Quote from: SJB

Quote from: bowler

Quote from: SJB

Quote

If it were only about catechumens and BOB Martyrs (an innocuous theory), there would not be one posting on the subject in the entire internet.

 I'm afraid it is way past that, the cat is out of the bag and todays BOD means salvation for anyone in any religion whether they want to be Catholics and baptized or not.

Except you deny what the Church teaches regarding catechumens, as indicated in the 1917 CIC.

Rat poison is 99.97% nutritious food.

And a knowing denial of certain doctrine is a mortal sin that will damn your soul.

Said just like a prostitute criticizing a married woman for saying that Paul Newman is cute.

Well, bowler, you say two very stupid things here:

1. a prostitute can still recognize adultery.

2. A married woman can still notice a mans good looks without sin.

Just one of many stupid analogies you've graced us with over the years.

Quote from: Stubborn

If your syllogism were to be believed, then Trent would have had to teach that this contrition is perfect through charity and reconciles man to God without this sacrament actually being received.

You can be as stubborn about it as you like, but Trent clearly teaches that the sacramental effect of penance can be received in desire.

Quote from: Trent

a contrite and humble heart, but also THE SACRAMENTAL CONFESSION OF THE SAID SINS, AT LEAST IN DESIRE [saltem in voto], and to be made in its season, and sacerdotal absolution and likewise satisfaction by fasts, alms, prayers, and the other pious exercises of a spiritual life; not indeed for the eternal punishment,-which is, together with the guilt, REMITTED, EITHER BY THE SACRAMENT, OR BY THE DESIRE OF THE SACRAMENT,-but for the temporal punishment

Read clearly and it says the sacramental confession can be made at least in desire because the reception of the sacramental effect is possible through perfect contrition.

Because Trent teaches that the necessity of penance is the same as the necessity of baptism, it follows that baptism too is necessary in fact or in desire.

Your quote from Chapter XIV is once again, conveniently taken out of context.

What did you do, a word search for the word "desire" then conclude Trent is teaching about a desire for confession?

                                                      CHAPTER XIV.
                                        On the fallen, and their restoration

As regards those who, by sin, have fallen from the received grace of Justification, they may be again justified, when, God exciting them, through the sacrament of Penance they shall have attained to the recovery.....

I fail to see how you can say the above is stating anything other than the obvious - namely, that it is the sacrament of Penance which may restore the Christian (one who is already baptized) to the state of Justification after sinning.


Chapter XIV continues:

....Whence it is to be taught, that the penitence of a Christian, after his fall, is very different from that at (his) baptism:
and that therein [this penitence] are included not only a cessation from sins, and a detestation thereof, or, a contrite and humble heart, but also the sacramental confession of the said sins,-at least in desire, and to be made in its season,-and sacerdotal absolution; [sacerdotal absolution = absolution given to the penitent by a priest]

Here the council is teaching about what "the penitence of the Christian"  consists of, not the Christian, to obtain justification. As you can see, included in this penitence is "sacramental confession of the said sins,-at least in desire, and to be made in its season,-and sacerdotal absolution".

Trent is teaching that in order to obtain forgiveness, one must go to confession, they must confess for the purpose of being forgiven for their sins, not for any other reason (aka "at least in desire") AND they must receive absolution. Trent is *not* teaching that "we at least gotta have a desire to go to confession to obtain forgiveness" as you suggest it does.  

In your zeal to reject the necessity of the sacrament, you managed to zoom in to "at least in desire" and completely ignored not only the subject matter being taught, you also completely ignored the two requirements those words ("at least in desire") were sandwiched in between.

Once you accomplished all that, you could then  proclaim that Trent teaches something it obviously does not teach, namely, that  "the sacramental confession can be made at least in desire because the reception of the sacramental effect is possible through perfect contrition."

But after having it clearly explained to you above, if you are honest, you have to admit that the Council taught no such thing as a "confession of desire" and that you completely mutilated what the Council actually did teach in order to justify your belief that salvation is attainable without the sacrament of baptism and certainly without the sacrament of penance.

A sacrament is said to be necessary when an effect proper to that sacrament is a means without which salvation cannot be attained. But this sacramental effect can sometimes be received in desire.

The Church in fact teaches this in Her own canon law. Your absurd pretenses lead you to claim that the Church in Her canon law solemnly contradicted Her own solemn anathematizations in the canons of Trent; this would have earned you an instant excommunication from a Pope like St. Pius X or Benedict XV.

