and desire) are necessary.

One could give hundreds of other examples. Suffice it to say, the passage above in Trent says that Justification CANNOT TAKE PLACE WITHOUT water or desire; in other words, both are necessary. It does not say that Justification does take place by either water or desire!

The Latin word aut ("or") is used in a similar way in other passages in the Council of Trent and other Councils. In the Bull Cantate Domino from the Council of Florence, we find the Latin word aut ("or") used in a context which definitely renders it meaning "and."

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, "Cantate Domino," 1441, ex cathedra: "The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews [aut] or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only those who abide in it do the Church's sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia productive of eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church."

The Council of Florence using the word "or" (aut) to have a meaning that is equivalent to "and." The Council declares that not only pagans, but also Jews or (aut) heretics and schismatics cannot be saved. Does this mean that either Jews or heretics will be saved? No. It clearly means that none of the Jews and none of the heretics can be saved. Thus, this is an example of a context in which the Latin word aut (or) does have a meaning that is clearly "and."

Similarly, in the introduction to the decree on Justification [Session VI], the Council of Trent strictly forbids anyone to "believe, preach or teach" (credere, praedicare aut docere) other than as it is defined and declared in the decree on Justification.

Does "or" (aut) in this passage mean that one is only forbidden to preach contrary to the Council's decree on Justification, but one is allowed to teach contrary to it? No, obviously "or" (aut) means that both preaching and teaching are forbidden, just like in chapter 4 above "or" means that justification cannot take place without both water and desire. Another example of the use of aut to mean "and" (or "both") in Trent is found in Session XXI, Chap. 2, the decree on Communion under both species (Denz. 931).

Pope Pius IV, Council of Trent, Sess. 21, Chap. 2: "Therefore holy mother Church… has decreed that it be considered as a law, which may not be repudiated or be changed at will without the authority of the Church."

Does aut in this declaration mean that the Council's decree may not be repudiated, but it may be changed? No, obviously it means that both a repudiation and a change are forbidden. This is another example of how the Latin word aut can be used in contexts which render its meaning "and" or "both." And these examples, when we consider the wording of the passage, refute the claim of baptism of desire supporters: that the meaning of aut in Chapter 4, Session 6 is one which favors baptism of desire.

-- TC (Treadmill234@south.com), November 10, 2004.

Ian, thanks for the lead;

I have attended SSPX, SSPV, and other chapels, and I am grateful for their Mass.. but they all preach 3 baptisms. That troubles me, but we take whhat we can get. Only one chapel that I know of teaches one baptism. I would rather not say who it is but it teaches no salvation outside the church and one baptism. Unfortunately it is over an hour drive away, so I cannot attend as regularly as I would like to.

-- TC (Treadmill234@south.com), November 10, 2004.

Only one chapel that I know of teaches one baptism. I would rather not say who it is

Why not?

-- jake (j@k.e), November 10, 2004.

Why not?

I would not want him excommunicated by KW

-- TC (Treadmill234@south.com), November 10, 2004.

"If what you say is true, then shouldn't the document read:

"...And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, AND the desire thereof [the vow to do so], ..." ?"

Regarding Canon 4, properly translated, believe it or not it actually does mean "and" and not "or". Another example:

"No man can live for a year without bread or water."

The two negatives in tandem render the "or" an "and" in the sense that both bread and water are necessary. Hope that makes sense.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), November 10, 2004.

Regarding Canon 4, properly translated, believe it or not it actually does mean "and" and not "or".

Why didn't the Council fathers say "and" instead of "or"? How else would they have said it if they really meant "or"? Who has the authority to determine what they really meant?

Not trying to be argumentative. Serious questions. The question to me seems to boil down to who has the authority to say "this is what it means." Should any Catholic be able to read any Church document and know infallibly what it means?

Protestants present a similar argument for interpreting Scripture, but there are many different doctrines that come about from that point of view. We typically answer that Christ gave the "keys" to Peter and the power to "bind and loose" to Peter and the Apostles. The bishops who are successors to teh Apostles, in union with the successor of Peter, have this authority. When presented with the possibility that these successors are men who can err, we say that Christ promised "the gates of Hell shall not prevail" against the Church. Shouldn't this apply to the entire deposit of Sacred Tradition including Papal Encyclicals and Ecumenical Councils?

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), November 10, 2004.

Emerald,

What you said did make sense, thus my questions above.

To borrow a phrase from Ian, "It makes sense, but is it correct?" regarding the intention of the Council fathers for baptism.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), November 10, 2004.

>If immersion was originally part of Apostolic Tradition, it didn't take the Church long to depart from it. But wait! the Church cannot depart from Apostolic Tradition, as it is the Word of God! <

I agree. That's why Orthodox Churches still to this day practice immersion and never "updated" the Apostolic Traditions like the Roman Churches did - along with false dogmas like indulgences, papal infallibility, etc.

-- Max Darity (arrowtouch@yahoo.com), November 10, 2004.

And don't forget the "updated" Creed Rome adopted in place of the Holy Creed of the Fathers.

If your Church accepted a Creed, then changed or revised it hundreds of years later, what does that say about sticking to Tradition? Not much.

-- Max Darity (arrowtouch@yahoo.com), November 10, 2004.

Andy, try this translation to see if it makes more sense:

"If anyone says that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation but are superfluous, and that without them or without the desire of them men obtain from God through faith alone the grace of justification, though all are not necessary for each one, let him be anathema."

"Not trying to be argumentative. Serious questions."

Nah, no worries. There's no doubt on this end regarding the sincerity of each person on this thread. People are discussing the Faith; what more could Catholics ask for. It's awesome.

"The question to me seems to boil down to who has the authority to say "this is what it means." Should any Catholic be able to read any Church document and know infallibly what it means?"

Well you have to consider that fact that these kinds of statements are the clarifications, and as such, aren't really subject to the need for interpretations. For instance, if they needed interpretation, then the interpretation would then become the clarification. But these statements are the clarifications. In other words, infallible definitions, professions, declarations by their very nature aren't subject to interpretation.

Something perhaps missing in translation? That's most likely culprit. To get some measure of certainty, as always you can take up the shotgun approach and measure this particular item against the context of that whole section full of canons; look at all the text surrounding the item in question. The support for the necessity of the prescribed matter (water) is in all the text that surrounds canon 4. Take for instance session 7 canon 2:

"If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism and thus twists into some metaphor the words of our Lord Jesus Christ: 'Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost,' let him be anathema."

Now someone told me once their own "interpretation", which was this: "well, that means you can't use beer." They were serious but I got a kick out of it. But even if you took that response as to the intent of the authors here, it would still work to support the necessity of the divinely prescribed matter.

But they way I look at it, they're just trying to get out of something. Not the person I was talking to; he was well intentioned, but he had heard this argued by someone else or read it somewhere. Someone was trying to get out of something though, I'm pretty sure, somewhere near the source of this kind of thinking which he had picked up.

"Protestants present a similar argument for interpreting Scripture, but there are many different doctrines that come about from that point of view."

I know the kind of things you mean; that's most of what they do most the time. Except imho the thing about the "true and natural water" passage being aimed at ruling out beer or olive oil or some other non- water liquid would be the kind of thing that I would point to as being of the typical "Protestant mode". In other words, I agree wholeheartedly that that's exactly the kind of thing Protestants do. I'm just pointing at the opposite as the example; in this case, taking the text of session 7 canon 4 to mean that desire alone is sufficient to stand in for a real Sacrament. It is uniquely Protestant to take one sentence (in this case, only part of a sentence) and use it to give birth to an entire runaway concept. You have to sort of keep your eye on where people are intending to go with these things when you see them get creative with one passage, or one sentence or part of one sentence. The question is, where are they going to take this idea, how are they going to run with it? What kind of Frankenstein of a concept are they looking to build with it? Simultaniously you have to ask, what immutable principle are we now receding away from, walking out on... what precept did we just ditch? In this case, a clear command of the Creator: water and spirit. It operates as sophistry. Of course, I don't mean you're being a sophist, you're just asking a legitimate question, that's all understood. But the others "out there", you have to ask where they are taking these ideas and how they are using them.

"Shouldn't this apply to the entire deposit of Sacred Tradition including Papal Encyclicals and Ecumenical Councils?"

Remember that papal encyclicals and ecumenical councils aren't what the Deposit of Faith is comprised of. But sure, the Church has that authority, no doubt, to bind the Catholic Faithful to belief. What makes a pronouncement infallible is in the words they choose which make it clear beyond a shadow of a doubt that they intend to excercise that infallibility. It's unmistakeable when you know what to look for.

I think that modernists, in addition to rendering ambiguous new texts, in a very Protestant fashion have combed through old ones looking for an "out", or for imagined ancient support and evidence for newthink concepts and ideas. I think that's what is taking place when they isolate that little portion of one sentence "or the desire thereof" and concoct an entire concept from it; a concept that doesn't even mesh with the context of the entire section it is taken from. Make no mistake though; there are plenty of traditional Catholics who believe that's what that phrase means right along with your more liberal Catholics.

Here's a related example of the Protestant method, touching on another Sacrament, the Blessed Sacrament. You've probably heard the Protestants talk about the blood of Christ and how they are washed in it, or covered by it, etc. But where is this blood? It's an etherial concept they speak of; it's not over here, or over there, it's... somewhere out there. It's a mere concept to them, or even perhaps a metaphor. But Catholics think differently; we can point to it. It's on our altars. It is a reality; it is really there, in the material existence. We think that way because we are the holders of doctrine of the Incarnation, the Word made flesh. There it is again: Jesus and Mary. "Behold, I am the handmaiden of the Lord. Be it done according to thy Word. And the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us..." Jesus and Mary: inseparable, can't have one without the other, ground zero for salvation, the Incarnation is.

Set the Baptismal sacrament down for a minute, then take up the Blessed Sacrament, then test run the same concept anew. Does it work? Can we have the Blessed Sacrament, transubstantiation, without the bread and wine? Nope. There's the concept of the spiritual communion, but it isn't the same thing nor can it stand in for the reception of Holy Communion.

Theologically, the matter is integral to, and necessary for, the existence of the Sacraments. It is impossible to simply ditch the matter and yet still be able to say hey, we don't have the matter but we still obtained the sacrament we were after. Matter/form composites are, by their very nature, incapable of existence without both the matter and the form present. We are physical beings, composites of body and soul, and that's how the remedies, the Sacraments, approach us.

Hope some of the above was coherent enough. If not, I'm sure I just cured an insomniac somewhere on the planet.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), November 11, 2004.

my head hurts.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), November 11, 2004.

Emerald

i think you are right: this is self-intrepeting -- and i think it supports your argument.

the completely obvious point that i have missed is at the end where it states: ".....as it is written: "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God""

"as it is written". this translates literally from the Latin.

well the Bible does not mention desire.

"aut" therefore, which CAN mean "or else", or just "or", appears here to be used in a particular way.

"aut...aut..aut" generally connotes "whether....or...or" which is how i recall it is found in Cantate Domino and other works.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), November 11, 2004.

Emerald,

What you presented was extremely coherent. Thanks. I believe I understood the point you made about the necessity of form and matter for the sacraments.

This brings up another question though. In the Sacrament of Reconciliation (Confession), the usual form and matter is audible confession of your sins to a priest as well true sorrow and the intent not to sin again. But if circumstances beyond your control caused us your death before participating in the sacrament, you are still forgiven and will not suffer eternal damnation due to mortal sin (as long as the sorrow and intent not to sin are present).

That is, the heartfelt desire for the sacrament seems to mean the effect of the sacrament (friendship with God) can take place without the ordinary form and matter. This is of course, an extraordinary and special case.

Why can't the same be said of Baptism, for those who do everything in their power to obtain water baptism, but die before receiving it?

What am I not considering in this comparison? Do I appear to have a poor understanding of the terms "form" and "matter"?

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), November 11, 2004.

In the case for Confession, we usually point to the words our Lord spoke to the Apostles, "whose sins you forgive are forgiven and whose sins you retain are retained." Jn 20:23

In this case, he didn't seem to allow for the "sacrament of penance by desire."

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), November 11, 2004.

From the Council of Trent;

Dens to be "sorrow of mind and abhorrence of the sin, with a full purpose not to sin any more."[6] This differs little from what Protestant divines are accustomed to call godly sorrow; and had the matter rested here, we might have congratulated Rome on retaining at least one portion of truth; but she has spoilt all by the distinction which immediately follows of perfect and imperfect contrition. Perfect contrition flows from love to God; and the penitent mourns for his sin chiefly because it has dishonoured God. This kind of contrition, the Council of Trent teaches, may procure reconciliation with God without confession and absolution; but then perfect contrition, according to that Council, includes a desire for the sacrament, and without that desire contrition cannot procure pardon.[7] Imperfect contrition, or attrition, as it is called, does not arise, according to Dens, from the love of God, or any contemplation of his goodness and mercy, but from the desire of pardon and the fear of hell.[8] Attrition of itself cannot procure justification. It fails of its end unless it be followed by the sacrament; that is, unless it lead the person to confession and absolution. It was attrition which the Ninevites showed on the preaching of Jonah, and which led them to do penance, and ultimately to share in the divine mercy. Perfect contrition, the Church of Rome admits, may justify without the intervention of the priest. But such is the infirmity of human nature, that contrition is seldom or never attained, according to that Church. The sorrow of the sinner in rare cases, if in any, rises above attrition; and therefore the doctrine of Rome on the head of penance is, in point of fact, briefly this,-- that without auricular confession and priestly absolution no one can hope to escape the torments of hell.

-- TC (Treadmill234@south.com), November 11, 2004.

The writer is an antagonist of Rome but still the article is corect

-- TC (Treadmill234@south.com), November 11, 2004.

I guess my understanding of grace is that God can communicate grace even without the Sacraments (Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Ott, p 340.)

Ott also calls Baptism by desire and Baptism by blood as "sententia fidei proxima" in theological grade of certainty. That is, a "teaching proximate to Faith" which he defines as a doctrine "regarded by theologians generally as a truth of Revelation, but has not been finally promulgated as such by the Church."

I am truly an amateur at this, so I know I can easily misinterpret these terms and their meanings. Please correct me if I got this wrong.

In Summa Theologica, Part III, question 72, point 6, reply to Obj 1, St. Thomas Aquinas says:

"The Divine power is not confined to the sacraments. Hence man can receive spiritual strength to confess the Faith of Christ publicly, without receiving the sacrament of Confirmation: just as he can also receive remission of sins without Baptism. Yet, just as none receive the effect of Baptism without the desire of Baptism; so none receive the effect of Confirmation, without the desire of Confirmation. And man can have this even before receiving Baptism."

