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.
Please correct me on anything.
Is it possible that a person who dies without baptism but desiring it will go to limbo? That his sins are washed out but cannot enter heaven due to the lack of sacramental character? And also if it's possible for someone to get baptised during the general resurrection?
And what would stop God from conferring Baptism on such souls after the General Resurrection? There are stories where saints raised individuals back to life in order to baptize them. What would stop God from doing the same, whether now or toward the end of time? Nothing that I can see. Also, what would stop God from having an angel confer the Sacrament on someone who has the desire, either by miraculous means or by sending an angel to administer the Sacrament?But does not a sacrament demand some form of human agency? I understand that an angel can do things which seem to us "supernatural," like diverting a bullet, pulling a man from a burning vehicle, etc., but administer sacraments? I know some of the fathers and theologians have talked about angels in this way, but I have had my doubts. To be more precise, does not the efficient cause of a sacrament require human agency?
But does not a sacrament demand some form of human agency? I understand that an angel can do things which seem to us "supernatural," like diverting a bullet, pulling a man from a burning vehicle, etc., but administer sacraments? I know some of the fathers and theologians have talked about angels in this way, but I have had my doubts. To be more precise, does not the efficient cause of a sacrament require human agency?
Please correct me on anything.We've all contemplated such things, but in reality, it is with faith that we know God would never take one from this world who sincerely desires the sacrament without first providing them with the sacrament.
Is it possible that a person who dies without baptism but desiring it will go to limbo? That his sins are washed out but cannot enter heaven due to the lack of sacramental character? And also if it's possible for someone to get baptised during the general resurrection?
We've all contemplated such things, but in reality, it is with faith that we know God would never take one from this world who sincerely desires the sacrament without first providing them with the sacrament.I've had people argue for justification by BoD but not salvation using the quote from Trent, provided in the OP.
He created all of us for heaven. No human would create something that in and of itself is of more value to them than the entire universe only to let it be destroyed, so why do we even think God would?
An angel however pure and holy is still not a priest and couldn't offer mass or hear confessions or bless holy water. But I don't see why they couldn't confer baptism, which does not require the minister to be holy, or in the state of grace, or even believe in God. But allowing "invisible ministers" of sacraments kinda "waters down" (pun intended) the idea of a visible church. And that's a problem.
If God is to work a miracle, why can't he use the framework He invented in the first place? Of course he would.
Well, there's essential visibility and actual visibility...By the corporeal nature of the Sacrament itself makes the membership in the Church essentially visible, even if it's not known by anyone that this individual became incorporated into the Church.Good point.
Of course He can, but He has worked outside the normal in some cases, such as when saints have raised individuals back to life to baptize them, for various reasons of His, most likely to reinforce the necessity of the Sacrament of Baptism. St. Thomas wrote that God might send a preacher miraculously to someone in the jungle who did not place any obstacles to receiving the faith, and we have stories about Mary of Agreda bilocating to the New World to evangelize the Native Americans. So who's to know how or why God chooses to take one or another path at any given time?Yes, this was my poorly-explained point. I agree. I was trying to say that God gave us the Church and He will stick within its rules, even when He works miracles. He won't work miracles which require a change or the creation of new rules, because that would
I've had people argue for justification by BoD but not salvation using the quote from Trent, provided in the OP.Well, Trent says right there in the OP quote that justification cannot be effected without the laver of regeneration. As if to condemn a BOD, Trent goes on to immediately say "or the desire thereof," concluding with the literal meaning ("as it is written") of John 3:5. If justification cannot be effected without the sacrament, then it cannot be effected at all. Seems plain enough to me.
So just trying to get options from more learned persons.
Well, Trent says right there in the OP quote that justification cannot be effected without the laver of regeneration. As if to condemn a BOD, Trent goes on to immediately say "or the desire thereof," concluding with the literal meaning ("as it is written") of John 3:5. If justification cannot be effected without the sacrament, then it cannot be effected at all. Seems plain enough to me.
Well, that's at the very root of the debate, isn't it? Some read this passage in Trent as saying without the laver or (at least) the desire thereof, others that both are required. I find a dozen reasons that the latter is true, but then you did have St. Alphonsus and St. Robert Bellarmine taking it the other way.Yes, this is the only rebuttal that there is, i.e. that some of the saints/fathers believe it says that which it does not actually say. This is why I said it seems plain enough to me, by that I mean even if everyone else believes that it does not mean what it says.
Well, that's at the very root of the debate, isn't it? Some read this passage in Trent as saying without the laver or (at least) the desire thereof, others that both are required. I find a dozen reasons that the latter is true, but then you did have St. Alphonsus and St. Robert Bellarmine taking it the other way.
Well, Trent says right there in the OP quote that justification cannot be effected without the laver of regeneration. As if to condemn a BOD, Trent goes on to immediately say "or the desire thereof," concluding with the literal meaning ("as it is written") of John 3:5. If justification cannot be effected without the sacrament, then it cannot be effected at all. Seems plain enough to me.I bring this up because someone mentioned that for justification Trent should have used the word 'and' so we can't go without both the laver AND the desire.
I bring this up because someone mentioned that for justification Trent should have used the word 'and' so we can't go without both the laver AND the desire.
Just trying to find out if there is any doctrine that contradicts this notion of BoD only giving justification but not salvation.
St. Thomas wrote that God would go so far as to send an angel to preach the faith to someone who was invincibly ignorant and had placed no obstacles in the way of their salvation by way of sin. This is how strongly he believed that explicit Catholic faith was necessary for salvation. Why couldn't this same angel then also baptize the individual?
There is absolutely no need whatsoever to posit "exceptions" for the requirement to actually receive the Sacrament of Baptism.Right. There is not a single "proof" that BOD has happened, except for St Ambrose and Valentinian...and a further reading on this story shows Valentinian was a catechumen who was probably baptized (a common measure taken when persecution was imminent) but just not considered a full member of the Church because he had not gone through the full rites of initiation at Easter.
Well, that's at the very root of the debate, isn't it? Some read this passage in Trent as saying without the laver or (at least) the desire thereof, others that both are required. I find a dozen reasons that the latter is true, but then you did have St. Alphonsus and St. Robert Bellarmine taking it the other way.I find it extremely implausible that Trent intends to clearly deal with this question. Trent could have easily just said “if anyone doesn’t say that desire for baptism is sufficient for salvation let him be anathema” or “if anyone DOES say that desire for baptism is sufficient for salvation let him be anathema”
I find it extremely implausible that Trent intends to clearly deal with this question. Trent could have easily just said “if anyone doesn’t say that desire for baptism is sufficient for salvation let him be anathema” or “if anyone DOES say that desire for baptism is sufficient for salvation let him be anathema”Bingo.
what seems far more probable to me given the context of Trent as an anti Protestant council is that it was intending to rule against the Prot formulation of sola fide. The way I would take it is, if you don’t believe baptism is necessary AT LEAST in desire you are anathema, in which case neither pro nor anti BOD is being dealt with at Trent
I find it extremely implausible that Trent intends to clearly deal with this question. Trent could have easily just said “if anyone doesn’t say that desire for baptism is sufficient for salvation let him be anathema” or “if anyone DOES say that desire for baptism is sufficient for salvation let him be anathema”
what seems far more probable to me given the context of Trent as an anti Protestant council is that it was intending to rule against the Prot formulation of sola fide. The way I would take it is, if you don’t believe baptism is necessary AT LEAST in desire you are anathema, in which case neither pro nor anti BOD is being dealt with at Trent
I've come to the conclusion that the aversion many have to EENS is based on an incorrect and monolithic view of Hell. People see individuals who seem, at least naturally, to be "good" people, who try their best to please God, say, some Protestants. Or you hear of noble pagans here and there who live by the natural law and have much natural goodness. So it's hard for people to imagine a kind-hearted Jєωιѕн grandmother, who perhaps even gave her life for her children, burning in the inferno right next to Joe Stalin and Judas. But even the Church's EENS definitions say that the degree of suffering individuals endure in Hell is proportional to their actual sins. I posit that there are many who can be in a state approaching the natural happiness of Limbo, and that natural good deeds can offset the natural punishment do to sin, i.e. that there can be a natural washing of the punishment due to sin, to varying degrees. In other words, there may in fact be some "Native Americans" living in some "Happy Hunting Ground".
What's important is to distinguish between natural justice and the completely unmerited gift of supernatural life in the Kingdom.
I believe that this post alone would make a lot of people more open to the literal interpretation of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus.But wouldn't this view tend to take the teeth and terror out of hell? It is precisely the horrors of hell that helps to motivate the sinner to convert and avoid the tortures of hell. Actually I tend to agree with all of this you have written and it makes sense but is it up to us to preach it? Are we treading into an area that does not belong to us in order to solve a problem--but in doing so we are really causing another problem, too? And I think it's a big problem. We could cause a lot of damage to the traditional belief in the doctrine of Hell and to lukewarm souls if we are not extremely careful here; lots of tact and prudence and understanding of a soul is required if we use this explanation. I think it should not be preached as a general, casual solution to the topic in question. I can just hear some people I know say "well, if what you say is true about the different degrees of hell, I'll take my chance and maybe end up on the top shelf from the flames that are far below me." I know this is flippant but there are those who, given an inch, will take a mile. All I'm saying is that our Catholic Faith is meant to be a challenge and this lessens that challenge unless we are very, very careful. If I were to employ this solution or remedy to the present argument in a conversation I think I would immediately insert the doctrine of the fewness of the saved to kind of counteract any spirit of self-complacency my listener might have. And interestingly enough, the fear I have about the mitigation of the fires of hell causing the loss of souls is the same fear I have with the dangerous and common false notion people have of BOD--there is little or no spirit of working out "our salvation in fear and trembling", i.e., salvation is not an urgent matter, hell is not so fearful a place after all. And yes I understand the two pains of hell. The pain of loss doesn't instill fear in many, even though it is the greatest of pains. Now, we diminish the pain of sense by suggesting that even adults who die in mortal sin may not suffer a lot? I believe it--I just am confused at the moment as to how to preach it so there are no misunderstandings in my listener. Such a topic, IMO, cannot ever be covered well in a few minutes. So, meditation, prayer to the Holy Ghost, and a thorough hashing out of this subject must be employed to prevent damage to a soul. I like what Saint Thomas wrote to use for this sort of thing: "Distinguish and you will not fall into error".
Most people who advocate for Baptism of Desire probably do so because of emotional issues.
If we can picture that "good" graceless people can be "kind of happy" in Hell, then this stumbling block is removed and there is no need to come up with a especial kind of baptism to save these people from the torments.
But wouldn't this view tend to take the teeth and terror out of hell? It is precisely the horrors of hell that helps to motivate the sinner to convert and avoid the tortures of hell. Actually I tend to agree with all of this you have written and it makes sense but is it up to us to preach it?
But wouldn't this view tend to take the teeth and terror out of hell? It is precisely the horrors of hell that helps to motivate the sinner to convert and avoid the tortures of hell. Actually I tend to agree with all of this you have written and it makes sense but is it up to us to preach it? Are we treading into an area that does not belong to us in order to solve a problem--but in doing so we are really causing another problem, too? And I think it's a big problem. We could cause a lot of damage to the traditional belief in the doctrine of Hell and to lukewarm souls if we are not extremely careful here; lots of tact and prudence and understanding of a soul is required if we use this explanation. I think it should not be preached as a general, casual solution to the topic in question. I can just hear some people I know say "well, if what you say is true about the different degrees of hell, I'll take my chance and maybe end up on the top shelf from the flames that are far below me." I know this is flippant but there are those who, given an inch, will take a mile. All I'm saying is that our Catholic Faith is meant to be a challenge and this lessens that challenge unless we are very, very careful. If I were to employ this solution or remedy to the present argument in a conversation I think I would immediately insert the doctrine of the fewness of the saved to kind of counteract any spirit of self-complacency my listener might have. And interestingly enough, the fear I have about the mitigation of the fires of hell causing the loss of souls is the same fear I have with the dangerous and common false notion people have of BOD--there is little or no spirit of working out "our salvation in fear and trembling", i.e., salvation is not an urgent matter, hell is not so fearful a place after all. And yes I understand the two pains of hell. The pain of loss doesn't instill fear in many, even though it is the greatest of pains. Now, we diminish the pain of sense by suggesting that even adults who die in mortal sin may not suffer a lot? I believe it--I just am confused at the moment as to how to preach it so there are no misunderstandings in my listener. Such a topic, IMO, cannot ever be covered well in a few minutes. So, meditation, prayer to the Holy Ghost, and a thorough hashing out of this subject must be employed to prevent damage to a soul. I like what Saint Thomas wrote to use for this sort of thing: "Distinguish and you will not fall into error".
I agree. It might be dangerous to speak to people who are ignorant about the faith like this.
I'm going to post this here instead of making a new thread. But Trent Sess 6 Canon 4 was bothering me so I decided to see if the dimonds had already found some kind of solution to the aut both/or problem. And lo behold they have. (I know this group has their issues but I don't know any other place that tackles these issues)Seems that aut does mean or and both. However there is also a passage in romans that uses aut as both.
https://schismatic-home-aloner.com/baptism-of-desire-refuted-trent-sess-6-chap-4/
So according to this, Leo the Great uses 'aut' in the same manner as Trent S6 C4, and yet it can only be understood as 'both' and not 'or'. And considering that Trent immediately refers to John 3:5 it seems clear to me that 'both' was the intended meaning and not 'or'. I.e That the sacrament and desire for said sacrament are BOTH required, and not one or the other.
(https://i.imgur.com/ytMtKWO.png)
(I know this group has their issues but I don't know any other place that tackles these issues)No one ever cares to provide a disclaimer when citing Cekada, Kelly, SSPV, or anyone else who has their issues (such as dogmatic non-una cuм, Thuc invalidity, etc.), not even when sedevacantists quote Lefebvrites usually, but even people who are aligned doctrinally with the Dimonds trip over themselves to distance themselves from MHFM at any opportunity. Really makes you think.
No one ever cares to provide a disclaimer when citing Cekada, Kelly, SSPV, or anyone else who has their issues (such as dogmatic non-una cuм, Thuc invalidity, etc.), not even when sedevacantists quote Lefebvrites usually, but even people who are aligned doctrinally with the Dimonds trip over themselves to distance themselves from MHFM at any opportunity. Really makes you think.I do not want to cause scandal to someone who might end up believing that JP2 is *the* anti-christ, or end up joining their *cult* like jorge and digital logos did. There is also the issue with their followers quickly calling people heretics for stuff that wasn't even said (because they didn't read what was said properly) then refusing to apologise..
If I have to recommend someone to attend an SSPX chapel for valid sacraments, I try to give them a heads up about issues like making sure the priest is traditionally ordained, being strong against BoD/BoB/II.
I do not want to cause scandal to someone who might end up believing that JP2 is *the* anti-christ, or end up joining their *cult* like jorge and digital logos did. There is also the issue with their followers quickly calling people heretics for stuff that wasn't even said (because they didn't read what was said properly) then refusing to apologise..Honestly, the framing of jorge and other mentally unstable people idolizing the Dimonds totally uncoerced and contacting them sporadically of their own volition from the comfort of their home, while MHFM literally tries to ignore jorge's emails, as somehow constituting a cult is both disingenuous and insensitive to people who have been through actual cults.
I have never seen the dimonds own up for their mistakes and false prophecies, the ot/Iher trad groups also have their issues but they are more charitable and do not spread false prophecies.
If I have to recommend someone to attend an SSPX chapel for valid sacraments, I try to give them a heads up about issues like making sure the priest is traditionally ordained, being strong against BoD/BoB/II.
Or if they only have a sede chapel to go to, it is better for them not to go out of their way to mention BoD to them, because those sede chapels will refuse to give communion to them (a grave sin) and we should not rebuke a fool 'lest they hate you' (that is they add sin to their sins).
It is quite something that even the SSPX is more chartiable than the sedes and the dimonds. I hope and pray that the dimonds can change for the better because there is no other groups that takes on these false doctrines.
I got blocked pretty quickly by the dimonds on twitter (really makes you think) and the same with novusordowatch and other 'trads' because I deny BoB/BoD/II....
It's a rare thing to find a priest who isn't strongly FOR BoD/BoB. Some are so against it that if they find out you're a "Feeneyite" they'll deny you the Sacraments. There are others who tolerate it provided that you don't "prosletyze" your anti-BoD beliefs.The only priests that I am aware of that were against these things have already died...
Honestly, the framing of jorge and other mentally unstable people idolizing the Dimonds totally uncoerced and contacting them sporadically of their own volition from the comfort of their home, while MHFM literally tries to ignore jorge's emails, as somehow constituting a cult is both disingenuous and insensitive to people who have been through actual cults.Catholics are not supposed to prophercise... it does not help that the dimonds have changed their endtimes predictions multiple times and do not mention the 2 witnesses. It can also blind people to the real anti-christ when he comes, assuming that's in our lifetime.
If someone decides to believe JP2 is the anti-christ what difference does it make? They're going to be less ridiculed than believing in FE that's for sure. What practical consequence is there for trusting MHFM's end times timeline other than preparing yourself spiritually for judgment day?
I don't know why the Dimonds blocked you, they didn't respond to my e-mails asking some rather hard questions while they responded to other things, so there's that.
What I think the crux of the issue is this: as a true Catholic you obviously hope for everyone to arrive at the fullness of the faith and, as you admitted in this very post, pretty much the only good and extensive material against BoD/II is from MHFM. By perpetuating this overblown animosity towards them you're just doing potential converts a huge disservice.
It's a rare thing to find a priest who isn't strongly FOR BoD/BoB. Some are so against it that if they find out you're a "Feeneyite" they'll deny you the Sacraments. There are others who tolerate it provided that you don't "prosletyze" your anti-BoD beliefs.
I'm actually not opposed to BoD/BoB per se. I don't believe in it, but I acknowledge that the Church has permitted the position and even at times seemed to favor it ... though it has not taught it in any kind of authoritative Magisterium. At the end of the day, the conclusion is inescapable, if you objectively look at the history of the matter, that BoD was not part of the Deposit of Revelation, but rather a theological speculation (often made for emotional reasons) that has no solid foundation other than wishful thinking. There are also some very problematic premises behind it, i.e., that somehow God can be "bound" or thwarted by "impossibility" from getting the Sacrament to His elect. That's almost heretical, and St. Augustine said that this position must be rejected if "you wish to be Catholic".
Where I have an issue is when BoD gets extended to FoD (Faith of Desire), that someone who lacks the Catholic Faith can somehow "desire" his way into it, someone who doesn't even believe in Baptism can desire it (St. Robert Bellarmine explicitly rejected the notion that you can desire something that you're ignorant about). At that point, people slide into neo-Pelagianism and effectively reject Trent's dogmatic teaching that the Sacraments are necessary for salvation. We're at the point of "Anonymous Baptism", where you can be baptized without even knowing it. This is no different than Rahner's "Anonymous Christian", which Archbishop Lefebvre articulated almost verbatim at one point.
What puzzles me is how Trad Catholics believe that non-Catholics can be saved, which has nothing to do with whether someone who theoretically has the faith and intends to be baptized can have some graces of the Sacrament supplied. If you believe non-Catholics can be saved, as 95% of Trad clergy believe, then any and all theological opposition to Vatican II evaporate.
MAJOR: There's no salvation outside the Church. de fide
MINOR: Non-Catholics (heretics, schismatics, and infidels) can be saved. [believed by most Trads]
CONCLUSION: Non-Catholics (heretics, schismatics, and infidels) can be inside the Church.
This conclusion is inescapable. If you believe that non-Catholics can be saved, then you MUST hold that non-Catholics can be inside the Church.
This in a nutshell IS the ecclesiology of Vatican II, a Church which consists not only of a "subsistent" core of actual Catholics, but also various non-Catholics outside of that core, who are separated by varying degrees of separation depending on their degree of error. You get partial Communion, etc. And even Religious Liberty traces back to this.
If someone could convince me that non-Catholics could be saved, I would have to drop all theological opposition to Vatican II, and only the problem of the New Mass would remain.
Catholics are not supposed to prophercise... it does not help that the dimonds have changed their endtimes predictions multiple times and do not mention the 2 witnesses. It can also blind people to the real anti-christ when he comes, assuming that's in our lifetime.Also from Proverbs
If the jorge issue was only 1 person then I would not think too much of it, but there have been multiple people who have had bad experiences with their group. If the dimonds would address the issues themselves it would clear a lot of things up. There is also the issue with the so called sock puppet accounts.
They blocked me because I retweeted someone who pointed out that they failed to make the distinction that the Catholic faith is the supernatural faith (given in baptism)..
I have emailed the dimonds very few times. The first time they basically sent me an email package of links to their videos and articles. and for particular questions I got no response, so I assumed in charity that they were busy.
While I do want everyone to come to the faith and not hold these anti-Catholic positions (bod etc) we must remember what St Paul said.
- And if I should have prophecy and should know all mysteries, and all knowledge, and if I should have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.
- And if I should distribute all my goods to feed the poor, and if I should deliver my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.
- Charity is patient, is kind: charity envieth not, dealeth not perversely; is not puffed up;
- Follow after charity, be zealous for spiritual gifts; but rather that you may prophesy.
- Hatred stirreth up strifes: and charity covereth all sins. Proverbs 10:12 (https://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=22&ch=10&l=12#x)
There is 83 verses with "charity" in the new testament, and 4 in the old.
https://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/s?q=charity&x=12&y=12&b=drb&t=2
Catholics are not supposed to prophercise...MHFM never prophesied anything, they just interpret revelation and peace together saints' predictions. The anti-Dimond narrative seems to have gotten to your head since you're imagining things.
