It means that baptism of desire is a myth.
So you reject both the Council of Trent and its Catechism?
The Catechism of The Council of Trent:
“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.”
Session 6, Chapter 4 of the Council of Trent.
“In these words there is suggested a description of the justification of the impious, how there is a transition from that state in which a person is born as a child of the first Adam to the state of grace and of adoption as sons of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ our savior; indeed, this transition, once the gospel has been promulgated, cannot take place without the laver of regeneration or a desire for it,
as it is written: Unless a man is born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God (John 3:5).”
No I don't reject Council of Trent of The Catechism of Council of Trent. I just don't take them out of context as 99% of other people do.
Its really easy, dogma cannot contradict dogma. We already know that dogma absolutely affirms water baptism essential for salvation, so for people then to contradict it with another "dogma" is just ridiculous and insane.
Now will both the Council of Trent and the Catechism of Trent be dealt with thoroughly. If people are honest, they will agree with this.[/U]SESS. 6, CHAP. 4 OF THE COUNCIL OF TRENTOBJECTION- In Session 6, Chapter 4 of its decree on Justification, the Council of Trent teaches that justification can take place by the water of baptism or the desire for it! So there!
ANSWER- [Preliminary Note: If Sess. 6, Chap. 4 of Trent were teaching what the baptism of desire advocates claim (which it isn’t), then it would mean that every man must receive baptism
or at least have the actual desire/vow for baptism to be saved. It would mean that it would be
heresy to say that any unbaptized person could be saved if he doesn’t have at least the desire/vow
for water baptism. But 99% of the people who quote this passage in favor of baptism of desire don’t even believe that one must desire baptism to be saved! They believe that Jєωs, Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, etc. can be saved
who don’t desire water baptism. Thus, 99% of those who quote this passage
reject even what they claim it is teaching. Frankly, this fact just shows the dishonesty and the bad will of most baptism of desire advocates in attempting to quote this passage as if they were devoted to its teaching when, in fact, they don’t believe in it at all and are in heresy for teaching that non-Catholics can be saved who don’t even desire water baptism.]
That being noted, this passage of the Council of Trent does
not teach that Justification
can take place by the water of baptism or the desire for it. It says that justification in the impious
CANNOT TAKE PLACE WITHOUT the water of baptism or the desire for it. This is totally different from the idea that justification
can take place by the water of baptism or the desire for it.
Pope Paul III,
Council of Trent, Sess. 6, Chap. 4: “In these words there is suggested a description of the justification of the impious, how there is a transition from that state in which a person is born as a child of the first Adam to the state of grace and of adoption as sons of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ our savior; indeed, this transition, once the gospel has been promulgated,
CANNOT TAKE PLACE WITHOUT the laver of regeneration or a desire for it,
AS IT IS WRITTEN: Unless a man is born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God (John 3:5).”
First off, the reader should note that this crucial passage from Trent has been horribly mistranslated in the popular English version of Denzinger, the Sources of Catholic Dogma, which is cited above.
The critical phrase, “
this transition, once the gospel has been promulgated, cannot take place without the laver of regeneration or a desire for it” has been mistranslated to read: “this transition, once the gospel has been promulgated, cannot take place except through the laver of regeneration or a desire for it…” This mistranslation of the Latin word “sine” (without) – which is found in the original Latin – to “except through” completely alters the meaning of the passage to favor the error of baptism of desire. This is important to keep in mind because this mistranslation is still being used all the time by baptism of desire apologists (often deliberately), including in recent publications of the SSPX and CMRI. That being mentioned, I will proceed to discuss what the council actually says here.
Looking at a correct translation, which is found in many books, the reader also should notice that, in this passage, the Council of Trent teaches that John 3:5 is to be taken as it is written (Latin: sicut scriptum est), which excludes any possibility of salvation without being born again of water in the Sacrament of Baptism. There is no way that baptism of desire can be true if John 3:5 is to be taken as it is written, because John 3:5 says that every man must be born again of
water and the Spirit to be saved, which is what the theory of baptism of desire denies. The theory of baptism of desire and an interpretation of John 3:5 as it is written are mutually exclusive (they cannot both be true at the same time) – and every baptism of desire proponent will admit this. That is why all of them must – and do – opt for a
non-literal interpretation of John 3:5.
But what does the passage in Trent that we just discussed say: It says infallibly, “
AS IT IS WRITTEN, UNLESS A MAN IS BORN AGAIN OF WATER AND THE HOLY GHOST, HE CANNOT ENTER INTO THE KINGDOM OF GOD[/I].”
But what about the claim of the baptism of desire people: that 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 I said, “
This shower cannot take place without water or the desire to take one.” Does this mean that a shower can take place by the desire to take a shower? No it doesn’t. It means that both (water and desire) are necessary.
Or suppose I said, “
There cannot be a wedding without[/U] a bride or a groom.” Does this mean that you can have a wedding with a groom and not a bride? Of course not. It means that both are necessary for the wedding. One could give hundreds of other examples. Likewise, the passage above in Trent says that Justification
CANNOT[/U] TAKE PLACE WITHOUT[/U] water or desire; in other words, both are necessary. It does not say that Justification
does take place by either water or desire!
THE CATECHISM OF THE COUNCIL OF TRENTOBJECTION- The Catechism of the Council of Trent taught that one’s determination to receive baptism could avail him to grace and righteousness if it is impossible for him to receive baptism.
Catechism of the Council of Trent,
Ordinarily They Are Not Baptized At Once, p. 179: “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.”
ANSWER- The Catechism of the Council of Trent is not infallible. Fathers John A. McHugh, O.P. and Charles J. Callan, O.P. wrote the introduction for a common English translation of the Catechism of the Council of Trent. Their introduction contains the following interesting quote from Dr. John Hagan, Rector of the Irish College in Rome, about the Catechism’s authority.
Catechism of the Council of Trent- Fifteenth printing, TAN Books, Introduction XXXVI: “Official docuмents have occasionally been issued by Popes to explain certain points of Catholic teaching to individuals, or to local Christian communities; whereas the Roman Catechism comprises practically the whole body of Christian doctrine, and is addressed to the whole Church. Its teaching is not infallible; but it holds a place between approved catechisms and what is de fide.”