Now here's where I can get in trouble, when I try to analyze what it all means.

So if God can impart grace outside the sacraments, would this allow for the effects of baptism without the normal matter (i.e., water), assuming that the heartfelt desire to recieve baptism sacramentally existed?

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), November 11, 2004.

that without auricular confession and priestly absolution no one can hope to escape the torments of hell.

T-C,

Are you saying that if one is truly sorry for a mortal sin and intends never to sin again, yet dies before auricular confession, that they are lost?

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), November 11, 2004.

Or are you saying that because real contrition (vs. attrition) is rare, that in a practical sense, without auricular confession before death one is lost?

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), November 11, 2004.

Andy,

As I understand it real perfect contrition is rare.I believe tha one would have to have a delicate conscience 24 hours a day, and then it is possible. Where does it come from from a hardened conscience a a moments notice. Yes the good thief had it, but I suspect that Blessed Mother was praying for these two guys. One saw the light and one did not.

-- TC (Treadmill234@south.com), November 11, 2004.

Andy

i have studied yr question throughout my spare moments today and cannot really help. i am lost.

what i have learned, or already knew, is that, where the Sacrament's form or matter are prescribed by Our Lord, such as the obligation to baptise (1) with water and (2) in the name of the Blessed Trinity, then the ***substance*** of the form and matter of said Sacrament is more or less settled forever. so much so that a baptism by ANYONE [other than the baptised], where baptism is intended in the true sense, can be efficacious - because the baptiser used water, baptised in the name of the Blessed Trinity, and meant to baptise. this is Bible and (if you consider it separate) Dogma.

with the Blessed Sacrament, we have similar specificity. that's why the change from "pro multis" to "pro omnibus" boggles the brain. and that's also why we saw wrong in that little girl, with the gluten allergy, being fed some kind of wafer, as opposed to the Consecrated Host, by a kind-hearted, but doctrinally flawed, priest.

with Confession, were we given such specificity? this is where i really lose it.

"whoever you forgive is forgiven", as i crudely translate it.

well, perhaps the Apostles, or their Successors, can see fit to forgive those who earnestly desired Confession. the power to forgive is not conditioned in any material sense - for exxample "whomsoever you shall forgive [by taking a direct confession from] are forgiven".

we have no choices with Baptism, other than those as are formulaic [you can baptise in the name of the Trinity; or in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost] ie non-substantial -- the form and matter having been established, so it would appear. you must use water.

ditto the Blessed Sacrament, where our hands are tied (and infinitely blessed). we have witness to the Last Supper. we have the text. we have the command to repeat it. we know that we eat of the Body and Blood. we have that kind of detail that assures us that Spiritual Eucharist is different.

your question is a real question.

it's an excellent question.

there IS a Catholic answer. there always is.

i hope that we find it.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), November 11, 2004.

Thanks all for your answers as I struggle to understand and learn.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), November 11, 2004.

Baptism is an open declaration by God that the person baptized is indeed forgiven.

God certainly may consider you forgiven before he openly declares it through Baptism. If you trust in Jesus Christ, the Son of God, as your Savior, God considers you Just.

For example, the man on the cross next to Jesus was considered forgiven by Christ before Christ announced the Promise, which was the thief's personal Baptism (reception of the Word of Forgiveness through Christ.)

The "Announcement of Christ's Forgiveness" happens at Baptism. To a person who has not been baptized, they have not received Christ's forgiveness. To a person who has been baptized, the "Announcement of Christ's Forgiveness" is precious.

Forgiveness is not earned by the work or process of Baptism.

Forgiveness is announced/received via Baptism. It's a conduit of God's gracious Word of forgiveness. Just as the audible voice of Jesus was a conduit of God's gracious Word of Forgiveness to the thief, the water is a conduit of God's Word of Forgiveness - to you individually.

Baptism brings/conveys forgiveness from heaven. It does not create forgiveness where forgiveness did not already exist beforehand.

-- Max Darity (arrowtouch@yahoo.com), November 11, 2004.

"Are you saying that if one is truly sorry for a mortal sin and intends never to sin again, yet dies before auricular confession, that they are lost?"

I think the answer to this question, especially in conjunction with any possible comparison to Baptism, lies in the distinction between "necessity of means" and "necessity of precept" in regards to the Sacraments. Penance is a sacrament which is a necessity of precept, but not a necessity of means. Baptism on the other hand is a necessity of both means and precept. Penance is not really a salvific sacrament in and of itself, in the sense that it is meant to be applicable to an already baptised soul in order to sort of "rejustify" them. If the soul mangages to escape what seemed like certain death, it will still be incumbent upon that soul to seek out and ultimately get obtain confession. If the soul ended up dying before confession by no fault of their own and despite their best efforts, it is possible that another way of handling the situation by God may exist. The Church says that the contrition must be perfect as prerequisite, mind you... and that's a tall order. I could never trust myself if I were to find myself in that situation.

Baptism, on the other hand, is necessary by both means and precept. As a necessity of means, there is no other way to fulfill it other than itself. What we need here is a good analogy. If I can think of one eventually, maybe I'll write it up and we'll see if it works to make the distinction between means and precept a little clearer.

But when the distinction between necessity of means and necessity of precept becomes clearer, it makes more sense out of that line out of Trent where it says about the sacraments of the New Law that "...though all are not necessary for each one...". Then you stop and think, hey that makes sense... not every needs Holy Orders for salvation; not every soul needs Matrimony, but everybody needs Baptism, and so on. Necessity of means and necessity of precept.

But back to the guy with perfect contrition, about to die without and priest and a confessional in sight. Again here, the better speculation, should one insist upon speculating about these things (which is only natural), is to believe that should a soul find itself in such a state, that God, having supremme command over life and death, would allow the mercy of time and opportunity to get the precept fulfilled.

Same goes for Baptism, but yet moreso. He would allow the truly justified soul to receive what's a necessary means for entrance into the Kingdom of God. On the one hand we all do quite right to trust and believe that God is all powerful and can do all things. But get this: we immediately violate and negate that believe at the very heart of the matter when we imagine a person could die without being able to receive the means that God has provided for salvation, as if death itself was so rigidly fixed in it's own schedule and timetable that even God Himself was subject to it.

To say it another way: someone who really wanted to receive a sacrament necessary for salvation, who really desired it, was on fire with their newfound love for God, and so on... dying before receiving what the author of life and overseer of death provides as the way of salvation? Impossible. I don't believe that happens, or ever did happen to anyone at all. If time and opportunity are necessary, then He will provide time and opportunity. Death has no power over Christ, Who proved that it doesn't in the most explicit fashion possible by rising from the dead. In short, there are no truly desiring and justified souls who have actually died before receiving what has been declared by both means and precept as being necessary for salvation. God wouldn't have it. It's a non- existant hypothetical we dream up.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), November 12, 2004.

In short, there are no truly desiring and justified souls who have actually died before receiving what has been declared by both means and precept as being necessary for salvation. God wouldn't have it. It's a non- existant hypothetical we dream up. - Emerald

What about those poor souls in areas where the Gospel hasn't been preached yet?

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), November 12, 2004.

I'm switching gears from Penance to Baptism, assuming you meant that statement to apply to Baptism too (minus the "justified" part).

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), November 12, 2004.

What about those poor souls in areas where the Gospel hasn't been preached yet?

Ahh, the pagan on a desert island argument...

-- jake (j@k.e), November 12, 2004.

Curiously....

There isn't a pagan on a desert island ? And, how do we know if there was or wasn't?

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

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 12, 2004.

If the Pagan on the desert island is sincere, Philip will come by with his chariot, (or rowboat if necessary), and baptize this fellow.

-- TC (Treamill234@south.com), November 12, 2004.

God will judge each according to the light they've been given.

Every fair-minded person knows Almighty God always judges fairly.

Even a pagan can be set on a path toward the Light of Christ through the testimony of Creation and Conscience, but most pagans/humans do not courageously seek the Truth.

The poor pagan who cries out "Almighty God, have mercy on me, a sinner!" will be judged very differently than those souls who resign themselves to serving false spirits or who refuse to seek mercy directy from Almighty God.

One does not need a deep understanding of the Church in order to attain mercy from Almighty God.

For those who refuse baptism, their attitudes are manifested: they do not truly desire the mercy of Almighty God. They do not want to know that God has had mercy on them and granted them forgiveness of their sins. They'd prefer to live in a state of disunion from God's Family.

On the other hand, for those who think that their baptism remits sin apart from a desire for God's mercy and an appreciation for the forgiveness purchased by Christ - these are truly deceived people.

It'd be better if such people were never Baptized. Unless they repent and change their attitude, their destiny will be worse than the ignorant pagan who is not baptized, but cries out to and relies upon God's merciful heart.

-- Max Darity (arrowtouch@yahoo.com), November 12, 2004.

Thanks for the reply Max.

Yes, the old pagan on a desert island, or isolated Amazonian jungle, or South America before the Spanish missionaries. Take your pick. These people exist/have existed since Christ's death and resurrection. It's a very real situation, not just hypothetical. It's a valid question, I think.

Are they lost because they had the misfortune of being born in the wrong place or time? They could not have received the sacrament of Baptism in form and matter since the Church had not physically reached those locations yet.

I'm curious as to everyone's opinion on "invincible ignorance" and its relation to the necessity of baptism for salvation.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), November 12, 2004.

"It's a very real situation, not just hypothetical. It's a valid question, I think."

Just to clarify exactly what the hypothetical is: it isn't whether there are pagans on desert islands. The hypothetical is that God would be unable to provide the sacrament of Baptism due to that pagan's situation. There is a difference. It may stretch the brain, but bear with me.

Look at it this way. If we say there's a pagan on a desert island who is truly justified yet unable to obtain the sacrament, we have already drawn a conclusion based upon are limit perceptions. Very, very limited perceptions. With this assumption in place, moved with pity, we assume that God must make exceptions for these people, and allow them something that can only be obtained from Baptism, without the Baptism. Oops... ok, we've just ditched a de fide. We can't do that.

Assumption: that there are really people who are truly justified that are allowed to die without the Baptism which is necessary to turn their justification into redemption, and later through perseverance, into salvation.

Do we know this? We could be wrong. What if there really is a way in which God can provide a real, true and full Baptism even though we're not sure how He can pull it off given their situation? After all, He's God. It is not necessary to conclude He cannot, because we cannot see how He could, and then wander off to the conclusion that the answer must certainly be that He makes exceptions. I can speculate on few interesting possibilities, but for now let's leave those aside.

You always want to make sure that your human conclusions and assumptions, and in short, intellectual satisfaction doesn't get first dibs, or preference, over holding a doctrine of the Faith. No doubt, that's hard to do sometimes. But we have to hold the line on the doctrines of the Faith. Even if it poses difficult and confusing thoughts.

"Are they lost because they had the misfortune of being born in the wrong place or time?"

Nope. Not for that reason, but lost due to a more fundamental reason, one which makes a necessity the very existence of the Catholic Church in the first place... you must keep this firmly in mind: the Catholic Faith teaches that they were born lost. That's our condition. That's what Original Sin means, and what it engenders. The very state of Original Sin ends in death, in both the first and second sense. On top of that, who lives for a while out of childhood, into adulthood, without heaping Actual Sins on top of this Original condition? Especially considering that, according to Sacred Scripture, even the just man sins 7 times a day.

The more accurate question is this:

"Are they lost because they had the misfortune of being born in Original Sin, and because they have most certainly lapsed further into Actual Sins?"

Yes. Absapossolutely. We are all damned by default, until our unfortunate situation has had the remedies of Christ applied against it. This cost Him a fortune in suffering to pull off, our rescuing from being children of the devil. Really!

"They could not have received the sacrament of Baptism in form and matter since the Church had not physically reached those locations yet."

Is this an absolute certainty? From the human perspective, it seems a safe enough conclusion. But at Fatima, an angel appeared with the Blessed Sacrament (the physical, Real Presence) and administered it to the children. And Mary and the Saints have manifested themselves in many instances to many people in events which have been granted official Church approval as worthy of belief. They don't show up as phantoms or mirages, but as active and present realities. I'm speculating as to the origin of other possibilities, as you can see... none of which may be a true answer, but to test this assumption: "we really know they really couldn't have obtained the Sacrament". We cannot be sure of that, and better speculations can be posited.

But just to be clear: there's actually no need to counter a speculation with a better speculation. It is perfectly acceptable in this situation to do the Faith shrug... as in "I don't know what happens to these people, but I know that Baptism is necessary for salvation". We don't have to know the answers to all questions, and all situations. We do have the option of saying "I don't know". What we do not have the option of as Catholics, is to ditch something which the Church has declared as necessary by both means and precept.

One could simply say "I have no clue what happens to those people, but I do know that no one can enter the Kingdom of God without being baptised". Such a person thereby holds the Faith whole and entire, and simply.

One may not say "Because of the evident temporal situation of those people, Baptism is therefore not necessary in their case" or more commonly, "they were given the effects of Baptism without the Baptism". We can't say these things theologically with dispensing with the explicity command of Christ.

This is a difficult topic.

Hope I'm not making this more confusing than it is inherently. You know, in all these questions, remember, it's not human reason alone which is capable of answering them. Grace is necessary to gain understanding. In fact, Understanding is one of the gifts of the Holy Ghost. Anyone who wants to understand these things better (if that's God's will. Sometimes it isn't.) absolutely must ask for the grace from the Holy Ghost, dispensed from the hands of the Mother of God. Ask before the Blessed Sacrament, ask the Mother of God because she never fails in what's good for us. One simple request in front of Blessed Sacrament beats anything I could say or anyone else could say about this or any other matter. Up there, that's what they really want to see from souls anyways.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), November 12, 2004.

Thanks for the lengthy and well thought out reply Emerald. It helps a lot.

I suppose I've been stuck in the apparent contradiction between the following:

1. That God desires the salvation of all men. Even though not all are saved (through our own fault, not God's).

2. That God provides the means for all men to obtain eternal life. That eternal damnation is caused by our rejection of God.

3. That sacramental Baptism is necessary for salvation because of Oririginal Sin.

4. That those ignorant of Christ, the Church, and Baptism apparently cannot make a conscious decision to reject Christ.

I hope I'm not mixing too many things up here. Let me know if I've mis-stated any of these things above, or if I should make it less ambigious.