MHFM never prophesied anything, they just interpret revelation and peace together saints' predictionsPredicting the world will end by certain years isnt false prophecy?
I also wish Bro. Peter would be more charitable sometimes and dislike some of his outbursts in debates but this stigma of being a uniquely uncharitable individual is just untrue. I've listened to many conversations he had with heretics where he was patient and kind and you can notice the toning down in his recent videos such as the one about Taylor Marshall where he would've been totally justified in calling him an outright liar, heretic and schismatic but he was very measured.It's not so much about him being uniquely uncharitable (he's not *that* uncharitable). If anything their followers online are more uncharitable. Though I haven't seen them in a while, either they are avoiding me or are starting to change. Hopefully the later
It's not so much about him being uniquely uncharitable (he's not *that* uncharitable). If anything their followers online are more uncharitable. Though I haven't seen them in a while, either they are avoiding me or are starting to change. Hopefully the laterAlso I wish they would sort out their website. They have many useful articles that can only be found by searching, and if you don't know what to search for it can be difficult to find them.
Predicting the world will end by certain years isnt false prophecy?You're twisting the word prophecy. They merely said that they believe that it is possible or likely that the NT Babylonian captivity will last as long as the OT one. Me and Ladislaus also think that a significant event in 2028 is likely because of the 70 years from 1958 and because of Our Lady's wish for the Pope to consecrate Russia which would parallel the French revolution 100 years after the consecration request timeline.
It's not so much about him being uniquely uncharitable (he's not *that* uncharitable). If anything their followers online are more uncharitable. Though I haven't seen them in a while, either they are avoiding me or are starting to change. Hopefully the laterI'm glad we agree. I find most chronically online Dimond followers insufferable but those I've talked to in real life are quite normal.
Also I wish they would sort out their website. They have many useful articles that can only be found by searching, and if you don't know what to search for it can be difficult to find them.I wish most of the news was deleted from the site. Some materials are quite interesting and good to know but most of it is bothering me while searching just like you.
If it was more organised/categorised and had less worldly news it would be a big improvement.
You're twisting the word prophecy. They merely said that they believe that it is possible or likely that the NT Babylonian captivity will last as long as the OT one. Me and Ladislaus also think that a significant event in 2028 is likely because of the 70 years from 1958 and because of Our Lady's wish for the Pope to consecrate Russia which would parallel the French revolution 100 years after the consecration request timeline.I admit I am probably wrong with the 'prophecy' thing, but they should be more careful in their exegesis of revelation.
Maybe you could find the exact quote you're referring to if you still want to say they're claiming to actually know the future. Oh and btw, it still hasn't been demonstrated to be false.
I'm glad we agree. I find most chronically online Dimond followers insufferable but those I've talked to in real life are quite normal.
It's a rare thing to find a priest who isn't strongly FOR BoD/BoB. Some are so against it that if they find out you're a "Feeneyite" they'll deny you the Sacraments. There are others who tolerate it provided that you don't "prosletyze" your anti-BoD beliefs.I don't know about the Church permitting the idea, if anything I would say (imo) she has tolerated it but only to a certain extent, officially she has dogmatically condemned it ex cathedra at Trent referencing John 3:5.
I'm actually not opposed to BoD/BoB per se. I don't believe in it, but I acknowledge that the Church has permitted the position and even at times seemed to favor it
Catholics are not supposed to prophercise... it does not help that the dimonds have changed their endtimes predictions multiple times and do not mention the 2 witnesses. It can also blind people to the real anti-christ when he comes, assuming that's in our lifetime.The bruthas should not be prophesying at all, laymen are not commissioned by the Church to preach, neither should they be publishing their theological works in any format whatsoever for the simple reason (which the two of them should be well aware of) that the Church, in her divine wisdom, has never permitted lay people to do any such a thing, least ways not without the nihil obstat and imprimatur of at least one bishop.
If the jorge issue was only 1 person then I would not think too much of it, but there have been multiple people who have had bad experiences with their group. If the dimonds would address the issues themselves it would clear a lot of things up. There is also the issue with the so called sock puppet accounts.
They blocked me because I retweeted someone who pointed out that they failed to make the distinction that the Catholic faith is the supernatural faith (given in baptism)..
I have emailed the dimonds very few times. The first time they basically sent me an email package of links to their videos and articles. and for particular questions I got no response, so I assumed in charity that they were busy.
I don't know about the Church permitting the idea, if anything I would say (imo) she has tolerated it but only to a certain extent, officially she has dogmatically condemned it ex cathedra at Trent referencing John 3:5.
I have softened my view on the idea and do not hold as heretics those who believe in it, except for when they profess it to be a de fide doctrine with a multitude of spam like posts re: LOT in the past, or that website, a bod.com which imo is indeed heretical.
But for all the priests who believe in it, I cannot remember in my lifetime it ever being mentioned in a sermon except maybe once.
I remember stories about sinners who were Catholic and died and went to heaven, not because of a BOD or anything of the sort, but because of something(s) they did whilst they lived that so touched Our Blessed Mother or Our Lord many years prior to their death that God made sure that before they died they went to confession and died in sanctifying grace. I could tell some beautiful stories here, but the jist is, St. Alphonsus et al were made saints in spite of the belief and preachings of a BOD, makes me think the idea is not a mortal sin, or is perhaps only a mortal sin to those obsessed with the idea who use it specifically to defend salvation for those outside of the Church.
Or perhaps it is you who is misunderstanding what the Church teaches about BOD and not St. Alphonsus and every canonized saint, canonist, theologian, and pope for (at least) the last 450 years?
I don't know about the Church permitting the idea, if anything I would say (imo) she has tolerated it but only to a certain extent, officially she has dogmatically condemned it ex cathedra at Trent referencing John 3:5.
I have softened my view on the idea and do not hold as heretics those who believe in it, except for when they profess it to be a de fide doctrine with a multitude of spam like posts re: LOT in the past, or that website, a bod.com which imo is indeed heretical.
But for all the priests who believe in it, I cannot remember in my lifetime it ever being mentioned in a sermon except maybe once.
I remember stories about sinners who were Catholic and died and went to heaven, not because of a BOD or anything of the sort, but because of something(s) they did whilst they lived that so touched Our Blessed Mother or Our Lord many years prior to their death that God made sure that before they died they went to confession and died in sanctifying grace. I could tell some beautiful stories here, but the jist is, St. Alphonsus et al were made saints in spite of the belief and preachings of a BOD, makes me think the idea is not a mortal sin, or is perhaps only a mortal sin to those obsessed with the idea who use it specifically to defend salvation for those outside of the Church.
Church doesn't teach anything about BoD, nor can it, as it's nothing more than sheer speculation, without any foundation in the Deposit of Revelation. Their opining in its favor doesn't supply for the Church's teaching.
Saint Alphonsus and nearly every pope, saint, theologian, and canonist (post Trent) disagrees with your interpretation of Trent. I feel *very* secure siding with them and not you.
Of course, you are the same types who think it's OK to claim that infidels can be saved when every Pope, Father, Doctor, and theologian taught the contrary for 1500 years.
Wrong. I firmly believe that Infidels, heathens, heretics, apostates, and Jews cannot be saved, period.
90% of the SVs claim that V2 ecclesiology is heretical, while holding the same ecclesiology ... in believing that non-Catholics can be saved (and are therefore in the Church). It's to the point of being ridiculous.
Not me.
Many SVs, while holding that the Church cannot produce a bad or harmful Mass, reject the 1955 Holy Week Rites as ... bad and harmful.
Not me, again.
I agree with you that most traditional Catholics (including clergy) at least vocalize the error that non-Catholics can be saved. I don’t think they understand the ramifications entailed by such an erroneous belief.
It seems to me that it’s tantamount to heresy to believe that non-Catholics can be saved, but I think that those (traditional) Catholics who say such a thing, don’t actually believe that and if you were to press them on the position, most would be inclined to understand it in a way that I just described.
Do you believe that BoD remits sins? I.e it provides spirit rebirth?
Or perhaps it is you who is misunderstanding what the Church teaches about BOD and not St. Alphonsus and every canonized saint, canonist, theologian, and pope for (at least) the last 450 years?
Honestly, the framing of jorge and other mentally unstable people idolizing the Dimonds totallyI don't think mentally unstable is correct or charitable. Perhaps zealous to the point of blindness? It's understandable when you see how many other trad groups deny BoD/BoB/II... So they get drawn to the dimonds because there is no one else.
Do you believe that BoD remits sins? I.e it provides spirit rebirth?
I believe what Saint Alphonsus considers de fide. And you?
Have you seen this thread?
Baptism of Desire not defined dogma, per theological consensus (https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/baptism-of-desire-not-defined-dogma-per-theological-consensus/msg734133/#msg734133)
https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/baptism-of-desire-not-defined-dogma-per-theological-consensus/
I believe what Saint Alphonsus considers de fide. And you?St Alphonsus and St Thomas and most theologians taught that BoD does NOT remit sins. Since the council of Trent teaches that initial justification remits sins and is a spiritual rebirth, then those Saints and theologians were wrong.
St Alphonsus and St Thomas and most theologians taught that BoD does NOT remit sins. Since the council of Trent teaches that initial justification remits sins and is a spiritual rebirth, then those Saints and theologians were wrong.
You are correct. My mistake.
I think you mean to say the temporal punishment due to sin.
St Alphonsus and St Thomas and most theologians taught that BoD does NOT remit sins. Since the council of Trent teaches that initial justification remits sins and is a spiritual rebirth, then those Saints and theologians were wrong.
I think you mean to say the temporal punishment due to sin.
Or perhaps it is you who is misunderstanding what the Church teaches about BOD and not St. Alphonsus and every canonized saint, canonist, theologian, and pope for (at least) the last 450 years?Although that is certainly possible, I don't think so since a BOD is not taught by the Church. OTOH, if I am wrong and it is taught by the Church, BODers could use John 3:5 to promote it.
Although that is certainly possible, I don't think so since a BOD is not taught by the Church. OTOH, if I am wrong and it is taught by the Church, BODers could use John 3:5 to promote it.
QVD, among all the different arguments, there are 2 indisputable facts that stand out, 1) There is a contradiction between the Divine Revelation of John 3:5 and the idea of a BOD, and 2) For there to be a BOD, it is necessary that BODers completely ignore this contradiction.
St Alphonsus is wrong here. First because Trent and Florence are clear that baptismal regeneration remits guilt for sin.
St. Alphonsus de Liguori (Doctor of the Church) – 1696-1787 AD
Theologia Moralis, Lib.VI, Tract.II, Cap.I, no. 95-97:
Baptism, therefore, coming from a Greek word that means ablution or immersion in water, is distinguished into Baptism of water [“fluminis”], of desire [“flaminis” = wind] and of blood. We shall speak below of Baptism of water, which was very probably instituted before the Passion of Christ the Lord, when Christ was baptised by John. But baptism of desire is perfect conversion to God by contrition or love of God above all things accompanied by an explicit or implicit desire for true Baptism of water, the place of which it takes as to the remission of guilt, but not as to the impression of the [baptismal] character or as to the removal of all debt of punishment. It is called “of wind” [“flaminis”] because it takes place by the impulse of the Holy Ghost who is called a wind [“flamen”]. Now it is de fide that men are also saved by Baptism of desire, by virtue of the Canon Apostolicam, “de presbytero non baptizato” [Ladislaus has a big problem with this reference] and of the Council of Trent, session 6, Chapter 4 where it is said that no one can be saved “without the laver of regeneration or the desire for it.”
Pope Eugene IV, The Council of Florence, “Exultate Deo,” Nov. 22, 1439: “Holy baptism, which is the gateway to the spiritual life… The effect of this sacrament is the remission of every fault, original and actual, and also of every punishment which is owed for the fault itself. Therefore to the baptized no satisfaction is to be enjoined for past sins; but dying, before they commit any fault, they immediately (statim) attain the kingdom of heaven and the vision of God.”
Council of Trent, Sess. 5, Original Sin, # 5, ex cathedra: “If any one denies, that, by the grace of Our Lord Jesus Christ, which is conferred in baptism, the guilt of original sin is remitted; or even asserts that the whole of that which has the true and proper nature of sin is not taken away; but says that it is only erased, or not imputed; let him be anathema. FOR, IN THOSE WHO ARE BORN AGAIN, there is nothing that God hates; because, there is no condemnation to those who are truly buried together with Christ by baptism into death; who walk not according to the flesh, but, putting off the old man, and putting on the new who is created according to God, are made innocent, immaculate, pure, guiltless, and beloved of God, heirs indeed of God, but joint heirs with Christ; in such a manner that absolutely nothing may delay them from entry into heaven.”
Council of Trent, Sess. 6, Chap. 3: “But though He died for all, yet all do not receive the benefit of His death, but those only to whom the merit of His passion is communicated; because as truly as men would not be born unjust, if they were not born through propagation of the seed of Adam, since by that propagation they contract through him, when they are conceived, injustice as their own, SO UNLESS THEY WERE BORN AGAIN IN CHRIST THEY WOULD NEVER BE JUSTIFIED, since by that new birth through the merit of His passion the grace by which they become just is bestowed upon them.”https://schismatic-home-aloner.com/best-argument-baptism-desire/
Quote from: AnthonyPadua 03/09/2023, 16:11:30
I'm going to post this here instead of making a new thread. But Trent Sess 6 Canon 4 was bothering me so I decided to see if the dimonds had already found some kind of solution to the aut both/or problem. And lo behold they have. (I know this group has their issues but I don't know any other place that tackles these issues)
https://schismatic-home-aloner.com/baptism-of-desire-refuted-trent-sess-6-chap-4/
So according to this, Leo the Great uses 'aut' in the same manner as Trent S6 C4, and yet it can only be understood as 'both' and not 'or'. And considering that Trent immediately refers to John 3:5 it seems clear to me that 'both' was the intended meaning and not 'or'. I.e That the sacrament and desire for said sacrament are BOTH required, and not one or the other.
Because that, when they knew God, they have not glorified him as God, or given thanks; but became vain in their thoughts, and their foolish heart was darkened.Notice how *aut* is used here. Or is used but it means both.
Quia cuм cognovissent Deum, non sicut Deum glorificaverunt, aut gratias egerunt : sed evanuerunt in cogitationibus suis, et obscuratum est insipiens cor eorum :
St Alphonsus is wrong here. First because Trent and Florence are clear that baptismal regeneration remits guilt for sin.
https://schismatic-home-aloner.com/best-argument-baptism-desire/
The dimonds do a good job explaining this.
To say that BoD is de fide is incorrect as there is not clear definition by the Church.
It is also very off putting to believe that someone can enter heaven without the sacramental character on their soul. Without this character we cannot be sons of God.
Due to recent information I have seen I do not believe that S6C4 teaches BoD.
First this post by mhfm. Here he shows very clearly that *aut* means *both* in this decree by Pope Leo the Great. Reading this quote as *or* results in heresy, denying that Christ is *both* God *and* man.
Now scripture also uses *aut* in the same manner.
Romans 1:21
Notice how *aut* is used here. Or is used but it means both.
I also spoke with someone who knowns latin. He said that it means *or* but it means that *or* is used in the way we in English don't usually use it. It means *both and or*.
So we have 2 examples of the same usage of *aut* meaning *both*. One from scripture and one from the Church.
And finally the very fact is that S6C4 immediately refers to John 3:5. So it seems to me that Trent never had the intention to teach BoD, and that it's indeed speculation.
Also the fruit of BoD is division, and something something corrupt fruit corrupt tree.
John 3:5
Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
John 4:13-14
Jesus answered, and said to her: Whosoever drinketh of this water, shall thirst again; but he that shall drink of the water that I will give him, shall not thirst for ever: 14 But the water that I will give him, shall become in him a fountain of water, springing up into life everlasting.
John 7:37-38
And on the last, and great day of the festivity, Jesus stood and cried, saying: If any man thirst, let him come to me, and drink. 38 He that believeth in me, as the scripture saith, Out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.
1 Peter 1:23
Being born again not of corruptible seed, but incorruptible, by the word of God who liveth and remaineth for ever.
James 1:18
For of his own will hath he begotten us by the word of truth, that we might be some beginning of his creatures.
Isaias 55:1
All you that thirst, come to the waters: and you that have no money make haste, buy, and eat: come ye, buy wine and milk without money, and without any price.
Apocalypse 22:17
And the spirit and the bride say: Come. And he that heareth, let him say: Come. And he that thirsteth, let him come: and he that will, let him take the water of life, freely.
John 14:6
Jesus saith to him: I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No man cometh to the Father, but by me.
The "Holy Ghost" is self-explanatory, the Third Person of the Trinity. The "water" is Christ Himself - no one is "born again" except through (by means of) Christ and the Holy Ghost. Christ tells us this in the next chapter of John, identifying Himself with the "water" of John 3:Seems you are conflating the waters of baptism with Christ being the living water.
Of course Christ is the Word (John 1), and He is the Water:
He is the Word and the "water" (John 3:5) which we must "drink" via the Spirit (i.e, the Holy Ghost) to be "born again":
CHRIST IS THE WATER, and unless one "comes" (and is "born again") via the Water/Word of God (Christ) and the Spirit (i.e. the Holy Ghost), one cannot be "born again" to enter the Kingdom of God:
It is not overly complicated, though men make it so, arguing over "water" and "baptism."
God bless,
DR
The "Holy Ghost" is self-explanatory, the Third Person of the Trinity. The "water" is Christ Himself - no one is "born again" except through (by means of) Christ and the Holy Ghost. Christ tells us this in the next chapter of John, identifying Himself with the "water" of John 3:And this is the length one MUST go to in order to take what Christ, in no uncertain terms said, and evolve what He said into a BOD. The same goes for all other Scripture.
Of course Christ is the Word (John 1), and He is the Water:
He is the Word and the "water" (John 3:5) which we must "drink" via the Spirit (i.e, the Holy Ghost) to be "born again":
CHRIST IS THE WATER, and unless one "comes" (and is "born again") via the Water/Word of God (Christ) and the Spirit (i.e. the Holy Ghost), one cannot be "born again" to enter the Kingdom of God:
It is not overly complicated, though men make it so, arguing over "water" and "baptism."
God bless,
DR
There is an *apparent* contradiction, but not a real contradiction. This is obvious from the fact that all of the people I mentioned (for, at the very least, post Trent) never suggested that there was a contradiction.We disagree here since the debates on CI alone demonstrate that there is a real contradiction.
We disagree here since the debates on CI alone demonstrate that there is a real contradiction.
Also, St. Alphonsus and most of the other saints and Fathers who taught a BOD, in one place or another have contradicted themselves by their preaching of no salvation without the sacrament. So there's that.
Please understand, your opinion, my opinion, and the rest of the members of this forum carry no weight in the least.
DR, water baptism is not replaced by Christ. Trent condemns this proposition and says that if one “turns into a metaphor” the need for “true and natural water” for baptism, they are anathema.
Please understand, your opinion, my opinion, and the rest of the members of this forum carry no weight in the least.I totally understand that, but when Trent says justification cannot be effected without the sacrament or the desire for the sacrament as it is written in John 3:5, we are obligated to believe this, as such, we are obliged to disbelieve in a a BOD no matter who else taught it. I mean, how is it possible to believe in both after Trent saying that?
Pope St. Siricius' letter contradicts a notion of baptism of desire that some people may hold - that no unbaptized person is in danger of losing salvation if they simply desire the sacrament; but this is not the doctrine of baptism of desire held and taught by Catholic theologians. The theologians teach that justification through baptism of desire requires perfect contrition; whereas justification through the actual reception of the sacrament does not require perfect contrition. If any one in danger of death seeks baptism, perfect contrition can't be presumed. Everyone of them that die may lose salvation if they are refused the sacrament.
Your response to the Pope St. Siricius quote on the other thread typifies the problem. You stated that infants cannot be saved without the Sacrament of Baptism. But your formulation entails an implied heresy. When you say that infants cannot be saved without the Sacrament, you imply the corollary that adults can be saved "without the Sacrament". That is a heretical proposition. NO ONE can be saved without the Sacrament of Baptism. Period. At best, you can claim that some people can receive the Sacrament in voto, but in no case can anyone be saved without the Sacrament.
The way I understand the unanimous teaching regarding BOD, post Trent, is in conformity with the teachings of both St. Alphonsus and St. Robert Bellarmine, among many others.
Hogwash. I wasn't referring to your belief in BoD, nor arguing against BoD in general. I was arguing about your articulation of the position. You stated that infants cannot be saved without the Sacrament of Baptism. As you articulated it, it contains a heretical implied corollary, namely, that adults can be saved WITHOUT the Sacrament of Baptism. That is in fact heresy. No they cannot. This typifies the muddled thinking of BoDers and why this issue is such a hot mess.
NO ONE (in the new dispensation) CAN BE SAVED WITHOUT THE SACRAMENT OF BAPTISM. To say otherwise is a heretical denial of Trent.
What you should have said if you had any clear understanding of the matter would be ... Infants cannot be saved without the actual in re reception of the Sacrament of Baptism.
Hogwash. I wasn't referring to your belief in BoD, nor arguing against BoD in general. I was arguing about your articulation of the position. You stated that infants cannot be saved without the Sacrament of Baptism. As you articulated it, it contains a heretical implied corollary, namely, that adults can be saved WITHOUT the Sacrament of Baptism. That is in fact heresy. No they cannot. This typifies the muddled thinking of BoDers and why this issue is such a hot mess.