Yes, we all know this is what you and all avid BODers say, but this is not a teaching of the Church - and can only be said to be a teaching of the Church after one adulterates as you have, what the Church actually teaches, as I just demonstrated above.

You are correct when you say that "Because Trent teaches that the necessity of penance is the same as the necessity of baptism... but you completely blow it when you add "...it follows that baptism too is necessary in fact or in desire."

Pay attention to what Trent teaches regarding Perfect Contrition.........  


Hence the- Council of Trent declares: For those who fall into sin after Baptism the Sacrament of Penance is as necessary to salvation as is Baptism for those who have not been already baptised. The saying of St. Jerome that Penance is a second plank, is universally known and highly commended by all subsequent writers on sacred things. As he who suffers shipwreck has no hope of safety, unless, perchance, he seize on some plank from the wreck, so he that suffers the shipwreck of baptismal innocence, unless he cling to the saving plank of Penance, has doubtless lost all hope of salvation.

Trent's catechism continues:

The Necessity of the Sacrament of Penance

Returning now to the Sacrament, it is so much the special province of Penance to remit sins that it is impossible to obtain or even to hope for remission of sins by any other means; for it is written: Unless you do penance, you shall all likewise perish. These words were said by our Lord in reference to grievous and mortal sins, although at the same time lighter sins, which are called venial, also require some sort of penance. St. Augustine observes that the kind of penance which is daily performed in the Church for venial sins, would be absolutely useless, if venial sin could be remitted without penance.

It goes on:

Necessity Of Confession

Contrition, it is true, blots out sin; but who does not know that to effect this it must be so intense, so ardent, so vehement, as to bear a proportion to the magnitude of the crimes which it effaces? This is a degree of contrition which few reach; and hence, in this way, very few indeed could hope to obtain the pardon of their sins. It, therefore, became necessary that the most merciful Lord should provide by some easier means for the common salvation of men; and this He has done in His admirable wisdom, by giving to His Church the keys of the kingdom of heaven.

According to the doctrine of the Catholic Church, a doctrine firmly to be believed and constantly professed by all, if the sinner have a sincere sorrow for his sins and a firm resolution of avoiding them in future, although he bring not with him that contrition which *may* be sufficient of itself to obtain pardon, all his sins are forgiven and remitted through the power of the keys, when he confesses them properly to the priest. Justly, then, do those most holy men, our Fathers, proclaim that by the keys of the Church the gate of heaven is thrown open, a truth which no one can doubt since the Council of Florence has decreed that the effect of Penance is absolution from sin.

Here, read it yourself if you don't believe me:
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/romancat.html

My goodness, you are impossible, and continuing to respond to you is probably a fault of mine.

Quote

Trent is teaching that in order to obtain forgiveness, one must go to confession, they must confess for the purpose of being forgiven for their sins, not for any other reason (aka "at least in desire") AND they must receive absolution. Trent is *not* teaching that "we at least gotta have a desire to go to confession to obtain forgiveness" as you suggest it does.  

Even Fr. Wathen whom you cite so often disagrees with you on this, by the way.

Anyway, let's start with some common ground. Earlier you said

Quote

If your syllogism were to be believed, then Trent would have had to teach that this contrition is perfect through charity and reconciles man to God without this sacrament actually being received.

Okay, so you supposedly admit "before" but not "without" trying to drive a false distinction between them. For you, then, the relevant logical progression would go like this.

When contrition is perfect through charity, it reconciles man with God before the sacrament is actually received.
A man who dies reconciled to God goes to heaven.
Therefore a man who dies before the actual reception of the sacrament can go to heaven, provided his contrition is perfect through charity.

The major and minor are de fide and directly from Trent. The conclusion follows from them and therefore cannot be denied on pain of mortal sin.

It boils down to you saying that Trent teaches something that Trent certainly does not teach - then insist you are doing no such thing.

You are presuming not only justification without the sacrament, but also death - and then rewarding heaven to someone who may or may not be justified, something Trent does not do.

Trent states that "although perfect contrition sometimes happens before the sacrament of penance is actually received..." - which is to say that Trent could have said the same thing if it said: "most of the time, perfect contrition does not happen until the sacrament is actually received."  