I am satisfied that we humans have to rely on faith for the truth, and may not necessarily be blessed with intellectual understanding of it.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), November 13, 2004.

You're not mixing things up at all; sounds real clear. You're laying out the principles necessary to understand (as much as humanly possible) both the question and the answer.

I'm wondering if number 4 needs fleshing out.

"I am satisfied that we humans have to rely on faith for the truth, and may not necessarily be blessed with intellectual understanding of it."

Who knows... it may be the blessing to believe without understanding a whit of it. lol! Maybe there's some extended sense of Blessed are those who have not seen, but believed. I don't know.

But I'm sure about one thing. The friendless, goofy told lady in a run-down trailer park somewhere praying her Rosary every night is always going to be the only true threat to, and capable of victory over, men and demons of high rank and intelligence. Because God always favors the meek per the beatitudes.

At this point imho we are sorting at distinctions between justification, redemption and salvation.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), November 13, 2004.

God desires the salvation of all men, except those who are accursed... Anti-Christ etc.

God provides the means for all men to obtain eternal life, that is, the offer of forgiveness and righteousness through faith. However, God chooses to give some men more "persuasion" unto faith than He gives others. Remember Saul of Tarsus was knocked off his horse by blinding light and given specific instructions. God could repeat that that "persuasion" with whomever He wishes, but He chooses not to approach all men in the same manner. Therefore, all men are called to repent through different levels of "light" - but not all are given equal persuasion by God.

Abraham and all the saints of old had not yet received the news of Christ's atonement and were not given the option of Baptism, so one cannot say Baptism is ABSOLUTELY in all cases strictly required for a person to enter heaven. Baptism is definitely necessary for those who hear the gospel and are able to respond, but those who were servants of God in the early Christian age, but had not heard the good news yet, will be fairly judged and not excluded from heaven based on such a legalistic technicality.

God will judge each man fairly. We can be ABSOLUTELY sure of this. If a man is never given the opportunity to receive Baptism, the standard God uses to judge him will be different than the standard God uses to judge the people who have been offered the Ultimate Gift.

Remember, Jesus said that if the works He did had been done in an age prior to the one He lived, they would have repented. Each age and place and person has been given a certain level of revelation. The greater the revelation, the greater the condemnation.

Finally, God never had to send His Son into the world or send prophets or angels. God never had to give an opportunity to anybody to be saved, so the fact that even one person can be saved is a miracle.

The opportunity for redemption is not a human right. It's a Gift. God does not need to offer salvation to all men - but He does - even to the worst.

-- Max Darity (arrowtouch@yahoo.com), November 13, 2004.

At this point imho we are sorting at distinctions between justification, redemption and salvation. - Emerald

I think you're exactly right Emerald.

But I'm sure about one thing. The friendless, goofy told lady in a run-down trailer park somewhere praying her Rosary every night is always going to be the only true threat to, and capable of victory over, men and demons of high rank and intelligence. Because God always favors the meek per the beatitudes. - Emerald

I pray for the half the faith and humility of people like this.

Thanks again for your reply Max. I had heard something similar to that in the past. Especially in reference to St. Paul's writings about pagans and salvation.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.om"), November 14, 2004.

I'll have to tighten up number 4, Emerald. Thanks. Now that I take a second look at it, it's too ambigious.

-- Andy S ("ask3322004@yahoo.com"), November 14, 2004.

Andy

hopefully you will post #4 when you get the chance.

thanks.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), November 15, 2004.

I will Ian, do you have any suggestions on how to improve it? They woul dbe greatly appreciated.

Here are the ideas and their relationships I'm struggling with currently. Number 4 needs the most work I think.

1. That God desires the salvation of all men. Even though not all are saved (through our own fault, not God's).

2. That God provides the means for all men to obtain eternal life. That eternal damnation is caused by our rejection of God.

3. That sacramental Baptism is necessary for salvation because of Original Sin.

4. That those ignorant of Christ, the Church, and Baptism apparently cannot make a conscious decision to reject Christ.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), November 15, 2004.

Andy, tempted to drop 4 but tentatively suggesting this:

4 The Church can only entrust to the mercy of God those who are ignorant of Christ, the Church and Baptism, through no fault of their own, but who nonetheless carefully keep the precepts of the natural law, that have been written by God in the hearts of all people, and who lead a virtuous and dutiful life.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), November 15, 2004.

Thanks Ian, that's a much clearer way of saying what I meant. I like your version better.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), November 15, 2004.

It also squares up with Scripture.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), November 15, 2004.

i would proffer additional changes:

2. That God provides the means for all men to obtain eternal life. That eternal damnation is caused by our rejection of God OR HIS CHURCH.

3. That sacramental Baptism BY WATER is necessary for salvation because of Original Sin.

-- Ian (IB@vertifgo.com), November 15, 2004.

here's the composite summry with a further change to #2:

1. That God desires the salvation of all men. Even though not all are saved (through our own fault, not God's).

2. That God provides the means for all men to obtain eternal life - HIS CHURCH AND HER SACRAMENTS. That eternal damnation is caused by our OBJECTIVE rejection of God OR HIS CHURCH OR ANY OF HER SACRAMENTS.

3. That sacramental Baptism BY WATER is necessary for salvation because of Original Sin.

4 The Church can only entrust to the mercy of God those who are ignorant of Christ, the Church and Baptism, through no fault of their own, but who nonetheless carefully keep the precepts of the natural law that have been written by God in the hearts of all people, and who lead a virtuous and dutiful life.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), November 15, 2004.

HEALTH WARNING Andy.

#4 is what i'd "like" to believe.

ask Emerald and TC for input on all 4.

ask Paul M for Dogma if he disagrees.

disagree too if you disagree.

my mind seems fairly clear on where this discussion has got to. but i cannot guarantee that.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), November 15, 2004.

Big goof on my part Andy.

here'sa further version - more changes to #2:

1. That God desires the salvation of all men. Even though not all are saved (through our own fault, not God's).

2. That God provides the means for all men to obtain eternal life - HIS CHURCH AND HER SACRAMENTS. That eternal damnation is caused by our rejection of God THROUGH UNABSOLVED MORTAL SIN; OR BY AN OBJECTIVE REJECTION OF HIS CHURCH OR ANY OF HER SACRAMENTS.

3. That sacramental Baptism BY WATER is necessary for salvation because of Original Sin.

4 The Church can only entrust to the mercy of God those who are ignorant of Christ, the Church and Baptism, through no fault of their own, but who nonetheless carefully keep the precepts of the natural law that have been written by God in the hearts of all people, and who lead a virtuous and dutiful life.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), November 15, 2004.

I hope just as Ian does, that all can be saved. That is only what love for our fellow man really means. Anything that we can do to help that we must do.

I say again though, We must adhere to what is given to us, and leave the rest to God. It's like they say in government..." need to know"

-- TC (Treadmill234@south.com), November 15, 2004.

Yes Ian, much better. Thanks a lot for your inputs!

TC, I think Ian's changes to 4. might have sealed it. "The Church can only entrust to the mercy of God..." says what needs to be said without assuming that all "are" or "shall be" saved. That's as long as we leave it at that. Bottom line I think, is that we don't know all the details of how God's mercy is applied and that's good enough for me.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), November 15, 2004.

I would still like to see all the inputs that anyone has.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), November 15, 2004.

The idea that unity of any kind rests on baptism alone, or that we are "justified through faith in Baptism" is false. These teachings violate a whole host of traditional Catholic doctrines such as "there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church". There is no such thing as being a partial Catholic; nor can the Church admit that the rites of non Catholics are a source of grace. How different is the statement of Pius XII: "only those are to be included as real members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith and have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the body or been excluded from it by legitimate authority for serious faults." St. Fulgentius teaches: "for neither baptism, nor liberal alms, nor death itself for the profession of Christ, can avail a man anything in order to salvation if he does not hold the unity of the Catholic Church" (ad Petrum Diaconum. C. 39).

-- TC (Treadmill234@south.com), November 17, 2004.

The idea that unity of any kind rests on baptism alone, or that we are "justified through faith in Baptism" is false. -TC

I totally agree with what you said about unity TC. IMO, true unity lies only in the same baptism, profession of the same faith, and submission to the same apostolic authority.

What do you mean by "justified through faith in Baptism"? Are you referring to "baptism by desire"?

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), November 17, 2004.

No,Andy.

I do not mean baptism of desire. I do not accept that. I mean that the valid baptisms of non catholics is not enough. For a non Catholic baby, yes indeed they are saved. But for an adult, no.As soon as they are baptized they would have to become Catholic. If not, they are heretics, and back into sin again. I am no theologian, but that is my opinion. Baptism is a stolen sacrament by anyone outside the Church.

-- TC (Treadmill234@south.com), November 18, 2004.

Andy

i have justrealised something that might be relevant here or on the other thread.

justification <> salvation. that's what we know.

the Dogmatic tie in to Salvation without BAptism by Water seems, im my research, to be based upon an error in understanding Trent that Imyslef have propogated.

you can be justified by Water or Desire.

However, when it comes to salvation, Trent is clear.

Emerald has already posted these both, i think, but here they are side-by-side:

1/ "If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism, let him be anathema."

2/ "If anyone says that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation, let him be anathema."

PS if anyone can point me in the direction of the **Latin** text of Cantate Dominio, i'd be delighted.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), November 18, 2004.

I think you may have hit upon my confusion Ian. I seem to be equating justification with salvation.

Initial justification and ultimate salvation are two very different things, although initial justification is necessary in order for ultimate salvation to even be possible. I think that's the same confusion that Reformed theology makes.

I'm still shaky on how one loses sanctifying grace after valid baptism (initial sanctification) if they live in inculpable ignorance of the truth. My guess is that without the nourishment Christ gives us in the Eucharist and the renewal one obtains through Confession, that one is doomed to eventually fall into mortal sin without extraordinary intervention by God.

My head's starting to hurt. I'll check out the other thread to see what replies are there and maybe take a break for a while.

-- Andy S ("ask332004@yahoo.com"), November 18, 2004.

Andy said: My guess is that without the nourishment Christ gives us in the Eucharist and the renewal one obtains through Confession, that one is doomed to eventually fall into mortal sin without extraordinary intervention by God.

I'm a little confused about this, Andy. Where does that put me and others in my position who have not yet received Confession or the Eucharist? I'm not denying that I've sinned or anything, but how could God lead me to join the Catholic faith without some form of grace? From my baptism perhaps? And what of those who join who were never baptised before, even? Is this all "extraordinary intervention from God"? I think that God dispenses His grace in various ways, the utmost being through the sacraments, which I am eager to receive. But it's not the only way.

God bless,

-- Emily ("jesusfollower7@yahoo.com"), November 18, 2004.

Hi Emily,

That was theological musings. I was trying to figure out how the strict sense of "no salvation outside the church" could be correct with a valid baptism and initial justification of those who are seprated from the Catholic faith through no fault of their own.

My understanding of grace in Catholic theology is that there are two types. Actual grace, which is a prompting from God (such as what would lead one to explore and convert to the Catholic faith) and habitual grace that is otherwise known as sanctifying grace or justification. Everyone (including pagans) can receive actual grace. But in order to receive habitual grace and be justified, one must be baptised. After that, if we commit mortal sin, we are spiritually dead and only Confession (or perfect contrition) can restore sanctifying grace and justification. Now, the question I've been struggling with is how the doctrine of "no salvation outside the church" relates to this concept of justification in Catholic teaching.

My understanding of salvation in Catholic theology is that if one dies in a state of sanctifying grace, that one obtains eternal life. If one physically dies in while they are spiritually dead, that one is damned to hell.

I totally agree with you regarding actual grace, and I think that Ian and TC would also agree that God does not dispense this type of grace solely through the sacaraments of the Catholic Church. But I think they would argue that God only dispenses sanctifying grace (justification) through the sacraments of the Church.

I would argue that true desire for the same for those ignorant of, or unable to recieve the sacraments could be a means of obtaining sanctifying grace, but I'm not sure that this is an orthodox position. I'm not sure that this even agrees with the official teaching of the Church as taught by Pope John Paul II and the Magesterium but that is how I currently understand it. I recognize Pope John Paul II and those in communion with him as the legitimate suiccessors of the Apostles so I submit to their infallible teachings on this matter. However, Ian, TC, and Emerald have given me a lot to think about. I'm still leery about interpreting church documents myself, but they do present some good arguments.

As of now, I believe that God can dispense sanctifying grace by His own means for those with the correct desire, but the ordinary and surest way is through the sacraments. So I believe that you are "saved" as any other Catholic would be based on your heartfelt desire for the true faith and what I believe to be the true desire of your heart. It's through no fault of your own that you aren't Catholic yet. You profess the same faith, follow the same authority, but haven't been officially received into the Church and haven't come into full communion yet through the Eucharist.

However you define it, I do believe that God has intervened in an extraordinary way in your life. But that is based on what I know about you personally.

I should have taken a break earlier. My thoughts are wandering too much. Please, everyone accept my humble apologies. I really need to take a prayer break before I confuse anyone else with my outloud musings.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), November 18, 2004.

Like I said, I'm no theologian so I should probably stop acting like one. Just trying to understand our faith better. I truly pray I haven't caused any harm with my speculation. This is very important stuff to get right.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), November 18, 2004.

Andy, thanks so much for that extensive explanation. I'm sorry to have requested that of you when you said you wished to pray about it first. What you said did clear up some things about how you are thinking or considering these issues. I think that since Catholic teaching is so deep and there is so much, I have a lot to learn!

Eccles. 12:12 12 And further, by these, my son, be admonished: of making many books there is no end; and much study is a weariness of the flesh.

John 21:25 25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.

While we still try to figure it all out...

2 Tim. 2:15 15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

-- Emily ("jesusfollower7@yahoo.com"), November 19, 2004.

Thanks for the wonderful passages Emily. They help keep me grounded.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), November 19, 2004.

I think that since Catholic teaching is so deep and there is so much, I have a lot to learn!

Yes, me too!

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), November 19, 2004.

