He (or his site) says:
Common Arguments
1. The Council of Trent did not speak about Baptism of Desire.
Some have tried to argue that the Council of Trent did not speak of Baptism of Desire, so as to try and remove the only example of solemn teaching on the subject, leaving all other examples above as ordinary teaching. First, you'll notice in the quotes above that St. Robert Bellarmine states, "...the Council of Trent, Session 6, Chapter 4, says that Baptism is necessary in fact or in desire". St. Alphonsus Liguori also states above, "Now it is "de fide" that men are also saved by Baptism of desire, by virtue of the Canon Apostolicam, "de presbytero non baptizato" and of the Council of Trent, session 6, Chapter 4...". The quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia above also states, “This doctrine (baptism of desire) is set forth clearly by the Council of Trent". And the quote from the Letter of the Holy Office above also states, "This (Sacrament through desire) we see clearly stated in the Sacred Council of Trent..." So it is obvious the Holy Office, these two Doctors of the Church, and the Catholic Encyclopedia state otherwise. As for those who try to discredit the Catholic Encyclopedia; over 1500 clergy, professors, authors etc. from around the world contributed to its compilation, in addition to it containing an imprimatur, so it is considered a trusted Catholic reference.
Regardless of these facts, we can clearly see from the definitions of the Magisterium above, that whether the Council of Trent spoke of this doctrine or not is irrelevant, since we can see the Ordinary magisterium (also infallible) has also taught it repeatedly century after century.
Trent teaches there is no spiritual regeneration without water. Desire alone is faith alone, a notion that belongs in hell with Luther.
Trent teaches there is no spiritual regeneration without water. Desire alone is faith alone, a notion that belongs in hell with Luther.
Ladislaus, Reply #11
I initially believed in Baptism of Desire simply because I thought that Trent taught it. So one day I happened to be reading Trent's entire treatise on justification in Latin. What I found was that this particular quotation had been lifted out of its entire context. If you read the entire thing, a picture emerges. What Trent is teaching, against the prevalent Protestant errors, is in fact the necessity of cooperation between grace and free will. Grace is given freely, but then the WILL must must cooperate. So the ENTIRE POINT of the Treatise is that BOTH grace ex opere operato AND the cooperation of the WILL are necessary. So it would seem strange then for Trent to be teaching the whole time that both grace and will are necessary, and then suddenly to switch gears and say ... but grace OR free will are necessary for justification. There's even a Canon in Trent which condemns the proposition that one is justified by Baptism even without the intention/desire to receive the Sacrament.
Now, the word commonly translated as "desire" is actually the Latin votum, which is a noun form of the Latin verb that means "to will". Desire is a watered down translation made, IMO deliberately, to weaken its force. It's more like a "vow" (our word "vow" also comes from the same Latin root). Let me give an example. I can DESIRE all I want to get married, but that does not mean I am married. I can get engaged, set a date, rent out the reception hall, hire a photographer, have every intention and desire to get married, but then bail out five minutes before pronouncing my "vows" ... and I am not and never was married. There must be some FORMALIZATION of this intention. Now, one could argue that a catechumen could be close to having this kind of will/intention/vow to get baptized. So in order to make BoD apply to all manner of infidels, the force of it had to be weakened. Even St. Robert Bellarmine explicitly limited BoD to the catechumen.
In any case, on its face, the expression, "I cannot play baseball without a bat or a ball," is ambiguous. You COULD take it that I cannot play baseball without having EITHER a bat OR a ball. Or you could take it as meaning that I cannot play if EITHER is MISSING. So on the surface, you could take it the BoD way, or else you could take it the way I read it. But if you take the VERY NEXT SENTENCE of Trent, this sentence is immediately disambiguated ... in favor of MY reading of it.
To paraphrase, justification cannot happen without the laver or the desire, for Jesus taught that, in order to be born again, one must be born of water AND the Holy Spirit. This is clearly making the following analogy (if you recall analogy format from the SAT) --
laver:desire::water:Holy Spirit (laver is to desire what water is to the Holy Spirit).
Trent deliberately uses the descriptive term "laver" instead of, say, the Sacrament, precisely to drive home the analogy with this teaching and Our Lord's "water AND the Holy Spirit". See, again, if you read the entire context, Trent had just spent several paragraphs explaining how it is the Holy Spirt who INSPIRES this cooperation of the will.
So to take this passage the BoD way would be to say: I can play baseball with either a bat or a ball, since the coach said that I must have a bat AND a ball to play baseball. It's ridiculous on the face of it.
Water AND the Holy Spirit immediately disambiguates the "not without the laver or the will for it" into my reading of it, and not the BoD meaning.
I stand by this reading of Trent as absolutely the only one that makes sense. As for why other theologians didn't read it this way. Well, St. Alphonsus actually cites teaching on the intention to receive CONFESSION (combined with perfect contrition) as sufficing to RESTORE someone to justification after it has been lost through sin. But if you look at the passage on confession, Trent explicitly states, "EITHER ... OR". If Trent were teaching the same thing here, you would have expected the exact same unambiguous phraseology, "EITHER the laver OR ELSE the desire". But it's not there in the passage regarding Baptism. In theology manuals AFTER the Council of Trent that were used in seminaries, BoD was still presented as a disputed question, with BoD referred to as the "Augustinian" position (by contrast with other Fathers who rejected it). So in the immediate aftermath of Trent, this passage was NOT in fact read as closing the debate on BoD. One or another theologian first read this as promoting/endorsing Baptism of Desire ... and then everyone else simply followed along and made that assumption without re-examining that interpretation.
So, if someone could persuade me that the sentence, "I cannot play baseball without a bat or a ball, since the coach said that I have to have a bat and a ball to play baseball," actually means that I can play baseball with EITHER a bat OR a ball, then you could convince me that Trent teaches BoD in this passage.
What is a LOT???LOT is short for a member here called "Lover of Truth". He stopped posting regularly a while ago. He was the main defender of Baptism of Desire here and his Feeneyite opponents called him "Lover of Lies" or "Lover of Error" of "Lover of Heresy." Pray for him as I think he recently came back to the forum to ask for prayers because he may lose his job for not taking the dead baby death vaxx. So he is a hero now.
This thread is very helpful on this subject: https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/trent-and-justification/ (https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/trent-and-justification/)"Traduttore, traditore" (A translator is a traitor).
