Edit: this is a dogma that needs to be stated more than anything else today!
This is a brilliant restatement and an important aspect of this debate about evangelization. Most of your average Catholics don't believe in real presence much less the Great Commission:
Is Baptism Necessary for Salvation?
Yes, Baptism is required for salvation, no ifs, ands, or buts. I’m not going to get in to the entire teaching on Baptism except to remind the faithful, especially priests and bishops, that Jesus has revealed through HIS Church that Baptism is absolutely necessary to be saved. Never mind the legalistic so-called mercy loopholes that are trying to be exploited by these mercy-lawyers of the Church. We need to know the Truth and share it with the fullness of clarity and charity. Why would anyone in their right mind turn down Baptism if they were promised eternal salvation? How can this possibly offend someone? Maybe the GMOs are truly starting to emasculate some men, or maybe we have way to many priests and bishops that don’t have any faith left at all. It’s up to us folks!
I’m just going to give the official, Dogmatic teaching straight from the Catechism of the Council of Trent. Remember, if it’s a teaching directly from the Council of Trent, which this is, then it is binding on ALL the faithful. Here it is straight outta Trent:
25 comments:
I am not criticizing the theology per se. I am critcizing it's being placed with reference to EENS as an exception.
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/01/i-am-not-criticizing-theology-per-se-i.html
The linked blogger first states, "Yes, Baptism is required for salvation, no ifs, ands, or buts." Then he defines baptism as, "The Sacrament of regeneration by water in the word." Then he says, "We will eventually get into Baptism by desire and Baptism by blood which are both types of Baptism also."
Here's the problem. He either now has to argue that baptism of desire and baptism of blood are sacraments of regeneration by water, or that they are not sufficient for salvation without Baptism of water. If he doesn't, it's a case of blatant contradiction. For if he says baptism of desire is not regeneration by water, then it's simply not baptism at all, by his own definition. And if then also says that baptism of desire is sufficient for salvation, then he contradicts his initial statement, "Baptism is required for salvation, no ifs, ands, or buts."
Seems plain enough: CANON II.-If any one saith, that true and natural water is not of necessity for baptism, and, on that account, wrests, to some sort of metaphor, those words of our Lord Jesus Christ; Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost; let him be anathema.
Would you consider changing the title of this screed? Seems that the Orthodox Christians, who have valid Sacraments, are outside of the Catholic Church. Are they saved? Distressing that you axe-grinders can't be precise in your language.
I can't change a thrice defined infallible dogma.
So by the light of the plain meaning of Canon II we would have to conclude that a) baptism of desire and blood are not really baptisms, and b) baptism of desire and blood can never be substitutes for water baptism with respect to salvation. OK, that's logical. Is this how you see it?
BoB and BoD aren't dogmas, and even BoD is so narrow it might not mean much except to be used as a loophole to drive a truck through by later heretical theologians like Rahner and his ilk.
True enough.
Most traditional organizations, like the SSPX,CMRI, etc., believe in the heretical 1948 Holy Office Letter that taught 'salvation by implicit desire'. The defined Catholic dognas of explicit faith in a revealed truth, membership in the Church, the sacraments, and submission to the Roman Pontiff were all set aside. They therefore believe that any "good" Jew as a Jew, Muslim as a Moslim, Hindu as a Hindu, Protestant as a Protestant, etc., etc., can be temples of the Holy Ghost, in the state of grace, secret members of the Church and obtain salvation. This doctrinal corruption and denial of dogma is the reason why there has been no principled argument against the modern doctrines of religious liberty and ecumenism. Archbishop Lefevre taught that the number of those saved outside the visible Church were few. Raher taught that it included nearly everyone. Their disagreement was one of degree and not of principle. The 1948 Holy Office Letter leads directly to the Prayer Meeting at Assisi.
The only hope in righting the ship is the literal proclamation and defense of Catholic dogma, the formal object of dining and Catholic faith. Their is no salvation outside the Catholic Church to which only the sacrament of baptism makes one a member.
D. M. Drew
ANTE DIOS NUNCA SERÁS HÉROE ANÓNIMO
St. Paul also says in Romans X:
[13] For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord, shall be saved. [14] How then shall they call on him, in whom they have not believed? Or how shall they believe him, of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear, without a preacher? [15] And how shall they preach unless they be sent, as it is written: How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, of them that bring glad tidings of good things!
Thank God, God is God.
You may not want to get into the entire teaching on baptism, but it does raise critical questions. If there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church and baptism is entry into the Church, what happens to all those zillions of people in the past, now and in the future who - for no fault of theirs - could never be Catholic or be baptised, either because they lived before there was any church or belong to cultures in which the possibility of being Christian could not arise? Can it be God's will that they are not able to be saved? I don't expect you to answer this, but it does show that things are hardly ever as clearcut and straightforward as some religious people and their slogans such as extra ecclesiam nulla salus like to make out.
It's you and your modernist lot who have to contend with the dogma, not us. Maybe if instead of making excuses for it and trying to explain it away, you embraced it, perhaps evangelization would make more sense to you.
I am not rejecting the dogma or explaining it away, only questioning implications of it (which you did not address). Please think about it, rather than dismissing me with another slogan. I find your dualistic dividing up into them and us quite frightening. It is the same impulse that leads into IS and all its works.
Pretty squishy.
What is?
if men desired the truth whereby they could be saved, God would provide it. And of those given the faith the majority according to many saints are damned by their own fault. The literal meaning of the dogma does not oppose the goodness of God in any way. It was He who said the road was narrow and few would find it. Please note finding the road does not mean one takes it to the end.
what specific implication are you questioning?
If it's dualistic us and then, the you better blame Jesus Christ and the Church He founded, rather than me. Also, I don't recall any "thou shalt not create us and them dualities" anywhere before, except perhaps your thinking of Frankfurt School theorists...
This is true.
answers to all the questions here
http://catholicvox.blogspot.com/
As to children who die without Baptism, the answer would be, that if a child dies without the opportunity of baptism and understanding of the Church, that God in His fore knowledge knew that this soul would not have accepted Him anyway, so that God allowing the Child to die before the age of reason is actually an act of God's mercy on His part to spare that soul from more awful judgement and eternity had He been allowed to live to willfully commit and die in Mortal sin.
Why don't you leave that up to God?
I ask this in all sincerity.Why are so many people obsessed with BOD/BOB & emphatically stress they (BOD/BOB) must be believed and to deny them is to be outside the church?
This issue has me very confused and I don't know what to believe.Has any Pope or council defined BOD/BOB?
Because it's an infallible dogma whose betrayal is not only a betrayal of Christ; but the solution for so many problems the Church faces now.
The reply would be: If one never heard of the gospel nor had a chance to be baptized, it is because god in His foreknowledge new they would not have accepted it. Therefore, it is an act of God's Mercy that the opportunity was never afforded them, for now their punishment in Hell is LESS than it would have been had they been given the opportunity and denied it.
Post a Comment