Emily

it's the Church's job to elaborate on doctrine.

it's the fact that we are scrambling around sifting the Truth from the modern ambiguities, esp in VII but also elsewhere, that puts Andy in the position that he has to search for the Truth, yet feel guilty that he might be erroneously trying to interpet for the Truth.

that's not Andy's fault. it's not yr fault. it's not my fault.

as it happens, i disagree wholeheartedly with Andy.

so, i intend to continue this thread, because i have learned so much from forthright conversation with fellow-Catholics, but also because this thread is simply of such fundamental importance.

but, Emily, ask yourself, why has this issue never ever been discussed with such openness over at the Catholic forum? where have all the so-called orthodox Catholics gone in this forum? why are they happier trading Scripture with protestants? why can't any so- called orthodoc Catholic ever give a sensible reconciliation of Cantate Domino with VII? will any so-called othrodox Catholic ever explain why VII changed Sacred Scripture - from "for many" to "for all" - in the consecration?

the Ark of Salvation is sailing in the wrong direction, Emily. i fear that you are being recruited to a religion that does not teach as you are being led to believe.

far be to from me to interfere in yr reconciliation with God's Church, but the truth is that the Church quite literally teaches that there is no salvation outside the Church. to be inside the Church requires a Trinitarian Bapism by Water, nothing less. it also requires, of an adult, an adherence to its teachings and its 7 Sacraments.

i am truly moved by your clear devotion to God. i have seen you express an interest in the religious life. i am no fool. i sit here as i type cognizant of my own many and recurring crises of faith. you are far more pious that i will ever be.

however, the majority of the pastors in the Church you want to join teaches that you are as well off as a protestant. the same Church teaches that Salvation is ONLY to be found in the Church.

meanwhile, the Pope kisses the Koran - which preaches that Christ is a mere prophet.

are you confused by this?

do they teach this at RCIA?

i am really, really sorry for saying this to you Emily. trust me. it brings me no pleasure.

however, press the RCIA folks for answers. join in this thread.

understand Catholicism - having recognised it as "extreme".

email Emerald.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), November 21, 2004.

Ian,

Despite (and because of) the disagreements we have, I appreciate you keeping this thread alive. I haven't given up on it, just need a break. The least I can do before discussing again, is to actually read the references you all provided.

I agree that this is an important discussion to have. I still have issues with assuming the same authority as the Church hierarchy to interpret church documents. Maybe I'm misinterpreting the arguments though. I need some time to sift through the basic arguments first.

I know there is a difference between those who recognize Pope John Paul II (but disagree with liturgical changes since Vatican II) and those who see JPII as an anti-pope. There is also the whole EENS issue and baptism by desire. These seem to be the biggies.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), November 21, 2004.

I would not be too hasty in judging our beloved Pope, especially this one we have right now -- a living Saint. He is vastly more holy and vastly more in union with the Holy Trinity and Holy Family than anyone putting in his two cents worth in this forum. Why he kissed the Koran could very well be precisely due to this -- BEYOND OUR MEAGER UNDERSTANDING. Besides, nobody in this forum is nearly capable of writing an encyclical.

-- Joseph (jtg878@hotmail.com), November 21, 2004.

"the Ark of Salvation is sailing in the wrong direction,"

The above erroneous claim certainly qualifies as one of the most ostentatious statements of 2004.

-- Joseph (jtg878@hotmail.com), November 21, 2004.

The discussion is not allowed over at Catholic, as the moderator cannot tolerate anything that disagrees with him. I thank the Protetant moderator for his tolerance of us.

Joseph, it is folks like you that frustate traditioals. You call JP2 a great ppe. He is probably the worst pope in the history of the Church, Well maybe Paul 6th ties him.

All disagreements aside, one thing canot be denied. Our Lord said, "By their fruits you shall Know them".

An objective look at V2 should give the answer. I know that you will get a hundred excuses like, The terrible sixties, and the bishops rebelled, and on and on.

If something like the sixties could do that, the Church was not that durable. And as far as the rebel bishops, who do you think put them there. Not Pius 12th.

This is JP, and Paul 6 team so they got exactly what they wanted.

-- TC (Treadmill234@south.com), November 21, 2004.

The not so distant future beatification and canonization of Pope John Paul II will nullify forever all the malicious slander said against him. Don't worry, he will forgive you ... he forgave the person who tried to assasinate him ... JPII even visited him in prison.

-- Joseph (jtg878@hotmail.com), November 21, 2004.

TC said: I thank the Protetant moderator for his tolerance of us.

Actually, Elpidio the current moderator is a Christian Yahwist starting his own religion that he believes God called him to do. He is a former Catholic. When the other moderator (a Protestant, Calvinist) returns from boot camp, you will know. :-)

-- Emily ("jesusfollower7@yahoo.com"), November 21, 2004.

Joseph

you have failed to address a single issue raised here.

this is your chance to set us all straight.

show us the Dogma that promotes ecumenism or universalism or the kind of interfaith tolerance that allows the Holy Father to kiss the Koran.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), November 22, 2004.

Andy

"I still have issues with assuming the same authority as the Church hierarchy to interpret church documents."

i agree with you. its for the Church to have due regard to all doctrine and to provide clear leadership. regrettably, however, the Conciliar pronouncements are simply far to vague to be understood with any clarity.

they also appear to contradict previous Dogma.

i think the point was made above that Dogma should not need interpretation - it should be clear on its face. the obvious interpretation is always the obvious one to go with.

we are comparing starkly direct and unambiguous Dogma to vague pastoral teaching.

i see your point but i also see that you have to try really hard to reconcile the new with the old.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), November 22, 2004.

"Dogma should not need interpretation - it should be clear on its face. the obvious interpretation is always the obvious one to go with"

A: And this statement is different from Protestantism ... how???

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 22, 2004.

Ian,

Pope (Future St.) John Paul II, the Vicar of Christ on earth, is guided by the Holy Spirit and blessed by God the Father, Mary, and Joseph to shepherd the Billion faithful. Christ's ways are different from our ways. The Vicar of Christ's ways are no doubt different from yours. Just because you stuck your head inside a dark box doesn't mean that the Pope has to follow your lead. Your lack of faith in the Vicar of Christ and his living holy Church leaves you searching for dogma here and dogma there and dogma everywhere. I'm sure you've avidly read dog ma up to your neck and you're still dissatisfied and throwing a tantrum. Why don't you write to His Holiness himself to find out by which dogma he reels behind before passing gas ... before you malign him unashamedly. The respect the Pope showed for people of non-Catholic religions (should we say schismatics, heretics, heathen) is indeed unprecedented in Christian history. The way he brought reconciliation between Jews and Christians by his apology to the Jews for all the sins committed by Christians against them throughout history is overwhelming. He personifies Peace. Christ is the Prince of Peace. The Vicar of Christ is the Prince of Peace on earth. The way Christ loves is a mystery. The way our Pope loves is a mystery. You still don't get it, do you? Catholicism is a mystery ... that's why God created Faith for the ones He chose.

-- Joseph (jtg878@hotmail.com), November 22, 2004.

"Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or of His Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do His will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience, those too may achieve eternal salvation." Lumen Gentium HERESY OF JP2

A) "I confess that the Lord will give over by a very just judgment to the punishment of eternal and inextinguishable fire the wicked who either did not know by way of the Lord or, knowing it, left it when seized by various transgressions, in order that they may burn without end." Pope Pelagius I CATHOLIC UNCHANGEABLE DOGMA

B) "The saving grace of this religion, the only true religion, through which alone true salvation is truly promised, has never been refused to anyone who was worthy of it; and whoever did lack it was unworthy of it. Consequently, those who have not heard the Gospel, and those who, having heard it have not persevered; and those who, having heard it, have refused to come to Christ; that is, to believe in Him; ALL these have perished in death: the all go in a single lump to condemnation." St. Augustine

Note; those who have not heard of the gospel are not excused; If they were sincere, tne gospel would have beem brought to them.

-- TC (Treadmill234@south.com), November 22, 2004.

Ian, TC, and/or Emerald,

What's your take on the Catechism of Pope St. Pius X published in 1910? I think Ian might have brought this up already. Did it have the following questions and answers?

from The Church in Particular

29 Q: But if a man through no fault of his own is outside the Church, can he be saved?

A: If he is outside the Church through no fault of his, that is, if he is in good faith, and if he has received Baptism, or at least has the implicit desire of Baptism; and if, moreover, he sincerely seeks the truth and does God’s will as best he can, such a man is indeed separated from the body of the Church, but is united to the soul of the Church and consequently is on the way of salvation.

from Necessity of Baptism and Obligations of the Baptized

16 Q: Is Baptism necessary to salvation?

A: Baptism is absolutely necessary to salvation, for our Lord has expressly said: “Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.”

17 Q: Can the absence of Baptism be supplied in any other way?

A: The absence of Baptism can be supplied by martyrdom, which is called Baptism of Blood, or by an act of perfect love of God, or of contrition, along with the desire, at least implicit, of Baptism, and this is called Baptism of Desire.

Are those passages from the catechism legit?

From the little research I've done so far, it appears that complaints of "universalism" could go as far back as Pius IX's Encyclical Letter Singulari Quidem in 1856. He said, "Outside of the Church, nobody can hope for life or salvation unless he is excused through ignorance beyond his control." Of course the question comes up, what exactly is "ignorance beyond his control"?

Yet I haven't heard anyone call either Pius XI or X heretics, or blame them for the Church's ills. Both Pius XI and X made strong statements against modernist errors. At first glance, it appears they may have made similar statements or taught similarly to what Pope JPII and Paul VI have regarding those separated from the Church "through no fault of their own."

In this regard, haven't John Paul II and Paul VI just reiterated Church teaching as stated by Pius IX and X?

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), November 22, 2004.

brilliant post Andy!

i appreciate your willingness to focus on the issues.

is there any chance you might find the original latin texts of these?

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), November 22, 2004.

Thanks Ian.

I'll do my best to find the original Latin text.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), November 22, 2004.

Try this for lots of leads and info;

http://www.dailycatholic.org/issue/2002Mar/deposit1.htm

-- TC (Treadmill234@south.com), November 22, 2004.

Does JP2 agree with this, without adumbration, or obfuscation? END OF TEXT --------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------- NOTE: PRIOR TO FRIDAY, JANUARY 09, 1998 THERE WAS AN ERROR IN THIS FILE. AT ONE POINT IT CONTAINED THE FOLLOWING:

This true catholic faith, , which I now freely profess and truly hold, is what I shall steadfastly maintain and confess, by the help of God, in all its completeness and purity until my dying breath, and I shall do my best to ensure [2] that all others do the same. This is what I, the same Pius, promise, vow and swear. So help me God and these holy gospels of God. THE RESULT WAS THAT WHEN VIEWED WITH A WEB BROWSER THE TEXT APPEARED AS This true catholic faith, , which I now freely profess and truly hold, is what I shall steadfastly maintain and confess, by the help of God, in all its completeness and purity until my dying breath, and I shall do my best to ensure [2] that all others do the same. This is what I, the same Pius, promise, vow and swear. So help me God and these holy gospels of God. WHEREAS IT SHOULD HAVE APPEARED AS IT NOW DOES: This true catholic faith, outside of which none can be saved, which I now freely profess and truly hold, is what I shall steadfastly maintain and confess, by the help of God, in all its completeness and purity until my dying breath, and I shall do my best to ensure [2] that all others do the same. This is what I, the same Pius, promise, vow and swear. So help me God and these holy gospels of God.

-- TC (Treadmill234@south.com), November 22, 2004.

Let me first apologize for the lengthy post.

TC,

Once again, thanks for the link. I was able to see what the Baltimore Catechism said regarding Baptism and it seems to agree with the Pope St. Pius X Catechism.

154. Q. Is Baptism necessary to salvation?

A. Baptism is necessary to salvation, because without it we cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven.

156. Q. How is Baptism given?

A. Whoever baptizes should pour water on the head of the person to be baptized, and say, while pouring the water: I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.

157. Q. How many kinds of Baptism are there?

A. There are three kinds of Baptism: Baptism of water, of desire, and of blood.

158. Q. What is Baptism of water?

A. Baptism of water is that which is given by pouring water on the head of the person to be baptized, and saying at the same time: I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.

159. Q. What is Baptism of desire?

A. Baptism of desire is an ardent wish to receive Baptism, and to do all that God has ordained for our salvation.

160. Q. What is Baptism of blood?

A. Baptism of blood is the shedding of one´s blood for the faith of Christ.

161. Q. Is Baptism of desire or of blood sufficient to produce the effects of Baptism of water?

A. Baptism of desire or of blood is sufficient to produce the effects of the Baptism of water, if it is impossible to receive the Baptism of water.

Incidentally, here's the part about necessity of the Church for salvation in the Baltimore Catechism:

121. Q. Are all bound to belong to the Church?

A. All are bound to belong to the Church, and he who knows the Church to be the true Church and remains out of it cannot be saved.

What does this say about those who don't know the Church to be the true Church and remain outside of her through no fault of their own?

I'm still looking for the Latin texts for Ian. Google gives me a lot of links to SSPX sites but no original Latin texts for my refernces yet.

Here are a couple other bits from the Baltimore Catechism that struck me.

Q. 560. Where does the Church find the revealed traditions?

A. The Church finds the revealed traditions in the decrees of its councils; in its books of worship; in its paintings and inscriptions on tombs and monuments; in the lives of its Saints; the writings of its Fathers, and in its own history.

Q. 561. Must we ourselves seek in the Scriptures and traditions for what we are to believe?

A. We ourselves need not seek in the Scriptures and traditions for what we are to believe. God has appointed the Church to be our guide to salvation and we must accept its teaching us our infallible rule of faith.

Q. 567. How is the Church Apostolic?

A. The Church is Apostolic because it was founded by Christ on His Apostles, and is governed by their lawful successors, and because it has never ceased, and never will cease, to teach their doctrine.

Q. 568. Does the Church, by defining certain truths, thereby make new doctrines?

A. The Church, by defining, that is, by proclaiming certain truths, articles of faith, does not make new doctrines, but simply teaches more clearly and with greater effort truths that have always been believed and held by the Church.

Q. 573. By whom is the Church made and kept One, Holy, and Catholic?

A. The Church is made and kept One, Holy, and Catholic by the Holy Ghost, the spirit of love and holiness, who unites and sanctifies its members throughout the world.

That's a pretty good catechism. I have a new found respect for it.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), November 22, 2004.

Andy; You are welcome.

Yes the Baltimore catechism is pretty good but it was revised to become more "American". So I would choose carefully.

Ponder this; A baby not baptized with water cannot go to Heaven, and no one cah offer desire for that baby.... Yet an adult with all his sins can get B of D. there is somethingwron with that, and I am giving the N.O. version of it.

After B of D comes Catholic by desire, and on and on. The teachings even those ex cathedra are put in ruins by that thinking.

Please read carefully what the old popes have said, not catechisms, (which are not infallible), nor V2. They are not the most reliable sources... stay with those old popes.

-- TC (Treadmill234@south .com), November 22, 2004.