Pay special attention here to Ladislaus' posts. What is commonly translated as "desire" in that quote from Trent is better understood as being like a vow (votum). Desire is a more ambiguous word in English, as he explains. Quote from him in that thread:
That's a pretty good argument I think.He misquotes both Trent and St. Alphonsus, which makes his quote a lie.
"Traduttore, traditore" (A translator is a traitor).
Is it probable? Is it probable!) that Ladislaus caught a "mistake" which all the pre-conciliar vernacular translations of the world missed for centuries (and which all the traditionalist Latin speaking clergy continue to miss to this day)?
The 1st year Latin student is capable of applying several different translations to every word in the Latin language, and then concluding the one which best meats his agenda is the "technically more proper and correct" translation.
"Traduttore, traditore."
He misquotes both Trent and St. Alphonsus, which makes his quote a lie.
Trent: "And this translation [to justification], since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration..."
However you want to cut it, Trent is saying they are not saved without water.
(https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/baptismofdesire-com-64953/15/?action=reporttm;msg=784953)
Please demonstrate the lie.First, the lie from bod.com:
The implication being St. Robert Bellarmine (who taught salvation without water baptism, above) was a heretic?No, not any more than Trent was heretical. But one thing is certain, one of them is wrong.
No, not any more than Trent was heretical. But one thing is certain, one of them is wrong.
"Traduttore, traditore" (A translator is a traitor).
Is it probable? Is it probable!) that Ladislaus caught a "mistake" which all the pre-conciliar vernacular translations of the world missed for centuries (and which all the traditionalist Latin speaking clergy continue to miss to this day)?
The 1st year Latin student is capable of applying several different translations to every word in the Latin language, and then concluding the one which best meats his agenda is the "technically more proper and correct" translation.
"Traduttore, traditore."
Am I misunderstanding you?I am actually saying St. Robert is wrong, not heretical. The reason for this is because Trent taught, as I posted above, that justification cannot be effected without the sacrament or the desire for the sacrament. Which is to say desiring the sacrament is just as insufficient for justification as not receiving the sacrament. *That* is what Trent taught, not what a BOD.com conveniently misquotes to suit their own narrative.
Are you saying that either Trent, or St. Robert Bellarmine (Doctor of the Church), is wrong??
I am actually saying St. Robert is wrong, not heretical. The reason for this is because Trent taught, as I posted above, that justification cannot be effected without the sacrament or the desire for the sacrament. Which is to say desiring the sacrament is just as insufficient for justification as not receiving the sacrament. *That* is what Trent taught, not what a BOD.com conveniently misquotes to suit their own narrative.
Not necessarily so. English is a language that has changed quite significantly over time. Perhaps the meaning of the word "desire" had a stronger connotation with a firm resolution like the word "vow" means in the past, but has now changed to the point where "desire" can mean a strong resolution or a vague inclination towards a certain thing. What could be happening is that the word desire is a correct translation to use, but the definition in our time is more ambiguous than what it was traditionally. Therefore, to use a similar word (vow) that still retains a clear definition may simply be an easy way of clarifying the original intended meaning of the docuмent.
Not necessarily so. English is a language that has changed quite significantly over time. Perhaps the meaning of the word "desire" had a stronger connotation with a firm resolution like the word "vow" means in the past, but has now changed to the point where "desire" can mean a strong resolution or a vague inclination towards a certain thing. What could be happening is that the word desire is a correct translation to use, but the definition in our time is more ambiguous than what it was traditionally. Therefore, to use a similar word (vow) that still retains a clear definition may simply be an easy way of clarifying the original intended meaning of the docuмent.No StLouisIX, "desire" or "vow" or whatever - it does not matter. Pursuing it from that angle leads to nowhere really, except perhaps more debates.
So, if I say men can be saved without water baptism, its not heretical?I believe that teaching is indeed heretical because it contradicts Trent's teaching.
I believe that teaching is indeed heretical because it contradicts Trent's teaching.
So, when St. Bellarmine says it, it is not heretical, but when I say it, it becomes heretical.I don't know that St. Robert knew any better, which imo means he was simply mistaken, by now you should know better. That's the only problem.
Do you see a problem with that?
I don't know that St. Robert knew any better, which imo means he was simply mistaken, by now you should know better. That's the only problem.
I appreciate the compliment, but I dispute your contention that I'm more knowledgeable in the matter than St. Robert Bellarmine.St. Robert did not have the internet to put vast Catholic resources before his eyes at the stroke of a key board.
I think I'll leave the discussion from here on out to you guys.
But what of Trent? Why ignore that Council's teaching in the matter?
I don't ignore it.I posted what it really says, why do you ignore that? Is it because it's not tailored to fit your agenda? You say you accept it, then immediately contradict yourself.
I accept it.
What I ignore are contorted reconstructions of it, tailored to fit an agenda.
If the Feeeneyites were right about what they imagine Trent "really said," someone would have noticed it before Fr. Feeney or his followers.
Why do the two doctors of the Church mentioned in the quote above teach damnable Lutheran doctrine?Why do so many bishops and priests do any of the wrongs they do? Some are evil, others are weak, and even more are misinformed.
It would be good if the Feeneyites could refute St. Robert Bellarmine and St. Alphonsus Liguori (in addition to the 40 other saints and popes cited on this excellent website.It would be nice if people didn't refute Our Lord.
I hope they will also refute the Council of Trent.
This person is doing the same thing: He wants to translate Bellarmine's use of the word "voto" as "resolution" to avoid having him say "desire," in order to construe a different meaning from the phrase:As good as he is, Robert Bellarmine is not the Church.
St. Robert Bellarmine, De Ecclesia Militante:
“Concerning catechumens there is a GREATER DIFFICULTY, because they are faithful [have the faith] and can be saved if they die in this state, and yet outside the Church no one is saved… THE CATECHUMENS ARE IN THE CHURCH, THOUGH NOT IN ACTUAL FACT, yet at least in resolution, therefore they can be saved…”
[De Ecclesia Militante, Book III, Ch. 3, opera omnia, Naples 1872, p. 75; ]
https://www.cathinfo.com/index.php?action=post;quote=784946;topic=64953.0
However you want to cut it, St .Bellarmine is saying they are saved without water.
So, if I say men can be saved without water baptism, its not heretical?It only becomes heretical when you persist in the error after being corrected.
