Author Topic: Baptismofdesire.com (Read 12300 times)

Angelus · « **Reply #60 on:** November 17, 2021, 12:19:32 PM »

Quote from: Stubborn on November 17, 2021, 11:46:39 AM

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.

Stubborn, you are incorrect about a number of things in the above quote.

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.

Stubborn · « **Reply #61 on:** November 17, 2021, 12:26:06 PM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson on November 17, 2021, 12:13:22 PM

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
No. I disagree with him on this.

DecemRationis · « **Reply #62 on:** November 17, 2021, 12:27:10 PM »

Quote from: Angelus on November 17, 2021, 11:52:51 AM

One who dies "justified" will be "saved" in the strict sense from eternal damnation in Gehenna.

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.

Angelus · « **Reply #63 on:** November 17, 2021, 12:28:00 PM »

Quote from: Stubborn on November 17, 2021, 11:48:31 AM

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.

You have lied twice in that quote. I will explain what I am saying. Don't try to speak for me, please.

Stubborn · « **Reply #64 on:** November 17, 2021, 12:37:47 PM »

Quote from: Angelus on November 17, 2021, 12:19:32 PM

Stubborn, you are incorrect about a number of things in the above quote.

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.

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.

Stubborn · « **Reply #65 on:** November 17, 2021, 12:41:06 PM »

Quote from: Angelus on November 17, 2021, 12:28:00 PM

You have lied twice in that quote. I will explain what I am saying. Don't try to speak for me, please.

You said:

Quote

But I also believe that BoD, properly understood, is one of the ways that a believer can be justified.

Quote

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).

Via your paraphrasing, this is contrary to Trent.

Angelus · « **Reply #66 on:** November 17, 2021, 12:48:51 PM »

Quote from: DecemRationis on November 17, 2021, 12:27:10 PM

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.

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.

Angelus · « **Reply #67 on:** November 17, 2021, 12:56:00 PM »

Quote from: Stubborn on November 17, 2021, 12:37:47 PM

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.

1. You mean "all English translations" like Denzinger-Hunermann? The latin "sine" is translated as "without" in DH.

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.

Stubborn · « **Reply #68 on:** November 17, 2021, 01:03:02 PM »

Quote from: Angelus on November 17, 2021, 12:48:51 PM

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.

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.

Stubborn · « **Reply #69 on:** November 17, 2021, 01:10:55 PM »

Quote from: Angelus on November 17, 2021, 12:56:00 PM

1. You mean "all English translations" like Denzinger-Hunermann? The latin "sine" is translated as "without" in DH.

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.

1) Denzinger, that figures.
2) It is not a metaphor, it is a sacrament, the sacrament of baptism.
3) What you should say is that justification cannot be effected without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof - what you say and what Trent says are contradictory.
4) Please note, it takes two stubborn people to debate.
5) If you actually do agree, then you should also agree justification cannot be effected without the sacrament of baptism. Or explain what good it does to die in the state of justification without the sacrament, when dying in that state can only bring eternal damnation.

Angelus · « **Reply #70 on:** November 17, 2021, 02:08:05 PM »

Quote from: Stubborn on November 17, 2021, 01:03:02 PM

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."

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.

Stubborn · « **Reply #71 on:** November 17, 2021, 02:37:32 PM »

Quote from: Angelus on November 17, 2021, 02:08:05 PM

I agree with you that "no one gets salvation who does not die in a state of justification."

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.

Angelus · « **Reply #72 on:** November 17, 2021, 03:44:46 PM »

Quote from: Stubborn on November 17, 2021, 02:37:32 PM

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.

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.

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.

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.

So "salvation" must be understood in reference to its object: saved from what? Many magisterial docuмents leave that question open. If you find a magisterial statement with your very restrictive definition of salvation, please produce it. Otherwise, it is nothing but your opinion.

Regarding "mudding up" things by using the word "hell" as a "metaphor." You think the concept of "hell" is so simple? Read Aquinas here (especially Article 5, Reply to Objection 1 quoted):

Quote

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.

Note he identifies "limbo" with "hell" (latin: infernus). Purgatory is lower than limbo. Is St. Thomas Aquinas a heretic? He's not as stubborn as some people but surely he's not a heretic.

DecemRationis · « **Reply #73 on:** November 17, 2021, 04:17:51 PM »

Quote from: Angelus on November 17, 2021, 12:48:51 PM

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.

Look, man, I'm trying to understand you. You had said:

Quote

One who dies "justified" will be "saved" in the strict sense from eternal damnation in Gehenna.

Now you throw in the word, "guarantees." There are no "guarantees." One can be justified and lose it - whether via BOD, the sacrament, whatever. Of course.

I asked a simple question. I've read what you wrote, and I'll translate what you said into the language of the succinct and cogent: "an explicit desire for the sacrament is not necessary for justification" - that is apparently your view. I'll follow up.

Thanks for the direct response . . . sort of.

DecemRationis · « **Reply #74 on:** November 17, 2021, 04:21:08 PM »

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

Author Topic: Baptismofdesire.com (Read 12300 times)

Angelus

Re: Baptismofdesire.com

Stubborn

Re: Baptismofdesire.com

DecemRationis

Re: Baptismofdesire.com

Angelus

Re: Baptismofdesire.com

Stubborn

Re: Baptismofdesire.com

Stubborn

Re: Baptismofdesire.com

Angelus

Re: Baptismofdesire.com

Angelus

Re: Baptismofdesire.com

Stubborn

Re: Baptismofdesire.com

Stubborn

Re: Baptismofdesire.com

Angelus

Re: Baptismofdesire.com

Stubborn

Re: Baptismofdesire.com

Angelus

Re: Baptismofdesire.com

DecemRationis

Re: Baptismofdesire.com

DecemRationis

Re: Baptismofdesire.com