If Popes have authority, all Popes do. If Popes don't have authority then "old" Popes don't. It's one or the other.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 22, 2004.

Which pope do we believe JP2 or St.. Pius 5th and Paul 3rd. Try to tie this one together. If you say one you cannot say the other is correct. Or did JP2 abrogate Trent.

“You see, John Paul II is a Catholic and adheres to the Joint Declaration with the Lutherans on the Doctrine of Justification, which declaration explicitly teaches that faith alone is not anathematized by Trent, and that the remaining differences between Lutherans and Catholics on Justification are not the occasion for any doctrinal condemnations. Therefore, when I become a Catholic, I will hold the same position as John Paul II, and as the Joint Declaration with the Lutherans sets forth. I will hold that faith alone justifies, and I will not hold that it is an anathematized heresy! And I will not embrace the canons and decrees of the Council of Trent, because John Paul II has accepted, endorsed and agreed with the Joint Declaration, which explains that Trent’s canons are no longer in force

-- TC (Treadmill234@south.com), November 23, 2004.

"From the little research I've done so far, it appears that complaints of "universalism" could go as far back as Pius IX's Encyclical Letter Singulari Quidem in 1856."

Much further back imho. From the standpoint of the corruption of philosophy and theology, and the already near-castastrophic absence of the belief in and the practice of the Catholic Faith by society as a whole, things were already well out of control by that time. Liberal ideas were held by most everyone to one degree or another. They were already fighting a losing battle; you might even say the battle was already lost in some sense. It's a huge mistake to think that liberal ideas are new or recent. Liberal fruits go centuries back, and their roots go even further; liberalism, in all honesty, is ancient, and has been long to develope into this monster which might be described any number of ways from synthesis of all heresies to a diabolical disorientation. It's an evil parallel to Christ's parable of the mustard seed in the manner of it's beginnings and growth. Even the Alta Venditta self-admittedly refers to a "black mustard seed".

If you really want to trace the origins of some of these "idea" battlegrounds, you'd find yourself scrolling back centuries... rewinding past the French Revolution, past the Protestant Revolution (revolution that is, not "reformation"), back back back. Way back.

"Yet I haven't heard anyone call either Pius XI or X heretics, or blame them for the Church's ills."

Right, nobody does, and of course they weren't heretics. And blaming them is impossible: Popes Pius IX, Leo XIII, and St. Pius X seemed to have an incredible understanding of what was befalling the Church (Leo XIII being my personal, all out favorite), and if you get on a server such as papalencyclicals.com and look at the entire body of their works in complete context, it is unmistakeably obvious that they were in full overdrive working a valient effort to defend Holy Mother Church against what is actually the most jarring and thorough attack upon the Church by the demon. There's no doubt about it. You know what? I think these men really, really suffered.

These popes, though, absolutely and positively did not refrain from uttering the clear, hard statements of Catholic Truth though. In whatever few texts we may find them seeming to be, shall we say, a bit more accommodating, like you say in almost a JPII fashion, they have done the job of making multiple and clear utterance elsewhere such that no one could go too far in attempting to hijack their "accommodating" statements for a heretical agenda.

"In this regard, haven't John Paul II and Paul VI just reiterated Church teaching as stated by Pius IX and X?"

If you lay it all out on the table and sift through it, the chance of this being true will begin to fade as far as plausibility. Both Pius IX and X (and Leo XIII) never shrunk from making the most powerful, bold statements regarding immutable truth and reality. Any statements which they have made which may seem to have that more open or accommodating character to them must be weighed against their constant and bold reiterations of Catholic doctrine. They are many who would love to hijack a weak statement for the sake of support for a false meaning to lend credence to a false agenda.

The theological topic in question here concerning Baptism is not new by any stretch of the imagination. It's just that now it is being used as one of several theological pawns in a grand chess showdown between Satan and Christ's Church. And of course, the fight is always going to be over custody of the children. The Church is a body, and it is the summit of the essence of family.

But I'm rambling. You want to know why the modern idea of Baptism of Desire is in certain (not all) versions of the Baltimore Catechism and what's called the catechism of Pius X. It's a good question. Just a couple points to lay out on the table in discussing this:

1. Remember that at the time of Pius X, modernists were well within the innards of Holy Mother Church. He battled incensantly against them, attained a moderate degree of success in suppressing them, but warned that they'd be back, and worse than ever, after he was gone. So in other words, liberalism was already a huge problem at that time. Already a nightmare of a situation. As fantastic as the Baltimore Catechism is, it is by no means immune from inaccuracies. Whether these are intentional poisonings of modernism or the innocent mistakes of genuinely good and holy people, who knows. Both can happen, and both are plausible.

2. Did Pope Pius X know about it specifically, and if so, did he agree with it? I have absolutely no clue. Can we use it as absolute evidence that this was the mind of Pius X? No. If a particular statement that is found within a catechism bearing the name of a Saint-pope, does this authenticate the statement? No.

3. Even if Pope Pius X bought this idea as found in that catechism, believed in it, being a Saint and arch-defender against modernism, does this either disqualify him from Sainthood, or, on the flipside, make Baptism of Desire a de fide entity? Nope. Examples of Saints making innocent or unintended, or unknown, doctrinal flubs is not uncommon. Sainthood is not a stamp on the doctrinal exactitude of the Saint. It is a stamp on their holiness. While you can't separate doctrine and sanctity, you can't equate the two either.

4. A catechism is not where we derive our Catholic doctrine from. A catechism is supposed to be a helpful reiteration of Catholic doctrine. But it is not an infallible source, and even the best of catechism could probably be improved. A catechism is most certainly subject to error. Again, as good as the Baltimore Catechism is, I've seen better. But if someone asked whether I thought the Baltimore Cathechism was either poison-from-Hell or paradigm of immutable truth, I would say "neither". I personally like it, but like others better.

5. Remember that catechisms go through many revisions and updates, and sometimes come in several versions. Someone once showed me a printout once of a Baltimore Catechism from the 50's that attempted to tackle the question of UFO's and the possiblity of aliens. lol! I'm not kidding. If I can find it, maybe I'll try to link to it. That's so tabloid, though.

Hope this is helping, and again, I hope I'm not confusing things further. If you have a tough rebuttal, throw it out on the table by all means; I'm all ears. You know what though, eventually I'd love a discussion about blame though. That would be an interesting side conversation. Do we blame people... the laity, the hierarchy, the pope, ourselves? What do we do to help, what do we do that helps, what instead does more damage, etc. How can we help Holy Mother Church. I want to help Holy Mother Church.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), November 23, 2004.

as we move forward, i'd like some help on what makes a teaching infallible, such that it becomes Dogma.

my sources tell me that the following are ALL infallible:

1/ creeds of Pope or ecumenical council, eg Nicene

2/ solemn definitions of pope or pope + ecumenical council, eg Immaculate Conception and the Assumption

3/ condemnation with "anathema" (excommunication), eg the Syllabus of Errors

4/ the nebulous one - any restatement of things always and everywhere believed by the Church: which would include the Church's teaching on social ethics and morals.

everything else is fallible, the opposite of infallible, and so it can be wrong.

is that correct?

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), November 23, 2004.

Ian,

Here's my understanding (from the Bal. Cat., due to my recent "discovery")

The Church teaches infallibly when it speaks through the Pope and Bishops united in general council, or through the Pope alone when he proclaims to all the faithful a doctrine of faith or morals. By a doctrine of faith or morals we mean the revealed teaching that refers to whatever we must believe and do in order to be saved.

That the Pope may speak infallibly, or ex-cathedra:

(1) He must speak on a subject of faith or morals;

(2) He must speak as the Vicar of Christ and to the whole Church;

(3) He must indicate by certain words, such as, we define, we proclaim, etc., that he intends to speak infallibly.

Does your list match what I posted? I think it probably does. I'll let someone more knowledgeable make that call.

But the real question is, what is the infallible definition of infallibility?

Sorry, I couldn't resist.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), November 23, 2004.

"what is the infallible definition of infallibility?"

it has always been known to exist. it never needed a definition.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), November 23, 2004.

Emerald,

The more I dig, the more I find what you say to be true, that "liberalism" goes back centuries. I know the Baltimore Catechism isn't infallible, but it and the Pius X Catechism are indications that things such as "baptism by desire" and "he who knows the Church to be the true Church and remains out of it cannot be saved" were taught before Vatican II. As far back as 1910.

A lot of blame gets put on Vatican II and Popes John Paul II and Paul VI. But the evils of modernism, religious indifference, and universalism have been around much longer than that. Some have jumped on apparently "accomodating" statements by both men as the source of all evil in the Church. In my opinion, they are convenient scapegoats. There are those who would take weak statements by any pope and run away with it into heresy.

I agree that we need to take all the teachings of a pope and not one or two statements to get a true understanding of what he teaches. Reading all of Pius X and Pius IX's writings, one sees that modernism and it's variations are clearly wrong. And I still haven't gone through all their stuff.

I'm trying to make three points:

1. The heresies we see today have been around way before Vatican II and the Novus Ordo. It's too simplistic to place the blame for a lack of faith in Catholics on Vatican II and the Popes since John XXIII. IMHO, John Paul II has done much to turn things around. He's pushed for a return to Latin in Mass, reformed seminaries, stood firm against abortion and artifical contraception, and stood for the sanctity of marriage. His encycical on the Eucharist is a treasure, in my opinion.

2. Because a pope makes a weak or apparently accomodating statement, it doesn't necessarily follow that he isn't the pope anymore, or that he is teaching heresy. There were past popes who left things ambigious and made statments that can be characterized as theological speculation, yet they were still popes.

3. We are required to believe de fide. The rest is theological speculation, usually regarding extraordinary cases and means. It is de fide that Baptism by water, since the promulgation of the Gospel, is necessary for all men for salvation. It is a teaching generally accepted by theologians as true, but not finally decided upon by the Church that in cases of emergency, Baptism by water can be replaced by Baptism by blood or desire. It is also de fide that membership in the Church is necessary for all men for salvation. It is theological speculation that in special circumstances, that actual membership in the Church can be replaced by desire for the same. We know the truth of de fide. We aren't certain of the truth of theological specualtion. I don't see that theological speculation is harmful until it crosses the line where our understanding of it contradicts de fide. If properly understood, it shouldn't contradict de fide.

I'm not sure that amateur theologians, or even some professional ones are either qualified or have the authority to claim an infallible understanding of all the teachings of the Church. Though it's our responsibility as laymen to learn what we can and seek to understand, we need to recognize that we can be wrong in our understanding. Even individual priests and bishops can be wrong. I think only the bishops in union with the pope have the authority to make clarifications on Church teaching.

You finished your last post by saying:

You know what though, eventually I'd love a discussion about blame though. That would be an interesting side conversation. Do we blame people... the laity, the hierarchy, the pope, ourselves? What do we do to help, what do we do that helps, what instead does more damage, etc. How can we help Holy Mother Church. I want to help Holy Mother Church.

I couldn't agree more. Let's make it more than a side conversation though. I think such a discussion would produce good fruit. I'm looking forward to that.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), November 23, 2004.

it has always been known to exist. it never needed a definition. -Ian

Sorry Ian, that "infallible definition of infallibity" line was my lame attempt at being witty. I'm definitely not a Rod.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), November 23, 2004.

TC,

From what I read of the Joint Declaration on Justification, the Lutherans redefined the term faith to be in line with what Catholics call faith and works. The Joint Declaration also mentioned that there are issues that cannot be resolved between Catholicism and Lutheranism. Lutherans have strayed a long way from their founder's original beliefs.

It wasn't my impression that Ratzinger or John Paul II were abrogating Trent.

I haven't read St. Pius 5th and Paul 3rd's encycyclcals yet. I've got some reading to do at papalencyclicals.net.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), November 23, 2004.

Andy; Even one slip by a pope is heresy. They may leave an escape clause like'material", but does that apply to a learned pope?

Here is another heresy of JP. It does not take much seeking to find them if one keeps an open mind on it. I wouldlove to defend him. It would be a lot easier for me, but I have to do what is right and not what feels good.

Re-affirming the Roman Catholic Church’s unique role in the economy of salvation is precisely the point of this document I mentioned at the outset. That document, issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (with papal approval) in September, 2000, is Dominus Iesus. Its message is plain and profound: salvation is through the Roman Catholic Church. Though those who do not profess the Faith can be saved, they are saved only through some mysterious union with the one true Church. In this sense, there is no salvation outside the Church.

Notice the re-affirming of Cantate Domino, and in the next sentence denying it.

That is what spin doctiors do so well.

-- TC (Treadmill234@south.com), November 23, 2004.

Andy et al.

here's the letter by which the Vatican "admonished" Fr Feeney in 1949 (Pius XII): http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFFEENY.HTM

it's an interesting read.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), November 23, 2004.

"Therefore, when I become a Catholic, I will hold the same position as John Paul II, and as the Joint Declaration with the Lutherans sets forth. I will hold that faith alone justifies, and I will not hold that it is an anathematized heresy! And I will not embrace the canons and decrees of the Council of Trent, because John Paul II has accepted, endorsed and agreed with the Joint Declaration, which explains that Trent’s canons are no longer in force"

TC, you may be having a jolly time theologically splitting hairs and expounding on every latest controversial doctrine in the Catholic Church's 2000 year triumphant history (even more fun if you go to a good Catholic seminary and study Catholic theology under the guidance of faithful Catholic theologians until you get euphoric goosebumps while debating in latin until the wee hours of morning), but of what practical utility is that when you are devoid of the spiritual benefits of the Holy Sacraments especially the Holy Eucharist -- Our Daily Bread? You may arrogantly deride the sanctity and billiance of JPII all you want but he is not the one that suffers -- your soul is the one that suffers because you are alienating yourself farther away from the Holy Eucharist -- Jesus Christ Himself. Satan's genius availed him nothing but eternal fire and lost souls for miserable companions because he was misfocused. The fact remains that St. Peter's Chair is Holy and Infallible in all matters of faith and morals -- basic, uncontroversial Catholic teaching. Don't make it more difficult for yourself.

-- Joseph (jtg878@hotmail.com), November 23, 2004.

Joseph; More power to you, but if you believe that you are really receiving the Body of Christ at the N.O. "Mass". you are living in a world of fantasy.

If you will accept a "priest" saying "This is My Body offered up for you and for all". I feel sorry for you. I do not say that with sarcasm, I say it with pity.

Go find where Our Lord ever said that. You won't. That is man made.