NO ONE (in the new dispensation) CAN BE SAVED WITHOUT THE SACRAMENT OF BAPTISM. To say otherwise is a heretical denial of Trent.
What you should have said if you had any clear understanding of the matter would be ... Infants cannot be saved without the actual in re reception of the Sacrament of Baptism.
No, you said that those of us who hold the doctrine of BOD must believe that it is an actual Sacrament. Can you please give me a reference for this?
Now go back and read what I wrote again. Sadly you’re looking for a fight when there is none. Of course an infant can’t be saved without the actual reception of the matter (water), form (words, I baptize thee…), and the intention. :facepalm::facepalm::facepalm:
Can adults be saved without the Sacrament of Baptism?
To answer yes is clear heresy. So you have to stop making statements where you logically imply it, such as by saying "infants cannot be saved without the Sacrament" where you're implying in context that adults can be.
I never said that and never held that. Closest thing I said was that St. Cyprian believed that BoB was the actual Sacrament. And I also rejected DR's articulation of "water" being a metaphor for Christ (also heretical). This kind of confusion demonstrates that you really don't understand Trent's theology of the Sacraments.
You're distracting from your heretical corollary. Do you believe that adults can be saved without the Sacrament of Baptism? That is what I was responding to, your statement that infants cannot be saved without the Sacrament of Baptism, the implied corollary of which is that adults can be saved without the Sacrament of Baptism.
You are twisting and completely butchering the actual citation. He referred to EACH AND EVERY ONE of them losing salvation, and not some of them.
Everyone of them that die may lose salvation if they are refused the sacrament.
St. Siricius, Pope, L. C. — "And as we proclaim that the sacred reverence due to Easter (as the time for public baptism) is nowise to be trenched upon, so is it our wish, that this help be granted, with all possible speed, in the case of infants, who are too young to speak, and also of those who are in some urgent need of the sacred waters of baptism: lest it tend to the ruin of our own souls, if from our refusing the saving font to those that seek it, any of them depart this life and lose the kingdom and (eternal) life. . . . Let it suffice that faults have hitherto been committed in this matter ; and now let the above-named rule be observed by all priests, who wish not to be rent from that solid apostolic rock, upon which Christ constituted the universal Church." — Galland. t vii. Ep. i. ad Himer. n. 3, p. 534.--- Kirk, Rev. John; Waterworth, Rev. J.; and Msgr. Capel, D.D. The Faith of Catholics (Vol.II). 2nd Ed. p.123. 1885
The way I understand the unanimous teaching regarding BOD, post Trent, is in conformity with the teachings of both St. Alphonsus and St. Robert Bellarmine, among many others. It is also my understanding that BOD supplies the necessary graces of the actual Sacrament while not being the actual Sacrament itself.Except you cannot really on the Saints for BoD because they contradicted Trent with regards to remission of temporary punishment. Those Saints say a BoD person goes to purgatory. This is a big problem if you hold their BoD. But if you BoD does remit guilt, then you don't believe what the Saints taught.
If I’m wrong about this, being a submissive child of the Church, I will gladly retract this belief. Now, in your charity, and although you hold the doctrine of BOD in contempt, can you please give me a reference from some pope, saint, or theologian that states that BOD is an actual Sacrament?
St. Alphonsus Liguori, Doctor of the Church:
"Baptism of desire is perfect conversion to God by contrition or love of God above all things accompanied by an explicit or implicit desire for true baptism of water, the place of which it takes as to the remission of guilt, but not as to the impression of the [baptismal] character or as to the removal of all debt of punishment. It is called "of wind" ["flaminis"] because it takes place by the impulse of the Holy Ghost who is called a wind ["flamen"]. 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 where it is said that no one can be saved 'without the laver of regeneration or the desire for it.'"
St. Robert Bellarmine, Doctor of the Church:
De Sacramento Baptismi, cap. 6: “...among the ancients this proposition was not so certain at first as later on: that perfect conversion and repentance is rightly called the Baptism of Desire and supplies for Baptism of water, at least in case of necessity”....."it is certainly to be believed that true conversion supplies for Baptism of water when it is not from contempt but through necessity that persons die without Baptism of water.”
Except you cannot really on the Saints for BoD because they contradicted Trent with regards to remission of temporary punishment. Those Saints say a BoD person goes to purgatory. This is a big problem if you hold their BoD. But if you BoD does remit guilt, then you don't believe what the Saints taught.I know you'd contradict St. Alphonsus but I am not so sure about the other saints. Pope Innocent III taught that BOD remits temporal punishment.
Pope Innocent III, to the Bishop of Metz, Aug. 28, 1206: “We respond that, since there should be a distinction between the one baptizing and the one baptized, as is clearly gathered from the words of the Lord, when he says to the Apostles: ‘Go, baptize all nations in the name etc.,” the Jew mentioned must be baptized again by another, that it may be shown that he who is baptized is one person, and he who baptizes another...If, however, such a one had died immediately, he would have rushed to his heavenly home without delay because of the faith of the sacrament, although not because of the sacrament of faith.”
Except you cannot really on the Saints for BoD because they contradicted Trent with regards to remission of temporary punishment. Those Saints say a BoD person goes to purgatory. This is a big problem if you hold their BoD. But if you BoD does remit guilt, then you don't believe what the Saints taught.
How is it that all the Popes, saints, theologians, and canonists missed the contradiction, but you and Lad found it some 450 years later?I only know because others have pointed it out. Also the saints did not have access to the tool called the internet. Perhaps God allowed them to be blind to this? It certainly wouldn't have happened unless he permitted it.
I only know because others have pointed it out. Also the saints did not have access to the tool called the internet. Perhaps God allowed them to be blind to this? It certainly wouldn't have happened unless he permitted it.That's right, when Trent says justification cannot be effected without the sacrament or the desire for the sacrament as it is written in John 3:5, we are bound under pain of mortal sin to believe this, as such, we are obliged to disbelieve in a BOD no matter who else taught it. I mean, how is it possible to believe in both after Trent saying that?
Also obviously no man is infallible, the saints have made mistakes before, this is just one of them. Human respect also blinds people. Perfect example is Augustinism.
I only know because others have pointed it out. Also the saints did not have access to the tool called the internet. Perhaps God allowed them to be blind to this? It certainly wouldn't have happened unless he permitted it.
Also obviously no man is infallible, the saints have made mistakes before, this is just one of them. Human respect also blinds people. Perfect example is Augustinism.
Unlike every pope, saint, theologian, and canonist, your and your internet friend’s opinion carries absolutely no weight.Pope Siricius' statement is more than enough to disprove BoD.
“obviously no man is infallible, the saints have made mistakes before”
Is it possible that you and a few others are the ones who have made a mistake?
“Human respect also blinds people. Perfect example is Augustinism.”
Pride is even more apt to blind the minds of people. Luther was a great example of that.
I’ll place my bet on the side of every pope, saint, theologian, and canonist.
Pope Siricius' statement is more than enough to disprove BoD.
One infallible statement > any amount of popes, saints and theologians.
You should place your bet on God's guarantee (infallibility) rather than the on opinions of men.
How is it that all the Popes, saints, theologians, and canonists missed the contradiction, but you and Lad found it some 450 years later?Pope St Siricius' (died 399) understanding of the necessity of water baptism, and the rejection of BOD, is consistent with 99% of the Church Fathers. The main exception being St Augustine, who went back and forth on the topic, but in the end, rejected BOD. The entire "BOD question" originated with those who read St Augustine's pro-BOD position and theorized (but did not teach) that it might be possible.
Pope St Siricius' (died 399) understanding of the necessity of water baptism, and the rejection of BOD, is consistent with 99% of the Church Fathers. The main exception being St Augustine, who went back and forth on the topic, but in the end, rejected BOD. The entire "BOD question" originated with those who read St Augustine's pro-BOD position and theorized (but did not teach) that it might be possible.
From St Thomas, to St Bellarmine, to St Alphonsus --- all cite St Augustine. But St Augustine isn't enough for something to be "of Tradition". For something to be a doctrine, it must be traced back to Apostolic teachings, or Scripture. There's nothing in Scripture to support BOD and most of the Church Fathers rejected it (i.e. Apostolic teaching is against it).
Neither did Trent define it as a doctrine. Neither did Trent make the case that it is Traditional, or Scriptural, or Apostolic. In fact, Trent's quote of Scripture (where the Holy Ghost and water are necessary) condemns the whole idea. Trent's example of the 2 requirements for Baptism (i.e. Holy Ghost and water) correspond to the "desire" and the "sacrament" both being necessary. Not one or the other.
Lad:Trent taught that justification cannot be effected without the sacrament or the desire for the sacrament as it is written in John 3:5. Are we bound under pain of mortal sin to believe this?
Can those who die in the state of grace be damned?
for 450 years!So you object to the period of 450 years. But if you're correct, then most of the Church Fathers are wrong, which means that for the period of 1,300 years, (early Church to St Thomas), that God allowed error.
So you object to the period of 450 years. But if you're correct, then most of the Church Fathers are wrong, which means that for the period of 1,300 years, (early Church to St Thomas), that God allowed error.
Which is worse - 1,300 years of error or 450 years?
Either way, God allowed a "predominate" view for a long period, and both periods directly contradict each other. Solution?
1. It's not a settled matter.
2. It's certainly not doctrine.
3. I'd trust the Church Fathers long, long, long before I'd trust the theologians post Trent, who were few and far between and were dealing with the ravages of Protestant error.
So basically you people want everyone to believe that Almighty God used His Church and ALL of His popes, saints, theologians, and canonists to lead ALL of the faithful astray for 450 years! Such a belief is not only ridiculous, but is tantamount to heresy.That's not what I want at all, why would you think such a thing?
That's not what I want at all, why would you think such a thing?
I want an answer is all. I mean, it's basically an "either, or" question.
By that I mean, it's a matter of if we believe in a BOD then we must reject Trent. If we believe Trent then we must reject a BOD. They cannot both be right. It's really not complicated.
So you object to the period of 450 years. But if you're correct, then most of the Church Fathers are wrong, which means that for the period of 1,300 years, (early Church to St Thomas), that God allowed error.
Which is worse - 1,300 years of error or 450 years?
Either way, God allowed a "predominate" view for a long period, and both periods directly contradict each other. Solution?
1. It's not a settled matter.
2. It's certainly not doctrine.
3. I'd trust the Church Fathers long, long, long before I'd trust the theologians post Trent, who were few and far between and were dealing with the ravages of Protestant error.
Quo, do you accuse the Trad clergy who (and I can't think of one who doesn't and who isn't at the same time a Feeneyite) assert that infidels can be saved without explicit knowledge of Jesus Christ and the Holy Trinity?
No, for 1300 (?) years it was *disputed*.
For 450 years it was taught without exception with many of the Ecclesia docens teaching that it was de fide. HUGE HUGE difference!Untrue. Plenty of theologians in the 1700/1800s were strict anti-BOD. You just ignore anyone not name St Alphonsus (who, btw, contradicted Trent).
every single Catholic, whether they were part of the Church teaching or part of the Church believing, held the doctrine of BOD. PeriodThis is one of the most ludicrous statements i've ever read.
?? The only pro-BOD advocate was St Augustine. Until he recanted. St Thomas floated an opinion. If anything, the majority opinion was anti-BOD.
Untrue. Plenty of theologians in the 1700/1800s were strict anti-BOD. You just ignore anyone not name St Alphonsus (who, btw, contradicted Trent).
This is one of the most ludicrous statements i've ever read.
Please give me the names and references.
Not from 1700s, but St. Peter Canisius rejected BoD. He was actually a theologian at Trent who spoke a couple times during the Council, and in his Catechism (written after Trent), he footnotes the alleged "BoD" passage from Trent with 2 citations from the Church Fathers that reject the possibility of salvation for catechumens. Interesting selection of quotations to explain a passage that allegedly teaches BoD.
But, again, so what, if most theologians believed in BoD the past couple hundreds years? They're not the Magisterium. In fact, when Father Cekada surveyed theologians, he only found about 2 dozen who even mentioned it, most of them merely in passing: "Yep. BoD. Next point." That's it. There has been no theological analysis of the subject since probably St. Thomas (pre Trent) and St. Robert Bellarmine.
Please give me the names and references.Archbishop George Hay (d 1811) wrote extensively on the strict application of EENS. Fr Wathen quoted him in multiple pages, in his book "Who Shall Ascend?".
Archbishop George Hay (d 1811) wrote extensively on the strict application of EENS. Fr Wathen quoted him in multiple pages, in his book "Who Shall Ascend?".
St Alphonsus upheld strict EENS. But he also *appeared* not to. Either way, he contradicted Trent and said that BOD'ers would have to go to purgatory, while Trent said (infallibly) that the justified go directly to heaven.
There are others but I don't have a list.
Please cite the reference from Saint Peter Canisius.
I suggest you read it, because it explains precisely the correct interpretation of EENS and BOD.
No, the correct interpretation of BoD is that there's no such thing. I'll take the unanimous teaching of the Church Fathers against it over the musings of Bishop Hay ... as St. Augustine retracted it and St. Ambrose rejected it also (cited by St. Peter Canisius), with his reference to Valentinian being wrongly interpreted.
9:32 - 12:30 in the video below. St. Peter, Doctor of the Church, in attendance at Trent as a theologian, who spoke twice at the Council, cites not only the famous "BoD" passage but in the same footnote, one passage from St. Augustine and another from St. Ambrose stating that no matter how good / pious / devout a Catechumen might be, he cannot be saved. That would be rather odd to do, to cite St. Augustine and St. Ambrose directly contradicting the possibility of justification by desire in the SAME footnote (explaining the necessity of Baptism for adults) if that passage actually taught Baptism of Desire. As the Brothers point out elsewhere in the video (I don't agree with every point they make, especially their discussion of "necessity"), nowhere in an extremely large Catechism does St. Peter ever mention Baptism of Desire or Baptism of Blood, though he had ample opportunity to do so. But the citations in that footnote are conclusive that St. Peter most certainly did not read this passage as teaching BoD. He would be juxtaposing it with 2 citations that directly contradict BoD and therefore contradicting this very passage from Trent. Not possible.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LCfbFDcIGSw
So basically you people want everyone to believe that Almighty God used His Church and ALL of His popes, saints, theologians, and canonists to lead ALL of the faithful astray for 450 years! Such a belief is not only ridiculous, but is tantamount to heresy.Allowed not used. God permits us to err since we have free will. He still brings much good out of it.
Here's a quick 21 popes, saints, fathers, and doctors of the Church who say you're wrong:I'll debunk this later today when I'm at my computer but you are using Pius IX like the modernists. He did not teach salvation by invincible ignorance.
Baptism of Blood and of Desire
From the teachings of the Popes, the Council of Trent, the 1917 Code of Canon Law, the Roman Martyrology,
the Fathers, Doctors and Theologians of the Church
1. COUNCIL OF TRENT (1545-1563)
Canons on the Sacraments in General (Canon 4):
“If anyone shall say that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation, but are superfluous, and that although all are not necessary for every individual, without them or without the desire of them (sine eis aut eorum voto), through faith alone men obtain from God the grace of justiflcation; let him be anathema.”
Decree on Justification (Session 6, Chapter 4):
“In these words a description of the justification of a sinner is given as being a translation from that state in which man is born a child of the first Adam to the state of grace and of the ‘adoption of the Sons’ (Rom. 8:15) of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Savior and this translation after the promulgation of the Gospel cannot be effected except through the laver of regeneration or a desire for it, (sine lavacro regenerationis aut eius voto) as it is written: ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter in the kingdom of God’ (John 3:5).”
2. ST. ALPHONSUS LIGUORI (1691-1787)
Moral Theology (Bk. 6):
“But baptism of desire is perfect conversion to God by contrition or love of God above all things accompanied by an explicit or implicit desire for true Baptism of water, the place of which it takes as to the remission of guilt, but not as to the impression of the [baptismal] character or as to the removal of all debt of punishment. It is called “of wind␅ [flaminis] because it takes place by the impulse of the Holy Ghost Who is called a wind [flamen]. 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 the Council of Trent, Session 6, Chapter 4, where it is said that no one can be saved “without the laver of regeneration or the desire for it.”
3. 1917 CODE OF CANON LAW On Ecclesiastical Burial (Canon 1239. 2)
“Catechumens who, through no fault of their own, die without Baptism, are to be treated as baptized.” — The Sacred Canons
by Rev. John A. Abbo. St.T.L., J.C.D., and Rev. Jerome D. Hannan, A.M., LL.B., S.T.D., J.C.D.
Commentary on the Code:
“The reason for this rule is that they are justly supposed to have met death united to Christ through Baptism of desire.”
4. POPE INNOCENT III
Apostolicam:
To your inquiry we respond thus: We assert without hesitation (on the authority of the holy Fathers Augustine and Ambrose) that the priest whom you indicated (in your letter) had died without the water of baptism, because he persevered in the faith of Holy Mother the Church and in the confession of the name of Christ, was freed from original sin and attained the joy of the heavenly fatherland. Read (brother) in the eighth book of Augustine’s City of God where among other things it is written, “Baptism is ministered invisibly to one whom not contempt of religion but death excludes.” Read again the book also of the blessed Ambrose concerning the death of Valentinian where he says the same thing. Therefore, to questions concerning the dead, you should hold the opinions of the learned Fathers, and in your church you should join in prayers and you should have sacrifices offered to God for the priest mentioned (Denzinger 388).
Debitum pastoralis officii, August 28, 1206:
You have, to be sure, intimated that a certain Jew, when at the point of death, since he lived only among Jews, immersed himself in water while saying: “I baptize myself in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.”
We respond that, since there should be a distinction between the one baptizing and the one baptized, as is clearly gathered from the words of the Lord, when He says to the Apostles: “Go baptize all nations in the name etc.” (cf. Matt. 28:19), the Jew mentioned must be baptized again by another, that it may be shown that he who is baptized is one person, and he who baptizes another… If, however, such a one had died immediately, he would have rushed off to his heavenly home without delay because of the faith of the sacrament, although not because of the sacrament of faith (Denzinger 413).
5. POPE ST. PIUS V (1566-1572)
Ex omnibus afflictionibus, October 1, 1567
Condemned the following erroneous propositions of Michael du Bay:
- Perfect and sincere charity, which is from a “pure heart and good conscience and a faith not feigned” (1 Tim. 1:5) can be in catechumens as well as in penitents without the remission of sins.
- That charity which is the fullness of the law is not always connected with the remission of sins.
- A catechumen lives justly and rightly and holily, and observes the commandments of God, and fulfills the law through charity, which is only received in the laver of Baptism, before the remission of sins has been obtained.
6. ST. AMBROSE
“I hear you express grief because he [Valentinian] did not receive the Sacrament of Baptism. Tell me, what else is there in us except the will and petition? But he had long desired to be initiated… and expressed his intention to be baptized… Surely, he received [it] because he asked [for it].”
7. ST. AUGUSTINE, City of God
“I do not hesitate to place the Catholic catechumen, who is burning with the love of God, before the baptized heretic… The centurion Cornelius, before Baptism, was better than Simon [Magus], who had been baptized. For Cornelius, even before Baptism, was filled with the Holy Ghost, while Simon, after Baptism, was puffed up with an unclean spirit” (De Bapt. C. Donat., IV 21).
8. ST. THOMAS AQUINAS
Summa, Article 1, Part III, Q. 68:
“I answer that, the sacrament of Baptism may be wanting to someone in two ways. First, both in reality and in desire; as is the case with those who neither are baptized, nor wished to be baptized: which clearly indicates contempt of the sacrament, in regard to those who have the use of the free will. Consequently those to whom Baptism is wanting thus, cannot obtain salvation: since neither sacramentally nor mentally are they incorporated in Christ, through Whom alone can salvation be obtained.
“Secondly, the sacrament of Baptism may be wanting to anyone in reality but not in desire: for instance, when a man wishes to be baptized, but by some ill-chance he is forestalled by death before receiving Baptism. And such a man can obtain salvation without being actually baptized, on account of his desire for Baptism, which desire is the outcome of faith that worketh by charity, whereby God, Whose power is not yet tied to visible sacraments, sanctifies man inwardly. Hence Ambrose says of Valentinian, who died while yet a catechumen: ‘I lost him whom I was to regenerate: but he did not lose the graces he prayed for.’”
9. ST. ROBERT BELLARMINE, Doctor of the Church (1542-1621)
Liber II, Caput XXX:
“Boni Catehecuмeni sunt de Ecclesia, interna unione tantum, non autem externa”(Good catechumens are of the Church, by internal union only, not however, by external union).
10. Roman Martyrology
January 23: At Rome, St. Emerentiana, Virgin and Martyr, who was stoned by the heathen while still a catechumen, when she was praying at the tomb of St. Agnes, whose foster-sister she was.
April 12: At Braga, in Portugal, St. Victor, Martyr, who, while still yet a catechumen, refused to worship an idol, and confessed Christ Jesus with great constancy, and so after many torments, he merited to be baptized in his own blood, his head being cut off.