Canon 2: If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism and therefore reduces to some sort of metaphor the words of our Lord Jesus Christ: "Unless one is reborn of water and the Spirit," let him be anathema.
Canon 5: If anyone says that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation, let him be anathema.
In these words a description is outlined of the justification of the sinner as being a transition from the state in which man is born a son of the first Adam to the state of grace and adoption as sons of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ our Savior. After the promulgation of the gospel, this transition cannot take place without the laver of regeneration or the desire for it, as it is written "Unless one is reborn of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God."
There is no need to massacre the phrase "laver of regeneration or the desire thereof" to preserve the EENS dogma against the false claim that BoD effects "salvation." BoD effects something, but not "salvation."
First, the lie from bod.com:St. Alphonsus Liguori teaches that a man can be justified with implicit BOD just three sentences after the portion you quoted of him.
"...the Council of Trent, Session 6, Chapter 4, says that Baptism is necessary in fact or in desire". St. Alphonsus Liguori also states above, "Now it is "de fide" that men are also saved by Baptism of desire"
The truth is........
St. Alphonsus:
"The heretics say that no sacrament is necessary, inasmuch as they hold that man is justified by faith alone, and that the sacraments only serve to excite and nourish this faith, which (as they say) can be equally excited and nourished by preaching. But this is certainly false, and is condemned in the fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth canons: for as we know from the Scriptures, some of the sacraments are necessary (necessitate Medii) as a means without which salvation is impossible. Thus Baptism is necessary for all, Penance for them who have fallen into sin after Baptism, and the Eucharist is necessary for all at least in desire ( in voto)." - An Exposition and Defense of All the Points of Faith Discussed and Defined by the Sacred Council of Trent, Along With the Refutation of the Errors of the Pretended Reformers, Saint Alphonsus Liguori, Dublin, 1846.
Trent on 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."
"Besides, who can deny that the act of perfect love of God, which is sufficient for justification, includes an implicit desire of Baptism, of Penance and of the Eucharist. He who wishes the whole, wishes every part of that whole, and all the means for its attainment. In order to be justified without Baptism, an infidel must love God above all things and must have a universal will to observe the divine precepts, among which the first is to receive Baptism: and therefore in order to be justified it is necessary for him to have at least an implicit desire of that sacrament. For it is certain that to such desire is ascribed the spiritual regeneration of a person who has not been baptized, and the remission of sins to baptized persons who have contrition, is likewise ascribed to the explicit or implicit desire of sacramental absolution."
"11. Can. 4: Si quis dixerit sacramenta novae legis non esse ad salutem necessaria, sed superflua; et sine eis aut eorum voto per solam fidem homines a Deo gratiam justificationis adipisci, licet omnia singulis necessaria non siut, anathema sit."Liguori, St. Alphonsus. An Exposition and Defence of All the Points of Faith Discussed and Defined by the Sacred Council of Trent, Along With the Refutation of the Errors of the Pretended Reformers.
12. The heretics say that no sacrament is necessary, inasmuch as they hold that man is justified by faith alone, and that the sacraments only serve to excite and nourish this faith, which (as they say) can be equally excited and nourished by preaching. But this is certainly false, and is condemned in the fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth canons: for as we know from the Scriptures, some of the sacraments are necessary (necessitate Medii) as a means without which salvation is impossible. Thus Baptism is necessary for all, Penance for them who have fallen into sin after Baptism, and the Eucharist is necessary for all at least in desire ( in voto)
13. Soave says that at least the implicit desire of Baptism (the same holds for penance in regards to sinners) appeared to many of the fathers not to be necessary for justification: because Cornelius and the good thief were justified without having any knowledge of Baptism. But, Pallavicini says that this is a mere dream of Soave: for the theologians of Trent could not have adduced the example of Cornelius or of the good thief in defence of such an opinion, when everyone knew that the obligation of Baptism did not commence till after the death of the Saviour, and after the promulgation of the Gospel. Besides, who can deny that the act of perfect love of God, which is sufficient for justification, includes an implicit desire of Baptism, of Penance and of the Eucharist. He who wishes the whole, wishes every part of that whole, and all the means for its attainment. In order to be justified without Baptism, an infidel must love God above all things and must have a universal will to observe the divine precepts, among which the first is to receive Baptism: and therefore in order to be justified it is necessary for him to have at least an implicit desire of that sacrament. For it is certain that to such desire is ascribed the spiritual regeneration of a person who has not been baptized, and the remission of sins to baptized persons who have contrition, is likewise ascribed to the explicit or implicit desire of sacramental absolution.
14. In the fourth canon the words licet omnia singulis necessaria non sint, were afterwards inserted. By this canon it was intended to condemn Luther, who asserts that none of the sacraments is absolutely necessary for salvation, because as has been already said, he ascribed all salvation to faith, and nothing to the efficacy of the sacraments."
Baptismofdesire.com is awesome, and counters many of the typical Feeneyite arguments, as well as supplying a consistent list of saints, fathers, doctors, popes, and councils in support of BOD.
Party's over, guys. Next post will have to be posted with your pseudonym next to it. ::)
There is NOTHING in this thread that needs to be anonymous. No abusing the anonymous subforum.
So, if I say men can be saved without water baptism, its not heretical?
Yes, that is heretical. 99% of all formulations regarding BoD are in fact heretical.So, what I'm getting from all of this is (and I don't really follow the BOD argument), that in voto is an extremely narrow frame referring to those who may have died immediately before the Sacrament was conferred? And that those in support of BOD are stretching it to encompass everyone who has a passing whim of getting baptized? Is that right?
If you wanted to phrase it as saying, "it's possible to be saved without actually getting physically wet", then that might work.
But one cannot be saved without the SACRAMENT of Baptism, and water is of its essence.
Otherwise, you are turning the necessity of the Sacrament into a mere metaphor, which was anathematized by Trent.
That is why St. Robert was very careful not to say that someone can be saved without Baptism (heretical), but rather said that they received Baptism in voto. Language matters. One formulation is heretical, the other tenable without heresy.
Baptism of Desire as defined by St. Robert was simply another MODE of receiving the Sacrament.
So, what I'm getting from all of this is (and I don't really follow the BOD argument), that in voto is an extremely narrow frame referring to those who may have died immediately before the Sacrament was conferred? And that those in support of BOD are stretching it to encompass everyone who has a passing whim of getting baptized? Is that right?