If you want to take part in a lie and a sacrilege you certainly are free to do so.

-- TC (Treadmill234@south.com), November 23, 2004.

If you don't believe that the Church has the authority to define when and where and under what circumstances we genuinely receive the Eucharist, then there is absolutely no reason to believe that the Eucharist is present in a Tridentine Mass. Because the ONLY way we have of knowing that is the official teaching of the Church, which you apparently believe is fallible and untrustworthy. Or is it fallible and untrustworthy only when it doesn't concur with your personal opinions? In which case, why have the Church at all, since you are the ultimate authority?

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 23, 2004.

I do not pick and choose that which I prefer. I anways refer to dogmatic documents and councils. I do not even take the consensus of saints as a barometer. No indeed, but only dogmatic declarations from popes, and dogmatic councils.

Here is the official declaration of the council of Trent. They tell us how the official consecration of the chalice is to be said, and furthermore why it is to be said in that manner. Yes, you can go on the internet and find a lot of apologists trying to explain for all but they are vacuous.

Here is the only official explanation for now and for forever.

With reason, therefore, were the words for all not used, as in this place the fruits of the Passion are alone spoken of, and to the elect only did His Passion bring the fruit of salvation. And this is the purport of the Apostle (Heb. 9:28) when he says: Christ was offered once to exhaust the sins of many; and also of the words of our Lord in John: I pray for them; I pray not for the world, but for them whom thou hast given me, because they are thine (John 17:9).

Like it or not.... that's the way it is.

-- TC (Treadmill234@south.com), November 23, 2004.

"With reason, therefore, were the words for all not used, as in this place the fruits of the Passion are alone spoken of, and to the elect only did His Passion bring the fruit of salvation."

A: In the Eucharist Prayer, the fruits of His Passion are spoken of in the context of those to whom such fruits were won for. His blood was shed "for ALL", as is plainly stated several other places in the New Testament. And the fruits of His Passion were thereafter offered until the end of time to ALL men, just as the improved version of the prayer states. Obviously not all men accepted the fruits which had been won for them and were freely offered to them; but that is irrelevant to the Eucharistic Prayer, which designates those for whome Christ died - not those who subsequently accepted the fruits of His death into their own lives.

In any case, it is the Church's prayer, and the Church alone can define what is acceptable, appropriate, and theologically sound.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 23, 2004.

It did!

-- TC (rrr@uuu.com), November 23, 2004.

Ian,

You have a knack for finding the right info at the right time. Thanks. That link answers directly a lot of my questions. It also explicitly states that it was written with the full approval of Pope Pius XII in 1949. You're awesome.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), November 23, 2004.

TC234,

Are you saying that the Papal Masses celebrated in St. Peter's Basilica, witnessed by the Holy Spirit, over the tomb of St. Peter, said by the Vicar of Christ, St. Peter's Successor, make fake Eucharists, the fake Body and Blood of Christ? And all Masses celebrated by priests in communion with the Vicar of Christ in Rome make fake Eucharists as well? Are you saying that a billion Catholics and thousands of priests are all running around on earth deep in heresy despite the intercession and prayers of the Catholic Church already in Heaven? Are you saying that the gates of hell have prevailed over Vatican -- the Rock? And you have made these personal conclusions from your personal interpretations of Church documents? And when your personal interpretation of Church documents does not agree with Church teachings and practice, you will follow your personal interpretation, regardless, and walk away from the Divine Authority of Catholic Rome? What can I say? How can I put mildly? Comedy is not your forte. Find another hobby.

-- Joseph (jtg878@hotmail.com), November 23, 2004.

Just make sure you read through it with your eyes wide open, Andy.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), November 23, 2004.

I will seriously do my best to read it in all honesty Emerald.

-- Andy S ("ask332004@yahoo.com"), November 23, 2004.

Joseph;

Yes I am very serious about what I say, (not joking). Did you ever stop to consider that JP has never celebrated a traditional mass since becoming pope. Yet he tells bishops, (with a wink perhaps), to geneously offerthe latin mass. I detect a little hypocracy. Hey Joseph, I defended him just as much as you are now doing. JP is running this church into the ground and within 50 more years it will be just about gone.

Check the sales of schools,churches, etc. They run into the hundreds. The priesthood is staffed for the most part by old men, same with the sisters and brothers. Seminaries that used to turn out 60 or more candidates a year are now turning out one or two.

I do not blame these young men. Why give up your life to be a presider who does not receive the power to forgive sins or offer sacrifice. The RCIA classes are turning out kids that know nothing about the faith, can't even say a Hail Mary. and on and on One confession for every two hundred people receiving. Are they all really that good?

Joseph I attend Masses where the priesthood is growing, the attendace is growing. Slow but sure. They must be doing something right. Ask some of the others. Ian, Jake, or Emerald. I have seen enough of their writings to know them. Maybe not as exteme as myself but they know the score. Joseph you are still a rookie, but time will teach you. Just remember what TC said.

-- TC (treadmill234@south.com), November 23, 2004.

Joseph; Here is an example from a writer I will keep anonymous;

They are selling and we are buying when we have the funds or when they won't refuse to sell to us.

You're right that the conciliar bishops usually decline to sell to the SSPX. Some traditional Catholics have tried to negotiate another path by having third parties acquire church property for them. The bishops have, in turn, to this technique -- for example, I'm aware of one city where the bishop not only wouldn't sell to the SSPX, he made it a condition of selling the property to a neutral party that he could dispose of it as he wanted, provided he agreed that he would not sell it to the SSPX. Similarly, the diocesan churches have gotten wise to traditional Catholics buying up vestments and sacristy trappings. After it became apparant that there was a market for thuribles and reliquaries, churches began selling them to antique dealers and the like -- partly to keep the items out of the hands of traditional Catholics, but primarly, I think, because the competition drove up prices. Though the U.S. may have a bigger community of trads than South Africa, it also covers a much larger area. It's difficult to share the same pair of candlesticks among three chapels that purchased them if the chapels are separated by several hundred miles. Also, traditional Catholics in the States are not wealthy by local standards: we tend to fall into the middle class to lower-middle class strata. If one hears news of one of a parish buying a nice church, it's probably because the property stood in an unpleasant part of town; more often, though, the church is small and in some out of the way or remote place. Parishes that are able to build a church are an exception: most simply do not have the resources to manage it. I would hazard a guess that the great majority of SSPX chapels in the U.S. were purchased from a diocese, so I'm not really sure what's the source of the comment that there is so little success. What can be done is being done. Pax Christi,

-- TC (eeee@zzzz.com), November 23, 2004.

I believe you Andy. I want to get into that other discussion eventually too.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), November 24, 2004.

"Yes I am very serious about what I say... Just remember what TC said."

It's interesting, no matter how much you say how serious you are, your words still sound like a bad joke. I suppose the well-seasoned Anti-Catholics found a fresh new tame recruit in you ... all gung-ho for the latin mass. There's nothing wrong with the Latin Mass at all. I like its solemnity and tradition. But the difference between the Latin Mass I attend and the one you attend is crucial: the priests that celebrate the Latin mass I attend are in communion with the Vicar of Christ, the Bishop of Rome whereas your priests are in rebellion -- in schism. (Anyone in?)

"Rome having spoken, that decided the matter." -- St. Augustine "Where Peter is, There is the Church." -- St. Ambrose "Wherever the Bishop appears there let the people be; as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church." -- St. Ignatius of Antioch

Why don't you pit your silly words against St. Augustine's, St. Ambrose's, and St. Ignatius' truthful words? Please don't make the Church Fathers puke.

-- Joseph (jtg878@hotmail.com), November 24, 2004.

Joseph; As St. Athanasius said, "They have the bricks, but we have the mortar". The buildings do not make the faith. the pomp does not make the faith. The fath make the faith. The Novus Ordo is sick, and even some N.O.'s are beginning to admit it.

A pope in heesy is not a pope to follow. Even if he is still a pope.

-- TC (Treadmill234@south.com), November 24, 2004.

everyone

hoping to keep this thread going even though the other discussion looms.

perhaps we could discuss the Cuushing letter at some point?

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), November 27, 2004.

Ian; What is the cushing letter all about?

-- TC (Treadmill234@@south.com), November 27, 2004.

Yes Ian, let's discuss it. I've got some questions/comments myself.

TC, the Cushing letter is a letter made public by Archbishop Cushing of Boston in 1952 from the Supreme Sacred Congregation in response to Fr Feeney's publications (written in 1949). As part of that, it contains an explanation of the "infallible statement by which we are taught that there is no salvation outside the Church."

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), November 27, 2004.

Thanks for the info Andy. I'll look it up

-- TC (Treadmill234@@south.com), November 27, 2004.

No problem TC. Glad I could give for once, instead of receiving all the time. ;-)

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), November 27, 2004.

As St. Athanasius said, "They have the bricks, but we have the mortar".

Just to clarify, St. Athanasius was 100% Catholic. He was 0% schismatic. He defended the Catholic Church against the Arian heretics. If he were alive on earth today, he will undoubtedly defend the Catholic Church against schismatic "Catholics".

"The Novus Ordo is sick, and even some N.O.'s are beginning to admit it."

If the Novus Ordo Mass nauseates you, the Latin Mass is the alternate choice -- but the Latin Mass celebrated by a priest in communion with Rome (not the Latin Mass celebrated by a schismatic "Catholic" priest). Why go into schism simply because of the vernacular? (Do you hate English that much? Shakespeare will rise from his grave.) You may prefer Latin but a poor, less educated Brazilian Catholic farmer may prefer his native Portuguese; an Indian Catholic who lives in the slums of Calcutta may prefer his native Hindi; a newly baptized 70 year old Catholic Chinese peasant may prefer her native Mandarin -- simply because the Mass becomes more accessible for them.

Celebrating the Mass in the vernacular is nothing new ... Sts. Cyril and Methodius celebrated the Mass in the vernacular Slavonic language in 9th Century Moravia. Popes Hadrian II and John VIII gave them permission. Because of the Mass in the vernacular, Sts. Cyril and Methodius won many Moravians to the Catholic faith.

"A pope in heresy is not a pope to follow. Even if he is still a pope."

Why would the Holy Spirit elect a Pope to lead the Church just to breed heresy into him? That doesn't make sense. The Pope's Infallibility in all matters of faith and morals is protected by The Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit will not allow the Vicar of Christ to err in matters of faith and morals. Get a grip.

"The buildings do not make the faith."

St. Peter's Basilica is a metaphor for the majesty and glory of God. St. Peter's is a physical manifestation of the Catholic faith. St. Peter's inspires one to have Catholic faith.

"the pomp does not make the faith."

If you're having a problem with Papal pomp and ceremony now, you will surely have a problem with all the pomp and ceremony in Heaven (if you get there as an enemy of the Pope). I would think people in hell are too busy gnashing their teeth to have any pomp and ceremony ... also, it's too hot down there to wear ceremonial clothes.

" the faith makes the faith"

If you want the bare minimum -- utter material poverty -- and tremendous faith, ask St. John of the Cross, the hero of Pope (St.) John Paul II.

-- Joseph (jtg878@hotmail.com), November 27, 2004.

Joseph, this isn't going to help anyone.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), November 28, 2004.

You sa yay;

If you want the bare minimum -- utter material poverty -- and tremendous faith, ask St. John of the Cross, the hero of Pope (St.) John Paul II . That must be the most luxurious life style of any saint yet.

I do not want to sound sarcastic, but how else is one to tell it like it is.

I say;

A private 747 Jet plane, gorgeous clothes, big dinner gatherings, and most of all the adulation of millions.

That does not sound like the pope is immitating his hero.,

-- TC (Treadmill234@@@south.com), November 29, 2004.

That life style is meant for JP not St John.

-- TC (eerty@@@iii.com), November 29, 2004.

"Joseph, this isn't going to help anyone."

1 Billion unified Catholics are not complaining about the Pope and the Novus Ordo Mass. The fundamental Catholic Truths of Communion with the Vicar of Christ in Rome and Obedience to the latest Teachings of his Infallible Magisterium apparently did not help schismatc "Catholics". To your dismay, 1 Billion faithful Catholics are united against a measly thousand schismatic "Catholics" hiding in the cracks of arrogant amateur personal interpretation of old Catholic Church documents (heretics go wild in their private interpretions of the Catholic Bible but schismatics go wild in their private interpretions of Church documents), swimming in pride, error, and disobedience, and working overtime to malign a living Saint -- Pope (St.) John Paul II.

Jesus Christ and His Apostles spoke in Aramaic. Therefore, the original Mass was in His vernacular Aramaic. Would you argue that He should have celebrated it in Latin instead?

-- Joseph (jtg878@hotmail.com), November 29, 2004.

Joseph;

Please stop going to the Aramaic and Greek answers. Trent ( a dogmatic council) said that "Many" was always to be used, and "All" was never to be used. Dogma does not change and even a pope cah chnge i.

Joseph please do not use one billion unified Catholics as a number.

If that were the case churches would be opening and not closing.

As for one thousand traditionals, the number is a least one million. More important they are growing and attending Mass,unlike the N.O. people who are not going to church anymore.

-- TC (1@@2.com), November 29, 2004.

"Billion unified Catholics are not complaining about the Pope and the Novus Ordo Mass."

You can never use numbers to argue any point of theology, nor popular opinion to guage any degree of sanctity. By the time Jesus hit the cross, the first pope had bailed on him, the other disciples... come to think of it, where were they, and he was left with the apostle John and His own mother. Every one else had taken a hike. So he gave His mother to St. John (and thereby to the Universal Church). John was the only one of twelve to escape martyrdom. He saw the entire future of the Church in visions. He took Mary for his mother.

So numbers have nothing to do with what took place at the foot of the Cross. I doubt they'll be useful in arguing anything true or anything holy.

"The fundamental Catholic Truths of Communion with the Vicar of Christ in Rome and Obedience to the latest Teachings of his Infallible Magisterium apparently did not help schismatc "Catholics"."

There are no "latest teachings" of the magisterium, nor has anything new been put forth within the context of infallibility, by any decree of the Supreme Magisterium.

"To your dismay, 1 Billion faithful Catholics are united against a measly thousand schismatic "Catholics" hiding in the cracks of arrogant amateur personal interpretation of old Catholic Church documents..."

Those one billion, while they may be faithful to one degree or another, couldn't even name the documents. Most don't even know basic catechetics.

In fact, if you were told inform them they were united against so- called schismatics, they ask, hey, what's a schismatic? And suddenly, you'd find yourself, perhaps, a lost to define what a schismatic is? roflol!