11. POPE PIUS IX (1846-1878) — Singulari Quidem, 1856:
174. “It must, of course, be held as a matter of faith that outside the apostolic Roman Church no one can be saved, that the Church is the only ark of salvation, and that whoever does not enter it will perish in the flood. On the other hand, it must likewise be held as certain that those who are affected by ignorance of the true religion, if it is invincible ignorance, are not subject to any guilt in this matter before the eyes of the Lord. Now, then, who could presume in himself an ability to set the boundaries of such ignorance, taking into consideration the natural differences of peoples, lands, native talents, and so many other factors? Only when we have been released from the bonds of this body and see God just as He is (see John 3:2) all we really understand how close and beautiful a bond joins divine mercy with divine justice.”
Quanto Conficiamur Moerore (1863):
“…We all know that those who are afflicted with invincible ignorance with regard to our holy religion, if they carefully keep the precepts of the natural law that have been written by God in the hearts of men, if they are prepare to obey God, and if they lead a virtuous and dutiful life, can attain eternal life by the power of divine light and grace.”
12. POPE PIUS XII (1939-1958) — Mystical Body of Christ (June 29, 1943):
“As you know, Venerable Brethren, from the very beginning of Our Pontificate We have committed to the protection and guidance of heaven those who do not belong to the visible organization of the Catholic Church, solemnly declaring that after the example of the Good Shepherd We desire nothing more ardently than that they may have life and have it more abundantly… For even though unsuspectingly they are related to the Mystical Body of the Redeemer in desire and resolution, they still remain deprived of so many precious gifts and helps from heaven, which one can only enjoy in the Catholic Church.”
13. FR. A. TANQUERY, Dogmatic Brevior; ART. IV, Section I, II – 1945 (1024-1)
The Baptism of Desire. Contrition, or perfect charity, with at least an implicit desire for Baptism, supplies in adults the place of the baptism of water as respects the forgiveness of sins.
This is certain.
Explanation: a) An implicit desire for Baptism, that is, one that is included in a general purpose of keeping all the commandments of God is, as all agree, sufficient in one who is invincibly ignorant of the law of Baptism; likewise, according to the more common opinion, in one who knows the necessity of Baptism.
b) Perfect charity, with a desire for Baptism, forgives original sin and actual sins, and therefore infuses sanctifying grace; but it does not imprint the Baptismal character and does not of itself remit the whole temporal punishment due for sin; whence, when the Unity offers, the obligation remains on
one who was sanctified in this manner of receiving the Baptism of water.
14. FR. DOMINIC PRUMMER, O.P., Moral Theology, 1949:
- “Baptism of Desire which is a perfect act of charity that includes at least implicitly the desire for Baptism by water”;
- “Baptism of Blood which signifies martyrdom endured for Christ prior to the reception of Baptism by Water”;
- “Regarding the effects of Baptism of Blood and Baptism of Desire… both cause sanctifying grace. …Baptism of Blood usually remits all venial sin and temporal punishment…”
15. FR. FRANCIS O’CONNELL, Outlines of Moral Theology, 1953:
- “Baptism of Desire… is an act of divine charity or perfect contrition…”
- “These means (i.e. Baptism of Blood and Desire) presuppose in the recipient at least the implicit will to receive the sacrament.”
- “…Even an infant can gain the benefit of the Baptism of Blood if he is put to death by a person actuated by hatred for the Christian faith….”
16. MGR. J. H. HERVE, Manuale Theologiae Dogmaticae (Vol. III: chap. IV), 1931
II. On those for whom Baptism of water can be supplied:
The various baptisms: from the Tridentinum itself and from the things stated, it stands firm that Baptism is necessary, yet in fact or in desire; therefore in an extraordinary case it can be supplied. Further, according to the Catholic doctrine, there are two things by which the sacrament of Baptism can be supplied: namely, an act of perfect charity with the desire of Baptism, and the death as martyr. Since these two are a compensation for Baptism of water, they themselves are called Baptism, too, in order that they may be comprehended with it under one, as it were, generic name, so the act of love with desire for Baptism is called Baptismus flaminis (Baptism of the Spirit) and the martyrium (Baptism of Blood).
17. FR. H. NOLDEN, S.J., FR. A. SCHMIT, S.J. — Summa theologiae moralis (Vol. III de Sacramentis), Book 2 Quaestio prima, 1921
Baptism of spirit (flaminis) is perfect charity or contrition, in which the desire in fact to receive the sacrament of Baptism is included; perfect charity and perfect contrition, however, have the power to confer sanctifying grace.
18. FR. ARTHUR VERMEERSCH, S.J., Theologiae Moralis (Vol. III), Tractatus II,1948:
The Baptism of spirit (flaminis) is an act of perfect charity or contrition, in so far as it contains at least a tacit desire of the Sacrament. Therefore it can be had only in adults. It does not imprint a character; …but it takes away all mortal sin together with the sentence of eternal penalty, according to: “He who loves me, is loved by my Father” (John 14:21).
19. FR. LUDOVICO BILLOT, S.J., De Ecclesiae Sacmmentis (Vol. I); Quaestio LXVI; Thesis XXIV – 1931:
Baptism of spirit (flaminis), which is also called of repentance or of desire, is nothing else than an act of charity or perfect contrition including a desire of the Sacrament, according to what has been said above, namely that the heart of everyone is moved by the Holy Ghost to believe, and to love God, and to be sorry for his sins.
20. FR. ALOYSIA SABETTI, S.J., FR. TIMOTHEO BARRETT, S.J., Compendium Theologiae Moralis, Tractatus XII [De Baptismo, Chapter I, 1926:
Baptism, the gate and foundation of the Sacraments, in fact or at least in desire, is necessary for all unto salvation…
From the Baptism of water, which is called of river (Baptismus fluminis), is from Baptism of the Spirit (Baptismus flaminis) and Baptism of Blood, by which Baptism properly speaking can be supplied, if this be impossible. The first one is a full conversion to God through perfect contrition or charity, in so far as it contains an either explicit or at least implicit will to receive Baptism of water… Baptism of Spirit (flaminis) and Baptism of Blood are called Baptism of desire (in voto).
21. FR. EDUARDUS GENICOT, S.]., Theologiae Moralis Institutiones (Vol. II),Tractatus XII, 1902
Baptism of the Spirit (flaminis) consists in an act of perfect charity or contrition, with which there is always an infusion of sanctifying grace connected…
Both are called “of desire” (in voto)…; perfect charity, because it has always connected the desire, at least the implicit one, of receiving this sacrament, absolutely necessary for salvation.
Come on.... It's literally a footnote in regards to session 6 canon 4.
That’s a stretch, he could be citing those passages for other reasons. At the very best it’s circuмstantial evidence.
Come on.... It's literally a footnote in regards to session 6 canon 4.If a theologian who attended and spoke at Trent taught that the council taught BOD, would it affect your view?
If Trent really taught BoD then the theologian who attended and spoke at Trent would have mentioned it. Instead he disproves it.
If a theologian who attended and spoke at Trent taught that the council taught BOD, would it affect your view?No because I cannot put anything fallible above an infallible statement (Pope Siricius). There is much more evidence against BoD than for it.
Here's a quick 21 popes, saints, fathers, and doctors of the Church who say you're wrong:My responses in red.
Baptism of Blood and of Desire
From the teachings of the Popes, the Council of Trent, the 1917 Code of Canon Law, the Roman Martyrology,
the Fathers, Doctors and Theologians of the Church
1. COUNCIL OF TRENT (1545-1563)
Canons on the Sacraments in General (Canon 4):
“If anyone shall say that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation, but are superfluous, and that although all are not necessary for every individual, without them or without the desire of them (sine eis aut eorum voto), through faith alone men obtain from God the grace of justiflcation; let him be anathema.”
This statement clearly means both are needed, "without them or without the desire of them'.
Decree on Justification (Session 6, Chapter 4):
“In these words a description of the justification of a sinner is given as being a translation from that state in which man is born a child of the first Adam to the state of grace and of the ‘adoption of the Sons’ (Rom. 8:15) of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Savior and this translation after the promulgation of the Gospel cannot be effected except through the laver of regeneration or a desire for it, (sine lavacro regenerationis aut eius voto) as it is written: ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter in the kingdom of God’ (John 3:5).”
Similar to above but without the 'without' before desire. More ambiguous however already dealt with earlier. Aut can mean both and or. An example from scripture and Pope Leo the Great was provided earlier. Plus John 3:5 is immediately said making 'both' the most likely meaning for Trent. Note this meaning for Aut can also apply above in Sacraments in General Canon 4 (though the extra without makes it more obvious)
2. ST. ALPHONSUS LIGUORI (1691-1787)
Moral Theology (Bk. 6):
“But baptism of desire is perfect conversion to God by contrition or love of God above all things accompanied by an explicit or implicit desire for true Baptism of water, the place of which it takes as to the remission of guilt, but not as to the impression of the [baptismal] character or as to the removal of all debt of punishment. It is called “of wind␅ [flaminis] because it takes place by the impulse of the Holy Ghost Who is called a wind [flamen]. 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 the Council of Trent, Session 6, Chapter 4, where it is said that no one can be saved “without the laver of regeneration or the desire for it.”
This was already addressed earlier in the thread. A Saint claming de fide doesn't make something de fide. Only 7 theologians of the 25 thought it was de fide (as per the thread linked earlier). Also St Alphonsus was wrong because his BoD does not remit punishment for sin.
3. 1917 CODE OF CANON LAW On Ecclesiastical Burial (Canon 1239. 2)
“Catechumens who, through no fault of their own, die without Baptism, are to be treated as baptized.” — The Sacred Canons
by Rev. John A. Abbo. St.T.L., J.C.D., and Rev. Jerome D. Hannan, A.M., LL.B., S.T.D., J.C.D.
Commentary on the Code:
“The reason for this rule is that they are justly supposed to have met death united to Christ through Baptism of desire.”
The canons are not infallible, there are several other canons that contradict Church teaching.
4. POPE INNOCENT III
Apostolicam:
To your inquiry we respond thus: We assert without hesitation (on the authority of the holy Fathers Augustine and Ambrose) that the priest whom you indicated (in your letter) had died without the water of baptism, because he persevered in the faith of Holy Mother the Church and in the confession of the name of Christ, was freed from original sin and attained the joy of the heavenly fatherland. Read (brother) in the eighth book of Augustine’s City of God where among other things it is written, “Baptism is ministered invisibly to one whom not contempt of religion but death excludes.” Read again the book also of the blessed Ambrose concerning the death of Valentinian where he says the same thing. Therefore, to questions concerning the dead, you should hold the opinions of the learned Fathers, and in your church you should join in prayers and you should have sacrifices offered to God for the priest mentioned (Denzinger 388).
Debitum pastoralis officii, August 28, 1206:
You have, to be sure, intimated that a certain Jew, when at the point of death, since he lived only among Jews, immersed himself in water while saying: “I baptize myself in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.”
We respond that, since there should be a distinction between the one baptizing and the one baptized, as is clearly gathered from the words of the Lord, when He says to the Apostles: “Go baptize all nations in the name etc.” (cf. Matt. 28:19), the Jew mentioned must be baptized again by another, that it may be shown that he who is baptized is one person, and he who baptizes another… If, however, such a one had died immediately, he would have rushed off to his heavenly home without delay because of the faith of the sacrament, although not because of the sacrament of faith (Denzinger 413).
Innocent III was wrong here, as was he when he said circuмcision remitted original sin (contradicted by Trent S6C1).
Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, Constitution 1, 1215, ex cathedra: “There is indeed one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which nobody at all is saved, in which Jesus Christ is both priest and sacrifice.”
Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, Constitution 1, 1215, ex cathedra: “But the sacrament of baptism is consecrated in water at the invocation of the undivided Trinity – namely, Father, Son and Holy Ghost – and brings salvation to both children and adults when it is correctly carried out by anyone in the form laid down by the Church.”
“In The Mourning of the Dove, St. Robert Bellarmine (+ c. 1600) tells us about a person appearing to St. Lutgarde all clothed in flame and in much pain. When St. Lutgarde asked him who he was, he answered her: ‘I am [Pope] Innocent III, who should have been condemned to eternal Hell-fire for several grievous sins, had not the Mother of God interceded for me in my agony and obtained for me the grace of repentance. Now I am destined to suffer in Purgatory till the End of the World, unless you help me. Once again the Mother of Mercy has allowed me to come to ask you for your prayers.’”
5. POPE ST. PIUS V (1566-1572)
Ex omnibus afflictionibus, October 1, 1567
Condemned the following erroneous propositions of Michael du Bay:
- Perfect and sincere charity, which is from a “pure heart and good conscience and a faith not feigned” (1 Tim. 1:5) can be in catechumens as well as in penitents without the remission of sins.
- That charity which is the fullness of the law is not always connected with the remission of sins.
- A catechumen lives justly and rightly and holily, and observes the commandments of God, and fulfills the law through charity, which is only received in the laver of Baptism, before the remission of sins has been obtained.
This is quite dishonest to assert that this has anything to do with BoD. The dimonds do a good job showing why.
https://schismatic-home-aloner.com/errors-of-michael-du-bay/
6. ST. AMBROSE
“I hear you express grief because he [Valentinian] did not receive the Sacrament of Baptism. Tell me, what else is there in us except the will and petition? But he had long desired to be initiated… and expressed his intention to be baptized… Surely, he received [it] because he asked [for it].”
This is also dishonest as it cuts off St Ambrose' words.
"if the fact disturbs you that the mysteries have not been solemnly celebrated, then you should realize that not even martyrs are crowned if they are catechumens, for they are not crowned if they are not initiated. But if they are washed in their own blood, his piety and desire have washed him, also.”
Ambrose also seemingly contradicts himself by saying "his piety and desire have washed him, also". Clearly this contradictory and emotional statement is not proof for BoD.
Here are some other statement by Ambrose which refute BoD/BoB.
St. Ambrose, De mysteriis, 390-391 A.D.: “You have read, therefore, that the three witnesses in Baptism are one: water, blood, and the spirit; and if you withdraw any one of these, the Sacrament of Baptism is not valid. For what is water without the cross of Christ? A common element without any sacramental effect. Nor on the other hand is there any mystery of regeneration without water: for ‘unless a man be born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.’ [John 3:5] Even a catechumen believes in the cross of the Lord Jesus, by which also he is signed; but, unless he be baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, he cannot receive the remission of sins nor be recipient of the gift of spiritual grace.”
St. Ambrose, The Duties of Clergy, 391 A.D.: “The Church was redeemed at the price of Christ’s blood. Jew or Greek, it makes no difference; but if he has believed he must circuмcise himself from his sins so that he can be saved;...for no one ascends into the kingdom of heaven except through the Sacrament of Baptism.”
St. Ambrose, The Duties of Clergy, 391 A.D.: “Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.’ No one is excepted: not the infant, not the one prevented by some necessity.
7. ST. AUGUSTINE, City of God
“I do not hesitate to place the Catholic catechumen, who is burning with the love of God, before the baptized heretic… The centurion Cornelius, before Baptism, was better than Simon [Magus], who had been baptized. For Cornelius, even before Baptism, was filled with the Holy Ghost, while Simon, after Baptism, was puffed up with an unclean spirit” (De Bapt. C. Donat., IV 21).
This has nothing to do with BoD.
8. ST. THOMAS AQUINAS
Summa, Article 1, Part III, Q. 68:
“I answer that, the sacrament of Baptism may be wanting to someone in two ways. First, both in reality and in desire; as is the case with those who neither are baptized, nor wished to be baptized: which clearly indicates contempt of the sacrament, in regard to those who have the use of the free will. Consequently those to whom Baptism is wanting thus, cannot obtain salvation: since neither sacramentally nor mentally are they incorporated in Christ, through Whom alone can salvation be obtained.
“Secondly, the sacrament of Baptism may be wanting to anyone in reality but not in desire: for instance, when a man wishes to be baptized, but by some ill-chance he is forestalled by death before receiving Baptism. And such a man can obtain salvation without being actually baptized, on account of his desire for Baptism, which desire is the outcome of faith that worketh by charity, whereby God, Whose power is not yet tied to visible sacraments, sanctifies man inwardly. Hence Ambrose says of Valentinian, who died while yet a catechumen: ‘I lost him whom I was to regenerate: but he did not lose the graces he prayed for.’”
St Thomas was wrong and contradicts Trent.
St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica III, Q. 68, Art. 2: “… it seems that a man can obtain salvation without the sacrament of Baptism, by means of the invisible sanctification…”
The dimonds address on St Thomas and 3 baptisms is worth the read.
https://schismatic-home-aloner.com/st-thomas-aquinas-baptism-of-desire/
9. ST. ROBERT BELLARMINE, Doctor of the Church (1542-1621)
Liber II, Caput XXX:
“Boni Catehecuмeni sunt de Ecclesia, interna unione tantum, non autem externa”(Good catechumens are of the Church, by internal union only, not however, by external union).
Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis (# 22), June 29, 1943: “Actually only those are to be numbered among the members of the Church who have received the laver of regeneration and profess the true faith.”
Earlier Lad provided a quote showing that St Robert allowed his emotions to get the better of him.
https://schismatic-home-aloner.com/msgr-fenton-joseph-clifford-book/
10. Roman Martyrology
January 23: At Rome, St. Emerentiana, Virgin and Martyr, who was stoned by the heathen while still a catechumen, when she was praying at the tomb of St. Agnes, whose foster-sister she was.
April 12: At Braga, in Portugal, St. Victor, Martyr, who, while still yet a catechumen, refused to worship an idol, and confessed Christ Jesus with great constancy, and so after many torments, he merited to be baptized in his own blood, his head being cut off.
The Roman Breviary is not infallible. The dimonds do an excellent job in their video. We should not assume that the martyrs were unbaptised.
https://schismatic-home-aloner.com/forty-martyrs-of-sebaste-saint-emerentiana/
11. POPE PIUS IX (1846-1878) — Singulari Quidem, 1856:
174. “It must, of course, be held as a matter of faith that outside the apostolic Roman Church no one can be saved, that the Church is the only ark of salvation, and that whoever does not enter it will perish in the flood. On the other hand, it must likewise be held as certain that those who are affected by ignorance of the true religion, if it is invincible ignorance, are not subject to any guilt in this matter before the eyes of the Lord. Now, then, who could presume in himself an ability to set the boundaries of such ignorance, taking into consideration the natural differences of peoples, lands, native talents, and so many other factors? Only when we have been released from the bonds of this body and see God just as He is (see John 3:2) all we really understand how close and beautiful a bond joins divine mercy with divine justice.”
Quanto Conficiamur Moerore (1863):
“…We all know that those who are afflicted with invincible ignorance with regard to our holy religion, if they carefully keep the precepts of the natural law that have been written by God in the hearts of men, if they are prepare to obey God, and if they lead a virtuous and dutiful life, can attain eternal life by the power of divine light and grace.”
Divine light refers to the Catholic faith, which is given in baptism. I won't write much here as I addressed it in my other response, go watch the dimonds video.
12. POPE PIUS XII (1939-1958) — Mystical Body of Christ (June 29, 1943):
“As you know, Venerable Brethren, from the very beginning of Our Pontificate We have committed to the protection and guidance of heaven those who do not belong to the visible organization of the Catholic Church, solemnly declaring that after the example of the Good Shepherd We desire nothing more ardently than that they may have life and have it more abundantly… For even though unsuspectingly they are related to the Mystical Body of the Redeemer in desire and resolution, they still remain deprived of so many precious gifts and helps from heaven, which one can only enjoy in the Catholic Church.”
This has nothing to do with BoD. You need to read the full quote carefully.
"We have committed to the protection and guidance of heaven those who do not belong to the visible Body of the Catholic Church,...
For even though by an unconscious desire and longing they have a certain relationship with the Mystical Body of the Redeemer, they still remain deprived of those many heavenly gifts and helps which can only be enjoyed in the Catholic Church.
Therefore may they enter into Catholic unity and, joined with Us in the one, organic Body of Jesus Christ, may they together with us run on to the one Head in the Society of glorious love.[197] Persevering in prayer to the Spirit of love and truth, We wait for them with open and outstretched arms to come not to a stranger's house, but to their own, their father's home.
So Pope Pius XII says that they are.
1. Not in the Church
2. Are deprived of certain gifts and helps because they are not in the Church
3. Desires them to enter into the Church
So nothing to do with BoD.
13. FR. A. TANQUERY, Dogmatic Brevior; ART. IV, Section I, II – 1945 (1024-1)
The Baptism of Desire. Contrition, or perfect charity, with at least an implicit desire for Baptism, supplies in adults the place of the baptism of water as respects the forgiveness of sins.
This is certain.
Explanation: a) An implicit desire for Baptism, that is, one that is included in a general purpose of keeping all the commandments of God is, as all agree, sufficient in one who is invincibly ignorant of the law of Baptism; likewise, according to the more common opinion, in one who knows the necessity of Baptism.
b) Perfect charity, with a desire for Baptism, forgives original sin and actual sins, and therefore infuses sanctifying grace; but it does not imprint the Baptismal character and does not of itself remit the whole temporal punishment due for sin; whence, when the Unity offers, the obligation remains on
one who was sanctified in this manner of receiving the Baptism of water.
I don't see what quoting a priest is going to achieve. Also he contradicts Trent like St Alphonsus
"does not of itself remit the whole temporal punishment due for sin"
Here the dimond have already addressed this.
https://schismatic-home-aloner.com/false-doctrine-baptism-desire-display-adolphe-tanquerey/
14. FR. DOMINIC PRUMMER, O.P., Moral Theology, 1949:
- “Baptism of Desire which is a perfect act of charity that includes at least implicitly the desire for Baptism by water”;
- “Baptism of Blood which signifies martyrdom endured for Christ prior to the reception of Baptism by Water”;
- “Regarding the effects of Baptism of Blood and Baptism of Desire… both cause sanctifying grace. …Baptism of Blood usually remits all venial sin and temporal punishment…”
Another priest who is wrong. Still "usually remits" is not good enough. Initial justification remits ALL punishment.