St. Alphonsus Liguori teaches that a man can be justified with implicit BOD just three sentences after the portion you quoted of him.
Here's the full quote for you to use next time:
Liguori, St. Alphonsus. An Exposition and Defence of All the Points of Faith Discussed and Defined by the Sacred Council of Trent, Along With the Refutation of the Errors of the Pretended Reformers.
Yes, if there's such a thing, it's basically a firm resolution and intention, as if I'm on the way to go to Confession, made an appointment, and get run over by a car. It's not some vague longing. And its prerequisite is in fact ALL of the dispositions Trent teaches as necessary for justificaition, including having Catholic faith (at least a fides initialis since supernatural faith itself is received at Baptism). Even the Catholic Encyclopedia article on the subject declares that "desire" or even "resolution" are a poor translation of the term. I'll see if I can dig it up here.Okay, so this is basically how I've always understood it. Thanks for clarifying.
In fact, if one were to actually read St. Robert Bellarmine, he phrases the question "Whether a catechumen ... [can be saved iin this manner]?" He argues that a catechumen might be saved in this way because he's already in a way part of the visible Church, being visibly united to the Church. If ANYONE hammered home (and some theologians argue, to a fault) the fact that the Church is a VISIBLE society, it was St. Robert. He would have condemned as heretics those who would apply BoD to anyone who could not be visibly identified as belonging to the Society of the Church.
EDIT: (Catholic Encyclopedia) We have rendered votum by "desire" for want of a better word. The council does not mean by votum a simple desire of receiving baptism or even a resolution to do so.
It only becomes heretical when you persist in the error after being corrected.
What seems to be unclear:Yes, I agree overall, except it refers *not* to the 'concept', rather it refers to the *effect*; Justification "cannot be effected without the laver of regeneration."
Council of Trent
Session 6: Decree on Justification
Chapter 4: A brief description of the sinner's justification: its manner under the dispensation of grace.
Read carefully the title of Chapter 4. That whole section (quoted above) only refers to the concept of "justification." Nothing else. It says nothing about "salvation."
My opinion on a resolution:Here is where the BODers consistently misquote Trent. Trent never even says the sacrament of baptism itself will certainly justify let alone save anyone, presumably because the sacrament(s) may be received sacrilegiously, Trent only says that:
I believe the solution to the apparent confusion is that people are failing to understand that "salvation" and "justification" are not the same thing. Session 6 of Trent is discussion of "justification" not "salvation."
A sinner can be "justified" by "a desire for the laver of regeneration" (my paraphrase of Session 6, chap.4). But sinner cannot be "saved" without the Sacrament of Baptism (Session 7, canon 5).
Yes, I agree overall, except it refers *not* to the 'concept', rather it refers to the *effect*; Justification "cannot be effected without the laver of regeneration."All of this ^
Note also what the description says, particularly the words "it's manner", which is to say Trent is teaching us "the manner in which justification is to be accomplished" which Trent, after saying how it cannot be accomplished without the laver or desire, quotes John 3:5 "as it is written" - this is how justification is to be effected, i.e. by the sacrament.
Here is where the BODers consistently misquote Trent. Trent never even says the sacrament of baptism itself will certainly justify let alone save anyone, presumably because the sacrament(s) may be received sacrilegiously, Trent only says that:
1) without it no one is justified
2) without it no one is saved (John 3:5)
3) the desire thereof will not justify. Trent says this in Session 6.....Justification "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".
Trent says "cannot be effected without the laver of regeneration or the desire thereof", why so many people read this as saying "cannot be effected without the laver of regeneration or [without] the desire thereof" is a mystery. This is where you believe I am reading it incorrectly, but I'm not the one reading it incorrectly, although I would be if the word "without" was in there.
In session 7, Trent condemns with anathema whoever says 1) the sacraments are not necessary for salvation, which agrees with session 6, and 2) without *them* or the desire thereof men obtain justification.
The BODers simply read and understand sessions 6 and 7 to mean what Trent clearly does not say. Whereas Trent in session 7 condemns the idea that justification is obtained without them or desire thereof, BODers claim Trent says that justification/salvation is certain to anyone at all who has the desire thereof - others do not even believe the desire thereof needs to be explicit. Boders say this is so certain, that a BOD is a doctrine, even a dogma defined at Trent, which is altogether wrong.
Yes, I agree overall, except it refers *not* to the 'concept', rather it refers to the *effect*; Justification "cannot be effected without the laver of regeneration."
Note also what the description says, particularly the words "it's manner", which is to say Trent is teaching us "the manner in which justification is to be accomplished" which Trent, after saying how it cannot be accomplished without the laver or desire, quotes John 3:5 "as it is written" - this is how justification is to be effected, i.e. by the sacrament.
Here is where the BODers consistently misquote Trent. Trent never even says the sacrament of baptism itself will certainly justify let alone save anyone, presumably because the sacrament(s) may be received sacrilegiously, Trent only says that:
1) without it no one is justified
2) without it no one is saved (John 3:5)
3) the desire thereof will not justify. Trent says this in Session 6.....Justification "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".
Trent says "cannot be effected without the laver of regeneration or the desire thereof", why so many people read this as saying "cannot be effected without the laver of regeneration or [without] the desire thereof" is a mystery. This is where you believe I am reading it incorrectly, but I'm not the one reading it incorrectly, although I would be if the word "without" was in there.
In session 7, Trent condemns with anathema whoever says 1) the sacraments are not necessary for salvation, which agrees with session 6, and 2) without *them* or the desire thereof men obtain justification.
The BODers simply read and understand sessions 6 and 7 to mean what Trent clearly does not say. Whereas Trent in session 7 condemns the idea that justification is obtained without them or desire thereof, BODers claim Trent says that justification/salvation is certain to anyone at all who has the desire thereof - others do not even believe the desire thereof needs to be explicit. Boders say this is so certain, that a BOD is a doctrine, even a dogma defined at Trent, which is altogether wrong.
All of this ^The word "without" is *not* in there in session 6, but it *is* in there in session 7.
"Without" is key and must be applied to both subjects (laver and desire) in that sentence because both follow the word without. Justification cannot be had... without laver, or without desire. It isn't even ambiguous as some suggest. It cannot be read as either one or the other to favor BOD. It must be read both/and as it is written. And you're right, you'd be reading it incorrectly if the word "without" wasn't there. But it is there.