"(heretics go wild in their private interpretions of the Catholic Bible but schismatics go wild in their private interpretions of Church documents), swimming in pride, error, and disobedience, and working overtime to malign a living Saint -- Pope (St.) John Paul II."

Pope John Paul said that? At first glance it looked like you were quoting him. Look, it is completely ridiculous to be canonizing a person who is still alive. Not only is it impossible, but by what authority does any of us laity put forth these popular-vote, self- styled canonizations? None. It's just a sentiment, that's all. Mere sentiment and opinion. The pope aint dead yet. Pray for his salvation if you love him. He'd no doubt appreciate the grace of final perserverance, as would we all.

"Jesus Christ and His Apostles spoke in Aramaic. Therefore, the original Mass was in His vernacular Aramaic. Would you argue that He should have celebrated it in Latin instead?"

It's tempting. If only for the sake of humor.

Joseph, it's not like it aint obvious what you're attempting to do here.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), November 29, 2004.

I too would like to know the argument for using only Latin today especially since it wasn't the original mass. I can see using it when it was basically the universal language. I don't mind latin mass and indeed would like to attend one given the opportunity but I don't get why people think it should be the ONLY option.

Joseph said: You may prefer Latin but a poor, less educated Brazilian Catholic farmer may prefer his native Portuguese; an Indian Catholic who lives in the slums of Calcutta may prefer his native Hindi; a newly baptized 70 year old Catholic Chinese peasant may prefer her native Mandarin -- simply because the Mass becomes more accessible for them.

I agree with your intent here Joseph but the only thing I possibly disagree with is that notion that the mass is to be accessible. I think that the salvation message is to be accessible and understandable, but the mass itself is worship of God and God presenting Himself to us in the Eucharist. However I agree wholeheartedly with your intent, thus my position that latin mass should be available as an option, but not a mandate.

God bless,

-- Emily ("jesusfollower7@yahoo.com"), November 29, 2004.

In 1969 a new rite of Mass was promulgated in which, to paraphrase the bishops of the province of Westminster, prayers and ceremonies in previous use were subtracted, and the existing rite was remodeled in the most drastic manner. It was proclaimed triumphantly that this reform, better termed a revolution, would initiate a second Pentecost within the Church, but from the very beginning it initiated an unprecedented collapse in Mass attendance and Catholic life in general throughout the Western world. Msgr. Gamber sums up the true fruits of this revolution as follows:

The liturgical reform, welcomed with so much idealism and hope by many priests and lay people alike, has turned out to be a liturgical destruction of startling proportions–a debacle worsening with each passing year. Instead of the hoped-for renewal of the Church and of Catholic life, we are now witnessing a dismantling of the traditional values and piety on which our faith rests. Instead of the fruitful renewal of the liturgy, what we see is a destruction of the forms of the Mass which had developed organically during the course of many centuries.

-- TC (22222257@@975.com), November 29, 2004.

Emily

Latin was used right up until until VII, even though Latin died out almost completely [limited exceptions] at the start of the Middle Ages.

indeed, because it is a dead language, the meaning of its words are fixed in time.

however, i think people also forget the rigid rubrics. the priest and server should know exactly what they are doing at each and every stage of the Mass. there is, i believe, little room for improvisation. i have never seen any improvisation.

i have heard it argued that the Mass ought to be in the vernacular, but as a direct translation of the Latin Mass, with no change in the order of the Mass or its rubrics.

that's a point of view (but just look at the "pro multis becomes pro omnibus" issue, a mistranslation. each time you translate into another language, you take that risk).

for my part, i have the Missal for the Mass. its not actually that hard to follow, and as Mass ought to be an "at least once a week" thing, its should get easier over time.

one interesting question is this: should we be concerned with active with participation in the Mass or detailed understanding of its liturgy?

many people sit and say the Rosary. is that wrong? i don't think so. those people know exactly why they are there - for the Blessed Sacrament.

they have a sense for what is going on up at the Altar between the Priest, the Server and God.

some older Catholics i know who attend the N.O. Mass don't listen to most of it. they're there for one thing. again -- is that really wrong? if they sprint up the aisle to receive the Eucharist, they've got the point.

i'm trying hard not to belittle the work of the Priests, but i am trying to re-orientate my own faith - at the big picture level right now - toward what matters.

my first question now when i enter any Church is: where is the Tabernacle? and where is Mary? shows you what a terrible Catholic i have become, if i am having to go back to basics after all these years.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), November 30, 2004.

sorry, that post might sound a little crass.

they key phrase perhaps was this: "they have a sense for what is going on up at the Altar between the Priest, the Server and God. "

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), November 30, 2004.

...and i was most certainly not trying to undermine the initiation classes.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), November 30, 2004.

Andy

re-Cushing, this is from the Catechism of Trent:

"On adults, however, the Church has not been accustomed to confer the Sacrament of Baptism at once, but has ordained that it be deferred for a certain time. The delay is not attended with the same danger as in the case of infants, which we have already mentioned; ******should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness********."

as regards children:

"The faithful are earnestly to be exhorted to take care that their children be brought to the church, as soon as it can be done with safety, to receive solemn Baptism. ******Since infant children have no other means of salvation except Baptism, we may easily understand how grievously those persons sin who permit them to remain without the grace of the Sacrament longer than necessity may require, particularly at an age so tender as to be exposed to numberless dangers of death******."

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), November 30, 2004.

That is why the Baltimore catechism, (although a lot better than the new one), still contains errors.

It is totally illogical to think that the baby who has original sin, cannot be saved, but the adult can. All need water.

The bath analogy is very good;

If a person wants to take a baath they need water and the desire to get into that water.

No desire to get in... no sacrament

Desire to get in but no water.... no sacrament.

Both the baby, and the adult need both.

-- TC (1111@2222.com), November 30, 2004.

"...totally illogical ..."

has it really got anything to do with logic, TC?

if i thought it had, i'd follow Einstein.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), November 30, 2004.

Ian; Maybe you are right. Einstein might be a better bet than JP

-- TC (Treadmill234@@south.com), November 30, 2004.

Ian,

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

I read this as teaching Baptism by Desire, although it is obviously considered to be an extraordinary means of baptism. Am I reading it correctly?

Since infant children have no other means of salvation except Baptism, we may easily understand how grievously those persons sin who permit them to remain without the grace of the Sacrament longer than necessity may require, particularly at an age so tender as to be exposed to numberless dangers of death

The way I read this, it agrees with the decrees from the Council at Florence mentioned at the Catholic Forum. It says to me that Baptism by Desire does not apply to infants since they can have no desire for baptism. It says nothing about the desire of the parents for their child’s baptism, except that those who delay baptism unnecessarily will be held accountable by God. What exactly is "longer than necessity may require"? A minute, a week, or a month? Am I seeing something that isn’t there, or missing something?

I wonder why the Church, even at the time of both Florence and Trent would still want a priest to baptise a baby as the ordinary means of the sacrament. Would it follow that if Baptism in the only way for a baby to obtain eternal life, that a priest must be present at every birth to immediately baptise the child? If this was the intent of the Council Fathers at Florence, were they remiss in not stating that every newborn must be baptised immediately and if a priest isn't available, that the parents should do it? And what about those babies who die in the womb and are unable to be baptised before death? What does this say about their fate? Hypothetical situations, I know. Just wondering.

I can see why TC's family would baptise every baby themselves when a priest wasn't immediately available. Who knows what'll happen on the way from the hospital to the church. That practice at least seems to be consistent with the belief that water baptism is the only way for infants to have eternal life, should they die.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), November 30, 2004.

"That must be the most luxurious life style of any saint yet. I do not want to sound sarcastic, but how else is one to tell it like it is. I say; A private 747 Jet plane, gorgeous clothes, big dinner gatherings, and most of all the adulation of millions. That does not sound like the pope is immitating his hero.,That life style is meant for JP not St John."

Pope (St.) John Paul II does not own the Vatican and its amenities -- the Catholic Church does. The Pope is poor; (chaste, and obedient) he owns nothing materially apart from his toothbrush (which is provided for him by the Catholic Church). Furthermore, no one knows the penance and mortification of the flesh which he does in secret.

A paltry Vatican -- the visible Holy City of the Vicar of Christ on earth and the Holy Spirit, the Creator of Beauty -- would not exemplify the majesty and glory of Heaven. The fact that Michaelangelo, Raphael, Bernini, et al., graced the Vatican was no coincidence. I suppose you have a problem with King David and King Solomon's Temple and lifestyle as well. Your words sound like those of a Puritan Protestant disguised as a schismatic ex-Catholic/Traditionalist non-Catholic. A faithful Catholic would shudder at the thought of disrespecting the Pope -- the Holy Father -- like you do.

"Please stop going to the Aramaic and Greek answers. Trent ( a dogmatic council) said that "Many" was always to be used, and "All" was never to be used. Dogma does not change and even a pope cah chnge i."

Your reply seems to suggest: let us forget the Gospel; let us forget the manner of life of Christ and His Apostles.

The Catholic Church was only 1550 years old during Trent. She is now 2000 years old. She has grown in numbers in Heaven and on earth. She has matured. Her wisdom is deeper and more developed. She is more gracious and more merciful. Like a mature tree, she has more branches, more flowers, and more fruits.

" Joseph please do not use one billion unified Catholics as a number. If that were the case churches would be opening and not closing. As for one thousand traditionals, the number is a least one million. More important they are growing and attending Mass,unlike the N.O. people who are not going to church anymore."

Fine, schismatic ex-Catholics/Traditionalist non-Catholics are multiplying like rabbits, as you insist. You can be a million (although fictitious) from now on, if you wish, however you conducted your census. But faithful Catholics in Communion with Rome are still more than a Billion, 1.1 Billion as of 2001 to be precise, not according to me, but according to the Vatican census. And let us not forget the Trillions of Catholics already in Catholic Heaven.

Are you stuck under your little piece of the sky? Are you ignorant of the fact that the Catholic Churches in Africa and Asia are growing phenomenally? And yes, Catholics in those continents do attend the Novus Ordo Masses you detest.

-- Joseph (jtg878@hotmail.com), December 01, 2004.

Andy

i agree with you on the Trent Catechism. it does seem to acknowledge Baptism by Desire for Catuchumens, but it also seems to rule out any kind of "extraordinary" Baptism for children.

that said, TC is correct too. its just a Catechism.

the same applies to the Cushing letter too. its just a letter. however, to me, there are some interesting paragraphs in it.

the first 2 are:

"The same in its own degree must be asserted of the Church, in as far as she is the general help to salvation. Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member, but it is necessary that at least he be united to her by desire and longing.

However, this desire need not always be explicit, as it is in catechumens; but when a person is involved in invincible ignorance God accepts also an implicit desire, so called because it is included in that good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God."

the letter accepts Baptism by Desire - especially for the Catuchumens.

however, whilst extending this to other forms of desire, it says this:

"Toward the end of this same encyclical letter, when most affectionately inviting to unity those who do not belong to the body of the Catholic Church, he mentions those who "are related to the Mystical Body of the Redeemer by a certain unconscious yearning and desire," and these he by no means excludes from eternal salvation, but on the other hand states that they are in a condition "in which they CANNOT BE SURE [emphasis added] of their salvation" since "they still remain deprived of those many heavenly gifts and helps which can only be enjoyed in the Catholic Church""

the letter also adds:

"But it must not be thought that any kind of desire of entering the Church suffices that one may be saved. It is necessary that the desire by which one is related to the Church be animated by PERFECT CHARITY [emphasis added]. Nor can an implicit desire produce its effect, unless a person has supernatural faith"

if i'm honest, i'm none the wiser.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), December 01, 2004.

Fine, schismatic ex-Catholics/Traditionalist non-Catholics are multiplying like rabbits, as you insist. You can be a million (although fictitious) from now on, if you wish, however you conducted your census. But faithful Catholics in Communion with Rome are still more than a Billion

lol!

-- jake (j@k.e), December 01, 2004.

Looks like they finally caved and got internet access down at the Lodge.

Newbies. Gotta love em.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), December 01, 2004.

Andy

I can't agree with you more. Surely God understands that an infant or an unborn child can not possibly get himself to a priest on its own, or depend on his parents baptise him immediately.

This may be my "cafeteria" problem coming out, but I have more faith in God's mercy. Even Limbo seems an unfair sentence.

-- Jim (furst@flash.net), December 01, 2004.

"...if i'm honest, i'm none the wiser."

But have you kept the Faith. That's the real question. To keep the Faith is wisdom.

The world is full of people who would have charity so long as it costs them nothing, and compassion so long as it is easy and likable, convenient. So long as it's the sort of compassion and charity that makes living in this world easier, or at least easier to contemplate. But His kingdom is not of this world.

Everything about Catholicism is unfair to the world, but that's because the world hates Him. It put Him to death because of His brand of charity and compassion.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), December 01, 2004.

Emerald,

How do you define "keeping the Faith"? Can one struggle with doctrines of the Church and still be keeping the Faith? Not everyone is graced with the same amount of faith. Some have to struggle more than others. I admire those folks who can truly believe without doubt.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), December 01, 2004.

Imho it would be analogous to the more common temptations. Temptations can be strong, they can be continuous, they may even leave a person wondering where they stand before God.

But the temptations aren't sins... only giving into them is. Same with temptations against the Faith.

In fact, the person wracked with temptations, who stands up to them without giving in, or perhaps even falls temporarily but then gets back up and fights again: that person has more merit and has shown more strength than one who is not tempted. He's demonstrated a greater faithfulness.

It is probably and most likely the case that those who believe without a doubt didn't get there unless they had first been tried by fire.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), December 01, 2004.

Thanks Emerald. Very true.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), December 02, 2004.

The devil does not waste effor trying to tempt those already in his pocket. I believe that he works very hard trying to tempt those that he does not have. Ever wonder, that sometimes while praying the rosary, he wacks even harder than ever.

-- TC (Treadmill234@south.com), December 02, 2004.

" I agree with your intent here Joseph but the only thing I possibly disagree with is that notion that the mass is to be accessible. I think that the salvation message is to be accessible and understandable, but the mass itself is worship of God and God presenting Himself to us in the Eucharist. However I agree wholeheartedly with your intent, thus my position that latin mass should be available as an option, but not a mandate."

You are right. Even if one speaks 20 languages, the holy sacrifice of the Mass would still be impossible to fully understand. The charity of God expressed by Jesus Himself in the Liturgy will forever remain sublime. The vernacular only gives us an initial comprehension of the words uttered by the clergy and laity.