But in your zeal to reward salvation without the sacrament, YOU make Trent to say something it does not say - that perfect contrition is assured without the sacrament. But that's not enough because you then claim that the person IS reconciled to God as if you know something Trent does not - but that is still not off base enough because then you take it the whole way and proclaim that person goes to heaven.

Nowhere does Trent say salvation is rewarded without the sacrament, but you do.

Trent's catechism echos Trent when it teaches "For those who fall into sin after Baptism, the Sacrament of Penance is as necessary to salvation as is Baptism for those who have not been already baptised." - Is that not stated literal enough to believe or what? Why do you not believe it means what it says? People here think the catechism is infallible when it teaches about a BOD, yet when explicit teaching contradicts a BOD, they say that neither Trent nor it's catechism mean what they teach - how does that work?


Additionally, you presume that one who is sincerely contrite and about to receive the sacrament will be snatched away before he has the chance - this completely contradicts the doctrine of Divine Providence as well as Trent's de fide teaching of the necessity of the sacraments unto salvation.

According to you and other BODers, perfect contrition is always a guarantee - which is one reason no sacrament is necessary - according to you and other BODers.

I usually try and stay out of BOD threads just because I don't claim to fully understand the doctrine and they tend to turn acrimonious very quickly. I will say that my only desire is to understand this as holy church teaches it. But I do have one question:

I have noticed that this idea comes up that someone who is of good will dies with no normal recourse to the sacraments. But why should this be so? Does not God in his Providence order absolutely everything in our world, even numbering the very hairs on our heads? So knowing this, why would anybody if they are truly of good will, die without baptism?? I mean God is well, God, if He wanted to get the sacraments to someone God could bi-locate a holy priest over there right pronto, or maybe send an angel over to do the baptism just for example (I'm not sure if angels can baptise).

So I guess my question is why do we even need a baptism of desire?

I hope my question makes sense.

Luke

Good will, supernatural faith, perfect contrition, sanctifying grace etc.  Jesus was of good will and look what happened to Him in this life, same with Job Saint Paul etc.  God's permissive will allows such things as catechumen's dying before being baptized with water.  This is a substantiated and verifiable fact.  The Church infallibly teaches common sense.  He did not force them to die before being baptized but his permissive will allowed it.  He does not force everything to happen.  He allowed Original Sin and allowed the natural process that resulted, more and more sin, death at an earlier and earlier age, more sickness, to flow.  He does not force water baptism on all those of good will any more than he forces Himself to damn all of good will who did not have water poured on their head before they died.  He is not trapped by the sacramental system.  It is He who cleanses the soul of Original Sin, not the water.  

Quote from: SJB

Quote from: Stubborn

According to you and other BODers, perfect contrition is always a guarantee - which is one reason no sacrament is necessary - according to you and other BODers.

Perfect contrition is possible, but no one should assume it and there is a requirement for a sacramental confession, if possible.

"If possible" is your own advice - the Church teaches if you want to be forgiven, you must receive absolution in the sacrament of penance.

No, idiot, if possible merely recognizes that a  sacramental confession may not be possible until it is possible. Only a person with a pea-brain would need that explained to them.

Quote from: SJB

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: SJB

Quote from: Stubborn

According to you and other BODers, perfect contrition is always a guarantee - which is one reason no sacrament is necessary - according to you and other BODers.

Perfect contrition is possible, but no one should assume it and there is a requirement for a sacramental confession, if possible.

"If possible" is your own advice - the Church teaches if you want to be forgiven, you must receive absolution in the sacrament of penance.

No, idiot, if possible merely recognizes that a  sacramental confession may not be possible until it is possible. Only a person with a pea-brain would need that explained to them.

My, my SJB - a bit testy this afternoon are we?

Just because you do not understand the necessity of the sacraments unto salvation does not mean remission of sins are assured without the sacrament of penance for those already baptized - did you miss my posting Trent's catechism's teaching about this?

It specifically teaches that the sacrament of penance is necessary for the remission of sins just as surely as the sacrament of baptism is necessary unto salvation.

It is easy to tell that you've not followed my advise to you so here it is again  - please try repeating 1000 times a day that the sacraments are necessary unto salvation until you believe it.

Once you believe it, you will be able to accept and answer my challenge for you to start and participate in a thread defending the necessity of the sacraments.

I can't think of an easier way for you to stop despising the sacraments but I will let you know if I can think of something even easier.

Again, Fr. Mueller:

Read stubborn, read ...