Are you two suggesting that one who dies justified is not thereby saved (ie., Some who die in the state of grace are damned)???Yes, that is what he is saying. He is saying Trent teaches one can be justified without the laver of regeneration, which is contrary to Trent.
Are you two suggesting that one who dies justified is not thereby saved (ie., Some who die in the state of grace are damned)???
As you note, our disagreement boils down to your (incorrect) reading of the latin text of Session 6, chapter 4. But the solution to our disagreement can be found when we understand the difference between "salvation" and "justification."I understand the difference between justification and salvation perfectly fine. I do not know Latin except for Mass, so I am not incorrectly reading the Latin.
If you are correct about your latin interpretation, that "without [the Sacrament of Baptism] no one is justified," then wouldn't you think that the Fathers of the Holy Ecuмenical Council of Trent would have included a Canon to that effect in the Canons on Justification, which can be found a few pages after the "laver of regeneration" quote? They did not do that, Stubborn. Why? Because to say what you are claiming they said would be bad Catholic theology.
The reason you resort to the Canons on the Sacrament of Baptism from Session 7, which refer to "Salvation," not "Justification," is that you cannot win your argument without shifting contexts. Justification and Salvation are different in Catholic theology. The requirements for one are not identical to the requirements of the other.
Yes, that is what he is saying. He is saying Trent teaches one can be justified without the laver of regeneration, which is contrary to Trent.Can you cite a single Church doc from the last 2,021 years to corroborate the notion that hell is populated with sanctified souls???
The word "without" is *not* in there in session 6, but it *is* in there in session 7.
Session 6 is regarding only the sacrament of baptism, session 7 is in regards to all of the sacraments - where one may (or may not) be justified without the sacrament of penance via perfect contrition, but Trent is not singling out Baptism in session 7 as BODers do - they did that in the previous session declaring without baptism, justification cannot be effected.
By session 6 saying justification cannot be effected without the laver is in fact saying no water, no justification - period. Without saying another word, Trent says no water = no justification right then in there.
By adding "or the desire thereof" (without the word "without") they are saying there is no justification with the desire alone, - how could there be when justification cannot be effected without the laver?
By adding John 3:5 as it is written, they are telling us the manner Christ decreed we follow in order for justification to be effected.
What this all boils down to is what Trent is actually teaching, is altogether contrary to the whole idea of a BOD. Those who preach a BOD are preaching in direct contradiction to Trent.
Can you cite a single Church doc from the last 2,021 years to corroborate the notion that hell is populated with sanctified souls???LOL
One who dies "justified" will be "saved" in the strict sense from eternal damnation in Gehenna.
Yes, that is what he is saying. He is saying Trent teaches one can be justified without the laver of regeneration, which is contrary to Trent.
Stubborn, you are incorrect about a number of things in the above quote.1) Then all English translations missed it.
1. The Latin word "sine" means "without" and it definitely is in Session 6, chapter 4.
2. Session 6 is called "The Decree on Justification." I haven't done a word search but the phrase "Sacrament of Baptism" may not even be in Session 6. The phrase "Sacrament of Baptism" is definitely not in Session 6, chapter 4, the section that you incorrectly translate.
3. Session 7 is called "The Decree on The Sacraments." The "Canons on the Sacrament of Baptism" are from this session. That is where you get your quotes about "the Sacrament of Baptism" being necessary for "Salvation."
4. "Laver" (lavacro in Latin) does not mean water. It means "washing." Washing, in the theological sense, can be done with water. It can also be done with blood. Even "desire" can effect "washing," but with the effect being "justification" alone, not "salvation" and, according to Catholic theology, BoD does not allow one access to the other Sacraments. By the way, "baptizo" means "take a dip" or "bathe" in Greek, but also "to draw wine" by dipping in a cup.
Besides the obvious errors above, you are in error to think that BoD, properly understood, is incompatible with EENS. I do agree with you and others that the Sacrament of Baptism is necessary for "salvation," and I agree that many people promoting BoD, wrongly understood, are heretics. But I also believe that BoD, properly understood, is one of the ways that a believer can be justified. Properly understood, BoD is a non-heretical Catholic doctrine.
You have lied twice in that quote. I will explain what I am saying. Don't try to speak for me, please.You said:
But I also believe that BoD, properly understood, is one of the ways that a believer can be justified.
A sinner can be "justified" by "a desire for the laver of regeneration" (my paraphrase of Session 6, chap.4). But sinner cannot be "saved" without the Sacrament of Baptism (Session 7, canon 5).
I think the issue is whether you believe an explicit desire for the sacrament of baptism is necessary for the "desire" of Session 6, Chapter 4 to justify?
Your answer would clarify your view, at least for me.
1) Then all English translations missed it.
2) Laver of regeneration = Sacrament of Baptism
3) The first condemnatory sentence in Canon 4 anathematizes whoever says the sacraments are not necessary unto salvation. Since none of the other sacraments may be received unless or until one receives the sacrament of baptism, for our purpose, Trent may as well have condemned whoever says the sacrament of baptism is not necessary.
4) Laver of regeneration is the sacrament of baptism - that is the purpose they included John 3:5 as it is written - naming water specifically so as to leave no room for guessing exactly what they are speaking of.
Without the sacrament of baptism, salvation is impossible. This is per the opening sentence in Canon 4 session 7. Whoever says salvation is possible without that sacrament, Trent anathematized in the opening sentence in Canon 4 session 7.
The Fathers of the Council of Trent did not use the phrase "sacrament of baptism" in Session 6, chapter 4. They used the phrase "laver of regeneration or the desire thereof." I believe what the Ecuмenical Council of Trent teaches is correct. So I would not want to force a more restrictive interpretation on their intention when they could have done so themselves but chose not to. They used ambiguous language in the Decree on Justification for a reason. There is no need to second guess them.You confuse the clear teaching of Trent.
To repeat myself. I do not think that BoD guarantees "salvation" in either the strict (saved from Gehenna) or the general (saved from Gehenna and Purgatory) sense. I think the Council Fathers left open the door for BoD as a way that people can be "justified." However, the road from "justification" to "salvation" is a rocky and uncertain one. BoD, properly understood, does not give the believer access to the Sacraments and thereby puts them at extreme risk for "the shipwreck of lost grace" (Session 6, chapter 14), where they will lose "justification" and have no way to restore it, unless they were to formally enter the Church through the Sacrament of Baptism.