We have the option, not a mandate, to attend the Latin Tridentine Indult Mass -- legitimate Masses approved by the local Catholic Bishop and the Vatican; but not all Bishops can offer them to the faithful because of lack of priests willing to celebrate them or the Bishop himself might not prefer to have them in his diocese. A Catholic needs to be careful, however, not to be lured by unauthorized Latin Masses by schismatic sects: Sedevacantists and SSPX.

"I too would like to know the argument for using only Latin today especially since it wasn't the original mass. I can see using it when it was basically the universal language. I don't mind latin mass and indeed would like to attend one given the opportunity but I don't get why people think it should be the ONLY option. "

There is really no argument for the Latin Mass today -- especially that the Novus Ordo Mass has been instituted by the Magisterium and is now the norm for the Church -- except that the Latin Mass is an option for: 1. Faithful Catholics who are attached to the Latin language and the tradition of the Latin Mass 2. Faithful Catholics who want to vary their devotion 3. Novus Ordo loathers 4. Elite-wanna-bes 5. Pre-schismatics 6. Visiting schismatic ex-Catholic/Traditionalist non-Catholic having a nostalgic attack but now unable to receive Holy Communion

-- Joseph (jtg878@hotmail.com), December 03, 2004.

Joseph; You can give your opinions over and over. Also the church is growing mantra without the numbers to back it up.

Joseph; here is the real world;

The Novus Ordo is in real trouble here in England, but the pope is adamant that everything is just fine. Vittorio Messori, the ghost- writer of Crossing the Threshold of Hope and of the Ratzinger Report tried to elicit from the pope an admission that there was something wrong with Vatican II and its aftermath. He was not able to get such an admission from the pope, who struck his fist on the table and said, "No, everything is fine." Indeed, everything is fine -- if your intention as pope is to destroy the Roman Catholic Church.

In England and Wales there is currently a 98% apostasy rate in the case of children who attend "Catholic schools," by the time they leave those schools. It is a wipe-out of the Roman Catholic Faith in a single generation. The bishops and priests know this, but they do not give a hoot and enthusiastically continue with the policies which have been used to produce this situation. In fact, it is hard to believe that a 98% apostasy rate could be achieved unless it was deliberate and very carefully planned.

Here are the official figures from the Novus Ordo Church in England and Wales.

YEAR POPULATION ATTENDANCE NOTES 1954 2,939,900 64.2% 1964 3,827,000 55.2% Mass attendance peaks. Vatican II sits. 1974 4,162,942 42.1% 1984 4,220,262 35.8% 1990 4,248,346 30.4% 1992 4,526,873 28.2% Novus Ordo population peaks. 1998 4,189,550 25.2% Attendance half of 1966. 2000 4,121,004 24.4% Corresponding figure in U.S. is 18%.

In other words, the Church was growing here before Vatican II. As soon as that Council ended, the decline set in. At the present rate of decline, there will be only 100,000 Novus Ordinarians attending the service by 2030. By 2035, it will all be gone.

But the Traditional Catholic Counter-Revolution goes on. We traditional Catholics here in England must salvage what we can of the Roman Catholic Church. We support traditional groups that keep to the true Mass. We always avoid the Novus Ordo service, which is one of the main instruments producing the ecclesial collapse. We never give a penny to the local parishes or the diocese because they only spend it on furthering the destruction of the Church and on blasphemous and sacrilegious "inter-faith initiatives." We have taken our children out of "Catholic" schools," which teach a non- Catholic Faith.

-- TC (a@b.com), December 03, 2004.

A Catholic acquaintance of mine was recently turned down for the diaconate because of his conservative views. So, he is going back to battle the parish committees, and the innovations of a modernist priest, to the best of his abilities. When I suggested that he try the Latin Mass, he politely changed the subject!

Just as the very silence of the Mass so often disturbs visitors from the Novus Ordo, perhaps the absence of liturgical controversy disturbs those who have never known any other way of being Catholic.

There really is only one long-term strategy for victory.... Traditional Catholic communities must be known first and foremost for the sanctity of their members. And this should be a cinch, since the Traditional Latin Mass has proven to be indispensable in the formation of countless saints.

Additionally we must be storming the confessionals, telling our beads, loving our wives, and leading our children to Jesus and Mary. As a convert still in the honeymoon phase of my Catholic life, one thing remains crystal clear: I do not deserve the great Pearl which has been delivered to me. I do not deserve the traditional Mass, or the Benedictions, or the Rosaries, or the life-giving Absolutions, or the community, or any of the graces which flow from the Cross to me in the Catholic Church.

-- Bart (Bartholomew4@aol.com), December 05, 2004.

Welcome, Bart! I too am converting to Catholic, from Protestantism. I share your sentiments regarding gratefulness to be Catholic. I feel that I have been blessed immensely just for the fact that God led me here, to something I wouldn't have sought on my own (my Protesant beliefs about Catholicism were not so great). I am in RCIA right now and this waiting period is drawing me closer to God, teaching me patience, and helping me to love Him in gratefulness all the more.

I wish that I could attend a Latin mass because I've heard great things about it. My options are currently very limited due to lack of transportation. However, I will agree with you that from the Latin mass attendees I've met on the Internet, they all seem to be committed and concerned about the Church and reverence for Christ. The only negative thing I have seen in some of them is a tendency to condone schism.

However, from this view it seems to me that the environment of a latin mass would be far more reverent and orthodox (theologically, morally) than my current parish situation. At least now, since these types of people tend to be drawn to the latin masses. However, I'm sure that there were problems before also, when all masses were in Latin (so as not to imply that the language itself is the factor that preserves morality). I believe it is the level of devotion to Christ.

God bless,

-- Emily ("jesusfollower7@yahoo.com"), December 05, 2004.

"Joseph; You can give your opinions over and over. Also the church is growing mantra without the numbers to back it up."

ANNUARIUM STATISTICUM ECCLESIAE 2001

 WORLD (40% increase)
(1978) 756,533,000 Catholics
(2001) 1,060,840,000 Catholics

 AFRICA (147% increase)
(1978) 54,759,000
(2001) 135,660,000

 AMERICA (44% increase)
(1978) 366,614,000
(2001) 528,103,000

 ASIA (71% increase)
(1978) 63,183,000
(2001) 108,168,000

 EUROPE (5% increase)
(1978) 266,361,000
(2001) 280,589,000

 OCEANIA (48% increase)
(1978) 5,616,000
(2001) 8,320,000

-- Joseph (jtg878@hotmail.com), December 05, 2004.

Joseph,

Thanks for digging up those numbers. The references I found when I googled up on Latin America and Africa agree with yours. Though I'm not sure if the ultimate source of the numbers are the same.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), December 05, 2004.

I'm assuming that AMERICA includes Latin America, the US, and Canada.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), December 05, 2004.

Joseph; You are giving numbers, but what do they mean? A baby is born, baptized, and never sees the inside of the church again until, first communion, confirmation, wedding, and death. That is not a Catholic in my book. A true Catholic is one that lives the faith, goes to weekly mass, reeives the sacraments regularly ets. Of that 1.1 billion you quote, an average of 15-20% at best are truly Catholic. In England and Wales it is 4%.

Catholic baptisms may be up, but active Catholicism is down, and going further down each year. Again, if your figures are true, why are they selling off churches by the hundreds? They close seminaries and convents every year. That is the real picture.

-- TC (Treadmill234@south.com), December 05, 2004.

Here is the real picture of what is happening;

http://www.latin-mass- society.org/2004/priesthood.html

-- TC (A@b.com), December 05, 2004.

"They close seminaries and convents every year."

ANNUARIUM STATISTICUM ECCLESIAE 2001

WORLD (76% increase)
(1978) 63,882 Candidates to the Catholic Priesthood
(2001) 112,244 Candidates to the Catholic Priesthood

AFRICA (272% increase)
(1978) 5,636
(2001) 20,994

AMERICA (68% increase)
(1978) 22,011
(2001) 37,166

ASIA (136% increase)
(1978) 11,536
(2001) 27,265

EUROPE (8% increase)
(1978) 23,915
(2001) 25,908

OCEANIA (16% increase)
(1978) 784
(2001) 911

-- Joseph (jtg878@hotmail.com), December 06, 2004.

EUROPE (8% increase) (1978) 23,915 (2001) 25,908

Joseph; I just chose the European numbeers, as they are easisst to check. Why would Europe make more priests when the faith is sying there. I can get you numbers to show that.

Why not take America even more so. If you say that numbers are up, why are seminaries down, and going down even more so.

Frankly Ido not believe those numbers.

-- TC (Treadmill234@south.com), December 06, 2004.

"Thanks for digging up those numbers. The references I found when I googled up on Latin America and Africa agree with yours.Though I'm not sure if the ultimate source of the numbers are the same. I'm assuming that AMERICA includes Latin America, the US, and Canada."

No problem. This was a count by the Central Office for Statistics of the Church published in L'Osservatore Romano, the newspaper of the Holy See. Yes, America includes North and South. America has the largest population of Catholics. Undoubtedly, Our Lady of Guadalupe, Celestial Patroness of the Americas, Empress of the Americas, has got something to do with it.

-- Joseph (jtg878@hotmail.com), December 06, 2004.

The number of candidates for the pristhood in the Catholic Church headed by the Pope increased, but in real numbers, there was no change in the last couple of years.It actually was going down from the 1980s until now.

The Christian Yahwist

Many churches are also closing.This especially in Chicago, Detroit, Boston,...

In Los Angeles -San Bernardino where I live, there new parishes in the 1980s. Not anymore. Good thing they have not closed. But some have consolidated priests like the ones I used to attend when I was Catholic.

The Christian Yahwist

-- Elpidio gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), December 06, 2004.

Priests are still dying faster than the new priests are coming in. It is still a net loss.

-- TC (A@b.com), December 06, 2004.

"The number of candidates for the pristhood in the Catholic Church headed by the Pope increased, but in real numbers, there was no change in the last couple of years.It actually was going down from the 1980s until now. "

ANNUARIUM STATISTICUM ECCLESIAE 2001

WORLD (25% increase)
(1978) 3,714 Catholic Bishops
(2001) 4,649 Catholic Bishops

AFRICA (43% increase)
(1978) 432
(2001) 616

AMERICA (23% increase)
(1978) 1,416
(2001) 1,743

ASIA (28% increase)
(1978) 519
(2001) 665

EUROPE (20% increase)
(1978) 1,253
(2001) 1,500

OCEANIA (33% increase)
(1978) 94
(2001) 125

______________________________

WORLD (4% decrease)
(1978) 420,971 Catholic Priests
(2001) 405,067 Catholic Priests

AFRICA (65% increase)
(1978) 16,926
(2001) 27,988

AMERICA (1% increase 1978-2001)
(1978) 120,271
(1988) 119,403
(2001) 121,147

ASIA (60% increase)
(1978) 27,700
(2001) 44,446

EUROPE (17% decrease 1978-2001)
(1978) 250,498
(1988) 228,446
(2001) 206,761

OCEANIA (15% decrease)
(1978) 5,576
(2001) 4,725

______________________________

WORLD (425% increase)
(1978) 5,562 Catholic Deacons
(2001) 29,204 Catholic Deacons

AFRICA (309% increase)
(1978) 91
(2001) 372

AMERICA (351% increase)
(1978) 4,239
(2001) 19,100

ASIA (121% increase)
(1978) 52
(2001) 115

EUROPE (732% increase)
(1978) 1,133
(2001) 9,425

OCEANIA (309% increase)
(1978) 47
(2001) 192

______________________________

"Priests are still dying faster than the new priests are coming in. It is still a net loss."

ANNUARIUM STATISTICUM ECCLESIAE 2001:

[Renewal of the Number of Priests] "It can be said that the replacement of the quota of priests is guaranteed when the relationship between seminarians and priests (per 100) is not less than 12.5 percent. This threshold value has been largely supplanted across the world, although geographical differences, as always, are rather marked and deserve a brief comment. If in Africa, Asia and Central and South America the renewal of the quota of priests is by and large adequate, North America, with the indicator at 9.7, is below the threshold of replacement. The same is occurring in certain parts of Europe. Let us take two examples of particular importance and not only from the numerical viewpoint: Italy (11.3 percent) is below the threshold, whereas in Poland (24.5 percent) renewal is largely guaranteed. The average situation in Europe (12.5 percent), which coincides with the threshold of renewal, would be such as to guarantee the renewal of the number of priests."

"Catholic Church shows stable and steady growth worldwide"
-- Joseph (jtg878@hotmail.com), December 07, 2004.

So I was right, Joseph: WORLD (4% decrease) (1978) 420,971 Catholic Priests (2001) 405,067 Catholic Priests , taken from your quote found in th Anuarium.

Imagine the ratios now, since in the same time period the population more than double in many Catholic countries like Mexico: 47 million in 1978, 104 million in 2004.

The Christian Yahwist

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), December 07, 2004.

The Catholic Church began with the Holy Family: Jesus Christ, the Head of the Church, the Blessed Virgin Mary, the Mother of the Church, and St. Joseph, the Universal Patron of the Church; and the Twelve Holy Apostles. What was 15 Catholics on earth then is 1.1 Billion Catholics on earth now. What was 12 Bishops on earth then is 4,649 Bishops on earth now. The growth of the Catholic Church is miraculous; and exponential, to say the least. So much for those who predict Her demise. God is true to His promise that "the powers of death shall not prevail against Her."

Member,
The 2000-Year-Old Holy Catholic Church, the Ark of Salvation: 1 Supreme and Infallible Pope (St.) John Paul II, Successor of St. Peter, the Rock, the Vicar of Jesus Christ, under the Guidance of the Holy Spirit; 4649 Bishops, Successors of the Twelve Apostles; 405067 Priests; 29204 Deacons; 54970 Brothers; 792317 Sisters; 1.1 BILLION UNITED MEMBERS on earth. "All roads lead to Rome."

-- Joseph (jtg878@hotmail.com), December 09, 2004.

Joseph keeps putting the 1.1 billion number in his posts. To be a "loyal" Catholic, one must believe in the Real Presence in the Holy Eucharist. Poll after poll tells us that even in the U.S. that Catholics who even go to church do not believe in the Real Presence. Well 30% do. that is not great news. So if only 15% of Catholics even go to to Mass, and of that percent, only 3 in 10 believe ,we are lucky to get 10% of that Loyal billion who are really catholic.

Would that Joseph was right, but just wishing won't make it so.

-- TC (Treadmill234@south.com), December 09, 2004.