15. FR. FRANCIS O’CONNELL, Outlines of Moral Theology, 1953:
- “Baptism of Desire… is an act of divine charity or perfect contrition…”
- “These means (i.e. Baptism of Blood and Desire) presuppose in the recipient at least the implicit will to receive the sacrament.”
- “…Even an infant can gain the benefit of the Baptism of Blood if he is put to death by a person actuated by hatred for the Christian faith….”
Wow just wow. Claiming infants can be marytrs. This is heresy. Pope Siricius is very clear that infants need baptism. Also
Pope St. Innocent, 414 A.D.- “But that which Your Fraternity asserts the Pelagians preach, that even without the grace of Baptism infants are able to be endowed with the rewards of eternal life, is quite idiotic.” (Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 3: 2016.)
St. Augustine, Letter to Jerome, 415 A.D.- “Anyone who would say that even infants who pass from this life without participation in the Sacrament [of Baptism] shall be made alive in Christ truly goes counter to the preaching of the Apostle and condemns the whole Church, where there is great haste in baptizing infants because it is believed without doubt that there is no other way at all in which they can be made alive in Christ.” (Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 3:1439)
St. Leo the Great at the Council of Chalcedon, St. Leo said the Blood of Redemption can't be separated from the water of baptism.
"It is he, Jesus Christ who has come through water and blood, not in water only, but in water and blood. And because the Spirit is truth, it is the Spirit who testifies. For there are three who give testimony–Spirit and water and blood. And the three are one. In other words, the Spirit of sanctification and the blood of redemption and the water of baptism. These three are one and remain indivisible. None of them is separable from its link with the others."
Pope Eugene IV, “Cantate Domino", Council of Florence
"It firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart “into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels”, unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church."
16. MGR. J. H. HERVE, Manuale Theologiae Dogmaticae (Vol. III: chap. IV), 1931
II. On those for whom Baptism of water can be supplied:
The various baptisms: from the Tridentinum itself and from the things stated, it stands firm that Baptism is necessary, yet in fact or in desire; therefore in an extraordinary case it can be supplied. Further, according to the Catholic doctrine, there are two things by which the sacrament of Baptism can be supplied: namely, an act of perfect charity with the desire of Baptism, and the death as martyr. Since these two are a compensation for Baptism of water, they themselves are called Baptism, too, in order that they may be comprehended with it under one, as it were, generic name, so the act of love with desire for Baptism is called Baptismus flaminis (Baptism of the Spirit) and the martyrium (Baptism of Blood).
There is nothing more for me to say here. This falls under the same thing mentioned above.
17. FR. H. NOLDEN, S.J., FR. A. SCHMIT, S.J. — Summa theologiae moralis (Vol. III de Sacramentis), Book 2 Quaestio prima, 1921
Baptism of spirit (flaminis) is perfect charity or contrition, in which the desire in fact to receive the sacrament of Baptism is included; perfect charity and perfect contrition, however, have the power to confer sanctifying grace.
Same as above.
18. FR. ARTHUR VERMEERSCH, S.J., Theologiae Moralis (Vol. III), Tractatus II,1948:
The Baptism of spirit (flaminis) is an act of perfect charity or contrition, in so far as it contains at least a tacit desire of the Sacrament. Therefore it can be had only in adults. It does not imprint a character; …but it takes away all mortal sin together with the sentence of eternal penalty, according to: “He who loves me, is loved by my Father” (John 14:21).
Same as above.
19. FR. LUDOVICO BILLOT, S.J., De Ecclesiae Sacmmentis (Vol. I); Quaestio LXVI; Thesis XXIV – 1931:
Baptism of spirit (flaminis), which is also called of repentance or of desire, is nothing else than an act of charity or perfect contrition including a desire of the Sacrament, according to what has been said above, namely that the heart of everyone is moved by the Holy Ghost to believe, and to love God, and to be sorry for his sins.
Same as above.
20. FR. ALOYSIA SABETTI, S.J., FR. TIMOTHEO BARRETT, S.J., Compendium Theologiae Moralis, Tractatus XII [De Baptismo, Chapter I, 1926:
Baptism, the gate and foundation of the Sacraments, in fact or at least in desire, is necessary for all unto salvation…
From the Baptism of water, which is called of river (Baptismus fluminis), is from Baptism of the Spirit (Baptismus flaminis) and Baptism of Blood, by which Baptism properly speaking can be supplied, if this be impossible. The first one is a full conversion to God through perfect contrition or charity, in so far as it contains an either explicit or at least implicit will to receive Baptism of water… Baptism of Spirit (flaminis) and Baptism of Blood are called Baptism of desire (in voto).
Same as above.
21. FR. EDUARDUS GENICOT, S.]., Theologiae Moralis Institutiones (Vol. II),Tractatus XII, 1902
Baptism of the Spirit (flaminis) consists in an act of perfect charity or contrition, with which there is always an infusion of sanctifying grace connected…
Both are called “of desire” (in voto)…; perfect charity, because it has always connected the desire, at least the implicit one, of receiving this sacrament, absolutely necessary for salvation.
No amount of fallible statements can change the infallible truth. These men were wrong.
"And if the blind lead the blind, both will fall into the pit."
9:32 - 12:30 in the video below. St. Peter, Doctor of the Church, in attendance at Trent as a theologian, who spoke twice at the Council, cites not only the famous "BoD" passage but in the same footnote, one passage from St. Augustine and another from St. Ambrose stating that no matter how good / pious / devout a Catechumen might be, he cannot be saved. That would be rather odd to do, to cite St. Augustine and St. Ambrose directly contradicting the possibility of justification by desire in the SAME footnote (explaining the necessity of Baptism for adults) if that passage actually taught Baptism of Desire. As the Brothers point out elsewhere in the video (I don't agree with every point they make, especially their discussion of "necessity"), nowhere in an extremely large Catechism does St. Peter ever mention Baptism of Desire or Baptism of Blood, though he had ample opportunity to do so. But the citations in that footnote are conclusive that St. Peter most certainly did not read this passage as teaching BoD. He would be juxtaposing it with 2 citations that directly contradict BoD and therefore contradicting this very passage from Trent. Not possible.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LCfbFDcIGSw
Stubborn, while I agree with your conclusion that there is no such thing as BoD, precisely what is being disputed is whether Trent teaches it, permits it, or rejects it. Your reading of Trent is your own. I don't believe Trent teaches it, but I also don't believe that Trent definitively ruled out the distinctions by which some Doctors upheld the necessity of Baptism by saying that it can be recieved in voto. Trent had no intention of teaching about the so-called "Three Baptisms" at all.Well, speaking of the sacrament Trent said what it said - without regard to what anyone else said. You can say it's my own reading, but we must accept that Trent meant what it said no matter that anyone or everyone else says it says something else.
That’s a stretch, he could be citing those passages for other reasons. At the very best it’s circuмstantial evidence.
Did you notice how the Dimond’s used the Latin text of Saint Peter’s catechism? Why didn’t they use the readily available Old English version? Could it be that the Old English translation uses nearly the identical wording as the “Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent”? Maybe this would raise a red flag in their specious translation of Session 6 Chapter 4 of the Council of Trent:
“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”
:facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm:
So what? That's precisely what's being disputed here. They rightly hold to the non-BoD interpretation of the passage in Trent.
As I've pointed out, this is the strongest argument against the BoD position.
If you read Trent's "without the laver or the desire" as being the either or else that is required for the BoD reading, you're saying that initial justification can happen without the laver (the Sacrament). That would be to attribute to Trent a proposition that it condemned as heretical in the same section of the text. It is heretical to state that initial justification can take place "WITHOUT" the Sacrament of Baptism.
"I cannot write a letter without a pen or a pencil." This means either one suffices (the BoD reading). But this also logically means that I CAN write a letter without a pen or without a pencil (if I have the other).
"The wedding cannot take place without the bride or the groom." This means that it cannot take place if either one is missing. You need both.
This is precisely the point of contention, and their choice of translation is simply taking the non-BoD sense, and all the textual evidence backs that up.
While you blew it off, it would be utterly absurd for St. Peter Canisius to cite this passage if it were teaching BoD and then in the same footnote also cite two texts from St. Augustine and St. Ambrose explicitly stating that catechumens cannot be saved not matter how good they are if they don't receive the Sacrament. He clearly saw no reference to BoD in the text. If it were teaching BoD, he could have chosen any other passages from the Fathers that spoke to the necessity of the Sacrament of Baptism for adults.
I knew you would poo poo it, because you are a better interpreter and translator than Saint Alphonsus and every theologian and canonist. No news there. Could you be wrong….nah, not a chance.
“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”This isn't even the complete sentence. What comes after "it is written" is Scripture infallibly telling us that water and the Holy Ghost are necessary for baptism. BOTH are necessary. Just like BOTH the sacrament/desire are necessary. It's not one or the other. It's BOTH.
This isn't even the complete sentence. What comes after "it is written" is Scripture infallibly telling us that water and the Holy Ghost are necessary for baptism. BOTH are necessary. Just like BOTH the sacrament/desire are necessary. It's not one or the other. It's BOTH.
...
If Trent really taught BoD then the theologian who attended and spoke at Trent would have mentioned it. Instead he disproves it.
If a theologian who attended and spoke at Trent taught that the council taught BOD, would it affect your view?
No because I cannot put anything fallible above an infallible statement (Pope Siricius). There is much more evidence against BoD than for it.
I understand your point, I could have worded my previous statement better.
Sorry for my sarcasm, but I’m really bothered by the amount of self trust in some of the posters here.Unbelievable.
Sorry for my sarcasm, but I’m really bothered by the amount of self trust in some of the posters here.
Either you or the theologian at the council would be misunderstanding infallible statements. Who is more likely to have misunderstood what the council's infallible statements meant; you or the theologian that was there and participating in it?Yet St Peter who was there taught against it in his catechism...
Unbelievable.
Please really consider the facts;
1. Pope Siricius' infallible statement
2. Aut despite being translated as or means both and or (as shown by Pope Leo the Great and scripture)
3. St Alphonsus and many others contradicting Trent on initial justification
4. Saints and theologians being wrong for 700 years regarding unbaptised infants going to hell
5. The lack of clear positive definitions on BoD
6. The unsoundness of BoD as a doctrine
Honestly 1. should be enough for any Catholic as infallibility is to be understood as TRUTH. However considering how much brainwashing BoD has around it the other information is good supporting evidence.
Yep, every single theologian missed that for 450 years. Luckily you people came along and straightened out the mess!
I’m done with this nonsense. :facepalm:
We're not interpreting Trent here, but St. Peter Canisius.
You gratuitously dismissed it, and you haven't made a single argument about the text of Trent nor attempted to refute the argument I make for the non-BoD reading.
If you're just going to keep spamming in ... "450 years" and "St. Alphonsus" (who was demonstrated to be in serious error on the matter), then there's really no point in your continuing on the thread.
We all know St. Alphonsus interpreted Trent a certain way. I'm arguing about why he was wrong. If you don't want to attempt to refute that, you're just wasting everyone's time. Until you have something substantial to post, there's no point in responding to you.
As for your stupid closing ad hominem, obviously I could be wrong, so prove me wrong. You simply saying it doesn't make it so.
"Every theologian and Canonist" barring perhaps the sole exception of a +Guerard des Lauriers all approved of, accepted, and promoted Vatican II also. So, unless they all somehow defected from the faith before Vatican II, that by itself undercuts your "Cekadist" position. See, as an SV you claim that pretty much the entire Church could defect outside of a few pockets, all the bishops (minus a number you can count on one hand), theologians (except +des Lauriers) could all universally embrace the errors and heresies of Vatican II. So what's to stop them from being wrong about a matter of speculative theology?
It's one contradiction after another from the pro-BoD crowd, and that alone exposes the position as dishonest and motivated by an (anti-EENS) agenda.
Trent - Initial justification leaves no obstacles for entry to heaven
News flash, you aren’t qualified in the least to say that a Saint and Doctor of the Church is wrong unless you have authorities who are *post Trent* to back you up. You base your claim on what *YOU* believe is the correct interpretation of Trent *NOT* based on *ANY* source post Trent. Because of this you are dead from the get go. What bothers me most is the fact you will not recognize that your opinion carries absolutely no weight. My arguments are based on authorities and references, you base your argument on your opinion coupled with pre Trent sources. Do you understand what I am saying?
Trent - Initial justification leaves no obstacles for entry to heaven
St. Alphonsus - BoD leaves guilt so a person goes to purgatory
This contradiction is not hard to see...
Please explain to me how it’s remotely possible that this supposed contradiction wasn’t caught until the 21st century by a few laymen?Because before the 1800s (which is why the *original* Baltimore catechism didn't mention it, except in later editions), people didn't talk about BOD all that much. Since then, people starting fixating on BOD and the liberals of the day used the idea to push sentimental salvation for American protestants and "good willed indians". The pre-Modernists in the Church (who had already started infiltrating Her ranks, 50+ years before the early 1900s when Pope St Pius X exclaimed that the Church was "filled with wolves"), used BOD to water down EENS, in preparation for their planned V2, which almost happened with Pope Pius IX in the late 1800s (but who converted from liberalism after his election...which is why he was imprisoned by the masons). And again, except for Pope St Pius X's miraculous election, we would've had V2 and its "universal salvation" heresies in the early 1900s.
This is one of the many arguments that refute the false position of ‘baptism of desire’. The Council of Trent here declares that all true justice (sanctifying grace) either begins or is increased or is restored at the sacraments. This means that all true justice must be at least one of the three: begun at the sacraments, increased at the sacraments or restored at the sacraments.
But ‘baptism of desire’ is not a sacrament, as its proponents typically admit. Thus, the ‘baptism of desire’ theory is that some people can have a true justice (sanctifying grace) that is 1) not begun at the sacraments, but before; and 2) not increased at the sacraments (since the person dies before getting to the sacraments); and 3) not restored at the sacraments (for the same reason as # 2). Therefore, the ‘baptism of desire’ theory posits a true justice that is neither begun nor increased nor restored at the sacraments. Such an idea is contrary to the above statement of Trent. Hence, the ‘justice’ posited by the theory of ‘baptism of desire’ cannot be true justice. ‘Baptism of desire’ is a false doctrine.
Please explain to me how it’s remotely possible that this supposed contradiction wasn’t caught until the 21st century by a few laymen? Could it just possibly be that you are mistaken?
Because before the 1800s (which is why the *original* Baltimore catechism didn't mention it, except in later editions), people didn't talk about BOD all that much. Since then, people starting fixating on BOD and the liberals of the day used the idea to push sentimental salvation for American protestants and "good willed indians". The pre-Modernists in the Church (who had already started infiltrating Her ranks, 50+ years before the early 1900s when Pope St Pius X exclaimed that the Church was "filled with wolves"), used BOD to water down EENS, in preparation for their planned V2, which almost happened with Pope Pius IX in the late 1800s (but who converted from liberalism after his election...which is why he was imprisoned by the masons). And again, except for Pope St Pius X's miraculous election, we would've had V2 and its "universal salvation" heresies in the early 1900s.
The preparation for V2 started in the 1800s, right after the French Revolution in 1789 kicked off the wave of marxism all over Europe. The common notion of BOD (except for the *very strict* theory for formal catechumens) is pelagianism and a precursor to V2's errors.
This is the same nonsense you keep spewing. You are unable to refute the actual argument and explain why this is wrong, as with every other issue, but you keep pulling the old "hundreds of years" junk. Nobody questioned St. Augustine's opinion about the fate of infants who died without the Sacrament of Baptism for about 700 years either.
Of the 25 or so theologians Father Cekada could find who even mention the subject of BoD, more than half simply mention it in passing. There's absolutely zero time spent or theological analysis of BoD pretty much since St. Robert Bellarmine and then St. Alphonsus. There's been no time spent or theological "ink" spilled on this subject.
Instead of these lame posts, address the actual problem here:
MAJOR: There can be no initial justification without rebirth (taught by Trent).
MINOR: Rebirth puts the soul into a completely pristine state wherein no sin or stain of sin remains that might impede the soul from immediate entry into Heaven (also taught by Trent).
CONCLUSION. There's no such thing as an initial justification after which temporal punishment for sin remains.
In addition, St. Alphonsus cites a letter from Pope Innocent II as contributing to why BoD is de fide. Well, in another similar letter, Innocent III also states that someone who died in a state of BoD would rush immediately to his heavenly home. So, by St. Alphonsus' own standards, that opinion would be heretical.
This is the same nonsense you keep spewing. You are unable to refute the actual argument and explain why this is wrong, as with every other issue, but you keep pulling the old "hundreds of years" junk. Nobody questioned St. Augustine's opinion about the fate of infants who died without the Sacrament of Baptism for about 700 years either.
Chapter 93. Both the First and the Second Deaths are the Consequence of Sin. Punishment is Proportioned to Guilt.
And neither the first death, which takes place when the soul is compelled to leave the body, nor the second death, which takes place when the soul is not permitted to leave the suffering body, would have been inflicted on man had no one sinned. And, of course, the mildest punishment of all will fall upon those who have added no actual sin, to the original sin they brought with them; and as for the rest who have added such actual sins, the punishment of each will be the more tolerable in the next world, according as his iniquity has been less in this world.
CHURCH FATHERS: Handbook on Faith, Hope and Love (St. Augustine) (newadvent.org) (https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1302.htm)
But I do not say that children who die without the baptism of Christ will undergo such grievous punishment that it were better for them never to have been born, since our Lord did not say these words of any sinner you please, but only of the most base and ungodly. If we consider what He said about the Sodomites, which certainly He did not mean of them only that it will be more tolerable for one than for another in the day of judgment, 2 who can doubt that nonbaptized infants, having only original sin and no burden of personal sins, will suffer the lightest condemnation of all? I cannot define the amount and kind of their punishment, but I dare not say it were better for them never to have existed than to exist there. But you, also, who contend they are, as it were, free of any condemnation, do not wish to think about the condemnation by which you punish them by estranging from the life of God and from the kingdom of God so many images of God, and by separating them from the pious parents you so eloquently urge to procreate them. They suffer these separations unjustly, if they have no sin at all; or if justly, then they have original sin.
The Fathers Of The Church A New Translation Volume 35 Saint Augustine Against Julian : Roy Joseph Deferrari : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive (https://archive.org/details/fathersofthechur013910mbp/page/n309/mode/2up)
#1) In case you missed my post:Trent statement on initial justification is not an interpretation. It's quite literally a statement. We are to believe what is written... And this statement is not ambiguous.
News flash, you aren’t qualified in the least to say that a Saint and Doctor of the Church is wrong unless you have authorities who are *post Trent* to back you up. You base your claim on what *YOU* believe is the correct interpretation of Trent *NOT* based on *ANY* source post Trent. Because of this you are dead from the get go. What bothers me most is the fact you will not recognize that your opinion carries absolutely no weight. My arguments are based on authorities and references, you base your argument on your opinion coupled with pre Trent sources. Do you understand what I am saying?
#2) As I’ve told you in the past, the Catholic Encyclopedia is your only source to defend your argument regarding St. Augustine’s position on Limbo. The CE has some good articles, but it can’t be totally trusted. The liberal Father Herbert Thurston authored many articles in the CE and he also butchered Butler’s Lives of the Saints.
You draw your ‘Saint Augustine argument’ as though it were some foolproof evidence of the Church teaching error for 700 years, it’s not. Incidentally, to believe that the Church can officially teach error is heretical.
#3) I love it! 7 of the 25 theologians mentioned by Father Cekada say that the Church teaches it de fide and you just poo poo it as “no theological ink spilled on this subject”. :jester:
Trent statement on initial justification is not an interpretation. It's quite literally a statement. We are to believe what is written... And this statement is not ambiguous.
Council of Trent, Sess. 6, Chap. 3: “… SO UNLESS THEY WERE BORN AGAIN IN CHRIST THEY WOULD NEVER BE JUSTIFIED…”
Council of Trent, Sess. 5, Original Sin, # 5: “FOR, IN THOSE WHO ARE BORN AGAIN, there is nothing that God hates; because, there is no condemnation to those who are truly buried together with Christ by baptism into death; who walk not according to the flesh, but, putting off the old man, and putting on the new who is created according to God, are made innocent, immaculate, pure, guiltless, and beloved of God, heirs indeed of God, but joint heirs with Christ; in such a manner that absolutely nothing may delay them from entry into heaven.”
Instead of these lame posts, address the actual problem here:
MAJOR: There can be no initial justification without rebirth (taught by Trent).
Give the exact reference from Trent and commentary from an approved theologian and translation.
MINOR: Rebirth puts the soul into a completely pristine state wherein no sin or stain of sin remains that might impede the soul from immediate entry into Heaven (also taught by Trent).
Ditto.
CONCLUSION. There's no such thing as an initial justification after which temporal punishment for sin remains.
Bishop Hay on EENSThat's a shame. I've read Bishop Hay on EENS and he has some of the strongest words supporting it. But like many churchmen of the 1800s, he was exposed to pre-Modernism and now talks out of both sides of his mouth. At least, in his BOD examples, his hypothetical conversions include the following important points
My comments in red.