Since "even a just man sins seven times a day," a merely "justified" non-Catholic will, at the very least, spend time in Purgatory, but more practically, getting to Heaven will be, for him, like "a camel passing through the eye a needle." So, no one should recommend BoD as a safe path to Heaven. The Catholic Church is the only safe path.
1. You mean "all English translations" like Denzinger-Hunermann? The latin "sine" is translated as "without" in DH.1) Denzinger, that figures.
2. The "laver of regeneration" is a metaphor that includes the Sacrament of Baptism, but it also includes other forms of "washing."
3. I never said the Sacrament of Baptism is not necessary for salvation. In fact, I have said, over and over, that the Sacrament of Baptism is necessary for salvation. However, I said that the Sacrament of Baptism is not necessary for "justification." The "laver of regeneration or the desire thereof" is necessary for "justification."
4. Your name suits you. But your stubbornness doesn't change the truth.
5. You said "without the sacrament of baptism, salvation is impossible." I completely agree with you and the Council of Trent.
You confuse the clear teaching of Trent.
No one gets to salvation who does not die in the state of justification.
All you're saying is that the sacrament is not necessary for justification (which Trent condemns) and that without the sacrament, salvation is possible but ill advised.
This is the same liberal understanding most (many?) BODers already have.
I agree with you that "no one gets salvation who does not die in a state of justification."First, the "camel through the eye of the needle" means that with God, all things are possible.
I did say that "the sacrament [of baptism] is not necessary for justification."
I DID NOT SAY that without the sacrament [of baptism] salvation from Purgatory is possible but ill advised.
I did say that without the sacrament of baptism, salvation from Gehenna is possible but ill advised.
Again, I argue that "salvation" can be understood in two ways: 1) salvation from eternal damnation in Gehenna, 2) salvation from ALL the fires of hell (hell = Gehenna and Purgatory). Option 1 I will call "minimal salvation." Option 2 I will call "maximal salvation."
Non-Catholics who die in a state of justification will have, at best, "minimal salvation," that is, they will be saved from Gehenna but not from the fires of Purgatory. Catholics who die in a state of justification will have, at best, the chance of "maximal salvation," that is, it will be possible for these Catholics to avoid Purgatory and go straight to Heaven.
So, everything depends on the two senses of the word "salvation." You and many on Cathinfo want to define "salvation" to mean "salvation from Gehenna" only. So whenever you encounter the word, "salvation" you interpret it to mean simply "going to Heaven." But that is not the only way the word can be understood. Protestants think that that Heaven or Hell, Saved not Saved. Catholic theology is much deeper and nuanced because it includes Purgatory.
To be clear, I do not mean to imply or promote the idea that we shouldn't do everything in our power to bring people into the Catholic Church. If people are not brought into the Church with the Sacrament of Baptism, they are very likely to be eternally damned, as in the "camel through the eye of the needle" quote shows.
First, the "camel through the eye of the needle" means that with God, all things are possible.
In our context, that means God will supply the sacrament to everyone and anyone who is in need of it and sincerely desires it. This means for one who sincerely desires it, almighty God will give one the time to do it, and the water for doing it, and the minister for doing it, just the same as He does for everyone who ever has and will be baptized. *That's* what that means in our context. So please, do not muddy it's meaning by implying God will permit those not baptized to be ushered off into some lesser heaven (or hell) through their faith alone - which is an idea Trent condemned with anathema.
Next, salvation and damnation do not have multiple meanings. Salvation means spending eternity in heaven. Damnation means eternity in hell. Heaven is heaven and hell is hell, to miss heaven at all is to miss it completely - and end up suffering forever in hell. And missing heaven is what happens to all who die without the sacrament of baptism.
Yes there are different degrees of pains in hell as there are different degrees of joy in heaven, but there is only one heaven and only one hell. Limbo is for innocent infants and children who die without baptism, limbo has no adults in it unless perhaps they were incapable of thinking via some brain disease or injury, other than that, all adults go to either heaven or hell for their eternity. Again, do not muddy it up with some metaphor.
The suffering in Purgatory is the same as hell, but our sentence in purgatory has an end. But as far as the pains suffered are concerned, there is no difference between hell and purgatory.
Reply to Objection 1. When Christ, by His descent, delivered the Fathers from limbo, He is said to have "bitten" hell and to have descended into hell, in so far as hell and limbo are the same as to situation.
The Fathers of the Council of Trent did not use the phrase "sacrament of baptism" in Session 6, chapter 4. They used the phrase "laver of regeneration or the desire thereof." I believe what the Ecuмenical Council of Trent teaches is correct. So I would not want to force a more restrictive interpretation on their intention when they could have done so themselves but chose not to. They used ambiguous language in the Decree on Justification for a reason. There is no need to second guess them.
To repeat myself. I do not think that BoD guarantees "salvation" in either the strict (saved from Gehenna) or the general (saved from Gehenna and Purgatory) sense. I think the Council Fathers left open the door for BoD as a way that people can be "justified." However, the road from "justification" to "salvation" is a rocky and uncertain one. BoD, properly understood, does not give the believer access to the Sacraments and thereby puts them at extreme risk for "the shipwreck of lost grace" (Session 6, chapter 14), where they will lose "justification" and have no way to restore it, unless they were to formally enter the Church through the Sacrament of Baptism.
Since "even a just man sins seven times a day," a merely "justified" non-Catholic will, at the very least, spend time in Purgatory, but more practically, getting to Heaven will be, for him, like "a camel passing through the eye a needle." So, no one should recommend BoD as a safe path to Heaven. The Catholic Church is the only safe path.
One who dies "justified" will be "saved" in the strict sense from eternal damnation in Gehenna.
Does anyone here contest the certainty that all who die justified are saved?
Does anyone here contest the certainty that all who die justified are saved?
Nowhere have I said that "God will permit those not baptized to be ushered off into some lesser heaven (or hell) through their faith alone." In order to be "justified," the sinner will have to be "washed" or have the desire to be "washed." That is what Section 6, chapter 4 says in paraphrase.No, there is your error, that is not at what it says. It says justification cannot be effected without the laver or the desire. BODers like to read meaning into words that the words do not say - as you demonstrate.
