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.”
St Alphonsus is wrong here. First because Trent and Florence are clear that baptismal regeneration remits guilt for sin.
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/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.
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.
Now scripture also uses *aut* in the same manner.
Romans 1:21
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.
Quia cuм cognovissent Deum, non sicut Deum glorificaverunt, aut gratias egerunt : sed evanuerunt in cogitationibus suis, et obscuratum est insipiens cor eorum :
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.
Topic: BoD and justification (Read 29204 times)