That's a shame. I've read Bishop Hay on EENS and he has some of the strongest words supporting it. But like many churchmen of the 1800s, he was exposed to pre-Modernism and now talks out of both sides of his mouth. At least, in his BOD examples, his hypothetical conversions include the following important points
a) the ignorant/dying person is enlightened about the Faith
b) accepts it and desires to enter the Church
c) is no longer protestant, pagan, ignorant, etc.
d) which would make such a person a catechumen.
At least his articulation of BOD is "in the ball park" of non-heretical. I'll give him that.
Most BOD explanations today, about the "ignorant native" or the "pious hindu" being saved are heretical. You can't have BOD unless you know the basic truths of the Faith (i.e. Incarnation/Trinity). Having heard of the Faith, you must desire to enter the Church. Then, if one has a true desire to enter the Church, they must renounce their former faiths/practices (i.e. they are no longer ignorant, and they are no longer Hindu). Thus, the person is a catechumen. This lines up with St Thomas, St Bellarmine and St Alphonsus and is the ONLY possible BOD theory which isn't heretical.
That's a shame. I've read Bishop Hay on EENS and he has some of the strongest words supporting it. But like many churchmen of the 1800s, he was exposed to pre-Modernism and now talks out of both sides of his mouth. At least, in his BOD examples, his hypothetical conversions include the following important points
a) the ignorant/dying person is enlightened about the Faith
b) accepts it and desires to enter the Church
c) is no longer protestant, pagan, ignorant, etc.
d) which would make such a person a catechumen.
At least his articulation of BOD is "in the ball park" of non-heretical. I'll give him that.
Most BOD explanations today, about the "ignorant native" or the "pious hindu" being saved are heretical. You can't have BOD unless you know the basic truths of the Faith (i.e. Incarnation/Trinity). Having heard of the Faith, you must desire to enter the Church. Then, if one has a true desire to enter the Church, they must renounce their former faiths/practices (i.e. they are no longer ignorant, and they are no longer Hindu). Thus, the person is a catechumen. This lines up with St Thomas, St Bellarmine and St Alphonsus and is the ONLY possible BOD theory which isn't heretical.
I've cited the passages from Trent repeatedly. I know of no "approved theologian" who dealt with those passages. As I said, there are about 2 dozen theologians who even mention BoD, half of them in passing. Most of the theological analysis you'll see about Trent has to do with the condemnation of justification by faith alone. But if I take the time to find the passages from Trent, would you even bother with attempting to rebut the argument above or will you just waive them off as usual because there's no "approved theologian" who wrote about it ... one way or the other, to be honest, neither confirming nor denying the argument? Just wondering whether I should spend (aka waste) my time since, just like with some other subjects we've disagreed about, you tend to make up your mind before hand and just ignore evidence to the contrary of your preconceived conclusion without attempting to rebut it.
I've cited the passages from Trent repeatedly. I know of no "approved theologian" who dealt with those passages. As I said, there are about 2 dozen theologians who even mention BoD, half of them in passing. Most of the theological analysis you'll see about Trent has to do with the condemnation of justification by faith alone. But if I take the time to find the passages from Trent, would you even bother with attempting to rebut the argument above or will you just waive them off as usual because there's no "approved theologian" who wrote about it ... one way or the other, to be honest, neither confirming nor denying the argument? Just wondering whether I should spend (aka waste) my time since, just like with some other subjects we've disagreed about, you tend to make up your mind before hand and just ignore evidence to the contrary of your preconceived conclusion without attempting to rebut it.
Luckily for Bishop Hay you exonerated him of heresy. (https://www.cathinfo.com/Smileys/classic/facepalm.gif) (https://www.cathinfo.com/Smileys/classic/facepalm.gif) (https://www.cathinfo.com/Smileys/classic/facepalm.gif) Where were all of you layman back 200 years ago to straighten out all those misguided popes, saints, and theologians?Please answer the following questions:
Please answer the following questions:
1. Do you admit that BOD has been used by the Modernists and liberals to water down EENS? Y/N
2. Do you admit that Karl Rahner's version of BOD (i.e. the anonymous christian) is light-years different than St Thomas/St Bellarmine's/Trents views?
3. Do you admit that V2's "universal salvation" was only made possible by a watering down (which took multiple centuries) of EENS?
It is similar to the Old Catholics leaving the Church and rejecting the Papacy altogether because they couldn’t accept the doctrine on Papal Infallibility. They over reacted, just as you people are now.
Saint Alphonsus, Doctor of the Church, and and at least six other theologians disagree with you. At least Eighteen other theologians say that the Church teaches BOD with various theological notes. No theologian post Trent taught what you suggest. Staking my immortal soul on this question, who do I think it’s safer to believe?Please compare the canons of Trent to these statements of the Saints.
Please compare the canons of Trent to these statements of the Saints.
St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, Pt. III, Q. 68, A. 2, Reply to Obj. 2: “If therefore a catechumen has the desire for baptism… then such a one departing [or dying] does not immediately attain eternal life but will suffer punishment for past sins. Nevertheless he himself will be saved in this way as though through fire, as stated in 1 Cor. III.”
St. Alphonsus: “Baptism of blowing is perfect conversion to God through contrition or through the love of God above all things, with the explicit desire, or implicit desire of the true river of baptism whose place it supplies (iuxta Trid. Sess. 14, c. 4) with respect to the remission of the guilt, but not with respect to the character to be imprinted, nor with respect to the full liability of the punishment to be removed: it is called of blowing because it is made through the impulse of the Holy Spirit, who is called a blowing.” (St. Alphonsus, Moral Theology, Volume V, Book 6, n. 96)
Trent says car is blue
Saints says car is red
You say no one can read and notice a contradiction except a person approved by you.
Pope Sirius INFALLIBLY says that a person who desires baptism must be baptized or they will lose their soul.
You should stake your soul on the INFALLIBLE TEACHING not the opinions/speculation of men.
This is really bad. You seriously sound like a Protestant. I don’t think Ladislaus would even agree with such a statement.
What you and the other “semi Feeneyites” are doing here is you’re basing your argument solely on primary sources and *your* interpretation of them. This is akin to Protestants proof texting Holy Scripture. Catholics don’t act in this manner.
There is, of course, a definite task incuмbent upon the private theologians in the Church’s process of bringing the teachings of the papal encyclicals to the people. The private theologian is obligated and privileged to study these docuмents, to arrive at an understanding of what the Holy Father actually teaches, and then to aid in the task of bringing this body of truth to the people. The Holy Father, however, not the private theologian, remains the doctrinal authority. The theologian is expected to bring out the content of the Pope’s actual teaching, not to subject that teaching to the type of criticism he would have a right to impose on the writings of another private theologian.
Thus, when we review or attempt to evaluate the works of a private theologian, we are perfectly within our rights in attempting to show that a certain portion of his doctrine is authentic Catholic teaching or at least based upon such teaching, and to assert that some other portions of that work simply express ideas current at the time the books were written. The pronouncements of the Roman Pontiffs, acting as the authorized teachers of the Catholic Church, are definitely not subject to that sort of evaluation.
Unfortunately the tendency to misinterpret the function of the private theologian in the Church’s doctrinal work is not something now in the English Catholic literature. Cardinal Newman in his Letter to the Duke of Norfolk (certainly the least valuable of his published works), supports the bizarre thesis that the final determination of what is really condemned in an authentic ecclesiastical pronouncement is the work of private theologians, rather than of the particular organ of the ecclesia docens which has actually formulated the condemnation. The faithful could, according to his theory, find what a pontifical docuмent actually means, not from the content of the docuмent itself, but from the speculations of the theologians.
QVD, the point we’re trying to make is that St Thomas and St Alphonsus do not hold the same view of BOD that Trent did. You want to generalize and say “all 3 of these agreed on BOD” but that’s not true.
The saints (one prior to Trent and one after) both said a BOD-justified person would have to go to Purgatory. Trent says they don’t. This is not a minor difference. This is not the same “doctrine” of BOD.
Do you see the inconsistency?
If, however, such a one [Jew who baptized himself] had died immediately, he would have rushed to his heavenly home without delay because of the faith of the sacrament, although not because of the sacrament of faith.
You're still promoting Cekadism. If you want to hear from "secondary" sources, let's cite this secondary source who, unlike Father Cekada, was actually considered a theologian, namely, Msgr. Fenton.
http://www.catholicapologetics.info/thechurch/encyclicals/docauthority.htm
So, what you refer to as "Protestantism" Msgr. Fenton, an actual theologian, refers to as a "bizarre thesis". Of course, Newman's idea was that theologians could "interpret away" dogmatic pronouncements such as regarding papal infallibility, and he floated notions regarding the development of doctrine.
We've had theologians for centuries now telling everyone what no salvation outside the Church REALLY means, and they're all over the map, including those in the last century leading up to V2 who claimed that if you believe that non-Catholics CANNOT be saved, that means you're a heretic who denies EENS. It's a diabolical inversion. This would be Newman's idea of "development of doctrine", which is basically Modernist, despite Sean Johnson's contention to the contrary.
We don't dismiss theologians as having no value, but we also don't confuse them with the Ecclesia Docens. We are entitled to disagree with any theologian, even a Doctor of the Church (who on a fair number of issues disagreed with one another), until the Magisterium steps in to resolve the matter.
I know of no theologian, anyway, who's dealt with the passages from Trent that we're considering here.
Finally, ALL the Church's theologians (with the single exception that I know of, +Guerard des Lauriers) accepted and endorsed as Catholic the teachings of Vatican II. How do you resolve that contradiction? Were they all non-Catholic apostates before Vatican II started? If so, how far before Vatican II? Were they apostate by the late 1940s (when the Father Feeney case arose)? 1920? Or did they just all become heretics on July 14th, 1962?
This notion that temporal punishment remains after initial justification by BoD is taught absolutely nowhere by the Magisterium and is 100% speculation. Closest thing to a Magisterial pronouncement on the matter was a letter written by Innocent III (which I believe also "appears in Denzinger") that someone who died justified by BoD "rush without delay" to Heaven. So do you believe St. Alphonsus or something that "appears in Denzinger"?
Innocent III:
This was in a letter to the Bishop of Metz. It was a very similar letter to a different bishop that St. Alphonsus cited as making BoD de fide. So by his own criteria, this would have St. Alphonsus holding to a heretical proposition.
Of course, Innocent III's teaching would be heretical after Trent, since even when you have Baptism of Desire, the justification is still BECAUSE of the Sacrament, as Trent teaches that the Sacrament of Baptism is the instrumental cause of justification. Innocent III was actually teaching salvation by faith alone (without the Sacrament).
The point you keep missing is the fact that St. Alphonsus (most likely along with some others of the 25 theologians) used Trent to support his contention that BOD is de fide.But St Alphonsus' BOD directly contradicts Trent's teaching on justification, being that St Alphonsus says that BOD still requires purgatory time. If you want to argue that Trent's version is 'de fide' then ok. But you can't argue that St Alphonsus' version is 'de fide' because it contradicts Trent.
QVD, the point we’re trying to make is that St Thomas and St Alphonsus do not hold the same view of BOD that Trent did. You want to generalize and say “all 3 of these agreed on BOD” but that’s not true.
The saints (one prior to Trent and one after) both said a BOD-justified person would have to go to Purgatory. Trent says they don’t. This is not a minor difference. This is not the same “doctrine” of BOD.
Do you see the inconsistency?
Can you please give me the Session and Chapter of Trent and the reference from Saint Alphonsus that you believe contradicts Trent? Thanks in advance.I already gave it to you.
Please compare the canons of Trent to these statements of the Saints.Council of Trent, Sess. 6, Chap. 3: “… SO UNLESS THEY WERE BORN AGAIN IN CHRIST THEY WOULD NEVER BE JUSTIFIED…”
St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, Pt. III, Q. 68, A. 2, Reply to Obj. 2: “If therefore a catechumen has the desire for baptism… then such a one departing [or dying] does not immediately attain eternal life but will suffer punishment for past sins. Nevertheless he himself will be saved in this way as though through fire, as stated in 1 Cor. III.”
St. Alphonsus: “Baptism of blowing is perfect conversion to God through contrition or through the love of God above all things, with the explicit desire, or implicit desire of the true river of baptism whose place it supplies (iuxta Trid. Sess. 14, c. 4) with respect to the remission of the guilt, but not with respect to the character to be imprinted, nor with respect to the full liability of the punishment to be removed: it is called of blowing because it is made through the impulse of the Holy Spirit, who is called a blowing.” (St. Alphonsus, Moral Theology, Volume V, Book 6, n. 96)
I already gave it to you.Council of Trent, Sess. 6, Chap. 3: “… SO UNLESS THEY WERE BORN AGAIN IN CHRIST THEY WOULD NEVER BE JUSTIFIED…”
Council of Trent, Sess. 5, Original Sin, # 5: “FOR, IN THOSE WHO ARE BORN AGAIN, there is nothing that God hates; because, there is no condemnation to those who are truly buried together with Christ by baptism into death; who walk not according to the flesh, but, putting off the old man, and putting on the new who is created according to God, are made innocent, immaculate, pure, guiltless, and beloved of God, heirs indeed of God, but joint heirs with Christ; in such a manner that absolutely nothing may delay them from entry into heaven.
”
Baptism of desire is not the actual reception of the sacrament of baptism (which imprints an indelible character on the soul), but it supplies the grace of the sacrament. Trent is talking about the sacrament of baptism. There is absolutely no contradiction here. You are looking way too into it. This is what Protestants do when they proof text the Holy Bible.It seems to have gone over your head.
Baptism of desire is not the actual reception of the sacrament of baptism (which imprints an indelible character on the soul), but it supplies the grace of the sacrament.Right. And this is called Justification. Nowhere does Trent talk about different types of Justification; there is only 1 type. So *if* BOD provides justification, then all temporal punishment is removed. Trent is very clear on the effects of Justification.
It seems to have gone over your head.
If BoD provides initial justification then it must remit all punishment for sins. If you say that BoD provides the graces of the sacrament then it must remit all guilt for sin overwise it contracts Trent.
However St Alphonsus says that it DOES NOT remit all guilt. This is the contradiction.
No where earlier did I bring up the sacramental character, which is actually another issue with the BoD nonsense. No character no heaven.
Right. And this is called Justification. Nowhere does Trent talk about different types of Justification; there is only 1 type. So *if* BOD provides justification, then all temporal punishment is removed. Trent is very clear on the effects of Justification.
If someone who is baptized and loses sanctifying grace by mortal sin and then regains it by the sacrament of penance, is he justified?Trent's canon is about INITIAL justification. And BoD is only for initial justification, as the whole point of BoD is that the person did not receive the sacrament of baptism before their death.
Trent's canon is about INITIAL justification. And BoD is only for initial justification, as the whole point of BoD is that the person did not receive the sacrament of baptism before their death.
I think you are misinterpreting Trent . This is the error Protestants make when they proof text Scripture.Council of Trent, Sess. 6, Chap. 3: “… SO UNLESS THEY WERE BORN AGAIN IN CHRIST THEY WOULD NEVER BE JUSTIFIED…”
CHAPTER III.
Who are justified through Christ.
But, though He died for all, yet do not all receive the benefit of His [Page 32] 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.
Ladislaus seems to think that BOD (if it exists) must be considered the actual sacrament of baptism. This contradicts what we just agreed on.No, Ladislaus (and me, and others) is just pointing out what Trent says, that 'initial justification' can ONLY happen THRU the sacrament of baptism. BOD is not the sacrament, but (if it exists) the grace it provides HAS to come from the sacrament (i.e. the desire of it). Ergo, BOD can ONLY provide 'initial justification' (not the type of justification from another sacrament) because BOD only works because of the sacrament of baptism itself.
“Anthony of P.”, in the post above, seems to differentiate between justification and “initial justification”. This contradicts what you just wrote.We're talking about BOD. "Initial justification" is the only possible kind of grace related to baptism.
If someone who is baptized and loses sanctifying grace by mortal sin and then regains it by the sacrament of penance, is he in the state of justification ?
I think you are misinterpreting Trent . This is the error Protestants make when they proof text Scripture.No. Baptism or BOD provides 'initial justification' because the person has never been justified before. Trent clearly defines 'initial justification' as removing all sins/punishment
Trent's canon is about INITIAL justification. And BoD is only for initial justification, as the whole point of BoD is that the person did not receive the sacrament of baptism before their death.
Council of Trent, Sess. 6, Chap. 3: “… SO UNLESS THEY WERE BORN AGAIN IN CHRIST THEY WOULD NEVER BE JUSTIFIED…”
Council of Trent, Sess. 5, Original Sin, # 5: “FOR, IN THOSE WHO ARE BORN AGAIN, there is nothing that God hates; because, there is no condemnation to those who are truly buried together with Christ by baptism into death; who walk not according to the flesh, but, putting off the old man, and putting on the new who is created according to God, are made innocent, immaculate, pure, guiltless, and beloved of God, heirs indeed of God, but joint heirs with Christ; in such a manner that absolutely nothing may delay them from entry into heaven."
Read the caps. How do you think one is "born again"? Trent is very clear, if they weren't born again they would never be justified.
Full quote
No, Ladislaus (and me, and others) is just pointing out what Trent says, that 'initial justification' can ONLY happen THRU the sacrament of baptism. BOD is not the sacrament, but (if it exists) the grace it provides HAS to come from the sacrament (i.e. the desire of it). Ergo, BOD can ONLY provide 'initial justification' (not the type of justification from another sacrament) because BOD only works because of the sacrament of baptism itself.
We're talking about BOD. "Initial justification" is the only possible kind of grace related to baptism.
No. Baptism or BOD provides 'initial justification' because the person has never been justified before. Trent clearly defines 'initial justification' as removing all sins/punishment
As I’ve said many times before, it is nearly *impossible* that not a single pope, theologian, canonist, nor saint caught this supposed error in the interpretation of Trent for 400+ years.I don't follow. What "error" are you talking about? Trent didn't err. St Alphonsus would be the one that erred and he's not infallible, so not a major issue.
What is extremely more likely is that a few laymen are misinterpreting the passage or misunderstanding that the “initial” justification, as you termed it, is only applicable to the actual sacrament of baptism, not to the graces that can be obtained from the desire of the sacrament.:confused: No, we're saying the exact opposite.
I don't follow. What "error" are you talking about? Trent didn't err. St Alphonsus would be the one that erred and he's not infallible, so not a major issue.
There's no "consistent interpretation" of Trent for 400 years....that's the whole point in showing that St Alphonsus' explanation is different from Trent.
Wrong, the consistent interpretation of Trent was belief in BOD. There is no getting around it.:facepalm: If Trent's BOD is not consistent with St Alphonsus' BOD...then there's no agreement. Trent says BOD'ers go directly to heaven; St Alphonsus says purgatory. How is that "consistent"?
What is extremely more likely is that a few laymen are misinterpreting the passage or misunderstanding that the “initial” justification, as you termed it, is only applicable to the actual sacrament of baptism, not to the graces that can be obtained from the desire of the sacrament.1. If you're arguing that BOD provides a DIFFERENT type of justification than the sacrament...where is this idea in Trent?
:facepalm: If Trent's BOD is not consistent with St Alphonsus' BOD...then there's no agreement. Trent says BOD'ers go directly to heaven; St Alphonsus says purgatory. How is that "consistent"?
Do you admit that BOD was exclusively and consistently taught post Trent?Absolutely not.
Absolutely not.
1. You're living proof there's not consistency because you can't explain the nature of justification via BOD and the details therein.
2. Trent didn't explain this, nor did it explain how the lack of the indelible mark affects a BOD'er, nor did it explain how a person could "self-baptize" via BOD while the idea of "self-baptizing" via the actual sacrament is invalid.
3. There are legitimately NO details regarding BOD that come from Trent. None. And the few saints/doctors that attempted to come up with details, contradict Trent.
Do you admit that BOD was exclusively and consistently taught post Trent?1. The idea of BOD has been around both before and after Trent.
It should be easy for you to give a single reference post Trent that says BOD is not reconcilable with Catholic doctrine.No, that's not how it works. The Church's job is to tell everyone - clearly, distinctly and forcefully - that x, y or z is a doctrine. And it MUST be held, or you cannot be saved. This does not exist for BOD.
No, that's not how it works. The Church's job is to tell everyone - clearly, distinctly and forcefully - that x, y or z is a doctrine. And it MUST be held, or you cannot be saved. This does not exist for BOD.
All we have, post-Trent, are theories. Nowhere has the Church ever defined this truth, nor made it obligatory to believe. Nowhere has the Church declared it is Apostolic in origin or proved by Scripture.
That is absolutely untrue. You don’t have to believe JUST in dogmatic definitions, which carry the censure of heresy for disbelief. There are many more teachings of the Church that must be believed which carry different censures short of heresy.
BOD is, at best, a theory which has been held by many, agreed upon by some, and explained by no one.
Here is Bishop Hay writing in the late 18th century about how liberal Catholics want to extend the EENS dogma and how “invisible ignorance” is incorrectly applied.I quickly skimmed through it. It seems the Bishop correctly understands that Inv Ign doesn't condemn a man but his other sins do, and that those who are elect among inv ign will be brought into the Church (baptism) and learn the basic necessities of faith.
The term "invincible ignorance," being incomplete and ambiguous therefore scandalous, should be banished from all Catholic's vocabulary whenever speaking or referring to anything having to do with a BOD and the EENS dogma.
That term should be replaced 100% of the time in thought and word with PPIX's words: "those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion."