Nowhere in the Canons on Justification does Trent mention the "sacrament of baptism." That is your invention. If what I say is untrue, produce the actual Canon on Justification with the anathema. As I have said, you resort to canons in Session 7 that do not refer to "justification" at all.Session 7, canon 4: [If anyone saith] "without them, or without the desire thereof, men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification;-though all (the sacraments) are not indeed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema."
I said "salvation" can have multiple meanings. I never said "damnation" has multiple meanings. And, I agree, "salvation" does mean "spending eternity in Heaven" (eventually) and "damnation means eternity in hell." However, some of us will take a detour to Purgatory before we get to Heaven. In one sense, those people in Purgatory are "saved" from "eternal damnation" but they are not "saved" from "the fires of hell" which cleanse the souls in Purgatory.If an adult dies unbaptized, that person goes to hell. It's that simple. "If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous... let him be anathema."
Feeneyites do hold this, whereas Dimondites hold that there can be no justification without the Sacrament of Baptism.Per Trent, if the Dimonds hold to this, then the Dimonds are correct on this.
Angelus,
Sorry for the above. A lapse. I have some of Adam's A-hole in me.
Now . . . if you think an explicit desire for the sacrament is not necessary for justification, how has the requirement for justification changed "since the promulgation of the gospel"? That is the qualifier Trent throws on the requirement of the laver or the desire: it is required "since the promulgation of the gospel."
DR
OK, so we all agree that all who die justified are saved.
If an adult dies unbaptized, that person goes to hell. It's that simple.
OK, so we all agree that all who die justified are saved.
Next question:
Does anyone here believe only the (water) baptized can die justified?
No, there is your error, that is not at what it says. It says justification cannot be effected without the laver or the desire. BODers like to read meaning into words that the words do not say - as you demonstrate.
Session 7, canon 4: [If anyone saith] "without them, or without the desire thereof, men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification;-though all (the sacraments) are not indeed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema."
Where does it say with them or with the desire thereof men obtain justification?
If an adult dies unbaptized, that person goes to hell. It's that simple. "If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous... let him be anathema."
In saying the sacrament of baptism is not necessary for salvation, you're saying saying the sacraments of the new law are not necessary for salvation - which Trent condemns.
If one can be justified without the sacrament, and because they never received the sacrament end up in hell for all eternity, that makes being justified without the sacrament at least altogether superfluous.
Can we at least agree on that?
If anyone says that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation, but that they are superfluous; and that without the sacraments or the desire for them men obtain from God the grace of justification through faith alone (although it is true that not all the sacraments are necessary for each person), let him be anathema.
Please stop saying that I said "the sacrament of baptism is not necessary for salvation," I never said that. You are spreading lies.
The Session 7, canon 4 should read:
QuoteQuoteIf anyone says that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation, but that they are superfluous; and that without the sacraments or the desire for them men obtain from God the grace of justification through faith alone (although it is true that not all the sacraments are necessary for each person), let him be anathema.
That canon is directed at those who promote "justification by faith alone." I don't promote that. But you should note that the Canon supports the idea that by "the desire for [the sacraments]" men can obtain from God the grace of Justification.
OK, so we all agree that all who die justified are saved.Yes and yes, justification cannot be effected without the laver of regeneration, i.e. the sacrament of baptism. Which is to say only the (water) baptized can die justified.
Next question:
Does anyone here believe only the (water) baptized can die justified?
Yes and yes, justification cannot be effected without the laver of regeneration, i.e. the sacrament of baptism. Which is to say only the (water) baptized can die justified.
Right, as I explained, there are two schools of thought here:And I used to agree with Fr. Feeney's hypothetical, and you're right, it was only hypothetical, he did not believe it could ever happen. In that aspect I agree with him. It simply goes against Catholic reason for the infidel to die justified, but without the sacrament he cannot attain heaven. Why bother? One cannot be justified without the sacrament because Trent said that justification cannot be effected without the sacrament. There's no mystery to this, it's told to us in a very clear and blunt manner.
Feeneyite: people can die in justification, but require actual reception of the Sacrament to be saved (although I believe in practice Father Feeney believed that would not happen and was just addressing the hypothetical)
Dimondite: there's no justification (and therefore no salvation) without actual reception of the Sacrament of Baptism.
I used to lean toward the latter, but then a reading of St. Ambrose and the arguments of post-Tridentine theologians that there can be justification without salvation, won me over to the Father Feeney position.
DR, Following Aquinas here (https://aquinas.cc/la/en/~ST.III.Q66.A11.T), I do think that "an explicit desire for the sacrament is not necessary for justification." Before the promulgation of the gospel, the transition only took place when Christ descended into Hell and liberated the Just from the limbo of the Fathers. Now, the transition can take place by the Sacrament of Baptism, BoD and BoB. Although the transition by BoD is not complete in the same way that the Sacrament of Baptism is.
Before the promulgation of the gospel, the transition only took place when Christ descended into Hell and liberated the Just from the limbo of the Fathers.
CHAPTER III.
Who are justified through Christ.
But, though He died for all, yet do not all receive the benefit of His death, but those only unto whom the merit of His passion is communicated. For as in truth men, if they were not born propagated of the seed of Adam, would not be born unjust,-seeing that, by that propagation, they contract through him, when they are conceived, injustice as their own,-so, if they were not born again in Christ, they never would be justified; seeing that, in that new birth, there is bestowed upon them, through the merit of His passion, the grace whereby they are made just. For this benefit the apostle exhorts us, evermore to give thanks to the Father, who hath made us worthy to be partakers of the lot of the saints in light, and hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the Kingdom of the Son of his love, in whom we have redemption, and remission of sins.
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.
In like manner a man receives the effect of Baptism by the power of the Holy Spirit, not only without Baptism of Water, but also without Baptism of Blood: forasmuch as his heart is moved by the Holy Spirit to believe in and love God and to repent of his sins: wherefore this is also called Baptism of Repentance. Of this it is written (Isa 4:4): If the Lord shall wash away the filth of the daughters of Zion, and shall wash away the blood of Jerusalem out of the midst thereof, by the spirit of judgment, and by the spirit of burning.
The rabid BODer, Lover of Truth, has this in his signature:
Perhaps the Master, not having the benefit of Trent - and the saint would have bowed to the instruction of God via the fathers of Trent - would now agree with me, and change his view.