Instead of spouting your preconceived notions, spend a few minutes reading Bishop Hay.I spouted Pope Pius XII's teaching, which in the one sentence I posted says what +Hay says in 4 pages.
Instead of spouting your preconceived notions, spend a few minutes reading Bishop Hay.
OK, so? We obviously agree with rejecting the notion of somehow elevating invincible ignorance to something positively salvific. To do that would essentially be to promote Pelagianism.
Because Stubborn seems to think that the term is scandalous and should be banned when used in reference to BOD. Bishop Hay along with many other theologians obviously don’t agree.
Because Stubborn seems to think that the term is scandalous and should be banned when used in reference to BOD. Bishop Hay along with many other theologians obviously don’t agree.No QVD.
I believe in this BOD as exemplified in this 3.5 minute Hollywood depiction (which is not of an actual BOD), but does exemplify the only way possible that BOD could occur...
https://youtu.be/cDoyywKt1_0
No QVD.
Simply look at what happens 99% of the time that there is someone out there defending a BOD on CI, they offer the case of one "invincibly ignorant" who simply cannot be damned on account of his invincible ignorance, all the while using Pope Pius XII's teaching as proof that that is what the Church teaches - which is ridiculous and is why I posted that.
Like all a BODers, you do not base your supposed belief on either Scripture or what the Church authoritatively and even dogmatically taught about the requirement for baptism because both Scripture and official papal teachings teach contrary to a BOD, regardless of whatever all other non-authoritative sources say.
There's no such thing as interpreting the Magisterium, and saints and bishops are not the Magisterium, the Magisterium is infallible.
Let me repeat it once more: NO theologian, pope, canonist, or saint, post Trent, taught EENS the way you interpret it, not a single one. Remember, they are quoting the same sources that you are using. Who should I believe, them or you?
Bishop Hay, Saint Alphonsus, and Saint Robert Bellermine (all part of the Magisterium) all intrepret Session 6 Chapter 4 of Trent as proof of BOD. Who’s interpretation do you think I should side with, yours or theirs?
There's no such thing as interpreting the Magisterium, and saints and bishops are not the Magisterium, the Magisterium is infallible.
Homily by Pope St. Gregory the Great.
Bk. ii. Horn. 38, 9
Dearly beloved brethren, ye have already entered, at the Lord's bidding, into the house where the marriagefeast is being held, that is to say, into the Holy Church, and look ye well to it, that when the King cometh in to see the guests, he see nothing amiss in your soul's wedding-garment. For indeed it is with great searchings of heart that we are behoven to consider that which so soon cometh. " And when the King came in to see the guests, he saw there a man which had not on a wedding-garment." Dearly beloved brethren, what are we to think is signified by this wedding garment Is it baptism or is it faith? But without baptism, or without faith, who could be seated at the marriage-feast? He that believeth not would still be without the house. What then, except love, must we understand by the wedding-garment He who hath faith and is in the Holy Church, but hath not charity, cometh in unto the wedding indeed, but hath not a wedding-garment. And charity is well called the wedding -garment, for it is the garment wherewithal our Maker decked Himself when He came to wed the Church unto Himself.
It was the work of God's love alone that His Only - begotten Son should wed Himself unto the souls of the elect. Whence indeed John saith " God so loved the world, that He gave His Only-begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life." iii. 16. He therefore Whom love brought among men, showeth that the same love is His wedding-garment. Each one therefore of you who is in the Church and believeth in God, hath already come in unto the marriage-feast, but if he keep not the grace of charity, he is come in thither not having a weddinggarment. In sooth, my brethren, if one be asked to an earthly marriage, he changeth his attire, to show even by his garments that he rejoiceth in the joy of the Bride and Bridegroom, and he would be ashamed to appear in unseemly raiment among the guests that are feasting and making merry. We are come unto God's marriagefeast, and we make pretence to change the vesture of our hearts. There is joy among the angels when the elect are taken to heaven. With what face shall we look upon this spiritual feast if we come in thither not having charity, the only wedding-garment wherein we can appear comely
I am not interpreting anything, I am understanding the literal meaning of both Scripture and Trent. I mean Trent taught that justification cannot be effected without the sacrament or the desire for the sacrament as it is written in John 3:5. Those are essentially Trent's own words. Which is to say if I am wrong on this, it is because Trent was wrong on this.
Let me repeat it once more: NO theologian, pope, canonist, or saint, post Trent, taught EENS the way you interpret it, not a single one. Remember, they are quoting the same sources that you are using. Who should I believe, them or you?
Bishop Hay, Saint Alphonsus, and Saint Robert Bellermine (all part of the Magisterium) all intrepret Session 6 Chapter 4 of Trent as proof of BOD. Who’s interpretation do you think I should side with, yours or theirs?
Come on Marulus, get your definitions correct before debating.1) Is the Council of Trent magisterial? 2) Does Trent have the final say or does it need to be interpreted?
1) Is the Council of Trent magisterial? 2) Does Trent have the final say or does it need to be interpreted?
I am not interpreting anything, I am understanding the literal meaning of both Scripture and Trent. I mean Trent taught that justification cannot be effected without the sacrament or the desire for the sacrament as it is written in John 3:5. Those are essentially Trent's own words. Which is to say if I am wrong on this, it is because Trent was wrong on this.
How do you "interpret" that?
To this point you've interpreted it by saying saint x interpreted it contrary to what the infallible pope and council taught, and that this contrary interpretation is the right interpretation because of who interpreted it. And you say this just as if there is no contradiction whatsoever between the infallible teaching and saint x's interpretation.
It was not until V2 that the ambiguity in all it's docuмents required interpretation just to make them make any sense at all, but prior to then the teachings of the Church were just as clear as Trent.
We do not know why some saints and theologians felt the need to interpret clear teaching, but we presume that they did so in the name of a more profound understanding, which is in and of itself contrary to the clear teaching of V1 even if the intention is good.
Nah, it can’t be that you’re wrong! Nope, you couldn’t have interpreted Trent incorrectly, no way. :facepalm:Except the Saints and theologians you rely on contradicted Trent on remission of guilt....
This way of thinking is usually how every heresy starts. Protestants say exactly the same thing with Holy Scripture. They claim to just be “understanding the literal meaning”. :facepalm:
You wrote: “We do not know why some saints and theologians felt the need to interpret clear teaching, but we presume that they did so in the name of a more profound understanding, which is in and of itself contrary to the clear teaching of V1 even if the intention is good.”
Do you want to know why they felt the need to interpret? Because they knew that people like you, Pax, and Ladislaus would come around. People who have too much self trust, too much confidence in themselves, and too much pride to accept someone else’s opinion over their own.
Nah, it can’t be that you’re wrong! Nope, you couldn’t have interpreted Trent incorrectly, no way. :facepalm:
1) Of course it is, it’s infallible. 2) Yes it has the final say, but not *your* interpretation. There is not a single theologian, pope, saint, or canonist who interpreted Trent’s session 6 chapter 4 the way you would have it to mean.
And there was only a single theologian that I know of who didn't accept Vatican II and the NOM as Catholic.
You just keep blabbering about this, but of the 25 total theologians that Father Cekada could find who even mentioned the subject of BoD, most of them mention it in passing and therefore clearly did not put any time into studying the subject. You'll find only 2-3 in-depth explanations of BoD, one way or another.
But you're wrong, having dismissed the clear evidence from St. Peter Canisius that he read Trent as excluding BoD even for catechumens.
You've demonstrated this intellectual dishonesty on a number of issues. You start with the conclusion you want to be true, apply confirmation bias in support of your position, and then simply ignore or filter out any evidence to the contrary. As such, most of us are just wasting our time debating with you on some of these issues.
Nah, it can’t be that you’re wrong! Nope, you couldn’t have interpreted Trent incorrectly, no way. :facepalm:So how do you interpret it?
This way of thinking is usually how every heresy starts. Protestants say exactly the same thing with Holy Scripture. They claim to just be “understanding the literal meaning”. :facepalm:
You wrote: “We do not know why some saints and theologians felt the need to interpret clear teaching, but we presume that they did so in the name of a more profound understanding, which is in and of itself contrary to the clear teaching of V1 even if the intention is good.”
Do you want to know why they felt the need to interpret? Because they knew that people like you, Pax, and Ladislaus would come around. People who have too much self trust, too much confidence in themselves, and too much pride to accept someone else’s opinion over their own.
👆Proof that pride is a terrible and dangerous thing.Projection.
Yes it has the final say, but not *your* interpretation.Council docuмents aren't written as simply as catechisms, which are designed for children, but neither are they written in "code" which requires some elaborate de-cyphering. You paint Trent as some kind of genius-level docuмent which only "special" people can pick up, read and understand. Quite the contrary. It was written by normal adults and can be understood by normal adults. Because, overall, the Faith and doctrine is simple, because God is simple.
Council docuмents aren't written as simply as catechisms, which are designed for children, but neither are they written in "code" which requires some elaborate de-cyphering. You paint Trent as some kind of genius-level docuмent which only "special" people can pick up, read and understand. Quite the contrary. It was written by normal adults and can be understood by normal adults. Because, overall, the Faith and doctrine is simple, because God is simple.This, thanks Pax, well said.
So I reject your assertion that we *need* theologians to interpret Trent. The docuмents are written in plain english (or translated in plain english) so that the Faithful/clerics can read for themselves.
👆Proof that pride is a terrible and dangerous thing.
Thus, when we review or attempt to evaluate the works of a private theologian, we are perfectly within our rights in attempting to show that a certain portion of his doctrine is authentic Catholic teaching or at least based upon such teaching, and to assert that some other portions of that work simply express ideas current at the time the books were written. The pronouncements of the Roman Pontiffs, acting as the authorized teachers of the Catholic Church, are definitely not subject to that sort of evaluation.
Unfortunately the tendency to misinterpret the function of the private theologian in the Church’s doctrinal work is not something now in the English Catholic literature. Cardinal Newman in his Letter to the Duke of Norfolk (certainly the leat valuable of his published works), supports the bizarre thesis that the final determination of what is really condemned in an authentic ecclesiastical pronouncement is the work of private theologians, rather than of the particular organ of the ecclesia docens which has actually formulated the condemnation. The faithful could, according to his theory, find what a pontifical docuмent actually means, not from the content of the docuмent itself, but from the speculations of the theologians.
The faithful could, according to his theory, find what a pontifical docuмent actually means, not from the content of the docuмent itself, but from the speculations of the theologians.To expand on this point, those who say that (fallible) theologians need to explain (infallible) council docuмents, have it completely backwards.
To expand on this point, those who say that (fallible) theologians need to explain (infallible) council docuмents, have it completely backwards.
Theologians aren't protected from error; conciliar docuмents (generally speaking) are...and are written for the purpose of people reading them...their purpose isn't to be interpreted later by theologians...because then, what's the point of writing them in the first place? Theologians help prepare council docuмents for the pope; there doesn't need to be ANOTHER group of theologians AFTER the council to re-do what the first group of theologians already did.
So how do you interpret it?
You interpret the saints' interpretation just fine, you seem to have no problem whatsoever interpreting their interpretations, but you did not answer my question - what is YOUR interpretation of Trent saying justification cannot be effected without the sacrament or the desire for the sacrament as it is written in John 3:5?
And no QVD, it is nothing like the prots because in Scripture, there certainly are "certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction." These things the Church interprets for us
If we say the same thing about Council teachings and docuмents, then THAT is akin to be like prots because then we are all free to interpret things according to our own ideas no matter how contrary.....which is what YOU are doing.
One of your weakest ad hominem posts to date. So my saying that you should actually argue the point instead of just posting the same nonsense on every post is somehow "pride". That's rather arrogant on your part.
You dismiss the fact that St. Peter Canisius, who, unlike St. Alphonsus, was there and spoke at the Council, did not read Trent as teaching BoD, and also the fact that there are only one or two attempts to even interpret the passage in Trent made by the 25 theologians in the last "450 years" who even mentioned the topic of BoD.
I've also refuted your core guiding principle, that were need to rely on the opinions of theologians to tell us what the Magisterium means. I cited a real theologian, Msgr. Fenton, who explicitly rejected your core principle.
But you cannot or don't even bother to try refuting it. Explain to us why Msgr. Fenton was wrong when he wrote:
This citation here completely rejects your entire operating principle. And this comes from one of those actual theologians, not the musings of Father Cekada, who I'm told by classmates, barely passed his theology courses at seminary. Father Cekada articulates exactly what Msgr. Fenton denounces as a "bizarre thesis".
But, as per your usual modus operandi, you'll simply ignore it, like you did the last time I posted it, and just keep reiterating how theologians are definitive regarding the "final determination" of what a Magisterial pronouncement ACTUALLY means.
As I said, I am understanding Trent by what Trent taught, I am not correcting anyone. I do wonder how anyone, saint or angel from heaven, can get a contrary meaning from Trent's words, but so far no one has an answer.
The point you keep missing is the fact that St. Alphonsus (most likely along with some others of the 25 theologians that Father Cekada cited) used Trent to support his contention that BOD is de fide.
So if Trent is self explanatory and is in no need of interpretation, how come you needed to “correct” Saint Alphonsus’ supposed misinterpretation of Session 6 Chapter 4. Incidentally, Saint Alphonsus, Saint Robert Bellarmine, and Bishop Hay were all members of the Ecclesia Docens.
You dismiss the fact that St. Peter Canisius, who, unlike St. Alphonsus, was there and spoke at the Council, did not read Trent as teaching BoD, and also the fact that there are only one or two attempts to even interpret the passage in Trent made by the 25 theologians in the last "450 years" who even mentioned the topic of BoD.
Caninius taught, “For generally hath the Lawmaker proclaimed, that(e) (https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo2/A69066.0001.001?id=DLPS556;lvl=1;note=inline;rgn=div3;view=trgt), “unless a man is born again of water and the Holy Spirit he cannot enter the Kingdom of God.”I'm no latin scholar, but a quick search on 'generatim' shows it refers to peoples, races, etc. Which means it applies to everyone, just as Christ's words apply to all men.
The Feeneyites argue that “generally” or ‘generatim’ is a reference to two classes of people: adults and infants. It doesn’t mean a general rule, which is a precept. It means an absolute universal law.
The problem with this Feeneyite argument is two-fold. First, Canisius could have used the word “absolutissime” or “absolute” instead of generatim and then explain what Session 6, chapter 4 meant, since he references it twice in his catechism. He doesn’t do so.:facepalm: St Canisius didn't need to use the word "absolute" because He was referring to Scripture, where the Church has already told us that Christ's rule is absolute and applies to everyone.
Instead, we are left with a word that proves nothing. Even if Canisius meant universal law, it wouldn’t necessarily mean what the Feeneyites want.
However, the word generatim, which is translated in all the English translations as “generally or general” appears to mean that baptism is the general rule and not an absolute rule. It works against Feeneyism.:facepalm: Did Christ's rule allow exceptions? No. So, therefore, neither does Trent's.
For instance, a reference by Augustine: “No matter how much a catechumen advances, he still carries the load of his iniquity: it is not forgiven him until he has come to baptism.” (St. Augustine, Tractate 13 on the Gospel of John)Speray and his ilk who have been shown proof upon proof upon proof against BoD and who insist on spreading the manifest lie that Augustine didn't reject BoD aren't worthy of being debated.
Feeneyites think this proves that Augustine and Canisius believed that Catechumens can’t possibly obtain Baptism of Desire if they die without baptism.
St. Augustine’s statement is true or else the catechumen would never need to be baptized. This has nothing to do with Baptism of Desire, which is something that happens if the catechumen dies and couldn’t be baptized because of some unforeseen circuмstances. St. Augustine wrote his Tractate around the same time as he wrote his most famous work, the City of God where he taught:
“Those also who die for the confession of Christ without having received the laver of regeneration are released thereby from their sins just as much as if they had been cleansed by the sacred spring of baptism. For He who said, ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God,’ (John 3:5) by another statement made exceptions to this when He said no less comprehensively: ‘Everyone… that shall confess me before men, I will confess before my Father who is in Heaven.’ (Matthew 10:32).”
Obviously, St. Augustine didn’t believe that all catechumens go to hell if they don’t get baptized as he tells us about Baptism of Blood.
I found it very interesting how the Dimond brothers used the Latin text of Saint Peter instead of the readily available Old English translation. I wonder why…….
Here’s a great refutation of the neofeeneyite *misinterpretation* of Saint Peter Canisius by Steven Speray:
Link:
https://stevensperay.wordpress.com/2022/06/17/proof-that-st-peter-canisius-s-j-denied-baptism-of-desire/
Feeneyites have recently argued that St. Peter Canisius, Doctor of the Church, understood the Council of Trent as not teaching Baptism of Desire.Saint Peter Canisius (May 8, 1521 – December 21, 1597) was a Jesuit who fought against the Protestants in Germany, Austria, Bohemia, Moravia, and Switzerland. He was a major player in Germany’s restoration to Catholicism after Luther. He was at the Council of Trent and was sent by Pope Pius IV to bring the council’s docuмents to Germany. St. Peter Canisius was beatified by Pope Pius IX in 1864 and canonized and declared a Doctor of the Church on May 21, 1925 by Pope Pius XI. His amazing story can be read at CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: St. Peter Canisius (newadvent.org) (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11756c.htm)In 1555, St. Peter Canisius wrote his “Summa doctrinæ christianæ . . . in usum Christianæ pueritiæ” for his advance students. The work consisted of two hundred and eleven questions in five chapters. The following is a 1622 English translation of his teaching on Baptism:
“What is Baptism, and is it necessary to all? This is the first and most necessary sacrament of the New Law, consisting in the outward washing of the body and the due pronunciation of the words in according unto the institution of with Christ.
A necessary sacrament, I say, not only for those(a) (https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo2/A69066.0001.001?id=DLPS555;lvl=1;note=inline;rgn=div3;view=trgt) that are years of discretion, but(b) (https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo2/A69066.0001.001?id=DLPS556;lvl=1;note=inline;rgn=div3;view=trgt) infants also and withall effectual for them to life everlasting. All are born the sons of(c) (https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo2/A69066.0001.001?id=DLPS556;lvl=1;note=inline;rgn=div3;view=trgt) wrath; therefore even infants also have need to be purged from sin, neither can they be cleansed and regenerated into the children of God without this(d) (https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo2/A69066.0001.001?id=DLPS556;lvl=1;note=inline;rgn=div3;view=trgt)sacrament. For generally hath the Lawmaker proclaimed, that(e) (https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo2/A69066.0001.001?id=DLPS556;lvl=1;note=inline;rgn=div3;view=trgt), “unless a man is born again of water and the Holy Spirit he cannot enter the Kingdom of God.” And in an other place: It is(f) (https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo2/A69066.0001.001?id=DLPS556;lvl=1;note=inline;rgn=div3;view=trgt) not the will of your Father which is in heaven, that one perish of the little ones.” But infants(g) (https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo2/A69066.0001.001?id=DLPS556;lvl=1;note=inline;rgn=div3;view=trgt) also not baptized should perish, as of old in the ѕуηαgσgυє of the Jєωs, children(h) (https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo2/A69066.0001.001?id=DLPS556;lvl=1;note=inline;rgn=div3;view=trgt) uncircuмcised. [1]
Feeneyites take this teaching with his reference to the Council of Trent’s teaching from Session 6, ch. 4 [2] and his references to Augustine and Ambrose on the necessity of baptism. Combining these teachings, Feeneyites argue that Canisius’s interpretation of Session 6, ch. 4 doesn’t mean Baptism of Desire, nor does Augustine and Ambrose’s.
For instance, a reference by Augustine: “No matter how much a catechumen advances, he still carries the load of his iniquity: it is not forgiven him until he has come to baptism.” (St. Augustine, Tractate 13 on the Gospel of John)
Feeneyites think this proves that Augustine and Canisius believed that Catechumens can’t possibly obtain Baptism of Desire if they die without baptism.
St. Augustine’s statement is true or else the catechumen would never need to be baptized. This has nothing to do with Baptism of Desire, which is something that happens if the catechumen dies and couldn’t be baptized because of some unforeseen circuмstances. St. Augustine wrote his Tractate around the same time as he wrote his most famous work, the City of God where he taught:
“Those also who die for the confession of Christ without having received the laver of regeneration are released thereby from their sins just as much as if they had been cleansed by the sacred spring of baptism. For He who said, ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God,’ (John 3:5) by another statement made exceptions to this when He said no less comprehensively: ‘Everyone… that shall confess me before men, I will confess before my Father who is in Heaven.’ (Matthew 10:32).”
Obviously, St. Augustine didn’t believe that all catechumens go to hell if they don’t get baptized as he tells us about Baptism of Blood. If Canisius knew about Tractate 13, he most certainly would know about the City of God. Feeneyites are grasping for straws, but they grasp more straws with Ambrose when Canisius references him teaching:
“The catechumen believes in the cross of the Lord Jesus, by which also he is signed: but unless he is baptized in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, he cannot receive the remission of sins nor gain the gift of spiritual grace.” (St. Ambrose, De mysteriis)
This teaching from Ambrose is true as long as the catechumen lives. What happens if he should die without getting Baptism because of some accident? Baptism is absolutely necessary ordinarily. The issue is about extraordinary circuмstances. It should be noted that St. Ambrose converted St. Augustine and was his teacher.
Ambrose and Augustine don’t support the Feeneyite’s ridiculous interpretation of Trent.
Lastly, Feeneyites make another false and futile argument.