And I used to agree with Fr. Feeney's hypothetical, and you're right, it was only hypothetical, he did not believe it could ever happen. In that aspect I agree with him. It simply goes against Catholic reason for the infidel to die justified, but without the sacrament he cannot attain heaven. Why bother? One cannot be justified without the sacrament because Trent said that justification cannot be effected without the sacrament. There's no mystery to this, it's told to us in a very clear and blunt manner.
I don't know but I believe people insist a BOD is a doctrine of the Church mainly because of the catechisms, which means they already have a preconceived idea implanted in the front of their mind, so that when they read Trent, their preconceived notion tricks them into reading meanings into Trent's teachings which the teachings simply do not say.
I actually believe there's some confusion among these theologians regarding the notion of justification. Trent seems to equate it with entering the state of sanctifying grace (although that might be speaking in terms of the normal course of things and not considering "exceptions") while some of these theologians refer to it as more a natural condition, where you cease to be an enemy of God from a natural perspective and develop all the appropriate dispositions necessry to receive the Sacrament. So, for example, even in the Old Testament, the "just" entered a state in wich they were not punished and yet could not enter Heaven. And the mechanism by which the OT just could become justified was widely disputed by the Church Fathers (some saying it was only through circuмcision, some that it was faith in the coming Messiah, and others even extenting it to the "noble" pagans).
St. Ambrose, for instance, spoke of a condition in which unbaptized martyrs would be washed but not crowned (crowning being equated with the Kingdom of Heaven). He also hoped, in the case of Valentinian, that he too could be "washed" (in a manner similar to these martyrs). Pope St. Siricius explicitly stated that it was absolutely impossible even for those desiring Baptism to receive the "Kingdom". Our Lord taught that those who had faith and were baptized would enter the Kingdom of Heaven, but that those who had not faith would be punished. He quite deliberately left in an in-between state those who had faith but were not baptized (saying neither that they would be punished nor that they would enter the Kingdom). St. Gregory nαzιanzen, similarly, distinguished between glory and punishment, saying that not all those who are good enough to be glorified/crowned are bad enough to be punished.
There's a recurring theme here of a distinction between the free UNMERITED gift of entering the supernatural Kingdom and a natural state of not being bad enough to be punished, or being "washed" without being crowned (entering the Kingdom). By this washing was not meant a true remission of sin per se, but, rather, a remission of the punishment due to sin.
This is why I have concluded that people like, say, unbaptized martyrs (assuming there were any ... St. Ambrose seems to take it for granted that there were some) would enter a state of Limbo, where although they could not be "crowned" (as St. Ambrose says), equivalent to entering the Kingdom, they would be washed, have the punishment due to their sins remitted. That is why martyrs go straight to Heaven bypassing Purgatory, because the punishment due to their sins (which would otherwise have put them in Purgatory) is remitted by martyrdom.
So I have come firmly to believe in a sate of Limbo for those who are "justified" (in the natural sense of having the punishment due to their sins remitted) and yet who have not received the Sacrament of Baptism and the free gift of entry into the Kingdom.
Even one of the EENS definitions states that the punishments of those who are not saved vary in proportioin to their sins. I believe that these punishments can be mitigated or offset by offsetting natural virtue. Mind you not the guilty of grave sin itself, nor Original Sin, but the punishment due to these sins (two different things). I think the greatest aversion people have against EENS and why they struggle with it and need to find a way to save thei unbaptized is this false notion that even naturally virtuous infidels, those perhaps who gave their lives to save others, end up in the same monolithic cauldron of fire right next to Joe Stalin and Judas. I believe that there can be varying degrees of eternal suffering, some very mild so that people suffer no more there than they migth in this life, and even degrees of happiness. Compare perhaps relatively noble and naturally virtuous Protestants or Orthodox who tried to keep the Commandments and prayed regularly, etc. with blaspheming Satanists or serial killers or pedophiles. I hold that the former will end up in a state where they will continue to love God in a natural way, similar to what they did in this life, and will not be blaspheming God right next to the Satanists in hell. But because people have this false concept that a similar fate awaits all these people who can't enter the Kingdom due to not having been baptized, that would appear to most people to decidedly contradict the Justice and the Mecy of God. So they find creative ways (i.e. BoD) to get these people into Heaven.
If everyone is honest, they'll admit that the notion of BoD was NOT revealed. It was (admittedly even by the Church Fathers) invented in order to reconcile the eternal punishemtnt of the natural virtuous with the eternal bliss of scoundrels. St. Augustine spoke of the notion that some people lived wicked lives and were baptized on their death beds while others tried to lead virtuous lives and were snatched from life withou the Sacrament. He made a profound statement regarding if you look for rewards, you will find only punishments, or something like that, which again is contrasting the notion that salvation is not a "reward", not something merited, and if you look at it that way, you will view the lack of salvation as a punishment. But not entering the Kingdom is NOT a punishment. Punishments are for actual transgressions.
Lad-
Too bad you weren’t around to straighten out all the poor confused theologians.
That way, you could do to them what the modernists didn’t to tge Denzinger: Chip our the last 500 years of doctrinal development, in order to recreate theology which would set them in the path to Feeneyite.
And you seem oblivious of the pride which speaks in such ways.
Inventing new positions (and “correcting” theologians to get it to “fit”) is definitely your specialty.
SJ is like all BODers who cannot acknowledge the obvious contradictions between Trent and the catechisms/what some of the Fathers taught. I think it goes back to what I said re preconceived ideas. It's amazing how that works so well, it is actually blinding.
1. God exists.
2. God “is a rewarder to them that seek him” (Hebrews 11:6).
3. The Holy Trinity.
4. The Incarnation.He says explicit belief in the first two is certainly necessary, while explicit belief in the last two is necessary according to the more common and more probable opinion, but he explains why the contrary opinion is “also quite probable.”
1. God exists.This is misleading because you fail to explain the difference between "explicit" (saying your belief out loud) vs "implicit" (not openly speaking your belief). Even if you argue that #3 and #4 do not require explicit/verbal expression of this belief, it is "de fide" that one is absolutely required to have implicit/interior belief of these 2 doctrines. Even St Alphonsus said so.
2. God “is a rewarder to them that seek him” (Hebrews 11:6).
3. The Holy Trinity.
4. The Incarnation.
He says explicit belief in the first two is certainly necessary, while explicit belief in the last two is necessary according to the more common and more probable opinion, but he explains why the contrary opinion is “also quite probable."