Caninius taught, “For generally hath the Lawmaker proclaimed, that(e) (https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo2/A69066.0001.001?id=DLPS556;lvl=1;note=inline;rgn=div3;view=trgt), “unless a man is born again of water and the Holy Spirit he cannot enter the Kingdom of God.”
The Feeneyites argue that “generally” or ‘generatim’ is a reference to two classes of people: adults and infants. It doesn’t mean a general rule, which is a precept. It means an absolute universal law.
The problem with this Feeneyite argument is two-fold. First, Canisius could have used the word “absolutissime” or “absolute” instead of generatim and then explain what Session 6, chapter 4 meant, since he references it twice in his catechism. He doesn’t do so. Instead, we are left with a word that proves nothing. Even if Canisius meant universal law, it wouldn’t necessarily mean what the Feeneyites want. However, the word generatim, which is translated in all the English translations as “generally or general” appears to mean that baptism is the general rule and not an absolute rule. It works against Feeneyism.
In 1606, the Jesuits published Canisius’ work with testimonies of Divine Scripture and the solid evidence of the holy Fathers. [3] On page 218 concerning Session 6, chapter 4, the marginal note says “justification does not occur without baptism or its desire” — that is, either the sacrament itself, or the desire for it. The same passage from Trent is quoted again later in St. Peter Canisius’s catechism. [4]
The obvious reading from Trent means Baptism of Desire. Therefore, an explanation should follow why Baptism of Desire is a false belief especially in light of the fact that St. Robert Bellarmine implies that it was universally believed in the Church during his time precisely because of Trent’s teaching and that of Ambrose, Augustine, and even Pope Innocent III. [5]
The second problem with the Feeneyite argument is that Protestants like to use the original language game to see if they can get a translation with an interpretation that fits their theology. If we want to know what Scripture really means, we turn to the Church and read it with an analogy of Faith.
If we want to know what St. Peter Canisius really believed, then we look to all of his contemporaries on this point. They would not be diametrically opposed on such a crucial point of doctrinal teaching from a council. It would be ludicrous to think otherwise.
I demonstrate in footnote 5 how St. Robert Bellarmine understood Ambrose, Augustine, and Session 6, ch. 4 of Trent as teaching Baptism of Desire. St. Peter Canisius would not hold the exact opposite view. That would imply that Bellarmine or Canisius is teaching heresy based on the same sources.
We also have the Roman Catechism of the Council of Trent published 9 years after Canisius’ catechism. St. Charles Borreomeo superintended the redaction of the original Italian text, which, thanks to his exertions, was finished in 1564. It was then published in Latin and Italian as “Catechismus ex decreto Concilii Tridentini ad parochos Pii V jussu editus, Romae, 1566” (in-folio). Translations into the vernacular of every nation were ordered by the Council (Sess. XXIV, “De Ref.“, c. vii).
The Roman Catechism taught that adults “are not baptized at once…The delay is not attended the same danger as in the case of infants, which we have already mentioned; should any foreseen 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.” (p 179) [6]
In 1582, 27 years after Canisius’ catechism was written, the English College of Rheims published the Rheims New Testament. It was the official English translation approved by Rome. In the commentary of John 3:5, the Rheims Bible reads, “…this sacrament [Baptism] consisteth of an external element of water, and internal virtue of the Holy Spirit…Though in this case, God which hath not bound his grace, in respect of his own freedom, to any Sacrament, may and doth accept them as baptized, which either are martyred before they could be baptized, or else depart this life with vow and desire to have the Sacrament, but by some remediless necessity could not obtain it.” [7]
Francisco Suarez, S.J. (1548-1617) cites St. Robert Bellarmine S.J. on Baptism of Desire in his 1602 work Opus de triplici virtute theologic, a Tractus de fide, Disp.XII, sect.4, n.22 : [As to] what is further added, that outside the Church there is no salvation, some say, as Cano, that this proposition is to be understood of the Church in general, as it always was, and not only of the Church, as it was specially instituted by Christ. But this response is unsatisfactory, both because the Church is always one, and also because the Councils really speak of this Church of Christ, and one must hold as true in some sense concerning it, that outside of it nobody is saved. Thus it is better to reply according to the distinction given between necessity in fact, or in desire [in re, vel in voto]; for thus nobody can be saved, unless he should enter this Church of Christ either in fact, or at least in will and desire. Bellarmine responds thus to a similar question. And it is manifest, that nobody is actually inside this Church, unless he is baptized, and yet one can be saved because the will to be baptized is sufficient, and likewise the will to enter the Church; thus we say the same of any faithful person who is truly penitent and is not baptized, whether he shall have come to explicit faith in Christ, or only to implicit faith : for by that faith he can have at least an implicit desire, which is sufficient with regard to baptism, as St. Thomas teaches in the aforesaid places. [8]
Fr. Cornelius à Lapide, S.J. (1567- 1637) a Flemish Jesuit and renowned exegete wrote in his great biblical commentary on John 3:5 around 1615:
Lastly, born of water ought here to be understood either in actual fact, or by desire. For he who repents of his sins, and desires to be baptized, but either from want of water, or lack of a minister, is not able to receive it, is born again through (ex) the desire and wish for baptism. So the Council of Trent fully explains this passage (Sess. 7, Can. 4). [9]
Conclusion
Every Church authority, which includes official biblical interpretations, understood Session 6, chapter 4 and Session 7, Canon 4 as teaching Baptism of Desire. The Feeneyites are absolutely delusional to think that St. Peter Canisius was the only one to think exactly the opposite to every other authority who taught and wrote on the subject.
Their argument would necessarily be a condemnation of heresy for either St. Peter Canisius or every other authority, not to mention, an argument for complete stupidity for one of the two sides, all of which is a total absurdity.
Footnotes
[1] A Sum of Christian Doctrine : St. Peter Canisius : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive (https://archive.org/details/ASumOfChristianDoctrine_830/page/n1/mode/2up)
[2] “In these words a description of the justification of a sinner is given as being a translation from that state in which man is born a child of the first Adam to the state of grace and of the ‘adoption of the sons’ (Rom. 8:15) of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Savior and this translation after the promulgation of the Gospel cannot be effected except through [or without] the laver of regeneration or a desire for it, (sine lavacro regenerationis out eius voto) as it is written: “Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter in the kingdom of God (John 3:5).”
[3] https://archive.org/details/bub_gb_dGsGlgHmLgUC/page/218/mode/2up (https://archive.org/details/bub_gb_dGsGlgHmLgUC/page/218/mode/2up)?
On page 218, top of 2nd column under TESTIMONIA: 1. B is the passage from Trent session 6, chapter 4. The marginal note says “Iustificatio non fit sine baptismo aut eius voto”
[4] https://archive.org/details/bub_gb_dGsGlgHmLgUC/page/n951/mode/2up (https://archive.org/details/bub_gb_dGsGlgHmLgUC/page/n951/mode/2up)
[5] St. Robert Bellarmine on Baptism of Desire and the Council of Trent | Speray’s Catholicism in a Nutshell (wordpress.com) (https://stevensperay.wordpress.com/2022/06/13/st-robert-bellarmine-on-baptism-of-desire-and-the-council-of-trent/)
St. Robert Bellarmine in De Controversiis: De Sacramento Baptismi. Lib. I, cap. 6., 1596 A.D. :
But without doubt it is to be believed, that true conversion supplies for Baptism of water, when not through contempt but through necessity someone dies without Baptism of water. For this is expressly held by Ezech. 18: If the impious shall do penance for his sins, I will no more remember his iniquity. Ambrose openly teaches the same in his oration on the death of Valentinian the younger: “He whom I was to regenerate, I lost; but that grace, for which he hoped, he did not lose.” Likewise Augustine book 4 on Baptism, chap. 22. and Bernard epist. 77. and after them Innocent III. chap. Apostolicam, of an unbaptized priest. Thus also the Council of Trent, sess. 6. chap. 4. says that Baptism is necessary in reality or in desire.
[6] http://www.catholicapologetics.info/thechurch/catechism/Holy7Sacraments-Baptism.shtml (http://www.catholicapologetics.info/thechurch/catechism/Holy7Sacraments-Baptism.shtml)
[7] 1582 Douai Rheims Douay Rheims First Edition 3 Of 3 1582 New Testament : Douay (Douai) Rheims College – scanned by www.fatimamovement.com : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive (https://archive.org/details/1582DouaiRheimsDouayRheimsFirstEdition3Of31582NewTestament/page/n225/mode/2up)
[8] Suarez, Francisco, S.J. Opus De Triplici Virtu, Te Theologica, Fide, Spe, Et Charitate. cuм superiorum permissu & Privilegio Caesareo. Sumptibus Hermanni Mylij Birckmanni, Excudebat Balthasar Lippius, 1922.
#229 – R. P. Francisci Suarez, Granatensis, e Societate Iesu doctoris … – Full View | HathiTrust Digital Library (https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=bc.ark:/13960/t6zw63g8r&view=1up&seq=229&skin=2021)
Quo,
I have no interest into jumping into a BoD debate for the 100th time, but when I looked into this, I found that Canisius published his Catechism in 1555.
https://www.jesuits.global/saint-blessed/saint-peter-canisius/
The Catechism of Trent was first published in 1566 - 10 years after Canisius published his.
I think that relevant to the extent someone wants to argue Canisius rejected something which you and I (and most everyone else) see in the later Roman Catechism.
DR
Quo,The Catechism of Trent does not teach BoD...
I have no interest into jumping into a BoD debate for the 100th time, but when I looked into this, I found that Canisius published his Catechism in 1555.
https://www.jesuits.global/saint-blessed/saint-peter-canisius/
The Catechism of Trent was first published in 1566 - 10 years after Canisius published his.
I think that relevant to the extent someone wants to argue Canisius rejected something which you and I (and most everyone else) see in the later Roman Catechism.
DR
And when theologians go liberal, Modernist, etc., they have a tendency to "interpret away" the actual Magisterial teaching. That was precisely the gameplan after the very unpopular definition of infallibility at Vatican II.Typo? You meant Vatican 1 right?
Speray and his ilk who have been shown proof upon proof upon proof against BoD and who insist on spreading the manifest lie that Augustine didn't reject BoD aren't worthy of being debated.I thought infants only needed baptism and not the Holy Eucharist?
I'll leave this here for those who are being influenced by their lies but didn't have the benefit of being shown the Truth.
Not only did St. Augustine believe the sacrament of baptism was necessary for all, he believed that every single person, including infants (!) must receive the Eucharist.
(https://i.imgur.com/gTzJwUM.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/KFpInVi.png)
What do we want more? What answer to this can be adduced, unless it be by that obstinacy which ever resists the constancy of manifest truth?
Excellent point, DR!
St. Peter Canisius was there and therefore had a sense for what the Council intended to teach.Right. St Peter probably helped prepare the actual docuмent of Trent.
I thought infants only needed baptism and not the Holy Eucharist?Correct, Augustine was wrong.
Not even close to an "excellent point". St. Peter Canisius was there and therefore had a sense for what the Council intended to teach. Secondly, there's no evidence that the Roman Catechism was teaching BoD, and even if you claim that it did, no indication that it was in those passages referring to these particular passages in Trent. Its scope was much broader than the Council itself. So the "point" is utterly meaningless. It's only "excellent" because it fits with your prior confirmation bias. Complete lack of any intellectual honesty from you in all areas. It's pretty sad really that you're incapable of reasoning and thinking.
So, even if you maintain that the Catechism of Trent taught BoD, there's no evidence that they were "interpreting" Trent in so doing, whereas as St. Peter Canisius took the infamous "BoD" passage in Trent and cited it alongside of two passages from the Church Fathers that explicitly denied the possibility of salvation for Catechumens without the Sacrament. That would be an absurd and outrageous thing for him to do if in fact that very passage in Trent was teaching BoD. He clearly did not read it as teaching BoD.
Surely you at least can finally admit QVD, that because you interpret St. Peter's interpretation in such a way as to be agreeable with your confirmation bias while ignoring Trent entirely, that you yourself do not know what Trent means at all. As such, because you do not know what Trent means you should not be telling anyone that they don't know what Trent means.
You’re assuming a lot there, Lad. Saint Peter citing those passages is circuмstantial at best. This is the definition of confirmation bias!
Again, it’s very interesting how the Dimond’s used the Latin text of Saint Peter’s catechism. Why didn’t they use the readily available Old English version? Could it be that the Old English translation uses nearly the identical wording as the “Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent” and Saint Alphonsus’? Maybe this would raise a red flag in their specious translation of Session 6 Chapter 4 of the Council of Trent:
“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”
This puts another nail in the coffin of your theory that supposedly Trent’s Session 6 chapter 4 was misinterpreted by everyone (saints, Doctors of the Church, popes, theologians) until you or the Dimonds found it a few years ago. Sorry, but it doesn’t mean what you try to make it mean.
Surely you at least can finally admit QVD, that because you interpret St. Peter's interpretation in such a way as to be agreeable with your confirmation bias while ignoring Trent entirely, that you yourself do not know what Trent means at all. As such, because you do not know what Trent means you should not be telling anyone that they don't know what Trent means.
You would need to actually read Trent to understand what Trent means, then you can come back and tell others that it means something contrary to what it says.
I wouldn't dream of such a thing, I mean heck, you're the one who is misinterpreting Trent by misinterpreting their interpretations.
Too bad you couldn’t go back in time to scold and instruct Saint Alphonsus, Saint Robert and all the other theologians who “misinterpreted” Trent. :facepalm:
I wouldn't dream of such a thing, I mean heck, you're the one who is misinterpreting Trent by misinterpreting their interpretations.Oh, so they actually believed that BOD was heretical, like you?
Oh, so they actually believed that BOD was heretical, like you?Of course they did. When they interpreted Trent, they did so correctly by saying justification is effected by desiring the sacrament, which is to say they really mean that justification cannot be effected without the sacrament.
You’re assuming a lot there, Lad. Saint Peter citing those passages is circuмstantial at best. This is the definition of confirmation bias!
Again, it’s very interesting how the Dimond’s used the Latin text of Saint Peter’s catechism. Why didn’t they use the readily available Old English version?
“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”
This puts another nail in the coffin of your theory that supposedly Trent’s Session 6 chapter 4 was misinterpreted by everyone (saints, Doctors of the Church, popes, theologians) until you or the Dimonds found it a few years ago. Sorry, but it doesn’t mean what you try to make it mean.
This has to be your dumbest post yet. Someone's translation (that entails an interpretation) is somehow definitive when the Latin clearly says ...
"without A or B".
which, I have taken great pains to explain, but either it's inaccessible to your dull wits or you filter out from confirmation bias, can in fact have two senses.
And the debate is over which sense is being used in Trent. I have laid out extensive arguments about which is the correct sense, which you simply ignore, and are unable to rebut.
Your every post is some variation on "but muh St. Alphonsus" and "muh 450 years". You come across like you have some disorder on the autistic spectrum.
Note the bold part. John 3:5 does not say anything about desire. And it has 'always' been interpreted as a literal statement. Why would Trent refer to this to teach BoD? It's not logical.
You’re assuming a lot there, Lad. Saint Peter citing those passages is circuмstantial at best. This is the definition of confirmation bias!
Again, it’s very interesting how the Dimond’s used the Latin text of Saint Peter’s catechism. Why didn’t they use the readily available Old English version? Could it be that the Old English translation uses nearly the identical wording as the “Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent” and Saint Alphonsus’? Maybe this would raise a red flag in their specious translation of Session 6 Chapter 4 of the Council of Trent:
“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”
This puts another nail in the coffin of your theory that supposedly Trent’s Session 6 chapter 4 was misinterpreted by everyone (saints, Doctors of the Church, popes, theologians) until you or the Dimonds found it a few years ago. Sorry, but it doesn’t mean what you try to make it mean.
Thank you, your extensive use of ad hominem attacks show the forum all we need to know.
And all I did was point out the truth of your enormous pride.
Nice try, but I've called out about a dozen logical fallacies in your posts. First one is not an ad hominem ... since you appear to be unable to properly identify that. It's a reference to the post itself being bereft of all logic and reason, which it was, and I explain why it was. Second one was, because I grow weary of your intellectual dishonesty. You have posted absolutely nothing of substance during this entire thread. Your posts have been a torrent of logical fallacies. And the description of you being on the spectrum is also more a reference to your posts, where you simply repeat the same nonsense over and over again, in obsessive-compulsive fashion, ignoring all arguments against your posts, never rebutting a thing, but simply re-posting the same thing over and over again. "450 years" "450 years" "450 years" "St. Alphonsus" "St. Alphonsus" "St. Alphonsus". That's all you have contributed here. Not once have you engaged in actually arguing about why St. Alphonsus was right. You're really wasting everyone's time on this thread, and you've shown the exact same pattern on some other topics. If calling out stupidity is pride, then so be it. You should read letter written by St. Jerome. But you've been hurling accusations of pride from the outset, ad hominem attacks simply for rejecting your stupidity.
Note the bold part. John 3:5 does not say anything about desire. And it has 'always' been interpreted as a literal statement. Why would Trent refer to this to teach BoD? It's not logical.Unless a man reads what the interpretation is from theologians, he cannot understand what the Church docuмents really mean. Or as it applies to this thread, unless a man reads what the interpretation is from theologians, he will understand the exact opposite of what the Church docuмents actually say. Clearly this is what QVD is repeatedly saying. Essentially he is saying that is not possible to understand text unless it is first interpreted, then written by theologians or saints.
that Bishop Hay, Saint Alphonsus, and Saint Robert were all part of the Ecclesia docensSorry, they are not part of the Ecclesia docens, which only pertains to "apostolic teachings" with "divine authority". In all areas where these 3 speak of BOD, they are not speaking "in union with the pope", nor are they declaring a doctrine in an official manner.
This has to be your dumbest post yet. Someone's translation (that entails an interpretation) is somehow definitive when the Latin clearly says ...
"without A or B".
which, I have taken great pains to explain, but either it's inaccessible to your dull wits or you filter out from confirmation bias, can in fact have two senses.
And the debate is over which sense is being used in Trent. I have laid out extensive arguments about which is the correct sense, which you simply ignore, and are unable to rebut.
Sorry, they are not part of the Ecclesia docens, which only pertains to "apostolic teachings" with "divine authority". In all areas where these 3 speak of BOD, they are not speaking "in union with the pope", nor are they declaring a doctrine in an official manner.
ECCLESIA DOCENS
The teaching Church. A term applied to the hierarchy, that is, the Pope and the bishops in union with him, speaking in their divinely authorized capacity of teaching the faithful in matters pertaining to faith and morals.
I'm not sure I understand the debate. Bishops (at least those with jurisdiction) are considered part of the Ecclesia Docens but are not themselves THE Ecclesia Docens. No individual Bishop has any immunity from error, but only the entire body of Bishops teaching something "as divinely revealed" in union with the Holy Father. That phrase is the one most often overlooked by those who speak of the infallibility of the Ordinary Universal Magisterium. In addition, Quo, were not all the Fathers who brought us the glories of Vatican II also part of the Ecclesia Docens, and with the exception of probably few than broke off from the Church after Vatican I, universally endorsed and taught Vatican II. What happened there?The bolded is straight out of Lumen Gentium 25.2, the only "official" papal docuмent that teaches such a thing.
The bolded is straight out of Lumen Gentium 25.2, the only "official" papal docuмent that teaches such a thing.
Stubborn, that is taught by Vatican I when describing the infallibility of the Ordinary Universal Magisterium.No, that is not taught by V1.
I'm not sure I understand the debate. Bishops (at least those with jurisdiction) are considered part of the Ecclesia Docens but are not themselves THE Ecclesia Docens.Right.
that Bishop Hay, Saint Alphonsus, and Saint Robert were all part of the Ecclesia docensQuoV asserted the above, which is incorrect. Which means, that none of the above are immune from error and their interpretations of Trent are simple, theological opinions.
Right.
QuoV asserted the above, which is incorrect. Which means, that none of the above are immune from error and their interpretations of Trent are simple, theological opinions.
The bishops are sent to teach hence they belong to Ecclesia DocensOnly in limited circuмstances, when they are reiterating dogma and teaching in line with the pope. This is called 'ordinary and universal magisterium'.
Only in limited circuмstances, when they are reiterating dogma and teaching in line with the pope. This is called 'ordinary and universal magisterium'.
It's never been proven that BOD is infallible, nor doctrinal, nor authoritatively taught by any pope. Therefore, there is no "Ecclesia Docens" on BOD, whether from the pope, or any other bishop. It's all private opinion and theological speculation...which is not part of Ecclesia Docens.
I tentatively backed off of my original belief that BOD is dogmatic (per Saint Alphonsus) due to the fact that several other theologians hold it to a lesser theological note.
Well, the majority in Father Cekada's survey did not consider it de fide. Nevertheless, you're entitled to opine that it is. Given the history of what is obviously nothing more than speculation and not rooted in the Deposit of Revelation, nor can it be proven theologically as deriving from the Deposit, it can never become anything more than speculation.
I await a demonstration of how BoD is revealed truth, a theological demonstration, and a gratuitous assertion of any opinion. In order for BoD to be dogmatic, it must have been revealed. Where's the evidence that this was revealed. In fact, there's a mountain of evidence that it was not revealed.
Yes, very true. But I pause on holding it as dogmatic simply due to the fact that it isn’t held as such by many other theologians.Quo, do you believe that St Alphonsus's version of BoD contradicted Trent on Initial Justification?
PS: I’m happy our conversational tone has improved, thanks!